Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[ppp]

Drug abuse, broken homes, industrial scale gambling, a reliance on police, security personnel and cameras, proliferation of laws and lawyers, mass child pornography etc are symptoms of a post-religious society. These things were far less in our great grandparents day.

LOL
Setting aside the fact that all those things have existed for millennia..except the cameras of course...
By your very flawed reasoning all the social ills prior to your great grandparents day were the product of a religious society.

This is your cue to begin engaging in special pleading.

 

[Sheldon]

No. I'm not interested in random babble. If you can't represent your own thoughts in a coherent and relevant manner then they aren't thoughts worth my while.

I am heading that way, it's just becoming way too much trouble to deal with the random biases and bigotry he posts endlessly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yet another of your slippery slope fallacies. You don't turn into a paedophile by watching porn, 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.

I had to check that my memory was not faulty. There was only one movie that came to mind when he said that, and as you pointed out it was a rom com. No sex scenes. How it got even an R rating is beyond me. The the MPAA does not like it if one drops the F bomb too often. But I do not even remember that.

 

[Sheldon]

I mention how our society is 'living with the smell of an empty vase." as someone put it.
That means the things that created our Christian society are slowly ebbing away, and we are seeing things not even thought of to previous generations. The principles of 'Christian behavior' are evaporating - we still hold on to some of them, but they are seen as quaint and backward. Now millions die of drug abuse, hundreds of millions come from broken homes.

Another disjointed rant, that just strings random unevidenced claims together, to reassert bias and prejudice. There is no evidence that Christians are any more moral than non-Christians, or theists than atheists, in fact there are longstanding bodies of research that show this simply isn't true.

 

[Sheldon]

Drug abuse, broken homes, industrial scale gambling, a reliance on police, security personnel and cameras, proliferation of laws and lawyers, mass child pornography etc are symptoms of a post-religious society.

Barking mad nonsense, you are also lumping harmless behaviours with truly heinous cries, and some of the worst most prolific child abuse globally has occurred in, and been protected by your own Catholic church?

These things were far less in our great grandparents day.

Rubbish.

Indeed, until the 1800's there were no police.

That's when modern policing began in the US, this doesn't mean there was no policing, and how is this a bad thing?

And growing up there was a controversy over whether police should be armed - now they carry automatic weapons and body armor.

In the US, well what are they supposed to use harsh language in a country with some of the most liberal gun laws on the planet?

I wondered what a post-religious society would like like. I found my answer when the news spoke of 6 and 7 year old school boys doing remedial classes in how not to abuse girls.

What country is this?

I see secularization as a social failure.

Gerraway, and you're not biased in favour of religion at all.

 

[ElishaElijah]

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

I already told you how many times that your question is coming across similar to a false dichotomy and unless you can rephrase in a way that makes sense to me that’s how I’ll see it.
But for you or @Subduction Zone to argue what is a false dichotomy and all this other stuff is just too funny and a waste of time.

 

[Sheldon]

It says I was, but not anymore. Are you saying society is on a upward moral trend now, we are getting more pure? I’m sure millions will protest over Roe v Wade ruling, just the thought of not being able to kill your baby even up to birth is too much to bear.

Abortion doesn't involve babies, the majority of abortions involve a blastocyst. This is baby:

This is a blastocyst:

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am heading that way, it's just becoming way too much trouble to deal with the random biases and bigotry he posts endlessly.

I love is "statistics" though. Gasp!! Shortly after the birth of the internet almost no one reported movies as being inappropriate on a site that almost no one has ever heard of and now, thirty years later with the percentage of the population on the internet, the usage of the internet, and the speed of the internet all much much greater there are over a thousand times as many reports

He should have first tried to understand how and why the numbers increase.

By the way, I wonder about his opinion of legal child porn. Depending upon country there is such a thing. It usually involves some sort of computer graphics. No children are used or abused. It would be interesting to see if it lowered the number of child sexual abuse cases. Just as there is a correlation in a decrease in rape cases and the availability of porn there may be the same sort of results with child porn without a real child. Which brings me back to the "reports of chlld porn". I wonder how many of those reports are of hentai.? I was never a fan of that because one it is cartoons, and second many of the characters appear to be children to me. But I could see how a pedophile would be attracted to such porn.

Pedophilia is a disease that we cannot fully treat yet. If something like hentai allows them to pleasure themselves without harming others I am all for it. Truing to drive everything and anything that would be considered child porn away merely drives pedophiles back underground where they will share videos of real abuse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already told you how many times that your question is coming across similar to a false dichotomy and unless you can rephrase in a way that makes sense to me that’s how I’ll see it.
But for you or @Subduction Zone to argue what is a false dichotomy and all this other stuff is just too funny and a waste of time.

We can see that it is not a false dichotomy ,and by refusing a reasonable request you only confirmed that it is not a false dichotomy.

 

[ElishaElijah]

We can see that it is not a false dichotomy ,and by refusing a reasonable request you only confirmed that it is not a false dichotomy.

Is your name Siri? Sounds like it, and then she keeps asking the same question over and over never understanding.

 

[Sheldon]

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

I already told you how many times that your question is coming across similar to a false dichotomy

No it's not, it gives you carte blanche to offer anything you imagine is an objective difference between a prayer you claim is answered by a no, and no deity existing to answer it, and you have failed. My question makes no claims or assumptions. You are also free to state it is just your unevidenced subjective belief and therefore there is no objective difference you can offer. It's hard to imagine a question offering more scope than that.

and unless you can rephrase in a way that makes sense to me that’s how I’ll see it.

it's a simple a question as I can make it, it is not a false dichotomy as has been explained here again, see it anyway you want.

But for you or @Subduction Zone to argue what is a false dichotomy and all this other stuff is just too funny and a waste of time.

Then you clearly don't have a sound grasp of debate. Sadly both I and @Subduction Zone have explained why your excuse is wrong, and given your evasion thus far and even your unjustified derision of the question, it's clear to any neutral reader, that you just don't want to admit there is no objective difference you can demonstrate between your perception of a deity answering no to your prayers, and no deity existing to give any answer.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Is your name Siri? Sounds like it, and then she keeps asking the same question over and over never understanding.

When both a computer and human being can see the flaws of someone's argument it indicates that they are at rock bottom.

 

[ElishaElijah]

No it's not, it gives you carte blanche to offer anything you imagine is an objective difference between a prayer you claim is answered by a no, and no deity existing to answer it, and you have failed. My question makes no claims or assumptions. You are also free to state it is just your unevidenced subjective belief and therefore there is no objective difference you can offer. It's hard to imagine a question offering more scope than that.



it's a simple a question as I can make it, it is not a false dichotomy as has been explained here again, see it anyway you want.



Then you clearly don't have a sound grasp of debate. Sadly both I and @Subduction Zone have explained why your excuse is wrong, and given your evasion thus far and even your unjustified derision of the question, it's clear to any neutral reader, that you just don't want to admit there is no objective difference you can demonstrate between your perception of a deity answering no to your prayers, and no deity existing to give any answer.

I already told you the difference ad nauseam, but you didn’t get it.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Abortion doesn't involve babies, the majority of abortions involve a blastocyst. This is baby:

This is a blastocyst:

This is just exactly how you are… How about we post the dismembered bodies too! After 24 weeks the baby is fully formed. Too graphic to post those pictures and people are fighting to be able to continue that practice.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is just exactly how you are… How about we post the dismembered bodies too! After 24 weeks the baby is fully formed. Too graphic to post those pictures and people are fighting to be able to continue that practice.

Okay, lets make a compromise. No abortions after 24 weeks unless the health of the mother is threatened. Does that sound reasonable to you?

 

[Sheldon]

Is your name Siri? Sounds like it, and then she keeps asking the same question over and over never understanding.

The question has been repeated because you have tellingly evaded offering any cogent answer that offers any objective difference between a prayer being answered with no, your claim, and no deity existing to answer any prayer.

it is you who possibly doesn't understand the significance of the question, or your inability to offer any objective difference, The fact you have resorted to evasion and sophistry also speaks volumes, and again you appear unaware of the inference this offers.

You could simply have played the faith card right at the start after all, So at some level I suspect you do see the significance of this question, but only you can know for sure why you are so vehemently determined not to answer what is a pretty simple question. Even falsely trying to imply it is a false dichotomy when it offer you limitless freedom to offer any answer that demonstrates any objective difference at all. yet the only answers you have given is to reassert that there is a difference. What is this difference then, beyond your subjective belief and perception of what is happening, oh and hearing is a perception, the word hear is actually in the definition of perception?

 

[Sheldon]

I already told you the difference ad nauseam, but you didn’t get it.

Not once have offered any objective difference, and you could easily offer it again one assumes, or link even one example for everyone to see, if as you claim you have done this ad nauseam.

 

[ElishaElijah]

The question has been repeated because you have tellingly evaded offering any cogent answer that offers any objective difference between a prayer being answered with no, your claim, and no deity existing to answer any prayer.

it is you who possibly doesn't understand the significance of the question, or your inability to offer any objective difference, The fact you have resorted to evasion and sophistry also speaks volumes, and again you appear unaware of the inference this offers.

You could simply have played the faith card right at the start after all, So at some level I suspect you do see the significance of this question, but only you can know for sure why you are so vehemently determined not to answer what is a pretty simple question. Even falsely trying to imply it is a false dichotomy when it offer you limitless freedom to offer any answer that demonstrates any objective difference at all. yet the only answers you have given is to reassert that there is a difference. What is this difference then, beyond your subjective belief and perception of what is happening, oh and hearing is a perception, the word hear is actually in the definition of perception?

I already told you that the question makes no sense to me, how many times must I explain, yet you keep going.
The only thing that makes sense to me with you and @Subduction Zone is that you both come across as experts at gaslighting.

 

[Sheldon]

This is just exactly how you are… How about we post the dismembered bodies too! After 24 weeks the baby is fully formed. Too graphic to post those pictures and people are fighting to be able to continue that practice.

Petty ad hominem and moving the goal posts is not a very compelling response, you disingenuously described abortions as involving a baby, and they don't. A blastocyst doesn't have a body, and the vast majority of abortion involved just such an insentient clump of cells. If you're arguing for abortions to be made more easily available, in order to avoid late term abortions wherever possible, then I would agree. However you're not are you, as you would deny a woman an abortion even where a blastocyst or insentient clump of cells is involved, ,thus exposing the sophistry of you using the term babies, as emotive rhetoric here.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already told you that the question makes no sense to me, how many times must I explain, yet you keep going.
The only thing that makes sense to me with you and @Subduction Zone is that you both come across as experts at gaslighting.

No, no one is gaslighting you. And you really have to watch the personal attacks. That one clearly crosses the line. You may not be able to understand the question, but that appears to be your fault. The question is probably causing cognitive dissonance to kick in. That occurs when someone with a cherished belief has that belief threatened.

Maybe we can sneak up on it.

When God says no, what does he say?

Does he say: "F off! That's stupid!"? Does he say something else?