Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[ppp]

Agreed. I refer only to biblical, New Testament, Apostolic, Jesus doctrine/example stuff only. I am not amiss in saying I simply have no idea WHERE a lot of church beliefs come from.

Oh, PruePhillip. It comes from billions of Christians who only require PRIVATE PROOF for their beliefs. For their particular interpretation of the Bible. This applies to your beliefs and to your particular interpretation of the Bible, equally.

 

[Polymath257]

Not according to what I've seen.

Really? And just how many classes in quantum mechanics have you taken? For that matter, have you ever solved a differential equation? or found an eigenvalue for a matrix? Do you know the relevance of the last two questions to the first?

I don't see it that way. You think it's all determined by your environment, now? You need to make up your mind.

The environment in your past determines the state of your brain now. And that determines the decision you will make. And it is you making the decision because it is your brain where the decision is made. yes, even if that was determined long before you existed.

 

[DNB]

So it is wise to reject religions since theists can't demonstrate their religions are true?

So atheists are wise. Theists, not so much.

Atheists lack perception, they are oblivious to the insights and awareness as those of the theist.
Thus, theists are wise, atheists are not.

 

[F1fan]

Atheists lack perception,

And what perception is it that atheists lack?

Don't you lack the perception to detect Hindu gods? Can you perceive Shiva and Vishnu? If not, what is your problem? Obviously Hindus don't lack this perception, but do you? And why don't Hindus detect your version of God? Or Shinto? Or Jaines?

they are oblivious to the insights and awareness as those of the theist.

And what remarkable insights do theists have? Do they no commit crimes? Do they not lie and cheat? Are there no theists in prisons? Explain to me how much advantage a person has being a theist versus an non-theist. Use facts.

Thus, theists are wise, atheists are not.

This is not a sound conclusion. You offered no evidence, only claims. That is not a wise thing to do in debate with smart atheists.

 

[DNB]

That's not a useful definition for me. Knowledge is the collection of ideas considered correct. I don't call that wisdom. As I've explained, for me, intelligence is the ability to recognize and solve problems, such as how to make money or attract dates. Wisdom is a subset of knowledge, namely, correct ideas on what things will bring lasting happiness and how to avoid avoidable mistakes that bring unhappiness. It is knowledge used to solve the problem how best to live to be happy. Happy in this context means more than happy like at a birthday party, but more like a sense of fulfillment and freedom from dysphoric states such as self-loathing, shame and remorse.

In short, intelligence is knowing how to get what you want, and wisdom is knowing what to want to find happiness. If you think about it, isn't that your definition, too? Don't you consider faith in God wisdom because its the path to fulfillment and heavenly bliss? You're pursuing happiness as you imagine it and according to what you believe is real and how the universe works, just like me, and you call that wisdom, just like me.

Yes, in the sense that the truth will set you free. Meaning, that even bad news is better than a placebo provided that the bad news is accurate.
So, being fully aware how the universe came to be and what is expected of us, regardless of the task required (painful, sorrowful, or not), comprehending this is wisdom. For God has not divulged all things about Him in the most apparent manner, only a few are able to penetrate the spiritual realm that exists around us. I'm not talking about mysticism nor Gnosticism, but merely abiding by the laws of the intangible and unquantifiable: love and righteousness, justice and self-control, humility and altruism, etc....

Truth and enlightenment allows one to understand if it is better to turn the other cheek or not, or to gives one's life for another, or suffer punishment when guilty. These can be extremely painful decisions and outcomes , especially for the secular minded. Thus, wisdom seeks truth first, regardless o9f the outcome.

 

[DNB]

And what perception is it that atheists lack?

Don't you lack the perception to detect Hindu gods? Can you perceive Shiva and Vishnu? If not, what is your problem? Obviously Hindus don't lack this perception, but do you? And why don't Hindus detect your version of God? Or Shinto? Or Jaines?


And what remarkable insights do theists have? Do they no commit crimes? Do they not lie and cheat? Are there no theists in prisons? Explain to me how much advantage a person has being a theist versus an non-theist. Use facts.


This is not a sound conclusion. You offered no evidence, only claims. That is not a wise thing to do in debate with smart atheists.

The remarkable insight is to the truth of the universe: its existence, its creator, its purpose, its destiny. Being an atheist is like believing that a car has no engine.

 

[PruePhillip]

Oh, PruePhillip. It comes from billions of Christians who only require PRIVATE PROOF for their beliefs. For their particular interpretation of the Bible. This applies to your beliefs and to your particular interpretation of the Bible, equally.

Private proof yes, 'particular interpretation' no. If you 'follow' the example of Christ there is little wiggle room for 'interpretation.' For instance the decision to create physical altars and churches is a 'private interpretation' not found in scripture, warned about in scripture and not part of the example of ministry or worship. And this church building led to real harm to doctrine, including tithing and taxation, a dedicated class of 'christians' who minded these structures, a lessening of emphasis on scripture, alternate scriptures and the growth in temporal and political powers.
That kind of thing.

 

[F1fan]

The remarkable insight is to the truth of the universe: its existence, its creator, its purpose, its destiny. Being an atheist is like believing that a car has no engine.

You are evading my questions as I expected. Your narrow and shallow religious view gets exposed when you make broad claims against atheists, and only expose your view as limited and weak. Let's note you offer no facts, only the dogma you think is true. You don't even bother to reiterate your bogus claims against atheists lacking perception because you know that I know you are bluffing.

 

[F1fan]

Private proof yes, 'particular interpretation' no. If you 'follow' the example of Christ there is little wiggle room for 'interpretation.'

Yeah, be a decent person that has empathy. Do service for others who are less fortunate than you.

For instance the decision to create physical altars and churches is a 'private interpretation' not found in scripture, warned about in scripture and not part of the example of ministry or worship. And this church building led to real harm to doctrine, including tithing and taxation, a dedicated class of 'christians' who minded these structures, a lessening of emphasis on scripture, alternate scriptures and the growth in temporal and political powers.
That kind of thing.

This is church business. Do you think church business has anything to do with Christ? If so, you are missing the mark.

 

[ppp]

Private proof yes, 'particular interpretation' no. If you 'follow' the example of Christ there is little wiggle room for 'interpretation.'

I am not sure what the point of this is. Are you saying that you think your interpretation is the right one? Nearly everyone says the same thing as you do here. You all sincerely believe that you are on the right path. I believe that you all believe it.

But this all goes back to what I said earlier. I have no reason to believe that you (or any other person) know, or are capable of knowing that a god exists. And since Christians try to shape the world through conversion and coercion and conquest I am going to push back until y'all quit doing that.

As a general rule of thumb I think that Do unto others as they wish to be done unto is a far more empathetic and tolerant position than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

 

[KWED]

The whole basis of Darwin's theory can't be observed.
He proposed that all species derive from one or a few species...we cannot observe that happening.

Apart from the fact that the phenomenon of evolution can be observed - your argument means that you should not believe in god, because he can't be observed. Same with the Magic Jesus.

You reject things for which there is hard evidence because you can't actually see it yourself with your own eyes, yet at the same time insist that the spiritual realm exists because you feel that it does, despite admitting that it can't be observed.
You really should pause to think about that.

 

[KWED]

A good scientist will say 'There could be ghosts, or not. We have no evidence either way.'

Wrong. They will say "all the available evidence suggests that there are no ghosts".
Science does not assign a 50/50 probability to every unknown.

A bad scientist will say 'There's no such thing as ghosts.'

A scientist would not make that kind of absolute assertion.

Works with UFO's

Indeed. All the evidence suggests that there are no UFOs.
Note: "UFOs" (contact with extraterrestrials on earth) and "the existence of extraterrestrials" are two different issues.

and the meaning of life, too.

Again, yes. As such there is no evidence that there is a "meaning of life" (in the metaphysical sense). Simply claiming that there is one dest't give it equal credence.

You don't give equal credence to all the various possible gods, do you? Why not?

 

[PruePhillip]

Wrong. They will say "all the available evidence suggests that there are no ghosts".
Science does not assign a 50/50 probability to every unknown.

A scientist would not make that kind of absolute assertion.

Indeed. All the evidence suggests that there are no UFOs.
Note: "UFOs" (contact with extraterrestrials on earth) and "the existence of extraterrestrials" are two different issues.

Again, yes. As such there is no evidence that there is a "meaning of life" (in the metaphysical sense). Simply claiming that there is one dest't give it equal credence.

You don't give equal credence to all the various possible gods, do you? Why not?

'No evidence' simply means there's no evidence. I had people tell me, years ago, 'There's no evidence of King David, there is no such person.' Two statements there - first is correct, second is an assertion.
There's no evidence of ghosts - it's not 50/50 to say they do or don't exist. All you have to say is, 'We dont know.'

 

[PruePhillip]

I am not sure what the point of this is. Are you saying that you think your interpretation is the right one? Nearly everyone says the same thing as you do here. You all sincerely believe that you are on the right path. I believe that you all believe it.

But this all goes back to what I said earlier. I have no reason to believe that you (or any other person) know, or are capable of knowing that a god exists. And since Christians try to shape the world through conversion and coercion and conquest I am going to push back until y'all quit doing that.

As a general rule of thumb I think that Do unto others as they wish to be done unto is a far more empathetic and tolerant position than "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Yes, my interpretation is the right one.
If someone kills in the name of God then they are wrong. We have been given an example of what is considered proper conduct. Someone who kills is clearly not under the control of God. No room for interpretation otherwise.
As to whether someone is 'capable of knowing that god exists' - well you don't know. All you can is, 'I don't know if someone is capable of knowing if god exists.'

 

[PruePhillip]

Yeah, be a decent person that has empathy. Do service for others who are less fortunate than you.


This is church business. Do you think church business has anything to do with Christ? If so, you are missing the mark.

Yes, 'church' means a gathering. You can't tell if someone is approved of God - that's judging. But if someone is building some grand cathedral, or killing infidels you can say, 'What you are doing is not authorized by scripture'

 

[KWED]

I suppose you know the old argument about 'All swans are white' ???
Turned out Australian ones were black.
I recall the Loch Ness mystery turned out to have an answer - a lower thermal layer causing underwater waters to reach the surface
and the mythic Australia 'min min lights' which operated on a similar basis, channeling light over vast distances between thermal layers.
I worked with a guy called Valentich whose brother disapeared in 1978 in an UFO incident (he told me NASA returned the radar and audio tapes to him, declaring they had 'no natural explanation' of what happened to his brother.

and with the bible, THIS YEAR we have the publication of information on an air burst over the Jordan Valley early Iron Age, the locatio of Sodom and Gomorrah. And evidence for Hebrew writing much older than found before - disproving those who said the Jews couldn't write the bible at that time as they couldn't write.

So I keep an open mind - people who declared 'something' was in the Loch, or were 'followed' by mystery lights or saw an 'UFO' could be speaking the truth.
And more and more bits of bible 'myth' are surfacing as fact.
Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, as some wiser souls say.

So, either natural, material explanations for what was thought to be supernatural, or more unevidenced claims of the supernatural. Apart from the swan analogy, which makes no sense in this context. We had evidence for white swans. We then had evidence for black swans. Also, under proper scientific thought, no one would have said that back swans cannot exist. It is the theist who makes absolute claims on the basis of no evidence.

The fact that you don't realise that you are arguing against your own position shows just why you believe the way you do - through a lack of critical thinking.

 

[KWED]

Here you are refering to religious groups of which I don't happen to believe in. Their fighting and hate BREACH the doctrines they claim to live by.

So now you are defining what all other religions are and how their followers behave.
Would you accept the follower of another religion making the sane assertions about you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Lol, the same questions apply to your beliefs.... you have no argument.

The difference is that he can actually provide rational answers to those questions.

 

[KWED]

This is what Gould (?) called the "non-overlapping Magisteria" of science and religion. Science is about the world and religion is about meaning and value.

Indeed/ Science deals with the material world, religion deals with an imaginary one.

Religion for me takes on the philosophical dimension (why something rather than nothing stuff) the veracity of the bible and spiritual feelings/experiences.

Do you think all philosophers are religious?

Thought you understood the black swan thing. Once people said 'All swans are white' as though it was a certainty, if not a science statement. But you can't say that because you haven't seen every swan on earth (or anywhere else!) and as it turned out, there WERE black swans in another country. So you cannot say that something 'doesn't exist' as you can't prove it. And that joke about the sheep on a hill in Scotland is good too - with the physicist, chemist and mathematician.

So, you are claiming that we have conclusive evidence of some types of religion, but not others, but this doesn't mean that they aren't all real.
Hmm, perhaps it's you who doesn't understand the application of the analogy.

 

[KWED]

"a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."

Lacking belief means you don't believe, not that you kind of, sort of believe sometimes. As I said if you don't know for sure, you are an agnostic.

Time to wheel out the old diagram again...