Aha. You have now asserted that Sky Fairy does not exist. Prove it.
Yeah, gays can be Chrsitians, if they tie a knot in their cock, spend their life taking cold showers, and ask Jesus to deliver them from their temptation.
So is your God a cosmic practical joker? Gives people a sexual orientation that they do not choose, but then tells them “Guess what, if you ever use it, I will fry yuour fag ass in Hell!”
Considering that this is the same God who drowned millions of innocent babies and children in Noah’s flood, killed innocent Egyptian first-born kids by the truckload, and even got his son nailed up to make up to HIM for HIS being offended by the sins of humanity, maybe that is in keeping with his character.
Or they could become Episcopalians.
That is like asking me to prove that Bigfoot does not exist, or that there is no such thing as Leprechauns in Ireland.
It is not up to me to prove that God does not exist. It is up to those who assert that he exists to prove it.
You CAN indeed prove a negative in a very limited sense. I can prove that there is no full-grown elephant in my sugar bowl, for example. If we agree on the definition and size of “full-grown elephant” and “my sugar bowl”.
But to prove the NON existence of leprechauns in Ireland, I would have to be able to see every part of Ireland, above ground and below, at once, just as I can show you the whole inside of my suger bowl at once.
No, it is up to people who believe in leprechauns to prove that they exist. Until such proof is produced, then I can always point out that there is a whole series of reasons, anatomical and biological, that a clever little human capable of speech and acting like us could not possibly be two or three inches high.
Just as I can point out all the illogical and contradictory concepts regarding God. But it is up to those who affirm that God exists to prove it!
There is something to be said for being in proximity to the poor and needy. How many queers dying in a hospice are all alone and could use a kind word from Valteron? A hug maybe? But I digress, and far be it from me to judge how you choose to serve your fellow man.
The state of society 300 years ago is a bit of a red herring. WTF does that have to do with how wasteful my prayer may have been? Or how wasteful this entire thread is? I do agree that society being less aggresively intolerant is a good thing, but then again I don’t see how that is relevant to this discussion.
I really did not know you are gay. Maybe i have not been paying attention. That sheds a little light on some of your attitudes regarding Christianity.
Your attitude is shows the failure of those who profess to follwo Christ. It is obvious that what you have experienced from the “church” is not something that is attractive to you. If I may use a LARGE brush I would guess you have at best been marginalized or ignored, and at worst shouted at and discriminated agaist, having the eternal disposition of your sould called into question becuse you kiss boys.
And for that I am truly sorry. It is the great failing of the “church” that we refuse to show the love of Jesus to so many.
I lead a social justice mission at my church. If there is a rally for gay rights in August, we take them bottled water. If the KKK comes in January, we take them hot chocolate. (not that gays and the KKK have anything more in common than being politically polarizing) It is our mission to show the radical love of Jesus to everyone. We don’t “love the sinner - hate the sin”, we just love people and worry about our own sin.
I don’t think you “need” prayer. I offer it on your behalf freely.
Are you taking all of that literally? Then I certainly can see why you wouldn’t like God!
Or like you wanting proof that prayer works?
[QUOTE=Valteron]
if they tie a knot in their cock, QUOTE]
Can you tie a knot in your cock?
That’s hot.
A friend of mine is a well adapted Wiccan, She cooks marvelously (due to her knowledge of spices), can heal cuts and body aches really quickly, using her herbal knowledge, and (I claim some skepticism here, but have had it work personaloly) Rieki skill(s), and she performs “spells” (always for good, three fold law and such).
I am a hard atheist, but like the Sufis.
In any case, she (the Wiccan) get’s confronted almost weekly by some fundamentalist who tells her, after a frustrating argument (she is very well read in most of the world’s religions and a charming and enthusiastic debator) “I WILL PRAY FOR YOU/YOR SOUL!”.
She thanks them very kindly for their contribution to her spiritual potential and says "And I will cast a spell of “Clarity” for you…
I love that
Regards
FML
Sooo, FML, your Wiccan friend…is she single?
Thanks for proving my point, Oak. The present break-up of the Anglican communion is precisely because of the depth of homophobia in the world-wide church.
I am not saying there are not a few liberal exceptions, so stop shoving them in my face. I am also well aware of the role that the religious right and especially the Catholic Church plays in homophobic campaigns worldwide.
If you are surprised that I know so much about the Christian religion, it is because I believe in the old saying : “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.”
You are mixing apples and oranges, Oak.
He who asserts God exists must prove it. It is not up to me to prove that he does not.
He who asserts that prayer works must prove it.
As Sam Harris says in the End of Faith “That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.”
If by “few liberal exceptions” you mean facts that weaken the point you were attempting to make, I can see why you would prefer to avoid them.
And, keeping in mind the constraints of this forum, I’ll merely observe that you do not appear to know much about the study you mentioned in the OP, the Christian faith, faith in general, the relevance of research methodology in evaluating results, effective argument, or how to avoid hijacking your own thread.
I’m still waiting for you to respond to post #52.
That’s not the game we’re playing here. You, as the OP, assert that prayer is useless and illogical, and rely on a study you don’t understand to support a position the study didn’t consider.
