Why wont god heal amputees

[Darwin]

there is no point in debating religion....those that believe do....those that don't don't....

as for god healing amputees....faith heals....god does not heal....

So.. Faith heals amputees? Got any video of it? (Heroes TV-Series cheerleader chick wont fly, I know its fake!)

 

[Darwin]

It's 10pm here and it's time for me to go sleep. Perhaps God will visit me and I can come tomorrow and share my proof of God with you all! Or ask him to heal an amputee or two?

Night night!

 

[mattskramer]

So.. Faith heals amputees? Got any video of it? (Heroes TV-Series cheerleader chick wont fly, I know its fake!)

I thought that it was common knowledge that if you have cancer and believe that you will be healed of it, you are more likely to be healed of it than if you think that you will die from it.

See http://www.originpress.com/placeboeffect/

Doctors have known for centuries about placebo healing, and healers worldwide have long recognized that simple faith can cause healing miracles. In this inspired study of the unacknowledged power of the placebo, Lolette Kuby Ph.D. argues that the common denominator across all forms of treatments for illness is an innate self-healing capacity that medicine calls the placebo effect, and which religion knows as faith healing. The author goes on to show how you can consciously trigger the placebo effect, independent of external agencies, through direct faith in the inner source of all healing.

 

[Ruby]

No, he didnt.

he did but its a really minor and meaningless point.

A book about what they saw and believed to be true. The claim that "books" are not evidence would draw ire from a great many historians who base their entire field on the presupposition that books are in fact evidence.

We do have a lot of history that is fiction. Victors and the powerful write history so when we do come across evidence that contradicts accepted eyewitness accounts we have to revise it.

The history we can count on as factual is the kind that comes with evidence. For instance we know WW2 took place, we have the documents from various countries, we have the pics and films, the govt docts themselves, the normal documents of peoples lives (birth, death, military records).....we have the physical evidence of the concentration camps as well.

History that relies on nothing more than eyewitness accounts is dodgy, very dodgy and it would need some supporting EVIDENCE.

Israel recently allowed historians to see documents that has always been kept out of the public and it changed much of the fictional history thats been around for decades...its now being corrected with some EVIDENCE...evidence that can be reviewed by 3rd parties because it dosent rely on internal emotional experience nor on eyewitness accounts.

So is your claim then that the original texts said that God did not exist? Or that they said something other than that God existed?

A bunch of books were written over the years and formed religious texts. No one knows what they may have originally said or how much they were changed. Even if we could be positive on all of it, we still cant establish their crediblity or establish that what they say they saw actually occurred.

Ah so the people of old were supersticious and stupid, eh? And on what "evidence" do you base this claim? Perhaps books and eyewitness accounts of the people of old?...hmm seems a bit contradictory.

Well we used to kill people for heresy, there were witch burnings and we have had the mythology gods, egyptian gods etc. I think we have a very clear pattern of being superstitious.

Its a pretty clear fact that they had much less knowledge than we have today.

External things produce internal feelings. If you want to always disregard internal feelings, than you should not believe anything except when you are being directly, at that moment, influenced by it. Why believe in coffee? There is none right in front of you, and so all you have is an internal feeling that it exists.

I wouldnt offer my internal feelings coffee exists. You can see it, you can drink it...people grow it and sell it. It can be tested in a lab. It can be verified by any 3rd party via physical evidence and not have to rely on my "internal emotions" to believe it exists.

And you know they have a mental illness because...why exactly? Ah yes, you've already decided and so anyone who has evidence and experiences that contradict those decisions must be "mentally ill".

They can even do brain scans to show mental illnesses, they are quite physical which is why medication works for them.

Someone who offers EVIDENCE would be welcomed. So far, I dont see any.

There are other arguments for God besides that, and I have never put forward that theory.

Are you saying you have evidence then? I havent seen any so far. Please share.

In what way?

If santa "says" we must prohibit science research because its against his laws..its harmful. Its a no brainer really.



http://www.arthurbrooks.net/statistics.html

Wow, a partisan piece huh? Oddly I have never been asked if I am liberal or conservative or secular or religious when I donate.

Thats not what you said. But regardless, it is NOT normal to base what you believe on evidence under your own definition...considering only a small minority of the world is atheist.

It is what I said, its normal to believe in things based on evidence. Most people do, religion is simply passed on via parents when people are very small and dont question and then try to use the "masses" believe to help prop it up. But majority belief isnt evidence....a majority believed that the earth was flat at one time, that didnt make it true nor was it evidence the world was flat.

Re-write this please if you want me to respond to it.

Pretty simple really. Two critical thinkers read the same book and come to different conclusions...the difference is that BOTH would actually READ the book and be sure it exists and base their views on the information of the book instead of relying on someone else to say it exists and what it says.

I've already addressed this. There IS evidence. You seem to want to discount it, but you cannot argue that the evidence does not exist.

No you havent presented ANY evidence at all and this is exactly why its so harmful, you seem to be completely incapable of grasping what constitutes evidence.

 

[manu1959]

So.. Faith heals amputees? Got any video of it? (Heroes TV-Series cheerleader chick wont fly, I know its fake!)

is physical healing your standard?....one can heal oneself in ways other than phsical....are legs or arms necessary for a good life....

is your claim if someone can not regrow a limb then god does not exist? of course it is.....

god exists because people believe god exists....and as long as people belive...god will exist....

democrats always want god to take care of them....like some big social program....

 

[Darwin]

I thought that it was common knowledge that if you have cancer and believe that you will be healed of it, you are more likely to be healed of it than if you think that you will die from it.

See http://www.originpress.com/placeboeffect/

Doctors have known for centuries about placebo healing, and healers worldwide have long recognized that simple faith can cause healing miracles. In this inspired study of the unacknowledged power of the placebo, Lolette Kuby Ph.D. argues that the common denominator across all forms of treatments for illness is an innate self-healing capacity that medicine calls the placebo effect, and which religion knows as faith healing. The author goes on to show how you can consciously trigger the placebo effect, independent of external agencies, through direct faith in the inner source of all healing.

I know what the placebo effect is, too tired to read your links on the subject. I still would claim and ask for any proof to prove me wrong, that the placebo effect cannot heal amputees (I was refering to the title of the thread in my previous post).

 

[manu1959]

It's 10pm here and it's time for me to go sleep. Perhaps God will visit me and I can come tomorrow and share my proof of God with you all! Or ask him to heal an amputee or two?

Night night!

god could heal your wound .....

 

[Larkinn]

As the distinction is a great interest of yours, please give us a short answer on the big difference between the two, as you see it. Then we can use that as a basis for further discussion. Thanks.

Seriously?...you want the difference between evidence and proof? Evidence is something which supports the claim that something is true...proof is when you have enough evidence to fully and reasonably believe something is true.

I was not discussing which nation was better. I was discussing what was better of
1. Relying on religious charity
2. Having a reliable system which aims to help all, funded by all.

I don't know any nation that relies solely on religious charity, so if this is the discussion you wish, it will be a short and very theoretical one.

You are the one criticizing me for saying socialist healthcare is better than charity. Calling me a nationalist for pointing this fact out too.

Actually what you said was "In my country we pay taxes and take care of eachother with the tax money, instead of slaughtering innocent people on the other side of the planet in places we have no business being in. Imagine that."

Unless you think that slaughtering innocent people on the other side of the planet is "charity", then no, thats not what I was criticizing you for.

I do not think that our health care is equal to our "nation", that is you who put those words in my mouth to try and "win" some argument I guess?

Funny, but we weren't discussing just healthcare.

And the massacre of millions of people was possible how?

In part through the indocrination of millions. It was also possible through advances in science. Shall we think those things are "bad" as well?

What "thing" are you refering to? Critical thinking which was something you brought up?

Religion. And no, I did not bring up critical thinking.

Most people who believe in something strongly, would probably do best to think about it too, don't you think? That is how I think you best fight racism, nationalism and such ruining a society. Bring the ideas up for discussion and analyze them thoroughly so we can try to see them for what they are.

You should perhaps do this with your own beliefs as well.

. A first step in the process that could be good is NOT TO DISCUSS IT ON MESSAGEBOARDS THEN, DON'T YOU THINK?

How the hell did you get from my statement about you to this?

 

[Larkinn]

What assumptions have I made? And in what way am I sticking to them? I have not noticed any real issue or any facts being discussed here yet.

That I am religious, that I am a Capitalist, and that I am Nationalistic. Just for starters.

