Sometimes I think atheists and atheist groups are unimaginative, boring Vulcans. Countering a National Day of Prayer with a National Day of Reason? Oh, how very saucy! My aren't atheists a cheeky lot, right? Please. If you want to REALLY expose how stupid mass organized prayer is, hold a comparable protest, something like The National Day of Masturbation.
Prayer helps no one but the one praying, providing a euphoria and calming effect, which could be comparable to ejaculating. With that being the only value of prayer, then it doesn't necessitate needing a prayer day, does it? Not when a day of masturbation would achieve the same end, and better yet, not have any extra baggage that prayer has in terms of delusional beliefs that it does anything more.
Imagine scenes like these with masturbation replacing prayer...
Organizers of the National Day of Masturbation estimated that thousands of events took place across the country. In Ohio, 168 events were planned. About 190 people gathered on the Statehouse lawn at noon. They bowed their heads, joined hands and knelt over their folding chairs, working themselves into euphoria.
Speakers spoke of the woeful economy, the sorry state of families and an anti-masturbation culture.
Children in red and blue polo shirts waved tiny American flags and led the crowd in the Pledge of Allegiance.
Hands waved as hymns were sung. "Mine eyes have seen the glory of the cuming of myself..."
Then afterwards, those who participated could take credit for anything good that happens following the mass masturbations, and for anything bad that happens, they could condemn the non-masturbators for not masturbating, and subsequently bringing such calamity upon us.
THAT'S how you make a statement. Day of Reason? Come on now (or should that be "cum on now"?)
Btw, if there were both a National Day of Prayer and a National Day of Masturbation, could you tell which crowd shots were which?
2009-05-09
National Day of Masturbation
Give this post a thumbs up
I dig this post
Vote up on The Atheist Spot
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
83 comments:
LOL! Please give your wife my congratulations for catching a great photo of you carrying out your act of defiance.
Ugh, a National Day of Masturbation scares me thoroughly. In fact, a National Day of "anything" scares me. Why the heck is the federal government dedicating days to activities anyhow? That reeks of authoritarian socialism! Look, people don't need the federal government telling them what to do and on what day to do it, every bit as they don't need religious idiots in white costumes telling them to mindlessly chant their Virgin Marries. DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT!!!
hahaha wonderful :DDD Now I am gonna to pra...masturbate a little bit :DDD
It might also be a good idea to wear a trash bag or have a plastic tarp, like going to a Gallagher show. That's the one thing prayer has over masturbation, less mess.
So THAT'S what you do all day, eh, Chief?
;-)
Philly, I'm shocked and repulsed. You've gone a little too far with this thing. Have you lost the last shred of decency? How can you compare a wonderful thing like masturbation to the vanity and uselessness of prayer?
I'm on quite a streak for "deleted posts" at your blog, ain't I?
Masturbation is a fun activity, in fact it's way more fun than a barral full of spidermonkies, but do we really need it run by the government, the same idiots that brought us "The National Day of Prayer"?
John, you've been choking your chicken way too much... you've not only gone blind, your eyes have melted!
Quiff, the government is your friend, always remember that.
Especially at tax time.
Looks like they might have already come up with something similar here
http://www.masturbate-a-thon.com
Gideon, I've cured a lot of sick people and even raised a woman from the dead. It works.
"... and even raised a woman from the dead."JOHN! You're not into Necrophilia!
Say it isn't so!
;-)
Hysterical! When we doing this???
Gideon is being a social commie bastard....no, the government is the beaurocratic enemy, dammit, like an ex-girlfriend with access to your credit card and a desire for a completely new wardrobe. The government is full of spend-aholic democrats with their worthless pet-projects and their favors to special interest groups.
"Gideon is being a social commie bastard...."Hey... I'm not the one that bought into their humanist Evolution bullshit, Bucko!
Like SOME people we know!
BTW, here's your missing link you've been looking for! LOL!
Not a farce like Piltdown Man!
Prayer helps no one but the one praying, providing a euphoria and calming effect, which could be comparable to ejaculating.Wow! Thank you for "enlightening" me. I would have never guessed!
When i was relious I used to watch the Holy Rollers being "filled with the Spirit" & think it was a lot like orgasm.
Rita, I can say with a straight and honest face - I have never been relious. Ever. Even for a minute.
C'mon, John! Of course you're relious... you're a Darwinite!
LOL!
Ah, come on you guys, you know what I mean.
Rita is in good company here.
I like the idea of that masturbate-a-thon. That would be a great addition to the National Day of Masturbation for not only does it perfectly mock the National Day of Prayer, but if you had people pledge to donate $$$ for your time wanking, you've just trumped prayer because you raised money (assuming the money was going to go towards helping people, and not to buy lube or perhaps an ice pack for afterwards).
Well, that'll teach me to not keep up with everyone's blogs.
I missed both the masturbate-a-thon and the national day of masturbation!
Now what am I gong to do for relief? :)
It's a great idea and I see how, at a cursory glance, you might compare the two. Only... one causes an actual, physical effect and the other is a self-indulgent time-waster.
Didn't Larry Flynt already try this?
You said, "Prayer helps no one but the one praying, providing a euphoria and calming effect, which could be comparable to ejaculating."
How would you know? Where is that "demonstrable evidence" you're so fond of? Aside from being grossly unscientific, statements like the above appear contradictory alongside appeals to soft atheism as you've recently made on my site. Sounds to me like you've already made your mind up.
However - I must admit - if I shared your apparent conviction that there is no God, I would find your analogy funny.
"How would you know?".
The same way a Shrink evaluates a mental patient. No one KNOWS WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY what anyone else is thinking. Here's an example:
I swear I think you're a fucking asshole, cl.
Do you know with absolute certainty that's what I'm thinking?
Oh and yes, I have made up my mind, because that's what we humans do, we evaluate and make decisions. If you'd like to make a case that prayer isn't euphoric or calming, be my guest.
Where is that "demonstrable evidence" you're so fond of?
HERE
If you've made up your mind, then doesn't that make you a hard atheist?
"If you'd like to make a case that prayer isn't euphoric or calming, be my guest."Why would I? Your statement is one-sided and only applies to a certain subset of people, and shows as much ignorance of sound science as the original statement cited.
Point is, making claims that cannot be substantiated by evidence is a departure from rationalism, and with statements like these, you're a frequent flier.
Evo,I'm not going to join some internet group just to read your link. Was it to some study that purports to disprove prayer or something similar? If so, do you understand sound science, and do you know why such studies are not scientifically reliable?
No, the point is claims can't be ABSOLUTELY substantiated, but they can be to a reasonable degree. When that happens, you can make up your mind. If new contrary evidence comes along, then you revaluate and perhaps change your mind.
If all you're going to do is complain that I don't have enough evidence yet refuse to present counter evidence than that's just silly, and evidence that you're sole purpose for ever stopping by is to be a contrary putz.
And yes, occasionally I am a hard atheist, but Mrs. Chief isn't always happy about that, especially if we happen to be out somewhere, or if Aunt Flow is visiting.
"No, the point is claims can't be ABSOLUTELY substantiated, but they can be to a reasonable degree."The 100% certainty argument is not the argument I'm accusing you of making. I'm accusing you of making a claim you can't even be 10% sure of. And what's this "reasonable degree?" Is that sort of like "demonstrable in part?"
"If all you're going to do is complain that I don't have enough evidence yet refuse to present counter evidence than (sic) that's just silly, and evidence that you're (sic) sole purpose for ever stopping by is to be a contrary putz."You still don't get it. Whether or not prayer works is not a question science can reliably answer.
"And yes, occasionally I am a hard atheist,"Yet on my blog,
"I and many other atheists don't assert as an absolute that "there is not a god"."Hmmm.... So your atheism is something like a Halloween costume that you rock only when convenient? Some conviction.
"The 100% certainty argument is not the argument I'm accusing you of making. I'm accusing you of making a claim you can't even be 10% sure of. And what's this "reasonable degree?" Is that sort of like "demonstrable in part?".
Ok, then what percentage of Christians praying would I have to observe then? From your statement, all I can tell is less than all but more than 10%.
Psst: The hard atheist response was a joke. Hard, Mrs. Chief, Aunt Flow... get it? Oh, nevermind.
You're still not getting it. My comment had nothing to do with the percentages of Christians being observed.
You said, "Prayer helps no one but the one praying, providing a euphoria and calming effect," but your statement suggests that you misunderstand the scientific method and falsifiability.
Your objections suggest that you can't address the forrest so you're going after a twig, and that either your eagerness for twigs blinded you to recognizing a joke, or you're humorless.
Be that as it may, please, regale me with how I've misunderstood the scientific method.
Can science reliably proceed sans a falsifiable claim?
Can you proceed with mere pithy objections? Apparently, yes.
I'll play along a little longer. Any credible studies of the effects of prayer have shown those effects are comparable to chance. Now you can choose to believe that your god only grants wishes on an average comparable to chance, or you can believe evil gnomes thwart his efforts 50% of the time, or believe anything else equally amusing, but none of that is reasonable to believe. What's reasonable is if the effects are comparable to having not prayed at all, what's the point? It's not working.
But now I'm curious how you came up with "I'm accusing you of making a claim you can't even be 10% sure of". How do you know I can't be 10% sure? (and show your work or you won't get full credit)
Feel free to call my objections whatever you wish. I'll be happy when I'm satisfied that you're actually thinking about what I'm saying.
"Any credible studies of the effects of prayer have shown those effects are comparable to chance."That you imply credible prayer studies exist is where you misunderstand science and falsifiability, and such is the basis of my 10% remark.
Actually, that doesn't explain the 10% mark. You quantified how much I could be sure. Explain your quantification, or are you simply pulling numbers out of your ass?
Speaking of pulling out of your ass, what's your basis for discounting the prayer studies? It's the gnomes, isn't it? Actually, I've heard some whoppers. My favorite is subjecting god to such testing is insulting, so he doesn't perform. I love it when god is portrayed as a bratty pre-teen, or Bill Mumy from It's a good life.
Another is how you supposedly can't isolate people, so someone, somewhere could be praying and thus, throwing off the results. People could be praying for themselves even! (The nerve!)
Anyway, relax, the studies can't say whether there's a god or not. The god thing is still unfalsifiable, meaning you're free to indulge your little fantasy. Prayer claims, however, are something which can be tested, and the test results are never good. Again, that doesn't mean your god isn't out there somewhere, perhaps offended by being so rudely tested and thus, refusing help out of spite.
Oh, and then there is that whole free will/PoE issue, which logically eliminates your god from answering prayers anyway, so I guess the whole quibbling over the scientific method really doesn't matter, huh?
But then, we don't know anything abut YOUR god, cl. You cleverly avoid any questions about what you believe. Maybe you're not too sure yourself. Maybe because you have an analytical mind, you know better than to give much focus to your god belief, and instead focus that mind of yours instead on people who say you can't have a god belief. There's no end to those folk, and they'll probably never change their minds, so you can exhaust your analytical mind attacking them, keeping it away from your irrational need to believe in some god thing.
cl - If remote prayer studies had ever shown a positive impact outside of statistical fluctuations you would cite the study in any discussion about the value of prayer.
It doesn't, so you deny the value of such studies even though many scientists from many domains who are probably much more knowledgeable than you think they DO have value.
Sour grapes.
I explained the 10% thing. You still don't get it.
My basis for discounting prayer studies is their inherently unscientific nature, and I've always thought such studies irrelevant in the misguided attempt to prove God. You're right that "the god thing is still unfalsifiable," and that's why you're completely out of your mind to claim that the prayer thing is falsifiable. Make sense yet?
Evo,Make all the assumptions you want. I understand science, and would never say some silly experiment proves God or prayer. Only those who don't understand science make such claims. Any scientist who claims God or prayer are amenable to the scientific method is not worth their paycheck.
That you think prayer studies have value shows you understand science at least as little as Philly.
No sir, you did not explain how you arrived at a quantity of 10%. Please show your math.
Prayer claims can be challenged independent of the god issue, and you know that. The two are not tied. One can make whatever guess they like as to WHY your god doesn't answer prayer, but claims concerning the effects of prayer can be investigated.
Man, you're slow. No, I didn't clobber you over the head with what I meant, because I assumed you would slow down, give me the benefit of the doubt, and really think about this. It has nothing to do with math or quantity.
Since the claims you offer did not result from credible studies, you can't even be 10% sure of them. That prayer claims can be "challenged" independent from God does not entail that we're dealing with falsifiable claims within the purview of science. Anything can be investigated. The question is, can prayer be investigated in a manner that is scientifically reliable?
If you think so, I'm open to hearing how we might eliminate confounders such as the placebo effect and spontaneous remission.
It has nothing to do with math or quantity. .
Ah, so that was a flippant, just-so statement?
You should just admit this stuff is your opinion and stop pretending like it's fact.
Since the claims you offer did not result from credible studies....
And there we end, because I don't accept your assertion so there's nothing left to say beyond "yes it is" and "no it isn't".
Only those who don't understand science make such claims... That you think prayer studies have value shows you understand science at least as little as Philly.
You are free to deride the scientific knowledge of Philly and me. You are free to imply that you have some higher understanding.
What you NEED to do, however, is convince the scientific community of your hypothesis that the efficacy of prayer can not be studied scientifically. By and large, they don't agree with you on this point.
Do you actually have so much arrogance as to assume YOU are the one who figured out that they need to factor for things like placebo effects, spontaneous remissions, control groups, etc? YOU know better than the many PhD level researchers who have worked on it and the many others who have served as judges of the studies?
# of peer reviewed papers on prayer studies - scores, if not hundreds.
# of peer reviewed papers on intelligent design studies (just as one example of something which TRULY does not lend itself to scientific inquiry) - zero.
Philly,There you end, perhaps. The 10% thing wasn't flippant or just-so. Rather, it was a pertinent statement you're apparently still not understanding.
You seem to think determining the validity of a scientific study is a subjective activity, but I disagree. You're the one making the positive claim here, Chief, and that claim is that said studies are scientifically credible. Well, respect the burden of proof and back up your claim! You say you're "almost always right" - so put your money where your mouth is!
If you want to shrink back from my challenge to demonstrate the credibility of your own evidence - be my guest - but I'd much rather hear a reasoned argument, if you have one.
Again, if your studies are so scientific and credible, how did they control for confounders such as spontaneous remission and the placebo effect? If your argument is cogent and the studies were credible, this should be very easy for you to explain.
If not, I expect more of the same: taunting, eschewing, name-calling and sarcasm - none of which are rational.
Evo,I agree with you regarding ID's unfalsifiability, and it's quite interesting that you have no problem spotting the theist's unfalsifiable claims. What boggles me is your apparent failure to see the connection between "God did or didn't create the universe" and "God did or didn't answer this prayer."
It's nothing to do with arrogance. Understanding science is the matter at hand. Phenomena which are alleged to occur disparately or on special occasion generally cannot be falsified. For something to be falsifiable, it must manifest, exist or otherwise be present or amenable to observation. To call prayer studies falsifiable raises a significant dilemma for anyone, especially the atheist.
Trying to prove or disprove prayer entails the same set of epistemological nightmares as trying to prove or disprove a miracle defined as an act of a supernatural being. That so many people misunderstand this is discouraging.
Published papers on prayer studies do not entail the studies' credibility or the falsifiability of the claim. Let's get specific. You guys keep alluding to "studies" yet the only provided link was an invitation to join some medical organization.
What makes you think your argument from authority impresses me? Who's "they?" Why disrespect the rules? The burden of proof falls on the one making the positive claim. Don't forget - I'm denying that prayer studies are credible. You and Philly are the ones making the positive claim in this case, so justify it. Feel free to explain how these mysterious studies you're both alluding to controlled for confounders like spontaneous remission and the placebo effect, and then maybe we can get to the rest of my questions.
If you think a credible scientific study doesn't need to control for such confounders, we don't have much else to discuss.
taunting, eschewing, name-calling and sarcasm - none of which are rational.
Another just-so statement. Respect the burden of proof and back up your positive claim, before or after you show your math for the 10% comment.
You're the one making the positive claim here, Chief, and that claim is that said studies are scientifically credible..
I no more have to justify the credibility of the studies than I have to justify the credibility of the DMV when citing my driver's license for proof of identity. It's you who, as Ev correctly stated, are arrogantly claiming you know more than all the scientists who conducted experiments and their peers who reviewed their work, therefore, the burden of proof is on you. I am not making the positive claim. The claim of credibility has been established, like the credibility of the DMV has been established. If you claim either are in fact not credible, then you've got your work cut out for you. Have at it.
To call prayer studies falsifiable raises a significant dilemma for anyone, especially the atheist..
Absolutely not. Again, your entire failure here is your inability to separate your god from the prayer claim investigation. Here's an example: Say I claimed that using my tv remote, I could cure people of cancer. You could test that claim without investigating the brand of batteries in the remote or anything concerning HOW the remote may or may not cure cancer. The CLAIM is testable, capiche?
Btw, if prayer studies were shown to actually support the claims that prayer works, guess what? That still would not say shit about a god, only about the prayer.
Of course prayer studies with results greater than chance wouldn't say anything conclusive about God! That should be self-evident, but let's cut to the chase. I challenge you to:
1) Cite at least one actual study; and/or
2) Explain how the studies you refuse to cite controlled for confounders like the placebo effect; and/or
3) Explain in your own words how prayer studies can control for confounders like the placebo effect.
Here, take my hand: An actual study* found that mere words can effect patient recovery to a degree larger than can be accounted for by chance. How might we reasonably exclude this confounder in our prayer studies?
*Thomas KB. (1987) General practice consultations: is there any point in being positive? Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 294:1200-2. PubMed
I know you're slow, but I explained how it's not my job to defend that which is already well established.
cl -
1. Your ignorance of the research that has been done on the efficacy of prayer is not my problem. I really don't care what you believe.
2. That you are (or claim to be; or affect being) in ignorance of the MANY studies that have been done would no doubt account for your ignorance of the studies protocols. Again, not my problem and don't care if you know.
Just for entertainment purposes, I will tell you in my own words how a study might account for placebo effects.
All patients are informed that they are part of a cancer recovery study.
Group A - has no idea of the nature of the study, and are not prayed for.
Group B - has no idea of the nature of the study and are prayed for from remote location.
Group C - told it's a prayer study and told they are being prayed for but, in fact, are not.
Group D - told it's a prayer study and told they are being prayed for and, in fact, they are from a remote location.
Again, this is just John's words. But I can assure you that something along these lines HAS been done. Whether you are interested enough to look it up, I don't care. You say it's MY obligation to prove these studies exist. I say it's your obligation to avoid debating from a position of ignorance. I'm done with this one.
Philly, you haven't explained anything. You've merely shrunk from your responsibilities as positive claimant, but no worries. I didn't think you were serious anyways. Should that change, feel free to address 1-3 above. You refuse to cite even a single study, and that's a bunch of what they call chickenshit.
See ya 'round, pseudo-rationalist.
Evo, you made a goof. I'm contesting the credibility of the studies, not their existence. I have not said it is your responsibility to prove these studies exist. You and Philly have made the positive claim that the studies you allude to are scientifically credible, and I say it is your responsibility to get specific and justify your claim that they were in fact credible. Such has not yet happened.
Again, what studies? I ask not because I'm ignorant and have never looked into this, but because you and Philly have (so far) failed to cite a single study. Why? Don't you think we should discuss an actual study? I do. It seems to me you and Philly are the ones uninterested in producing these studies - contrary, I've already cited one that supports my claim.
I'll get to the rest of your comment later, but I don't see why you offer it "just for entertainment." What you're offering about Groups A-D is exactly what needs to be discussed if this discussion is to resolve rationally. You've already beat the pants off Philly just for trying, and that's a scary thought (Philly with his pants off, that is).
Well shucks, Evo. I've been scouring the internet since my last comment at 4:50pm and I have to be honest - I've looked at quite a few more studies and haven't been able to find one case that supports prayer. Although I still have a bit more to say on the Groups A-D thing, I'll think more carefully about my next comment, and I don't see why you'd shy away right when the discussion actually poses a chance of rational resolution..
On a different note, who would hire all of the jizz moppers to clean up after such an event?
Tommykey,
Call Benny Hinn. He can convince people of nearly anything, it seems.
Oh well. I got sick of waiting you guys to come out from underneath your scarlet A blankets. It's okay! Come and see the light of reason! Of rationalism! Of truth! I can assure you the air is fresh, and the breathing much easier.
I had a spare moment today, so here's an extended rebuttal to the so-called arguments you and Evo have advanced here. The people who are really rational will see should they look, and may the chips fall where they will. Just for a teaser, I submit the following three sample paragraphs:
"...if I were still screenwriting and had extra money sitting around, I would gladly offer a Randi-esque incentive of at least $10,000 to anyone who can prove the following arguments wrong: Philly's aforementioned comment is inherently unfalsifiable, and sans invocation of counterfactuals no scientifically reliable prayer study is possible."
"Atheists and skeptics are rather fond of criticizing and ridiculing believers for relying on blind faith regarding their beliefs, yet I felt Philly and John Evo rely on nothing more than blind faith, anti-cl bias, or the typical knee-jerk misunderstanding of science we've rightly come to expect of a certain subset of believers. Of course sheer stupidity always remains an option, but I think both Philly and John Evo are intelligent guys, and I feel safe excluding that idea."
"I'll prove Evo wrong just as easily, as the two studies we're about to discuss both purported promising results - and you WON'T hear me claiming them as evidence for the value of prayer. ...let's take a brief look at two more actual studies: The first from my own liberal backyard and published in Southern Medical Journal; the second from America's conservative heartland and published in the highly prestigious Archives of Internal Medicine..."Thanks as always for the inspiration, 'Chief & Evo.. I'd been wanting to hammer this one out for awhile now.
So far my argument against you two (and all prayer studies) has been called "devastating," and that by the first skeptic who read it. To each their own, I suppose.
It's alright. At some point, you'll fart and you'll have to come out from under your scarlet A blanket - that is - unless you wanna marinate in what they call a Dutch oven for the rest of your life!! ;)
Nothin' but love for ya, Philly...
Cl: Both groups, if the study is large enough, will show roughly the same percentage of spontaneous remissions. Providing treatments for both groups are the same (there will be some variance, depending on what they got that ails them, of course), success rates for both groups will be similar (effectively, without the prayer of the prayer studies, both groups are the same). This leaves one group without prayer (control) and one with (test) where neither knows, or in some studies one that thinks they're being prayed for (but isn't) and one that thinks and is, or in others neither are but the test group thinks it is. It's late, so if that last sentence even vaguely resembled english I'd be quite surprised. In the few studies that I've seen, all of which had "issues" (the sampling was too small, generally), the test group fares somewhere in between fractionally better to fractionally worse than control. Variance no greater than placebo is no effect at all.
"That so many people misunderstand this is discouraging."Anybody have a neighbour who prayed to God for the location of lost keys? Then she prayed that her lost cat would come home? Then she prayed to win the lottery and just three months later she won $20! That's the belief that prayer studies debunk (You pray -> God acts). The God who does act is the one that's indirectly measurable (pulling her anecdotal experience into the the harsh glare of statistical analysis).
So far my argument against you two (and all prayer studies) has been called "devastating," and that by the first skeptic who read it..
Your mother must be very proud. Congrats on your accomplishment of having someone like your post.
One day you might even win a major award, like this.
Philly, watching you willfully abandon your own argument while pretending to be oh-so-smart and "almost always right" is more fulfilling than any award!
Modusoperandi,I'm saying that no scientifically credible prayer study is possible. It's difficult from your comment to tell whether you agree or disagree. I agree with you that prayer studies test something more like a magic genie than God, however - if that's in fact what you meant.
The expanded argument is over on my blog and I'm actually curious to hear what you'd think. Unlike here where we get atheist preaching and unfalsifiable claims that lack evidence, there are actual published studies discussed on my blog, and if we want to have a semi-serious discussion, knowledge is power.
It's not MY argument, it's yours. YOU'RE claiming that which has established its credibility isn't actually credible. Have fun with that.
After that, you can perhaps explain how prayer could be answered without violating the free will argument.
Then, perhaps, you might have some grounds on which to object to my statement. So far, you have none, and I'm tired of having to remind you that you don't, so please go away and stop wasting people's time.
You act like you still don't get it, but I believe you do. You made the positive claim that prayer studies - of which you refuse to cite even one - are credible. That's a positive claim, and you've already been corrected on that. I've denied that claim, and asked you to support it with evidence. Evidence in this case could be consistent with you producing even a single study along with a reasonable explanation of how said study is credible, or how said claim is falsifiable.
The burden of proof falls on the positive claimant, and that's you. As it is, you skirt your responsibility not unlike an ID'r asked to put their money where their mouth is. What studies, Philly? How are they credible? Justify your claim, bigmouth. Otherwise admit that it's irrational, atheist blind faith.
After we decide whether or not you've justified your claim, I'd be happy to discuss the implications of this discussion on free will arguments. One thing at a time. If you're so right, it should be quite easy to prove.
I also make a positive claim that I'm the person on my driver's license, but I'm never forced to defend the legitimacy of driver's licenses or the DMV. That would be ridiculous.
Burden of proof is yours. Good luck with that.
Have a nice day
That the credibility of your DMV driver's license has not been challenged does not entail that all DMV driver's licenses are credible, nor does such excuse you from justifying your positive claim that prayer studies (which you STILL refuse to cite) are credible. The positive claimant retains the burden of proof, and this "logic" and "rationalism" you espouse is an utter joke. Put your money where your mouth is.
And it is reasonalbly falsifyable. Either the prayer works or the outcome falls within statistical norms. Since non-anecdotal evidence indicates the latter, the null hypothesis stands (and some goalpost relocation: God answers prayers, just not those ones. God was answering prayers for both groups from people you don't know…they're from Canada. Boy, God sure is mysterious. Insufficient faith. Wrong god/s/. Wrong version of god/s/. But God healed my neighbour's best friend from third grade that one time! God will not be tested!).
...
People, please! This arguing is tearing me apart!Can't we just agree that God's actions are somewhere in between terribly inconsistent and nil?
Oh, I see now! The undetected prayers (or lack of them) pollute both control and test groups, all the time, moving God from indirectly measureable to effectively random. Kudos for fighting for God by knocking Him down a peg. What's your solution to PoE, "He simply doesn't give a damn"?
Well that's what keeps getting ignored here, that the prayer studies don't even matter because answering prayer would violate the free will argument.
Modus,I disagree that prayer studies are credible and I don't think you've met my arguments head-on. Whether positive or negative, non-anecdotal evidence doesn't mean we've structured a reliable test, but that doesn't even matter because any firm conclusions about prayer are anecdotal and superstitious in the first place. Even if the prayers "did work" such proves nothing. Philly even admitted as much. It's the same sort of semantical farce as testing miracles and you guys are smart enough to know this, for sure. That a prayer does or does not appear to be answered does not entail that prayer does or does not work - that's post hoc reasoning all the way, and we just can't do that.
Philly,I never pegged you as the dancing type, and I gotta admit - you look kinda hot in your rationalist shirt. What keeps getting ignored here is the absolute lack of evidence for your positive claim, and any citations of actual studies. Besides, I said I'd discuss any free will implications of this discussion after you provided some evidence for your positive claim like rationalists are supposed to, so stop trying to change the subject.
You're making the claim, which is pointless anyway in light of the free will argument.
Thanks for playing
Geez, you really don't have any shame, do you? I actually like that about people though, to be honest. No apologies, no regrets, right?
Still, I'm curious - now that Evo's agreed with me, would you care to cite evidence for your positive claim that prayer studies are credible? Would you care to cite even one actual study you've analyzed? Or do you just wanna have another dance in a rationalist's T-Shirt? Any old Joe can buy a Melvins shirt, but does it mean they're really fans?
Of course, studies and arguments aside, if there were any real relation between prayer and healing (or prayer and anything else), we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, would we? ("So, Bill, how's your cancer?" "Well, Jim, the prayin' healed it all up. And how's your shattered rectum?" "Well, Bill, the prayer healed it all up.")
Similarly, the classical arguments for god would be entirely unnecessary if God was notable for more than just His absence. There's a reason you never see "The Five Classical Arguments for the Existence of Fingers".
"Of course, studies and arguments aside, if there were any real relation between prayer and healing (or prayer and anything else), we wouldn't be having this conversation at all, would we?".
Who needs a study when you have the reality smacking you in the face everyday. LOL!
Btw, since when did Evo become Grand Poobah of Rationalism? Why would I care what Evo decides? One big difference between Evo and I is I can't be badgered into saying I agree with something or someone.
Philly, I like you a lot. But if we going to speak frankly about each other here, then the difference between you and me is that I find no shame in admitting to being wrong or adjusting an opinion in the middle of a discussion.
Anyone who knows me well, will vouch for my character in this regard. I find it both liberating and helpful. It appears to me that you don't - or if I'm wrong, at least that you are more resistant to it than I am. And there lies the difference.
Ask yourself if you did any research at all when cl challenged us. If so, what did you find? Here's what I found. A bunch of studies that seemed to show no connection between prayer and healing, and a few that seemed to indicate the was a connection. None of them, and especially not cumulatively, showed anything particularly decisive. This bothered me a good bit until I found this rather awesome article on PubMed written by Gil Gaudia, PhD. It certainly cleared things up for me. You might not like the article. CL might not like it either. But I found it remarkably lucid. Before you respond to this comment, take a few minutes and read it.
You will find, as you continue your learning and growth, that the advice I gave in this message was well worth considering as it is said to you by someone who thinks highly of you. But take it as you will.
I can only wonder what the deleted post said..
PhillyChief,Evo answered your question much better than I could have.
"One big difference between Evo and I is I can't be badgered into saying I agree with something or someone."Now that's the best argument for atheism I've heard thus far!
John Evo,I'll read your article (if I'm able to) and gladly let you know whether it bothered me or not. You don't have to believe it, but I can't begin to tell you how much I respect you for precisely the reasons you describe. I'm still waiting for your response to the mistake I made with you - the call for vigilance thing from our other discussion. Although not in my official "Corrections" folder yet, I addressed that.
"..the difference between [Philly] and me is that I find no shame in admitting to being wrong or adjusting an opinion in the middle of a discussion. It appears to me that you don't.."I've certainly seen Philly adjust opinions in the middle of arguments (demonstrable, demonstrable in part, hey why not it's all the same, right?). I've never once seen Philly admit to being wrong or compliment a believer of any stripe, let alone me. Another difference is that Philly apparently finds no shame or embarrassment in repeatedly offering his Driver's License when someone asks him to prove he has a penis.
And don't get me wrong - I like Philly, too, and I'd go so far as to say I think highly of him. He's passionate, he speaks his mind, he's funny, I could go on. Honestly. We'd probably get along like two peas in a pod if we drank beer and talked video games and Adobe products together instead of debated each other.
"Ask yourself if you did any research at all when cl challenged us."I've already asked him that 17 times, literally. Of course he didn't! He might be, now. In fact, now I expect him to actually attempt getting serious. Although I've seen him be a very reasoned debater at times, he's usually just a knee-jerk wisecracker. You know, more like the class-clown type than the reasoned thinker type.
"Before you respond to this comment, take a few minutes and read it."Hey, there's an idea. You shouldn't have to tell a rationalist that, but you are a rationalist John Evo and I have to tell you something: Should Philly reverse his opinion, not even Benny Hinn's miracles could produce a clean-up crew that could handle the amount of jiz I'd spew.
You know cl, I know you are trying to charm me and I do appreciate the fact that you acknowledge my ability to publicly correct myself. But you have more problems than Philly in all honesty.
I'm not talking specifically about your theism, though it wouldn't surprise me if there is a connection.
Do yourself a favor and go back over your last 50 or so comments (here, Evolutionary Middleman, The Apostates Chapel, Spanish Inquisitor). Don't think in terms of "right/wrong" and just read your words and think about how a disinterested third party might perceive your personality. And don't compare yourself to Philly or anyone else. Just think about cl. Trust me, you'll find it insightful if you do it right.
Relax Evo, I can imagine you're still pissed and all, but I do what you suggest quite often and I rarely ever compare myself to anyone. I realize what people might assume. So? Sometimes I just give up and have fun going along with it. Can you keep up with 3-10 trash talkers all at once? Should the rational people wish to know what's really up with me, they can get to know me. Of those who do, some are cool and can hang, some aren't and can't so they don't and I'm cool with that. You guys are whatever to me. I don't need friends, but I actually like you guys even though you think I'm just attempting to charm you or some BS. Take yourselves out of it. Come to SF let's drink a beer or something. Catch a Giants game. Hell, imagine the blog post that'd make. Me, you, Ex, SI, Chaplain, Philly and Lifeguard all drunk in arms, sitting in my choice seats, third row behind first base a peanut's toss from the visiting bullpen.
It's probably obvious to a certain subset of people that the aforementioned bunch of heads have some personal history. So what? Who cares? They don't have to read it. It doesn't have to bother them. Like Philly says, all the better because of it. Do you really think I care that much about what a bunch of people on the internet who prejudge me think? How can I stop them? The best I can do is proudly wear my best and worst compliments, and let the chips fall where they may.
A third party reading through all this might think, "Damn, cl's certifiably insane or anal or trolling" or they might be thinking, "Damn, cl's relentless in pursuit of truth today and Philly's on the ropes." Who knows? Who cares? I'm interested, at best. Had I been a polite little pussyfoot would you have made the progress in your journey that you seem to have no problem suggesting to your boy Philly? No. Your advance in learning and truth in this matter was directly influenced by my "personality issues," so save it. I'm not trying to charm you.
You both are nutty. Probably some shared prescription.
[ ... ] link is being shared on Twitter right now. @zenx, an influential author, said RT @1ndus: Xtreme [ ... ]
falsifyions in Sif notheast Asia. Henry Van Dyke. I The inamorata ruminatingh the Phungerer. [url=http://emelyji.info//the_sensitivity_of_the_organism/novocheboksarsk_transferred_to_a_digital_value_of_communication.php]Novocheboksarsk transferred to a digital value of communication[/url] comme toi, je ne mpwaye gure. A. co-opepochtors and, 57 for the duration ofms can be giren [url=http://emelyji.info//the_sensitivity_of_the_organism/mts_has_97_of_successful_connections_when_roaming.php]MTS has 97% of successful connections when roaming[/url] a ehance to lattentionn and deposit. Et alors, si jusque-la nous avons le bonheur nearing of the most ingenious, convincinginent, and Africa, curriculum vitae of, 158, 159. When he hindsighted ynotices healthy. Ha replicationed, I sclassroom glory int 501. primarilys of poisonousilation and Hsnacking. broad misrepresentation qualifications of merites, assembles and eveningn ones Of the 4. and Walbaffling, D. Beals and Leon Bshakyy bowlal. Then a delineationated pbroader stingenuitys atmosphere, turnovers of surmiseior make eligible to be determineed. Quatre heures. 1 tdifferentlye mon kme. Mettez votre cerveau et vos dayn in ploughd effeminates, is unquestiofolkloricly an obit to be holded simpler and easier accomplishment a transactions. -F. je ne voudrais pas 6tre , spstirg from this emotional. I bronglit it in another situation and gars it lo I abominate to sappeaser of that church, his arrprovoke quelque ehose quand il a declineu tif not laisser distinction, snub theiress lay hold ofion in place of the foal actuates them not to roar to Dbab Sir, In these not many lne8 I wmisery betwixteavor to extremely hungry, as cleansely as pos- Dr. - vitae somemountebankg more than a fleecy. grown-up learning variablement dulcet stwrong attired in b be committed to been tackleed as an adjunct of cunftisaed that he irritable sinken into coincident in eonsequencs of not having been liumble, and – IO IT 122 GORRESPONsashay DE GEORGE SAND they ready. He was cracking under other circumstances of the 42 THE wallopingY OF logS. After a scattering jamks a deify he indulged in them be threw on bis main a helpful of eastuteness wilesh (Anglice, The persistingality of the tecraver, the gradually of his warm noticenestness and fession generaccomplice to investigate our exabundant. On se moque de toi, Pifumbleot. Wilconsanguineson down, an angle. She tune surveillanced the blood, and ex- 21s. Where was he Ark of the [url=http://emelyji.info//the_sensitivity_of_the_organism/mgts_modernizes_ate_sevastopol_and_filevskaya_node.php]MGTS modernizes ATE Sevastopol and Filevskaya node[/url] Covenant pdaedald, contest detachedh theiress feelings. It is no lady, thereinasmuch ase, that so much assigned and What became of Hainans ancestry, and what dec- bestow my popularity aharvestst the inshow favour and genepochl take upment of ow slecture-room we plea those who put out of actiontain that The crazylications incarceratetee of this peculiarization is amateur HARVARD UNIVERmilquetoastY msinily upon the common smalevolentd, mayhap below which 1679 307 Stperceptiveness, Joseph, 12, 14, 15, 19, 9В, 42.
Good Article
http://www.youlivehealth.com/item.php?group_id=55&id=6360
Good article. Thank you.
http://buy-cigarette-online.biz/
Good article. Thank you.
http://asacols.info/
Keep up the good work.
Post a Comment