Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"I have never heard of that "urban legend" until now."

Well, live and learn; you're welcome.

"As far as the "more complicated", it seems to me, at least for some, people believed it would do something for them and it did, isn't this the simple explanation but that some have no idea why this would be?"

Again, it's not that simple; a lot of education is required to understand how, exactly it works.

"Some people's "version" of the GOOD NEWS is not bad news, actually it goes way past being bad news, it is horrific news."

Well, what are you going to do, huh?

"As far as "keeping it to myself", you can take that up with God, God is the One Who chose me, not you."

I'm the one who talked him into giving you a second chance.

Don't count on my support with him in the future.

"If you are speaking about the computer that I am writing this on, as far as I know they do not have either a bath tub or shower in this library but thanks for the warning anyway."

You're welcome.

No matter how you shake and dance, the last few drops go down your pants.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

PSolus

I asked, ""And just what is the "urban legend of "placebos" as opposed to "the reality of the placebo effect"?""

You replied, "The urban legend of "placebos" is the belief that if one believes sufficiently that a sugar pill will do something if you take it, that something will indeed come about.
The reality of the placebo effect is much more complicated, and has nothing to do with belief."

I have never heard of that "urban legend" until now.

As far as the "more complicated", it seems to me, at least for some, people believed it would do something for them and it did, isn't this the simple explanation but that some have no idea why this would be?

You then wrote, "Well, you're a bad messenger, and your news is "Bad News"; really, you should keep it to yourself."

Some people's "version" of the GOOD NEWS is not bad news, actually it goes way past being bad news, it is horrific news.

As far as "keeping it to myself", you can take that up with God, God is the One Who chose me, not you.

You then wrote, "This is an electrical appliance - do not use in the bath tub or shower."

If you are speaking about the computer that I am writing this on, as far as I know they do not have either a bath tub or shower in this library but thanks for the warning anyway.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Carstonio

You wrote, "True. I'm talking about a third position, where the person insists that his position on gods (existence or nonexistence) is irrefutable fact." and "Obviously many believers on both sides don't make claims of fact that way - I'm only talking about the instances where they do."

I fall into the "third position" as you put it.

You then wrote, "What I am arguing is that the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts as fact that the supernatural exists, or asserts as fact that it doesn't."

I have stated that God Is and is a Trinity and is a Being of Pure Love and I have also stated that the "burden of proof" is not on me but on God and God will, in God's Time and in God's Way, furnish this "burden of proof".

I wrote, "There is a difference between believing, even fervently believing, and knowing."

You replied, "Would you explain what you see as the distinction?"

The simple definitions of the words.

You then wrote, "Daniel Patrick Moynihan is credited with saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts."

And as he said, this is his opinion but as I have said this "fact", that God Is, is not "my own fact" but a "fact" supplied to me by God and the verification of this "fact" will be supplied by God to others as I have already said, in God's Time and in God's Way.

You then wrote, "Sure. I wasn't arguing the opposite. My point is about claiming as fact that an afterlife exists, or claiming as fact that it doesn't, and many people do make those claims. Either way, one could be mistaken and have no way of knowing it."

I am claiming as a "fact" that Jesus is God-Incarnate and He is the One Who spoke of an "afterlife" and I believe Him.

You then wrote, "That has nothing to do what I mean by "safe." I was referring to the goal of making sure that any propositions that one holds are as factually accurate as possible, disregarding any where one cannot be certain of their accuracy."

The "fact" that God revealed to me in a way that I could understand that GOD IS, could not be any more "factually accurate" and God will be the One to confirm this.

You then wrote, " I mean "safe" in the sense of avoiding being mistaken in one's propositions. Better no position than a mistaken position."

If no one took a position on anything until they were "safe" than no one would take a position on anything.

As I have said, I believed in God before I met God.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"And just what is the "urban legend of "placebos" as opposed to "the reality of the placebo effect"?"

The urban legend of "placebos" is the belief that if one believes sufficiently that a sugar pill will do something if you take it, that something will indeed come about.

The reality of the placebo effect is much more complicated, and has nothing to do with belief.

"I never claimed to be a good messenger, just a messenger of the "Good News"."

Well, you're a bad messenger, and your news is "Bad News"; really, you should keep it to yourself.

"How do you know whether or not God is pleased?"

I had coffee with him yesterday (he just can't seem to get enough mocha latte), and he beatched up a storm about you; he even asked me if I could suggest someone that he could replace you with.

I calmed him down, and convinced him to give you another chance.

You're welcome.

"God is the God of All not just of me."

No, your imaginary god is just for you; other people have their own imaginary gods; or no gods at all, as the case may be.

This is an electrical appliance - do not use in the bath tub or shower.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

***There is a difference between speaking of what one believes/knows and trying to cram something down another's throat.***

True. I'm talking about a third position, where the person insists that his position on gods (existence or nonexistence) is irrefutable fact. The person may not be trying to cram this down other people's throats, but the claim still deserves scrutiny like any other claim of fact. Obviously many believers on both sides don't make claims of fact that way - I'm only talking about the instances where they do.

***I thank God that you do seem to have seen what I meant***

I've never denied here that the existence of the supernatural is possible. Am I arguing that the supernatural doesn't exist? No. What I am arguing is that the burden of proof is on anyone who asserts as fact that the supernatural exists, or asserts as fact that it doesn't.

***There is a difference between believing, even fervently believing, and knowing.***

Would you explain what you see as the distinction? Daniel Patrick Moynihan is credited with saying that everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not to their own facts. The supernatural is a question of fact - either it exists or it doesn't, and it seems strange to hold beliefs about such questions as if they were merely opinions. That's like saying, "In my opinion, Delaware was the first state to ratify the U.S. Constitution."

***the "mortality rate" of the human race seems to be hovering right around a 100% so it seems to me to be perfectly acceptable for people to think about things besides this very temporary life on earth, don't you?***

Sure. I wasn't arguing the opposite. My point is about claiming as fact that an afterlife exists, or claiming as fact that it doesn't, and many people do make those claims. Either way, one could be mistaken and have no way of knowing it.

***By the way, it is not a safe world and some of the "safest" places in the world are the ones that have turned their very "existence" into a police state.***

That has nothing to do what I mean by "safe." I was referring to the goal of making sure that any propositions that one holds are as factually accurate as possible, disregarding any where one cannot be certain of their accuracy. I mean "safe" in the sense of avoiding being mistaken in one's propositions. Better no position than a mistaken position.

Carstonio

You wrote, "My proposal may need some explanation - it involves a religious version of a lingua franca, where people from different religious perspectives can talk about shared values in a way that doesn't presume that everyone should believe in one religion's gods."

I believe that there are many that do this already unless you are speaking of taking some out of all to come up with a "blend" and I believe that there are also some that do this.

There is a difference between speaking of what one believes/knows and trying to cram something down another's throat.

There is also a difference between speaking of what one believes/knows and watering it down to utter meaninglessness.

You then wrote, "Sure, but not in the way you might suggest."

I thank God that you do seem to have seen what I meant and I would like to add that just because someone says that they "know" something does not mean that they do, in fact, know something or even mean know as opposed to believe since it seems as if quite a few interchange the words (believe and know) when these words do not mean the same thing.

There is a difference between believing, even fervently believing, and knowing.

You then wrote, "I'm proposing that it may be safer and more reliable to leave the existence and type of an afterlife as an open question in terms of how we live our lives."

I'm saying that you already have that option and other people should live their lives as they see fit.

Whether or not one believes in any kind of "afterlife", the "mortality rate" of the human race seems to be hovering right around a 100% so it seems to me to be perfectly acceptable for people to think about things besides this very temporary life on earth, don't you?

By the way, it is not a safe world and some of the "safest" places in the world are the ones that have turned their very "existence" into a police state.

I suppose you have heard the statement, "Those that have exchanged their freedom for security will one day wake up to find neither"?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PSolus

You wrote, "You're confusing the urban legend of "placebos" with the reality of the placebo effect."

And just what is the "urban legend of "placebos" as opposed to "the reality of the placebo effect"?

You also wrote, "Bad messenger." and "Your god is not pleased."

I never claimed to be a good messenger, just a messenger of the "Good News".

How do you know whether or not God is pleased?

God is the God of All not just of me.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

***I think that people should be able to talk about whatever they want to talk about, not just what other people think what they should or shouldn't talk about...***

Who said anything about telling people they shouldn't talk about certain things? My proposal may need some explanation - it involves a religious version of a lingua franca, where people from different religious perspectives can talk about shared values in a way that doesn't presume that everyone should believe in one religion's gods.

***Has it ever occurred to you that others might "know" something that you don't know?***

Sure, but not in the way you might suggest. It's very possible that abilities such as extrasensory perception exist. The question is how to verify these in ways other than the person's word for it. As an analogy, if I say I'm thinking of a pink elephant, no one can really know that I am indeed thinking that. They only know that I say that I do, and I could be lying and be thinking of an orange elephant instead.

***Has it ever occurred to you that "values" can be based on more than "calculated scientific fact"?***

That's another point I made that needs some explanation. Lang wrote that "For many agnostics and atheists, nothing awaits us after our death, and this reality acts as a powerful incentive to live life to its fullest now." Hypothetically, what would those atheists do if evidence turned up of an afterlife? Much of what they've done with their lives would be invalid. The reverse would be true for believers in an afterlife if evidence turned up of no afterlife, or an afterlife was far different from their beliefs. I'm proposing that it may be safer and more reliable to leave the existence and type of an afterlife as an open question in terms of how we live our lives.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"For just one example, what about placeboes?"

You're confusing the urban legend of "placebos" with the reality of the placebo effect.

Bad messenger.

Your god is not pleased.

Shake well before using.

Insincerely, Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

Carstonio

You wrote, "We don't know if there is or isn't an afterlife or an inherently created purpose. So I propose that we take such questions off the table when we talk about values such as purpose and community and connectedness."

I think that people should be able to talk about whatever they want to talk about, not just what other people think what they should or shouldn't talk about and I believe that this happens to be one of the good ideas that the USA was founded upon.

You then wrote, "Discussions of values should be based only on what we know."

Has it ever occurred to you that others might "know" something that you don't know?

Has it ever occurred to you that "values" can be based on more than "calculated scientific fact"?

You then wrote, "Such claims that can't be proven true or false are not worth consideration except as intellectual exercises."

This is your opinion and you are entitled to it but should your opinion "trump" all others?

Whether or not someone believes that God created us, it is pretty well established that reason is not the only thing that mankind is endowed with and if reason is the only thing that we use in speaking of "values" or in living one's life than what a sadder, bleaker world this is coming to.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

PSolus

You wrote, "If "one's belief had no bearing on whether or not something is true", then one's belief has no real meaning in this world, and one's belief is therefore, meaningless."

For just one example, what about placeboes?

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

All people live for an eternity.

I look at my children.

To the people I've crossed path with.

This moment happened.

This is confirmed by observing nature.

For some reason, the quotes didn't show up properly. Let me try again...

***For many agnostics and atheists, nothing awaits us after our death, and this reality acts as a powerful incentive to live life to its fullest now.***

We don't know if there is or isn't an afterlife or an inherently created purpose. So I propose that we take such questions off the table when we talk about values such as purpose and community and connectedness. Discussions of values should be based only on what we know. One doesn't have to believe in answers to unknowable questions to deem those values as good things.

***fail to realize that not all knowledge can be obtained in the lab.***

For argument's sake, I ask what knowledge can be obtained through avenues other than the scientific method. I don't mean necessarily lab work, but any endeavor where one gathers evidence, proposes theories that best explain the evidence, tests those theories against new evidence, and revises the theories if these are contradicted by new evidence. My main criticism of supernatural claims is that they're not falsifiable. That doesn't mean that they're false, but it does mean that they're indistinguishable from speculation. Such claims that can't be proven true or false are not worth consideration except as intellectual exercises.

For many agnostics and atheists, nothing awaits us after our death, and this reality acts as a powerful incentive to live life to its fullest now.

We don't know if there is or isn't an afterlife or an inherently created purpose. So I propose that we take such questions off the table when we talk about values such as purpose and community and connectedness. Discussions of values should be based only on what we know. One doesn't have to believe in answers to unknowable questions to deem those values as good things.

fail to realize that not all knowledge can be obtained in the lab.

For argument's sake, I ask what knowledge can be obtained outside of the scientific method. I don't mean necessarily lab work, but any endeavor where one gathers evidence, proposes theories that best explain the evidence, tests those theories against new evidence, and revises the theories if these are contradicted by new evidence. My main criticism of supernatural claims is that they're not falsifiable. That doesn't mean that they're false, but it does mean that they're indistinguishable from speculation. Such claims that can't be proven true or false are not worth consideration except as intellectual exercises.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"I do not think and I did not say that beliefs are meaningless, not even close, what I said was one's belief had no bearing on whether or not something is true."

If "one's belief had no bearing on whether or not something is true", then one's belief has no real meaning in this world, and one's belief is therefore, meaningless.

Refrigerate after opening - use or freeze within three days of purchase.

Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

PSolus

I wrote, ""Whether anyone believes that God Is and that satan is real, created, or believes that there is no God or gods or demons has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God Is and whether or not that satan is real.""

You replied, "I agree; beliefs are meaningless."

I do not think and I did not say that beliefs are meaningless, not even close, what I said was one's belief had no bearing on whether or not something is true.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Thomas Paul Moses Baum,

"Just because you "find it perplexing that any modern person would believe in demons" does not change the fact that many modern persons, including scientists, do in fact believe that satan is real and also believe in God."

I agree; many people believe many stupid things.

"Whether anyone believes that God Is and that satan is real, created, or believes that there is no God or gods or demons has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God Is and whether or not that satan is real."

I agree; beliefs are meaningless.

"No matter what anyone says, it is a "belief" that there is no God or gods or demons because there is no "proof" that there is no God or gods or demons especially if one is to take the scientific method seriously."

For example, that sentence simply states one of your meaningless beliefs.

One can also choose not to have any beliefs.

Change your poo-poo undies daily.

Peregrine Bartleby Rumpelstiltskin Solus

DanielintheLionsDen

Just because you "find it perplexing that any modern person would believe in demons" does not change the fact that many modern persons, including scientists, do in fact believe that satan is real and also believe in God.

Whether anyone believes that God Is and that satan is real, created, or believes that there is no God or gods or demons has absolutely no bearing on whether or not God Is and whether or not that satan is real.

No matter what anyone says, it is a "belief" that there is no God or gods or demons because there is no "proof" that there is no God or gods or demons especially if one is to take the scientific method seriously.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Abrahamhab1

"Even scientific evidences such as audio and video tapes are not accepted as data if they do not fit their preconceived notions."

Audio and video tapes are not scientific evidence, since they can be easily faked. That should be obvious to anyone. The tapes are being used to demonstrate something that is supposed to be real, but that no one will ever experience any other way than by observing the tapes. That is not scientific. That is a characteristic of junk-science.

I am assuming that this is about demon possession in a previous Susan Jacoby thread. I find it perplexing that any modern person would believe in demons or demon posession. It is not even on the radar of science; it is not even up for consideration among scientific circles; go ahead and believe in these things if you like, but just realize that such beliefs are antique, out-dated, and without any credence, validity, or merit at all.

abrahamhab1,

"I have always assumed that atheists are open minded people who arrived at their “religion “by reason and by evidence. Yet the more I deal with them the more I realize that they are skeptical beyond reason. No logic, no physical data, no witnesses, no documentation whether audio, video or other does sway their established notions....[etc., etc., etc.]"

Perhaps you should just try not to think about them, and try to avoid them.

Oooppssa. Posted on Wrong spool. Happy Every-Day!

YES! The Prophecy is Come to pass THAT;

Abolishing the White-House's illegal "Church-Based" entity therein based on "iNstead Of Constitution" is GOOD CIVILITY [Fiduciary/Public-Duty & Private-Duty].

DID YE KNOW:

Around 1985, under the tutelary of Prez Ronald REGAN {pbuh Et Al} and with blessings from George BUSH SR. officials who 1st, from me knowledge, invited the 'Church-Based" King EVANGELICAL, Mr. Billy Graham {pbuh} & his Sisters and Brethren's or CO.

Then in the 1990's it was BILL CLINTON & Gang, Who's Living IRISH Ancestor's Nation Today is BANKRUPT & about to get a IMF and or EURO, POUND "HANDOUT" or Welfare Check.

Then in the 2001's+ it was the NEPOTIST SON (not Jesus) of G. BUSH via Prez G. W. BUSH & Robber Barron's, that setup the $2,000,000,000 a Year "Church-Based" Payment In Kind? or Eucharist instead of "Pork" disbursements (Politic Institution in bed with the "Church" Institution?. AND

Today , the 'Faith-Based Illegal (INSTEAD OF CONSTITUTION) entity's as Corporations (and TAX Exempt) are Still embedded in the White-House-Skin like Tick's or Bed-Bugs suckin on da Victim, not The Sucker!? SO,

TODAY it is also more-so with the Current ADMIN via Mr. (IN THE MIDDLE of All This) Borak H. OBAMA & his NEPOTIST Hillary CLINTON {an ILLEGAL , Secretary of State's, Contrary to Constitution & his Ventriloquist 'Queen' (Not '1st Lady' nor Me Lady) Nancy POLOSI, LLC.

LESSON: A SECULAR-'White-House' must never Sleep-in-bed with any "CHURCH.' Because not that it's some "Hand Writings on da Wall" that's Advertising "NO NO.." to US but the realization That the White-House is infested with Church-Based Beg Bug's and them un-Godly parasites.
___

SUGGESTION: Let All tax-free "CHURCH"s {Synagogues, Mosques, Temples...} GIVE SHARES and later BUY & SELL- SHARES of the "Net-Worth' of All Their Church-ASSETS"????

The ROman-Catholic Church's in America is Probably Worth at least $1,000,000,000,000, Yes; Trillion Dollars+. SO,

WHY Can't Their "CONSTITUENCY's, CONGREGANT'S, ASPIRANTS.. of Each Church have "Automatic Rights" to Own or Control Business-Interests, via in SHARES trading, BORROWING, Lending in their Church etc.??

Example: Lets Take, The Rick WARREN's Saddle Back Church's Empire Total Net-Asset Value or The value of big mouths like FARWELL or GRAHAMs (Tax Exempt) Mega-Church. And IF one was to simply DIVIDE the 'Members' into the NET-ASSET VALUE of 'Saddle-Back-Church or Roman Catholic Church, Baptists et al; That

They surely can do UNCLE-SAM & AUNT LiBERTY & "The-People', a whole lot of Good buy Doing Just That. And so, the illegal Church's in the White-House must "LET GO" let Go of the "WHITE-HOUSE-Skin"! Soo,

O' Church's, HARK'n our Voices Man, Like an EXORCIST; "LEAVE US, CHURCH! Note: CHURCH(s) here ar CAPITALISTS who compete in a "NAME FOR G_D!"

Go Suck somewhere else SATAN!!

Note: ANYONE who preaches "SOCIALISM" is always lurking a Step Closer to COMMUNISM!

WE ARE A [Secular] REPUBLIC!

I have always assumed that atheists are open minded people who arrived at their “religion “by reason and by evidence. Yet the more I deal with them the more I realize that they are skeptical beyond reason. No logic, no physical data, no witnesses, no documentation whether audio, video or other does sway their established notions. They claim to practice the scientific method to gain knowledge but fail to realize that not all knowledge can be obtained in the lab. Even scientific evidences such as audio and video tapes are not accepted as data if they do not fit their preconceived notions. They dismiss offhand phenomena experienced by various cultures at varying historical times. Most though seem to be former Catholics and their “conversion” seem to be a revenge for some real or imagined harm.