Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[mikkel_the_dane]

This doesn't explain why you aren't as sceptical of religious claims as you are of scientific ones. You have hard evidence that your computer works but you only have belief that prayer works, yet you claim that your belief in prayer is more reasonable than your belief in your computer's ability to fundamentally function tomorrow.

Well, to me it ends here:

• I am more skeptical of religion than science.
• I am more skeptical of science than religion.
• I am skeptical of both as they both are belief systems in the end. And my worldview is also a belief system, so I state that.

 

[KWED]

Love offered freely to all is strange?

1. Yes it is. Why would you love everyone, regardless of their behaviour? It makes no sense and makes "love" utterly meaningless.
2. God doesn't "offer love freely to all", only to those who join his gang.

Destruction for not believing is strange?

Er, yeah! Especially if you "love" that person.

Why, isn't death what you asked for if you don't accept life?

Why on earth would you think that rejecting Iron Age superstition on the basis of a lack of supporting evidence is "asking for death"?
You really do have some rather strange ideas. It's probably a result of cognitive dissonance overload.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Every individual cannot reproduce every experiment - but every experiment can be repeated, and the same results obtained.

Well, yes, for a certain assumption of reduction in regards to cause and effect, the assumption that induction works and that objective reality is knowable and law-like.
But all of these 3 assumptions are axiomatic and themselves without evidence.

 

[KWED]

Because they have their pride wounded

How is a personal trauma or psychotic event "having your pride wounded"?

and accept the truth more easily. Trauma is a great motivator for truth.

But many people also lose god after personal trauma, so their lack of faith is also "truth", yes?

 

[KWED]

You mean at this point? People choose one way or the other at some point, but I think that happens at critical moments in their life, and we just can't make that choice anytime. At this point in my life I doubt very much I could reject God because I've seen too much of Him to doubt to that extent.

So your belief is not a choice, despite earlier insisting that we choose our beliefs. Yet I suspect that you will continue to claim that my disbelief is a "choice".

See, this is what happens when you don't base your position on evidence and rational argument. You end up swinging with the wind and changing your position in order to counter different arguments.

 

[KWED]

Were they there? Then there's a vast amount of speculation

So you obviously apply the same degree of scepticism to the tales of magic in the Bible (probably more so because of a complete lack of evidence for magic in the first place).
What's that?
You don't??
Please explain why.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You mean at this point? People choose one way or the other at some point, but I think that happens at critical moments in their life, and we just can't make that choice anytime. At this point in my life I doubt very much I could reject God because I've seen too much of Him to doubt to that extent.

It is a combination of coping to existential events, the personal for lack of better words subculture/values of a given person and their actual cognitive makeup. But not all changes are existential, in some people they are driven by the cognitive makeup for some choices.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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

It is possible to combine both.

 

[KWED]

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

That is called the "special pleading" fallacy and essentially means your argument fails.
Also, I could do the same and claim that before this universe existed there were no "laws of science" so the basic stuff of the universe didn't have to obey them - which is actually a reasonable argument, certainly better than your bare assertion that "god just exist cuz god".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you obviously apply the same degree of scepticism to the tales of magic in the Bible (probably more so because of a complete lack of evidence for magic in the first place).
What's that?
You don't??
Please explain why.

Short dirty answer. Because of the positive values in being "right" and how the negative feeling in "doesn't make sense" are handled. That is not unique to religion.

 

[KWED]

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

No. It's a demonstrable fact.
Pick any scientific experiment and we can see if it is repeatable.
Your choice. Off you go....

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is called the "special pleading" fallacy and essentially means your argument fails.
Also, I could do the same and claim that before this universe existed there were no "laws of science" so the basic stuff of the universe didn't have to obey them - which is actually a reasonable argument, certainly better than your bare assertion that "god just exist cuz god".

No, it is not a reasonable argument, because it is unknown for now and probably fundamentally unknown, unless you are in effect God.
As a skeptic, when reason and knowledge don't cut it, I state - I don't know and I don't have an opinion on that.

 

[KWED]

He was here in bodily form.

Any evidence other than the claims of the religion based around that claim?

And he is detectable to millions of people today.

Please explain the method by which he is detectable so I can repeat the experiment myself.

And his creation speaks of him constantly.

I have been listening very closely for years. Never heard a peep.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. It's a demonstrable fact.
Pick any scientific experiment and we can see if it is repeatable.
Your choice. Off you go....

That depends on what you consider science and how you in effect connect that to metaphysics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Because you don't want to understand that mistakes are common even for history that's only a few hundred years old or less.

Again, more strawmanning.

I never said that science (be it historical science, natural science, etc) is infallible.
In fact, making mistakes and then finding out is how science makes progress.

Off course, one has to have the intellectual honesty and courage to acknowledge mistakes and adjust conclusions accordingly.

This is the main difference between rational folks and fundamentalists like yourself.

When scientists find a mistake in their beliefs, then they rejoice because they have just learned something and made progress.

When religious fundamentalists find a mistake in their beliefs, they'll do everything in their power to dodge it and "explain it away", because their beliefs are dogmatic.

This is the difference between following the evidence as opposed to following bronze age myth.

 

[KWED]

No, it is not a reasonable argument, because it is unknown for now

You don't seem to understand the difference between "an argument for x" and "evidence for x".
An argument is basically a speculative hypothesis. A kind of "what if".
If you think there is something demonstrably wrong in my argument that shows it is not a possibility, feel free to explain.

As a skeptic, when reason and knowledge don't cut it, I state - I don't know and I don't have an opinion on that.

Where did I state that my argument was a known fact?
Notice that I prefaced my argument with "I could claim that", not "it is a fact that".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You don't seem to understand the difference between "an argument for x" and "evidence for x".
An argument is basically a speculative hypothesis. A kind of "what if".
If you think there is something demonstrably wrong in my argument that shows it is not a possibility, feel free to explain.

Where did I state that my argument was a known fact?
Notice that I prefaced my argument with "I could claim that", not "it is a fact that".

Yes, you are right. It is a possibility, the actuality probability is just unknown. So it is reasonable for it being a possibility, just as a Creator God is reasonable.
And if then someone claims one is more reasonable than other, that requires evidence and I have never come across that for any cases of more reasonable.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Again, more strawmanning.

I never said that science (be it historical science, natural science, etc) is infallible.
In fact, making mistakes and then finding out is how science makes progress.

Off course, one has to have the intellectual honesty and courage to acknowledge mistakes and adjust conclusions accordingly.

This is the main difference between rational folks and fundamentalists like yourself.

When scientists find a mistake in their beliefs, then they rejoice because they have just learned something and made progress.

When religious fundamentalists find a mistake in their beliefs, they'll do everything in their power to dodge it and "explain it away", because their beliefs are dogmatic.

This is the difference between following the evidence as opposed to following bronze age myth.

And then admit, when evidence doesn't apply.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually they do

They don't.

The scientific method requires independently verifiable evidence.
It's also very results based. We don't need to be theoretical physicists to realize that relativity and atomic theory are quite accurate, because GPS works and nukes explode.

You have to have faith in the people that did the experiments and the research and dug up the artifacts.

No.

You require such "faith" when a religious person says they witnessed a miracle. Because you have nothing else but their word for it and it isn't independently verifiable, so there is no evidence. Only anecdote.

You don't require such "faith" when it comes to the conclusions of a scientific experiment detailed in a published paper, because by its very nature it will have a form factor that requires evidence and independent verifiability. It will also have been peer reviewed (which is to say, peers will evaluate the methods used of the experiment, see if the conclusions are sound based on the data, review the data itself, etc).
After publication, other scientists will jump on it and review it also, build further upon it, conduct new experiments and / or repeat the experiments, compare the results, etc etc etc etc.

The process by which scientific conclusions are obtained is very very rigorous.

In some cases it took scientists decades to have their ideas accepted by the community eventhough they were spot on on day 1, for the simple reason that their evidence and methods were lacking in peer review or -for whatever reason- the experiments couldn't be repeated and / or evaluated right away.

Take Big Bang Theoy for example. Did you you know where the name "big bang" came from? When George Lemaitre (a physicist and catholic priest, btw) came out with his theory of an expanding universe in a world where the consensus was a static universe, he was met with laughter. He didn't name it "big bang". Other people did that, in a derogatory way. But then the evidence accumulated and eventually the community accepted the theory as the best explanation.

This just to show you how the scientific process actually works.
When somebody comes with a new idea / hypothesis, it is NEVER just accepted on their word. Ever.
Evidence is required.

And sure, it can still turn out wrong in the end. The point is, "faith" is not part of the equation.
The entire scientific method is geared specifically to the opposite of that.

Whenever as a scientist you invoke "faith" to reach a conclusion, even just a tiny bit, your idea will be rejected at face value. They'll tell you to try again and to use evidence instead of "faith".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

They don't.

The scientific method requires independently verifiable evidence.
It's also very results based. We don't need to be theoretical physicists to realize that relativity and atomic theory are quite accurate, because GPS works and nukes explode.




No.

You require such "faith" when a religious person says they witnessed a miracle. Because you have nothing else but their word for it and it isn't independently verifiable, so there is no evidence. Only anecdote.

You don't require such "faith" when it comes to the conclusions of a scientific experiment detailed in a published paper, because by its very nature it will have a form factor that requires evidence and independent verifiability. It will also have been peer reviewed (which is to say, peers will evaluate the methods used of the experiment, see if the conclusions are sound based on the data, review the data itself, etc).
After publication, other scientists will jump on it and review it also, build further upon it, conduct new experiments and / or repeat the experiments, compare the results, etc etc etc etc.

The process by which scientific conclusions are obtained is very very rigorous.

In some cases it took scientists decades to have their ideas accepted by the community eventhough they were spot on on day 1, for the simple reason that their evidence and methods were lacking in peer review or -for whatever reason- the experiments couldn't be repeated and / or evaluated right away.

Take Big Bang Theoy for example. Did you you know where the name "big bang" came from? When George Lemaitre (a physicist and catholic priest, btw) came out with his theory of an expanding universe in a world where the consensus was a static universe, he was met with laughter. He didn't name it "big bang". Other people did that, in a derogatory way. But then the evidence accumulated and eventually the community accepted the theory as the best explanation.

This just to show you how the scientific process actually works.
When somebody comes with a new idea / hypothesis, it is NEVER just accepted on their word. Ever.
Evidence is required.

And sure, it can still turn out wrong in the end. The point is, "faith" is not part of the equation.
The entire scientific method is geared specifically to the opposite of that.

Whenever as a scientist you invoke "faith" to reach a conclusion, even just a tiny bit, your idea will be rejected at face value. They'll tell you to try again and to use evidence instead of "faith".

Yeah, and it is still a fact, that religious people can believe as they do.