It can still be proven with data though? The paths of the planets and their moons etc are not a big mystery nowadays?

Hmm maybe. I don't know enough about the topic to say for sure...but if you like just substitute any past event that can't be shown that it must have occurred based on present circumstances.

 

[Darwin]

is physical healing your standard?....one can heal oneself in ways other than phsical....are legs or arms necessary for a good life....

is your claim if someone can not regrow a limb then god does not exist? of course it is.....

god exists because people believe god exists....and as long as people belive...god will exist....

democrats always want god to take care of them....like some big social program....

I... was... refering.. to... the title... of the... thread.. *pant wheeze*...

I know... god... exists in the... minds of... the... believers.... as,.. I have... previously stated... it's fine... with me... as long as "god" is kept out of politics and legislation.... and... education....

The... american democrats and republicans... are as far... as.... I'm concerned.. *pant wheeze*... the same party and dem/repub debates bore me something... horrible..... which is... why you won't ... find me... posting on any ... threads comparing the two.....

Do you think.. R Kelly can fly .... just because he believes it too?

 

[Darwin]

That I am religious, that I am a Capitalist, and that I am Nationalistic. Just for starters.

Not really. You were the one who started with calling me a nationalist for arguing that nationalized healthcare is better than religious charity.

I found it to be ridiculous so threw the same silly crap right back at you, making you a "capitalist" as you criticized "socialism". The Nationalist thing was a reply to the same accusations, from you. So, you started it and I kept going to see how you liked it, yes? It's something I do frequently when people say things I find uncalled for, sorry.

Where did I say you were religious though? That I cannot remember, quote me if you have something in mind and have the time to find it, just curious not calling you a liar... yet

Hmm maybe. I don't know enough about the topic to say for sure...but if you like just substitute any past event that can't be shown that it must have occurred based on present circumstances.

Hmm... You want me to argue on your behalf with myself? No way. You come up with a good example to back whatever point you are trying to make, dude!

 

[Ruby]

People value their lives (Christian or not). I think that people must have a very strong faith in God and the afterlife if someone were to stick a gun in their faces and tell them to denounce God. “If I denounce God I continue to live but face Hell when I die.” If I refuse to denounce God I die now but go to spend eternity in heaven”.

People are willing to die for other things too....a willingness to die for a "god" dosent provide us evidence one exists, it just provides evidence that someone BELIEVED it enough to die over it.

No. I have not decided. I still bounce back and forth.

Well you arent going to get EVIDENCE of a god, your only choice to believe will have to be based on faith alone....then you have to ask yourself why not hindu, jewish, buddism, islam etc. They are ALL based on faith alone so how do you choose the RIGHT ONE?

I see your point. Religion is more a faith than a science. It does not prove anything but it does fill in the gaps that science has yet to fill.

It is a faith and it DOES NOT FILL ANY GAPS, it gives fictional answers. Just making stuff up is not providing an answer and filling in a gap. That is exactly what I mean when I say "god of the gaps argument".

Even the Bible says, “Come, let us reason”. I don’t know of any preacher who says to not study science and think. Religion offers answers to fill in the gaps that science has yet to fill. For me, the fact that gaps remain is more supporting to the notion that God might exist than would be the absence of gaps. Even if I were to believe that God exists, it does not follow that I believe in every sentence of the Bible. People often interpret it figuratively. In addition, I have argued against people who say that we should outlaw this or that because the Bible supposedly says so. I do not support the religious right.

Plenty of them do and thats why so many religous people want to homeschool...they dont like that science and evidence debunks the answers previously filled in and that turned out to be wrong. The earth is not 6,000 years old, its not 12,000 years old etc. Its BILLIONS of years old. We werent created as we are....we did evolve and we have evidence of that much.

Yep, people started interperting in figuratively because they just couldnt keep ignoring the overwhelming evidence that contradicts the bibles account...the only way to hold onto the bible as credible is to now pretend they didnt mean it literally, they were speaking figuratively.

The good news is there are definitely many believers who also advocate a total seperation of church and state....they are smart enough to know that the preservation of religion depends on it really.

 

[manu1959]

I... was... refering.. to... the title... of the... thread.. *pant wheeze*...

I know... god... exists in the... minds of... the... believers.... as,.. I have... previously stated... it's fine... with me... as long as "god" is kept out of politics and legislation.... and... education....

The... american democrats and republicans... are as far... as.... I'm concerned.. *pant wheeze*... the same party and dem/repub debates bore me something... horrible..... which is... why you won't ... find me... posting on any ... threads comparing the two.....

Do you think.. R Kelly can fly .... just because he believes it too?

the title said heal...it does not say grow a new limb.....if someone says god healed them then who are you to say that did not occur....

as far as i know god is no more in politics or legislation in the US than it has ever been...if anything the people are trying to remove it further....as for religion in schools....almost every religion but christianity is taught in public schools these days....the order of the day is tollerance for all but white straight christians...

the rest is not worth responding to...

 

[Larkinn]

We do have a lot of history that is fiction. Victors and the powerful write history so when we do come across evidence that contradicts accepted eyewitness accounts we have to revise it.

But yet you accept much of it as true.

The history we can count on as factual is the kind that comes with evidence. For instance we know WW2 took place, we have the documents from various countries, we have the pics and films, the govt docts themselves, the normal documents of peoples lives (birth, death, military records).....we have the physical evidence of the concentration camps as well.

And as people get older and die, we no longer have as many first person accounts of WW2...but yet that doesn't mean it is any less true.

History that relies on nothing more than eyewitness accounts is dodgy, very dodgy and it would need some supporting EVIDENCE.

Eyewitness accounts are evidence.

Israel recently allowed historians to see documents that has always been kept out of the public and it changed much of the fictional history thats been around for decades...its now being corrected with some EVIDENCE...evidence that can be reviewed by 3rd parties because it dosent rely on internal emotional experience nor on eyewitness accounts.

And not all evidence can be. This is another logical flaw. Lack of evidence for something is NOT evidence against it.

A bunch of books were written over the years and formed religious texts. No one knows what they may have originally said or how much they were changed. Even if we could be positive on all of it, we still cant establish their crediblity or establish that what they say they saw actually occurred.

Thats why its not proof. However it IS evidence.

Well we used to kill people for heresy, there were witch burnings and we have had the mythology gods, egyptian gods etc. I think we have a very clear pattern of being superstitious.

And you know this how?...ah yes, eyewitness accounts.

Its a pretty clear fact that they had much less knowledge than we have today.

Based on what exactly is this a "clear fact" ?

I wouldnt offer my internal feelings coffee exists. You can see it, you can drink it...people grow it and sell it. It can be tested in a lab. It can be verified by any 3rd party via physical evidence and not have to rely on my "internal emotions" to believe it exists.

Do you see it right now? No? Than all you have is an "internal feeling" that it exists.

They can even do brain scans to show mental illnesses, they are quite physical which is why medication works for them.

Not all of them.

Someone who offers EVIDENCE would be welcomed. So far, I dont see any.

*sigh* we went over this.

Are you saying you have evidence then? I havent seen any so far. Please share.

Obviously I do...because if I didn't you wouldn't be trying so hard to make it irrelevant.

If santa "says" we must prohibit science research because its against his laws..its harmful. Its a no brainer really.

Really? So all science is good?

http://www.arthurbrooks.net/statistics.html

Wow, a partisan piece huh? Oddly I have never been asked if I am liberal or conservative or secular or religious when I donate.

Not really. I first heard about this on a mainly liberal site. Its a pretty well established fact by now. And you do, I hope, know that surveys generally don't survey the entire population, just a good cross-section, correct?

It is what I said, its normal to believe in things based on evidence. Most people do

No, they don't. Most people don't know logical flaws, are very bad at using logic, and generally believe all sorts of stupid things.

Pretty simple really. Two critical thinkers read the same book and come to different conclusions...the difference is that BOTH would actually READ the book and be sure it exists and base their views on the information of the book instead of relying on someone else to say it exists and what it says.

Yes...however there are sometimes things that are not possible.

No you havent presented ANY evidence at all and this is exactly why its so harmful, you seem to be completely incapable of grasping what constitutes evidence.

Then please explain for us all what exactly constitutes evidence. Please be extremely specific and please also explain why historical books do NOT constitute evidence. Oh and same for eyewitness accounts.

 

[Larkinn]

Not really. You were the one who started with calling me a nationalist for arguing that nationalized healthcare is better than religious charity.

As I said before, thats not why I called you a nationalist.

