• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

KWED

Scratching head, scratching knee
I know much more about life than you.
That is demonstrably untrue.

Police uses weapons on the street. If criminal gets killed on the street by police, it is not murder. It is execution.
Wrong. When the police shoot a criminal it is called "using deadly force", not "execution", which is a judicial response. They are different concepts.
A police officer who uses deadly force on a criminal can be charged with murder.
As usual. you have no idea what you are talking about, despite your "genius and high IQ". :tearsofjoy:
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
The issues with the what? What is Bi Kenyon?

In any case, when it comes to modern sources, we are able to check. We have contemporaneous sources. We have multiple sources that agree. We have different kinds of sources that all agree. The Bible can't make that claim. If you were to discount the Bible or any sources based on the Bible, where would we see a claim for Noah's flood? Or that Jesus walked on water?

Wow sorry that's a hack of an auto-correct fail.

The core issues you have with the Bible apply to other things also. There are other sources, but as is common anything not in a personally endorsed scholarly journal is dismissed out of hand rather then being investigated. So why bother bringing them up?
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Oh you are talking about scripture? I thought you had evidence? But you are wrong, it has nothing to do with what I "like". It has to do with empirical evidence, rational thought, critical thinking, reasonable skepticism....
It sounds like what you are really saying is you believe it so it's true. That doesn't make something true.

There is far more evidence than needed that scripture is a mythology so those are not proof of any healings.
I just posted Justin Martyr saying that all the Greek demigods also did healing and miracles but it's because Satan wanted to fool people into thinking Christian stories were also myth.
That is good evidence that the stories are actually taken from older stories.

And when he [the devil] brings forward Æsculapius as the raiser of the dead and healer of all diseases, may I not say that in this matter likewise he has imitated the prophecies about Christ? But since I have not quoted to you such Scripture as tells that Christ will do these things, I must necessarily remind you of one such: from which you can understand, how that to those destitute of a knowledge of God, I mean the Gentiles, who, ‘having eyes, saw not, and having a heart, understood not,’ worshipping the images of wood, [how even to them] Scripture prophesied that they would renounce these [vanities], and hope in this Christ.



I was around when the higgs was hotly debated, one can look back into records and see when going faster than sound was "impossible" etc. given the extreme prejudice against faith that keep popping up here its no surprise that a lot of people who hate God and religion will dismiss it.




The Wiki entry on faith healing must have missed that:

"Virtually all[a] scientists and philosophers dismiss faith healing as pseudoscience.[3][4][5][6]"

I searched for any papers and found nothing.

The article from the American Cancer Society also sees no evidence and has noticed hundreds of children have needlessly died from attempts:

Description
Faith healing is founded on the belief that certain people or places have the ability to cure and heal—that someone or something can eliminate disease or heal injuries through a close connection to a higher power. Faith healing can involve prayer, a visit to a religious shrine, or simply a strong belief in a supreme being.

Overview
Available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can cure cancer or any other disease. Some scientists suggest that the number of people who attribute their cure to faith healing is lower than the number predicted by calculations based on the historical percentage of spontaneous remissions seen among people with cancer. However, faith healing may promote peace of mind, reduce stress, relieve pain and anxiety, and strengthen the will to live.

What is the evidence?
Although it is known that a small percentage of people with cancer experience remissions of their disease that cannot be explained, available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can actually cure physical ailments. When a person believes strongly that a healer can create a cure, a “placebo effect” can occur. The placebo effect can make the person feel better, but it has not been found to induce remission or improve chance of survival from cancer. The patient usually credits the improvement in how he or she feels to the healer, even though the perceived improvement occurs because of the patient’s belief in the treatment. Taking part in faith healing can evoke the power of suggestion and affirm one’s faith in a higher power, which may help promote peace of mind. This may help some people cope more effectively with their illness.

One review published in 1998 looked at 172 cases of deaths among children treated by faith healing instead of conventional methods. These researchers estimated that if conventional treatment had been given, the survival rate for most of these children would have been more than 90 percent, with the remainder of the children also having a good chance of survival. A more recent study found that more than 200 children had died of treatable illnesses in the United States over the past thirty years because their parents relied on spiritual healing rather than conventional medical treatment.

Although there are few studies in adults, one study conducted in 1989 suggested that adult Christian Scientists, who generally use prayer rather than medical care, have a higher death rate than other people of the same age.

Are there any possible problems or complications?
People who seek help through faith healing and are not cured may have feelings of hopelessness, failure, guilt, worthlessness, and depression. In some groups, the person may be told that his or her faith was not strong enough. The healer and others may hold the person responsible for the failure of their healing. This can alienate and discourage the person who is still sick.

Relying on this type of treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences. Death, disability, and other unwanted outcomes have occurred when faith healing was elected instead of medical care for serious injuries or illnesses.

While competent adults may choose faith healing over medical care, communities often become concerned when parents make such choices for their children. This concern has sparked organizations to work toward creating laws to protect children from inappropriate treatment by faith healers.

Finally, a few “faith healers” have been caught using fraud as a way to get others to believe in their methods. These people often solicited large donations or charged money for their healing sessions.

Faith Healing
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Newspapers and other junk are for initial information. The correctness of the information has to be checked with scientific journals. They have experts on their editorial boards.

Who are well known to be very biased and push their agendas by not publishing things they don't like even if the research is very high quality.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
But why are they experts, what criteria do they use to make a decision?
Why do so many well done research papers not see the light of day?
They are qualified in their field and have worked in the field for long times. Their work has been appreciated by other scientists.
The light of day that you mention may not have stood their scrutiny.
Who are well known to be very biased and push their agendas by not publishing things they don't like even if the research is very high quality.
Quality is not decided by the people who themselves have made the research. That is the meaning of 'peer reviewed'. Other scientists also should agree to the value of the research. Would you ask a litigant to judge his own case?
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
They are qualified in their field and have worked in the field for long times. Their work has been appreciated by other scientists.
The light of day that you mention may not have stood their scrutiny.Quality is not decided by the people who themselves have made the research. That is the meaning of 'peer reviewed'. Other scientists also should agree to the value of the research. Would you ask a litigant to judge his own case?

Sorry, but to put such trust in the elite who knowingly pushed their agenda over saving lives from Coivd to make a buck or to look good their friends etc is not logical or rational. This is on par with putting 100% faith in the priest who is actually cutting out beating hearts.


Many of the "experts" (AKA appeal to authority) lie to us often, abuse us and send us to an early grave. How can anyone trust them?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Many of the "experts" (AKA appeal to authority) lie to us often, abuse us and send us to an early grave. How can anyone trust them?
You mean those in religion. True, I don't trust them at all. See my label - "Be your own Guru". Don't go just by what others say.
Who are well known to be very biased and push their agendas by not publishing things they don't like even if the research is very high quality.
Those who are in science accept their mistakes, the fakes do not accept mistakes.
 

Tiberius

Well-Known Member
Wow sorry that's a hack of an auto-correct fail.

The core issues you have with the Bible apply to other things also. There are other sources, but as is common anything not in a personally endorsed scholarly journal is dismissed out of hand rather then being investigated. So why bother bringing them up?

However, the problem is particularly bad with the Bible. For a lot of it, the Bible is the ONLY source we have.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
. I was around when the higgs was hotly debated, one can look back into records and see when going faster than sound was "impossible" etc. given the extreme prejudice against faith that keep popping up here its no surprise that a lot of people who hate God and religion will dismiss it.


Those are 2 different topics. Higgs particles and speed technology are extentions of existing things. We know physics exists and a hypothetical particle was predicted because there were models that predicted it.
We already had technology to go 50 or 100 mph.


Faith healing literally has no evidence and the mechanisms are both unknown and also have no evidence.
It's also highly possible that the placebo effect has helped some cases, fraud has been proven in others and in many other cases we have proof that the people had adrenaline rushes and felt better but ended up getting seriously worse or dying. We also have evidence of over 200 cases of child cancer that would have been cured by traditional methods and not only did faith healing not work but the child died.

There is also information that Christian Science members who rely only on prayer for healing have a higher death rate.
So that is clear evidence that this is not working as claimed.


Your strawman about "hating" God is ridiculous. It's like if you were diagnosed with cancer and the doctor said "hey I'm in this religion where we worship Thor and I'll pray to him if you skip surgery and chemo" and you said "no thank you, I'll go with the traditional medicine" and the doctor was like "oh why do you hate Thor so much!?!?!"

Dismiss it??? Dismiss what? The thing that has zero evidence and the American Cancer society said has killed over 200 children? Yeah, it's not that it clearly doesn't work, it's that everyone hates God?

How about people dismiss it BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK?????????

Faith by itself is also a fallacy. People had faith in every one of the thousands of other religions. People can have faith in race superiority or gender superiority. Clearly faith is a flawed position.
But faith healing has failed to show evidence. Why you would move the goalpost to hating a deity or religion is an extra step into fallacy-land. Can you just not fathom that it's not real? The cognitive bias with these things is crazy?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
But why are they experts, what criteria do they use to make a decision?

Why do so many well done research papers not see the light of day?


There are hundreds of papers released every year on university websites. If a work is duplicated and continues to seem like it's true it will gain attention in larger journals.

What papers do you know of that didn't see publication and for what reasons. Some papers are rejected not for subject matter but for other reasons. If someone could verify any supernatural effect it would be huge. Scientists are people too, they get excited at the idea of ESP being real or anything supernatural. But there is a proper methodology. You don't submit a paper saying you believe something or heard anecdotal stories.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
You mean those in religion. True, I don't trust them at all. See my label - "Be your own Guru". Don't go just by what others say.Those who are in science accept their mistakes, the fakes do not accept mistakes.

I find this utterly detached from fact. Not that all religious persons are great, but the lies, corruption etc are very widespread in the science community also .
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Those are 2 different topics. Higgs particles and speed technology are extentions of existing things. We know physics exists and a hypothetical particle was predicted because there were models that predicted it.
We already had technology to go 50 or 100 mph.


Faith healing literally has no evidence and the mechanisms are both unknown and also have no evidence.
It's also highly possible that the placebo effect has helped some cases, fraud has been proven in others and in many other cases we have proof that the people had adrenaline rushes and felt better but ended up getting seriously worse or dying. We also have evidence of over 200 cases of child cancer that would have been cured by traditional methods and not only did faith healing not work but the child died.

There is also information that Christian Science members who rely only on prayer for healing have a higher death rate.
So that is clear evidence that this is not working as claimed.


Your strawman about "hating" God is ridiculous. It's like if you were diagnosed with cancer and the doctor said "hey I'm in this religion where we worship Thor and I'll pray to him if you skip surgery and chemo" and you said "no thank you, I'll go with the traditional medicine" and the doctor was like "oh why do you hate Thor so much!?!?!"

Dismiss it??? Dismiss what? The thing that has zero evidence and the American Cancer society said has killed over 200 children? Yeah, it's not that it clearly doesn't work, it's that everyone hates God?

How about people dismiss it BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK?????????

Faith by itself is also a fallacy. People had faith in every one of the thousands of other religions. People can have faith in race superiority or gender superiority. Clearly faith is a flawed position.
But faith healing has failed to show evidence. Why you would move the goalpost to hating a deity or religion is an extra step into fallacy-land. Can you just not fathom that it's not real? The cognitive bias with these things is crazy?

Again the false statement that there is not evidence. Not as much as you want great, but 0 is a falsehood.

I see here and elsewhere a hostility towards the very idea of God, not a simple I don't believe, but a there a thread a few weeks back claiming to have mathematically proved God is not. The bias runs deep and does impact how people view evidence.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
There are hundreds of papers released every year on university websites. If a work is duplicated and continues to seem like it's true it will gain attention in larger journals.

What papers do you know of that didn't see publication and for what reasons. Some papers are rejected not for subject matter but for other reasons. If someone could verify any supernatural effect it would be huge. Scientists are people too, they get excited at the idea of ESP being real or anything supernatural. But there is a proper methodology. You don't submit a paper saying you believe something or heard anecdotal stories.
Around the mid 1990's papers looking into health risks for the gay community were all but stopped. This ran for over a decade (I no longer have access to the research libraries so I can't confirm if it changed). There was quite a bit of research done on health problems in the gay communities and then all of a sudden it was not the thing to do. The Article on mask effectiveness was blocked for quite some time and then finally published after a suck up disclaimer was added to appease politically minded editors.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
I find this utterly detached from fact. Not that all religious persons are great, but the lies, corruption etc are very widespread in the science community also .
I note your what you but disagree with you when it comes to scientists. There are some who fake things, but the fakery does not last long in science, other scientists catch that, for example 'the Piltdown man'. Whereas in Religion, fakery lasts for millenniums, because there is no way to check.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
I note your what you but disagree with you when it comes to scientists. There are some who fake things, but the fakery does not last long in science, other scientists catch that, for example 'the Piltdown man'. Whereas in Religion, fakery lasts for millenniums, because there is no way to check.


Science is comparatively a newer endeavor.

We have fails in the areas of population, evolution and climate change where the errors are so ingrained that to ask for evidence is to be branded a heretic. That science in johnny come lately vs religion does not mean they are going to be any more forthcoming with errors or actually fix them.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
We have fails in the areas of population, evolution and climate change where the errors are so ingrained that to ask for evidence is to be branded a heretic. That science in johnny come lately vs religion does not mean they are going to be any more forthcoming with errors or actually fix them.
No. Discuss it to your heart's content. Science will encourage it.
It is only the religious who shrink at the mention of evidence.
Fixing things is not in the domain of science. Why fault science when humans have never been able to do that in spite of umpteen prophets / sons / messengers / manifestations / mahdis?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Again the false statement that there is not evidence. Not as much as you want great, but 0 is a falsehood.


What evidence then? Scripture is NOT evidence. Do you believe any supernatural stories from the Quran? The Cargo Cults? We need real evidence.



I see here and elsewhere a hostility towards the very idea of God, not a simple I don't believe, but a there a thread a few weeks back claiming to have mathematically proved God is not. The bias runs deep and does impact how people view evidence.

I don't know anything about mathematical proof God does not exist. Not me.

You don't see any hostility towards God in my post? If you do you are delusional or didn't read it.
There isn't a response needed because you haven't responded to my post which was very clear that I was hostile to the 200 children who died as a direct result of trusting faith healing over medicine. Instead you just went ahead and did the thing I explained was completely incorrect?


Which was this - "Your strawman about "hating" God is ridiculous. It's like if you were diagnosed with cancer and the doctor said "hey I'm in this religion where we worship Thor and I'll pray to him if you skip surgery and chemo" and you said "no thank you, I'll go with the traditional medicine" and the doctor was like "oh why do you hate Thor so much!?!?!""



and clearly I was also talking about faith healing, not God. God isn't real. You cannot hate something that is fiction?

-"Faith healing literally has no evidence and the mechanisms are both unknown and also have no evidence.
It's also highly possible that the placebo effect has helped some cases, fraud has been proven in others and in many other cases we have proof that the people had adrenaline rushes and felt better but ended up getting seriously worse or dying. We also have evidence of over 200 cases of child cancer that would have been cured by traditional methods and not only did faith healing not work but the child died.

There is also information that Christian Science members who rely only on prayer for healing have a higher death rate.
So that is clear evidence that this is not working as claimed.

Dismiss it??? Dismiss what? The thing that has zero evidence and the American Cancer society said has killed over 200 children? Yeah, it's not that it clearly doesn't work, it's that everyone hates God?

How about people dismiss it BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK?????????"





You completely dismissed a report from the American Cancer society that documented over 200 children who died as a result of faith healing trust to pretend like I'm just "hating on God"?????????
So AGAIN, maybe the sarcasm threw you, this is not about hating God, it's about the excellent and clear evidence that faith healing does not work.

Or it does? It just didn't work for the over 200 children with cancer. Or the Christian scientists who died when they could have survived from medicine. Or no one ever with a severed limb or broken spine.
But it's worked in cases where the person had a possibility of healing anyways with treatment or it could have been a placebo effect or some physical mechanism in the body not yet fully understood (as the Catholic church admitted it could be in their statement on healing).
So faith healing seems to only work when there is a probability of survival anyways. But not just for the Christian God but also for Islam, Hinduism, Voodoo, witchcraft and the healing shrines of the pagan god Asklepios as scholar J.D.C. comments on below. That sounds suspiciously like probability?





I have visited Lourdes in France and Fatima in Portugal, healing shrines of the Christian Virgin Mary. I have also visited Epidaurus in Greece and Pergamum in Turkey, healing shrines of the pagan god Asklepios. The miraculous healings recorded in both places were remarkably the same. There are, for example, many crutches hanging in the grotto of Lourdes, mute witness to those who arrived lame and left whole. There are, however, no prosthetic limbs among them, no witnesses to paraplegics whose lost limbs were restored.

— John Dominic Crossan[88]
 
Top