Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Tinker Grey]

2 - praying for material things

Give us this day our daily bread.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks, I have read it, but I wanted @PruePhillip to explain his rationale, because as you say a prima facie reading suggests no kind of connection with the biblical account of crucifixion. Of course we have only scant evidence for the crucifixion itself, so reading into it millennia after the fact, is a doubly subjective fail.

I have to admit that I am curious how

21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

fits into the crucifixion narrative.

 

[KWED]

What reason a snowflake? Because of physics. Something about the molecular bonds which form cystals in water, and gravity, and water vapor and temperature and sunlight etc.. There's a reason for every snowflake .

That's the "how", not the "why". Do you accept that there is no "purpose" in the existence of snowflakes?

Saying something has existed forever is
1 - probably wrong
2 - avoids the question.

Wait, so you don't think that god has existed forever, and that claiming he does is just a cop out?
Interesting...

If the universe didn't create itself, what or who did?

Do snowflakes create themselves?

And why?

Why does there have to be a "why"?

 

[PruePhillip]

Give us this day our daily bread.

Don't lose sight of the nuance in that sample prayer.
That's a prayer for the provision of your day, it's not for that Ferrari or to live to 120 years.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Doesn’t matter if we pray “to” God or to polka dot llamas.

That's the skeptic's position as well.

The research has was foolish because it did not address the effective purpose of prayer, and then declared it ineffective.

No, the research was valuable science. Others have explained the value it has been to them. I have done the same in the last post to you, which you didn't respond to. What you mean is that YOU find no value in the research. Why would that matter to those who do? And doesn't the research confirm your claim, that prayer is placebo that has an effect on the one praying but not the one prayed for, unless he or she is aware of that, then there may be a placebo effect there as well as we saw in the study?

Scientists wouldn't need to test for what you say prayer does. They already know that it works as a placebo. They're testing the claim of Christians who make promises in the name of a god that aren't kept.

You and Sojourner don't seem to realize that you have removed the supernaturalism from prayer and redefined it as a psychological process. That's the skeptic's position, although he goes further and includes all supernatural apprehensions including the claim of experiencing God or gleaning spiritual truths. All the skeptic sees is natural processes. But that's not all the typical monotheist claims. So I suspect that the skeptics here have no dispute with either of you regarding what prayer is and does.

Sound crazy?

Sounds irrelevant. The post you responded to made two major points, neither of which you responded to. And ironically, one of the points was that you don't attempt to rebut what is written to you. I always wonder when I get to this point whether the theist even looked at the post. Did you not see the words? Did you skim over them too quickly to comprehend them? Did you read them with an attempt to understand but just can't. Did you understand them but decide to just let the ball drop rather than make an attempt at a responsive reply because you're lazy or malicious? Worse, did you think you were responding to a post about the Christian definition of love and the essential place of rebuttal in debate?

Hopefully, you can see where I'm going with this. You might as well have responded with a Chinese fortune cookie message. And what's more, I can just about bet the farm that I still won't get a responsive answer to this comment. You won't give the answer, and I am left to guess why once again. I consider a reading comprehension answer to be likely. You have a chance to affect that opinion with your response, but you won't. You won't help with the answer, and I will have to guess why.

 

[PruePhillip]

That's the "how", not the "why". Do you accept that there is no "purpose" in the existence of snowflakes?

Wait, so you don't think that god has existed forever, and that claiming he does is just a cop out?
Interesting...

Do snowflakes create themselves?

Why does there have to be a "why"?

I suggest there is a 'purpose' to everything in our universe. Someone asked 'why' there are penguins down at the south pole. I suppose in a human centric POV penguins fulfill some role in keeping the world as it is. Someone said that anything possible is compulsory, and that's a neat idea.
And snowflakes are necessary though I am not sure why (I have never seen a snow flake) Perhaps as part of the global hydrological cycle.

 

[PruePhillip]

Sounds irrelevant. The post you responded to made two major points, neither of which you responded to. And ironically, one of the points was that you don't attempt to rebut what is written to you. I always wonder when I get to this point whether the theist even looked at the post. Did you not see the words? Did you skim over them too quickly to comprehend them? Did you read them with an attempt to understand but just can't. Did you understand them but decide to just let the ball drop rather than make an attempt at a responsive reply because you're lazy or malicious? Worse, did you think you were responding to a post about the Christian definition of love and the essential place of rebuttal in debate?

Hopefully, you can see where I'm going with this. You might as well have responded with a Chinese fortune cookie message. And what's more, I can just about bet the farm that I still won't get a responsive answer to this comment. You won't give the answer, and I am left to guess why once again. I consider a reading comprehension answer to be likely. You have a chance to affect that opinion with your response, but you won't. You won't help with the answer, and I will have to guess why.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing.
Please give me the question again that you claim I did not answer.

 

[PruePhillip]

I am very dubious, have you anything to offer in support of your claim beyond the bare assertion? Does psalm 22 even mention crucifixion for example, or dates, or names? I bet it's the usual tenuous and subjective interpretations of biblical narratives, in a post ad hoc reading.

I am fairly sure Psalm 22 refers to the Messiah on the cross.
It wasn't David's suffering - he never faced anything like that, or lived to talk about it later.
The part I like is the end where it says it will be told to a generation not yet born 'that he has done this.'

 

[Polymath257]

I am fairly sure Psalm 22 refers to the Messiah on the cross.
It wasn't David's suffering - he never faced anything like that, or lived to talk about it later.
The part I like is the end where it says it will be told to a generation not yet born 'that he has done this.'

if it is symbolism, maybe it is about Israel's being conquered by a foe? So it is the suffering of all the people: their garments being distributed, etc.

The point is that there are many interpretations of the text and most of them have nothing to do with Jesus. It is only by attempting to read a later message back into the text that anyone ever even linked this text to Jesus.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bob is irrational to believe that his prayer had anything to do with winning the lottery. That is irrational.

So, no, he was NOT right about that.

Not if he was relying on his prayerometer:

 

[Sheldon]

What reason a snowflake? Because of physics. Something about the molecular bonds which form cystals in water, and gravity, and water vapor and temperature and sunlight etc.. There's a reason for every snowflake ---- even the ones in our campuses.

In your rationale you'd have to believe a deity intervenes to design each one afresh, rather than accept the fact that random events can produce unique complexity, so snowflakes are a very good argument against the superstition of creationism.

 

[Sheldon]

I am fairly sure Psalm 22 refers to the Messiah on the cross.

Yes you said, I asked you why you believe this? What evidences this belief in the text, beyond your very tenuous subjective interpretation of it?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Don't lose sight of the nuance in that sample prayer.
That's a prayer for the provision of your day, it's not for that Ferrari or to live to 120 years.

It is nevertheless a prayer for material things contrary to your assertion.

 

[KWED]

In the 1960's and 1970's heroin was not mainstream.

Heroin isn't mainstream now either (about 0.3% of the US population used at some point during 2020) . No idea what you think your argument is here.

 

[KWED]

So why do people continue to do/believe that? Desperation? Fear?

No. Because god said he would, and god doesn't lie - does he?

Yet, fear and desperation are no part of religion.

Wrong. Religion relies heavily on people's fear and desperation. Though that was pretty obvious.

 

[KWED]

This expert may disagree with you:

Either the drugs were much stronger or people were pussies back in the day...

 

[KWED]

No, he's not. He did not come to the same conclusion as you, but his thought process is rational given the information he has. You, in fact, are being irrationally biased. Because you cannot possibly know his conclusion is untrue. Especially when the evidence he has indicates clearly that his conclusion is correct. His prayer did in fact lead him to a means of resolving his problem.

Just because someone really believes something, it does not necessarily therefore make that belief rational.

 

[KWED]

Actually, symbols are all around you that have nothing to do with fiction. Symbols are symbols, fact or fiction.

By definition, such symbols are representative of something else, something they are not. Therefore they are "fictional" in that sense.

 

[KWED]

The flag raising at Iwa Jima is a symbol,

Yes. It was symbolic of victory. It wasn't victory itself.

and it happened (well, maybe, like the Russian flag raiser in Berlin it was after the ACTUAL event!)
The twin towers in NY were symbols, and bringing them down was symbolic too.
The bison is a symbol, so too the bald eagle, and let's not forget the symbol of the dodo.

The bald eagle is a bird. When it is used as a symbol it is not symbolic of a bird. It is symbolic of the US nation. It is a fictional idea that only has meaning because our imagination gives it meaning.

 

[sojourner]

Wrong. Religion relies heavily on people's fear and desperation. Though that was pretty obvious.

I can see how you might feel that way, but that’s simply not the case. Religion provides a path through our fear and desperation (at least that’s the case for Xy and Judaism). Xy is all about love for God and love of neighbor. Where there is love, fear has no place.