There's a study which is constantly referenced in which secular countries do better than religious.

Let's see it.

I keep hearing this guys name thrown around. And it seems like every Christian uses him as proof of the existence of Christ. So I am just curious what you all thought of this. Thanks.

Don't worry, this isn't going to be some armchair philosophy session or anything like that.

I'm just posting this to ask if anyone out there knows of any books on the history of the soul in the West. Particularly, I'm interested in the medical/scientific attempts to find the 'seat' of the soul. I'm not sure if there even *are* books on the subject, but I have a hard time imagining that they wouldn't be available. So, any help would be appreciated.

When faced with their own mortality atheists doubt the strength of their own convictions. When it comes time for "lights out" the whole idea of death being equivalent to being not borne gets a worrisome. Why? Because there was no time before not being borne when we thought about not being borne.

 

I thought I'd make a spin off of this thread's opposite, just for a little fun. Only in this case, I'm not going to set it up as a game, I'm just going to explain why.

Theists have often espoused the idea that morality comes from god, which is obviously not true, because there are many different moral codes out there and only one of them can be right. So, even if one of them did come from god, the rest of them had to come from somewhere else - so even if we assume any morality came from god, not all morality did.

And certainly atheist morality didn't. When atheists come up with their moral code, we have to think about why we believe certain things are good and certain things are bad. We have to consider what we think will have a negative impact on society, and what will not have a negative impact on society. This gives us a clear understanding not only of what we believe to be good and bad, but also why.

Theists do not have that strong backbone in their morality because they follow a moral code given to them, and tend not to question it. For example, I've never known an atheist who has believed that homosexuality is immoral - because they all considered the topic and found it has no negative effect. Christians, however, believe that homosexuality is immoral because it is described as an abomination in the bible. In all of my time debating with Christians, not one of them has given me a single reason why I should believe that homosexuality is immoral other than "god said so".

It does nothing but make people feel better about themselves by believing in a lie.

Taken from Paisley's thread (thank you for this), but without the Paisley.

What are your thoughts about this concept?

Hello, unlike most of you I'm an Agnostic, however I've leaned toward the idea that a God may perhaps not exist. My reasoning is that the idea of a God came out of some guy's ass in either an attempt to better the world or a schizophrenic "vision." I can easily say the moon is made of cheese if there is no counterexample for my statement. I suppose it all boils down to Joseph Goebel's word of "If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

I have another question about anecdotal "evidence" and historical "facts."

And just to reiterate, I believe very little of the bible is likely true in any historical, factual sense. But just for the sake of argument:

Say 2000 people all heard and recounted their experience of a speech given by Abraham Lincoln and how he said a certain thing and scratched his nose at a certain point during the speech and then coughed and reached for his handkerchief (or some other important political detail not recorded by official government documents or relatively reliable press). Why is it that we can take that consensus of eyewitness accounts to be an almost certain indication of a historical fact, and yet the anecdotal evidence of millions of believers as a mass delusion?

The way I understand how historical data is collected and confirmed and cross-referenced, that seems a bit incongruous. Am I missing some important aspect of it?

Ryan

Hey everyone,

I'm sure this is old news and everyone's already seen this already, so I'll apologize in advance for redundancy. I got into a lot of arguments over my beliefs when I first joined, some of which I couldn't respond to as articulately as I might have hoped, though I still stand firm in my understanding of things. I also think the Catholic church is a disgrace for the most part and am no longer a Christian, so the virgin birth, existence of Jesus, and the resurrection are all things of which I've become terribly skeptical.

Having said that, this priest, interviewed by Richard Dawkins, says so very many things I agree with that I doubt I could improve on them too much, namely on the cosmos, the origins of the universe, and the nature of god, be there such an entity, divorced also from his anthropomorphizing of it and his views on the soul:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc&feature=related

Thoughts welcome if you like.

Ryan

"And, behold, a woman, which was diseased with an issue of blood twelve years, came behind him, and touched the hem of his garment: for she said within herself, If I may but touch his garment, I shall be whole. But Jesus turned him about, and when he saw her, he said, Daughter, be of good comfort; thy faith hath made thee whole. And the woman was made whole from that hour." Matthew 9:20-22 KJV 

Can an individual's faith really lead to healing? The unbeliever says "no." But the scientific evidence says otherwise. Clinical studies have demonstrated that positive belief can lead to healing. It's called the placebo effect. IOW, if you believe a treatment will work, then it is more likely to actually work. Conversely, negative belief or skepticism can lead to harmful effects. This is known as the nocebo effect. Both the placebo effect and the nocebo effect are well known in medicine.

The placebo (typically a sugar pill) has proven successful in a variety of illnesses or disorders - especially in managing pain, treating ulcers and clinical depression.