Notices
Results 1 to 80 of 80

Thread: Does God really heal the sick and injured?

  1. #1 Does God really heal the sick and injured? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    37
    One of the strongest cases against the existence of God is that he does not heal the sick and injured.

    Now, I bet many of the religious here are thinking the obvious:

    "Sister Tabitha's terminal cancer dissipated from her body when the doctors gave her two weeks to live. Praise the Lord!"

    or

    "What was first identified as a brain tumor on the frontal lobe of Father Rani was found to be a swollen mass that was removed with minimal post-surgery effects. Praise be to Jesus!"

    But I ask you, since when, in all of recorded history, have you heard a story similar to this:

    "Lets all take a moment to thank the Lord for regenerating the leg Joshua Stanton lost when his caravan hit a land mine in Iraq."

    or

    "Jessica Mayor's left arm miraculously re-attached itself after a horrible car accident. Amen!"


    My point is this, why has got not healed amputees or those who have lost limbs over the years?

    If God truly is omnipotent, and can take a deadly cancer spread all throughout one's body and make it dissipate in an instant, why can he / will he not take a mans thumb and re-attach it after it has been severed?

    The ending point of the argument was that there is no God; therefore, Sister Tabitha had a strong immune system that was able to fight off the cancer swiftly, The Father with the swollen mass was simply fortunate to not have a tumor, Joshua Stanton's leg did not regenerate because there is no God and limbs do not regenerate, and Jessica Mayor's left arm did not re-attach because there is no God and that is impossible.

    The argument still left out the important questions for me, such as "If there is no God, where did humanity come from?" and questions of that nature.

    It does make me think, though. Could so many religious people be so naive as to think that God heals disease when he really does nothing to interact with it, and leaves it up to chance and modern medicine to figure things out? Can God heal those who have lost limbs, but chooses not to for some, unknown reason?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Why won't god heal amputees? Because he's imaginary, that's why. It's like asking why unicorns don't file taxes.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Please bring this around to a scientific examination of religion and/or religious thought.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Perhaps I can oblige. It's interesting that, contrary to claims that prayer can heal people, studies have actually shown that prayer either has no impact whatsoever, or can, in fact, be rather detrimental.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/he...pagewanted=all
    In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.

    The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.

    The researchers asked the members of three congregations — St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City — to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.

    The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."

    Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.

    In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain.

    <...>

    The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group — 18 percent — suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers.


    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x7rtu32722145572/
    There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP [intercessory prayer] literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.

    http://tinyurl.com/yaonyc3
    Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.


    http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/8/487
    The empirical results from recent randomised controlled studies on remote, intercessory prayer remain mixed. Several studies have, however, appeared in prestigious medical journals, and it is believed by many researchers, including apparent sceptics, that it makes sense to study intercessory prayer as if it were just another experimental drug treatment. This assumption is challenged by (1) discussing problems posed by the need to obtain the informed consent of patients participating in the studies; (2) pointing out that if the intercessors are indeed conscientious religious believers, they should subvert the studies by praying for patients randomised to the control groups; and (3) showing that the studies in question are characterised by an internal philosophical tension because the intercessors and the scientists must take incompatible views of what is going on: the intercessors must take a causation-first view, whereas the scientists must take a correlation-first view. It therefore makes no ethical or methodological sense to study remote, intercessory prayer as if it were just another drug.

    http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/9/1278
    Funded mainly by the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research at the religion–science interface, the $2.4 million study was touted as ‘the most intense investigation ever undertaken of whether prayer can help to heal illness." (4) It found that patients undergoing CABG surgery did no better when prayed for by strangers at a distance to them (intercessory prayer) than those who received no prayers. But 59% of those patients who were told they were definitely being prayed for developed complications, compared with 52% of those who had been told it was just a possibility, a statistically significant, if theologically disappointing, result. Benson et al. came to the objective conclusion that "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: Does God really heal the sick and injured? 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by bradbradallen
    One of the strongest cases against the existence of God is that he does not heal the sick and injured.
    Really?

    Its not clear at the onset why god is duty bound to heal the sick and injured.
    Now, I bet many of the religious here are thinking the obvious:

    "Sister Tabitha's terminal cancer dissipated from her body when the doctors gave her two weeks to live. Praise the Lord!"
    actually the obvious thing I am thinking right now is why god is postulated as having the duty of care of a medical intern.


    If God truly is omnipotent, and can take a deadly cancer spread all throughout one's body and make it dissipate in an instant, why can he / will he not take a mans thumb and re-attach it after it has been severed?
    Of course an omnipotent personality can do anything - this doesn't mean however that they are duty bound to everything (particularly in a sphere that is set to a particular purpose).

    For instance a head of state, by dint of their potency, could disband the penal system and set all the criminals free (or even all the criminals that were deemed to be "good"). Generally they won't do that since there is an over arching social requirement that the penal system fulfills for a greater purpose. Similarly, the material world, with its population of saints and sinners, operates along different lines than making medical insurance obsolete for the faithful.
    The ending point of the argument was that there is no God; therefore, Sister Tabitha had a strong immune system that was able to fight off the cancer swiftly, The Father with the swollen mass was simply fortunate to not have a tumor, Joshua Stanton's leg did not regenerate because there is no God and limbs do not regenerate, and Jessica Mayor's left arm did not re-attach because there is no God and that is impossible.
    Or more accurately, the sole argument for god's existence being one of miraculous medical recovery is fraught with problems

    The argument still left out the important questions for me, such as "If there is no God, where did humanity come from?" and questions of that nature.

    It does make me think, though. Could so many religious people be so naive as to think that God heals disease when he really does nothing to interact with it, and leaves it up to chance and modern medicine to figure things out? Can God heal those who have lost limbs, but chooses not to for some, unknown reason?
    I think there is a wider issue of religion aside from the body. IOW for as long as one takes the view that the body (which is ultimately set up in a medium to perish, regardless of whether the limbs get amputated or remain attached) is the sole vehicle of the self, the issues of theistic application and theory will always remain besieged by dilemmas.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    This has always been kind of a non-argument, originating in theists' claims that God heals the sick, often through prayer. The simple matter of fact is that people get better from hopeless diseases from all over the show, not only theists. You an argue for or against the existence of God using all sorts of reasons, but this is a non-starter.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Ron
    Ron is offline
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    71
    In a world devoid of actual, hard evidence for a God, the realm of healings is one arena where the theists can latch on to and offer as possible "evidence" for their claim. Other than "look at the beautiful trees", this is perhaps the closest they will come to offering something tangible as 'proof' of God's workings.

    So it's no surprise that theists are quick to invoke God in cases where it can't be "ruled out." But, just because something can't be ruled out doesn't mean it's automatically "ruled in." And if God does occasionally heal the sick, he certainly does appear to ignore amputees.


    Ron
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: Does God really heal the sick and injured? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Quote Originally Posted by bradbradallen
    One of the strongest cases against the existence of God is that he does not heal the sick and injured.
    Really?

    Its not clear at the onset why god is duty bound to heal the sick and injured.
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    actually the obvious thing I am thinking right now is why god is postulated as having the duty of care of a medical intern.
    It may not be His obligation specifically to heal the sick and injured, but you are overlooking one little issue: prayer. In the Bible God promises that if you ask you will receive, that whenever you pray with faith your prayer will be answered, that if you had just a little faith like a seed of mustard, you would be able to "move mountains". Because of this, God "should" answer the prayers from the sick and injured. And the thing that is being pointed out in this thread is that, if God's supposedly answering "some" prayers from, say, cancer patients, why is He ignoring ALL the prayers from amputees?
    Only Truth and Reason
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Just to add a little to the logic being expressed here. The fact that there is no healing of amputees does not disprove the existence of a God. It just disproves the existence of a God that meets the description given by Christians.

    Christians believe in a God who is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipresent. Such a God would not ignore the prayors of amputees. Therefore such a God does not exist.

    However, if we are to proceed with perfect and rational logic, we need to appreciate that we have not disproved the existence of a God that does not meet the Christian definition. Perhaps God exists but is actually sadistic??
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Perhaps God exists but is actually sadistic??
    Given the amount of "evidence" of God smiting people, killing people, ordering the deaths of people etc that is abundant in the bible, I would say this wouldn't be out of the question.

    Assuming of course a God exists at all.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Re: Does God really heal the sick and injured? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticlogician
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    Quote Originally Posted by bradbradallen
    One of the strongest cases against the existence of God is that he does not heal the sick and injured.
    Really?

    Its not clear at the onset why god is duty bound to heal the sick and injured.
    Quote Originally Posted by loftmarcell
    actually the obvious thing I am thinking right now is why god is postulated as having the duty of care of a medical intern.
    ... you are overlooking one little issue: prayer. In the Bible God promises ...
    You're overlooking one little issue: loftmarcell's god might not be the god of biblical mythology at all, rather one of vedic mythology. Which it is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: Does God really heal the sick and injured? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinWalker
    You're overlooking one little issue: loftmarcell's god might not be the god of biblical mythology at all, rather one of vedic mythology. Which it is.
    You've got a point there. Since the title of this thread is obviously referring to the God of the Bible, I assumed that every answer was about the same God (at least I didn't see any clarifications about it in the answers I was reading).
    Only Truth and Reason
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13 Re: Does God really heal the sick and injured? 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticlogician
    Since the title of this thread is obviously referring to the God of the Bible, I assumed...
    And you suggest that's obvious, why exactly?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Well, the OP did use Christian anecdotes...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    A Shinto god would be god for example. Christian: He, the Lord. Sometimes the Christian God comes across as an ALL CAPS kinda guy...

    I just noticed loftmarcell uses god.
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16 Re: Does God really heal the sick and injured? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticlogician
    Since the title of this thread is obviously referring to the God of the Bible, I assumed...
    And you suggest that's obvious, why exactly?
    C'mon man, we don't have to get that fancy to "decode" this. Let's just ask both posters.

    1. bradbradallen: Where you referring to the God of the Bible?
    2. loftmarcell: Which god are you referring to?

    :-D
    Only Truth and Reason
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Does God really heal the sick and injured? 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticlogician
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by skepticlogician
    Since the title of this thread is obviously referring to the God of the Bible, I assumed...
    And you suggest that's obvious, why exactly?
    C'mon man, we don't have to get that fancy to "decode" this.
    I'm not the one that suggested I had decoded it. You did. While you're probably right, I was genuinely curious about why you thought it was "obvious." Judging from your response, you were making an assumption, which is cool, but means it's hardly "obvious."


    Quote Originally Posted by skepticlogician
    Let's just ask both posters.
    Fair enough.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18 Re: Does God really heal the sick and injured? 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I'm not the one that suggested I had decoded it. You did. While you're probably right, I was genuinely curious about why you thought it was "obvious." Judging from your response, you were making an assumption, which is cool, but means it's hardly "obvious."
    Point taken. Assumptions are hardly ever safe.
    Only Truth and Reason
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19 He can... 
    Forum Freshman Mede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    14
    Even the Bible records instances of when God reattaches severed parts.

    During Jesus' betrayal, one of His followers reaches for his sword and cuts off the ear of one of the servants of the high priest.

    "And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him." Luke 22:50-51 (NIV)

    Matthew 12:10-13 also tells of how Jesus restores a shriveled hand, which shows regeneration.

    The unknown reason for which God refuses to heal a person is 'faith'. According to the Bible, it takes faith from both the healer and the person being healed for a healing to occur.

    Even Jesus had difficulty healing people in his hometown, due to their lack of faith:
    "He could not do any miracles there, except lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them. And he was amazed at their lack of faith." Mark 6:5-6
    Also, the famous story of a woman who touched his cloak and got healed, to which he said, "your faith has healed you." Matthew 9:20-22

    Really, quoting more modern examples would be futile, as they aren't verifiable. I guess the only thing would be for you to see or experience it yourself, which I pray you one day will. All I'll say is do not be so prejudiced, but keep an objective mind, and open eyes.

    Always remember, He loves you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20 Re: He can... 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Mede
    Always remember, He loves you.
    Unless you're gay or a nonbeliever or a person who practices another faith... in which case he wants his little religiot minions to throw rocks at you until you die.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman Mede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    14
    Dead wrong.

    "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7


    God's love is unconditional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Mede

    You will discover that people such as iNow and myself cannot be convinced by quoting the bible. As far as we are concerned, that book is a mixture of a tiny bit of history, with a hell of a lot of myth, fiction, and downright lies thrown in. You might as well tell me that the Lord of the Rings tells us that hobbits exist, and we must believe in them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    @ Mede. Lately I've been wondering: how does a Christian experience the word of God? I mean, when you read the Bible, doesn't this feel different than reading cereal ingredients? No trick question here. I want your insights. BTW which Bible do you prefer?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    160
    Quote Originally Posted by Mede
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Unless you're gay or a nonbeliever or a person who practices another faith.
    Dead wrong.

    "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7


    God's love is unconditional.

    Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed and abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

    If you're gay, you need to be killed. Directly from the bible.

    Exodus 22:20 "He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed."

    Sounds like they are saying, kill anyone who doesn't worship this "God" fellow.

    Deuteronomy 13: 13-19

    There is a lot there so I won't type the whole thing, but the basic idea is, "Those people don't worship me. Kill all of them, even their cattle and animals, burn all their stuff, never let anyone live there again, and I'll let you all live and be fruitful." In other words, "worship me or die."

    Now, I know you're going to say that all those things are old testament, so they don't count.

    I Corinthians 15:34 "Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law."

    New testament look at that, oh sorry women still aren't allowed to speak in church.

    I'm sure one of these other people can come by and give more, and better examples, but I thought I could point out a least a couple examples.
    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster...when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you" - Friedrich Nietzsche

    Semper Paratus
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Mede
    Dead wrong.

    "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8:7


    God's love is unconditional.
    That's new testament though, for a relatively modern environment. One could argue the OT rules were "tough love" designed to carve by blade a greater nation out of near-anarchy. Anyway, it did work that way, maybe for the better. And behold Israel 2010... incredible!
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That's new testament though, for a relatively modern environment.
    New Testament still says slavery is okay. That's not okay for a "modern environment."


    "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." (Ephesians 6:5)

    "Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." (1 Timothy 6:1-2)



    As if that weren't enough to discredit ridiculous claims of the "goodness" of the new testament, Jesus even approves of beating the above referenced slaves even if they didn't know they were doing something wrong:


    "The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."" (Luke 12:47-48 )




    Unconditional, my ass Try selective reading and rationalization. The above is from the new testament.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Pong

    What do you mean by : "And behold Israel 2010... incredible!"

    The state of Israel in the year 2010 is a truly evil organisation, trying its best to be meaner and nastier and more evil than their old nemesis, Nazi Germany.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman Mede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    14
    Firstly, many of your disputes are with Bible verses, hence my extensive quoting. Also, all arguments expressed here are my opinions, which I am not asking that anyone take up as fact.

    @ skeptic: Forgive me then, but it [Bible] forms the basis of our [Christians] belief, and since this was a debate about God, I assumed.... I also wonder how one has a meaningful argument in Chemistry after throwing away all established Chem principles. With regards to LOTR, that's your opinion. I beg to differ. Ever since I genuinely begun to follow its teachings, I've never encountered a book that speaks truer (ie. this is mine).

    @ Pong: Basically, a Christian experiences God's word when he/she reads and practices it, and it has its promised impact on his/her life.
    Initially, reading the Bible WAS like reading the ingredients of a cereal, but with time, I discovered 3 major differences:

    1) A cereal can talk about how its wonderful ingredients can contribute to a healthy and active life, but you can eat it and still feel like crap. I don't get that with the bible. It actually works.
    2) Each time I read a cereal's ingredients, I see the same thing. Each time I read a book in the bible, I discover something different.
    3) The bible satisfies some unknown part of me that reading cereal ingredients doesn't. I can miss reading cereal ingredients and feel nothing. Prolonged isolation from the Bible, however, affects me.