I do not assert that prayer can change the outcome of surgery. I do not assert that any god exists. I do assert that prayer is not useless because it provides comfort/hope to those that believe in it. There is value in that. Just as there is value in whatever comfort I might find in a cold beer, as another poster mentioned.
I am serious! You actually DO win this discussion! On the tecnicality that prayer is not “useless” in every sense of the term. Apparently, you failed to understand that by the word “useless” I meant “useless in getting the being called GOD to heal people you pray for faster than they would normally heal”. I am sorry if that leap was beyond your understanding.
Obviously, nothing is useless in an absolute sense. A Ouija board can be used as a doorstop, or even a makeshift table, I guess. And prayer brings comfort to those who think they are getting a God to help them or others they are praying for.
So if all you are saying is that it is not useless because it serves as the opiate of comfort for believers, OK, you win! If you want to be very literal about my use of the word “useless” in the headline.
This thread has become pointless with all your nit-picking anyhow.
I did not answer your “question” in post no. 7 because you did not ask me a question.
I find your assumption that I do not understand this study or am ill-informed patronizing and arrogant. I merely summarized the study in my OP so as not to make it too long and unreadable.
But I assume that the gist of your argument that you are asking me to answer is the following statement you made in post #7, namely,
“Thus, they used only Christians, and defined the kind of prayer to be used and the manner of praying. It’s almost like they made their own religion. Maybe they got bad prayers. Maybe they needed some other faith. Conclusions based on this data seem speculative at best.”
I have already addressed this. If the study had not applied norms and consistency, then they would have been accused of unscientific procedures. When they do, you claim they are “making their own religion”.
So they used only Christians? So what if they had used Jews and Muslims too? What, no Hindus??? No Zoroastrians? No Shinto priests?
Have you ever heard a Christian allege that Chrsitian prayers are ineffective unless Jews and other non-Christians are praying for the same thing?
The truly hilarious claim of some critics of this study is the one that we cannot know if some of the unprayed-for group were not in fact prayed for by others outside the study. But surely the prayed-for group also had the “interfering effects” of prayers from outside the study? Why would the “force” of out-of-study prayer be that much more heavily distributed in one group than another?
Oops. You just acknowledged “the being called God”. By phrasing it the way you did, you have assumed such a being exists. Don’t you get kicked out of the Militant Atheist Brigade for that?
There are several object lessons in this thread:
- You use broad language, which makes it easy to tie you into rhetorical knots.
- You should be more careful in constructing arguments. Here, you relied upon a study that does not mean what you either thought or hoped it did.
- You’re not very good at argument. Several of the points I raised are rebuttable, if you know how.
- Yes, I bullied you a little bit. I do that sometimes.
So you have “tied me in knots” huh? Yeah, right. Don’t forget to include humility and a real active imagination in your list of attributes, my friend. It must be nice to live in a dream world where you are the conquering hero while the poor, defeated schnooks like me cower before you. Gee, I wish I “knew how” to rebut all those rebuttable nitpickings by the Omnipotent Oakminster. Woe is me!
You are veritable legend in your own mind, Oak! 
Maybe they used the wrong flavor of Christians. I think they had two groups of Catholics, and 1 group of some other denomination. Could be god only listens to Methodists. Could be that the Christians are wrong, and Thor doesn’t answer Christian prayers. Maybe all they needed was a drum circle on the Solstice.
There’s another part of the article I linked that you should consider:
*Our study was never intended to address the existence of God or the presence or absence of intelligent design in the universe. The study did not endeavor, either, to compare the efficacy of one prayer form over another or to assess participants’ understanding of the nature and purpose of prayer. Finally, it was not our objective to discover whether prayers from one religious group work better than prayers from another," said co-author Father Dean Marek, Director, Chaplain Services, Mayo Clinic. Patients across the three groups had similar religious profiles. Most believed in spiritual healing and almost all believed friends or relatives would be praying for them. Investigators did not ask patients to have their friends and families withhold prayers, and assumed that many patients prayed for themselves during the study.
“One caveat is that with so many individuals receiving prayer from friends and family, as well as personal prayer, it may be impossible to disentangle the effects of study prayer from background prayer,” said co-author Manoj Jain, Baptist Memorial Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee.*
That’s why I continue to say you don’t understand the study. You tried to use it as a basis for saying all prayer is useless for all purposes, and then for some reason you added the assertion that there is no god. The people that conducted the study said that ain’t what they tried to do.
Please read my OP a little more carefully. I never said that the study itself said there was no God. At no point do I claim that. It is called Great Debates. I started with a report on the study which is quite accurate as far as I can see.
Then I added my own opinions such as “Why would an omniscient God need to be asked to heal people anyhow”, and finally said something to the effect that people who pray are talking into a dead line.
Obviously, these latter parts of the OP are points I am making. I never claimed the study said there was no God nor that all prayer are ineffective. I clearly said at the beginning that it was a study on intercessory prayer. You do see the word “intercessory” there don’t you?
But hey, it has been worth it to be bullied by you, Oak. You have done me the wonderful favour of pinting out my debating shortcomings. I have studied at the feet of the master. I can die happy. :rolleyes: