Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Subduction Zone]

No, that agnostic.

Dude!! How much credibility would a Muslim have in claiming that you were not a Christian?

 

[sojourner]

Not if one uses reliable sources.

I’m using my own experiences.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No more so than faith in God is justified.

Perhaps by your standards, but not those of academia. In critical thought, justification is a rigorous, constrained process that connects evidence to sound (correct) conclusions. Only those sound conclusions are justified. Your beliefs lack compelling evidence by the standards of critical analysis. As I've explained ad infinitum, the evidence you offer for a deity supports alternative hypotheses just as well. All you have as evidence is the world around you. You're guessing about gods being involved.

What does it even mean to say that the universe is automated?

It means that the sun goes through the sky without the help of Apollo's chariots, that lightning and thunder don't need Thor to create them, and that electrons go through wires without any angels needed to push them through. You may recall the phrase clockwork universe.

if unsure, by definition you're not an atheist.

Your definition, not mine. I'm unsure because I'm also a critical thinker who consider skepticism and tentative belief commensurate with the quality and quantity of available evidence virtues.

What you call unsure is what I call philosophical doubt. It is understood, and unlike psychological doubt, not felt. I don't actually experience doubt about gods in the usual sense of the word.

I'm also an apatheist regarding noninterventionalist gods, which are the only kind not ruled out by the absence of evidence of divine intervention. It doesn't matter whether such deities exist or not. I realize that the answer to that question is useful for nothing, hence the apathy and lack of psychological doubt. But I remain an atheist. As I've explained to you, your definition of atheist is of no value to me if it doesn't people like me because I articulate philosophical doubt.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m using my own experiences.

Those quite often tend to be highly prejudicial.

 

[sojourner]

Those quite often tend to be highly prejudicial.

You’re right. But when similar results happen with different people in different situations, those results are compelling.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You’re right. But when similar results happen with different people in different situations, those results are compelling.

No, what is compelling are proper studies and in those the "therapy" tends to fail.

The mere presence of someone can make people feel better. But if a bunch of people that think that they are doing something all report that they are it really should not convince people since the placebo effect is very very strong under such situations.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You're guessing

And you are guessing that matter could somehow be eternal even though we see everything degrading on the earth.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Your definition, not mine.

If you choose to change the clear meaning of words, no one can take you seriously.

 

[Wildswanderer]

It means that the sun goes through the sky without the help of Apollo's chariots, that lightning and thunder don't need Thor to create them, and that electrons go through wires without any angels needed to push them through. You may recall the phrase clockwork universe.

That doesn't imply it's automated. It also doesn't explain why everything works.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Dude!! How much credibility would a Muslim have in claiming that you were not a Christian?

Dude! Words have meanings! You can't just change the meanings to fit your whims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude! Words have meanings! You can't just change the meanings to fit your whims.

That is what you are doing. What do you think "atheism" means? The best way to find out would be to ask an atheist. If you cherry pick a definition I can pick a correct one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And you are guessing that matter could somehow be eternal even though we see everything degrading on the earth.

No. We do not see that. Now you are not understanding the basic laws of physics. We see entropy increasing, but that is not a degradation.

 

[ppp]

And you are guessing that matter could somehow be eternal even though we see everything degrading on the earth.

We don't.

You’re right. But when similar results happen with different people in different situations, those results are compelling.

By that argument four leaf clovers are lucky.

 

[sojourner]

No, what is compelling are proper studies and in those the "therapy" tends to fail.

The mere presence of someone can make people feel better. But if a bunch of people that think that they are doing something all report that they are it really should not convince people since the placebo effect is very very strong under such situations.

I disagree.

 

[sojourner]

By that argument four leaf clovers are lucky.

Not so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I disagree.

I know, but those that understand the sciences and reality would not disagree with me. When properly tested there is no "there" there when it comes to Reiki.

 

[sojourner]

I know, but those that understand the sciences and reality would not disagree with me. When properly tested there is no "there" there when it comes to Reiki.

Are you saying I don’t understand science or reality? Thanks for the insult.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not so.

Actually "so".

A practitioner simply cannot rate or test his own work. One would need at a bare minimum an uninterested third party to do so. That would exclude practitioners of Reiki themselves.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you saying I don’t understand science or reality? Thanks for the insult.

How was that an insult? In this case you have admitted to not following proper protocol for having a valid opinion on your work.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is what you are doing. What do you think "atheism" means? The best way to find out would be to ask an atheist. If you cherry pick a definition I can pick a correct one.

By looking at the definition.

"One who denies the existence of God, or of a supreme intelligent being."

That doesn't leave room for maybes.