Why wont god heal amputees

[jodylee]

Allah, God, Jesus, Gandalf, Mad Max, The Terminator, Donald Duck, or Eric Cartmans mother... none of these fictional characters or any other will actually DO anything, other than being talked about. I know it is very difficult to grasp, that made up beings cannot spring to life, but I don't think there is anyone who can prove that it has ever happened?

P.S

No, Batman will not assist either, he just goes after criminals in Gotham City in cartoons and crappy movies.

I've seen the terminator,he's real.

 

[Diuretic]

eots, why did you bring those propagandists into this? They've been demolished by real scientists who know of what they write/speak. This is where it gets so very wrong. Your propagandists are as bad as the close-minded atheist of your article. They twist and turn the scientific known and try to make it to their advantage. They are, by and large, charlatans. Perhaps they're driven by their own doubt, they have to bolster their faith by misrepresenting the scientific known. If that's the case I feel a bit sorry for them but then even Mother Teresa admitted she sometimes doubted. Heck you wouldn't be a normal believer if doubts didn't nibble at you.

The charlatans attack science because they believe science sows the seeds of doubt. But it's completely consistent for someone to be a scientist and to believe in a deity. It's also quite okay for someone to be a scientist and not to believe in a deity. If a scientist were to try to disprove some aspect of religious belief simply out of a childish form of spite then I would condemn him or her for being un-scientific. Science should not be about a particular partisan position, it should be as objective as possible in its efforts to know. Your charlatans, particularly the ones who actually practice their science in order to find proof of the existence of the deity are as bad as that other charlatan from Stalin's time, Trofim Lysenko. He too perverted science but it wasn't for a religion (note to objectors, dialectical materialsm is NOT a religion so don't throw it at me, if you do I may ignore you).

When I was going to high school we had religious instruction lessons (I was a Catholic in a nominally Anglican state school so my RI classes were conducted in school but by a local Catholic priest) and we had science lessons (physics, biology and chemistry). And waddya know? Our priest taught us the Catechism and our physics teacher taught us the physics curriculum and our chemistry teacher taught use the chemistry curriculum and our biology teacher taught use the biology curriculum and they complemented each other. The priest didn't rant and rave about science trying to disprove God. But this was in the late 1960s after the Second Vatican Council and post-Chardin so the Catholic Church had come to an see the theory of evolution in a different light from its previous, more fundamentalist position.

That some of us have a tendency towards fundamentalism is undeniable, the evidence is there in front of us. Charlatan "scientists" who hammer science because it doesn't seem to support the literal interpretation of the Bible need to start reading up on hermeneutics and they should read Chardin to open their minds to a universe of possibilities.

 

[Diuretic]

I've seen the terminator,he's real.

Me too, in Orlando, Fla. at Universal Studios.

Didn't see Elivs though

 

[Chips Rafferty]

Really? So your idea of a "democratic society" is telling others what they can and cannot believe in based on what you do and do not believe in?

You talk democracy, but all I've seen so far from you is intolerance and extremism.

Really? So your idea of a "democratic society" is telling others what they can and cannot believe in based on what you do and do not believe in?

But...but...isn't this exactly what America has done since their as-popular-as-rats-under-the-house Puritan progenitors got ran out of Urup on a rail?

Isn't forcibly imposing (....with the utmost altruism and feelings of plastic Calvinazi LURVE, of course!) your exclusively wholesome (i.e. dry-retch inducing) Merkin values and deMOCKacy the lynchpin of Murka's "War For Terra"?

Didn't your Dear Leader suggest that if Murka gets out of I-wrack these sand bound savages will revert back to their traditional primitive Muslimanity?

Wasn't bringing purblind Proddie bigotry, Burger King, and baseball to the poor benighted denizens of non-Umurucun countries what you died in four world wars for Gurney?

 

[Ruby]

Almost everything that you know, about the world today, or historically, is based on second-hand information, usually relaying eyewitness accounts. Especially before the invention of photography and video, this was pretty much the only means of passing knowledge. Even with respect to Nagasaki, the belief that you can go and see it is based (presumably) upon something you read or something someone told you. This is still just a second-hand account. Even physical evidence of history is only understood contextually, based on second-hand eyewitness accounts. It is just how we understand the world.

Its not about second information or eye-witness accounts, its the fact that physical evidence exists, documentation across a large spectrum exists etc. Evidence that can be verified by various 3rd party entities. It would not rely on a "belief" or an "emtional experience" or an "eyewitness account".

Much of what is believed and lacks actual evidence is only believed to be true based on compelling evidence and not on facts and are viewed as such.

I think Larkin is actually saying the very opposite (Larkin, please tell me if I am wrong). He is pointing out that you accept evidence all the time for things that you don't directly experience.

He has stated that the bible is evidence of god and I dont think that the bible can equate to the evidence we have for the holocaust or the atomic bombs dropped on Japan and yet he does try to equate them. He seems to feel they both have equal evidence to offer.

As a rather insignificant matter, it is not true that the non-existence of something can't leave evidence. A black hole is merely the absence of matter. Nonetheless, this "non-existence" affects the manner in which matter moves in relation to it. By observing the movement of matter, we have evidence for the non-existence of matter in a different location. Not really important, but I think it is interesting.

No, it has a physical evidence to prove its existence.

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/oct/blackhole/

But in order to prove it was a black hole, the team from Germany's Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics had to show that all of that material is packed into a very small space. One way to do this is by watching stars around it. For All Things Considered, NPR's David Kestenbaum reports on their findings.

It creates a PHYSICAL manifestation that can be viewed and verified.

This is the crux of your misunderstanding with Larkin (I think). It hinges on the distinction between evidence and credible evidence.

I dont think so, just saying somthing "IS" isnt evidence at all. Its saying that the emporer of Japan was really a god just because people said so.

Records of testimony at the Salem witch trials are actually evidence that there were witches (it is also, as you pointed out, evidence of a general belief in sorcery). They are first hand eyewitness accounts of acts of sorcery. Fortunately, we can use other evidence of the manners of belief of the people of Salem, coupled with evidence of those peoples’ lack of understanding about the physical world, to decide that the evidence of witchcraft is not credible. It is nonetheless evidence of actual witchcraft – just not ultimately credible when the situation is viewed as a whole.

No the trials were not evidence there were witches, since no evidence can actually be found to say they were indeed witches. The trials only illustrate evidence that people BELIEVED there were witches.

This is also proof of whats WRONG with eyewitness accounts, they didnt witness witchcraft. They either witnessed somthing they didnt understand and interjected their own sinister explanation or they out and out lied.

The benchmark for "evidence" is just as lacking in the witch trials then as Larkins view that the bible is evidence of god.

Even without physical evidence, the eyewitness accounts of the survivors of the Holocaust stand as evidence that it truly occurred. The cumulative effect of thousands of such accounts makes this evidence very, very strong. The physical existence of Auschwitz is just more evidence.

Eyewitness accounts alone could not be be viewed as enough evidence to consider the holocaust fact. The only part that would be compelling evidence would be that if witnesses came forward with the same stories and similiar experiences but had no knowledge of each other. That still couldnt make the case on its own though. Corroborating evidence is what makes the case....for instance, the fact that so many NON-COMBATANTS of jewish descent were gone without a trace would be corroborationg evidence of a genocide directed towards them.

This would only lead us to call it compelling evidene.

But then we have documentation, the physical ovens, the pictures etc.

Now the Bible. The Bible, inasmuch as it is relaying second-hand (or third, fourth, etc.) accounts of miracles and brushes with divinity, provides evidence of the existence of god. You may believe (as do I) that this evidence, in light of the surrounding circumstances (misunderstandings of the physical world, the existence of the “telephone” affect in storytelling, etc) is not credible. Nonetheless, it is some evidence of the existence of god, as is every first-hand account of a miracle or conversation with the all-mighty – however unlikely we may believe these to be.

No the bible isnt evidence nor does it offer any. This is like saying that someone claims to have seen pink unicorns so this is evidence that pink unicorns exist. Its not evidence at all.

The question of credibility is subjective. What might be credible to one person, may not be credible to another. You don’t feel this evidence is credible, but Larkin is just pointing out that, regardless, this is still evidence.

No its not all that subjective....credibility comes about by giving a body of evidence. The bible is no more evidence of god than the Lord of the rings is for immortal elves.

 

[Darwin]

I've seen the terminator,he's real.

Yeah, as far as I can tell The Terminator is as real as Jesus. Just because characters exist in fictional literature does not make it real to me, but appearantly to many and possibly you, unless you were joking.

 

[Darwin]

I'm curious as to what the US has to do with your pride over inaction in your own country over Rwanda ?

Lack of violent actions is not the same as inaction though? Or have you been tapping into all our diplomatic channels? Maybe god told ya though, which does mean you have some heavy evidence to back your claims.

 

[Darwin]

Almost everything that you know, about the world today, or historically, is based on second-hand information, usually relaying eyewitness accounts. Especially before the invention of photography and video, this was pretty much the only means of passing knowledge. Even with respect to Nagasaki, the belief that you can go and see it is based (presumably) upon something you read or something someone told you. This is still just a second-hand account. Even physical evidence of history is only understood contextually, based on second-hand eyewitness accounts. It is just how we understand the world.

Certainly all information presented to us might be untrue to some extent. USA are very big on this when starting illegal wars, for example, when they use what is called "propaganda" and filthy lies which will turn out to be lies eventually, like WMDs and the tonkin incident.

To deny the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as anything but 100% truth in this day and age, especially if one is a citizen of the country who is guilty of the crime, is as bad as Germans denying the holocaust imo. But perhaps you are saying that might not have happened either?

I do not base anything I consider fact on second hand eyewitness accounts alone. There are many pictures from the holocaust and the aftermath of the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent japanese men, women and children. Not to mention the proof of destroyed genes as they have been giving birth to stillborn and brutally disfigured and sick children, cancer etc, from the radioactive fallout following the massmurders for many decades afterwards.

I think Larkin is actually saying the very opposite (Larkin, please tell me if I am wrong). He is pointing out that you accept evidence all the time for things that you don't directly experience.

To say that the voices in a schizofrenics head, which they might think is the "God" of their culture is as strong evidence as the evidence we have for the holocaust is just plain silly, to me. But if that is what you are going to believe no matter what, then I guess that proves exactly how sane many religious people are, huh?

As a rather insignificant matter, it is not true that the non-existence of something can't leave evidence. A black hole is merely the absence of matter. Nonetheless, this "non-existence" affects the manner in which matter moves in relation to it. By observing the movement of matter, we have evidence for the non-existence of matter in a different location. Not really important, but I think it is interesting.

A black hole is super dense matter. So much matter, that the gravitational pull even traps photons, which makes it "black" as it sucks in all light around it. By observing the black hole moving infront of stars etc, we can "see" it. The exact physics of a black hole is so far just theory, though.

This is the crux of your misunderstanding with Larkin (I think). It hinges on the distinction between evidence and credible evidence.

Records of testimony at the Salem witch trials are actually evidence that there were witches (it is also, as you pointed out, evidence of a general belief in sorcery). They are first hand eyewitness accounts of acts of sorcery. Fortunately, we can use other evidence of the manners of belief of the people of Salem, coupled with evidence of those peoples’ lack of understanding about the physical world, to decide that the evidence of witchcraft is not credible. It is nonetheless evidence of actual witchcraft – just not ultimately credible when the situation is viewed as a whole.

Even without physical evidence, the eyewitness accounts of the survivors of the Holocaust stand as evidence that it truly occurred. The cumulative effect of thousands of such accounts makes this evidence very, very strong. The physical existence of Auschwitz is just more evidence.

Now the Bible. The Bible, inasmuch as it is relaying second-hand (or third, fourth, etc.) accounts of miracles and brushes with divinity, provides evidence of the existence of god. You may believe (as do I) that this evidence, in light of the surrounding circumstances (misunderstandings of the physical world, the existence of the “telephone” affect in storytelling, etc) is not credible. Nonetheless, it is some evidence of the existence of god, as is every first-hand account of a miracle or conversation with the all-mighty – however unlikely we may believe these to be.

The question of credibility is subjective. What might be credible to one person, may not be credible to another. You don’t feel this evidence is credible, but Larkin is just pointing out that, regardless, this is still evidence.

This is where the whole argumentation goes ridiculous, to me. To compare the evidence of "witches" and "magic" to the holocaust is horrible. To mix real life and fairy tales, and trying to make it all one reality is exactly what religion is about, and why it is dangerous.

If people stop caring about real things like human suffering caused by war, and the fact that people of other religions are just as much people are you or I, then soon you might have people march other people they find different to the gas-chambers, or invade them in a crusade, or make up stories about weapons of mass destruction as an excuse to bomb them back to the stone age and install puppet regimes to suck out their resources etc etc...

Religious minds are gullible minds as they are already so used to living in a fairy tale. They do not seem to notice when "reality" is changed to something new, that better suits the ones in power. Especially when they inform their population that it is "God" who is behind their invasions and war crimes.

 

[Darwin]

Truth is not a personal thing.

It is to the religious, or the one who is trying to defend their delusions, I can tell.

I'm starting to suspect you don't actually exist, perhaps you are just a religious-defense script here to drown any conversation in crap while asking people to take their religious and ethical discussions away from the "religion and ethics" board and talk to "experts" instead. I hope you apply the same to US internal and foreign politics, war and other topics. No point for ya to discuss it here when you can email your local politicians, military leaders etc, right?

 

[Larkinn]

Its not about second information or eye-witness accounts, its the fact that physical evidence exists, documentation across a large spectrum exists etc. Evidence that can be verified by various 3rd party entities. It would not rely on a "belief" or an "emtional experience" or an "eyewitness account".

And what do you think a "various 3rd party entity" is? Its the same as an eye-witness account.

He has stated that the bible is evidence of god and I dont think that the bible can equate to the evidence we have for the holocaust or the atomic bombs dropped on Japan and yet he does try to equate them. He seems to feel they both have equal evidence to offer.

You seem to be unable to understand that two things that are both evidence do not necessarily provide the same amount of support for something. I did NOT say that we have as much evidence for God as we do for the holocaust. That is an asinine reading of my statements.

No, it has a physical evidence to prove its existence.

http://www.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2002/oct/blackhole/

I dont think so, just saying somthing "IS" isnt evidence at all. Its saying that the emporer of Japan was really a god just because people said so.

It IS evidence when people say "we believe X because we saw X". And yes, that is the difference. You have a very narrow and subjective view of what evidence is.

No the trials were not evidence there were witches, since no evidence can actually be found to say they were indeed witches. The trials only illustrate evidence that people BELIEVED there were witches.

There was evidence, then, which provided support for the argument that there were witches.

This is also proof of whats WRONG with eyewitness accounts, they didnt witness witchcraft. They either witnessed somthing they didnt understand and interjected their own sinister explanation or they out and out lied.

Jesus...everything is an eyewitness account.

The benchmark for "evidence" is just as lacking in the witch trials then as Larkins view that the bible is evidence of god.

The benchmark was there, there WAS evidence for them. This is more support for the theory that you are unable to comprehend basic logic or understand what evidence is. Evidence and proof are NOT the same thing.

Eyewitness accounts alone could not be be viewed as enough evidence to consider the holocaust fact.

Bullshit. You have 3 million people ALL who claim to have seen the same thing? Its fact. Do a little bit of research on holocaust denialism. There is a reason it is resurging nowadays when the survivors of the holocaust are mostly dead...there are fewer eyewitness accounts to fight against it.

The only part that would be compelling evidence would be that if witnesses came forward with the same stories and similiar experiences but had no knowledge of each other.

Which is exactly what happened...which puts the lie to your previous statement.

No the bible isnt evidence nor does it offer any. This is like saying that someone claims to have seen pink unicorns so this is evidence that pink unicorns exist. Its not evidence at all.

Yes, it is evidence that pink unicorns exist. Again you fail to realize the difference between evidence and proof. There is evidence for any number of theories, many of which are false.

No its not all that subjective....credibility comes about by giving a body of evidence. The bible is no more evidence of god than the Lord of the rings is for immortal elves.

Yes it is subjective. Its called epistemology, its an entire study of what we can know, and what knowledge.

 

[Larkinn]

Lack of violent actions is not the same as inaction though? Or have you been tapping into all our diplomatic channels? Maybe god told ya though, which does mean you have some heavy evidence to back your claims.

Genocides don't stop through diplomacy. If your government was trying to stop it through talking to the Rwandan government, than its no wonder your country has no power on the international stage.

To say that the voices in a schizofrenics head, which they might think is the "God" of their culture is as strong evidence as the evidence we have for the holocaust is just plain silly, to me. But if that is what you are going to believe no matter what, then I guess that proves exactly how sane many religious people are, huh?

Non-sequiter.

This is where the whole argumentation goes ridiculous, to me. To compare the evidence of "witches" and "magic" to the holocaust is horrible. To mix real life and fairy tales, and trying to make it all one reality is exactly what religion is about, and why it is dangerous.

You subjectively have decided what is "real life" and what is "fairy tales" based on your own personal biases and beliefs. I'm sure you find it "dangerous" people people to have different beliefs than you do...and thats why holding dogmatic beliefs like you do is so dangerous.

Religious minds are gullible minds as they are already so used to living in a fairy tale. They do not seem to notice when "reality" is changed to something new, that better suits the ones in power. Especially when they inform their population that it is "God" who is behind their invasions and war crimes.

As an atheist your mind doesn't seem all too sharp either.

 

[Darwin]

You subjectively have decided what is "real life" and what is "fairy tales" based on your own personal biases and beliefs. I'm sure you find it "dangerous" people people to have different beliefs than you do...and thats why holding dogmatic beliefs like you do is so dangerous.

Yeah, I base my convictions on what is real and not real, on the education I have recieved and worked on a lot myself combined with my ability to reason and think...

It seems to me, that religious people decide what is "real life" and "fairy tales" based on two thousand year old books, written by relatively uneducated primitive savages.

Do you suggest it is crazy not to go with option #2, or that you have a much better method?

If I say pink flying unicorns do exist, and that they shit out candy which is lovely to consume... do you actually think this is a possibility? If you really do, then I am quite sure we have nothing more to say to eachother as we live in completely different realities.

 

[Doug]

Darwin: You have made some good arguments here about not accepting something just because many people believe it to be true, and because it feels good to believe it. I would agree with that. We need to be critical about sweeping claims, and be careful about checking the evidence for them.

It is also true when thinking about secular issues, as I am sure you would agree.

In a previous post you said
"... the proof of destroyed genes as they have been giving birth to stillborn and brutally disfigured and sick children, cancer etc, from the radioactive fallout following the massmurders for many decades afterwards."

I wonder if you could quantify that general statement a bit.

Do you have any references which could give general figures for, for example, increase of birth defects among the descendants of victims at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? (I assume this is what you mean by "stillborn" and "brutally disfigured and sick children".)

Or any general figures for the increase in cancers? Did the people exposed to the nuclear blasts later have a much higher cancer rate than normal? Twice as high? Worse?

It would set a good standard if these claims could be soberly documented -- it would show the believers in the supernatural the superiority of rational thinking.