This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new

Thanks for the laugh. I've got some magic beans I can sell you.
 
McLovin said:
Thanks for the laugh. I've got some magic beans I can sell you.
Click to expand...

That response says a lot about you.
Dismiss anything that conflicts with your world view.

The one other thing that it does say is that it's impossible to refute personal testimony. There is no argument. Now that doesn't mean that you or someone else should believe it because I say it.

But it does mean that I personally witnessed this, with a person I know, in front of my eyes. I saw the before and after. There is no debate. This happened irrespective if whether you believe it or not. It doesn't change the truth one tiny bit.
 

Pav, with all due respect to you and the other posters...Fact means in this case, before and after x-rays or scans. If you showed me and a proper doctor scans of a broken leg before and after this 'healing' then i would certainly believe you. Anything less is not FACT.

There are stories all over the web like this, most of them get de-bunked sooner or later.
 
Charles Eisenstein - Sacred Economics.
This video probably fits best in this thread. This guy is my favourite thinker on the bigger picture of how money and economics fits into our humanity.


 
Last edited by a moderator:
pavilion103 said:
But it does mean that I personally witnessed this, with a person I know, in front of my eyes. I saw the before and after. There is no debate. This happened irrespective if whether you believe it or not. It doesn't change the truth one tiny bit.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt what you think you saw. You're probably a case study in cognitive bias. All those snake oil salesmen that plough the Bible Belt "healing" the sick only make money because people believe what they want to believe. What you call a "faith healer" is really just a witch doctor with the Bible in one hand.
 
As CanOz has pointed out, this claim can only be substantiated as fact if you were to see medically verified before and after Xrays. Usually, also, someone with a broken leg would be in a cast.

There's nothing to stop someone walking round on crutches, limping, maybe even having some genuine pain in the leg, then - because there was no broken bone in the first place - being entirely able to use the leg normally the following day.


pavilion103 said:
That response says a lot about you.
Dismiss anything that conflicts with your world view.

The one other thing that it does say is that it's impossible to refute personal testimony. There is no argument.
Click to expand...
Perhaps no need to be so dismissive because someone disputes your assertion.
Let's say that there's no argument about what you saw. The argument exists because you have no proof the person actually had a broken leg.

But it does mean that I personally witnessed this, with a person I know, in front of my eyes. I saw the before and after. There is no debate. This happened irrespective if whether you believe it or not. It doesn't change the truth one tiny bit.
Click to expand...
You could only claim that there is no debate if you had been with the person when he was injured, with him while he was Xrayed and seeking medical diagnosis, and then again when subsequent Xray and medical opinion occurred.

I'm happy for people to believe in whatever gives them comfort, a direction in life, a sense of purpose, but when it comes to stating some superficial event is 'proof' of some supernatural healing, it's going too far.
 
I'm not saying that because I say it it is proof for people on here. I expect skepticism. Of course.

I am saying that because I know the person personally. I know the before and after condition. That I know it is true. That's all that I'm saying.

My guess is that even if this healing happened to some of the skeptics here, they would feel compelled to come out with 1000 alternate excuses before believing the most obvious one staring them in the face.

Already claims have been made about the character of the preacher too. Well moreso stared as fact. Talk about reaching a conclusion first and then even considering evidence second!
 
pavilion103 said:
My guess is that even if this healing happened to some of the skeptics here, they would feel compelled to come out with 1000 alternate excuses before believing the most obvious one staring them in the face.
Click to expand...

That is because a myriad of similar cases has thought us that supernatural intervention is the least likely cause of any unexplained healing.
 
bellenuit said:
That is because a myriad of similar cases has thought us that supernatural intervention is the least likely cause of any unexplained healing.
Click to expand...
Can you definitely eliminate "supernatural intervention" as a cause of an unexplained healing? Of course you can't. Anyone who does is a fool.

CanOz said:
There are stories all over the web like this, most of them get de-bunked sooner or later.
Click to expand...
I note you say "most", not "all".
 
Chris45 said:
Can you definitely eliminate "supernatural intervention" as a cause of an unexplained healing? Of course you can't. Anyone who does is a fool.
Click to expand...

