That is part of my argument, one you failed to rebut to as usual.
I did rebut it, as it's obviously not what prayer is, nor what it's properly used for. And when people do try to use it that way, it very rarely works out. That's when they claim the "answer" to their prayer is "no". And to make this clear, I gave you a scenario that did not involve someone seeking any "magical" solutions, but that nevertheless did achieve a solution because of their choosing to engage in prayer. Then your argument was "well, they could have done that without the prayer", but of course that's irrelevant to the question of prayer being effective. "I could have pounded in a nail with a stone. But I have a hammer, and it worked better, so I used it." Then you complained that the prayer had nothing to do with the man winning the money and I agreed, except that it did cause him to buy the ticket. Prayer didn't make his ticket the winning ticket, but it did cause him to buy it. Resulting in his winning. So the prayer DID effect how he acted in the "real world" and thereby it did effect the outcome he got from taking that action. For which you had no argument left, and so started complaining that I "didn't understand". But I understood perfectly well that your arguments had been rebutted and you had no more arguments to pose. And that's where you still are, even as you are trying to rewrite the course of the conversation.
I rebutted your claim that people don't look to prayer for God to heal them when you angrily protested that the experiment in the OP was a waste of money and misunderstood what people expected from prayer.
I am not angry, and I am not behaving as if I am angry.
The experiment was a waste of time because it was intended to look for evidence of "God-magic". Which any scientist would have understood as a foolish pursuit. Then when no "God-magic" was in evidence, it was claimed that prayer is ineffective. Of course prayer that seeks "God-magic" is likely to be ineffective. That's not what prayer is for, or how it works. But you and others were happy to completely ignore any of that, because it wasn't serving your bias against all things religious as being "ignorant superstition and magical thinking". And when I gave you an example of how how prayer is used and is effective when used properly you tried to claim it had no effect in the "real world". But of course we are part of the real world, so when it effects us it effects the real world. Not to mention that when it effects how we behave in the real world it is also having an effect in the real world. So that argument wasn't going anywhere, either. And it was about that point, as I recall, that's when you decided you weren't going to win and so had to make excuses for disengaging.
And I backed that up with examples from the antivaxxers succumbing to Covid and they and their families praying for healing.
Correction: they were praying for some "magical healing", specifically. If they had prayed for healing, they would have recognized the vaccine as an answer to their prayer. But they wanted "God-magic", not just an actual solution. And that kind of prayer gets people into all sots of trouble.
See, your WHOLE argument is based on your loathing for the idea of "God-magic". So for you, ALL prayer is engaged in the pursuit of this "God-magic". Which is why you had difficulty understanding my example (that wasn't). And is also why you had to replace my example with an example of your own; that
did include the pursuit of "God-magic". Because then you could condemn it as illogical and irrational and damaging. Which it is in that instance.
I wish that the graphics I tried to post had been rendered as they appeared, but gave you a link to look at.
It doesn't matter because it was the premise of the study that was flawed, just as your own premise is flawed regarding the purpose and efficacy of prayer. It is not primarily used to pursue "God-magic". And when it is, it's not very likely to work. That doesn't mean some people don't still think that's what it's for, and even claim that it works that way. But when you question them, you quickly realize that what they are calling it "working" is that it didn't: the "answer was no". And I understand that often the language people use in reference to prayer tends to be very theistically charged. But that does not mean they are specifically seeking some form of "God-magic" when they're praying.
So the real question is can you admit that your perception of prayer as
always being the pursuit of "God-magic" was wrong? Or can't you? Can you admit that it doesn't matter that some people don't understand prayer and so make false and silly claims about it's "magical properties"? Even to the point of putting themselves or others in danger. Can we agree that these people do not define what prayer is for the billions of people in the world that have more sense than them?
The rest of my argument is the same as yours about the efficacy of prayer - the benefit is psychological. So was the harm revealed in the STEP study, where knowing that one was being prayed for led to worse outcomes, a negative placebo effect.
Without studying the many reasons why that might result, the result itself doesn't mean much. I agree that the value of prayer is psychological, but that doesn't make it less effective, or less meaningful. In fact, given that our experience of existence is mostly psychological, I would say that any tool that enables us in that realm is exceedingly valuable to us. Which is why I find it absurd and somewhat insulting when materialist constantly try to portray the psychological value of prayer as "just a placebo" or as just "make-believe" and of no real consequence in the "real world".
You're arguing with yourself. I was and still am in agreement that prayer is placebo. It doesn't seem to matter how many times I say that to you, you just keep coming back with this straw man, the one who says that prayer has no placebo effect. He's not here, so you're wasting your words.
I have agreed that
ONE of the effects of prayer is as a placebo. But you seem to always want to limit it to that, and diminish it AS that. As if the placebo effect is not valuable and useful and able to relieve people's suffering. Or worse, as if people's suffering is somehow silly and insignificant compared to the
mighty material world, such that to relieve it is inconsequential.
My position is that prayer has no more effect or power than you claim for it, and that many if not most Christians and other kinds of theists do pray for miracle healings.
You could choose to believe that most dark-skinned people are lazy, shiftless, immoral, and given to criminality, too, but that doesn't mean they are. All it means is that you don't like dark-skinned people and you justify it by characterizing them negatively. When in reality there are billions of dark-skinned people with every kind of temperament and ethical persuasion imaginable, and some that aren't even imaginable. And the same is true of theists. So what YOU think "most" Christians and theists are "like" isn't really relevant to the discussion. What is relevant is that prayer is far more widespread and complex than you think it is, and are willing to accept. And as a result, you're ideas and opinions on it are quite incomplete and inaccurate.
So are you willing to open your mind and learn about it? Or are you just going to keep throwing whatever BS argument you can muster after it in the hopes that you won't have to admit to being wrong about anything?
Here is the argument refuting the last part of your comment...,
Note that no argument follows, here. Only another anecdote about people using prayer to pursue "God-magic", and how it fails them.
... this time from something you can read without the burden of clicking on a link. I won't make this argument again...
Again, no argument has yet been proffered. Apparently you don't understand what an argument actually is. But it's not an anecdotal story. An anecdotal story is just an anecdotal story. It does not imply by it's existence that we should accept it as being anything other than what it is, or take it to mean anything more than what it says.
... and am only willing to do so now because the graphics in my previous argument didn't appear. I fully expect you to ignore this or dismiss it with a wave of the hand, which is understood as you being unable to rebut what is clearly correct. It would be more honorable for you to comment that you can see that you were wrong, or offer a rebuttal to the following, but you don't do that. You slink away without comment, or argue with straw men instead.
Here was a nice example not only of the expectations of believers for prayer to heal, but also a demonstration of the placebo effect it can have, albeit quite temporary in this case.
We have already agreed numerous times that to use prayer as a means of obtaining some form of "God-magic" result is an ineffective and inappropriate use of the act of praying. And I have shown you and explained to you many times now how prayer can and is used far more appropriately and effectively by many millions of people. And yet you seem to be
SO obsessed with the relatively small number of humans that don't understand prayer, and therefor misuse it, that you just cannot seem to stay focused on the positive alternative understanding and usage of prayer. To the point that you just can't accept that they exist! I've tried, but it's like running into a wall.
