Scientific prayer?

[theVOID]

That's what it is, not what it is intended to be nor what it is sold as. Prayer is attempted communication with a deity plain and simple, the reality of the situation is mundane of course, but that does not mean all similar mundane affirmations are prayer, they have entirely different goals, regardless of the actual effect.

No, not plain and simple. That is the traditional understanding of it because the true psychological process that is taking place has been traditionally misunderstood. You know, I could pray to a tree outside or to myself, as Shell suggested above, and still achieve the same desired results. How is it not, then, a clear psychological process as opposed to a communication with a diety? The point is that dieties do not exist, so, in the absence of said dieties, the psychological process of prayer does exist regardless of where it is directed.

1) The intention of prayer is to communicate with a deity, it is overwhelmingly the primary understanding of the word, to use it in any other way is plain futile and does nothing more than cause confusion and make the word ambiguous.

2) Yes, the reason for correlation between prayer and positive results has been and still is misunderstood / ignored, but that doesn't have any bearing on the intention of prayer, the intention of communication with a deity or external entity.

3) You could pray to a tree if you believe it has the ability to understand your attempted communication and the ability to respond to your requests, the fact that it does not yeild these results does not simply make it internal affirmation, it makes it a failed attempt at communicating with an outside entity. It is people being unaware of the failure or unwilling to admit it will internalise it, the affirmation is a placebo.

4 : something prayed for

Yes, prayed for, prayed to a deity for. You do not pray to yourself for something.

Please take note of definition number four. In my mind, that should be the only definition as the preceding ones are based in a misperceived myth.

Ignoring how the vast majority of people understand the word in favour of being vague all to support your pet argument is idiotic.

A car that does not work is still a failed car, even though it now performs the function of a seat. You do not say that because car does not perform desired function it was never intended to be a car and was in fact always a mislabelled seat.

This is a fallible analogy. My contention is that if the car was always a seat and not really a car, it is still a seat even though primitive brains thought is was a car.

You are ignoring intent again.

The car was intended to be a car, the car happened to already have seats, it failed and does not perform the function of a car but still provides the secondary function of being a seat.

The prayer was intended to be a communication with a deity, the act of praying always had self affirmation whether or not it worked, the prayer failed and does not provide communication with a deity but it still has the secondary function of self affirmation.

The result is the same but the intention is not.

The result is the same and the intention is the same. What is the fundamental intention with prayer? The attainment of something, right? Come on, christians don't pray just to talk to god. There is always a desired result, the hoped for attainment of something.

The intention IS NOT the same, the intention was to communicate with a deity.

Attainment is not synonymous with prayer, many people pray just to give thanks and many who pray attain nothing from it, even if they intended to attain something.

Also, you are arguing that prayer=self-affirmation and prayer=desire to attain, even though often self-affirmation is not at all about attaining anything.

It's an illogical argument.

And you keep ignoring the intention. If I attempt to murder someone by shooting them but miss, the result is the same as if I had never attempted to murder them, but the intention still separates the two.

Another fallible analogy. It is not analogous to what we are talking about here. We are not talking about praying or not praying. We are talking praying with the understanding of what is happening psychologically when we do, thereby, making it a scientific process.

The analogy is perfectly adequate, it demonstrates the need to recognise intent. Attempted murder would be the same as 'nothing' if intent is ignored, likewise prayer is exactly the same as self-affirmation, but only if you completely ignore the intent.

The primary goal of prayer is not self-affirmation, it may be the only effect achieved, but that still does not make it the desired function. Cooking an omelette that breaks and is turned into scrambled eggs still has functionality, but not the intended functionality.

Intended result ≠ side effect.

Meditation does not have the intention of communication and subsequent aid involving a deity.

I have addressed this concept in my above replies, but I'll summarize. Praying to simply communicate with a diety is a farce. That definition of prayer is based in myth. The true intention of any kind of prayer is the attainment of something, the same as positive affirmation and meditation. The point is that they all employ the same psychological process and to label them separately is a fallacy.

Yes it's a farce, and it doesn't work, so what? Cold fusion is farce, you might still arrive a machine with some function, the ability to convert energy, but that was not the intention of building a cold fusion machine. Cold fusion ≠ energy conversion.

The intention of prayer is communication with a deity, that's what the word means, the side effect of which may be the same as positive affirmation and meditation, but it is still not the intention that you have while praying.