Author Topic: Bible healings don't count  (Read 3861 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2491
  • Darwins +109/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2013, 08:56:48 AM »
Everyone would get along fine if science would just admit it can't invent history and call it science.

Could you provide an example of that?

A person told be I was denying Scientific History.  I responded that there is no such phrase in use.
Scientific History is an oxymoron but society has been brain-washed into believing that fantasies
about the past are scientific because the fantasy is based on a scientific observation.

Having read every science fiction book in the Jr high library and in my high school, I immediately
recognized the style and format of science fantasy regarding earths past.  There is little to set the
two apart.    Any commentary on the past presented in a historical context is science fantasy.

I think it would be more helpful to give and example of what you are saying here.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #59 on: July 03, 2013, 09:01:53 AM »
And you should tally up the results of multiple polls and studies if you need an accurate assessment.   
Because opinion polls have no effect on the truth, I pay little attention to polls.

Is that why you used them as the first support for your position?  Seems a trifle bizarre.

In any case, this argument is a little disingenous.  The point YOU were attempting to make is that most doctors are believers in god.  If the polls you quoted had been asking "do you think doctors believe in god", I would agree with you that the results would be irrelevant to the truth of whether doctors actually believed in god.

Trouble is, for your argument, that wasn't the case here.  In this case, the research asked religious doctors, directly, if they prayed for their patients.  And around half said they did not.  THAT is the Truth, Skywriting, that in a particular group of people, 100% gave medical treatment, and only 50% of that supplemented it with prayer. 

None believed enough to dispense with medicine completely.  Half had so little faith in their own religion that they didn't even bother to pray.  Those are truths, Skywriting, not "opinions", twist and weave as you may.

Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #60 on: July 03, 2013, 09:16:35 AM »
And you should tally up the results of multiple polls and studies if you need an accurate assessment.   
Because opinion polls have no effect on the truth, I pay little attention to polls.

Is that why you used them as the first support for your position?  Seems a trifle bizarre.

In any case, this argument is a little disingenous.  The point YOU were attempting to make is that most doctors are believers in god.  If the polls you quoted had been asking "do you think doctors believe in god", I would agree with you that the results would be irrelevant to the truth of whether doctors actually believed in god.

Trouble is, for your argument, that wasn't the case here.  In this case, the research asked religious doctors, directly, if they prayed for their patients.  And around half said they did not.  THAT is the Truth, Skywriting, that in a particular group of people, 100% gave medical treatment, and only 50% of that supplemented it with prayer. 

None believed enough to dispense with medicine completely.  Half had so little faith in their own religion that they didn't even bother to pray.  Those are truths, Skywriting, not "opinions", twist and weave as you may.

No.  Actually the comment was in reference to an unsupported claim that Relegion is blocking the field of science from advancing.   My response was that believers founded the fundamental fields of science and are still there. 

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #61 on: July 03, 2013, 09:20:55 AM »
Spiritual healing is a bogus methodology charlatans use to bilk the vulnerable.

That's likely true.  I intended to only reference the works of Jesus.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #62 on: July 03, 2013, 09:25:02 AM »
It is a fact.  Religion enstupidates people and keeps them that way.

Does it screw with proper vocabularyation as well?

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #63 on: July 03, 2013, 09:53:21 AM »
A person told be I was denying Scientific History.  I responded that there is no such phrase in use.
Scientific History is an oxymoron but society has been brain-washed into believing that fantasies
about the past are scientific because the fantasy is based on a scientific observation.

Having read every science fiction book in the Jr high library and in my high school, I immediately
recognized the style and format of science fantasy regarding earths past.  There is little to set the
two apart.    Any commentary on the past presented in a historical context is science fantasy.
So, because you've read a number of science fiction stories, it makes you qualified to judge whether science regarding the past is also fictional?  I've also read a lot of science fiction, and yet I disagree with your conclusion that scientists concocted fantasies about the past based on observations.  Frankly, I think it's much more likely that you're too ignorant about actual science (whether historical or otherwise) to be competent to judge it.  Especially since, if memory serves, you think the creation story in the Bible represents what actually happened (aside from quibbling about the Earth not being 'young' so you can claim you aren't a YEC).

