Christians. Could you be wrong?

[Anomalocaris]

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?

I've heard it rumored that there are idiots who believe so.

The real answer is "no", "no", and "no".

[Huggy Bear]

I didn't say "scientific analysis by a world renowned forensic investigator is not enough evidence for" me. Don't you dare put words into my mouth.

Really, then why did you make this statement?

Your evidence has been examined and found wanting. Next!

You're talking about a former president of The American Society of
Questioned Documents, you don't get to be in that position unless you know what you're talking about.

But yet it's not good enough...smh

Bad Wolf already cast doubt on your equvocation of faith healing and the placebo effect, but I'll take the pitch if you like (I don't play baseball either).

I wouldn't put too much faith in Bad Wolf after he embarrassed himself with his double speak in another thread.

If faith healing is nothing more than the placebo effect, then we're done here. Placebos, as I understand it, do have a role to play in conventional treatment of certain illnesses. To equate that with the claims of faith healers is not only farcical, it's also insulting to anyone who has ever suffered from or lost someone to life-threatening illness and injury. It's on a par with going up to a crash victim suffering from multiple lacerations and internal injuries, giving them two aspirin and telling them to walk it off and they'll feel better.

Faith healing is bullshit and costs lives.

I'll say it one more time: if what you present doesn't stand up to the pressures of examination even slightly, stop whining about it. Get better evidence. Or better claims.

responding to the part in bold.

You do realize what a placebo is right? It's a fake treatment, meaning there was no actual medical treatment preformed and yet the patients health improved. the "placebo effect" contributes this to the faith of the patient.

pla·ce·bo ef·fect
noun
noun: placebo effect; plural noun: placebo effects

a beneficial effect, produced by a placebo drug or treatment, that cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient's belief in that treatment.

did you not read the quote from the Scientific American?

a patient’s expectations and beliefs can greatly affect the
course of an illness.

even they acknowledge that healing can occur based on faith.

No, faith healing is when someone gets healed by the power of god. The placebo effect is not caused by gods power. Therefore, they aren't the same.

You haven't explained anything. As stated before, a placebo is a fake treatment, so explain how a patient is able to be healed even though no medical procedure has been preformed?

Also faith healing is when one is healed through the power of faith, hence the name.

the example I gave is when a certain woman believed she would be healed if she touched Jesus robe, and in doing so Jesus said that "her faith had made her well" not him.

[ignoramus]

To state that faith healing hadn't anything to do with god would be stating the obvious. I'm just curious why you brought it up at all then?
This isn't a medical forum?

[Esquilax]

You haven't explained anything. As stated before, a placebo is a fake treatment, so explain how a patient is able to be healed even though no medical procedure has been preformed?

Oh look, the argument from ignorance.

[Tonus]

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

It's a smear of light, possibly a reflection off of the camera lens. It doesn't look like a halo, it looks like a smudge. Lacey's opinion is that the photo is unretouched and the "halo" was formed when light hit the camera lens, which makes sense.

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.”

Was he saying that the person in the photo was a "supernatural being"? Or was he claiming that the halo was a "supernatural being"? Otherwise, just which particular supernatural being was photographed and "scientifically vindicated" by a guy who admitted nothing more than that a white smudge on a picture was caused by light?

It doesn't say much for the guy if he believes that he "scientifically vindicated" the existence of a halo because he determined that a white smudge on a picture wasn't caused by retouching.

[Bad Wolf]

I wouldn't put too much faith in Bad Wolf after he embarrassed himself with his double speak in another thread.

Oh i remember that, the thread where you purposefully misquoted me in a desperate attempt to make me look foolish so that you could dismiss the rest of what I said. I think if you ask around, the only source of embarrassment there was you.

You haven't explained anything. As stated before, a placebo is a fake treatment, so explain how a patient is able to be healed even though no medical procedure has been preformed?

Oh so now the placebo effect is caused by gods power?

Also faith healing is when one is healed through the power of faith, hence the name.

Faith in god, in gods power, that god will heal them.

the example I gave is when a certain woman believed she would be healed if she touched Jesus robe, and in doing so Jesus said that "her faith had made her well" not him.

There has to be an outside source of power otherwise there would be nothing to have faith in.
Although the placebo effect does work, it doesn't work for big life-threatening or incurable diseases. Wasn't this woman blind? Or a leppar or something? If so: no, this was not the placebo effect.

[Cyberman]

responding to the part in bold.

Why, because you can't respond to the rest of it? Interesting

You do realize what a placebo is right? It's a fake treatment, meaning there was no actual medical treatment preformed and yet the patients health improved. the "placebo effect" contributes this to the faith of the patient.

Then we're agreed: faith healing = placebo = fake treatment. That the patients' health improved has nothing to do with the 'treatment' and everything to do with the patient. Where is "God" in this picture?

[Huggy Bear]

Oh i remember that, the thread where you purposefully misquoted me in a desperate attempt to make me look foolish so that you could dismiss the rest of what I said. I think if you ask around, the only source of embarrassment there was you.

Easily provable, go ahead and show where I misquoted you.

Oh so now the placebo effect is caused by gods power?

I asked you a very simple question, explain how the "placebo effect" works"

There has to be an outside source of power otherwise there would be nothing to have faith in.
Although the placebo effect does work, it doesn't work for big life-threatening or incurable diseases. Wasn't this woman blind? Or a leppar or something? If so: no, this was not the placebo effect.

The article I linked, which apparently you didn't read, was about a guy with terminal cancer. His tumor shrunk even though he was administered a placebo.

---

responding to the part in bold.

Why, because you can't respond to the rest of it? Interesting

No, because responding to that made the rest of your post moot.

You do realize what a placebo is right? It's a fake treatment, meaning there was no actual medical treatment preformed and yet the patients health improved. the "placebo effect" contributes this to the faith of the patient.

Then we're agreed: faith healing = placebo = fake treatment. That the patients' health improved has nothing to do with the 'treatment' and everything to do with the patient. Where is "God" in this picture?
[/quote]

I see you have conveniently ignored the definitions of the "placebo effect" being attributed to ones belief (faith). That would make "faith healing" (one being healed by their faith) and the "placebo effect" (one being healed by their faith) one and the same.

If God was doing the healing, then healing would be instantaneous, and that would be called a miracle, not faith healing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

And I posted a link showing why it should be treated skeptically.

As for your reliance upon eyewitness testimony, simply because it is sometimes admissible in court doesn't mean that it is accepted over other, more comprehensive forms of evidence; indeed, that was my point, which you chose to ignore.

[Bad Wolf]

Easily provable, go ahead and show where I misquoted you.

It has been already proved, hence why you took the misquoted quote in question, out of your signature.

I asked you a very simple question, explain how the "placebo effect" works"

I can't, I don't know how it works. The reason I didn't bother answering you in the first place was because its painfully obvious you are trying to slot god in there. Arguement from ignorance, its not good.

The article I linked, which apparently you didn't read, was about a guy with terminal cancer. His tumor shrunk even though he was administered a placebo.

Sudden remission is not impossible and is documented, we don't understand why and again, this doesn't give you a reason to insert god.

I see you have conveniently ignored the definitions of the "placebo effect" being attributed to ones belief (faith).

Belief and faith are two different things. Now there isn't any point addressing the rest of what you said.

Now if God is in the picture then healing would be instantaneous, that would be called a miracle, not faith healing.

So a tumour shrinking is a miracle?