Religion is Placebo

[Mr.Badham]

Placebo administered through injection is more effective than placebo administered through pill form.

Placebo administered by someone dressed as a doctor is more effective than placebo administered by someone dressed as a nurse.

By that rationale, placebo administered by what you believe to be the creator of the universe could explain any personal experience you have ever had with said creator.

It doesn't matter that an actor dressed like a doctor injected you with a saline solution, you'll feel better. With that said, tell me something that has happened to you personally, that I cannot explain away as placebo.

And here's some homework for you. If you haven't had any experiences with the creator, ask yourself why you believe in him. It might be someone else's experience with placebo.

[Goat]

No, it wasn't me. Nor, did I say there is no 'good' or 'bad', but 'good' and 'bad' are subjective, and the belief of what is 'good' and 'bad' will change from person to person, and from society to society. I don't bother with the whole 'who goes to hell' business, because I don't think hell exists. I personally stay away from the criticisms about the implications of claims of 'who goes to hell', because that has a tendency to start getting personal, and I rather address issues, and not people.

Excuse me for mixing up your posting with another one. I must reflect on this idea that "good" and "bad" exist, but are subjective, which means they would have to vary from person to person. Jeffrey Dahmer at one time thought it was good to rape people then eat them. Do you also think that is good, or what? Is there anyone posting here who thinks that is good? If so, are they willing to admit it? If they do, there would probably be an investigation followed by a possible incarceration into a mental hospital.

You see, in my world good and bad are absolutes. If they can change, then they don't exist.

Jeffery Dahmer might have thought that, but the society in which he lived did not. His victims did not. Therefore, society, as a whole, decided to remove Jeffery Dahmer from access to society by putting him in prison. The individual members of the society felt it was in their best interests (Good for them), to remove Jeffery Dahmer from them , and make sure that he doesn't have a chance to eat any more of them. It was a collective choice, with a desire not to get eaten.

[Dokimas]

The placebo effect plays a strong role in relation to religion in general. The placebo effect is very powerful. that is why it is taken into consideration in medical treatments when they are tested.

A typical scenario that is heard from people who convert to a religion -- bot so much with born-ins -- is:

I was (criminal behavior, addiction, sexual misconduct, greedy and superficial, angry with life, lost and looking for answers, or some other kind of life problem.)

I came to see the light and find meaning through ____.

Now everything is peachy.

Being that the specific religion, doctrine, beliefs, etc. is interchangeable in this scenario -- it's clearly the placebo effect working.

If I look, as you are, from the outside, I see your point. However, as in medicine, a the placebo effect often is short lived because it's not doing anything but helping the emotions temporarily. A true 'medicine' works longer. Much of religion most likely is placebo, and doesn't last. The real thing lasts AND is NOT a 'feel good' thing. As a Christian, all is NOT peachy. The point of Christianity is not 'peachiness'. Take a look at the NT characters: many early Christians were martyred which is far from being a peachy experience I'd guess (never being martyred myself).

I think if the religion were like real medicine and lasted you wouldn't have to go to church every week. Read the bible over and over, pray to god every night, come on websites to spout your religious beliefs.

You're taking this placebo over and over. It's almost as if you're a placebo junkie. You're actually addicted to the placebo. You can't live without it.

I'm saying; Let go. Stop going to church. Stop praying. Don't read the bible any more. Don't listen to what others say and see if anything actually changes in your life.

Do you know anyone with lyme disease? Seems you never get over the disease which means you need medicine for a long time. I'm a sinner (which is far worse than lyme disease or cancer) and will be one til Heaven. I'll still go to church, pray and read the Bible til Heaven.

[Dokimas]

No, it wasn't me. Nor, did I say there is no 'good' or 'bad', but 'good' and 'bad' are subjective, and the belief of what is 'good' and 'bad' will change from person to person, and from society to society. I don't bother with the whole 'who goes to hell' business, because I don't think hell exists. I personally stay away from the criticisms about the implications of claims of 'who goes to hell', because that has a tendency to start getting personal, and I rather address issues, and not people.

Excuse me for mixing up your posting with another one. I must reflect on this idea that "good" and "bad" exist, but are subjective, which means they would have to vary from person to person. Jeffrey Dahmer at one time thought it was good to rape people then eat them. Do you also think that is good, or what? Is there anyone posting here who thinks that is good? If so, are they willing to admit it? If they do, there would probably be an investigation followed by a possible incarceration into a mental hospital.

You see, in my world good and bad are absolutes. If they can change, then they don't exist.

Jeffery Dahmer might have thought that, but the society in which he lived did not. His victims did not. Therefore, society, as a whole, decided to remove Jeffery Dahmer from access to society by putting him in prison. The individual members of the society felt it was in their best interests (Good for them), to remove Jeffery Dahmer from them , and make sure that he doesn't have a chance to eat any more of them. It was a collective choice, with a desire not to get eaten.

I'm glad I don't live in a Hilter Germany where the society he created put Jews and Christians to death. Aren't you glad you don't live in a society that kills atheists? My point is, there's moral laws higher than society's laws; societies make mistakes.

[Moses Yoder]

You're taking this placebo over and over. It's almost as if you're a placebo junkie. You're actually addicted to the placebo. You can't live without it.

I'm saying; Let go. Stop going to church. Stop praying. Don't read the bible any more. Don't listen to what others say and see if anything actually changes in your life.

I am willing to take you up on this offer, and report in weekly. If you are willing to stop eating and drinking (this is obviously also placebo, since you must continue to partake) for a period of 60 days, I will stop all religious activity for 60 days, and we will see who's life changes the least. The one with the biggest placebo affect would cause the most change, obviously, and since most people actually believe they must eat to survive and it really is only a placebo effect then eating is the bigger placebo.

Are you married? If so, try not talking to your wife, not doing anything for her, and if you earn money stop doing that as well. Then see if your part in your relationship is simply a placebo effect.

[Oldfarmhouse]

The placebo effect plays a strong role in relation to religion in general. The placebo effect is very powerful. that is why it is taken into consideration in medical treatments when they are tested.

A typical scenario that is heard from people who convert to a religion -- bot so much with born-ins -- is:

I was (criminal behavior, addiction, sexual misconduct, greedy and superficial, angry with life, lost and looking for answers, or some other kind of life problem.)

I came to see the light and find meaning through ____.

Now everything is peachy.

Being that the specific religion, doctrine, beliefs, etc. is interchangeable in this scenario -- it's clearly the placebo effect working.

If I look, as you are, from the outside, I see your point. However, as in medicine, a the placebo effect often is short lived because it's not doing anything but helping the emotions temporarily. A true 'medicine' works longer. Much of religion most likely is placebo, and doesn't last. The real thing lasts AND is NOT a 'feel good' thing. As a Christian, all is NOT peachy. The point of Christianity is not 'peachiness'. Take a look at the NT characters: many early Christians were martyred which is far from being a peachy experience I'd guess (never being martyred myself).

if you look sat your fist sentence and stop right there -- bingo. All you have to do is look at your own religion from the outside and you will see that it is not unique. The Hare Krishnas, for example, landed in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco in 1967. At the time there were many run-away teenagers who came there looking for an ideal lifestyle and ended up drug addicted, homeless, disillusioned, etc. Many of these people joined the Krishnas and, as promised by the group who said "Get high with us and you never have to come back down," they never did. There are still Hare Krishnas who joined in the '60s and still swear by it. Looking at it from the outside -- you would probably agree with me that it is nothing more than a long-lasting placebo effect. I see you trying to make your religion unique. It isn't.

Martyrdom is a very poor argument to try to provide evidence for your religion. All martyrs are not Christians. All Christians are not martyrs. If that were the case I would say you might have a point there -- but it isn't. People throughout history have been willing to be tortured, killed, imprisoned, ostracized, ridiculed, or just dismissed as a crackpot for their ideas. that doesn't mean that the ideas are truthful or valid -- just means that the individual really really believes them.

The members of the Heaven's Gate group killed themselves to catch a ride3 on a comet. Does that mean they were right? No, it means they were true believers.

If someone were to offer you a million dollars to worship Satan for a month would you do it? It's probably easy for you to say, "No, I would not" knowing that nobody would ever actually offer that.

But, I bet if you saw a table full of 10,000 smiling Benjies on the table in front of you in reality -- you would be one Satan-worshiping Christian for 30 days.

[Goat]

I'm glad I don't live in a Hilter Germany where the society he created put Jews and Christians to death. Aren't you glad you don't live in a society that kills atheists? My point is, there's moral laws higher than society's laws; societies make mistakes.

