Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Wildswanderer]

Well, I am a skeptic. False is more important to me. Truth can deceive you.

Um, no by it's very nature, truth is true.
If it wasn't truth, it would be false.

 

[Wildswanderer]

They don't understand that they can't change reality just by thinking.

Yeah you aren't addressing my beliefs at all. The spiritual realm is real, not because I think it is, but because it just is.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Is faith a virtue because it is a path to truth?

That's backwards. Truth is, so we should believe. You are still thinking we believe we created the spiritual realm or some such nonsense.

 

[Wildswanderer]

but even if will is the result of indeterministic quantum processes, it is not the decision of the self to choose what it will want, which is what free will implies. It is also something that the subject discovers about itself.

How do you figure that? I don't see how what you said there makes sense.

 

[Wildswanderer]

He assumes free will must exist, and probably never thinks any more about it than that. And because he has no experience thinking about the possibility that will is determined, he considers the idea ridiculous

I've studied this extensively, so you can quit talking down...it just makes atheists sound arrogant... again.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah you aren't addressing my beliefs at all. The spiritual realm is real, not because I think it is, but because it just is.

prove it

 

[Polymath257]

That's backwards. Truth is, so we should believe. You are still thinking we believe we created the spiritual realm or some such nonsense.

But you don't know it is the truth until it has been tested.

I do not think you 'created' the spiritual realm because I don't think it is true that a spiritual realm exists at all.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Maybe everything you and I do is predetermined. OK. That's acceptable

Only it's not. And no one can live as if it is. Lots of theists believe in determinism, BTW. I'm just not one of them.
BTW some will say free will means ability to act without influences. That's not what I mean at all. Everyone has influences, but that doesn't mean they have to succumb to those influences.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Faith isn't evidence of anything other than the willingness to believe without evidence. So, yes, it is blind.

There is *plenty* of evidence of things not seen. For example, we don't see air, but we can measure it, liquefy it, determine its temperature, etc.

We can't see radio waves, but we can build radios and emitters that show that radio waves exist. We can then measure their properties and understand how to use them.

We can't see radioactivity, but we can measure its effects and learn how it works. We can then determine its properties and learn how to use it and how it connects to other things.

So, there is a great deal of evidence of 'things not seen' and NONE of those are based in any way on faith.

And there's just as much evidence for the spiritual realm as for air. We can feel the effect of the Holy Spirit, but we can't see him. Jesus compared the holy spirit with the wind.

 

[Polymath257]

And there's just as much evidence for the spiritual realm as for air. We can feel the effect of the Holy Spirit, but we can't see him. Jesus compared the holy spirit with the wind.

Again, simply false. It isn't just a vague feeling that we have of the air. We can use a variety of methods to determine how fast it is moving. We can determine its pressure and how it varies. We can weigh it. We can determine the chemical properties of it. We can liquefy it. We can determine exactly what it is made of. We can use a variety of methods to determine how fast it is moving,

how many of those can you do with the spiritual realm?

There is nowhere close to as much evidence for the spirit realm as there is for air. For that matter, there is far more for dark matter than there is for the spirit realm.

 

[KWED]

And there's just as much evidence for the spiritual realm as for air.

See, you can't really believe that. Not really.
The evidence for air is incontrovertible, repeatable, testable and verifiable, whatever your position is.
There is literally zero evidence for a "spiritual realm". You can't even explain what it is, never mind devise any repeatable, verifiable tests for it.
Basically, you have surrendered any right to be taken seriously.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yep 96 percent of people suffer from hallucinations.. sounds perfectly reasonable, you convinced me! Why people give you guys any credit for logic is beyond me.

You misrepresented what he said and then criticized your own logic as if it were his. You were the only one that said that 96% of people hallucinate, albeit sarcastically.

From Wiki: "In psychology, magical thinking is the belief that one's thoughts by themselves can bring about effects in the world or that thinking something corresponds with doing it." This is a common state in children. They don't understand that they can't change reality just by thinking.

Yeah you aren't addressing my beliefs at all. The spiritual realm is real, not because I think it is, but because it just is.

I presume that you don't think that your comment supports my contention. Here you are trying to will a so-called spiritual reality into existence using nothing but insistence, called the fallacy of argument by assertion or repetition. Just keep repeating yourself, never offering evidence or argument, and ignoring the refutations of others. We see that a lot on these threads from people not accustomed to critical thought, debate, rebuttal, or what constitutes a sound argument.

I have been free to consider the possibility that we are all what the theist disparagingly calls a robot or meat bucket, and am at peace that this may be the case, that if it is it always has been the case, and if that whatever is happening was fine before, it still is now. Maybe everything you and I do is predetermined. OK. That's acceptable.

Only it's not.

Not for you, but I predicted that. Your religious doctrine includes a god that is said to be just in punishing people for their choices. This is why so many theists argue at length that divine foreknowledge of the choices we make is compatible with free will at the time they will be made, an obviously untenable position that is also argued with nothing more than repeated claims that it's possible. Because they need it to be the case that those choices were freely made.

And no one can live as if it is.

I do. I've already told you that I accept that possibility. You probably think that if I believe that my choices are predetermined, that I should despair. It's just not how my mind works. There is nothing about knowing that there might be no free will that makes me want to live differently. Perhaps that's what you mean when saying that nobody could live as if there is no free will.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Lots of theists believe in determinism

Why would that matter? I'm referring to Christians that believe that their destiny depends on what they believe and how they live life, which describes most Christians possibly including you.

And there's just as much evidence for the spiritual realm as for air.

If that were the case, the two would have the same level of consensus that they exist. Nobody here is arguing that air doesn't exist, but several have challenged your claim about a spiritual realm just as they do claims about a supernatural realm and a deity. Contrast that with the air, the sun, and the oceans. I claim they exist. Did you want to dispute that the way that skeptics dispute metaphysical claims? Probably not.

I've studied this extensively, so you can quit talking down...it just makes atheists sound arrogant... again.

"Arrogant - having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities."

I had written, "He assumes free will must exist, and probably never thinks any more about it than that. And because he has no experience thinking about the possibility that will is determined, he considers the idea ridiculous." Nothing you wrote makes me feel that this isn't correct. You've demonstrated no understanding of the nuances of this topic, and ignored my exposition on the topic, which was predictable.

Do I have an exaggerated sense of my ability to discern your opinion in advance, or to predict the amount of thought that went into it? I don't think so. You've already missed chances to prove me wrong if I were. Your comment looks like every other Christian's (and at least some Muslims on RF) on this topic - no discussion of what free will is, no understanding that its existence is undecidable, no discussion of conflicting wills in the same mind (are they both free?), and no discussion of the possibility that will is not free.

This is what I meant when saying that faith is unexamined belief, not a virtue or a path to truth, but the sheer will to believe without critical thought. Sorry if that offends you, but try rebutting it if you think it's wrong. And remember, rebuttal is not mere rejection of an idea, but a counterargument that, if correct, makes the rebutted comment impossible. Don't just tell me that you disagree. I already know that. Explain why you do in a way that would convince other readers that I misjudged you.

 

[Sheldon]

Giving my opinion is a straw man? Do you even know what the term means?

Yes. Straw man fallacy...educate yourself...

 

[Sheldon]

No the Truth is much more fun than fantasy. It's endlessly fascinating and we will never reach the end of it.

So when are you coming onboard with the truth?

 

[Sheldon]

I guess that works for you as long as you ignore that over 90% of the people in the world have experienced it.

You seem to be trying to set some sort of record for argumentum ad populum fallacies, pretty funny tbh.

 

[Sheldon]

Sheldon said: ↑
The laws of physics are man made, they are our attempt to understand how the material universe works, they are therefore descriptive, not prescriptive. Creationists often make this basic error in reasoning.

A distinction without a difference.

A response that ignores the difference, I will talk slowly for you...scientific laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. Creationists often make this basic error in reasoning. It's hilarious that you simply repeat this error in reasoning, as if that somehow lends it credence...

 

[Kenny]

You had said, "Your faith is to be used in helping feed and clothe." I said faith wasn't needed. Now you've moved the goalpost to something unrelated. Perhaps you can just agree that faith is not needed to be good or do good. Was it this thread in which theists were arguing about faith versus works when a skeptic pointed out that the Bible gives contradictory answers to that question? Attempting to reconcile the contradiction, some believer was saying that good works is proof of faith. It's not.

You had written, "Don't blame God for the responsibility that He gave us" to an atheist. I am always amazed when theists seem to forget this fact. I doubt that any unbeliever writing to you forgets that you DO believe in God, or writes in a way that assumes you don't, but theists do this constantly, as when they quote scripture to an unbeliever as if that were meaningful to him like it is for the believer.

So let's take this in context and not mine it into what you want it to say.

I am not asking you to believe in God. I am not trying to convert you. I am expressing how this blind test is blind to the reality of what prayer requires as the test that they are executing.

so

1) I did not say it "to an atheist" but rather answering a question to all those who don't believe in prayer (Atheist or non-atheist)

2) What I did say, in answer to "why doesn't feed the hungry" is that it isn't God's job (as per Christian understanding). Whether you do it as an atheist or one does it as a theist, it is still man's job.

3) Any quoted scriptures is in context of the OP. Whether you, as an atheist, don't believe in scriptures quoted has nothing to do with context.

So, basically all the above is really irrelevant other than what you want to create out of it, even if it isn't there.

Prayer can't demand anything. It's a request. And even if one demands action, that is not the same as acting. I still prefer action to prayer, even prayers demanding action.

So, if you don't agree with scripture, why this question? If you don't believe in prayer, why that question?

Prayer can and many times does require action. Do you want me to quote scripture? Or is scripture irrelevant. (Please make up your mind)

You had written, "Which proves the reality that you really aren't seeking answers."

So you think the scientific community needs to consult with members outside of itself to design a valid study? T"

Absolutely! If you are going to do a scientific study on veracity of carbon 14 dating but you have no knowledge about carbon 14 dating, you would need to talk to those in the know.

 

[Sheldon]

Polymath257 said: ↑
No, the laws do not come about through chance. They simply exist. They are not caused.

Lol, that's hilarious!

Nope, you just have an hilarious lack of understanding here.

we can have uncaused causes in a universe that only operates by blind causation?

Do you think repeating the unevidenced claim is a credible argument for magic from an archaic superstition.

I guess laws can just be for no reason? Where is the logic?

Which principle of logic are you claiming is being violated, by people not believing your claim that a deity using inexplicable magic, with no explanatory powers whatsoever, is somehow an explanation for anything?

 

[Sheldon]

this blind test is blind to the reality of what prayer requires

You keep offering this hand waving denial, but what objection can you offer beyond a subjective claim that any prayer that fails is somehow flawed? If you can't offer objective evidence, then this is clearly just a special pleading fallacy.