Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Do you believe in the power of prayer?

I'm just a mainline Protestant, but I've seen it work.

I am pretty sure his answer would be know because I know he once posted a link to a study that was represented as showing that prayer didn't work. It so happens that it was a study I was familiar with and I had actually hand an e mail exchange with the lead author.

As is often the case, people interpret a statistical experiment that fails to develop sufficient evidence at a selected confidence level to say that something has an effect as showing that it does not have an effect. That's a misinterpretation. And the lead author of the study agreed with me when I e mailed him about how the media were portraying the results of his study.

Anyway I'm pretty sure D1B doesn't believe in the power of prayer.

Me, I'm with you based on personal anecdotal experience even though I'm agnostic. Some very weird, unlikely, and fortunate things have happened in my life.

Ivytalk wrote:Do you believe in the power of prayer?

I'm just a mainline Protestant, but I've seen it work.

Yes I do. It provides power for the powerless and hope for the hopeless. In very tough times, the belief that there's an all powerful being that's capable of answering has got to be very comforting.

Prayer is a form of meditation. A human who believes he is communicating with his particular god experiences great physical and psychological comfort as does the person who knows many are praying on their behalf. I believe it's possible to achieve very high states of consciousness through prayer and meditation and other methods. I believe cures for some of our worst diseases involve manipulating consciousness.

Absolutely, I believe in the power of prayer. Some of the healthiest, brightest, most successful and happiest people I know are very religious and espouse the power of prayer. Those fuckers.

D1B wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Do you believe in the power of prayer?

I'm just a mainline Protestant, but I've seen it work.

Yes I do. It provides power for the powerless and hope for the hopeless. In very tough times, the belief that there's an all powerful being that's capable of answering has got to be very comforting.

Prayer is a form of meditation. A human who believes he is communicating with his particular god experiences great physical and psychological comfort as does the person who knows many are praying on their behalf. I believe it's possible to achieve very high states of consciousness through prayer and meditation and other methods. I believe cures for some of our worst diseases involve manipulating consciousness.

Absolutely, I believe in the power of prayer. Some of the healthiest, brightest, most successful and happiest people I know are very religious and espouse the power of prayer. Those fuckers.

Interesting comments D1. I am of the sort that positive vibes are amazing. When science now talks about how cells can communicate, why is it so hard to believe sending good thoughts a person's way is not beneficial?

As for prayer, I also believe that one needs to believe what they have asked for WILL happen to make prayer more powerful.

D1B wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:Do you believe in the power of prayer?

I'm just a mainline Protestant, but I've seen it work.

Yes I do. It provides power for the powerless and hope for the hopeless. In very tough times, the belief that there's an all powerful being that's capable of answering has got to be very comforting.

Prayer is a form of meditation. A human who believes he is communicating with his particular god experiences great physical and psychological comfort as does the person who knows many are praying on their behalf. I believe it's possible to achieve very high states of consciousness through prayer and meditation and other methods. I believe cures for some of our worst diseases involve manipulating consciousness.

Absolutely, I believe in the power of prayer. Some of the healthiest, brightest, most successful and happiest people I know are very religious and espouse the power of prayer. Those ****.

Interesting ... so man, the most evolved and rational of the earth's creatures, "can achieve very high states of consciousness" and even obtain "cures for some of our worst diseases" by deluding himself.

In some respects, this is a very thoughtful answer and in other ways it is riddled with contradiction. That contradiction should give reason to reconsider your assumption that prayer is a delusion for the "powerless" and "hopeless."

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote:
Yes I do. It provides power for the powerless and hope for the hopeless. In very tough times, the belief that there's an all powerful being that's capable of answering has got to be very comforting.

Prayer is a form of meditation. A human who believes he is communicating with his particular god experiences great physical and psychological comfort as does the person who knows many are praying on their behalf. I believe it's possible to achieve very high states of consciousness through prayer and meditation and other methods. I believe cures for some of our worst diseases involve manipulating consciousness.

Absolutely, I believe in the power of prayer. Some of the healthiest, brightest, most successful and happiest people I know are very religious and espouse the power of prayer. Those ****.

Interesting ... so man, the most evolved and rational of the earth's creatures, "can achieve very high states of consciousness" and even obtain "cures for some of our worst diseases" by deluding himself.

In some respects, this is a very thoughtful answer and in other ways it is riddled with contradiction. That contradiction should give reason to reconsider your assumption that prayer is a delusion for the "powerless" and "hopeless."

Fair point. I was thinking bout people caught up in disasters and such. Prayer/belief in a protector is very powerful, and I dare say necessary. I've never been in such a situation, but you know what I mean.

So who is deluding himself? You find great comfort and no doubt reap tangible physical and psychological benefits in communicating with your god. You believe with all your heart that your god is capable and willing to protect you and your family. You're certainly not deluding yourself. Keep on trucking.

I certainly believe in higher force that is capable of amazing things. I don't know what it is exactly, but I feel it often. I try to take some time now and again to deeply reflect on the joys of family and friends. I feel inspired, physically and emotionally after visiting an art museum or seeing a beautiful woman, reading a snippet on Euclid, watching Louie on FX, or reading about St. Francis of Assisi, who I believe was the best catholic. When LSD was easy to get, I'd take it and reap the same benefits for months afterwards. It's too bad this wonderful drug was vilified. It's one of those divine gifts that trigger the brain to do amazing things, including cure disease.

I think several times in my life, I've danced with the divine. It aint easy to get there, IMO.

We're not much different. Just the details...

SeattleGriz wrote:

D1B wrote:
Yes I do. It provides power for the powerless and hope for the hopeless. In very tough times, the belief that there's an all powerful being that's capable of answering has got to be very comforting.

Prayer is a form of meditation. A human who believes he is communicating with his particular god experiences great physical and psychological comfort as does the person who knows many are praying on their behalf. I believe it's possible to achieve very high states of consciousness through prayer and meditation and other methods. I believe cures for some of our worst diseases involve manipulating consciousness.

Absolutely, I believe in the power of prayer. Some of the healthiest, brightest, most successful and happiest people I know are very religious and espouse the power of prayer. Those fuckers.

Interesting comments D1. I am of the sort that positive vibes are amazing. When science now talks about how cells can communicate, why is it so hard to believe sending good thoughts a person's way is not beneficial?

As for prayer, I also believe that one needs to believe what they have asked for WILL happen to make prayer more powerful.

The human brain is capable of amazing things. It's a veritable divine pharmacy.

Good for you for seeking alternative treatment. I wish I would have be so bold when my father was sick. Haunts me to this day.

My thoughts and vibes are coming your way.

D1B wrote: I feel inspired, physically and emotionally after visiting an art museum or seeing a beautiful woman, reading a snippet on Euclid, watching Louie on FX, or reading about St. Francis of Assisi, who I believe was the best catholic. When LSD was easy to get, I'd take it and reap the same benefits for months afterwards. It's too bad this wonderful drug was vilified. It's one of those divine gifts that trigger the brain to do amazing things, including cure disease.

It's amazing that you would say this. Something absolutely miraculous happened while I was alone in Assisi, in front of the Basilca of St. Francis, around midnight. I had left our hotel room to see if I could get some photos of the square/basilica at night and there was no one there, at least to my recollection. When I tell people what I saw, they think I was on LSD.

JoltinJoe wrote:

D1B wrote: I feel inspired, physically and emotionally after visiting an art museum or seeing a beautiful woman, reading a snippet on Euclid, watching Louie on FX, or reading about St. Francis of Assisi, who I believe was the best catholic. When LSD was easy to get, I'd take it and reap the same benefits for months afterwards. It's too bad this wonderful drug was vilified. It's one of those divine gifts that trigger the brain to do amazing things, including cure disease.

It's amazing that you would say this. Something absolutely miraculous happened while I was alone in Assisi, in front of the Basilca of St. Francis, around midnight. I had left our hotel room to see if I could get some photos of the square/basilica at night and there was no one there, at least to my recollection. When I tell people what I saw, they think I was on LSD.

I think I would have a similar experience inside the basilica where the world's greatest renaissance painters left their mark. This and other churches in Italy are ground zero repositories for all of western art, perhaps the most important being Giotto.

Giotto di Bondone (1266/7 – January 8, 1337), better known simply as Giotto, was an Italian painter and architect from Florence in the late Middle Ages. He is generally considered the first in a line of great artists who contributed to the Italian Renaissance.

Giotto's contemporary the banker and chronicler, Giovanni Villani, wrote that Giotto was "the most sovereign master of painting in his time, who drew all his figures and their postures according to nature. And he was given a salary by the Comune of Florence in virtue of his talent and excellence."[1]

The late-16th century biographer Giorgio Vasari describes Giotto as making a decisive break with the prevalent Byzantine style and as initiating "the great art of painting as we know it today, introducing the technique of drawing accurately from life, which had been neglected for more than two hundred years."[2]

Giotto's masterwork is the decoration of the Scrovegni Chapel in Padua, also known as the Arena Chapel, completed around 1305. This fresco cycle depicts the life of the Virgin and the life of Christ. It is regarded as one of the supreme masterpieces of the Early Renaissance.[3] That Giotto painted the Arena Chapel and that he was chosen by the Comune of Florence in 1334 to design the new campanile (bell tower) of the Florence Cathedral are among the few certainties of his biography. Almost every other aspect of it is subject to controversy: his birthdate, his birthplace, his appearance, his apprenticeship, the order in which he created his works, whether or not he painted the famous frescoes at Assisi, and his burial place.

Unfortunately when we were there many of the Giotto frescos were still being repaired. They had been severely damaged in the 1997 earthquake and were being painstakingly restored piece by piece. Many parts of the interior of the basilica were off limits. Also flash photography was prohibited and there was not enough interior light to photograph any of the artworks without a tripod (which I didn't have). Still, we were able to attend a Mass there, which was pretty amazing. People from all over the world saying the Mass in their native tongue. It all blended together as if a musical tune.

Lots of spirituality going on here on CS.com, and many different routes taken. Good, thoughtful stuff!

JoltinJoe wrote:Unfortunately when we were there many of the Giotto frescos were still being repaired. They had been severely damaged in the 1997 earthquake and were being painstakingly restored piece by piece. Many parts of the interior of the basilica were off limits. Also flash photography was prohibited and there was not enough interior light to photograph any of the artworks without a tripod (which I didn't have). Still, we were able to attend a Mass there, which was pretty amazing. People from all over the world saying the Mass in their native tongue. It all blended together as if a musical tune.

I look forward to visiting the great catholic basilicas.

When I was pup, my parents were struggling to keep me in the faith and make sure I attended mass. I struck a deal with them that would allow me and my high school girlfriend to attend mass at the church of our choice. We made the rounds of all the great churches in Chicago, many in the very catholic Polish and Lithuanian neighborhoods. What beautiful buildings and art meant to awe and inspire. Massed were done in native tongue too. IMO, there are few Catholics that rival the Polish and Lithuanians in strength of faith and love for the church.

Those areas never id'd anyone at the bars. We end up at a smokey old tavern and drinks thousands of Budweisers, get high in the alley, and listen to old men tell war stories.

What do you guys think of Kubrick's/Clarke's 2001 A Space Odyssey?

Joe, I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on the themes: Kubricks portrayal of "God", The dawn of man - "the first human" and Nietzsche's/ Shoepenhaeur's concepts of Will to Power and the nature of truth. I can not get through Thus Spoke Zarathustra - just aint smart or patient enough, but Kubrick seems to have it down and It comes very close to what I think is goin on and perhaps what went on.

Here's part of an excellent analysis, IMO.

He also begins his early elaboration of truth and metaphor “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-
Moral Sense” with a fable that shows a world before and after the “invention” of
abstraction – akin to the Dawn of Man – and illustrates the insignificance of the human in
the vastness of space, a motif that comes across in a great many moments in 2001.
Nietzsche’s own view of evolution was, as he stated in Twilight of the Idols, “anti-
Darwinistic”, posing evolution in terms that are not merely biological or natural.His
view is close to Kubrick’s in 2001 in that the group of apes that learn how to use the tool
are apparently biologically the same as another group of apes. What changes is that one
group has come in contact with the monolith, which, in turn, has sparked in them a need
to solve this problem of “procreation and nourishment,” since they are starving and being
eaten by predators. Hence, they triumph over their competitors, having now the mental
ability to make the world congenial to their needs through abstraction and will-to-power,
and it is through artifice that the selection will take place.

We immediately see the results of this move towards abstraction and logic, moving
millions of years in the future to the year 2001, where man has dominated Earth and its
immediate surroundings with his structures, populating the Earth’s orbit with satellites,
space stations and moving spacecraft. In the foreground is the interaction between man
and his space (inner and outer), the signs and formulas man has invented to achieve a
purposeful, useful scheme. Technology itself seems to be more important, and even more
interesting, than the people inhabiting their spaces and operating their controls. They are
seen as diminutive and passive in these sequences, seen either sleeping or working at a
distance (both physical and perceptual), secondary to their instruments. In this future, it is
the machines that dominate screen space. Additionally, there is little sense of aesthetics
apart from that of functionality: all the space machinery, both outside and inside (through
décor) is extremely beautiful and stylized, but no one seems to acknowledge or care,
since aesthetics, in the world of 2001, no longer serves a function of its own, and is
reduced only to accompany function. Nietzsche’s description of mankind in “Truth and
Lie” is hauntingly close to what Kubrick depicts: a world of mere surface and
appearances: “they are deeply immersed in illusions … their eyes merely glide across the
surface of things and see forms…”11 Kubrick’s use of the highly formal The Blue
Danube, by Johann Strauss, heightens this sense of appearances, its circular structure and
regular compass denoting order and fluidity, while still pertaining to a sense of spectacle
by the juxtaposition of the spectacular images, perhaps even suggesting that even the
extraordinary (for us) actions of moving about through space is only one more aspect of
man’s social scheme: no wonder all conversations and human interactions are nothing but
the exchange of formalities and speeches without real content.

http://sdicht.files.wordpress.com/2010/ ... -pages.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

D1B, your prayer for me to get hit by a truck didn't work last night, close but no cigar.

D1B wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Unfortunately when we were there many of the Giotto frescos were still being repaired. They had been severely damaged in the 1997 earthquake and were being painstakingly restored piece by piece. Many parts of the interior of the basilica were off limits. Also flash photography was prohibited and there was not enough interior light to photograph any of the artworks without a tripod (which I didn't have). Still, we were able to attend a Mass there, which was pretty amazing. People from all over the world saying the Mass in their native tongue. It all blended together as if a musical tune.

I look forward to visiting the great catholic basilicas.

When I was pup, my parents were struggling to keep me in the faith and make sure I attended mass. I struck a deal with them that would allow me and my high school girlfriend to attend mass at the church of our choice. We made the rounds of all the great churches in Chicago, many in the very catholic Polish and Lithuanian neighborhoods. What beautiful buildings and art meant to awe and inspire. Massed were done in native tongue too. IMO, there are few Catholics that rival the Polish and Lithuanians in strength of faith and love for the church.

Those areas never id'd anyone at the bars. We end up at a smokey old tavern and drinks thousands of Budweisers, get high in the alley, and listen to old men tell war stories.

I visited many in Germany and France and to this day am amazed at those beauty. There is an amazing cathedral in Asheville,NC. I'll find the link, it's breathtaking.


Ha. Good one.

I think prayer is a great tool to calm And relax oneself. I realize no God is going to solve my problem, but by takin the time I find that u can clear my mind and have peace. From that peace, I usually find the answer or direction I was looking for, I just took me to look inward in a calmer state of mind.


Ha. Good one.

Jeff, have you been to the MOMA in NYC? I'm not a fan of most modern art, but I loved going there when it was free on Fridays.


Ha. Good one.

Ibanez wrote:Jeff, have you been to the MOMA in NYC? I'm not a fan of most modern art, but I loved going there when it was free on Fridays.


Ha. Good one.

Do you see 93henfan there?

grizzaholic wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Jeff, have you been to the MOMA in NYC? I'm not a fan of most modern art, but I loved going there when it was free on Fridays.


Ha. Good one.

Do you see 93henfan there?

Yes, us East Coasters are highly cultured.


Ha. Good one.

D1B wrote:What do you guys think of Kubrick's/Clarke's 2001 A Space Odyssey?

Joe, I'm particularly interested in your thoughts on the themes: Kubricks portrayal of "God", The dawn of man - "the first human" and Nietzsche's/ Shoepenhaeur's concepts of Will to Power and the nature of truth. I can not get through Thus Spoke Zarathustra - just aint smart or patient enough, but Kubrick seems to have it down and It comes very close to what I think is goin on and perhaps what went on.

Here's part of an excellent analysis, IMO.

He also begins his early elaboration of truth and metaphor “On Truth and Lie in an Extra-
Moral Sense” with a fable that shows a world before and after the “invention” of
abstraction – akin to the Dawn of Man – and illustrates the insignificance of the human in
the vastness of space, a motif that comes across in a great many moments in 2001.
Nietzsche’s own view of evolution was, as he stated in Twilight of the Idols, “anti-
Darwinistic”, posing evolution in terms that are not merely biological or natural.His
view is close to Kubrick’s in 2001 in that the group of apes that learn how to use the tool
are apparently biologically the same as another group of apes. What changes is that one
group has come in contact with the monolith, which, in turn, has sparked in them a need
to solve this problem of “procreation and nourishment,” since they are starving and being
eaten by predators. Hence, they triumph over their competitors, having now the mental
ability to make the world congenial to their needs through abstraction and will-to-power,
and it is through artifice that the selection will take place.

We immediately see the results of this move towards abstraction and logic, moving
millions of years in the future to the year 2001, where man has dominated Earth and its
immediate surroundings with his structures, populating the Earth’s orbit with satellites,
space stations and moving spacecraft. In the foreground is the interaction between man
and his space (inner and outer), the signs and formulas man has invented to achieve a
purposeful, useful scheme. Technology itself seems to be more important, and even more
interesting, than the people inhabiting their spaces and operating their controls. They are
seen as diminutive and passive in these sequences, seen either sleeping or working at a
distance (both physical and perceptual), secondary to their instruments. In this future, it is
the machines that dominate screen space. Additionally, there is little sense of aesthetics
apart from that of functionality: all the space machinery, both outside and inside (through
décor) is extremely beautiful and stylized, but no one seems to acknowledge or care,
since aesthetics, in the world of 2001, no longer serves a function of its own, and is
reduced only to accompany function. Nietzsche’s description of mankind in “Truth and
Lie” is hauntingly close to what Kubrick depicts: a world of mere surface and
appearances: “they are deeply immersed in illusions … their eyes merely glide across the
surface of things and see forms…”11 Kubrick’s use of the highly formal The Blue
Danube, by Johann Strauss, heightens this sense of appearances, its circular structure and
regular compass denoting order and fluidity, while still pertaining to a sense of spectacle
by the juxtaposition of the spectacular images, perhaps even suggesting that even the
extraordinary (for us) actions of moving about through space is only one more aspect of
man’s social scheme: no wonder all conversations and human interactions are nothing but
the exchange of formalities and speeches without real content.

http://sdicht.files.wordpress.com/2010/ ... -pages.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

While Kubrick's film was brilliant, I wasn't a huge fan of its message and it has been a long time since I saw it, so I'd hesitate to speak about it.

I read of lot of Nietzsche in college. Now, back in my college days, Nietzsche was principally called a "nihilist," although my philosophy profs tended to object to that description as inadequate. Nietzsche is a tough read, not only for the depth of his thought, but also because there is, at least in my opinion, no overarching concepts which can be used to neatly to describe or discuss him. Sometimes he seemed to like to throw an idea of the wall just to shock people. Also, first impressions count, and I was in college at a time when Nietzsche was considered to be dark and dangerous. This happened for two reasons. First, his ubermensch concept had been used by the Nazis to justify the concept of Aryan supremacy to the point that he was seen as "house philosopher" for the Nazis. Second, when I was in college, we still lived during the Cold War, and our ideological enemies were the godless states seen to be lacking a centered, objective morality. Rehabilitation of Nietzsche's reputation was underway in the early 80s, but his detractors still far outnumbered any supporters he had in higher education. So perhaps I read Nietzsche at a time that may create some bias.

I was never really all that sure what Nietzsche was driving at when he claimed that beings are driven by a will to power. Shoepenhaeur (and candidly, I doubt anyone would read him extensively today but for his influence on Nietzsche) I got -- the "will to live" seems consistent with our day-to-day experience. I easily grasped too that we could be defined as beings with a "will to enjoyment." And I could also grasp that some beings are driven by a "will to power," but certainly not all. And is the will to "achieve" really a will toward power? But Nietzsche seemed to be taking it even further than that -- he was saying the will to live itself was a will toward power. Did he mean that the strongest survive, and thus live and achieve? And what about those beings who risk their lives for power (would you want to be the President of Pakistan, for example? "Uneasy is the head that wears the crown"). In those cases, isn't the will to power superseding a will to live? In any event, Nietzsche seemed to replacing the most traditional concept of metaphysics -- that we are driven toward the good -- with the concept that we are driven toward the achievement of power. His ubermensch was the one who controlled others by bringing them under his power.

So I never bought into Nietzsche because he didn't ring true to me. Now, I did think that he certainly described some accurately. I do think that some do will power. And this is going to make you flip out, but I did a paper in college in which I claimed that the "will to power" was the flip side of the "will toward the good." We ultimately choose for ourselves whether we desire the good or power, but that one can reach genuine achievement by either, and they are not mutually exclusive -- so long as you do not desire power, and bring people under your will, in order to manipulate them.

That being said, you can read 10 different authorities on Nietzsche's "Will to Power," and you will find 10 different opinions -- some radically different. It is why Nietzsche still remains a fascinating puzzle with wide influence.

Ibanez wrote:Jeff, have you been to the MOMA in NYC? I'm not a fan of most modern art, but I loved going there when it was free on Fridays.


Ha. Good one.

Better than the Guggenheim. Waste of time and money.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote:Jeff, have you been to the MOMA in NYC? I'm not a fan of most modern art, but I loved going there when it was free on Fridays.


Ha. Good one.

Better than the Guggenheim. Waste of time and money.

I haven't been to the Guggenheim. The Louvre and Musea de Orsy in Paris are wonderful. I prefer the latter.


Ha. Good one.

Ibanez wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
Better than the Guggenheim. Waste of time and money.

I haven't been to the Guggenheim. The Louvre and Musea de Orsy in Paris are wonderful. I prefer the latter.


Ha. Good one.

Favorite that I've been to was probably the Hungarian National Gallery in Budapest. Huge collection, and you can't beat the location.



God, I feel so Bohemian.

Grizalltheway wrote:

Ibanez wrote: I haven't been to the Guggenheim. The Louvre and Musea de Orsy in Paris are wonderful. I prefer the latter.


Ha. Good one.

Favorite that I've been to was probably the Hungarian National Gallery in Budapest. Huge collection, and you can't beat the location.



God, I feel so Bohemian.

yeah? I'll have to make a trip out there. In returning to Germany in the spring for about 2 weeks, perhaps I can find my way there.


Ha. Good one.