Need well-thought, well-made, arguments why god isn't the reason of ev.t existance

[Neutral]

So there is this other forum( Swedish) which has an religous guy which would have made Fred Phelps questioning his beliefs.

This guys a complete waco. He created a topic asking people to prove that god does not exist, and he has spent the last 96 pages or so systematically dismanteling everybodys arguments on why god does not exist by basically saying that "you can't prove it, therefore god has to exist".
And I know his argument technique is an loop: "X says Y. He says that X can't prove Y, so god has to exist".

But I thought I should do an atempt here and see if anybody could come up with well-thought, well-made, arguments that could do a dent in his impervious armor of belif and make him de-loop.

I am so eager to crush this guy. Blood!

I created this thread here, because I'm seriously afraid that he might find this forum if I didn't.
His username on that other forum is "Död o återfödd", "Died'n'reborn". Not that I belive he would sign up here using it, but watch out if he happends to do.

[tanc24]

Why are you so eager to prove to this guy that God does not exist?

After all, if God doesn't really exist, what do you care if someone argues otherwise?

Also, what makes you so sure that you are right and he is wrong?

[Kong]

All fish live in the sea; therefore all that lives in the sea is fishes.
~Monty Python.

There are fairies that live in my butthole. No one can see them, or hear or smell or feel or taste them. But I just know they exist.

They tell me things telepathically. Like answers to math questions and what to buy at the mall. They also ask me for favors. One time they asked me to sacrifice my son. They told me later that they were just fucking with me so it was ok.

Last week they asked me to not eat ham if I had recently had any dairy. That made sense to me so I don't do it any more.

I can ask them questions too. I asked them what will happen to me when I die. They told me that a unicorn will appear and take me to a wonderful paradise full of virgins and seedless grapes. The virgins will want to have sex with me over and over yet never lose their hymen. I thought that sounded nice. I still worry about dieing though. What if they are fucking with me again?

I then asked if my dog would come with me and they said yes but he doesn't get the virgins. I thought that was ok. After all he probably doesn't think about those sort of things, he's just a dog.

My neighbors a dick. I asked the butt fairies what would happen to him when he died. They said he had butt fairies too and they would come out when he died and water board him for the rest of eternity. I thought that was cool, he never apologized for dinging my car. Dick.

I asked about his wife. I was hoping she would be one of my paradise virgins. She is hot. They said she cheats on her taxes so her butt fairies will gang rape her for eternity after she dies. That sounded harsh but I let it go since I get the paradise thing, which is totally awesome.

( Click to show/hide )

Sorry, it is 5 in the morning, I'm a little loopy. Anyways, I say there are fairies living inside your butt. Prove I am wrong.

You can't prove a negative. You shouldn't have too. The burden of proof lies on the person making the extraordinary claim. If you claim the Earth is not the center of the universe then you need to back that up with some proof. If you claim you can get high licking a toad, no one should believe you until you show some evidence. If you claim heaven, god, sin, miracles, and angles exist then it is your responsibility to prove that they are anything more than fiction. If you believe unicorn should have a protected habitat, you should first prove unicorns can habitat anything.

If you want to have a better argument than that then I suggest reading the God Delusion. Also Tanc, that book explains why it matters.

---------- Post added at 09:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------

I can't prove I hate ginger. Therefor I love ginger.
I can't prove my foot hurts. Therefor my foot does not hurt.
I can't prove Jesus is cooler than Zeus. Therefor Zeus kicked Jesus' ass.
I can't prove anything exists on the other side of a door. Therefor all that exists is in my presences.
I can not prove I am not the one and only god. Therefor I am the one and only god.
I can not prove that I exist. Ergo god does not exist.

[Neutral]

Originally Posted by tanc24

Why are you so eager to prove to this guy that God does not exist?

After all, if God doesn't really exist, what do you care if someone argues otherwise?

Also, what makes you so sure that you are right and he is wrong?

I never said that god didn't exist. He might as well do that, for all I care.

But what I asked for was arguments that god is not the driving force behind everything, as a certain "mo-fo" belives.

Kong,
Thanks a lot!

[OldTimer]

Jesus on Toast! | Grilled Jesus

I have seen god's son in toast so god is real

If they are that committed to the arguement you will never change their mind.

[Kong]

Originally Posted by Kong

I can not prove I am not the one and only god. Therefor I am the one and only god.
I can not prove that I exists. Ergo god does not exists.

This does not prove god does not exist. It proves his logic/argument is flawed.

[Timber Wolf]

I'll take a page from Douglas Adams and modify it a bit
God creates the universe, this makes many people very upset, and if he is an all loving god, how can he upset so many people so severely, and at that, why make the universe such a painful place, and why punish all man for the sins of others, again being an all forgiving god why does hell exist?

[Dudebro]

Originally Posted by OldTimer

If they are that committed to the arguement you will never change their mind.

This is my feeling about this topic. I'd just call the guy ignorant and move on.

[Neutral]

Whatever, I got the arguments I need now. My main reason for creating this topic was that the guy is so blown up that that he has "deflate" written all over his sad face.. If you had seen that other topic, Dudebro, I'm sure you would have thought twise before calling him ignorant and asked me to move one.

Again: thanks to everybody that contributed. I got what I need here so this topic has served it purpose.
I wish I could post a link to that other forum, so that you guys could see it for yourself, but the forum is (1)in Swedish and (2)it does not neatly conform to the rules in this forum(there is almost no limit on what you can discuss or post), so I can not provide a link.

[Dojah]

Originally Posted by Kong

You can't prove a negative. You shouldn't have too. The burden of proof lies on the person making the extraordinary claim. If you claim the Earth is not the center of the universe then you need to back that up with some proof. If you claim you can get high licking a toad, no one should believe you until you show some evidence. If you claim heaven, god, sin, miracles, and angles exist then it is your responsibility to prove that they are anything more than fiction. If you believe unicorn should have a protected habitat, you should first prove unicorns can habitat anything.

I see exactly where you are going with this, but IMO this is not 100% correct. How can it not go both ways for it to be correct. Meaning others claim those things do not exist so therefore it's more less thier responsibility to prove otherwise. Science has proven without a doubt there is another force beyond our comprehesion thats holds our physical world in place. What you are doing is characterizing god as something he is not, then picking apart a false interpretation of what he is. Another point I have to make is trying to prove things that can not be observed is impossible...and can not be used for debating.(since neither side can prove this) for example prove what empty space is made of, or its constructs? Since you can not prove that does that make it non-existant? Of course not. Can you prove your perception of reality is REAL? Otherwise it is just fiction based on that logic, which that in itself is illogical. Can one prove a photon of light is stricktly a wave? or strictly a particle?



---------- Post added at 09:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:10 AM ----------

Originally Posted by Kong

I can't prove I hate ginger. Therefor I love ginger.
I can't prove my foot hurts. Therefor my foot does not hurt.
I can't prove Jesus is cooler than Zeus. Therefor Zeus kicked Jesus' ass.
I can't prove anything exists on the other side of a door. Therefor all that exists is in my presences.
I can not prove I am not the one and only god. Therefor I am the one and only god.
I can not prove that I exist. Ergo god does not exist.

These statements are wrong, no offence but this thought process does not work.
Lack of evidence is not evidence , and honestly all these things are based on perception.

---------- Post added at 01:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Timber Wolf

I'll take a page from Douglas Adams and modify it a bit
God creates the universe, this makes many people very upset, and if he is an all loving god, how can he upset so many people so severely, and at that, why make the universe such a painful place, and why punish all man for the sins of others, again being an all forgiving god why does hell exist?

You are taking god out of context in many ways, then attributing all bad things towards him, instead of contributing these things to the real cause...which is mans own actions. Another thing is you make the assumption god is this holy entity that has no evil within it. Which is completly wrong. God is the creator of evil, lets not forget that. You also make the assumption hell is a physical place where you will be in fire etc...which is actually incorrect according to the bible. Most of the time these statements are made from people who have very little knowledge of the bible and have not taken the time to read it all for them selves.

[Kong]

@Dojah, I'm not 100% sure what you were saying in your first comment. You can use the scientific method to test and prove if miracles and prayer exist or not. We still don't have a way of testing for the existence of heaven, sin, god or butt fairies but that doesn't mean we should automatically believe in them just because we can not prove they are fake.

In your second comment that was my point. I was trying to prove that the logic "if not A then B" is flawed. Neutral was asking for a way to argue with someone that was saying "if you can not 100% prove god does not exists then god exists". My whole post was meant to show that logic in a different light so it was obvious it was stupid.

I hate ginger. I can not prove it but I hate it nonetheless.

Also I do think we can prove that nearly all organized religion is false. We can trace back the origins of all of them to an original human source. God can not tell any human about his existence without the aid of another human (American Indians had no idea what any European god was until the Europeans showed up.) There are obvious mistakes in all religous texts making it obvious that they were not divinely inspired. There are obvious thefts from pre-existing stories from neighboring regions of the religious founders. Miraculous claims never come with any proof, only hearsay. There is very little difference in religions yet followers can easily tell that other religions are false (there is no more evidence for Jesus than Zeus or Mahmud yet most Christians would laugh at the idea that those religions are as true as theirs.)

Here is a point that Richard Dawkins made. There are a couple different scientific theories for why dinosaurs went extinct. A meteor, a volcano, a natural ice age, etc. Imagine if the scientist decided which theory to believe based on where they were born and what theory their parents believed. Example all Chinese believed a meteor killed the dinos. All of India believed that a volcano wiped them out. And all Europen scientist believed that a natural ice age occurred. The only reason they disagreed was because that is what their parents taught them. Evidence and the scientific method did not mater. They could not change their minds. If you are Chinese then it is meteor. If you are British it is natural ice age. Case closed.

[XERQ GRANITE]

Me n my bro talk about this like all the time, the answer is simple, NO RELIGION can logically explain how we got here, how existance began....... take God for example, how did he get there?? and if they find a way to answer that, how did that get there, and so on and so fourth, this is exactly why I'm athiest, because I have not yet found anything that can logically explain that matter ............ i have however thought of different logical explinations for how the wolrd's gonna end if anyone would like to hear those?? ^_^ but ya, if anyone can give me a logical explination on how existance began, THAT is what i'll believe

*X to the E-R-Q GRANITE*

---------- Post added at 02:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:10 AM ----------

Originally Posted by XERQ GRANITE

Me n my bro talk about this like all the time, the answer is simple, NO RELIGION can logically explain how we got here, how existance began....... take God for example, how did he get there?? and if they find a way to answer that, how did that get there, and so on and so fourth, this is exactly why I'm athiest, because I have not yet found anything that can logically explain that matter ............ i have however thought of different logical explinations for how the wolrd's gonna end if anyone would like to hear those?? ^_^ but ya, if anyone can give me a logical explination on how existance began, THAT is what i'll believe

*X to the E-R-Q GRANITE*

oh, and when i said "NO RELIGION", I'm also including science, cause that can't even explain it either

*X to the E-R-Q GRANITE*

[Dudebro]

oh, and when i said "NO RELIGION", I'm also including science, cause that can't even explain it either

Go smoke another one, science has nothing to do with religion.

[Dojah]

Originally Posted by Kong

@Dojah, I'm not 100% sure what you were saying in your first comment. You can use the scientific method to test and prove if miracles and prayer exist or not. We still don't have a way of testing for the existence of heaven, sin, god or butt fairies but that doesn't mean we should automatically believe in them just because we can not prove they are fake.

Well thats the problem. You cant use scientific method to test any of those. I read the study done on prayer and some scientists themselves said ~Science “is not designed to study the supernatural,” said Dr. Harold G. Koenig, director of the Center for Spirituality, Theology and Health at the Duke University Medical Center.~
~Koenig, of Duke University Medical Center, said the results didn't surprise him. “There are no scientific grounds to expect a result and there are no real theological grounds to expect a result either,” he said. “There is no god in either the Christian, Jewish or Moslem scriptures that can be constrained to the point that they can be predicted.”

The reason you cant test prayer, or miracles or any of the others are undecidability...this is where scientific method fails. No one(yet) can produce the mathmatics to even try to test anything on that level.

Now I agree we shouldnt believe in something because we cant prove they are fake, but doesnt that go both ways. I mean arent you an athiest because you cant prove god is real.

Originally Posted by Kong

In your second comment that was my point. I was trying to prove that the logic "if not A then B" is flawed. Neutral was asking for a way to argue with someone that was saying "if you can not 100% prove god does not exists then god exists". My whole post was meant to show that logic in a different light so it was obvious it was stupid.

My mistake, I read it wrong.

Originally Posted by Kong

Also I do think we can prove that nearly all organized religion is false. We can trace back the origins of all of them to an original human source. God can not tell any human about his existence without the aid of another human (American Indians had no idea what any European god was until the Europeans showed up.) There are obvious mistakes in all religous texts making it obvious that they were not divinely inspired. There are obvious thefts from pre-existing stories from neighboring regions of the religious founders. Miraculous claims never come with any proof, only hearsay. There is very little difference in religions yet followers can easily tell that other religions are false (there is no more evidence for Jesus than Zeus or Mahmud yet most Christians would laugh at the idea that those religions are as true as theirs.)

I agree all religions can be concluded to be false, but religion is man made, its an interpretation of man. I dont see obvious mistakes in certain religious books that show they were not divinely written...I do see mistakes in mans interpretation of it, then act on those interpretations. I think I know where your going with this...Since the Indians didnt know of the god of abraham til the Europenas came the god of abraham must be wrong. Did I understand that right? You're saying all man from all parts of the earth should of known of the same god from the beggining?

Now about the evidence for Jesus...well yes there is some speculation but there is more than enough evidence. There are jewish and christian writings, and even greco-roman writings. New found archiological evidence of the gospel of judas. Tacitus who has been called "the greatest historian of ancient Rome talks about him and this is what was wrote "But not all the relief that could come from man, not all the bounties that the price could bestow, nor all the atonements which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely charged with the guilt, and punished with the most exquisite tortures, the persons commonly called Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also." (Annals XV, 44)1.
Even another religion(islam), one that dislikes both jews, and christians write of jesus. Actually jesus is written about more in the quaran then the bible.

I agree alot of stories seem to be stolen from other religions. But when you look at the similarities between them the concepts can be viewed the same way. Its quite amazing IMO that when looking at the philosophy of these many religions they are all the same.

~BTW i feel the same way about religion as you do(I think). I think its a bunch of nonsence, but I dont think disregarding the spiritual message is correct either.

[Kong]

Originally Posted by Dojah

Well thats the problem. You cant use scientific method to test any of those.

I think you can scientifically test the statement "prayer influences reality". If prayer does not influence reality then all you are doing is mediating, which is fine, but if you claim prayers are answered then testing for those answers is very easy. Unless you throw in the clause "god answers all prayers except those that you are monitoring" which is silly.

Several miracles are easily tested. Example the Shroud of Turin. The claim is touching it can cure you. That can easily be tested with the same test we use to test the effectiveness of Advil.

Originally Posted by Dojah

Arent you an athiest because you cant prove god is real.

If I had to select a term under oath then I would say Agnostic, I do not know if god does exists or doesn't exist.

However, I personally think that this label is ridiculous. No one claims to be agnostic about their beliefs in butt farries but just like god we do not know if butt fairies exists or not. Asking the question, do you believe in god, is to me as stupid as asking do you believe fairies live in my butt. While I can not prove the answer to both questions is not, I do think stopping to think about the answers of yes or maybe is silly.

There is no difference in a world where god exists and a world where god does not exist. Just like there are no differences in a world where butt fairies do or don't exist. All there is is if you choose to pretend that there is a difference or not.

I am confident that there is a 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance that if there is anything that is god like then the human mind is not capable of understanding it and no human has ever made an accurate description of anything god like. In every day speech - not debate speech - that statement is shortened to I do not believe any god exists especially any god that a human worships.

I have a friend that I respect very much and is very intelligent and logical. Very educated. After doing [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyltryptamine"]Dimethyltryptamine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] and reading some philosophy books he came to the conclusion that "god is everything, everything is god". This is along the lines of the Einstein/Hawking god. The point as near as I can tell is to feel awe and reverence and a connection with everything. I find this to be as silly as organized religion. It is so far in the other direction that it has become meaningless. What information is contained in the statement "everything is god". The statement abandons the main definition of god. It is meaningless.

The traditional definition of god is "a perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, sentient supernatural being that is the originator and ruler of the universe and as such deserves worship".

You can throw out some of that definition but to me the word god must mean at the very least "a sentient supernatural being." Anything less is misleading.

God is everything does not fit this definition and to me is philosophical bullshit.

Originally Posted by Dojah

Since the Indians didnt know of the god of abraham til the Europenas came the god of abraham must be wrong. Did I understand that right? You're saying all man from all parts of the earth should of known of the same god from the beggining?

1. I believe the god of Abraham, Yahweh, was, in the beginning, just that the god of Abraham, the god of the Israelites. There is lots of proof in and outside of the Bible that the religion was created for the chosen people and no one else. Love thy neighbor does not mean love your neighbor. It means love all Israelites. So if Yahweh is real that does not necessarily mean that he had to tell the Indians.
2. If any culture independently came to the same religious beliefs on their own it would have gone a very long way to corroborating them. The lack of corroborating evidence does not 100% disprove any religion but it is incredibly damaging.
3. Instead of using this lack of evidence as reason to question our beliefs we used it to justify slavery, genocide, theft, murder and many of the worst atrocities humans have ever committed. If god did not think they were worthy of a heads up warning of Hell then why should they even be considered human.
4. All of the following can not logically be true.
   1. If you do not worship Yahweh then you will spend eternity in Hell.
   2. Hell sucks.
   3. Yahweh is all powerful.
   4. Yahweh is a loving god.
   5. Yahweh is a fair and just god.
   6. Humans should worship and follow Yahweh.
5. Ether humans are more holy than Yahweh or we are so inferior that we can not begin to comprehend the complexities involved. Either way humans and Yahweh are incompatible.

Originally Posted by Dojah

Now about the evidence for Jesus

Jesus as historical fact is a myth.

This page is biased but will get you started. Did Jesus exist?

Try searching Google for any evidence that Jesus actually existed. There is nothing that was written during his lifetime. Nothing that is anything more than second hand rumors. Jesus was supposedly executed near the year 30. The earliest section of the New Testament was written around the year year 70. 40 years after Jesus died. The earliest recorded non-Biblical claim that Jesus was a real person was written in the year 93.

There is more historical evidence of [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollonius_of_Tyana"]Apollonius Christ[/ame] than there is of Jesus Christ. Before the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea"]First Council of Nicaea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame] in the year 325 most Christians believed in Apollonius' teachings, not Jesus'. Apollonius lost the poster boy position mainly because he advocated vegetarianism. I am not 100% sure about the two italicised sentences. Info came from here Apollonius of Tyana

If there was any evidence that Jesus did exist, even if there was evidence that he said everything he is attributed to saying, that would not mean anything more than he was one of best philosophers of his time.

I need to stop getting drawn into debates. They take so much time. But they are fun, at least to me.

[Dojah]

Originally Posted by Kong

I think you can scientifically test the statement "prayer influences reality". If prayer does not influence reality then all you are doing is mediating, which is fine, but if you claim prayers are answered then testing for those answers is very easy. Unless you throw in the clause "god answers all prayers except those that you are monitoring" which is silly.

You may think you can use scientific method for this but you simply cant. In order for something to be measured you must have mathmatics to show your records. In this case of prayer not only did the researchers themselves say it was not a scientific test, there is no mathmatical equations to even try to test it. Again Ill bring this up. Undecidability stands in the way of this kind of test. This is why physics has moved on to something they can measure. In reality whats the difference between a thought and a prayer? The physics world has done real tests on this that do have mathmatics, and can be measured. Again I bring this up as well....the doble slit experiment. This test proves not only your thought effects your reality, but your observation as a conscious being effects it as well. This is real scientific method at work. IMO the test on prayer you bring up holds no grounds when up against scientific method. Its simply not science.

Originally Posted by Kong

Several miracles are easily tested. Example the Shroud of Turin. The claim is touching it can cure you. That can easily be tested with the same test we use to test the effectiveness of Advil.

Its funny that you say that. I brought this up before but will bring it up again. Science has shown this to be correct. This is categorized under the placebo effect. Science on top of our medical field has shown beyond a doubt that a placebo(pill, shroud, etc..) can and will cause chemical reactions within our body in many cases. I can almost gaurantee that you have taken a placebo in your life, and almost every single person that has been to a doctors office as well. In reality whats the difference between the shroud and a water pill, if they both can cause chemical reactions to heal one self. I work with a man who has many books about this subject.~Dr. Steven Bratman~ I actually believe you proved my point, since studies have been done

Originally Posted by Kong

If I had to select a term under oath then I would say Agnostic, I do not know if god does exists or doesn't exist.

Fair enough. Makes sence to me.


The rest I will have to reply on later.

P.S. dont stop debating. I know it takes up much time but not many people on here can bring up good points like you. Even if I disagree with much of it it is very fun.

[Kong]

Scientific method does not require mathematics.

One flawed test does not mean all tests are flawed.

There have been a couple prayer tests. The most famous one, and the one you are referring to, was conducted by the [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Foundation"]John Templeton Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]. The Templeton Foundation is a Christian organization with one mission, find any scientific proof that god exists. They are biased. The prayer experiment was supposed to prove that prayer does work. They had to admit that their experiment found no evidence that this was true.

I have not said the placebo effect does not exists. I have not said that religion can not produce a strong placebo effect. In fact my point is the opposite. Placebos are very strong. Religion is one of the strongest placebos. Placebos are not by themselves bad. Making decisions for other people (education and public policy, social norms and taboos etc.) based on the effects of your personal placebos is wrong.

I often try to tear down the effect of people's personal placebos. I think this would be an evil thing for me to do except the reason why I do it is because people often mistakenly assume that the placebo that works for them should be forced on everyone. That is very untrue and this is the reason why I am fighting against the value of religion. A placebo should never be forced on anyone.

Assuming that I do not know what a placebo is and that I do not think religion is a huge placebo is totally off. If you have not yet then you should watch this video http://retrouprising.com/general/deb...d-first/t7821/

1. Claim. Taking 2 aspirin will relieve a headache. The aspirin test: Use a double blind experiment. Find 100 people with headaches. Give 50 of them a sugar pill (placebo). Give the other 50 aspirin. Come back in 30 minutes and compare results.
2. Claim. Praying for someone will relieve their headache. The prayer test: Use a double blind experiment. Find 100 people with headaches. Pretend to pray for 50 of them (placebo). Pray for the other 50 patients. Come back in 30 minutes and compare results.
3. Claim. Touching the Shroud of Turin will cure a headache (and any other aliment, many Christians claim this is proof of divine miracles). The miracle test. Use a double blind experiment. Find 100 people with headaches. Blindfold them. Let 50 of them touch a t-shirt (placebo). Let the other 50 touch the Shroud of Turin. Come back in 30 minutes and compare results.

What is the difference in these three experiments?

[sezthemank]

Originally Posted by Dudebro

Go smoke another one, science has nothing to do with religion.

True if anything, Science is Reliions Ememie

(Loads of spelling mastakes there )

[Dudebro]

Science should have no enemies, it's not a competition. Religions are the ones with something to prove/something to hide.

[sezthemank]

That is very true.
At least science explains things with evidence.

[Dojah]

Originally Posted by Kong

Scientific method does not require mathematics.

You are right it does not require it but in this case of prayer you would almost need to have something mathematical because of undecidability.

Originally Posted by Kong

One flawed test does not mean all tests are flawed.

Of course not.

Originally Posted by Kong

There have been a couple prayer tests. The most famous one, and the one you are referring to, was conducted by the John Templeton Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. The Templeton Foundation is a Christian organization with one mission, find any scientific proof that god exists. They are biased. The prayer experiment was supposed to prove that prayer does work. They had to admit that their experiment found no evidence that this was true.

I was only refering to this because you have brought this up a couple times as if it was scientifical fact...which it is not. It wasnt even a scientific test.

Originally Posted by Kong

I have not said the placebo effect does not exists. I have not said that religion can not produce a strong placebo effect. In fact my point is the opposite. Placebos are very strong. Religion is one of the strongest placebos. Placebos are not by themselves bad. Making decisions for other people (education and public policy, social norms and taboos etc.) based on the effects of your personal placebos is wrong.

I agree nothing should be forced on anyone at anytime regarding religion, but whats the difference between someone making decisions based on religion, and someone making decisions based on athiesm? Especially forced. Wouldnt disregarding religion for atheism beliefs, be the same thing you are fighting against? Would this not be considered a forcefull action? It goes both ways IMO.

1. A religious person talks about god, believes in him etc...forcefully puts it on others around him.
2. An athiest person talks about no god, does not believe in the fairy tails, etc...forcefully puts it on others around him.
Whats the difference?

Originally Posted by Kong

I often try to tear down the effect of people's personal placebos. I think this would be an evil thing for me to do except the reason why I do it is because people often mistakenly assume that the placebo that works for them should be forced on everyone. That is very untrue and this is the reason why I am fighting against the value of religion. A placebo should never be forced on anyone.

Whats the difference between these religious people who assume what works for them should work for others, and an athiest who assumes what works for him should work for others? IMO an athiest is doing the exact same as a religous person but just on the opposite side of the spectrum.

Originally Posted by Kong

Claim. Taking 2 aspirin will relieve a headache. The aspirin test: Use a double blind experiment. Find 100 people with headaches. Give 50 of them a sugar pill (placebo). Give the other 50 aspirin. Come back in 30 minutes and compare results.

1. Claim. Praying for someone will relieve their headache. The prayer test: Use a double blind experiment. Find 100 people with headaches. Pretend to pray for 50 of them (placebo). Pray for the other 50 patients. Come back in 30 minutes and compare results.
2. Claim. Touching the Shroud of Turin will cure a headache (and any other aliment, many Christians claim this is proof of divine miracles). The miracle test. Use a double blind experiment. Find 100 people with headaches. Blindfold them. Let 50 of them touch a t-shirt (placebo). Let the other 50 touch the Shroud of Turin. Come back in 30 minutes and compare results.

What is the difference in these three experiments?

Well the shroud and the aspirin seem reasonable. The praying one does not fit in that though. Just like tests of the brain, and thought there should be measurements of brain activity. Thers is way to many variables to even try this test of prayer scientifically. In order to test something you would need to know exactly what you are testing. Did these people all pray? Who did they pray to? Where the people who prayed even religious? Like a test of brain thought you could see what part of the brain is active, how long they are in thought, tons more. Science could not be considered valid if there is no way to see if parts of the experiment were even done(How do we know they even prayed)