Does Prayer Work?

Author: Salixes

Posts

Read-only
Total: 304
Topic's author
#241
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
which I pointed out that I had not done and that there is a 
"consensus of the posters is that prayer doesn't work"

I really think you are getting a bit tangled up. You actually said:

A consensus would indicate a general agreement and I have not seen one of those on this thread.
To which I pointed to the survey that was quoted.

So, let's get the story straight. Whichever way one chooses to define prayer or do a thesis on the different types of prayer:
Prayer does not work.

Therefore prayer is misleading and dangerous because it gives some people the false hope of some sort of miracle cure in the offing.

#242
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@ludofl3x
Strictly speaking, they're making excuses for why it can't be tested and shown to be effective, and are unable to show why the experiment to which they're objecting is in fact not a scientific experiment.
Which in effect is the same as them making excuses for why prayer doesn't work and claiming that testing prayer won't prove that it does work. If it doesn't work then it doesn't work. There is no third option.

#243
Stephen
Stephen's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8,621
3
2
2
Stephen's avatar
Stephen
3
2
2
-->
@ethang5
I told you this a week ago, ..................
The girls operation has been paid for. 

Stop lying AGAIN, you have only just mentioned (yesterday the 7th  07:13AM ) this little girl HAD HER operation AND ONLY since I started pressing you for more information on her plight EARLIER THAT SAME DAY!!!!! This was the first time you mention her having had her operation.

Added: 03.07.20 06:11PM
--> @Stephen


And what created the defect in this poor little girl that you haven't manged to find a measly $200.00 for?
The child has had the operation jedthro. 


YOU JUST CANNOT HELP YOURSELF , CAN YOU POPOFF!!!!

If you want to persist on this lie of informing me "over a week ago", then simply put up the post from " OVER a week ago" showing me where you said this.

Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock
#244
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
which I pointed out that I had not done and that there is a 
"consensus of the posters is that prayer doesn't work"

I really think you are getting a bit tangled up. You actually said:

A consensus would indicate a general agreement and I have not seen one of those on this thread.
To which I pointed to the survey that was quoted.

Try to follow along -- the claim was that there was a "consensus of posters" not a consensus of anyone else or anywhere else. I said I have not seen one of those "on this thread" as the posters do not all have a general agreement. Pointing to a survey of other people in other contexts is not relevant to what was being said about this thread. No doubt you will claim that "on this thread" relates to a survey you put up which is now part of the thread, but, if you were watching, my comment was about "the posters" and since I and others don't agree, there is no consensus of the posters. Stay focused.

Whichever way one chooses to define prayer or do a thesis on the different types of prayer:
Prayer does not work.

Not only does that remain unproven regarding petitionary prayer, it has been shown to be false when it refers to other modes of prayer.

Therefore prayer is misleading and dangerous because it gives some people the false hope of some sort of miracle cure in the offing.
Now you are back to speaking only of petitionary prayer and jumping to the conclusion of what has not been proven. It really isn't that difficult:

1. Prayer has a variety of goals and forms
2. One goal is petition.
3. Other goals are praise or thanks
4. As the goal of "thanks" is to "say thanks" then just saying thanks means that the prayer accomplished its goal and works to achieve that aim. Same for praise.
5. Intercessory prayer can not be proven as effective or not effective (working or not working) so appealing to it or not is a function of faith, or non-faith.

Separate
1. Posters here are of a variety of opinions regarding prayer, so there is no consensus "of the posters" that prayer does not work.
2. Outside surveys are therefore not relevant to a claim made about posters here, regardless of their conclusions.
3. An outside survey with a proper sample could not conclude as a consensus that prayer does not work because a microcosm of the world population would have to include a chunk of those who subscribe to religion and whose faith tells them that prayer does work.
4. Any outside survey that reached a consensus that prayer does not work would have to have a limited-scope sample and thus not be representative of the overall population.
5. The outside study conducted tried to impose a scientific approach to quantifying the efficacy of prayer, but as has been shown, that attempt is a fool's errand at best. Its conclusions would not present a general consensus of any of those who use prayer (the ones studied) because they USE PRAYER so they must not agree that it does not work. So whom would that be a consensus of?

#245
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Seth
Which in effect is the same as them making excuses for why prayer doesn't work and claiming that testing prayer won't prove that it does work. If it doesn't work then it doesn't work. There is no third option.

Sure there is, and saying that there isn't creates a false binary. You are also creating a false equivalence which you justify with the phrase "in effect". However, that is an interpretive conclusion that you are drawing, not a scientific conclusion that is proven.

Explaining why a prayer did not have the effect that you were looking for in the exact way you were looking for it is not the same as "making excuses why prayer doesn't work." If my child loses a tooth and puts it under the pillow for the tooth fairy, but there isn't a 10 dollar bill the next morning doesn't mean that her faith was misplaced. There might be a bicycle outside that she will discover at another time. Maybe she was a brat yesterday and the tooth fairy decided to teach her a different lesson. Maybe she looked in the wrong spot and there is a 10 dollar bill there. There are plenty of other scenarios. Simply deciding that this means that her request is absolutely ineffective is false.


#246
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@rosends
The tooth fairy doesn't exist, exactly like your god. Thanks for that.
#247
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Seth
No, the tooth fairy's existence and the effectiveness of any appeal to the tooth fairy can't be disproven by that experiment. Thank you for appreciating the subtleties.
Topic's author
#248
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
Try to follow along -- the claim was that there was a "consensus of posters" not a consensus of anyone else or anywhere else. I said I have not seen one of those "on this thread" as the posters do not all have a general agreement. 
Wrong again.
You said:

A consensus would indicate a general agreement and I have not seen one of those on this thread.
"A" is an indefinite article. "Would" indicates a hypothetical.

You did not refer to any specific consensus whatsoever.

I correctly pointed out that there is, in fact, such a consensus on this thread.

You would do well to stop making accusations and personal attacks, especially when they are completely unjustified.
#249
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
You did not refer to any specific consensus whatsoever.
Sure I did -- I responded to a claim about the posters and limited my response (as you quoted) to "on this thread" (post 215, responding to 213). The posting of a survey (which, as noted, does not present any consensus) does not make a consensus "of the posters." Are you now claiming that I did not respond to that specific claim? Or that there IS a consensus of the posters? Or that a study which came to a conclusion presents a consensus of the general population?
Topic's author
#250
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
Maybe she was a brat yesterday and the tooth fairy decided to teach her a different lesson. Maybe she looked in the wrong spot and there is a 10 dollar bill there. There are plenty of other scenarios. Simply deciding that this means that her request is absolutely ineffective is false.


And maybe your method of reasoning revolves around constructing hypotheticals and multiple interpretations in order to deceptively avoid any given argument and never giving a direct argument on any given topic.
Just maybe?
Topic's author
#251
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
Sure I did
Your verbatim evidence that I just presented says otherwise.

Taking part of a quote out of context to contradict an established fact is not allowed under the rules of this site. And for good reason; it is dishonest and deceptive.

Are you going to keep this absurdness up any longer?
#252
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@rosends
If the tooth fairy supplies the $10 why does it come from a human. Your experiment proves the non existence of the tooth fairy and the analogy to your god does you no favours.
#253
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
And maybe your method of reasoning revolves around constructing hypotheticals and multiple interpretations in order to deceptively avoid any given argument and never giving a direct argument on any given topic.
Just maybe?
And maybe arguments are more complex than you want them to be and intelligent people don't conflate, simplify and reduce, but explore a variety of possibilities. This isn't called deception. It is called thinking.
Just maybe.
#254
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Salixes
Taking part of a quote out of context to contradict an established fact is not allowed under the rules of this site. And for good reason; it is dishonest and deceptive.
Please show me where I took part of a quote out of context. Please provide the part and the entire, and explain the context. Remember, part of this is what I said, so I know the context. I also provided references to the posts involved to make it easier for you.
#255
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Seth
If the tooth fairy supplies the $10 why does it come from a human. Your experiment proves the non existence of the tooth fairy and the analogy to your god does you no favours.
You have, again, missed the forest for the trees. The question isn't whether the object of adoration exists, but whether the experiment to test the efficacy of petition can only have two possibilities. You said there was no third option. I showed many other options in an analogous case. I could do the same in the case of prayer -- if the petitioner is "not worthy" then the prayer isn't answered but not because the prayer doesn't "work." If the answer is presented by isn't the one the scientist is looking for, he won't see it, but the prayer "worked." And on and on.

Don't get lost in the "tooth fairy" part, but in the variety of possible variables which create more than 2 possible readings. 

#256
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Salixes
Does prayer work? I contend that by observing the language of the Lord's Prayer [Matt. 6: 9-13], we can evaluate the relative success of prayer.

  9 "After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed by thy name.
10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.
11 Give us this day our daily bread.
12 And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
13 And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen."

Note that Jesus introduced the exercise by saying "After this manner." He did not say, "Only use these words in this order" He desired that we compose our own prayers, not to repeat his prayer. Although as prayers go, this one is very good, and its offering with sincere intent will have beneficial results. "In its manner," Jesus said. What manner is that? It's positive in every respect. It does not say "Might thy kingdom come. Might thy will be done. Maybe give us daily bread. These are the payers of a skeptic. Jesus taught us to pray with conviction. If we pray that God might give us daily bread, He MIGHT give it. Then again, He MIGHT not. God did not make us to be limp biscuits. He made us to be of forthright conviction.

Is that religious mumbo-jumbo? Is that asking for magic in our lives? No, it is exemplary of a positive, honesty prayer of seeking. Anyone can do that, even an Atheist. So, an Atheist may not address God as a personal, loving being, but the expression of forthright, positive words does serve to uplift, inspire, and validate.

Yes, prayer can be effective. Often, it is not, and it is we who are at fault in such instances; not God.



#257
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Stephen
Stop lying AGAIN, you have only just mentioned (yesterday the 7th  07:13AM ) this little girl HAD HER operation 
I mentioned it earlier, you just didn't see it. And when I mention it may not be the same date when she had the operation. Think man.

If you want to persist on this lie of informing me "over a week ago",..
Lol!! You think I'm informing you? Funny.

..then simply put up the post from " OVER a week ago" showing me where you said this.
No. Because I don't care what you believe. The convoy was not with you, and I owe you nothing.

Your obsession with me doesn't obligate me in any way. I toss you not out of duty, but for lolz.
Topic's author
#258
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@rosends
Don't get lost in the "tooth fairy" part, but in the variety of possible variables which create more than 2 possible readings. 

You are getting well and truly tied in knots, or as is usually the case, just playing the slippery eel game by deliberately nitpicking ti tacks.

So, let's just give it a rest....the thread is not progressing anywhere, is it?
#259
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,437
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@Seth
And let's face it if you don't pray you won't get to heaven.
Let's evaluate that little nugget. 

The story of the gospel is that only those who trust in Jesus go to heaven. Everyone else trusts in themselves which inevitably results in them going to a place which they consider is better than a place where Jesus is king.  That place might well be just death, or it might be another place but in the end it does not really matter. 

After all, if heaven is a place where people trust Jesus, then if you don't trust Jesus, then why would you want to go there? We could talk about Hell being a place of judgment, but why would we do that? After all, if you don't trust Jesus, then the entire notion of Hell is obviously going to be a sore point. 

Now if trust is the key ingredient of going to heaven, then prayer is really ancillary and not a determiner of whether you to heaven or not. After all, many people try to pray but their prayers don't get them into heaven. So heaven itself is not a key to getting to heaven. Prayer is communication - talking with God. Hence if you trust Jesus, then it makes sense you will communicate with him. Nevertheless, many people don't trust Jesus but still try and talk to God. Yet they fail to realise that doing so -without trusting in Jesus is a bit like attending a wedding feast in your work clothes - or like a lawyer attending court without his robes, or like a person like me walking in to the PM's office without an invite. It will actually prevent communication - because I had forgotten who I was talking too - and thought too highly of myself.

Hence, prayer is not a key to entering heaven.  In fact it could actually produce far worse results if tried in the wrong way and with arrogance. Hence - someone asking their favourite football team to win reveals you know nothing about God and nothing about prayer.  

