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.

[bjs]

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.

Im a little late in joining this debate, but I thought I would throw my two cents in.

If I were to have an experience of the Divine, I could not say absolutely that it was genuine as opposed to being a placebo or something akin to it.

However, I cannot say absolutely that any experience I have is genuine as opposed to something else.

The point of my thread is this; Until you do have an experience with god you have no reason to believe there is a god. There is no evidence anywhere at all that there is a god, except other people's testimonials/scriptures/holy books. You have no reason to believe them either. They are experiencing the placebo effect. It's about being honest with yourself.

For instance, a few minutes ago I walked outside and spoke with my neighbor, Jenifer, and during the conversation it began to snow. I cant prove that experience was real. Perhaps my memory is false, or I was affected by someone form of drug, or maybe I am insane and I dont even have a neighbor named Jenifer.

I cannot say absolutely that any experience is genuine, but I will continue to believe that all of my experiences (be they of the Divine or the mundane) are genuine unless I have some reason to believe that certain experience are false.

I cannot be certain that my experience of talking to Jenifer was real, but since I have no good reason to say that it was false I will continue to believe that it was genuine.

If someone has an experience of the Divine then she could not be certain that it was real, but without reason to say that it was false she should continue to believe that it was genuine.

Good analogy. You have every reason to believe that Jennifer exists. You story has nothing fantastic in it. I also have neighbors that I talk to from time to time. It snows where I live too. I did not experience your visit, but it's nothing unordinary. So I believe you. Now if you said that Jennifer flew away, or Jennifer healed your wound and commanded us all to worship her, I would then say, "I don't believe you." Anyone would. So why don't we say that when a preacher tells us the same thing? I'm telling you right now, Jennifer has to fly to my house and heal me herself before I will believe you. Is that too much to ask?

Perhaps I have misunderstood your case. Let me see if I have it right now:

You are NOT saying, If I have an experience of the Divine, that could be placebo. You are not addressing any experience that I have.

You ARE saying, If someone else has an experience of the Divine and tells me about it, then I should distrust it because it could be that their experience was placebo.

Have I understood you correctly, or am I still confused?

Anything is possible, but the mere fact that something could be placebo is not sufficient reason to believe that it is placebo.

Don't let people tell you that anything is possible. The fact that something could be placebo is sufficient reason to believe that someone else's experience with the creator is placebo.

Of course anything is possible. It is possible that when a person has an experience of God then that experience is placebo. It is also possible that the theory of gravity is wrong. It is possible that the physical world doesnt exist and that our experiences of the physical world are false.

Anything is possible. However, it would be unwise to say that just because it is possible that any given experience is false we should therefore assume that it actually is false (unless we have some additional evidence which would suggest that it is false).

So is it fair to say; The only reason you believe in a creator is that someone else told you about him.

No, I said that opposite of that. I said that the existence of a Creator is the most reasonable explanation I could find for the available evidence.

Does your creator and his expectations of you coincide with what many people would call Christianity?

Yes.

[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? So you can't judge accurately from the outside. Great; we're making progress.

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

Nope -- that doesn't work. I was asking for something that makes your religion unique. The baseless assertion that one has to experience it from the inside in order to perceive it as it truly does not make it unique. That is exactly what the Hare Krishnas, Muslims, Hindus, Moonies, Scientologists, etc., etc., etc. say.

What can you tell me that the rest of them can't?

As for the "evidence" of Jesus Christ -- don't redefine the word evidence to mean "in the Bible," or "because I said so." Now provide one piece of real world evidence for your religion. Not philosophical word games, not baseless assertions, not meaningless gibberish -- evidence.

[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.

Nope -- that doesn't work. I was asking for something that makes your religion unique. The baseless assertion that one has to experience it from the inside in order to perceive it as it truly does not make it unique. That is exactly what the Hare Krishnas, Muslims, Hindus, Moonies, Scientologists, etc., etc., etc. say.

What can you tell me that the rest of them can't?

As for the "evidence" of Jesus Christ -- don't redefine the word evidence to mean "in the Bible," or "because I said so." Now provide one piece of real world evidence for your religion. Not philosophical word games, not baseless assertions, not meaningless gibberish -- evidence.

One of us is not following this carefully. I DID NOT say that one can only perceive uniqueness from within, but I did say that it is as hard to tell which is water by looking into the glasses without doing real investigation which brings one inside the glasses; you can NOT tell that all are the same from without.

The Bible is a compilation of eyewitness reports. If they are not admissible, then no court of law works if witnesses are never to be asked what they saw. Seems, by your logic, no one lived or are alive if you've not met them. Of course that's silly. My point exactly.

Night, friend.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

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

1) Jesus wrote nothing during his lifetime, the quotations attributed to him were actually words placed into his mouth by anonymous sources decades after his death.

2) The stories of his resurrection and the famous "empty tomb" of Jesus can, based on scripture itself, easily be attributed to actions taken by the living rather than actions taken by the dead man.

3) The story of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead went unmentioned and unrecorded by ANYONE for a quarter of a century or so after the time of his execution.

4) Christians have maintained the steady chant that Jesus is about to return again "soon," at just about any moment now, for the last 2,000 years, despite the unarguable FACT that everyone who lived 2,000 died and has remained reliably and undeniably dead.


What "preponderance" of evidence do you propose exists which would serve to support the absurd claim that the corpse of Jesus was not only resurrected from the dead, but actually flew away up into the sky, and that he is about to return again "soon" despite an unbroken no show record of 2,000 years? At what point do your various empty claims give way to an obvious example of rampant gullibility?

[Dokimas]

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

1) Jesus wrote nothing during his lifetime, the quotations attributed to him were actually words placed into his mouth by anonymous sources decades after his death. Correct that Jesus wrote nothing we know of except in the sand; the rest of what you said, 'how do you know?'.

2) The stories of his resurrection and the famous "empty tomb" of Jesus can, based on scripture itself, easily be attributed to actions taken by the living rather than actions taken by the dead man. Again, 'How do you know?'

3) The story of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead went unmentioned and unrecorded by ANYONE for a quarter of a century or so after the time of his execution. http://www.garyhabermas.com/

4) Christians have maintained the steady chant that Jesus is about to return again "soon," at just about any moment now, for the last 2,000 years, despite the unarguable FACT that everyone who lived 2,000 died and has remained reliably and undeniably dead. Maybe you don't understand what was written &

2Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.


What "preponderance" of evidence do you propose exists which would serve to support the absurd claim that the corpse of Jesus was not only resurrected from the dead, but actually flew away up into the sky, and that he is about to return again "soon" despite an unbroken no show record of 2,000 years? At what point do your various empty claims give way to an obvious example of rampant gullibility?

It's worth pasting again:

3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

[Flail]

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

1) Jesus wrote nothing during his lifetime, the quotations attributed to him were actually words placed into his mouth by anonymous sources decades after his death. Correct that Jesus wrote nothing we know of except in the sand; the rest of what you said, 'how do you know?'.

2) The stories of his resurrection and the famous "empty tomb" of Jesus can, based on scripture itself, easily be attributed to actions taken by the living rather than actions taken by the dead man. Again, 'How do you know?'

3) The story of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead went unmentioned and unrecorded by ANYONE for a quarter of a century or so after the time of his execution. http://www.garyhabermas.com/

4) Christians have maintained the steady chant that Jesus is about to return again "soon," at just about any moment now, for the last 2,000 years, despite the unarguable FACT that everyone who lived 2,000 died and has remained reliably and undeniably dead. Maybe you don't understand what was written &

2Peter 3:3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.


What "preponderance" of evidence do you propose exists which would serve to support the absurd claim that the corpse of Jesus was not only resurrected from the dead, but actually flew away up into the sky, and that he is about to return again "soon" despite an unbroken no show record of 2,000 years? At what point do your various empty claims give way to an obvious example of rampant gullibility?

It's worth pasting again:

3 knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts,
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation."
5 For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water,
6 by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water.
7 But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be burned up.

This is what you have chosen to believe; but what evidence do you have to support your verse based scripturalism? Do you not see the circular pattern of these verses that tug at your emotions in denial of rationality? Tired of the Nonsense has asked reasonable questions and your only response is versifying; you have not supplied a preponderance of evidence to support your claims; in fact, you've not offered any. These verses are nothing more than some anonymous author's opinions and the unverifiable, implausible claims of someone with superstitions as to the supernatural.

[Moses Yoder]

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.

Lets say there are 3 people left in the world, on an abandoned island with no food. Two are blonde, and one has brown hair. The two blondes stick together, naturally, and the one with brown hair is treated like an outsider. After a couple days, they are all hungry with no food in sight. The majority, the 2 blondes, vote to kill and eat the one with brown hair. Since the majority has decided that is a good thing to do, then it must therefore be good. It just doesn't seem that great to the person with brown hair.

The time will come when people all over the world will be killed because they are Christians. Reading this board makes me realize how soon that will come to pass. When I first started reading this board, I assumed there would be a variety of Christians on the Christian board debating different theologies. What I found kind of shocked me; a large number of atheistic and agnostic people telling Christians they are wrong in their belief. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why you would care what I believe. It's like me telling you that you are not thinking right for wearing briefs, everybody knows boxers is the way to go.

[Flail]

Moses Yoder wrote:

The time will come when people all over the world will be killed because they are Christians. Reading this board makes me realize how soon that will come to pass. When I first started reading this board, I assumed there would be a variety of Christians on the Christian board debating different theologies. What I found kind of shocked me; a large number of atheistic and agnostic people telling Christians they are wrong in their belief. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why you would care what I believe. It's like me telling you that you are not thinking right for wearing briefs, everybody knows boxers is the way to go.

Speaking strictly for myself, I care about Christianity because, IMO, it is flawed and potentially dangerous in the wrong hands, much like Islam. I think Christian doctrine, dogma, ritual practices and indoctrination should be off limits to children. In the USA, Christianity is granted what I consider to be unconstitutional tax preferences upon which many of its sects build vast amounts of untaxed wealth. Christianity which teaches it's unfounded superstitions as absolute truths is immoral IMO. Much of Christianity is at odds with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and judges half the world to hell without justification. These are but a few of the many reasons that I care about Christianity.

[Moses Yoder]

Speaking strictly for myself, I care about Christianity because, IMO, it is flawed and potentially dangerous in the wrong hands, much like Islam. I think Christian doctrine, dogma, ritual practices and indoctrination should be off limits to children. In the USA, Christianity is granted what I consider to be unconstitutional tax preferences upon which many of its sects build vast amounts of untaxed wealth. Christianity which teaches it's unfounded superstitions as absolute truths is immoral IMO. Much of Christianity is at odds with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and judges half the world to hell without justification. These are but a few of the many reasons that I care about Christianity.

And you plan on righting these wrongs by posting your opinions on a debate forum? There are many people who think like you. They are actively supporting like minded politicians and lobbying for their beliefs. They are not wasting their time debating with Christians, they know they can't change their minds. Once they are in control, they will try to eliminate Christianity through euthanasia or possibly with the widespread use of guillotines.

[Flail]

Speaking strictly for myself, I care about Christianity because, IMO, it is flawed and potentially dangerous in the wrong hands, much like Islam. I think Christian doctrine, dogma, ritual practices and indoctrination should be off limits to children. In the USA, Christianity is granted what I consider to be unconstitutional tax preferences upon which many of its sects build vast amounts of untaxed wealth. Christianity which teaches it's unfounded superstitions as absolute truths is immoral IMO. Much of Christianity is at odds with the teachings of Jesus Christ, and judges half the world to hell without justification. These are but a few of the many reasons that I care about Christianity.

And you plan on righting these wrongs by posting your opinions on a debate forum? There are many people who think like you. They are actively supporting like minded politicians and lobbying for their beliefs. They are not wasting their time debating with Christians, they know they can't change their minds. Once they are in control, they will try to eliminate Christianity through euthanasia or possibly with the widespread use of guillotines.

Your presuppositions as to my intent are noted. I have no illusions as to being able to change any minds; doing so would probably require some form of reverse indoctrination. I enjoy sharing my opinions and ideas with others, believers and non-believers alike, and doing so on this debate forum for several years has led me to a more full understanding of why I reject Christianity and continue to argue against it.