Dragons vs Prayers

[AV1611VET]

You asked about "ruling out", not about "questioning".
Plus, as expected, it´s about statistical results - not about indidividual cases.

What's this "statistical" stuff?

Is that a fancy way of saying DUNNO?

 

[AV1611VET]

Do you guys even read the articles before you post them?

I don't know, but if we made a mistake, whose fault is that?

Maybe if ... you know ... you guys would like ... um ... just answer the questions, then we could maybe prevent some mistakes from happening and put this stuffy thread to rest, eh?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Two easy questions:

1. Can science rule out Puff the magic dragon (or is it Pete?) ... whatever.

2. Can science rule out the efficacy of prayer?

Since AV wants an answer so bad: YES and YES.

 

[quatona]

What's this "statistical" stuff?

You need to be explained the difference between a statistical result and an individual cause-effect relationship?

Is that a fancy way of saying DUNNO?

Well, they made that study before you asked your question (so there´s no reason to assume they were trying to answer your question). It´s a quite straightforward way of not saying what you would claim they said.

 

[AV1611VET]

"patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms"

Ya ... I read that.

Ain't that sumpin'?

But I guess I'm looking for that elusive N-word or Y-word (or some combination thereof).

 

[Belk]

-- Are those a YES/YES or NO/NO or YES/NO or NO/YES?

All that whining about how other people have reading comprehension issues and you can't figure out two simple sentences?

 

[AV1611VET]

Since AV wants an answer so bad: YES and YES.

Ya ... shame on me for wanting answers, eh?

I guess it's hard to hand them out, when those being asked to hand them out had to pay good money for theirs?

 

[quatona]

Is that a fancy way of saying DUNNO?

It´s a straightforward way of not saying "We can rule out that prayer helped in this particular case."

Other than that, I´d recommend you to read your link yourself.
Yes, e.g. saying "this is not the last word", "further studies have to be made", "the problem with studying religion scientifically..." is not exactly a way of saying "We can rule out". It is a not so fancy way of saying "We don´t know".

 

[quatona]

-- Are those a YES/YES or NO/NO or YES/NO or NO/YES?

Yes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guess it's hard to hand them out, when those being asked to hand them out had to pay good money for theirs?

Now what are you blathering on about?

 

[quatona]

Ya ... I read that.

Ain't that sumpin'?

But I guess I'm looking for that elusive N-word or Y-word (or some combination thereof).

Well, you were the one claiming that the article gave a clear elusive y-word, while in fact it didn´t. Don´t blame anyone for that - it´s your lack of reading comprehension.

 

[quatona]

Ya ... I read that.

Do you think you understood it, or do you want me to explain it to you?

 

[KWCrazy]

LOL

Great minds think alike, eh?

Yes, I read that article myself and wondered when it was going to be posted as a source.

 

[AV1611VET]

It´s a straightforward way of not saying "We can rule out that prayer helped in this particular case."

Other than that, I´d recommend you to read your link yourself.
Yes, e.g. saying "this is not the last word", "further studies have to be made", "the problem with studying religion scientifically..." is not exactly a way of saying "We can rule out". It is a not so fancy way of saying "We don´t know".

Then why would scientists even present it to the public?

Are they, in my opinion, confusing the issue by saying prayer needs to be looked into scientifically?

Hey, Christians! Don't pray until we look into this and let you know how effective it is! It'll take awhile because of statistics and proximity to religious buildings and so forth, but we did learn that there are higher rates of post-op complications due to prayer ... so you might want to consider holding off praying for someone who is facing heart surgery until we get these stats and individual blind and double blind and placebo and nocebo studies done. We'll keep you updated year by year on our progress. Just keep buying Scientific American and Popular Science in the meantime and look for us.

 

[quatona]

Then why would scientists even present it to the public?

That´s an entirely different question again (and again you haven´t admitted your previous errors and misrepresentations before moving on to your next question).
I guess there´s no way for you to keep scientists from posting their results, even though these results don´t answer the questions you claim they have answered or feel they should have answered.

Are they, in my opinion, confusing the issue by saying prayer needs to be looked into scientifically?

Are you asking me what your opinion is?
As the article presents it, they are quite clear about the problems of investigating religion by means of science, and they are quite clear how far the results can go.

Hey, Christians!

You seem to be under the impression that not only CF, but also science is all about you.
Or else your parody makes no sense at all.

 

[quatona]

So, after you used all sorts of obsfucation, back to your original question, in light of the article you linked:

2. Can science rule out the efficacy of prayer?

- Science can not rule out that a particular prayer had a certain effect in a particular case.
- Science can make statements such as "When comparing the recovery rate of ill people who have been prayed for to the recovery rate of ill people who have been prayed for, we arrived at the result that there was/was not a significant difference".

 

[quatona]

I don't know, but if we made a mistake, whose fault is that?

I don´t care whose fault it is when you aren´t capable of understanding plain English. Blame it on your parents, or on your teachers if you don´t want to blame it on yourself.
The important part: You were wrong.

Maybe if ... you know ... you guys would like ... um ... just answer the questions,

Your questions have been answered.

then we could maybe prevent some mistakes from happening and put this stuffy thread to rest, eh?

The problem was not caused by people´s responses, they were caused by you quoting something that didn´t say what you said it did - which again was one faulty premise hidden in your initial question.

 

[AV1611VET]

I seem to have picked up a heckler in the audience.

 

[quatona]

I seem to have picked up a heckler in the audience.

Well, you got educational answers to your questions.
In response to your subsequent obsfucations you got the personal attention you were seeking.
You are covered on all bases.
So what is your complaint?

 

[HitchSlap]

Do you guys even read the articles before you post them?

No. It's a hallmark quality of being a card carrying creationist.