Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Diederick]

The analogy is insulting to theists because the placebo is known to be inert, and it's effect to be psychosomatic. God is not known to be inert nor is the effect of the god ideal proven to be psychosomatic. I realize that atheists might believe that God is an inert idea, but theists do not, and so they naturally take the analogy as an insult to their belief in God.

Which is what I was afraid of, and we probably won't get any further. I mean, I could call it faith, but it's really the same thing. However, I couldn't use 'faith' because you aren't supposed to question it, and it makes it harder to understand my point of view - using such cryptic and mysterious terms.

Regarding your second post, what is the difference between evidence and proof? The word 'absolutely' is used to intensify my point of there being no evidence, absolutely nothing = nothing. Except when we're talking temperature of course, but that's another matter.

And the only statement I made, which I would find 'painting a bad picture' is that religion is predominantly conservative. Which I sort of apologize for in the same post, and which isn't even main point. The main point is that religion is founded more on assumptions than science is.

 

[Copernicus]

Like the appearance of actuality?

Exactly like that.

The appearance of something working is strong evidence that it is working. It's not proof, but it is pretty good evidence.

Is it possible that you keep missing the point? The existence of placebos is counterevidence to your claim. Religion works in very much the same way that a placebo works. It is about the effect of belief (or "positive thinking") on one's life.

YOU, however, would need something more to prove that what appears to be going on is not actually what's going on. The theist is simply satisfied with the result.

No, I don't, because religion may very well "work" in the same sense that a placebo "works". The burden of proof is on you, howevermuch you may not like it.

 

[PureX]

Which is what I was afraid of, and we probably won't get any further. I mean, I could call it faith, but it's really the same thing.

Why not just call it theism, and move on to the fact that it works.

However, I couldn't use 'faith' because you aren't supposed to question it, and it makes it harder to understand my point of view - using such cryptic and mysterious terms.

Who says we aren't supposed to question our faith, or our theism? Perhaps you would do better to begin with some questions, rather than these assumptions.

Regarding your second post, what is the difference between evidence and proof?[/QUOTE]Evidence is information that can be used to support a conclusion. Proof is information that rules out any other conclusion.

The word 'absolutely' is used to intensify my point of there being no evidence, absolutely nothing = nothing. Except when we're talking temperature of course, but that's another matter.

It's a foolish and misleading adjective that people should avoid using. And your point was wrong. There is evidence to support the existence of God.

And the only statement I made, which I would find 'painting a bad picture' is that religion is predominantly conservative. Which I sort of apologize for in the same post, and which isn't even main point. The main point is that religion is founded more on assumptions than science is.

Religion is mostly irrelevant to me.

 

[PureX]

Is it possible that you keep missing the point? The existence of placebos is counterevidence to your claim. Religion works in very much the same way that a placebo works. It is about the effect of belief (or "positive thinking") on one's life.

The placebo is a simple example of how trusting in an unknown and unexplained healing power greater than ourselves MAKES THAT POWER REAL. That healing power was not in the placebo, and was not previously in the person taking the placebo. It comes from the IDEA of trusting in an unknown force that is a part of ourselves, and apart from ourselves at the same time (something we could easily label "God").

No, I don't, because religion may very well "work" in the same sense that a placebo "works". The burden of proof is on you, howevermuch you may not like it.

It's exactly because religion works in this way that the burden of DIS-proving it is on you.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

First off, the fact that it works is evidence in support of it's viability. And secondly, it's not a placebo because it does work for anyone who chooses to use it.

Yes evidence does support it's viability as a placebo, but not it's validity as an actual "thing". And yes it is a placebo precisely for those reasons.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

The placebo is a simple example of how trusting in an unknown and unexplained healing power greater than ourselves MAKES THAT POWER REAL. That healing power was not in the placebo, and was not previously in the person taking the placebo. It comes from the IDEA of trusting in an unknown force that is a part of ourselves, and apart from ourselves at the same time (something we could easily label "God").

Again, objective and subjective, become familiar with these terms...

In any case just becuase the healing power is real doesn't mean the things thought to give the healing power is real. Sugar pills don't cure anything, but the belief that the sugar pills are working does help in the process of healing. In the analogy God= sugar pill; belief= belief (that goes with out saying)

 

[PureX]

Yes evidence does support it's viability as a placebo, but not it's validity as an actual "thing". And yes it is a placebo precisely for those reasons.

This only an opinion of yours. Please substantiate it.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

There is evidence to support the existence of God.
quote]

Funny how you're yet to present any. And cut the whole "Why won't/can't you see it?" schtick.

 

[Copernicus]

The placebo is a simple example of how trusting in an unknown and unexplained healing power greater than ourselves MAKES THAT POWER REAL. That healing power was not in the placebo, and was not previously in the person taking the placebo. It comes from the IDEA of trusting in an unknown force that is a part of ourselves, and apart from ourselves at the same time (something we could easily label "God").

The force is not unknown. It is the immune system. Belief that one is recovering from an illness can actually stimulate it. This phenomenon has been well-researched.

It's exactly because religion works in this way that the burden of DIS-proving it is on you.

OK, now it seems that you have admitted that religion works like a placebo. What you have yet to acknowledge is that it is false belief that makes the placebos work. The same can be said for belief in God.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If we were to ask every human on Earth right now if believing in God works for them, a huge majority of them would answer "yes".

What do you suppose the answer would be if we asked every atheist on earth if NOT believing in God was working for them?

If the idea of God were a "placebo", it wouldn't work. A placebo is a deliberately ineffectual treatment.

From Merriam Webster's: 1 a : a usually pharmacologically inert preparation prescribed more for the mental relief of the patient than for its actual effect on a disorder
​

Dude, that sounds EXACTLY like what you were describing. You claimed (emphasis added):

...An when we come to that end of the line, and we have no "God", we are stuck. But if we at that moment, reach out to that idea of "God" (forget whether it's "real" or not), that idea of "God" can give us a way to move forward that we did not have and will never get from logic and reason, alone. That idea of "God" can give us hope in the face of complete hopelessness.

So, whether or not there is a real God up there playing snooker with the universe, it gives people hope to believe in him anyway. Sorry bro, that's a placebo by definition...

If the idea of God were the equivalent of a placebo, it would be ineffectual. Clearly, however, the idea of God does work for people, because so many of us choose to hold and use it.

Placebos, as you very well know, are not ineffectual. They comfort the person taking them who believes that they work. Placebos "work" for people.

So from now on, please refrain from using the term "placebo" in relation to theism. The analogy is false, misleading, and insulting.

Sorry, bro. I call 'em as I see 'em.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The analogy is insulting to theists because the placebo is known to be inert, and it's effect to be psychosomatic. God is not known to be inert nor is the effect of the god ideal proven to be psychosomatic. I realize that atheists might believe that God is an inert idea, but theists do not, and so they naturally take the analogy as an insult to their belief in God.

Dude, YOU brought this up when you claimed that belief in the idea of a God:

(forget whether it's "real" or not)

brought people comfort. No one other than you started along this line of thinking. You cannot stop a train you yourself started. Or would you like to back away from your earlier statement?

 

[Beaudreaux]

The appearance of something working is strong evidence that it is working. It's not proof, but it is pretty good evidence.

YOU, however, would need something more to prove that what appears to be going on is not actually what's going on. The theist is simply satisfied with the result.

I'll ask again. Atheism is REALLY working for me! Seriously! I am happy, successful, have a good family, etc. etc. etc. Isn't this "strong evidence" that there is no need to believe in God?

 

[PureX]

The force is not unknown. It is the immune system. Belief that one is recovering from an illness can actually stimulate it. This phenomenon has been well-researched.

How is it stimulated, and by what? Also, it's not just the immune system. There are examples of cessation of pain. There are examples of the relief of mental disorders. There are examples of emotional readjustments. There are healings bordering on the miraculous. And any doctor will attest to these things along with the fact that they have no idea how these things happen.

Yes, faith works, but what exactly is "faith" in this instance? It seems to be a deliberate position of trusting in the unknown. Of trusting that there is some sort of benevolent force within the unknown that will act in favor of our well being if we will trust in it. And then somehow, mysteriously, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS!

The idea works. Faith in "God" works. It has worked for people since the beginning and it's still working for people. If you want to dismiss it as some sort of trick, or illusion, then you have the burden of explaining that illusion. But I don't think you can. And I know that most doctors and scientists will admit that they can't.

 

[PureX]

I'll ask again. Atheism is REALLY working for me! Seriously! I am happy, successful, have a good family, etc. etc. etc. Isn't this "strong evidence" that there is no need to believe in God?

It's evidence that some people do not need to believe in a "God". But I knew that already. It seems rather obvious. Just as obvious as that most people do need to believe in some sort of "God", and they do so because it works for them.

The difference is that your lack of need says nothing about the existence of God, whereas their experience of their God, when they are in need, does.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

It's evidence that some people do not need to believe in a "God". But I knew that already. It seems rather obvious. Just as obvious as that most people do need to believe in some sort of "God", and they do so because it works for them.

The difference is that your lack of need says nothing about the existence of God, whereas their experience of their God, when they are in need, does.

If you want to argue that belief in god working for people is evidence for the existence of god, then it would also have to be shown that not believing in god wouldn't work. Otherwise, no causal connection can be drawn between belief and what works.

 

[sandandfoam]

If you want to argue that belief in god working for people is evidence for the existence of god, then it would also have to be shown that not believing in god wouldn't work. Otherwise, no causal connection can be drawn between belief and what works.

What about Poppers idea that what is real are things that can causally act upon or interact with ordinary real material things?
By this couldn't God (and many other ideas/concepts) be viewed as real?

 

[PureX]

If you want to argue that belief in god working for people is evidence for the existence of god, then it would also have to be shown that not believing in god wouldn't work. Otherwise, no causal connection can be drawn between belief and what works.

How can not believing in something work for the person who doesn't turn to it, because they don't believe in it? I would think that it's not "working for them" would be self-evident, as they wouldn't even try it.

 

[Beaudreaux]

The difference is that your lack of need says nothing about the existence of God, whereas their experience of their God, when they are in need, does.

Well, that's an interesting way of....OK, let's go ahead and call it "reasoning". All the examples that support your worldview are valid and all the examples that don't are invalid. Well, I have to say, you've got us there PureX. I don't see how anyone could battle against the power of that rr[choke..cough]. That rrrrr[choke...gag]. That rrrrrRRRRRRReasoning! [Haaaaaaaaack...spit]

 

[Copernicus]

How is it stimulated, and by what?...

The central nervous system causes a lot of things to happen in the body. That is what brains do. They control bodily functions.

Also, it's not just the immune system. There are examples of cessation of pain. There are examples of the relief of mental disorders. There are examples of emotional readjustments. There are healings bordering on the miraculous. And any doctor will attest to these things along with the fact that they have no idea how these things happen.

Not understanding how things happen is not a good reason to attribute supernatural causes to those things. Indeed, science has acquired a rather long string of successes by assuming the opposite, and doctors actually tend place more trust in what science tells us than what religion and superstition tell us. That is why they do double-blind studies instead of jumping to the conclusion that an apparent cure really is a cure.

Yes, faith works, but what exactly is "faith" in this instance? It seems to be a deliberate position of trusting in the unknown. Of trusting that there is some sort of benevolent force within the unknown that will act in favor of our well being if we will trust in it. And then somehow, mysteriously, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS!

Faith in this case is belief in an imaginary, arbitrary, unverified (and possibly unverifiable) explanation. Such explanations have been around as long as there have been human imaginations, and they have built up a record of incredible failure.

The idea works. Faith in "God" works. It has worked for people since the beginning and it's still working for people. If you want to dismiss it as some sort of trick, or illusion, then you have the burden of explaining that illusion. But I don't think you can. And I know that most doctors and scientists will admit that they can't.

Actually, you don't know that. A rather large number of scientists, if not the majority, appear to take religious faith with a grain of salt. But you and I can agree that folk medicine often works, and sometimes because it really does cure the disease. But usually, it is because the placebo effect is very good at curing people, just as long as they don't lose faith in the placebo. And, as Peter Pan used to point out, if you truly believe, then you can fly. If you don't believe, then that explains why you cannot fly. :yes:

 

[PureX]

Not understanding how things happen is not a good reason to attribute supernatural causes to those things. Indeed, science has acquired a rather long string of successes by assuming the opposite, and doctors actually tend place more trust in what science tells us than what religion and superstition tell us. That is why they do double-blind studies instead of jumping to the conclusion that an apparent cure really is a cure.

I'm not proposing supernatural causes. I don't view "God" as being "supernatural". I'm simply pointing out that these things happen when people choose to use the "God idea" in their lives. And I am further pointing out that you can't in the least way prove that the results they are getting are tricks or illusions of some kind.

Faith in this case is belief in an imaginary, arbitrary, unverified (and possibly unverifiable) explanation.

That is, of course, only your opinion.

Such explanations have been around as long as there have been human imaginations, and they have built up a record of incredible failure.

There are a lot of different kinds of faith, and ways of applying it. Some of these have been failures, and some have not. For every spectacular failure there will be a spectacular success. I suspect that faith is not something we humans understand very well, and so we often misuse and misapply it, getting bad results. But this in no way mitigates the viability of faith as an idea or as a paradigm for action.

Actually, you don't know that. A rather large number of scientists, if not the majority, appear to take religious faith with a grain of salt.

I'm not here to discuss religious doctrines of faith. I don't represent any of them and so can't speak for them.

But you and I can agree that folk medicine often works, and sometimes because it really does cure the disease. But usually, it is because the placebo effect is very good at curing people, just as long as they don't lose faith in the placebo. And, as Peter Pan used to point out, if you truly believe, then you can fly. If you don't believe, then that explains why you cannot fly.

Just because you can trick someone using a placebo doesn't mean that everyone who us healed by a means that you don't understand and can't control is being tricked.