*According to you, I am “attacking” theists by pointing out that prayer has been shown not to work in this study? *
In post #49, you said:
*I recall the media picking up that story about how prayer had been scientifically “proven to work”. I remember letters to the editor from theists supporting the study, glowing praise for the study from pulpits and in religious publications.
But when a 10-year, $2.4 million study finds no such effect, then all of a sudden the methodology is all wrong, isn’t it?*
That reads to me like you’re saying the study said prayer doesn’t work. Blanket statement. No qualifications or limitations. And not what the study actually said.
Okay, Oak, now your nit-picking has become nothing but sheer bullying. Take a valium or something!
All right, so I did not say “intercessory prayer offered by controlled prayer groups for heart surgery patients” in **every one ** of a couple of dozen posts on this thread. Sometimes I cut it down to “prayer” having initially explained in my OP that the study was about “intercessory” prayer by controlled groups. I think my points were perfectly clear to everyone else. You seem to be the only one on this thread having these problems.
Now I understand why they call it bullying. That is what you are doing. I am going to bed. Life is too short to keep up this tennis match of nonsense.
Going to bed? Dude, it’s 10:00 on a Friday night. You oughta be getting seriously buzzed or something. Trust an aging Jedi. Sobriety is grossly overrated.
I have been praying that the debate between Oakminster and **Valteron ** would provide some closure to the question of the efficacy of prayer…
…another prayer goes unanswered.
Which is kind of my point from earlier. How is someone wasting their time in prayer any different that you wasting your time debating about people wasting their ime in prayer?
Does God prefer one waste of time over another? If God does not exist, isn’t one waste of time just as wasteful as another?
Apparently, when you say “fail to understand” you really mean, “read the words I posted and accepted them in good faith, not reealizing that I was going to shift my position all over the board in order to keep on witnessing for atheism rather than participating in a debate.”
I note that the insulting comments coming from Oakminster, the patronizing way in which he tells me that I need to “learn lessons” from him and that I lack understanding, etc, etc. do not draw the same censure. I wonder why?
Accusing you of misrepresenting the nature of a study when your posts seem to indicate that you apparently do not understand the study is different than telling a poster that he is bullying (for demanding accurate responses) or telling him to take mood altering drugs.
Perhaps if you actually paid attention the first time I spoke tpo the two of you, I would not need to single you out for further attention.
Tom, it is funny how it is atheists who draw your ire, and make you flex your moderating muscles. I believe I am not the first to have noticed this, judging from a number of other posts.
Oakminister basically admits to bullying me in one of his posts, but when I tell him to stop bullying me, I get your warning!
Secondly, where do you get off reinterpreting what I said? If I did that would I not once again draw your disapproval?
If I say Ouija Board is useless, I mean it has no power to predict anything. Any reasonable person would understand that. Pointing out that it can serve as firewood or a doorstop is nit-picking. And endless nit-picking works out to bullying, pure and simple.
I clearly said in my opening post that the study in question dealt with intercessory prayer for cardiac patients. I gave the essential features of the study, and reported them correctly.
I then went on to give MY opinion that this is yet another reason not to believe in God. AT NO POINT did I contend that the study showed that there was no God. The study was my staring point for my post, which contained my proposition that there is no God. Surely there is room for expression of a view that does not come from a study. Why do you call it Great Debates anyhow if one cannopt advance propositions?
I did indeed, in later posts, shorten “intercessory prayer” to “prayer”, which seemed to rile Oakminister to no end. Any reasonable person reading it in the context of the thread and my original post would understand, as far as I can see.
Besides, at the moment in which I mentioned “prayer” in the post, the point I was making is that previous studies that allegedly showed some effect of prayer on the health of patients are received warmly and uncritically by Christians. But this study is attacked and its methodology assaulted.
The point I was making is that Christians seem to have an odd double standard of scientific rigour when it comes to studies about the efficacy of prayer on the health of patients. Once again, when you speak about the efficacy of prayer on the health of patients, you are naturally asking your reader to suppose that your mean “intercessory” prayer. I made that clear in my OP.
However, Tom, if this will keep you and Oakminster happy, I will never again simply refer to it as “prayer” in this thread. I will call it "the form of intercessory prayer for the sick whose efffects were experimentally tested in the study reported in the American Heart Journal.
Since that becomes kind of tiring to type over and over, I will shorten that, if I may, to " (FIPSEWETSRAHJ)."
Now then, one of the chief criticisms from a number of my honourable opponents on this thread has been the contention that the study was flawed because it inposed restrictions by asking the people praying to add a specific set of words to their prayers (FIPSEWETSRAHJ), or because the prayers (FIPSEWETSRAHJ)went on for a set period (the night before surgery to two weeks after).
Such restrictions cannot be imposed on prayers (FIPSEWETSRAHJ), I was angrily told. This would throw off the whole effect ! One post even implied that two weeks was not enough.
Which certainly sounds like an odd objection to me, considering that for 2,000 years, Jesus Christ, (who I believe has some right to speak for the doctrines of Christianity) is on record as saying in Matthew 21:22 "And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive?"
And later in James, 5:15 we read "And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up;"
Those sound like pretty catergorical assurances. No mention of minimum length of prayer time. No conditions. No ifs or maybes. No mention that you cannot have a standardized formula in your prayer. Indeed, if a standardized formula repeated over and over is all that offensive to God, what are we to make of the rosary?
Is it possible that the carmelites and the monks, as well as the protestant prayer group who participated, were not “believing” or offering “prayers of faith”?
After all, Jesus is pretty clear. “And all things, **whatsoever ** ye shall ask in prayer” are his words. Whatsoever is whatsoever. Now please, please, do not try and tell me that it means something else. You know how angry it would make Tomndeb if someone were to expect me to read the words of Jesus “and (accept) them in good faith, not realizing that (a theist) was going to shift (his) position all over the board in order to keep on witnessing for theism.”
Firstly I give my credentials view point wise so that you can read my posting without any preconceptions.
I am not a believer ,or even ex believer of any known religion.
But ,i would like there to be some sort of a god and some sort of reason for my appearance and the appearance of my loved ones on earth rather then my present existentialist belief that those I have deeply loved have ceased to exist and that I’ll never ever see them again.
If there is nothing there at least prayer gives you some sort of hope and if you’re wrong you’ll never find out ,it gives you a chance to put into words your hopes, fears and the things you know you 've done wrong ,must be good psychologically.
When grown ,experienced ,intelligent men realise that they are actually dying(and I dont mean THINK that they’re up shit street and will soon die ) they dont think of their wives ,their kids they always .always ask for their mum in their dying breath,and there are NO atheists in fox holes,whatever our previous.
Nowhere, in the Statutes of the United States or the State of Illinois (where the Chicago Reader is sited), the rules of this board, nor any etiquette manual I have ever seen, is there any provision that atheists get to hurl insults indiscriminately while theists may not. There is a teaching of Jesus that is relevant, but that needs to be seen as incumbent on the believer to take to heart himself, not enforced by external agency. I bring this up only because this is the third instance I have seen of Tom being accused of unfairness by not permitting atheists to badger and belittle others. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and ranting in a manner to attempt to tie them together will not cause them to have relevance.
In point of fact, Oakminster and yourself, Valteron, were told to cease a line of behavior contrary to the rules of the board. Oakminster did so. By the way, I believe he’s stated that he himself is not a believer in the Christian faith, elsewhere, so accusing Tom of favoring Christians will not wash.
In point of fact, your posts to this thread, after the initial post, have set up strawmen, produced invalid generalizations (and when called on one, which was as it happens personally insulting to me, but I didn’t speak up, you then threw a quite different and also invalid rant).
In the case of my own exchange with you here, I painstakingly showed how various forms of prayer do have measurable beneficial effects, even in the absence of the presumption of a God answering them in some cases, and you demanded that your own never-defined restricted characterization of prayer as “asking God for some specific thing or effect” be the only valid one. Well, you have spoken an elephant there! (“Elephant”? Everybody ought to know that the term as I mean it is a large opinion that proves to be invalid. After all, if you get to redefine terms to suit yourself, so can I.)
We’re entitled to call people who condemn others on the basis of sexual orientation, religion, etc., generalizing from the behavior of the few to condemn the entire group, as bigots. By that definition, you’re either a bigot or doing an awfully good imitation of one.
And I would assume you know just how it feels to be victimized by one. So knock it off.
