Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?

[DNB]

Atheists perceive all that is perceptible. They have the same nervous system with the same sensory organs and neural circuits. They just understand those perceptions differently.

Theists have no extra insights. I know because I've asked several for one or two them and just get empty platitudes if not crickets. So, I don't ask any more.

Insight is seeing further, but to be called insight, the idea ought to have some predictive value. Einstein's ideas were insights. The intelligent design movement's were not. The difference is that the former led to a demonstrably better understanding of how the world works, but the latter's ideas were sterile. Simply holding unusual beliefs does not make one insightful. Insight is writing books like 1984, A Clockwork Orange, and The Handmaid's Tale. Somebody saw further sooner. On the other hand, those falsely predicting the end of the world on specific dates are known to have lacked insight because they were wrong. What was seen was false belief. That's where I put the so-called insights that the faithful such as you report they have, but can never articulate.



Agreed, and this is part of my argument against believing comforting ideas by faith. The bad news for many might be that there is no god or afterlife, nobody to not on earth to protect you or answer your prayers, no absolute morals, no devil to blame, etc.. The idea of a god might be comforting, but it can lead to beliefs and practices that eventually degrade life, such as accepting that faith is a virtue and reason the enemy speaking to you trying to steal your soul, or that science and higher education are an enemy since they tend to facilitate unbelief. These ideas if believed will diminish one's understanding and potential.



No, it's more like believing that a car has no soul and that it wasn't created by a god, but rather, is an entirely natural object.

Wisdom and insight pertains to one's ability to penetrate the truth - the wiser and more insightful the person, the more accurate his understanding and perception is about life.
This universe could not have possible appeared out of nowhere, or nothing. Man, since time began, has acted in a manner that defies his superior intelligence to that of all creatures: even the wild animals and insects have proven to be more pragmatic and disciplined than he. Since the beginning of history there has not been oner society or culture, worth mentioning, that did not worship a deity. Man, unlike any other creature, has a conscience and a moral standard - only the wild beasts kill indiscriminately with absolutely no regret or remorse, eating one another alive.

Man was created in the image of God, for he clearly has a spiritual dimension to his constitution. ...if Richard Dawkins is correct that, provided that there is no God, theists are ultra deluded (I would agree), then, on the converse, atheists would have to be the most oblivious and shallow people alive if there is a God.

 

[Wildswanderer]

The universe doesn't appear to have or need an intelligent designer.

You really need to get out more.

 

[ppp]

You really need to get out more.

That is just some snark to cover for the fact that you have no evidence or sound reasoning to support your claim that the universe does have or need an intelligent designer,

 

[F1fan]

And what perception is it that atheists lack?
They lack depth to their thoughts, they cannot perceive the metaphysical realm nor what is contained in it, namely the spiritual warfare at hand - man commits unjustifiable and inexplicable atrocities.

This is what you believe. It isn't factual, not based on any credible evidence.

But try to explain how atheists lack depth in their thoughts. You make this claim and offer no evidence or coherent explanation of the evidence. Metaphysics does not describe reality.

Don't you lack the perception to detect Hindu gods? Can you perceive Shiva and Vishnu? If not, what is your problem?

I can comprehend what they have fabricated, and how limited insight can compel one to believe of its veracity. I only veritably accept the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the Judeo-Christian God. There can only be one all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent Deity in the universe. Therefore, for example, polytheism is a fallacy, precluding the option to take seriously the myriad of other competing religions in this world..

So you wave away Hindu Gods yet can't provide any evdience that yours exist any more than they can theirs. Why should critical thinkers believe any theists when you only make claims, and offer no evidence. You then deny and reject the claims of other theists, so you all eat your own.

And what remarkable insights do theists have? Do they no commit crimes? Do they not lie and cheat? Are there no theists in prisons? Explain to me how much advantage a person has being a theist versus an non-theist. Use facts.

Being a theist by either birth, indoctrination, pretense, or some other ulterior motive, gains no-one any advantage.

You finally write a true and factual answer.

Criminals and the like, who confess to be theists, we consider to be charlatans. As for those who are authentic, sincere and devout theists, it is obvious what the assets are - they have the fundamental truth of the universe: it's purpose and requirements.

Do you consider liars and conmen to be charlatans as well? I take it you reject Answers in Genesis and the fraud of creationism, yes? They are truly charlatans.

This is not a sound conclusion. You offered no evidence, only claims. That is not a wise thing to do in debate with smart atheists.

That is an oxymoron: 'smart atheist'.

Getting a little judgey for a follower of Jesus, aren't we? Is lying about atheists Christlike? Are insults Christlike? This is the sort of comment the reveals the true and failed character of many who think themselves "true Christians". Have you not noticed that the vast majority of atheists are quite intelligent? If not, then your ability to perceive a God is equal to how you assess intelligence in atheists.

They may have intelligence on secular matters, but to deny their Creator is the quintessence of foolishness and ignorance.

Do you think your religious beliefs apply to those who believe differently? Do you think your dogma has authority over all humans, regardless of their religion?

Since the beginning of history, every single nation on this planet have had a religious facet to their society.

Because primal humans had little knowledge, and religions were developed as a means to have answers about the universe. these have remained traditions of many civilizations, but not all. Christianity and Islam grew mostly due to politics and violence.

Every single human worth mentioning, believed in one god or another. This, in and of itself, presupposes the spiritual dimension in man, and that spirit must have a source - God, for such an inherent disposition and sentiment in man could not possibly be derived from stardust or protoplasm.

yet this tradition of human history doesn't;t mean these ideas and traditions are base din fact or reality. So irrelevant.

...100% you are going to make me regret writing back to you. Therefore, I wrote this in case others may read it.

Well theists have a challenge they can't win in religious debates. You all try, but you never win. The biggest reason for your failure: no evidence for your religious beliefs. What you offer only tells us religions are popular, not that any of them are true. Who knows, maybe Hindus are right and we are both wrong.

 

[F1fan]

No one is saved by works of any kind, however.

Which is great for the lazy and selfish Christian who really doesn't want to follow Jesus' teachings of helping the less fortunate, but is very interested in their own *** being saved from eternal hellfire.

 

[F1fan]

Wisdom and insight pertains to one's ability to penetrate the truth - the wiser and more insightful the person, the more accurate his understanding and perception is about life.

Do you see yourself as such a person?

This universe could not have possible appeared out of nowhere, or nothing.

So you don't believe in God and that he created the universe from nothing?

Man, since time began, has acted in a manner that defies his superior intelligence to that of all creatures: even the wild animals and insects have proven to be more pragmatic and disciplined than he.

Humans didn't;t exist at the point of the Big Bang. Humans have only been around for the last 200K years. The universe is about 14 billion years old. So your statement here is false.

Since the beginning of history there has not been oner society or culture, worth mentioning, that did not worship a deity. Man, unlike any other creature, has a conscience and a moral standard - only the wild beasts kill indiscriminately with absolutely no regret or remorse, eating one another alive.

Because humans had highly developed brains via evolution and had few actual answers to explain the world around them. Gods were a best guess that have since become obsolete. Belief is popular, but this is explained in how the human brain evolved to adopt social norms for the sake of satisfying the impulse to belong.

Man was created in the image of God, for he clearly has a spiritual dimension to his constitution. ...

None of this is factual. You repeating basic Christian dogma.

if Richard Dawkins is correct that, provided that there is no God, theists are ultra deluded (I would agree), then, on the converse, atheists would have to be the most oblivious and shallow people alive if there is a God.

I suspect you are projecting.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Which is great for the lazy and selfish Christian who really doesn't want to follow Jesus' teachings of helping the less fortunate, but is very interested in their own *** being saved from eternal hellfire.

According to the Bible, more specifically Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats, being a lazy, good-for-nothing Christian who does not follow Jesus' teachings of helping the less fortunate will seal their fate in hell. There are specific scriptures that confirm someone's salvation can be stripped away by Jesus if they don't follow God's will. Other than Jesus' parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31–46), there is also this verse: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). Herein lies a contradiction in the Bible, because Romans 10:9:13 says that if someone declares with their mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believes in their heart that God raised Jesus from the dead, they will be saved. This scripture asserts that whoever calls on Jesus' name will be saved. The Bible also says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast" (Ephesians 2:8-9).

But clearly, the "sheep" in Jesus' parable were obviously rewarded with eternal life for their good works (feeding the hungry, giving water to people who are thirsty, inviting in a stranger, clothing the needy, visiting the sick or people in prison) and the "goats" were obviously punished and sent to hell for not doing any of those things for other people while they were still alive. The "goats" lacked the good works to be given eternal life, despite the fact that they were also Christians who accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Studies are also observations.

Yes, but saying how knowledge works, is philosophy.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

And what perception is it that atheists lack?
They lack depth to their thoughts, they cannot perceive the metaphysical realm nor what is contained in it, namely the spiritual warfare at hand - man commits unjustifiable and inexplicable atrocities.

Imagination is not perception, and the metaphysical is imperceptible by definition. It is defined as the unseen reality thought to underlie experience.

The believer does not perceive any more than any humanist, and seems to misjudge the significance of what he does perceive. There is no value in framing the world as spiritual warfare, an idea that benefits nobody but can certainly degrade one's appreciation of life. One major difference between the Abrahamic and dharmic religions is that the former are so dismal - sin and salvation, crucifixion and hell.

This is from Pat Condell. It summarizes nicely the mantle of psychological oppression that I felt lifted from me upon leaving Christianity:

• "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?"

Don't you lack the perception to detect Hindu gods? Can you perceive Shiva and Vishnu? If not, what is your problem?
I can comprehend what they have fabricated, and how limited insight can compel one to believe of its veracity. I only veritably accept the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the Judeo-Christian God. There can only be one all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent Deity in the universe. Therefore, for example, polytheism is a fallacy, precluding the option to take seriously the myriad of other competing religions in this world..

Your argument is equally persuasive when made by a Hindu - your religion lacks depth, you have fabricated and believed in gods, only Hindu gods are real, since the universe is polytheistic, monotheism is a fallacy.

You see them as making it all up. Non-Christians say that about Christianity.

And what remarkable insights do theists have? Do they no commit crimes? Do they not lie and cheat? Are there no theists in prisons? Explain to me how much advantage a person has being a theist versus an non-theist. Use facts.
Being a theist by either birth, indoctrination, pretense, or some other ulterior motive, gains no-one any advantage. Criminals and the like, who confess to be theists, we consider to be charlatans. As for those who are authentic, sincere and devout theists, it is obvious what the assets are - they have the fundamental truth of the universe: it's purpose and requirements.

So the remarkable insights that you claim for theism is that theists have the purpose and requirements of the universe, but you don't care to say what that truth is, what makes it truth, or how that knowledge benefits anybody. I presume that there is value there for you or you would leave it as I did, but I see no value for me there.

That's why the skeptics ask the theists for the insights they claim they glean. What are your wares besides words that can't be used for anything? When the answer is, "I have great wares" rather than showing you them and demonstrating what makes them great, he just keeps telling you that they're so wonderful that you'll love them. This is the theist - all hat, no cattle. Big claims, and nothing to show for them.

This is not a sound conclusion. You offered no evidence, only claims. That is not a wise thing to do in debate with smart atheists.
That is an oxymoron: 'smart atheist'. They may have intelligence on secular matters, but to deny their Creator is the quintessence of foolishness and ignorance. Since the beginning of history, every single nation on this planet have had a religious facet to their society. Every single human worth mentioning, believed in one god or another. This, in and of itself, presupposes the spiritual dimension in man, and that spirit must have a source - God, for such an inherent disposition and sentiment in man could not possibly be derived from stardust or protoplasm.

And there you go again with empty pronouncements of the superiority of theism: Theist wise, atheist fool. Then you make an unconvincing (fallacious) argument for a god. You've made no case for the wisdom of belief or the foolishness of unbelief. Furthermore, I've lived both. You'll have an uphill battle with somebody who found things to be the opposite of what you report.

 

[Sheldon]

I believe I can imagine that prayer would never work for you unless it was one of repentance.

I believe I can imagine a unicorn, so I'm not sure what value you "imagine" that claim has in a debate?

 

[Sheldon]

Also, if you tell me something is incomprehensible, after telling me something about it, I am just gonna laugh.

Precisely my rationale as well, something is either incomprehensible, or you know things about it, it can't be both, and it's odd how often this happens in religious apologetics as well. FWIW, any claim to knowledge means there are facts and information that can be communicated that are objectively verifiable, or it's not knowledge, it's a subjective claim and or experience, which are demonstrably and fundamentally different things. for example "I've seen what I subjectively think is magic", is a very different claim to "I know magic is real." Yet we so often see theists use the latter claims in religious apologetics all the time, when in fact the former claim is the accurate one that should be used.

 

[Sheldon]

No one is saved by works of any kind, however.

Since this hardly ever happens, I feel obliged to acknowledge we actually agree on something, but of course for very different reasons.

 

[Sheldon]

A loving father can't be a loving father of robots. That's not love.

Neither is indiscriminately murdering your "children" when they don't turn out the way you want, and the biblical deity does this a lot.

It certainly doesn't appear to be only about survival for the human race. Nor does it appear to operate only by chance.

Who has suggested it operates only by chance? Random events being involved is not the same as only chance being involved. though random events can and do produce what we perceive as complex outcomes, this is a mathematical fact, just randomly roll some dice and watch what we perceive as patterns emerging.

So I'm merely picking the most likely explanation.

Your goddidit claim isn't an explanation, it has no explanatory powers whatsoever, it merely lines unevidenced assumptions up in tandem.

We know the physical universe exists, we know natural phenomena exist, we have no objective evidence anything supernatural or any deity is even possible, so it's risible to suggest adding unevidenced assumptions about an unevidenced deity, from an archaic superstition, is a possible "explanation" let alone the most probable "explanation".

 

[Sheldon]

Obviously it doesn't. Unless it has an intelligent designer guiding it.
Otherwise it just swings in the dark, not even hoping to hit anything.

The scientific theory of evolution contains overwhelming objective evidence you are wrong here, and worse still the fact you only deny scientific facts and theories when they dispute your religious beliefs, which is a clear indicator of subjective bias on your part. denying scientific facts is bad enough, but cherry picking which ones to deny based on their compatibility with archaic superstition speaks for itself, even the RCC has cottoned onto this fact, with their limitless resources to peddle superstition and falsify scientific idea if they were indeed false.

So I'm going to go with scientific fact here, over one version of one deity you subjectively believe is real, from the literally thousands of deities humans have imagined are real.

 

[Sheldon]

Studies are also observations.

Not all "observations" are the same clearly, you are using sophistry and semantics. Studies can be designed to remove subjective bias from what we observe, this has already been explained to you. Simply rolling past and ignoring it, isn't sound reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really need to get out more.

Or believer in ID could try to apply the scientific method to their beliefs. The fact is that this is a scientific question, not a theological one and there is no scientific evidence for ID. Can you explain that rather obvious failure for IDists?

 

[Sheldon]

Ok so firstly you have leaped from your contradiction that something is both incompressible (your word), and yet you can comprehend it enough to make claims about it, to this non sequitur response? Do we need to even wonder, why you avoided addressing this obvious contradiction?

QUOTE="PruePhillip, post: 7722748, member: 64682"]The bible makes many claims, and a lot of them, particularly the historicity, have proven to be valid.[/QUOTE]

I don't believe you, but it would still get a so what, Since New York is a real place, and many of its features were accurately portrayed in the Spiderman movies, but this does not remotely evidence Spiderman. Just as historical facts gleaned from the bible does not remotely evidence a deity or anything supernatural.

However we also know that historical claims in the bible have been entirely disproved, Which is problematic for the claim it's origins are divine. For example there is no geological evidence for any global flood, decades of archaeological excavations have demonstrated Exodus to be just a myth, as just two examples. So I am dubious about your claim anyway.

But as for the above list - faith is a different realm to science.

Religious faith is not a realm, it is simply a subjective bias in favour of the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. You can fact check this in any dictionary.

Issues of why there is something rather than nothing,

What issue? There is something, but how are you claiming to know nothing is even a possible state? How do you test nothing exactly, how much nothing did you gather to test it?

how people can have personal experience,

From a live functioning human brain, which evolved.

issues of the reason for us being here

That's a begging the question fallacy, you don't get to just assume there is a reason, in your argument for one.

and even the fulfillment of prophecy in our own day

Prophesy is fulfilled several times a week every week all over the world, when someone accurately predicts the lottery against astronomical odds, why would I assume anything supernatural is needed to explain this? Which is what religious people do of course, they simply assume that it can't be explained, or that if it can't be explained this justifies the assumption of divine intervention. I am dubious about both claims, the first because it is simply an appeal to mystery and the second because it is so obviously an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.

(the issue of a restored Israel) are valid, and largely outside of science.

How is this an issue? How is the UN's establishment of a home land for Jews in the middle east, outside the realm of science to explain? How is a random prediction coming true, outside of the purview of science to explain? Probability theory might help disavow you of most of this notion, and even assuming I accepted someone made a prediction that was too accurate to be remotely ambiguous, and was so extraordinarily unlikely that it coming true exactly as predicted was mind boggling, and it then happened exactly as predicted, all you'd have is an inexplicable set of events, this doesn't in any way evidence anything supernatural, why would it?

 

[Sheldon]

PruePhillip said: ↑
science ultimately ends in faith - that science created the universe, b.e.f.o.r.e...t.h.e.r.e...w.a.s...s.c.i.e.n.c.e.....

That literally makes no sense.

Not really. It is valid AND WORTHWHILE to figure out how the earth formed - it gives us power to predict earthquakes, drill for oil, mine for metals etc..And it's valid to work out how stars are made as it gives us insights into the nuclear business (quantum, silicon chips, nuclear power stations, fusion etc..) So knowledge is power. And this knowledge tells us how everything formed, right down to the atom. And we know where galaxies come from, and stars, and planets, and us.

A random set of claims that seems entirely irrelevant to your original claim and my response above?

What we don't know and can never ask is where physics comes from -

Physics is a human creation, it is a branch of the methods of science, it is descriptive not proscriptive.

for the thing which made all we see had to be made itself - somehow.

What thing? What objective evidence can you demonstrate to support the assumption that all we see "needed to be made"?

So how was physics made?

Humans created physics to help us understand and explain, the workings of the physical universe.

And where do numbers come from?

Again they're a human creation?

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is just some snark to cover for the fact that you have no evidence or sound reasoning to support your claim that the universe does have or need an intelligent designer,

Since science has no explanation for the universe it certainly needs something to explain how it began.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Which is great for the lazy and selfish Christian who really doesn't want to follow Jesus' teachings of helping the less fortunate, but is very interested in their own *** being saved from eternal hellfire.

Faith will produce change but that's the result... not the cause of salvation.