    I'm sorry, but modern Israel's really drawn away Christ's teachings, so I wouldn't exactly regard it as a model.

    @ Haasum: You said that was the old covenant (which you misintepreted, and which is inapplicable now), so I wonder why you still brought it up. Nevertheless, laws of Exodus and Leviticus were written to govern Israelites, and applied to them only (though there were instances when God made them wage war with sinful nations, but if you remember, that was an era of war). Deuteronomy 13: 13 says "corrupt men have gone out from among you", so that scripture is in reference to those men, and verse 12 says "your cities", referring to cities of Israel.
    The New Testament reading is rather 1 Cor 14:34, and addresses the church in Corinth, which at the time, was encountering problems. One of these was its women, many of whom were wealthy and pompous, and causing trouble in the church, hence, Paul's request for them to shut up. Like any book, it helps if you read the bible in its cultural context, and if you don't just analyze small portions of scripture, but the whole (simply put, i encourage you read books, not verses). If you still harbour disputes, feel free to IM me.

    @ inow: Eph 6:9 says "Masters, do the same things to them, giving up threatening, knowing that your own Master also is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him." The kind of slavery often practiced in the past (eg. in the Americas) was not the kind the bible described. It might also interest you to check the profiles of those who abolished it.
    Also, 1 Cor 7:21 "Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you- although if you can gain your freedom, do so."

    Luke 12:41 shows your final quote was a parable illustrating the kingdom of God. Jesus used this imagery because it was one the people were familiar with.

    So...unconditional.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    The only thing unconditional is your selective reading, and how you turn a blind eye to anything which contradicts your preconceptions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Mede

    Believe it or not, I have read the bible, right through.
    Some parts of it are excellent. The teachings of Yeshua ben Yosef as described in the four gospels are sometimes inspiring. However, the Old Testament should have been burned by the early church. It is full of directives that are utterly abhorent by today's standards. The teachings of Paul are also often distasteful. I get the impression that he was both prude and redneck.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman Mede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    14
    lol skeptic!

    Though, the OT provides an insight to God's personality, so it is vital. Stories of people like David, Job, etc. are still quite applicable today.

    Concerning Paul, if you've worked with the leadership of a church, you'll understand Paul.

    I'm also curious about which version of bible you read (though I recognise that Yeshua ben Yosef is debated as the original name of Jesus).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Mede

    I have read both King James and New English versions. And yes, Yeshua ben Yosef was the correct name given to the man now more often called Jesus. The word Jesus is something of an aberration. Yeshua was re-written in the Greek versions of the gospels as Iesos. That was, in turn, translated into English as Jesus. Ironically, the more correct English version of his name is Joshua.

    I read an article some years ago, in which the writer claimed that an early history of the Christian church (about 200 years AD IIRC) showed that the inclusion of the Old Testament was much debated. According to the writer, a political decision was made, to include the Old Testament purely because there were prophecies of a messiah, which the early church thought they could make use of, to increase membership. I cannot guarantee the accuracy of this report, but it sounds like the sort of thing that might have happened.

    In any case, I personally think that was a mistake. It reduces the credibility of Christianity. Partly because of the abhorrent commands therein, and partly because so many of the Old Testament teachings are ignored by Christians. eg. most of the dietary requirements.

    While I approve of many of the teachings of my old friend Yeshua, I seriously disapprove of the OT teachings, which were essentially tribal customs and laws, for a very primitive bronze age culture. Totally unsuited to a more civilised society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    That's new testament though, for a relatively modern environment.
    New Testament still says slavery is okay. That's not okay for a "modern environment."
    Yeah, I said relatively modern environment. Roman-occupied Palestine (NT) was more civilized than the tribal anarchy of Moses' time (OT). Attitudes change over 1,000 years. I would argue that even the NT's "head-space" is alien to us. The matter-of-fact acceptance of slavery rather than pay-cheque employment, for example.

    Attacking it as a freedom loving idealist is, well, your own fun.

    I appreciate the OT as an effective nation-building manual, which survived because it worked.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    What do you mean by : "And behold Israel 2010... incredible!"
    The Hebrews stuck to their manual all those years. Isn't this cohesion and persistence incredible? Imagine if an unbroken chain of Hittites, retaining their sacred writing and hippogriff gods etc. ruled Turkey in the year 2010.

    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    The state of Israel in the year 2010 is a truly evil organisation, trying its best to be meaner and nastier and more evil than their old nemesis, Nazi Germany.
    That's the Holocaust survivor's blind spot... a cognitive black hole... yeah. But we all corroborate easy delusions about Germany's rational fanaticism to thwart uncomfortable insight.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mede
    @ Pong: Basically, a Christian experiences God's word when he/she reads and practices it, and it has its promised impact on his/her life.
    Initially, reading the Bible WAS like reading the ingredients of a cereal, but with time, I discovered 3 major differences:

    1) A cereal can talk about how its wonderful ingredients can contribute to a healthy and active life, but you can eat it and still feel like crap. I don't get that with the bible. It actually works.
    2) Each time I read a cereal's ingredients, I see the same thing. Each time I read a book in the bible, I discover something different.
    3) The bible satisfies some unknown part of me that reading cereal ingredients doesn't. I can miss reading cereal ingredients and feel nothing. Prolonged isolation from the Bible, however, affects me.
    Is there positive feedback between (1) and (2)? I mean does the change of (1) prepare you for the next discovery of (2), and repeat, repeat?

    (3), withdrawal symptoms you mean? Like what?

    Also (3) does this depend on your alertness, or acceptance? I mean, can it be comforting to simply absorb, or is it better (for you) to critically turn things over?

    My original question was more about cadence, or "voice". Why I asked if you had a favourite bible. What, if anything, is different when you read direct "quotes" of God? Would it be much qualitatively different in comic book format? Why / why not?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    In its earliest years, the Catholic cult voted on which myths to include in its doctrine. It voted to include each and every one of the texts above found in the old testament, therefore, it follows that these are considered important by the modern cults of Christianity that have failed to remove them.

    If they are irrelevant, it would be logical for the individual sects to edit and revise their doctrines. That they do not speaks volumes. The New Testament makes no effort to speak out against slavery and many of the hateful and detestable actions of the OT god and its minions (i.e. David, Joshua, et al).

    Luckily for humanity that this is mythology and no good reason exists to accept it as reality than exists for Gilgamesh, Beowulf, or the Iliad.

    Unluckily for humanity, there are so many believers in this hate-filled mythology who use it for purposes of perpetuating hate, distrust, and even violence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman Mede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    14
    @ skeptic: Quite an enlightening proposition you made about the political decision to include the OT. Nevertheless, since it's accuracy is questionable, so I wouldn't exactly cling to it. Also, in the end, what does it achieve? But very interesting, nonetheless.

    I still support the maintenance of the OT for 3 reasons:

    1) It contains the prophecies that were fulfilled in the NT. The removal of those prophecies would truly reduce Christianity's credibility. I'd liken it to removing fossil records from the theory of evolution.

    2) The NT states clearly that we are no longer under the old law (even Jesus and his disciples did not adhere to many of those laws), and further gives the reason why the old law existed (Gal 3:19-24). So it helps if introductory readers would just take their time as they read.

    3) The NT makes several references to it (eg. Hebrews 11). Its exclusion would make the work overwhelmingly incomplete.

    @ Pong: my withdrawal symptoms are truly plentiful, but i'll simply say, lower stress and tolerance limits, increased sin, and general discontentment (things satisfy me less, whereas before, I could find satisfaction in the smallest things), just to mention a few.

    Positive feedback, not necessarily. all i'll say is one experiences all 3 when they're doing things correctly.

    It's better to critically turn things over. Firstly, to make sure I understand what I'm reading correctly. Secondly, instances come when my understanding is tested (take here for instance), so to ensure I 'pass', and that the enquirer departs with the truth. However, it's not always i understand everything at first. In these situations, I dwell on instances when the word has proven true before, in order to increase my faith, then, i keep applying what i've read whilst turning it over in my mind. I often find the answers with time (sometimes days, sometimes years).

    It's like when i don't understand a concept in class, but keep doing labs till eventually, the understanding dawns on me. This takes much longer though, as these are often questions regarding life. My favourite Bibles are NIV, KJV and NKJV. (Note: not all Bible versions are true.)

    Often, the manner in which quotes are put affects my understanding. Occasionally, i have to scan different versions to obtain a single meaning.

    Yes, if I understand you correctly, it would be much different in comic book format because comics are limited by the ability of the artist, whilst text is limited by the imagination of the reader, which comparably, is less finite.

    @ Skinwalker: Kindly refer to my post to skeptic. I would liken editing the OT to modifying a fossil record so that people can draw parallels better. I repeat, the NT states that many of these doctrines are obsolete.

    Finally, keep in mind that the bible wasn't written to please humans. It is a love letter with instructions on how they can reconcile with God. Hence, things like slavery were permissibly in the bible, but are not permissible in the modern world, just as things like homosexuality (and other forms of sexual immorality) are permissible in the modern world, but not permissible in the bible.

    I will say again that the form of slavery practiced 'recently' was not the type that was allowed in the New Testament. The latter even includes 'maids' in the modern world.
    What if you're right?
    And he was just another nice guy
    What if you're right?
    What if it's true?
    They say the cross will only make a fool of you
    And what if it's true?

    What if he takes his place in history
    With all the prophets and the kings
    Who taught us love and came in peace
    But then the story ends
    What then?

    But what if you're wrong?
    What if there's more?
    What if there's hope you never dreamed of hoping for?

    ~What If, Nichole Nordeman
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Mede

    For a person who clings to religious superstition (no offense intended) you have a pretty healthy view of the Old Testament. I cannot personally understand how some Christians insist that the whole bible is literally true, and relevent to us today. It is so clear that much of the Old Testament is obsolete.

    As I said, I appreciate the ethics taught by Yeshua, as laid down in the four gospels. However, the rest of the bible is not really worth reading.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    I've discovered an empirical test of gods healing and protectionism.


    You must watch here for yourself... It's only about 3 minutes.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yD_Igdn9BQ


    Mark 16:17-18 tells us that drinking poison will do no harm to those who believe. Edward Current celebrates this amazing gift from our loving Father
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Freshman Rickdog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Santiago de Chile
    Posts
    72
    God is a matter of faith. If your faith exists, then you don`t need to prove anything, cause you believe in it without any hesitation. The moment you start by doubting, in the word of god, it only means that you have lost your faith. So only those who have faith will get the benefits of healing. Its not a matter of "singing a prayer", to get it. Faith is so difficult to achieve, that there is very few who really have it.

    In my case, I am a believer (I believe in the possibility of his existence), who doesn`t believe (I don`t really think god exists,cause I have no proof, I need it to believe). I don`t have faith, so I`ll never understand those who do. I respect them for their faith, and I wish I had faith, since most of the ones who has it, seems happy. But life has taught me that not that everything that shines is gold, so that happiness can be only apparent, so I will never have Faith in god. No one will convince me otherwise, and I`m not here to convince anybody about the issue. Now if there was a proof of his existence, why would I be forced to follow him. I`m happy as I am, I don`t really need a god, unless my life depended on it, in which case I would be a follower only for self interest or fear to be punished (I`m human after all).

    The bible is a compilation of books written by people, with all their imperfections. The compilation was done by other people, with their own imperfections. So with so much imperfection involved, imho, the bible is not perfect. Only in the NT, we have diverse opinions about Jesus (written by his direct disciples, who were also imperfect), and how he spent his life on earth and we are missing one of those opinions (Judas, the most intellectual of his disciples, but also imperfect), to be able to understand the whole picture, but since the "church" has the power to erase the existence of that book, or modify it at their will, or add another book if it considers it should be added, we will always be dependent of what some people in the church (who are also imperfect), decide what we must think to nourish our faith. No my friend, I don`t believe in anything that the Church wants us to believe. Maybe God exists, but the Church is full of personal interest. Who are the Church ?, well they are the disciples (also imperfect) of the disciples of Jesus. Too much imperfection to ever convince me about their so called "truth".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    The moment you start by doubting, in the word of god, it only means that you have lost your faith. So only those who have faith will get the benefits of healing.
    Nonsense. This is little more than a hollow assertion which is completely without merit or substance. I understand your desire to show deference and respect to those who believe this, but your kindness and protection of their viewpoints does not make them valid or reality based.

    What you've suggested above is simply nonsense, and you've just here repeated a rationalization used by believers to make it "okay" that they have zero evidence that faith can heal... used by believers to make it "okay" that the evidence actually directly rebuts their claims that faith is successful in healing the sick and injured.

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/viewt...=226617#226617
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Let's dissect these assertions of inow to see if they are scientifically valid or if they are instead superstitious.

    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    The moment you start by doubting, in the word of god, it only means that you have lost your faith. So only those who have faith will get the benefits of healing.
    Nonsense. This is little more than a hollow assertion which is completely without merit or substance.
    And yet inow's assertion to the contrary lacks evidentiary support. How can Inow demonstrate that his bold proclamation of truth, is in fact truth? What substance does inow's opinion carry? How can we know which of these two claims are correct?

    Answer ..... We can't ... Inow is the pot calling the kettle black.

    I understand your desire to show deference and respect to those who believe this, but your kindness and protection of their viewpoints does not make them valid or reality based.
    Nor does yours ....

    What you've suggested above is simply nonsense,
    Since we have no way to compare the validity of his from yours, we cannot know which is nonsense.


    and you've just here repeated a rationalization used by believers to make it "okay" that they have zero evidence that faith can heal...
    Rationalizations are valid tools in logical arguments are hey not?

    used by believers to make it "okay" that the evidence actually directly rebuts their claims that faith is successful in healing the sick and injured.
    But those with faith are healed from time to time, and those who believe they will get better have a higher cure rate than those who do not. Many call this the placebo effect.... Seems like there is evidence that people with faith are healed.

    Anyone can cherry pick to support their superstitions. Sometimes people of faith are not healed sometimes they are. Even one example of a person of faith being healed can be used as evidence to support the claim you are arguing against. Inow, you need to do much better than this. You need to check your ego at the keyboard and see yourself for the superstitious person you are. You are driven by your presuppositions not by the evidence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    And yet inow's assertion to the contrary lacks evidentiary support.
    Er... No, actually. It's already been shared in this thread, but hey... whatever.


    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by iNow
    used by believers to make it "okay" that the evidence actually directly rebuts their claims that faith is successful in healing the sick and injured.
    But those with faith are healed from time to time, and those who believe they will get better have a higher cure rate than those who do not.
    Again, bullshit. You're trying to completely redirect and derail the context of the conversation. Nobody here is talking about placebo effects and having a belief that they will get better. The discussion here is about belief in deities and faith itself, not belief that one's health will improve. In short, you've thrown in little more than a non-sequitur. Is there any other random tangential nonsense you'd like to add to the discussion, or are you content with what you've put forth already and feel the lies and tripe which you've already shared will suffice?



    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Anyone can cherry pick to support their superstitions. Sometimes people of faith are not healed sometimes they are. Even one example of a person of faith being healed can be used as evidence to support the claim you are arguing against.
    No, actually. That's called anecdote, not evidence. Once you finally realize that, maybe you'll begin to understand why nobody here takes you seriously.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    I would love to see one case of a cancer patient being "healed" by god, with the only logical explanation for the recover to be god. Given this evidence, I might consider it a valid point, but without that evidence, it is simply a baseless assertion.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    And yet inow's assertion to the contrary lacks evidentiary support.
    Er... No, actually. It's already been shared in this thread, but hey... whatever.
    You can't even see the straw man arguments you construct. Your evidence typically answer different questions. The statistical studies have no way to objectively measure "faith" and therefore have no way to isolate cause and effect. Furthermore I don't see that the religious premise claims those with faith will have an overall cure rate greater than those who lack faith, so the studies construct and then answer a different question.

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    But those with faith are healed from time to time, and those who believe they will get better have a higher cure rate than those who do not.
    Again, bullshit. You're trying to completely redirect and derail the context of the conversation. Nobody here is talking about placebo effects and having a belief that they will get better.
    There is no objective way to separate cause and effect. That's the point. Your claim of bs is ..... bs. The objective fact is that people of faith are indeed cured from time to time and we cannot objectively isolate the cause.


    The discussion here is about belief in deities and faith itself, not belief that one's health will improve. In short, you've thrown in little more than a non-sequitur.
    Umm, no the discussion is about healing in the context of faith. That is quite clearly the context of your post..... Geez inow you're killing your credibility.

    Is there any other random tangential nonsense you'd like to add to the discussion, or are you content with what you've put forth already and feel the lies and tripe which you've already shared will suffice?
    And yet my statements are factually correct and in context with your post

    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Anyone can cherry pick to support their superstitions. Sometimes people of faith are not healed sometimes they are. Even one example of a person of faith being healed can be used as evidence to support the claim you are arguing against.
    No, actually. That's called anecdote, not evidence. Once you finally realize that, maybe you'll begin to understand why nobody here takes you seriously.
    Evidence is anything that factually supports an assertion. My assertion: People with faith are often healed. Evidence: Someone with faith is healed.

    The evidence is factual and it supports the assertion.... Sorry inow.... you are again wrong. I do understand why you choose not to take me seriously.

    Edit: Let me make this clear so there is no further confusion on inow's part. I have never seen a credible apologist of any religion claim that their god always cures those who believe or have faith or that they will be cured in greater proportion to those with no faith in god. I have seen an argument that if one has complete faith or perfect faith, then anything that is possible can happen. In addition, I have not seen any claim that god intervenes to prevent someone without faith from being cured by physical means. Inow's demonstrations do not address these claims. Instead they create straw man arguments and address them instead.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Let me put something to iNow. Faith leads to healing by the placebo effect. Greater faith may lead to a stronger placebo effect. If true, this makes Rickdog's original statement valid, though with strong limitations.

    Those of us who are rational in our thinking will appreciate that the placebo effect cannot cure cancer, or grow back an amputated limb, or stop a raging infection. Within its limitations, though, it may be a useful therapy.

    Rickdog says he would like to believe in the Christian God, but cannot due to a lack of evidence. I can respect that view. I also cannot believe in the Christian God due to the lack of evidence, but also because of the inherent contradictions within the Christian faith.

    I always allow myself an 'out'. The lack of evidence does not prohibit some kind of deity existing. However, it seems to me that, if that is true, then that deity has no interest in, and does not interfere with human beings. This we know due to the lack of evidence of divine intervention in human affairs. This lack of interest means that this hypothetical deity, if it exists, is very different to the Christian view.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Let me put something to iNow. Faith leads to healing by the placebo effect.
    In which case the placebo effect was responsible for the healing, not the faith. Further, since the placebo effect works even in the absence of faith or belief in a cosmic sky pixie, one can quickly tell that faith is not the responsible phenomenon underlying the healing process.


    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Greater faith may lead to a stronger placebo effect. If true...
    That is one great big, giant, enormous, gargantuan, colossal, stupendously magnificent "IF" there, and given that I've seen NO evidence suggesting it is even remotely plausible, I feel safe in my decision to reject it as non-representative of reality (not to mention that we are likely now equating multiple definitions of "faith" instead of focusing on the context-based concept of faith being presented in this thread... sort of like the difference between having "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow morning versus having "faith" that a magic invisible man in the sky will make an amputated limb grow back if only you believe in him strongly enough).


    Again, though, I'm not seeing how it makes logical sense to conflate faith healing with the placebo effect since the placebo effect is equally experienced by people without faith in some deity.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Let me put something to iNow. Faith leads to healing by the placebo effect.
    In which case the placebo effect was responsible for the healing, not the faith.
    Honestly inow, your argument is pathetic. Here you even accept that faith causes the effect and then you claim the effect itself is the cause.

    Again, though, I'm not seeing how it makes logical sense to conflate faith healing with the placebo effect since the placebo effect is equally experienced by people without faith.
    I'm not even sure this is true. Inow, you keep stepping in it. Do you know that there is a mental and physical difference between faith in a creator and faith that one will be healed? Can you provide evidence that it is physically and physiologically different? Of course you can't. You just make this stuff up.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    Let me put something to iNow. Faith leads to healing by the placebo effect.
    In which case the placebo effect was responsible for the healing, not the faith.
    Honestly inow, your argument is pathetic. Here you even accept that faith causes the effect and then you claim the effect itself is the cause.
    Cypress, No, his argument is sound and concise. inow is making the argument that belief in a creator doesn't lead simply to healing nor the placebo effect, as there is a difference in believing that you will be healed and believing that there is a God. One may very well boost people's immune systems slightly, which has a proven effect on those on the edge of either getting better or not, while the other has NO proven effect on this phenomena at all.

    Cypress, simply believing in God, and not that you will be healed by God, doesn't give ANY benefit, since if it did, it would be documented. And seeing as how this effect can ALSO be measured quite easily, there is no reason to believe it to be true.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    Faith and placebo effect.

    For the placebo effect to work, faith is essential. However, it does not have to be faith in a deity. It might be faith in a doctor, in a drug, in a quack, or some strange therapy. However, the word faith does not require a deity. We can have faith in all sorts of things.

    Does greater faith lead to stronger placebo effect? I admit this is not proven. However, it seems reasonable. It is almost a dose/response effect, common in medicine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    With all of this talk about "faith," I would just like to request everyone again read the thread title:

    Does GOD really heal the sick and injured? It seems rather obvious to me which type of "faith" we should all be discussing, and it's not the one where you have "faith" in your doctor or "faith" in a medicine to heal you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress

    Honestly inow, your argument is pathetic. Here you even accept that faith causes the effect and then you claim the effect itself is the cause.
    Cypress, No, his argument is sound and concise. inow is making the argument that belief in a creator doesn't lead simply to healing nor the placebo effect, as there is a difference in believing that you will be healed and believing that there is a God.
    I don't think so. The believer not only has faith in their god, they have faith that their god will aid them in healing. The statistician has no way to test the difference between these beliefs and the influence they may have on healing. Furthermore the statistician has no way of determining what is the root cause of the so called placebo effect on healing because we have, at present no way to objectively isolate these forms of faith.

    One may very well boost people's immune systems slightly, which has a proven effect on those on the edge of either getting better or not, while the other has NO proven effect on this phenomena at all.
    Again we cannot isolate these influences so we have no idea which was effective or if the root cause of the placebo effect is something else.

    Cypress, simply believing in God, and not that you will be healed by God, doesn't give ANY benefit, since if it did, it would be documented. And seeing as how this effect can ALSO be measured quite easily, there is no reason to believe it to be true.
    I don't think we can say this either. We simply do not have the ability to objectively isolate these beliefs. I suspect this is the reason it is not documented.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Does GOD really heal the sick and injured? It seems rather obvious to me which type of "faith" we should all be discussing, and it's not the one where you have "faith" in your doctor or "faith" in a medicine to heal you.
    Yes. Even if you have faith in God and you are healed, it still doesn't mean that God healed you. If you have faith in God and pray to him to give you strength, it doesn't mean that God helped you to win your football match. The idea of a God and what He supposedly can do is enough.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    With all of this talk about "faith," I would just like to request everyone again read the thread title:

    Does GOD really heal the sick and injured? It seems rather obvious to me which type of "faith" we should all be discussing, and it's not the one where you have "faith" in your doctor or "faith" in a medicine to heal you.
    Your complaint seems out of place because this segment is quite relevant. You readily accept that faith in your doctor or medicine can improve healing, but you wish to deny that faith in god to heal you is not effective, despite the fact that this effect is documented in the general case, and it is not possible to know what is actually causing improved healing.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Does GOD really heal the sick and injured? It seems rather obvious to me which type of "faith" we should all be discussing, and it's not the one where you have "faith" in your doctor or "faith" in a medicine to heal you.
    Yes. Even if you have faith in God and you are healed, it still doesn't mean that God healed you.
    Indeed. We can't say what did or did not cause healing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    With all of this talk about "faith," I would just like to request everyone again read the thread title:

    Does GOD really heal the sick and injured? It seems rather obvious to me which type of "faith" we should all be discussing, and it's not the one where you have "faith" in your doctor or "faith" in a medicine to heal you.
    Your complaint seems out of place because this segment is quite relevant. You readily accept that faith in your doctor or medicine can improve healing, but you wish to deny that faith in god to heal you is not effective
    Sorry, wrong and misrepresentative... yet again. I wish I could say that I'm surprised, but after all... It is you... Cypress, so the misrepresentations, redirections, and derailments are really little more than par for the course.

    At no where, at no time, and in no post have I claimed that faith in one's doctor or medicine leads to healing. Your criticism of my post is quite moot. I accept the placebo effect, and that is where my focus has remained throughout the course of this exchange.

    As should be plainly obvious to even a kindergartner, I was simply calling for everyone to refrain from the equivocation, and to ensure that we are not interchangeably using the term faith across different contexts when, in fact, the context of the the faith being discussed here in this thread is quite clear.


    The question is whether god heals the sick or injured. This tangential nonsense about faith in doctors or faith in medicine and the placebo effect is really nothing other than evasion, diversion, and digression.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress

    Honestly inow, your argument is pathetic. Here you even accept that faith causes the effect and then you claim the effect itself is the cause.
    Cypress, No, his argument is sound and concise. inow is making the argument that belief in a creator doesn't lead simply to healing nor the placebo effect, as there is a difference in believing that you will be healed and believing that there is a God.
    I don't think so. The believer not only has faith in their god, they have faith that their god will aid them in healing. The statistician has no way to test the difference between these beliefs and the influence they may have on healing. Furthermore the statistician has no way of determining what is the root cause of the so called placebo effect on healing because we have, at present no way to objectively isolate these forms of faith.

    One may very well boost people's immune systems slightly, which has a proven effect on those on the edge of either getting better or not, while the other has NO proven effect on this phenomena at all.
    Again we cannot isolate these influences so we have no idea which was effective or if the root cause of the placebo effect is something else.

    Cypress, simply believing in God, and not that you will be healed by God, doesn't give ANY benefit, since if it did, it would be documented. And seeing as how this effect can ALSO be measured quite easily, there is no reason to believe it to be true.
    I don't think we can say this either. We simply do not have the ability to objectively isolate these beliefs. I suspect this is the reason it is not documented.
    Blah Blah Blah.... You have one test with two controls and one experimental groups of atheists. and another test with three groups composed solely of believers.

    The test is set up such that one control group is given a placebo, and told that it is a placebo. The other control is given the wonder drug, and told that it is the wonder drug. The experimental group is given a placebo, and told that it is the wonder drug. This test isolates the faith, in terms of the placebo effect and the faith in God.

    In regards to whether or not it's God, this is a statement for whether or not a God exists and would heal people, to which, in agreement with inow, there is NO REASON TO EVER BELIEVE THAT THE HEALING OF A BORDERLINE CONDITION IS EVER GODS WORK!!! If a man with multiple brain tumors and advanced lung cancer is suddenly healed, then yes, if there was never any medical treatment, then by all means, God may be a logical explanation. Until this day happens, I remain skeptical and unconvinced.
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    I see it more simply than do you Inow. I suspect you realize you are in a hole and are attempting to pretend this is not relevant to the debate as a way to get out.

    Inow ---> There is no evidence god heals.
    Rickdog ----> Theology tells us that you must have faith to be healed by God.
    cypress -----> The placebo effect provides evidence that faith heals.
    People with faith in god are healed.

    Conclusion: Inow is incorrect.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    cypress

    I do not dispute your logic. If a person with a placebo-responsive illness goes to a religious healing, and believes through his/her faith in his/her deity that healing will happen, then the placebo effect makes it happen. ie. Faith in God can heal.

    However, the caution is that the placebo effect has no influence on serious ills. There is no way that faith in God, via the placebo effect, can heal a diabetic, cancer sufferer, amputee, typhoid victim etc etc. In fact, there are far more conditions in which the placebo effect is not effective, than ones where it is.

    Worse, placebos can mask symptoms. So a cancer sufferer who believes, through faith, that he/she has been healed, may overlook the very real symptoms that would otherwise send them to an oncologist for effective treatment. Such things can kill.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    597
    I absolutely believe in the healing power of prayer. After seeing this thread, I am going to order a book that reviews the evidence called "Healing Words".

    However, it would be a mistake to try and use a "black and white" type of reasoning to understand this. It does not work the same way every time.

    From my perspective, sometimes during an illnes God is able to clearly reveal His presence so that you know that you are not facing your illness alone.

    For example, in 2008 I broke my leg in a surfing accident. The week before this, my wife and I were at a Mass and we participated in the service by taking up the Communion. The priest wispered a brief message to us and he said to stay in faith when difficulty arises as God is with us and good things are often "just around the corner". Within a week of this, I break my leg.

    Ninety five percent of the time I surf alone. If I had been alone on this day, I would have had to crawl a couple hundred yards on the beach alone with a broken leg. Well by an interesting "coincidence", on the day I broke my leg, I was surfing with an orthopaedic surgeon.

    God knows how to let you know that He is present during times of illness. Healing is one way. It is not the only way.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by cypress
    I suspect you realize you are in a hole and are attempting to pretend this is not relevant to the debate as a way to get out.

    Inow ---> There is no evidence god heals.
    Rickdog ----> Theology tells us that you must have faith to be healed by God.
    cypress -----> The placebo effect provides evidence that faith heals.
    People with faith in god are healed.

    Conclusion: Inow is incorrect.
    Thanks for the smile, Cypress. I'll go ahead and follow your lead, but present an accurate version.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rickdog --> Only those of faith get the benefits of healing.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    iNow --> This is little more than a bald assertion with no evidence in it's favor.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cypress --> Evasion, off point garbage, attempts to divert everyone to a completely unrelated point.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Skeptic --> Well, there is the placebo effect. In that sense, maybe faith heals.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    iNow --> That just means there is a placebo effect, not that faith heals people.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cypress --> I'm going to offer more bullshit and direct my comments to iNow personally.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Skeptic --> Faith is essential to the placebo effect, as when people have faith in doctors and medicine
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    iNow --> That's hardly the type of faith being referred to in this thread, though.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cypress --> Evasion, off point garbage, attempts to divert everyone to a completely unrelated point.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Cypress --> AGAIN with the evasion, off point garbage, attempts to divert everyone to a completely unrelated point.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rest of us --> How much longer will it be before Cypress is tossed out the door for his continued bullshit here?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #60  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by dedo
    I absolutely believe in the healing power of prayer.
    Believe all you want. Reality demonstrates your belief to be wrong.


    As I shared previously in this thread... It's interesting that, contrary to claims that prayer can heal people, studies have actually shown that prayer either has no impact whatsoever, or can, in fact, be rather detrimental.


    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/he...pagewanted=all
    In the study, the researchers monitored 1,802 patients at six hospitals who received coronary bypass surgery, in which doctors reroute circulation around a clogged vein or artery.

    The patients were broken into three groups. Two were prayed for; the third was not. Half the patients who received the prayers were told that they were being prayed for; half were told that they might or might not receive prayers.

    The researchers asked the members of three congregations — St. Paul's Monastery in St. Paul; the Community of Teresian Carmelites in Worcester, Mass.; and Silent Unity, a Missouri prayer ministry near Kansas City — to deliver the prayers, using the patients' first names and the first initials of their last names.

    The congregations were told that they could pray in their own ways, but they were instructed to include the phrase, "for a successful surgery with a quick, healthy recovery and no complications."

    Analyzing complications in the 30 days after the operations, the researchers found no differences between those patients who were prayed for and those who were not.

    In another of the study's findings, a significantly higher number of the patients who knew that they were being prayed for — 59 percent — suffered complications, compared with 51 percent of those who were uncertain.

    <...>

    The study also found that more patients in the uninformed prayer group — 18 percent — suffered major complications, like heart attack or stroke, compared with 13 percent in the group that did not receive prayers.


    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x7rtu32722145572/
    There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP [intercessory prayer] literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.

    http://tinyurl.com/yaonyc3
    Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications.


    http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/32/8/487
    The empirical results from recent randomised controlled studies on remote, intercessory prayer remain mixed. Several studies have, however, appeared in prestigious medical journals, and it is believed by many researchers, including apparent sceptics, that it makes sense to study intercessory prayer as if it were just another experimental drug treatment. This assumption is challenged by (1) discussing problems posed by the need to obtain the informed consent of patients participating in the studies; (2) pointing out that if the intercessors are indeed conscientious religious believers, they should subvert the studies by praying for patients randomised to the control groups; and (3) showing that the studies in question are characterised by an internal philosophical tension because the intercessors and the scientists must take incompatible views of what is going on: the intercessors must take a causation-first view, whereas the scientists must take a correlation-first view. It therefore makes no ethical or methodological sense to study remote, intercessory prayer as if it were just another drug.

    http://www.fasebj.org/cgi/content/full/20/9/1278
    Funded mainly by the John Templeton Foundation, which supports research at the religion–science interface, the $2.4 million study was touted as ‘the most intense investigation ever undertaken of whether prayer can help to heal illness." (4) It found that patients undergoing CABG surgery did no better when prayed for by strangers at a distance to them (intercessory prayer) than those who received no prayers. But 59% of those patients who were told they were definitely being prayed for developed complications, compared with 52% of those who had been told it was just a possibility, a statistically significant, if theologically disappointing, result. Benson et al. came to the objective conclusion that "Intercessory prayer itself had no effect on complication-free recovery from CABG, but certainty of receiving intercessory prayer was associated with a higher incidence of complications."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #61  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    iNow

    The comment, by Rickdog, that kicked off this interesting diversion was ;

    "The moment you start by doubting, in the word of god, it only means that you have lost your faith. So only those who have faith will get the benefits of healing. Its not a matter of "singing a prayer", to get it."

    As long as you accept that the concept of faith healing is actually just another example of the placebo effect, then the above quote is pretty much correct.

    I just used a wider definition of the word 'faith' in my arguments. However, that faith cannot help against more serious ailments. In fact, it is dramatically effective only against psychosomatic ills.

    Your quotes are also correct, in which studies show that prayor cannot heal. Unless, of course, the illness is placebo responsive, the victim is religious (has faith), and knows he/she is being prayed for.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #62  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    cypress

    I do not dispute your logic. If a person with a placebo-responsive illness goes to a religious healing, and believes through his/her faith in his/her deity that healing will happen, then the placebo effect makes it happen. ie. Faith in God can heal.
    Precisely. It is an evidence based approach to support the claim and it speaks directly to those who incorrectly claim that there is no evidence to indicate that belief in divine healing might be real This is true regardless of the reality that we do not know the root cause of the placebo effect.

    However, the caution is that the placebo effect has no influence on serious ills.
    Actually the belief that one will be healed seems to be always more effective than than not.

    There is no way that faith in God, via the placebo effect, can heal a diabetic, cancer sufferer, amputee, typhoid victim etc etc.
    Perhaps.

    In fact, there are far more conditions in which the placebo effect is not effective, than ones where it is.
    I am fairly sure this is incorrect.

    Worse, placebos can mask symptoms. So a cancer sufferer who believes, through faith, that he/she has been healed, may overlook the very real symptoms that would otherwise send them to an oncologist for effective treatment. Such things can kill.
    Perhaps so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #63  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Rickdog
    The moment you start by doubting, in the word of god, it only means that you have lost your faith.

    ...(I don`t really think god exists,cause I have no proof, I need it to believe). I don`t have faith, so I`ll never understand those who do. I respect them for their faith, and I wish I had faith, since most of the ones who has it, seems happy.
    You may banish this fruitless agnosticism by submitting to Faith (in the strongest sense) that God cannot possibly exist. Sure that's not entirely rational, but the conditions of your life are not entirely rational! Neither can any mind become entirely rational! Those and other reasonable arguments will get you part way to Faith, but finally there is a leap even atheists may/must perform in our own way.

    Faith in no deities won't compel you to preach atheism or take shots at believers. On the contrary atheistic Faith sympathizes with all truly Faithful (not to be confused with fanatics). I personally find this a comfortable vantage point.

    More to topic: My wife has faith in the machine that goes "ping". The entire modern medical system is a placebo to her. So it's not just the empty pill she gets from her doctor; it's the fact of doctors, clinics, high-tech hospitals. So I wonder if we don't normally have our placebo effect nearly maxed-out anyway?
    A pong by any other name is still a pong. -williampinn
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    4,843
    cypress

    A few years back, there was a Scientific American article on the placebo effect. This article referred to medical conditions that were, or were not responsive to it. Turns out that more are not responsive (except that, dangerously, symptoms may be masked) than are responsive. By which I mean that the placebo effect will not heal these conditions, or even speed recovery times.

    Prominent among conditions that the placebo effect will not touch are those ailments that lead to death. Cancers. Infections. Serious trauma etc. However, the placebo effect, by masking symptoms, may lead people into believing they are being helped. They then die from lack of proper medical care.

    Pong

    I totally disagree with you when you claim there is a point that rational thinking cannot take you. Faith is a deception. Rational thinking will tell you that the traditinal view of God, from Christians, Jews and Muslims, must be wrong. It will also tell you that there is no evidence to totally disprove the existence of a deity, albeit one quite different to the trditional model. To go from this point, by a leap of faith, to claiming no diety exists, is to be irrational. You may be correct. But you also may be totally wrong. Sadly, we are unlikely ever to find out for sure.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #65  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by skeptic
    cypress

    A few years back, there was a Scientific American article on the placebo effect. This article referred to medical conditions that were, or were not responsive to it. Turns out that more are not responsive (except that, dangerously, symptoms may be masked) than are responsive. By which I mean that the placebo effect will not heal these conditions, or even speed recovery times.
    OK, I accept that of the conditions studied, more were not responsive. I'm not sure that it follows that on the whole, more conditions are not responsive.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #66  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    675
    This is a strange question in light of the fact that 16,000 people starve to death daily.

    If it was God's policy to help any on earth then this would not happen.

    The answer with my proof is a definite NO.
    God does nothing here on earth.

    At least not the imaginary Bible God.

    As a Deist, I know that our real Godhead does do a bit when found but only in thought, not with any miracles. Miracles are fantasy.

    Regards
    DL
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #67  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    1,191
    Who are you to know what God would and would not do?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Who are you to know what "god" would or would not do?
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #69  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by Greatest I am
    This is a strange question in light of the fact that 16,000 people starve to death daily.
    so you think the planet is under-resourced

    If it was God's policy to help any on earth then this would not happen.
    either that or there is something about the exponential demand for energy and resources for trivial ends that is not in line with god's version of universal management
    The answer with my proof is a definite NO.
    God does nothing here on earth.
    at the very least, a mode of civilization that harbors gross stupidity gets neutered by the environment

    At least not the imaginary Bible God.
    kind of a no-brainer
    imaginary anythings don't really cut a great deal of action full stop

    As a Deist, I know that our real Godhead does do a bit when found but only in thought, not with any miracles. Miracles are fantasy.

    Regards
    DL
    strangely enough, the only way that your statement can be held as valid is if you are omniscient (which would constitute a miracle and thus render your claim false)
    anything else?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #70  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    30
    God heals the wound after the limb is cut off. Doctors cut and tear, then God heals it. To me the point you are trying to make is that God doesn't do what you want him to do. God craeted a beautiful world for us to live in, but nobody gets out of it alive. Yeah, we're flesh and blood mortal and hate God for that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #71  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by stlekee
    God heals the wound after the limb is cut off.
    It's time for a test of your faith, then. Saw off your arm with a hacksaw and let's watch as god heals it for you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #72  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    30
    The point is that if my arm were to get cut off, it can heal and I don't have to die from the injury. Sure a doctor will have to do some work so I don't bleed to death, but the wound will heal. I will be missing an arm, but I won't have an open wound.

    You seem to be looking for miracles as proof of God's existence. Perhaps the miracle is that we are alive and able to survive serious injury. How about this, instead of God growing new arms for amputees, why doesn't he just prevent the accident in the first place. That would be a huge miracle but we would never even know it happened because it was prevented. So maybe every day that I survive without some major accident is proof that God exists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #73  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by stlekee
    You seem to be looking for miracles as proof of God's existence.
    No, actually. Any proof whatsoever would probably suffice. Doesn't have to be a miracle. I was simply replying to your comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #74  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by stlekee
    You seem to be looking for miracles as proof of God's existence.
    No, actually. Any proof whatsoever would probably suffice. Doesn't have to be a miracle. I was simply replying to your comment.
    You couldn't have more dramatically missed the point if you passed a post graduate course on it.

    The point of stlekee is that you already have all the proof you will ever need in prolific abundance - all around you for every second your consciousness survives. Your problem and your most formidable enemy then; is your own perception - or the deficiency thereof.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Transient
    Posts
    2,914
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by stlekee
    You seem to be looking for miracles as proof of God's existence.
    No, actually. Any proof whatsoever would probably suffice. Doesn't have to be a miracle. I was simply replying to your comment.
    You couldn't have more dramatically missed the point if you passed a post graduate course on it.

    The point of stlekee is that you already have all the proof you will ever need in prolific abundance - all around you for every second your consciousness survives. Your problem and your most formidable enemy then; is your own perception - or the deficiency thereof.
    Subjective bullshit that is unsubstantiated, just as were stlekee's claims. You don't understand that the point we make is there is no necessity to claim 'god'
    Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools, because they have to say something.
    -Plato

    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #76  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by Arcane_Mathematician
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by stlekee
    You seem to be looking for miracles as proof of God's existence.
    No, actually. Any proof whatsoever would probably suffice. Doesn't have to be a miracle. I was simply replying to your comment.
    You couldn't have more dramatically missed the point if you passed a post graduate course on it.

    The point of stlekee is that you already have all the proof you will ever need in prolific abundance - all around you for every second your consciousness survives. Your problem and your most formidable enemy then; is your own perception - or the deficiency thereof.
    Subjective bullshit that is unsubstantiated, just as were stlekee's claims. You don't understand that the point we make is there is no necessity to claim 'god'
    You guys love this 'we' (as a group thing) vs 'him' - as standing alone, huh? Such subversive elitism, is as ugly and infantile as it gets.

    In any case, what you obviously fail to realise is that your statement is as pathetically subjective as it comes, and in your subjective condition, you also fail to realise there to be an abundantly objective substantiation all around you. But again - it is clearly perception that is lacking here.

    BTW, I can throw profanities around as well as anyone, however you should recognise that your obvious inclination to do so, neither authenticates you, nor diminishes the serious deficiency within your observations.
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  78. #77  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by stlekee
    You seem to be looking for miracles as proof of God's existence.
    No, actually. Any proof whatsoever would probably suffice. Doesn't have to be a miracle. I was simply replying to your comment.
    You couldn't have more dramatically missed the point if you passed a post graduate course on it.

    The point of stlekee is that you already have all the proof you will ever need in prolific abundance - all around you for every second your consciousness survives.
    Faith Proof


    Would you like to try looking behind door number 3 instead? You seem to have hit a wammy there. Or, perhaps you are content to continue with personal nonsense and the avoidance of the actual topic, choosing instead to lob vitriol and invective instead of evidence?

    Please, sir... Do define for us all a clear, consistent, and measurable definition of god which is agreed upon by all viewers, then present us with your evidence of its existence. This should be rich. I'm not talking about logical philosophical circle-jerk proofs, but empiricism.

    I await your adequate response to this challenge. I'm not a betting man, but I have a strong feeling that my wait will be indefinite.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  79. #78  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by Apopohis Reject
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Quote Originally Posted by stlekee
    You seem to be looking for miracles as proof of God's existence.
    No, actually. Any proof whatsoever would probably suffice. Doesn't have to be a miracle. I was simply replying to your comment.
    You couldn't have more dramatically missed the point if you passed a post graduate course on it.

    The point of stlekee is that you already have all the proof you will ever need in prolific abundance - all around you for every second your consciousness survives.
    Faith Proof

    Blah, blah, blah .... choosing instead to lob vitriol and invective instead of evidence?
    So where is your proof, or evidence if you prefer that term? And whilst you are about it, please evince this 'vitriol', or 'invective' per your curious claim?


    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    Please, sir... Do define for us all a clear, consistent, and measurable definition of god which is agreed upon by all viewers, then present us with your evidence of its existence. This should be rich. I'm not talking about logical philosophical circle-jerk proofs, but empiricism.
    How inane can a wammy possibly get????

    It is as obvious as you llike - whatever ANYONE says about ANYTHING on ANY topic at all - much less your ethereal 'god', will inevitably be doomed to failure at being "agreed upon by all viewers" - being your juvenile requirements. So you really need to get a little REAL and MATURE with your challenges - in the first instance.

    Secondly you may as well give up on your seeking for empiricism per this and all other observations, if your consummate failure to recognise the patently obvious continues unabated.


    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    I await your adequate response to this challenge. I'm not a betting man, but I have a strong feeling that my wait will be indefinite.
    It's no great secret there exists absolutely NO "clear, consistent, and measurable definition of god", for the very fact that all definitions exist merely in the subjective confines of each individual's imagination, and how do you (at least) measure that? Truly now; all the above appears to read as an eternal frustration for you, doesn't it?

    Moreover, it matters not what I, or anyone else says about your 'god', for your 'god' - as pointed out above, exists within your imagination. Therefore quite simply - you are clearly the universal supreme being in this regard, so I will not even attempt to usurp your exalted position.

    I guess your wait was not as indefinite as you originally thought, huh?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  80. #79  
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,500
    So, now you're evading and trying to shift the burden of proof, all the while continuing with the personal nonsense. Yeah, no thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  81. #80  
    Forum Bachelors Degree Apopohis Reject's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    489
    Quote Originally Posted by inow
    So, now you're evading and trying to shift the burden of proof, all the while continuing with the personal nonsense. Yeah, no thanks.
    As could have been expected - you typically confuse logic with evasion and reasoning with nonsense, huh?

    Hey I feel your pain, but why don't you take a deep breath and face the issues head on? It would admittedly require you to come to terms with your tunnel-vision perception, but the rewards for you could be so much more fulfilling. After all, the issues you have raised, all stem from your own silly door number 3 challenges, remember?
    sunshinewarrior: If two people are using the same word, but applying different meanings to it, then they're not communicating.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •