IS THERE A REAL GOD?

[Bill]

Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?



There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.



No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false. There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods. Which, if
any, are correct?



Major religious texts and documents;



Baha'i Sacrid writtings

Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon

The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.

No originals of the old or new testaments exist.

The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints

The Analects - Confuscianism

The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs

Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome

Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism

Qur'an - Islam

Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs

Tanakh - Jewism

Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism

Nag Hammadi - Gnostics

Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong



Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents. Except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.



Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes? And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.



The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

[g***@hotmail.com]

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.
Only faith talking here.

Post by Bill
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false.

He has not announce to you, but then not everything is about you.

Post by Bill
There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods. Which, if
any, are correct?

Just one.
Only faith talking here.

Post by Bill
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

Ahh, a man of faith. Welcome.

[Mark Donovan]

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.
Only faith talking here.

Post by Bill
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false.

He has not announce to you, but then not everything is about you.

Post by Bill
There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods. Which, if
any, are correct?

Just one.
Only faith talking here.

Post by Bill
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

Ahh, a man of faith. Welcome.

The problem with Christianity is that it's the most illogical and
contradictory of all major and some minor religions. It provides ample
material, however, to any scholar of human stupidity.

Mark

[Fred Stone]

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God
beliefs. There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs,
Hindus, Muslims, Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc..
There are thousands of variations in the beliefs of each of these
religions and hundreds of minor religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.
Only faith talking here.

A Hindu or a Buddhist or a Wiccan or any of those *thousands* of others
would disagree with you. For that matter, any of thousands of other
Christians would disagree with you on the details about what the Bible
says.

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is
the real god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations
of beliefs within his own religion are false.

He has not announce to you, but then not everything is about you.

"He" has not announced to anybody. Plenty of people have made the claim,
but then they all contradict each other on the details. If they had
really got their "inspiration" from the same source, you'd expect them
to be substantially in agreement on the details.

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods.
Which, if any, are correct?

Just one.

And of course you are privileged to know which one, and we should just
believe you.

Post by g***@hotmail.com
Only faith talking here.

Faith in what? Yourself? Or whoever it was who told you about God in the
first place?

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

Ahh, a man of faith. Welcome.

No faith required. Just observation.

[thomas p]

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.
Only faith talking here.

The last sentence says it all. You can provide no reason to believe
that the Bible is the word of any god. Objectively it should be given
exactly the same weight as all the other unsupported claims.

snip

Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[g***@hotmail.com]

Post by thomas p

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.
Only faith talking here.

The last sentence says it all. You can provide no reason
to believe that the Bible is the word of any god.

No reason that can be understood or experienced by others
simply by describing it to them. It's not like a fact at all.

Post by thomas p
Objectively it should be given
exactly the same weight as all the other unsupported claims.

True.

[Michael Gray]

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by thomas p

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.
Only faith talking here.

The last sentence says it all. You can provide no reason
to believe that the Bible is the word of any god.

No reason that can be understood or experienced by others
simply by describing it to them.
It's not like a fact at all.

Rather oddly, I actually agree with you on that last sentence.
You summed up the bible admirably.

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by thomas p
Objectively it should be given
exactly the same weight as all the other unsupported claims.

True.

[thomas p]

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by thomas p

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.
Only faith talking here.

The last sentence says it all. You can provide no reason
to believe that the Bible is the word of any god.

No reason that can be understood or experienced by others
simply by describing it to them. It's not like a fact at all.

Exactly.

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by thomas p
Objectively it should be given
exactly the same weight as all the other unsupported claims.

True.

And therefore your claim that the Bible is the word of some god is
based on air and is worthless.



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[Pastor Frank]

Post by thomas p

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.
Only faith talking here.

The last sentence says it all. You can provide no reason to believe
that the Bible is the word of any god. Objectively it should be given
exactly the same weight as all the other unsupported claims.

Wrong again!!!! Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and we have
Christ evidencing this love on the cross of Calvary. Saying that all
religions are of the same quality only serves to show you being a lazy
thinker.

[Fred Stone]

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by thomas p

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus,
Muslims, Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There
are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.
Only faith talking here.

The last sentence says it all. You can provide no reason to believe
that the Bible is the word of any god. Objectively it should be
given exactly the same weight as all the other unsupported claims.

Wrong again!!!! Our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) and we have
Christ evidencing this love on the cross of Calvary. Saying that all
religions are of the same quality only serves to show you being a lazy
thinker.

Now tell us all about ludicrous definitions of God, Frankie. I like my
lovers to be alive, not dead.

[stoney]

On 15 Jan 2006 19:48:37 -0800, ***@hotmail.com wrote in
alt.atheism

Post by g***@hotmail.com

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

But only the bible is the legitimate word of God so the
existance of "thousands" should be given no weight.

That's what all the other superstitions, including those senior to
yours, says.

Post by g***@hotmail.com
Only faith talking here.

You mean gullibility, cowardice, and ignorance.


[snip stupidities]

[Legion]

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

'scuse the snip Bill.

Religion is a hang-over from times when people did not have the amount of
information about the Universe that they have now. God is a metaphor, a
handy catch-word for our inbuit connection to the collective hopes and
dreams of our species.

What better way to explain why things happen the way they do than to make up
a fantastical story to explain it, we do this with our children all the time
and so, a species capable of abstract reasoning, when in it's infancy, will
also do this for itself.

That is not to say that there is no divinity, look around you and see what
an awe inspiring place the world and the Universe is. Look at what Humanity
is capable of. There can be no doubt that we have been singled out to be
different, but by evolution, by the inherent desire of nature to for
coherent patterns. Mankind IS special and most religions are just
metaphorical ways of expressing that.

Post by Bill
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

This is why I have no real objection to ANY religion (though I do sometimes
object to things that people do in the name of religion) as they are all
imperfect but earnest attempts to connect with that thing that we all feel,
of something greater than ourselves and explain that undefinable sense of
the numinous that we all have.

All religion is but a shadow of the true faith, a faith in ourselves as the
most remarkable creation of a vast, complex and infinitely changing system
that we call the Universe. Humanity itself is a microcosm of the greater
System and has a right to be venerated as such.

Rekigion is also unfortunately used as a scapegoat. A good excuse for some
of the more distasteful aspects of the Human condition, when the reality is
that everything we do is choice or is visited upon us by irregularities in
our make-up. Good and Evil these are relative but, more importantly, Human
cncepts, born from us, from our society and our civilisation, this is the
price of free-will and evolutionary success (one of them anyway).

Legion

[Michelle Malkin]

Post by Legion

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

'scuse the snip Bill.
Religion is a hang-over from times when people did not have the amount of
information about the Universe that they have now. God is a metaphor, a
handy catch-word for our inbuit connection to the collective hopes and
dreams of our species.
What better way to explain why things happen the way they do than to make up
a fantastical story to explain it, we do this with our children all the time
and so, a species capable of abstract reasoning, when in it's infancy, will
also do this for itself.
That is not to say that there is no divinity, look around you and see what
an awe inspiring place the world and the Universe is. Look at what Humanity
is capable of. There can be no doubt that we have been singled out to be
different, but by evolution, by the inherent desire of nature to for
coherent patterns. Mankind IS special and most religions are just
metaphorical ways of expressing that.

