"Evidence and Faith"

No, not at all.The true church is us. Your body is the temple.We all have that pipeline, doesn't matter our success rate.

If we are all the "true church" and success rate is not a measure of validity, then does that mean we can believe what we want and still be the "true church"?If not, what is the measure used to determine belief validity? Come let us reason together.

I doubt that belief really plays anything more than a motivating purpose in the "True Church". The measure is behavior, what you do, how you relate to others and the world we live in. I tried to cover this in Message 127 and Message 132.The "True Church" is not judged by flimflam, by miracles, other than by the behavior of its members.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I didn't say it can't be scientifically assessed, you did. I was only pointing out a huge inconsistency in your argument. How can you require his claims to have "solid (objective) evidence" (those are your words) if you don't believe the type of claims he's making can have "solid (objective) evidence"? He's doing neither science or religion. He's bilking the gullible out of their money. He is purposefully tapping in to the religious market, which is known to be very susceptible to prayer claims. You're contradicting yourself again. You just finished saying you don't believe his claims can be assessed scientifically, and now you're saying the opposite. Either you believe his claims can be subjected to scientific scrutiny, or you don't. Make up your mind.--Percy

rR wrote: I’ve followed the discussion between you and Percy on this, and I have to apply the same standard to any claim.First, we must remember that the burden of proof is on the person making the positive claim, and if that positive claim isn’t supported by evidence, then the negative view is the default.In other words, we don’t “prove” a negative claim, such as “Emoto’s water doesn’t work”. That’s a negative claim. Instead, we try to prove a positive claim such as “Emotos water does indeed work”. If we don’t have proof of that, after trying to prove it, then we keep the default position, which is that Emoto’s water doesn’t work.Now, apply this to Emoto’s water. Attempt to replicate it have failed. So we drop back to the default that his water doesn’t work, and he is a sham or (as rR pointed out) honestly fooled himself (quite common because it is more effective and thus has been selected for - there’s an evolutionary reason we can easily fool ourselves).In Emoto’s case, the praying at the water is subjective, (even writing the word on paper attached to the jar is subjective, since we can’t see the heart of the person doing the writing, and maybe they are writing “love” while thinking “I gotta pay that bill on the way home”). Then we measure an observable, objective fact - does the water crystallize differently?The objective data has failed to back up the claim that thinking/praying/writing the thought onto the water affects the crystallization. Hence, Emoto’s claim is rejected by us rational people.Now compare prayer for healing. The prayer is subjective - it’s possible that the person doing the praying is actually thinking “I gotta pay that bill on the way home”, or that God intentionally ignores prayers that are part of a scientific study (regardless of what the prayer knows), or whatever.Then we measure an observable, objective fact - do the prayed for people do better than the non-prayed for people?The objective data has failed to back up the claim that thinking/praying/writing for better health helps at all. A few early and small studies showed data one way or the other (no effect, a benefit, a harm), as expected for small studies. Later, larger studies consistently found no effect. In fact, last year a review of past studies was done, and after tossing out data tainted by method errors or even outright fraud, then pooling the data, no effect of prayer was found. Also last year, the largest single study to date was done, again no effect was found (see link below). Hence, the claim that prayer does anything is rejected by us rational people.Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer - The New York TimesrR wrote: As I’ve tried to illustrate above, they are not different. In all cases they start with the subjective, and when tested objectively, fail to provide evidence. For orbs, they start with a subjective feeling of a presence or something, and then the photo shows an orb, which is objectively shown to be nothing.In fact, of all three of them, the prayer/healing thing has been examined by far the most, and has by far the most evidence showing no effect. That of course says little about whether or not God exists, but shows that one should not reject the hoaxes of orbs and snowflakes without rejecting the hoax of “I’ll pray for you to get better”. None of them need to be intentional frauds, they can all be self-delusions as rR points out here: However, all that being said, it’s important for us to recognize two things:1. The fact that prayer doesn’t heal people doesn’t say there isn’t a God any more than the fact that the Bible is wrong about the sun revolving about the earth proves there is no God. Plenty of religious thoughts are wrong, a modern Christian can drop those without dropping faith in God. The idea that prayers heal people is just as human in origin as the Bible is human in origin, and as such neither negates the idea of a God. Just ask Jar.2. Even if rR is going to dogmatically hang onto the idea that prayers can heal people despite the evidence, his rationality wrt orbs and snowflakes is still a good thing. If he helps correct his pastor about creationism and gems while remaining a staunch prayerist, well, that’s better than many, and still a good thing. As I pointed out before, rR is doing a lot of good things, and deserves credit for that.May the stars light your path-Equinox

I kind of agree with jar.If I was to tell you what you believe in is wrong, or right, then I would be judging you.I have no clue what set of circumstances has brought you to where you are in life. I myself cannot even get it right.It's about the journey. Not sure, a good tree bears good fruit?
I don't think we should be measuring it anyway.

