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.
It's typical jeffspeak. Immature and over the top. I think Ozzy has become a disciple.
Jeff does mystify me. I have offered to be truthful and respectful with him, yet he ignores my posts. I suspect he isn’t interested in a truthful respectful discussion with an atheist. It’s sad and unfortunate.
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.
None of your suggestions address the fundamental flaw in your vetting process. How do you determine their ability to effectively wield prayer in support of an objective? The answer is you can't. None of the characteristics you can divide them by address the ability you purport to control i.e, "some indicator of devoutness, method, and frequency of prayer" that is a viable substitute for their ability to wield prayer effectively. In one religion, the strength of belief is supposed to be the controlling factor in prayer effectiveness. How do you measure that any more effectively than we can measure the content of consciousness (we can't)?
None of your suggestions address the fundamental flaw in your vetting process. How do you determine their ability to effectively wield prayer in support of an objective? The answer is you can't. None of the characteristics you can divide them by address the ability you purport to control i.e, "some indicator of devoutness, method, and frequency of prayer" that is a viable substitute for their ability to wield prayer effectively. In one religion, the strength of belief is supposed to be the controlling factor in prayer effectiveness. How do you measure that any more effectively than we can measure the content of consciousness (we can't)?
Isn’t that the entire point of the experiment?
We create a dozen, or a hundred groups. If one or more groups has a curative effect higher than random chance, they become tentative successes. Subsequent studies confirm the effect, and if there is doubt as to exactly which factor is the key one, the groups can be tweaked by varying one or more components. Eventually we will find a group that is more and more effective with prayer as we focus in on the ideal composition.
This is pretty basic stuff, and your inability to grasp these simple concepts is why I doubt you have an earned doctorate. I really think you are more of a provocateur with a thesaurus.
You can't test the effectiveness of prayer if the control variable you employ has not been vetted to be able to invoke prayer.
Quote:
We create a dozen or a hundred groups. If one or more groups has a curative effect higher than random chance, they become tentative successes. Subsequent studies confirm the effect, and if there is doubt as to exactly which factor is the key one, the groups can be tweaked by varying one or more components. Eventually, we will find a group that is more and more effective with prayer as we focus in on the ideal composition.
The key assumption here is that prayer effectiveness can be separated from the individuals wielding it. That is WHY we use randomness. But prayer effectiveness is inextricably tied to the sincerity of the individual's belief in it.
Quote:
This is pretty basic stuff, and your inability to grasp these simple concepts is why I doubt you have an earned doctorate. I really think you are more of a provocateur with a thesaurus.
I am sure someone cares about your opinion about my scientific bona fides. I am not since I DO have a Ph.D. that validated my skills in that regard. I can understand your desire to dissuade people from unwisely RELYING on prayer instead of other more direct and tested methods, but I am nonplussed by such indiscriminate dismissal and discouragement.
Raw stats prove nothing. There could be a lot of reasons, such as more people being honest. Inferential statistics need to be approached with great care.
Hard for me to tell. Australia is one of the most secular and irreverent societies on earth. People here commonly to go church for baptisms, weddings and funerals, and are pretty materialistic in between --As a nation, Australians are open hearted. generous and welcoming .
Occasionally run across some drongo who equates lack of religion with lack or ethics or morals. At that shows is a deeply ignorant and closed little mind.
On moral absolutism; Won't make a dogmatic truth statement. Suffice it to say I neither accept or respect positions of moral absolutism.
I guess there may be moral absolutes but in my experience they are not found within the rigid moral values of most religionist I've come across. In my experience ,such people tend to be long on judgement and schadenfreude and short on the compassion demanded by their faith,.
My position : organised religion is the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated on the human race. Imo a secular humanist society based on ancient greek philosophies, such as Stoicism would be superior to one with say a Judaeo-Christian or Judaeo-Muslim moral/ethical base.
It is my observation that Christianity has been the cause of far more evil and suffering than good,. This began in the fourth century when the church began officially murdering 'heretics' and 'pagans, with the blessing of the emperor Theodosius. It continued for over a thousand years. It stopped when there was finally a separation between Church and State and churches were not allowed to burn people alive any longer.
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.
Nobody is forcing to to respond to my posts. And what claim? I don't deny the fact of remission. I reject the claim that it must be Jesus doing it. How do you prove it? Same problem with 'what evidence would prove God? Don't blame us because the dude insists on acting like all his miracles could equally well have some other explanation. Of course id prayer worked every time, just as it says in the Bible, that might carry a bit of weight.
Quote:
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.
Youre wasting a lot of my time to with this denial that slaver in the Bible is Slavery, not gainful employment.
Owenership of people is not the same as paying off a debt or working for a living.
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.
Except to the believers. This is the frustrating thing with Faith -based thinking; they do not seem to be able to get their heads around something that blindingly obvious if it happens to conflict with their Faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
None of your suggestions address the fundamental flaw in your vetting process. How do you determine their ability to effectively wield prayer in support of an objective? The answer is you can't. None of the characteristics you can divide them by address the ability you purport to control i.e, "some indicator of devoutness, method, and frequency of prayer" that is a viable substitute for their ability to wield prayer effectively. In one religion, the strength of belief is supposed to be the controlling factor in prayer effectiveness. How do you measure that any more effectively than we can measure the content of consciousness (we can't)?
Faith -based thinking is making you fall into another error -'believe or not'. The God -apologists don't seem to be able to think in terms of weight of evidence. 'one can't be 100% certain' works both ways. Just we cannot prove 100% that God is not making all the snowflakes (which isn't the same as Inspiring them all) reason and the knowledge of physics loads the weight of evidence in favour of a natural cause. Similarly, though one cannot prove that a god was working the oracle if so many prayers were answered - notably the healing ones - but they'd sure have a better case that claiming any (as yet) unexplained healings as a miracle because of prayers and never mind the ones that fail.
How do you measure it? You add up. It isn't rocket science. When you think about it, that's how you do it consciousness, too.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 04-08-2019 at 11:00 PM..
You can't test the effectiveness of prayer if the control variable you employ has not been vetted to be able to invoke prayer.
I don't get your difficulty with this. You don't question a thousand people about their engineering degree if their cars all start going wrong - you factory recall the cars. The results provide the proof.
Quote:
The key assumption here is that prayer effectiveness can be separated from the individuals wielding it. That is WHY we use randomness. But prayer effectiveness is inextricably tied to the sincerity of the individual's belief in it. I am sure someone cares about your opinion about my scientific bona fides. I am not since I DO have a Ph.D. that validated my skills in that regard. I can understand your desire to dissuade people from unwisely RELYING on prayer instead of other more direct and tested methods, but I am nonplussed by such indiscriminate dismissal and discouragement.
Aside from you wagging your qualifications around yet again, which is neither here nor there if the Godfaith that screws up your mental processes renders them ineffective, except in possibly blinding people with sciencey -jargon, you are getting dangerously near the 'No Real Christian' argument. It didn't work? It isn't because prayer doesn't work, but because they weren't good enough Christians.
I'm not going to lean on Luke's claim that Faith no bigger than a mustard -seed will do it, especially as ..I think Matthew...says that all the disciples with all the faith they could muster, failed to dislodge a demon. Instead I'd say that without the work of science people would be dying of cancer despite all the prayers - with the occasional remission. And you tell them that their prayers were not sincere, and if they poked you in the eye, it would be richly deserved.
You can't test the effectiveness of prayer if the control variable you employ has not been vetted to be able to invoke prayer.
The key assumption here is that prayer effectiveness can be separated from the individuals wielding it. That is WHY we use randomness. But prayer effectiveness is inextricably tied to the sincerity of the individual's belief in it. I am sure someone cares about your opinion about my scientific bona fides. I am not since I DO have a Ph.D. that validated my skills in that regard. I can understand your desire to dissuade people from unwisely RELYING on prayer instead of other more direct and tested methods, but I am nonplussed by such indiscriminate dismissal and discouragement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TRANSPONDER
Faith -based thinking is making you fall into another error - 'believe or not'. The God -apologists don't seem to be able to think in terms of weight of evidence. 'one can't be 100% certain' works both ways. Just we cannot prove 100% that God is not making all the snowflakes (which isn't the same as Inspiring them all) reason and the knowledge of physics loads the weight of evidence in favour of a natural cause. Similarly, though one cannot prove that a god was working the oracle if so many prayers were answered - notably the healing ones - but they'd sure have a better case that claiming any (as yet) unexplained healings as a miracle because of prayers and never mind the ones that fail.
How do you measure it? You add up. It isn't rocket science. When you think about it, that's how you do it consciousness, too.
Arq, It is clear you do not recognize the problem with your non-rocket science belief about the essential requirements of control variables.
Raw stats prove nothing. There could be a lot of reasons, such as more people being honest. Inferential statistics need to be approached with great care.
Hard for me to tell. Australia is one of the most secular and irreverent societies on earth. People here commonly to go church for baptisms, weddings and funerals, and are pretty materialistic in between --As a nation, Australians are open hearted. generous and welcoming .
Occasionally run across some drongo who equates lack of religion with lack or ethics or morals. At that shows is a deeply ignorant and closed little mind.
On moral absolutism; Won't make a dogmatic truth statement. Suffice it to say I neither accept or respect positions of moral absolutism.
I guess there may be moral absolutes but in my experience they are not found within the rigid moral values of most religionist I've come across. In my experience ,such people tend to be long on judgement and schadenfreude and short on the compassion demanded by their faith,.
My position : organised religion is the greatest confidence trick ever perpetrated on the human race. Imo a secular humanist society based on ancient greek philosophies, such as Stoicism would be superior to one with say a Judaeo-Christian or Judaeo-Muslim moral/ethical base.
It is my observation that Christianity has been the cause of far more evil and suffering than good,. This began in the fourth century when the church began officially murdering 'heretics' and 'pagans, with the blessing of the emperor Theodosius. It continued for over a thousand years. It stopped when there was finally a separation between Church and State and churches were not allowed to burn people alive any longer.
Nice post. I agree that the religious side get their heads handed to them. I hadn't seen the whole debate before - just a clip of Fry's speech, but even i was astonished at the final result.
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.