Post by Bill
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

This is why I have no real objection to ANY religion (though I do sometimes
object to things that people do in the name of religion) as they are all
imperfect but earnest attempts to connect with that thing that we all feel,
of something greater than ourselves and explain that undefinable sense of
the numinous that we all have.
All religion is but a shadow of the true faith, a faith in ourselves as the
most remarkable creation of a vast, complex and infinitely changing system
that we call the Universe. Humanity itself is a microcosm of the greater
System and has a right to be venerated as such.
Rekigion is also unfortunately used as a scapegoat. A good excuse for some
of the more distasteful aspects of the Human condition, when the reality is
that everything we do is choice or is visited upon us by irregularities in
our make-up. Good and Evil these are relative but, more importantly, Human
cncepts, born from us, from our society and our civilisation, this is the
price of free-will and evolutionary success (one of them anyway).
Legion

You are not Legion. You speak only for yourself. Free will
is a religious concept that is not accepted by most religions
and all atheists. Humans do not always have control over
their fates. Does an infant with cancer have a choice? In
fact, does anyone with a fatal disease have a choice?Does
someone who is murdered have a choice? These are just the
most obvious questions. And, religions which have scape-
goated non-followers for centuries definitely do deserve to
be scape-goated themselves. They've earned it.

[Legion]

Post by Michelle Malkin

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

snip mine and bills bit

Post by Michelle Malkin
You are not Legion. You speak only for yourself. Free will
is a religious concept that is not accepted by most religions
and all atheists. Humans do not always have control over
their fates. Does an infant with cancer have a choice? In
fact, does anyone with a fatal disease have a choice?Does
someone who is murdered have a choice? These are just the
most obvious questions.

Quite, this is why I said choice *or* 'that which is visited upon us by
regularities in our make-up'. I would consider Fatal Diseases and
behavioural abnormalities that cause somebody to commit murder to me such
'irregularities'


And, religions which have scape-

Post by Michelle Malkin
goated non-followers for centuries definitely do deserve to
be scape-goated themselves. They've earned it.

You may be right, but what is the constructive use of bearing this kind of
grudge against something that is already in it's death throes anyway?

Legion

Post by Michelle Malkin
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^

[thomas p]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:15:42 +0000 (UTC), "Legion"

Post by Legion

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

'scuse the snip Bill.
Religion is a hang-over from times when people did not have the amount of
information about the Universe that they have now. God is a metaphor, a
handy catch-word for our inbuit connection to the collective hopes and
dreams of our species.
What better way to explain why things happen the way they do than to make up
a fantastical story to explain it, we do this with our children all the time
and so, a species capable of abstract reasoning, when in it's infancy, will
also do this for itself.
That is not to say that there is no divinity, look around you and see what
an awe inspiring place the world and the Universe is. Look at what Humanity
is capable of. There can be no doubt that we have been singled out to be
different, but by evolution, by the inherent desire of nature to for
coherent patterns. Mankind IS special and most religions are just
metaphorical ways of expressing that.

Every species is special in some way or other.

Post by Legion

Post by Bill
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

This is why I have no real objection to ANY religion (though I do sometimes
object to things that people do in the name of religion) as they are all
imperfect but earnest attempts to connect with that thing that we all feel,
of something greater than ourselves and explain that undefinable sense of
the numinous that we all have.
All religion is but a shadow of the true faith, a faith in ourselves as the
most remarkable creation of a vast, complex and infinitely changing system
that we call the Universe. Humanity itself is a microcosm of the greater
System and has a right to be venerated as such.

You must know quite a bit more than anybody else on Earth, otherwise
your claim about humanity is as meaningless as a religious doctrine.



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[Legion]

Post by thomas p
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:15:42 +0000 (UTC), "Legion"

Post by Legion

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

'scuse the snip Bill.
Religion is a hang-over from times when people did not have the amount of
information about the Universe that they have now. God is a metaphor, a
handy catch-word for our inbuit connection to the collective hopes and
dreams of our species.
What better way to explain why things happen the way they do than to make up
a fantastical story to explain it, we do this with our children all the time
and so, a species capable of abstract reasoning, when in it's infancy, will
also do this for itself.
That is not to say that there is no divinity, look around you and see what
an awe inspiring place the world and the Universe is. Look at what Humanity
is capable of. There can be no doubt that we have been singled out to be
different, but by evolution, by the inherent desire of nature to for
coherent patterns. Mankind IS special and most religions are just
metaphorical ways of expressing that.

Every species is special in some way or other.

Post by Legion

Post by Bill
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

This is why I have no real objection to ANY religion (though I do sometimes
object to things that people do in the name of religion) as they are all
imperfect but earnest attempts to connect with that thing that we all feel,
of something greater than ourselves and explain that undefinable sense of
the numinous that we all have.
All religion is but a shadow of the true faith, a faith in ourselves as the
most remarkable creation of a vast, complex and infinitely changing system
that we call the Universe. Humanity itself is a microcosm of the greater
System and has a right to be venerated as such.

You must know quite a bit more than anybody else on Earth, otherwise
your claim about humanity is as meaningless as a religious doctrine.

More than some, less than others.

It is more of a personal conviction and yes it does sound a little doctrinal
but it is not meant to be. I am just very much of the opinion that we should
celebrate what we are capable of. If course there is plenty to be ashamed of
in our history but even the ability to be ashamed is an incredible feat of
social and emotional development. On balance, Humanity is an awesone species
in terms of it's intellectual, emotional and technological Evolution, don't
you think?

I think, in general, people are far too critical of the total Human
condition. A bit more positivity and patting ourselves on the back wouldn't
go amiss.

Legion

[thomas p]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:20:37 +0000 (UTC), "Legion"

Post by Bill

Post by thomas p
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:15:42 +0000 (UTC), "Legion"

snip

Post by Bill

Post by thomas p

Post by Legion
All religion is but a shadow of the true faith, a faith in ourselves as

the

Post by thomas p

Post by Legion
most remarkable creation of a vast, complex and infinitely changing

system

Post by thomas p

Post by Legion
that we call the Universe. Humanity itself is a microcosm of the greater
System and has a right to be venerated as such.

You must know quite a bit more than anybody else on Earth, otherwise
your claim about humanity is as meaningless as a religious doctrine.

More than some, less than others.
It is more of a personal conviction and yes it does sound a little doctrinal
but it is not meant to be.

I have no doubt that it is not meant to be, but it is.

Post by Bill
I am just very much of the opinion that we should
celebrate what we are capable of. If course there is plenty to be ashamed of
in our history but even the ability to be ashamed is an incredible feat of
social and emotional development. On balance, Humanity is an awesone species
in terms of it's intellectual, emotional and technological Evolution, don't
you think?
I think, in general, people are far too critical of the total Human
condition. A bit more positivity and patting ourselves on the back wouldn't
go amiss.

I did not say anything about that, and it has little to do with your
original position.



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[Corvus Corax]

Am Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:28:19 -0500

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

Because there aint any myths and fables that are supported by objective
verifyable factual evidence - by definition - it wouldnt be myths and
fables anymore. People do also belief in lots of stuff where there is objective
verifiable factual evidence - only that you dont call it myth or fable then, but
science (its the definition of science to be proveable or disproveable by
objective evidence) and sometimes not belief but knowledge.

However when it comes to more complicated science - relativity, quantom physics,
genetic engeneering, most people dont have the knowledge - they still belief in
it. The moment one would prove a myth it becomes history, the moment you prove a
fable, it becomes fact. People still believ in it.

Sometimes stuff is proven wrong and some people still believe in it - people are
like that ...

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

yep

Post by Bill
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false. There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods. Which, if
any, are correct?

Well not in your presence obviously - but according to ancient writings and -
yeah, myths - some did announce their beingtheonlyoneness.
But even if some godly being emerges in front of you - or speaks to you in your
dreams one sudden day and announces - I am the lord, your god, there aint no
others.

How would you know its the truth? It could be a lie - or even an illusion.
If you then stand up and preach "god has revealed himself in front of me, I know
the answer" - theyll probably dont care and send you into the nutshouse if you
dont shut up ;)

Post by Bill
Major religious texts and documents;

irrevelant and incomplete list <<

Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents. Except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.

Absolutely correct - These books can be guidances but not more - I'd neither
trust them nor except them to be flawless - they are at least as flawed as the
men that wrote and copied them. And in some cased passed as unwritten stories
for a long time even before scripting was invented. They changed over time - and
in case of the so called holy bible, its proven to have been modified to reflect
political positions of those in charge of the spiritual organisations.

Post by Bill
Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes? And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.

Is there a heaven? What is a god? Your mentioned myths have quite different
answers to this, and some of them would give possible answers to your current
question. Its a valid question, but the way you are asking it it takes
presumption about the nature of gods - that there would be only one true and all
others fake ...

If you question the existance of god, then you also have to enquestion its
nature - especially because those different myths have different answers for
that, most never mentioning a place like "heaven".

I'd say if one of those myth claims to be the only correct one, and all others
fake, its probably wrong, because there are many like that and if one of
those would be right, all others had to be wrong. Its as likely then that all of
them are, especially because of the man-meddling with the scriptures and misuse
of belief systems for political power. So even if one were the only correct one
by its creation it would be bogus now.

That there is no clarion call of a deity pronouncing its existance and ways to
mankind could imply several things (or combinations of them):

1 There is or had been, but we didnt understand or misinterprete it.

2 The deity (in case of only one, otherwise all of them, which is less likely)
doesn't want to do so (maybe like a test - giving hints would imply cheating or
something like that)

3 Doe to the nature of that deity, it cannot announce its existance directly but
only by, for example, indirect actions - force people to write down thing in
their name and alike (there have been reports of people being posessed that way
- could all have been nuts of course ;) - see 1

4 There is no such deity

Post by Bill
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

Is it? There is a possibility, but you cannot show any objective evidence
either - there is no proof of this - you are just preaching another myth
;)

[Rick Hawk]

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.

Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

[thomas p]

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

If there is no evidence, there is nothing to ponder beyond why people
insist on being irrational.





Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[Pastor Frank]

Post by thomas p

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

If there is no evidence, there is nothing to ponder beyond why people
insist on being irrational.

Love isn't "rational" and our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16).
It is irrational to think everything aught to be rational.

[Bill]

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by thomas p

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

If there is no evidence, there is nothing to ponder beyond why people
insist on being irrational.

Love isn't "rational" and our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16).
It is irrational to think everything aught to be rational.

Love is an emotion not a 'rational or irrational belief' Your talking about
the weather versus
some emotional reaction. They are of a different order.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

Demands for the proof we both know they haven't got aren't
philosophical but to get them to shut up when they realise they can't
put up.

Because we couldn't actually care what they believe if they kept it to
themselves.

Unfortunately they don't do either and usually resort to personal
slanders.

[dianaiad]

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

Demands for the proof we both know they haven't got aren't
philosophical but to get them to shut up when they realise they can't
put up.
Because we couldn't actually care what they believe if they kept it to
themselves.
Unfortunately they don't do either and usually resort to personal
slanders.

Not, you unmitigated boob, before you do.

[Michael Gray]

Post by dianaiad

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

Demands for the proof we both know they haven't got aren't
philosophical but to get them to shut up when they realise they can't
put up.
Because we couldn't actually care what they believe if they kept it to
themselves.
Unfortunately they don't do either and usually resort to personal
slanders.

Not, you unmitigated boob, before you do.

So, you'd be able to provide an example?

[DianaC]

Post by Michael Gray

Post by dianaiad

Post by Christopher A. Lee

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

Demands for the proof we both know they haven't got aren't
philosophical but to get them to shut up when they realise they can't
put up.
Because we couldn't actually care what they believe if they kept it to
themselves.
Unfortunately they don't do either and usually resort to personal
slanders.

Not, you unmitigated boob, before you do.

So, you'd be able to provide an example?

of Lee's habit of going ad hominem first? Witness his interchange with
me within the last two days.

[wbarwell]

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

Nonsense about god is "philosophical" precisely because
there is absolutely no evidence for god(s). All you can
do is make assertions about hypothetical gods and reason,
or more accurately, refuse to reason about deductions made
from assertions.

[stoney]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 08:19:43 GMT, Rick Hawk <***@spam.block> wrote in
alt.atheism

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

If plenty equals zero.

[Pastor Frank]

Post by stoney
alt.atheism

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

If plenty equals zero.

Our Christian "God is love" (1John 4:8,16) and love NEVER "equals zero".

[Michael Gray]

Post by Rick Hawk

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by
any objective verifiable factual evidence?

The reason is that not everyone believes that they are myths and some
people claim that they are true. Those who believe in them do not
expect to find objective verifiable evidence because of the nature of
the beliefs, but that in no way guarantees that the beliefs are false.
If objective verifiable evidence is so important to you, then you
should probably find some to disprove the so-called myths.
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and evidence
plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is plenty to
ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

Quite plainly, reality plays no "roll" in philosophical debates,
either.

[Rick Hawk]

Post by Michael Gray

Post by Rick Hawk
Questions of the nature of God are purely philosophical and
evidence plays very little roll in philosophical debates. There is
plenty to ponder without any objective verifiable evidence.

Quite plainly, reality plays no "roll" in philosophical debates,
either.

Unfortunately, reality plays no role for my spellchecker.

But I would not say that reality plays no role in philosophy.
Philosophy uses reality as its base and attempts to draw rational,
understandable conclusions from it. It is not wandering off into wild
fantasy; it is attempting to derive deeper truths from pure logic.

[dianaiad]

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

A: because we can.
B: because evidence accepted as 'good' by one person will be discounted
by another.
C: because we can.

Post by Bill
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.

Yes, and..???

Post by Bill
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false.

Yes He has. Just....not to you.

Post by Bill
There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods. Which, if
any, are correct?

In that they declare the existance of God, all are. In that any of them
declare that they, and they alone, have the truth, the only truth, the
whole truth about God and that nobody else has ANY of it, none are.

Post by Bill
Major religious texts and documents;
Baha'i Sacrid writtings
Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.

That's an underestimate, actually. Even those websites that defend
biblical inerrency admit to 50+ English translations.

Post by Bill
No originals of the old or new testaments exist.
The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints

er, that's "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints", FYI.

Post by Bill
The Analects - Confuscianism
The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome
Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
Qur'an - Islam
Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
Tanakh - Jewism
Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.

Since when is religion, or one's relationship with God, objective? If
there was anything subjective, and meant to be that way, it would be
that.

It's not a swear word.

Post by Bill
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents. Except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.

Actually, the Q'uran is considered to be fairly unchanged. Certainly
Muslims do not consider any version other than the Arabic one to be
authentic, at any rate. As to the Book of Mormon, if you look at the
first edition compared to the latest one, you will notice that we had
to do a great deal of spelling and grammar changes to it. ;-)

Oh.

Yeah.

I'm a Mormon, do indeed believe that the Book of Mormon contains the
Word of God just as the Bible does.....and that each and every book you
have mentioned so far also contains some religious truth within it, if
you look for it.

I do, of course, think that the Bible and the Book of Mormon contain
more than any of 'em, or else I would be something other than Mormon.

Post by Bill
Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes?

Er....He did. Just...not to you.

Post by Bill
And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.

Oddly enough, He still does precisely that. You just aren't paying
attention.

Post by Bill
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!

perhaps. I don't think so. Have you asked Him what He thinks?

Diana

[thomas p]

snip

Post by dianaiad

Post by Bill
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.

Since when is religion, or one's relationship with God, objective? If
there was anything subjective, and meant to be that way, it would be
that.
It's not a swear word.

No, it is not a swear word. It is, however, a totally unreliable
basis for believing anything. If some god actually existed and there
was no objective evidence for it; its existence would resemble
non-existence completely - the god you believe in for example.


snip

Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[DianaC]

Post by thomas p
snip

Post by dianaiad

Post by Bill
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.

Since when is religion, or one's relationship with God, objective? If
there was anything subjective, and meant to be that way, it would be
that.
It's not a swear word.

No, it is not a swear word. It is, however, a totally unreliable
basis for believing anything.

Depends. For instance, if there is anything more subjective than the
'placebo effect' I don't know what is, and it is dismissed by medical
science as if it were somehow an embarrassment to life. However, the
placebo effect works. People are cured because they believe in
something that cannot be proven to be effective in clinical trials.

In other words, in at least one area of human existence, objective
proof of the efficacy of subjective belief is very much available, even
if nobody quite knows how it works or how to measure it.

Post by thomas p
If some god actually existed and there
was no objective evidence for it; its existence would resemble
non-existence completely - the god you believe in for example.

Ah, but I believe that the God I believe in actually has blessed me in
many ways, and helped me through some pretty rough times. The objective
evidence of this is that I have managed to get through those times
fairly well, and come out the other end of them with an optimistic
outlook on life and am happy, useful and enjoy life, learning and most
of my surroundings.

You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

Diana

[thomas p]

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
snip

Post by dianaiad

Post by Bill
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.

Since when is religion, or one's relationship with God, objective? If
there was anything subjective, and meant to be that way, it would be
that.
It's not a swear word.

No, it is not a swear word. It is, however, a totally unreliable
basis for believing anything.

Depends. For instance, if there is anything more subjective than the
'placebo effect' I don't know what is,

The "placebo effect" demonstrates that belief can have physical
effects. It does not demonstrate that the belief is correct. The
sugar pill is still a sugar pill without medical value. A witch
doctor can also kill people by pointing a bone at them and uttering a
curse, but it is, in fact, the victim who kills himself. This is made
obvious when the curse has no effect on non-believers in the witch
doctor's powers.

Post by DianaC
and it is dismissed by medical
science as if it were somehow an embarrassment to life.

It is not dismissed at all. It is a recognized phenomenon, and many
studies have been made suggesting a number of possible answers.

Post by DianaC
However, the
placebo effect works. People are cured because they believe in
something that cannot be proven to be effective in clinical trials.

And, no matter what their subjective belief might be, it is not the
placebo that cured them.

Post by DianaC
In other words, in at least one area of human existence, objective
proof of the efficacy of subjective belief is very much available, even
if nobody quite knows how it works or how to measure it.

I never said that a subjective belief could not have an effect. That
does not make the belief itself ( god or the effectiveness of a
supposed medicine) correct.

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
If some god actually existed and there
was no objective evidence for it; its existence would resemble
non-existence completely - the god you believe in for example.

Ah, but I believe that the God I believe in actually has blessed me in
many ways, and helped me through some pretty rough times. The objective
evidence of this is that I have managed to get through those times
fairly well, and come out the other end of them with an optimistic
outlook on life and am happy, useful and enjoy life, learning and most
of my surroundings.

Perhaps your belief had that effect. The effect is not, however,
evidence of an actual god. Furthermore lots of people have reasonably
successful lives without such a belief and have even managed to deal
with adversity.

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[DianaC]

thomas p wrote:
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

[Michael Gray]

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

Good, for that is all they can ever be.

[thomas p]

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

A belief is not evidence. Evidence that cannot be demonstrated to
others and tested is not evidence. You are free to believe whatever
you want. Your beliefs may have a positive effect on your life. The
available evidence, however, indicates that any positive changes were
achieved by you; just as the sick person's improvement was the result
of his own body's processes not by the placebo.

Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[DianaC]

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

A belief is not evidence.

No. It's not. Belief is your reaction TO something you see as evidence.

Post by thomas p
Evidence that cannot be demonstrated to
others and tested is not evidence.

Of course it is. It is not evidence to your standards, but it is
evidence.

Post by thomas p
You are free to believe whatever
you want.

I appreciate your permission.

Post by thomas p
Your beliefs may have a positive effect on your life. The
available evidence, however, indicates that any positive changes were
achieved by you; just as the sick person's improvement was the result
of his own body's processes not by the placebo.

Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

See, that's the paradox here; a catch 22 of phenominal proportions,
seems to me. The placebo effect works; that's been scientifically
demonstrated and is allowed for in every medical study I have ever
seen.

However, it only works IF the patient beliefs that the placebo is
effective. In other words, if he figures out that he's the one who is
curing himself, that there is nothing about the placebo itself that has
an effect, then it stops working.

Diana

Post by thomas p
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

[thomas p]

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

A belief is not evidence.

No. It's not. Belief is your reaction TO something you see as evidence.

Post by thomas p
Evidence that cannot be demonstrated to
others and tested is not evidence.

Of course it is. It is not evidence to your standards, but it is
evidence.

We were, I assumed, talking about objective evidence. I keep
forgetting about the importance of equivocation in theist arguments.
If it cannot be shown or tested it does not raise itself above
subjective feelings.

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
You are free to believe whatever
you want.

I appreciate your permission.

Post by thomas p
Your beliefs may have a positive effect on your life. The
available evidence, however, indicates that any positive changes were
achieved by you; just as the sick person's improvement was the result
of his own body's processes not by the placebo.

Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

Do I know of any examples of the placebo effect working when it was
not tried? That is the only meaning I can get out of the above.

Post by DianaC
See, that's the paradox here; a catch 22 of phenominal proportions,
seems to me. The placebo effect works; that's been scientifically
demonstrated and is allowed for in every medical study I have ever
seen.

Gosh, I thought you said that science rejected it.

Post by DianaC
However, it only works IF the patient beliefs that the placebo is
effective. In other words, if he figures out that he's the one who is
curing himself, that there is nothing about the placebo itself that has
an effect, then it stops working.

So? You have just demonstrated that belief has an effect, and I have
agreed that it does. The person could have believed that a holy relic
once touched by Odin cured him. The belief might actually cause a
relief in symptoms (the usual result of placebos when there is a
positive effect), but Odin still does not exist.

Something to consider: Effects quite similar to the placebo effect
can be achieved through meditation or relaxation exercises. In other
words belief is not necessary to achieve the results. I myself have a
problem with chronic pain that can often be controlled by relaxation
exercises I learned. There is nothing magical about it; so yes, the
placebo effect can be gained without the placebo.




Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[DianaC]

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

A belief is not evidence.

No. It's not. Belief is your reaction TO something you see as evidence.

Post by thomas p
Evidence that cannot be demonstrated to
others and tested is not evidence.

Of course it is. It is not evidence to your standards, but it is
evidence.

We were, I assumed, talking about objective evidence. I keep
forgetting about the importance of equivocation in theist arguments.
If it cannot be shown or tested it does not raise itself above
subjective feelings.

What equivocation? I tell you that my reasons for believing in a deity
are purely subjective and by this I am equivocating?

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
You are free to believe whatever
you want.

I appreciate your permission.

Post by thomas p
Your beliefs may have a positive effect on your life. The
available evidence, however, indicates that any positive changes were
achieved by you; just as the sick person's improvement was the result
of his own body's processes not by the placebo.

Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

Do I know of any examples of the placebo effect working when it was
not tried? That is the only meaning I can get out of the above.

"not tried"? that, too...but how about a trial where the subjects were
told 'here, I'm giving you a sugar pill, let's see if you get well
because of the placebo effect." or "here, we are testing this
medication, but you aren't getting anything, let's see if you can cure
yourself without doing or taking anything. Think yourself well and
we'll call that a placebo effect.'

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
See, that's the paradox here; a catch 22 of phenominal proportions,
seems to me. The placebo effect works; that's been scientifically
demonstrated and is allowed for in every medical study I have ever
seen.

Gosh, I thought you said that science rejected it.

then you can't read. I SAID " People are cured because they believe in
something that cannot be proven to be effective in clinical trials."

That is a fairly clear statement of the placebo effect. "People are
cured" is not what is not being proven in clinical trials, it's the
"somthing they believe in" that isn't. Which is what makes it a
placebo.

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
However, it only works IF the patient beliefs that the placebo is
effective. In other words, if he figures out that he's the one who is
curing himself, that there is nothing about the placebo itself that has
an effect, then it stops working.

So? You have just demonstrated that belief has an effect, and I have
agreed that it does. The person could have believed that a holy relic
once touched by Odin cured him. The belief might actually cause a
relief in symptoms (the usual result of placebos when there is a
positive effect), but Odin still does not exist.

Does to the guy who believes in him.

Post by thomas p
Something to consider: Effects quite similar to the placebo effect
can be achieved through meditation or relaxation exercises.

Only if the person doing the meditating believes in it.

Post by thomas p
In other
words belief is not necessary to achieve the results.

Belief is always required.

Post by thomas p
I myself have a
problem with chronic pain that can often be controlled by relaxation
exercises I learned. There is nothing magical about it; so yes, the
placebo effect can be gained without the placebo.

One of the major reasons these sessions give you relief is because you
believe they will. Yes, actually relaxing the muscles is a physical
reason to get the pain relief going, but I'll bet you anything that
your pain relief goes far beyond that which simple muscle relaxation
would get you. There is a mental element (I would say 'spiritual' but
you would probably disagree) that is required as well, and that is the
quality of belief.

Diana

Post by thomas p
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

[thomas p]

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

A belief is not evidence.

No. It's not. Belief is your reaction TO something you see as evidence.

Post by thomas p
Evidence that cannot be demonstrated to
others and tested is not evidence.

Of course it is. It is not evidence to your standards, but it is
evidence.

We were, I assumed, talking about objective evidence. I keep
forgetting about the importance of equivocation in theist arguments.
If it cannot be shown or tested it does not raise itself above
subjective feelings.

What equivocation? I tell you that my reasons for believing in a deity
are purely subjective and by this I am equivocating?

Actually you just did it again. It does not have to be deliberate.
You talk about evidence, but then you talk about subjective feelings;
and you use them as if they were the same thing.

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
You are free to believe whatever
you want.

I appreciate your permission.

Post by thomas p
Your beliefs may have a positive effect on your life. The
available evidence, however, indicates that any positive changes were
achieved by you; just as the sick person's improvement was the result
of his own body's processes not by the placebo.

Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

Do I know of any examples of the placebo effect working when it was
not tried? That is the only meaning I can get out of the above.

"not tried"? that, too...but how about a trial where the subjects were
told 'here, I'm giving you a sugar pill, let's see if you get well
because of the placebo effect."

That would obviously be a case of not trying the placebo effect. How
many times do I have to say that I agree that belief has an effect?

or "here, we are testing this

Post by DianaC
medication, but you aren't getting anything, let's see if you can cure
yourself without doing or taking anything. Think yourself well and
we'll call that a placebo effect.'

It would not be a placebo effect. You might, however, and as I
mentioned below, get a similar effect.

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
See, that's the paradox here; a catch 22 of phenominal proportions,
seems to me. The placebo effect works; that's been scientifically
demonstrated and is allowed for in every medical study I have ever
seen.

Gosh, I thought you said that science rejected it.

then you can't read. I SAID " People are cured because they believe in
something that cannot be proven to be effective in clinical trials."
I don't know what is, and it is dismissed by medical
science as if it were somehow an embarrassment to life.

Obviously the effect is not dismissed.

Post by DianaC
That is a fairly clear statement of the placebo effect. "People are
cured" is not what is not being proven in clinical trials, it's the
"somthing they believe in" that isn't. Which is what makes it a
placebo.

It is not, however, that "something" that is curing them, unless you
also believe in the power of witch doctors, or Odin, or any other god
belief or good luck charm that has been used in the same way for
thousands of years; it is, since the other beliefs also work, belief
itself that has an effect.

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
However, it only works IF the patient beliefs that the placebo is
effective. In other words, if he figures out that he's the one who is
curing himself, that there is nothing about the placebo itself that has
an effect, then it stops working.

So? You have just demonstrated that belief has an effect, and I have
agreed that it does. The person could have believed that a holy relic
once touched by Odin cured him. The belief might actually cause a
relief in symptoms (the usual result of placebos when there is a
positive effect), but Odin still does not exist.

Does to the guy who believes in him.

Yes, that is what I am agreeing to; the individual's belief has an
effect. I have agreed many times now. I accepted it many years ago.
Once again: The effectiveness of the belief does not mean that the
thing believed in exists.

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
Something to consider: Effects quite similar to the placebo effect
can be achieved through meditation or relaxation exercises.

Only if the person doing the meditating believes in it.

No, belief in it is not required only the willingness to try it. In
any event, and I hope it gets through this time, I completely and
totally agree with you that belief has an effect. I have never not
agreed that belief has an effect. That has never been my point.

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
In other
words belief is not necessary to achieve the results.

Belief is always required.

Wow, that point seems incredibly important to you. No matter how many
times I agree that belief has an effect, you keep insisting on it as
if I don't agree. Belief is not the point. The point is the
objective existence of the thing believed in.

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
I myself have a
problem with chronic pain that can often be controlled by relaxation
exercises I learned. There is nothing magical about it; so yes, the
placebo effect can be gained without the placebo.

One of the major reasons these sessions give you relief is because you
believe they will.

That makes no difference to my point at all, even if it was true; and
you have no way of knowing it to be true.

Post by DianaC
es, actually relaxing the muscles is a physical
reason to get the pain relief going, but I'll bet you anything that
your pain relief goes far beyond that which simple muscle relaxation
would get you. There is a mental element (I would say 'spiritual' but
you would probably disagree) that is required as well, and that is the
quality of belief.

And (please, please pay attention) I agree that belief has an effect
on people. I have always agreed that it does. Why you keep acting as
if I am arguing against it is beyond me. what do I have to say before
you accept that I agree that belief has an effect?



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[Bonnie Bitch]

On 21 Jan 2006 09:38:40 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "DianaC"

Post by DianaC
Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

Quick: do you know of any examples of the Doppler effect working
without wave-from energy?

Quick: do you know of any examples of any effect working without a
cause?

[DianaC]

Post by Bonnie Bitch
On 21 Jan 2006 09:38:40 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "DianaC"

Post by DianaC
Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

Quick: do you know of any examples of the Doppler effect working
without wave-from energy?
Quick: do you know of any examples of any effect working without a
cause?

Thank you for making my point, Bonnie. (grin)
I can't. But then, I was the one asking the question of someone else,
remember?

Diana

[Bonnie Bitch]

On 22 Jan 2006 08:26:42 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "DianaC"

Post by DianaC

Post by Bonnie Bitch
On 21 Jan 2006 09:38:40 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "DianaC"

Post by DianaC
Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

Quick: do you know of any examples of the Doppler effect working
without wave-from energy?
Quick: do you know of any examples of any effect working without a
cause?

Thank you for making my point, Bonnie. (grin)

Well, since your point was, admittedly, that there is no effect
without a cause, and that the placebo is the cause (albeit imaginary),
you just refuted yourself.
Thank you for the admission.
Oh, and one more thing --- patients in a clinical trial of a new drug
are routinely NOT told that they are receiving a placebo. That would
be the control factor. All patients in clinical drug trials are under
the impression that they are receiving real medication.
That pretty much shoots your argument about belief in the foot. But
hey -- maybe that virtual bullet was just a placebo. LOL

Besides, only an idiot would knowingly take a placebo and then believe
that it would work. DUH!

[DianaC]

Post by Bonnie Bitch
On 22 Jan 2006 08:26:42 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "DianaC"

Post by DianaC

Post by Bonnie Bitch
On 21 Jan 2006 09:38:40 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "DianaC"

Post by DianaC
Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

Quick: do you know of any examples of the Doppler effect working
without wave-from energy?
Quick: do you know of any examples of any effect working without a
cause?

Thank you for making my point, Bonnie. (grin)

Well, since your point was, admittedly, that there is no effect
without a cause,

and who admits that?

Oddly enough, I don't remember that being my point.

Post by Bonnie Bitch
and that the placebo is the cause (albeit imaginary),
you just refuted yourself.

If that had been my point, perhaps. But it wasn't. My POINT was that to
the believer, subjective feelings are evidence of 'something'. that
something may or may not be provable objectively, as is the case of the
placebo. However, there is something going on.

Because, as far as I know (and this wasn't the point I was attempting
to make, but thank you for bringing it up..) effects have causes. Even
if the cause isn't the one given credit.

Post by Bonnie Bitch
Thank you for the admission.
Oh, and one more thing --- patients in a clinical trial of a new drug
are routinely NOT told that they are receiving a placebo.

Yes. I know. That's the point.

Post by Bonnie Bitch
That would
be the control factor. All patients in clinical drug trials are under
the impression that they are receiving real medication.
That pretty much shoots your argument about belief in the foot. But
hey -- maybe that virtual bullet was just a placebo. LOL

(sigh)

Post by Bonnie Bitch
Besides, only an idiot would knowingly take a placebo and then believe
that it would work. DUH!

[Bonnie Bitch]

On 23 Jan 2006 11:00:24 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "DianaC"

Post by DianaC

Post by Bonnie Bitch
On 22 Jan 2006 08:26:42 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "DianaC"

Post by DianaC

Post by Bonnie Bitch
On 21 Jan 2006 09:38:40 -0800, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "DianaC"

Post by DianaC
Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

Quick: do you know of any examples of the Doppler effect working
without wave-from energy?
Quick: do you know of any examples of any effect working without a
cause?

Thank you for making my point, Bonnie. (grin)

Well, since your point was, admittedly, that there is no effect
without a cause,

and who admits that?

Anyone with a brain and a 7th grade education.

Post by DianaC
Oddly enough, I don't remember that being my point.

Odd indeed.

Post by DianaC

Post by Bonnie Bitch
and that the placebo is the cause (albeit imaginary),
you just refuted yourself.

I....

Yes, thank you for conceding the argument yet again.

[DianaC]

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

A belief is not evidence.

No. It's not. Belief is your reaction TO something you see as evidence.

Post by thomas p
Evidence that cannot be demonstrated to
others and tested is not evidence.

Of course it is. It is not evidence to your standards, but it is
evidence.

Post by thomas p
You are free to believe whatever
you want.

I appreciate your permission.

Post by thomas p
Your beliefs may have a positive effect on your life. The
available evidence, however, indicates that any positive changes were
achieved by you; just as the sick person's improvement was the result
of his own body's processes not by the placebo.

Quick: do you know of any examples of the placebo effect
working....without a placebo?

See, that's the paradox here; a catch 22 of phenominal proportions,
seems to me. The placebo effect works; that's been scientifically
demonstrated and is allowed for in every medical study I have ever
seen.

However, it only works IF the patient beliefs that the placebo is
effective. In other words, if he figures out that he's the one who is
curing himself, that there is nothing about the placebo itself that has
an effect, then it stops working.

Diana

Post by thomas p
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)

[Pastor Frank]

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

LOL You would be a piss-poor political worker selling her party's
platform to the voters, or even a business-person selling superior quality
and service (in your mind only) to potential customers. You are merely
pushing censorship and you will find no takers.
Like the gay-parade marshal told us Christians: "If you don't like what
you see and hear, don't look and listen". Same applies to intolerant
atheists complaining about those Christians which annoy them so much.

[Fred Stone]

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove
that God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence
isn't quite as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their
objective reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him
it was a sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his
symptoms. If I told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in
its effectiveness could very well have an effect. In both cases the
pill itself would have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs
to be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for
me only.

LOL You would be a piss-poor political worker selling her party's
platform to the voters, or even a business-person selling superior
quality and service (in your mind only) to potential customers. You
are merely pushing censorship and you will find no takers.
Like the gay-parade marshal told us Christians: "If you don't like what
you see and hear, don't look and listen". Same applies to intolerant
atheists complaining about those Christians which annoy them so much.

We'd be more than happy to comply, Frankie, but you keep sullying our
pristine atheist newsgroups with your despicable presense.

[DianaC]

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

LOL You would be a piss-poor political worker selling her party's
platform to the voters, or even a business-person selling superior quality
and service (in your mind only) to potential customers. You are merely
pushing censorship and you will find no takers.
Like the gay-parade marshal told us Christians: "If you don't like what
you see and hear, don't look and listen". Same applies to intolerant
atheists complaining about those Christians which annoy them so much.

Well now. I have the atheists AND the fundamentalists pissed off at me.
I must be doing something right.

Diana

[thomas p]

Post by DianaC

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

LOL You would be a piss-poor political worker selling her party's
platform to the voters, or even a business-person selling superior quality
and service (in your mind only) to potential customers. You are merely
pushing censorship and you will find no takers.
Like the gay-parade marshal told us Christians: "If you don't like what
you see and hear, don't look and listen". Same applies to intolerant
atheists complaining about those Christians which annoy them so much.

Well now. I have the atheists AND the fundamentalists pissed off at me.
I must be doing something right.

Frank is not a fundy. He is merely a loon. I have seen atheists who
disagree with you but none that are pissed off at you.



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[dianaiad]

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

LOL You would be a piss-poor political worker selling her party's
platform to the voters, or even a business-person selling superior quality
and service (in your mind only) to potential customers. You are merely
pushing censorship and you will find no takers.
Like the gay-parade marshal told us Christians: "If you don't like what
you see and hear, don't look and listen". Same applies to intolerant
atheists complaining about those Christians which annoy them so much.

Well now. I have the atheists AND the fundamentalists pissed off at me.
I must be doing something right.

Frank is not a fundy. He is merely a loon. I have seen atheists who
disagree with you but none that are pissed off at you.

Nice sentiment. Not accurate, but nice....

[thomas p]

Post by dianaiad

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

LOL You would be a piss-poor political worker selling her party's
platform to the voters, or even a business-person selling superior quality
and service (in your mind only) to potential customers. You are merely
pushing censorship and you will find no takers.
Like the gay-parade marshal told us Christians: "If you don't like what
you see and hear, don't look and listen". Same applies to intolerant
atheists complaining about those Christians which annoy them so much.

Well now. I have the atheists AND the fundamentalists pissed off at me.
I must be doing something right.

Frank is not a fundy. He is merely a loon. I have seen atheists who
disagree with you but none that are pissed off at you.

Nice sentiment. Not accurate, but nice....

I wasn't trying to be nice, just making an observation.



Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)

[Pastor Frank]

Post by dianaiad

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by DianaC
<snip to>

Post by thomas p

Post by DianaC
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

No, it indicates that beliefs have effects on us. Your subjective
beliefs are worthless with reference to demonstrating their objective
reality. If I gave a sugar pill to a patient and told him it was a
sugar pill, it would not likely relieve any of his symptoms. If I
told him it was a near-miracle cure, the belief in its
effectiveness
could very well have an effect. In both cases the pill itself would
have no medical value.

Ah, but I am not now, and have never, expected MY subjective beliefs to
be proof to anybody else that there is a God. They are proof for me
only.

LOL You would be a piss-poor political worker selling her party's
platform to the voters, or even a business-person selling superior quality
and service (in your mind only) to potential customers. You are merely
pushing censorship and you will find no takers.
Like the gay-parade marshal told us Christians: "If you don't like what
you see and hear, don't look and listen". Same applies to intolerant
atheists complaining about those Christians which annoy them so much.

Well now. I have the atheists AND the fundamentalists pissed off at me.
I must be doing something right.

Frank is not a fundy. He is merely a loon. I have seen atheists who
disagree with you but none that are pissed off at you.

Nice sentiment. Not accurate, but nice....

Ad hominem from self-appointed non-"loonies"? You just lost the debate.

[DianaC]

Pastor Frank wrote:
<snip to>

Post by Pastor Frank

Post by dianaiad

Post by thomas p
Frank is not a fundy. He is merely a loon. I have seen atheists who
disagree with you but none that are pissed off at you.

Nice sentiment. Not accurate, but nice....

Ad hominem from self-appointed non-"loonies"? You just lost the debate.

there was a debate? I was just telling the man that it was nice of him
to say that atheists were not angry with me, but it wasn't accurate to
say so.

Frank, I do believe that you have just proven that, if you are not a
loon (something I didn't address, by the way) you have a communication
problem. Or I have.

Er, what was it you meant to say, again?

[Michael Gray]

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
snip

Post by dianaiad

Post by Bill
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.

Since when is religion, or one's relationship with God, objective? If
there was anything subjective, and meant to be that way, it would be
that.
It's not a swear word.

No, it is not a swear word. It is, however, a totally unreliable
basis for believing anything.

Depends. For instance, if there is anything more subjective than the
'placebo effect' I don't know what is, and it is dismissed by medical
science as if it were somehow an embarrassment to life. However, the
placebo effect works. People are cured because they believe in
something that cannot be proven to be effective in clinical trials.

Cured?
Examples please.

And as for the nonsense about "cannot be proven to be effective in
clinical trials", there are hundreds if not thousands of clinical
studies that have proven the placebo effect in clinical trials.

Examples include:
"Annual Review of Medicine
Vol. 47: 193-199 (Volume publication date February 1996)
(doi:10.1146/annurev.med.47.1.193)

Harnessing the Power of the Placebo Effect and Renaming It "Remembered
Wellness"
Herbert Benson, M.D.­
Mind/Body Medical Institute, Harvard Medical School, Division of
Behavioral Medicine, Deaconess Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts 02215
Richard Friedman, Ph.D.­
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science, State University of
New York at Stony Brook, Stony brook, New York 11794"

"Expectation and Dopamine Release: Mechanism of the Placebo Effect in
Parkinson's Disease
Raúl de la Fuente-Fernández,1 Thomas J. Ruth,2 Vesna Sossi,2 Michael
Schulzer,1 Donald B. Calne,1 A. Jon Stoessl1"

"A 12-month study of the placebo effect in transurethral microwave
thermotherapy
M.J.A.M. de Wildt MD, PhD, Researcher., M. Hubregtse MD, PhD,
Researcher., C. Ogden FRCS, Senior Registrar., S.St C. Carter FRCS,
Consultant Urologist., F.M.J. Debruyne MD, PhD, Professor and
Chairman, Department of Urology. & J.J.M.C.H. de la Rosette MD, PhD,
Director of Prostate Centre. "

Post by DianaC
In other words, in at least one area of human existence, objective
proof of the efficacy of subjective belief is very much available, even
if nobody quite knows how it works or how to measure it.

Post by thomas p
If some god actually existed and there
was no objective evidence for it; its existence would resemble
non-existence completely - the god you believe in for example.

Ah, but I believe that the God I believe in actually has blessed me in
many ways, and helped me through some pretty rough times. The objective
evidence of this is that I have managed to get through those times
fairly well, and come out the other end of them with an optimistic
outlook on life and am happy, useful and enjoy life, learning and most
of my surroundings.
You have to explain away stuff like this, y'know. It doesn't prove that
God exists, but it DOES indicate that subjective evidence isn't quite
as worthless as you would have us believe.

You have clearly demonstrated that evidence means nothing to you.

Post by DianaC
Diana

[DianaC]

Post by Michael Gray

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
snip

Post by dianaiad

Post by Bill
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.

Since when is religion, or one's relationship with God, objective? If
there was anything subjective, and meant to be that way, it would be
that.
It's not a swear word.

No, it is not a swear word. It is, however, a totally unreliable
basis for believing anything.

Depends. For instance, if there is anything more subjective than the
'placebo effect' I don't know what is, and it is dismissed by medical
science as if it were somehow an embarrassment to life. However, the
placebo effect works. People are cured because they believe in
something that cannot be proven to be effective in clinical trials.

Cured?
Examples please.

You need to make up your mind. First you ask me to provide examples,
then you provide them yourself with a number of studies.

There is a big difference between the "placebo effect" and placebo
itself. The whole point of the placebo EFFECT is that the
medication/item/whatever it is that is being used is not, in and of
itself, effective.

[Bullet]

Post by DianaC

Post by Michael Gray

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
snip

Post by dianaiad

Post by Bill
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.

Since when is religion, or one's relationship with God, objective? If
there was anything subjective, and meant to be that way, it would be
that.
It's not a swear word.

No, it is not a swear word. It is, however, a totally unreliable
basis for believing anything.

Depends. For instance, if there is anything more subjective than the
'placebo effect' I don't know what is, and it is dismissed by medical
science as if it were somehow an embarrassment to life. However, the
placebo effect works. People are cured because they believe in
something that cannot be proven to be effective in clinical trials.

Cured?
Examples please.

You need to make up your mind. First you ask me to provide examples,
then you provide them yourself with a number of studies.
There is a big difference between the "placebo effect" and placebo
itself. The whole point of the placebo EFFECT is that the
medication/item/whatever it is that is being used is not, in and of
itself, effective.

Just like "God," no known effect, though being convinced of the curative
powers of praying to it might have some physical effect on the immune
system.

[DianaC]

Post by Bullet

Post by DianaC

Post by Michael Gray

Post by DianaC

Post by thomas p
snip

Post by dianaiad

Post by Bill
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the true one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective
evidence.

Since when is religion, or one's relationship with God, objective? If
there was anything subjective, and meant to be that way, it would be
that.
It's not a swear word.

No, it is not a swear word. It is, however, a totally unreliable
basis for believing anything.

Depends. For instance, if there is anything more subjective than the
'placebo effect' I don't know what is, and it is dismissed by medical
science as if it were somehow an embarrassment to life. However, the
placebo effect works. People are cured because they believe in
something that cannot be proven to be effective in clinical trials.

Cured?
Examples please.

You need to make up your mind. First you ask me to provide examples,
then you provide them yourself with a number of studies.
There is a big difference between the "placebo effect" and placebo
itself. The whole point of the placebo EFFECT is that the
medication/item/whatever it is that is being used is not, in and of
itself, effective.

Just like "God," no known effect, though being convinced of the curative
powers of praying to it might have some physical effect on the immune
system.

Of course that does raise a question. Why?

Now me, I'm not going to get into it with you as to whether God exists
or not. My belief in that is, well, none of your business. I don't
expect you to believe, I don't make fun of you for not believing, and I
think it would be nice if you would extend me the same courtesy.

Not that this would ever happen, mind you.

Diana

[Richo]

Post by DianaC
Now me, I'm not going to get into it with you as to whether God exists
or not. My belief in that is, well, none of your business. I don't
expect you to believe, I don't make fun of you for not believing, and I
think it would be nice if you would extend me the same courtesy.

Raises the question:
If religious people are not for making fun of... What *exactly* are
they for?

And Mormanism - I mean really! - it's like wearing a large "kick me"
sign on your ass!

Mark.

[DianaC]

Post by Richo

Post by DianaC
Now me, I'm not going to get into it with you as to whether God exists
or not. My belief in that is, well, none of your business. I don't
expect you to believe, I don't make fun of you for not believing, and I
think it would be nice if you would extend me the same courtesy.

If religious people are not for making fun of... What *exactly* are
they for?
And Mormanism - I mean really! - it's like wearing a large "kick me"
sign on your ass!

Well, and if I were actually a Morman, I might be worried about that.

[Richo]

Post by DianaC

Post by Richo

Post by DianaC
Now me, I'm not going to get into it with you as to whether God exists
or not. My belief in that is, well, none of your business. I don't
expect you to believe, I don't make fun of you for not believing, and I
think it would be nice if you would extend me the same courtesy.

If religious people are not for making fun of... What *exactly* are
they for?
And Mormanism - I mean really! - it's like wearing a large "kick me"
sign on your ass!

Well, and if I were actually a Morman, I might be worried about that.

Eh?
I didnt hear the news of your apostasy.
<reads carefully>
Oh! I get it "morman".

Mormonism - I mean really - its like wearing a large "kick me" sign on
your ass!

Mark.

[Richo]

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

I would answer but you would simply ignore my answer and ask again in
about 10 -15 days time.
So how's the weather down your way?

Mark.

[Bill]

Post by Richo

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

I would answer but you would simply ignore my answer and ask again in
about 10 -15 days time.
So how's the weather down your way?
Mark.

Don't have any eh!

[Richo]

Post by Bill

Post by Richo

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

I would answer but you would simply ignore my answer and ask again in
about 10 -15 days time.
So how's the weather down your way?
Mark.

Don't have any eh!

Don't have any "what"?

Mark.

[Richo]

Post by Bill

Post by Richo

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

I would answer but you would simply ignore my answer and ask again in
about 10 -15 days time.
So how's the weather down your way?
Mark.

Don't have any eh!

Don't have any what?
We have weather - on sunday it got to 36 Celcius.

Mark.

[c***@gmail.com]

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

I don't know why so many people have this question. The answer seems
obvious. They believe because they want to. Their beliefs are lies, but
ones that give them comfort, solace, and stability.

And to some extent, I sympathize.

The world is a cold hard place, and everyone you know will one day die
and be forgotten. However, for some, knowing this doesn't necessarily
help you. Reality can be depressing, and most would rather live a
comforting lie than endure a painful truth.

That's why religious disagreements can be so volatile, especially
concerning non-belief. By contradicting religious dogma, you're
exposing their beliefs for the placebos that they are, thus robbing
them of a useful psychological crutch.

And maybe we're better off without crutches. Or maybe not. They seem to
work for some. Of course, I'm not delusional enough to think
religiosity will ever be eliminated in my life time. However, I am
willing to live and let live, as long as others are willing to do the
same.

[Richo]

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

I don't know why so many people have this question. The answer seems
obvious. They believe because they want to. Their beliefs are lies, but
ones that give them comfort, solace, and stability.
And to some extent, I sympathize.
The world is a cold hard place, and everyone you know will one day die
and be forgotten. However, for some, knowing this doesn't necessarily
help you. Reality can be depressing, and most would rather live a
comforting lie than endure a painful truth.
That's why religious disagreements can be so volatile, especially
concerning non-belief. By contradicting religious dogma, you're
exposing their beliefs for the placebos that they are, thus robbing
them of a useful psychological crutch.
And maybe we're better off without crutches. Or maybe not. They seem to
work for some. Of course, I'm not delusional enough to think
religiosity will ever be eliminated in my life time. However, I am
willing to live and let live, as long as others are willing to do the
same.

Well said.

Mark.

[thomas p]

Post by Richo

Post by c***@gmail.com

Post by Bill
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?

I don't know why so many people have this question. The answer seems
obvious. They believe because they want to. Their beliefs are lies, but
ones that give them comfort, solace, and stability.
And to some extent, I sympathize.
The world is a cold hard place, and everyone you know will one day die
and be forgotten. However, for some, knowing this doesn't necessarily
help you. Reality can be depressing, and most would rather live a
comforting lie than endure a painful truth.
That's why religious disagreements can be so volatile, especially
concerning non-belief. By contradicting religious dogma, you're
exposing their beliefs for the placebos that they are, thus robbing
them of a useful psychological crutch.
And maybe we're better off without crutches. Or maybe not. They seem to
work for some. Of course, I'm not delusional enough to think
religiosity will ever be eliminated in my life time. However, I am
willing to live and let live, as long as others are willing to do the
same.

Well said.
..., as long as others are willing to do the
same.

The fact that so many theists are not willing to do the same is the
problem.

Thomas P.

"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"

(Kierkegaard)