Frankly, that last fact pretty well demonstrates that you're neither competent nor qualified to make judgment calls about science, historical or otherwise.

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1855
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #64 on: July 03, 2013, 10:37:01 AM »
Scientific History is an oxymoron but society has been brain-washed into believing that fantasies
about the past are scientific because the fantasy is based on a scientific observation.

Having read every science fiction book in the Jr high library and in my high school, I immediately
recognized the style and format of science fantasy regarding earths past.  There is little to set the
two apart.    Any commentary on the past presented in a historical context is science fantasy. 

So empirical reasoning and the scientific method are unreliable tools for studying past events, is that what you're saying?

A specific example of such an event, how the conventional historical perception of it is wrong and what you consider the proper methodology would be very helpful.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6698
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #65 on: July 03, 2013, 12:00:03 PM »
I have been re-reading the thread and came across this,

Healing of the Spirit is priceless.   
I don't think you defined what you meant by "Healing of the Spirit"?

Could you help us on this one?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6698
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #66 on: July 03, 2013, 12:43:45 PM »
Skywriting:

"Perhaps the most surprising result of the survey is that a majority of doctors (55%) said that they have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous (45% do not). Most physicians pray for their patients as a group (51%). Even more, 59% pray for individual patients. 

Editors/Reporters: For more information on the poll, or to speak with Dr. Mittleman or Glenn Kessler, please contact Sherry Kirschenbaum in the Department of Communications at (212) 678-8953; or email shkirschenbaum@jtsa.edu."

"In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife."  http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

There are lies
There are Damn Lies
And there is Statistics.

I put no stock in majority opinion of anything, and less in polls. I'm simply supporting my statement.

At this stage, there was this comment

Quote
Anfauglir: So what are you saying?  You found some numbers that appeared to support your position, and used them without bothering to check if they really did?  At best, that's lazy.  At worst, it's dishonest.

You then continued:

Quote
I don't know of any honest polling techniques.  They all carry bias.

And you should tally up the results of multiple polls and studies if you need an accurate assessment.   
Because opinion polls have no effect on the truth, I pay little attention to polls.

It appears that you quoted statistics to make a point.
It appears that you relied on other members blindly accepting your evidence.

It appears that when that did not happen, and you were called out on the methodology and reliability of the poll, you then expressed the opinion that you did not believe in polls in any case.

Yet, apparently, you had expected others to accept the figures as given or at least be impressed.

This behaviour is reprehensible and your common decency should have caused you either to (i) not quote the poll or (ii) make the statement that you did not accept the poll when you first quoted it.

In future, and I am surprised that I have to say this, it would help the debate if you did not cite examples in which you yourself have no trust to support your argument, or failing that, you note  in the same post that you do not have that trust.

GB Mod.

Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #67 on: July 03, 2013, 02:10:02 PM »
Skywriting:

"Perhaps the most surprising result of the survey is that a majority of doctors (55%) said that they have seen treatment results in their patients that they would consider miraculous (45% do not). Most physicians pray for their patients as a group (51%). Even more, 59% pray for individual patients. 

Editors/Reporters: For more information on the poll, or to speak with Dr. Mittleman or Glenn Kessler, please contact Sherry Kirschenbaum in the Department of Communications at (212) 678-8953; or email shkirschenbaum@jtsa.edu."

"In separate work at the University of Chicago, released in June, 76 percent of doctors said they believed in God and 59 percent believe in some sort of afterlife."  http://www.livescience.com/379-scientists-belief-god-varies-starkly-discipline.html

There are lies
There are Damn Lies
And there is Statistics.

I put no stock in majority opinion of anything, and less in polls. I'm simply supporting my statement.

At this stage, there was this comment

Quote
Anfauglir: So what are you saying?  You found some numbers that appeared to support your position, and used them without bothering to check if they really did?  At best, that's lazy.  At worst, it's dishonest.

You then continued:

Quote
I don't know of any honest polling techniques.  They all carry bias.

And you should tally up the results of multiple polls and studies if you need an accurate assessment.   
Because opinion polls have no effect on the truth, I pay little attention to polls.

It appears that you quoted statistics to make a point.
It appears that you relied on other members blindly accepting your evidence.

It appears that when that did not happen, and you were called out on the methodology and reliability of the poll, you then expressed the opinion that you did not believe in polls in any case.

Yet, apparently, you had expected others to accept the figures as given or at least be impressed.

This behaviour is reprehensible and your common decency should have caused you either to (i) not quote the poll or (ii) make the statement that you did not accept the poll when you first quoted it.

In future, and I am surprised that I have to say this, it would help the debate if you did not cite examples in which you yourself have no trust to support your argument, or failing that, you note  in the same post that you do not have that trust.

GB Mod.


That is not the case.  I am ignoring my opponents incorrect interpretation that only religious doctors were contacted.
If only "religious doctors" were contacted in the poll what would be the point of this statement:

"The poll also indicated that American physicians
are surprisingly religious,
with 72% indicating they believe that religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life."
   http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=28578

I was being polite by negating the validity of the poll. rather than the reading skills of the poster.

« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 02:12:08 PM by SkyWriting »

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #68 on: July 03, 2013, 02:20:38 PM »
I have been re-reading the thread and came across this,

Healing of the Spirit is priceless.   
I don't think you defined what you meant by "Healing of the Spirit"?

Could you help us on this one?

Jesus could accomplish this action.   I'm not confident that anyone else has accomplished
the same feat.  If the Spirit is restored to it's correct state, the body can accomplish
a "miraculous" amount of healing using the physical bodies abilities.  The blind to see,
diseases combated, the lame to walk.   But not amputees to regrow limbs.  This is not
a healing ability designed into the human DNA.   Even raising Lazarus.   Jesus said he was not dead.

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2060
  • Darwins +372/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #69 on: July 03, 2013, 02:37:34 PM »
That is not the case.  I am ignoring my opponents incorrect interpretation that only religious doctors were contacted.
If only "religious doctors" were contacted in the poll what would be the point of this statement:

"The poll also indicated that American physicians
are surprisingly religious,
with 72% indicating they believe that religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life."
   http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=28578
I suspect the point of that statement is to indicate that 28% of the "physicians from Christian (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Christian and other), Jewish (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and secular) Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions" polled did not believe that religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #70 on: July 03, 2013, 02:43:25 PM »
Scientific History is an oxymoron but society has been brain-washed into believing that fantasies
about the past are scientific because the fantasy is based on a scientific observation.

Having read every science fiction book in the Jr high library and in my high school, I immediately
recognized the style and format of science fantasy regarding earths past.  There is little to set the
two apart.    Any commentary on the past presented in a historical context is science fantasy. 

So empirical reasoning and the scientific method are unreliable tools for studying past events, is that what you're saying?

A specific example of such an event, how the conventional historical perception of it is wrong and what you consider the proper methodology would be very helpful.

All conjecture into past events are outside the realm of science.  The only "depth" that science can go into the past
is to follow a written record of procedure to follow and hope to get the same result.

Cold Fusion is one example. Room temperature superconductivity, and life found in Mars rocks,  are all examples of "Reality" that is spread among religious kooks who want to believe that their savior is well "in the palm of their hand."

The depth of science truth into history goes no further than the date on the notebooks page.
Any conjecture that cannot be directly re-tested is a Cold-Fusion type of reality.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/5-reasons-cold-fusion-bunk-130528.htm

(When working at Amoco R&D, I drove past Bell Labs "cold-fusion" facilities daily.)
 

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2060
  • Darwins +372/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #71 on: July 03, 2013, 02:44:41 PM »
I have been re-reading the thread and came across this,

I don't think you defined what you meant by "Healing of the Spirit"?

Could you help us on this one?

Jesus could accomplish this action.   I'm not confident that anyone else has accomplished
the same feat.
What makes you confident that Jesus could do this action?
Quote
If the Spirit is restored to it's correct state, the body can accomplish
a "miraculous" amount of healing using the physical bodies abilities.  The blind to see,
diseases combated, the lame to walk.   But not amputees to regrow limbs.  This is not
a healing ability designed into the human DNA.   Even raising Lazarus.   Jesus said he was not dead.
Then what was Lazarus' ailment, and what did Jesus do?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline jdawg70

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2060
  • Darwins +372/-8
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #72 on: July 03, 2013, 02:55:50 PM »
All conjecture into past events are outside the realm of science.  The only "depth" that science can go into the past
is to follow a written record of procedure to follow and hope to get the same result.

Cold Fusion is one example. Room temperature superconductivity, and life found in Mars rocks,  are all examples of "Reality" that is spread among religious kooks who want to believe that their savior is well "in the palm of their hand."

The depth of science truth into history goes no further than the date on the notebooks page.
Any conjecture that cannot be directly re-tested is a Cold-Fusion type of reality.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/5-reasons-cold-fusion-bunk-130528.htm

(When working at Amoco R&D, I drove past Bell Labs "cold-fusion" facilities daily.)
I think you've managed to actually destroy information in the universe with this post.  You showcase a degree of ignorance that is so large that it has now physically manifested itself into a black hole of corporeal stupidity.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Online wheels5894

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2491
  • Darwins +109/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #73 on: July 03, 2013, 03:08:25 PM »
That is not the case.  I am ignoring my opponents incorrect interpretation that only religious doctors were contacted.
If only "religious doctors" were contacted in the poll what would be the point of this statement:

"The poll also indicated that American physicians
are surprisingly religious,
with 72% indicating they believe that religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life."
   http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=28578


I suspect the point of that statement is to indicate that 28% of the "physicians from Christian (Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox Christian and other), Jewish (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and secular) Muslim, Hindu and Buddhist religious traditions" polled did not believe that religion provides a reliable and necessary guide to life.

Well I have no idea what this poll was supposed to be about. Unlike Skywriting I followed the links back to the originators of the poll, HCD Research and Louis Finkelstein Institute for Religious and Social Studies but am unable to find the actual paper with the information on selection of subjects and questions asked. Given this was from 2004 that may not be that surprising but it isn't any good coming up with survey data of one hasn't the full data to back it up. It is a very quoted survey and, in one case I found, was claimed to be the first ever done but its isn't any good as it is now.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6673
  • Darwins +887/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #74 on: July 03, 2013, 05:10:31 PM »

All conjecture into past events are outside the realm of science.  The only "depth" that science can go into the past
is to follow a written record of procedure to follow and hope to get the same result.

<snip>
The depth of science truth into history goes no further than the date on the notebooks page.


What do you mean that "conjecture into past events is outside the realm of science"? What is geology, if not the study of the past? What is astronomy? Paleontology? Science fiction? So, when CSI experts scientifically recreate what happened at a crime scene, what exactly are they doing? Magic?

Most science is about investigating past events, because nearly everything scientists study is in already existence, and therefore happened in the past. Even medical research is about studying something (a disease or accident or birth defect or whatever) that happened to a person in the past.
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline Nam

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12437
  • Darwins +323/-84
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm on the road less traveled...
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #75 on: July 03, 2013, 05:29:51 PM »
nogodsforme,

He means: blah blah b-b-blah blah.

-Nam
This thread is about lab-grown dicks, not some mincy, old, British poof of an actor. 

Let's get back on topic, please.


Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #76 on: July 03, 2013, 05:43:31 PM »
Any conjecture that cannot be directly re-tested is a Cold-Fusion type of reality.

