To suggest our prayers aren’t having the immediate result we deem to be correct is the ultimate show of arrogance. God operates outside time and space, so proof of the good, ultimate value in God’s allowance of things — like this coronavirus pandemic — might not be seen even in our lifetimes.

Philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig  explained : 

To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations. A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean. Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome. The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child’s dying of leukemia could produce a sort of ripple effect through history such that God’s morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later and perhaps in another land. When you think of God’s providence over the whole of history, I think you can see how hopeless it is for limited observers to speculate on the probability that God could have a morally sufficient reason for permitting a certain evil. We’re just not in a good position to assess such probabilities.

It’s possible, too, our prayers aren’t about immediate outward changes (though sometimes they are) but inward restorations. Rather than asking God  why He’s allowed something, perhaps our job is to determine  what  we can do in the midst of it.

thenewstalkers

To suggest our prayers aren’t having the immediate result we deem to be correct is the ultimate show of arrogance.

What "results" are prayers having? The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result. It might make someone "feel" better or fell like they're doing something. But that's about it.

Maybe you should do some research as to the amount of social good churches and their committed members do and support and be glad we are here even if you don’t believe as we do. 

Maybe you should do some research as to the amount of social good churches and their committed members do and support and be glad we are here even if you don’t believe as we do. 

A strawman argument. I was not referring to churches or religious institutions. I was specifically addressing the prayer aspect. Besides, one does not need religion or churches to do good. Being a decent human being in general is a good way.

The record says otherwise . Prayer isn’t all about signs and wonders or miracles being sought after. There’s so much more as described elsewhere. Also as described in great detail secularists can in no way match or replace what believers do or give

Some folks think God is supposed to be a wishing well of sorts. That's why you get the occasional idiotic "Pray to win the lotto and tell me how that works out for ya" tripe.

Those type of people clearly have no use for prayer and don't really know much about it. Their pseudo-intellectual brains can't fathom a power greater then themselves.

You are mocking many religious people worldwide.   Praying for divine blessings does indeed seem illogical but surely you realize that not everyone prays for guidance and wisdom.   Surely you have observed people praying for an ill person to recover, for a recession to end, for a loved one to return safely from war, for their football team to win, ....

I am surprised that you mock these people.

I am surprised that you mock these people.

And I am not surprised that you couldn't understand what I wrote.

If I misunderstood then why not correct my misunderstanding rather than insult my intelligence?

If I misunderstood then why not correct my misunderstanding rather than insult my intelligence?

You stated that I mocked religious people. I did nothing of the sort.

That wasn't a misunderstanding, that was obtuseness.

And you know it.

Just cut to the chase and claim some "strawman" argument from me and move on, okay?

I'll let you have the last word.

And your source for that declaration of course comes from a religious site. Confirmation bias.

Even an MSNBC host   asked the Rev. T.D. Jakes to pray   for the country during a live television broadcast the other day. “For folks who aren’t able to get to church yesterday, I’ve never actually done this on the air: can you lead us in prayer for 30 seconds?” asked anchor Craig Melvin. 

“Our Father and our God, we bow our heads to you in humility, understanding that we are not competent in and of ourselves to handle this kind of global calamity,” prayed Jakes. “We look to You, Lord, to be the source, the strength, the help, the light that we need, strengthen our first responders, strengthen even our broadcast people, strengthen all of us whose lives have been devastated and disrupted and give us the peace that passes all understanding. In Christ’s name we pray, amen.”

People are desperate for hope right now, and Christians know the ultimate Hope. Evil exists, but there is an ultimate good for those who know Jesus Christ. This pain may last for a night, but “joy comes in the morning”.  thenewstalkers

Then try to rebut the facts they point out if you can. You can’t begin to deny the positive impact we have on the world and your belief system can’t begin to match it either. 

You stated that I mocked religious people. I did nothing of the sort.

From your comment @1.1.4

Some folks think God is supposed to be a wishing well of sorts.

Some of those people are religious people.  Those who pray for healing, pray for a sports victory, pray for prosperity - all are treating God as a wishing well.  But they're still religious, and you're still mocking them.  Unless you meant "Some folks think God is supposed to be a wishing well of sorts." as praise.  If so, please correct our interpretation of your words.

You stated that I mocked religious people. I did nothing of the sort.

Uh huh.   Here is your entire comment @1.1.4:

Texan @1.1.4 ☞ Some folks think God is supposed to be a wishing well of sorts. That's why you get the occasional idiotic "Pray to win the lotto and tell me how that works out for ya" tripe.  Those type of people clearly have no use for prayer and don't really know much about it. Their pseudo-intellectual brains can't fathom a power greater then themselves.

I noted that there are indeed many people who pray to God for divine favors:

TiG @1.1.5 ☞ Praying for divine blessings does indeed seem illogical but surely you realize that not everyone prays for guidance and wisdom.   Surely you have observed people praying for an ill person to recover, for a recession to end, for a loved one to return safely from war, for their football team to win, .....

Atheists do not usually pray so these folks who do pray for divine favors are theists (not necessarily Christian either).   These people do believe God might answer their prayers.   But you call these:  'folks [who] think God is supposed to be a wishing well of sorts'.   Apparently you scoff at their beliefs:  "don't really know much about it" as ignorance that provides mean atheists fodder to criticize their divine wishing.

Sure reads as though you think those who pray for divine favors are being silly.    And since you refuse to clarify, I will go with what you wrote.

In short the question in effect was:  do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly ("... a wishing well ...")?

Some of those people are religious people.  Those who pray for healing, pray for a sports victory, pray for prosperity - all are treating God as a wishing well.  But they're still religious, and you're still mocking them.  

I did not mock them. I stated it in a response referencing what I believe is happening, especially when coming from someone who doesn't pray or believe in it. I even gave a specific example of exactly what I was talking about.

If so, please correct our interpretation of your words.

My words were pretty clear, I thought.

It isn't my job to interpret for you.

So, you have either a favorable or neutral opinion of religious people who see God as a wishing well?

So, you have either a favorable or neutral opinion of religious people who see God as a wishing well?

I have an unfavorable opinion of people who demand that God grant some wish as proof that He exists.

Not my business what people pray for or to whom they pray.

I believe that praying for money to get by and praying to win the lottery are two distinct things.

I'm speaking strictly for myself, and have no interest if people agree or disagree with me on it.

That’s for sure.  We owe our secular humanist opposition nothing more than already stated.  

I have an unfavorable opinion of people who demand that God grant some wish as proof that He exists.

Mmmhmmm.  Way to change the subject of your mockery.  It's unfortunate that your attempt to insult nonbelievers ended up encompassing those believers who actually do treat God as a wishing well.  Nonbelievers, if one cares to apply simple logic, do not.

I believe that praying for money to get by and praying to win the lottery are two distinct things

I believe they are the same thing.

Sad thing is, I was actually going to agree with you for once, but, then you made no actual point.

Mmmhmmm.  Way to change the subject of your mockery. 

Gee, I am sorry you took exactly what you wanted from my post, even after I explained it to you and pointed to an example in the very first post I made about this.

Like I stated, I can't interpret for you.

Truth is, I kind of get a kick out of it when liberals are still proving Reagan right--30+ years later.

Thanks.

I  believe they are the same thing.

Okay, great.

Sad thing is, I was actually going to agree with you for once, but, then you made no actual point.

Let me see if I can muster anything up from my give-a-damn.

Ah....nope, fresh out!

And again, no point to anything.

Must be sad.

Seems to be an MO.

even after I explained it to you and pointed to an example in the very first post I made about this.

Here's the problem with your explanation.

I stated it in a response referencing what I believe is happening, especially when coming from someone who doesn't pray or believe in it.

Those who don't pray or believe in prayer by definition don't treat God as a wishing well.  Nonbelievers don't ask God for anything.  Why would they?

That would be those who pray, or at least some of them.  Religious people.  The subjects of your mockery.  Just for praying.

Here's the problem with your explanation.

I have absolutely no problem with my explanation.

I'm almost sorry if you do.

Those who don't pray or believe in prayer by definition don't treat God as a wishing well. 

You seem to be inching closer to what I meant.

I believe it is stupid for people who don't believe in God to demand that God answer a prayer in a specific way to prove God exists. Not sure how you didn't get that from my response where I initially stated that.

Nonbelievers don't ask God for anything.  Why would they?

Never claimed they did. "Why would they" should be directed at anyone who might have stated that, but it isn't me.

That would be those who pray, or at least some of them.  Religious people.  The subjects of your mockery.  Just for praying

You either get my point or you don't. Not really my concern.

But I am kind of getting the feeling that I should maybe pray for you.

Again, nothing.

Starting to see an empty vessel.

At least you admit it. Way more than most do...

It is a wildly different thing to live by faith and pray to meet immediate and direct needs and praying for wealth by gambling in the lottery.  

The good thing is one can grow. One just needs to grow a backbone and not follow the herd.

I know that is hard for some fox watchers.

No it is the same.

How is praying for money different than praying on gambling?

Ridiculous in itself to try to make a distinction.

I know that is hard for some fox watchers.

Then you should probably switch channels.

And again, empty vessel.

Sadly I keep thinking there may be something more.

The preacher Joel Osteen told his congregation on his tv show today that God will hide them from the coronavirus. 

Why would God "hide" some people and not others? 

btw, the death rate in the US for the confirmed cases is almost 3%  -  9000 deaths/ 322000 cases .

Never claimed they did.

Sure you did.

people who demand that God grant some wish as proof that He exists.

Just like you mocked religious people who ask God for things.

However many times you tell a lie., it remains a lie.

Your comment is a lie.

Almost anyone can see exactly what I meant.

But if it helps you feel better, keep on lying!

I'll pray all the more for you now.

Everybody can read what you typed.  Backpedaling won't change it.

Funny thing is, no one who is religious has bothered to whine or complain or even remark about what I wrote.

Why do you think you know what insults them more than they do?

I backpeddled nothing.

why don't you backpeddle your blatant lies?

I can understand why they don't wish to see themselves as having been unintentionally mocked by you, and I also can understand that they may feel an unexplained sense of solidarity with you that may make them unlikely to outwardly recognize the mockery.

But you mocked some of them.  I doubt you intended to at the time.  You intended to mock nonbelievers.  You just forgot that your insult can't apply to nonbelievers, who ask nothing of God.

Whoops.

Logic.

"not follow the herd."

Says someone who religiously follows the liberal herd.

I can understand why they don't wish to see themselves as having been unintentionally mocked by you, and I also can understand that they may feel an unexplained sense of solidarity with you that may make them unlikely to outwardly recognize the mockery.

Amazing to me that you can claim to understand that, but can't understand something as simple as "I did not mock them".

Perhaps I should pray that one day you will understand.

ut you mocked some of them.  I doubt you intended to at the time.  You intended to mock nonbelievers.  You just forgot that your insult can't apply to nonbelievers, who ask nothing of God.

Now you are just being obtuse.

I don't have any more time for your obtuseness or lies.

I don't care what it is you think about it. I wasn't going to change your mind, and have no intention of ever trying. What you think is all on you and completely unrelated to me or what I wrote.

All in black and white, Tex.  I can understand why you wouldn't want to admit it.  I doubt it was intentional on your part.  I think it more likely that you didn't consider the implication of your words, and would now like to deny that they meant what they meant.

Insulting me doesn't negate the fact that you mocked some religious people.

All in black and white, Tex

Yes, it is. Here is the FULL Post that you seem to have grossly misunderstood--either through ignorance or deliberately:

Some folks think God is supposed to be a wishing well of sorts. That's why you get the occasional idiotic "Pray to win the lotto and tell me how that works out for ya" tripe.
Those type of people clearly have no use for prayer and don't really know much about it. Their pseudo-intellectual brains can't fathom a power greater then themselves.

You are the specific type of person I referred to in my post.

I can understand why you wouldn't want to admit it

Epic fail. I never denied writing the words--just your interpretation of MY words.

Insulting me doesn't negate the fact that you mocked some religious people.

If you felt insulted, I am almost sorry. I didn't mock religious people., That REMAINS A BLATANT LIE.

Repeatedly labeling Sandy obtuse and repeatedly claiming she is lying accomplishes nothing of value.   Instead of dodging and attacking, you could have simply set the record straight.

Do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly (per @1.1.4 — "... a wishing well ...")?

Repeatedly labeling Sandy obtuse and repeatedly claiming she is lying accomplishes nothing of value.   Instead of dodging and attacking, you could have simply set the record straight.

I DID "set the record straight". But I damn sure can't understand it for her.

I believe she can speak for herself and doesn't need your help.

On second thought, maybe she does need your help, as she has proven to not understand my simple post.

I have asked you the same direct question twice and you deflect both times:

Do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly (per @ 1.1.4 — "... a wishing well ...")?

Claiming people do not understand you when you refuse to answer direct questions is not the problem of others.

Except that whole "wishing well" thing doesn't apply to me, or other nonbelievers.  A key point you choose to ignore, since your eagerness to insult nonbelievers led you to inadvertently insult some believers.  

You are the specific type of person I referred to in my post.

If you felt insulted, I am almost sorry.

So, you meant to insult me but are almost sorry that you did?

That's about as consistent as the rest of your comments here.

Your problems are not my problems. 

Guess this means you won't be able to help her understand my post any better than you do.

Except that whole "wishing well" thing doesn't apply to me, or other nonbelievers.  A key point you choose to ignore, since your eagerness to insult nonbelievers led you to inadvertently insult some believers.  

Your opinion that I insulted people who honestly pray means nothing to me. I know what I wrote, and what I meant, and can't understand it for you. Whether you personally believe me or not is of no consequence here.

So, you meant to insult me but are almost sorry that you did?

I meant what I wrote, and how you take it personally is on you.

I AM almost sorry, but couldn't quite get all the way there.

That's about as consistent as the rest of your comments here.

And yet, as consistent as my comments have been, you still have no earthly idea of what I am speaking of.

Please take the last word here. I really don't care what your opinion is, but it might make you feel better.

It does seem that they are determined to have the last word.  They seem to think that there is any thing they can say to dissuade us from our beliefs and faith or anything they can do to stop us from expressing the fulfillment, joy, hope that we have because of what we believe or that there is power in a prayer life.  If they think that during a time like this that we will hide what we have under a bushel, they have another thing coming.  We are going to let our light shine come what may from them.  

It’s Holy Week so I expect that the sworn enemies of our faith and the expression of hope we share even during a pandemic will be out in numbers in a show of force. 

You are correct in all your points in your post.  Well said.

that herd is one of lemmings. 

[deleted]

It’s their immersion into the false doctrines of reason and logic to the exclusion of all else. 

All objective observers know exactly what you meant and what you said and you are exactly right.  

Because if a real believer who has a relationship with God and prays regularly and has a need come up and asks God to help find a way to make the legitimate need be met, He May well find a way for it to happen.  Praying for instant wealth by gambling which itself is an immoral act to most believers via buying any number of lottery tickets is asking God to reward wrong doing such as wasting much needed earned money on the tickets and presuming God to grant that wish.

I just get tired of people deliberately misunderstanding a post to score some "points". It is asinine and childish. I will not be tolerating that fucking bullshit any longer for any reason.

These arguments always end up with nothing more than "Prove it" anyways.

The same "logical" people can't stand it, so they have to come crap on the whole seed.

Screw that!

Yeah, that’s why I try to ignore them. But you know, cue the attack on my inability to think logically in 3, 2, 1 . . .

I try to ignore them as much as possible, and am fairly successful at it, but sometimes I just can't take it anymore and have to speak my mind.

That was BULLSHIT about me insulting people who pray--and my first post in this thread easily proves it to anyone willing to LOOK and COMPREHEND. I just don't get how they can deliberately misunderstand what is plainly written.

[deleted]

I wouldn't go that far.

But I get where you're coming from.

Tolerance is certainly not their strong suit.

I don't try to convert them, and never once have I ever done that. I think it is the condescension that irks me so badly, that and the constant barrage of how "illogical" anyone who believes in God is.

That was BULLSHIT about me insulting people who pray

Yes, it was.

I just don't get how they can deliberately misunderstand what is plainly written.

I think sometimes people aren’t looking for a discussion, but are really looking to “win an argument.” Sometimes to do that, they have to pretend you said something rude or stupid.

Sometimes to do that, they have to pretend you said something rude or stupid.

It must be easier to argue what others don't say than what they do say.

What "results" are prayers having? The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result.

Really?

You like evidence and proof.    Can you give some definitive proof or evidence that it isn’t?

Be specific please. 

We forget who we were dealing with on that particular matter.  One even more militant in their secularism thaneven Gordy is

That was BULLSHIT about me insulting people who pray

Do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly (per @ 1.1.4 — "... a wishing well ...")?

Considering covid cases are only and have been on the rise, including deaths, it's clear that prayer is having no effect on the crisis. If anything, things have only gotten worse. So if someone is praying for covid to be cured or go away or whatever, they're obviously wasting their time. But I'll bet they probably think they're doing something constructive or making themselves feel better. There's certainly no evidence to suggest, much less support the idea that prayer might be helping with the number of cases.

That is not evidence or proof that prayer isn't helping make it better.

Please defend your comment with verifiable evidence or proof or take it back.

Actually, it is. The current numbers contradict any notion or claim that prayer is helping things. There is certainly nothing to suggest otherwise that prayer is helping. So if someone is going to claim prayer is going to help, then the numbers do not support that.

I don't know what is worse: him making such a stupid and dangerous claim, or people who actually believe that nonsense. 

Actually, it is.

No its not, not in the least but i'm not going to argue with you about it.   Thats a fools errand and i'm no a fool.

Suffice it to say your comment is absolutely unprovable and considering your proclivity to demand proof in other matters, is about as hypocritical as one can get.   And that's all i have to say about that ....

Gordy's point is that the evidence suggests prayer is not helping and, in fact, suggests it is worsening the situation.   He is not claiming this as a certain fact.   He is stating the obvious — if one equates prayer with the reduction in COVID-19 cases then the evidence suggests prayer is at best doing nothing.

There is a major difference between noting correlations based on evidence and making a grand claim of certainty.   No doubt you know this yet you nonetheless falsely accuse Gordy of being a hypocrite.   Nice.

And here comes the usual Atheist dosey doe  ......... 3, 2,1 now report it!

I clearly understand what he is trying to say and it changes nothing.   And as usual i don't need a lecture.   His comment i quoted in 1.1.71 was definitive.  

A comment that can not be proven no matter how hard either of you try to rationalize that it can.

No debate about it.   Put up or shut up and save the absurd rationalizations for someone who doesn't know better.

Let's examine this then, shall we? Let's start with the premise the prayer will either cause a positive outcome of covid cases (reduced number of cases/deaths) or have no effect or even a negative outcome (increasing number of cases/deaths). We must start with the assumption that people are praying for covid to either be cured or eliminated. Now we take a population sample and determine the number of cases/deaths over time. Covid was first identified in December 2019. But let's say March 2020 and in the US, just to keep it simpler, as March is when cases started occurring exponentially. According to the CDC, there were 30 cased reported March 1. As of April 4, there were 304,826 cases reported. As of March 7, there were 18 reported deaths. As of April 4, there are a total of 1,889 deaths reported specifically due to covid (not including deaths from covid complications-those numbers are much higher). Presumably,  people were praying during the month of March, especially after VP Pence urged for prayers. But as we can see by the numbers, prayer has had no effect in reducing the number of covid cases and deaths. 

Lets use the KISS principle to exam this.   Always the best method when possible.   Nothing more is required in this case

Can you prove prayer is not helping reduce covid cases?   Yes or no?    Its that simple.

And if yes please provide ANY definitive proof or evidence you have to back your assertion up.    So far i've seen no compelling evidence or proof to back your comment up   ...... only conjecture and mere opinions.

We all know that we can no more prove that prayer works than they can prove that it doesn't.

I guess the main difference is we don't get all condescending, basically calling them idiots for what they believe.

Think they'll ever learn to not do that?

We all know that we can no more prove that prayer works than they can prove that it doesn't.

Exactly.   You will notice i never claimed otherwise.

I guess the main difference is we don't get all condescending, basically calling them idiots for what they believe.

