I was unable to verify your next reference, since the link you provide only takes one to the newly-designed front page of the "Skeptical Inquirer", where I get another 404 error message. You don't even supply a link to support your comment that follows, "This study was later proven to be completely fraudulent. However, everyone who cut out the original article in the NYTimes and posted it on their refrigerators still has that article as "proof" that prayer works."
So how, exactly, was the study proven fraudulent, by whom, in what manner, or am I just supposed to take your rather questionable word for it? No thanks.
As for your next link (of which you claim proof of fraudulence), all I see is a re-visitation of a rather famous case of a study that apparently proves the effectiveness of "long-distance praying", a concept which in all honesty, I have to admit to being a sceptic myself. Nowhere in this article, however, does it claim that the study was ever proven fraudulent. I have no idea what you saw in the article, but I'll leave the final decision as to what theory it supports, up to any reader that chooses to peruse it for themselves.
Your last reference links us to an article about the lack of benefit, of "optimism", which is yet another article that disproves its own theory in the last paragraph that it contains,
"It is disappointing they don't reflect on quality of life," McGinnis said. "We did not have any illusions that optimism influences therapy but we do believe that optimism and hope does influence the quality of life a patient has." (Emphasis mine.)
An improvement in the patient's "quality of life" is still a result, and as such, it can't be proven by this article that prayer has no effect. Rather, it just proves that what was lacking, was the result the practitioners were hoping for.
It must also be noted that the remainder of this "proof" of yours centers on claims that appear to indicate, that you are still referring to the above-given reference site, when in fact, the article makes no mention of "superstition" or "coincidence" at all. Once again, it seems to me ,you are trying to pass your opinion off as supported fact, without showing any of the support which you make claim to.
And all I can say about the argument you present at the bottom of your page in the box entitled "Understanding The Rationalizations", is that you would first have to show me the "many" believers who would even say such a thing. The statement, as it stands, "...because God must remain hidden..." is ludicrous at best, and is easily proven to be so by the following Scripture,
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - His eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse."Romans 1:20
So unless you can show me a Christian who neither believes in Creation, or the Holy Word, I'm just going to have to chalk this up to another of your many opinions, unsupported by any actual fact.
Since this brings us to the start of another of your so-called proofs, we will submit this Blog entry, short as it is, and pick up our discussion tomorrow.
