Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 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. You are mischaracterizing the prayer study. It was not the case that anything about the act of praying could be measured--it can't. What the study measured was whether people had surgery complications or not. Yes, that is science. How exactly would you operationalize "sin"? Like prayer, it can't be done. No O, prayer was part of the study, part of the mechanism. specifically varying THAT part. Prayer was not what was measured. Prayer was the independent variable. There was a condition of prayer/no prayer. What was measured was what was observable--recovery rates and complications. Prayer is not observable, but we could observe the purported effect. A study on sin would require an observable measure in the same way--or it's not science. Jesus O. I understand what you are saying. Really I do. But wasn't the efficacy of prayer the point? Invoking God to intervene on behalf of those being prayed for? If you read the study differently, then I'll go re-read....but I am remembering it as I have stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 Is a study of prayer efficacy science? It could be done using the scientific method. Is a study of sin science? Not if sin is "that which offends a god or gods". First we would have to find this god or gods. However in a general sense sin is usually a list of acts that man made churches have outlawed. If you are going to use sin as a man made list of actions then sure you could apply scientific methods to study those activities. My answers My are in blue. See End, when you ask me questions I give an answer immediately and without any attempt to change the subject or evade. Then I think we agree because we are describing the same God. So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? absolute nonsequiter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 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. You are mischaracterizing the prayer study. It was not the case that anything about the act of praying could be measured--it can't. What the study measured was whether people had surgery complications or not. Yes, that is science. How exactly would you operationalize "sin"? Like prayer, it can't be done. No O, prayer was part of the study, part of the mechanism. specifically varying THAT part. Prayer was not what was measured. Prayer was the independent variable. There was a condition of prayer/no prayer. What was measured was what was observable--recovery rates and complications. Prayer is not observable, but we could observe the purported effect. A study on sin would require an observable measure in the same way--or it's not science. Jesus O. I understand what you are saying. Really I do. But wasn't the efficacy of prayer the point? Invoking God to intervene on behalf of those being prayed for? If you read the study differently, then I'll go re-read....but I am remembering it as I have stated. Yes, that was the research question. And they found that prayer didn't make a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 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. You are mischaracterizing the prayer study. It was not the case that anything about the act of praying could be measured--it can't. What the study measured was whether people had surgery complications or not. Yes, that is science. How exactly would you operationalize "sin"? Like prayer, it can't be done. No O, prayer was part of the study, part of the mechanism. specifically varying THAT part. Prayer was not what was measured. Prayer was the independent variable. There was a condition of prayer/no prayer. What was measured was what was observable--recovery rates and complications. Prayer is not observable, but we could observe the purported effect. A study on sin would require an observable measure in the same way--or it's not science. Jesus O. I understand what you are saying. Really I do. But wasn't the efficacy of prayer the point? Invoking God to intervene on behalf of those being prayed for? If you read the study differently, then I'll go re-read....but I am remembering it as I have stated. Yes, that was the research question. And they found that prayer didn't make a difference. So please make it crystal clear for me O, can we do science on God or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 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. You are mischaracterizing the prayer study. It was not the case that anything about the act of praying could be measured--it can't. What the study measured was whether people had surgery complications or not. Yes, that is science. How exactly would you operationalize "sin"? Like prayer, it can't be done. No O, prayer was part of the study, part of the mechanism. specifically varying THAT part. Prayer was not what was measured. Prayer was the independent variable. There was a condition of prayer/no prayer. What was measured was what was observable--recovery rates and complications. Prayer is not observable, but we could observe the purported effect. A study on sin would require an observable measure in the same way--or it's not science. Jesus O. I understand what you are saying. Really I do. But wasn't the efficacy of prayer the point? Invoking God to intervene on behalf of those being prayed for? If you read the study differently, then I'll go re-read....but I am remembering it as I have stated. Yes, that was the research question. And they found that prayer didn't make a difference. So please make it crystal clear for me O, can we do science on God or not. We can do a prayer study, or any other study that can be set up similarly. You can't do science "on God" because God cannot be demonstrated to exist. You could look for other indicators, like the prayer study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. How am I the ignorant one here when at first everyone said you can't do science on God and now you agree we can? I'm lost on that one. I would think it would be the other way around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 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. You are mischaracterizing the prayer study. It was not the case that anything about the act of praying could be measured--it can't. What the study measured was whether people had surgery complications or not. Yes, that is science. How exactly would you operationalize "sin"? Like prayer, it can't be done. No O, prayer was part of the study, part of the mechanism. specifically varying THAT part. Prayer was not what was measured. Prayer was the independent variable. There was a condition of prayer/no prayer. What was measured was what was observable--recovery rates and complications. Prayer is not observable, but we could observe the purported effect. A study on sin would require an observable measure in the same way--or it's not science. Jesus O. I understand what you are saying. Really I do. But wasn't the efficacy of prayer the point? Invoking God to intervene on behalf of those being prayed for? If you read the study differently, then I'll go re-read....but I am remembering it as I have stated. Yes, that was the research question. And they found that prayer didn't make a difference. So please make it crystal clear for me O, can we do science on God or not. We can do a prayer study, or any other study that can be set up similarly. You can't do science "on God" because God cannot be demonstrated to exist. You could look for other indicators, like the prayer study. Close enough for me... Do we need to re-visit the pages of crap saying we couldn't? Do I need to be called a liar anymore for not finishing the conversation AS IT FINISHED JUST THE SAME WAY WEEKS BEFORE? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. How am I the ignorant one here when at first everyone said you can't do science on God and now you agree we can? I'm lost on that one. I would think it would be the other way around. You are delusional. God is imaginary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. How am I the ignorant one here when at first everyone said you can't do science on God and now you agree we can? I'm lost on that one. I would think it would be the other way around. You are delusional. God is imaginary. Yeah, but we can use the scientific method to inquire....bwahahahha Which was the entire point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Close enough for me... Do we need to re-visit the pages of crap saying we couldn't? Do I need to be called a liar anymore for not finishing the conversation AS IT FINISHED JUST THE SAME WAY WEEKS BEFORE? I believe somebody called you a liar because you said you made your point. I seriously doubt that your intended point was that you are delusional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. How am I the ignorant one here when at first everyone said you can't do science on God and now you agree we can? I'm lost on that one. I would think it would be the other way around. You are delusional. God is imaginary. Like I said last night MM. Every time you get backed in a corner, it all turns into make believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Close enough for me... Do we need to re-visit the pages of crap saying we couldn't? Do I need to be called a liar anymore for not finishing the conversation AS IT FINISHED JUST THE SAME WAY WEEKS BEFORE? I believe somebody called you a liar because you said you made your point. I seriously doubt that your intended point was that you are delusional. I just made the same point again.....and you agreed even. ????? So how did I not make it the first time. Am I supposed to spoon feed everyone until they come up to speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. How am I the ignorant one here when at first everyone said you can't do science on God and now you agree we can? I'm lost on that one. I would think it would be the other way around. You are delusional. God is imaginary. Yeah, but we can use the scientific method to inquire....bwahahahha Which was the entire point. Which returns the answer that there is no reason to believe in any god. All religions are unfounded and in all likelihood false. You checkmated the atheists again, you sly fox! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. How am I the ignorant one here when at first everyone said you can't do science on God and now you agree we can? I'm lost on that one. I would think it would be the other way around. You are delusional. God is imaginary. Like I said last night MM. Every time you get backed in a corner, it all turns into make believe. What corner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 End, does the result of the prayer study mean anything to you? That scientifically, prayer doesn't work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. How am I the ignorant one here when at first everyone said you can't do science on God and now you agree we can? I'm lost on that one. I would think it would be the other way around. You are delusional. God is imaginary. Yeah, but we can use the scientific method to inquire....bwahahahha Which was the entire point. Which returns the answer that there is no reason to believe in any god. All religions are unfounded and in all likelihood false. You checkmated the atheists again, you sly fox! You just told me a few posts back you don't deflect. What is this? This is not what the our discussion was about. The results are not relevant to our discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Close enough for me... Do we need to re-visit the pages of crap saying we couldn't? Do I need to be called a liar anymore for not finishing the conversation AS IT FINISHED JUST THE SAME WAY WEEKS BEFORE? I believe somebody called you a liar because you said you made your point. I seriously doubt that your intended point was that you are delusional. I just made the same point again.....and you agreed even. ????? So how did I not make it the first time. Am I supposed to spoon feed everyone until they come up to speed? Yes, yes . . . you are a genius and everyone else in the whole world is stupid but you try your best to educate us anyway . . . out of the goodness of your heart. But it is so frustrating because we are so stubborn that we refuse to see the clarify of your wisdom that passes all understanding. Only the wise can see that you won these debates. Those who think you could not express yourself are fools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 Close enough for me... Do we need to re-visit the pages of crap saying we couldn't? Do I need to be called a liar anymore for not finishing the conversation AS IT FINISHED JUST THE SAME WAY WEEKS BEFORE? I believe somebody called you a liar because you said you made your point. I seriously doubt that your intended point was that you are delusional. I just made the same point again.....and you agreed even. ????? So how did I not make it the first time. Am I supposed to spoon feed everyone until they come up to speed? Yes, yes . . . you are a genius and everyone else in the whole world is stupid but you try your best to educate us anyway . . . out of the goodness of your heart. But it is so frustrating because we are so stubborn that we refuse to see the clarify of your wisdom that passes all understanding. Only the wise can see that you won these debates. Those who think you could not express yourself are fools. So what was your motivation then. Hate, disdain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. How am I the ignorant one here when at first everyone said you can't do science on God and now you agree we can? I'm lost on that one. I would think it would be the other way around. You are delusional. God is imaginary. Yeah, but we can use the scientific method to inquire....bwahahahha Which was the entire point. Which returns the answer that there is no reason to believe in any god. All religions are unfounded and in all likelihood false. You checkmated the atheists again, you sly fox! You just told me a few posts back you don't deflect. What is this? This is not what the our discussion was about. The results are not relevant to our discussion. Somewhere in our discussion you deluded yourself into thinking I said we can do science on god. Where did I say we can do science on god? Every prediction we can think up returns an answer that is consistent with god is imaginary. Your god deserves as much respect as belief that the boogieman hides under a child's bed at night. Every way we can imagine to check returns the answer that the boogieman is imaginary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted September 4, 2014 Share Posted September 4, 2014 So why the pages of beating me up about I need to go understand science? You know full well that words do not beat you up. Quit being a hypocrite. You are known for your harsh tongue and your quick temper. You get encouraged to study science because of your constant demonstrations of ignorance. How am I the ignorant one here when at first everyone said you can't do science on God and now you agree we can? I'm lost on that one. I would think it would be the other way around. You are delusional. God is imaginary. Yeah, but we can use the scientific method to inquire....bwahahahha Which was the entire point. Which returns the answer that there is no reason to believe in any god. All religions are unfounded and in all likelihood false. You checkmated the atheists again, you sly fox! You just told me a few posts back you don't deflect. What is this? This is not what the our discussion was about. The results are not relevant to our discussion. Somewhere in our discussion you deluded yourself into thinking I said we can do science on god. Where did I say we can do science on god? Every prediction we can think up returns an answer that is consistent with god is imaginary. Your god deserves as much respect as belief that the boogieman hides under a child's bed at night. Every way we can imagine to check returns the answer that the boogieman is imaginary. Not relevant to the discussion at hand. Not relevant to the discussion at hand. Not relevant to the discussion at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orbit Posted September 4, 2014 Author Share Posted September 4, 2014 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. I've never seen anyone throw tantrums like you do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts