Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2013, 03:49 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
If you're talking about the power of prayer, the research shows that intercessory prayer, at least, has no statistically significant effect on healing or recovery for those injured; but there is at least one statistically significant case where prayer actually made patients' condition worse, possibly due to a sort of "performance anxiety"; the stress of trying to live up to the prayers of loved ones.


The reason the god theory cannot be used as the null hypothesis is because god does not meet the C. criterion for a theory: there are no testable predictions made by the god claim. Sure, the god claim explains all facts, because it's a capricious, omnipotent, omniscient being; it can explain anything. But there is nothing that you can say along the lines of, "If god exists, then X will be true. If we test X and it turns out NOT to be true, then god does not exist." Because if X is tested and shown to be false, then the god proponents can claim, "Well god just interfered with the experiment because he didn't *want* to be proved to exist." In other words, god is non-falsifiable. There's no way to test the god claim, so it cannot ever be a scientifically valid theory unless this god shows itself and allows itself to be submitted to testing. This has not happened. So god is not scientific.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Phaedrus's post
26-02-2013, 03:54 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I don't know which questions you are referring to, as none of Phaedrus' posts are above yours. Could you please restate them?
Just did, Phaedros is saying we're in a psychological realm with Christian testimony and a third party stripped of personal bias must verify. How can this be accomplished with a mystery religion (and that interaction between God and mind denied apart from special knowledge)?
Quote:Anecdotal evidence is irrelevant, what matters is whether or not there is empirical date to support either side. As far as I know, no study concerning the effectiveness of prayer has ever concluded that there is a direct correlation between praying for X and X happening. You should feel free to show me that I'm wrong about this.
I take it then (and I'll try to find that study on medical recovery and prayer) that ONLY laboratory study meets your three criteria? That's why I asked. Further, you accepted empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic; however, you are tossing out anecdotal experience, is that right? The God of the church has to come to a laboratory? I'm not discounting what you're saying, just asking...
Quote:I don't know about other atheists on this forum, but I for one neither deny the possibility of a "judgment day", nor do I claim to have special knowledge.

I'm still waiting for your visual and auditory evidence, by the way. Why the delay?
Please continue to patiently wait until we've defined what terms you will accept so I'm sure to put my best foot forward as well as understand empirically that we both exist. Smile And you do claim special knowledge if you're an Atheist. I apologize, I never knew, Vosur, you were Agnostic. Thank you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 03:56 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 09:06 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Heart patients fare worse when prayed for:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/200...133554.htm
There is no proof of anything. It's not testable, scientifically. The SAME situation will never recurr, thus replicating any result is impossible.
Telling/asking a god to change it's mind, proves that the god is not omniscient, AND that it operates in spacetime, both of which disproves it's existence. SPJ is such a "philosophical" baby.
http://debunkingcreationism.blogspot.com...ersal.html

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-02-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 03:54 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Please continue to patiently wait until we've defined what terms you will accept so I'm sure to put my best foot forward as well as understand empirically that we both exist. Smile And you do claim special knowledge if you're an Atheist. I apologize, I never knew, Vosur, you were Agnostic. Thank you.

Wait patiently? It's been 35 pages of you dodging. Why must you be intellectually dishonest and pretend you have evidence?

Anyone that doesn't believe a god exists is an atheist. Playing with the term agnostic doesn't change anything. Agnostic simply means we don't claim certainty that no god exists, which is the opposite of what you do. You claim a god exists, and you even claim to have evidence that supports that claim. So give the evidence and be done with it.

(several more pages of dodging)

and see, there is no evidence. Just a silly man trying to justify his unjustified supernatural nonsensical wishful thinking belief in a god. Intellectual dishonesty is a most repulsive trait.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
26-02-2013, 04:04 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 03:18 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I agree with your definition of superstition and coincidence. However, a God system is not a closed system.

Prayer is superstition. Its the idea that if you do/say X then some cosmic force gives you Y. And you get Y because you said X.

Unless your god operates the same way as a vending machine where you put in a prayer and you get chocolate out.

Behold the power of the force!
[Image: fgYtjtY.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes FSM_scot's post
26-02-2013, 04:07 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 04:18 PM by kim.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 03:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:Possibilism. <-- Not a word.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actual...ilism.html

Yes... and you just go on with your lil' pink unicorn believing self. Shy


________
Sorry, you didn't wait for my edit. --> At least not in the context in which you used it. Of course, it's just more proof that masturbating to problematic, idiosyncratic horse shit seems to be your speciality.

Use your fucking brain and think for yourself.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 04:16 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 03:54 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Just did, Phaedros is saying we're in a psychological realm with Christian testimony and a third party stripped of personal bias must verify. How can this be accomplished with a mystery religion (and that interaction between God and mind denied apart from special knowledge)?
You're asking the wrong person then, since Phaedrus is the one who said that, not me.

(26-02-2013 03:54 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  I take it then (and I'll try to find that study on medical recovery and prayer) that ONLY laboratory study meets your three criteria? That's why I asked.
That depends. If you're using this definition of "laboratory study", my answer would be "no", because research can be conducted outside of a laboratory as well.

(26-02-2013 03:54 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Further, you accepted empirical = based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic; however, you are tossing out anecdotal experience, is that right? The God of the church has to come to a laboratory? I'm not discounting what you're saying, just asking...
I'm tossing out anecdotal accounts precisely because they are anecdotal.

anecdotal
Syllabification: (an·ec·do·tal)
Pronunciation: /ˌanikˈdōtl/
adjective
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research

(26-02-2013 03:54 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Please continue to patiently wait until we've defined what terms you will accept so I'm sure to put my best foot forward as well as understand empirically that we both exist. Smile
I was under the impression that we have already done that. I have defined the terms of what I accept as true and you have said that you are willing to admit that I and others have proven our existence by meeting the specified criteria.

(26-02-2013 03:54 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  And you do claim special knowledge if you're an Atheist. I apologize, I never knew, Vosur, you were Agnostic. Thank you.
Not necessarily. If you are a gnostic atheists, then yes, you certainly do claim special knowledge, but so does a gnostic theist.

As I and many others on this forum have said numerous times, we are agnostic atheists, since a/gnosticism and a/theism are in no way mutually exclusive. While the former is a position concerning knowledge, the latter is a position concerning belief. The following image illustrates this distinction neatly:

[Image: nb2mO.jpg]

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vosur's post
26-02-2013, 09:12 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 04:07 PM)kim Wrote:  
(26-02-2013 03:34 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/actual...ilism.html

Yes... and you just go on with your lil' pink unicorn believing self. Shy


________
Sorry, you didn't wait for my edit. --> At least not in the context in which you used it. Of course, it's just more proof that masturbating to problematic, idiosyncratic horse shit seems to be your speciality.

Use your fucking brain and think for yourself.

Possibilianism is a word.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism
http://www.metafilter.com/90908/David-Ea...t-position
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkANniH8XZE
(He debunks "free will" BTW).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQab6oHWgrY

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2013, 09:38 PM (This post was last modified: 27-02-2013 09:13 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(26-02-2013 02:09 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:I teach geology, and I don't teach from Wikipedia. I have held rocks in my hand that are derived from the mantle. I own a piece of rock from the earliest ocean life. I work in a building where fossils and rock samples abound. I personally know and have access to mass spectrometers (of varying types) with which I could do radiometric sampling on (not my area of research but I do other isotopes). You got offended when someone generalized about you, but you are enough of a hypocrite to think it fine when you generalize about someone else?

Still ignoring everything else too? Really? I mean, I had given up hope you would ever return to the Faith thread and had even given up hope you would address some of my more recent replies in this thread, but to literally take the bit about the age and ignore everything else is getting ridiculous.

I don't throw this around much but, you are a troll and I have wasted enough time. The ignore function exists for a reason, and I shall execute its purpose with you.
I've already conceded that the age of the Earth is as old as you say. Nor did I ever state the 5,000-year GARBAGE you threw in my face. The Earth could be 40 B years old for all I care. What does that have to do with the likelihood of Evolution or the inaccuracy/accuracy of the Bible? The Bible does not state the age of the Earth, regardless of mass spectrometry or Bishop Usher...!

Feel free to put me on ignore if you're going to use straw men. At least Vosur and others ask good questions. But if you feel I've ignored you, I hardly have. I've responded to dozens of your posts and you're responded selectively to my questions...

There are countless examples of inaccuracy in the Bible.
Only the deluded deny it. Even conservative seminary professors have admitted it.
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html
Archaeology has disproven most of the mythological era claims in the OT. (Friedman et all), among MANY others. SPJ knows next to nothing about the Bible, as he has proven, over and over, (starting with his "prophesy" garbage).

SA Austin ? What a fucking joke. PhD in the 1970's. Knows nothing about the Bible, yet without saying a WORD about how, or why, asserts that Mt St. Helen's changes the way we should look at things. ??? Hahahaha
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/are...austin.asp
This article is irrelevant, and proves or says nothing about anything to support your point. Just "filler", as deflection attempt.
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/37/10/895.abstract
As is this : http://www.sciencemag.org/content/271/52...5.abstract
Irrelevant. There is no statement or evidence presented that the age of the Earth or anything in the Bible is supported in any way, or the scientific view of the gradual formation of the Earth and rock layers in any way changed by this, or these. articles. And you have failed to point out how or why, or what they DO say to change anything, or why in any way these articles support a Creationist or Bibical view. In fact we know that the writers who assembled Genesis in the Babylonian Exile knew NOTHING more than the culture of their day about what they wrote, and where they got what they wrote.
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ation+myth No one claimed it was "inerrant" or "inspired" until MANY centuries AFTER the traditions were assembled, (the Documantary Hypothesis, which is accpeted by almost all scholars, including the most conservative ones).
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ment+Texts

And the radiometic, (the isotopic), dating systems agree with tree rings, bones, and are separate systems, and they all basically agree. You say they don't, but don't bother to say how, or why or explain anything. Just unsupported bunk. Apparently you aren't up to this task. The real question is what made you think you were going to change anyone's mind here, or know what you're talking about ? Apparently you don't. You certainly know almost next to nothing about academic Biblical Studies, and basic science.

Nice try. Try harder, SexuallyPleasingJebus.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-02-2013, 09:49 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2013 10:03 PM by WeAreTheCosmos.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
I wonder, if someone here physically assaulted PJ... Would he have a hard time believing their existence? Would he tell the cops that it might have been god who slapped him, or that he may have slapped himself?

I think it would be funny if PJ had to prove that WE exist.

Unfortunately, I can't do it, I'm non-violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WeAreTheCosmos's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: