@ God,
Ur Sense of Reasonin is Bafflin 2 Say d Least,
Some "Jobless" Scientist/People were able 2 conclusively Prove that ur Imaginary God Does Not Exist & as a Matter of Fact does not Answer Prayer, (Read d 1st Post by d Op)
U Guys Argued that it is Not True, Some Even Claim d Study Did Not Include Africa bla bla bla,
So U have d Time 2 Argue/Insult d OP but to provide a Single Proof That will end d Arguement is Termed "Joblessness"
I Doff my Hat for d Deluded Folks, They Will Lie, Cheat & Come up wit all Form of Ridiculous Antics 2 Defend this Imaginary God,
If u Cant Prove that Prayer Works then how can we have "REASONABLE" Disscusion.

OUTSIDER TEST OF FAITH (OFT) (culled from http://debunkingchristianity..com/2011/06/its-time-once-again-boys-and-girls-for.html)
This test is basically a scientifically proven way of validating our beliefs.
1) We are all raised as believers. As children we believed whatever our parents told us, all of us.

2) We were raised in our respective families and cultures to believe what our parents told us about religion.

3) Psychological studies have shown that people have a very strong tendency to believe what they prefer to believe. Cognitive Bias studies show this.

4) Psychological studies have shown that most of us, most of the time, look for that which confirms what we believe rather than that which disconfirms it, even though the latter is the best way to get at the truth. This is known as Confirmation Bias.

5) Neurological studies have shown that people have a sense of certainty about the beliefs they have that is unrelated to the strength of the actual evidence, as Robert Burton argues in On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not

6) Skepticism is not usually an inherited characteristic. We must acquire the capacity to doubt what we are raised to believe. Skepticism is the adult attitude.

Summary
This data is undeniable, noncontroversial and obvious. We must think about the implications of what these undeniable facts tell us about who we are as human beings. If we were raised as Christians then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Muslims then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Orthodox Jews then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Scientologists then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Hindu's then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe.

claremont:

. . .but if you have a research done which conclusively shows that prayer works, kindly let me have a summary.

^Here you go. Knock yourself out.

Intercessory Prayer and Patient Outcomes in Coronary Care Units

Although prayer for the sick is an important cultural aspect of some societies and religions, the effects of intercessory prayer (praying for others) on the medical outcome has not been extensively studied. In a 1988 study, Byrd reported that intercessory prayer had a statistically significant beneficial effect on the hospital course of patients in a coronary care unit (CCU). In an attempt to replicate Byrd's findings, Harris and associates conducted a study to evaluate whether intercessory prayer had an effect on complications and the duration of hospital stay in CCU patients.

The 990 CCU patients in the study were randomly assigned by the hospital chaplain's secretary to a prayer group (466 patients) or a group for whom intercessory praying was not done (524 patients). After a patient was assigned to the prayer group, an intercessory prayer team leader was called and given the first name of the patient. The team leader then called four other members of the team. There were 15 teams of five members each. Other than the patient's first name, no information about the patient was given to the intercessors, and patients did not know that the prayers were being made for them.

The intercessors represented a variety of religious affiliations, and they were asked to pray daily for the next 28 days for "a speedy recovery with no complications." A period of 28 days was chosen as the duration of intercessory praying so that prayer would continue throughout the hospitalization for at least 95 percent of patients. It was not known if other prayers were being offered for the patients outside of the study context.

A scoring system specific for the CCU was used for assessing the severity of comorbid conditions and the medical interventions required during hospitalization. A score of 1 was assigned for each serious event or complication. Hence, the higher the score, the higher the probability of adverse outcomes.

The mean CCU score in the prayer group was 11 percent lower than that in the group for whom intercessory praying was not conducted. The prayer group had 10 percent fewer scoring elements than the usual-care group. The mean lengths of stay in the CCU and in the hospital (after initiation of prayer) were similar in the two groups. The median duration of the hospital stay was 4 days in both groups.

The authors conclude that supplementary, remote, blinded, intercessory prayer produced a measurable improvement in the medical outcomes of critically ill patients in the CCU. The authors note that their findings would be expected to occur by chance alone only one out of 25 times, but chance still remains a possible explanation for the results. These findings are consistent with Byrd's assessment--that intercessory prayer lowered the scores that reflected a more complicated hospital course but did not significantly alter the length of stay. More studies are needed to validate the findings of this and other studies and to explore the potential role of prayer as an adjunct to standard medical care.

Harris WS, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med October 25, 1999;159:2273-8.

claremont:

OUTSIDER TEST OF FAITH (OFT) (culled from http://debunkingchristianity..com/2011/06/its-time-once-again-boys-and-girls-for.html)
This test is basically a scientifically proven way of validating our beliefs.
1) We are all raised as believers. As children we believed whatever our parents told us, all of us.

2) We were raised in our respective families and cultures to believe what our parents told us about religion.

3) Psychological studies have shown that people have a very strong tendency to believe what they prefer to believe. Cognitive Bias studies show this.

4) Psychological studies have shown that most of us, most of the time, look for that which confirms what we believe rather than that which disconfirms it, even though the latter is the best way to get at the truth. This is known as Confirmation Bias.

5) Neurological studies have shown that people have a sense of certainty about the beliefs they have that is unrelated to the strength of the actual evidence, as Robert Burton argues in On Being Certain: Believing You Are Right Even When You're Not

6) Skepticism is not usually an inherited characteristic. We must acquire the capacity to doubt what we are raised to believe. Skepticism is the adult attitude.

Summary
This data is undeniable, noncontroversial and obvious. We must think about the implications of what these undeniable facts tell us about who we are as human beings. If we were raised as Christians then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Muslims then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Orthodox Jews then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Scientologists then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe. If we were raised as Hindu's then we seek to confirm what we were raised to believe because we prefer that which we were raised to believe.

Is it so hard to produce the link of the Research that claimed prayers are not accepted? Now you are deviating from the thread topics to cover our eyes?

claremont:

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF PRAYER

Do prayers really work?! It has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that prayers not only do NOT work, but are also a complete waste of time that would have been better used in addressing the issue that led to the prayer in the first place. How do we know that prayers do not work? Simple!

A review of 17 past studies of ''prayer", published in 2003 by a British researcher, found NO significant effect for prayer or other healing methods. In another study, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had NO effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications. In yet another rigorous scientific study, researchers found that the prayers of a distant congregation did NOT reduce the major complications or death rate in patients hospitalized for heart treatments.

I thought atheist argue based on credible evidence, not hear say?

aletheia:

^Here you go. Knock yourself out.
The authors note that their findings would be expected to occur by chance alone only one out of 25 times, but chance still remains a possible explanation for the results. These findings are consistent with Byrd's assessment--that intercessory prayer lowered the scores that reflected a more complicated hospital course but did not significantly alter the length of stay. More studies are needed to validate the findings of this and other studies and to explore the potential role of prayer as an adjunct to standard medical care.

Harris WS, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of the effects of remote, intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients admitted to the coronary care unit. Arch Intern Med October 25, 1999;159:2273-8.[/i]

Excellent paper! BUT let me draw your attention the the 2 sentences I highlighted boldly. Those 2 sentences show that this solitary study does "NOT CONCLUSIVELY" demonstrate that prayer works. In addition, this 1988 study is yet to be validated by other studies which makes the result of this study not binding as a statement of scientific fact.

vedaxcool:


Is it so hard to produce the link of the Research that claimed prayers are not accepted? Now you are deviating from the thread topics to cover our eyes?
I thought atheist argue based on credible evidence, not hear say?

There are a multitude of studies available on the Internet which conclusively show that prayers do not work. I can't possibly put all the links to them on here, I can only summarize abstracts of the various studies, which is what I did in the introductory part of this debate.

claremont:

There are a multitude of studies available on the Internet which conclusively show that prayers do not work. I can't possibly put all the links to them on here, I can only summarize abstracts of the various studies, which is what I did in the introductory part of this debate.

Evidently there was no such research  , since you have no link to point to the specific research you were talking of, if they are several post only one, only one, yet there is none. [size=18pt]Case  dismiss due to lack of evidence![/size]

All rise!!

vedaxcool:

Evidently there was no such research  , since you have no link to point to the specific research you were talking of, if they are several post only one, only one, yet there is none. [size=18pt]Case  dismiss due to lack of evidence![/size]
All rise!!  

Google remains the best friend of every researcher!

claremont:

Excellent paper! BUT let me draw your attention the the 2 sentences I highlighted boldly. Those 2 sentences show that this solitary study does "NOT CONCLUSIVELY" demonstrate that prayer works. In addition, this 1988 study is yet to be validated by other studies which makes the result of this study not binding as a statement of scientific fact.

^Please. Is there any theory "CONCLUSIVELY" proven in science? Isn't the "scientific method" to consider the weight of the evidence?

Firstly the study is not a solitary one. The study by Byrd in 1988 reported a statistically significant beneficial effect of prayer on the hospital course of patients in a coronary care unit (CCU). Why did you gloss over those words "statistically significant", if you are truly the objective observer that you claim to be?
Secondly, the study that I indicated is a randomized controlled trial which in Medicine is considered to be the highest level of scientific evidence. This study also replicated the findings of the Byrd study. In science, it is the accretion of the results of repeated experimentation that builds up a body of evidence in support of a theory/hypothesis.
Thirdly, you latch on to this sentence; "but chance still remains a possible explanation for the results." as a drowning man would clutch at a straw, while deliberately overlooking this phrase "The authors note that their findings would be expected to occur by chance alone only one out of 25 times" which illustrates just what is meant by statistically significant. In order words: how likely is the result to have occurred by chance? Only 4 times out of 100. If I have a number of studies that have similar results (and they do exist), then by the "scientific method", I am safe to conclude that prayer works because the body of evidence suggests so.
Fourthly, your second highlighted sentence: "More studies are needed to validate the findings of this and other studies and to explore the potential role of prayer as an adjunct to standard medical care." only serves to buttress my earlier point that in science, it is the accretion of the results of repeated experimentation that builds up a body of evidence in support of a theory/hypothesis.
In bio-statistics, the method of meta-analysis pools together the results of different studies (both statistically significant and statistically non-significant studies) in order to assess if there is an overall significant effect not explained by chance. Guess what? Meta-analysis indicates prayer is effective.

David R. Hodge, an Assistant Professor of Social Work in the College of Human Services at Arizona State University, conducted a comprehensive analysis of 17 major studies on the effects of intercessory prayer – or prayer that is offered for the benefit of another person – among people with psychological or medical problems. He found a positive effect.

Hodge, D.R. 2007. A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer. Research on Social Work Practice 17: 174-187.

Here are other papers reporting the effect of prayers

Byrd, R.C. 1988. Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. Southern Medical Journal 81: 826-829.

Harris, W.S., Gowda, M., Kolb, J.W., Strychacz, C.P., Vacek, J.L., Jones, P.G., Forker, A., O’Keefe, J.H., and McCallister, B.D. 1999. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit. Arch Intern Med. 159:2273-2278.

Leibovici, L. 2001. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 323, 1450-1451

Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL. 2006. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am. Heart J. 151:934-942.

There is also an Israeli study that I have not been able to lay my hands on.

aletheia:

^Please. Is there any theory "CONCLUSIVELY" proven in science? Isn't the "scientific method" to consider the weight of the evidence?

Firstly the study is not a solitary one. The study by Byrd in 1988 reported a statistically significant beneficial effect of prayer on the hospital course of patients in a coronary care unit (CCU). Why did you gloss over those words "statistically significant", if you are truly the objective observer that you claim to be?
Secondly, the study that I indicated is a randomized controlled trial which in Medicine is considered to be the highest level of scientific evidence. This study also replicated the findings of the Byrd study. In science, it is the accretion of the results of repeated experimentation that builds up a body of evidence in support of a theory/hypothesis.
Thirdly, you latch on to this sentence; "but chance still remains a possible explanation for the results." as a drowning man would clutch at a straw, while deliberately overlooking this phrase "The authors note that their findings would be expected to occur by chance alone only one out of 25 times" which illustrates just what is meant by statistically significant. In order words: how likely is the result to have occurred by chance? Only 4 times out of 100. If I have a number of studies that have similar results (and they do exist), then by the "scientific method", I am safe to conclude that prayer works because the body of evidence suggests so.
Fourthly, your second highlighted sentence: "More studies are needed to validate the findings of this and other studies and to explore the potential role of prayer as an adjunct to standard medical care." only serves to buttress my earlier point that in science, it is the accretion of the results of repeated experimentation that builds up a body of evidence in support of a theory/hypothesis.
In bio-statistics, the method of meta-analysis pools together the results of different studies (both statistically significant and statistically non-significant studies) in order to assess if there is an overall significant effect not explained by chance. Guess what? Meta-analysis indicates prayer is effective.

David R. Hodge, an Assistant Professor of Social Work in the College of Human Services at Arizona State University, conducted a comprehensive analysis of 17 major studies on the effects of intercessory prayer – or prayer that is offered for the benefit of another person – among people with psychological or medical problems. He found a positive effect.

Hodge, D.R. 2007. A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer. Research on Social Work Practice 17: 174-187.

Here are other papers reporting the effect of prayers

Byrd, R.C. 1988. Positive Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer in a Coronary Care Unit Population. Southern Medical Journal 81: 826-829.

Harris, W.S., Gowda, M., Kolb, J.W., Strychacz, C.P., Vacek, J.L., Jones, P.G., Forker, A., O’Keefe, J.H., and McCallister, B.D. 1999. A Randomized, Controlled Trial of the Effects of Remote, Intercessory Prayer on Outcomes in Patients Admitted to the Coronary Care Unit. Arch Intern Med. 159:2273-2278.

Leibovici, L. 2001. Effects of remote, retroactive intercessory prayer on outcomes in patients with bloodstream infection: randomised controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 323, 1450-1451

Benson H, Dusek JA, Sherwood JB, Lam P, Bethea CF, Carpenter W, Levitsky S, Hill PC, Clem DW Jr, Jain MK, Drumel D, Kopecky SL, Mueller PS, Marek D, Rollins S, Hibberd PL. 2006. Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: a multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Am. Heart J. 151:934-942.

There is also an Israeli study that I have not been able to lay my hands on.

Your immense contribution to this debate is very much appreciated, most especially the effort you made in providing links to buttress your points. Be that as it may, I have 1000's of studies done which conclusively show that prayer not only does not work, but in fact, it may lead to further complications.

1. Benson et.al (2005) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

2. Francis and Evans (2005) The psychology of christian prayer: a review of empirical research. Conclusions:  It is concluded that such studies currently provide contradictory evidence. It is recommended that further research in the field needs both to observe the strict criteria of objective empirical research and to be alert to theological nuances regarding the actual claims made for the efficacy of prayer within the community of believers. The author of this study is a Reverend Father, hence bias may be a possible reason for the inconclusiveness of the study.

3. Joyce and Welldone (1964) The objective efficacy of prayer : A double-blind clinical trial. [/b]Conclusions: The first six valid and definite results available all showed an advantage to the ‘treated’ group. Five of the next six showed an advantage to the ‘control’ group. [b]These results may be due solely to chance, but the possible involvement of other factors is discussed.

4. Nicholson et.al (2010) Associations Between Different Dimensions of Religious Involvement and Self-Rated Health in Diverse European Populations. Conclusions: The frequency of attendance at religious services and private prayer had opposite associations with self-rated health, resulting in negative confounding.

All the above cited studies show that there is a negative correlation between prayer and a patient's health outcome. They conclusively prove beyond reasonable doubt that prayer is not only a waste of time, but it may also lead to a further worsening of the condition which warrants the prayer in the first place. The isolated studies which may show contradictory positive correlation between prayer and health outcome can be explained on account of chance or coincidence or a mixture of both. Moreover, the mere fact that an isolated study shows prayer correlates positively with a healthcare outcome doesn't necessarily prove that the positive outcome is directly caused by prayer, this is because every scientist knows that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, it can only mean causation when all other extraneous factors have been taken into account.

claremont:

Be that as it may, I have 1000's of studies done which conclusively show that prayer not only does not work, but in fact, it may lead to further complications.

^Thousands of studies. Aren't you exaggerating? And you are only able to produce 4 studies. And even this 4 do not conclusively show that prayer does not work. Please provide me with a link to these 1000's of studies - perhaps a PubMed search?

claremont:

1. Benson et.al (2005) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer. Conclusions: Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.

^
This is the main study that you 've hinged your argument on so far? Granted this single study shows no effect of prayer. . .the question is: why is there a higher incidence of complications with prayer in this study? To my mind as a biostatistician that's suggestive of several things.

claremont:

2. Francis and Evans (2005) The psychology of christian prayer: a review of empirical research. Conclusions: It is concluded that such studies currently provide contradictory evidence. It is recommended that further research in the field needs both to observe the strict criteria of objective empirical research and to be alert to theological nuances regarding the actual claims made for the efficacy of prayer within the community of believers. The author of this study is a Reverend Father, hence bias may be a possible reason for the inconclusiveness of the study.

^
This study is inconclusive and yet you say it proves your case that prayer is not effective. Isn't this a bit dishonest.

claremont:

3. Joyce and Welldone (1964) The objective efficacy of prayer : A double-blind clinical trial. [/b]Conclusions: The first six valid and definite results available all showed an advantage to the ‘treated’ group. Five of the next six showed an advantage to the ‘control’ group. [b]These results may be due solely to chance, but the possible involvement of other factors is discussed.

^
Another inconclusive study as the words highlighted in red indicate.

claremont:

4. Nicholson et.al (2010) Associations Between Different Dimensions of Religious Involvement and Self-Rated Health in Diverse European Populations. Conclusions: The frequency of attendance at religious services and private prayer had opposite associations with self-rated health, resulting in negative confounding.

