Should be fairly easy for me. I read it via a link in Yahoo news. Just gotta search the archives =)

^Mine's up above, the second link. The first one is heavily biased and whatnot. Also it appears sit was 2 years ago not several months lol. Time does fly by.

I didn't mean to argue, I was just presenting the link which was heavily biased, then I actually posted the link to a more neutral source, the NYT. It's not to argue it just seems that people have been reading different things and I genuinely want to see where the ones supporting prayer are. Maybe I will notice the flaws in their experiments and maybe I won't if there aren't any. I don't know I'm just curious here.

Could you explain to me the basics of Evolution, because it is usually misunderstood. The Bible has been proven to contradict itself. 

The Greeks discovered that the Earth was round, not Gallileo. Gallileo was imprisoned by the church for saying that the Earth orbits the sun. 

Ok guys, you can debate, but keep it civil.

Here's a question - do you degrade or think poorly of those who believe in extraterrestrials and ufo visitations?  If so, why would you not think the same of those who believe in a manifestation of an ultimate being?  Many such people believe they have direct evidence through video footage (typically grainy blurry lights that don't prove anything to the skeptical observer), in the same way that some people believe they have direct evidence of god through 'miracles'. 

Personally I try very hard not to judge people for believing in whatever they choose to believe in, but I draw the line any time it affects me directly.  IE - politics, workplace, and socially.  I used to work for some evangelists, and every time I got in the car with one of them as technical sales backup for a project, he immediately talked about how I should let him disciple me and bring god into my life.  Unacceptable line crossing.

The basic tenets of many religions have some very common ground in what I would consider "human" values and not just "religious" values.  Looking out for your neighbor, not lying or stealing, and so on.  I consider these values noble and worthwhile to pursue, but I do not appreciate those who openly try to convert me to their religion, and act like I'm oppressing them when I say thanks, but no thanks.

Living deep in the bible belt, I constantly feel marginalized and held in contempt by the 'old boy' christian business owners, who degrade people like me for not believing what they believe in.  It's easy to become bitter when you live where I live, but I always try to turn the other cheek despite the irony.

People want to beleive in goodness and grace, they want to believe that their good deeds will be rewarded and that evil doers will get what they reserve. They want to believe in mercy and grace and that there is all a reasonto the chaos in our world that its part of a higher plan.

My views on religion are pretty radical so I won't voice them here. But even though I am not religious at all, I can respect and understand why most people have faith.

Please look that up, that is a very common misconception, that whole Catholic Church thing and Galileo was not just due to that, there was a heck of a lot more to it.

But his comment on the Hittites is correct.

No, I do not.  I was referring to the style in which they present their argument.  For the record I do not believe in UFOs.

Some people who believe in UFOs make logical arguments, such as stating backable evidence such as government reports or other facts and figures.  Aliens must have created crop circles because they are too perfect for humans is a logical argument, even though it did come out that people were using simple, yet sophisticated methods for creating crop circles.  Other arguments like the possibility of organic life elsewhere and possibility of super advanced technoloy fall in this category.

Some people who believe in UFOs make bad, illogical arguments.  Such as heresays, making wild assumptions, stating stories that somebody told a source who later told them, and other bad arguments.

I apply the same comparison to religion.  If someone comments on a study on prayer and health or makes a comment on the conservation of matter and energy I think that is a much better argument than I know a guy who knows a guy who claimed this happened.

I am not sure what the masses believed, but the Church never taught that the earth was flat. I believe that St. Augustine, who was the most important figure in Western theology besides St. Paul, believed that the earth was spherical. The Church readily accepted the Greek belief that the earth was flat. The issue of heliocentrism may have been more contentious, but that had more to do with the reformation and counter-reformation than a theological dispute. I remember reading a paper published by David Lindberg, who is a Professor of History of Science at the University of Wisconsin, that said Copernicus was fearful of publishing his paper because of how other scientists would react and not the Church. I believe Copernicus even dedicated his book to Pope Paul III. 

I'm under the impression that science, by itself, cannot prove anything (by coherent argument or sense data). The method of science involves logical fallacies; for one, repeating a test hundreds of times and getting the same result for each does not prove that it will always be that way. It does not follow logically. No amount of appealing to "common sense" or claiming that science is all we have (which it isn't) will avoid this.

While one might argue that science is true because it works, or that it can get us very close to truth, it should be understood that in order to say such a thing, we have to use "sense data", a part of science, to see and say it's working. Not only is that circular, but sense data, as a method, comes with its own set of impossibilites. The short, simple, water-tight, and obnoxious example for the problems of sense data would be the "brain in a vat" theory. The problem in principle is that the evidence we call sense data can represent an infinite number of theories (and of course... testing a theory only involves MORE sense data).

Empricial evidence is completely useless for establishing any belief. Now, why then do I believe in God? In fact, why do I believe in anything at all? My point is, evidence does not nor cannot preceed a belief. You have to start somewhere, and that's why I lean toward being a presuppositionalist. So the long and short of it is, I agree with bardicverse. I believe God exists, because I know (presuppositionally speaking) he exists. I also believe the sun will rise tomorrow because I know it will. And I can't "prove" either of these beliefs.