• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
The problem with Christian claims of love is that it is not referring to what I would call love, but rather, something that shouldn't be called love at all. The examples cited as acts of love include a crucifixion. There are scriptures about cutting off hands, plucking out eyes, and castration. There is punishment for those who don't comply with commandments. This comment helps one understand what scripture means by love: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." As an unbeliever very familiar with scripture, I can tell you that scripture teaches hatred of atheists, who are depicted as immoral and fit for perdition simply for not believing those same scriptures.

None of this is appealing. In fact, it's quite off-putting, and as I said, falls very short of what I call love. I can't imagine treating somebody I loved the way this deity is depicted treating humanity. Love is about the needs of the object of love, not the needs of the one claiming to love.

It's worse than you think. The linkages between Moses and Jesus - in Egypt the Jews were to take into their home a young, unblemished male lamb. They were to bond with it for three days, then kill it. Its blood was daubed on the lintel to show the Jews were a blood brought people, and saved from the world and death.
At home we found bonding to be very fast with little lambs, a day at best. But three days would be excruciating. And then to kill it and EAT IT WHOLE. Not just the choice lamb cutlets but the innards, the skin, the wool.
All this is symbolic. There are so many who are not prepared to 'die daily' to self and in religious observances pick and chose what portions they partake of.
Cruel? Yes. But this cruelty is a part of our life - we live off living things.
Loving? Yes. These Hebrews were the people of God. God gave his son. As Abraham was willing to give his son (but God provided the lamb)
The MAGNITUDE of the suffering is meant to symbolize Jesus taking upon him the sins of the world. It's symbolic only - if you don't accept this offering for your sin then something more cruel will be your fate - separation from God.
So not only did Jesus suffer on the cross, but he rejected the sedative. And he was the first of the three to die because he did not try to keep himself alive by pushing against the nails driven through his ankles, that he might breathe easier.

If the bible was about human love you might dismiss it as a human book.
It's about God's love, and the bible says God is 'austere' - if we can suffer at God's hand, what will become of those who obey not the Gospel?
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
And still, yet again, you fail to articulate your objections. Because you can't.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!;)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
It's worse than you think. The linkages between Moses and Jesus - in Egypt the Jews were to take into their home a young, unblemished male lamb. They were to bond with it for three days, then kill it. Its blood was daubed on the lintel to show the Jews were a blood brought people, and saved from the world and death.
At home we found bonding to be very fast with little lambs, a day at best. But three days would be excruciating. And then to kill it and EAT IT WHOLE. Not just the choice lamb cutlets but the innards, the skin, the wool.
All this is symbolic. There are so many who are not prepared to 'die daily' to self and in religious observances pick and chose what portions they partake of.
Cruel? Yes. But this cruelty is a part of our life - we live off living things.
Loving? Yes. These Hebrews were the people of God. God gave his son. As Abraham was willing to give his son (but God provided the lamb)
The MAGNITUDE of the suffering is meant to symbolize Jesus taking upon him the sins of the world. It's symbolic only - if you don't accept this offering for your sin then something more cruel will be your fate - separation from God.
So not only did Jesus suffer on the cross, but he rejected the sedative. And he was the first of the three to die because he did not try to keep himself alive by pushing against the nails driven through his ankles, that he might breathe easier.

If the bible was about human love you might dismiss it as a human book.
It's about God's love, and the bible says God is 'austere' - if we can suffer at God's hand, what will become of those who obey not the Gospel?
Okay, let's ignore the fact that it is almost a dead certainty that Moses is fictional. I am curious where you got the story about the sacrificial lamb from.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
So far, the only objections I've seen were based on gross misrepresentations of the scenario. "Bob prayed to win the lotto and won, so he thinks it was magic", etc.,. And once I explained that these were gross misrepresentations, none of you could come up with anything else. And still none of you offer anything else.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!

:rolleyes:
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!
Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy!;)
What was that "Post eggo toasted properly"?

EDIT: Drat! Eggos are made by Kellogg, not Post.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
What was that "Post eggo toasted properly"?

I love the way he ignored this fallacy he used, even though it was pointed out in the very first reply to his risible Bob scenario. Then keeps falsely claiming no one can rationally articulate ay objection to his fallacious appeal to magic.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I love the way he ignored this fallacy he used, even though it was pointed out in the very first reply to his risible Bob scenario. Then keeps falsely claiming no one can rationally articulate ay objection to his fallacious appeal to magic.
I simply gave up after a while. Unfortunately Eggos are not made by the Post Cereals company. They are a product of a competitor, Kellogg.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Okay, let's ignore the fact that it is almost a dead certainty that Moses is fictional. I am curious where you got the story about the sacrificial lamb from.

The sacrificial lamb is mentioned in Exodus.
copy past from GotQuestions
God instructed every household of the Israelite people to select a year-old male lamb without defect (Exodus 12:5; cf. Leviticus 22:20-21). The head of the household was to slaughter the lamb at twilight, taking care that none of its bones were broken, and apply some of its blood to the tops and sides of the doorframe of the house. The lamb was to be roasted and eaten (Exodus 12:7-8). God also gave specific instructions as to how the Israelites were to eat the lamb, “with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand” (Exodus 12:11). In other words, they had to be ready to travel.

God said that when He saw the lamb’s blood on the doorframe of a house, He would “pass over” that home and not permit “the destroyer” (Exodus 12:23) to enter. Any home without the blood of the lamb would have their firstborn son struck down that night (Exodus 12:12-13).


It was prophesised that the Messianic Redeemer, the spotless lamb who's blood would be shed for mankind, would suffer but he would not have a single bone broken. I don't understand why - but the bible is full of this muti-generational, multi-millenial linkages and symbols.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The sacrificial lamb is mentioned in Exodus.
copy past from GotQuestions
God instructed every household of the Israelite people to select a year-old male lamb without defect (Exodus 12:5; cf. Leviticus 22:20-21). The head of the household was to slaughter the lamb at twilight, taking care that none of its bones were broken, and apply some of its blood to the tops and sides of the doorframe of the house. The lamb was to be roasted and eaten (Exodus 12:7-8). God also gave specific instructions as to how the Israelites were to eat the lamb, “with your cloak tucked into your belt, your sandals on your feet and your staff in your hand” (Exodus 12:11). In other words, they had to be ready to travel.

God said that when He saw the lamb’s blood on the doorframe of a house, He would “pass over” that home and not permit “the destroyer” (Exodus 12:23) to enter. Any home without the blood of the lamb would have their firstborn son struck down that night (Exodus 12:12-13).


It was prophesised that the Messianic Redeemer, the spotless lamb who's blood would be shed for mankind, would suffer but he would not have a single bone broken. I don't understand why - but the bible is full of this muti-generational, multi-millenial linkages and symbols.

So nothing about the wool or entrails. In fact it specifically says "the flesh" which tends to mean the muscle tissues.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The problem with Christian claims of love is that it is not referring to what I would call love, but rather, something that shouldn't be called love at all. The examples cited as acts of love include a crucifixion. There are scriptures about cutting off hands, plucking out eyes, and castration. There is punishment for those who don't comply with commandments. This comment helps one understand what scripture means by love: "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." As an unbeliever very familiar with scripture, I can tell you that scripture teaches hatred of atheists, who are depicted as immoral and fit for perdition simply for not believing those same scriptures. None of this is appealing. In fact, it's quite off-putting, and as I said, falls very short of what I call love. I can't imagine treating somebody I loved the way this deity is depicted treating humanity. Love is about the needs of the object of love, not the needs of the one claiming to love.

If the bible was about human love you might dismiss it as a human book. It's about God's love, and the bible says God is 'austere' - if we can suffer at God's hand, what will become of those who obey not the Gospel?

Thanks for that. It sounds like we are in agreement that love in Christianity is not what most people mean by (human) love. This is all I have been asking you to do - address the comments made to you in a way that indicates where you agree with them and when you don't, what fault or flaw you found in the claim. You might have gone on to explain why you use the word love to describe such a god, since my post included the idea that that is not love, but this is enough.

Please try to make it a habit in the future to read what is written to you carefully, identify the points made and the questions asked, and address them with your replies. It's absolutely essential to making forward progress. Start with that comment. Can you see what I am saying about being responsive with your replies? Do you think that that is essential as I suggested to making progress in debate? If so, are you interested in trying to make a habit of it? If not, why do you disagree? Is making progress unimportant? Can progress be made talking past one another?

