Fuddam, A Few Moments Of Your Time Please.

[fuddam]

No, your wrong, there are plenty of fantastic ideas and crazy theories that I believe because they are supported by evidence. The very idea that time and space are the same thing and that the closer you get to the speed of light the slower time goes relative to an observer is a crazy wacky idea that can be difficult to conceptualise but it is verifiably true and scientifically proven. There is a load of evidence to support that theory therefore I accept it. Show me some real evidence of these apparently human amphibian hybrids growing limbs back and I will take it seriously. As I am not aware any cases like this standing up to the slightest scrutiny I have to assume they do not exist and that in fact God does not heal amputees, if you can give me some actual evidence for it I will take it seriously, and by evidence what I mean is some sort of article in a peer reviewed journal, not a happy clappy website. I am sure you won't be able top provide this evidence, not because there isn't a standard that would satisfy me, but because such evidence does not exist, not for amputees, not for anybody (at least nothing which could not be explained by the placebo effect).

same as I said to Iranu. Only thing that (might) satisfy is for you to investigate for yourself. God doesn't jump through hoops, but He absolutely responds to the sincere seeker.

I mentioned, in a thread last year or so, about Benny Hinn & Joyce Meyers visiting India, on separate missions. They had arenas full of people (IIRC, 600,000 at one meeting), and afterwards at many healing services, there were piles of rickshaws and crutches etc, strewn on the floor.

Now, your naturally skeptical self would assume it was all a con, designed to either get money or just trick people into an acceptance of mythology. Well, there it is, *assumption*. I'd go and ask those people for myself if I felt so strongly about it. Just recently there was a momentous movement down in Florida, within many thousands experiencing the Holy Spirit, and many amazing healings. Unlike the first example, at least this is in a 'modern' country, so finding witnesses and those healed should not be too difficult - no doubt blogs/churches/forums going on about it ad nauaseam.

I'll also say, *not* as a disclaimer, that not everyone who expects healing is healed, nor are all healers respectable, but that doesn't dismiss those who *have* experienced healing.

we have reached the impasse, of course. even a peer reviewed journal would not constitute proof, since everyone has an agenda (who's journal, who published it, who edited it etc).

sigh.

for last measure: some double blind tests on the efficacy of prayer. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

[schmunk]

the problem with your assumption is that you assume we can ORDER God to heal people, on cue, repeatedly, for your assurance. Well, sadly for you, He doesn't work that way. He doesn't need to prove anything to you. He might well do so, but for His own reasons, not yours.

See, just because He doesn't play by your rules doesn't mean He hasn't healed people around the globe. There are millions of people who will claim He has healed them divinely, whether it be someone as innocuous as a headache, or growing limbs back in front of many witnesses. You *assume* they're either deluded or lying. That says more about you than it does about them.

If god does perform these healings then one must question their pathetically random nature, as well as the similarly pathetic number, compared to all the ills of the world. If this is god's doing, god is incompetent.

[G4Z]

same as I said to Iranu. Only thing that (might) satisfy is for you to investigate for yourself. God doesn't jump through hoops, but He absolutely responds to the sincere seeker.

I mentioned, in a thread last year or so, about Benny Hinn & Joyce Meyers visiting India, on separate missions. They had arenas full of people (IIRC, 600,000 at one meeting), and afterwards at many healing services, there were piles of rickshaws and crutches etc, strewn on the floor.

Now, your naturally skeptical self would assume it was all a con, designed to either get money or just trick people into an acceptance of mythology. Well, there it is, *assumption*. I'd go and ask those people for myself if I felt so strongly about it. Just recently there was a momentous movement down in Florida, within many thousands experiencing the Holy Spirit, and many amazing healings. Unlike the first example, at least this is in a 'modern' country, so finding witnesses and those healed should not be too difficult - no doubt blogs/churches/forums going on about it ad nauaseam.

I'll also say, *not* as a disclaimer, that not everyone who expects healing is healed, nor are all healers respectable, but that doesn't dismiss those who *have* experienced healing.

we have reached the impasse, of course. even a peer reviewed journal would not constitute proof, since everyone has an agenda (who's journal, who published it, who edited it etc).

sigh.

for last measure: some double blind tests on the efficacy of prayer. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

Yeah right, but were any of these people amputees? Is it just that god hates them so he will cure people with one leg shorter than the other but if your quadriplegic (for some reason when I think of this word I always want to replace it with 'quadraspazzed on a life glug') tough luck?


Also, I will not look into this subject at all or go and speak to anybody about it. Why should I?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, they are your claims therefore you prove them. I didn't have to go out interviewing people who knew Einstein to see the evidence for general relativity, there are peer reviewed journals detailing the experiments available on the internet. Do you have any links to peer reviewed journals that feature articles on amputee healing?

No?

Didn't think so.

[TeePee]

So, you have an objective viewpoint, do you? What makes you so objective? Somehow you're able to stand outside your language, your culture, your biases, but Christians can't. Wow.......

Simple. I'm not trying to prove the christian god with a video of some shoes.

"good fortune" - there is soooooo much info loaded into that statement of yours. The person's leg suddenly grew 'from good fortune".....

No, the 'good fortune' covers the list of plausible, natural reasons for her recovery which I stated in an earlier post.

the reason I posted that link was that it was in reply to a request for any reference in the mainstream media about such healings. It wasn't proof. Of course one should be skeptical about miracles in the media, but if I was unconvinced as you are, I'd investigate it for myself. Find the person, interview them, seek medical opinion from her doctors etc.

It would certainly back your claim to objectivity.

And that's the best you could do? Of every mainstream media source, BBC News, The Times, The Independent, CNN, even Fox News (OK, maybe not Fox) and you're telling me the very best evidence you could find about such healings was this?

If such events were really occuring, there should be evidence everywhere!

You suggest that I should investigate, and again you've missed the point. You're the one with the ridiculous claims, it's up to you to provide evidence. It's up to you to investigate, if you think there's evidence there. Find X-Rays, find medical opinions and when you have some real evidence, maybe we can start to take it seriously. Until then, maybe you should stop accusing others of being lazy.

[TeePee]

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

I really like this paper, which you've linked to many times. It's the perfect example of the christian approach to scientific study.

The results of this one study showed that the subjects who were preyed for, generally showed a better recovery, as a group. This is taken to be proof of everything fuddam says.

The problem is, firstly that the results were not reproducable. Repeated studies showed no difference, much like the Belfast homeopathy results. But if it had, we should view the evidence objectivly, instead of declaring it proof of the christian god.

What does the result really show? It could also be evidence of almost any devine intervention from other religions. It could be evidence of celestine prophecy, or any of many other new age ideas of the power of positive thought. You can't objectivly use this study and say it prooves everything christian.

The problem is that, while the results ARE very interesting, one test alone isn't sufficient to show very much. As I have said previously, further studies should be completed using prayer to different gods, and comparing prayer to 'positive energy'.

Sadly since the results of even this study were not reproducable, so I suspect there is little incentive for further study.

[fuddam]

Yeah right, but were any of these people amputees? Is it just that god hates them so he will cure people with one leg shorter than the other but if your quadriplegic (for some reason when I think of this word I always want to replace it with 'quadraspazzed on a life glug') tough luck?

reactionary.

Also, I will not look into this subject at all or go and speak to anybody about it. Why should I?

because people claim to have been healed and I would argue you are assuming them to be stupid, deluded or liars, and further more, because I assumed you were interested in getting to the truth of the matter. Instead, you have just shown the arrogance of your position.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, they are your claims therefore you prove them. I didn't have to go out interviewing people who knew Einstein to see the evidence for general relativity, there are peer reviewed journals detailing the experiments available on the internet. Do you have any links to peer reviewed journals that feature articles on amputee healing?

hahahaha. I don't have to prove anything, nor does anyone else have to prove their healings. They are healed, they know it. They (and I) celebrate it. Go on living in your little ivory tower. In my world, people are innocent until proven guilty, but clearly not in yours. You put the onus on people to prove they are innocent (ie not liars)

[G4Z]

Yes... I am SO right.

You made the claims, therefore you provide the proof otherwise you will go into the nutter/liar/stupid bin if you don't as far as I am concerned.

You still don't have an answer to my question do you? Why doesn't god heal amputees?

[fuddam]

Yes... I am SO right.

You made the claims, therefore you provide the proof otherwise you will go into the nutter/liar/stupid bin if you don't as far as I am concerned.

You still don't have an answer to my question do you? Why doesn't god heal amputees?

who says He doesn't? same old, same old. You make claims YOU can't backup.

