Scientific prayer?

[Puck]

Fundamentally, what we have here is a failure to understand prayer as anything other than as it applies to religion. I will say this again, although I feel like a broken record player, the same psychological process takes place when one prays just as it does when they meditate or utilize positive affirmations.

I was going to itemize my rebuttals to the above post, but I realized that I would be here all night as there are many. Is it so difficult to understand that when one prays that it does not have to be directed at a mythical diety? You people are failing to move past the religious argument. Don't get me wrong, as an atheist I understand that it is easy to be closed-minded to anything that might even smell of religion and prayer is traditionally associated with religion. Move past the concept of how it applies to religion and you might understand what I am talking about.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/new_...mind/61308

http://www.jrcompton.com/words/meta/prayer.shtml

http://books.google.com/books?id=bakRAAA...q=&f=false

This really is a basic concept and it blows my mind that seemingly intelligent individuals such as yourselves have the inability to think outside the box on this one and realize that someone praying to a god is simply them praying to something they believe will produce the desired results. This could be anything, i.e. tree example above, so long as the belief is there. Instead of citing archaic definitions of what prayer is thought of only in the religious sense, do me a favor and read up a little bit on how prayer works psychologically and then get back to me.

[theVOID]

Fundamentally, what we have here is a failure to understand prayer as anything other than as it applies to religion. I will say this again, although I feel like a broken record player, the same psychological process takes place when one prays just as it does when they meditate or utilize positive affirmations.

No shit, we've established that. The point is that this psychological process leading to self-affirmation that results from prayer is not the intended result, it is a side effect. If you were to advocate self-affirmation then do that, but calling your personal self affirmation "prayer" because it's intended effect is similar to the side effect of prayer is just stupid. Prayer pertains to communication with a deity or object of worship, it does not describe the internal side effect of prayer be it failed or successful.

When you bastardise worlds like prayer to mean something that it is not intended to mean you just look like a Muppet, you do nothing but cloud the issue and come up with stupid-as-fuck arguments like you have here, you are arguing against an established definition because the side effect of one process is similar to the intended result of another, therefore you seek to change the meaning of the first word to represent the second all the while completely ignoring the different intentions each process has.

I was going to itemize my rebuttals to the above post, but I realized that I would be here all night as there are many. Is it so difficult to understand that when one prays that it does not have to be directed at a mythical diety? You people are failing to move past the religious argument. Don't get me wrong, as an atheist I understand that it is easy to be closed-minded to anything that might even smell of religion and prayer is traditionally associated with religion. Move past the concept of how it applies to religion and you might understand what I am talking about.

1) The point of prayer is communication, be it with a deity or an object of worship. You do not need to pray for self-affirmation, that you can do with thoughts, so there is absolutely no need to call it prayer, you only make the word ambiguous by doing so.

2) I already explained why i consider using the word Prayer, or any other word for that matter, as anything other that the use it's given by the extreme majority, is an absolutely useless practice. If you want to talk about positive thoughts, meditation, subconscious mental notes and self-affirmation then do so, but calling it prayer is the pinnacle of futility.

3) It's not a matter of being closed minded, that is what you are doing by failing to acknowledge that your definition of prayer is so far removed from the standard definition that using it in any way seems completely useless, it only leads to cognitive dissonance. Look at the vast majority of definitions for prayer, they all specifically relate to communication with a deity or object of worship, nothing to do with positive thoughts. Use a different word for what you are describing.

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/new_...mind/61308

This article does nothing more than try to redefine the word in question. It is an article about positive thinking, their use of the word scientific prayer serves no purpose.

"Affirmative prayer says, "I am already healed at the true level of my being and that healing now manifests in my physical world." It is scientific because it works with the simple Universal laws of attraction, intention and seeing beyond the surface illusion to the unchanging truth of who we are below

Oh, real scientific... because the law of attraction is something other than complete fucking bullshit right? There is nothing at all 'scientific' about this hypothesis.

http://www.jrcompton.com/words/meta/prayer.shtml

More of the same, all they do is replace the word "prayer" with "affirmation". It's simply another exercise in linguistic futility.

http://books.google.com/books?id=bakRAAA...q=&f=false

What is the point of posting a link with no readable content? Seems very much to me like you just googled this stuff and copy/pasted to support your bullshit argument.

This really is a basic concept and it blows my mind that seemingly intelligent individuals such as yourselves have the inability to think outside the box on this one and realize that someone praying to a god is simply them praying to something they believe will produce the desired results. This could be anything, i.e. tree example above, so long as the belief is there.

It blows my mind that you can't see the problem with changing the accepted definition of one word to match that of an existing word all to further some bullshit pseudo-science cause called "scientific prayer" It's a nonsense idea supported by nonsense arguments. Pray to whatever object/being you like, the intent is always to communicate. Self-affirmation is not communication and "scientific-prayer" is fucking bullshit.

Instead of citing archaic definitions of what prayer is thought of only in the religious sense, do me a favor and read up a little bit on how prayer works psychologically and then get back to me.

Read up a bit? You mean some of that utter nonsense you linked to earlier? I did read it, and learned that your argument stems from something even more bullshit than I had initially assumed.

I know the psychological effect of prayer and I also know that the self-affirmation that results from it is not the intended effect.

Your not promoting a thought provoking topic here, nor one that is in depth or remotely difficult to understand, your position is simpleton word garbage, you are bastardising the meaning of an existing word for the sake of pseudoscientific bullshit. It's asshattery gone mad.

[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.