Why prayer is illogical and useless

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Perhaps because after I first told you both to knock it off, (with Oakminster named first), you are the one who is returning to this thread and continuing to make directly personal remarks such as the ones I noted in my second admonotion.

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.
[/QUOTE]

So, Tom, are you willing to go on record as saying that it is OK for me to say the following to someone?

  1. It is easy to tie you into rhetorical knots.
  2. You are not very good at argument
  3. Yes, I bullied you a little bit. I do that sometimes.

In your opinion, none of those qualify as direct personal remarks? I would appreciate it if you would clearly state your position for the record.

102

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
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.
[/QUOTE]

First, I am well aware that Oakminster is not a Christian. I merely asked Tom why his ire is so often directed to atheists. Read my post. I do not say that I think he is favouring Oakminister** for being a Christian** (you ain’t the only one who can nit-pick, friend!). I simply say it is strange that he allows him to make the personal attacks he did without reprimand. And when Oakminister admits he is bullying me, I am not even allowed to turn around and agree.

You can also be sure, Polycarp, that your comment that “I am either a bigot or doing an awfully good imitation of one” will not get you called on the carpet by Tomndeb. But if I said that, watch out!

You theists use a certain technique a lot, I have noticed. You find some nit-picky detail and then when the person explains what they really meant and should have been obvious to any reasonable person, you jump on them and accuse them of changing their definitions and shifting their position.

I clearly began this thread by stating that I am talking about a study of the effects of intercessory prayer on heart patients.

Later on I shortened this to “prayer” because any reasonable person who is not a nit-picker would realize in the context of this thread that this is what we are talking about. I said that the study had shown prayer to be “useless”. I suppose I should have said “the type of intercessory prayer tested in the study was found by the study to be useless.!” Sheesh!

Once again, if I said that a Ouija Board is “useless”, I suppose you could chirp in with the fact that it can be used as firewood, a doorstop or even a makeshift table. To which I would reply, “Well any reasonable person understands that I mean useless to predict things”. To which you and Tom and others would of course reply: “Oh, look, he is changing his definition to save himself, he is shifting his position, shame shame!”

It is a silly game, frankly.

103

Valteron, you have now twice posted that Oakminster has “admitted” to bullying you. Post the citation or shut up. Perhaps my eyesight is failing, but I find no post since you accused him of bullying you–and certainly no post since I admonished the two of you to stop making personal remarks–where he confessed to that action.

As to the rest of your silly rant: take it to the Pit. A year or so, ago, I was accused by a couple of posters of “always” favoring the non-believers over the believers. Such is life. On the other hand, the “number of other posts” in which you have seen accusations of antipathy to atheists leveled against me have all originated from exactly two posters, one of whom has gotten his nose out of joint because I will not engage him in the games he enjoys playing and the other has waged a war of calumny against me for four months without ever once providing an example of the charges he has made.

This subject matter is not on topic for this thread (your thread), so either take this to the Pit or stop posting on it.

That goes for everyone else, as well. If anyone has any further comments on the topic of my Moderating (either to condemn it or defend it), do not post those observations in this thread.
(The sole exception would be a post by Valteron providing a link (with no commentary) to a post in which oakminster confessed to bullying.)

[ /Moderating ]

104

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. However, there is a difference between saying “your actions match those of a bigot in the following identified ways” (attacking the argument) and identifying the poster as a bigot. The latter is not permitted.

I appreciate your intentions, but not necessarily your efforts. Let’s leave the personal remarks out of GD.

[ /Moderating ]

105

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Valteron, you have now twice posted that Oakminster has “admitted” to bullying you. Post the citation or shut up. Perhaps my eyesight is failing, but I find no post since you accused him of bullying you–and certainly no post since I admonished the two of you to stop making personal remarks–where he confessed to that action.

As to the rest of your silly rant: take it to the Pit. A year or so, ago, I was accused by a couple of posters of “always” favoring the non-believers over the believers. Such is life. On the other hand, the “number of other posts” in which you have seen accusations of antipathy to atheists leveled against me have all originated from exactly two posters, one of whom has gotten his nose out of joint because I will not engage him in the games he enjoys playing and the other has waged a war of calumny against me for four months without ever once providing an example of the charges he has made.

This subject matter is not on topic for this thread (your thread), so either take this to the Pit or stop posting on it.

That goes for everyone else, as well. If anyone has any further comments on the topic of my Moderating (either to condemn it or defend it), do not post those observations in this thread.
(The sole exception would be a post by Valteron providing a link (with no commentary) to a post in which oakminster confessed to bullying.)

[ /Moderating ]
[/QUOTE]

Thank you for your silly rant, Tom (I assume that is not a personal remark since you used it in replying to me).

You wish to see a post where he confessed to bullying me AFTER your initial admonition to us? [B]Then please see post no. 77.** For your convenience, the post includes the following: I have highlighted the parts I found offensive in bold. However, if as moderator, you do not find them offensive, may I assume that I am free to tell people they are “easy to tie into rhetorical knots” and “you’re not veryu good at argument”? His admission that he bullied me is point 4. Please check out post no. 77 if you want to verify.

**Don’t you get kicked out of the Militant Atheist Brigade for that? **

There are several object lessons in this thread:

  1. You use broad language, which makes it easy to tie you into rhetorical knots.
  2. 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.
  3. You’re not very good at argument. Several of the points I raised are rebuttable, if you know how.
  4. Yes, I bullied you a little bit. I do that sometimes.

Does that answer your question, Tom?

106

English needs a good aorist.

I apologize for overlooking that statement. However, I thought that you were complaining that he continued to bully you and admit to that action after I had spoken to both of you. What you actually appear to be complaining about is that after he had been told to knock off the personal remarks, he confessed to having bullied you in previous exchanges.

OK. You have expressed your disappointment.
That topic in this thread is dead.

107

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
English needs a good aorist.

I apologize for overlooking that statement. However, I thought that you were complaining that he continued to bully you and admit to that action after I had spoken to both of you. What you actually appear to be complaining about is that after he had been told to knock off the personal remarks, he confessed to having bullied you in previous exchanges.

OK. You have expressed your disappointment.
That topic in this thread is dead.
[/QUOTE]

Are you saying the whole thread is dead or the bitch-fest between Oak and me is dead?

108

[QUOTE=Valteron]
Are you saying the whole thread is dead or the bitch-fest between Oak and me is dead?
[/QUOTE]
That topic (you wanting to niggle about who gets to insult whom with impunity) on this thread (that purports to claim that prayer is useless) is dead.

We can expand what has died if you wish to continue your hijack of your own thread.

109

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
That topic (you wanting to niggle about who gets to insult whom with impunity) on this thread (that purports to claim that prayer is useless) is dead.

We can expand what has died if you wish to continue your hijack of your own thread.
[/QUOTE]

As a matter of fact, I think we have exhausted every part of the thread. You **can ** be fair sometimes, Tom, I will admit that. :slight_smile:

I would like to start another one, if I may. For starting two consecutive threads promoting atheism I get a special prize from Satan. A couple of bronzed Renaissance Popes. Make great conversation pieces.

110

[QUOTE=Valteron]
For starting two consecutive threads promoting atheism I get a special prize from Satan. A couple of bronzed Renaissance Popes. Make great conversation pieces.
[/QUOTE]
You might wanna recheck that contract. Satan’s famous for weaseling out on a deal.

111

[QUOTE=Valteron]
It is a silly game, frankly.
[/QUOTE]

Then why do you continue to play it?

Again I come back to my oft ignored posit that speaking against prayer is just as wasteful as you say prayer itself is.

So how does that make you different from the people I will pray with in about an hour at church?

112

[QUOTE=Valteron]
So to go with the logic contained in your statement, ITR, we must suppose that no Hindu has ever gotten comfort from praying to the Hindu Gods. Either that or the Hindu Gods exist.

Similarly, no ancient Roman or Greek ever gained comfort by praying to the Roman and Greek gods for help. Because if they did obtain comfort, then those gods also really existed.
[/quote]

Like you I know nothing about the prayer practices of those groups; unlike you, I’m willing to admit I know nothing. But if those groups do indeed offer regular prayers in the same manner as Christians, than your logic correct; one of those two results about the Hindu gods is correct and the same for the Pagan Gods. Obviously the existence of Hindu and Pagan gods is consistent with Christianity–see the Bible–but not with atheism, so it looks like you’re moving towards disproving atheism.

No, obviousy. One can’t get family support from a non-existent mother or education from a non-existent teacher or protection from a non-existent policeman, so how would one get comfort from a non-existent God? The idea is absurd.

113

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
No, obviousy. One can’t get family support from a non-existent mother or education from a non-existent teacher or protection from a non-existent policeman, so how would one get comfort from a non-existent God? The idea is absurd.
[/QUOTE]
As much as I disagree with Valteron on this, someone could certainly get comfort from a non-existent God. The important thing isn’t the comfort being given, but the perception of comfort by the person praying. One might gain comfort from knowing one has the support of one’s god even if that god doesn’t actually exist.

Your first and second examples don’t match well, because obviously you need an actual mother or an actual teacher to get physical support and education. But the feeling of support, the feeling that one is being educated, the feeling that one is protected? Certainly you could get those from a faulty perception. And comfort is a feeling.

114

I agree that perception can be faulty. Nevertheless, erroneous perceptions don’t generally arise at random, but must have a basis. So a person praying might incorrectly believe that God is listening to their prayers, but where did that belief originate from? Perhaps the basis for the comfort was another prayer earlier in their life that was answered. Perhaps they’ve never had a prayer answered, but they’ve talked to other people who have. But there’s no way that a person would devote a large chunk of time every single day to prayer is they didn’t have some strong evidence from somewhere that prayer was effective.

115

I think you’re being too limiting by saying the only reason people pray is that they have good evidence prayer works. People may pray because they believe in god; if their religion then says that prayer works, they believe it does, though the only evidence may be others saying it does. There’s strong evidence their god exists, thus prayers works, even if there is little evidence for that. I take it you’d agree we can have convincing evidence for a god without there actually being one?

Anyway, I can think of a reason why a person might pray; a sense of comfort from normal events. If a person is brought up being told that prayer is a good thing and connects you with your god, you’ll do so. The sense of comfort might not come from the god actually existing, but the sense of safety and normality that comes from doing a task you do every day. Normality can be very unstressing.

116

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
but where did that belief originate from? Perhaps the basis for the comfort was another prayer earlier in their life that was answered. Perhaps they’ve never had a prayer answered, but they’ve talked to other people who have. But there’s no way that a person would devote a large chunk of time every single day to prayer is they didn’t have some strong evidence from somewhere that prayer was effective.
[/QUOTE]

I’d say it seems to be the same phenomenon as with horoscopes. Somebody reads a horoscope and it turns out to be wrong. They soon forget about it. They then read another horoscope (e.g. “today you will come into money”) and they win a thousand bucks on a scratch card. See! Their horoscope was right (never mind the thousands of other people with the same horoscope that didn’t come into money that day).

Same with prayer. If somebody prays for Little Johnny to win in Little League Baseball, and he does, it may be tempting to believe that the prayer helped or even caused the win.

117

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I think you’re being too limiting by saying the only reason people pray is that they have good evidence prayer works. People may pray because they believe in god; if their religion then says that prayer works, they believe it does, though the only evidence may be others saying it does. There’s strong evidence their god exists, thus prayers works, even if there is little evidence for that. I take it you’d agree we can have convincing evidence for a god without there actually being one?

Anyway, I can think of a reason why a person might pray; a sense of comfort from normal events. If a person is brought up being told that prayer is a good thing and connects you with your god, you’ll do so. The sense of comfort might not come from the god actually existing, but the sense of safety and normality that comes from doing a task you do every day. Normality can be very unstressing.
[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Prayer can be very effective and comforting for the person who is praying, even if it doesn’t affect the person or situation being prayed over.
When my dad was dying last summer, I didn’t pray for him to be cured of Alzheimer’s. People don’t go into remission with that disease, and I knew it. I did not expect a miracle cure. I may have prayed for an end to the struggle and for the family to have the strength to get through the ordeal, but this was probably more for my peace of mind than for any other reason.
Right now, a cousin is going through hell with a teenage child who’s bipolar, delusional and insisting on “living with the homeless” despite the eight-degree weather in his hometown. This has been hard on the whole family. They pray a lot and keep asking everyone else to do so as well. All I can really do is hope or wish for the best. I don’t know if they’ve realized yet that all the praying they’ve done has not helped this kid overcome his illness.

118

[QUOTE=vivalostwages]
Agreed. Prayer can be very effective and comforting for the person who is praying, even if it doesn’t affect the person or situation being prayed over.
[/QUOTE]
The trouble is, the study indicated that prayer had a NEGATIVE effect on the recovery of patients who knew that people were praying for them. Dawkins jokingly touched upon this in The God Delusion, calling it a sort of ‘stage fright’.

So, if you counter the argument that prayer is useless with ‘but even so, it does no harm’, it would appear that prayer does cause harm if you tell people you are praying for their recovery.

119

[QUOTE=ITR champion]

No, obviousy. One can’t get family support from a non-existent mother or education from a non-existent teacher or protection from a non-existent policeman, so how would one get comfort from a non-existent God? The idea is absurd.
[/QUOTE]

I guess one could not get happines from a non-existent person either. Funny, but I used to get happiness from believing in Santa Claus. So I guess Santa used to be real. Wonder what he died of?

120

[QUOTE=Valteron]
I guess one could not get happines from a non-existent person either. Funny, but I used to get happiness from believing in Santa Claus. So I guess Santa used to be real. Wonder what he died of?
[/QUOTE]

He died on December 6, 343 AD, but the cause of his death has not been preserved. :stuck_out_tongue: