Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[Sheldon]

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
The difference is that he can actually provide rational answers to those questions.

Not that I've seen.

That's not hard to explain of course, given how relentlessly irrational your arguments are, you use known logical fallacies relentlessly, even after they are explained, and you ignore posts that point them out, which clearly infers that you don't care when your arguments or claims are irrational.

 

[Sheldon]

Both agnostic theists and agnostic atheists don't make any sense.

Well I can't speak for agnostic theists, but if I can't know anything about the nature or existence of something, I tend not believe claims about it, So agnostic atheist makes perfect sense, especially given the literally thousands of different deities that humans have imagined, and that many of the concepts theists hold are unfalsifiable, quite deliberately so.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Actually God is more real than the room. He is in all and through all and over all. So mere matter pales in comparison.

So real that you can't even show he exists.

 

[Polymath257]

We are talking about religion aren't we? About God, not math.

Oh, I thought we were talking about belief. Belief is not a choice for me. I am either convinced or not.

 

[Sheldon]

That's easy. They are all made in God's image.

With over 96% of our DNA matching that of chimpanzees, you might want to contemplate that claim a little more rigorously.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, you couldn't build the parts of say the CERN accelerator to spec as per calibration and the computer software, then put it all together and do an experiment. Stop promoting the folk version of science.
It relies on a group effort. Basic science yes, but once it involves too many instruments and software, then no.

You could if you got the proper education and worked in the field and got a job at CERN.

The whole point of the methodology section in scientific papers is to lay it all out so the study can be recreated by anyone else who has the available resources to do so.

 

[Sheldon]

Actually God is more real than the room. He is in all and through all and over all. So mere matter pales in comparison.

More real? Oh dear...

 

[Sheldon]

So real that you can't even show he exists.

Can't even demonstrate a shred of objective evidence, or produce a single rational argument for an extant deity.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Atheists have freedom, and a chance to live a life beyond the limits and restriction of religious dogma. I suspect many religious extremists have some degree of envy of non-believers, as we don't fear what the theists fear, and thus have a greater freedom than the believers.

Are you familiar with atheist firebrand Pat Condell? Think George Carlin on religion, or Hitchens. About 28 seconds into this video, a sarcastic piece written to angry Christians who wish him hellfire, he says, "To be fair, I do actually sympathize to some extent. I mean it must be quite galling for religious people to see atheists like me going about their business without a shred of guilt or self-loathing, and not in the least inclined to pray or to do penance of any kind, and not in the slightest bit worried about any form of eternal punishment. I have to admit if I was religious I'd probably think to myself: "How come I've got all this weight on my shoulders while these bums are getting a free ride?"

If unfamiliar with him, you might enjoy a minute or two of the following:

We are talking about religion aren't we? About God, not math.

I assume that like me, he's talking about all belief, religious or otherwise. The critical thinker doesn't will belief. He uses his skill set to decide if something is believable or not according to the rules of fallacy-free reasoning applied to relevant evidence to arrive at sound conclusions. When that occurs, the critical thinker is obliged to believe. When it doesn't, he is obliged to reject belief. There are no choices in beliefs with the empiricist.

You personally cannot do every experiment to prove every scientific theory.

Reproducibility just means that the experiment can be repeated. Anybody can repeat any experiment with the right equipment. It's irrelevant that nobody has time to do them all.

Actually God is more real than the room. He is in all and through all and over all. So mere matter pales in comparison.

Your definition of real is different from mine.

Mere matter, huh? Matter has the virtue of being real. You can stand on it, eat it, build a shelter with it, burn it for heat. That's because you're also matter. Remove the matter from experience and you lose everything else, including energy, force, and likely spacetime.

Imagine being immaterial. You wouldn't be able to do any of those things. Why? You wouldn't be real any longer, at least not in this universe. Reality is the collection of objects and processes that interact with one another. Real things have that quality, and unreal ones do not. That's the sine qua non of nonexistence, or not being a part of reality - the inability to interact with or affect with reality. That's what a parent means when he or she says that ghosts aren't real - there is nothing there that can affect anything.

This deity that you say is everywhere meets the criterion of unreal, of nonexistent. It is detectable nowhere. It moves nothing, warms nothing, and makes no sound - just like all other ideas with no physical interactions.

Think of this when you hear a theist tell others that the supernatural is undetectable even in principle. He's telling you that it doesn't exist in this reality, that it is causally disconnected from nature.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nothing can rule in or out whether a decision is freely made at the time of action or was preordained by the circumstances of the moment and the laws of physics, that is, whether a different decision was possible at that moment. I think that if this idea is correct, it's important to understand, as it ends the speculation about whether free will is an illusion or something else by calling the answer undecidable. I've already given you the argument for concluding that twice - the thought experiment involving time travel - which you have not rebutted, so there is nothing more to say on that except the conclusion is sound (correct).

I don't recall what the time travel experiment was about... Apparently I wasn't impressed with it. As far as the biblical reason to believe in free will:

"The Bible often expresses this free center of the human self by referring to the “heart.” Jesus says the heart is like a tree: it brings forth good or evil fruit according to its nature (Luke 6:43–44). Thus, he continues, “The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart” (Luke 6:45). No further explanation for the fruit is necessary. Jesus teaches that “out of the heart” all “evil thoughts,” as well as “murder, adultery, [and] sexual immorality” come (Matt. 15:19). The final explanation for human behavior is to be found in this self-determining center of the human self."

( Greg Boyd)

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

That's not included in my definition of a Christian, which includes no behavioral test. The term true Christian, which generally implies passing a behavioral test, has no meaning to me, since there is no false or untrue Christian, thus no behavior that disqualifies one from being Christian. Believers like to disqualify such people, because they believe that practicing their religion makes people better people, and so the failures are marginalized as non-Christian, but I don't do that, since the fraction of failures relative to the fraction of successes is a good way to assess the value of the religion as a people builder.

How about the homophobic people the church generates and fills the neighborhoods with? Are they the kind of people we want as neighbors? Are they not also Christians even though they don't "subscribe to a set of values preached and lived by Jesus", or would you disqualify them? They're Christians to me no matter how good or bad their behavior. My opinion of Christianity is based on the collective performance of people identifying as Christians compared to alternatives such as humanism.

I was accused of not being a Christian while I was still one because I didn't always conform to what other Christians thought was biblical and acceptable behavior for a Christian. For example, I was berated by other conservative Christians for supporting LGBTQ+ rights when I was still a conservative Christian myself. I still support LGBTQ+ rights because I believe in freedom, liberty, and justice for all. I've never thought that I have the right to demand other American citizens be denied freedom, liberty, and justice just because the Bible disapproves of their sexual orientation. When I was a Christian, I thought that I wouldn't want my civil rights to be revoked just because of my sins against God, so I shouldn't be hypocritical by wanting and demanding that happen to other American citizens.

I also experienced a lot of hostility and cruel accusations from other conservative Christians because I refused to politically support Trump, whom they believed God had personally chosen and ordained to be the President of the United States. I was told that I was willingly rebelling against God because I refused to vote for Trump and then give him my unwavering political support. All hell seemed to break loose after I left the Republican Party in disgust of Trump and his sycophantic supporters and registered as a Democrat.

I was ostracized by my family and by a few other people that I knew in real life, and I was ostracized and verbally attacked on a couple of Christian-oriented forums online too. I was accused of being evil, accused of rebelling against God, and I was called disparaging names like a child of the devil, Satan's minion, and a demon rat (instead of a Democrat). I was also accused of being demon possessed and that the demon who possessed me made me vote for Biden in a rebellion against God's plan to redeem America. I was also told that I was going to burn in hell for all eternity because I voted for Biden instead of for Trump. I have other examples to share of how I was treated by other Christians while I was still a Christian, but I think the examples I've shared will suffice and they will also explain why I'm no longer a Christian. These examples did contribute to my decision to forsake my Christian faith and abandon Christianity.

 

[Polymath257]

You personally cannot do every experiment to prove every scientific theory.

True. But you can do enough of them to convince yourself of the general process. It's actually amazing how many you *can* do yourself with minimal equipment. For example, you can measure the mass of the Earth with very simple things.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Think of this when you hear a theist tell others that the supernatural is undetectable even in principle. He's telling you that it doesn't exist in this reality, that it is causally disconnected from nature.

What a crock! I'm working outside as I usually do when the weather is decent, surrounded by life! The crows are calling the chickens are clucking and one of our sheep had five babies last night. Life is always a miracle, and science has no ultimate explanation for it. Only: "this is how we think life got from point A point B."
God explains why... Science only tries to explain how. The reason all this exists can't be" there's no reason." That is the most illogical answer of all.

 

[metis]

Go to any historical museum, and you'll see plaques saying " in such a such time period, millions of years ago, such and such was happening." Those are stated as fact, but they aren't. They are speculation based on what we have found in the present, and interpreted according to the current theories. We are being lied to.

If the museum does its job correctly, then such dates simply are not based on "speculation".

 

[Wildswanderer]

If the museum does its job correctly, then such dates simply are not based on "speculation".

Were they there? Then there's a vast amount of speculation... In reality they can't even get things right that happened 400 years ago.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Of course they do.

Atheism speaks to a lack of belief. Agnosticism speaks to a lack of knowledge.

Then quit riding the fence and get on one side or the other.

 

[Wildswanderer]

So is the God "explanation." Where did God come from?

We don't pretend that God is ruled by the laws of science. Atheist do not have that option with their explanations.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Yes I can. You can too. That's the entire point.

It would take more lifetimes than one. Seriously? Do you also have access to all the bones of our supposed ancestors so you can analyze them and do you have the education to do that?

 

[Wildswanderer]

It's irrelevant that nobody has time to do them all.

Seriously? you are asking me to believe something on faith?

 

[Wildswanderer]

This deity that you say is everywhere meets the criterion of unreal, of nonexistent. It is detectable nowhere. It moves nothing, warms nothing, and makes no sound - just like all other ideas with no physical interactions.

He was here in bodily form. And he is detectable to millions of people today. And his creation speaks of him constantly.