Not necessarily made up (I don't think you go sit in a corner and think about what you're going to tell us next), but you will agree that it is personal and subjective, which means that it is, strictly speaking, anecdotal evidence. Which is no good since anyone can claim anything. Even if you are correct, your personal experience doesn't prove anything for anyone else.
Come up with a falsifiable test (ie, something I can in principle reproduce) and we're on equal ground (yes, that's the scientific method for you).

If I understand that statement (and Evert's) correctly, you are dismissing the scientific method because it won't fit to your subjective appreciations. Am I right?

Well, I'm not the one who started with the condescending tone. And I'm not claiming to "believe" in science, I'm merely questioning your line of thought to understand the reason you believe in a religion.

As I've stated early, I do believe gods exist, in a way. I just don't think they exist as almighty, unknowable entities in some kind of heaven.

I think I can "measure" religion just as I can measure any force I can't see: by its effects. I can see lots of people doing good deeds during christmas, which is a religious time. I know lots of people pray five times a day to a god. I know millions have been slaughtered during religious wars too. Those are all effects that gods have on the real world. Since we've stablished that beliefs are subjective, I conclude that gods exist, but only as unconscious forces in our minds; and everyone believes in a different, very personal divine entity.

Neither can I, though I apologize if I came across that way (except for that last post, but that was a response to you ....)

As a witch I do not dismiss sience, on the contrary, sience is "proving" more and more pieces of the old wisdom.

The biggest joke of all:
Double blind evidence.. they deny the existence of magic but the do take it in account in experiments.

For example giving half a group of patients a placebo (dummy) to rule out the healing powers that are within themselves.

The whole group will see some effect but the "working effect" of the medicine is the working of the medicine substracted by the working of the placebo

Got it ?

History isn't a science, for a reason. That said, you can adapt the method to study history: collect contemporary accounts, artefacts and archaeological data, present that in simple, neutral language, then place it into a particular context and draw conclusions from it. This is never truely objective because one can always doubt if the interpretation is correct, and indeed there are often more interpretations possible. Within that framework and with that reservation, however, the method can be applied.
Either way, that's not what I was asking about.

See, you don't understand what science is about at all! The scientific method is a way to avoid subjective interpretation as much as possible to arrive at objective truth. In so far as there is a conflict between science and religion (which there needn't be), it is on the point that religion refuses to be objective and insists that being subjective somehow makes it more believable.

Careful here! The Placebo effect has to do with a feed-back between mental health and the immune system; basically, stress reduces the efficiency of the immune system and the body's own restorative powers. Reducing stess (eg, by making people believe that they are being helped) strengthens the immune system and helps thehealing process. This is actually well known and used inthe medical world. But make no mistake: placebo's are not a viable substitute to all medication.
Let me tell you in no uncertain terms: if I do not take my medication, I die (almost did, in fact), regardless of wether I want to believe that or not.

I think the better wording is insisting that being subjective was the "point" of religion, not nenecessarilyhat made it believable. Not saying it isn't be a personal thing, but I'm not sure I'd want to make that the defining property.

Indeed!

But things like Reiki and Qigong can be a valuable addition to "normal" medication.
However the regular medical world refuses to reccon it's value.

you DO agree that believing in something can set something in motion ( just like NOT believing in something can stop something from happening)
If you don't believe you can do something you will never be able to do it

It's not one thing OR the other.. use them both and don't judge too quickly on people who can add to the well being of others, even if they use powers unknown to the western "Homo technicus"

Your pain is all in my mind!
MWAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahaha!!

I call those common sense - especially the first one.

That is what my doctor tells me. Quite literally.

Not sure what that means, but if you mean it's my immune system killing off my pancreas, that's about right.

As Dr Phil says, common sense isn't very common at all. That's why the things Ariesnl is rabbling about is good for all the idiots out there who don't understand that they should be drinking clean water instead of coke.

Common sense is atually something that has to be taught to most humans. By disguising it as a religion it has a much greater chance to reach out to the idiot masses.

But this backfires badly when the 'idiot masses' get enough education (via TV) to realise that they were lied to about God & Devil, and then extrapolate that to they were also lied to about Good & Evil.