Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
I didn't think anyone sells placebos, as such. Sure, homeopathic shit. But, isn't a placebo a way to define the control in a drugs trial? One group gets the real treatment, another gets the placebo (null) treatment.

Even if that were the case and it isn't, because homoeopathy = placebos, t hey just pretend otherwise, in control groups people usually aren't told either that they're completely helpless and need the placebo to get better.

Homeopathic pills = sugar
Placebo pill = sugar

Homeopathic pills = sugar = placebo pill

AFAIK homoeopathic stuff tends to be water, or actual medicine greatly diluted in/with water.
My point is that neither will actually heal help you, both are sold/promised to you as being helpful, but neither as being necessary because you're completely powerless without divine intervention.

Homeopathic pills are made from an inert substance (often sugars, typically lactose), upon which a drop of liquid homeopathic preparation is placed and allowed to evaporate.

The_Metatron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Even if that were the case and it isn't, because homoeopathy = placebos, t hey just pretend otherwise, in control groups people usually aren't told either that they're completely helpless and need the placebo to get better.

Homeopathic pills = sugar
Placebo pill = sugar

Homeopathic pills = sugar = placebo pill

AFAIK homoeopathic stuff tends to be water, or actual medicine greatly diluted in/with water.
My point is that neither will actually heal help you, both are sold/promised to you as being helpful, but neither as being necessary because you're completely powerless without divine intervention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopath ... ngredients

Homeopathic pills are made from an inert substance (often sugars, typically lactose), upon which a drop of liquid homeopathic preparation is placed and allowed to evaporate.

The_Metatron wrote:That placebos are useless is the point. As useless as homeopathy. Considering they are the exact same physical thing, how is this a problem?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:That placebos are useless is the point. As useless as homeopathy. Considering they are the exact same physical thing, how is this a problem?

How did you get from my original post that I considered it a problem in the first place?
I was merely pointing out to KIR that placebos aren't analogous to AA praying.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:
Er, yes they do.

Nope.

Most placebos are sold as helping your body cure itself, not as divine intervention required by the powerless.

I didn't think anyone sells placebos, as such. Sure, homeopathic shit. But, isn't a placebo a way to define the control in a drugs trial? One group gets the real treatment, another gets the placebo (null) treatment.

Even if that were the case and it isn't, because homoeopathy = placebos, t hey just pretend otherwise, in control groups people usually aren't told either that they're completely helpless and need the placebo to get better.

The_Metatron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:That placebos are useless is the point. As useless as homeopathy. Considering they are the exact same physical thing, how is this a problem?

How did you get from my original post that I considered it a problem in the first place?
I was merely pointing out to KIR that placebos aren't analogous to AA praying.

Right here, where you said homeopathy isn't placebo:

The_Metatron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Nope.

Most placebos are sold as helping your body cure itself, not as divine intervention required by the powerless.

I didn't think anyone sells placebos, as such. Sure, homeopathic shit. But, isn't a placebo a way to define the control in a drugs trial? One group gets the real treatment, another gets the placebo (null) treatment.

Even if that were the case and it isn't, because homoeopathy = placebos, t hey just pretend otherwise, in control groups people usually aren't told either that they're completely helpless and need the placebo to get better.

Both placebos (which aren't confined to pill form) and homeopathy (also not confined to pill form) have no active ingredients. In this respect, they are absolutely identical. They are nothing, they do nothing.

The_Metatron wrote:Apparently, I'm seeing what I want to see.

I came here for an argument.

Sorry, man.

Keep It Real wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Keep It Real wrote:A pill is substantive, as is god. Moving the furniture around is not.

Why not just get bigger furniture, then?

Also: God is substantive. I like the inherent contradiction.

Something that interacts with your inner biology, then.

Keep It Real wrote:My god only exists where it is talked about or thought about or written about. Substantive though still.

Keep It Real wrote:So placebos work even if those taking them know they are placebos. Therefore if you pray for improvements in your character, asking god to strengthen and guide you, this should be effective even if there is no god. I'm going to pray for fortitude tonight, I think.

And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Skinny Puppy wrote:I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting.

Fallible wrote:What you describe seems to be a rather loose definition of 'work'. If I experience a reprieve from the pain caused by my arthritis, all that's happened is I don't feel the pain from it. Nothing has happened to the underlying fact that the cartilage between my bones in my joints has worn away. The osteophytes are still present. No healing has occurred, and there has not been a curing of the condition. If anything, this strikes me as slightly worrying in such a situation, because if one feels no pain, then they could become less cautious, potentially leading to more damage.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Prayer is bunk.
The prayer no more cured those people than homoeopathy cures people.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting.

I've seen anecdotes first-hand. I still don't accept them as evidence for anything beyond humankind's natural gifts for bias, rationalizing, and confabulating.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting.

I've seen anecdotes first-hand. I still don't accept them as evidence for anything beyond humankind's natural gifts for bias, rationalizing, and confabulating.

Well I do have first-hand knowledge of these ‘miracles’, but as you’ve stated, that is nowhere near the entry level of proof.

The problem here (from an atheist’s POV), is that logic, reasoning and an intellectual discussion of why religion is bunk will fall on deaf ears when the person has ‘proof positive’ of God’s healing powers. If one has endured years of pain and then in an instant God heals them, they are not about to turn their back on God.

If they denounce God then they’ll go back to having that pain since they only received their ‘cure’ through the Grace of God and by having unshakeable faith in Him. (A technical note: actually it was Jesus that did it since He was our advocate for God.)

Religious fanatics (I was once one) are a very hard nut to crack because they have ‘living proof’ (in their eyes) that God is real and present in their lives.

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:

ScholasticSpastic wrote:

Skinny Puppy wrote:I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting.

I've seen anecdotes first-hand. I still don't accept them as evidence for anything beyond humankind's natural gifts for bias, rationalizing, and confabulating.

Well I do have first-hand knowledge of these ‘miracles’, but as you’ve stated, that is nowhere near the entry level of proof.

The problem here (from an atheist’s POV), is that logic, reasoning and an intellectual discussion of why religion is bunk will fall on deaf ears when the person has ‘proof positive’ of God’s healing powers. If one has endured years of pain and then in an instant God heals them, they are not about to turn their back on God.

If they denounce God then they’ll go back to having that pain since they only received their ‘cure’ through the Grace of God and by having unshakeable faith in Him. (A technical note: actually it was Jesus that did it since He was our advocate for God.)

Religious fanatics (I was once one) are a very hard nut to crack because they have ‘living proof’ (in their eyes) that God is real and present in their lives.

I'm married to a devoutly religious woman. I understand the extent to which rampant confirmation bias can have religious people ascribing all sorts of coincidences and human efforts to divine intervention. This tendency toward rampant confirmation bias weakens, and does not strengthen, your position when you say things like, "I’ve seen prayer work first-hand on many, many occasions and the cure was lasting."

No, you most likely have not. You have seen lucky coincidences and/or human efforts attributed to divine intervention, and you have fallen victim to the same confirmation bias when you forgot the misses. I'm not talking about proof. I'm talking about evidence from a reasonable and fairly applied standard for evidence. There isn't even any evidence, let alone proof, that prayer does anything, when one works to avoid bias. And if prayer only works when you're biased, then it probably does not work at all.