[TeePee]

But fuddam, you can't disprove the FSM, does that make it true?

They're your claims, it's up to you to provide evidence!

[schmunk]

for last measure: some double blind tests on the efficacy of prayer. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html

http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/fenwick_%208_4_04.pdf is also an interesting read. It mentions the Byrd and Harris studies mentioned in your article, but also gives many more examples where there is clearly no significant effect shown (in fact some of the tests suggest negative correlations, but I would suggest that these are equally invalid as positive correlations, or have some other significant but unmentioned factor).

A lovely little critique of the Byrd study here and of the Harris study here. (by the way, you'll note that the ever-so-impressive-looking table from the Harris study in your link shows that a greater proportion of people died in the prayed-for group...)

For further reading, try an expose of a 'miraculous cure'.

Finally, let us finish with The Straight Dope. This contains a superb quote:

'As Eric Stockton pointed out in a letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer (July/August 2000), if prayer works because of God's intervention, and God is the omniscient deity of Christianity (or most any major religion), then He knows He is being tested.'

c.f.

the problem with your assumption is that you assume we can ORDER God to heal people, on cue, repeatedly, for your assurance. Well, sadly for you, He doesn't work that way. He doesn't need to prove anything to you. He might well do so, but for His own reasons, not yours.

[schmunk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/nottingham/cont..._feature.shtml

As a postscript to this link, I would note that it's this Frances Finn who was healed. She sounds like a lovely woman...

Also, I've now managed to see that video on Youtube and, for someone who has just received a miracle cure granting a freedom from walking funny, Franny Finn seems remarkably nonplussed.

There's also an interesting discussion about the video here, on a christian forum. As it mentions, God is not only a healer, but also a tailor. Who'dathunkit? It also raises many of the other questions mentioned above.

What really really really confuses me is, if faith healing is so successful, why doesn't it happen more often? After all, roughly 70% of the UK's population claims to be christian. Why is there nothing more than scattered, circumstantial evidence that faith healing may work (as opposed to, e.g., the well-funded, repeatable studies showing thousands of drugs each year work, or not, very often, but still the results are repeatable and indeed repeated)? Evidence that we apparently will have to go and dig for ourselves, rather than it lying on a plate for us showing us god's true majesty?

Also, if so many people truly are christian, and christian faith healing is so successful, why is the average christian church barely half-full of old, semi-decrepit people, rather than full to bursting with sprightly and energetic people? Or is this because born-again christianity is the only true faith and that the others in their RC, CofE, Methodist etc. churches are simply deluding themselves and will never feel the true energy of god's love?

[mediaboy]

To the last point you made:

Because Churches drive people away with a shocking taste in "modern" music?

The newer hymns would drive away anyone, let alone those that are energetic and like their eardrums and musical sense intact


And before I get shouted down, I provide music for churches (organist) so I know what people like 'cus I get blamed for it when they DON'T like it...

[iranu]

because you ignored my previous posts on the very subject earlier in the thread which answered it. Sigh. "Suffering" ring a bell?

I'm sorry I didn't ignore something on purpose I must have missed it. I'll go back and have a look, but any pointers are most welcome. Threads such as these whereby one poster is trying to reply to a multitude of posters is difficult to keep track of and I appreciate you making the effort. I also dislike splitting peoples posts into sections and replying but I guess that's the only way to counter points.

Sigh again. why are those children in a mess? Because of human choice. Not their choice, of course, but our collective responsibility. You refuse to accept it, that's your business.

Yes I do have a problem with collective responsibility. I find it very difficult to accept punishment of an individual for transgressions or crimes or sins or whatever one wishes to label them, when they are committed by another person. Doubly so when people are paying for such transgressions that are far, far back in history. Most of the countries in the world have judicial systems that punish the transgressor(s). When one talks of "collective responsibility" then one is confined to a group and this group is usually very small. For example, in the UK we have cabinet government and that is a collective responsibility. We wouldn't expect that a transgression committed by such a group would involve the person collecting the coffee cups at such meetings. Sorry to Godwin the thread, but I don't think it would be wise to subject Papa New Guinean tribesmen of the 25th century to trial, let alone sentences of capital punishment, simply upon the grounds that the atrocities of the Nazis were carried out by human beings and therefore other human beings who were not connected in any capacity should also suffer simply because they happen to be human beings.

You are implying that we all sin or transgress (and I'm not going to get into semantics here), however, it seems that some people pay more for that sin than others even when they have not sinned themselves, but are simply born.

I once knew a family who were friends of my folks and their elder child was a mate of my younger brother. Their daughter was 2 years younger and unfortunately she was born with cystic fibrosis . It's a terrible condition. I always remember the chest massages and the leg and arm work outs this little girl had to go through and how her parents carried it them out daily. The constant coughing up of allsorts, the inhalers and constant struggle. This put such a strain on the marriage it broke down and the effect on my brother's friend was huge. They knew she would die in her teens, but not when. When she grew older she knew she would die in her teens, but not when. (Yeah read that again). This girl put up one hell of a fight and she tried to be as normal as possible, she made a large number of friends and was treated just like anyone else. She had her difficulties, but she accepted them and met them stoically. She died aged 13.

She didn't have the chance to pass GCSEs or have a serious boyfriend or go to college/university. She didn't have the opportunity to have and raise children, to enjoy a family or embark upon a career or see grandchildren. She couldn't take part in or win schools sports day trophies or just go swimming with her mates for fun. She tried and tried to be as normal as possible yet she couldn't quite obtain just the basics that other children took for granted.

When she died it was terrible. I still won't talk of her when meeting her older brother, it's far, far too painful for him and I'd be a real assh*le for opening up those wounds even if I meant well.

really? prove it.

Should I aim for the same level of proof that you profess or should I merely ask you to go out and find that proof and stop being lazy? If one asks for a level of proof then one should be willing to give equally when one is asked.

you're very certain of your knowledge. You sound, in fact, exactly like the inquisition demanding proof of the roundness of the earth.

I am as certain as my knowledge is found. In order to change such certainty one would require new evidence and what's more, evidence that would support another view. I see neither. This is not some kind of game and I do not take such engagements lightly. I've had to stand up in Courts of Law, give evidence and my professional opinion concerning such evidence, aswell as be severely cross-examined upon it. I can certainly sift fact from bullsh*t, something that you are incapable of doing, hence your reference to websites that use the word soul and science in the same sentence. One thing I will not do is physically harm those who disagree with my conclusions and I certainly would not ever dismiss proof like some medieval nutcase basing their view on an out of date text book!

Until it was shown to them, they were just as dismissive as you are now, I'd venture. The OBJECTIVE response would be along the lines of "there may be a soul, but we have no scientific proof of it". But you KNOW better, it seems.............

And you find it difficult to see! They had the evidence for a spherical earth since 240BC! Many observers had that evidence and Galileo certainly showed it, but it was religious dogma that got him in trouble. The Catholic church was not dismissive because they were shown, they were dismissive because it didn't tally with scripture. Are you suggesting that modern scientific method should be changed to put people on trial with a real possibility of death just because they propose an Hypothesis backed with data that challenges the orthodox theory?

Yes I agree that a response of "there may be a soul, but we have no scientific proof of it" is valid, however, it does indeed depend upon the description of the word "soul". I asked you to quantify such a notion; whether it was material, immaterial, part of the conscious/personality, but you declined to do so. Once again I'd ask you (and I appreciate time constraints etc).

did i say skill or talent? lol. You need to read more closely before you jump on your horse. Oh, and for the psychology, I have a degree in it, if that makes any difference.

I'm not jumping on my horse I'm merely asking questions you seem reluctant to give a clear answer too. There's no horse-jumping here, this is a local forum for local people.

You are playing semantics with the words talent and skill. I'm well aware of the natural aspect, which ultimately dismisses any notion of the supernatural by definition.

You may well have a degree and I'll take your word at that, however, how can one go against all that one has been taught. The brain is everything, without it we are nothing. I wonder how your co-eds and lecturers reacted to your belief and notion of a soul. Did they ask questions? Did your final examination papers include such notions?

the problem with your assumption is that you assume we can ORDER God to heal people, on cue, repeatedly, for your assurance. Well, sadly for you, He doesn't work that way.

No, I do not assume that we can order god about. I assume that given a sufficiently large number of data sets we can show that god or an external force be it natural or otherwise is acting to produce the effect of amputees regrowing their limbs. Radiation is a completely random decay and yet we are able to measure that. Why can we not measure the occurrence of healed amputees assuming a completely random function? After all this would simulate god's will.

He doesn't need to prove anything to you. He might well do so, but for His own reasons, not yours.

And you know this? If so, how so? This is a nonsensical and quite frankly, childish statement.

You were chastising me for being presumptuous about knowing god's intention for the lives of people ( 1043 yesterday) yet you are now sticking up for god and telling me that he does not need to prove anything and that if he does it's for his own reasons. How are you any different from me in that respect? Secondly you seem to know an awful lot about how god works yet you seem unwilling to simply let him speak for himself. Surely he does not need defending and secondly if he did; would he not do it himself?

See, just because He doesn't play by your rules doesn't mean He hasn't healed people around the globe. There are millions of people who will claim He has healed them divinely, whether it be someone as innocuous as a headache, or growing limbs back in front of many witnesses. You *assume* they're either deluded or lying. That says more about you than it does about them.

Argumentum ad populum. Just because a lot of people claim something does not mean it's true. You only have to look at things like mass "UFO" sightings etc to see how people are wildly off the truth. If we took your criteria for proof we'd believe allsorts of nonsense from crystal healing to who knows what. If you are claiming divine intervention upon those who experience headaches then there really is no hope for you. You claim objectivity and you question other's objectivity and yet you expect us to somehow come to your conclusion. I'm not ragging on you or looking to score points. I'm after a solid position. I know that the thread has deviated somewhat from the OP's post, and that is to be expected and was (imho) not your fault, however, subsequent posts have broadened the thread and you have contributed. We've all effected a wider debate and to that extent I'm a little bit disappointed, but not surprised. I can accept the playing of rules part but I expect that all players are knowledgeable of the rules before they start, otherwise, confusion, cheating, bickering etc is the likely outcome.

There's my challenge again: go look for yourself. Go to churches that are claiming healing, to healing services, and attempt to video these healings, speak to the recipients of healing, try to uncover the truth, instead of getting livid over God's 'injustice' in the world.

I dare you.

Well, for a start videoing, seeing and speaking to such recipients would not gather any valuable data, in the same way that eye witnesses prove to be particularly poor. The general gist maybe there, but the detail isn't. Again science gets around this problem via multiple experiments - after all it's very difficult to hoodwink lots of people when they are repeating your experiment.

Imagine doing the same thing to a magician, his assistant and an audience. This is not to say that such participants are dishonest it's just that it's not evidence that would pass any peer reviewed paper. For that sort of thing we'd need such a church to provide people who were willing to undergo full diagnostics and testing before and after such a healing took place.

I'm going to re-quote this piece because I think it's important.

instead of getting livid over God's 'injustice' in the world.

Firstly you think that I'm livid over god's injustice. I'd like to address that. I do not believe in the Christian God. Therefore such injustice is non-nonsensical and I cannot by definition be livid. When I talk about "god" in that context, I am looking upon the argument from your definitions and qualities for a god. Once more, when I do that I am talking from a point of view of "if" and I'm associating your qualities and definitions as you have alluded to in this thread.

If there were a god who was as plain as our noses then I think there would be alot of legitimate questions that would warrant an answer.

I watched that Johnny Vegas docu a while back, where he went to various churches in the US, to see the truth for himself. Was awesome to see his humility. He didn't get all high and mighty. Surely, with your claims to scientific method, your first port of call should be investigation, not conjecture?

Are you seriously advocating a Johhny Vegas documentary as some kind of proof? He may well have a degree in quaffing the black stuff but in what way is he able to give an objective view to what he was witnessing? Again pie in the sky. I mean come on Fuddam, you're not exactly one of the brain dead numpties that expouse such things, far from it, so why chuck that in?

[fuddam]

But fuddam, you can't disprove the FSM, does that make it true?

They're your claims, it's up to you to provide evidence!

said it before, will say it again: I can provide PLENTY of evidence, but no proof. Not trying to provide proof.

[fuddam]

'As Eric Stockton pointed out in a letter to the editor of Skeptical Inquirer (July/August 2000), if prayer works because of God's intervention, and God is the omniscient deity of Christianity (or most any major religion), then He knows He is being tested.'

and? The point is that HOW He chooses to respond is up to Him, not you or anyone else. He always responds to sincere prayer. Always.

And seeing as you don't accept the validity of feedback from the very people praying, there's not much more that can be said on that subject.

[iranu]

Sincerest apologies chaps and chapesses I seem to have double posted as it were.