aletheia:

@claremont: Why have you ignored post #73 which highlights that the 4 studies you cited do not in fact support your claims?

Actually, the studies support the FACT that not only do prayers not work, but they may lead to complications. I agree that 1 or 2 of the studies may be inconclusive, but it is clear that the reason for the inconclusiveness is due to bias, chance, coincidence or a combination of all three. Moreover, these 4 studies represent just a few of the 1000's of studies which buttress the fact that prayers do not work.

claremont:

Actually, the studies support the FACT that not only do prayers not work, but they may lead to complications.

^
Actually they do not. Repeating this claim ad infinitum will not make it so. Have you read the Nicholson paper I uploaded for your benefit yet? You posted it as supporting your claims when it clearly does not do so.

claremont:

I agree that 1 or 2 of the studies may be inconclusive, but it is clear that the reason for the inconclusiveness is due to bias, chance, coincidence or a combination of all three.

^
If 2 out of the 4 studies you cite are inconclusive, why then did you claim they support your claim. Isn't that dishonest? Sure out of the 1000's of studies you claim exist; you should be able to bring forward 4 that incontrovertibly support your claim. In Medicine, there are 3 possible outcomes of any study viz: 1) Clear evidence supporting the hypothesis, 2) Clear evidence against the hypothesis, 3) Not enough evidence either in support for or against the hypothesis.
It is intellectually dishonest of you to bring forth papers that belong to the 3rd category and claim that they are clear evidence against prayer.

claremont:

Moreover, these 4 studies represent just a few of the 1000's of studies which buttress the fact that prayers do not work.

Again I ask you:

aletheia:

Thousands of studies. Aren't you exaggerating? And you are only able to produce 4 studies. And even this 4 do not conclusively show that prayer does not work. [size=16pt]Please provide me with a link to these 1000's of studies -  perhaps a PubMed search?[/size]

I am forced to arrive at the conclusion that like alot of atheists on this forum, you are only regurgitating second-hand hearsay without having even examined the evidence for yourself. How do I know that? You claim that the Nicholson paper supports your claim and yet it's very first sentence reads:
There are extensive data linking religious involvement with better health. Meta-analyses have shown small associations with reduced mortality in those with more religious involvement (McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2000; Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009).

aletheia:

^
Actually they do not. Repeating this claim ad infinitum will not make it so. Have you read the Nicholson paper I uploaded for your benefit yet? You posted it as supporting your claims when it clearly does not do so.
^
If 2 out of the 4 studies you cite are inconclusive, why then did you claim they support your claim. Isn't that dishonest? Sure out of the 1000's of studies you claim exist; you should be able to bring forward 4 that incontrovertibly support your claim. In Medicine, there are 3 possible outcomes of any study viz: 1) Clear evidence supporting the hypothesis, 2) Clear evidence against the hypothesis, 3) Not enough evidence either in support for or against the hypothesis.
It is intellectually dishonest of you to bring forth papers that belong to the 3rd category and claim that they are clear evidence against prayer.
Again I ask you:
I am forced to arrive at the conclusion that like alot of atheists on this forum, you are only regurgitating second-hand hearsay without having even examined the evidence for yourself. How do I know that? You claim that the Nicholson paper supports your claim and yet it's very first sentence reads:
There are extensive data linking religious involvement with better health. Meta-analyses have shown small associations with reduced mortality in those with more religious involvement (McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2000; Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009).

Have you read the STEP study paper objectively at all?! That study incontrovertibly refutes any claim that prayers work; try and read it and understand the conclusion, not come to your own conclusion after reading it.

^
So now you redoubt to a single paper out of the "1000's" you claim? As the English saying goes: one swallow does not a summer make.

Again, I ask you to acquaint yourself with the method of meta-analysis. The STEP study was published in 2005. Try and read the study by Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009 or Hodge 2007

In meta-analysis, several studies are pooled together and analyzed. Studies with 1) evidence for, 2) evidence against, and 3) not enough evidence for or against, are included in a meta-analysis in order to arrive at an unbiased estimate of the true effect size.

I 'm still waiting for a link to the 1000's of papers please.

aletheia:

^
So now you redoubt to a single paper out of the "1000's" you claim? As the English saying goes: one swallow does not a summer make.

Again, I ask you to acquaint yourself with the method of meta-analysis. The STEP study was published in 2005. Try and read the study by Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009 or Hodge 2007

In meta-analysis, several studies are pooled together and analyzed. Studies with 1) evidence for, 2) evidence against, and 3) not enough evidence for or against, are included in a meta-analysis in order to arrive at an unbiased estimate of the true effect size.

I 'm still waiting for a link to the 1000's of papers please.

So you want to debate the Chida, Steptoe, & Powell (2009) study, right?! Okay, let's debate that specific study objectively then!

Chida, Steptoe, & Powell (2009) Study Conclusions: There were 69 studies (28 articles) and 22 studies (11 articles) investigating the association between religiosity/spirituality and mortality in initially healthy populations and diseased populations, respectively. The results of the meta-analyses showed that religiosity/spirituality was associated with reduced mortality in healthy population studies (combined hazard ratio = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.76-0.87, p <0.001), but not in diseased population studies (combined hazard ratio = 0.98, 95% CI = 0.94-1.01, p = 0.19). Religiosity/spirituality was negatively associated with cardiovascular mortality in healthy population studies. (copied and pasted from PubMed)

In summary, this study concluded that a belief in religion led to reduced mortality in HEALTHY populations, BUT there was NO reduced mortality in DISEASED populations. In other words, people with physical ailments did NOT derive any healing/relief from a belief in the existence of God. In addition, this study exposed a negative correlation between a belief in religion and cardiovascular mortality in healthy population. This means that the data showed that populations who have a passion for religion tends to have a "reduction" in cardiovascular ailments, this again does NOT apply to diseased populations. Furthermore, the authors posited that religion plays this role due to it's ability to calm states of anger and hostility which may predispose people to cardiovascular ailments, not because there is a God anywhere. The crux of this study is that they concluded that a belief in religion plays a preventative role against disease, but it has NO curative/therapeutic role whatsoever. The authors of this study even admitted that their results should be interpreted with CAUTION due to inherent bias.

^^
see how brainwashing takes place? step by step analysis by analysis,statistics by statistics.

you cannot understand God with your human mind God is too big for your mind to comprehend thats why science and philosophers does not believe in God because they use their mind to tackle everything. Dont bother to reply me cos I dnt av ur time

my view point God exist,

As far as Muslims are concern, is a God of Will
is Allow what he wishes , &, refuses what he Didn't want to Approve,

if he want prayer accepted so be it, if he doesn't .so be it, no one dare challenge him,
omnipotent , omniscience, the king of king, master of master,

how dare u saying God exist Not,

engyn:

my view point God exist,

As far as Muslims are concern, is a God of Will
is Allow what he wishes , &, refuses what he Didn't want to Approve,

if he want prayer accepted so be it, if he doesn't .so be it, no one dare challenge him,
omnipotent , omniscience, the king of king, master of master,

how dare u saying God exist Not,

The fact that you are trying to sell your idea and conception of the Arabian God says that the said God only exist in your imaginations and beliefs ONLY. . . .If you God exist he will prove to the OP himself, no?. . . .All Gods are man made and as such NO God can be shown to exist on its own independent of man made writing, mand made stories about the said God(s), man made laws attributed to said God(s), man's cultural and societal acceptance. . . . Its man that is talking about the Gods, no God has ever spoken for himself and No God will ever do that because all Gods are imaginary, instead we have people trying to make others accept one culture and way of life over the other which is everything that religion entails. . . . .

By the way Prayers DO NOT work. . .NO evidence what so ever to show that those who pray to any particular God fare better, are better protected from disaster or harm, live longer, recover faster for illnesses or are richer than those that do not pray to that version of God. . . . .

[flash=400,400]http://www.youtube.com/v/Pt9x3Cnx&color1[/flash]

@Mazaje; « #104 on: Today at 07:13:07 PM »
[Quote]Quote from: engyn on Today at 11:56:22 AM
my view point God exist,

As far as Muslims are concern, is a God of Will
is Allow what he wishes , &, refuses what he Didn't want to Approve,

if he want prayer accepted so be it, if he doesn't .so be it, no one dare challenge him,
omnipotent , omniscience, the king of king, master of master,

how dare u saying God exist Not,


The fact that you are trying to sell your idea and conception of the Arabian God says that the said God only exist in your imaginations and beliefs ONLY. . . .If you God exist he will prove to the OP himself, no?. . . .All Gods are man made and as such NO God can be shown to exist on its own independent of man made writing, mand made stories about the said God(s), man made laws attributed to said God(s), man's cultural and societal acceptance. . . . Its man that is talking about the Gods, no God has ever spoken for himself and No God will ever do that because all Gods are imaginary, instead we have people trying to make others accept one culture and way of life over the other which is everything that religion entails. . . . .[/Quote]the fact you are trying to sell your idea and conception of the non existence of God says that the said God exists. it is therefore only in your imagination that is seared by your confusion from the new found fake independence in europe that God does not exist. His Name is Allah. the same mazaje who used to go to church with mama now disbelieves what mama believes in. mama believes in Jehovah, mazaje does not believe in anything, except the nothing that his atheist bosses postulate.




[Quote]By the way Prayers DO NOT work. . .NO evidence what so ever to show that those who pray to any particular God fare better, are better protected from disaster or harm, live longer, recover faster for illnesses or are richer than those that do not pray to that version of God. . . . .[/Quote]for you there is no prayer, so prayers [your prayers] does not work.

Hmmmm well all I DO know is that we are born on this earth in these human body spacesuits and have to survive.
We are set on a journey and each person must find their way and happiness.
Obviously not all people with take the same path and THATS OK.
I think the key here is that: , 1. Do not force others to think the way you do
2. As long as they are not harming anyone, Repect that each person has their own way.Its where theyre at in life.
Life will keep correcting us one way or another.

If someone is religious, Im ok with that,and if theyre not,its fine too.
I have not right to tell you how to live!

talina:

Hmmmm well all I DO know is that we are born on this earth in these human body spacesuits and have to survive.
We are set on a journey and each person must find their way and happiness.
Obviously not all people with take the same path and THATS OK.
I think the key here is that: , 1. Do not force others to think the way you do
2. As long as they are not harming anyone, Repect that each person has their own way.Its where theyre at in life.
Life will keep correcting us one way or another.

If someone is religious, Im ok with that,and if theyre not,its fine too.
I have not right to tell you how to live!

Exactly my point, but the problem is that the religious goons ram our throats with their self-righteous BS. Religion is the root of all evil in the world today, it is the only thing that can make a good man do evil things.

manmustwac:

@all the theists
Is there any prayer that one can say which will make god appear and replace the sun for at least 24 hours to convince all unbelievers that god exists.

Nope. God doesn\t work that way. He blessed you with a mind to infer His existence.

If you can read this you will realize that God exists

^^^ In broad terms, it is the kind of thing that convinced one of the atheists' champions of all time, i.e. Antony Flew, to deism and belief in God eventually. When you hear atheists talk of the "no true Scotsman fallacy" in argument, they are ultimately parrotting (OK, borrowing from) Antony Flew. At least Antony Flew had the integrity to "follow wherever the evidence leads" as he put it.

(Funny enough, some atheists found  the earthquake of Flew's conversion to atheism Deism so unbearable that they try to say Flew did not really renounce atheism, he had mentally weakened at the time etc etc) ---- na so! 

Enigma:

^^^ In broad terms, it is the kind of thing that convinced one of the atheists' champions of all time, i.e. Antony Flew, to deism and belief in God eventually. When you hear atheists talk of the "no true Scotsman fallacy" in argument, they are ultimately parrotting (OK, borrowing from) Antony Flew. At least Antony Flew had the integrity to "follow wherever the evidence leads" as he put it.

(Funny enough, some atheists found  the earthquake of Flew's conversion to atheism so unbearable that they try to say Flew did not really renounce atheism, he had mentally weakened at the time etc etc) ---- na so! 

He didn't believe in the christian god or a personal god. He also didn't believe in an afterlife, all he said was that there could be an intelligent first cause. That's not groundbreaking because no one knows what preceded the the big b@ng.  He didn't believe in the chrsitian concept of god so don't get too excited, your god is still not rational or intelligent in any way.

In Flew�s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."4 According to Flew, ", it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big slam cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife.

But believers waiting to welcome this most prodigal of sons back into the fold were to be disappointed. Flew's conversion did not embrace such concepts as Heaven, good and evil or the afterlife – let alone divine intervention in human affairs. His God was strictly minimalist – very different from "the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam", as he liked to call them. God may have called his creation into existence, then, but why did he bother? To that question, it seemed, Flew had no answer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html

Regardless of what Anthony Flew thought, the burden of proof that yahweh exists rests on you christians.

Martian:

He didn't believe in the christian god or a personal god. He also didn't believe in an afterlife, all he said was that there could be an intelligent first cause. That's not groundbreaking because no one knows what preceded the the big b@ng.  He didn't believe in the chrsitian concept of god so don't get too excited, your god is still not rational or intelligent in any way.

In Flew�s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."4 According to Flew, ", it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big slam cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife.

But believers waiting to welcome this most prodigal of sons back into the fold were to be disappointed. Flew's conversion did not embrace such concepts as Heaven, good and evil or the afterlife – let alone divine intervention in human affairs. His God was strictly minimalist – very different from "the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam", as he liked to call them. God may have called his creation into existence, then, but why did he bother? To that question, it seemed, Flew had no answer.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/7586929/Professor-Antony-Flew.html

Regardless of what Anthony Flew thought, the burden of proof that yahweh exists rests on you christians.

Spot on! The onus rests on those who passionately believe in a deity to prove to the "unbelievers" that the deity exists beyond every reasonable doubt. The absence of such proof, or the unwillingness of the believers to show such proof (if they do have it), is tantamount to indulging in irrationality, and their actions should be seen as being not much different from the ranting of a drunk English man.

SB don't know what spirit/gods means. . . . . .
No scientific measure can be used to demostrate/prove the eXistence of gods let alone GOD.
Since rituals for blood money, protection exist [with side effects caused by the gods],
it is obvious that gods exist. . . . . .
THE LOGIC
Since smaller/different gods eXist,
don't you think there will be a More Supreme One? . . .
Use ur brain oh. . .

Only the Foolish Say There is no God-Psalms 14:1.

If you have to proof scientifically that God exists, then you'd be wasting your time and you'd also have to proof that so many other intangible things do not exist.
If you do not believe in God, certainly, you do not believe in the Devil or any sort of spiritual world or activity.
God doesn't care if you insist on proofing him scientifically-do you think He'd appear to you so as to satisfy your curiosity, do you think your unbelief will cause him to stir? No. As a matter of fact, you're fulfilling scriptures because in the last days, they'd be mockers of God and men who dare say there's no God because of "science".
Do you think advancements alone has caused man, mere creature, to rebel against his maker, saying he doesn't exist? No! of course not. Great civilizations like Egypt, Babylon and more recently, Rome have never doubted the existence of a deity. they at worst worship their idols of sticks and stones but never disbelieved in a deity. So, it's part of what has to happen this end times before Christ returns. There must be scoffers.

God is supreme and he decides whether or whether not to answer the prayer of a believer (all for the believer's own good) let alone abominations you atheists render as prayer. How would you expect him to answer you. And who told you that God will answer a prayer to clear your doubts and test his validity-For with faith it is impossible to please God.

Prayers need not be rendered to God in masses the way your "experiment" does it in prayer groups. Over time, we've seen men of God that have healed sick, lame, blind and deaf people, God using them to wrought outstanding miracles even in the order of returning dead men to life. These were not multitude of peoples in a prayer group and is that a mere coincidence? I don't think so but you atheists think otherwise because God did not honour your prayers.

When we were children, we were thought of a god in a predominantly godless community. As we grow, we mix with these people of the world and our faith is tested. If you're not strong in your faith by reading your bible and believe steadfastly in God, don't share and receive testimonies about miracles-"coincidence"-as scientists call it or haven't had a personal encounter with God, then you're bound to succumb to their godlessness for be wary, these people will deceive the very elect of God. Mat 24:24

Remember (If you read the Bible at all), God did not honour Cain's sacrifice in Gen 5. It did not make him not to remain God, the all sovereign who sees into our deepest hearts and can discern all things. Everyone has a right to their own beliefs however and I know quite a few staunch atheists like you that have surrendered their atheistic views and come to believe that God exists. God who can turn the hearts of men-he wouldn't force you because he has given you a freewill, but will change you if you let go of the lie you're living-can do the same for you.

Finally, do not attempt to "detect" God or any spirit at all with your scientific means for God is a spirit and those that worship him should(and must) do it in Spirit and in Truth.
www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

I had initially let this go deliberately as, even now still in the final analysis, it was not worthwhile responding to the attempt at rebutting what I said about Antony Flew.

But just to demonstrate it, I will quote from the same Telegraph Obituary that was the source for the attempted rebuttal.

When Flew revealed that he had come to the conclusion that there might be a God after all, it came as a shock to his fellow atheists, who had long regarded him as one of their foremost champions. Worse, he seemed to have deserted Plato for Aristotle, since it was two of Aquinas's famous five proofs for the existence of God – the arguments from design and for a prime mover – that had apparently clinched the matter.

After months of soul-searching, Flew concluded that research into DNA had "shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce life, that intelligence must have been involved". Moreover, though he accepted Darwinian evolution, he felt that it could not explain the beginnings of life. "I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature," he said.

Flew went on to make a video of his conversion entitled Has Science Discovered God? and seemed to want to atone for past errors: "As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done," he said.

Did I say something wrong (i.e. from the perspective of the evangelical atheists)?   

By the way, I have just discovered where the other bits (not in The Telegraph) of the attempted rebuttal comes from. This piece playing on Flew's name titled "One Flew Over The cuckoo's Nest" from  http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html

Here goes:

. . . . atheists are up in arms thinking that Professor Antony Flew has lost his mind. Flew, age 81, has been a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, stating that "onus of proof [of God] must lie upon the theist."1 However, in 2004, Prof. Flew did the unheard of action of renouncing his atheism because "the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it."2 In a recent interview, Flew stated, "It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of Deoxyribonucleic acid: the chemical inside the nucleus of a cell that carries the genetic instructions for making living organisms.DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design." Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution:

    "It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism."3

In Flew�s own words, he simply "had to go where the evidence leads."4 According to Flew, ", it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before."2 Flew also indicated that he liked arguments that proceeded from big slam cosmology. However, Antony Flew does not believe in the existence of a good God who is involved in the lives of human beings, because of the problem of evil. He ascribes very much to the God of Einstein and Spinoza, who created the universe and life on earth and left the scene. He does not believe in an afterlife.  {Edit: this is the bit that was used in the attempted rebuttal}

For a man who has spent decades promoting atheism, this decision came as quite a shock to atheists and theists alike. . . . 

Read Antony Flew's new book, There Is a God: How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Again, did I say something wrong (especially from the perspective of the evangelical atheists)?

Enigma:

By the way, I have just discovered where the other bits (not in The Telegraph) of the attempted rebuttal comes from. This piece playing on Flew's name titled "One Flew Over The cuckoo's Nest" from  http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/flew.html

Here goes:

Again, did I say something wrong (especially from the perspective of the evangelical atheists)?

Lol, you're still excited over this?! the guy didn't say anything about Yahweh/Jesus/holy ghost. Calm your Christian self down!!

@poster if i shuld understnd u u want to know proof whether God exist or nt.i want to challenge u to nt just proof but to show u physically that God exist and he answers prayers very much(evry day 24/7).come to THE LORD CHOSEN CHURCH at 10 odofin park estate ijesha on sunday,u will see power and God in action.thank u

@all this invitatn is nt just for poster alone but to as many that want their prayers answerd and who wnt to see or witness the power of God in action i bet u u will neva remain the same as u shall come.thank all

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-716089.64.html

apparently claremont believes in God and prayers

^^^^
Do you have a point to make in this debate, or are you just here to pick holes in the points made by others?!

^^^
am picking holes in the point made by you because apparently deep down in your heart you believe in God so why are you complicating your life

@claremont at the end of the day you aren't going to convince someone who've dedicated their entire lives to a certain religion to stop no matter how much you argue or how much "evidence" you provide. Rather than stressing over trying to convince people there is no God or their religion is false you should focus on the main problems that stem from religion which are mainly intolerance and blindly following religious leaders. These in my opinion are why the most religious of third world/ developing countries are often the worst off. They throw the country into chaos over petty differences rather then just tolerating each other and facing the serious issues at hand. Also following these religious leaders blindly also kills these countries especially in Nigeria. Not only do we Nigeria's own leaders come and rob us blind but then they let religious leaders from abroad falsely promising miracles stealing money from those living in a shack meanwhile they'll leave in their Private Jet to go live comfortably in their house with the money they just plundered from a bunch of unfortunate & gullible followers. These are the things you should try to make clear to them instead of trying to convert. The more you try to shove it down their throats the more they will resist and the same goes for all religions. There's nothing wrong with having some faith just don't be a total bigot and sheep.