#260
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@Tradesecret
So you don't need to pray to get into heaven? Good I don't pray, I'm a walk up.
#261
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@rosends
Oh I get the message, you use another fictional character as an analogy for your god to explain how making requests of that fictional character that aren't fulfilled is the same as your god not answering prayers.
I get it.
But do you?
#262
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6


TS - Nevertheless, many people don't trust Jesus but still try and talk to God. Yet they fail to realise that doing so -without trusting in Jesus is a bit like...[snip]....a person like me walking in to the PM's office without an invite. It will actually prevent communication - because I had forgotten who I was talking too - and thought too highly of myself. 

Seth - So you don't need to pray to get into heaven? Good I don't pray, I'm a walk up.

Whooooosh!!!
Lol.
#263
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@ethang5
Still don't understand English, never mind, you might understand your native language. Why are you stalking me?
#264
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Seth
OK, Seth. Since you are having trouble understanding thisanalogy, I’ll recouch it. Remember, your claim was:

Whichin effect is the same as them making excuses for why prayer doesn't work andclaiming that testing prayer won't prove that it does work. If it doesn't workthen it doesn't work. There is no third option.

If prayer does not generate the exact result that you havedecided is the measure of “work” it must not work. There is, according to you,no other option. This is still a reductionist vision of prayer and a false binary.
 
Imagine if you ask your parent (not imaginary, I expect) for adollar. The parent gives you that dollar. The request “worked.” But sometimes,the parent says “no.” This doesn’t mean the request doesn’t “work” just that itdidn’t get the result you wanted. This is now a third option, an option whichyou said didn’t exist. Sometimes, you ask and the parent doesn’t say “yes” butputs the dollar under that pile of laundry to see if you actually clean yourroom. You never put the laundry away so you never find the dollar, but themoney was given to you in response to your request. The prayer worked, you didn’t.Sometimes, the parent who would otherwise give you the dollar wants to see howmuch you need the dollar and whether you will ask a second time, so noparticular answer is given, but the request is registered with the parent.
 
There are plenty of third (and more) possibilities and scenarios. Parentseverywhere know the power of “we’ll see”. This doesn’t mean that the request doesn’twork unless you demand that “work” means “I get exactly what I asked for in theform I recognize at the moment I ask.”
 
If that is your measure of “work” then a whole lot of stuff inthe world won’t “work” so you should abandon every request you make to otherpeople because you don't always get exactly what you ask for at that moment, so asking must not work.

#265
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@rosends
If prayer does not generate the exact result
Then it doesn't work.

#266
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Seth
So would you apply that same definitive statement to any request that doesn't generate exactly what you want when you want it in the way you want it?

If someone says "pass the butter" but has to wait 5 seconds, or has it placed an inch higher than he expected it, asking doesn't "work"?

OK, if that's how you see things...

#267
Seth
Seth's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 114
0
1
1
Seth's avatar
Seth
0
1
1
-->
@rosends
That Strawman spontaneously immolated.
A prayer analogy would be if I asked for butter and never received butter.
#268
rosends
rosends's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 806
3
2
6
rosends's avatar
rosends
3
2
6
-->
@Seth
No, that would still allow for other possibilities. What if there was no butter? What if you asked in the wrong language or too quietly so the one who asked never heard you. What if the other person was still using the butter. According to you, not getting the butter at the exact time, in the exact place and in the exact way that you ask for it means that asking doesn't work. Your false binary is still a false binary.
Topic's author
#269
Salixes
Salixes's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 494
1
1
4
Salixes's avatar
Salixes
1
1
4
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes, prayer can be effective. Often, it is not, and it is we who are at fault in such instances; not God.

Very well said.
The Lord's prayer is really a reminder to ourselves,an affirmation of hope. 
#270
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Seth
Did you stop to think if you really needed butter, or merely wanted it? There's a difference, my friend. Prayer should be thought out beforehand, analyzed, and reach a conclusion whether the supplication is a need or a want. The scriptures tell us that God already knows what we need, and some interpret that as telling us we need not bother to pray, because we will be given what we need. That's a bit too Bernie Sanders for me. Yes, God already knows all things. It is possible He's waiting for us to recognize the difference between what is wanted [everything, yeah?] and what is truly needed. Without our ability to assess our needs, and how best to fill them, God serves no better purpose than what Bernie Sanders proposes, and we become lemmings.