Total posts: 905
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
You're doing sort of the same thing as the other guy, it seems like you're adding stuff to the experiment.
No, I'm saying that by definition, prayer requires the other stuff. Otherwise, it is "demand of no one in particular" and you aren't testing prayer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
This is a dangerous approach: you'd never arrive at any medical treatment innovation if you abandoned anything whose initial results were "inconclusive." That word itself stems from "not really concluded." That means keep going, as it "you're not done." The most complicated conclusions go through many, many, many experiments with inconclusive results before finding a solution.
When it comes to measuring an effect of something in a faith based system? I don't see it as dangerous at all. I don't think of medical treatments and petitioning an infinite, divine and inscrutable power in the same, measurable way.
Me: the dog lives or dies. If the dog lives, I will include prayer as the leading probability as the factor that made the change in the natural order of events. I'm not trying to define which religion made the change yet.
OK then. That will fail once it is used in any context other than your own understanding. What good is the conclusion you reach if it is so limited?
This sort of parameter is the only way to test that the prayer effects the outcome
Well, if ny affecting (or effecting) the outcome, you only want to measure "getting the result you ask for." You see, at the same time that one child is asking that the puppy be saved, another is praying that the puppy die because he has a hatred of puppies. He gets what he asks for. Prayer works. Or you would say that the "natural order" would be that the dog dies. But we can't know that a good samaritan wouldn't have jumped in to save the dog, or the current would have pushed the bag to the shore. While we can guess statistically, since we can't know, we can't be sure what effect the prayer has. To affect outcome requires definitive knowledge of what the outcome was going to be (among other things).
I still can't see how you can assess petitions qua prayer if you take them out of a context that defines and establishes rules for prayer. Is there a generic, religion-free concept of prayer? If, by definition, prayer begs an idea of the object of prayer, then it invokes all the rules and regulations of prayer according to that authority-object. I don't see value in asking "does shouting at the sky change the lottery numbers?" and then "if it does, I'll try to figure out how god did it, or which god did it".
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Wouldn't this not happening, regardless of if it's an answer or not, lead to the conclusion "does not appear to effect the outcome in the real world"? Yes, I'm measuring for specifically "does the prayer affect the outcome,"
I don't think it does unless you want to limit prayer's ability to change the course of presumed events. OK, then let's change the scenario so I can test a bit more:
my fish is sick. The doctors say he is going to die. I pray to god to heal him.
a. He doesn't die for a year. Were the doctors all wrong or did god change things?
b. He dies three days later. When was he going to die? Are those three days evidence of effective prayer-request?
c. He dies as soon as I utter the final word or my request. Is that a coincidence or is that a "no" which shows that the communicative mode of the prayer "works" even though the request is denied? What is "working"? Is it just the selfish "getting what you want"? By that logic "asking parents about going to an x-rated movie" can be measured to "not work" because they, in their role as parent, wisely say "no" very quickly. The prayer did the job of prayer, that is communicating with the authority.
What was the outcome going to be so I can measure the change? Or are we also limiting it to very precise and specific language that lays out a demand, a time line, a scope etc? The more we have to limit what kind of "prayer" we are talking about, the less useful any non-generalizable result will be.
Not all religions believe the prayer is dependent on the merits of the prayerful (though this is why you'd pick children to do the prayers, because they're less corrupt, and the puppy, because those prayers would be less self serving and more sincere. But there are versions of Christianity that can't agree on who gets their prayers answered or why, or if they constitute a test of god or they don't.
If different religions don't agree on the variables which define what prayer is and how it works, who sets the parameters for a test of its efficacy? How can it exist outside of all religions and generate a result that will be useful in understanding prayer within the scope of one religion or another?
This isn't separated from ANY religious context, it's just not specific to any single religion.
but if isn't specific to any single religion then it has no parameters that can be used other than the most generic "did it effect the specific and limited request" and that can't be useful within any religious context.
Could not theologians of some stripe or other validate the prayer's content prior to issuing it to the children? So in other words if the experiment was laid out so that the Hindu head theologian looks at the prayer you want to use in your experiment and says "Yes, this prayer as I see it is valid prayer," then you give said prayer to the child of that faith in the experiment?
I would suggest not. That theologian (though, admittedly, I can't speak for Hindu thinking), if he is worth his salt, would also have to look at how the prayer was delivered, and whether the nature of the request is contextually even useful. Once it moves into the context of any religious structure, will also have to conform to variables besides wording.
Surely we can put all sorts of internal variables into it, but in the end, every result studied so far has yielded the same thing: inconclusive results at best. I'm not in any way saying you cannot confirm intercessory prayer as effective, but there's no reason to say it cannot be studied.
I see inconclusive results at best as cause to abandon studying it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
intercessory prayer is the only kind that seems answerable, certainly the only kind that would be measurable (I asked for X, X did or didn't happen).
This presumes that "didn't happen" isn't an answer. You are measuring for demand-fulfillment which is not the only operative method of intercessory prayer. Also, if prayer is dependent on (for example) the merits of the asker or sincerity of the prayer, to avoid questions of an atheist subverting the process, then the lack of positive response might be a reflection on the flaw in the prayers, not the ineffectiveness of a comparatively sincerely process.
Otherwise, separated from any religious context, what you are testing is a random person yelling at the sky "gimme a hundred bucks, now! Small bills. Non-sequential." And if Mr. Moneybag doesn't materialize then "prayer" is deemed "not working." But that demand isn't prayer.
Once you call it "prayer" it can't be just "request" even if the nature of the prayer includes request. It still has to qualify as prayer, judged within the religious context which generates that definition.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I still think that this all takes a rather narrow and limited view of even intercessory prayer. Within a religious understanding, there are a variety of possible answers and mechanisms, and even rules about what should be asked for in the first place. Asking whether something "works" while ignoring all the variables which would determine whether the it even qualifies to be tested leads to a stilted view of the results. It just seems silly to try, and impose some external understanding when presenting perceived results.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
So what you said in posts 57, 60 and 64 isn't claiming that "prayer" is identical with "intercessionary prayer"?
So you accept that prayer has other functions besides requests?
And how do you plan to measure the efficacy of prayers of thanks?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
I quoted from the Oxford dictionary.
What you quoted came up from a quick google search. That the search engine took it from another source changes nothing.
I quoted an authoritative, definitive and irrefutable source and if you wish to challenge the validity of the definition I suggest that you appeal to the Oxford Press and inform the forum when the editors have made a complete change to the dictionary to match whatever meaning you tell them. Until that time the facts remain.
I'll type slowly because I fear that neither English nor rhetoric is native to your thinking:
1. You chose one of many sources for definitions. None in the English language is definitive. Many have claims to authority, but if you know anything about dictionaries and how English works (as opposed to, for example, French) then you would know that none is definitive.
2. No one has claimed that the definition you cut and pasted is invalid. Are you saying that the others I cited are invalid? You might want to contact all of them and tell them that they are wrong, then. Until then, the facts remain that there are other definitions of prayer.
3. Your assertion that prayer is solely petitionary is contradicted by the definition you have chosen. Please, pay attention -- your chosen definition, which you claim is "irrefutable" defines prayer as "prayer | pre: | noun a solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity." So, and I should not have to stress this as often as I have, your definition gives, as a definition of prayer, "expression of thanks." By claiming that your definition of choice is definitive and irrefutable, you have just canonized a position which contradicts your own claim.
Therefore, by virtue of YOUR definition, you cannot measure whether or not "thanks" works, so you cannot judge prayer as not working.
Your assertion is wrong and your argument is invalid on its face because of a definition you have cited as being irrefutable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Try to follow along. I made the following statement:
"If you choose a different source, you get a different result"
and you said, in response,
But I didn't.
Your statement was, therefore that you didn't choose a different source. Different from what? You chose one that was the same as what? You chose one source, and I chose a different one.
I quoted an authoritative, definitive and irrefutable source.
You cut and pasted from a google search that presented a number of different definitions, and you snipped the one you wanted. If that one you chose was, indeed, "definitive" then not only would your source have provided no others, but there would be no other dictionaries in the world, or theological understandings that gave different definitions (such as https://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/prayer ).
But even in YOUR OWN provided definition, the word is defined as a "...solemn request for help or expression of thanks".
So ignoring the existence of other definitions, you just provided one which counters your own claim that prayer is always petitionary.
Still unproven and unprovable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Prayer is:prayer | pre: | nouna solemn request for help or expression of thanks addressed to God or another deity.
If you choose a different source, you get a different result
"Jewish prayer is G‑d’s way oftelling the Jewish people, “speak to Me and I will listen.” Three times a day, Jews pray to G‑d, thankingHim, praising Him, and beseeching Him for personal requests."
Note the three separate functions of prayer?
Can you even devise a method of measuring the result of praise? What's the evidence that anyone hears or doesn't hear a "thank you"?
So, again -- if you only look at petitionary prayer then you have problems with measurements. If you consider other functions of prayer, you have more problems with measurements.
Created:
Posted in:
1) You have failed to provide any proof whatsoever.
But your request was rhetorical so you don't want me to.
2) Because you have no proof to offer.
That's a claim for a different thread. I could say "there is no proof you would accept, having previously decided that no proof exists"
3) Your latest deceptive tactic is to infer that I came down in the last shower and that your delaying tactics were merely "enquiries".
You have clarified that you made no enquiries. Therefore, your concern in your point 1 is unfounded.
4) I didn't come down in the last shower.
I have never heard that figure of speech. I'm not even sure what it means.
5) Because of your dishonest delaying tactics, you lose...once again.
You have yet to prove dishonesty.
Please do what you intended to do, without what you have decided you don't need. Thanks in advance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Talk about intellectually dishonest. You have done nothing more than nitpick the arguments of others.
which is not intellectually dishonest. If you need me to explain any of the more complex concepts, let me know. In the meantime, I'll use simpler ideas.
How about not being such a wimp and stop deceptively avoiding the subject.
Demanding that you make sense is not avoiding the subject. Holding you to a level of intellectual rigor, consistency and honesty might be too difficult for you to understand, but it doesn't avoid anything. It establishes a proper framework for any conversation. You are clearly not used to that.
Anyone with half a brain can see that I blatantly and sarcastically asked the rhetorical (yes, it was rhetorical) question for anyone to supply some proof.And, you and I know why it is a rhetorical question, now don't we?Because we both know that there is absolutely no proof to submit, don't we?
OK, great...let's think this through then, shall we? You now claim that your solicitation of anyone to come up with a proof for you to disprove was rhetorical. Therefore, you are NOT asking for anyone to present a proof. Therefore, there is no reason to ask anyone else to "get the ball rolling" and you should have, by now, made good on your offer. And, of course, since you are not asking anyone else to participate, you are actually not challenging anyone and your thread title is wrong.
Are you new at this?
You know damned well what the subject is about.
Yes, your insistence that you can prove a negative though elsewhere you wrote that it couldn't be done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
In order for prayer to be effective (presuming the effect is not the same as say simple meditation), it simply has to communicate something, to something or someone. Can we independently confirm, regardless of prayer efficacy, that communication was in fact received? For example, we can confirm a signal being received someplace, this would be 'communicated' regardless of response.
First, a clarification -- intercessory prayer has to be communicated with the proper intent (actually, all prayer needs the proper intent but I want to clarify that we are talking about intercessory, which will cross over into another form), because part of the power of the prayer is in the asking. Part of the effect is reminding the petitioner of his place relative to the divine. So simply making the request properly is the effectiveness (strange but true).
As to whether the message has been received, that's the confirmation bias -- faith teaches that proper prayer is always received. So once you subscribe to the faith system, there can't be any other understanding.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'm not sure how you'd credit prayer with efficacy if in fact the 'effect' is indiscernible from not praying, or the effect is not what you prayed for (desired).
Because faith teaches that the prayer communicated to the desired ear the wish of the individual and the purpose of prayer is that communication, so it is, by definition, effective. And because faith teaches that all (proper) prayer is answered in some way though we may not see that answer, or like it.
There is the story of the little girl who prays every night for a new bicycle for her birthday. Her birthday comes, no bicycle. He brother makes fun of her, saying "God didn't answer your prayer." She responds, "Yes he did. He said 'no'." That's the confirmation bias which would lead a believer to say that all prayer is effective in communicating the wishes and eliciting a response.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I think belief teaches that all prayer is necessarily effective (conditions permitting) but the effect is not always discernable or desired.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Exactly -- that's why I think the question of measuring the efficacy of prayer is a non-starter. The confirmation bias is too strong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
Of course, if one person prays for the 49ers and one person prays for the Chiefs then one might say that both prayers have been answered, one with a no and one with a yes. If one says that one received a yes, then can one still say that the other side got zero answer?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
I'd love to participate in a thread about prayer efficacy (I did one a while ago specific to intercessory prayer that was pretty lively),
I think it is an interesting topic but it presents certain problems (as I have tried to outline):
intercessory prayer's efficacy may not be measurable (a "no" would make the prayer effective at communicating a position but not in changing a divine decision and it is impossible to know what the outcome might have been without the prayer -- my dad could have died a day earlier had I not prayer...)
it also begs the question of the nature of God -- if God is unchanging and unchangeable, then why would anyone think that prayer could have any effect, changing a divine decree? A secondary question about God's knowing the future and how things will turn out might also develop.
Created:
Posted in:
Just a note -- your rhetorical approach is intellectually dishonest though it might just be an effect of your lack of understanding about claims and proof.
You make the offer to prove a negative (which you have elsewhere said can't be done), that God does not exist, but then you ask for material from someone else that you will disprove.
Those are two different claims:
Claim 1 is "I will disprove God"
Claim 2 is "I will disprove your proof that God exists."
Even claim 1A would have been a better option (1A is "I will disprove the claim that God exists") though not optimal as it shifts focus from the existence to the claim.
You should clarify what you intend to do -- disprove God's existence or disprove someone else's proof that God exists. Or you could just rant about how demanding intellectual honesty and rhetorical consistency is quibbling. That's fine, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Do you care to up the ante?At this rate, we may get up to "prayer is saying something".....after say, 100 or so exchanges.But then, anyone who knows me knows that I will always cut to the chase and make the deciding, definitive statement........Waiiiiiit for it folks......Prayer is a load of crap.So, stop clasping your hands in the vain hope that your imaginary friend is going to cure the boil on your backside in favour over all the hundreds of thousands of parents around the world simultaneously praying, whose kids are dying from the most horrendous diseases.If prayer does work (and it doesn't) I hope God has a decent set of priorities to send some sniveling little bugger praying over a bum boil to the end of the line to wait................standing up of course. That'll stop you from being so anal retentively self-pretentious, won't it?
You are trying again to make an assertion which is provably wrong and rejecting an explicit claim which is provably true.
Prayer is a variety of things. The three basic functions of prayer are praise, request and thanks. I can provide sources for this claim and examples of each if you would like. This, though, doesn't reduce to "prayer is saying something". If you can't see the distinction then that's your limitation, not a problem with prayer.
You seem to see only the praise function and have decided that if the request isn't granted in a way recognizable by the petitioner, it fails. That's a specious argument. When you are ready to have an actual conversation about what prayer is, not just what you think it is, let me know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
There is no hope of winning an argument that is based on irrefutable truth.
And there is no use in claiming a mistake as an irrefutable truth. Here's a claim, and an irrefutable truth -- prayer is more than petition. If you start by asserting that they are exclusive and identical, your entire argument fails. That's where you are right now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
It has everything to do with morgues and hospitals as per the thread as you damned well know.
No, it doesn't. You are trying to limit it to that, but it goes well beyond that. If you haven't figured that out by now, I can only assume a willful blindness on your part.
For your effing information, "asking" is the invitation to perform or to fulfill.
And, if you had been paying attention, you would see that my assertion is that prayer goes well beyond asking.
Trying to dress down a word in order to neutralise the meaning and thereby the topic hardly does one a favour in the honesty stakes, now does it?
"Dress down a word"? Just because you don't know the full meaning of the word doesn't make anyone else less honest. If you want to start by limiting your terms so that the only conclusion anyone can come to must be the exact one you already believe in, then just say so. That's a ridiculous way to engage with people but if that's your way, then so be it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
With due respect what you saying there is a load of unmitigated crap, and you know it.
With all due respect you are wrong and you know it. I have just mirrored what you said to me. Does it seem persuasive to you, my telling you what you must know (according to me) and labeling your statement? No, it shouldn't. Nor does your statement have any meaning or use to me.
Yes, "finding flaws.......strategy" but as we both know, that is all you have done. You have not submitted one argument, in favour, or otherwise.
So you start by accepting that what you denigrated is, in fact, a valid strategy. So my point carries. Thank you. Next you say that if it is "all I have done" then that is somehow not enough. First, it is enough -- if I point out that the flaws in an original claim are fatal, so there can be no answer, then there is nothing more that has to be said. However, in this case, my pointing out was complemented by affirmative claims (such as "there is more to prayer than petition") which also invalidate the power of the original statement.
What I said was perfectly valid and properly backed up and my arguing prowess does not extend down anywhere near the level that you may have in mind.
I'm not really sure what you mean here. What you said was valid under the conditions which I outlined, but I explained that those conditions are not practical. You should deal with that before moving forward. Instead, you suggested what you thought I should say even though it is not a necessary (or relevant) direction of discussion.
So cut the deceptive rhetoric and make some form of argument unless of course you are avoiding the issue.
What in anything I have said is deceptive? How can pointing out a difference in definition of relevant terms be avoiding the issue.
Well, I do dare say that because of you record for deception and slithering around the issue because you know very well that the subject is 100% unwinnable in the negative.
I'm not sure what record of any deception you think you have. And to remind you, you are asserting the negative ("prayer does not work"). So if it is unwinnable in the negative, you have painted yourself into a corner.
Why don't you just try and be more up front in admitting that you have no valid argument...I mean; prayer working, ...you would have to be completely out of your head to believe that.
If you had been paying attention, you would have seen that my assertion is twofold:
1. Petitionary prayer is very difficult to measure in terms of "working" because "working" is ill-defined and there is no identical "non-prayer" control that can be compared to
2. non-petitionary prayer, by definition, works, because its goal is the completion of non-petitionary prayer
So, let's just put you out of your obvious misery and put an end to this roasting right now.
What roasting? You mean your repeating the same empty statements and thinking that repetition somehow creates rectitude?
You have lost the argument by default because you haven't even initiated an argument one way or the other in the first place let alone offered one. My argument stands unchallenged.
Closing your eyes and plugging your ears might let you convince yourself of this, but that's not a really effective way to hold a conversation.
You certainly won't get anywhere in life if all you do is sneer from the sidelines.
A nice epigram. Next time, find one that is relevant,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Tough, because you wrote it and you are a person.
But you don't know me as a person. So if you choose to judge and respond to me as an individual and not what I wrote, just understand the flaw in your thinking.
I'm not saying you are a bad person however picking holes in somebody else's argument by beating around the bush is not a good look.
First, finding flaws in someone's thinking and argument is a very useful and important rhetorical strategy. That you don't value it is strange as your method seems to be to find holes in MY argument without addressing the content. Second, if you think that all I'm doing is picking holes in an argument, then you don't understand how logical discourse develops.
What I am doing is encouraging you to make your own argument instead of trying to make fault of others.
Except I have and you have ignored it because it isn't in the form you want to see.
Otherwise, you leave yourself wide open to get roasted.
First, I really don't get personally touched by what anonymous handles on some web site say to or about me. Second, what you said wasn't even on point enough to be impactful on any level.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
<br>2. He will accuse you of dishonesty and imply your theism makes you untrustworthy.
Though I don't htink I'm being dishonest (factually or rhetorically) I can accept that I am untrustworthy. I have done nothing to earn any trust and people might not know me personally. But I want what I wrote to be judged, not me as a person. My position as a theist might also undercut anyone's interest in trusting me and my judgment, which is fine. If those are the grounds on which someone wants to interact, then I can't argue with that.
Created:
Posted in:
Great. Looking forward to it.OK, you asked for it. Now for the roasting.
Albeit that you made a series of direct statements, such direct statements account for diddly squat except to show off your ability to squirm around issues like a slimy worm and poke irrelevant holes in somebody else's (valid and reasoned) argument.
So, apparently, step 1 of "roasting" is to concede that your earlier inference that I had made no direct statement was wrong. So noted.
Now, in order to participate in intelligent social intercourse one needs to present an argument; a suggestion would be: "Prayer does work because..........."Or:if you wish to be a bit more colouful in your compelling argument: "The morgue in such a hospital would be no larger than a janitors closet because..........."Or:
Step two seems to be to complain because the direct statement made wasn't the one you wanted to hear. So instead of confronting the statement made, you suggest things that conform to your predetermined perspective. Got it.
(which is the most likely course) Simply carry on with your slimy worm, deceptive way neither effectively saying anything but making sneeringly veiled sideswipes at someone else's fair argument. In which case you will be roasted to a cinder.
Step 3? Call another position names but whatever you do, don't actually address what was said.
step 3a seems to be the repeated insistence that the original question is a "fair argument" without having to defend it against any challenge, simply because it is, by your insistence, a fair argument.
I can try to repeat my earlier position if you would like, and even use simpler words if you are having trouble keeping up:
Prayer's efficacy can only be measured if you
1. define prayer only as petition
2. quantify as successful petition only prayers where a "yes" (fulfillment) can be correlated positively and definitively
3. be able to establish a control which accounts for all variables even though this creates a logical impossibility (a flaw in many studies)
I often find that in these situations, people close their eyes when a conversation moves in a direction for which they are unequipped, and simply repeat their initial position. If the response doesn't meet them head on, but instead, asks for a clarification of terms, or introduces other dimensions of thought for which they are unprepared, they shut down, call names and dig their heels in. If that's your approach, as it appears it is, then feel free.
If this is your idea of "roasting" then I wouldn't want to eat dinner at your house, as the food won't be cooked at all.
I would welcome some sort of comment on what I actually said (you know, "content") but if you don't understand something, just ask. And if you don't like how I approach the issue, then say so, or move on. Don't feel required to try and respond if you have nothing constructive to say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Quite right. But one has of course not committed oneself to explaining exactly what the heck one is talking about.And of, course one should refrain from being generic or implicative in one's rhetoric and actually make a direct statement.Roast away.
I have made a series of direct statements which have to do with the nature of prayer and the failure of generic statistics to address the myriad variables and dimensions of meaning that prayer has in the real world. That you are on the other side of a particular divide so my particulars have no meaning is not indicative of their content, just of your position.
As to roasting, I have none to do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
And if one decides to start from a position and only understand argument from that particular perspective, one may find oneself looking to roast because he hasn't any other approach to conversation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Well, what I'm getting at is a flaw in the methodological approach to trying to prove the efficacy of prayer by looking at one dimension, one quantifiable answer and one variable assuming all else to be equal. While these definitions might satisfy your understanding of prayer and its effect, they are by no means a universal understanding.You are getting into the realm of "nothing is 100% provable" or "anything is possible" or "nothing can be ruled out" which for all intents and purposes are merely excuses in lieu of reasonable argument.The reasoned argument is that there is no proof whatsoever that prayer works and the evidence we have tends to favour the contrary. Also the overriding factor is the fact that there is not one scerrick of evidence to indicate the presence of God or any other supernatural entity to answer, let alone, act on prayers.
When you start by deciding that proof has to be measured by your personal standards, and those standards aren't met by any force not actually beholden to your sense, then the easiest thing to do is decide that the being, not your standards has failed.
Though I admit, I don't know the word "scerrik."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
<br>You are assuming or at least implying that there was a stilted notion and no control group which is not the case.In fact, the study revealed that there was a notable swing against prayers being answered since the respondents (in the case of praying for the health of themselves or loved ones) tended to develop anxiety over the pent up expectation.This tends to poo poo the idea that prayer has some sort of consoling or "placebo" effect.If I can find the survey I shall send it to you, the results are interesting.
Thanks - I have seen similar studies but again, it runs in to a couple of problems when trying to quantify the effect of prayer. It assumes all prayer is petitioning, it assumes that only answers of "yes" are measurable effect, and it assumes that one can compare "patient 35, prayer on Tuesday" with "patient 35 no prayer on Tuesday" even though it is impossible to have two opposite fact patterns empirically tested in a single universe.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Salixes
Hi and please excuse the clunkiness of my response -- I'm still fairly new to the interface.
--> How would you know that the request was successful because of prayer and not due to circumstances?
In my statement, I indicated that the simple conveyance of the request is, in certain contexts, a measure of success. If I can muster the faith required to speak to the object of belief, and, no matter how dire the circumstance, not abandon that belief, then isn't prayer successful in that it cements my connection to the object of belief? The content of the prayer is almost secondary. The praying is the success. If we measure success differently, we come to a decision about what satisfies that measure differently.
--> Similarly, how would you know that a prayer was denied and not simply due to circumstances?
Admittedly, interpreting nature and prayer requests is self-justifying. if I get no answer, I interpret the answer as "no." That's not satisfying if all you do is measure the success of prayer as "fulfilled petition." I don't.
--> It was found that there was no discernible difference whatsoever with the outcomes.
Yes, using a stilted notion of what prayer is and is supposed to do, with an impossible to prove set of standards. First, I could point out that prayer is not always asking anything. Then I could point out that sometimes, requests receiving a "no" are being answered. Then I could point out that there is no control group here because every case is unique so the only control might be "what would happen in this particular case if there was no prayer" and that becomes impossible to gauge when prayer is introduced.
--> In any case, whether or not prayer works is totally hypothetical since there is no God to answer prayers and the whole concept of prayer was devised as a tool for wishful thinking.
That is, indeed, your position and your evidence serves to justify that position so you should be comfortable with your position.
Created:
Posted in:
Deciding whether prayer "works" requires coming to terms with why one prays and what would, quantifiably, be considered "working."
If you see the function and form of prayer as synonymous with "request" and the measurable effect, the fulfillment of that request, then "prayer" does not work. Then again, neither does "asking" or "attempting to rob a liquor store."
But if you see a request as having been successful if it communicates a need, even if that request is denied, then prayer "works."
And if you see prayer as having uses beyond asking, and therefore, judged by metrics of success beyond "getting" (or even "convincingly not getting") then prayer's "working" can be assessed in completely different ways, having little to do with hospitals and morgues.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Moving to Israel is similar to taking an Ulpan course (a full immersion program), but neither will help you with biblical Hebrew, just with modern, conversational Hebrew.
Created:
Posted in:
The debate is a few minutes old. Opening statements. Ridiculous. Referring to Jesus as "yeshu" is actually very funny, but the mispronunciations of Hebrew and the misunderstanding of Jewish text don't help.
A central problem is the lack of agreed upon authoritative texts. Judaism rejects the gospels, so any attempt to validate claims by citing them as proof texts is an automatic fail. You can't decide what is the "Jewish messiah" if you ignore the theological construct that is Judaism. Debate over.
Sad, really. I'm out.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm not exactly sure what there is to debate. Just ask a Jew. We already have the answer. Anyone's trying to tell us that everything we know is wrong isn't going to be very productive. While it is nice that someone is going to go on youtube to "defend" our position, it seems sort of useless.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@disgusted
Well, more like requiring building codes and legal construction based on actual laws of a proper government and displacing Bedouins, then finding other places for them to live, but your version is cute.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@crossed
While the verb "destroy" might not be best in a direct-causation sense, certainly, a large number, by endorsing resolutions which condemn Israel irrationally, are aligning themselves with forces working to destroy Israel.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
1. It isn't a contradiction if you don't accept the Christian bible as remotely valid.
2. The Hebrew is tamei and tahor. They don't exactly mean "unclean." There is no real English word for those statuses.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You have yet to demonstrate any ignorance on my part. You have yet to show any wishful thinking as I have pointed out Jewish law and you have kept talking about your projections on and expectations of humanity. If you aren't going to stay on topic, at least try to make correct statements.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
"What has bearing upon this thread is your continued ignorance and wishful thinking upon the topic in question"
Yes, and the issue posed originally was regarding a religious juror finding someone guilty based on biblical prohibitions outside of the fact pattern of the case. I simply pointed out that as a religious Jew, I do not have that particular concern because Jewish law works differently. Sorry you can't handle staying on topic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Your claim that two positions are mutually exclusive is again your projecting. Some people are able to reconcile what you clearly can't. Having suffered a personal tragedy and being able to look at other people in light of US law need not be inevitably opposite. Of course, none of this has any bearing on the topic of this thread, but I expect nothing more from you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
You wrote "Let's say a few Jews that just moved to the USA from Israel are on a jury that is deciding upon 5 Muslims yelling “Allahu akbar” before brutally murdering an innocent Jewish family of a Father and mother, and 3 young children walking down the street! Therefore, you are purporting that a Jew on this jury will not let their personal beliefs and true feelings come forth towards the terrorist Muslim faction that committed these murders to this Jewish family? Yeah, right!"
You mistake what a Jew is instructed to do and what you think a person would do. If someone gets past voir dire it is because he is able to apply law without distraction by assessing the events. You create a hypothetical in which you insist that an individual on the jury will not judge the events but will embrace a lie because of personal reasons. I think you are projecting your own limitations. That's sad. I wish you healing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
When I was in court I simply made a promise under the threat of perjury laws. No bible was ever presented to me.
Also, in Judaism, if one is on a jury, one applies the laws of the country, no one's personal beliefs. Juries, though, are usually sat to decide questions of fact, not law -- simply which story is believable. The law applied flows directly from the version of events that the jury accepts.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I understand your position but I see it as coming from a view of the text in one particular light. Judaism understands the biblical text ad the complex legal system which it establishes to be much more than the isolated anecdotes. The particular incident with the stick gatherer is discussed within Judaism and understood by some to be much more than it appears
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
There are other punishments -- there are penalties and there is exile. I have to find the source for lashes but I suspect it is also biblical. Capital punishment was only one eventuality.
Created:
-->
@BrotherDThomas
I needed that laugh, thanks!
Created:
Ah, BroD, so nice to see you here!
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The issue of foreign wives is that of wives who would influence husbands and families away from Judaism -- religious belief and not (as was stated) ethnic background. There is a large stress on that genetic component because we are a small group and keeping our heritage alive and our identity distinct is important.
Here is some reading on that point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
The word "Jewish" isn't the place to start. We'll get there. Maybe...
We start with the (Orthodox) definition of "what is a Jew" -- a Jew is someone who has a Jewish mother or was subject to an approved conversion process.
The fact that there are these 2 methods indicates that the state of being a Jew is both genetic and not genetic(one can't convert into a gene pool). But AFTER conversion by a woman, the religion becomes genetic and is passed to her children. The term "ethnicity" is sociologically problematic.
Most Orthodox communities accept converts (some Syrian communities don't) but the process takes a long time. Because there is no pressing need for anyone to become Jewish, as non-Jews can get that heavenly reward for abiding by just those 7 laws, no one is encouraged to convert.
As to the word "Jewish" -- if it just means "being a Jew" then it has a strict correlation to the requirements listed above, but if it is a cultural signifier, it often is applied to things beyond the simple definition. So depending on how it is used, Jewish can be a religious identifier or something different/more.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
I'm no expert but there must be a height, so I guess any height relative to the landing location (a cliff, a pit, a house, I don't know) would qualify. The text mentions a pit but also a "beit skilah" which literally translated to the "house of stoning".
A person's prior acts are subject to sincere repentance. If, in the eyes of the court covering the conversion, his repentance is complete and thorough, then he can surely convert. But laws like this are not an area of expertise of mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@keithprosser
A variety of good questions!
One is that, according to Judaism, there are 7 universal laws that non-Jews are held to, and each has a broader application than just the simple meaning. So the law against "stealing" applies to what in Hebrew translated to "stealing of thoughts" which includes misleading someone. Also, the law about setting up courts includes notions of justice and fair play. Check here for more. As to whether anyone can stone the person, that depends on whether there is a viable religious court that exists and which has the power to carry out capital punishments. At this point, there is none. Also, the Jewish concept of stoning someone is a bit different from what people think. The talmud (Tractate Sanhedrin, folio 45) describes a 3 step process starting with pushing someone off of a building.
Created: