Quote: If I were to see a video for instance of a police officer robbing a bank, you're saying I am to conclude that all police officers are criminals?

Check out the Fucking Cops thread and get back to us.

(August 5, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 5, 2014 at 8:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Hows this for critical thought. If I were to see a video for instance of a police officer robbing a bank, you're saying I am to conclude that all police officers are criminals?

This is an inapt comparison. Bank robberies are mundane things that do not require miracles. Faith healings, however, require miracles that are divorced from physical causes. Because of that, I am comfortable pointing out that faith healers have continually been dubunked (not just Christian faith-healers) and suggesting that a skeptical mindset would serve the thinking person better.

I can underestand your discomfort at my point, but your objection, being irrelevant, will be disregarded.

Faith healing has not been debunked, in fact it has been supported by scientific study of the "placebo effect".

this is part of an article from http://www.scientificamerican.com/articl...-the-mind/

can read the free version here http://web.as.uky.edu/statistics/users/r...oStudy.pdf

Quote:As Mr. Wright’s experience illustrates, a patient’s expectations and beliefs can greatly affect the
course of an illness. When psychological factors tied to an inactive substance such as
Krebiozen lead to recovery, doctors call the improvement a placebo effect.

(August 5, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(August 5, 2014 at 8:18 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: No, but eyewitness testimony is accepted as evidence, would you like to see some?

As anyone who has taken Psychology 101 knows, eyewitness testimony is some of the least-reliable evidence around.

Maybe so, but it's still admissible as evidence in any court.

(August 5, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Rather than that, I'd prefer to see medical records of the "healed", both before and after the alleged healing.

What you got for that?

I believe this would be called proof....

(August 5, 2014 at 9:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote:

(August 5, 2014 at 8:38 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: As anyone who has taken Psychology 101 knows, eyewitness testimony is some of the least-reliable evidence around.

Maybe so, but it's still admissible as evidence in any court.

Whether or not that's true, you have to bear in mind that submitting the evidence is just the first step. It goes on to be evaluated and tested. If it's found to be insufficient, or worse, completely erroneous, it gets discarded. That holds whether it's a courtroom context or otherwise.

(August 5, 2014 at 8:37 pm)Minimalist Wrote: They can call it the asshole of christ for all I care. The church is about authority and warning people to stfu and do what they are told.

I thought I made my explanation simple enough to comprehend... apparently not.

If a particular church behaves in the way you describe that is called Nicolaitanism, which God is against, and I explained why. The Pope for example is not only Head of the Catholic church, he is also a head of state, It doesn't get anymore Nicolaitan than that. The Church has no business in politics.

Ephesians 4
11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

This is not a hierarchy, one is not greater than the other. Which is why I used the analogy of a team. In Football (American) for example, you have a quarterback, running back, wide receiver, Tight end etc. One position is not better than the other, they all form one cohesive unit, which is why the Bible refers to the church as the "body of Christ"

Understand now?

(August 5, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(August 5, 2014 at 9:32 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Maybe so, but it's still admissible as evidence in any court.

Whether or not that's true, you have to bear in mind that submitting the evidence is just the first step. It goes on to be evaluated and tested. If it's found to be insufficient, or worse, completely erroneous, it gets discarded. That holds whether it's a courtroom context or otherwise.

Also doesn't hold any weight in scientific inquiry too. Recorded observations repeated over a given time period > one eyewitness testimony.

(August 7, 2014 at 3:32 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:

(August 5, 2014 at 9:38 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Whether or not that's true, you have to bear in mind that submitting the evidence is just the first step. It goes on to be evaluated and tested. If it's found to be insufficient, or worse, completely erroneous, it gets discarded. That holds whether it's a courtroom context or otherwise.

Also doesn't hold any weight in scientific inquiry too. Recorded observations repeated over a given time period > one eyewitness testimony.

I was giving Thumpalumpacus time to provide a rebuttal, it's apparant that after almost a week he's got nothing.

Thumpalumpacus clearly asserted that faith healing doesn't exist. I posted an article from the Scientific American which would disagree.

Quote:As Mr. Wright’s experience illustrates, a patient’s expectations and beliefs can greatly affect the
course of an illness. When psychological factors tied to an inactive substance such as
Krebiozen lead to recovery, doctors call the improvement a placebo effect

The scientific community refers to it as the "placebo effect" and has been thoroughly tested.

The Bible has always stated that a person can be healed based upon their faith.

I'll go a step further and submit more "evidence"

Some may be familiar with the story of Pentecost, where tongues of fire was seen to hang over the people.

Quote:Acts 2
And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.

Which brings me to this photograph taken at the Sam Houston Coliseum in Houston, Texas On the night of January 24, 1950.


This photograph was examined by George J. Lacy, (who worked for the FBI as Investigator of Questioned Documents, and would become the president of The American Society of
Questioned Document Examiners in 1956) subjected the negative to every scientific test available.

Photocopy of George J. Lacey's official report and conclusion concerning the tests run on the photograph.


His conclusion,

Quote:Based upon the above described examination and study I am of the definite opinion that the negative submitted for examination, was not retouched nor was it a composite or double exposed negative.
Further, I am of the definite opinion that the light streak appearing above the head in a halo position was caused by the light striking the negative.

Respectfully submitted,

George J. Lacy.

he also made this statement at a news conference, “To my knowledge, this is the first time in all the world’s history that a supernatural being has been photographed and scientifically vindicated.”

More about American Society of Questioned Document Examiners from Wikipedia:

Quote:The American Society of Questioned Document Examiners is the world's oldest society dedicated to the forensic science of questioned document examination with 144 members worldwide. The current president is James A. Green. The society publishes the Journal of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners twice a year.

Are you really trying to push the placebo effect as the same thing as faith healing? Just no. Faith healing is about god interveneing or providing power to a chosen person. It is not the same as the placebo effect.

It's a bit like those 'ghost investigation' shows, such as the much-derided Most Haunted, which make a huge deal out of stories of headless nuns and screaming banshees. Yet when they get right down to it, the most they can offer are 'mysterious' knocking sounds and 'orbs' and declare them as definite proof.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I go out to buy bananas and the grocer tries to sell me soggy lettuce leaves instead, swearing that it's what I asked for (or better still nothing at all) I'm going to feel cheated.

(August 12, 2014 at 7:08 pm)Stimbo Wrote: It's a bit like those 'ghost investigation' shows, such as the much-derided Most Haunted, which make a huge deal out of stories of headless nuns and screaming banshees. Yet when they get right down to it, the most they can offer are 'mysterious' knocking sounds and 'orbs' and declare them as definite proof.

I don't know about anyone else, but if I go out to buy bananas and the grocer tries to sell me soggy lettuce leaves instead, swearing that it's what I asked for (or better still nothing at all) I'm going to feel cheated.

That would be consistent with the bible now, wouldn't it?

Did God not appear to Moses as a burning bush? Did he not lead the Hebrews out of Egypt as a pillar of fire? Did he not appear to Paul as a blinding light?

Not to mention what I posted has been scientifically vindicated.

Please elaborate on what you would consider as "evidence"?

---

(August 12, 2014 at 7:02 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote: Are you really trying to push the placebo effect as the same thing as faith healing? Just no. Faith healing is about god interveneing or providing power to a chosen person. It is not the same as the placebo effect.

They are the same, but go ahead and explain how they are different.

And by "same" I'm mean they operate under the same principle. ..belief.

(August 12, 2014 at 7:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: That would be consistent with the bible now, wouldn't it?

Did God not appear to Moses as a burning bush? Did he not lead the Hebrews out of Egypt as a pillar of fire? Did he not appear to Paul as a blinding light?

Are you agreeing with me that your religion is a bait and switch scam?

Besides, why are we discussing a book now? Weren't we talking about a god before?

(August 12, 2014 at 7:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Not to mention what I posted has been scientifically vindicated.

Submitting evidence isn't a checkmate move. You don't get to play the cards (I don't play chess ) and automatically win. The next step is examing the evidence to determine if it holds up to review. If it doesn't, well that's not our problem.

Your evidence has been examined and found wanting. Next!

(August 12, 2014 at 7:49 pm)Huggy74 Wrote: Please elaborate on what you would consider as "evidence"?

Whatever you feel substantiates your claim.