Xtians: Reasons For Belief?

[Guest end3]

 

I'm assuming we can say that "prayer" is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of invoking God to make a difference.  If we are saying this study was to define whether it made a difference for people to know that others cared for them or were in their thoughts, I can see that as well.

 

Do you think every word should have a personal meaning defined by you?

 

Prayer is the very definition of invoking gods to make a difference.

 

 

Per BAA, "The study DID NOT seek to establish that God was responsible for any detected effects."

 

With your def and mine being the same(see bolded), I don't see how the study avoids God. ??

[Guest end3]

 

 

I'm assuming we can say that "prayer" is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of invoking God to make a difference.  If we are saying this study was to define whether it made a difference for people to know that others cared for them or were in their thoughts, I can see that as well.

 

Do you think every word should have a personal meaning defined by you?

 

Prayer is the very definition of invoking gods to make a difference.

 

And science demonstrates it has no effect.

 

My statement was rhetorical. My definition is prayer is invoking God.

[Guest end3]

Looked up the study. Going to have to take issue with you BAA. Intercessory....who is interceding in this study, only the people praying or God and the people praying.

 

Thanks,

[mymistake]

 

 

I'm assuming we can say that "prayer" is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of invoking God to make a difference.  If we are saying this study was to define whether it made a difference for people to know that others cared for them or were in their thoughts, I can see that as well.

 

Do you think every word should have a personal meaning defined by you?

 

Prayer is the very definition of invoking gods to make a difference.

 

 

Per BAA, "The study DID NOT seek to establish that God was responsible for any detected effects."

 

With your def and mine being the same(see bolded), I don't see how the study avoids God. ??

 

 

 

Your def for prayer and mine are mutually exclusive.  Don't you see that?

 

Dry land is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of water.  So dry land and water are not the same thing at all.

 

Words have meaning.

 

Now if you are going to say prayer is outside of invoking God to make a difference that would mean you think prayer is not invoking God to make a difference.

 

 

Why is talking with you so frustrating?

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

I'm assuming we can say that "prayer" is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of invoking God to make a difference.  If we are saying this study was to define whether it made a difference for people to know that others cared for them or were in their thoughts, I can see that as well.

 

Do you think every word should have a personal meaning defined by you?

 

Prayer is the very definition of invoking gods to make a difference.

 

 

Per BAA, "The study DID NOT seek to establish that God was responsible for any detected effects."

 

With your def and mine being the same(see bolded), I don't see how the study avoids God. ??

 

 

 

Your def for prayer and mine are mutually exclusive.  Don't you see that?

 

Dry land is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of water.  So dry land and water are not the same thing at all.

 

Words have meaning.

 

Now if you are going to say prayer is outside of invoking God to make a difference that would mean you think prayer is not invoking God to make a difference.

 

 

Why is talking with you so frustrating?

 

You lost me. Yes or no, prayer means invoking God. (And please don't say prayer is moot because God is imaginary....your normal response)

[bornagainathiest]

Bless you, BAA. You truly are a godsend.

 

Poor choice of words there, Fweethawt.

 

But no offense taken.

[bornagainathiest]

Looked up the study. Going to have to take issue with you BAA. Intercessory....who is interceding in this study, only the people praying or God and the people praying.

 

Thanks,

 

Then we have an issue.

 

The study was designed only to detect an effect, not to assign a cause for that effect.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Looked up the study. Going to have to take issue with you BAA. Intercessory....who is interceding in this study, only the people praying or God and the people praying.

 

Thanks,

 

Then we have an issue.

 

The study was designed only to detect an effect, not to assign a cause for that effect.

 

Agreed.  End3, This study does nothing to validate, authenticate, or explain the existence of any god, let alone the god you believe in.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Looked up the study. Going to have to take issue with you BAA. Intercessory....who is interceding in this study, only the people praying or God and the people praying.

 

Thanks,

 

Then we have an issue.

 

The study was designed only to detect an effect, not to assign a cause for that effect.

 

Agreed.  End3, This study does nothing to validate, authenticate, or explain the existence of any god, let alone the god you believe in.

 

If I'm not mistaken, they had three Christian churches pray....or maybe two and some monks.

 

Edit: but the assumption is aimed squarely via the definition. They would need to be more specific defining intercessory. I have never read nor found the formal paper. Maybe they did.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Looked up the study. Going to have to take issue with you BAA. Intercessory....who is interceding in this study, only the people praying or God and the people praying.

 

Thanks,

 

Then we have an issue.

 

The study was designed only to detect an effect, not to assign a cause for that effect.

 

Agreed.  End3, This study does nothing to validate, authenticate, or explain the existence of any god, let alone the god you believe in.

 

If I'm not mistaken, they had three Christian churches pray....or maybe two and some monks.

 

 

Still doesn't change the remit of the study.

[Guest end3]

prayer

 

 

/pre(ə)r/

 

 

noun

 

noun: prayer; plural noun: prayers

 

 

 

 

a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or an object of worship.

"I'll say a prayer for him"

 

 

synonyms: invocation, intercession, devotion; archaicorison

[bornagainathiest]

You work in an analytic lab, End.

 

If your remit is to look for anomalies in the pH of water samples, that's ALL you do.

 

If your remit is to look for anomalies AND establish their cause, then you can start thinking about what caused them.

 

The Templeton study's remit was very specific.

Establishing a cause for any detected healing wasn't in it.

.

.

.

Oh... and those scientists were working to their own scientifically-valid definitions, not your dictionary definitions.

[Guest end3]

So we are relegating prayer to nothing but a physical exercise? What would be the scientifically valid definition of prayer? Not trying to be argumentative. You made the assertion.

[Guest end3]

If you are going to do that, then you have to take any answer you get and say invocation alone without any particular God assignment does not work. Then you are essentially changing the definition of prayer to anybody just speaking wellbeing towards another....imo.

 

Why did they choose Christians? Why not just get some redneck off the street and ask to speak on behalf of someone about to go into surgery. Prayer is very specific in definition.

[mymistake]

 

 

 

 

I'm assuming we can say that "prayer" is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of invoking God to make a difference.  If we are saying this study was to define whether it made a difference for people to know that others cared for them or were in their thoughts, I can see that as well.

 

Do you think every word should have a personal meaning defined by you?

 

Prayer is the very definition of invoking gods to make a difference.

 

 

Per BAA, "The study DID NOT seek to establish that God was responsible for any detected effects."

 

With your def and mine being the same(see bolded), I don't see how the study avoids God. ??

 

 

 

Your def for prayer and mine are mutually exclusive.  Don't you see that?

 

Dry land is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of water.  So dry land and water are not the same thing at all.

 

Words have meaning.

 

Now if you are going to say prayer is outside of invoking God to make a difference that would mean you think prayer is not invoking God to make a difference.

 

 

Why is talking with you so frustrating?

 

You lost me. Yes or no, prayer means invoking God. (And please don't say prayer is moot because God is imaginary....your normal response)

 

 

 

I must be the victim of another one of your word salads.

 

 

Yes prayer means invoking God, like I said before, and yes God is imaginary.  Real people can invoke imaginary things.

[Orbit]

If you are going to do that, then you have to take any answer you get and say invocation alone without any particular God assignment does not work. Then you are essentially changing the definition of prayer to anybody just speaking wellbeing towards another....imo.

 

Why did they choose Christians? Why not just get some redneck off the street and ask to speak on behalf of someone about to go into surgery. Prayer is very specific in definition.

End, what BAA is saying is that it is inappropriate to assign to the study any meaning that lies outside its scope. The scope of the study is simple: Does the act of prayer to the Christian God result in less surgery complications? I think where the confusion is coming in is that you've got "scope creep" and want it to be a test of God's power, existence, or willingness to help. However none of those things can be measured because we can't find God to ask him anything. So scientifically what we are left with is the HUMAN act of prayer, which either had an effect on recovery rates/complications, or didn't. In this case the only thing we can say scientifically is that the human act of prayer had no effect.

 

We can't scientifically know anything about God. St. Thomas Aquinas said this hundreds of years ago on the science/faith debate: "matters of faith are not subject to proof". He said this for the reason that the scientific method cannot find, nor measure the thoughts/intentions of an invisible/undetectable God.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

 

So your point was that we can use the scientific method to test predictions based on the idea that there is a god but you are not interested in talking about the consistent results of those tests.

 

 

Congratulations on making "your point" to BAA which just so happens to be something he figured out years ago.

I predict he will attempt to explain away the results with some BS like "they weren't praying right"

Or we could say they weren't righteous, or not to test God. It's all Biblical. How would we know.

Precisely! We can't know. As long as explanations are asserted that prevent the claim (god answers prayer) from being falsifiable, we can never have any degree of certainty that the claim is true. For instance, if you claim god always answers prayer with yes, no, or later, it is a non-falsifiable claim. It covers all possible outcomes! One of those three outcomes (getting what you prayed for, not getting what you prayed for, and getting what you prayed for later) will occur whether you ask god for it or whether you ask a milk jug for it, or even if you don't actually pray for it but simply want it. No way to link the proposed cause (god) to the outcomes. Therefore, if a claim is not falsifiable, it cannot be evaluated via the scientific method. The prayer studies were scientific because the tested question was not "Does god answer prayer?" (Non-measurable mechanism with non-specific, non-measurable outcomes). The tested question was "Does prayer have any effect on the health outcomes of patients?" (Countable, observable mechanism with measurable proposed outcomes)

 

Even if prayer was shown to have some positive effect, it would still not be supportive evidence a god exists. It would only establish that prayer has some measurable effect. The next question (from which to derive the next hypothesis) would be "Why does prayer have this effect?" There are plenty of testable candidate answers that do not include god. Therefore, the conclusion that a god is behind it would still be unsupported.

 

 

Disclaimer: the above quotation marks are designations of an idea, not an exact quote from any specific article.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So we are relegating prayer to nothing but a physical exercise? What would be the scientifically valid definition of prayer? Not trying to be argumentative. You made the assertion.

Yes, End3.  Since the study demonstrated that prayer is ineffective in helping patients recover from surgery, it would suggest that prayer is nothing more than a physical exercise.  However, as BAA has been trying patiently to explain to you, the study was not aimed at proving the existence of anything supernatural, nor what did, or more accurately, did NOT help the patients in the study.

[bornagainathiest]

So we are relegating prayer to nothing but a physical exercise? What would be the scientifically valid definition of prayer? Not trying to be argumentative. You made the assertion.

 

We don't do anything to the remit, the definitions and the words used in the study.  It's complete, in of itself.

 

What we do is to draw a conclusion from it's results.

That conclusion can be scientific or non-scientific, but it cannot be both at the same time.

 

I covered this, here... http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/63786-schizophrenia-and-genetics/page-24#.VAjgbvldUuk ...in post # 474.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Anything that requires a god can't be done.

Yet we can have a scientific study regarding God?

 

Wait, BAA acknowledged the science. How can science be done on "can't be done"?

 

Just pick a side. I'll respect it....maybe. BAA was the only one that actually swallowed his pride and said the study was science. It took him a bit, but I damn sure respect him for being honest. We may have many differences, but I have a new relationship with him due our last conversation.

 

You say what you wish. Not going to change much.

 

This isn't correct. You don't know how many of us agreed with BAA on this point but didn't say so because we thought his comment was sufficient.  Best not to assume that just because one person says something that no one else agrees with them.  Clearly the study used the scientific method.  That's not what we disagree with you on.

[Guest end3]

 

So we are relegating prayer to nothing but a physical exercise? What would be the scientifically valid definition of prayer? Not trying to be argumentative. You made the assertion.

Yes, End3.  Since the study demonstrated that prayer is ineffective in helping patients recover from surgery, it would suggest that prayer is nothing more than a physical exercise.  However, as BAA has been trying patiently to explain to you, the study was not aimed at proving the existence of anything supernatural, nor what did, or more accurately, did NOT help the patients in the study.

 

Fair enough.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

End, does the result of the prayer study mean anything to you? That scientifically, prayer doesn't work?

There could be numerous interpretations for the results of prayer study. If you would really like to discuss that we could. It would take a lot of energy. And I don't relish the onslaught of abuse.

 

The results of the study were pretty straightforward. And lately around here, you're the abuser.

 

No reason for me to be that huh O. Everyone is so nice here.

 

 

Actually everyone is nice here... more than nice... you're the one who lashes out when you feel like you're out of options.

 

END3 is a stupid liar that needs to learn science (even though we agree with him).

 

Liar, Liar, Christian, Liar Liar ignorant, stupid liar Christian.

 

Lovely.

 

We don't agree with you.  And your posts demonstrate that you don't understand what science can tell us and what it can't.

 

 

I think it's genetic O. Lot of buried shit in my past that still needs to surface....hopefully before I go postal. Hence my need to be saved.

 

 

You are an adult, you have a choice whether or not to go postal, or to verbally abuse people in an internet forum.  Lurkers, observe the xian way of dodging responsibility for one's actions by pretending the sinful nature causes us to verbally abuse people and there's nothing we can do about it.

 

 

 

No reason for me to be that huh O. Everyone is so nice here.

 

Actually the vast majority of members were very supportive of you when you had a shitty year.  You needed that support and I bet you couldn't get it anywhere else so you dropped your aggressive routine.

 

Recently you have resumed your old ways and I take that as a sign that you are feeling better.

 

Fact is that we tend to respect people who are respectful.

 

Make your choice.  

 

We are polite to the polite and rude to the rude.

 

My shitty "year" is not over....just sayin. Don't think I haven't attempted to understand what triggers me.

 

 

Another example of blaming your own behaviour on external "triggers" instead of accepting that you choose to be verbally abusive.

 

I'm assuming we can say that "prayer" is outside of what I would consider, or most folks I think, the normal definition of invoking God to make a difference.  If we are saying this study was to define whether it made a difference for people to know that others cared for them or were in their thoughts, I can see that as well.

 

Clearly, knowing that others care for you does not affect whether you have physical complications of heart surgery.  That's what the study found.  Prayer does nothing for the person being prayed for.  The only effect it has is that it makes the person praying feel like they are doing something.  In practice, this lets xians off the hook for doing anything practical that might help the person.  If I am recovering from heart surgery I need practical medical care, not the idea that someone cares for me.

[directionless]

 

 

So we are relegating prayer to nothing but a physical exercise? What would be the scientifically valid definition of prayer? Not trying to be argumentative. You made the assertion.

Yes, End3.  Since the study demonstrated that prayer is ineffective in helping patients recover from surgery, it would suggest that prayer is nothing more than a physical exercise.  However, as BAA has been trying patiently to explain to you, the study was not aimed at proving the existence of anything supernatural, nor what did, or more accurately, did NOT help the patients in the study.

 

Fair enough.

 

I haven't read about the study in question, but End3 said it only involved two churches and some monks. Did the people who were praying actually know or care about the patients they were praying for?

 

A positive result would have been interesting, but I don't think a negative result is suggestive of much unless every effort was made to try to make prayer work for the experiment.

 

Like if I am trying to test the existence of aerodynamic lift by throwing bricks and watching them fail to fly, that is not very useful. I need to let somebody with a deep understanding of aerodynamic lift design the experiment to give the greatest possible chance of demonstrating the effect.

 

I don't know if that is scientific, but that is my opinion.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

So we are relegating prayer to nothing but a physical exercise? What would be the scientifically valid definition of prayer? Not trying to be argumentative. You made the assertion.

Yes, End3.  Since the study demonstrated that prayer is ineffective in helping patients recover from surgery, it would suggest that prayer is nothing more than a physical exercise.  However, as BAA has been trying patiently to explain to you, the study was not aimed at proving the existence of anything supernatural, nor what did, or more accurately, did NOT help the patients in the study.

 

Fair enough.

 

I haven't read about the study in question, but End3 said it only involved two churches and some monks. Did the people who were praying actually know or care about the patients they were praying for?

 

A positive result would have been interesting, but I don't think a negative result is suggestive of much unless every effort was made to try to make prayer work for the experiment.

 

Like if I am trying to test the existence of aerodynamic lift by throwing bricks and watching them fail to fly, that is not very useful. I need to let somebody with a deep understanding of aerodynamic lift design the experiment to give the greatest possible chance of demonstrating the effect.

 

I don't know if that is scientific, but that is my opinion.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Just one of several articles about this latest study. Apparently there are challenges.

[Orbit]

 

 

 

 

So we are relegating prayer to nothing but a physical exercise? What would be the scientifically valid definition of prayer? Not trying to be argumentative. You made the assertion.

Yes, End3.  Since the study demonstrated that prayer is ineffective in helping patients recover from surgery, it would suggest that prayer is nothing more than a physical exercise.  However, as BAA has been trying patiently to explain to you, the study was not aimed at proving the existence of anything supernatural, nor what did, or more accurately, did NOT help the patients in the study.

 

Fair enough.

 

I haven't read about the study in question, but End3 said it only involved two churches and some monks. Did the people who were praying actually know or care about the patients they were praying for?

 

A positive result would have been interesting, but I don't think a negative result is suggestive of much unless every effort was made to try to make prayer work for the experiment.

 

Like if I am trying to test the existence of aerodynamic lift by throwing bricks and watching them fail to fly, that is not very useful. I need to let somebody with a deep understanding of aerodynamic lift design the experiment to give the greatest possible chance of demonstrating the effect.

 

I don't know if that is scientific, but that is my opinion.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

 

Just one of several articles about this latest study. Apparently there are challenges.

 

Politically motivated challenges. i looked over that methodology. There was nothing wrong with it.