I need to read his web-site, and find out just what he is totally claiming, and how.
I wasn't sure, thats why I originally asked here. It all depends on his claims.I think there is two types of claims he is making, one that prayer can change water, and two that music can change water.While I find the prayer one highly subjective, especially if he is claiming that it depends on the person praying (which we all know cannot be accurately measured), I find the one about music, a little easier to do objective experimentation with.

Thanks again, well put and writen out.I wouldn't call it dogmatically hanging on. While I can accept that surveys and studies do not reveal anything special about prayer, I have in my own life witnessed healing, and get much from prayer, not just healing.What the exact reasons are behind this, is not a problem, or maybe not even important. I always keep my eyes open for alternate explanations, but for now, I have decided to take these as God, based on faith, and belief, not objectiveness.Even with the orbs, I has to explain to my church, that what we felt on that day, or any of those days, may have been real, but the orbs are not pictures of it.Yes, prayer is a subjective thing. Pray, and then see what happens. Pray consistently, and then see what happens. You don't need a study to reveal those things to you.Also, if I was to say to my church that prayer doesn't work, or has been found objectively found not to work, that would go nowhere fast, then they would reject everything else I have to say. So taking that into consideration, and the fact that I believe prayer works, I am not going to go there.Besides, I still think that studies about prayer, and pictures in orbs are two very different things. I think studies on prayer are way more subjective, than actual simple pictures of orbs, or a gem given to me by an angel, and claiming that it is perfect. You even sited somethings yourself that could have been left out about prayer.I could pray for you right now, and there would be no real way of telling if it made a difference or not.
I could pray to God right now, and hear voices, or thoughts coming to my head, and there would be no objective way of telling if they orginated from me, or God.On the other hand, if you want a picture of an orb, I can whip one up on demand.

But you don't care if the people of your church believe that music can change water, right? You only care about the prayer claim, right?I'm not sure why you're drawing this thread out. You keep saying you're asking us to give you straight answers on things, we've given them, and then you argue against them. I don't know why you just continue on, but I think you have your answers:

• There's no scientific evidence supporting a literal interpretation of Genesis.
  ​
• Emoto is an example of a completely obvious snake oil salesman. He preys on the gullible. His claims are as false as those for Celestial Drops, pyramid power, magnetic bracelets, horoscopes, and so forth, and don't forget, you're already a winner in the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes!
  ​
  If frauds, charlatans, quacks and flim-flam artists aren't obvious to you and the people of your church, and if you want to direct your scepticism at the people trying to help you in this thread instead of at the people trying to take your money, then you may as well just put your money in a pile and burn it. Or, you could buy this ocean-front property I'm selling in Arizona - beautiful sunsets over the water every evening, you in a hammock just enjoying the good life, what do you say?

--PercyPS - I don't know why I work for a living when there is so much evidence that it's extremely easy to make money fleecing the foolish by selling magic water drops and so forth over the Internet. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

I care about both, and if one is untrue, because of the way he is going about it, then the other is also.I don't think people should believe in prayer because some quack named Emoto shows us ice crystals. Got it and thank you. Got that, and thank you again. Because that's not your heart.

quote:

---

Not sure, a good tree bears good fruit?

---

Then everyone should be Buddhist.Buddhists don't start wars, practice "live and let live" for the most part, and are the happiest people.Buddhists seem to bear the best fruit, overall.And they don't believe in God/gods at all.

While buddhism may be the most peaceful religion when it comes to war, it is not war-free.There is no perfect religion nator.

rR wrote: No, they do much more than that. Not surveys, but studies. Surveys (which record what people say or think) are not useful. A study is an experiment, where actual people (hundreds in each study) with health problems are divided into groups, some are prayed for and some are not prayed for, and the results are observed. Well controlled and designed study after study has shown clearly that prayer simply cannot be used to reliably promote healing. The results of those studies can be taken to mean that there is no God, or that God doesn’t answer prayers, or that God doesn’t answer prayers if they are part of a study, or that the prayers were insincere (they were church members doing prayers for the sick as they normally do), or whatever you like, but the empirical data that the prayer didn’t help is as testable as the phony orb photos are testable. And that agrees with studies too, which have shown that people who think they are doing something useful, even if it is carrying a rabbit’s foot, will often heal better. So prayer by the sick person can indeed help him or her, regardless of whether or not prayer by others helps. Here is a link about it:Subject-expectancy effect - Wikipedia
Regardless of the source, it's real, and it's good for rR, so by all means continue. I'm not trying to change your behavior, just pointing out that something with an unknown origin can still have a positive effect on you.Plus, as you point out, many people report beneficial mental health effects from various kinds of praying to whatever God or meditating. We even do this at our Unitarian church, where many of us are atheists. How is that different from “subjective” good luck charms or magnet-therapy bracelets, or “negative field repelling amulets”?“buy this, and then see what happens. Use it consistently, and then see what happens. You don't need a study to reveal those things to you.”These kinds of swindles are accompanied by testimonial after testimonial of people saying they have personally benefited. These are typical:Using Magnets For Health
http://www.bodyelectriccustomers.com/emf.shtml
http://www.magnetictherapysales.com/...endants_clearwave.htmPeople making money by selling the “power of prayer” aren’t usually as blatant. They usually sell power of prayer or other motivational books, and of course churches make literally billions of $$ a year from believers of the power of prayer. Anyone looking at this can clearly see that the money made nationally from power of prayer type of beliefs is thousands of times more than all the magnet, qlink, negative field, and such profits put together. As you pointed out, they don’t need to be deceptive to do this, they may really think this is all real, even the Qlink necklace salesman. There is a whole continuum from blatant and deceptive snake oil salesmen to honest people recommending meditation to a friend. At the friend end, it can be all good, since we both agree that there are real benefits for many people of self prayer/meditation/etc. Christian bookstores with power of prayer sections fall on that continuum somewhere, depending on the store. Absolutely valid point. I’m not, and I hope I haven’t ever been, recommending that you bring up the prayer issue at your church. Any gain (such as debunking orbs) is at least something. I often chide our local skeptics that they debunk and talk about things like Qlink or astrology, while ignoring the much, much bigger scams of Christianity, maybe because it’s much safer in our community to do so. Are they cowards? At the same time, for those within Christianity, it’s safer and perhaps more effective to focus on the Emoto type of stuff, because as you point out, to do otherwise is suicide to your arguments. I still fail to see the distinction in cases of healing (not mental health). In all cases, a subjective first step is there (I prayed, or I felt an orb presence, or an angel came to me in a dream), and then that is followed by a testable, objective step (people are healed, here is the orb photo, here is the gem). In all those cases, the first step is untestable, and the second step has been demonstrated repeatedly to be wrong. Sure, in a single case - that’s what large studies are for. The same could be said for taking a medication - did the penicillin really make me better, or did I just get better? Large studies in both cases clarify that the penicillin has a real effect, the prayer does not.It sounds like you have the information you need to talk at your church. The info on prayer isn't relevant because we agree that it's best just to not go there. We could have a separate thread on the power of prayer, but it sounds like we've already covered all of that, so that's probably not needed.Have a fun day-Equinox

But what if someone questions everything to the point where they no longer kept their faith, but rather renounced it due to the vast amount of unkowns and uncertainties in the world's religions (and yes, every single religion in the world has a large amount of unknowns)? I saw a shirt once that said "not seeing is believing." I, personally, am not a particularly religious person, and you may not appreciate that or like me and my ideas and I respect that, but when someone believes in something that they don't even know exists, how can they be sure that what they believe to be true is really the truth? A reply might look like: "But that's the point of it being called 'faith,' you don't know if you're right or wrong or if your beliefs are correct, you don't know if there is a God or some other form of being on a higher plane than ourselves, and the belief that your beliefs are correct is enough justification for you to believe your beliefs to be the truth." If this is your response, then you're about halway there with my point.My point is this:Scientific standpoint:
If you cannot mathematically or scientifically prove that something exists, then it must not exist. Ockham's Razor (also Occam) states that "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity," or more commonly as "all things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one." In other words, when multiple rival/diverse theories are similar in other respects, the idea suggests selecting the theory composed of the fewest assumptions, postulates and hypothetical entities (a God of any kind).So, using the same school of thought we arrive at the conclusion that God must not exist.
But no-one can be sure about anything anymore because of all the different ideas and belief systems in our world.
So.................who, or what, do we believe ad why?

Sorry, but that statement is false.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion