Scientific prayer?

[Puck]

[theVOID]

[Rhizomorph13]

REPuckett,

We all understand what you are saying and Void has explained it point for point exactly HOW he understands what you are saying. We just disagree with your argument. Disagreement does not equal failure to understand. Your hubris astounds me! I loathe speaking to people who attempt to counter an argument with the accusation that their point is missunderstood. You need to go one step further and explain how we are missing your point, not just restate your thesis.

Our point is that prayer is widely understood as communication with something outside the person, usually a deity.

This your argument as I see it:

1. Prayer is speaking to God
2. Gods do not exist
3. Prayer works
4. Therefore prayer describes something else and is an acceptable word to use

You would be hard pressed to support premise 2 and 3 with evidence. 2 has been widely accepted as an unprovable premise and 4 is wrong because of points that Void fleshed out nicely.

Correct me if I'm wrong and explain what I am missing.

Thank you,
Rhizo

[Puck]

This your argument as I see it:

1. Prayer is speaking to God
2. Gods do not exist
3. Prayer works
4. Therefore prayer describes something else and is an acceptable word to use

You can omit number one. Two, three and four accurately describes my argument. My point is that the traditional definition of prayer as being a communication with a deity should be completely disregarded, but it should still be recognized that prayer does work just as meditation, affirmations and even auto-suggestion through self-hypnosis seeing as though the same psychological process takes place when all of these are are employed. With that said, prayer can be seen as a systematic and scientific process as its roots are purely psychological.

By the way, the link above does consist of readable text. It is actually an entire book called The Psychology of Prayer. I have no idea why it would return no readable text for you, Void.

[theVOID]

By the way, the link above does consist of readable text. It is actually an entire book called The Psychology of Prayer. I have no idea why it would return no readable text for you, Void.

Book overview
No preview available - 1909 - 122 pages

No preview, see that part? Not only is it not a whole book online, there isn't even a single page of preview content... You didn't even check did you?

Also, why you would post anything about a psychology book from 1909 is completely fucking mysterious to me. It's like asking Allan fucking Turing to explain the core i7 Intel chipset.

Seriously mate, your argument is bunk. Why you insist on changing the meaning of the word prayer instead of finding a more appropriate word to use completely boggles the mind.

[tavarish]

What kind of fish is a lampshade?

[theVOID]

What kind of fish is a lampshade?

Ohhh i know, A Glofish! See Lamps glow, so do Glofish, therefore Glofish are actually lamps and we should call them lamps, it's all rather scientific.

[Shell B]

No preview, see that part? Not only is it not a whole book online, there isn't even a single page of preview content... You didn't even check did you?

I got a preview. Hmmm . . . Stupid internet.

[Puck]

By the way, the link above does consist of readable text. It is actually an entire book called The Psychology of Prayer. I have no idea why it would return no readable text for you, Void.

Book overview
No preview available - 1909 - 122 pages

No preview, see that part? Not only is it not a whole book online, there isn't even a single page of preview content... You didn't even check did you?

Also, why you would post anything about a psychology book from 1909 is completely fucking mysterious to me. It's like asking Allan fucking Turing to explain the core i7 Intel chipset.

Seriously mate, your argument is bunk. Why you insist on changing the meaning of the word prayer instead of finding a more appropriate word to use completely boggles the mind.

Jesus fucking christ. Of course I looked at it. I actually began reading it through that very link. It is a very good read as yet. Asshats tend to be rampant 'round these parts, huh? The fact that it was writtent in 1909 is absolutley irrelevant. The content is very relevant and still applies today seeing as though we still use the same brain and psychological processes as we did a hundred years ago. Go figure.

Oh look, screenshots. Forgive me for not posting all 120+ pages.










Is idiocy the norm around here? I was really expecting some intellect. Ah well.

[theVOID]

Strange, my apologies, it must be regional, though it didn't work through a US proxy either.

How is the fact that it is written in 1909 irrelevant? It's a book written in the stone age of psychology and neurology, their understanding of the topic pales compared to today and as such any claim made in that book is likely wrong by today's far far more compelling body of knowledge, if anyone were to read that book they would be, in order to be sure of the accuracy of the statements, required to research every statement themselves to be sure the information in the book is still accepted in modern psychology.

That's why it's useless.

And besides, a scientific work does not get to redefine the meaning of an existing word, especially when the word it's self is not part of that field of science - You'll never see a scientist, or any sensible person for that matter, use a word that already has an already existing and currently used meaning to describe it's side effect - and yet you claim this is a scientific argument? It's a complete joke mate, let go of it and just use a different word to describe the unintended effect of prayer.