Does Prayer Work?

Yes, using a stilted notion of what prayer is and is supposed to do, with an impossible to prove set of standards. First, I could point out that prayer is not always asking anything. Then I could point out that sometimes, requests receiving a "no" are being answered. Then I could point out that there is no control group here because every case is unique so the only control might be "what would happen in this particular case if there was no prayer" and that becomes impossible to gauge when prayer is introduced.

You are assuming or at least implying that there was a stilted notion and no control group which is not the case.

In fact, the study revealed that there was a notable swing against prayers being answered since the respondents (in the case of praying for the health of themselves or loved ones) tended to develop anxiety over the pent up expectation.

This tends to poo poo the idea that prayer has some sort of consoling or "placebo" effect.

If I can find the survey I shall send it to you, the results are interesting.

Thanks - I have seen similar studies but again, it runs in to a couple of problems when trying to quantify the effect of prayer. It assumes all prayer is petitioning, it assumes that only answers of "yes" are measurable effect, and it assumes that one can compare "patient 35, prayer on Tuesday" with "patient 35 no prayer on Tuesday" even though it is impossible to have two opposite fact patterns empirically tested in a single universe.

You are getting into the realm of "nothing is 100% provable"  or "anything is possible" or "nothing can be ruled out" which for all intents and purposes are merely excuses in lieu of reasonable argument.

The reasoned argument is that there is no proof whatsoever that prayer works and the evidence we have tends to favour the contrary. Also the overriding factor is the fact that there is not one scerrick of evidence to indicate the presence of God or any other supernatural entity to answer, let alone, act on prayers.

When you start by deciding that proof has to be measured by your personal standards, and those standards aren't met by any force not actually beholden to your sense, then the easiest thing to do is decide that the being, not your standards has failed.

Though I admit, I don't know the word "scerrik."

And if one decides to start from a position and only understand argument from that particular perspective, one may find oneself looking to roast because he hasn't any other approach to conversation.

Another method of making holy water is to place some tap water in a saucepan, turn the heat up high......

....the boil the Hell out of it.

ahahahahahah ur so funnyyyyy that was the funniest joke ive ever hearddddddddddd

Barring your mispelled word of “humour,”it most certainly is a runaway quote because you did not, and I repeat, did not address the main topic other than to be allegedly humorous about it in the eyes of Jesus (Hebrews 4:13).  What this blatantly reveals about you is the fact at this time, you have the same modus operandi of your cohort in crime ethang5, where he runs away with non topic inane responses as well.

With you slapping the face of Jesus in your Satanic quote above by not calling our God by name, then let it be known that you know more than Jesus’ inspired true words within the scriptures, to wit:

“Ascribe to the LORD the glory due TO HIS NAME; Worship the LORD in holy array” (Psalm 29:2).

"Ascribe to the LORD, O families of the nations, ascribe to the LORD glory and strength.. Ascribe to the LORD the glory due His NAME bring an offering and come before Him. Worship the LORD in the splendor of His holiness” ( 1 Chronicles 16:28-29)

The passages above state with specificity that you are to glorify the NAME of God, and NOT His title, do you understand this simple biblical fact? Then doing the simple 2nd grade math that hopefully you will understand, using the term “God” is a title, and NOT God’s true name, understood? Yes? Maybe?  Our God’s name is Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost, of the Triune Doctrine, and not His ‘title” of God, GET IT?

If you want to know more than Jesus’ inspired words, as Yahweh/Jesus/Ghost God incarnate, where it is your decision to call Him whatever you want, then subsequent to your enlightenment of Psalm 29:2 and 1 Chronicles 16:28-29, where biblically do you get this authority? Please tell us without making yourself the further biblical fool! 

Barring the biblical axiom that Jesus is God, and made in man’s image while on earth, where you should wipe the proverbial egg from your face at this time, then with your additional bible ignorant quote above, and since our God Jesus, of whom you disrespect, then I will have to perform the following to your future Devil Speak. This will be, when Jesus has the same historical Abrahamic foundation as the Islam God of Allah, in being the SAME GOD, I will refer to Allah when dealing with your over the top Christian ignorance to prove a point, at your laughable expense, of why you have to name our specific God from the others of this era! Your bible ignorance precludes that there is not other Gods that are worshipped at this time. Priceless ignorance. LOL! 

Furthermore, it is quite obvious that you attended ethang5’s school of “How to be totally Bible Ignorant,” and when needed, lay down “smoke screens” that will take one’s thinking away from the fact that you are not addressing the topic at hand, but rather running away from it. Jesus and I will not let you perform this ungodly act, understood? Yeah, you understand alright!

“If you had only have learnt ….” Huh? WTF? Irrelative to Christianity, I can also see that you had the same inept English teacher as the totally bible inept ethang5, where your syntactical sentence structuring is abhorred! In turn, “this reveals much about you!” 

Like I have had to tell the equally bible ignorant ethang5, is that Jesus does not like dummies spreading the gospel with questionable English skills. Either get someone coherent that can write for you, or remain silent to save face. Thanking you in advance.

Quite right. But one has of course not committed oneself to explaining exactly what the heck one is talking about.

And of, course one should refrain from being generic or implicative in one's rhetoric and actually make a direct statement.

Roast away.

I  have made a series of direct statements which have to do with the nature of prayer and the failure of generic statistics to address the myriad variables and dimensions of meaning that prayer has in the real world. That you are on the other side of a particular divide so my particulars have no meaning is not indicative of their content, just of your position.

Shhhhhhhhhh, you're done. 

This is because...

Therefore, may I suggest that you save yourself further embarrassment...

Like I have had to tell the equally bible ignorant ethang5, is that Jesus does not like dummies spreading the gospel with questionable English skills. 

OK, you asked for it. Now for the roasting.

Albeit that you made a series of direct statements, such direct statements account for diddly squat except to show off your ability to squirm around issues like a slimy worm and poke irrelevant holes in somebody else's (valid and reasoned) argument.

Now, in order to participate in intelligent social intercourse one needs to present an argument; a suggestion would be: "Prayer does work because..........."

Or:

if you wish to be a bit more colouful in your compelling argument: "The morgue in such a hospital would be no larger than a janitors closet because..........."

Or:

(which is the most likely course) Simply carry on with your slimy worm, deceptive way neither effectively saying anything but making sneeringly veiled sideswipes at someone else's fair argument. In which case you will be roasted to a cinder.

Don't feel required to try and respond if you have nothing constructive to say.

I would welcome some sort of comment on what I actually said (you know, "content") 

2. He will accuse you of dishonesty and imply your theism makes you untrustworthy.

Though I don't think I'm being dishonest (factually or rhetorically)

Now, when one decides to act like a smart derriere by using la-dee-daa, airy-fairy philosophical concepts to make an quasi argument by deceptively attempting to defuse another argument by poking hypothetical, non-committal pinpricks into it without even finding the intestinal fortitude to attempt making a stand or a valued argument

But I want what I wrote to be judged, not me as a person.

Tough, because you wrote it and you are a person.

I'm not saying you are a bad person however picking holes in somebody else's argument by beating around the bush is not a good look.

What I am doing is encouraging you to make your own argument instead of trying to make fault of others.

Otherwise, you leave yourself wide open to get roasted.

...finding flaws in someone's thinking and argument is a very useful and important rhetorical strategy....

Except I have and you have ignored it because it isn't in the form you want to see.

...what you said wasn't even on point enough to be impactful on any level....

With due respect what you saying there is a load of unmitigated crap, and you know it.

Yes, "finding flaws.......strategy" but as we both know, that is all you have done. You have not submitted one argument, in favour, or otherwise.

What I said was perfectly valid and properly backed up and my arguing prowess does not extend down anywhere near the level that you may have in mind.

So cut the deceptive rhetoric and make some form of argument unless of course you are avoiding the issue.

Well, I do dare say that because of you record for deception and slithering around the issue because you know very well that the subject is 100% unwinnable in the negative.

Why don't you just try and be more up front in admitting that you have no valid argument...I mean; prayer working,  ...you would have to be completely out of your head to believe that.

So, let's just put you out of your obvious misery and put an end to this roasting right now.

You have lost the argument by default because you haven't even initiated an argument one way or the other in the first place let alone offered one. My argument stands unchallenged.

You certainly won't get anywhere in life if all you do is sneer from the sidelines.

And if you see prayer as having uses beyond asking, and therefore, judged by metrics of success beyond "getting" (or even "convincingly not getting") then prayer's "working" can be assessed in completely different ways, having little to do with hospitals and morgues.

It has everything to do with morgues and hospitals as per the thread as you damned well know.

For your effing information, "asking" is the invitation to perform or to fulfill.

Trying to dress down a word in order to neutralise the meaning and thereby the topic hardly does one a favour in the honesty stakes, now does it?

I can only assume a willful blindness on your part.

You are trying to limit it to that,