Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suppose there is...which belief system regarding the non-physical realm is the correct one?
My money's on physics with a dash of animism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100
So much very wrong, it is hard to know what to address. Let me just say this:
I absolutely believe the God of the Bible does not exist. This does not mean I believe no god or gods exist. You err when you assume that "God" is the only possible god.
I can only speak for myself, but, if you think that i didn't look at Andrew Wommack, it is you who is not looking. It was a claim of granted prayers and cures. That's it. As to the record of medicine and prayer on cancer, medicine is doing better than relying on the aoocasional inexplicable remission. The cause of which is 'Unknown'. Not "undeniably God".
Sorry. But unchecked an unvalidated claims of miracle cures (quite apart from a source with a tumescent agenda) does not cut it.
I tell you what, how about you to me exactly how someone would validate such a claim that could satisfy your ilk. Please tell me for ONCE. Obviously test results and testimony from the doctor isn't good enough for you. But then again, nothing. Please never ask me for evidence again. I am so sick of the flippant arrogant dismal. Thanks for wasting my time yet again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
No YOU ignored the evidence regarding slavery. Which was either denying that it was slavery at all (with a carefully selected and edited quote about Hebrew slaves who elect to stay otherwise they'll have to leave behind their wife and kids) or by arguing that it was all about the mores, customs of views of the men of the time, which apparently still insisting that the bible is somehow relevant for today, never minds reliably telling us about God.
What evidence? All you did is babble that the word slavery is always wrong. I pointed out that anyone in debt is a modern day slave. No exceptions. All you demonstrate is lazy human thinking through the filter of sinful man. Sinful man wants things immediate. God doesn't work that way.
What evidence? All you did is babble that the word slavery is always wrong. I pointed out that anyone in debt is a modern day slave. No exceptions. All you demonstrate is lazy human thinking through the filter of sinful man. Sinful man wants things immediate. God doesn't work that way.
Modern-day debt "slavery" equal to real slavery 3000 years ago??? The denial fundamentalists suffer from is truly jaw-dropping.
I tell you what, how about you to me exactly how someone would validate such a claim that could satisfy your ilk. Please tell me for ONCE. Obviously test results and testimony from the doctor isn't good enough for you.
I would be happy to....
This approach could be applied to any claim, but let's assume we are talking about healing cancer (or any other disease or condition) through prayer, since that is the example given. If it is real, if it actually works, it should be able to stand up to the same test we apply to any other intervention or treatment. Thus, it should be compared head-to-head against something that we know works, and showed to work at least as well. Heck, I'll set the bar really low and accept a comparison against NOTHING, which is what we do when there isn't any established treatment. In these cases, the bar is so low that you (the person proposing they have an effective intervention) need only show that the new-best thing is better than placebo. In other words, that the proposed intervention is at least better than pure random chance (that would've happened anyway, with no help).
So you take 100 people and give them no treatment at all, and another 100 (with the same disease or condition) and pray for them. If prayer works, you would expect to see more people in that group doing well than in the no-treatment group, where anyone who improves is doing it on their own (i.e., by random chance). To be clear, there is no expectation that it would work for ALL people in that group... it might only take a few more positive outcomes in one group than another to be able to say "this one is better... this actually works." That is how we know which drugs or surgeries or other interventions work, and which do not. We have verifiable, reproducible evidence. OTOH, testimony from one doctor saying "it's a miracle" does not constitute evidence; an anecdote is still an anecdote, regardless of who is providing it.
Unfortunately, that is precisely the kind of study(ies) they did in the other thread where this was discussed, and the results for patients being prayed for were not any better than random chance. In fact, they were a little WORSE in some studies.
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 04-08-2019 at 08:16 PM..
This approach could be applied to any claim, but let's assume we are talking about healing cancer (or any other disease or condition) through prayer, since that is the example given. If it is real, if it actually works, it should be able to stand up to the same test we apply to any other intervention or treatment. Thus, it should be compared head-to-head against something that we know works, and showed to work at least as well. Heck, I'll set the bar really low and accept a comparison against NOTHING, which is what we do when there isn't any established treatment. In these cases, the bar is so low that you (the person proposing they have an effective intervention) need only show that the new-best thing is better than placebo. In other words, that the proposed intervention is at least better than pure random chance (that would've happened anyway, with no help).
So you take 100 people and give them no treatment at all, and another 100 (with the same disease or condition) and pray for them. If prayer works, you would expect to see more people in that group doing well than in the no-treatment group, where anyone who improves is doing it on their own (i.e., by random chance). To be clear, there is no expectation that it would work for ALL people in that group... it might only take a few more positive outcomes in one group than another to be able to say "this one is better... this actually works." That is how we know which drugs or surgeries or other interventions work, and which do not. We have verifiable, reproducible evidence. OTOH, testimony from one doctor saying "it's a miracle" does not constitute evidence; an anecdote is still an anecdote, regardless of who is providing it.
Unfortunately, that is precisely the kind of study(ies) they did in the other thread where this was discussed, and the results for patients being prayed for were not any better than random chance. In fact, they were a little WORSE in some studies.
As evidenced here and in other threads about testing the efficacy of prayer, it seems that a little knowledge about the scientific method truly is dangerous. The primary deficit in the applications to this issue is in establishing that the controlled variables effectively represent the desired interactions to be tested. The assumption that anyone can effectively be a "prayer warrior" (able to wield prayer effectively) is clearly an unacceptable premise, prima facie. So how would we ever vet them? Using existing religious beliefs ABOUT God is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions. As well, those ranks claiming faith and healing powers, etc. are filled with con artists, fraudsters, and delusional people. So how on earth would you EVER get the fundamental requirement of truly effective wielders of prayer that would be absolutely necessary to test its efficacy? I will retain my faith in truly sincere prayer warriors and the more the better, thank you very much.
What would it take to test whether prayer works?
As evidenced here and in other threads about testing the efficacy of prayer, it seems that a little knowledge about the scientific method truly is dangerous. The primary deficit in the applications to this issue is in establishing that the controlled variables effectively represent the desired interactions to be tested. The assumption that anyone can effectively be a "prayer warrior" (able to wield prayer effectively) is clearly an unacceptable premise, prima facie. So how would we ever vet them? Using existing religious beliefs ABOUT God is replete with inconsistencies and contradictions. As well, those ranks claiming faith and healing powers, etc. are filled with con artists, fraudsters, and delusional people. So how on earth would you EVER get the fundamental requirement of truly effective wielders of prayer that would be absolutely necessary to test its efficacy? I will retain my faith in truly sincere prayer warriors and the more the better, thank you very much.
So true, but that never seems to stop you.
Heela was throwing out an example of evidence, not a fully developed proposal. It would be easy to address your concerns.
Take different groups of religious people, and divide them up by characteristic. Religion, some indicator of devoutness, method and frequency of prayer. Have them pray for selected, distinct groups of people with some malady. Compare to each other and a control group.
Heela was throwing out an example of evidence, not a fully developed proposal. It would be easy to address your concerns.
Take different groups of religious people, and divide them up by characteristic. Religion, some indicator of devoutness, method and frequency of prayer. Have them pray for selected, distinct groups of people with some malady. Compare to each other and a control group.
Very simple test: Take 100 terminal cancer patients who are christians. Let them pray (which they certainly will) and then see what percent are miraculously cured. This is not rocket science.
What evidence? All you did is babble that the word slavery is always wrong. I pointed out that anyone in debt is a modern day slave. No exceptions. All you demonstrate is lazy human thinking through the filter of sinful man. Sinful man wants things immediate. God doesn't work that way.
SorryJeff, I don’t buy it.
I have debt. I have a mortgage on my house.
Yes, I am obligated to pay a portion of my paycheck to the bank, but that is not the same as slavery. First, it is only a portion of my labor, not ALL of my labor. I have a house to live in as a benefit from this debt, and in a few years I will own the asset outright. I can change jobs, I can marry whom I want, I can sell the house and live in the woods if I choose. I can move from city to city. The bank cannot beat me, dictate my daily activities, or sell me to another bank (selling my mortgage is distinctly different from selling me).
Yes, I am obligated to pay a portion of my paycheck to the bank, but that is not the same as slavery. First, it is only a portion of my labor, not ALL of my labor. I have a house to live in as a benefit from this debt, and in a few years I will own the asset outright. I can change jobs, I can marry whom I want, I can sell the house and live in the woods if I choose. I can move from city to city. The bank cannot beat me, dictate my daily activities, or sell me to another bank (selling my mortgage is distinctly different from selling me).
Your statement is hyperbolic.
It's typical jeffspeak. Immature and over the top. I think Ozzy has become a disciple.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No YOU ignored the evidence regarding slavery. Which was either denying that it was slavery at all (with a carefully selected and edited quote about Hebrew slaves who elect to stay otherwise they'll have to leave behind their wife and kids) or by arguing that it was all about the mores, customs of views of the men of the time, which apparently still insisting that the bible is somehow relevant for today, never minds reliably telling us about God. 
The denial fundamentalists suffer from is truly jaw-dropping. 
