Why? All that's required is that you replace the 'To' field to anything other than "Jesus" or whoever you usually send these things to. You can even 'CC' any number of recipients you like if you want to save on stamps. As a control you might also consider not praying at all. Then you note the success/failure rate and compare it to your usual expectations and especially how all these might be expected to compare with chance alone operating as a factor. No specialist, comedic made-up and no doubt expensive equipment needed. But then I suspect you knew that.

(June 23, 2013 at 6:17 am)Zen Badger Wrote: Studies that show that prayers don't work.....
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&...3060,d.aGc

Of course, if you can show otherwise.........

Most theists that I know apply the idea that prayer always works, but it may not work as the person praying expected it to. The result is that any prayer to any deity "works." You simply adjust your understanding to the outcome:

- You got what you prayed for: god answered your prayer.
- You did not get what you prayed for: god answered your prayer by providing what you needed, which was different from what you thought you needed (or simply what you wanted).

Studies that attempt to test the efficacy of prayer will therefore end with one of two results and reactions:

- The study shows no link: you cannot test god that way. Or god answered prayers, but the results can't be tallied scientifically.
- The study shows a link: proof that god answers prayers.

The belief in an afterlife where all accounts are settled equitably by a being who personifies perfect justice means that anything that happens in the here and now can be god's will. Therefore, any outcome of prayer can be god's will and have a happy ending, even if there is any (or a lot) of suffering in the interim.

(June 24, 2013 at 8:21 am)Stimbo Wrote: Why?

To tell how you measure success of course!!

I cc'd everyone in but how do I tell who did the do? Or didn't do the do?

I'm not gonna get all precious and claim it was my guy what done it. Just because he's always done it in the past. But y' know, one of the others might have helped!

That's the whole point (it also shows the importance of having a control, by the way). When the supposed phenomenon you are attempting to measure has more than one causative agency, how can you possibly ascribe it to a single one as you had been doing? Further, if the results are indistinguishable from chance alone, what does that tell you? Be honest now.

(June 24, 2013 at 1:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You have got to be kidding me! Those dictionary definitions back up exactly what I'm saying.

No, and I already explained why.

(June 24, 2013 at 1:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: And the nature of God is well known. I could justifiably assume you should be aquatinted with that. If you're meaning bare as in unproven naturally, then that would be absurd of course.

Every one of you believers has your own happy-horseshit version of the fairy tale, and your own particular regimen of cherry-picking. I can't be bothered or expected to keep track.

As for the transfiguration, it seems we are in agreement that the bible's account of that is something between tall tale and complete fiction, so there's nothing further to be said there.

(June 24, 2013 at 1:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I believe I did answer the question, but let me say it again: We have reason to believe that prayer is answered if we first believe that what the bible says is true.

LOL!

(June 23, 2013 at 4:09 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: So please show how you discount the 3 points in this post please FNM.

I've presented my logic here. it's you that is making bare assertions.

(June 23, 2013 at 9:01 am)fr0d0 Wrote: First you have no know what those supernatural phenomenon are. You have prayer requests but you don't know Gods answer.

Second you need a supernatural event detector. And you don't have one .

Third, you need to be able to distinguish supernatural events from natural events. If those events are truly supernatural, you shouldn't be able to detect them.

Looks like you've got your work cut out!

Nothing you have quoted shows(or even hints at) that you have the right to claim that all prayers are answered consistently. What you've posted are refutations of the other side's claims, which have you attacked as illogical all while failing to recognize that your claims have the exact same shortcomings.

(June 24, 2013 at 12:58 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's the whole point (it also shows the importance of having a control, by the way). When the supposed phenomenon you are attempting to measure has more than one causative agency, how can you possibly ascribe it to a single one as you had been doing? Further, if the results are indistinguishable from chance alone, what does that tell you? Be honest now.

You have no way of knowing which was the cause. So you cannot conclude that one isn't. If you could tell which were the supernatural effect, that effect wouldn't be supernatural now would it?

---

(June 24, 2013 at 2:26 pm)Zarith Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 1:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You have got to be kidding me! Those dictionary definitions back up exactly what I'm saying.

No, and I already explained why.

Your explanations we're absurd given the definitions that you quoted, which completely backed up my points. Go read yourself again.

---

(June 24, 2013 at 2:26 pm)Zarith Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 1:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: And the nature of God is well known. I could justifiably assume you should be aquatinted with that. If you're meaning bare as in unproven naturally, then that would be absurd of course.

Every one of you believers has your own happy-horseshit version of the fairy tale, and your own particular regimen of cherry-picking. I can't be bothered or expected to keep track.

Really? Your excuse for ignorance is poor.

---

(June 24, 2013 at 2:26 pm)Zarith Wrote: As for the transfiguration, it seems we are in agreement that the bible's account of that is something between tall tale and complete fiction, so there's nothing further to be said there.

You are completely incorrect once again. Whilst at the same time agreeing that your point is conceded. Nice.

---

(June 24, 2013 at 2:26 pm)Zarith Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 1:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: I believe I did answer the question, but let me say it again: We have reason to believe that prayer is answered if we first believe that what the bible says is true.

LOL!

You don't understand. That much we gathered.
Cheap point, target missed.

---

(June 24, 2013 at 2:33 pm)Faith No More Wrote: Nothing you have quoted shows(or even hints at) that you have the right to claim that all prayers are answered consistently. What you've posted are refutations of the other side's claims, which have you attacked as illogical all while failing to recognize that your claims have the exact same shortcomings.

The argument is strong and your failure to confront it telling.

Once more we are caught in a middle ground where what separates us is our beliefs. Your lack and my owned. Yet is you who claim to be the one who is correct. And I'm supposed to prove to you something I tell you is a matter of belief.

Tell me again. Which one of us is being dishonest here?

(June 24, 2013 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:
The argument is strong and your failure to confront it telling.

Once more we are caught in a middle ground where what separates us is our beliefs. Your lack and my owned. Yet is you who claim to be the one who is correct. And I'm supposed to prove to you something I tell you is a matter of belief.

Tell me again. Which one of us is being dishonest here?

Wow. Bolding doesn't make your words any more valid.

What you fail to realize is that the only argument I am putting forth is that your arguments are equally as unfounded as the ones you are criticizing. Your beliefs, and my lack thereof, have nothing to do with your inability to spot your faulty reasoning.

The only thing I'm asking you to prove is why you feel you can correctly claim that all prayer is answered consistently while simultaneously mocking the claim that prayers are answered inconsistently for the fact that it is a claim beyond our scope of knowledge.

So far, the only dishonesty I see is yours.

(June 24, 2013 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(June 24, 2013 at 12:58 pm)Stimbo Wrote: That's the whole point (it also shows the importance of having a control, by the way). When the supposed phenomenon you are attempting to measure has more than one causative agency, how can you possibly ascribe it to a single one as you had been doing? Further, if the results are indistinguishable from chance alone, what does that tell you? Be honest now.

You have no way of knowing which was the cause. So you cannot conclude that one isn't. If you could tell which were the supernatural effect, that effect wouldn't be supernatural now would it?

We have a winner, folks! Give it up for the little lady!

If you're still having trouble following my admittedly mildly deprecating tone here, remember which of us is claiming that all prayers are answered by his/her pet god. Now feed that into your above-quoted post.

(June 24, 2013 at 2:36 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You have no way of knowing which was the cause. So you cannot conclude that one isn't. If you could tell which were the supernatural effect, that effect wouldn't be supernatural now would it?

-then there is no basis for proposing that any effect was supernatural, (nor have we seen anything that would suggest any "effect" at all, of any kind).... -in the first place-. End of.