^
This study is a cross-sectional one which relies on self-reporting; a type of study design that is associated with a lot of bias and therefore makes a poor case of proof as seen by the negative confounding that was reported. As I indicated earlier the randomized controlled trial is the gold standard for scientific evidence in Medicine. Moreover that you actually did not read the Nicholson paper is clear because the results do actually support the conjecture that religious activity (of which prayer is but a component) is effective. Here are the results reported in the abstract on PubMed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20230097

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE:

Poor self-rated health (SRH).
RESULTS:

When analyzed separately, less frequent attendance was associated with poor health in men and women. Associations were weaker with less frequent prayer and lower religiousness. In models with all dimensions together, the association with attendance was strengthened and prayer became significantly inversely associated with health.

You seem to have been thrown by the word opposite occurring in the conclusion stated in the abstract: "The frequency of attendance at religious services and private prayer had opposite associations with self-rated health" What the authors simply mean is that higher frequency of religious activity (not prayer) is associated with lower rates of self-rated poor health. This is clearly elucidated by the portion of the results highlighted in red above.

Herein lies a cautionary tale: Don't post papers you have not taken time to read. You might end up with egg on your face. In fact the very first paragraph of the Nicholson paper says this:

There are extensive data linking religious involvement with better health. Meta-analyses have shown small associations with reduced mortality in those with more religious involvement (McCullough, Hoyt, Larson, Koenig, & Thoresen, 2000; Chida, Steptoe, & Powell, 2009).

I have attached the full text of the Nicholson paper below for your perusal.

claremont:

All the above cited studies show that there is a negative correlation between prayer and a patient's health outcome. They conclusively prove beyond reasonable doubt that prayer is not only a waste of time, but it may also lead to a further worsening of the condition which warrants the prayer in the first place.

^
Sorry but the 4 studies you cited above do not show what you claim. Two of them are inconclusive. The Nicholson study indubitably so. Please present more definitive studies.

claremont:

The isolated studies which may show contradictory positive correlation between prayer and health outcome can be explained on account of chance or coincidence or a mixture of both. Moreover, the mere fact that an isolated study shows prayer correlates positively with a healthcare outcome doesn't necessarily prove that the positive outcome is directly caused by prayer, this is because every scientist knows that correlation doesn't necessarily mean causation, it can only mean causation when all other extraneous factors have been taken into account.

^
Please acquaint yourself with the method of meta-analysis which pools results from all studies both those for and against the proposition. As I pointed out in my earlier post: meta-analysis shows that prayer is effective.

@all the theists
Is there any prayer that one can say which will make god appear and replace the sun for at least 24 hours to convince all unbelievers that god exists.

^^^^^^

Off topic, (manmustwav)

I saw in an earlier post that you seem to live in new-cross or deptford, do you? just curious.

@Topic

This topic has been going on for ages and sadly it will continue to go on.

The bitter truth is that nobody has a definitive proof.

It seems this topic is back again.

Uyi Iredia:

I am a Christian with pantheistic preclinations. I am not talking about Creationism. I am on the ID side and theirs is a more robust argument for the flaws of the neo-Darwinian model. Please check these links:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/faq/

Scientific Evidence For God's Existence

Atheist Riddle

After that we'll talk. BTW i am quite versed in evolutionary rubrics. I took my time before choosing my side. Do not make the mistake of grouping ID with Creationism . I see that a lot and I must say that it's wrong

It seems you're back with these outrageous claims. Since you're so versed, are you now ready to defend these claims?

Uyi Iredia:

I do not know much about him. but I find Perry Marshall's talk of intelligent evolution interesting. I urge you to read post your comment.

Sure the talk may be interesting to those not well informed but if you're now better informed on it. Why don't you present the gist of his talk and defend them as need be.

thehomer:


It seems you're back with these outrageous claims. Since you're so versed, are you now ready to defend these claims?
Sure the talk may be interesting to those not well informed but if you're now better informed on it. Why don't you present the gist of his talk and defend them as need be.

I didn't post the comments you mentioned, but rather, those comments were mentioned by a Poster in one of my debates. If you had bothered to check the User ID, you will notice that it is different from mine; I am Claremont, the name of the Poster of the comments you referred to is Uyi Iredia. I will suggest you search for him on Nairaland and clarify issues you have with his comments yourself.

claremont:

I didn't post the comments you mentioned, but rather, those comments were mentioned by a Poster in one of my debates. If you had bothered to check the User ID, you will notice that it is different from mine; I am Claremont, the name of the Poster of the comments you referred to is Uyi Iredia. I will suggest you search for him on Nairaland and clarify issues you have with his comments yourself.

I know that and I wasn't referring to you. I never said you posted the comments.

That was why I placed his quotes in my post.

claremont:

Google remains the best friend of every researcher!

You are a joke indeed, you started a thread claiming prayers do not work, and now you want me to find evidence for you? You are not serious indeed, I say point us the specific research you claim to be summarizing, or do you want to have faith in your lies, a your deliberate attempt not to sight any link only proves that your "proofs' are non existent, unless we can examine your evidence, we will have to assume you are a Liar whose is simply looking for attention

/\/\/\ 4 of the research papers I summarized are a couple of posts above your post if you had bothered looking before posting!

^^^^^^
I am forced to restate this:

vedaxcool:

You are a joke indeed, you started a thread claiming prayers do not work, and now you want me to find evidence for you? You are not serious indeed, I say point us the specific research you claim to be summarizing, or do you want to have faith in your lies, a your deliberate attempt not to sight any link only proves that your "proofs' are non existent, unless we can examine your evidence, we will have to assume you are a Liar whose is simply looking for attention

I asked for a link since it has proven to difficult for you, i would go the extra mile of refuting your strange grip on deceit.

More than 350,000 Americans and 800,000 people worldwide have coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) every year.1 Despite advances in surgical techniques, anesthesia and postoperative care in recent years, approximately 40% have at least one complication within 30 days of CABG.2 Patients undergoing CABG often report that they are depressed3 and depression is associated with cardiac events4 and mortality5 following CABG. Many patients report using private or family prayer to cope with this stressful experience.

It is very clear that complications is a common occurrence immediately after CABG-40% of patient have atleast one complications- More importantly the study did not take into consideration the frequency and the personal commitment of the individual to his religious belief, again the study can be accused of making a strange generalization based on the a research done in America, it failed to take the materialist behavior of the patients in the study, this is to say that every culture have its own uniqueness hence, materialism could have a significant effect on the study, in that the patient does not really believe in the efficacy of prayers.


[size=18pt]While the effects of private prayer on outcome after CABG are unknown[/size], 4 trials investigated the effects of intercessory prayer in heterogeneous groups of cardiac patients. Results have been mixed – intercessory prayer was beneficial in 2 studies7-8 and had no effect in 2 studies.9-10 The studies showing benefit used sub-optimal methods of data analysis, non standard methods of randomization and allocation concealment, and untested outcome measures,11-14 and those showing no effect had insufficient statistical power to reach this conclusion.9-10 Despite these concerns, the Cochrane Collaboration15 and others16-17 have concluded that further scientific investigation of the possible effects of intercessory prayer is warranted.


It is very clear that there is a lot of inconclusiveness in research of this nature. Since the atheist is too scared of us investigating his reseacrhs, i brought it out of "hiding".

Finally; the result did not explain adequately the method used:

Methods: Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: ;604 received intercessory prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayer 597 did not receive intercessory prayer, also after being informed they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event andmortality.

Results: In the two groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.28).[size=18pt] Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups[/size].

Nb the two groups that did not expect to receive prayers but actually received had complications of 52% versus 51% of those who did not receive prayers, statistically the difference is not significant, note the result seems a bit jumbled in that it did not segregate the results adequately:

1. received intercessory prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayer

2. did not receive intercessory prayer, also after being informed they may or may not receive prayer

3. received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer

it simply Jumbled option 1 and 3 together, there by making the percentage of "unaccepted prayer larger", there is a psychological dimension to it in that, when someone has the faith of receiving healing from God the fact that he believes perple are out there praying for him, might have significant effect of him getting out complication free.

Finally, this clarmont individual is reading with his eyes closed;

[size=18pt]Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness and the results of this study do not challenge this belief. Our study focused only on intercessory prayer as provided in this trial and was never intended to and cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists or whether God answers intercessory prayers or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups.[/size]

this results are based on the research below, the link is in my previous post to download the research:
Benson et.al (2005) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer

vedaxcool:

Finally; the result did not explain adequately the method used:

Methods: Patients at 6 US hospitals were randomly assigned to one of 3 groups: ;604 received intercessory prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayer 597 did not receive intercessory prayer, also after being informed they may or may not receive prayer; and 601 received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer. Intercessory prayer was provided for 14 days, starting the night before CABG. The primary outcome was presence of any complication within 30 days of CABG. Secondary outcomes were any major event andmortality.

Results: In the two groups uncertain about receiving intercessory prayer, complications occurred in 52% (315/604) of patients who received intercessory prayer versus 51% (304/597) of those who did not (relative risk 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.92-1.15). Complications occurred in 59% (352/601) of patients certain of receiving intercessory prayer compared with the 52% (315/604) of those uncertain of receiving intercessory prayer (relative risk 1.14, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.28).[size=18pt] Major events and 30-day mortality were similar across the 3 groups[/size].

Nb the two groups that did not expect to receive prayers but actually received had complications of 52% versus 51% of those who did not receive prayers, statistically the difference is not significant, note the result seems a bit jumbled in that it did not segregate the results adequately:

1. received intercessory prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayer

2. did not receive intercessory prayer, also after being informed they may or may not receive prayer

3. received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive prayer

it simply Jumbled option 1 and 3 together, there by making the percentage of "unaccepted prayer larger", there is a psychological dimension to it in that, when someone has the faith of receiving healing from God the fact that he believes perple are out there praying for him, might have significant effect of him getting out complication free.

Finally, this clarmont individual is reading with his eyes closed;

[size=18pt]Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness and the results of this study do not challenge this belief. Our study focused only on intercessory prayer as provided in this trial and was never intended to and cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists or whether God answers intercessory prayers or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups.[/size]

this results are based on the research below, the link is in my previous post to download the research:
Benson et.al (2005) Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer (STEP) in cardiac bypass patients: A multicenter randomized trial of uncertainty and certainty of receiving intercessory prayer

Everyone know that the conclusion of the STEP study showed that there was a[b] positive correlation between prayer and an increase in complications of In-patients being prayed for[/b]. I don't understand the conclusion you arrived at, but the study conclusion is what I have cited above.

claremont:

Everyone know that the conclusion of the STEP study showed that there was a[b] positive correlation between prayer and an increase in complications of In-patients being prayed for[/b]. I don't understand the conclusion you arrived at, but the study conclusion is what I have cited above.

You have finally confessed that what you wrote was not a summary of the research but a Re pasting of another atheist ill thought conclusions , take time out and read the document I pasted here https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?action=dlattach;topic=710647.0;id=484031

The conclusion you claim i made was actually the statement of the researchers refer to page page 14 of the document.

To even think atheist could be objective, pathetic hiss!

@vedaxcool: Whether you choose to believe my findings are true, or you choose to believe they have been garnished to serve an atheistic end, it doesn't change the scientific fact that those who pray are living in a fool's paradise. It is typical of religious folks to indulge in self-delusionary behavior which beclouds their ability to reason and contribute to issues logically.

Someone is having a hard time being rational, the researchers said:

Private or family prayer is widely believed to influence recovery from illness and the results of this study do not challenge this belief. Our study focused only on intercessory prayer as provided in this trial and was never intended to and cannot address a large number of religious questions, such as whether God exists or whether God answers intercessory prayers or whether prayers from one religious group work in the same way as prayers from other groups.

Yet an atheist withou any respect for thetruth ishere dodging the issues.

I have a special interest in this topic since I'm a doctor and I actually searched around the internet a few years ago looking for proper studies on this issue. Slightly less than half of the available studies showed a significant beneficial effect in patients who were being prayed for and the remainder showed no benefit or even a slight adverse effect.

Further digging revealed that the majority of the studies which found a positive effect were sponsored by religious groups or organizations closely related to religious groups. Also many of these studies had serious flaws. Some had unacceptably small sample sizes, many were not properly blinded (either the patients or those conducting the study knew which patients were being prayed for and which ones weren't.) Others had problems with randomization and patient selection (less ill patients were cherry-picked and put into the prayer group to skew the results). And at least one of the studies was an outright fraud.

The majority of independent studies found no statistically significant differences between patients who were prayed for and those who weren't as long as the patient was unaware of the prayers. Patients who knew they were being prayed for tended to do better but this can be explained by the placebo effect. A few studies showed a statistically significant difference in outcomes (some of the prayed for patients actually had worse outcomes) but this is also to be expected due to the nature of randomized trials. The best available study is the 2006 STEP (Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer) which suggested that people who received prayers were slightly worse off.

Unfortunately its very easy to doctor the results of these studies to say exactly what you want which is what a lot of religious groups have been doing. A good example is the Pfizer Trovan study of 1996 (the one that killed and injured hundreds of children in Kano). Pfizer wanted to show that their drug was better than the standard treatment for meningitis (ceftriaxone) so they funded a study to compare a group of children treated with the standard drug with another group treated with Trovan. The problem is that the children who received the standard drug were only given half the normal dose. Pfizer wanted to "prove" that their drug was better so they designed a study that could only have had that outcome. If not for the outcry over the deaths, nobody would have known about the fraudulent nature of the "research"

Long story short, prayers don't work the way pastors/imams claim they do. But knowing that somebody that someone is praying for you can help.
http://home.exetel.com.au/h2bh/life/ipstudies.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

**Edited for clarity.

Why Bother yourself by Going 2 d Hospital?
If it is True that Prayer Works, the Next Time you have a life Threatning Sickness just stay in Your House & Prayer.
I dont see any Reason y u Guys are Arguing about d Validity of d Research when we can Actually put Prayer 2 a Test by a Simple Experiment.

what an interesting discourse but my observation is that no matter how its pointed that FURTHER research ought to be done on the issue of prayer & healing, atheist NEVER want to see any plus on the research already carried out even tho it is SLIGHTLY SIGNIFICANT thus an already made up mind!

Evil Brain:

I have a special interest in this topic since I'm a doctor and I actually searched around the internet a few years ago looking for proper studies on this issue. Slightly less than half of the available studies showed a significant beneficial effect in patients who were being prayed for and the remainder showed no benefit or even a slight adverse effect.

Further digging revealed that the majority of the studies which found a positive effect were sponsored by religious groups or organizations closely related to religious groups. Also many of these studies had serious flaws. Some had unacceptably small sample sizes, many were not properly blinded (either the patients or those conducting the study knew which patients were being prayed for and which ones weren't.) Others had problems with randomization and patient selection (less ill patients were cherry-picked and put into the prayer group to skew the results). And at least one of the studies was an outright fraud.

The majority of independent studies found no statistically significant differences between patients who were prayed for and those who weren't as long as the patient was unaware of the prayers. Patients who knew they were being prayed for tended to do better but this can be explained by the placebo effect. A few studies showed a statistically significant difference in outcomes (some of the prayed for patients actually had worse outcomes) but this is also to be expected due to the nature of randomized trials. The best available study is the 2006 STEP (Study of the Therapeutic Effects of Intercessory Prayer) which suggested that people who received prayers were slightly worse off.

Unfortunately its very easy to doctor the results of these studies to say exactly what you want which is what a lot of religious groups have been doing. A good example is the Pfizer Trovan study of 1996 (the one that killed and injured hundreds of children in Kano). Pfizer wanted to show that their drug was better than the standard treatment for meningitis (ceftriaxone) so they funded a study to compare a group of children treated with the standard drug with another group treated with Trovan. The problem is that the children who received the standard drug were only given half the normal dose. Pfizer wanted to "prove" that their drug was better so they designed a study that could only have had that outcome. If not for the outcry over the deaths, nobody would have known about the fraudulent nature of the "research"

Long story short, prayers don't work the way pastors/imams claim they do. But knowing that somebody that someone is praying for you can help.
http://home.exetel.com.au/h2bh/life/ipstudies.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer
**Edited for clarity.

Good stuff! I am also a member of one of the tripartite medical professions, even though I have long since jettisoned it to pursue a career in research. I do agree with what you said, there may be some studies which show that prayer works in some cases, but the objectivity of those studies is questioned based on the fact that they were heavily biased. The fact of the matter is that the weight of evidence on the side of the ineffectiveness of prayer by far outweighs the few studies which seemingly show that prayer works. That is the crux of this matter which our religious brothers and sisters refuse to admit!

Riff-Raff:

Why Bother yourself by Going 2 d Hospital?
If it is True that Prayer Works, the Next Time you have a life Threatning Sickness just stay in Your House & Prayer.
I dont see any Reason y u Guys are Arguing about d Validity of d Research when we can Actually put Prayer 2 a Test by a Simple Experiment.

Good question! If they say that prayer works, then an objective test should be that when they or their relatives are sick, they should pray for healing and not take any medicines. Surely, by then we would really know the usefulness of prayer.

@riff raf
because Yahshua did not forbid it since He did not condemn the woman wit d issue of blood who spent all her livelihood on physicians yet wivout cure, came at last to see Him.

LOOK AT A MERE CREATURE DENYING ITS CREATER!!

Yes He doesnt. Happy?? okay do God a favour,get out of HIS earth. Make your own small world then relocate and become God.

Thank you.

@claremont: Why have you ignored post #73 which highlights that the 4 studies you cited do not in fact support your claims?