Total posts: 5,875
-->
@Vader
Are you a democrat?
Created:
Posted in:
Europeans were sending out ships to go and round up migrants so that they didn't drown.
They were condemning America for not taking in the immigrants at its southern border.
They are even trying to jail Italy's former Interior minister because he didn't take in migrants there by "violating their human rights".
Yet, now that there are thousands of migrants at their border, (Greece) what do they do? Block it off.
What happened to all the love, tolerance, and multiculturalism Europe? Aren't immigrants great anymore?
And where are the progressive liberals here in America? Not one peep out of them about the poor souls being kept out of Europe.
I can smell the stench of their hypocrisy all the way over here.
Created:
-->
@Imabench
If all of this is true, why are so many democrats worried about a contested convention?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You brought up experiments homer. I didn't.
You did.
You lie.
Several years ago a comprehensive study was done in the UK using 40,000 to determine the difference of prayer and non-prayer for the same situations. - Salixes, Post #26
You brought up experiments ponnochio.
And now you've admitted that they do not invalidate prayer. Trained pro baby.
How long do you want to keep this nonsense going
I can understand why beating you in argument seems like nonsense to you.
..or are we finally going to move onto placebos?
I bet your compulsion to make a long thread on placebos is killing you.
Make any comment you want Sal. Lord knows your Prayer Doesn't Work assertion is dead.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I hear he got to keep the stool he stood on during the debate. It's got to be at least $12.95.And got jack shit for his money.
So subtracted from 500 million that's....
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I admitted no such thing...
"I totally go along with you on that statement, so there you go, we agree."
-Salixes, post #152
...baited pretext of the survey being scientific..
You brought up experiments homer. I didn't.
Just keep making those cheap shots.
I'll leave that to you and your loony threads. You can continue your cheap shots at Christianity in a few days.
What did you rationalize? Oh yeah, you're exposing Christianity to save the dumb gullible masses because only you escaped being swindled and now know the truth.
"Here he comes to save the daaaay!!"
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
And all the other sites that banned you are also wrong. And virtually all the other posters, including atheists, who think your behavior is poor, are wrong.
...talk down to them in such a condescending, offensive and biased manner.
You know that's you to a T right? Project much?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Did you see Trumps tweet after Bloomberg dropped out? Ouch!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Good for you! Now hopefully you won't get militant anti-singularity idiots constantly barging onto your singularity board and repeating over and over that there is no singularity.I saw one. So I'm convinced.
Know what I mean?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JamesMag
Well, it wasn't my argument but I thought it was interesting.If mortal life discovered a way to become pure energy then you have argument.
...life is boring without children.
True. My life got far more interesting after I had children.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You can laugh as much as you like but when you have a wife who grew up constantly being threatened with "the iron rod of God" by her total bastard of a JW father it ain't no laughing matter at all.
I laugh at you and your lame threads, not your wife.
The scars on her back and backside healed up years ago but the emotional scars are still there.
Your scars are even more obvious.
And he called it discipline.
And is your constant vitriolic spam supposed to soothe or avenge her?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
God has two hands?
God has as many hands as you want him to have, after all, he is a figment of your imagination.
My point exactly Capt. Obvious. The unimaginative dweeb went with the common two hands.
He should have gone wild. If you're gonna go stupid, go big.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So what caused this poor creation of god to have such a dysfunctional intestinal passage in the first place?
Who knows?
Wasn't it God?
Was it?
Didn't god create this "poor little girl from Ghana", And didn't he create her with this intestinal defect?
You think everything God creates remains static?
Didn't god create and cause everything to come into existence.
Did God create your posts?
You need to make up you fkn mind Popoff.
My mind is fine homer. You're the one who seems confused.
Maybe?
There is a chance that a little 6 year old girl in Ghana today was not there thousands of years ago Einstein. Don't ya think?
Just like he couldn't find Adam and Eve and had to go around the garden calling out their names asking where they are.
How do you know He had to?
He's a bit of a dozy forgetful and clueless nobhead at times, isn't he, your god?
He created you didn't He?
It seems to come so, so fkn easy to you sunshine, as does your bullshit.
Yet you're the one spitting and foaming at the mouth with vulgarity. I'll send you a quarter, OK?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Thank you for validating my claim. It's a wonder that it isn't obvious to the other atheists on the thread.
Please don't lie about what I've said.
Ethan doesn't lie. The board keeps a record of what you said.
Correcting you for quote mining is a valid exercise, quote mining is lying.
Your delusion doesn't interest me.
Prayer exists, and you said the scientific method only works on things that exist.
I said no such thing. Please don't lie about what I've said.
You said,
...the scientific method only applies to reality.
How is that different?
But I know your type. You will sacrifice your common sense for a cheap dig at Christianity.
You know nothing about me
I know your posts. I know you're reckless enough to come to a religion board and make claims you cannot defend.
...but you certainly come across as arrogant and as is usual I can see no reason for it.
Your perception is wholly in your head, and it doesn't interest me.
Lol. I'm a deluded theist who believes in what is not real, is not an insult, but my comment that your calling prayer "not reality" lacks common sense is an insult?
I've said no such thing. Please don't lie about what I've said.
Right. Only theists barbs are insults. The ones you send out is just poetry.
You are always free to report anything you like. But if you're used to Christians who "turn the other cheek" to your rude condescension, you're going to love me.
It would seem that my assessment was accurate.
Its called confirmation bias.
If you're going to stride into a thread on a religion board and tell theists that they live under a delusion, you'd better develop a thicker skin.
I've done no such thing. Please don't lie about what I've said.
Wake up homer. The board keeps a record of what you say.
Pay attention to what you say. Words have meanings and implications.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Which is why many religious adherents are the people doing the praying, this way we can see if it works.
Makes sense, but we must make separate experiments for each entity being prayed to so that the results are not cross contaminated.
You mean testing outside YOUR religion because you think they others are bunk.
But that isn't why I said it. You said you were testing prayer and not religion. Prayer outside of ANY religion is illogical.
I'm not testing if a person responds to prayer, read the experiment again. I'm testing if prayer is effective.
And prayer is effective only if the one being prayed to responds. Be honest man.
Maybe review my experiment's description again.
Your "experiment" is illogical nonsense. Whatever you think is the scientific method, is not.
It says pray to the god dictated by your religion. This is already the third time in one post you're missing this point.
Maybe because you keep contradicting yourself. You said your test didn't mention God.
Please, please stay away from science, you're so bad at it.
Lol. OK Einstein. The puppies in a sack was great science.
And the results will be at best inconclusive. That doesn't mean it's not scientific.
The results of your test can only be inconclusive, and I did not say the test was not scientific, I said it did not follow scientific methodology for experimentation.
I keep telling you this because you are impenetrably obtuse about it.
And I keep telling you that your test will not (cannot) find out if prayer is effective no matter your results, the test results are unreliable if the test itself is bogus. If the experiment doesn't follow the scientific method, the results are trash.
This is why scientists include in their white papers a detailed explanation of the methodology used in every experiment.
...you'd have to do more experiments ONCE YOU HAVE AN ANSWERED PRAYER.
Your experiment cannot give you an "answered" prayer. Your experiment has no way to tell the difference between an answered prayer and pure chance, and skewed results. Your experiment can only give you unusable garbage.
It's only when you can confirm that you have an answered prayer, one that has an impact on real world outcomes,...
Your experiment cannot give you that. It cannot give you any reliable data about the real world. It is flawed.
There is no atheist in the experiment I designed because they don't pray.
An atheist can review the results. If he says it was blind chance, how would you counter?
They jump in the water and save the puppy because who else is going to do it.
Who threw the puppy into the water? And the theist would say, "God used the atheist to answer my prayer and save the puppy."
Well, everyone but you apparently, who can't figure out how to do this at all.
Not in a way that conforms to the scientific method anyway. It's clear to me that you don't know what scientific methodology is for experiments, and you will only see my telling you this as an insult.
So we can agree to disagree.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Just browsing posts and you show up again.
On my own thread. Imagine that.
I wonder what evidence of your god ACTUALLY DOING something you can provide. Thanks.
Why should I provide anything to some dweeb who sits there doing nothing himself while complaining that an imaginary God does nothing?
Why do all of you clueless atheists think theists owe you explanations?
You're new here right? Look at the threads title and OP. Do you have anything of value to add to the topic?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Why do you feel you need to explain?Just browsing posts and you show up again.
Can I ask who is Hosea?
Sure you can.
?? When you ask questions, remember that no one can see inside your head.Are you really responding to your saviour?
Are you the protector of the mods?
Are you their attacker? Do they need protection?
Can they not defend themselves?
Are they under attack? What is it to you?
Do you have a special relationship with the mods that allows you certain insights?
Intelligence allows me certain insights homer.
I'm new here, can you explain why these 3 are special...
You called them special, I think you should explain why you think they're special.
..and why you are not included?
I'm not an idiot. But if you work hard, you might join that group. They accept noobs.
Created:
-->
@Christen
That's a classic.God commits genocide!
The bible must either be taken totally literally or totally figuratively.
They never answer why.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I help underprivileged kids in Africa with my own pennies, instead of hypocritically buttaching about God not doing anything while not doing anything myself.
When you were given a chance to help instead of being a hypocrite, you sat on your ample rear end and did nothing but repeatedly spam stupidity about how God doesn't help.
Talk about hollow statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Lol.Challenge to theist....
I am prepared, right here and now to place my reputation on the line...
You risked nothing. Good bet.
Unless of course, you place the misquote...
How can your own words be a misquote?
tock, tick, tock, tick BEEP!!
Time's up. You lost the challenge. But no worry, your reputation remains the same.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Oh, so that's what you're chundering on about.
Hiding behind the car got uncomfortable huh?
the reason why the efficacy of prayer has not been invalidated by any scientific tests is..
Several years ago a comprehensive study was done in the UK using 40,000 to determine the difference of prayer and non-prayer for the same situations.
It was found that there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes.
...that one cannot invalidate something that wasn't even validated in the first place.
Thanks for finally admitting your claim was wrong. You ran, you dodged, as predicted, but in the end, you had to quit hiding and stop pretending.
Now its clear that the only reason you think prayer is ineffective is because of your irrational bias.
Your lame humor is as ineffective a hiding place as your car.
Created:
Posted in:
Some of the points listed by Drafterman in support of evolution are simply wrong, and some of them actually contradict each other.
This is a typical defense of Darwinists. Post a wall-O-jargon so it seems like there is a mountain of scientific fact in their favor. But when Athias took his bluff, we saw he could not say how his points supported his contention.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@JamesMag
Hi James. You said,..
I've heard a theory that when all energy collapses into a singularity, that singularity will itself be intelligent.Energy is the building blocks for intelligent life and eventually all energy collapses into a singularity so intelligent life is limited to the power of energy.
What do you think of the idea of the possibility of an intelligent singularity?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The South rejected Sanders and his socialism, and carried Biden over Sanders in delegate count.
In 2020, who will the South vote for? Joe or Don? Joe cannot win without the South, and the South is solidly Trump country.
Bernie has already shown he cannot win the South. Super Tuesday has shown us that neither Bernie or Joe can beat Trump.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
So what caused this poor creation of god to have such a dysfunctional intestinal passage in the first place?
Who knows? Maybe the junk food your country ships into hers?
God, it is written, looked around and saw that ALL of his creation "was very good" ....... with the exception of " the little girl in Ghana" one can assume.
Maybe on that day thousands of years ago, the little girl was sleeping so God didn't see her. Lol!
How can anyone be this clueless?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You guys are so predictable. Instead of stopping when you run out of sensible things to say, you start spamming.
Nonetheless Zionism is what it is and was therefore apt.
Everything is "what it is" gomer. Out of the blue mention of Zionism was bigotry, not apt.
And we are all selectively moral...
Nope. Just you people who are their own moral compass. What you believe makes a difference to your morality.
Is Zedipitydoodaa to liberal and therefore too frivolous?
Words cannot be liberal. It lacks gravitas. We need a word that captures the profound stupidity of the issue.
Created:
Posted in:
As evidenced by your preference for a present with 73 spam threads a day.Quite frankly, I would prefer an afterlife with 73 virgins.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
God has two hands?...gives with one hand and seeks praise for it, then wallops anyone he bloody feels like with the other...
Where is your imagination? If you're going to make up some loony god for Christians, go wild. Two hands? That's it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Then tell us why you were banned and are even now under probation?The problem for you is that I'm not nor have I displayed any behavior to give any reason for anyone to label me a bigot.
You have to face reality Sal. Pretending will not make reality become untrue. You have been banned from multiple sites. You made coarsely bigoted comments on DDO, the only place without mods to ban you, and your bigotry is now restricted here as the mods graciously decide to guide you instead of banning you.
You are a bigot. All your compulsive threads show it. All your many bans show it. All your vitriolic posts show it.
Change. But if you cannot change, hide it. You get in trouble not because you are a bigot, but because you let people know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I am prepared, right here and now to place my reputation on the line and disprove the existence of God.
My pledge is genuine and unequivocal: I am prepared to disprove the existence of God.
Tick, tock, tick, tock.....
Created:
Posted in:
Ah, memory lane. Reverse time travel. Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Thanks, but I like to stay on topic.
Maybe Seth will go with you on your little Audi hidey hole detour.
That car....
Sorry. The points you're dodging will be still here after you tire of hiding behind your car.
The efficacy Prayer has not been invalidated by any scientific tests. Hide, but this will still be true when you spam this thread once again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
That isn't what it says at all...
Sorry, it is. You started out denying that the OP referenced a scientific experiment. When I quoted him, you now jump to this weird denial. If the OP says of his prayer experiment, that, there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes, he means prayer is not effective.
I have no reason to believe that the original poster said this...
I posted multiple quotes and cited the post number in this thread.
We're not testing religion, remember? We're testing the efficacy of intercessory prayer. JUST PRAYER.
Prayer outside a religion makes no sense. And prayers are directed at someone. You are testing if that person responds to prayer.
As soon as the PRAYER becomes aware it's in a test?
As soon as the one prayer is directed to becomes aware.
Because that's the subject of the test.
No, the subject is the one who is supposed to respond to prayer, either validating prayer or invalidating it.
There is no direct reference to any specific God...
There doesn't have to be. The validity of the test depends on whom the prayers are directed to. If your prayers are directed to a lizard, the sun, a totem pole, or a man, you will get certain results. And if whom your prayers are directed to is aware of it being a test, the results will be garbage.
We're not testing for Christian prayer efficacy. JUST PRAYER. Then if some are answered, we can start down other paths.
Lol. Why do you need answers if you're only testing prayer? Are you testing chance? Will someone ambling by just happen to answer a prayer?
Prayers are directed. Thus, prayers have to be tested based on whom they are directed to. Anything else is not scientific methodology.
What's difficult is demonstrating there's any real reason to participate in it.
Real reasons for scientific experiments escape you huh?
what happens if the prayer appears answered? What then would you do?
Nothing. Because the test did not follow the scientific method, the results will be garbage, and we will not be able to differentiate the results from pure chance or deliberate interference.
You only seem concerned with asserting that unanswered prayers are somehow scientifically invalid even though you claim they're heard.
I did not say this. I said the entire experiment is invalid if it does not follow scientific methodology.
Whether prayers are heard or not is immaterial. The test is to find out if the one the prayer is directed to responds to the prayers, not simply if he hears.
If the experiment doesn't specify whom the prayers are directed to, how will we know who it is that responds if there is a response?
If the experiment doesn't specify what is an acceptable response, how will we tell a response from blind chance?
If the one the prayers are directed to knows it is a test, how will we know He didn't skew the results?
Of course you can dispense with science methodology altogether, but while that makes your test easy as oil, it also makes the results unscientific. In a word, garbage.
What happens if the prayer is answered.
The Christian will say it was answered by Jehovah. The Muslim will said it was answered by Allah, the atheist will say it was coincidence, and the militant atheist will say it was blind chance.
And everyone will immediately see the stupidity of such an experiment and the value of the scientific method.
Commence your apopleptic fit in three...two...
The one arguing in favor of the scientific method is the one being called apoplectic. Funny.
Did you like my dancing shoes?
Created:
-->
@Imabench
@HistoryBuff
The way I understood it, the impeachment would just be the feather that broke the camels back, not the sole cause. Warren was already weak, (with a fragile voter base) and unlike Sanders, did not have a high-profile endorsement (Like AOC) which is why out of the 5 senators, it was thought Warren would be the most hurt.
...it certainly didnt run her campaign into the ground like I thought it could.
No it didn't, but that i s not what you said, at least not to my understanding. You said, of the 5 senators, she would be the one most harmed by the impeachment.
That turned out to be true.
The only thing that could save her now, would be if Hillary or Obama themselves (or some equally high profile person) endorsed Warren. If that happens, I will insist again that you called it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
That is exactly what Sal means when he says "It was found that there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes."The position here in the quote you've provided is not that Christian prayer is ineffective.
That is exactly what it claims by saying there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes.It's that prayer does not show a discernible outcome on the situation. This is, once again, not a claim that Christian prayer is ineffective.
It's prayer being tested, not the person, not the narrative.
No sir. For example, the bible says only the prayers of Christians are heard. If your experiment uses non-christians to pray, the results can say nothing credible about Christian prayer.
The narrative does make a difference. It always does in experiments.
...the experiment I designed isn't about Christianity. It's about prayer efficacy.
This is like saying, "the experiment I designed isn't about medicine, It's about drug efficacy." The type of medicine matters. Simply using any medicine will not be a valid test of drug efficacy.
How do you know that's not an acceptable prayer, though, exactly?
The bible lays out what are acceptable prayers and whys of acceptability.
Is it selfish to pray that an innocent puppy is spared from intentional drowning somehow?
The bible says God should not be tested. Threatening to drown the puppy to goad God into saving it is a test. One which God would be pre-aware of.
scientifically valid experiments have been conducted on the efficacy of intercessory prayer and have shown inconclusive results, repeatedly, regardless of the narrative.
Cite one then.
The response would be "the prayer appears unanswered." That's all you're testing for.
Sure, but Joe is claiming the whole test was skewed, not just that one prayer wasn't answered, thus the results are untrustworthy. That my be why the prayer appears to be unanswered.
You seem hesitant to approach it from this angle.
Because it doesn't make sense. Each religion has its own narrative that makes some things in the other nonsense. There can be no test for all of them at once. The experiment would be unscientific.
This is how science works.
It's interesting then that you cannot cite such an experiment.
Now what if, you knew that the girls had been hired to test you in an experiment? Could the results be trustworthy?
No,
Thank you. If your test subject is God, the results of the experiment cannot be trustworthy as this is no longer a double blind experiment, in fact it's a no blind experiment, which is very difficult to garner valid data from, but that's why I'm the one saying that you wouldn't use such a format to test for the efficacy of intercessory prayer. Remember I'm trying to show you why such an experiment wouldn't work.
But how does this translate to the effect of intercessory prayer to unspecified deity?
If the deity is omniscient, he will know about the experiment and that will skew the results.
Are you saying some gods spitefully deny the petitions, even if they're entirely altruistic and otherwise within the guidelines of 'acceptable prayer'...
Doesn't matter. As soon as the test subject becomes aware that he is in a test, the results become untrustworthy.
Are they all that way, the deities being prayed to?
My argument applies only to Christian prayer. Different religions may have different results.
Intercessory prayer. It's pretty common among the faithful of any stripe. Not "any prayer."
In Christianity, only certain kinds of Intercessory prayers are acceptable.
But I think you're starting to see how difficult it would to fashion a scientifically valid experiment on the efficacy of Christian prayer.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Impeachment didn't doom warren.
No. Forced time away, no high-profile endorsements, and no AOC like Sanders has to fall back on, would doom Warren.
Bench said,
He turned out to be correct.A lacking of high-profile endorsements with a fragile voter base combining with forced time away from the campaign trail could very much fuck over Warren, especially if the Impeachment trial drags out for a lengthy amount of time. Short of Hillary or Obama themselves endorsing Warren and being willing to campaign for her, Trump Impeachment could end up dooming Warrens future in politics the most.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Several years ago a comprehensive study was done in the UK using 40,000 to determine the difference of prayer and non-prayer for the same situations.
It was found that there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes.
Salixes, Post #26, This thread.
you're once again arguing against a position no one's taking. This is a straw man by definition.
That Old Sal is made of straw is something we all already knew.
there's literally no reason you cannot do a valid scientific experiment that deals with "does intercessory prayer effect outcomes in an observable way."
But your test must make sense given the claims of who is being tested! For example, Christians say God doesn't honor prayers made for selfish reasons, thus, an experiment that allows subject to send selfish prayers cannot be used to conclude that prayers are not answered. The experiment must make sense withing the christian narrative if it is going to make conclusions about that narrative.
You can absolutely study the impact of intercessory prayer, you can do it with control groups, you can do double blinds, I don't get it, why do you think you CAN'T?
You can, but it cannot be done scientifically. Christianity doesn't agree that ANY prayer is acceptable. Placing puppies in a sack and having a kid pray that it not die is certainly not an acceptable prayer in Christianity.
But if you think there is an experiment on prayer that we can draw valid scientific data from is possible, keep trying to fashion one. I'd love to see it.
Though the experiment need not assume God, the test subjects do. Thus, Joe Christian is going to dispute the results of the test because he'll say, "The one I was praying to, knew it was an experiment, and that skewed the results." What would be the experiments response to that?
I can give you an experiment that has nothing to do with God to show you the problems with prayer experiments.
Say we wanted to test you, a single, heterosexual adult, on what race of girl you were most attracted to.
The best way would be a double blind test, where neither you or the girls know an experiment is going on. We could simply secretly observe you in your natural element and note how many times you approached girls and what race she was.
There are problems with such a test, but it could yield valid information.
Or we could hire 10 girls each of African, Chinese, and European descent and have them solicit you, and then note how many times each race was successful in getting you interested enough to date.
There are problems even with this test, but it could yield valid information.
Now what if, you knew that the girls had been hired to test you in an experiment? Could the results be trustworthy?
You could like only white girls, but because you don't want to appear bigoted, respond positively to a few Chinese and African girls to skew the results.
You could pick only white and Chinese girls because you're terrified to let it be known that you like only black girls.
You could reject every girl because you know their come on's are not genuine.
You could accept every girl hoping to get lucky with some of them.
It is impossible to conduct an experiment like this where the test subject is aware that an experiment is being conducted.
Or, instead of girls, we could use guys. But unless you are bi or homosexual, the test will reveal nothing about your preferences. The test must make sense given your sexuality. Prayer tests that allow any prayer are like preferences tests that allow any gender. The results will be unreliable.
The only atheists who use prayer tests as "proof" of the ineffectiveness of prayer are either dumb ones who have no clue what the scientific method is, or dishonest ones trying to fool the dumb ones.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
If they did accept payments I'd rather pay them to curb your persistent spamming.
But as it turns out, they do their jobs without bribes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Thanks, but I like to stay on topic.
Maybe Seth will go with you on your little Audi hidey hole detour.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Thank you for validating my claim. It's a wonder that it isn't obvious to the other atheists on the thread.
Mine quoting is by definition dishonest.
Going off topic isn't, but would still advise you to refrain from doing it.
I don't know what reality you live in, but prayer is a real actual thing. Go to any church and you'll see people doing it.
The thread concerns whether prayer works, not whether it happens.
I know. Prayer exists, and you said the scientific method only works on things that exist.
But I know your type. You will sacrifice your common sense for a cheap dig at Christianity.
Are personal attacks allowed here?
Lol. I'm a deluded theist who believes in what is not real, is not an insult, but my comment that your calling prayer "not reality" lacks common sense is an insult?
I'll ignore it this time but reporting in future is not assured.
You are always free to report anything you like. But if you're used to Christians who "turn the other cheek" to your rude condescension, you're going to love me.
Of you're going to stride into a thread on a religion board and tell theists that they live under a delusion, you'd better develop a thicker skin.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Then an experiment on your car would not be trying to prove a negative.My car is real. Just go to the end of my street on any given weekday morning and you'll see me driving it. So, umm yeah, my car is real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
For my part anyway, I'm quite happy with the numerous surveys done into the efficacy of prayer
Those of us who know science are not happy with such quackery.
and not one of them revealed anything at all.
As quackery posing as science never does.
Quackery cannot confirm anything. And the status quo is not your fringe beliefs.This ultimately confirms the status quo; prayer does absolutely bugger all.
So I guess the answer is that I don't know how a prayer experiment can successfully use the scientific method.
Thank you. I hope you know you just lost the reason you gave for why you believe prayer doesn't work.
Now, can we investigate the "straw man detour" since there seems to be some evidence that indicates that prayer and indeed religion can have a placebo effect on some people?
You can run to any hidey hole you like. But remember that "placebo" implies a real.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Seth
Yet another atheist incapable of debating any subject other than "Does God Exist?"
It cannot be done via the scientific method,
Obviously.
Thank you for validating my claim. It's a wonder that it isn't obvious to the other atheists on the thread.
Because the scientific method only applies to reality.
I don't know what reality you live in, but prayer is a real actual thing. Go to any church and you'll see people doing it.
You are confused about what the scientific method is, and what reality is. Einstein applied the scientific method to hypothetical things long before we knew they were actual.
But I know your type. You will sacrifice your common sense for a cheap dig at Christianity. No problem, Christianity is a big boy, it can take your weak digs.
Created:
Posted in:
Republican megadonor and hedge fund executive Paul Singer went into attack mode at a dinner honoring Education Secretary Betsy DeVos this week, targeting what he described as a rising threat of socialism within the Democratic Party.
The comments offered a glimpse into the mentality of a powerful GOP donor as he decides how he's going to contribute to the 2020 election. Singer is a billionaire and the founder of Elliott Management.
Singer, speaking at the Manhattan Institute's Alexander Hamilton Award Dinner on Wednesday, warned conservatives that policies pushed by Democratic presidential candidates pose a risk to U.S. economic growth under President Donald Trump.
"Yet despite all this, socialism is on the march again," said Singer, who is chairman of the conservative think tank. "They call it socialism, but it is more accurately described as left-wing statism lubricated by showers of free stuff promised by politicians who believe that money comes from a printing press rather than the productive efforts of businesspeople and workers," he added.
An Elliott Management spokesman confirmed the remarks to CNBC and declined to comment further. Singer also attacked the Green New Deal, a sweeping set of policies aimed at creating jobs and curtailing the threats of climate change.
"The so-called Green New Deal, the latest progressive attempt to engineer our way of life and vest power in the administrative state, is now the standard of nearly every Democratic candidate for president," he said. "Setting out to sell this utopia to the American people isn't merely irresponsible political rhetoric, it is outright deceit."
Singer rarely discusses his political ideologies in public but appears to have been more comfortable in front of a group people largely associated with his organization. During the 2016 presidential election, Singer was a vocal opponent of then-candidate Trump and, a year earlier, was the financier of a conservative website that hired Fusion GPS to dig up dirt on the business executive-turned-Republican nominee for president.
Since Trump became president, Singer has donated to super PACs and committees that back the commander in chief. In October 2018, he spent $1 million on Future45, a super PAC dedicated to helping Trump, according to Federal Election Commission records. He also gave more than $500,000 to the Republican National Committee last cycle, which has put its resources into helping members of congress and reelecting the president.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
You still have not addresses how a prayer experiment can successfully use the scientific method.
I know you're now trying to run away to the "placebo" straw man detour, but I kind of like to stay on topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What is an actual deity?
do you find that repeating the question you've dodged is a good way to dodge it?
Concepts are concepts and the ability to conceptualise should be defended. Freedom of thought and all that.
Answering questions put to you would be a good start.
A fact of life is just that. Both hypothetical and assumed actuality are facts of life.
Lol!! Assumed actuality? Hypothetical actuality? What kind of life are you living Z? Definitely a liberal one because no other worldview has such irrational philosophies.
They must be, otherwise we wouldn't have been discussing them for several days.
I've been trying to get you to discuss them, you've been pretending to be obtuse.
Nope, no one mentioned the sky.
No one had mentioned Zionism either, but you plowed straight ahead.
"Rare characteristics". Et tu Brute.
Sorry man. The result of living as your own moral authority gives you situational morality. It's just a fact of life.
Hey! Give me a burning fact then Ethang5. The best digging dodger on debateart.
It isn't you.
And "StupZedpidity" needs a bit more work.
I don't know. It has panache.
How about Zedipitydoodaa.
It lacks the gravitas of StupZedpidity.
Created: