Does Prayer Work?

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 304
#91
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
Try to follow along. I made the following statement:
"If you choose a different source, you get a different result"

and you said, in response,
But I didn't.
Your statement was, therefore that you didn't choose a different source. Different from what? You chose one that was the same as what? You chose one source, and I chose a different one.

I quoted an authoritative, definitive and irrefutable source.
You cut and pasted from a google search that presented a number of different definitions, and you snipped the one you wanted. If that one you chose was, indeed, "definitive" then not only would your source have provided no others, but there would be no other dictionaries in the world, or theological understandings that gave different definitions (such as https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/prayer ).

But even in YOUR OWN provided definition, the word is defined as a "...solemn request for help or expression of thanks".

So ignoring the existence of other definitions, you just provided one which counters your own claim that prayer is always petitionary.

Prayer does not work.
Still unproven and unprovable.

Topic's author
#92
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
You cut and pasted from a google search that presented a number of different definitions, and you snipped the one you wanted. If that one you chose was, indeed, "definitive" then not only would your source have provided no others, but there would be no other dictionaries in the world, or theological understandings that gave different definitions (such as https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/prayer ). 

Wrong (again).
I quoted from the Oxford dictionary. 

I quoted an authoritative, definitive and irrefutable source and if you wish to challenge the validity of the definition I suggest that you appeal to the Oxford Press and inform the forum when the editors have made a complete change to the dictionary to match whatever meaning you tell them. Until that time the facts remain.

1) Prayer does not work.

2) My assertion remains unchallenged (especially from those who expect to make gains by fruitlessly nitpicking the valid arguments of others.
Topic's author
#93
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ethang5
Or when I want to hear you fight in a sandbox like an adult. Will do.
You are getting dangerously close to the return of the highly popular junior soap opera:

"Like grains of sand in the sandpit at the Community Preschool for Slow Learners so are Dazes of Our Life".
#94
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
Lame humor hides your vapidity much less than you think it does.

But as I only have to show you're empty, my work here is done.
#95
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
I quoted from the Oxford dictionary. 
What you quoted came up from a quick google search. That the search engine took it from another source changes nothing.


I quoted an authoritative, definitive and irrefutable source and if you wish to challenge the validity of the definition I suggest that you appeal to the Oxford Press and inform the forum when the editors have made a complete change to the dictionary to match whatever meaning you tell them. Until that time the facts remain.
I'll type slowly because I fear that neither English nor rhetoric is native to your thinking:

1. You chose one of many sources for definitions. None in the English language is definitive. Many have claims to authority, but if you know anything about dictionaries and how English works (as opposed to, for example, French) then you would know that none is definitive.

2. No one has claimed that the definition you cut and pasted is invalid. Are you saying that the others I cited are invalid? You might want to contact all of them and tell them that they are wrong, then. Until then, the facts remain that there are other definitions of prayer.

3. Your assertion that prayer is solely petitionary is contradicted by the definition you have chosen. Please, pay attention -- your chosen definition, which you claim is "irrefutable" defines prayer as "prayer | pre: | noun a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity." So, and I should not have to stress this as often as I have, your definition gives, as a definition of prayer, "expression of thanks." By claiming that your definition of choice is definitive and irrefutable, you have just canonized a position which contradicts your own claim.

Therefore, by virtue of YOUR definition, you cannot measure whether or not "thanks" works, so you cannot judge prayer as not working.

Your assertion is wrong and your argument is invalid on its face because of a definition you have cited as being irrefutable.


#96
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
One of the problems is as I pointed out, you must distinguish in some way between "unheard / ignored" and "no." They aren't the same answer, yet they have the same outcome. In any case couldn't an experiment on the efficacy of intercessory prayer (there's no effect of 'thankful' prayers or 'guidance' prayers that is really measurable, only externally verifiable events can be considered) be done as follows:

--Hypothesis: "Praying to a presumed deity for a specific set of outcomes, if done under certain circumstances, should affect the outcome of events."

--Experiment (in theory): Gather five different children of differing, and contradictory, religious beliefs (such that child A should only believe in religious set X, which cannot include as a subset what child B believes), and give them time together with a puppy, say four or five hours a day, enough to grow a bond with the dog.  So for example, a Christian (who will pray to Jesus), a Scientologist (Xenu), an Australian Aboriginee, a Hindu and an Amazonian tribe child. 

  • At the end of the week, take the puppy and the children for a walk in a park.
  • Come to the bridge that crosses the river that splits the park. Pick up the dog, take off its leash, and tell the children you're going to throw it into the fast moving river below. The only way they have to save the dog is to pray, fervently, to whichever deity they believe in. 
    • This ensures a proper level of sincerity and upset, as the children really don't want their friend, the dog, to drown.
  • All five children pray as hard and as loud and as properly as they can. 
  • Two outcomes are possible:
    • The dog survives. In this case, someone's prayers were answered! Great! Intercessory prayer works! Now, how do we figure out WHICH PRAYER did the trick, to which god?
      • The Scientology kid says "Thenk you Xenu, you definitely intervened to save that puppy!" and the Christian kid says "No, JESUS did it, because I prayed to him!" WHat are the next steps in this experiment? 
      • This presents another problem, it's the problem that's baked into the experiment: you presume there is a deity in the first place, which means you should be able to determine which one was listening and whose prayer was in fact answered. How can you rule out that nothing but the dog's survival instinct helped it swim ashore?
    • The dog drowns. How do we figure out if every one of those gods heard and denied this plea?
      • Can we confirm that any deity at all heard it? How? Is it possible that the deities all heard and ignored this request?
      • How do we determine if the answer was "no" if "no" and "Ignored" look so similar?
Obviously the experiment has a design flaw, one which ethang's also has: it presumes the existence of a deity in the first place, without demonstrating that's the case. You can do prayer experiments with control groups, sure, these have been done before, but you can't seem to hone in on which god is the right one to pray to in the first place. You'll never know for sure if your prayer signal is pointed in the right direction, in other words, or it just isn't reaching the antenna. You wouldn't, for example, take a satellite dish and point it out at some random point in the sky and then complain "Why am I not getting any television channels? Something must be wrong with this dish!" You'd do more work to find where the satellite was and once you were sure you were on it, you'd start troubleshooting why you can't watch HBO. 

It's imperfect but it's a start. To apply scientific method to prayer you ought to be able to prove that a deity exists in the first place, not presume one does.  

#97
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@rosends
@ludofl3x
@Salixes
Obviously the experiment has a design flaw, one which ethang's also has:
No sir. You just spelled out my critiques of the experiment. It cannot be done via the scientific method, and it doesn't matter if a God exists or not. The flaw is in the methodology, not in who is being tested.

To apply scientific method to prayer you ought to be able to prove that a deity exists in the first place, not presume one does.
The scientific method assumes nothing. It doesn't have to. If the experiment is done correctly, the results will at least confirm the existence of God. But whether God exists or not is immaterial to the test and there are no assumptions beforehand.

Just like every atheist, you want to change this into a "Does God Exist" topic. Some of us have broader interests.

Also, any experiment must take Christian doctrine into account, or else the results cannot be used to support or contradict Christian claims about prayer.

First, the promises about prayer in the bible are not to everyone. So the unanswered prayer of people not under the promise cannot be used for any conclusions.
Second, the "whatever" the bible uses to say, "whatever you pray for will be granted..." is conditional. Those conditions can be found in the book of James.
Third, God is not a genie, we join His cause, become part of His plan, as such, a real Christian will not just pray for anything. His prayer will always line up with the priorities of God.

In short, the old atheist clunker about science having disproved the efficacy of prayer is nonsense, pushed by people with too little knowledge of science, and too much bias.
#98
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
 It cannot be done via the scientific method, and it doesn't matter if a God exists or not.

Why, exactly? And why doesn't it matter if God exists or not? If you're testing if god is listening and answering prayers, it seems like that's a pretty big detail (you seem to have skipped the part about the satellite dish and the signal). 

The scientific method assumes nothing. 
Exactly, so any experiment that sets out to prove the Christian god is listening and answering prayers in any way assumes that god exists. In this way you are inviting confirmation bias, and you're not using a truly scientific method, you're simply saying "I think this is the god that's there, now let's prove it's listening to me."

Just like every atheist, you want to change this into a "Does God Exist" topic. Some of us have broader interests.
I knew this was going to be your belly ache, which is why I sketched out an experiment that doesn't bother with "Does god exist." You didn't even begin to address it, so I can presume you find it confounding at best, confusing at worst. How would you be able to tell whose prayer was answered if the puppy survives?

His prayer will always line up with the priorities of God.
Then why pray for intercession at all?

the old atheist clunker about science having disproved the efficacy of prayer is nonsense
More accurately, there is no proof that intercessory prayer is effective at changing outcomes. 
#99
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Guys don't forget that God is not sitting around answering prayers and or rejecting them lol, that's not the correct picture or how this works. God sets laws and principles in place both for the natural as well as the moral reality. Jesus says according to the individual their own faith has made them what they are and are not, read the Gospels. What he's saying is that both prayer (if we're talking about the petitioning kind) and faith are principle oriented, meaning in order that prayer be effective there must things in place it is a law-based framework. You might say "well isn't that mean" or indifferent...but it's not any more mean than natural laws and their relationship to the natural world and how it operates. It's just the way the world is set up and governed, though it's impersonal it is also effective and interactive without God having to sit around being the recipient rather it's already set in place and ready for the individual to participate.

It's principle based for good reason, meaning one can't slap their kid around one week and then the following week pray for effective petitioning. This is what I mean that things "have to be in place" for faith and prayer to have legitimacy, it's more like a recipe or a framework one has to abide in for it to have any influence or power behind it.

So in a sense Ethang and Rosends are correct, any study about prayer will always be inconsistent and not one you could ever observe some sort of perfection because again, it's actually based around the individual and whether or not they abide and live in accordance with this framework and matrix of laws. If you want effective faith and prayer one must work within this matrix (irrelevant to who the individual is), find the correct recipe so to speak. So while God does create these frameworks God is actually not just dealing directly with peoples personal issues and prayers. Thinking that God does conjures up distorted concepts about how God operates within creation.

#100
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
Having said what I said above, it doesn't mean that God is unaware of what people pray for, anymore than God is unaware that if you walk off of a building gravity will take hold and bring you to your death at any given moment. These are just moral and natural laws that govern our relations with spirituality. 
#101
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
So in a sense Ethang and Rosends are correct, any study about prayer will always be inconsistent and not one you could ever observe some sort of perfection because again, it's actually based around the individual and whether or not they abide and live in accordance with this framework and matrix of laws

In yet another sense, it's a way of saying "Applying true scientific method to this proposition will provide results that are inconclusive at best, and therefore cannot be said to be in any way scientifically verified as effective."
#102
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
It cannot be done via the scientific method, and it doesn't matter if a God exists or not.

Why, exactly? And why doesn't it matter if God exists or not?
Because the experiment is not concerned with God at all. The experiment is only trying to establish if christian prayer is effective.

If you're testing if god is listening and answering prayers, 
No, the test is if prayers are answered or not. Nothing else.

...any experiment that sets out to prove the Christian god is listening and answering prayers in any way assumes that god exists.
This is why we have scientific methodology. The experiment assumes nothing. It can only test if prayers are answered, not who answered. Even if the experiment showed that prayers were being answered, we would need further tests to prove it was God answering. You are starting to see the difficulty in proving that prayers are ineffective.

...which is why I sketched out an experiment that doesn't bother with "Does god exist."
Your experiment was faulty. It had no way to distinguish a yes response from pure chance. You said this yourself, so I saw no need to address it. I said the same thing in a previous post. I'm the one saying that prayer cannot be scientifically tested, remember?

How would you be able to tell whose prayer was answered if the puppy survives?
You wouldn't. That is one of the things I mentioned in my argument that experiments on prayer are nonsense!

More accurately, there is no proof that intercessory prayer is effective at changing outcomes. 
No sir. That is a different argument. This threads OP claims that scientific experiments have proven Christian prayers ineffective. This is untrue. In fact, it is impossible.

You need to either start your own thread on whether God exists, or address the topic of this thread. We would like to discuss something other than your obsession for once.

There is no way to do an experiment on prayer that would satisfy the requirements of scientific methodology. This is why no reputable scientist has ever done so.

I have not claimed prayer is effective, or that God exists. My claim is that experiments to prove prayer is ineffective are unscientific nonsense. I'm contradicting the claim of the OP, not trying to prove God exists.
#103
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I have not claimed prayer is effective, or that God exists. My claim is that experiments to prove prayer is ineffective are unscientific nonsense. I'm contradicting the claim of the OP, not trying to prove God exists.

Scientific experiments, real ones, not the ones you're making up as straw men, generally don't set out to prove a negative. There are certainly ways to apply the scientific method to the efficacy of prayer, I just showed you one. The conclusion would be "results are at best inconclusive." You could, however, modify the experiment to make it harder for any chance. Like, sew the puppy into a bag with a brick and throw the bag into a pool instead of a river. If the puppy survives, you'd definitely rule out "chance" by going to see if the puppy had clawed or chewed his way out of the bag, and if you found the bag sealed and in otherwise untampered with condition, you'd have to make your next experiment "Determining if this puppy is an escape artist, or if a god intervened." Just because you can't think of one doesn't mean there isn't one, but every one that presumes a god exists is flawed in that it invites confirmation bias. 



 This threads OP claims that scientific experiments have proven Christian prayers ineffective.


Really? This is the original post (isn't that what OP means?). Where does it claim that scientific experiments have proven Christian prayers ineffective? 

Perhaps we could build a 100% natural, faith healing hospital ....we could call it "The Holy Hospital of Kindness".

 * Instead of operating theatres we shall have prayer rooms.
 * Instead of professional doctors, nurses and surgeons, we'll have naturopaths, chiropractors and accupuncturists.
 * Instead of drugs we will have holy water.
 * And of course, we would need to erect a morgue that's larger than the hospital itself.


Topic's author
#104
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
What you quoted came up from a quick google search. That the search engine took it from another source changes nothing.
Wrong again. I gave you my source which was definitive and authoritative whether you like it or not.

Your assertion that prayer is solely petitionary.....
I made no such assertion. You made it up.

I suggest you address the topic.
Topic's author
#105
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@EtrnlVw
Guys don't forget that God is not sitting around answering prayers
That's right. And God has never answered any prayers at any time in any way whatsoever simply because there is no God.

So, wave your clasped hands around, close your eyes as tight as you can and pretend to be earnest as much as you can but it will all be in vain.
Topic's author
#106
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ethang5
Just like every atheist, you want to change this into a "Does God Exist" topic. Some of us have broader interests.


In the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.
Which does beg the question: Irrespective of whether or not God exists, is religion like a placebo to its followers?
Topic's author
#107
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ludofl3x
The conclusion would be "results are at best inconclusive." 

In the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.
Which does beg the question: Irrespective of whether or not God exists, is religion like a placebo to its followers?

#108
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
So what you said in posts 57, 60 and 64 isn't claiming that "prayer" is identical with "intercessionary prayer"?

So you accept that prayer has other functions besides requests?

And how do you plan to measure the efficacy of prayers of thanks?
Topic's author
#109
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
And how do you plan to measure the efficacy of prayers of thanks?
I don't plan any such thing because in the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.
Which does beg the question: Irrespective of whether or not God exists, is religion like a placebo to its followers?

#110
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Scientific experiments, real ones, not the ones you're making up as straw men,
I made no straw men. I need none.

...generally don't set out to prove a negative.
Proving prayer works is not a negative. Please, even if you can't, others are capable of arguments other than, "Does God exist?"

There are certainly ways to apply the scientific method to the efficacy of prayer, I just showed you one.
Lol. And then you listed all the ways it was lacking. Please Ludo, it's so silly I hesitate to discuss it like it's not retarded.

"Determining if this puppy is an escape artist...
Has nothing to do with prayer Einstein. But thanks, that was funny. Good luck on getting a reputable scientist to sign up for that.

Just because you can't think of one doesn't mean there isn't one,...
Which is why I asked you guys if you could think up one. Puppies in a sack isn't it Ludo.

...every one that presumes a god exists is flawed in that it invites confirmation bias.
A valid scientific experiment would not assume anything. This has already been addressed. Please, give the, "does God exist?" drone a rest.

Really? This is the original post (isn't that what OP means?).
It also means Original Poster.

Where does it claim that scientific experiments have proven Christian prayers ineffective? 
...by default, you concede the fact that prayer does diddly squat. - Sal in post #6
Topic's author
#111
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@EtrnlVw
any study about prayer will always be inconsistent and not one you could ever observe some sort of perfection because again, it's actually based around the individual and whether or not they abide and live in accordance with this framework and matrix of laws
 In the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.
Which does beg the question: Irrespective of whether or not God exists, is religion like a placebo to its followers?


Topic's author
#112
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Tradesecret
When we pray to God and ascribe glory to his name, we are reiterating his character, for instance we pray to God as the God of all comfort to bring comfort to those who are suffering.

In the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.
Which does beg the question: Irrespective of whether or not God exists, is religion like a placebo to its followers?

Topic's author
#113
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Prayer may in fact work.   
I anti-prayer  every Christians prayers years ago. 

In the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.
Which does beg the question: Irrespective of whether or not God exists, is religion like a placebo to its followers?

Topic's author
#114
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Your dissertation upon prayer is nothing but gobbledygook Satanic Devil Speak! LOL What website did you retrieve this ungodly mess from?

In the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.
Which does beg the question: Irrespective of whether or not God exists, is religion like a placebo to its followers?

#115
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
In the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.
This sentence you've started spamming, doesn't make grammatical sense. (What works like a placebo?)

Which does beg the question: 
As usual, when beaten on a question, you immediately try to run to a new question.

Your original claim has been shown to be incorrect. You are now telling outright lies to Rosends, denying your earlier claims. (He will learn for himself how dishonest you are)

All you have is your irrational hatred Sal. You have no research, no logic, and no proof. You are free to believe that prayer doesn't work, but trying to pretend that this belief is based on anything other than your irrational bias is laughable

I mean; prayer working,  ...you would have to be completely out of your head to believe that. - Salixes, Post #55

There is no hope of winning an argument that is based on irrefutable truth. - Salixes, Post #60

Prayer is a load of crap. - Salixes, Post #64

...whether or not prayer works is very subjective... - Salixes, now
The muffled sound you now here is of someone quietly but furiously trying to back peddle. Lol!
Topic's author
#116
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ethang5
This sentence you've started spamming, doesn't make grammatical sense. (What works like a placebo?)

A: Prayer
#117
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
In yet another sense, it's a way of saying "Applying true scientific method to this proposition will provide results that are inconclusive at best, and therefore cannot be said to be in any way scientifically verified as effective."

I don't have a problem with prayer not meeting the requirements of the scientific method, however spirituality is indeed a science, it is certainly a method of study. But of a different nature. The difference between the two is that one deals with material objects/phenomenon you can test, verify and observe, the other deals with a labyrinth of non-material laws and principles you can test, verify and observe. One can be done collectively while the other individually. They both can be applied and observed, but both cannot be collectively verified. Not in a way where you can repeat and demonstrate and produce consistent results.
TBH I let science study what it is purposed for, and I let spirituality study what it is designed for. While they study two different natures they also can work harmoniously together given you don't force one study on the other. 

#118
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Salixes
simply because there is no God.

Thanks for the assertion but you need more than assertions to deal with logical and conclusive arguments. So go ahead and.....

wave your clasped hands around, close your eyes as tight as you can and pretend to be earnest as much as you can but it will all be in vain.
#119
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Salixes
In the end, whether or not prayer works is very subjective and to use a scientific or medical analogy, works like a placebo.

Is that what I said or are you asserting your opinion again while ignoring the substance of my post? never mind the answer to that is clear lol. Laws and principles are as concrete as your long, pointing finger and hysterical nonsense. Whenever you are met with rationale you retreat to your silly little phrases. That just shows what a soft core you really have underneath all that crusty surface. 

Which does beg the question: Irrespective of whether or not God exists, is religion like a placebo to its followers?

Does your activity in this forum and strong bias act as a placebo for you??

#120
skittlez09
skittlez09's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,012
3
3
9
skittlez09's avatar
skittlez09
3
3
9
-->
@Tradesecret
lol damn