Roz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Scientific tests HAVE been done on the efficacy of prayer, and prayer is not effective. Why are you obsessing on this? Reference: http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html Orbit, End3's stalling presenting anything. That's the bottom line here. Maybe BAA's trying to humor him, I've given up trying to ever reason with the christian long ago. The comments I make are for the guests who browse this topic. 22 pages and counting and End's still spouting nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Look, I'm not trying to be picky End. But consider this. When I post on a science topic, I cite the relevant website and/or the relevant paper, so that if anyone's interested they can check out what I'm saying for themselves. Can you do the same, please? I don't know that we need a specific study to cite. If you and I proceeded with a scientific study regarding the efficacy of prayer, could we justifiably publish results (based on the definition of prayer I have provided), that anyone would consider valid? Again, using the scientific method as our approach? Thx. No, that's not what I meant, End. I'm not asking that we do the study. Nor that we publish the results. Nor that we cite anything. This isn't about something we can or could do. I'm asking if you can cite a specific scientific study of the efficacy of prayer. If you can, then I can examine the methodology used in that study. I can look at how the scientists who ran the test, applied the scientific method during the test. Once I've done that I'll be able to answer your earlier question. "Can science study the efficacy of prayer using the scientific method?" If I'm satisfied that the answer is 'Yes', then I'll ask you to come on-board with me and together we'll go about applying your definition of prayer. We can't jump any of the steps, nor can we take anything as read. That's not how science works. Everything must be tested, checked, cross-checked and re-checked. You don't skip any steps in your procedures in the lab, right? Nor should we. Do you follow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Heads up! I gotta go and deal with something important, here at home. Sorry 'bout that! I'll be back online later. Thanks, BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Look, I'm not trying to be picky End. But consider this. When I post on a science topic, I cite the relevant website and/or the relevant paper, so that if anyone's interested they can check out what I'm saying for themselves. Can you do the same, please? I don't know that we need a specific study to cite. If you and I proceeded with a scientific study regarding the efficacy of prayer, could we justifiably publish results (based on the definition of prayer I have provided), that anyone would consider valid? Again, using the scientific method as our approach? Thx. No, that's not what I meant, End. I'm not asking that we do the study. Nor that we publish the results. Nor that we cite anything. This isn't about something we can or could do. I'm asking if you can cite a specific scientific study of the efficacy of prayer. If you can, then I can examine the methodology used in that study. I can look at how the scientists who ran the test, applied the scientific method during the test. Once I've done that I'll be able to answer your earlier question. "Can science study the efficacy of prayer using the scientific method?" If I'm satisfied that the answer is 'Yes', then I'll ask you to come on-board with me and together we'll go about applying your definition of prayer. We can't jump any of the steps, nor can we take anything as read. That's not how science works. Everything must be tested, checked, cross-checked and re-checked. You don't skip any steps in your procedures in the lab, right? Nor should we. Do you follow? If it will help you, I am not aware of any. Pick one at your convenience. I will be glad to go with one you pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Scientific tests HAVE been done on the efficacy of prayer, and prayer is not effective. Why are you obsessing on this? Reference: http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html Orbit, End3's stalling presenting anything. That's the bottom line here. Maybe BAA's trying to humor him, I've given up trying to ever reason with the christian long ago. The comments I make are for the guests who browse this topic. 22 pages and counting and End's still spouting nonsense. Doing my best to proceed Roz. I have asked the question at least three different ways now. Now we have to go find a study apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
directionless Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives. I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly. You're not asking me specifically, but I would say any scientific study of prayer is not valid from a Christian perspective. You said: "the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives". I would say that science might be able to test a magic spell, telepathy, etc. because those are supposed to depend mostly on the will and talents of participants in the experiment. Prayers from a Christian perspective are supposed to depend mostly on God, and we can't expect God to patiently do the scientists' bidding for an experiment. (I recognize that some Christian denominations understand prayer differently, so maybe they would think prayer is testable.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Scientific tests HAVE been done on the efficacy of prayer, and prayer is not effective. Why are you obsessing on this? Reference: http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html Orbit, End3's stalling presenting anything. That's the bottom line here. Maybe BAA's trying to humor him, I've given up trying to ever reason with the christian long ago. The comments I make are for the guests who browse this topic. 22 pages and counting and End's still spouting nonsense. Doing my best to proceed Roz. I have asked the question at least three different ways now. Now we have to go find a study apparently. You are stalling. 5 minutes of google search alone would've saved 1 entire page of back and forth stalling. http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Intercessory_Prayer http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP.pdf And I presume this is what Orbit was getting to: http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP_paper.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives. I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly. You're not asking me specifically, but I would say any scientific study of prayer is not valid from a Christian perspective. You said: "the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives". I would say that science might be able to test a magic spell, telepathy, etc. because those are supposed to depend mostly on the will and talents of participants in the experiment. Prayers from a Christian perspective are supposed to depend mostly on God, and we can't expect God to patiently do the scientists' bidding for an experiment. (I recognize that some Christian denominations understand prayer differently, so maybe they would think prayer is testable.) Yes, exactly, thank you. Edit: Can't even fathom another view of prayer. Can you explain the other view you were hinting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Scientific tests HAVE been done on the efficacy of prayer, and prayer is not effective. Why are you obsessing on this? Reference: http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html Orbit, End3's stalling presenting anything. That's the bottom line here. Maybe BAA's trying to humor him, I've given up trying to ever reason with the christian long ago. The comments I make are for the guests who browse this topic. 22 pages and counting and End's still spouting nonsense. Doing my best to proceed Roz. I have asked the question at least three different ways now. Now we have to go find a study apparently. You are stalling. 5 minutes of google search alone would've saved 1 entire page of back and forth stalling. http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Intercessory_Prayer http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP.pdf And I presume this is what Orbit was getting to: http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP_paper.pdf It's BAA's call, he can pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Get to it boy, pat pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Get to it boy, pat pat. Why don't you speculate Roz, while we are waiting for BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 You're the one who backpedaled away from your original "schizophrenia links to original sin" link. Then after 16 pages you clearly said you couldn't prove it. It's a lot of stupid coming from you for 22 pages now, but you know what, it's your religion who made you this way. I'm not holding my breath that you'll see your god for what he truly is, but if someday you do, here's another pat on the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 You're the one who backpedaled away from your original "schizophrenia links to original sin" link. Then after 16 pages you clearly said you couldn't prove it. It's a lot of stupid coming from you for 22 pages now, but you know what, it's your religion who made you this way. I'm not holding my breath that you'll see your god for what he truly is, but if someday you do, here's another pat on the head. All hat and no cattle Roz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roz Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 You're the one who backpedaled away from your original "schizophrenia links to original sin" link. Then after 16 pages you clearly said you couldn't prove it. It's a lot of stupid coming from you for 22 pages now, but you know what, it's your religion who made you this way. I'm not holding my breath that you'll see your god for what he truly is, but if someday you do, here's another pat on the head. All hat and no cattle Roz. Yes, you described yourself perfectly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
directionless Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives. I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly. You're not asking me specifically, but I would say any scientific study of prayer is not valid from a Christian perspective. You said: "the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives". I would say that science might be able to test a magic spell, telepathy, etc. because those are supposed to depend mostly on the will and talents of participants in the experiment. Prayers from a Christian perspective are supposed to depend mostly on God, and we can't expect God to patiently do the scientists' bidding for an experiment. (I recognize that some Christian denominations understand prayer differently, so maybe they would think prayer is testable.) Yes, exactly, thank you. Edit: Can't even fathom another view of prayer. Can you explain the other view you were hinting at? I think most Christian denominations would say the results depend on God's will, but many believe that God is more likely to listen to the prophet Elijah than Joe Schmoe. Some denominations act like any prayer request should be granted if you could only get the right person to pray sincerely enough, and that belief diminishes the importance of God's will. I often wonder what purpose prayer serves when God should do what is best in the grand scheme and not pander to humans. I suspect it is a way to build a relationship with humans - sort of like feeding a wild animal from your hand until it trusts you enough to let you pet it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Yes, with respect to the definition that pertains to Christianity, I understand prayer would be a request of God to intervene in a real world situation. i.e. the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives. I am asking if scientists, per your understanding of the scientific method, are following the scientific method by publishing results given they followed the method correctly. You're not asking me specifically, but I would say any scientific study of prayer is not valid from a Christian perspective. You said: "the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives". I would say that science might be able to test a magic spell, telepathy, etc. because those are supposed to depend mostly on the will and talents of participants in the experiment. Prayers from a Christian perspective are supposed to depend mostly on God, and we can't expect God to patiently do the scientists' bidding for an experiment. (I recognize that some Christian denominations understand prayer differently, so maybe they would think prayer is testable.) Yes, exactly, thank you. Edit: Can't even fathom another view of prayer. Can you explain the other view you were hinting at? I think most Christian denominations would say the results depend on God's will, but many believe that God is more likely to listen to the prophet Elijah than Joe Schmoe. Some denominations act like any prayer request should be granted if you could only get the right person to pray sincerely enough, and that belief diminishes the importance of God's will. I often wonder what purpose prayer serves when God should do what is best in the grand scheme and not pander to humans. I suspect it is a way to build a relationship with humans - sort of like feeding a wild animal from your hand until it trusts you enough to let you pet it. This is thinking with God goggles on. Science cannot be done from a theological basis. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 I officially give up on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 You said: "the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives". Maybe it would help if both test group and control group were comprised of fanatical bible thumping Christians? Does God's will for the life of each individual appear to coincide with randomness as it pertains to prayer? Do we have a new thread for this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 Scientific tests HAVE been done on the efficacy of prayer, and prayer is not effective. Why are you obsessing on this? Reference: http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html Orbit, End3's stalling presenting anything. That's the bottom line here. Maybe BAA's trying to humor him, I've given up trying to ever reason with the christian long ago. The comments I make are for the guests who browse this topic. 22 pages and counting and End's still spouting nonsense. Doing my best to proceed Roz. I have asked the question at least three different ways now. Now we have to go find a study apparently. You are stalling. 5 minutes of google search alone would've saved 1 entire page of back and forth stalling. http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Intercessory_Prayer http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP.pdf And I presume this is what Orbit was getting to: http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP_paper.pdf It's BAA's call, he can pick. I'll be examining all of the information here. This can't be done quickly. I'll get back to you on the morrow, End. Thanks, BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 You said: "the result is dependent on God acting and also dependent on our understanding of God's will for our lives". Maybe it would help if both test group and control group were comprised of fanatical bible thumping Christians? Does God's will for the life of each individual appear to coincide with randomness as it pertains to prayer? Do we have a new thread for this? Excellent M, I think you're on the right track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moanareina Posted August 1, 2014 Share Posted August 1, 2014 BAA, Why did I know you would deflect. Why are there just a remote few of you that can be honest. Thankful for those people because it builds relationships. ??? Being honest all the time. It's my personal feeling M, that you really don't know what you are talking about and you hide behind your attitude. Again, that is just my feeling. I do not know you that well, or at all really. What attitude? Oh, I guess I just retire from that conversation. If you question my honesty I really don't know where to go from here because honesty is one of my key values. Bye Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted August 2, 2014 Share Posted August 2, 2014 Scientific tests HAVE been done on the efficacy of prayer, and prayer is not effective. Why are you obsessing on this? Reference: http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html Orbit, End3's stalling presenting anything. That's the bottom line here. Maybe BAA's trying to humor him, I've given up trying to ever reason with the christian long ago. The comments I make are for the guests who browse this topic. 22 pages and counting and End's still spouting nonsense. Doing my best to proceed Roz. I have asked the question at least three different ways now. Now we have to go find a study apparently. You are stalling. 5 minutes of google search alone would've saved 1 entire page of back and forth stalling. http://malaysianatheist.blogspot.com/2006/11/testing-efficacy-of-prayer.html http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Study_of_the_Therapeutic_Effects_of_Intercessory_Prayer http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP.pdf And I presume this is what Orbit was getting to: http://www.templeton.org/pdfs/press_releases/060407STEP_paper.pdf It's BAA's call, he can pick. I'll be examining all of the information here. This can't be done quickly. I'll get back to you on the morrow, End. Thanks, BAA Later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted August 3, 2014 Share Posted August 3, 2014 Schizophrenia is an increase of dopamine in the brain, the opposite disease is Parkinsons (not enough dopamine). So by this logic, parkinsons and diabetes are related to original sin. Maybe Xian diabetics should skip their insulin and say a prayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted August 3, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted August 3, 2014 Let's take this conversation into a slightly different direction. We know from the gospels that jesus cast out demons. We know from history that what we now know to be schizophrenia was often attributed to demon possession. If jesus were really god, then he would have known that the demons he cast out were actually NOT demons but imbalances of neuro-chemistry. With this in mind, if there were a connection between schizophrenia and Original Sin, and if jesus knew of this connection (which he must have, if he were truly god incarnate), then why would he cast out demons rather than simply saying, "Go and sin no more"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
directionless Posted August 4, 2014 Share Posted August 4, 2014 Let's take this conversation into a slightly different direction. We know from the gospels that jesus cast out demons. We know from history that what we now know to be schizophrenia was often attributed to demon possession. If jesus were really god, then he would have known that the demons he cast out were actually NOT demons but imbalances of neuro-chemistry. With this in mind, if there were a connection between schizophrenia and Original Sin, and if jesus knew of this connection (which he must have, if he were truly god incarnate), then why would he cast out demons rather than simply saying, "Go and sin no more"? I think this an example of "begging the question"? I'll include the definition from wikipedia in case people aren't familiar. (The term is used to mean different things, and I wasn't aware of this definition until recently.) Begging the question means "assuming the conclusion (of an argument)", a type of circular reasoning. This is an informal fallacy where the conclusion that one is attempting to prove is included in the initial premises of an argument, often in an indirect way that conceals this fact http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question So this argument implicitly assumes that Jesus misdiagnosed schizophrenia as demon possession. I don't think that is a valid assumption, because demon possession might exist alongside schizophrenia. Also, demon possession might have a symbiotic relationship with schizophrenia - just like a weak animal attracts parasites and those parasites in turn make the animal even weaker. And also I don't think ancient people made such a distinction between physical and spiritual. Many of the early monk literature speaks of demons as though they are speaking about psychological weakness (demon of gluttony, demon of sleepiness, demon of vainglory, ...). So it seems like you are assuming an aspect of Christian tradition is false (demons) in order to prove that another aspect of Christian tradition is false (wisdom of Jesus). Maybe that's not precisely like "begging the question" but it seems similar to me. I'm not claiming to be an expert on logic of course; I'm just giving an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts