The_Metatron wrote:Rubbish. Either they were bullshitting about the years of pain, or they're bullshitting about the instant relief from it.

Curious how each and every one of these "miracles" fails to involve, say, lung cancer. Yet, we still have oncologists.

Like I said, remove the ambiguity, and prayer does nothing.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting.

I've seen anecdotes first-hand. I still don't accept them as evidence for anything beyond humankind's natural gifts for bias, rationalizing, and confabulating.

Well I do have first-hand knowledge of these ‘miracles’, but as you’ve stated, that is nowhere near the entry level of proof.

The problem here (from an atheist’s POV), is that logic, reasoning and an intellectual discussion of why religion is bunk will fall on deaf ears when the person has ‘proof positive’ of God’s healing powers. If one has endured years of pain and then in an instant God heals them, they are not about to turn their back on God.

If they denounce God then they’ll go back to having that pain since they only received their ‘cure’ through the Grace of God and by having unshakeable faith in Him. (A technical note: actually it was Jesus that did it since He was our advocate for God.)

Religious fanatics (I was once one) are a very hard nut to crack because they have ‘living proof’ (in their eyes) that God is real and present in their lives.

I'm married to a devoutly religious woman. I understand the extent to which rampant confirmation bias can have religious people ascribing all sorts of coincidences and human efforts to divine intervention. This tendency toward rampant confirmation bias weakens, and does not strengthen, your position when you say things like, "I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting."

No, you most likely have not. You have seen lucky coincidences and/or human efforts attributed to divine intervention, and you have fallen victim to the same confirmation bias when you forgot the misses. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence from a reasonable and fairly applied standard for evidence. There isn't even any evidence, let alone proof, that prayer does anything, when one works to avoid bias. And if prayer only works when you're biased, then it probably does not work at all.

Well I do have first-hand knowledge of these ‘miracles’, but as you’ve stated, that is nowhere near the entry level of proof.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
I've seen anecdotes first-hand. I still don't accept them as evidence for anything beyond humankind's natural gifts for bias, rationalizing, and confabulating.

Well I do have first-hand knowledge of these ‘miracles’, but as you’ve stated, that is nowhere near the entry level of proof.

The problem here (from an atheist’s POV), is that logic, reasoning and an intellectual discussion of why religion is bunk will fall on deaf ears when the person has ‘proof positive’ of God’s healing powers. If one has endured years of pain and then in an instant God heals them, they are not about to turn their back on God.

If they denounce God then they’ll go back to having that pain since they only received their ‘cure’ through the Grace of God and by having unshakeable faith in Him. (A technical note: actually it was Jesus that did it since He was our advocate for God.)

Religious fanatics (I was once one) are a very hard nut to crack because they have ‘living proof’ (in their eyes) that God is real and present in their lives.

I'm married to a devoutly religious woman. I understand the extent to which rampant confirmation bias can have religious people ascribing all sorts of coincidences and human efforts to divine intervention. This tendency toward rampant confirmation bias weakens, and does not strengthen, your position when you say things like, "I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting."

No, you most likely have not. You have seen lucky coincidences and/or human efforts attributed to divine intervention, and you have fallen victim to the same confirmation bias when you forgot the misses. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence from a reasonable and fairly applied standard for evidence. There isn't even any evidence, let alone proof, that prayer does anything, when one works to avoid bias. And if prayer only works when you're biased, then it probably does not work at all.

A coincidence would only be once in awhile, or sporadic at best. I witnessed far too many ‘cures’ to ascribe it to coincidence.

As far as your misses is concerned, I don’t know to what degree her religious belief takes her, but the criteria for receiving healing is extremely high. It is not handed to one on a silver platter. It takes years of dedication and service (plus faith that could move a mountain) before one can even hope for a (so-called) cure.

I don’t want to preach so I won’t list the criteria.

I also said up-thread:

Well I do have first-hand knowledge of these ‘miracles’, but as you’ve stated, that is nowhere near the entry level of proof.

I’m not trying to say that I have proof and/or evidence that would withstand even the mildest examination; however, I am saying that I’ve seen these cures with my own eyes far too many times to discount that they don't work (regardless of the reason or mechanism behind them).

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
I've seen anecdotes first-hand. I still don't accept them as evidence for anything beyond humankind's natural gifts for bias, rationalizing, and confabulating.

Well I do have first-hand knowledge of these ‘miracles’, but as you’ve stated, that is nowhere near the entry level of proof.

The problem here (from an atheist’s POV), is that logic, reasoning and an intellectual discussion of why religion is bunk will fall on deaf ears when the person has ‘proof positive’ of God’s healing powers. If one has endured years of pain and then in an instant God heals them, they are not about to turn their back on God.

If they denounce God then they’ll go back to having that pain since they only received their ‘cure’ through the Grace of God and by having unshakeable faith in Him. (A technical note: actually it was Jesus that did it since He was our advocate for God.)

Religious fanatics (I was once one) are a very hard nut to crack because they have ‘living proof’ (in their eyes) that God is real and present in their lives.

I'm married to a devoutly religious woman. I understand the extent to which rampant confirmation bias can have religious people ascribing all sorts of coincidences and human efforts to divine intervention. This tendency toward rampant confirmation bias weakens, and does not strengthen, your position when you say things like, "I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting."

No, you most likely have not. You have seen lucky coincidences and/or human efforts attributed to divine intervention, and you have fallen victim to the same confirmation bias when you forgot the misses. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence from a reasonable and fairly applied standard for evidence. There isn't even any evidence, let alone proof, that prayer does anything, when one works to avoid bias. And if prayer only works when you're biased, then it probably does not work at all.

This suggests that more that coincidence is afoot.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Well I do have first-hand knowledge of these ‘miracles’, but as you’ve stated, that is nowhere near the entry level of proof.

The problem here (from an atheist’s POV), is that logic, reasoning and an intellectual discussion of why religion is bunk will fall on deaf ears when the person has ‘proof positive’ of God’s healing powers. If one has endured years of pain and then in an instant God heals them, they are not about to turn their back on God.

If they denounce God then they’ll go back to having that pain since they only received their ‘cure’ through the Grace of God and by having unshakeable faith in Him. (A technical note: actually it was Jesus that did it since He was our advocate for God.)

Religious fanatics (I was once one) are a very hard nut to crack because they have ‘living proof’ (in their eyes) that God is real and present in their lives.

I'm married to a devoutly religious woman. I understand the extent to which rampant confirmation bias can have religious people ascribing all sorts of coincidences and human efforts to divine intervention. This tendency toward rampant confirmation bias weakens, and does not strengthen, your position when you say things like, "I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting."

No, you most likely have not. You have seen lucky coincidences and/or human efforts attributed to divine intervention, and you have fallen victim to the same confirmation bias when you forgot the misses. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence from a reasonable and fairly applied standard for evidence. There isn't even any evidence, let alone proof, that prayer does anything, when one works to avoid bias. And if prayer only works when you're biased, then it probably does not work at all.

This suggests that more that coincidence is afoot.

It really does not.

I totally believe God spoke the Universe into existence, whether that was a bang or totally silent, we do not know. I don't really care if it made noise or not. "Bang" is an onomatopoeia that implies noise or sound, which is not known.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Well I do have first-hand knowledge of these ‘miracles’, but as you’ve stated, that is nowhere near the entry level of proof.

The problem here (from an atheist’s POV), is that logic, reasoning and an intellectual discussion of why religion is bunk will fall on deaf ears when the person has ‘proof positive’ of God’s healing powers. If one has endured years of pain and then in an instant God heals them, they are not about to turn their back on God.

If they denounce God then they’ll go back to having that pain since they only received their ‘cure’ through the Grace of God and by having unshakeable faith in Him. (A technical note: actually it was Jesus that did it since He was our advocate for God.)

Religious fanatics (I was once one) are a very hard nut to crack because they have ‘living proof’ (in their eyes) that God is real and present in their lives.

I'm married to a devoutly religious woman. I understand the extent to which rampant confirmation bias can have religious people ascribing all sorts of coincidences and human efforts to divine intervention. This tendency toward rampant confirmation bias weakens, and does not strengthen, your position when you say things like, "I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting."

No, you most likely have not. You have seen lucky coincidences and/or human efforts attributed to divine intervention, and you have fallen victim to the same confirmation bias when you forgot the misses. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence from a reasonable and fairly applied standard for evidence. There isn't even any evidence, let alone proof, that prayer does anything, when one works to avoid bias. And if prayer only works when you're biased, then it probably does not work at all.

This suggests that more that coincidence is afoot.

It really does not.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Science Proves the Healing Power of Prayer

Does seem to go further than a suggestion. I stand corrected.

John Platko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
I'm married to a devoutly religious woman. I understand the extent to which rampant confirmation bias can have religious people ascribing all sorts of coincidences and human efforts to divine intervention. This tendency toward rampant confirmation bias weakens, and does not strengthen, your position when you say things like, "I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting."

No, you most likely have not. You have seen lucky coincidences and/or human efforts attributed to divine intervention, and you have fallen victim to the same confirmation bias when you forgot the misses. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence from a reasonable and fairly applied standard for evidence. There isn't even any evidence, let alone proof, that prayer does anything, when one works to avoid bias. And if prayer only works when you're biased, then it probably does not work at all.

This suggests that more that coincidence is afoot.

It really does not.

Well you may be right this time, Thomas.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Science Proves the Healing Power of Prayer

Does seem to go further than a suggestion. I stand corrected.

“Studies have shown prayer can prevent people from getting sick — and when they do get sick, prayer can help them get better faster,” Duke University’s Harold G. Koenig, M.D., tells Newsmax Health.

John Platko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:
I'm married to a devoutly religious woman. I understand the extent to which rampant confirmation bias can have religious people ascribing all sorts of coincidences and human efforts to divine intervention. This tendency toward rampant confirmation bias weakens, and does not strengthen, your position when you say things like, "I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting."

No, you most likely have not. You have seen lucky coincidences and/or human efforts attributed to divine intervention, and you have fallen victim to the same confirmation bias when you forgot the misses. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence from a reasonable and fairly applied standard for evidence. There isn't even any evidence, let alone proof, that prayer does anything, when one works to avoid bias. And if prayer only works when you're biased, then it probably does not work at all.

This suggests that more that coincidence is afoot.

It really does not.

Well you may be right this time, Thomas.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Science Proves the Healing Power of Prayer

Does seem to go further than a suggestion. I stand corrected.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

This suggests that more that coincidence is afoot.

It really does not.

Well you may be right this time, Thomas.

[Reveal] Spoiler:

Science Proves the Healing Power of Prayer

Does seem to go further than a suggestion. I stand corrected.

That article is, um, a wee bit biased,

“Studies have shown prayer can prevent people from getting sick — and when they do get sick, prayer can help them get better faster,” Duke University’s Harold G. Koenig, M.D., tells Newsmax Health.

And who is the good doctor?
http://www.spiritualityandhealth.duke.edu/index.php/harold-g-koenig-m-d

Harold G. Koenig, M.D.

Director, Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health
Professor of Psychiatry & Behavioral Sciences
Associate Professor of Medicine
Duke University Medical Center
Adjunct Professor, Department of Medicine, King Abdulaziz University
Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Adjunct Professor, Department of Public Health, Ningxia Medical University
Yinchuan, People's Republic of China

Curriculum Vitae

Speaking Engagements

B.S. Stanford University
R.N. San Joaquin Delta College
M.D. University of California at San Francisco
M.H.Sc. Duke University

The_Metatron wrote:No conflict of interest there, eh? Director, Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health, writing an article about how useful prayer is.

The_Metatron wrote:Whatever you have to tell yourself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

John Platko wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Whatever you have to tell yourself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It's something like that.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Whatever you have to tell yourself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It's something like that.

Nothing like what you originally tried to insinuate however.

John Platko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:Whatever you have to tell yourself.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

It's something like that.

Nothing like what you originally tried to insinuate however.

I'm not trying to insinuate anything, Thomas, I'm spelling it out.

John Platko wrote:Religious practices helps many cope with difficult and very stressful situations. Stress has be scientifically demonstrated to be harmful to health - in many many ways. Therefore, religious practice (i.e. praying, etc., etc.) can improve the health of those who engage in it in a way that helps them reduce their stress - no woo and/or wibble about it!

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

John Platko wrote:

It's something like that.

Nothing like what you originally tried to insinuate however.

I'm not trying to insinuate anything, Thomas, I'm spelling it out.

Same difference, you were still mistaken.

John Platko wrote:Religious practices helps many cope with difficult and very stressful situations. Stress has be scientifically demonstrated to be harmful to health - in many many ways. Therefore, religious practice (i.e. praying, etc., etc.) can improve the health of those who engage in it in a way that helps them reduce their stress - no woo and/or wibble about it!

Believing you will get better helps. Breathing exercises help Christian prayer, Buddhist mantras etc, don't.

John Platko wrote:Religious practices helps many cope with difficult and very stressful situations.