Then I misunderstood you, I thought you were still defending that survey as something that should somehow refute a test of ability, which seemed to be the gist of your previous conversation with me.

I have stated from the very beginning I don't see this as a good measure for choosing doctors and that I would not actually use it in real life. Rather it is something that I see favoring atheists as a trend, and I would therefore choose the atheist if I knew nothing else. it does not mean that they a) are better doctors or b) individual judgment based on this would be correct. You seem to struggle to understand this, and your increase in use of abrasive language doesn't make it seem like you plan to either.

Perhaps this example can make it clearer:

A coin flips to heads three times in a row. What should you bet on the next time?

oh also, to digress on one interesting point: I think there's an argument to be had about whether or not any of the OT titles for God that get translated pantokrator in greek (YHWH Sabaoth? I think others) and from pantokrator to omnipotens in latin actually should be read as meaning omnipotence in the modern logical sense, rather than (especially in hebrew) denoting the idea of absolute authority, an absolute monarch. Even though I realize it is not quite pious to speculate that God isn't omnipotent. But if I were going to argue against it it would be in the context of favoring Pannikar's cosmotheandric intuition over traditional creational monotheism.

1. Double the wager
2. Place it on "tails"
3. Profit

TD you clearly aren't that sharp of an atheist if you haven't discovered martingale yet.... Easy money...

Haha theists rule and atheists drool!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system)

What? This isn't smp can you dumb this down please.

I'm with you on heads.

I thought my question clear enough and my tone may have reflected that, I've accepted your earlier claim is relatively benign and I've mentioned you don't actually choose on those grounds or think they are good grounds to choose.

My claim has been with regard to your data that it loses relevance if we are talking about a group that is selected for those very abilities.

A little late, but MightyBoosh did more than state a preference, he also said how that preference would affect his actions: "...only that people who have supernatural beliefs make me uncomfortable and that I'd choose [a doctor] who didn't believe that a greater power is at work."

I'm doubtful that there is a general problem of intolerance towards theistic doctors so in the real world this isn't a problem, but if preferences like MightyBoosh's became common, then you would see real harm come to perfectly competent theistic doctors (you see clear examples of this among African-American doctors and lawyers during the nineteenth-century, where white people who didn't feel comfortable being treated or represented by them forced them to charge less for their services).

I know a lot of Christians who prefer Christian doctors and don't trust non-Christian doctors.

when we talk about omnipotence we first think "can do literally anything" and then maybe argue about whether omnipotence includes the ability to do the logically impossible. In other words we talk about omnipotence as primarily a question about what is maximally possible.

The biblical terms that are translated as "almighty" in to english don't necessarily support that understanding, especially if they are understood in a context where the reference point was the idea of the power of a Ruler. Obviously God in the monotheism of Judaism and early Christianity has great power and perhaps it's correct to extrapolate from miracles and healings to omnipotence in the logical sense. But maybe it's not, or at least maybe it needs qualifying. I would say it obviously needs qualifying to some extent, and we always do. What else is "God works in mysterious ways?" or any response to any of the various problems of evil other than qualifications on the idea of omnipotence/omniscience/omnibenevolence.

I don't actually have a strong opinion I just think the ideas are worth exploring.

I've long thought that the conceptions of God developed in sophisticated Catholic and Protestant theologies is usually not consistent with the God of the Bible, especially the Old Testament God. That God is not presented as being omnibenevolent--he is described as being jealous, angry, and so on, and commands the violent death and torture of thousands of people (and remember there is no afterlife in the Old Testament). He is not really all-knowing or powerful either--as evidenced in part by all the difficulties he has in getting anyone to do what he wants. But then, I don't even think the Old Testament is monotheistic, so...

I assume when you say the OT is not monotheistic you mean that they believed that the Gods of the other nations were real, but simply not to be worshipped, which would be a sort of polytheism? That seems to be a reasonable proposition for the earliest writings, although perhaps not by the time you get to Isaiah, wherein you find "I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God"

Not entirely different than saying "you shall have no other gods before me", that is, there are other gods, just not necessarily what we imagine. When Moses took too long on the mount, the people made a "god" of gold.

Check out http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossex...-in-the-bible/

Interesting read, particularly the comments. I argue how well versed he is in biblical history if he concludes that the exile was because the Babylonian God won some sort of battle, when the prophets, I believe Jeremiah (?) note that God specifically allowed the captivity due to sin.

I think that's a little bit of good old atheist eye-rolling sarcasm

I see. Never heard of Bob Seidensticker, but I think it's amusing he's mixing it up in the comments.

I had already commented on that:

Now, if it's there, it would be helpful to point it out. I do recall one conversation in which someone kept saying "It's in the thread" and after an exhaustive search by multiple posters, nobody could find what he was referring to.

So I give you the opportunity to cite your source, or quote yourself citing your source.

Perhaps this example can make it clearer:

A coin flips to heads three times in a row. What is the denomination of the coin?

Ok, And I don't know how else to convince that that because I know someone is a Christian, I now know that they believe in god. I think that you think I'm making assumptions far beyond that, but I'm not. Knowing that someone believes in a god tells me something about how they think.

Does god's relationship with you change?

What about the fact that if the supernatural were to be proven, it would now not be supernatural anymore, it would be natural. Bearing in mind that the term is itself defined by being above or beyond natural law.

From my perspective, anything that is supernatural is something that hasn't been proven to be natural and as far we know, simply isn't real.

So the more people who pray for the same thing, the more it is likely to happen? I'm really quite surprised by some of the things you've said ITT, most of all by the claim that god needs demonstrations of faith, like some needy parent looking for love from their children. If I believed in a god, I'd believe in one a little more aloof and independent than that.

What I meant was that god, living in an eternal now and knowing exactly how everything is going to turn out, would know that he feels one way about something but that he will later (now?) feel differently, at the same time. Noodle baking stuff, even when you don't factor in that god has changed his mind, why would he ever need to do that? God changing his mind is the second most surprising thing you've said ITT IMO.

If god created the universe and has the powers described in the bible, I can't see why my believing in him, or not, would make any difference at all to his power to intercede in my life. Does disbelief make me immune to his power? It seems like that's what you're saying. What's far more likely, especially given all the gods that you don't believe in too and who don't have any power over you because you don't think that they're real, is that he just doesn't exist either.

I don't think that this is the same. Racism is based on assumed characteristics but I know something about theistic doctors, and that's that they believe in a god, they believe in something considered supernatural. I'm not assuming this, it's a fact. The question is one of whether or not this actually makes a difference to their level of care.

What do you think about the fact that atheist doctors are more liekly to help the terminally ill die, to avoid prolonged suffering, where theist doctors are less likely? I realise that I'm flipping the problem but it's still a medically related harm caused by religious beliefs, no? In my serious illness scenario, that would cause me to choose an atheist over a theist.

Well, the way I was looking at it was that once I'd ruled out any theological reasons, all that was left was sociological reasons, and I was ruling out theological reasons. So far, the theological reasons put forward seem to either be pointless (in that it doesn't seem that they could have an effect on/with god) or self serving and therefore actually sociological (if we use 'sociological' as a catch-all for all non-theological reasons). Maybe there should be a third category of 'personal'.

Simply that prayer is solely a belief reinforcement mechanism.

I'm saying that it doesn't matter if they understand why they're doing it or not, it can still have the same effect. Sometimes it's unknowing, sometimes (as with the 12 steps example), it's often knowing and still effective. It's particularity clever IMO when the point is obvious, and people still do it. National anthems might be another example. People sing them fully understanding that it's an act of patriotism, that strengthens patriotism, but they do it anyway because they like feeling patriotic and consider it important.

This is something that it's a little tricky to provide evidence for How do I prove that prayer isn't influencing a god I don't even believe in? I could cite some studies but I'm sure you already know about them. But I don't see how, logically, intercessory prayer is effective and so the person praying might as well be talking to themselves as to god, it actually makes no difference if god is listening or not in terms of the divine part of the outcome. They may believe that they can influence god, as you point out, or they may be getting something else entirely from praying.

I've started reading that PDF but it's quite long so you'll have to give me some time.

I meant numbers as in faith may requires you to pray for a period of time, as in perseverance. That you don't just give up right away.

I didn't say (mean?) that God needs anything, but as far as demonstrations of faith, what I said is that you often can't separate the demonstration from the actual faith, because the demonstration often IS faith. That was my point with the whole umbrella thing - that without the umbrella you don't show faith, but the umbrella itself is meaningless.

No doubt that's a weird thing to think about. God often picks the best people for the job at that moment, knowing they would later not be the best person for the job.

It's a biblical principle that disbelief, or lack of faith, hinders God's hand in your life. Sin separates us from God, I'm sure you've heard that before. Does that mean that God *can't* intercede in your life? I would say not necessarily, since there are instances where this can be seen, by God speaking to people who don't believe in him. The things to take from this is that God is pleased with faith, and is the reason why prayer is said to be effective.

No, it tells you something about what they think. This not-so-subtle distinction plagues your reasoning in many ways.

Incarceration rates.

Besides, you're clearly assuming characteristics about theistic doctors. You're trying to infer from a singular belief a type of mental deficiency.

It's a fact that they believe in God. Beyond that is mere speculation. It's much like if a theist were to claim "He's an atheist, so he must think life is meaningless." It's failed logic all the way around.