There is a huge difference between eliminating "supernatural intervention" as a cause and Pavilion's statement that it is "the most obvious one staring them in the face"

However, all atheists by definition would certainly rule out "supernatural intervention" as would all deists and I am sure a proportion of theists. These are according to you all fools. But just concentrate on the atheists as there are some statistics that back up the claim that you are not just wrong, but that it is quite the opposite. The atheists tend to be the more intelligent people within the population. Here is some research:

Intelligence and Atheism

The article lists some caveats at the beginning but then this:

Still, there is plenty of evidence that atheism is predominately on the side of smart people in the West. Here are some of the more compelling pieces of evidence:

There is a negative correlation between intelligence and religious belief across the board. In a review of 43 studies, religious belief was negatively correlated to intelligence in all but four. This is strong corroborative evidence that the correlation is valid. In a more recent study of children, there was a direct line correlation from “not religious at all” to “very religious,” in which IQ steadily rose with the degree of religious indifference. The simple fact is (at least in America) the smarter people tend to be less religious.

Intellectual Elites are drastically more likely to be atheist. This bit of data is more to the point. It’s one thing to survey all Westerners for intelligence and god-belief, but as I mentioned earlier, there’s a problem with that. Not all very intelligent people have the academic training to reach fully justified atheism. But when we survey the people who do have such training, they’re overwhelmingly atheist. Only 7% of the American National Academy of Sciences reported god-belief in a survey from the 1990s. Only 3.3% of the Fellows of the Royal Society in Britain believe in god. This compared with a 68.5% theism rate in the general population.

Decline of religious belief through childhood and adolescent development. It makes sense that if atheism is a more intelligent position, people would tend to abandon religion as cognitive development progresses. That is in fact the case. In both the U.S. and Britain, children tend to abandon god belief during the adolescent years when most of the higher cognitive functions are developing to their full adult potential. Similarly, it has been noted that children raised in high-education atheist homes very seldom convert to god-belief, while children raised in theist environments who subsequently receive higher education are relatively likely to abandon god-belief.

Over the past 150 years, General Intelligence has increased overall, and god-belief has been in a relatively steady decline. This is a broad statement, and there are many confounding factors that might well throw a monkey wrench into the works, but the general trend is undeniable. Beginning in 1850, indicators of both religious belief and practice have been on a steady decline which is more or less inverse to the increase in general intelligence.


http://livinglifewithoutanet.com/2010/05/03/intelligence-and-atheism/
 
craft said:
Charles Eisenstein - Sacred Economics.
This video probably fits best in this thread. This guy is my favourite thinker on the bigger picture of how money and economics fits into our humanity.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link - the video had some good ideas that I've seen in other writers / speakers (that are obviously no where near the surface because their ideas transcend the embedded morality and are "anti-system" by definition). This guy is definitely accessible and has a clear way of presenting his major themes.

I will try to check out one of this books at some point.
 
Do you even know what IQ measures?

You should read Malcolm Gladwell's "Outliers" a very well known book.
It talks about the misconception of a high IQ leading to success/practical results.

IQ and "book smarts" is so overrated, give me practical results any day.
 
Take trading as an example. It doesn't take a high IQ to be successful. It takes other traits: discipline, teachability, ability to be wrong, persistence etc.
Reasonable intelligence is beneficial but not the most important.

Give me a profitable trader over one with a high IQ any day if I had to choose one!
 
Take one example as simple as someone in this thread saying "there is no evidence for the resurrection".
Let's also say they have an IQ of 150.
No IQ will help them make an educated decision if they have deliberately decided to not include this evidence in the analysis process.
It's truly absurd.

We are not even taking into consideration environment. We all know the atheistic influence of University. If these dogmas are just getting passed down and the student is only exposed to one side of the debate they are likely going to be conditioned like a robot. They would not have the opportunity to even receive evidence for the other side of the debate and will likely believe what they have been spoon fed by ignorant professors who were also spoon fed by ignorant professors (sharing these views which are often outside their area of expertise anyway).

Let's trot out the old Christians become atheists but atheists don't become Christians.
Let's just ignore that the centre of Christianity has spread from the Middle East to Rome to Europe to South America and now China (yes that was communist China). But no doubt none of this counts.... Just because....
But hey, don't let the truth get in the way of a good atheist story!
 

Yeah thanks Craft....makes you wonder doesn't it....
 
burglar said:
IQ measures the ability to pass IQ tests. You can improve your IQ by doing crossword puzzles! What does Sunday School measure?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that Sunday school measures anything.

I'm not the one ignorantly quoting IQ studies as if they have any real significance in this discussion either though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...