God: No magic required

[lweisenthal]

Hi Rasetsu,

It was pragmatism that caused me to consider and explore plausibility, as I explained briefly in one of my introductory posts, and which is described in greater detail on the web site I'm not permitted to link.

Once I'd become convinced of both potential advantages (pragmatism) and plausibility, I then proceeded to do a clinical trial, as described earlier. For one year, I regularly attended three different types of religious services, at which I suspended disbelief, as in participatory theater. I opened my heart. I fully participated. At a certain point, I began to believe -- not in all the doctrinal details, but in the basics: God exists, hears my prayers, and answers my prayers. I believe this, because of personal experience, but I would be foolish to assert that there is no possibility that what seems like truthful reality to me is not a product of some sort of placebo effect. There is no "crime," God-wise, in having a sense of doubtfulness. Mother Theresa, for goodness sake, had strong doubts, and so have many of the most prominent proponents of various religions.

I constantly challenge my beliefs -- in part through reading and considering books such as "The Divinity of Doubt" and in part through discussions with people who aren't believers, from family members to anonymous people on Internet discussion boards, such as this. But I do believe in God and I believe that God knows that I believe in God and I believe that God most definitely answers the sorts of prayers which are of greatest importance to me.

So the progression is as follows:

pragmatism --> search for plausibility --> plausibility --> search for faith --> faith

With regard to "quack cancer treatments," that's entirely libelous, coming from someone who scribbles Internet graffiti anonymously, on a web site which won't even allow me to post links to defend myself against said libel.

Unlike you, Rasetsu, I'm a real person, with a real name, a real family, and a real reputation. You are a coward who hides behind a pseudonym and who appears to be incapable of understanding the concept of the honest difference of opinion and to be incapable of discussing said difference of opinion without resorting to the classic ad hominem attack of the classic anonymous Internet graffiti scribbler.

- Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach CA

You can choose plausibility, in which case belief is unjustified, or you can choose pragmatism, the "I believe because it benefits me to do so." You can't waffle back and forth to suit the temporary need of your argument. That's the sin of equivocation, and it means the things you've written aren't worth shit.

On top of everything, I'm relatively confident that those studies refer to people who believe because they truly believe, not just because studies demonstrate that believers live longer. Since you belong to the latter category, or are advocating people join that category, none of the studies you've referenced even apply because they refer to a different category of religious believer. So, no, your words and argument are crap, and your studies don't apply in the way you need them to apply, so they're crap too.

Do you have anything that isn't crap? Oh wait. I forgot. You made a point of explaining how you seek out groups that are diametrically opposed to you for the experience of heated discussion. Since most folk here are, obviously, atheist, that paints you as self-consciously theist, despite your horse shit about "passing as an atheist." I wonder how this God whom you believe in for the health benefit feels about you being a lying sack of shit. And are there any health benefits to being a lying sack of shit? Well, I guess you'd know the answer to that (yes, I've perused some of your professional representations). It probably doesn't benefit your patients for you to peddle quack cancer treatments to them, but I'm sure it helps you jet set in style.

Have I overlooked any of your other lies and boneheaded bullshit? I'm sure I'll get back to it if I have.