I found it to be ridiculous so threw the same silly crap right back at you, making you a "capitalist" as you criticized "socialism". The Nationalist thing was a reply to the same accusations, from you. So, you started it and I kept going to see how you liked it, yes? It's something I do frequently when people say things I find uncalled for, sorry.

What you said was strongly nationalistic.

Where did I say you were religious though? That I cannot remember, quote me if you have something in mind and have the time to find it, just curious not calling you a liar... yet

You've strongly implied it.

Hmm... You want me to argue on your behalf with myself? No way. You come up with a good example to back whatever point you are trying to make, dude!

You know the point, if you have any sense at all, you know its valid.

 

[mattskramer]

It is a faith and it DOES NOT FILL ANY GAPS, it gives fictional answers. Just making stuff up is not providing an answer and filling in a gap. That is exactly what I mean when I say "god of the gaps argument".

How do you know that the answers are fictional? Can you prove that they are fictional? Even if science answers all of the questions, it still does not prove that God does not exist in the background (the spinning top theory). Even if I were to believe that God exists, it does not mean that I believe the Jesus existed or that the Bible is true. I might just be a theist. Oh. I think that I'm getting a headache. Oh well. You win, I guess. I don't really care. We agree to disagree. I gotta get back to work and studies. Bye for now.

 

[Ruby]

Religion produces many useful things. It gives people a decent ethical system. It gives people a reason to have compassion, to care, and to give. It gives people a purpose to life, something which many atheists lack. And perhaps most importantly it makes a lot of people very happy.

Absolutely wrong. Another big danger that religion has brought us....the idea that people who dont believe are immoral.

The idea that people NEED a god to punish or reward them to entice them to be moral must come from the type of mind that WANTS to rape and murder and can only be stopped by a threat of punishment. I figure prison works for that and is just as useful as a "god" concept.

The jails are FULL of believers btw.

I have a purpose to live and I am an atheist. This is my only life so its pretty dam precious and I certainly have morals. I dont need some guy in the sky to threaten me with hell to keep me from murdering people. I dont have ANY desire to murder or harm anyone..even when I am angry.

I am an atheist and have never had a problem feeling compassion, have done plenty of giving to charity etc. I never needed mr invisible to do or feel those things.

Are you revealing somthing about your inner criminal and immoral desires here? It makes me wonder since you seem to forward the idea that it creates morals.

 

[Ruby]

How do you know that the answers are fictional? Can you prove that they are fictional? Even if science answers all of the questions, it still does not prove that God does not exist in the background (the spinning top theory). Even if I were to believe that God exists, it does not mean that I believe the Jesus existed or that the Bible is true. I might just be a theist. Oh. I think that I'm getting a headache. Oh well. You win, I guess. I don't really care. We agree to disagree. I gotta get back to work and studies. Bye for now.

Yea we can prove those answers are fictional. We know that we werent created as we are and as it says in the bible. The bible also dates the earth, we can prove that answer is fiction as well.

You are going back to the logical fallacy of since we cant prove it dosent exist it must exist.

 

[Larkinn]

Absolutely wrong. Another big danger that religion has brought us....the idea that people who dont believe are immoral.

When did I ever advance that idea? I didn't.

I have a purpose to live and I am an atheist. This is my only life so its pretty dam precious and I certainly have morals. I dont need some guy in the sky to threaten me with hell to keep me from murdering people. I dont have ANY desire to murder or harm anyone..even when I am angry.

Congratulations. Most atheists lack that purpose to live. Its a damned shame really. And I never said that atheists don't have morals.

I am an atheist and have never had a problem feeling compassion, have done plenty of giving to charity etc. I never needed mr invisible to do or feel those things.

Again congratulations.

Are you revealing somthing about your inner criminal and immoral desires here? It makes me wonder since you seem to forward the idea that it creates morals.

Here is a bit of logic for you. That A provides a reason to do B does NOT mean that A is the ONLY thing that can provide B.

 

[Larkinn]

Yea we can prove those answers are fictional. We know that we werent created as we are and as it says in the bible. The bible also dates the earth, we can prove that answer is fiction as well.

Incorrect. We think we weren't created as we are. And no the Bible does not date the earth.

You are going back to the logical fallacy of since we cant prove it dosent exist it must exist.

I think Matt is trying to show that God MIGHT exist, not that he MUST exist.