"The pastoral part of the new campaign calls for a lot of individual and congregational prayer, including the kinds of prayers at masses that angered many Catholics this year. It also includes calls for Catholics to fast and abstain from meat on Fridays 'for the intention of the protection of Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty.'"

I'm not seeing the link between fasting and not eating meat on Fridays and "Life, Marriage, and Religious Liberty." Okay, I can see eating less meat and more vegetables might help extend one's life. But totally don't get the other two.

Perhaps they think that going back to the old ways will appeal to older catholics?

I really have no idea.

Obama, Marriage Equaility, Abortion, Contraceptives, Divorce, etc., etc.

But we all know, again, that you won't do any such thing.

You have a really, really, nice day.

then certainly you can prove that there is no God or deity that hears prayers that they might be answered?

It would be interesting to see the method that was used to prove it.

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:16 AM - Edit history (1)

Does it always work or work exactly as desired or in the desired time frame? No. But I certainly expect that you will cite the use of your normally very narrow and limited methodology as proof. Which of course we know does not have capability of assessing anything other than what it was designed to assess, e.g. intuition or anything considered as metaphysical or religious. IOW, if I cannot see, hear, smell, taste, or touch it, it doesn't exist. And I might add to the list "If I cannot understand it."

Many have tried, but to do so is nothing more than an ad hoc argument in that any intuitive of metaphysical event or process was assumed to conform to the expectations of the experimenters. To do so is an overt logical fallacy.

An atheist making a claim that he or she KNOWS that prayer does not work is no different than a life-long blind person not believing in color.

I have often stated that Christians are wrong if they do claim such and as a rule Christianity does not.

Subjective evidence and hence subjective "proof" is an entirely different story. Countless numbers have witnessed and experienced answers to prayer. They have no need to try proving anything to anyone, nor can they objectively.

Now, you are the one who claimed proof for prayer not working, and of course you and I know that objective proof of that does not exist. So be my guest. I never claimed that all prayer works, all the time.

Your words: "It has been proven." And since you are not known to accept subjective proof, I can only assume that you are referring to objective proof, of which there is none.

Got any?

It's obvious that this will end as it always does, with you boring me to death.

Have a nice day, HB. Next time, make sure you check to see which account you logged into, so as not to make that mistake.

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

I have already stated that I do not claim objective proof and you continue to show where "it's been proven."

There is no burden on me.

And there was no mistake.

If it is factual, you should be able to prove it.

Evolveorconvolve has the rest handled.

not mean that it can be objectively proven. And to say that any independent studies can prove objectively that prayer does not work all the time would indicate that they understand the ways and motivations of the one who answers prayer. IOW, you are still dealing with subjective proof drawn from controlled testing.

You seem to have trouble understanding the difference between subjective and objective.

If 100 people witness a space ship land and little green men disembark and then they leave in a hurry without a trace is it factual and is it also objectively provable? Do the 100 people doubt? Can they prove that it happened?

Now, you have said that you can prove that prayer does not work. Are you still prepared to claim that WE ALL KNOW that prayer does not work all the time. Obviously WE do not all know that. After all you are using this discussion as your diversion to avoid your own burden of proving your claim.

The tests you are referring to, or rather Evolveorconvolve, are controlled tests with very specific parameters and certainly do not represent all prayer all the time.

Everything that you put forth is, again, from that very narrow-minded perspective that was purposely designed to assess the physical world, and also purposely designed to exclude anything considered to be religious, supernatural, metaphysical, or intuitive in their nature. IOW, you are lying to yourself.

Obviously we all do not know that prayer doesn't work all the time.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070314195638.htm

Got proof?




Didn't think so.

"It's been proven. But if you have other ways of proving that not to be correct, please share" - that has been accomplished.

Now where is your proof?

Augustine of Hippo wrote, "I should pray as if it all depended on God, and I should pray as if it all depended on me."

you have is totally subjective. Therefore, you might want to rethink your statement about proof that prayer does not work. Now if you want to say that you have proof that prayer does not work in all cases, you would be correct.

Rookie mistake.

are engaged in such behavior right now.

Last edited Sat Dec 8, 2012, 03:24 PM - Edit history (1)

May? As in, "I believe it does but am unsure if it does or how to prove it"?

it may not work as in, "I believe it does not but am unsure if it doesn't or how to prove it"?

It's already been demonstrated that anything beyond that is a lie.

FFS, man. That's a rookie mistake. Gotta keep better track of those socks.

if you want a private conversation.

What I said was "it may work", as in "it may or may not work, there is no way of being sure".

All that has been demonstrated is that it does not work for you. Of course, any prayer that you might make is doubtless insincere, and any reasonably omniscient God would know this.

And certainly can do no harm. Yes, I cannot prove the efficacy of prayer. OTOH, you cannot prove that it does not work. Thus, your proclamation that there should be agreement that it does not work is not going to fly except among those who have a priori (a phrase meaning "I've made up my mind beforehand&quot judged that it does not work.

Might do some good? How? Prove it.

And certainly can do no harm? Bullocks.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/medical3.htm
http://projects.registerguard.com/web/newslocalnews/27597116-41/sprout-death-bellew-medical-slater.html.csp

And yes, humblebum, it has been proven to not work at all.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567


Now, as usual, go ahead and have the last word with some asinine non-witty retort. Rounds are over.

Last edited Tue Dec 11, 2012, 09:50 PM - Edit history (1)

You are submitting the limited results of one type of prayer under controlled conditions.

It is patently impossible to make such an absurd claim that all prayer does not work all the time, especially when there are so many that know better. For science to even claim that it understands the workings of something very supernatural is a brazen logical fallacy.

You are not even going to get a consensus from atheists, except of course those who adhere to scientism, because that is exactly what you trying to model. There is absolutely nothing objective about you argument.

Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky would have been proud of you because your methods are identical to theirs and they tolerated no criticism, even though their methods were contrived to yield planned results. Ad hoc to the bone.

"And yes, humblebum, it has been proven to not work at all" - Still waiting for that proof.

Aren't sock puppets against the rules?

I am harming you? In what way? Be specific.

Faith healing is not "prayer". Changing the rules in the middle of the debate is dishonest.

If it does, you are harming me when you pray for me.

If not, what's the point of it then?

And yes, faith healing IS praying for one's god or whatever supernatural entity to heal a sick person.


So does prayer work, yes or no?

You wrote: "If [prayer] does [work] , you are harming me when you pray for me."

So if you get sick, and I pray, "Lord, let cleanhippie get well", and my prayer works, then how am I harming you? If prayer does not work, and I make the same prayer, then I have effectively done nothing to you. In either case, I have done you no harm.

I cannot say if prayer works or not. As a Christian, I do believe that God answers prayer; but I know full well that the answer may well be "no". (And if it's, say, "May I win the lottery", the answer is probably, "You've got to be kidding".)

But one cannot say "We can prove that prayer does not work" any more than one can say "We can prove that there is no God".

In fact, you can't lose!

However, to make the blanket claim for proof that all prayer does not work all of the time, is not only a logical fallacy, but so obviously flawed to make the claimant look ignorant. Hippie's motivation is simply fluster you. He is well aware of what he is saying.

Oh, it is. But not all prayer is faith healing. I am certainly prepared to say that faith healing has a lousy track record when it comes to being a cure for physical ailments.

Let's have a syllogism:

Faith healing is a kind of prayer
Faith healing does not work
Therefore: One kind of prayer does not work

That's a long way from "Therefore: All kinds of prayer does not work". It's logically on the same level as

The Ford Pinto is a kind of car
The Ford Pinto's gas tank tends to explode in rear end collisions
Therefore: All car gas tanks tend to explode in rear end collisions

It is impossible to determine how often prayers work as intended because the number and nature of all prayers are not known. Therefore, it obviously impossible to say that all prayers do not work all the time.

In addition, the fact that many claim that prayer does work negates hippie's claim.

I'm done.

Classic!

hide the fact that you have none.

But we all know that you are just evading as usual.

It's great! Keep it up. Very Entertaining!

you know that you are lying and are having too much fun doing it. Childish.

How does one go from entertaining to super boring in a single post?

You do not understand how the scientific method works. It does not prove propositions. It disproves them. Or it fails to disprove them.

Science has been unable to disprove the proposition that prayer is no more effective than placebo.

You know, like the ticker during sports events. Who scored, the tally and most relevant, imo, time remaining in the game.

Thanks.

Team Reality or Team make-believe.

Not so easy when you don't have the power of the State behind you.

June 21 is the feast day of Thomas More, designated a saint as a Catholic martyr. He was a high ranking official in England during the Protestant reformation and the establishment of the Church of England with a history of burning "heretics" at the stake. Tried for treason when he refused to acknowledge King Henry's dual role as head of state and leader of the Church of England, as well as the legitimacy of Henry's marriage to Anne Boylen. Convicted and beheaded.

A convoluted story in a convoluted time, yet rife with the intersection of politics, religion and society.

I find this troubling irregardless of the Bishops' stated intent.

(And the call for a return to meatless Fridays is clearly a simplistic troll to enlist older, more traditional Catholics in this campaign.)

Suspect it will be largely ignored, fwiw.

The leadership is very conservative, however Obama pulled the majority of the Catholic vote.

This is a problem for them. A big problem.

But, nooooooo. They are just upping the ante.

from Benedict on down, top to bottom. They would rather lose all their members than change their self-righteous minds.

I suspect that most Catholics will simply ignore these fools. Passive resistance.

Well, yeah, if by ignoring you mean continuing to go to services and put money in the collection plate...

and individual priests, and congregations, can be very liberal.

Thats ok with me.

Unfortunately, you don't.

Unfortunately, you don't.

The Church is the Clergy and the hierarchy. The congregation and followers are their flock. The Church has always acted to protect and empower itself over the good of the rank and file.
There is the Church and then those who go to church.
I know Catholics wish to believe otherwise. But it's whole history shows this to be true.

I ran into this on the website for the progressive Catholic group Call to Action.

It summarizes some of the contemporary Catholic social views.

http://cta-usa.org/about/faq/

if 83% of Catholics think it is morally wrong to discriminate against gay people why do they finance and support an organization that does not only discriminate against us, but also uses those contributions to actively pursue political attacks upon equal rights? Are those 83% not simply announcing that they will take part in moral wrongs if commanded by the church?
To those attacked by that organization or 'faith' it is very confusing to hear that the attacks come while no one actually believe this stuff. It does not make any sense.

that the congregation is not the Church, the clergy is.

The clergy is not the entire Church. Would you say that the Pope is the Catholic Church?

James Joyce defined the Catholic Church as "Here comes everybody!" One can say similar things about most Churches.

Last edited Mon Dec 10, 2012, 11:57 AM - Edit history (1)

the hierarchical nature of the Church with it's cult like priesthood, makes it different than many other religions.
For instance in many faiths the congregation hires the Pastor or Rabbi, etc.
The Church gives the Parrish it's Priest. Complete bottom down rule. Priest's don't have families and are not tied to the community, they can leave when ever the Vatican tells them to. The Clergy is separate from the followers,
Many more examples why this is so.


I do understand that this is my personal view of the Catholic Church. Supported by the evidence as I see it. Others can accept my argument or not. Many, practicing Catholics in particular, may see it differently.

Basically because we know better.

that certainly is a condescending answer.

But accurate, nonetheless.

and anyone else's is disregarded.

I was not stating an opinion, I was stating a fact.

I must have missed it.

and not an interpretation? I look at the same history you do, and come to a conclusion that the church and the rank and file are separate.
You do not. You seem to have a very fundamentalist "mine is the only way to see things" approach.

I look at the history, and it is blindingly obvious that the Church is more than just the clergy. Oh, the clergy would like to pretend that it all revolves around them, but this is no more than a pretense.

You say you have read Church history. Does your reading include such works as Cardinal Newman's On Consulting The Faithful On Matters Of Doctrine? Excellent essay on the part the laity has historically played in determining both dogma and Church policy.

I say "mine is the way to see it" because I know that I am correct.

I am basically saying that the clergy see themselves as "The Church" and are separate from the faithful. And they have always behaved that way. And since they control the Church, that is how the institution works.

You seemed to be saying that the clergy IS the Church in your view. And you seemed to be agreeing with them.

I only see the Church as an institution. Since I see it run by the clergy this way. That they see it as distinct from the rank and file. Then in a real world sense, that is the way it is. You might see it in a different, metaphysical way. Being in "the Church" probably means something different to you.
But from my point of view, the Church is an organization run with complete authority by the Papacy, to the benefit and protection of the clergy, often to the detriment of the faithful.

As far as I've seen, it is pro-life at all costs, and the born be impoverished in this life, damned if necessary in the next.
Where is the Catholic Worker?
Where is the work of Fr. John Ryan?
Did you know that the idea of the living wage started in Catholic social teaching?
The USCCB have no standing, no commitment to re-structuring this society and telling the truth to this massively self-deceived country.
The voice of historical paternalism that commands resignation to the existence of so much suffering among us must not be listened to.
It must be countered and humiliated.