Prayer

[Inoculator9]

To answer you Acriku, I would not say the same thing to Christian Scientists. I believe addamently, that they are among the worst modern criminals the world will ever know.

[TMA_1]

Because, they're wrong? You see, you and I probably value different things. I value truth, and because I value truth I must not just let such superstitions be. A new show on Discovery Channel, called MythBusters, is a show with two people of the same aspirations - to find out the truth. They question it, test it, and conclude whether or not the superstition or myth is true. If popular urban legends can be questioned, why can't prayer be questioned? If people still want to believe in it, despite my demonstration of reasoning, then I will stop. I will wonder why they'd want to continue to believe in it, but I wouldn't keep trying to convince them. Some people just have to help themselves.

myth busters is an entertainment show, and a damn good one at that, not a scientific review.lol

Anyways, how do you know other people are wrong? Do you know how silly it is to say something that baseless? You believe they are wrong and try to convert them. The thing is, if you want to try to guide people to truth, dont bully them with words. I think that many people on this thread are being nice to you because they are your friends, but if you would actually listen, they are even saying you take it too far.

What if I started making threads about evolution saying it is wrong plain and simple, or about how athiesm is a flawed ideal? You wouldnt care, but you would think that I was stupid for making such a thread. You have said so to people who have made those threads. Have you ever thought that maybe you are just as bad as those who are ultra conservitive fundimentalists? The thing is, I can have a perfectly intelligent talk with many people on this site like vanguard or inoc for example. But for some reason it is impossible to talk to you, I can only give you information that you throw away, or ridicule. Instead of doing that, give a constructive answer, and give one that is not just "Your wrong because I say so, because the scientific and sceptical community says so." because those kinds of statments you make are so general and so oversimplified it is funny.

In logic it is called oversimplification, you just say stuff that is not the full truth, and when you do say something that is supposed truth, it is all your opinion.

Trying to prove people that they are wrong, and not stopping till people bend to your views is called a crusade. You seem to like the quasi religious stuff.

[Acriku]

myth busters is an entertainment show, and a damn good one at that, not a scientific review.lol

Irrelevant, I was only pointing out that they seek the truth.

Anyways, how do you know other people are wrong? Do you know how silly it is to say something that baseless?

Well, without any evidence to suggest that they are right, I'm left to assume that they are wrong. I could be wrong that they are wrong, but until they show me that, I'm sticking to my story.

You believe they are wrong and try to convert them.

No, I believe they are wrong, and try to show them that, and give them an opportunity to show that they are right.

The thing is, if you want to try to guide people to truth, dont bully them with words.

Not this 'ignorance' thing again? Jesus, it's not a bad thing, it's just a fact.

I think that many people on this thread are being nice to you because they are your friends, but if you would actually listen, they are even saying you take it too far.

If they have something to say to me, they can IM me, instead of going through you. And what is too far? Reminds me of the good old days, when if I went 'too far,' I was dragged out and burned at the stake for heresy. Ah, old habits never die heard, do they TMA?

What if I started making threads about evolution saying it is wrong plain and simple, or about how athiesm is a flawed ideal?

Heh, you wouldn't be the first. Where is empr by the way?

You wouldnt care, but you would think that I was stupid for making such a thread. You have said so to people who have made those threads. Have you ever thought that maybe you are just as bad as those who are ultra conservitive fundimentalists?

No, because I am requesting the proof that believers have the burden of. Do you have any?

The thing is, I can have a perfectly intelligent talk with many people on this site like vanguard or inoc for example. But for some reason it is impossible to talk to you, I can only give you information that you throw away, or ridicule.

Just because I do not respond to some of your posts, does not mean I throw them away. It's pretty selfish to think I have to reply to every one of your posts.

Instead of doing that, give a constructive answer, and give one that is not just "Your wrong because I say so, because the scientific and sceptical community says so." because those kinds of statments you make are so general and so oversimplified it is funny.

It's a wonder why I never make those statements in the first place, huh? ::)

Trying to prove people that they are wrong, and not stopping till people bend to your views is called a crusade. You seem to like the quasi religious stuff.

