IonizeMyAtoms
Spy
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 0
This Just In! Prayer Does Not Heal The Sick!
- Thread starter IonizeMyAtoms
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2004
- Messages
- 12,233
- Reaction score
- 241
But jesus heals? Did the church lie to me again? 
Dino...whats?
Dino...whats?
CptStern
suckmonkey
- Joined
- May 5, 2004
- Messages
- 10,303
- Reaction score
- 62
Hectic Glenn said:But jesus heals? Did the church lie to me again?
this conversation was overheard between jesus and his followers:
Jesus: I'm not the Messiah! Will you please listen? I am not the Messiah, do you understand? Honestly!
Girl: Only the true Messiah denies His divinity.
Jesus: What? Well, what sort of chance does that give me? All right! I am the Messiah!
Followers: He is! He is the Messiah!
Jesus: Now, **** off!
[silence]
Arthur: How shall we **** off, O Lord?
Adabiviak
Space Core
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2004
- Messages
- 4,237
- Reaction score
- 24
lol - I subscribe to the forums at the James Randi Educational Foundation and this comes up all the time (and it's always funny). The catch is that we forget that their beliefs are faith-based. It doesn't matter if Jesus comes down and tells them to their face that they're wrong. There was another funny one about blind holistic healers in Pakistan, and that maybe it just never occurred to them to cure their blindness?
UltimaApocalypse
Newbie
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2005
- Messages
- 1,469
- Reaction score
- 3
Well this is new.
LiquidToast
Newbie
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 95
- Reaction score
- 0
CptStern said:
The Life of Brian?
The Mullinator
Newbie
- Joined
- May 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,794
- Reaction score
- 0
What better way to educate the ignorant than showing the truth by example?CyberPitz said:
DeusExMachina
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2004
- Messages
- 6,938
- Reaction score
- 3
Shit, I should be a scientist. I could've told you all of this.
FieryGoose
Spy
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 565
- Reaction score
- 0
Ahh, this can in no way be tested, the world is just bringing themselves to a even more pathetic level. Since when do people that don't even believe in God think they have the ability to test prayer?
That's pretty much your answers the results. 100 years from now this test is just going to be another story just like all the proof that prayer does heal located in the Bible. What do you guys think these results are telling you guys anyways? I can tell you that it will not convince any christians, catholics, or anyone who prays that prayer doesn't work. This kind of stuff doesn't belong in the news, it's not factual, i personally know people who have been healed of MS, Back Injuries, and asthma; Who are you gonna believe someone who has a personal experience or some scientist, or whoever tested this who is out to disprove God.Luke said:
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Man people should have known this since the 70's.
"During the early 1970s, Minnesota surgeon William Nolen, M.D., attended a service conducted by Katherine Kuhlman, the leading evangelical healer of that period. After noting the names of 25 people who had been "miraculously healed," he was able to perform follow-up interviews and examinations. Among other things, he discovered that one woman who had been announced as cured of "lung cancer" actually had Hodgkin's disease -- which was unaffected by the experience. Another woman with cancer of the spine had discarded her brace and followed Ms. Kuhlman's enthusiastic command to run across the stage. The following day her backbone collapsed, and four months later she died. Overall, not one person with organic disease had been helped."
"'You can Heal,' a pamphlet of the Christian Science Publishing Society, states that "every student of Christian Science has the God-given ability to heal the sick." Two weeks of class instruction are required to become a practitioner. [...Rita Swan] and a colleague collected and reviewed the cases of 172 children who died between 1975 and 1995 when parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals They concluded
* 140 of the deaths were from medical conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. These included 22 cases of pneumonia in infants under two years of age, 15 cases of meningitis, and 12 cases of insulin-dependent diabetes.
* 18 more had expected survival rates greater than 50%
* All but three of the remainder would probably have had some benefit from clinical help"
http://www.quackwatch.org/ - Funny and informative website, if not a bit depressing.
People may wonder why I'm constantly mocking faiths and pseudosciences.
This is why.
"A 1996 poll of 1,000 adults found that 79% believed that spiritual faith can help people recover from disease."
"During the early 1970s, Minnesota surgeon William Nolen, M.D., attended a service conducted by Katherine Kuhlman, the leading evangelical healer of that period. After noting the names of 25 people who had been "miraculously healed," he was able to perform follow-up interviews and examinations. Among other things, he discovered that one woman who had been announced as cured of "lung cancer" actually had Hodgkin's disease -- which was unaffected by the experience. Another woman with cancer of the spine had discarded her brace and followed Ms. Kuhlman's enthusiastic command to run across the stage. The following day her backbone collapsed, and four months later she died. Overall, not one person with organic disease had been helped."
"'You can Heal,' a pamphlet of the Christian Science Publishing Society, states that "every student of Christian Science has the God-given ability to heal the sick." Two weeks of class instruction are required to become a practitioner. [...Rita Swan] and a colleague collected and reviewed the cases of 172 children who died between 1975 and 1995 when parents withheld medical care because of reliance on religious rituals They concluded
* 140 of the deaths were from medical conditions for which survival rates with medical care would have exceeded 90%. These included 22 cases of pneumonia in infants under two years of age, 15 cases of meningitis, and 12 cases of insulin-dependent diabetes.
* 18 more had expected survival rates greater than 50%
* All but three of the remainder would probably have had some benefit from clinical help"
http://www.quackwatch.org/ - Funny and informative website, if not a bit depressing.
People may wonder why I'm constantly mocking faiths and pseudosciences.
This is why.
"A 1996 poll of 1,000 adults found that 79% believed that spiritual faith can help people recover from disease."
DeusExMachina
Tank
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2004
- Messages
- 6,938
- Reaction score
- 3
Foxhound888 said:
So you're saying the scientists who tested this are out just to disprove the existence of the Christian God?
FieryGoose
Spy
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 565
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm not possitive but i have the feeling that they are, you really have to understand the concept of praying, being a christian i know that fact that God will only heal who he wants to heal and who believes that he can heal them, you can't force God to heal, that's all they are proveing in my opinion(it's alot more in depth than that but i rather busy right now); but instead they are coming to this crazy conclusion and broadcasting it over the television, "Prayer Doesn't Work", it was just shocking to me that they can even have the concience to say that. Wow.DeusExMachina said:
Stigmata
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 15,904
- Reaction score
- 371
I think "audacity" would have been a more apt choice, but that's beside the point.Foxhound888 said:
Now, you say you cannot force God to heal. Assuming that's true, then perhaps it would affect the results of some studies pertaining to this phenomenon. However, it has absolutely no effect on the study that MechaGodzilla has referenced, which provides a relatively infinite amount of empirical data against the claim that God can heal.
Besides which, there are many, many things you simply cannot base on "feeling", especially the validity of science. The basis of science is logic, and feeling, by its nature, tends to preclude logic. If you want to prove or disprove something, you do so through the use of recorded, repeatable, scientific observations, not through assumptions and defensiveness. And any scientists worth his salt will never conduct an experiment with the purpose of obtaining a result he/she finds acceptable or fitting; most experiments are conducted with merely a hypothesis, and if the end result does not correlate with the hypothesis, then the working hypothesis is changed in accordance with the results for the next experiment.
Anyway, I'm not sure where I was going with this, but I think my point was that you were being fairly hypocritical with your claims. These "crazy conclusions" are probably all based purely on empirical evidence, while the claims of religious leaders and such are based on unsubstantiated and [most definitely] biased sets of cherry-picked (and likely fabricated) data.
FieryGoose
Spy
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 565
- Reaction score
- 0
Well actually the Bible is based on fact, and that cannot be argued, some of the stories cannot nessesarily be proved being noone is alive to tell of them, but it is historically correct. One fact is that religion cannot be disproved becuase science and religion are two completely different studies therefore they cannot relate. The study they did involved polls correct? therefore it is nothing more than a hl2 poll with scientist backing it up, all it is composed of is what people say, they ask them if they are healed or or not and they can either tell the truth or lie... Some probably didn't even want to believe that they were healed, just for the sake of denial that there is a god.bliink said:
Stigmata
The Freeman
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2003
- Messages
- 15,904
- Reaction score
- 371
Well, to be entirely fair, everything is related to science. History, physics, mathematics, psychology, biology, engineering... You name it, it has a scientific component to it. Hell, even politics is attached to science. So what you said sounds exactly like the classic Bible cop-out to me. But moving on...Foxhound888 said:
This part of your post really intrigues me: "...they ask them if they are healed or or not and they can either tell the truth or lie... Some probably didn't even want to believe that they were healed, just for the sake of denial that there is a god." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the people in question have to believe in God in order to choose religious healing over medical treatment for their ailments? And even if they didn't want to believe they were healed... Wouldn't the scientist(s) conducting the studies be able to tell with a decent amount of certainty whether or not these people were still sick or not? I'm sure it wasn't a "Were you healed? Yes or no," survey, as that's pretty unscientific.
FieryGoose
Spy
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 565
- Reaction score
- 0
I was not Implying that the scientist would not be able to tell whether or not the subject was healed but mearly that there are some conditions that can be faked, such as mental conditions, emotional problems, ect. And about the statement i made about how the person has to have faith that they can be healed, my apologies, i've created confusion, it is not absolutely nessessary that they have faith because there is a certian Biblical reference in particular where a legion of demons possses a man, there was no better option than to rid the man of the demons and send them into the pigs, rather than leave them in the tormented man, The man wasn't a christian at all before in fact he was amongst the worst of the worst. I by no means ment to condradict myself. So what i'm trying to get at is firstly God has the power to decide whether or not someone gets healed. And secondly when i said that religion could not be proved wrong by scientifical means i was simply quoting my biology teacher.
Also in none of my post was i refering to MechaGodzilla's post i'm soley focused on the thread subject of what was recently in the new's, as far as aware MechaGodzilla's was on some experiements 36 years ago? anyways i'm not argueing against his statistics, just one thing at a time.
Also in none of my post was i refering to MechaGodzilla's post i'm soley focused on the thread subject of what was recently in the new's, as far as aware MechaGodzilla's was on some experiements 36 years ago? anyways i'm not argueing against his statistics, just one thing at a time.
Mechagodzilla
Tank
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 6,973
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah, the 172 babies and children under christian prayer-care killed themselves with curable diseases just to fool you.Foxhound888 said:
Good thing you don't believe them!
Now they have died in vain, as God intended.
I like your logic.
ARGUMENT FROM CERTAINTY
(1) The bible is true.
(2) This cannot be argued.
(3) Therefore the bible is true.
ARGUMENT FROM NO ZOMBIES
(1) If the people described in the bible were alive today, they might disprove the bible.
(2) The people in the bible are not alive today.
(3) Therefore the bible is true.
ARGUMENT FROM SECRET SATANISM
(1) If the bible is true, prayer saves the believers.
(2) Prayer did not save the believers.
(3) Therefore those people were not actually believers.
(4) Therefore the bible is true.
ARGUMENT FROM POLLS
(1) 172 children died from faith healing.
(2) 172 is a number.
(3) Polls have numbers.
(4) Polls are sometimes innaccurate.
(5) Therefore no children have died from faith healing.
ARGUMENT FROM FEELING
(1) Scientists have conclusive evidence that prayer doesn't work.
(2) But I feel they are liars.
(3) Therefore scientists are liars.
ARGUMENT FROM THE FUTURE
(1) Scientists say the bible isn't true.
(2) Science will die in 100 years.
(3) Therefore the bible is true.
ARGUMENT FROM CONVICTION
(1) I will never believe that the bible isn't true.
(2) Scientists prove bible is wrong.
(3) I don't believe it.
(4) Therefore the bible is true.
ARGUMENT FROM PEOPLE I KNOW
(1) Scientists have proven prayer doesn't work.
(2) I know a person who felt less sick.
(3) I'm assuming it was caused by prayer.
(4) Therefore science is a lie.
ARGUMENT FROM NOT SCIENCE
(1) Science proves the bible isn't true.
(2) Science isn't supposed to read the bible.
(3) Therefore the bible is true.
ARGUMENT FROM SCARY
(1) My morality comes from the bible.
(2) Science proves the bible isn't true.
(3) Therefore science is scary.
(4) Therefore the bible is true.
bliink
Newbie
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2004
- Messages
- 6,828
- Reaction score
- 1
Foxhound888 said:
Foxhound888, I suggest you read the sticky that can be found here: http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102348
You are committing multiple logical fallacies
FieryGoose
Spy
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2004
- Messages
- 565
- Reaction score
- 0
ok, i get the fact that you all are non-believers but i'm simply speaking from my heart what i believe i'm supposed to say, have you guys ever thought about life and what happens after life? Everyone has, but not everyone knows. Religion is based on faith of the unseen, i personally have non seen God, even if i did no one would believe me anyways. Those people didn't die in vain, have any of you thought that maybe it was best for them to pass on and go to a better place, they had faith in God and believed he was real therefore they took the risk, God will reward them for that, and they will meet with him and have everlasting life. This cannot be logically proven to be true, although there are accounts of people dieing and comming back to life but as far as i'm concerned nothing i say can convince you guys especially on forums, but i hope that one day you will be willing to take the same risk that some 172 children took. What happens after life cannot be personally proven other than if you were to die yourself, but i believe those children were much better in heaven than they were on earth and thats all that really matters.:cheers:bliink said:
Similar threads
