RationalWiki's 2020 Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2021.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!

Donations so far: $3500Goal: $3500


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon religion.svg

This Religion related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.


Hold on, did I win the edit war? Bohdan

Probably not on this one, no. Unless you have more to offer? Oh, btw, Hi Bohdan! humanbe in 00:02, 18 August 2007 (CDT)


Yet another example of the inappropriate use of science to criticize religion. You should remember that both religion and prayer give a lot of comfort to many people and for that reason they should not be attacked.Tolerance 13:33, 11 April 2008 (EDT)

I don't believe that you fully understand NOMA. It is not a command for everyone on both sides to simply bury their heads. In your very post you mention an effect (better yet, a hypothesis) that can be scientifically tested. The science side of NOMA is meant to not make judgments about the non-scientific aspects of religion. When a religion makes a statement that can be tested scientifically, then it does not fall under NOMA. --Edgerunner76Your views are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter 13:43, 11 April 2008 (EDT)
Three words: freedom of speech. Mockery of ridiculous and unsubstantiated beliefs is important. 15:29, 24 April 2008 (EDT)

Psichological aim of a prayer[edit]

Prayer may be seen as a form of Mantra.

I agree that using a prayer to ask/request something from a deity, and after/during the prayer don't do anything to resolve the problem at the root of the request, is stupid and useless. While using a prayer as a mantra to reach a psichological state, to reflect better about the problem, is more sensed.

A prayer don't solve any problem, at most is used to prepare(psicholocically) to solve a problem.

Prayers have also an educational role in religions, like studying is in school. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prayer#Approaches_to_prayer (i'm not suggesting you to copy it xD only to have it a read)— Unsigned, by: Dnanaz / talk / contribs

Prayer may well be used in religion as a form of indoctrination. Nevertheless the article is mainly concerned with people trying to nag a deity (or deities) into doing something on their behalf. That is why people are praying. If they get some other (hypothesised) advantage that is fine - but it's not why they are praying.--BobSpring is sprung! 20:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Moar quotes[edit]

how 'bout the one that goes something like "two hands working accomplish more than a thousand clasped in prayer" Zau (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Surewhynot? Tytalk 01:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you can't use science[edit]

Just Because - interesting idea, but it still doesn't free you from the assertion that it "works", as "works" is an observable effect and science - whether you like it or not - tests such observable effects. It doesn't matter how you handwave the underlying mechanism, a hypothesis is still created. Scarlet A.pngnarchist 06:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

BoN edit[edit]

This BoN edit made me chuckle for a minute. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

okay if I put my fun page into this article's see also?[edit]

Fun:People to pray for
Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 22:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

decided to put it in intercessory prayerCivic CatTalk to Civic Cat 00:46, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Merging stubs into this article[edit]

I suggest the following stub, semi-orphaned articles that could and should clearly be sub-sections of the main (and currently too short) Prayer article;

These should recieve their own sub-sections or be baked into the larger text, with their current articles providing redirects to the proper sections. I could undertake to start merging these into the main article in the case the idea isn't opposed but nobody volunteers to do it. Also, replies that elaborate their point past "yes" or "no" are the only useful ones, aside from the point that each article I mentioned in that list demands its own consideration. It's arguable not all but some of these should be merged into the main Prayer article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The last 4 should be merged into a section on prayer in government. Herr FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 13:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
The following article should also be merged (with a redirect): http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godbotherer Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I recant. The last 4 seem like they could remain separate. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 16:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. However, they should all link back to the prayer article in a "if you were looking for/for full article, click here" type notifications. And/or under "see also", when more appropriate. And the prayer article should certainly link out to them in the same manner on a per-article basis. — Unsigned, by: Reverend Black Percy / talk / contribs (signed by bot) 16:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)