Does Prayer Work?

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 304
#121
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
This sentence you've started spamming, doesn't make grammatical sense. (What works like a placebo?)

A: Prayer
Just another baseless assertion. You're out of arguments so like Hari, you're now spamming it.

I gotta give it to you though. You did try. You really suck at logic, especially keeping a logical train of thought, but you did try to engage and defend your point.

I want to encourage you. It may feel tiresome at first, but it will become better. And your ability to argue your points will get better. Your crippling bias hurts your ability to think clearly, but as you become a more normal poster, you will pick up supporters and friends, and that will help your feelings of being alone and ganged up on.

Don't gave in to the desire to always be the last to post. That is one of the reasons hari is now stuck on a dead board spamming himself.

Your claim that scientific studies prove prayer is ineffective is dead. Know when to get off a dead horse.

But overall, I've gotta say I've never seen you debate and defend like you did here. You even toned down the hate, and that made your arguments more effective.

For a first effort, its impressive.
Topic's author
#122
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@EtrnlVw
Does your activity in this forum and strong bias act as a placebo for you??
I'm serious.

Given that there is no God and that prayers do not work, don't you think that those who feel something out of prayer or their belief are experiencing the same "benefit" as those who take placebos?

I'm sure you are well aware of the "placebo effect" on patients; similarly, those who pray to nothing and think they are being heard can still benefit from prayer.


#123
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
You still have not addresses how a prayer experiment can successfully use the scientific method.

I know you're now trying to run away to the "placebo" straw man detour, but I kind of like to stay on topic.
#124
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@ethang5
It cannot be done via the scientific method,
Obviously.Because the scientific method only applies to reality.

#125
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@EtrnlVw
Thanks for the assertion but you need more than assertions
The only unsupported assertion in these discussions is the assertion that gods exist, that is all gods.


#126
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Seth
Yet another atheist incapable of debating any subject other than "Does God Exist?"

It cannot be done via the scientific method,

Obviously.
Thank you for validating my claim. It's a wonder that it isn't obvious to the other atheists on the thread.

Because the scientific method only applies to reality.
I don't know what reality you live in, but prayer is a real actual thing. Go to any church and you'll see people doing it.

You are confused about what the scientific method is, and what reality is. Einstein applied the scientific method to hypothetical things long before we knew they were actual.

But I know your type. You will sacrifice your common sense for a cheap dig at Christianity. No problem, Christianity is a big boy, it can take your weak digs.
#127
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@ethang5
Thank you for validating my claim. It's a wonder that it isn't obvious to the other atheists on the thread.
Mine quoting is by definition dishonest.
I don't know what reality you live in, but prayer is a real actual thing. Go to any church and you'll see people doing it.
The thread concerns whether prayer works, not whether it happens.

But I know your type. You will sacrifice your common sense for a cheap dig at Christianity.
Are personal attacks allowed here? I'll ignore it this time but reporting in future is not assured.
#128
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
Edit: but not reporting in future is not assured.
Topic's author
#129
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ethang5
You still have not addresses how a prayer experiment can successfully use the scientific method.
I know you're now trying to run away to the "placebo" straw man detour, but I kind of like to stay on topic.
I lobbed the firecracker into the mix since that was the direction I felt the subject should head.

The reason I "have not addressed how a prayer experiment can successfully use the scientific method" quite frankly is that I don't know what on earth you or whoever posed the question is going on about.
So I guess the answer is that I don't know how a prayer experiment can successfully use the scientific method. 

What is the scientific method anyway? Does a bunch of nerdy men all wearing over-sized spectacles and white coats place electrodes on the subject's head then measure the oogidy-boogidy waves?

For my part anyway, I'm quite happy with the numerous surveys done into the efficacy of prayer and not one of them revealed anything at all. This ultimately confirms the status quo; prayer does absolutely bugger all.

Now, can we investigate the "straw man detour" since there seems to be some evidence that indicates that prayer and indeed religion can have a placebo effect on some people?
Topic's author
#130
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ethang5
I don't know what reality you live in, but prayer is a real actual thing. Go to any church and you'll see people doing it.
How perceptive of you to observe the fact that prayer is real because people go to church and pray.

What the heck you are intending to say by that, however, is anybody's guess.

My car is real. Just go to the end of my street on any given weekday morning and you'll see me driving it. So, umm yeah, my car is real.
#131
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
For my part anyway, I'm quite happy with the numerous surveys done into the efficacy of prayer
Those of us who know science are not happy with such quackery.

and not one of them revealed anything at all.
As quackery posing as science never does.

This ultimately confirms the status quo; prayer does absolutely bugger all.
Quackery cannot confirm anything. And the status quo is not your fringe beliefs.

So I guess the answer is that I don't know how a prayer experiment can successfully use the scientific method. 
Thank you. I hope you know you just lost the reason you gave for why you believe prayer doesn't work.

Now, can we investigate the "straw man detour" since there seems to be some evidence that indicates that prayer and indeed religion can have a placebo effect on some people?
You can run to any hidey hole you like. But remember that "placebo" implies a real.
#132
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
My car is real. Just go to the end of my street on any given weekday morning and you'll see me driving it. So, umm yeah, my car is real.
Then an experiment on your car would not be trying to prove a negative.
#133
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Seth
Thank you for validating my claim. It's a wonder that it isn't obvious to the other atheists on the thread.

Mine quoting is by definition dishonest.
Going off topic isn't, but would still advise you to refrain from doing it.

I don't know what reality you live in, but prayer is a real actual thing. Go to any church and you'll see people doing it.

The thread concerns whether prayer works, not whether it happens.
I know. Prayer exists, and you said the scientific method only works on things that exist.

But I know your type. You will sacrifice your common sense for a cheap dig at Christianity.

Are personal attacks allowed here?
Lol. I'm a deluded theist who believes in what is not real, is not an insult, but my  comment that your calling prayer "not reality" lacks common sense is an insult?

I'll ignore it this time but reporting in future is not assured.
You are always free to report anything you like. But if you're used to Christians who "turn the other cheek" to your rude condescension, you're going to love me.

Of you're going to stride into a thread on a religion board and tell theists that they live under a delusion, you'd better develop a thicker skin.
Topic's author
#134
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ethang5
Then an experiment on your car would not be trying to prove a negative.
Well, as it happened, the manufacturers of my last car did an experiment on the emission control which proved very negative for them since it cost them $4.3 billion in fines. It was an Audi.

#135
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
Thanks, but I like to stay on topic.

Maybe Seth will go with you on your little Audi  hidey hole detour.
#136
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
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
That isn't even close to claiming that "scientific experiments have proven Christian prayer ineffective." I know words aren't like super important to you or anything, but they're kind of key in a written communication format. This post asserts (either correctly or incorrectly, I don't care as this person's posts are almost all pointless nonsense anyway) that you've conceded prayer is ineffective. Do you have any links to anyone, either on this forum or in the scientific community, actually saying "Scientific experiments LIKE THE ONE LINKED HERE have proven definitively that Christian prayer is ineffective?" Because without this substantiation, you're once again arguing against a position no one's taking. This is a straw man by definition. 

A valid scientific experiment would not assume anything. This has already been addressed. Please, give the, "does God exist?" drone a rest.
We agree, valid scientific experiments assume nothing, they form a hypothesis and then test against it, but there's literally no reason you cannot do a valid scientific experiment that deals with "does intercessory prayer effect outcomes in an observable way.". I have made no inroads into the assertion "does god exist" because that's a step further back, like when you figure out if intercessory prayers are effective or not, once you figure that out, you can start trying to test for what heard and answered them if anything. I have given you two experiments already that do not assume any specific deity, and do not aim to prove any existence of deities, merely to see if intercessory prayer has an effect on the world. For all we know, the prayers may be effective, but if they are, our next experiment then needs to rule out "collective telekinetic effect" or something before we move on to "And was it Jesus or Vishnu that helped here." You can absolutely study the impact of intercessory prayer, you can do it with control groups, you can do double blinds, I don't get it, why do you think you CAN'T? THere's no connection to any specific deity in the question posed. You don't need to assume any exist, either. For all you know, collective intercessory prayer may change the behavior of those engaging in it in such a way that a real world outcome is affected. What it can't prove is what you don't want to talk about, but no one is claiming that, either. Well, maybe Salixes, but I skip most of the bickering between you and him, but I doubt it's in there addressed in any way. 
#137
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
Several years ago a comprehensive study was done in the UK using 40,000 to determine the difference of prayer and non-prayer for the same situations.

It was found that there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes.
Salixes, Post #26, This thread.

you're once again arguing against a position no one's taking. This is a straw man by definition. 
That Old Sal is made of straw is something we all already knew.

there's literally no reason you cannot do a valid scientific experiment that deals with "does intercessory prayer effect outcomes in an observable way."
But your test must make sense given the claims of who is being tested! For example, Christians say God doesn't honor prayers made for selfish reasons, thus, an experiment that allows subject to send selfish prayers cannot be used to conclude that prayers are not answered. The experiment must make sense withing the christian narrative if it is going to make conclusions about that narrative.

You can absolutely study the impact of intercessory prayer, you can do it with control groups, you can do double blinds, I don't get it, why do you think you CAN'T?
You can, but it cannot be done scientifically. Christianity doesn't agree that ANY prayer is acceptable. Placing puppies in a sack and having a kid pray that it not die is certainly not an acceptable prayer in Christianity.

But if you think there is an experiment on prayer that we can draw valid scientific data from is possible, keep trying to fashion one. I'd love to see it.

Though the experiment need not assume God, the test subjects do. Thus, Joe Christian is going to dispute the results of the test because he'll say, "The one I was praying to, knew it was an experiment, and that skewed the results." What would be the experiments response to that?

I can give you an experiment that has nothing to do with God to show you the problems with prayer experiments.

Say we wanted to test you, a single, heterosexual adult, on what race of girl you were most attracted to.

The best way would be a double blind test, where neither you or the girls know an experiment is going on. We could simply secretly observe you in your natural element and note how many times you approached girls and what race she was.

There are problems with such a test, but it could yield valid information.

Or we could hire 10 girls each of African, Chinese, and European descent and have them solicit you, and then note how many times each race was successful in getting you interested enough to date.

There are problems even with this test, but it could yield valid information.

Now what if, you knew that the girls had been hired to test you in an experiment? Could the results be trustworthy?

You could like only white girls, but because you don't want to appear bigoted, respond positively to a few Chinese and African girls to skew the results.

You could pick only white and Chinese girls because you're terrified to let it be known that you like only black girls.

You could reject every girl because you know their come on's are not genuine.

You could accept every girl hoping to get lucky with some of them.

It is impossible to conduct an experiment like this where the test subject is aware that an experiment is being conducted. 

Or, instead of girls, we could use guys. But unless you are bi or homosexual, the test will reveal nothing about your preferences. The test must make sense given your sexuality. Prayer tests that allow any prayer are like preferences tests that allow any gender. The results will be unreliable.

The only atheists who use prayer tests  as "proof" of the ineffectiveness of prayer are either dumb ones who have no clue what the scientific method is, or dishonest ones trying to fool the dumb ones.
#138
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,215
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
A prayer is like ummm, blowing out the candles on your birthday cake and making a wish. 
Same.
Same. 

 

#139
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Seth
The only unsupported assertion in these discussions is the assertion that gods exist, that is all gods.

Is this how you begin a conversation in the religion forum? why not ASK how Theism CAN be supported or how I arrived at my beliefs? wouldn't that be a bit more intelligent? this forum is already rife with unintelligent posts we don't need anymore really I'd like to see the standards raised here not lowered.
I was actually excited to see a new name in my notifications until I read your reply :(

#140
Deb-8-a-bull
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,215
3
2
3
Deb-8-a-bull's avatar
Deb-8-a-bull
3
2
3
Prayer like ummmmm. Star light star bright first star you see at night.  

Prayer Its like ummmm ,  Flicking a buck in a wishing well. 



#141
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
Several years ago a comprehensive study was done in the UK using 40,000 to determine the difference of prayer and non-prayer for the same situations.

It was found that there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes.
Salixes, Post #26, This thread.

you're once again arguing against a position no one's taking. This is a straw man by definition. 
The position here in the quote you've provided is not that Christian prayer is ineffective. It's that prayer does not show a discernible outcome on the situation. This is, once again, not a claim that Christian prayer is ineffective. IT's right there in the words that you quoted. 


But your test must make sense given the claims of who is being tested! For example, Christians say God doesn't honor prayers made for selfish reasons, thus, an experiment that allows subject to send selfish prayers cannot be used to conclude that prayers are not answered. The experiment must make sense withing the christian narrative if it is going to make conclusions about that narrative.


THe test is only about prayer, and only about intercessory prayer. It's not about any given narrative, that makes no difference at all, and the person being tested, their claims are meaningless to the science of the experiment. It's prayer being tested, not the person, not the narrative. 

Christianity doesn't agree that ANY prayer is acceptable. Placing puppies in a sack and having a kid pray that it not die is certainly not an acceptable prayer in Christianity.
This is pointless, because the experiment I designed isn't about Christianity. It's about prayer efficacy. How do you know that's not an acceptable prayer, though, exactly? Is it selfish to pray that an innocent puppy is spared from intentional drowning somehow?  Where is this spelled out in the bible? I don't need to re-invent the wheel, scientifically valid experiments have been conducted on the efficacy of intercessory prayer and have shown inconclusive results, repeatedly, regardless of the narrative. 

Thus, Joe Christian is going to dispute the results of the test because he'll say, "The one I was praying to, knew it was an experiment, and that skewed the results." What would be the experiments response to that?

This presumes the prayer appears unanswered or ignored to Joe Christian. The response would be "the prayer appears unanswered." That's all you're testing for. THe more interesting question is if the prayer appears answered, and Joe CHristian, Muhammad Muslim and Hari Hindu all take credit for the prayer being answered, how do you experiment to decide which one is correct? You seem hesitant to approach it from this angle. In this case, the experiment says "Prayer appears to be answered, three test subject claim their chosen deity is the reason. Need more data," which then leads to the next experiment. This is how science works. 


The best way would be a double blind test, where neither you or the girls know an experiment is going on. We could simply secretly observe you in your natural element and note how many times you approached girls and what race she was.

Agree, this is the best way to do it, but you'd have to do it repeatedly in order to filter for chance or error. And you'd have to observe brain patterns or physiological responses, not my verbal report, because you're testing for a specific measured response. 

Now what if, you knew that the girls had been hired to test you in an experiment? Could the results be trustworthy?
No, as this is no longer a double blind experiment, in fact it's a no blind experiment, which is very difficult to garner valid data from, but that's why you wouldn't use such a format to test for the efficacy of intercessory prayer. But how does this translate to the effect of intercessory prayer to unspecified deity? Are you saying some gods spitefully deny the petitions, even if they're entirely altruistic and otherwise within the guidelines of 'acceptable prayer' (which you'd have to lay out in detail, as you might lay out in detail exactly how to pray, word for word, for the experiment, to make sure everyone is praying exactly the same thing), because they know they're being tested? First of all, how would you know that? Are they all that way, the deities being prayed to? 


Prayer tests that allow any prayer are like preferences tests that allow any gender. 
Intercessory prayer. It's pretty common among the faithful of any stripe. Not "any prayer." 
#142
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@Seth
Obviously. Because the scientific method only applies to reality.

AND, spirituality as a method of study and observation applies to reality as well. Two methods of study that apply to two different natures of our experience. Science is restricted to what is observed only in the natural physical world, spirituality reaches where science in unable to reach. If you wish to cling to only one limited study and disregard the other then most likely you will remain ignorant of the full scope of experience and the world around you. 

Science-
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
a particular branch of knowledge.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation

Spirituality-
systematic knowledge of the non-physical or non-material (spiritual) world through observation and experimentation.
a particular branch of knowledge.
a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
the systematic study of the nature and behaviour of that which transcends the physical sense perceptions based on observation

#143
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@EtrnlVw
Spirituality-
systematic knowledge of the non-physical or non-material (spiritual) world through observation and experimentation.

Please advise the experimentation done on the non-physical, non-material world that would make this even close to analogous to science. Where are these definitions from, by the way? 
#144
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@ethang5
Thank you for validating my claim. It's a wonder that it isn't obvious to the other atheists on the thread.
Please don't lie about what I've said.
Going off topic isn't, but would still advise you to refrain from doing it.
Correcting you for quote mining is a valid exercise, quote mining is lying.

I know. Prayer exists, and you said the scientific method only works on things that exist.
I said no such thing. Please don't lie about what I've said.
But I know your type. You will sacrifice your common sense for a cheap dig at Christianity.
You know nothing about me but you certainly come across as arrogant and as is usual I can see no reason for it.
Lol. I'm a deluded theist who believes in what is not real, is not an insult, but my  comment that your calling prayer "not reality" lacks common sense is an insult?
I've said no such thing. Please don't lie about what I've said.

You are always free to report anything you like. But if you're used to Christians who "turn the other cheek" to your rude condescension, you're going to love me.
It would seem that my assessment was accurate.

Of you're going to stride into a thread on a religion board and tell theists that they live under a delusion, you'd better develop a thicker skin.
I've done no such thing. Please don't lie about what I've said.
#145
EtrnlVw
EtrnlVw's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,869
3
3
5
EtrnlVw's avatar
EtrnlVw
3
3
5
-->
@ludofl3x
Please advise the experimentation done on the non-physical, non-material world that would make this even close to analogous to science.

This would fall into the arena of religion of course, though it can be a collective ideology it's mostly an individual observation and experimentation. In line with what I was saying about prayer earlier in this thread.

Where are these definitions from, by the way?

That is my interpretation of what spirituality entails and its function. I was making a point in that spirituality is the method of study of that particular nature, as opposed to say science which is limited to the natural physical world and its observations.

#146
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
The position here in the quote you've provided is not that Christian prayer is ineffective.
That is exactly what Sal means when he says "It was found that there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes."

It's that prayer does not show a discernible outcome on the situation. This is, once again, not a claim that Christian prayer is ineffective.
That is exactly what it claims by saying there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes.

It's prayer being tested, not the person, not the narrative. 
No sir. For example, the bible says only the prayers of Christians are heard. If your experiment uses non-christians to pray, the results can say nothing credible about Christian prayer.

The narrative does make a difference. It always does in experiments.

...the experiment I designed isn't about Christianity. It's about prayer efficacy. 
This is like saying, "the experiment I designed isn't about medicine, It's about  drug efficacy." The type of medicine matters. Simply using any medicine will not be a valid test of drug efficacy.

How do you know that's not an acceptable prayer, though, exactly?
The bible lays out what are acceptable prayers and whys of acceptability.

Is it selfish to pray that an innocent puppy is spared from intentional drowning somehow?
The bible says God should not be tested. Threatening to drown the puppy to goad God into saving it is a test. One which God would be pre-aware of.

scientifically valid experiments have been conducted on the efficacy of intercessory prayer and have shown inconclusive results, repeatedly, regardless of the narrative.
Cite one then.

The response would be "the prayer appears unanswered." That's all you're testing for. 
Sure, but Joe is claiming the whole test was skewed, not just that one prayer wasn't answered, thus the results are untrustworthy. That my be why the prayer appears to be unanswered.

You seem hesitant to approach it from this angle. 
Because it doesn't make sense. Each religion has its own narrative that makes some things in the other nonsense. There can be no test for all of them at once. The experiment would be unscientific.

This is how science works. 
It's interesting then that you cannot cite such an experiment.

Now what if, you knew that the girls had been hired to test you in an experiment? Could the results be trustworthy?

No,
Thank you. If your test subject is God, the results of the experiment cannot be trustworthy as this is no longer a double blind experiment, in fact it's a no blind experiment, which is very difficult to garner valid data from, but that's why I'm the one saying that you wouldn't use such a format to test for the efficacy of intercessory prayer. Remember  I'm trying to show you why such an experiment wouldn't work.

But how does this translate to the effect of intercessory prayer to unspecified deity?
If the deity is omniscient, he will know about the experiment and that will skew the results.

Are you saying some gods spitefully deny the petitions, even if they're entirely altruistic and otherwise within the guidelines of 'acceptable prayer'...
Doesn't matter. As soon as the test subject becomes aware that he is in a test, the results become untrustworthy.

Are they all that way, the deities being prayed to? 
My argument applies only to Christian prayer. Different religions may have different results.

Intercessory prayer. It's pretty common among the faithful of any stripe. Not "any prayer." 
In Christianity, only certain kinds of Intercessory prayers are acceptable.

But I think you're starting to see how difficult it would to fashion a scientifically valid experiment on the efficacy of  Christian prayer.
#147
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,071
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
It's that prayer does not show a discernible outcome on the situation. This is, once again, not a claim that Christian prayer is ineffective.
That is exactly what it claims by saying there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes.

That isn't what it says at all, so how you decide definitively that's what it actually means is questionable at best. No one claimed that, your opinion not withstanding, because the words are the words. I have no reason to believe that the original poster said this and instead mean science disproved whatever whatever, because those words would be there instead if that's what he meant. 

No sir. For example, the bible says only the prayers of Christians are heard. If your experiment uses non-christians to pray, the results can say nothing credible about Christian prayer.

The narrative does make a difference. It always does in experiments.
That's if  you're testing Christianity. I'm testing prayers. Don't get into your "does god even exist!" question, you already said you're bored by that question. 


scientifically valid experiments have been conducted on the efficacy of intercessory prayer and have shown inconclusive results, repeatedly, regardless of the narrative.
Cite one then.

Each religion has its own narrative that makes some things in the other nonsense. There can be no test for all of them at once. The experiment would be unscientific.

We're not testing religion, remember? We're testing the efficacy of intercessory prayer. JUST PRAYER. 


 If your test subject is God, 

It isn't, it's intercessory prayer.  

The bible says God should not be tested. Threatening to drown the puppy to goad God into saving it is a test. One which God would be pre-aware of.
I'm not testing God. I'm testing intercessory prayer. 

As soon as the test subject becomes aware that he is in a test, the results become untrustworthy.
As soon as the PRAYER becomes aware it's in a test? BEcause that's the subject of the test. There is no direct reference to any specific God, it's just testing if prayer is efficacious. Please try to keep up. 

My argument applies only to Christian prayer. Different religions may have different results.
So different religions' prayers may have different results than Christian prayers, you're saying? So let's say the puppy escapes, and you're pretty sure the god you're talking about, the CHristian god, would have let it drown because it knows you're testing it. But the puppy escapes! So now, someone's prayers WERE answered, but you'd have to say "Well, that's weird, because the one I know about would not grant that prayer, but SOMEONE must have. Hm..." Right? Or do you make some excuse where it's either he was feeling magnanimous rahter than spiteful, duh, and that's why he really is the one who interceded? Notes and questions like that would only lead to the next experiment, and WHAM! You're accidentally doing science for a change!

In Christianity, only certain kinds of Intercessory prayers are acceptable.

We're not testing for Christian prayer efficacy. JUST PRAYER. Then if some are answered, we can start down other paths. 

ut I think you're starting to see how difficult it would to fashion a scientifically valid experiment on the efficacy of  Christian prayer.
Except it's not difficult at all. What's difficult is demonstrating there's any real reason to participate in it. But again, I'm not testing Christian prayer. Just intercessory prayers. My turn for a question, which, get your dancing shoes on: what happens if the prayer appears answered? What then would you do? You only seem concerned with asserting that unanswered prayers are somehow scientifically invalid even though you claim they're heard. Try the other way. What happens if the prayer is answered. Commence your apopleptic fit in three...two...
Topic's author
#148
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@ethang5
Thanks, but I like to stay on topic.
Maybe Seth will go with you on your little Audi  hidey hole detour.
That car no longer exists after some dumb blonde rear-ended it whilst texting and under the influence (it was probably placebos).


#149
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@ludofl3x
That isn't what it says at all...
Sorry, it is. You started out denying that the OP referenced a scientific experiment. When I quoted him, you now jump to this weird denial. If the OP says of his prayer experiment, that, there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes, he means prayer is not effective.

I have no reason to believe that the original poster said this...
I posted multiple quotes and cited the post number in this thread.

We're not testing religion, remember? We're testing the efficacy of intercessory prayer. JUST PRAYER.
Prayer outside a religion makes no sense. And prayers are directed at someone. You are testing if that person responds to prayer.

As soon as the PRAYER becomes aware it's in a test?
As soon as the one prayer is directed to becomes aware.

Because that's the subject of the test.
No, the subject is the one who is supposed to respond to prayer, either validating prayer or invalidating it.

There is no direct reference to any specific God...
There doesn't have to be. The validity of the test depends on whom the prayers are directed to. If your prayers are directed to a lizard, the sun, a totem pole, or a man, you will get certain results. And if whom your prayers are directed to is aware of it being a test, the results will be garbage.

We're not testing for Christian prayer efficacy. JUST PRAYER. Then if some are answered, we can start down other paths. 
Lol. Why do you need answers if you're only testing prayer? Are you testing chance? Will someone ambling by just happen to answer a prayer?

Prayers are directed. Thus, prayers have to be tested based on whom they are directed to. Anything else is not scientific methodology.

What's difficult is demonstrating there's any real reason to participate in it.
Real reasons for scientific experiments escape you huh?

what happens if the prayer appears answered? What then would you do?
Nothing. Because the test did not follow the scientific method, the results will be garbage, and we will not be able to differentiate the results from pure chance or deliberate interference.

You only seem concerned with asserting that unanswered prayers are somehow scientifically invalid even though you claim they're heard.
I did not say this. I said the entire experiment is invalid if it does not follow scientific methodology.

Whether prayers are heard or not is immaterial. The test is to find out if the one the prayer is directed to responds to the prayers, not simply if he hears.

If the experiment doesn't specify whom the prayers are directed to, how will we know who it is that responds if there is a response?

If the experiment doesn't specify what is an acceptable response, how will we tell a response from blind chance?

If the one the prayers are directed to knows it is a test, how will we know He didn't skew the results?

Of course you can dispense with science methodology altogether, but while that makes your test easy as oil, it also makes the results unscientific. In a word, garbage.

What happens if the prayer is answered.
The Christian will say it was answered by Jehovah. The Muslim will said it was answered by Allah, the atheist will say it was coincidence, and the militant atheist will say it was blind chance.

And everyone will immediately see the stupidity of such an experiment and the value of the scientific method.

Commence your apopleptic fit in three...two...
The one arguing in favor of the scientific method is the one being called apoplectic. Funny.

Did you like my dancing shoes?
#150
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Salixes
Thanks, but I like to stay on topic.
Maybe Seth will go with you on your little Audi  hidey hole detour.

That car....
Sorry. The points you're dodging will be still here after you tire of hiding behind your car.

The efficacy Prayer has not been invalidated by any scientific tests. Hide, but this will still be true when you spam this thread once again.