-->
@Salixes
P.M.A. is good.
So if that includes prayer then.
Praying is good too.
Does Prayer Work?
Posts
Read-only
Total:
304
-->
@ethang5
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.
Oh, so that's what you're chundering on about. Let's address that silly little point and put it to rest, shall we?
I totally go along with you on that statement, so there you go, we agree.
"Oh, hark", I hear thee cry. "Why speaketh thou such a profundity"?
Good question since the reason why the efficacy of prayer has not been invalidated by any scientific tests is that one cannot invalidate something that wasn't even validated in the first place.
Scientist 1: Hey like, what are we going to test today?
Scientist 2: Yeah right, well it says on the chart here that we are going to invalidate something.
Scientist 1: Oh, okay, like what are we going to invalidate?
Scientist 2: Ahhhh, let's see, I don't know because whatever it is has not been validated in the first place.
Scientist 1: Well, let's not muck around. Just tick it off and we'll move to the next item. What are we going to test next?
Scientist 2: Placebos.
-->
@zedvictor4
P.M.A. is good.
No way Jose.
You want to lay off that stuff, it is so bad-arsed and will screw your life up completely.
It's nearly as bad as religion.
-->
@Salixes
Oh, so that's what you're chundering on about.
Hiding behind the car got uncomfortable huh?
the reason why the efficacy of prayer has not been invalidated by any scientific tests is..
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.
...that one cannot invalidate something that wasn't even validated in the first place.
Thanks for finally admitting your claim was wrong. You ran, you dodged, as predicted, but in the end, you had to quit hiding and stop pretending.
Now its clear that the only reason you think prayer is ineffective is because of your irrational bias.
Your lame humor is as ineffective a hiding place as your car.
Which is why many religious adherents are the people doing the praying, this way we can see if it works. You mean testing outside YOUR religion because you think they others are bunk. Just say that then, and you can move further into your misunderstanding of the scientific method. I'm not testing it a person responds to prayer, read the experiment again. I'm testing if prayer is effective. You make this same mistake, over and over again, it's like Sideshow Bob with the rakes, it's funny, then it's sad, then it's funny gain. Maybe review my experiment's description again.Prayer outside a religion makes no sense. And prayers are directed at someone. You are testing if that person responds to prayer.
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.
Only if the test aims to test if a single entity is responding to the prayers. And the experiment doesn't say pray to the sun. It says pray to the god dictated by your religion. This is already the third time in one post you're missing this point. All you're doing is basically carpet praying for a change in outcome. If the outcome changes, you have to do a different experiment to narrow down WHY the outcome changed. This is where you claim you cannot design an experiment or use the scientific method: figuring out if any gods exist. That is a fundamentally different question than is prayer effective. Please, please stay away from science, you're so bad at it. c
The test is to find out if the one the prayer is directed to responds to the prayers, not simply if he hears.
No, the test is "is prayer effective at changing outcomes in the real world." And it follows the scientific method. And the results will be at best inconclusive. That doesn't mean it's not scientific.
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?
That's a different experiment. First we need to confirm that prayer is effective. I keep telling you this because you are impenetrably obtuse about it.
If the experiment doesn't specify what is an acceptable response, how will we tell a response from blind chance?
THis is why you sew a puppy into a bag and throw it into a pool. The only way for the puppy to get out would seem to be against the natural order of events: a miracle. People often pray for things that will happen in many cases regardless of prayer: make my team win, let me get better from this cold, let there be a movie on Netflix I want to watch. The only way to filter for this (and to take out confirmation bias) is to ensure that what you're praying for could not have happened in any other way. So, you throw it int a pool because a pool is a controlled environment, no rocks, no other animals, nothing. Just the puppy, prayer, and the threat of drowning.
If the one the prayers are directed to knows it is a test, how will we know He didn't skew the results?
Aaaaaaand you'r back to completely misunderstanding both science and the experiment. First you'd have to be able to tell who's receiving the prayer. In order to do that, you'd have to do more experiments ONCE YOU HAVE AN ANSWERED PRAYER. Without an answered prayer, at best, you can say "prayer is ineffective according to the results." It's only when you can confirm that you have an answered prayer, one that has an impact on real world outcomes, that you can go into "Now, which one of these five religious systems likely produced the result?" Except now you need five more puppies.
and the militant atheist will say it was blind chance.
THere is no atheist in the experiment I designed because they don't pray. They jump in the water and save the puppy because who else is going to do it.
And everyone will immediately see the stupidity of such an experiment and the value of the scientific method.
Well, everyone but you apparently, who can't figure out how to do this at all.
-->
@ethang5
You have failed to respond to post 144. Can you respond?
Does Prayer Work?
The answer is NO.
-->
@ludofl3x
Which is why many religious adherents are the people doing the praying, this way we can see if it works.
Makes sense, but we must make separate experiments for each entity being prayed to so that the results are not cross contaminated.
You mean testing outside YOUR religion because you think they others are bunk.
But that isn't why I said it. You said you were testing prayer and not religion. Prayer outside of ANY religion is illogical.
I'm not testing if a person responds to prayer, read the experiment again. I'm testing if prayer is effective.
And prayer is effective only if the one being prayed to responds. Be honest man.
Maybe review my experiment's description again.
Your "experiment" is illogical nonsense. Whatever you think is the scientific method, is not.
It says pray to the god dictated by your religion. This is already the third time in one post you're missing this point.
Maybe because you keep contradicting yourself. You said your test didn't mention God.
Please, please stay away from science, you're so bad at it.
Lol. OK Einstein. The puppies in a sack was great science.
And the results will be at best inconclusive. That doesn't mean it's not scientific.
The results of your test can only be inconclusive, and I did not say the test was not scientific, I said it did not follow scientific methodology for experimentation.
I keep telling you this because you are impenetrably obtuse about it.
And I keep telling you that your test will not (cannot) find out if prayer is effective no matter your results, the test results are unreliable if the test itself is bogus. If the experiment doesn't follow the scientific method, the results are trash.
This is why scientists include in their white papers a detailed explanation of the methodology used in every experiment.
...you'd have to do more experiments ONCE YOU HAVE AN ANSWERED PRAYER.
Your experiment cannot give you an "answered" prayer. Your experiment has no way to tell the difference between an answered prayer and pure chance, and skewed results. Your experiment can only give you unusable garbage.
It's only when you can confirm that you have an answered prayer, one that has an impact on real world outcomes,...
Your experiment cannot give you that. It cannot give you any reliable data about the real world. It is flawed.
There is no atheist in the experiment I designed because they don't pray.
An atheist can review the results. If he says it was blind chance, how would you counter?
They jump in the water and save the puppy because who else is going to do it.
Who threw the puppy into the water? And the theist would say, "God used the atheist to answer my prayer and save the puppy."
Well, everyone but you apparently, who can't figure out how to do this at all.
Not in a way that conforms to the scientific method anyway. It's clear to me that you don't know what scientific methodology is for experiments, and you will only see my telling you this as an insult.
So we can agree to disagree.
-->
@Seth
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.
Ethan doesn't lie. The board keeps a record of what you said.
Correcting you for quote mining is a valid exercise, quote mining is lying.
Your delusion doesn't interest me.
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.
You said,
...the scientific method only applies to reality.
How is that different?
But I know your type. You will sacrifice your common sense for a cheap dig at Christianity.
You know nothing about me
I know your posts. I know you're reckless enough to come to a religion board and make claims you cannot defend.
...but you certainly come across as arrogant and as is usual I can see no reason for it.
Your perception is wholly in your head, and it doesn't interest me.
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.
Right. Only theists barbs are insults. The ones you send out is just poetry.
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.
Its called confirmation bias.
If 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.
Wake up homer. The board keeps a record of what you say.
Pay attention to what you say. Words have meanings and implications.
-->
@ethang5
"Mr. Out of Context" does it again.Thanks for finally admitting your claim was wrong.
I admitted no such thing and in fact validated the claim:
Prayer does not wok.
Oh, I suppose you are going to run with your baited pretext of the survey being scientific, are you?
Once a cheapskate always a cheapskate, I always say.
Just keep making those cheap shots.
-->
@Salixes
I admitted no such thing...
"I totally go along with you on that statement, so there you go, we agree."
-Salixes, post #152
...baited pretext of the survey being scientific..
You brought up experiments homer. I didn't.
Just keep making those cheap shots.
I'll leave that to you and your loony threads. You can continue your cheap shots at Christianity in a few days.
What did you rationalize? Oh yeah, you're exposing Christianity to save the dumb gullible masses because only you escaped being swindled and now know the truth.
"Here he comes to save the daaaay!!"
Lol.
You brought up experiments homer. I didn't.
You did.
I responded.
How long do you want to keep this nonsense going or are we finally going to move onto placebos?
-->
@Salixes
You brought up experiments homer. I didn't.
You did.
You lie.
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. - Salixes, Post #26
You brought up experiments ponnochio.
And now you've admitted that they do not invalidate prayer. Trained pro baby.
How long do you want to keep this nonsense going
I can understand why beating you in argument seems like nonsense to you.
..or are we finally going to move onto placebos?
I bet your compulsion to make a long thread on placebos is killing you.
Make any comment you want Sal. Lord knows your Prayer Doesn't Work assertion is dead.
I think we need to first look into.
Does A group prayer work ?
I can't imagine A ( single person prayer ) working, but i think i can see a ( Church full of people prayer ) going out.
Picture a single person prayer traveling up to god.
If i was to have it a guess , I'd say that the average one man prayer travels up to god in like a coin sized blob.
Soooo A 100 person group prayer has to be what? Like a 136 coins big prayer blob.
I think.
A 1 coin sized prayer blob could be easily missed.
A 122 coin prayer blob does not get by unnoticed.
I don't know.
-->
@ethang5
I've given you enough warning about belittling, abusing and misquoting and other members have also dobbed you in for the same.And now you've admitted that they do not invalidate prayer. Trained pro baby.
I think you are going way overboard and should reign yourself in.
It's one thing to make a jab at someone but to keep on with that constant, horrible, blatant misquoting is just not kosher at all
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
I think we need to first look into.Does A group prayer work ?
You know the old saying?....
When one person closes his eyes and talks to an imaginary friend, it's called delusion.
When you get a bunch of people together with their eyes closed talking to an imaginary friend it's called religion.
-->
@ethang5
Your experiment cannot give you an "answered" prayer. Your experiment has no way to tell the difference between an answered prayer and pure chance, and skewed results.
This is why you use the puppy in the sack, in a pool. The only way out of the sack is a miracle, and then, you'd know you had an answered prayer. Then you could set up your next experiment, to find out which god answered the prayer. You missed this part, apparently. What exactly is your objection to this?
It cannot give you any reliable data about the real world. It is flawed.
Where is it flawed, exactly? I'll draw it out for you again so you don't have to go back, and I'll add what you seem so concerned about.
- HYPOTHESIS: Intercessory prayer effects outcomes in the real world.
- EXPERIMENT: Gather five children between the ages of 6 and 10, who are adherents of different and mutually exclusive religions. For example, one Chrisitan, one Scientoloigist, one Hindu, one Muslim, one Greek Pantheist. As a group, let them spend time with a puppy, four or five hours per day, enough to form a bond. After one month, take the children and the puppy to a pool. Sew the puppy into a burlap sack with a brick, sealed so it cannot escape, and tell the children you're going to throw the puppy in the sack into the pool. Have the children pray to their specific god for the puppy to survive. Throw the sack into the pool. Observe the results.
Where is the flaw? Where's your objection?
An atheist can review the results. If he says it was blind chance, how would you counter?
"How do you conclude it's blind chance if the seal on the bag is intact and the bag remains underwater?"
-->
@ludofl3x
Other than the child abuse aspect of it the experiment seems sound.
The christians have an out though. You shall not test your god.
The people who invented their particular god were as cunning as shithouse rats.
-->
@Salixes
When one person closes his mind, and talks to imaginary folks, it's called delusion too!
And when he does it over and over for more than six years, its called compulsive delusion.
-->
@ethang5
-1
Thats weak.
Come on thang make him pay for his opinion....
I suggest you pull ya head in, this ain't no cattle train.
-->
@Salixes
P.M.A. is proven to benefit well being. This is a physiological certainty and nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
Nonetheless, if prayer promotes P.M.A. and induces a sense of well being, then all to the good.
One isn't suggesting that if you pray to a god for a box of chocolates. UPS will be popping round next day with a fine Belgian selection.
Yum Yum.
-->
@ludofl3x
No you wouldn't. As you said, some kind hearted atheist could have jumped in and pulled them out.This is why you use the puppy in the sack, in a pool. The only way out of the sack is a miracle, and then, you'd know you had an answered prayer.
Someone could have sabotaged the test with bags the puppies can escape.
By chance there could have been divers under the water where you threw the puppies who set them free.
Your experiment doesn't plan for any of these chance things.
Then you could set up your next experiment, to find out which god answered the prayer. You missed this part, apparently.
You keep saying I missed this part. I didn't. Your experiment cannot tell you if any prayer was answered. All the puppies dying could be God answering all the prayers with a "no". You have no way of differentiating that from a non answer.
Some or all of the puppies surviving does not mean a miracle either. Would you believe it was a miracle if someone told you about such an experiment and puppies surviving? No, you would simply assume there is an unknown factor in the process.
Where is the flaw? Where's your objection?
I keep telling you, but you keep ignoring it.
Prayer can only be tested on what the people who pray say about prayer.
Consider this. Let's say there is a religion that teaches that God doesn't answer any prayer on Mondays. You may conduct your test on Monday, but the people being tested will simply say, "Of course your results showed no prayer answered, God doesn't answer prayer on Mondays!"
To test their claim, you must test THEIR CLAIM about prayer. Just putting a bunch of theists together and having them mouth prayers gives you garbage results.
And even when you get a result that coincides with an answered prayer, you have no way of ruling out some other circumstance, like chance or sabotage.
And why cause the kids to bond with the puppies first? Unless you think more fervent prayers will affect the one they pray to, it is pointless. But if you think more fervent prayer may affect the one being prayed to, then so may knowledge that a test is being conducted.
The experiment doesn't have to mention God, but He is still the one being prayed to and Christianity says God is omniscient.
You cannot depend on any results you get on prayers to an omniscient being. Blind tests cannot be done on Him. And it doesn't matter whether your experiment acknowledges Him or not.
A test on whether prayer "works", is a test on the one being prayed to. This is an inescapable fact.
Your experiment doesn't even address pertinent things concerning scientific methodology.
*Will the kids know of each other?
*How long will they be given to pray?
*If a puppy is retrieved dead but is revived through CPR, will that count as an answered prayer or not?
*If all the bags were found to be sliced open as with a knife, and all puppies survived, would that count as all prayers answered or sabotage?
Please read up on the scientific method. There is a reason no reputable scientists have ever done any prayer experiments.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
-1Thats weak.
Lol. What, you've joined a website judging group?
Do you guys sing too?
-->
@zedvictor4
But that is exactly what ol' Sal bases an "answer" on in his test.One isn't suggesting that if you pray to a god for a box of chocolates. UPS will be popping round next day with a fine Belgian selection.
-->
@ethang5
Yep.
We all know what Ol' Sal bases just about every argument upon.
Prayer can be positive though.....Wouldn't you agree?
-->
@zedvictor4
Certainly.
And not just religious prayer, but meditation, mindfulness, and general self-awareness.
-->
@ethang5
No you wouldn't. As you said, some kind hearted atheist could have jumped in and pulled them out.Someone could have sabotaged the test with bags the puppies can escape.By chance there could have been divers under the water where you threw the puppies who set them free.Your experiment doesn't plan for any of these chance things.
THese are not "chance" things. The environment obviously would be controlled. No experiment "plans" for sabotage, though most check for it. Also, you note that the step "OBSERVE." Do you really not understand this?
Your experiment cannot tell you if any prayer was answered. All the puppies dying could be God answering all the prayers with a "no". You have no way of differentiating that from a non answer.
All the puppies dying would lead you to the "results of intercessory prayer do not appear to have an affect on real world outcomes," which would then lead you to re-try to the experiment. "No" and "ignored" and "unheard" would all look exactly the same, you're right, but that wouldn't mean you somehow departed from the scientific method by default, or that your result was unscientific. In a similar way, if the puppy miraculously surivies, you know, without sabotage, because it's a controlled scientific experiment, we can say "what the children prayed for happened, and observation reveals no tampering or observable influence on the experiment, therfore however this puppy survived seems to be outside the natrual order of things. Prayer must be included as the leading factor for the puppy's survival."
Prayer can only be tested on what the people who pray say about prayer
This is not remotely true.
Consider this. Let's say there is a religion that teaches that God doesn't answer any prayer on Mondays.
This is controllable in two different ways: don't include this religion in your initial experiment, or don't do the test on Monday. Problem solved. THere are many religions that say "If you ask it in my name, it'll be yours," right?
To test their claim, you must test THEIR CLAIM about prayer.
Maybe in some other experiment, but you are only testing for the efficacy of intercessory prayer in general. You don't need someone's opinion to know if a dog died.
And even when you get a result that coincides with an answered prayer, you have no way of ruling out some other circumstance, like chance or sabotage.
If this is your standard, no scientific experiment would ever be valid. Luckily, we use something called "controlled environments" and "control groups". The rest of your questions are red herring garbage, 'If the puppy is revived by CPR." Come on now. Be a big boy.
-->
@Seth
I'm not saying it's a moral experiment, but it's certainly sound scientifically. And I'm not testing for the Chrisitan god, that's a subsequent experiment. The "god doesn't like tobe tested" then raises the question "isn't every prayer of petition a test of god?" Would "save my child from leukemia" be testing god? Why not, right?
-->
@ludofl3x
I still think that this all takes a rather narrow and limited view of even intercessory prayer. Within a religious understanding, there are a variety of possible answers and mechanisms, and even rules about what should be asked for in the first place. Asking whether something "works" while ignoring all the variables which would determine whether the it even qualifies to be tested leads to a stilted view of the results. It just seems silly to try, and impose some external understanding when presenting perceived results.
-->
@rosends
still think that this all takes a rather narrow and limited view of even intercessory prayer. Within a religious understanding, there are a variety of possible answers and mechanisms, and even rules about what should be asked for in the first place. Asking whether something "works" while ignoring all the variables which would determine whether the it even qualifies to be tested leads to a stilted view of the results
This is why you don't test for a specific religious understanding of it at first, you test a variety of intercessory prayers all at once. I'm not sure why you think it's narrow and limted: intercessory prayer is the only kind that seems answerable, certainly the only kind that would be measurable (I asked for X, X did or didn't happen). I'm not asking if prayers of thanks 'work,' what would they even be working at doing?
Why isn't prayer "qualified" to be tested? I'm trying to think of another proposition wherein there should be measurable outcome, but doesn't qualify for testing. Some people think prayer substitutes for medical attention, shouldn't that be something we test? What sort of variables are you talking about sepcifically? PLease don't say the atheist saboteur.