As I said, this kind of "love" doesn't meet my definition of love and shouldn't be called that. It what the abusive boyfriend means when he says he loves her, and please don't force him to punish her for disobeying him. When he does, it's for her own good. It's "austere" love, the love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin kind of love.

I simply gave up after a while.

That's my approach as well. Nowadays, I try to do so sooner rather than later as I indicated recently. For me, the trick has been to simply declare the debate over for lack of counter-rebuttal. Look at how @PruePhillip responded to that. I was genuinely surprised and pleased. And we made progress. We established that we are in agreement that what the Bible calls God's love is not "human love." But no energy was invested making that argument again.

It's also my approach to @PureX, who won't cooperate with any debater present, and so, that debate has ended until he does. I consider every plausible argument ignored to be resolved until he does attempt to rebut, feel no need to repeat any of it, and no expectation that he will ever cooperate in debate. He will never tell you why he disagrees that Bob committed a logical fallacy and in so doing came to an irrational conclusion, so why keep asking him to? You and @Sheldon prevailed in the debate, and his lack of rebuttal is his tacit concession that he cannot refute you. He would if he could. He does when he can, although that tends to occur in his political discussions, where he seems to have rational and informed arguments that he defends. But not here. Why? Isn't it obvious why?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
As I said, this kind of "love" doesn't meet my definition of love and shouldn't be called that. It what the abusive boyfriend means when he says he loves her, and please don't force him to punish her for disobeying him. When he does, it's for her own good. It's "austere" love, the love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin kind of love.

Love without sacrifice. It's an interesting thought.
"I love you, but love shouldn't be about sacrifice so I won't go that far."
There are many things in the bible that don't meet my human standards and definitions. I don't care for my human definitions because this is about overcoming our first born nature.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Thanks for that. It sounds like we are in agreement that love in Christianity is not what most people mean by (human) love. This is all I have been asking you to do - address the comments made to you in a way that indicates where you agree with them and when you don't, what fault or flaw you found in the claim. You might have gone on to explain why you use the word love to describe such a god, since my post included the idea that that is not love, but this is enough.

Please try to make it a habit in the future to read what is written to you carefully, identify the points made and the questions asked, and address them with your replies. It's absolutely essential to making forward progress. Start with that comment. Can you see what I am saying about being responsive with your replies? Do you think that that is essential as I suggested to making progress in debate? If so, are you interested in trying to make a habit of it? If not, why do you disagree? Is making progress unimportant? Can progress be made talking past one another?

As I said, this kind of "love" doesn't meet my definition of love and shouldn't be called that. It what the abusive boyfriend means when he says he loves her, and please don't force him to punish her for disobeying him. When he does, it's for her own good. It's "austere" love, the love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin kind of love.



That's my approach as well. Nowadays, I try to do so sooner rather than later as I indicated recently. For me, the trick has been to simply declare the debate over for lack of counter-rebuttal. Look at how @PruePhillip responded to that. I was genuinely surprised and pleased. And we made progress. We established that we are in agreement that what the Bible calls God's love is not "human love." But no energy was invested making that argument again.

It's also my approach to @PureX, who won't cooperate with any debater present, and so, that debate has ended until he does. I consider every plausible argument ignored to be resolved until he does attempt to rebut, feel no need to repeat any of it, and no expectation that he will ever cooperate in debate. He will never tell you why he disagrees that Bob committed a logical fallacy and in so doing came to an irrational conclusion, so why keep asking him to? You and @Sheldon prevailed in the debate, and his lack of rebuttal is his tacit concession that he cannot refute you. He would if he could. He does when he can, although that tends to occur in his political discussions, where he seems to have rational and informed arguments that he defends. But not here. Why? Isn't it obvious why?
Your whole argument is that prayer is the pursuit of God-magic solutions. I showed you by example how it is not, and you had no more argument to make. So you and others just pretended that I didn't understand your irrelevant and disengenuous argument and slunk away.

What argument do you have that prayer is not effective that is not based of your foolish and false presumption that prayer is the pursuit of 'God-magic'?
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Hebrews were to eat the WHOLE LAMB, leaving nothing behind. The word 'purtenance' is used - it's a rare word. Means gut or entrails.
That term does not appear in any of your links. Perhaps somewhere else? Also your claim of a a prophecy about not breaking the bones, was that actually a prophecy or a verse that became a prophecy after the fact? One of the largest false claims of Christians is "hundreds of prophecies for Jesus".
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Love without sacrifice. It's an interesting thought. "I love you, but love shouldn't be about sacrifice so I won't go that far."

Is that what you think I meant? Love is all about giving the object of love what it needs. But I don't see the relevance to our discussion. I was referring to what Christians call the love of God, which requires sacrifices on the human side, not the god side. Man has to conform to commandments, some of which are unnatural, especially those to do with sexuality, or be punished for eternity.

There are many things in the bible that don't meet my human standards and definitions. I don't care for my human definitions because this is about overcoming our first born nature.

I also find the Bible failing to meet my needs and standards, but for me, that's a good reason to not go to it for answers.

And I used a different approach to overcome first born nature which included developing critical thinking skills and abandoning faith-based thinking and magical thinking, things we all do before school age and many continue doing throughout life.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Your whole argument is that prayer is the pursuit of God-magic solutions.

That is part of my argument, one you failed to rebut to as usual. I rebutted your claim that people don't look to prayer for God to heal them when you angrily protested that the experiment in the OP was a waste of money and misunderstood what people expected from prayer. And I backed that up with examples from the antivaxxers succumbing to Covid and they and their families praying for healing. I wish that the graphics I tried to post had been rendered as they appeared, but gave you a link to look at. Can we assume that you never did that? I do. As I've explained, the default position for every point that you fail to rebut is that you can't because the rebuttal is sound (correct). Correct ideas cannot be successfully rebutted, and you seem to understand that. I have zero doubt that if I were to post a comment that you felt that you could rebut that you would do that. Instead, you joust with straw men.

The rest of my argument is the same as yours about the efficacy of prayer - the benefit is psychological. So was the harm revealed in the STEP study, where knowing that one was being prayed for led to worse outcomes, a negative placebo effect.

I showed you by example how it is not, and you had no more argument to make.

You're arguing with yourself. I was and still am in agreement that prayer is placebo. It doesn't seem to matter how many times I say that to you, you just keep coming back with this straw man, the one who says that prayer has no placebo effect. He's not here, so you're wasting your words.

you and others just pretended that I didn't understand your irrelevant and disengenuous argument and slunk away.

There's no evidence that you even read the rebuttals, much less understood them. Maybe you did understand them and are the one slinking away. Maybe it's a cognitive defect (confirmation bias) and you simply cannot see what is written to you. I don't expect to ever know, since this another area you steadfastly refuse to discuss - why you ignore rebuttals.

What argument do you have that prayer is not effective that is not based of your foolish and false presumption that prayer is the pursuit of 'God-magic'?

My position is that prayer has no more effect or power than you claim for it, and that many if not most Christians and other kinds of theists do pray for miracle healings. I don't know why you don't know that. Here is the argument refuting the last part of your comment, this time from something you can read without the burden of clicking on a link. I won't make this argument again, and am only willing to do so now because the graphics in my previous argument didn't appear. I fully expect you to ignore this or dismiss it with a wave of the hand, which is understood as you being unable to rebut what is clearly correct. It would be more honorable for you to comment that you can see that you were wrong, or offer a rebuttal to the following, but you don't do that. You slink away without comment, or argue with straw men instead.

From A faith healer tried to cure my disability - BBC Three

"Although I wouldn’t class myself as particularly religious, on several other occasions, both acquaintances and strangers have asked to pray with me and ‘heal’ me of my wheelchair use. [snip] In the real world, crowds of hundreds turn up to his healing sessions. John and his wife make their living through donations from these sessions, and travel the world to ‘cast out’ people's imperfections, with the placing of hands on heads and prayers in foreign tongues. [snip] A crowd of 500 people had gathered to see his abilities in action. Bad knees, frozen shoulders and damaged ovaries were all “cast out” in Jesus’ name. And then, it was my turn. [snip] With two men holding my arms, and much of my weight, I was asked to stand and attempt to walk. For a moment, caught up in the excited frenzy of everyone in the room, my legs seemed lighter, and my pain seemed to fade. It’s difficult not to get carried away by the emotion and fierce belief of those around you. But a few seconds later, the tightness and soreness returned, as did the need for my wheelchair."

Here was a nice example not only of the expectations of believers for prayer to heal, but also a demonstration of the placebo effect it can have, albeit quite temporary in this case.
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
I don't care for my human definitions because this is about overcoming our first born nature.

There are only human definitions, we wouldn't understand anything else, that's axiomatic. This is like @KenS's claim that he has a moral standard beyond human reasoning, what the hell is he using to understand that exactly, if not human reasoning?
 

Sheldon

Veteran Member
Your whole argument is that prayer is the pursuit of God-magic solutions. I showed you by example how it is not, and you had no more argument to make. So you and others just pretended that I didn't understand your irrelevant and disengenuous argument and slunk away.

Your fictional example used a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Which you seem keen to ignore, rather tellingly. In your fictional example there was no causal evidence, only assumption, and of course you had the chance to create it anyway you wanted it, as it was a fictional story, and still failed since you assumed an irrational conclusion.

What argument do you have that prayer is not effective

I don't need one, anymore than I need to prove we're not surrounded by invisible mermaids.

that is not based of your foolish and false presumption that prayer is the pursuit of 'God-magic'?

That claim is made by many theists, not by any atheists who don't believe in supernatural magic.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
That is part of my argument, one you failed to rebut to as usual.
I did rebut it, as it's obviously not what prayer is, nor what it's properly used for. And when people do try to use it that way, it very rarely works out. That's when they claim the "answer" to their prayer is "no". And to make this clear, I gave you a scenario that did not involve someone seeking any "magical" solutions, but that nevertheless did achieve a solution because of their choosing to engage in prayer. Then your argument was "well, they could have done that without the prayer", but of course that's irrelevant to the question of prayer being effective. "I could have pounded in a nail with a stone. But I have a hammer, and it worked better, so I used it." Then you complained that the prayer had nothing to do with the man winning the money and I agreed, except that it did cause him to buy the ticket. Prayer didn't make his ticket the winning ticket, but it did cause him to buy it. Resulting in his winning. So the prayer DID effect how he acted in the "real world" and thereby it did effect the outcome he got from taking that action. For which you had no argument left, and so started complaining that I "didn't understand". But I understood perfectly well that your arguments had been rebutted and you had no more arguments to pose. And that's where you still are, even as you are trying to rewrite the course of the conversation.
I rebutted your claim that people don't look to prayer for God to heal them when you angrily protested that the experiment in the OP was a waste of money and misunderstood what people expected from prayer.
I am not angry, and I am not behaving as if I am angry.

The experiment was a waste of time because it was intended to look for evidence of "God-magic". Which any scientist would have understood as a foolish pursuit. Then when no "God-magic" was in evidence, it was claimed that prayer is ineffective. Of course prayer that seeks "God-magic" is likely to be ineffective. That's not what prayer is for, or how it works. But you and others were happy to completely ignore any of that, because it wasn't serving your bias against all things religious as being "ignorant superstition and magical thinking". And when I gave you an example of how how prayer is used and is effective when used properly you tried to claim it had no effect in the "real world". But of course we are part of the real world, so when it effects us it effects the real world. Not to mention that when it effects how we behave in the real world it is also having an effect in the real world. So that argument wasn't going anywhere, either. And it was about that point, as I recall, that's when you decided you weren't going to win and so had to make excuses for disengaging.
And I backed that up with examples from the antivaxxers succumbing to Covid and they and their families praying for healing.
Correction: they were praying for some "magical healing", specifically. If they had prayed for healing, they would have recognized the vaccine as an answer to their prayer. But they wanted "God-magic", not just an actual solution. And that kind of prayer gets people into all sots of trouble.

See, your WHOLE argument is based on your loathing for the idea of "God-magic". So for you, ALL prayer is engaged in the pursuit of this "God-magic". Which is why you had difficulty understanding my example (that wasn't). And is also why you had to replace my example with an example of your own; that did include the pursuit of "God-magic". Because then you could condemn it as illogical and irrational and damaging. Which it is in that instance.
I wish that the graphics I tried to post had been rendered as they appeared, but gave you a link to look at.
It doesn't matter because it was the premise of the study that was flawed, just as your own premise is flawed regarding the purpose and efficacy of prayer. It is not primarily used to pursue "God-magic". And when it is, it's not very likely to work. That doesn't mean some people don't still think that's what it's for, and even claim that it works that way. But when you question them, you quickly realize that what they are calling it "working" is that it didn't: the "answer was no". And I understand that often the language people use in reference to prayer tends to be very theistically charged. But that does not mean they are specifically seeking some form of "God-magic" when they're praying.

So the real question is can you admit that your perception of prayer as always being the pursuit of "God-magic" was wrong? Or can't you? Can you admit that it doesn't matter that some people don't understand prayer and so make false and silly claims about it's "magical properties"? Even to the point of putting themselves or others in danger. Can we agree that these people do not define what prayer is for the billions of people in the world that have more sense than them?
The rest of my argument is the same as yours about the efficacy of prayer - the benefit is psychological. So was the harm revealed in the STEP study, where knowing that one was being prayed for led to worse outcomes, a negative placebo effect.
Without studying the many reasons why that might result, the result itself doesn't mean much. I agree that the value of prayer is psychological, but that doesn't make it less effective, or less meaningful. In fact, given that our experience of existence is mostly psychological, I would say that any tool that enables us in that realm is exceedingly valuable to us. Which is why I find it absurd and somewhat insulting when materialist constantly try to portray the psychological value of prayer as "just a placebo" or as just "make-believe" and of no real consequence in the "real world".
You're arguing with yourself. I was and still am in agreement that prayer is placebo. It doesn't seem to matter how many times I say that to you, you just keep coming back with this straw man, the one who says that prayer has no placebo effect. He's not here, so you're wasting your words.
I have agreed that ONE of the effects of prayer is as a placebo. But you seem to always want to limit it to that, and diminish it AS that. As if the placebo effect is not valuable and useful and able to relieve people's suffering. Or worse, as if people's suffering is somehow silly and insignificant compared to the mighty material world, such that to relieve it is inconsequential.
My position is that prayer has no more effect or power than you claim for it, and that many if not most Christians and other kinds of theists do pray for miracle healings.
You could choose to believe that most dark-skinned people are lazy, shiftless, immoral, and given to criminality, too, but that doesn't mean they are. All it means is that you don't like dark-skinned people and you justify it by characterizing them negatively. When in reality there are billions of dark-skinned people with every kind of temperament and ethical persuasion imaginable, and some that aren't even imaginable. And the same is true of theists. So what YOU think "most" Christians and theists are "like" isn't really relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that prayer is far more widespread and complex than you think it is, and are willing to accept. And as a result, you're ideas and opinions on it are quite incomplete and inaccurate.

So are you willing to open your mind and learn about it? Or are you just going to keep throwing whatever BS argument you can muster after it in the hopes that you won't have to admit to being wrong about anything?
Here is the argument refuting the last part of your comment...,
Note that no argument follows, here. Only another anecdote about people using prayer to pursue "God-magic", and how it fails them.
... this time from something you can read without the burden of clicking on a link. I won't make this argument again...
Again, no argument has yet been proffered. Apparently you don't understand what an argument actually is. But it's not an anecdotal story. An anecdotal story is just an anecdotal story. It does not imply by it's existence that we should accept it as being anything other than what it is, or take it to mean anything more than what it says.
... and am only willing to do so now because the graphics in my previous argument didn't appear. I fully expect you to ignore this or dismiss it with a wave of the hand, which is understood as you being unable to rebut what is clearly correct. It would be more honorable for you to comment that you can see that you were wrong, or offer a rebuttal to the following, but you don't do that. You slink away without comment, or argue with straw men instead.

Here was a nice example not only of the expectations of believers for prayer to heal, but also a demonstration of the placebo effect it can have, albeit quite temporary in this case.
We have already agreed numerous times that to use prayer as a means of obtaining some form of "God-magic" result is an ineffective and inappropriate use of the act of praying. And I have shown you and explained to you many times now how prayer can and is used far more appropriately and effectively by many millions of people. And yet you seem to be SO obsessed with the relatively small number of humans that don't understand prayer, and therefor misuse it, that you just cannot seem to stay focused on the positive alternative understanding and usage of prayer. To the point that you just can't accept that they exist! I've tried, but it's like running into a wall.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I did rebut it, as it's obviously not what prayer is, nor what it's properly used for.

You didn't rebut the claim that you were incorrect when you falsely claimed that people don't look to prayer for God to heal them. In this post you tired, but didn't succeed.

The experiment was a waste of time because it was intended to look for evidence of "God-magic".

That's what makes the experiment valuable.

specifically. If they had prayed for healing, they would have recognized the vaccine as an answer to their prayer.

You seem to be pretty unfamiliar with Christians. I learned quite a bit reading a couple hundred biographies of antivaxxers that got gravely ill or died from Covid. Many are defiantly antivax even as they or their loved one is dying of the disease before them.

you had to replace my example with an example of your own; that did include the pursuit of "God-magic". Because then you could condemn it as illogical and irrational and damaging. Which it is.

Yes. That's how I rebutted your comment about "bias and ignorance regarding the purpose and effectiveness of prayer." You don't seem to realize that it is you who is ignorant of what the purpose of prayer is among the majority that pray. They're praying for magical results in the real world.

So the real question is can you admit that your perception of prayer as always being the pursuit of "God-magic" was wrong?

That wasn't my claim. And if it were, your own testimony about it never being about magic for you would falsify that claim.

I agree that the value of prayer is psychological, but that doesn't make it less effective, or less meaningful. In fact, given that our experience of existence is mostly psychological, I would say that any tool that enables u in that realm is exceedingly valuable to us. Which is why I find it absurd and somewhat insulting when materialist constantly try to portray the psychological value of prayer as "just a placebo"

Why wouldn't I depict prayer as placebo? Didn't you do so as well? You haven't claimed or shown that prayer is more effective than "just a placebo." As you say, "the value of prayer is psychological."

Did you think that placebo means does nothing? It doesn't. It means that the effect is on the mind, not directly on the body or the world outside, which many if not most Christians would bristle at, . The reason placeboes are included in double-blinded clinical studies is precisely because they do have an effect, and it is necessary to demonstrate that the proposed therapy, the taking of which also provides a placebo effect, does more than just that.

I used it once and only once early in my clinical practice. It required concealing information from a patient, which had a salutary effect, but I concluded that that was wrong. I hadn't considered the damage it might do to her and to our relationship should she find out until we were already doing it.

So are you willing to open your mind and learn about it?

All of the people disagreeing with you here are open-minded, including me. My mind is never closed. Open-mindedness becomes a habit of thought with practice, just as rejecting unsupported claims does.

But perhaps you don't mean the same thing I do by open-mindedness. I mean the willingness to consider a claim or argument critically and to be convinced by a compelling argument. Open-mindedness does not include believing with less. If you have something to teach, you'll need to do it with sound argument.

Besides, what could you possibly have to add to what you have already written about prayer, especially given that nobody is arguing with you about what it is and does.

Note that no argument follows, here. Only another anecdote about people using prayer to pursue "God-magic", and how it fails them.

And I can produce thousands more. That is the evidence my argument used. What do you think an argument is beside valid reasoning applied to evidence to reach a sound conclusion? You claimed that those who disagreed with you about what prayer is and does were ignorant. I disagreed with you, and provided counterexamples to show that you were wrong. Here's more evidence of that, from Wiki:

"Faith healing is the practice of prayer and gestures (such as laying on of hands) that are believed by some to elicit divine intervention in spiritual and physical healing, especially the Christian practice. Believers assert that the healing of disease and disability can be brought about by religious faith through prayer or other rituals that, according to adherents, can stimulate a divine presence and power. Religious belief in divine intervention does not depend on empirical evidence of an evidence-based outcome achieved via faith healing. Virtually all[a] scientists and philosophers dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience."

This is the kind of thing that was debunked by the STEP study, and why the study was of value. It confirms what skeptics believe about prayer.
 
Top