Some seem to have a chronic need to do that.   Its very telling to me.

Think they'll ever learn to not do that?

I have hope for some but not all. 

Do you think that praying to God for divine favors is logical or do you think it is silly (per @ 1.1.4 — "... a wishing well ...")?

Your oft-repeated question has nothing to do with the claim that I made about it being BULLSHIT that I insulted anyone religious.

Why are ONLY the non-religious claiming it?

If it was so damn insulting, I would expect at least ONE person who is religious to complain at least as much as a couple of nonbelievers have.

I clearly understand what he is trying to say and it changes nothing.

If you think Gordy made a claim of certainty then you do not understand what he wrote.

Well, shucky darn, Sparty, I reckon we'uns ought to let the smart folks alone. We are obviously just too dumb to understand their high-faluting ways!

Can you prove prayer is not helping reduce covid cases? 

Of course he cannot prove that.  But he never claimed as a certainty that prayer is not helping COVID-19 cases.   He stated that the evidence suggests that prayer is having at best no effect.  

You claim to understand the difference between correlation of evidence and a claim of certainty but your comments conflate the two.

But as we can see by the numbers, prayer has had no effect in reducing the number of covid cases and deaths. 

Looks pretty certain to me, but I know, we are just too stupid to understand everything you do, right?

I understand the words he wrote just fine.   Once again no need for a lecture or more word games from you.  

His comment was definitive in that it clearly stated the covid crisis was not diminishing due to prayer.   Clearly a definitive statement by any reasonable interpretation and obviously not something that can be proven one way or the other.  

Not  unless you or Gordy are omniscient of course ..... are you?

Boy, you sure have a better "between the lines" reader than i do. /s   Perhaps you should have written it for him as well.

The words mean what they mean Tig but you can keep trying to craft them into something else if you want.   I'm not buying it.   Not in the least.

At least you manned up and admitted what was said can't be proven.   Perhaps Gordy will now as well but i doubt it.

Isn't it amazing that he can look at a definitive statement and declare it isn't one, all the while confusing what I stated about God not being a wishing well to prove to nonbelievers that he exists?

Yeah, this is SOSDD considering .....

Looks pretty certain to me, but I know, we are just too stupid to understand everything you do, right?

A claim of certainty means declaring something to be truth.   Evidence suggesting a conclusion is not a claim of certainty, it is an observation.   A claim of certainty in this case would be:  'prayer does not reduce the number of COVID-19 cases'.   Gordy, if you even read what you quoted, is stating that the numbers suggest that prayer is having no effect.   Gordy's claim is that the numbers suggest no effect.   If you want to challenge his claim then you would ask him to deliver the numbers that suggest prayer is not reducing the number of COVID-19 cases.

word games

How ironic that you deem my explanations of the obvious to be word games.

His comment was definitive in that it clearly stated the covid crisis was not diminishing due to prayer. 

Wrong, Gordy wrote that the evidence suggests COVID-19 cases are not diminishing due to prayer.   He is clearly talking about the statistics which show COVID-19 cases on the rise in spite of prayers.   That is fundamentally different than an unqualified, stand-alone claim such as:  'prayer has no effect on COVID-19 cases'.

His claim is of evidence.  You certainly could legitimately question his statistical evidence (in which case he could provide you stats showing that COVID-19 cases continue to rise).   His claim is not that prayer cannot possibly have any effect on the numbers of COVID-19 cases.

But as we can see by the numbers, prayer has had no effect in reducing the number of covid cases and deaths

Spin it some more, please.

That is what he wrote. Seems definitive to me, but, hey, I get it, only YOU are smart enough to declare anything here, and we bumpkins should just bow to your expertise.

Spin it some more, PLEASE. It is quite entertaining watching you turn yourself into a pretzel defending his statement as not definitive.

He didn't claim that the numbers suggested it, he stated the numbers prove it.

Spin it, baby, spin it.

SOSDD

Horseshit.    Again, this is what he said:

The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result.

There is no "suggest" mentioned.   Certainly means, in a manner that is certain.   Certain means, known or proved to be true which we have already agreed here that it can't be proven true.

So just stop it Tig.    You are embarrassing yourself with your word games.

He didn't claim that the numbers suggested it, he stated the numbers prove it.

You are putting words in his mouth:

Gordy @1.1.81 ☞ Let's examine this then, shall we? Let's start with the premise the prayer will either cause a positive outcome of covid cases (reduced number of cases/deaths) or have no effect or even a negative outcome (increasing number of cases/deaths). We must start with the assumption that people are praying for covid to either be cured or eliminated. Now we take a population sample and determine the number of cases/deaths over time. Covid was first identified in December 2019. But let's say March 2020 and in the US, just to keep it simpler, as March is when cases started occurring exponentially. According to the CDC, there were 30 cased reported March 1. As of April 4, there were 304,826 cases reported. As of March 7, there were 18 reported deaths. As of April 4, there are a total of 1,889 deaths reported specifically due to covid (not including deaths from covid complications-those numbers are much higher). Presumably,  people were praying during the month of March, especially after VP Pence urged for prayers. But as we can see by the numbers, prayer has had no effect in reducing the number of covid cases and deaths. 

Where does he claim this is proof?   He is talking about statistics and trends.   The evidence shows ... These are observations as of today.   When someone makes a clear statement such as:

Gordy @1.1.74 ☞ There's certainly no evidence to suggest, much less support the idea that prayer might be helping with the number of cases.

Your refusal to acknowledge this is an observation of evidence is your failure.    Trying to deem this as a certain declaration (carrying the burden of proof) that prayer cannot possibly help in the spread of COVID-19 is ridiculous.  

Note:  I am confident that Gordy does not believe prayer will make any difference in the spread of COVID-19.   That is my opinion too.   That opinion correlates well with the available evidence.   But there is not sufficient information to declare with certainty that prayer cannot possibly have an effect.

What goes up must come down
Spinnin' wheel got to go 'round
Talkin' 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony let the spinnin' wheel spin
You got no money and you got no home
Spinnin' wheel all alone
Talkin' 'bout your troubles and you, you never learn
Ride a painted pony let the spinnin' wheel turn

keep on spinning, baby!!!!

But there is not sufficient information to declare with certainty that prayer cannot possibly have an effect.

Then what the hell are you arguing about?

That was my only point to begin with.

I like how you are talking for Gordy but perhaps next time you should write his comment for him.   Then you could have left the word "certainly" out.  

There is no "suggest" mentioned.   Certainly means, in a manner that is certain.   Certain means, known or proved to be true which we have already agreed here that it can't be proven true.

Looks to me as though you wish to simply declare that you are right.   Sorry, that is not how it works.   You cherry-pick one sentence from Gordy's opening comment ignoring the context and ignoring everything else he has written to explain his meaning to you.   You are purposely ignoring what the man has written.

Opening statement:

Gordy @1.1 ☞ What "results" are prayers having? The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result. It might make someone "feel" better or fell like they're doing something. But that's about it.

The quoted statement is demonstrably true based on the stats.   "The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result. "   The COVID-19 cases are indeed not diminishing, the are still increasing.   That is a fact, right?   So if someone attributes prayer to helping diminish the COVID-19 cases, then prayer is not having any effect in the statistics.

As I have noted, Gordy's claim is about the evidence.   His claim of certainty is that the evidence shows COVID-19 cases rising, not falling.   That is his claim of certainty.   He uses that evidence to suggest that prayer does not seem to be having any effect.   A logical interpretation.

I may need to take a little break.

Watching all of this spinning is making me dizzy!

You cherry-pick one sentence from Gordy's opening comment ignoring the context and ignoring everything else he has written to explain his meaning to you.   You are purposely ignoring what the man has written.

Well, well, well, isn't THAT rich, considering the source and how misinterpreted my comment was.

LMMFAO

Well, well, well, isn't THAT rich, considering the source and how misinterpreted my comment was.

I repeatedly asked you a direct question that would set the record straight on what you meant.  You chose to deflect, complain, go personal, etc.   That is your failure.

Here, I am providing direct quotes with baby step explanations that you fail to rebut and instead simply repeat your claim.   

Here is an idea, ask Gordy if he asserts that prayer cannot possibly have an effect on COVID-19 cases.   If he answers ‘yes’ then you have a claim of certainty.   He believes prayer has no effect, so see if he asserts his belief as absolute truth.

If you are trying to be honest and fair you would ask a question of the author, just as I did for you.

I made myself perfectly clear, but you and another tried to pretend I didn't.

Keep spinning, it is actually quite entertaining to watch!

Then what the hell are you arguing about?

I am rebutting your claim that Gordy declared with certainty that prayer cannot help fight the spread of COVID-19.   His declaration of certainty was that the cases are increasing; not that prayer could not possibly have any effect.

Then you could have left the word "certainly" out.  

And what does 'certainly' apply to?  (hint: see above)

This is the key to your failure:  cherry-picking a word or a sentence.   Instead of asking the author a clarifying question, you stubbornly push your desired narrative in spite of the actual words written.

You could offer a rebuttal.   But you do not do so.

You could ask Gordy for clarification.  But you do not do so.

You have nothing.

Lol, i have no problem standing behind everything i have written here as accurate and sincere.   I also have no burning desire to always be right all the time but i usually don't post unless i think i am right so there you go.   Thing is i expect that others here who always demand a high standard of proof, to offer the same in return when questioned.  

That hasn't happened here and it appears some involved truly ARE very interested in always being right  no matter what and/or just intent on playing word games for the sake of playing games.   For what reason i have no idea.

Again, i stand by all my comments here and categorically disagree with all of yours unless noted otherwise.

I out  ..... peace and health!

To be blunt, no I don’t.  

Again, i stand by all my comments

A meaningless declaration in lieu of a direct, factual rebuttal.   You can stand by your comments ad infinitum but that will not make them true.

So predictable ... so trite ..... yawn!

You could offer a rebuttal.   But you do not do so.
You could ask Gordy for clarification.  But you do not do so.
You have nothing.

well, golly gee, you must be right because only you are smart and no one is even qualified to converse with you, You are always right, right? And dumb old me, just a hick from Texas. Can't possibly be on YOUR level!

Keep spinning!

Me too just from reading all the spin cycles they are. Going through.  

Agreed. The claims made by “the logical people” are absurd, unsupportable hate speech, as far as I’m concerned. For example, the claim that the numbers support their position:

The current numbers contradict

The numbers contradict nothing. No one has grounds for interpreting the numbers because they lack a baseline to compare them to. For all anyone knows, the pandemic might be ten times worse but for prayer. Their unequivocal declarations that prayer is having no effect, or that the crisis is not diminishing as a result, or that people who pray are wasting their time cannot be substantiated.

Of course, when you call them on it enough, they try to team up and pretend they aren’t making factual claims, just being skeptical, or even open-minded, which is laughable. The plain language of their comments shows what an obvious lie that is.

The claims made by “the logical people” are absurd, unsupportable hate speech, ...

Absurd, unsupportable hate speech?    Such drama in response to calm, logical rebuttals and explanations.

The numbers contradict nothing. No one has grounds for interpreting the numbers because they lack a baseline to compare them to. For all anyone knows, the pandemic might be ten times worse but for prayer.

Your scenario is possible.   But you are speculating without a shred of supporting evidence.   We do not have numbers for the pandemic effects sans prayer.   We only have numbers for the pandemic with prayer and the numbers have been increasing.   Gordy looked as the available evidence and has suggested that prayer, per the metrics, does not seem to be working.   You, et. al. translate that into a claim of certainty:  'prayer cannot possibly work'.   That is intellectually dishonest given the clear explanations that have been provided.

If we are to allow pure speculation then one could speculate that the pandemic might have already died out on its own if not for the prayers.   Pure speculation is not information.

Their unequivocal declarations that prayer is having no effect, or that the crisis is not diminishing as a result, or that people who pray are wasting their time cannot be substantiated.

Amazing.   Nobody has made an unequivocal declaration that prayer is having no effect.   The opinion has been rendered based on the available evidence.  No claim of certainty that prayer cannot work has been made.   Why is it that some insist on putting forth a false narrative while ignoring the explanations and rebuttals?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Quite a liberal use of emotive words, accusations and demands in response to an unemotional, thoughtful response from me.

If someone makes a comment on a public forum, anyone has the right to reply.   Given your above comment, I suggest you put me on ignore.   I will reply to comments regardless, but you will no longer be tempted to produce presumptive, incorrect and emotional responses like that @1.1.116

But as we can see by the numbers, prayer has had no effect in reducing the number of covid cases and deaths.

Prove it.

[deleted]

When do you plan to start your new policy of not replying to me?  

My comment was not directed to you. I will not read your reply. I assume in advance that it is trolling and nothing more. I am not interested in speaking with you on religious topics anymore. I am not interested in feeding trolling. Do not address me again. I assume you are only looking for a fight.

If what he says offends you so much just put him on ignore. Seems very simple. Then you wouldn't see any of his comments.

Instead you just insult.

Indeed, you beat me to it Ender. Responding to public comments in a rational and reasonable manner is not "trolling".  If the reader doesn't wish to see those responses, then the ignore feature is ready and waiting to be used. Asking why it hasn't been used after a thrice repeated response of dismissal is also not trolling.  But I think it might be best if TiG not respond any further to Tacos as well since he has made it clear that he doesn't want to engage in any further discussion on this matter.

That was the choice I made after the third repetition.   But, moving forward, if someone makes a comment on a public site then we all have the right to freely reply.  Especially if the reply is thoughtful.   If an individual cannot live with that, then that is the key reason we built the IGNORE function.

Completely agree.

But I think it might be best if TiG not respond any further to Tacos as well since he has made it clear that he doesn't want to engage in any further discussion on this matter.

That is how I view rational and reasonable.

We are reaching the same conclusion. 

If what he says offends you so much just put him on ignore. Seems very simple.

And you are free to put me on ignore.

The numbers speak for themselves. Plus there is no evidence to suggest prayer has cured anything or prevented infection & deaths.

Your opinion is correct.

What numbers? 

Mind you I do not believe in God or Gods or some mythical Creator. But saying prayer hasn't prevented infection or deaths is just religion bashing which you so often do. Albeit no great being IMO has prevented infections or deaths but where is your proof that prayer hasn't? You can't prove that. Now go get tig to tell me what you meant to say. 

I did keep is simple. I analyzed the trends based on the numbers provided over time within a population. Then I applied that to the premise that prayer has an effect. So bases on the numbers, prayer is not having a positive effect. There's your evidence. I can't make it simpler than that.

The numbers I provided in post 1.1.81.

And saying prayer isn't preventing infections or deaths isn't bashing. It's an anays is of the trends as it relates to the premise of prayer having a positive effect on infections and death. I'm not sure how that can be interpreted as bashing. But I note very said I have proof, as that is too high a standard to meet. But I go by the current available evidence, which actually shows an opposite correlation between prayer and infections or deaths. This demonstrates that prayer is not having an effect. There is also no evidence to suguest prayer is preventing infections or deaths either. So if someone is going to claim or support the notion that prayer is preventing infections and deaths, then the number trends directly contradict that and the lack of supporting evidence for said notion makes it nothing more than mere belief or opinion.

This is not a matter of simplifying your message or explaining what you mean.   Given the amount of ignored explanation, there is demonstrably no interest in actually understanding your point.  

Instead of 'the evidence suggests that prayer is not working' we see the strawman of 'prayer cannot possibly work'.   Clearly one cannot challenge your point directly since you are correct;  the metrics of rising infection suggests prayer is having no effect.   So instead, out comes the usual strawman.

Always the same game.    Back to the mining for gold analogy.

You are correct as usual. Although, I wonder if it's a case of not wanting to understand the  explanation,  or simply being unable to understand?

Nah, you a have a theory based on available evidence.    It IS NOT proof of the statement you made.    Not even close.   I can’t make it any easier to understand than that.

I find it interesting that one who claims to operate on “facts” would make such an erroneous statement.

It IS NOT proof of the statement you made.  

Correct!!   It is not proof.   It is evidence (as Gordy has repeatedly stated) that correlates with the hypothesis that prayer has no effect on the virus. 

Not proof, evidence.   There is a difference.

Nah, you a have a theory based on available evidence.

And it is not a theory, it is an hypothesis.   You know the meaning of these words so to misuse them is curious.

Since you replied to Gordy @1.1.133 and somehow found 'proof' in what he wrote, here is his comment in its entirety:

Gordy @1.1.133 - I did keep is simple. I analyzed the trends based on the numbers provided over time within a population. Then I applied that to the premise that prayer has an effect. So base[d] on the numbers, prayer is not having a positive effect. There's your evidence. I can't make it simpler than that.

The problem is not Gordy making a claim of certainty, it is people inserting their own words and their own meaning in direct contradiction to what the man actually wrote.

I wonder if it's a case of not wanting to understand the  explanation,

At this point, I have no doubt that it is a desire to push a false narrative.

Good God, now you want to argue about the definition of Theory vs Hypothesis.      Will the disingenuousness never end?    

That said you’ve got that wrong in this case as well but it’s pointless to explain it to you as you’ll just rationalize another BS excuse why you are correct.    Which again, you aren’t.    The words mean what they mean.    You can try to change the meaning all you want but it changes nothing.

SOSDD, I get more unwarranted lectures from a source that I could less about.    So save the sanctimonious platitudes for someone who gives a shit what your opinion is because I don’t.      I find it entirely too disingenuous.

The problem is not Gordy making a claim of certainty,

Still talking for Gordy though I see ....... The erroneous nature of your comment has already been clearly pointed out earlier.    Sad you keep coming back to it and embarrassing yourself.    

Really sad that’s all you got.     That and ridiculous redefinitions of words.    Sad!

Nah, just calling out bullshit when see it.  

[deleted]

It seems you do not understand the difference between a hypothesis and a theory. And no, TiG isn't speaking for me (although I have no problem with that). But he does perfectly relate my position. But since that doesn't seem to be good enough for you, I'll say it myself then: The problem is not I making a claim of certainty. There, satisfied? And for you to comment on the "meaning" of words, it's obvious you did not understand the meaning of mine, and simply interpret it to suit your own narrative. TiG happens to be exactly correct in his analysis too

And no, I never said I had proof. Neither did I propose a theory. I provided and analyzed hard data to support a hypothesis. It's also far more than anything you've offered and neither have you offered anything to refute me, much less support the opposite position. So any notion that prayer is improving infection/death rates is clearly contradicted by the FACTS I provided. No amount of arguing or complaining from you or anyone else will change that fact.

Translation: you have nothing! Only personal attacks.

Lol ..... still can’t admit you were proven wrong.      Sad, really sad.

Then trying some candy assed personal attack deflection snark ..... now that is some extra weak shit there but ..... SOSDD.

Nothing new there .... nothing new at all.

The problem is not I making a claim of certainty.

Then you shouldn’t have used the word “certainly” if that’s not what you meant to say.

It was. What he meant to say until you called him out on it 👍

Good God, now you want to argue about the definition of Theory vs Hypothesis.

There is nothing to argue about.   The words are well defined.    Seeking clarity is the opposite of being disingenuous.

Your comment evaded my point that proof is very different from evidence and that Gordy stated evidence and did not state proof.

Instead of recognizing your mistake of putting words in Gordy's mouth, you come back with snark and ridiculous allegations such as claims that I am redefining words like theory, hypothesis, proof and evidence.

No thoughtful response, no rebuttal, just snark and the endless stream of false allegations.

Nothing but their missionary zeal to proselytize believers in the religions of The Book to abandon our faith and join their religion of reason.  

Reread what I originally wrote! I said "the covid crisis isn't diminishing as a result." The data figures  I provided and which anyone can look up supports that. I did not make a claim of certainty such as "prayer has absolutely yes/no effect on the covid crisis," as that would be quite difficult to determine experimentally. Your problem seems to be a lack of comprehension.

You presume too much, especially since he did no such thing. His challenges were addressed and his counter arguments either soundly defeated or showed to be flawed.

Then you shouldn’t have used the word “certainly” if that’s not what you meant to say.

The epitome of cherry-picking:  taking one word out of context and using it as your argument.   Again I put the actual words in front of your face:

Gordy @1.1 - What "results" are prayers having? The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result.  It might make someone "feel" better or fell like they're doing something. But that's about it.

The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result is a true statement because the Covid crisis in still increasing.  The word 'certainly' refers to the observation that the Covid crisis is increasing (not diminishing).   And it is increasing!   That much is indeed certain. 

Prayer has not, per current evidence, caused the Covid crisis to diminish.   Clearly this is true because the crisis is not diminishing.   (Not yet.)

Now you can always speculate as Tacos! did that the Covid crisis might have been worse if not for prayer.   But that is pure speculation — not based on a shred of evidence.   One could also speculate that prayer has made the Covid crisis worse.   See how speculation is a flawed approach?   The smart move is to not speculate and to simply interpret the evidence as it currently stands.   That is what Gordy did.

Per the evidence, a point Gordy has made throughout, the Covid crisis continues to increase.   Thus, per the evidence, there is nothing that suggests prayer is having any positive effect.   Thus it is perfectly logical to conclude that thus far, prayer has had no effect.

When the Covid crisis starts to diminish, and it will, it will no longer be possible to observe that the evidence suggests prayer is not being effective.   Until then, while the crisis grows, the evidence flies in the face of the hypothesis that prayer is causing the crisis to diminish.

Now that's just paranoid delusion, with a hint of sweeping generalization. Also quite laughable, as it clearly demonstrates you have no effective or logical rebuttal to make. Instead of debating the facts or arguments presented, you instead attack those presenting said facts and arguments. 

As I noted, I am confident there is no intention to acknowledge your point.   Given your and my responses there is no excuse for anyone to think you are claiming certain truth here.   You, the author, told them your intent and they keep insisting they know your intent better than you.  The signature of arguing for the sake of arguing.

Well said TiG. You summed it up logically and clearly. But I have a feeling we'll continue to see the same intellectually disingenuous (if not outright emotional) responses we've received throughout this exchange.

I tend to agree. And it will probably continue too until someone takes the "cowards way out" with an "Impasse." 

Except that I wasnt proven wrong. Except maybe in your own imagination. But, whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better. Yep, nothing new there.

Lol .... you left out the word “certainly” in your quote.     What a joke.

[deleted]

My comment @1.1.151 pointed out the flaw in your cherry-picking a single word and ignoring the context.  

Here are a few sentences to compare:

1. God certainly exists.
2. The Bible certainly declares that God exists.
3. I certainly believe God exists.

Which of the three is a statement of truth (certainty) of the existence of God (a claim of certainty that God exists)?

Yeah I know you will not answer this directly.   This is to illustrate by simple example the flaw of arguing that the use of 'certainly' in a sentence means that every part of the sentence is declared as certain truth.

That's the best you can do? Pick out a word? It doesn't change, much less refute, anything I said. But it does show how you've got nothing in the way of a logical rebuttal or argument and are just desperate now. Then you follow up with a personal attack. Yeah, What a joke indeed!

But as we can see by the numbers, prayer has had no effect in reducing the number of covid cases and deaths

So in my opinion prayer is a form a meditation for some that use it. If thru prayer they are focusing on dealing with the Corona virus and conscious of avoiding it, prayer has in effect reduced the possible numbers of those being infected. That is one reason why I disagree with your broad statement that prayer has had no effect on the Covid virus.

I don't feel like going into other examples at the moment, but you get the gist on how I feel prayer has helped. I'm not religious but I hope and pray that someone I come into contact with working doesn't infect me and I'm conscious of my environment while working.

If thru prayer they are focusing on dealing with the Corona virus and conscious of avoiding it, prayer has in effect reduced the possible numbers of those being infected.

And why would this be any more effective than avoiding it through nonreligious social distancing?  Prayer in this scenario is the equivalent of staying home and watching Netflix.

You and Tig are so full of shit it’s not funny.

Sparty I don't believe you have any evidence of this as neither has reported a bowel blockage or even the slightest bit of constipation.  Now if that were the case I would tend to agree....it's not funny.

On a more serious note, I have read through this entire exchange and I do not understand why some of you can't see their point, and understand that if your faith is strong, such discussion should not undermine your faith.   Evidence and faith do not always live on the same plane, surely you understand this.  TiG and Gordy do not claim, as perhaps some others might, that God absolutely does not exist or that prayer absolutely does not work, all they are pointing out is a current lack of evidence that God exists or that prayer works.  They simply don't have faith in those ideas like you and many others do without the evidence to prove it.  As much as you are free to explain to others your faith and how you believe it works for you, so are they free to explain why they don't share that faith until they have good reason to. They look at it from a purely scientific perspective, a perspective that if one so believes, God must have given them.

I too tend to lean toward faith (although I'll admit probably not as strongly as many) and the idea that prayer can be soothing, uplifting, hopeful, and also thankful of course.   But I don't think it's just my faith that leads me to do good works, or to treat people with kindness and respect, as is attributed to those of the Christian faith elsewhere in this article.  I know a great many people of no particular religious faith who do as much good, if not more, than most Christians I know.  I also know a great many Christians who do not do good works or even treat people as Christ taught.  I firmly believe, as you do I'm sure, that faith can help guide people in that direction.  But as human beings we all have the potential for goodness regardless of whether we subscribe fully, partially or not at all to any specific religion.

When people like TiG or Gordy ask me for my proof that God exists, or that the Bible is the word of God, or proof that prayer works, I just say I don't have any.  That's the truth.  I simply tell them that I like the idea that something like a God gave us this world and this wonderful life and that I find comfort in the words attributed to Christ and his message to love others as yourself.  And I believe that I want to lead my life as best I can by those words regardless of where they came from, or who wrote them.  Maybe that is foolish, but I don't think so.  I like to think that my faith makes me a better person, but I keep open the possibility that I might be the same person without it.  I have joked with TiG before that I am an agnostic deist.

I do have one concern though with the specific idea that prayer can eradicate this virus, not that I won't go ahead and pray for that anyway just out of sheer hope.  I am concerned (perhaps unnecessarily) that some may believe so deeply that prayer will protect them, that they won't follow the known protocols for avoiding and preventing the spread of this disease.  I do love and respect my religion but I'm also a scientist, and I have seen both in today's time and through-out history where religion (not just Christianity) has gone terribly wrong.  While religion and faith are not necessarily the same thing, both must be carefully considered and tempered using all the tools that God gave us, or nature gave us if one prefers.

Well you might want to go back and read it again.    This is nothing new for those involved when it comes to questions of faith.

i asked a simple yes or no question and never got a direct answer.    I did get a lot of deflection, redirection, rationalization, obfuscation, attempted redefinition ..... you get the point.    None of which was needed for a simple yes or no question.

Bottom line, the comment made clearly stated prayer wasn’t helping.    Every trick in the book was then employed in an attempt to “redefine” what was said but the words used, mean what they mean.    And I have NO doubt that was the original intent no matter what is said here.    One can no more know if prayer is helping than claiming that it isn’t.    That’s just the way it is.

So no honest answers were forthcoming and I don’t expect them.    Which is telling for people who regularly demand proof and evidence here while going into debate attack mode.

I knew that comment was going to get ticketed but it needed to be said imo and I stand by it.    If you read the exchange you should see what I’m talking about.    If you don’t, no skin off my nose but I’m sure the usual attack mode will be ongoing from the players involved continuing the defense of the indefensible.    That’s their M.O.

To that I say .... meh ... SOSDD considering.    I’ve said my piece and again I stand by every single word.    No more words are needed from me.    And no more are forthcoming.

So in my opinion prayer is a form a meditation for some that use it. If thru prayer they are focusing on dealing with the Corona virus and conscious of avoiding it, prayer has in effect reduced the possible numbers of those being infected.

Prayer is comforting and that is often a good thing.

That is one reason why I disagree with your broad statement that prayer has had no effect on the Covid virus.

I hope you recognize that Gordy is saying that according to the current metrics, prayer seems to have had no effect on the virus.    He is just looking at the fact that the virus continues to spread (we have not yet hit the turning point) so based on that prayer does not seem to be working.

If thru prayer they are focusing on dealing with the Corona virus and conscious of avoiding it, prayer has in effect reduced the possible numbers of those being infected.

We have no metrics for this so all one can say is ... 'that is a possibility'.   Note also that if we are going to speculate sans metrics, prayer may comfort people and cause them to be less vigil about being infected.   To be clear, if one holds that this virus can only be beaten by human efforts alone, then we are likely to be quite vigil.   If, however, one is comforted through prayer that God is monitoring/handling the situation then one might not be as vigil.   So I accept your speculation that prayer might make people more focused but you should on the same grounds accept my speculation that it could possibly work the other way.   Neither of us have metrics on this so we are both merely offering speculation.

As usual I don't need you to tell me what someone means. He made the broad statement that prayer has had no effect. 
That is false. period. You can not definitively say that not one case of Corvid 19 was avoided because of prayer. 

Now spin it how you want.

Well you might want to go back and read it again.

Good grief.  

i asked a simple yes or no question and never got a direct answer.  

What was your question?  

Bottom line, the comment made clearly stated prayer wasn’t helping.  

Yes, Gordy does not believe prayer is helping.   His comment was based on the continued rise in infections.    Of course, he does not believe prayer helps anyway given he does not believe a god exists to hear the prayers.   But that is a different topic ...

Every trick in the book ...

What fascinates me is that Gordy and I have consistently explained this.  Gordy, the author, has clearly explained his intent.   But instead of dealing with calm, logical, clear responses you flat out ignore them sans logical rebuttal and then repeatedly return with the same false allegations, snark, etc.    On top of that , you actually try to suggest that it is Gordy and I who are doing the very things you are doing.  

Why you think this is advantageous to you is a mystery.

You made a thoughtful comment and I responded accordingly.   We had a decent exchange.  Why, now, do you return with snark?

He made the broad statement that prayer has had no effect. 

Did you see the part where he notes that he is basing this on the metrics?   There is a monster difference between:

• Prayer has had no effect.
• Based on the numbers (crisis not diminishing), prayer does not seem have had any effect.

Here is his opening comment:

Gordy @1.1 - What "results" are prayers having? The Covid crisis certainly isn't diminishing as a result. It might make someone "feel" better or fell like they're doing something. But that's about it.

He notes even in his opening comment, and continues to refer to metrics in subsequent comments, that his opinion is based on the fact (and it is a certain fact) that the Covid crisis is not currently diminishing.  That is true.   Right?

He concludes that the "results' of prayer have been at best nothing.   Based, again, on the metrics.

You accuse me of spin, yet his opening comment is clear and, importantly, Gordy has provided plenty of subsequent explanation of this point.   So how can you stick with a narrative that is wholly unsupported by what Gordy has written in this thread?

Do you not see how absurd it is to argue that, in effect, Gordy is lying in this thread when he explains that he was not making a declaration of certainty that prayer cannot help but rather that based on what he (we) can observe it does not appear to be helping?  

Is it not reasonable to hold that Gordy knows his position better than anyone else?  If he consistently returns with 'conclusion based on the metrics' on what grounds can one claim that he is mistaken about his own position?

Here we go:  weee!   Weee!  Weee!  Are they dizzy yet from all their son?  

ignoring the context.  

Oh, the irony!

LMMFAO!

Gordy and I have provided direct, thoughtful responses backed up with actual quotes.  When challenged we have directly responded.   In contrast, our interlocutors typically provide responses exemplified by the platitude of @1.1.169 and the juvenile tone of @1.1.168

Your comment has no thoughtful content, no attempt to provide a rebuttal, just snark. 

It is obvious that you have no argument.   Why you wish to portray yourself in this manner remains an interesting curiosity.   I would be embarrassed.

I have always said that Christianity is a faith based religion and thus I will never attempt to “prove” God exists or how prayer works.  That they will believe by faith or they will never believe at all whatever the consequences of each.  Why they demand proof when I tell them I have none is beyond me.  I am not though going to be silenced by them into not saying what I believe or why in the face of either a crisis like this or because they don’t like our belief or to see us verbalize it.  I’m no longer going to argue about logic or reason of non belief.  They say that they don’t rule out that God might somehow exist they just rule out the existence of the God of the Book and that The Christian Bible and likely the Koran and Torah are of any value.  We disagree and will point out like was mentioned all the great good that genuine Christianity has brought and is bringing to the world and to our society.  

I hope you didn’t expect me to argue about any of that.  It doesn’t surprise me at all.  It is one of the primary reasons I enjoy Mass on Sundays and participating in other charitable events sponsored by our Church.  I am the first to point out facts like these when others criticize the Church or only focus on the terrible things that some priests have done, or other corruptions or terrible alliances of the Church centuries ago.  There are always going to be bad or corrupt people in any organization from time to time, but the one constant over the centuries has been the good that the Church has done in caring for the sick, the  poor, and the down-trodden. That is why I think it is important to consider the whole picture rather than just the dark frame when discussing the value of any religion, not just Christianity.  I believe that holds true in considering any group of people for that matter, including those who do not subscribe to any religion.  An open mind will always allow one to better see the good in other people.

So in my opinion prayer is a form a meditation for some that use it.

It has been shown to produce similar effects as meditation.

If thru prayer they are focusing on dealing with the Corona virus and conscious of avoiding it, prayer has in effect reduced the possible numbers of those being infected.

Proper precautions such as social distancing and self quarantine has reduced the number of potential infections. Prayer by itself is unlikely to prevent infection. 

That is one reason why I disagree with your broad statement that prayer has had no effect on the Covid virus.

There is no evidence to suggest it has any effect, as we can see by the continuously increasing number of cases.

I don't feel like going into other examples at the moment, but you get the gist on how I feel prayer has helped.

I'm sure you think it has. 

I'm not religious but I hope and pray that someone I come into contact with working doesn't infect me and I'm conscious of my environment while working.

If you're conscious of your environment (and hopefully others are conscious of theirs), then that is a conscious  precaution taken to prevent infection. Prayer is irrelevant to that.

He made the broad statement that prayer has had no effect. That is false. period. You can not definitively say that not one case of Corvid 19 was avoided because of prayer. 

Then demonstrate where prayer has had an (positive) effect. I produced actual numbers to support my position that prayer is not having any positive effect. I already explained that in detail in a previous post.

I have always said that Christianity is a faith based religion

All religions (deity-centric) are faith-based.

Why they demand proof when I tell them I have none is beyond me.  

An easy way to avoid a challenge for supporting evidence of God's existence is to not make a claim of certainty on God's existence.   For example:

1. God certainly exists.  (or simply 'God exists')
2. The Bible certainly declares that God exists.
3. I certainly believe God exists.

Statement 1 is a claim of certainty that God exists.   The other two are not.  

Statement 2 is a claim of certainty that the Bible declares that God exists.   So if challenged, your response is simply to show how the Bible claims God exists.  Easy.  

Statement 3 is a claim of certainty in your own belief.   You are claiming with certainty that you believe God exists, not that God exists.  

Only statement 1 is a claim that would warrant a challenge to deliver supporting evidence that God exists.

My point was not to get you to argue but to show that while believers detractors attack what we believe and why we believe they have no answer for the things we do because we believe or how society would replace what we do because we believe if we didn’t and instead act per capita as they do.  How would society make up the difference if all that we do because we believe so illogically and without reason simply disappeared? 

I think society could do exceptionally well if believers were to take an honest, fact-based approach to religious beliefs.   Imagine a world where nobody claims to know the grandest possible entity (God) on a personal basis or to know the mind of such an entity?   Instead, what if everyone used their 'God-given' brains, with circa-2020 information and held this belief:

It is possible that a sentient creator exists.   If so, we would consider this creator God.   God, so defined, is demonstrably awesome in terms of power and knowledge (given what God created) — well beyond our capabilities.  

But that is it ... that is all we would know (hypothetically even).

We would not know what God intends with us or expects of us.   We would not have contradictory stories, rules, consequences, etc. all coming from God.   We would all realize that even if God, so defined, exists that we must take care of each other and our planet because we have no guarantee that God is even watching over us.

Now that would be an honest, credible belief system.  Instead of following the rules of men who pretend to speak for God, we could instead attempt to understand the mind of God through the reality God ostensibly created.

It would also be logical in comparison to the ridiculous plethora of contradictory religions that are themselves internally contradictory.

When asked what God wants of us, the honest answer would be 'I do not know'.   When asked if God exists, the honest answer would be 'I do not know'.   Some might add '... but I believe it makes sense that God does exist' while others might add '... and oddly for such a grand entity, we have yet to have credible evidence that God exists'.

And importantly, Ken Ham and his band will no longer be working overtime to dumb down the next generation.   Kenneth Copeland and the other despicable, slime-bucket prosperity gospel televangelists would be appropriately ignored, etc.   On a different note, Islamic terrorists would not have divine instruction to kill as many infidels as possible because that is the will of Allah.  

The critical thinking that would ensue strikes me as highly beneficial.

How would society make up the difference if all that we do because we believe so illogically and without reason simply disappeared?

Why would it simply disappear?  First, nobody is talking about eradicating Christianity. Second, why do you believe that the very same people who gave of their time and money before would not continue to do so even if the churches were somehow shut down?  Now I will agree that organizations like Catholic Relief Services or others as you have described are very good at assembling people of like mind to their charitable efforts.  But the same people who participate in those organizations could very well do so under a different form of organization.  What makes these organizations work so well is people, people with time, funds, and a caring heart which they freely donate. And those same people will not simply disappear even if an atheist somehow comes to power, deletes the Constitution, and abolishes all religion. Do you really think that is likely in the U.S.?  It doesn't sound like a rational fear to me.

Lastly, do you really believe that the people who do good through these organizations do so ONLY because they believe?  Are you saying that if they didn't believe in God or Christ that they would not treat people the same way or be as charitable?  How do you know that?

I’m saying that there is a huge difference in volunteering, donating personal items, and monetary contributions to charities between a regularly attending church believer and a secularist.  The stuff I’ve posted regarding philanthropy shows the huge differences.  Less God, less giving is a statistical fact.  What I was saying is that of organized religion did disappear not by extermination but by persuasion from secularists, and our organizations went with us, how would secularists make up the difference?  Secularists have no organizational infrastructure like believers do and they per capita give less.  If secularists persuaded believers to be secular and we no longer have because of Who and what we believe in and reverted tontheir norm, who would make up the difference?  

Sorry but we believers as long as we and our children and grandchildren shall live will never comport our rational faith to your particular fantasy.  You will never see your dream realized.  

sorry, god ignores the prayers of hypocrites.

sorry, god ignores the prayers of hypocrites.

That's nice. Prove it.

 Secularist have been using this pandemic as a go to reason to attack the very existence of God and then challenge whether He is good if He actually does exist.  They have openly mocked Christianity and theism in general.  They openly mock and challenge the value of prayer while questioning the sanity of those who do believe. They are wrong. 

They are wrong. 

Who says? You? Laughable. Prove there's a god and maybe you'll shut up any naysayer regarding god.

No one has to prove there is a God to you.

He has no obligation to satisfy your whims.

Then he has no credibility for his claims.

Then he has no credibility for his claims.

Do you really think he gives a damn what your opinion on his credibility is?

I'm just saying, anyone can claim anything. But it means nothing when there is nothing to support the claim. No support equals no credibility. That's just simple fact.

Suit yourself.

Prove there is no God

Why would you ask Gordy to do that?   Has he claimed there is no God?

Ah, gotta love the logical fallacies.

Yes, yes he has. 

Quotes?

Then show me with a link to prove you are not just making this up.

[deleted]

Here’s another illustration of what we do no matter where we live: and it’s a faith and belief in One some believe doesn’t even exist that motivates these selfless acts of kindness. 

Associated Press/Photo by Anupam Nath A gate outside a village on the outskirts of Gauhati, India, on Tuesday 

Collaboration and compassion

India’s Christians are offering the use of hospitals and trained staff to take care of coronavirus patients. A Catholic media group is also raising money to feed the suffering homeless.

The Coalition for Christian Health offered to work with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government to supply 1,000 hospitals and 60,000 beds, the Union of Catholic Asian News reported. It has Catholic and Protestant healthcare facilities across India, including in rural villages, with 1,000 doctors and 50,000 nurses.

“The Christian community always stood in the forefront to fight any national calamity or crisis, and COVID-19 is no exception,” said the Rev. George Kannanthanam, a coalition official.

With the nation on lockdown, India’s homeless are going hungry. Atmadarshan TV  launched  a “feed a stomach” campaign to raise funds. The Catholic channel sends out volunteers daily with food in central India.

“This has created a serious survival problem for the thousands of abandoned who are dependent on alms for their sustenance,” the Rev. Anand Chirayath said. — Julia A. Seymour      world.wng

[deleted]

Your secularists protectors will delete anything we say to explain what it is that we believe or why we do as if such a conversation is an actual attempt to convert

One is free to explain what one believes as long as it does not include statements like others will "...get theirs on final judgement day", as though threatening others with your beliefs.  Such are the strong arm tactics of hardcore proselytizers preying primarily on the fear of those who may be on the fence about what they believe.  Instead of that, perhaps a message of love and compassion and the ways in which faith can be a comfort to people, rather than a cudgel with which to beat them over the head might be a better approach?

Atheists and secularists live by another double standard because anti religion isn’t considered a religion by its practitioners.  

That is because it is not a religion.  It is the absence of religion by its very definition.  So there is no double standard.  What there is, is a standard of decorum, honesty, and respect.  Practice that and all is well.

Your secularists protectors will delete anything we say to explain what it is that we believe or why we do as if such a conversation is an actual attempt to convert.  Atheists and secularists live by another double standard because anti religion isn’t considered a religion by its practitioners.  

That is demonstrably false; evidenced by the abundance of religious declarations on this site (mostly from you in fact).

Proselytization is against the CoC and is subject to deletion.   But you are free (and have done so repeatedly) to make claims such as: 

• evolution is pseudoscience; a worldwide conspiracy perpetrated by godless scientists
• ignore the word of God at your own peril
• the Bible is inerrant and true
• God picks the world's leaders
• the COVID-19 virus is a result of our sinful decisions
• ...

The fact that comments like these remain disputes your claim of censorship.   Indeed, these type of comments are challenged and you complain that they are challenged.   Clearly one cannot challenge that which has been censored.

Your allegation of improper censorship by site moderation is false.

That's nice. Prove it! The most you'll probably find is either me saying there is probably not a god or that I do not believe in a god. But I have made no declarations of certainty such as "there is no god!" I have also said I am open to any evidence for a god. Not surprisingly,  none has ever been put forth. 

Some complain when challenged to back up their claims of certainty (e.g. 'COVID-19 is the result of sin') and then turn around and magically translate stated opinions of others into claims of certainty so they can demand proof.   They recast a statement such as:  'I am not convinced there is a god' into 'There is no god' in what appears to be a desperate attempt to find a contradiction (where none exists).

You nailed it.

They recast a statement such as:  'I am not convinced there is a god' into 'There is no god' in what appears to be a desperate attempt to find a contradiction (where none exists).

A classic and unending tactic of ideologues of any stripe and on any subject in venues like this, as I'm sure you are keenly aware.  In this case, perhaps a refresher on the difference between an "atheist" and an "agnostic", might be helpful?

Nobody is listening Freewill.   At this point, I am here simply to rebut the dishonesty (pet peeve).

I am here simply to rebut the dishonesty (pet peeve).

Understood. How old is your pet peeve?  Mine is getting up there, shedding like crazy and losing its teeth.  Also starting to suffer from hip dysplasia, but what can ya do?  (-:

Decades old.

They openly mock and challenge the value of prayer while questioning the sanity of those who do believe.

When your claims are challenged with logic you claim this is mocking.   Why, then, do you insist on seeding such articles and making these claims of certainty?

When you seed and comment in a public forum you invite challenges from those who do not share your viewpoint.   That is the purpose of such forums.   Seeding and then complaining of disagreement is ridiculous.   If you do not want disagreement, seed to an exclusively Christian forum.

I’m not going to shy away from expressing faith in a crisis like this or share hope for people or hide what we believe and why or what we do to help the human condition and suffering here on earth out of fear that some will make of themselves a plague and a pestilence vs such expressions 

I don’t care what you believe and don’t care what you think about anything.  Your viewpoint on this topic are less than meaningless to me.  I posted about how a majority of are responding in part to the pandemic and how it affects many.  The seed also dealt with mockers such as yourself and the one named in the article and how in this time of trouble to respond to the likes of him.  We believers not only have faith and pray but as a result do works and take precautions as well because we believe.  Instead of being critical o what we believe and why, why not match us per capita in our charity and works instead? 

The seed also dealt with mockers such as yourself ...

That is a false allegation.   Logical disagreement, debate and challenges is not mockery.  

Instead of being critical o what we believe and why, why not match us per capita in our charity and works instead? 

I will continue to be critical of what you post.   You always have the option to post to an exclusively Christian forum.

I don’t care what you believe and don’t care what you think about anything.  Your viewpoint on this topic are less than meaningless to me.  

I believe it is that which bothers some the most.

And you can freely post in an exclusively secular forum.  No one but you compels you to respond to or wish to silence or censor viewpoints you disagree with or don’t like.  

It’s why they are here.  They can’t stand that we are here freely expressing ourselves and that there is nothing that they can say or do that will persuade us out of our belief.  It’s time to simply challenge them to act to the benefit of society because of their beliefs in the same manner as we do to because of ours instead of what they are doing 

I am not the one complaining.  I offered a remedy for your complaints.

wish to silence or censor viewpoints you disagree with or don’t like.  

Another false allegation.

As evidenced by the abundance of claims made and the complaints that these claims are challenged.   If these claims are censored then they would not exist to be challenged.

Some people have been told that they'll be persecuted.  They see it as a prophecy, and as proof of their worthiness for rewards in the afterlife.  In the absence of actual persecution, they are left with inventing it.

Yeah, I see them as wanting it, as some sort of justification.

Or some sort of delusion.

There is plenty of evidence regarding massive persecution of Christians all over the world. It is very real.  

No one wants persecution.  That’s just ridiculous.  The thing is though that persecution has when it happened historically caused revival and more rapid church growth in the face of it.  

With all due respect, there is plenty of evidence of massive persecution of other faith, too. It is probably nothing more than bigotry against those faiths.

Of course Christians are persecuted — and almost exclusively by other religious people.    Think about that.

Now putting aside the historical and planetary persecution of Christians and focusing here on NT, challenging claims of certainty is not persecution.   Calling such challenges persecution is gratuitous drama.  

The worst persecution of Christians has come from state atheism governments.  There has been persecution from countries what are controlled literally or figuratively by a state or majority other religion as well.  Atheist regimes have been the most murderous of us over the last 100 years. 

“Atheist regimes have been the most murderous of us over the last 100 years. ”

Just out of sheer curiosity, which regimes would those have been Mr. Trump?

If you were really curious, you'd search 'state atheism' and not look so obtuse.

The 'Communist state' as defined by the former USSR (Stalin) Red China (Zedong) and Cuba (Castro) was anti-theist (all religions, not just Christianity) and, crucially, was also anti- anything that challenged its power.   Religious leaders were murdered and religious gathering spots were restricted or destroyed for the express purpose of eliminating opposition to the authoritarian state (controlling the message).  This took place in the middle of the 20^th century.   Part of history;  not the entirety of history.

My point was that when you look around today or when you consider all of history (not just a sliver) you will find that religious persecution is typically the result of 'us vs. them' among religions.   It is religious groups fighting over disagreement on religion.    The most widely known example involving Christianity is where Christians murdered each other (Catholics vs. Protestants) for centuries (16^th through 18^th century) subsequent to the Protestant reformation.   The key issue here, by the way, was that Protestants read directly from the Bible whereas Catholic leaders prohibited ordinary people from reading the Bible (they wanted to control the message).   

In short, the worst enemy of a religion are the other religions.

Now, applying this to NT, what you find here are challenges to claims of certainty.   Almost invariably this starts with someone (typically you) seeding an article that is either proselytizing, attacking atheists (those who are not convinced a god exists) or attacking science when it clashes with your very specific beliefs.    You make a claim and that claim is challenged.   To label that persecution is ridiculous.   Disagreement and counter-arguments is not persecution.   And if you find a logical challenge to a claim to be persecution the best remedy is to not put forth the claim in the first place.

In a public forum, when one posts an article or comment one should not be freaked out when others put forth an opposing view or make an opposing argument.

Here is an interesting take on this matter , or am I being obtuse?  Underlined emphasis mine.

So who has been the worst throughout history: atheist regimes or religious regimes? Obviously the big numbers come from the 20th century superpowers (China, Russia, Germany) so the answer depends on how you classify those. And this is where the meat of these debates is usually found, splitting hairs on which regime is atheist, which is merely secular, which is non-Christian and thus fair game to be called atheist. Hitchens points out that Stalin's government had all the trappings of religion, including Orwell's totalitarian theocracy, and thus it's merely a play on words to say that it was not religious. Pol Pot was raised a Buddhist monk who grew up to execute Buddhist monks, along with anyone else he could lay his hands on. Whole books have been written on the occult underpinnings of Nazi Germany, the symbology of the Norse gods, to say nothing of the claims that Hitler was a Christian, Hitler was a Jew, and his own writings expressing the kinship he felt with the Muslims. A favorite counterpoint raised by Christian debaters is that these despots practiced Social Darwinism and were thus atheists by definition. In summary, the winner of these debates is the one who can convince the other that the big 20th century genocidal maniacs were motivated either by religion or by a desire to destroy religion. The entire debate is the logical fallacy of the excluded middle.

Here's the thing. If you write a book called   God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything,   you sell a lot of books. If you write a book called   What's So Great About Christianity   on the evils of atheism, you also sell a lot of books. If you say that neither extremist viewpoint makes any sense, you end up doing a podcast and working as a greeter at Wal-Mart directing customers to the section where they sell Hitchens and D'Souza books. The truth is less incisive, it's less inflammatory, it raises no ire, and it draws no audience.

And that truth, as I've said time and time again, is that people are people. No matter what segment of society you look at, you'll find good people and you'll find bad people. You'll even find, as has been said, that the line between good and evil cuts through every human heart. Certainly there are people in the news who kill in the name of religion, but just because they kill in the name of religion doesn't really mean they kill because of religion. The Islamic militants who cut off Nick Berg's head are not nice men who would have otherwise been his best friend, if it weren't for their religious convictions forcing them into this grievous act. They are base murderers, and they should be punished accordingly, I don't care whether they go to church or not. Killers don't really kill because of their religion. Neither does a lack of religious convictions cause one to run wild in the streets with a bloody axe and a torch. Religion is a convenient banner for many to carry, but there are plenty of other banners available as well, and if it wasn't religion, they'd do their deeds under some other justification, if they care to even have one. The real reason they do their evil deeds is that they're human. Humans are very smart, very capable; and when we want something, we generally find some way to get it, even if that means killing someone or committing genocide.

Yup.

In short, life is complicated.   Trying to understand human nature and the workings of societies based on mere slogans and superficial 'truths' will leave one ignorant and naive.   Getting to the truth is difficult.  And the first step is intellectual honesty.   The truth is typically nuanced and complex.   One must be willing to get out of one's comfort zone and look objectively at facts and apply well-founded reasoning.

God can't fix stupid.  God didn't create this mess; we did.  People want God to fix our own stupidity.  Perhaps God can do that.  But then there wouldn't be a need for the Bible, churches, prayer, or Christ.  

The purpose of prayer is to remind ourselves just how stupid we all are.  We are allowed to choose.  And this is the reality we have chosen.

Indeed.  We all have free will and all to often we mess things up.  Thus repentance and seeking what we can do in the here and now is more about what prayer is to the seeking of miracles or personal gain.  

Perhaps God can do that.  But then there wouldn't be a need for the Bible, churches, prayer, or Christ.  

If god chooses not to, then there is no need for a god.

If god chooses not to, then there is no need for a god.

If God chooses to intervene, then there is no such thing as human rights or freedom.  

If god chooses not to, then there is no need for a god.

I need God, whether you do or not.

Good for you.

What does God have to do with rights or freedom?

Good for you.

Indeed it is!

I’m not even going to talk to them about logic vs. faith debates anymore but rather describe who we are and what we do because we both believe, have faith, pray and as a result do things and give because we believe that they can’t or won’t begin to replicate or replace if we believers weren’t here acting and doing because we believe.

Just everything 

Rather than making an ambiguous statement, how about you elaborate,  then back up your claims with evidence. 

Here is what prayer and faith with action as Cuomo questioned above in the seed. Here’s a bit with link the whole research is in the bashing prayer seed.   It’s clear that America’s unusual religiosity and extraordinary generosity are closely linked. As faith spirals downward, voluntary giving is very likely to follow. An obvious question for philanthropists is whether the causation arrow can be reversed.

Might there be ways that savvy donors could reinforce religious practice, yielding a range of pro-social results including more charitable generosity? We gave that question serious thought and came up with some practical proposals for philanthropists interested in rebuilding faith and generosity in tandem. For some rays of hope on this somewhat gloomy subject, turn to “Ways Philanthropy Can Reinforce Faith and Its Good Works” in the Ideas section of this magazine.   philanthropyroundtable

conducted by Nancy Kinney and others find that shutting down a city congregation will often damage a neighborhood’s viability and socioeconomic health. Conversely, active churches, religious schools sponsored by churches, and church-aided neighborhood ministries (like the Zarephath Health Center profiled in “Medical Matchmaking” in the Fall 2017 issue of   Philanthropy   ) can often have strong effects in stabilizing and revitalizing communities.

It isn’t just a matter of serving and healing others. People of faith also behave differently themselves. There is lots of evidence that in addition to encouraging a “brother’s keeper” attitude that manifests itself in philanthropy and volunteering, religious participation also inculcates healthy habits that help individuals resist destructive personal behavior themselves.

A classic study by Harvard economist James Freeman found that black males living in inner-city poverty tracts were far less likely to engage in crime and drug use if they attended church. Church attendance was also associated with better academic performance and more success in holding jobs. Follow-up studies found that regular church attendance could even help counterbalance threats to child success like parental absence, low school quality, local drug traffic, and crime in the neighborhood.

Regular religious participation is correlated with many positive social outcomes: less poverty, fewer divorces and more marital happiness, fewer births out of wedlock, less suicide, reduced binge-drinking, less depression, better relationships. This is true among Americans of all demographic backgrounds.

Causes For    Concern        

Given all the evidence linking religious practice with both healthy individual behavior and generosity toward others, recent patterns of religious decline are concerning. The generational trends—a third of 18-29-year-olds saying they are religiously unaffiliated, and only a quarter attending services weekly—suggest that the philanthropic sharing that has long powered social reform and self-improvement in America could sag in the future. Indeed, recent research on voluntary giving says that future is already here.

Four important investigations in the last year or so uncovered alarming declines in the breadth of American giving. A Lilly School of Philanthropy report found that the fraction of U.S. households giving to charity dropped from 68 to 56 percent from 2003 to 2015. A similar 2018 study at the University of Maryland confirmed that tumble, and added evidence that the national volunteering rate is also deteriorating. By 2015 there were 10 million fewer volunteers in the U.S. than there would have been if the 2005 rate had just held constant. Meanwhile, analysis of the last ten years of IRS data by the  Chronicle of Philanthropy  showed a drop in charitable-deduction itemizing from 30 percent of all filers to 24 percent. And a study by Texas A&M academics reported “sharp declines in overall donative behavior” over the past decade. (  See graph 19  )

It appears that not only generational change but also wealth effects are depressing religious philanthropy. While giving by the whole population has recently declined, gifts from the rich continue to be strong. The rich, however, tend to give to different causes than everyday Americans. Data from the Center on Wealth and Philanthropy show that households making $140,000 or more in current dollars donate only 30 percent of their charity to causes connected to religion—while other Americans channel 60 percent in that direction. If giving by moderate-income households continues to fade and donations by the wealthy become more dominant in the future, expect a bigger flow of philanthropy to colleges and art galleries, and less to charities motivated by religious concern for the least and the lost. (  See graph 20  )

It’s clear that America’s unusual religiosity and extraordinary generosity are closely linked. As faith spirals downward, voluntary giving is very likely to follow. An obvious question for philanthropists is whether the causation arrow can be reversed.  philanthropyroundtable

This is what people who pray do.  Prayer and faith with works and action. 

Faith is trusting when proof isn’t present, when tangible evidence is fleeting.

Indeed.

To suggest our prayers aren’t having the immediate result we deem to be correct is the ultimate show of arrogance. God operates outside time and space, so proof of the good, ultimate value in God’s allowance of things — like this coronavirus pandemic — might not be seen even in our lifetimes.

Prayer is comforting; that is probably the end of it.   If someone has any evidence that prayer in some way encourages God to take a different course of action, then let's see it.   Logically, however, it is a bit ridiculous to think that God would ever change His mind given He is defined by Christianity as omniscient.   What could possibly influence an omniscient entity to change its mind?  (Answer:  nothing — the entity is omniscient)

Logically, however, it is a bit ridiculous to think that God would ever change His mind given He is defined by Christianity as omniscient.   What could possibly influence an omniscient entity to change its mind?  (Answer:  nothing — the entity is omniscient)

Also, if god changed his "perfect" mind (or his "Plan," as is sometimes referred), then that means said plan was not perfect to begin with, as a change was indicated or influenced. Logically, god is therefore imperfect.

As has been stated before there are numerous times when Gods actions were in fact conditioned upon human behavior where the action happened or didn’t based on human behavior.  Our mission as believers is two fold.  It’s to spread our message to all the world and save souls to make the transition from this sinful evil world to the perfect one to come and while here pray and act to relieve human suffering through our faith based charities as described above regarding our philanthropy

As has been stated before there are numerous times when Gods actions were in fact conditioned upon human behavior where the action happened or didn’t based on human behavior.  

And still nothing empirical to support that. People can choose to alter their behavior. They can tell themselves it's due to god or whatever. But it's merely a case of mind over matter. 

See 3.3 thread and then try to challenge who we are and what we do and give because of what we believe.  

Nobody is going to read the volume you posted @3.3 so if you have a true point to make, I suggest you express it in a sentence or two.

Further I am not here to challenge who you are or what you do so retire that strawman.

Less God, Less Giving    the bottom line.

You just know how much practicing Christians, Jews, Muslims contribute to poverty relief globally, to food pantries, AIDSbanks, homeless shelters, disaster relief, education, medical clinics and hospitals as well as micro development in poverty areas, the role we play in foster care and adoption, blood donations and time physically providing help in person and giving personal relief items in addition to money.  So instead of being a critic of what we believe or why we do, why not try to match our actions we do as a result of our beliefs as a result of yours?

Philipians 4:6-7 discusses this, with regard to peace. 

I have never interpreted the Bible to convey the sentiment that God changes his mind; rather, I have understood that He is unwavering, unchanging, etc. The story of Lazarus is an example. When Mary and Martha sent word to Jesus about Lazarus' sickness, they were praying for a healing. His response? He stayed where he was for 2 more days, then returned after Lazarus had been dead for 4. When he returned, Mary basically told him that he had not listened to their prayers, and that he could have saved him had he been there. You may know the rest. Jesus then calls Lazarus out of his tomb. 

What do we see? An apparent non-answering of a prayer, but the fulfillment of a plan. So, I agree, God did not change his mind. Lazarus died. The rest was a demonstration. 

“But, Lord,” said Martha, the sister of the dead man, “by this time there is a bad odor, for he has been there four days.” ⁴⁰ Then Jesus said, “Did I not tell you that if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”

The entire series of comments about the effects of prayer on COVID-19...we know what we know. Does my praying hinder anything? Not in the least. I am praying from the comforts of my home, while doing my part not to contribute to the spread. Do I have demonstrable proof that there is an effect? No. Although, as some point out, there is also no demonstrable proof that there is no effect. We know what we know. Could be, without prayer, the number of world cases would be more than quadruple what they are. At the end of the day, if I choose to believe there is an effect, it matters not to someone who does not believe. 

By the same token, Gordy quite reasonably observed that since COVID-19 continues to rise (this is a certain fact) in spite of prayers, the evidence suggests prayers are not having an effect.   The evidence is not conclusive, but it certainly suggests that prayers have not been effective.

How much higher would Covid 19numbers be if there had not been any prayers?