I have certainly noticed how much thicker science texts have become since we threw out the notion that all the answers to the nature of the universe could be found in the religious texts of a group of Middlle Eastern theists.

Interesting, Jherek - you've 'noticed' something that isn't true. I would ignore that untruth if I were you, or at least not continue to promote it.

In addition, I hope you don't actually consider that the size of a book automatically connotes greater knowledge or wisdom - if that were the case, the US tax code would be the epitome of all knowledge.

Greg you and Laureen entitle to any foolish opinion you care to hold. I will accept that there is knowledge in your Bible if you can show me a talking snake or donkey as described therein; or that "pi" is equal to three as described therein; or that someone can drink poison ( a quart of laundry bleach would do) because they believe in a deity that had a son via a human woman and then "died" and was then brought back to life.

Jherek, you've jumped to a lot of conclusions about what I believe, and thrown in a few more 'non-facts' to boot.

I am not familiar with anywhere in the Bible that claims that pi is equal to three - could you cite the source for that? Nor, for that matter where anyone in the bible 'drinks poison because they believe in God' - where did you find that?

As for your other objections, there are many books which could do a much better job than I could of answering some of your questions, if you are interested, but it sounds like you've pretty much made up your mind - careful, someone might label you 'narrow-minded' and 'intolerant'.

In addition, if your standard for willingness to believe in something is that you have to be shown its existence in some material way or that the event has to be reproduced, then I suppose you don't believe in electricity, Abraham Lincoln, the Big Bang, neutrons and electrons, magnetism, love . . .

One of the most famous mathematical statements in the Bible is in I Kings 7:23-26, describing a large cauldron, or "molten sea" in the Temple of Solomon:

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it. Below the rim, gourds encircled it - ten to a cubit. The gourds were cast in two rows in one piece with the Sea. The Sea stood on twelve bulls, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south and three facing east. The Sea rested on top of them, and their hindquarters were toward the center. It was a handbreadth in thickness, and its rim was like the rim of a cup, like a lily blossom. It held two thousand baths.

Specifying the diameter of a circle automatically specifies its circumference. The ratio of the circumference to the diameter is stated to be exactly three rather than the real value of pi which is approximately 22/7 or about 3.14159.

For the poison passage go to Mark 17:

17 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."

You didn't ask but in case you are wondering the talking snake appears in Genesis and the talking donkey in Numbers, Chapter 22.

If you are going to pimp the Bible dude, you really should read it sometime. I'm an atheist and I know it back to front, which makes you look a bit sad, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, have a nice life and remember: Jesus saves but Gautama Siddhartha invests! LOL! :)

As I said, I won't try to invest too much time trying to help you understand your logical failings, but the I Kings passage is not a 'famous mathematical statement', it is a description by the writer. By your logic (or lack of it), anyone who has ever claimed that a football field is 100 yards long, without having first precisely measure it, would be a liar, and more importantly (again, apparently according to your logic) any other statements made by that person in any other realm would be suspect.

As for the 'poison passage, it says what it says. I won't try to explain the concept of dispensations with regard to the performing of some miracles, because there is legitimate disagreement as to whether these types of miracles are still extant, but the main point is that because the Bible says that some persons can drink poison without harm is not a recommendation for doing so, nor an indication that the bible is 'wrong'.

Your claim to know the bible 'back to front' is not particularly impressive, though I suppose you should get some credit for that; nevertheless, in your case apparently 'knowing' and 'understanding' are not the same thing.

If you can't see what is written in plain English Greg and then project your failings in understanding on me, then there is little I or anyone else can do for you. Good luck in your life, you'll need it because you won't survive on your wits dude.

I also have to laugh at Bible thumpers who claim that all of the most vital wisdom in the universe is contained in their "holy book" that is so imprecise and subject to interpretation that it has given birth to a thousand different religious groups, all of who interpret this immutable wisdom in a different way! LOL!

Sorry dude but I would rather deal with science. E=Mc(c) means one thing and one thing only and isn't dependent upon what different people think it means.

Not true. Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses and no doctor wants to take on a patient that they believe they cannot help. Insurance companies have already slashed what was once a growing industry to help these people in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Insurance companies have tied the hands of therapists to the point that only 25% to 35% of anorexics have a chance for full recovery with most therapy being done out-patient (to the best of my knowledge).

The idea that a psychiatrist is going to make a fortune from treating patients an hour at a time is not mathematically feasible. These aren't doctors that put you through a checklist and send you on your way for a few tests and/or prescriptions after a 15 minute office visit. And very few specialize in eating disorders. The increase in the disorders can be seen at clinics on college campuses where they will send students home until they gain enough weight that the college isn't afraid they will fall down dead on campus. It is much more serious and prevalent than you suggest.

"It is much more serious and prevalent than you suggest."

You prove my point. By defining 'it' broadly enough, anything can be made to seem 'more serious' than someone else believes it is.

Yes, there are various disorders that require treatments - medicine, therapy, some combination, thereof - but increasingly we are being told that 'we have now discovered a new disorder which - as luck would have it - is treatable with our new medicine, or with enough therapy.

As for insurance costs, and whether psychiatrists make too much or enough money, etc., that would be for another discussion.

Two examples:

1) The commercials for Abilify, which state that '2/3 of people taking an antidepressant still report some symptoms (emphasis added) - so maybe you should take Abilify also'. Don't miss my point - yes, depression can be serious, and chronic, and may require medication, etc. etc. - but then again, if you saw a commercial on TV selling a hair growth tonic based on the fact that 2/3 of people currently taking hair growth tonics still need a hair growth tonic, wouldn't you at least begin to question whether these tonics were actually doing any significant good?

2) The latest 'new problem' I have seen has been introduced to us in the last 2-3 months (as far as I know - I don't watch that much TV any more). The latest 'new problem' is related to men, who may have 'lowT' - hmm, might that be 'low testosterone?

But 'low testosterone' doesn't sound as catchy as 'low T', and we aren't supposed to consider the fact that as men age, they naturally lose testosterone - instead, the drugmakers want to convince as many men as possible that 'they have a problem' which can be fixed simply by taking this wonderful pill (side effects can be found listed in small print on page 23 of the label).

You also claim that 'Eating disorders have the highest mortality rate of all mental illnesses' - I'd like to see the stats for that. I'll guarantee you I'll be able to find at least 3 subjective measures or definitions in that statistic.

The statistical information can be found in "Anatomy of Anorexia" by Steven Levenkron, a psychotherapist and "The Golden Cage" by Hilde Bruch, M.D. (I'm not going to re-read either to find a direct quote.)

However, you make a good point. Anyone who watches TV and is open to the "power of suggestion" is susceptible to becoming a hypochondriac. LOL! The drug companies want us to be a little paranoid and anxiously await the next disease to come our way. That's how they make money. (Remember "Restless Leg Syndrome"?) That said, you won't see any ads to cure eating disorders. These are usually obsessive/compulsive disorders and there is no magic pill (to date) that stops an obsessive mind.

If you've ever had "Restless Legs Syndrome," you would not doubt its very real existence.

It's an uncontrollable, maddening situation in which for hours, you cannot stop moving your legs. Also called "Jumpy Legs," it often prevents sleep and forces you to walk around at night just to deal with the creepy, jumpy feeling in your legs.

It's neurologically triggered and may be a side effects of some medications. It happens to me if I take too many Zofran pills in a day.

Regarding "Restless Legs Syndrome, there is nothing "paranoid," anxiety-driven, "power of suggestion," or hypochondriac about it. Learn the facts before labeling others with derision.

Traci, you misunderstand the discussion - the fact that some people suffer from a definable disorder does not mean that everyone who thinks they have that disorder actually has the disorder, or to put it more specifically, that anyone who has ever experienced some unusual sensation in their legs has 'restless legs syndrome'.

Thanks Greg for putting this thread back on track and my apologies to Traci. If anyone should understand neurological syndromes, it would be me. I came down with Guillain Barre Syndrome in November, 2006 and it has turned my world upside down. I still have severe peripheral neuropathy in my legs and feet and often times feel like I'm standing in a fire ant bed. While I can feel that, I cannot feel the usual sensations for balance, etc., but (on the positive side) I am no longer paralyzed. So please accept my apologies for any insensitivity you might feel that I have toward RLS.

And I reiterate, Greg has a very valid point that almost any doctor will agree with him on. People see the ads and suddenly agree that they've had those very same vague symptoms. We are a consumer oriented society and the drug companies know it.

And eating disorders get no attention from anyone because they are major money losers. Which is why I'm happy to see someone paying attention since this largely affects very young women (and men) who can be helped if it's addressed in time.

Thank you Lee, I am sorry to hear about your struggle with Guillain Barre Syndrome, and Traci, I too mean no disrespect to people struggling with RLS, or eating disorders.

Sadly that is true... or is that emotional eating, which may now be considered a disorder and requires medication?

I don't know what to say other than recommending the books I've recommended above. I'm so sorry about your fear for your daughter, but it's the same that I feel for my niece and there's nothing I can do about it. Good for you for pulling back from this disease, even temporarily, and lving your life. Keep going. If no-one else loves you, I do.