I am also glad I don't live in any theocracy. I am glad I don't live in 15th Century Spain.... or 21st century Iran.

But, that is my 21st century United States slant on it. I would LOVE to see you prove that there are 'moral laws higher than societies laws'. As a matter of fact, I challenge you to show that is a true statement.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

You see, in my world good and bad are absolutes. If they can change, then they don't exist.

Good and bad are opinions... concepts. They exist as ideas, but they don't exist physically. Of course opinions can change, and usually do. They can change from person to person, and they can change from era to era. Slavery as an example, was simply a way of life in Biblical times, and it was seen as a good and even necessary thing by most people, right up to modern times. Today however it is seen as a bad thing by most people, and it is prohibited legally around the world, even though it may be still practiced in some places illegally. It truth it is simply an event. It either occurs or it does not, and society as a whole decides whether it is good or bad. And like everyone else, I have my own opinions.

Killing is another example. Murder is almost universally considered to be a bad thing. But in certain circumstances killing another human being is not only considered a good thing, it is considered heroic. Good and bad are anything but absolute. And yet on the major questions such as murder and slavery I am sure that you and I tend to be in close agreement on what is to be considered acceptable, and what is to be considered unacceptable. When one person seeks to exert forcible control over the life and liberty of another person... murder, rape, kidnapping, for example... agreement on what is good and what is bad is nearly universal. It's the individual freedoms, by which one person disapproves of and attempts to exert control over another person's PERSONAL BEHAVIOR OR LIFESTYLE, that a conflict over the concept of good and bad, right or wrong occurs. Because these things are OPINIONS, and not absolute.

[Dokimas]

The placebo effect plays a strong role in relation to religion in general. The placebo effect is very powerful. that is why it is taken into consideration in medical treatments when they are tested.

A typical scenario that is heard from people who convert to a religion -- bot so much with born-ins -- is:

I was (criminal behavior, addiction, sexual misconduct, greedy and superficial, angry with life, lost and looking for answers, or some other kind of life problem.)

I came to see the light and find meaning through ____.

Now everything is peachy.

Being that the specific religion, doctrine, beliefs, etc. is interchangeable in this scenario -- it's clearly the placebo effect working.

If I look, as you are, from the outside, I see your point. However, as in medicine, a the placebo effect often is short lived because it's not doing anything but helping the emotions temporarily. A true 'medicine' works longer. Much of religion most likely is placebo, and doesn't last. The real thing lasts AND is NOT a 'feel good' thing. As a Christian, all is NOT peachy. The point of Christianity is not 'peachiness'. Take a look at the NT characters: many early Christians were martyred which is far from being a peachy experience I'd guess (never being martyred myself).

if you look sat your fist sentence and stop right there -- bingo. All you have to do is look at your own religion from the outside and you will see that it is not unique. The Hare Krishnas, for example, landed in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco in 1967. At the time there were many run-away teenagers who came there looking for an ideal lifestyle and ended up drug addicted, homeless, disillusioned, etc. Many of these people joined the Krishnas and, as promised by the group who said "Get high with us and you never have to come back down," they never did. There are still Hare Krishnas who joined in the '60s and still swear by it. Looking at it from the outside -- you would probably agree with me that it is nothing more than a long-lasting placebo effect. I see you trying to make your religion unique. It isn't.

Martyrdom is a very poor argument to try to provide evidence for your religion. All martyrs are not Christians. All Christians are not martyrs. If that were the case I would say you might have a point there -- but it isn't. People throughout history have been willing to be tortured, killed, imprisoned, ostracized, ridiculed, or just dismissed as a crackpot for their ideas. that doesn't mean that the ideas are truthful or valid -- just means that the individual really really believes them.

The members of the Heaven's Gate group killed themselves to catch a ride3 on a comet. Does that mean they were right? No, it means they were true believers.

If someone were to offer you a million dollars to worship Satan for a month would you do it? It's probably easy for you to say, "No, I would not" knowing that nobody would ever actually offer that.

But, I bet if you saw a table full of 10,000 smiling Benjies on the table in front of you in reality -- you would be one Satan-worshiping Christian for 30 days.

Take two glasses of clear liquid, both looking like water. Are you going to drink from them both, not knowing if indeed they are water? Just because things look the same from the outside, DOES NOT mean they are the same.

I did NOT say that martyrs for Christianity prove Christianity. I believe if you look again at what I said, you'd see I said that being a Christian was not all peachy, which was the accusation for all religions.

I very much agree with you that belief does not make something true. Are you willing to admit that NOT believing makes something not true?

Why ask me a question that you think you know the answer, or know the implications of my answer? How do you know how I'd answer your million dollar question or whether or not it's be as truthful as I could make it?

[Oldfarmhouse]

The placebo effect plays a strong role in relation to religion in general. The placebo effect is very powerful. that is why it is taken into consideration in medical treatments when they are tested.

A typical scenario that is heard from people who convert to a religion -- bot so much with born-ins -- is:

I was (criminal behavior, addiction, sexual misconduct, greedy and superficial, angry with life, lost and looking for answers, or some other kind of life problem.)

I came to see the light and find meaning through ____.

Now everything is peachy.

Being that the specific religion, doctrine, beliefs, etc. is interchangeable in this scenario -- it's clearly the placebo effect working.

If I look, as you are, from the outside, I see your point. However, as in medicine, a the placebo effect often is short lived because it's not doing anything but helping the emotions temporarily. A true 'medicine' works longer. Much of religion most likely is placebo, and doesn't last. The real thing lasts AND is NOT a 'feel good' thing. As a Christian, all is NOT peachy. The point of Christianity is not 'peachiness'. Take a look at the NT characters: many early Christians were martyred which is far from being a peachy experience I'd guess (never being martyred myself).

if you look sat your fist sentence and stop right there -- bingo. All you have to do is look at your own religion from the outside and you will see that it is not unique. The Hare Krishnas, for example, landed in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco in 1967. At the time there were many run-away teenagers who came there looking for an ideal lifestyle and ended up drug addicted, homeless, disillusioned, etc. Many of these people joined the Krishnas and, as promised by the group who said "Get high with us and you never have to come back down," they never did. There are still Hare Krishnas who joined in the '60s and still swear by it. Looking at it from the outside -- you would probably agree with me that it is nothing more than a long-lasting placebo effect. I see you trying to make your religion unique. It isn't.

Martyrdom is a very poor argument to try to provide evidence for your religion. All martyrs are not Christians. All Christians are not martyrs. If that were the case I would say you might have a point there -- but it isn't. People throughout history have been willing to be tortured, killed, imprisoned, ostracized, ridiculed, or just dismissed as a crackpot for their ideas. that doesn't mean that the ideas are truthful or valid -- just means that the individual really really believes them.

The members of the Heaven's Gate group killed themselves to catch a ride3 on a comet. Does that mean they were right? No, it means they were true believers.

If someone were to offer you a million dollars to worship Satan for a month would you do it? It's probably easy for you to say, "No, I would not" knowing that nobody would ever actually offer that.

But, I bet if you saw a table full of 10,000 smiling Benjies on the table in front of you in reality -- you would be one Satan-worshiping Christian for 30 days.

Take two glasses of clear liquid, both looking like water. Are you going to drink from them both, not knowing if indeed they are water? Just because things look the same from the outside, DOES NOT mean they are the same.

I did NOT say that martyrs for Christianity prove Christianity. I believe if you look again at what I said, you'd see I said that being a Christian was not all peachy, which was the accusation for all religions.

I very much agree with you that belief does not make something true. Are you willing to admit that NOT believing makes something not true?

Why ask me a question that you think you know the answer, or know the implications of my answer? How do you know how I'd answer your million dollar question or whether or not it's be as truthful as I could make it?

OK -- let's take your two glasses of clear liquid that appear to be identical. One is water -- cool, refreshing, and necessary for life. The other is kerosene -- nasty tasting and poisonous. They look the same. So -- what can you say that would confirm, in no uncertain terms, that you are the one holding the glass of water and that the others are holding the glass of kerosene?

OK -- my comment a few posts back that after conversion everything is just peachy was intended to be sarcastic. I know that a life in which everything goes fine all the time and one suffers no hardships is unrealistic. What I was getting at is the nature of conversion scenarios. the convert to _______ -- sorry but the specific religion makes no difference in the general outline of the narrative -- bad things, then conversion, then good things. In these narratives what happens is that the negative aspects of the subject's life before conversion are exaggerated and the positive aspects are diminished. After conversion they will exaggerate the positive and diminish the negative.

Martyrdom is not the norm -- that's what I was getting at. Yes there are people who have suffered and died for their beliefs. Most people will protect self-interest above the belief system.

If I was offered a million dollars to practice a particular religion that I do not believe in (for me that would be all of them) -- sure I would put on an act for a month and collect the cash. If I ended up in a country in which I would get my head chopped off for not being a Muslim -- yep, I would be one Allah-praising atheist. I have no reason to lie about that -- most people would do the same. I brought up the million dollar point -- true, not really a question. "A question ain't really a question, when you know the answer too." (extra resit if you can site the source) -- to illustrate that in human behavior martyrdom is a rare exception and not the norm no matter what the origin of belief is.

And yes, because I do not believe Bigfoot, for example, is a genuine existing cryptozoological critter, does not necessitate its non-existence. The preponderance greater evidence, however, is close enough to conclusive that, for all practical purposes, disbelief in Bigfoot is the more rational position.

[Dokimas]

The placebo effect plays a strong role in relation to religion in general. The placebo effect is very powerful. that is why it is taken into consideration in medical treatments when they are tested.

A typical scenario that is heard from people who convert to a religion -- bot so much with born-ins -- is:

I was (criminal behavior, addiction, sexual misconduct, greedy and superficial, angry with life, lost and looking for answers, or some other kind of life problem.)

I came to see the light and find meaning through ____.

Now everything is peachy.

Being that the specific religion, doctrine, beliefs, etc. is interchangeable in this scenario -- it's clearly the placebo effect working.

If I look, as you are, from the outside, I see your point. However, as in medicine, a the placebo effect often is short lived because it's not doing anything but helping the emotions temporarily. A true 'medicine' works longer. Much of religion most likely is placebo, and doesn't last. The real thing lasts AND is NOT a 'feel good' thing. As a Christian, all is NOT peachy. The point of Christianity is not 'peachiness'. Take a look at the NT characters: many early Christians were martyred which is far from being a peachy experience I'd guess (never being martyred myself).

if you look sat your fist sentence and stop right there -- bingo. All you have to do is look at your own religion from the outside and you will see that it is not unique. The Hare Krishnas, for example, landed in the Haight-Ashbury district of San Francisco in 1967. At the time there were many run-away teenagers who came there looking for an ideal lifestyle and ended up drug addicted, homeless, disillusioned, etc. Many of these people joined the Krishnas and, as promised by the group who said "Get high with us and you never have to come back down," they never did. There are still Hare Krishnas who joined in the '60s and still swear by it. Looking at it from the outside -- you would probably agree with me that it is nothing more than a long-lasting placebo effect. I see you trying to make your religion unique. It isn't.

Martyrdom is a very poor argument to try to provide evidence for your religion. All martyrs are not Christians. All Christians are not martyrs. If that were the case I would say you might have a point there -- but it isn't. People throughout history have been willing to be tortured, killed, imprisoned, ostracized, ridiculed, or just dismissed as a crackpot for their ideas. that doesn't mean that the ideas are truthful or valid -- just means that the individual really really believes them.

The members of the Heaven's Gate group killed themselves to catch a ride3 on a comet. Does that mean they were right? No, it means they were true believers.

If someone were to offer you a million dollars to worship Satan for a month would you do it? It's probably easy for you to say, "No, I would not" knowing that nobody would ever actually offer that.

But, I bet if you saw a table full of 10,000 smiling Benjies on the table in front of you in reality -- you would be one Satan-worshiping Christian for 30 days.

Take two glasses of clear liquid, both looking like water. Are you going to drink from them both, not knowing if indeed they are water? Just because things look the same from the outside, DOES NOT mean they are the same.

I did NOT say that martyrs for Christianity prove Christianity. I believe if you look again at what I said, you'd see I said that being a Christian was not all peachy, which was the accusation for all religions.

I very much agree with you that belief does not make something true. Are you willing to admit that NOT believing makes something not true?

Why ask me a question that you think you know the answer, or know the implications of my answer? How do you know how I'd answer your million dollar question or whether or not it's be as truthful as I could make it?

OK -- let's take your two glasses of clear liquid that appear to be identical. One is water -- cool, refreshing, and necessary for life. The other is kerosene -- nasty tasting and poisonous. They look the same. So -- what can you say that would confirm, in no uncertain terms, that you are the one holding the glass of water and that the others are holding the glass of kerosene? So you can't judge accurately from the outside. Great; we're making progress.

The preponderance greater evidence ... is why I believe in Jesus.