All I'm reading is "blah blah blah." This thread is not about proving people wrong, it's about proving that they are right. Now, are you going to post something without getting personal, or are you not capable of that?

[Inoculator9]

No Titus, not because they're wrong (which I believe very strongly that they are) but because they're beliefs are bordering on perverse. Denying themselves medicine because they think God doesn't want them to use it... that's sick in my opinion.

Don't worry though dude, I'd never hurt one of them ;D

[Caid Ivik]

Of course prayer is something one can believe in. I fail to see why not. Yes, it is used as part of a believe, that doesn't make it "just a tool". If one doesn't believe in prayers, would he/she still pray ?

Prayer is a natural form of communication. Just with supernatural sphere. You believe not in prayer as it is, but trough prayer you believe in that supernaturality. Like you can't just believe in i.e.holy masses. It's a tool.

[Nyarlathotep]

I figured it was a rhetorical question. Here's my answer: who am I not to?

In other words, you can't answer.

Because, they're wrong? You see, you and I probably value different things.

I'd better not say what I wanted in here... apart from "grow up"..

You're right, you and I DO value other things...

[Acriku]

In other words, you can't answer.

How does one answer the question: Who am I to blah-blah?

I'd better not say what I wanted in here... apart from "grow up"..

You're right, you and I DO value other things...

I think they are wrong, what's immature about that?

[Inoculator9]

It's a bit immature because it suggests a certain narrowness of thought. I'd say the same of anyone, and hopefully trully enlightened members of other religions would say the same of their church's members.

[Nyarlathotep]

So now I'm blah blahing ? Excellent answer. I'm sure you convinced us with your point.. ::)

Acriku, prayers can be questioned, I've said so before. You however question those who do pray. You even call it "ignorance". If those people believe it works for them, why do you so desperately want to change that ? You never answer my questions. Before you hit reply, come up with a mature answer to come back with. Otherwise stop this stupid discussion.

And to value different things isn't immature, what I meant was that your responses are getting immature..

[Acriku]

So Inoc, I cannot have an opinion now without being immature? What if I said that they are not right, instead that they are wrong?

Nyar, you completely misunderstood me. I put blah-blah in there because it was representing anything you could put into the that question, e.g. Who am I to judge the Afghans? Who am I to say that Macintosh is a bad company? Or, to put it simply, who am I to blah-blah.

You even call it "ignorance".

Do you even know what ignorance means? I've tried to explain to you before that ignorance is not make the person bad or stupid, it's just a fact that they can either accept or fix.

If those people believe it works for them, why do you so desperately want to change that ?

Where do you get the idea that I am desperate?

You never answer my questions. Before you hit reply, come up with a mature answer to come back with. Otherwise stop this stupid discussion.

It's kind of hard to ask a rhetorically-structured question.

[Inoculator9]

That's right you immature git ;D Sorry if I came off arrogant, I don't mean to. It's just my personal feeling that one should never be 100% sure in their own believes.

To end with, Acriku you're a super dude and one of the few atheists I'm friendly with :)

[Acriku]

I don't think I'm 100% sure, but I'm satisfied for now (which is why I gave everyone an opportunity to make me unsatisfied with my opinions).

You're super, too! ;D

[Inoculator9]

Ah, shucks ;)

[TMA_1]

Well, without any evidence to suggest that they are right, I'm left to assume that they are wrong. I could be wrong that they are wrong, but until they show me that, I'm sticking to my story.

Just because there is no evidence, something is therefore wrong, or false?

Since we didnt have any evidance that the earth revolved around the sun (until we witnessed the moons of jupiter and other things) that means that it didnt happen? (actually there was one greek thinker that actually espoused the idea of a heliocentric solar system.)

Or that since we didnt know for a long time that space was a near vacuum, that is wrong?

Just because we dont have proof of something doesnt make it false. It just means that it is unprovable and therefore is not in the venue of science or other empiracle trains of thought.

Prayer is a thing for theology and philosophy, not for science. You are trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. You just cant do that.

Also it isnt very nice to try and bring things up about the past acriku, that was unfair. I did make a lot of mistakes, but I have corrected many of them. When I bring up arguments, I plead with you not to throw those arguments away just because I made them. I havent been untoward to you at all, only been asking serious questions. All I ask is that you lighten up with slamming my past and treat my questions with the same dignity and respect as you do others. of course you have your own choice, but I am trying to make amends.

Inoc: Not all christians look negatively on the sciences. Remember that luke was a greek physician, and to be a reputable one, and make money for a living being one, you had to have knowledge of anatomy, botanicals, and other things of the sort. Even at least a basic understanding of philosophy in the venues of certain sciences. unlike many physicians of the day, most (not all, some still held to spiritual rituals) greeks didnt apply their methods of curing people to metaphysical tricks of the trade. It was a pretty well established science.

Also, you can hurt anyone you want, just as long as you dont hurt me.hehe

and also never use the tip of the blade, there is no honor in that. (had toa dd a bit of dune in there. even though it was a bit morbid.hehe :) )

[Inoculator9]

I know TMA, I'm just talking bout them bad ol' Christian Scientists. No one else ;)

[Acriku]

Just because there is no evidence, something is therefore wrong, or false?

We'd have to assume that, with room to accept it as evidence comes along. Otherwise, we'd be believing in anything the mind can think of, throwing reason out the window. Are there microscopic elven miners on the sun? We have no evidence of it, but you would rather 'have faith'?

Since we didnt have any evidance that the earth revolved around the sun (until we witnessed the moons of jupiter and other things) that means that it didnt happen? (actually there was one greek thinker that actually espoused the idea of a heliocentric solar system.)

Until we had evidence of it actually happening, it would have been unreasonable to believe so.

Or that since we didnt know for a long time that space was a near vacuum, that is wrong?

We certainly couldn't have said that it was right, so what else choice do we have? Wrong until proven right.

Just because we dont have proof of something doesnt make it false. It just means that it is unprovable and therefore is not in the venue of science or other empiracle trains of thought.

I am not saying that it is completely wrong, and that that is a fact, I am saying that I must assume that it is wrong because no one is able to provide any reason otherwise. It's not that complicated TMA.

Prayer is a thing for theology and philosophy, not for science. You are trying to stick a square peg in a round hole. You just cant do that.

Who says? If prayer works, then why can't it be studied? This is an extremely obvious cop-out for those who are hanging on the the last branch of faith. If it happens, then obviously it is not supernatural, and not necessarily outside the bounds of observation.

Also it isnt very nice to try and bring things up about the past acriku, that was unfair.

I'm not following you here...

I did make a lot of mistakes, but I have corrected many of them. When I bring up arguments, I plead with you not to throw those arguments away just because I made them. I havent been untoward to you at all, only been asking serious questions. All I ask is that you lighten up with slamming my past and treat my questions with the same dignity and respect as you do others. of course you have your own choice, but I am trying to make amends.

Still not following you. You were the one who decided to make it personal, I might add. I don't remember bringing up the past, much less shoving it in your face.

[Nyarlathotep]

*sigh*, well you can crown yourself king of dragging discussions on after they are over and done with...

And this thread is about prayers, I assume you still know as you've started it. So therefore the question I asked you isn't rhetorical, but spot on with what you started this thread about "prayers". I can't see why I would decide to ask you a question about Afghans.. *shrugs*..

Anyways, as you can't seem to answer me, let me recap the closere of this discussion:

Your question: Do prayers work ?

Answer: Yes they do to those who believe in them.

Simple huh ?

[Inoculator9]

Quite right :)

[TMA_1]

I was dragged out and burned at the stake for heresy. Ah, old habits never die heard, do they TMA?

that is just one of a few statements you made about my past, you arent stupid, so dont play stupid silly.

Acriku, christians have been largely living by blind faith for thousands of years now. "We live by faith, and not by sight." Some things arent in the venue of science acriku, because they cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. Maybe you could study prayer's effect on the body, but most religions believe that prayer verges on the metaphysical, and if a scientist tries to test the metaphysical, then they are quacks. You skirt logic, so that you will not have to admit a minor error.

And in science, nothing is wrong until proven right. Things are observed WITHOUT BIAS. This means that things arent judged wrong or right until it is proven either way. If you skew an observation with preconcieved ideas, then you are immature, as nyar said. This is why most christians will openly admit they arent scientists because they know their beliefs hold to preconcieved ideas. The problem is, you dont even see that you have those, and that damns your argument. To say that prayer is worthless is a preconcieved idea that you have. You havent said, "well it cannot be proven either way as it goes into the metaphysical", that is what a true observer would say. They would say that because empiracle thought cannot be used to study the unobservable. this is the very idea of the spirit realm. This is why philosophers and theologens can only study these issues, not because they hold monopoly over these things, but because science is completely incompatable with blind faith, true science that is. Theology and philosophy at many times are equiped to deal with the unseen, if you dont know this then thre is something wrong.

[Acriku]

*sigh*, well you can crown yourself king of dragging discussions on after they are over and done with...

And this thread is about prayers, I assume you still know as you've started it. So therefore the question I asked you isn't rhetorical, but spot on with what you started this thread about "prayers". I can't see why I would decide to ask you a question about Afghans.. *shrugs*..

Now you're just being hardheaded. The structure of your question is typically rhetorical, and then I gave you examples of the same structure but different content, to explain why I put blah-blah. The point, it seems, went over your head.

Your question: Do prayers work ?

Answer: Yes they do to those who believe in them.

Simple huh ?

And I responded to that answer. It simply did not make sense, if the desired goal of a prayer is to have it fulfilled then how does believing in it make it work? You're referring to an entirely different goal, which is meditation. If you are not, then please clarify.

that is just one of a few statements you made about my past, you arent stupid, so dont play stupid silly.

I'm sorry, but unless you actually drove someone out and burned them at the stake for heresy, then it isn't about your past.

Acriku, christians have been largely living by blind faith for thousands of years now. "We live by faith, and not by sight." Some things arent in the venue of science acriku, because they cannot be reproduced in a laboratory. Maybe you could study prayer's effect on the body, but most religions believe that prayer verges on the metaphysical, and if a scientist tries to test the metaphysical, then they are quacks. You skirt logic, so that you will not have to admit a minor error.

So basically, this is your logic:

1. Metaphysicals cannot be observed by science.

2. Prayer borders the metaphysical.

3. Therefore, prayer cannot be observed by science.

This logic is faulty: The effects of prayer do not border the metaphysical, only the causes (if at all). So, since we can measure and record physical effects, we can use science to test prayer. They had a double-blind study that I mentioned before, where they setup at a hospital, and had people pray to the Judeo-Christian god at a distance away from the patient, and had placebo prayers if you will on other patients. If prayer works, it should render the desired results of the prayed on patients becoming better. It didn't. It'd also be interesting to see how you came to the conclusion that prayer itself is metaphysical. That is, not natural (above physics). If it happens, then it is a part of the world and is natural.

And in science, nothing is wrong until proven right. Things are observed WITHOUT BIAS.

Well, in reality science should be gathering data and then forming a theory, not the other way around.

If you skew an observation with preconcieved ideas, then you are immature, as nyar said.

I never said that my thinking prayer does not work hinders me from making an objective analysis.

The problem is, you dont even see that you have those, and that damns your argument.

Look at yourself. You're judging the personal aspects of the person rather than face the argument, and then judging the argument based on the person. Now who is immature?

To say that prayer is worthless is a preconcieved idea that you have.

It's a good thing I've never said prayer is worthless then!

You havent said, "well it cannot be proven either way as it goes into the metaphysical", that is what a true observer would say.

Says you. A "true" observer would first have to conclude how it goes into the metaphysical, and how they can assume that it can't be proven either way.

They would say that because empiracle thought cannot be used to study the unobservable. this is the very idea of the spirit realm. This is why philosophers and theologens can only study these issues, not because they hold monopoly over these things, but because science is completely incompatable with blind faith, true science that is.

You mean the scientific method cannot be applied to the metaphysical? Well, we can't observe electrons themselves, or what causes gravity, and yet we can do a lot of things with both of those examples. It is because we can observe the effects of electrons, and of gravity, and it is also the effects of the metaphysical that are observable, if it exists. Trouble with that, though, is determining what caused what. Was it chance, a god, or a reigning being? Difficult to figure.

Theology and philosophy at many times are equiped to deal with the unseen, if you dont know this then thre is something wrong.

Heh, that's a hoot. As if they have a connection with the metaphysical and can truthfully study it? There's a reason why Socrates can walk into a philosophy class and be a great teacher to the students, and walk into a math classroom and be the equivalent of an elementary student.

[Nyarlathotep]

Now I'm hardheaded ?? I asked a simple question, you keep on dragging on about how rethorical that question is. Now over who's head does this issue go ?? Certainly not mine..

And as for the answer to "do prayers work", you are missing the point. I really thought I had been clear about it, it hardly can be explained any more clear then I did.

Prayers work for those who believe in them. You come up with something completely different, just to drag this whole discussion on.

It simply did not make sense, if the desired goal of a prayer is to have it fulfilled then how does believing in it make it work?

Who said anything about any desired goal to make it work ? ? ? If you believe in prayers and you believe that it wil work, it will.

You're referring to an entirely different goal, which is meditation.

Obviously I'm not. You should have read my examples, you'd maybe understand what I'm trying to say to you.

To fulfill your wish, let's drag this on shall we ? I'll put things differently:

Let's take our coma patient. The loved one of the person in coma has been praying that the person would wake up. Day after day. At one point where the docters have given up, this person awakes.

Now you try to explain to me that it wasn't the prayer that wakend the person. If you'd rather wish another example, feel free to ask. I can name quiet a few..

[Acriku]

Now I'm hardheaded ?? I asked a simple question, you keep on dragging on about how rethorical that question is. Now over who's head does this issue go ?? Certainly not mine..

And as for the answer to "do prayers work", you are missing the point. I really thought I had been clear about it, it hardly can be explained any more clear then I did.

But the question is rhetorically structured, how can I answer such a question? Ok, since you seem to know, what would you say as an answer?

Prayers work for those who believe in them. You come up with something completely different, just to drag this whole discussion on.

I am not "just dragging this whole discussion on," saying it works for those who believe in them does not answer the question. Otherwise, anybody who believed in prayers would get what they prayed for and only them. And that is just not what happens.

Who said anything about any desired goal to make it work ? ? ? If you believe in prayers and you believe that it wil work, it will.

Oh gee, let's just look at your example. The person prayed with a goal of getting their loved one back out of a coma, and you yourself said that it worked because the person got out of a coma, so you said so yourself. Even so, typically when someone prays - like Ordos on the highway, you have a goal with it. That is the entire point of this thread. That is why I cannot accept your answer that prayer works for those who believe in them, because they don't always become fulfilled, and if they do it is presumptuous to think that it was their prayer being answered.

Let's take our coma patient. The loved one of the person in coma has been praying that the person would wake up. Day after day. At one point where the docters have given up, this person awakes.

How do you know the person would not have woken up without the prayer? If the person would've, then the prayer had nothing to do with it and thus did not work. A being did not hear the person, did not answer it, and did not change the future.

Now you try to explain to me that it wasn't the prayer that wakend the person. If you'd rather wish another example, feel free to ask. I can name quiet a few..

I do not have the burden of proof, you have it. So, now you try to explain to me that it was the prayer that awakened the person.

[Nyarlathotep]

Dear Acriku, it does answer your question. You asked a question which I answerd. The point is, it's not an answer you want to accept. Now THAT is the issue here. Nothing wrong with, it's just something no one can win in a discussion. The only answer you are willing to accept is that it doesn't work.

And s for my proof that the prayer worked, in relation to what I just said, you're not going to accept it anyways, no matter what I come up with..

You can have your last reply here, as I can't convince someone who can't accept another persons view..

[TMA_1]

I'm sorry, but unless you actually drove someone out and burned them at the stake for heresy, then it isn't about your past.

Dont play the fool, I think most people understand what you meant, and that isnt all you said.

So now science deals with the unseen, untouched, untasted, unfelt, and unheard?

Science deals with the five senses, this is why we build so many tools to amplify those senses. Spiritual matters cannot deal with those senses, and cannot be placed in a laboratory setting. I told one of my instructers about your statement, and they said a flat "no, you cannot test the metaphysical", with a wry smile on their faces. You know you cant, so if that is the case, then your ideas on saying prayer doesnt work is baseless. You dont think spiritually acriku, you never have since before nine eleven, after that you just kinda went weird.lol each person is titled with their opinion, even to the point of having a vendetta against a religion or an ideal, but it shows bad taste, and a biased mind. You dont directly answer the arguments, just ask more questions to each question asked, or you dont even answer the question at all, and make flash statements that mean nothing. I have never once seen you admit a fault on issues like this, and that is because you really believe you are right. This is the kind of biased mindset that cannot be used rationally. This thread has no rationality in it, only statements that are either meant to offend, or just meant to be argued with. I am not arguing with what you said, but with your train of thought.

Since when can you test the mataphysical scientifically? Name some test studies that have dealt with it, (Not with how prayer effects the brain, or near death experiances, because scientists are only dealing with how it works physically, not tested on spiritual terms.) or fields that are reputable that deal with it. (Not parapsychology and pseudo sciences like that, real stuff.)

How can science be mixed with spirituality? We are dealing with true spirituality here, the kind that says there is more to life than the five senses. That by itself renders science useless in the matter.

please give me straight answers to those questions. I have had people who have studied in scientific fields for a long time tell me you cant study the meta physical. In fact Dr, Negley, a biologist instructor I have said, "Go to Dr, Daley in the philosophy class, that is where to get answers on the metaphysical."

science is bound to reasonable things, i.e. things we can sense. So how can you say what you say about prayer when you cannot base that assumption on a scientific basis? only a basis of opinion.

[Acriku]

Dear Acriku, it does answer your question. You asked a question which I answerd. The point is, it's not an answer you want to accept. Now THAT is the issue here. Nothing wrong with, it's just something no one can win in a discussion. The only answer you are willing to accept is that it doesn't work.

No, I am willing to accept that it does work, but your reasoning for it working is faulty, and thus I cannot accept it this time for your reasons. All I have to do to prove you wrong is show one instance where a person's prayer did not work, and there are many.

And s for my proof that the prayer worked, in relation to what I just said, you're not going to accept it anyways, no matter what I come up with..

Does this mean you have none? If it is actual evidence, and not something you assume, and something verifiably attributed to prayer, then I can put it into the "pool" of evidences.

You can have your last reply here, as I can't convince someone who can't accept another persons view..

I accept your view entirely, I just don't agree with it. This is a discussion after all, and I am telling you how I disagree.

Dont play the fool, I think most people understand what you meant, and that isnt all you said.

If you're so knowledgeable about what I meant, then come out and say it, since I do not know what you mean.

So now science deals with the unseen, untouched, untasted, unfelt, and unheard?

Can we see electrons? Can we touch electrons? Can we taste, feel, hear electrons?

Ignoring attacks on the person, and not the content...

Since when can you test the mataphysical scientifically? Name some test studies that have dealt with it, (Not with how prayer effects the brain, or near death experiances, because scientists are only dealing with how it works physically, not tested on spiritual terms.) or fields that are reputable that deal with it. (Not parapsychology and pseudo sciences like that, real stuff.)

You can observe the effects of metaphysical objects and bodies, can't you? If they really do exist, then couldn't we observe the metaphysical interacting with the physical? A ghost moving objects around, a fairy sprinkling pixie-dust on someone, etc.

How can science be mixed with spirituality? We are dealing with true spirituality here, the kind that says there is more to life than the five senses. That by itself renders science useless in the matter.

Who says it deals with more than the five senses, I'm wondering? Angels, ghosts, gods, all supposedly metaphysical yet there have been accounts of sightings of all of them. Are all of these sightings wrong, then?