Help: jumped on for seeking scientific proof of spiritual healing

[emilynghiem]

Who has ever based existence of God on whether human limbs can grow back? I have never heard of this.

The point is that if spiritual healing works, why doesn't it work on limbs?

Obviously, the answer is because there is no cellular process available in humans to do so.

And clearly, the inference is that your alleged "spiritual healing" relies upon physical processes, and is therefore an unnecessary explanation.

As for "spiritual healing" regarding addiction, what is needed to beat addiction is willpower and the desire to change. Gods need not apply. AA has a miserable success rate. Regarding other physical ailments, faith-healing kills children.

You ask for studies to document the efficacy of faith-healing, when you should be providing evidence that it has any whatsoever. You should not be criticizing people who look at information like what I've linked to here and reckon that "spiritual healing" is bullshit, because quitefrankly, that's exactly what it looks like.

Hi Parkers Tan

1. My friend Ray Hill (an atheist) got the AA program to work by adding Buddhism to it. It worked so well their prison outreach network grew from 200 members to 2000.

Christians will also complain that AA doesn't quite teach that same connection with forgiveness and grace through Christ.

The woman I met at my Mom's Buddhist sangha who went through Buddhist past life karma therapy to get rid of a phobia also had a therapist who ADDED Christian prayer to it.

the common factor is full forgiveness.
So if people cannot fully forgive on their own, added help is needed.
This is a common criticism by Christians of why other ways aren't good enough.

2. faith healing such as "claiming healing" "word of faith" and others that rely on dependence on external rituals also fail to heal,
(especially if they deny medicine which is against healing and is dangerous) because they don't effect any changes internally with forgiveness and healing

I just posted the difference between the two methods on that other site,
but got banned anyway. So I will try to see if I saved copies of what I went through the trouble to type.

thanks for being open to discussing what is the difference
on this site. That other site already assumed I was lying and trolling
and expected me to cite sources but were allowed to post whatever and not have to back that up. So I couldn't type fast enough to answer to bogus things THEY were allowed to post,
and they banned me. So there was really no way to win when they stacked the process to make sure I got banned. What can you do?

The only sites I've ever been banned on was always because of ONE person who wants to have control.
And that matters more than anyone else, just for that one person to show they are in charge.

I'm telling you, for a website for Atheists who don't believe in God, they obviously believed in perfection with no room for human error.

And one guy wanted to demand that I cite the Bible to show I know what it says, when I said I believe in FREE exercise of religion and to OFFER CHOICES of interpretation not FORCING it.
so that was weird. To be forced to recite the Bible on an Atheist website when my whole point was that isn't even necessary?
And another guy condemning me to purgatory -- when isn't the point of saying Christianity was wrong is to AVOID this very thing?

Mindboggling. I guess I should write a blog about my experiences, it's so ironic it would be comic if it didn't feel so tragic.
==========================================================
I found a couple of women on that site were cool and two of the guys who were more laid back.
But once the guys thought I was stepping on toes of the alpha males in the pack, then I was already slated for demolition.
It had less to do with the material and more to do with disrespect for the pecking order pack mentality. just politics as usual.

If you piss the guys off who are in charge, it better be the nicer members and not anyone with moderation power. Too bad, so sad!

---

Who cares about scientific proof, if it works it works, if not then it doesn't work, and that can be for you or anyone else, if we didn't think outside of science then nothing would ever be found out that science have proved.

Hi psychoslice
but cancer treatments can't be applied until they are proven to work.

So there are people running around with demonic voices, killing people including their own children, when this could have been cured if people knew that treatment is free and available.

How do you propose to promote it without proving it medically?
If people don't believe it can be cured, that's why people are running around sick and not getting help. half the problem is people think there is no cure.