On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 18:22:48 -0500, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:bZ-dneyORufIy6LfRVn-oA@megapath.net...

In our last episode <3a8f9jF67dspkU1@individual.net>, Robibnikoff
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:IaOdnZ_y5tr7Z6PfRVn-hA@megapath.net...

In our last episode <3a82osF66ig7aU1@individual.net>, Robibnikoff
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lzs%d.4162$4Y.3170@twister.socal.rr.com...

Bear wrote:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

Please don't associate atheism with healthy thinking. It has

scientifically shown that prayer effects your physical and

health in a positive way. Atheism doesn't do anything good for
your health.

I notice that you failed to cite the scientific studies that
supposedly show that prayer has a a positive effect on physical

mental health. I also noticed that you failed to cite any

concerning your assertion concening atheism.

This sort of research isn't hard to find. Here is some:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html

How about an unbiased site?

Now, remember, in Gastrich speak, agreeing with him *is "unbiased."
Contradicting him is "biased."

Blech! Ptooey! <SPIT!>

But how do you *really feel?

<HURL!!>

/jason
"ZOWIE! Hot Lunch! May I borrow a spoon?"

Robibnikoff wrote:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:bZ-dneyORufIy6LfRVn-oA@megapath.net...

In our last episode <3a8f9jF67dspkU1@individual.net>, Robibnikoff
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:IaOdnZ_y5tr7Z6PfRVn-hA@megapath.net...

In our last episode <3a82osF66ig7aU1@individual.net>, Robibnikoff
pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

"Jason Gastrich" <usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:lzs%d.4162$4Y.3170@twister.socal.rr.com...

Bear wrote:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

Please don't associate atheism with healthy thinking. It has been
scientifically shown that prayer effects your physical and mental
health in a positive way. Atheism doesn't do anything good for
your health.

I notice that you failed to cite the scientific studies that
supposedly show that prayer has a a positive effect on physical and
mental health. I also noticed that you failed to cite any resources
concerning your assertion concening atheism.

This sort of research isn't hard to find. Here is some:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html

How about an unbiased site?

Now, remember, in Gastrich speak, agreeing with him *is "unbiased."
Contradicting him is "biased."

Blech! Ptooey! <SPIT!>

But how do you *really feel?

<HURL!!>

Thanks for the clarification. :-)

On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 08:06:52 GMT, "Jason Gastrich"
<usenetspam1@yahoo.com> wrote:

"Secular Fundamentalist" <mr.mcgregor@answersinpeterrabbit.com>

message news:hpmdnZW7uodl46PfRVnyvg@brightview.com...

Jason Gastrich wrote:

Bear wrote:

Jason Gastrich wrote:

Please don't associate atheism with healthy thinking. It has

scientifically shown that prayer effects your physical and

health in a positive way. Atheism doesn't do anything good for

health.

I notice that you failed to cite the scientific studies that
supposedly show that prayer has a a positive effect on physical

mental health. I also noticed that you failed to cite any

concerning your assertion concening atheism.

This sort of research isn't hard to find. Here is some:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/religionhealth.html

Rebuttal is even easier to find:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3193902.stm

Isn't it amazing (not really) that you can only quote propaganda

for your so-called 'evidence'.

Here's more:.


God in the CCU?
A critique of the San Francisco hospital study on intercessory prayer
and healing
Gary P. Posner, M.D.
[This article was originally printed in Spring 1990 issue of Free
Inquiry.]

The day of publication of the July 1988 issue of the Southern Medical
Journal must have been one Hell of a busy news day, literally.
Apparently none of the major media in the world could manage to find
room to include this little item: a scientific study, published that
day in that journal, indicates that God exists, and that he had
interceded in the recovery of a group of coronary care unit patients!
Both Paul Harvey and Charles Osgood publicized this study in their
radio commentaries in early 1989, so despite the delay, word of this
startling development has by now reached the heartland of America.

In his article entitled "Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory
Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population," Randolph C. Byrd, M.D., a
San Francisco cardiologist, endeavored to answer these questions: (1)
Does intercessory prayer (IP) to the Judeo-Christian God have any
effect on a CCU patient's medical condition and recovery? (2) How are
these effects manifested, if present?

The study took place between August 1982 and May 1983, when 393
patients signed informed consent papers upon admission to the San
Francisco General Hospital CCU, and were entered into a prospective,
double-blind, randomized study. (The remaining fifty-seven patients
admitted during this period cited various reasons for refusing to
participate.) A computer-generated list randomly assigned patients to
either the IP or the control group, and neither they, nor the CCU
doctors and staff, nor Randolph Byrd were aware of which patients

assigned to which group.

Intercessors chosen to pray for the IP-group patients were "'born
again' Christians (according to the Gospel of John 3:3) with an

Christian life as manifested by daily devotional prayer and active
Christian fellowship with a local church." Each IP patient "was
assigned to three to seven intercessors. . . . The [IP] was done
outside of the hospital daily until the patient was discharged . . .
each intercessor was asked to pray daily for a rapid recovery and for
prevention of complications and death."

The IP group consisted of 192 patients, and the control group of 201.
Analyses revealed no significant statistical differences between the
health of the two groups upon admission. "Thus it was concluded that
the two groups were statistically inseparable and that results from
the analysis of the effects of [IP] would be valid." The mean age of
the IP patients was two years younger than that of the control
patients, a difference deemed statistically insignificant.

Each patient's hospital course was given a severity score of "good,"
"intermediate," or "bad," based upon the degree of morbidity
experienced by the patient. In addition, twenty-six categories of

Problems, Diagnoses, and Therapeutic Events After Entry" were
measured, and tested for statistical significance between the groups.
These included such things as congestive heart failure, diuretics,
hypotension, intubation/ventilation, pneumonia, and so on.

The results of the study, as reported by Byrd, employing

[sic] analysis of the data using [these twenty-six] variables . . .
revealed a significant difference (P less than .0001) between the two
groups based on events that occurred after entry into the study.

patients in the prayer group required ventilatory support,
antibiotics, or diuretics." (1) In addition, using the
"good/intermediate/bad" severity score, "A bad hospital course was
observed in 14% of the prayer group vs. 22% of the controls. . .
.chi-square analysis of these data gave a P value of less than .01"
(that is, a less than 1 percent probability that chance alone could
account for the difference).

In his introductory abstract, which was also reproduced in the
"Domestic Abstracts" section of the Journal of the American Medical
Association on January 20, 1989, Byrd concludes that the "data

that [IP] . . . has a beneficial therapeutic effect in patients
admitted to a CCU." In the final paragraph of his article, Byrd says,
"Based on these data there seemed to be an effect [from IP], and that
effect was presumed to be beneficial" (emphasis added).

But what are those of lesser faith -- or of other faiths -- to make

this miraculous claim for the efficacy of prayer? Has the
Judeo-Christian God been shown to exist, and to intervene in the
hospital course of patients?

The most striking flaw in this study's methodology is one

acknowledged by Byrd. "It was assumed that some of the patients in
both groups would be prayed for by people not associated with the
study; this was not controlled for. . . . Therefore, 'pure' groups
were not attained in this study." In other words, the focus of the
study - prayer - was "not controlled for," except that three to seven
intercessors were assigned to pray daily for each patient in the IP
group, and none was assigned to the controls. Thus, although

it is nevertheless theoretically possible that the control group
received as many prayers as did the IP group, if not more.

If "intercessory prayer" was not controlled, except that each IP
patient was assumed to have received somewhere between X+3 and X+7
prayers daily, as opposed to X+0 for the control patients, what are

to conclude? That God is conditioned in a Pavlovian manner to
automatically respond to the side with the greater number of troops,
even though the assigned intercessors had no emotional ties to their
patients, and even though the IP patients were otherwise no more
worthy of healing as a group than were the controls? Does God not

that the side with fewer troops is in just as much need of

Where is the evidence of his omnicience and compassion?

And what can be said about the evidence for God's omnipotence? It is
true, assuming that Byrd's data are valid, that in the IP group, 5
percent fewer patients needed diuretics, 7 percent fewer needed
antibiotics, 6 percent fewer needed respiratory intubation and/or
ventilation, 6 percent fewer developed congestive heart failure, 5
percent fewer developed pneumonia, and 5 percent fewer suffered
cardiopulmonary arrest. But no significant differences were found
among the other twenty categories, including mortality, despite
explicit prayers "for prevention of . . . death." And, reports Byrd,
"Even though for [the six seemingly significant] variables the P
values were less than .05, they could not be considered statistically
significant because of the large number of variables examined. I used
two methods to overcome this statistical limitation . . . [the]
severity score, and multivariant [sic] analysis" (emphasis added).

But was this lack of significance truly "overcome"? One must note the
interrelationships among these six categories: for instance, the
development of congestive heart failure automatically leads to the
need for diuretics; the development of pneumonia automatically
requires the use of antibiotics; and the development of either would
likely increase the risk of developing the other, of requiring
intubation or ventilation, and of suffering cardiopulmonary arrest.
Thus, the development of any single complication may automatically
lead to a cascade of other complications and therapeutic

that cannot be considered independent events, rendering the
significance of Byrd's data highly doubtful.

In addition to the twenty-six categories previously described, three
further variables were tracked during the study and tested for
significance: "Days in CCU after entry," "Days in hospital after
entry," and "Number of discharge medications." No significant
differences between the prayer and control groups were found, despite
explicit prayers for "a rapid recovery." Are we thus to conclude from
all of the data derived in this study that although God may
reflexively respond to the will of the majority, his manifestations
are so marginal as to approach insignificance?

Consider a hypothetical study (containing similarly flawed
methodology) allegedly demonstrating the beneficial effects of

periodicals on the course of CCU patients: Patients in the test group
are given anywhere from three to seven periodicals daily by people
associated with the study; patients in the control group are given
none. (OK so far.) Patients in both groups are allowed to have family
and friends bring them periodicals, in a manner "not controlled for."
Differences of several percent in six interrelated categories are
noted (comparable to the "significance" of Byrd's data), with no
significance found in twenty-three other variables measured. I cannot
imagine such an article surviving the rigorous screening process of
any authoritative medical journal.

The religious nature of Byrd's hypothesis may have been the

for the Southern Medical Journal, which is published in Birmingham,
Alabama, in the heart of the Bible Belt. I assumed that the five-year
gap between his study's conclusion (1983), and its publication
indicates that a number of other journals had been approached prior

SMJ, but had failed to appreciate the historic nature of Byrd's
alleged findings. Byrd graciously responded to my inquiry on this
point, informing me that he had received two prior rejections, which
he called "the academic average."

Perhaps the other two journals subscribe to the generally accepted
axiom of science that extraordinary claims (particularly miraculous
ones) require proportionately extraordinary proof. This is not to say
that studies purporting to demonstrate evidence of supernatural

ought not be published, as long as a journal's minimum standards of
acceptability are met. Nature has published several such studies, but
has historically accompanied them with statements expressing

reservations. (2) In contrast, Byrd's SMJ article was accompanied by

"Commentary" entitled "Religion in Healing," whose author says, "The
paper by Dr. Byrd answers a question that has long been asked: Does
prayer make a difference? His data say that it does." (3)

Three previous scientific/medical studies on the efficacy of prayer
were briefly reviewed in Byrd's paper. We are informed that Galton's
1872 article, one of the first on record, on "the effects of prayer

the clergy, found no salutory effects." (4) In Joyce and Welldon's
1965 study of rheumatics, the prayer group fared better in the first
half, "but in the second half the control group did better" (emphasis
added). (5) And in 1969, Collipp's findings regarding prayer and
leukemia "did not reach significance." (6)

Byrd obviously believes that his study has succeeded where others

failed. But are the data obtained in his study -- in which prayer was
admittedly "not controlled for" -- sufficient to suggest the

of the omniscient, omnipotent Judeo-Christian God, and the efficacy

intercessory prayer on CCU patients? Or is it much more likely that
what we have here is akin to the findings of the Shroud of Turin
Research Project (STURP), in which scientists blinded by faith
concluded, erroneously, that the shroud was authentic? In his report,
Byrd notes that "How God acted in this situation is unknown." But I
suspect it was with smoke and mirrors.

Notes:
(1) The correct term is "multivariate."

(2) See, for instance, Targ and Puthoff's paper on "remote viewing,"
251:602-7, 1974, and Benveniste et al. on "high dilution,"
333:816-818, 1988.

(3) The author of the commentary also cited several books and

that have reported positive effects of faith and personal prayer (as
distinguished from intercessory prayer) upon conditions that clearly
have large psychosomatic components. Also appearing in the same issue
was a study of the beneficial effects of faith in dealing with stress
of traumatic injury.

(4) Galton, F. "Statistical inquiries into the efficacy of prayer,"
Fortnightly Review, 12:125-135, 1872.

(5) Joyce, C.R.B., and R.M.C. Welldon "The efficacy of prayer: A
double-blind clinical trial," Journal of Chronic Disease, 18:367-377,
1965.

(6) Collipp, P.J. "The efficacy of prayer: A triple blind study,"
Medical Times, 97:201-204, 1969.


From:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gary_posner/godccu.html

"Jason Gastrich" wrote
: "Bear" wrote
: > What about the other questions I asked you? Why didn't you answer
: > them?
:
: They weren't pertinent. They were about Catholics. Catholics are very
: different than Christians. The first Christian church believed like
: Protestant Christians believe now.

They were definely pertinent. Catholics are Christians. Do you have
support for your assertion that first Christian church believed like
Protestant Christians believe now?

: I'm very sorry that Catholics did awful things to people hundreds of
: years
: ago. However, this has little to do with me now and absolutely nothing
: to do with my Christian heritage.

Remember Jason that Protestants were part of the Catholic Church when some
of these atrocities happened. Also, have you ever read what Martin Luther
has to say about Jews?