Jonathan H. B. Lobl

I don't normally think of evidence -- which has been exposed as fraud -- as evidence. Think of the incentives that the religious world has to find evidence that the Exodus happened. Nothing. If said evidence existed, the pious would be rubbing our faces in it. Alright. What is the motive to accept the Bible as evidence -- aside from the desire to see the Bible as inerrant? Christians don't accept the Koran as inerrant. Or the Book of Mormon. Or the writings of Sun Myung Moon. Or Science and Health by Mary Baker Eddy. All additional revelations from God which build on the Bible -- if we believe. What is belief? A strongly held opinion. We all have opinions. This is not evidence.

You probably don't believe that their are green kangaroos on Mars. It is not that the evidence for God is inadequate. There is no evidence at all. None. What objective facts do we have about God? None at all. What then is the foundation for belief? Only assertions, made without evidence -- which can be dismissed without evidence. You make simple things complicated.

When the community of organized "skeptics" goes on the attack -- because they know with supernatural certitude when something is bull ** -- I get to be "skeptical" of their "studies".

Yes, thank you.

An addendum: That should have been Doloris Krieger. Not Deloris.

An emotional response on my part, based on two sets of experience. I have taken workshops with Janet Macray and Deloris Krieger. I actually know something about the subject. Unlike the critics who foam over theory. Yes, foam. I have been harassed out of a few Skeptic groups. They never studied Therapeutic Touch and never had a session -- but they knew. Oh, how they knew. Mean, nasty and vicious hardly covers it. A true fuster cluck. And they always lead off with the Rosa papers -- like a Fundamentalist waving Scripture. Yes, I reacted badly. The slights have been very personal. In the best of all possible worlds, I would respond with equanimity. Alas, I am neither a Buddha nor a saint.

Oh. Those studies. Pure gotcha, from Holy warriors defending medical orthodoxy. The worst kind of "skeptic". I didn't respond to your link. You must be thinking of someone else. Are you sure you posted to this board? It's something I would have remembered. As to my opinion of the studies in question …………… They were a touch lacking in objectivity. They are well known.

If I understand meredog correctly -- always a big "if" : He is saying that the evidence itself is objective. Interpretation of that evidence is subjective. It's a fine point. It could have been expressed better -- but I don't see bad intentions.

I don't remember any evidence. What am I over looking?

You have watched me have my own heated discussions with meredog. I have become convinced that meredog is a prisoner of his own inhuman standards of intellectual purity. I am persuaded that he has no bad intentions for us. The problem is his standards. I think he's making himself even more miserable with his standards than he's making you. You want to know where meredog stands? On intellectual razor's edge. It's not a good place to stand. A man can really cut himself up. We all have our issues. I urge you to be patient with meredog. He has his issues. We have ours. It's part of being Human. There are times when we all stink. Nothing for it but to try to be kind to each other, and move on.

In a long past thread, when the discussion was about Agnosticism -- meredog has been purist about what is knowable. I'm not seeing that here. Possibly I'm simply not finding it. I suspect that your reacting to something old that isn't here now. There have been other threads, where people argued that external reality is subjective. I don't see that happening here. Still, sometimes the past echoes. In this instance, I think you're getting stuck on past arguments, instead of current stuff.

How odd. It seem to me that the natural expression of Torah, is Orthodox Judaism.

Maybe. Are you talking about Jews? Or Christians?

I went back over this thread, looking for what you're responding too. I can't find it. What are you responding too?

1. People have a right to be silly. Also mistaken and just plain wrong. If people want to believe in fairies or the wee folk, this is also not my problem. Beliefs about God or the gods are also out of reach. We can encourage critical thinking -- but we can not control belief. Just as well. If belief were controllable -- we would not be happy. Truly -- I don't Know what your issue is. For your own sake, I urge you to let it go. 2. You might remember that the next time we talk about Reiki or Therapeutic Touch. 3. What doctors do actually matters. Medical practice evolves. So does accountability. So do the rules regarding compensation. In England, the government does not pay for Homeopathy.

Do you think I'm only skeptical about God and Scripture? I'm also not happy with the evidence for Bigfoot. Also alien abduction. I'm not being mean. There are credibility issues.

Does it actually matter whether the Bigfoot species exists? I mean, it's silly, but so what? Besides which -- objective evidence could turn up. It's not likely, but it's possible. The Flat Earth people are crazy. So are the Hollow Earth people. Big Foot? Really. Why do you care? It's so trivial. Not every battle is worth fighting. Just because it's silly and lacking in evidence -- does not make it worth fighting. People will always be into foolish crap. Most of it does not matter.

Bigfoot is the classic Black Swan. There is no good reason to think that it exists -- but it could.

I wanted to go back and make sure my position is clear. If you tell me that you can prove God exists -- with objective, verifiable evidence -- then I want to see the evidence. If you tell me that you have faith that God exists -- there's nothing to argue about. You believe. Great. I've got no problem with that. The basic Atheist position is simple. I don't believe. Nobody is saying that you can't believe.

Skepticism, like anything else, can be taken too far. When no evidence or study is good enough.

I think the ultimate placebo is prayer. It seems to make people happy. Some arguments are not worth it.

I understand. You're putting your eggs into the faith basket -- instead of the evidence basket. You don't understand me at all. I don't have a problem with this. What I do have a problem with, is confusing faith with evidence.

I suggest that next time, you start off with this statement. It would have saved a lot of pointless arguing. I would have agreed with you and that would have been the end of it.

I get that. I'm also aware that there have been medical studies, where the placebo was more effective than the therapeutic agent being tested.

In this case, more like a book with adult content. Seriously, "Bible stories for children" are their own genre. Nobody thinks that young children should have access to a full Bible. Some of that stuff could scar a child for life.