You mean, like praying to a god who variably answers "Yes/No/Maybe/Just testing your faith; pay no attention to the tornado that wrecked your home"?
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4933
  • Darwins +563/-17
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #77 on: July 03, 2013, 05:48:03 PM »
I was being polite by negating the validity of the poll. rather than the reading skills of the poster.
You failed to post a link to the actual results of the poll.  Instead, you posted a link to an article which interpreted the poll.  Furthermore, it gave very limited information about the methodology of the poll.  It said that 2/3 of scientists believed in God; but only listed the actual percentages who did not believe (38% for natural sciences, and 31% for social sciences).  It listed no other percentages or figures besides those (and similar ones, such as the 41% figure given for biologists and the 27% figure given for political scientists).

This stinks of a false dichotomy to me, since a properly conducted poll should have had at least one other option, namely, "I am not sure if God exists".  Frankly, there should have been at least one or two more on top of that[1].  Personally, I think it's more likely that the article's writer misrepresented the results of the poll so as to make people think that scientists were primarily religious, rather than agnostic or atheistic.

Indeed, the following 2010 study (Religion Among Academic Scientists, Ecklund) absolutely and clearly demonstrates that the article you originally cited blatantly misrepresented Ecklund's findings.  Indeed, it absolutely devastates the idea that most scientists believe in God; the table on page 8 makes that abundantly clear.  I will list the "Overall" category here; the more specific categories are there if someone wants to look through them.  EDIT--Correction, I misread the table slightly.  The numbers I have listed here were overall for social scientists.  The numbers for natural scientists are even more problematic for SkyWriting's case.

37.6% of natural scientists and 31.2% of social scientists do not believe in God.
29.4% of natural scientists and 31% of social scientists do not know if there is a God, and do not think there is a way to find out.
8.2% of natural scientists and 7.2% of social scientists believe in a higher power that is not God.
4.2% of natural scientists and 5.4% of social scientists believe in God sometimes.
12.9%  of natural scientists and 15.5% of social scientists have some doubts but believe in God.
7.8% of natural scientists and 9.7% of social scientists have no doubts of God's existence.

I think those numbers speak for themselves.  And this leads me to believe that the original poll's methodology was probably reasonably close to correct; it's the article that you linked which was so badly flawed.  A perfect example of someone using statistics to lie.
 1. As a side note, I made this statement before I went and looked up the study I linked below.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2013, 06:00:47 PM by jaimehlers »

Offline wright

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1855
  • Darwins +79/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • "Sleep like a log, snore like a chainsaw."
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #78 on: July 03, 2013, 07:38:26 PM »
All conjecture into past events are outside the realm of science.  The only "depth" that science can go into the past
is to follow a written record of procedure to follow and hope to get the same result.

Unless of course that conjecture is informed by already-verified knowledge, such as which geological strata / formations will likely yield oil. Or diamonds. Conjecture that is backed up by known facts may still be wrong, but it's at least a starting point.

And if conjecture proves to be true again and again, then most would agree it stops being that and becomes fact. Hence the reliability of geology to predict the likely presence of various resources, fossils and so on.

Cold Fusion is one example. Room temperature superconductivity, and life found in Mars rocks,  are all examples of "Reality" that is spread among religious kooks who want to believe that their savior is well "in the palm of their hand."

The depth of science truth into history goes no further than the date on the notebooks page.
Any conjecture that cannot be directly re-tested is a Cold-Fusion type of reality.
http://news.discovery.com/tech/alternative-power-sources/5-reasons-cold-fusion-bunk-130528.htm

(When working at Amoco R&D, I drove past Bell Labs "cold-fusion" facilities daily.)

I don't see how those examples help your contention that science can't reliably investigate past events. Cold fusion in particular attracted skepticism from the scientific community from the start, and independent investigation soon showed that skepticism was warranted. Most technicians and academics consider it an example of why bypassing peer-review in favor of the mass media is a really bad idea.

Room-temperature superconductivity is still being investigated; the payoff would be incredible if such a material could be found and manufactured cheaply. Even if we never break the 0-degree C. limit, relatively high-temperature superconductors are useful. So there's a lot of incentive to push such research farther and farther.

The supposed evidence of past microbial life in Martian meteorites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite) is sketchy at best. While understandably exciting media interest, most investigators don't see conclusive evidence in those finds. Those same investigators of course used proven methods of analysis to come to their conclusions about hypothetical past events.

If anything, the examples you present simply show the strengths of science: it's capacity to ruthlessly separate the factual wheat from the wishful chaff and then move on. Sure, sometimes scientists make mistakes or are reluctant to discard disproven theories. And especially in the era of the internet, dubious theories may spread faster than actual peer-review can properly examine them.

Again, I'm not sure what your point is in bringing up these three examples. Cold fusion and the supposed evidence of Martian microbial life in particular were subject to a great deal of media hype, agreed. The first has been thoroughly discredited, the second almost as completely, at least with regard to those particular samples. In both cases, it was other scientists who did the independent investigating that showed the initial conclusions lacked merit.
Live a good life... If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. I am not afraid.
--Marcus Aurelius

Offline stuffin

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 734
  • Darwins +26/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #79 on: July 03, 2013, 10:59:31 PM »
I have been re-reading the thread and came across this,

Healing of the Spirit is priceless.   
I don't think you defined what you meant by "Healing of the Spirit"?

Could you help us on this one?

Jesus could accomplish this action.   I'm not confident that anyone else has accomplished
the same feat.  If the Spirit is restored to it's correct state, the body can accomplish
a "miraculous" amount of healing using the physical bodies abilities.  The blind to see,
diseases combated, the lame to walk.   But not amputees to regrow limbs.  This is not
a healing ability designed into the human DNA.   Even raising Lazarus.   Jesus said he was not dead.

So much here.

From your statement I can construe; if someone is already in "the correct state of spirit" they do not need to be healed - Yes/No?

Maybe, if your God lets you, you can define 'the correct state of spirit" to us. With this knowledge we could all be cancer free and that would put an end to vaccines and scientific research. We could all then praise the lord. 

I get the gut feeling your answer will show that only Jesus knows " the correct state of spirit."


PS, Jesus could raise the dead but not grow back a leg? How convenient on your part.
When you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.

Offline The Gawd

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 883
  • Darwins +78/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #80 on: July 04, 2013, 12:36:44 AM »
that was one of those epic fails... good job SW, atheists couldnt have proven our point any better than you have proven our point...

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #81 on: July 04, 2013, 12:57:14 AM »
I have been re-reading the thread and came across this,

Healing of the Spirit is priceless.   
I don't think you defined what you meant by "Healing of the Spirit"?

Could you help us on this one?

Jesus could accomplish this action.   I'm not confident that anyone else has accomplished
the same feat.  If the Spirit is restored to it's correct state, the body can accomplish
a "miraculous" amount of healing using the physical bodies abilities.  The blind to see,
diseases combated, the lame to walk.   But not amputees to regrow limbs.  This is not
a healing ability designed into the human DNA.   Even raising Lazarus.   Jesus said he was not dead.

So much here.

From your statement I can construe; if someone is already in "the correct state of spirit" they do not need to be healed - Yes/No?

** to your question **

Yes, no. 
Jesus is God.  Likely He alone had the ability to connect Man with God.  Him being the only physical manifestation of the true God.   There is a good chance that He alone could heal the Spirit so it could be one with God.

This would explain the miracles we read about. 

I am coming at this from your POV.  I was not a believer most of my life.
« Last Edit: July 04, 2013, 01:21:49 AM by SkyWriting »

Offline bertatberts

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1427
  • Darwins +51/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Humanists. Not perfect. Not forgiven. Responsible.
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #82 on: July 04, 2013, 02:18:04 AM »
Quote from: SkyWriter
I was not a believer most of my life.
If you believe now then you were indoctrinated as a child, no adult becomes religious without some trauma in their life so either you are lying or you had a traumatic experience.

You cant just switch on belief. but you can switch it off. With critical thought.

Unless of course you are as dumb as a sack of spuds, that could account for it. "are you"?
We theists have no evidence for our beliefs. So no amount of rational evidence will dissuade us from those beliefs. - JCisall

It would be pretty piss poor brainwashing, if the victims knew they were brainwashed, wouldn't it? - Screwtape. 04/12/12

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6198
  • Darwins +408/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #83 on: July 04, 2013, 03:42:26 AM »
Actually the comment was in reference to an unsupported claim that Relegion is blocking the field of science from advancing.   My response was that believers founded the fundamental fields of science and are still there.


And have you thought as to why that might be?  Or, rather, why the professed religious had the opportunity to do so?

Certainly in the UK, a lot of scientific observation came from priests and pastors, especially roundabout the Victorian age.  But look carefully at their circumstances.  A pastor in that time would be likely to come from an educated family; have free accomodation; a substantial salary; and a relatively low amount of calls on his time.  Such people were in an ideal situation to explore the natural world and made scientific advancement.  What we need to ask is: how many people who were NOT in that privileged circumstances were able to devote the time and the resources to those studies? 

If the only people with the time and resource to do something come from a particular group, should there be any praise for that group?
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #84 on: July 04, 2013, 08:53:06 AM »
Actually the comment was in reference to an unsupported claim that Relegion is blocking the field of science from advancing.   My response was that believers founded the fundamental fields of science and are still there.


And have you thought as to why that might be?  Or, rather, why the professed religious had the opportunity to do so?

Certainly in the UK, a lot of scientific observation came from priests and pastors, especially roundabout the Victorian age.  But look carefully at their circumstances.  A pastor in that time would be likely to come from an educated family; have free accomodation; a substantial salary; and a relatively low amount of calls on his time.  Such people were in an ideal situation to explore the natural world and made scientific advancement.  What we need to ask is: how many people who were NOT in that privileged circumstances were able to devote the time and the resources to those studies?  If the only people with the time and resource to do something come from a particular group, should there be any praise for that group?

Good point.
I don't press that Christianity is responsible for the scientific method. 
Only that religion is not the detriment that some make it out to be. 

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #85 on: July 04, 2013, 08:58:48 AM »
Quote from: SkyWriter
I was not a believer most of my life.
If you believe now then you were indoctrinated as a child, no adult becomes religious without some trauma in their life so either you are lying or you had a traumatic experience.

You cant just switch on belief. but you can switch it off. With critical thought.

Unless of course you are as dumb as a sack of spuds, that could account for it. "are you"?

I used to believe the same thing.   In time I found that drug addiction, near death experiences, and prison were experiences that assisted a person on their spiritual journey.  Much more boring stories of people coming to Faith are far more common but less likely to end up in print.

Offline SkyWriting

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
  • Darwins +9/-75
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Bible healings don't count
« Reply #86 on: July 04, 2013, 09:10:47 AM »
I don't see how those examples help your contention that science can't reliably investigate past events. Cold fusion in particular attracted skepticism from the scientific community from the start, and independent investigation soon showed that skepticism was warranted. Most technicians and academics consider it an example of why bypassing peer-review in favor of the mass media is a really bad idea.

But they weren't "there" or as involved as I was.   Over a dozen co-workers signed on to the paper on cold fusion.  Way before any media.  In fact, media is the goal of every researcher. It pay the bills.

My point is that any theories about the past that can't be re-tested are currently in the "Cold-Fusion" state.   100's of researchers (or one) need to duplicate the process to get the same results.  This is impossible with any theory about history.  You never know if you have duplicated the original conditions.   "Scientific History" only goes as far back as the date on a notebook.   That's why there is no such phrase as "scientific history".

Science can only look forward. Not back.