RE: "I'll pray for you."
June 25, 2013 at 2:24 am
(This post was last modified: June 25, 2013 at 2:38 am by fr0d0.)
(June 24, 2013 at 7:43 pm)Zarith Wrote: I see no reason for this belief
Which interpretation? You listed several interpretations, but it's not clear to me that you believe any of them to be true. I want to know what it is you believe happened, and what natural processes took place to bring this about.
The reason for the belief is to have a positive outlook. This belief makes that possible.
The very last interpretation. None of the naturalistic interpretations. They are irrelevant.
@ Rhythm
Try to look beyond the end of your nose. You're missing the point. You have retreated to "oh no it isn't".
(June 24, 2013 at 7:55 pm)Stimbo Wrote: And this is where I came in, with the same point I posed to you in the form of my little experiment.
You came in dressed as a clown and squeezing your hooter.
If that was all that prayer entailed your objection might hold. Avoiding the problem isn't very scientific, yet here are you guys happy to ignore the details to prove a point.
(June 24, 2013 at 9:04 pm)Walking Void Wrote: Fr0d0, when I or anyone else says that prayer is inconsistent with what is being measured, I repeat: We do not declare definite inconsistency, We simply declare that consistent results... PATTERNS, are not found. We could not find consistency.
Your science is ignorant. What is your premise? A: That any request should be answered positively. This is a false premise.
If you want to address prayer as in Christianity, you need to address it, not a shadow of it that misses out the main facets.
