Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Subduction Zone]

And prostitution was always a problem, so too gambling, so too pornography, so too 'drugs' etc..
What is DIFFERENT is the SHEER SCALE of it today. These things are becoming mainstream.
I believe pornography is now considered 'mainstream' since the time of Something About Mary was released.

Wait, I may be terribly misremember a movie, or perhaps I never saw it. What does "Something About Mary" have to do with anything?

 

[ElishaElijah]

That is a dodge on your part. You claimed "false dichotomy". What was the false dichotomy?

Don’t matter

 

[Subduction Zone]

Don’t matter

Then it appears that we can safely assume that there was no "false dichotomy".

One thing that you should realize is that if you make claims and refuse to support your own claims that makes it the same as if the claim was refuted. For example, I can say that the vast majority of baby eaters are Christians. If I did someone should call me out for that and demand evidence if I responded "Don't matter" I have just admitted that my claim was almost certainly false.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Then it appears that we can safely assume that there was no "false dichotomy".

One thing that you should realize is that if you make claims and refuse to support your own claims that makes it the same as if the claim was refuted. For example, I can say that the vast majority of baby eaters are Christians. If I did someone should call me out for that and demand evidence if I responded "Don't matter" I have just admitted that my claim was almost certainly false.

Doesn’t matter because no explanation will do for you and you’ll twist whatever is said. That’s your way because other people would understand and see things different.
So no Scripture verses about atheism? Or mine are accurate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Doesn’t matter because no explanation will do for you and you’ll twist whatever is said. That’s your way because other people would understand and see things different.
So no Scripture verses about atheism? Or mine are accurate?

I will only twist claims that are improperly made. Try to answer questions properly with no dodging and there is no need to twist.

I cannot see a false dichotomy there. @Sheldon will almost certainly say the same.

The problem with your standard of "proof" is that you just admitted that I proved that Christians eat more babies since I made a claim that like yours, I cannot defend.

And there are verses about atheism, but they do not help you since they tend to be clearly false. Using them is foolish since they only refute the Bible.

 

[PruePhillip]

Wait, I may be terribly misremember a movie, or perhaps I never saw it. What does "Something About Mary" have to do with anything?

That film was touted by many as being the first 'mainstream' porn movie. I didn't make that assessment. There were plenty of porn movies out - but they were classified as 'porn', not Something About Mary. Now you can have 'porn' in movies without comment - some even expect it somewhere in a film. I think this could come the case with some types of child porn one day as people become more jaded with 'ordinary porn.'

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
Mistaken about what, you don't think hearing involves perception? In that case you're the one who is mistaken. You made a claim, not me, all I did was ask you to explain the objective difference between what you perceive as deity answering a prayer with wait or a no, or a no deity existing to answer to a prayer?

Which I did but you didn’t like my answer

No you didn't, you simply repeated your original claim, you can't even link a single post answering it, can you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That film was touted by many as being the first 'mainstream' porn movie. I didn't make that assessment. There were plenty of porn movies out - but they were classified as 'porn', not Something About Mary. Now you can have 'porn' in movies without comment - some even expect it somewhere in a film. I think this could come the case with some types of child porn one day as people become more jaded with 'ordinary porn.'

What? Who did that? You may have the wrong movie. That move was not even R rated. There was not even any nudity in it. I have seen it, I had to check, and that movie may have been rated only PG and not even PG13. I would love to see your source that made that claim about that move.

Correction. it was rated R, but only for comedic sexual language. Wow, someone had their panties in a knot over almost nothing.

 

[Sheldon]

PruePhillip said: ↑
Is love of your fellow man subjective?

How can it be otherwise?

So there ARE objective moral standards.

read the posts mun...

 

[PruePhillip]

Why would I need them? They do not support you.

Once again, you do not understand how to use statistics properly. Neither do either of your sources. Do you know that I can use the same sort of bad statistics to "prove" that autism has increased terribly? Heck, it there were not any cases of it in the 19th century.

Bad statistics do not prove anything except for the hysteria of people relying on them.

Here's some stats for you. I first came to read current events ca 1962, Cuban Missile stuff if I recall. That was the first year CRIME began to go up. Crime continued going up for thirty years without a break. In those thirty years I would cite crime stats as I am doing here (love that stats) and the answer given by liberals was that crime is only up 'due to better reporting.' I felt this was arrant nonsense - lots of other things told you crime was up too.
But in 1993 crime started going down. And now people would say, 'See, crime is FALLING, see the statistics.'
See the funny side of that?
So I can feel confident that people are better now 'cos crime is going 'down', never mind the plethora of cameras, the size of the police force, and triple or quadruple the police numbers for security personnel numbers, the locks and security gates, DNA testing, fingerprint tech, face-recognition etc.. Yes, crime is going 'down.' Methinks it's got a lot to do with a lot less kids around (abortion?)

 

[Sheldon]

Me - Is love of your fellow man subjective?
Him/Her - How can it be otherwise?

Yes, you are right.
Love of your fellow man is OBJECTIVE to biblical Christianity.
Even if thy are nailing you to a cross you must still love your fellow man.

So you ask me if something is subjective.

I ask how it can be otherwise.

You then agree, and make the opposite assertion it is objective?

That's just bizarre???

 

[PruePhillip]

What? Who did that? You may have the wrong movie. That move was not even R rated. There was not even any nudity in it. I have seen it, I had to check, and that movie may have been rated only PG and not even PG13. I would love to see your source that made that claim about that move.

Correction. it was rated R, but only for comedic sexual language. Wow, someone had their panties in a knot over almost nothing.

When you see porn in a movie, and it's rated for general audience, you know your porn has reached mainstream.
That's where child porn will be one day.

 

[Sheldon]

So if you have no absolute moral standards then you get two people hating each other because the other is 'bad'
One is pro-life
The other is pro-choice.

Who is right, who is wrong? Both are passionate about their sense of right.

Just now the story about a Ukrainian pastor who left his church and took up a gun to fight Russians.
Understandable, but biblical Christianity (the Gospels, the Acts and the Epistles) are quite absolute about this - you don't fight. Nothing arbitary about the Gospels. Certainly how people chose to INTERPRET the Gospels is quite arbitary.

Putin DEMANDS Israel Hand Over Jerusalem Church; Meet Ukraine’s Warrior Pastor | Watchman Newscast - YouTube

Give an example of objective morality please, as you clearly have no interest in the opinions you're asking others for, just give us one example that is not a matter of opinion. It will of course requires objective evidence to support it, as if it just a subjective belief you will be proving my point.

 

[Sheldon]

Nothing arbitary about the Gospels. Certainly how people chose to INTERPRET the Gospels is quite arbitary.

It's arbitrary not abitary (sic), and yes the gospels are arbitrary, they are unevidenced hearsay accounts from unknown authorship. They represent the subjective opinions of unknown author(s), and none of it can verified or substantiated independently, beyond the crucifixion, and even that is based on scant evidence.

However, as you state clearly they are open to subjective interpretation, ipso facto they cannot contain objective morality. This is just a subjective belief Christians hold.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't want to be involved in abortion issues - other than making it harder and harder for an abortion as the child comes to term. And it shouldn't be publicly funded because of how many people feel.

If you don't want an abortion don't have one, but please do others the same courtesy and let them choose for themselves how their bodies are used.

But there ARE 'truths' and there IS a 'Truth' that offends religous people in particular.

If it's the truth then why would anyone be offended by it? That's a rather futile reaction to the truth.

And when we don't respect that in religion our society doesn't respect it elsewhere either.

Nonsense, some of the safest places to live with the lowest rates of crime, and best rates of life expectancy are almost entirely secular, Sweden Norway, Iceland, Japan etc etc.

 

[Sheldon]

I don't want to be involved in abortion issues - other than making it harder and harder for an abortion as the child comes to term. And it shouldn't be publicly funded because of how many people feel.

Even in the US, current research shows 6 out of 10 Americans think abortions should be freely available. You do understand how democracy works don't you?

 

[Sheldon]

That film was touted by many as being the first 'mainstream' porn movie. I didn't make that assessment. There were plenty of porn movies out - but they were classified as 'porn', not Something About Mary. Now you can have 'porn' in movies without comment - some even expect it somewhere in a film. I think this could come the case with some types of child porn one day as people become more jaded with 'ordinary porn.'

Yet another of your slippery slope fallacies. You can't turn into a into a paedophile, and watching porn doesn't change your sexual orientation, that's simply asinine. Oh and the film "There's Something About Mary" was a romcom, so who knows why on earth anyone would call it porn, but it's a risible claim.

 

[Sheldon]

Here's some stats for you. I first came to read current events ca 1962, Cuban Missile stuff if I recall. That was the first year CRIME began to go up. Crime continued going up for thirty years without a break. In those thirty years I would cite crime stats as I am doing here (love that stats) and the answer given by liberals was that crime is only up 'due to better reporting.' I felt this was arrant nonsense - lots of other things told you crime was up too.
But in 1993 crime started going down. And now people would say, 'See, crime is FALLING, see the statistics.'
See the funny side of that?
So I can feel confident that people are better now 'cos crime is going 'down', never mind the plethora of cameras, the size of the police force, and triple or quadruple the police numbers for security personnel numbers, the locks and security gates, DNA testing, fingerprint tech, face-recognition etc.. Yes, crime is going 'down.' Methinks it's got a lot to do with a lot less kids around (abortion?)

Statistically one of the safest paces on earth is Monaco, they also have the largest and most modern public surveillance camera system in the world, it is virtually impossible not to be filmed when out in public, and have the highest number of (armed) police men and women per capita of population in the world.

Your bizarre paranoia simply makes no sense. Also crime went up for 30 years continuously, what crime, and where? How you love your sweeping unevidenced claims. All manner of things can effect crime stats.

the answer given by liberals

Firstly lets have some evidence for this claim please, as I think the bias of your posts makes the claim pretty dubious, and secondly so what, being a liberal doesn't make one a spokesperson for anyone, you are using sweeping unevidenced claims, to create a negative stereotype, it's lazy rhetoric. The notion that all Liberals are the same, is about as stupid an idea as the notion that all Republicans are like Trump and of course better reporting of crimes would necessarily make the stats appear as crime was increasing when it wasn't.

I felt this was arrant nonsense

Based on what exactly? How can you decry something based on how you felt about it, and not expect everyone to note it is sheer subjective bias?

 

[Sheldon]

When you see porn in a movie, and it's rated for general audience, you know your porn has reached mainstream.

Dear god, your reasoning is facile nonsense, porn is not mainstream, and never will be, as it doesn't have mainstream appeal, who the ***k is going to take the family to see porn?

That's where child porn will be one day.

Jesus wept, why on earth would you make such an absurdly stupid slippery slope fallacy up? The number of paedophile's per capita of the populace likely remains pretty constant, and is a tiny minority, so how on earth would it become mainstream? The vast majority of people would find such material appalling and immoral, not to mention it's production and sale is a crime, you really do post the most unadulterated nonsense sometimes.

 

[Sheldon]

Try Google - type 'child porn'

Are you insane, just doing that is a criminal act. A very small minority of people are paedophile's, and this percentage likely remains constant, we are, thank ***k much better and protecting children and detecting such crimes nowadays, this does not mean our increased awareness of such appalling crimes means they are increasing. In fact the opposite is true, things were much much worse when such crimes went largely unreported. Like the Catholic church's appalling crimes in covering up the endemic abuse of children on their care by their priests. Knowing about it is deeply troubling, but it is far better than not knowing.