Be Excellent To Each Other

In an utterly surprising and not expected at all by any cynics on the planet ever:



"Hallelujah! I was intelligently designed!"
\

I've always fancied doing that to be honest. It's just my stupid morals stopping me.

I've always fancied doing that to be honest. It's just my stupid morals stopping me.

his morals don't stop him posting twice, mind.

You fancy doing that? Dude, she's hideous. At least your morals stop you.

I'm not ashamed to admit that I pissed myself laughing at that. Nice work dude.

Bravo!

Nothing new here.

I'm finding it hard to reconcile the idea of an all-loving, all-merciful God, and the picture in the opening post.

Well that photo made me say "Jesus Christ!"

After it made you fire your muck in your Hitler Youth Lederhosen.

Somewhat related

Err no, they need to prove that it does work, which they can't.

No problem. I'm happy to cut my finger in front of them and watch them try to pray it better.

Surely if they submit a theory it has to be disproved?

I recall reading studies where patients that have been prayed for have done better than those that haven't.

So if I decide to advertise something on the basis of my new theory that, say, over-ripe bananas cure AIDS then I'm allowed to carry on doing that until such time as someone gets around to proving me wrong? I really can't imagine that's how it works; the burden of proof lies on the person who's come up with theory, not everyone else who thinks they're talking bollocks.

You are making the fundamental (ha!) mistake that people who believe in an Giant Invisible Sky Buddy are willing to listen to reasonable argument.

As long as you can show results of experiments or observations that prove your hypothesis that bananas cure AIDS then yes, you publish the theory and then other scientists can attempt to disprove it. And observing that "someone feels better after praying" would be fairly easy, I'd imagine.


Or maybe "people who believe in 'an' Giant Invisible Sky Buddy actually understand what a theory is". But I suppose that explains why every single scientist is an atheist.

Note that I'm not saying it would be hard to disprove (although I suspect it probably would be).

You imagine incorrectly, I think. How would you prove this?

It'd also be very easy to dismiss based on the placebo effect and regression to the mean.

Saying someone feels better after praying is most likely true, I would have thought. Saying god heals is a different matter though.

I'd argue that simply submitting a theory, as you said in your original post, is a pretty far cry from what you describe there. But yeah, fair enough, if you've got the proof to go along with your theory then you're sorted. I seriously doubt that finding a single person who claims to feel better after you prayed for them really consititues scientific proof though. And if it was that easy then you're screwed because all someone else has to do is find a single person to say they didn't feel better after being prayed for and your theory's dead in the water.

How would I prove my observations?



It's going to fire off the placebo effect though, isn't it? I'd imagine that's how you'd get it to work.

The study I read was that the people being prayed for didn't know they were.

Masked, randomized trial?

200ish people studied, split into two groups.
Prayer group = 16 successful implantations, of which 8 resulted in pregnancy
No prayer group = 8 successful implantations, of which 2 resulted in pregnancy

Flawed study, as animals don't have souls

22 bush babies studied.

57% of trials showed a positive treatment effect

23 trials in the study, of which only 5 were prayer related.


When you look at the actual numbers involved, suddenly the statistics aren't so impressive.
I've worked closely with respected scientists in the past (cancer research stuff), and from that experience I'm hoping that they just don't get statistics, which is why they attach meaning to such pathetic sample size numbers. As the other option is that they do get statistics, but the raw numbers don't support their need for funding, so they are purposely disingenuous in their reporting of results...

There are studies where people being prayed for do worse. 'Perfornance anxiety' or some such.

I used to have a tin of sticking plasters with pictures of Christ on them. Always had to say 'Jesus Heals!!' every time I put one on a poorly finger.

1: Who are they to say that it is God healing them? They pray and, let's be generous here for a moment, a supernatural force takes that one MP's hand pain away. How does he know it is God? Sometimes I am offered a pint by one friend, or I ask him for one and another friend brings it back from the bar for me having paid for it themselves. What if Satan is answering their prayers?

2: There's a very real problem with evangelicals going for prayer over medical intervention. I knew a person who is dead partly because of this.

3: Indeed, the onus is on them to do the proving.

4: I'm going to be unsurprised if science can chase them out of court in any case.

5: Streeter has anecdotal evidence, which is worth fuck all.

6: If they accept that prayer does not always heal, why not say God can heal but probably won't? That's a more 'realistic' claim by their own measure.

7: The whole nation was not praying for Muamba.

8: There is no empirical evidence to support the existence of prayer healing, but there is plenty to support the existence of figures of speech, such as 'pray for'.

9: These individuals don't understand the basic idea of science, and get to vote on scientific matters. *shudder*

10: They're all a bunch of stupid cunts and they can fuck off.

I respect others' views and beliefs (or lack of them) and cannot for the life of me understand the intolerant, contemptuous tone/language of some here - in effect forcing their disbelief in this case, and contempt, down the throats of those who dare to have Faith (or presumably, even the agnostic), balls to their sensibilities etc. But we've been here before, so I'll pass on this occasion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/the-l ... 2/mar/26/1

Robustly argued.

I think that the vast majority of the discussion on this topic has actually been quite calm and reasoned, and far more centred around what makes a good, scientific randomised trial with appropriate control group and what the definition of a scientific theory is, rather than mocking or being contemptuous to any group.

Really, I think this topic does have the ability to make people a bit hit under the collar, but apart from a couple of rude words in one or maybe two posts, the rest is a series of quotes and reasoned discussions on why such trials are often flawed and biased, and where the burden of proof lays.

I think people are entitled to believe what they want, but that the same rules applied to medicines should be used across the board wrt effectiveness.

Though I would also like to see them applied properly to homeopathy and other such utter bollocks.

But believing what you want would include believing that one has to do everything within one's power as a representative of the public to enact "God's will" and proselytise, irrespective of the cost to life, state and common sense. Even if they get nowhere, there will be vulnerable and impressionable people who might wonder if these guys are onto something and set off in search of this snake oil. You're sort of supporting contradictory practices.

I never say I'm for people believing what they want because one can't police such things anyway so it's a moot point. What we can't allow is for predatory groups to abuse public office in order to cast a line into the lake of desperate souls*.

* Souls may or may not be a thing. Definitions may vary.

I meant that purely in the sense linked to this discussion.

In general, people can believe what they want as long as any actions they take courtesy of those beliefs break no laws/regulations/standards/whatever.

To paraphrase Izzard, "I don't mind people being homophobic, as long as they do it behind closed doors and nobody gets hurt".

As you've capitalised this, I assume you are talking about the George Michael/Limp Bizkit song.

I do have that.

Well, you've got to.

Well, I guess it would be nice
...

I am literally praying for you people to shut up.

If I could touch your body...

Keep going.

*Gets moisturiser and tissues*