• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science confirms validity of intercessory prayer

The Reverend Bob

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
sayak83 said:
So you actually don't have the links. Just making stuff up then....gotcha
Click to expand...
The issue isn't whether scientific studies about Lady Gaga exist or not, the real issue here is that so many seem to be too damn lazy to go to Google Scholar and look up the **** themselves. It is all right at your fingertips if you go look. It's all ******* right there if you just get off your lazy *** and go look.
 
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
The Reverend Bob said:
The issue isn't whether scientific studies about Lady Gaga exist or not, the real issue here is that so many seem to be too damn lazy to go to Google Scholar and look up the **** themselves. It is all right at your fingertips if you go look. It's all ******* right there if you just get off your lazy *** and go look.
Click to expand...
The issue is that you just said an untruth to try to score a point and demean scientific research.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
siti said:
I imagine that the folks who are members of the oggy woogy boggy boo chanters and those for whom well-meaning friends oggy woogy boggy boo on their behalf with their approval derive some benefit from knowing that their friends are 'rooting for them' (except for the Australians who would be mildly disturbed at the thought of their friends rooting for them), those who are not members and have others oggy woogy boggy booing on their behalf without their approval are probably irritated by it and derive a negative effect and those who couldn't give a flying fu...er...oggy woogy...about it and don't know that someone is boggy booing (or rooting) for them are entirely unaffected...not sure that we really need a peer-reviewed study to figure that out - but I'm guessing that's how the results would pan out if we had one - if we haven't already.
Click to expand...
Ive read over enough research into prayer Im sure a thorough metaanalysis would reveal a general ineffectivess (the negative effects arent even found that often).
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
The Reverend Bob said:
The issue isn't whether scientific studies about Lady Gaga exist or not, the real issue here is that so many seem to be too damn lazy to go to Google Scholar and look up the **** themselves. It is all right at your fingertips if you go look. It's all ******* right there if you just get off your lazy *** and go look.
Click to expand...
If you make the claim, its your job to provide evidence. "Burden of proof" and all that. Get off you "lazy ***" and debate properly.
 
The Reverend Bob

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
sayak83 said:
The issue is that you just said an untruth to try to score a point and demean scientific research.
Click to expand...
I don't have too, I find all sort of contradictory studies. And if you weren't so lazy , you could too. It is easy.

In this pile of "scientific" peer-reviewed babble, I could find studies that say prayer is positive and studies that say prayer has no effect and studies that say it has negative effects:

Google Scholar

It all right at anyone's fingertips, name a prejudice and I'll find a study confirming your bias. Science is bull****.
 
siti

siti

Well-Known Member
The Reverend Bob said:
The issue isn't whether scientific studies about Lady Gaga exist or not, the real issue here is that so many seem to be too damn lazy to go to Google Scholar and look up the **** themselves. It is all right at your fingertips if you go look. It's all ******* right there if you just get off your lazy *** and go look.
Click to expand...
Why would we do that when we can just ask Bob and get the full truth straight from the horses mouth?
 
charlie sc

charlie sc

Well-Known Member
I wonder if Spartan is frantically looking for this mysterious study or has given up this thread altogether.
 
The Reverend Bob

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
siti said:
Why would we do that when we can just ask Bob and get the full truth straight from the horses mouth?
Click to expand...
Because Bob is unreliable and it would be wise to go look into for yourself and I heard he likes to post parodies of certain subjects and pretend he is being serious
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
The Reverend Bob said:
I don't have too, I find all sort of contradictory studies. And if you weren't so lazy , you could too. It is easy.

In this pile of "scientific" peer-reviewed babble, I could find studies that say prayer is positive and studies that say prayer has no effect and studies that say it has negative effects:

Google Scholar

It all right at anyone's fingertips, name a prejudice and I'll find a study confirming your bias. Science is bull****.
Click to expand...
Your Google-fu is rather weak. Partially because you used excessively vague terms in your search. The OP was about a specific type of prayer. Your search should have started there:


Google Scholar

You could even have done the OP's homework since the article referred to is there. Though that study has fallen into disfavor. I would put more trust in a meta-study, which is an analysis of multiple papers on the topic. Verdict, no discernible effect:

Prayer and Health: Review, Meta-Analysis, and Research Agenda
 
The Reverend Bob

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Subduction Zone said:
Your Google-fu is rather weak. Partially because you used excessively vague terms in your search. The OP was about a specific type of prayer. Your search should have started there:


Google Scholar

You could even have done the OP's homework since the article referred to is there. Though that study has fallen into disfavor. I would put more trust in a meta-study, which is an analysis of multiple papers on the topic. Verdict, no discernible effect:

Prayer and Health: Review, Meta-Analysis, and Research Agenda
Click to expand...
Still there are hundreds of these studies and they are not coming to the same conclusion and they are supposed to be peer-reviewed. Just look through that pile, some positive, some neutral, some negative. The whole issue is inconclusive and there is no way of proving it one way or the other. This crap can go on forever and no one is ever going to convince the other side that there is no there there. The subject of prayer is out of the purview and magistratum of science.
 
Revoltingest

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Shadow Wolf said:
Science also confirms we can do a funky dance and chant "oggy woogy boggy boo!" and expect the same general results.
Click to expand...
I even ran across (Hidden Brain podcast) an experiment showing that placebo
treatments can be effective even when the patient knows it's a placebo.
The human mind is a fascinating thingie, eh.) So prayer can indeed be
useful...although "valid" could cause inferring too much more.
 
Spartan

Spartan

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
You mean like this peer reviewed article that says it has no effect if the patient has no knowledge of it, and has a negative effect if the patient knows that he is going to have people praying for him or her:

Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certai... - PubMed - NCBI
Click to expand...

Nice try. But the two studies I cited had Christians / Protestants praying. The STEP study had a religious cult that didn't believe in intercessory prayer as it's prayer group. That group ("The Unity School of Christinity") had a Christian sounding name but it was anything but Christian.

Ron Rhodes, who has a doctorate in systematic theology and who has authored some sixty theological books, noted, "The Unity School of Christianity is definitely not Christian." Probe, a respected Christian journal, calls Unity "a classic new age cult that is not Christian in any aspect of its doctrines or teachings." Even the co-founder of the cult, Charles Fillmore, once wrote, "God never performs miracles."

So, as Dr. Brown (see the OP) noted, the studies are different because (the STEP study) "has a different inclusion" criteria. She also stated, the STEP study "is instructional on how NOT to conduct a study of Christian prayer."
 
The Reverend Bob

The Reverend Bob

Fart Machine and Beastmaster
Spartan said:
Nice try. But the two studies I cited had Christians / Protestants praying. The STEP study had a religious cult that didn't believe in intercessory prayer as it's prayer group. That group ("The Unity School of Christinity") had a Christian sounding name but it was anything but Christian.

Ron Rhodes, who has a doctorate in systematic theology and who has authored some sixty theological books, noted, "The Unity School of Christianity is definitely not Christian." Probe, a respected Christian journal, calls Unity "a classic new age cult that is not Christian in any aspect of it's doctrines or teachings." Even the co-founder of the cult, Charles Fillmore, once wrote, "God never performs miracles."

So, as Dr. Brown (see the OP) noted, the studies are different because (the STEP study) "has a different inclusion criteria. She also stated, the STEP study "is instructional on how NOT to conduct a study of Christian prayer."
Click to expand...
Dude, prayer is outside the purview of science, no scientist can prove that it is beneficial or non-beneficial, it just can't be done and those who try are chasing after the wind. This isn't even a argument or debate, it people arguing nonsense going back and forth with more nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top