Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: john on November 25, 2016, 12:09:15 PM
-
Mr Hope
Posted this on another topic.
The most well-known one is so-called 'spontaneous healing' when used in the context of medical science and its inability to explain why some condition reverses or simply disappears with no logical explanation. This is most dramatic when all known physical attributes have been exhausted - either within the sufferer or from the side of medical science. Or what about situations where all scientific evidence points to a certain outcome, such as death following a massive crash in a car, and yet the person/people step out of the mangled wreck with minimal injury. The fact that they are 'non-natural' in nature means that classifying them in the 'natural' way becomes difficult, perhaps even impossible because they don't match natural categories.
He often claims that his religion is able to heal or cure some people and has been taken up on it many times. He maintains that his claim is no more suspect that "spontaneous healing" is.
Okay lets go with Hope's claim; God/prayer/religion can cure/heal.
On what basis are some healed and others not. Young children, not yet capable of speech and independent movement and therefore unlikely to have sinned in anyway, are dying throughout the world of terrible diseases, starvation and even ill treatment. Some, Hope might claim are saved by divine intervention. The overwhelming majority are not and die in agony.
If God can save some why does he not save all? What faith can there be in a God so capricious, selective and deaf to the suffering of innocents?
-
If God can save some why does he not save all? What faith can there be in a God so capricious, selective and deaf to the suffering of innocents?
A question I have asked on many occasions!
-
Who says God can't save all?
-
Not to be picky, but your question OP seems to conflate healing with salvation; I think there are two questions here: why suffering, and why does God not save everyone.
-
Not to be picky, but your question OP seems to conflate healing with salvation; I think there are two questions here: why suffering, and why does God not save everyone.
Because god is a psycho if it exists!
-
Not to be picky, but your question OP seems to conflate healing with salvation; I think there are two questions here: why suffering, and why does God not save everyone.
you are going to have to point out the conflation to me because I cant find it
-
Who says God can't save all?
No one on this thread so far. However, the question still remains, if your God, by intervening, is able to save some people, why doesn't he intervene to save all?
-
No one on this thread so far. However, the question still remains, if your God, by intervening, is able to save some people, why doesn't he intervene to save all?
In reply #1. floo made a statement.
My question to her was to see if she could, by some remote chance, back it up with evidence from Scripture.
-
In reply #1. floo made a statement.
My question to her was to see if she could, by some remote chance, back it up with evidence from Scripture.
Hi Anchorman,
Actually she simply repeated the two questions from the OP. The only statement that I can see is that she says that she has asked this question(actually two questions) before.
The first one, which assumes a Christian God, seems to be quite a reasonable question? I certainly have no answer to it, but there again I'm not a Christian.
The second question includes the assumption that 'God is capricious, selective and deaf to the suffering of innocents' such that she questions those who can have faith in such a God? I think you are now on somewhat more solid ground in asking her for the scriptural evidence to support the assumptions here, rather than simply asking 'Who says God can't save all?' when nobody has done that.
That's all. :)
-
Actually spontaneously healing is connected to our inner Consciousness and to our biofield. We can, under certain circumstances, activate the inner Self and generate certain types of energies that can cure illnesses spontaneously.
Illness according to most spiritual philosophies, is nothing but accumulation of negative energy in certain parts of the system. 'Karma' in other words. If this is corrected through internal processes, diseases can be cured 'miraculously'. Obviously, people with greater spiritual maturity will be able to do it more easily.
It has nothing to do with God or his whims. It is an internal process involving systems that science is yet to understand.
-
In reply #1. floo made a statement.
My question to her was to see if she could, by some remote chance, back it up with evidence from Scripture.
That wasn't my statement, I just said I too had asked that question!
-
And my answer is that God is perfectly capable of saving everyone. Not everyone wants to be saved, though.
-
And my answer is that God is perfectly capable of saving everyone. Not everyone wants to be saved, though.
What do we need saving from?
-
And my answer is that God is perfectly capable of saving everyone. Not everyone wants to be saved, though.
Anchorman,
Which of course is no answer to the question posed in the OP of a thread labelled 'Spontaneous healing', where John is talking about your God intervening to physically heal and cure people. It is in this sense that he means 'saved', surely. E.g. He says:
Some, Hope might claim are saved by divine intervention. The overwhelming majority are not and die in agony.
I cannot think that your answer that 'not everyone wants to be saved, though' has any bearing at all on those, including young children, who suffer and die, as John says, of 'terrible diseases, starvation and even ill treatment'.
So the question remains: if God is able to intervene directly to alleviate suffering for some. why not for all?
-
There;s salvation and there's saving from pain. The former is offered to everyone. The latter may not be. Sometimes, likre Paul, we may have to endure pain and suffering. No-one wants that - and after thirty -odd years of constant pain, I know I don't. However, that's not what is meant by 'being saved'.
-
There;s salvation and there's saving from pain. The former is offered to everyone. The latter may not be. Sometimes, likre Paul, we may have to endure pain and suffering. No-one wants that - and after thirty -odd years of constant pain, I know I don't. However, that's not what is meant by 'being saved'.
Salvation from what?
-
There;s salvation and there's saving from pain. The former is offered to everyone. The latter may not be. Sometimes, likre Paul, we may have to endure pain and suffering. No-one wants that - and after thirty -odd years of constant pain, I know I don't. However, that's not what is meant by 'being saved'.
Again I am puzzled as to why you do not offer any sort of answer to what was asked. Simply to describe the fact that many people are forced to endure pain and suffering is no answer to the question:
If God is able to intervene directly to alleviate suffering for some, why not for all?
-
On what basis are some healed and others not. Young children, not yet capable of speech and independent movement and therefore unlikely to have sinned in anyway, are dying throughout the world of terrible diseases, starvation and even ill treatment. Some, Hope might claim are saved by divine intervention. The overwhelming majority are not and die in agony.
OK, john, on what basis are some healed and some not by modern western medicine?
But to answer at least some of your questions, let's take the situation that Japan faced hours, days and months after the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Are you saying that God should have saved all and every man, woman and child affected by those events? Or what about the children who die in their infancy as a result of a lack of clean water? Should God be healing each and every one of those?
Let's look at at least some of the background (and perhaps even foreground) to these two examples.
If God was to have healed each and every person killed and wounded as a result of the 2 A-bombs, would humanity have understood the horror of such things and - ever since - sought to avoid their use again (note the outcry when depleted uranium is used in military shells and bombs)? Why do many young children die as a result of a lack of clean water? Corruption, greed and selfishness are but three reasons. Were God to ensure that no-one died as a result of a lack of clean water, would people pay attention to combating such corruption and greed? Are there to be no consequences that effect third-parties from such human failings?
And then, what about those children who die in the womb, in developing countries, but saved in the West, to live out lives of pain, inability and perhaps even rejection? Are you happy with such situations? Many of these in-utero deaths are the result of nature deciding that this or that child is, realistically, nonviable as a human being.
If God can save some why does he not save all? What faith can there be in a God so capricious, selective and deaf to the suffering of innocents?
A faith in the humanity that, often, actually cause the circumstances that lead to such suffering. Or are you suggesting that humanity, as a whole, doesn't have a huge responsibility for its own suffering?
-
If God can save some why does he not save all? What faith can there be in a God so capricious, selective and deaf to the suffering of innocents?
A question I have asked on many occasions!
And had answers to on equally 'many occasions', Floo.
-
Actually spontaneously healing is connected to our inner Consciousness and to our biofield. We can, under certain circumstances, activate the inner Self and generate certain types of energies that can cure illnesses spontaneously.
Illness according to most spiritual philosophies, is nothing but accumulation of negative energy in certain parts of the system. 'Karma' in other words. If this is corrected through internal processes, diseases can be cured 'miraculously'. Obviously, people with greater spiritual maturity will be able to do it more easily.
It has nothing to do with God or his whims. It is an internal process involving systems that science is yet to understand.
Unfortunately, Sri, the term 'spontanteous healing' is often applied to recovery from a condition or illness that has been going on for a very long time, and that Western medicine with all its experts has been unable to find a cure for. It has nothing to do with our inner consciousness (whatever that term might mean) since there are occasions when the person concerned has given up all hope themselves and accepted that they will die.
I think the problem lies with your definition of illness - something where we as individuals have no say in what happens to us - aka fatalism. I am aware that this way of thinking is in-built into languages such as Hindi and Nepali - and other sub-continent languages - whereas it isn't in=built into others - such as English or other European languages. Not sure about African and languages from other continents or eras such as Maori or Australian Aborigine, Mayan, Inca, etc.
-
Anchorman,
Which of course is no answer to the question posed in the OP of a thread labelled 'Spontaneous healing', where John is talking about your God intervening to physically heal and cure people. It is in this sense that he means 'saved', surely. E.g. He says:
I cannot think that your answer that 'not everyone wants to be saved, though' has any bearing at all on those, including young children, who suffer and die, as John says, of 'terrible diseases, starvation and even ill treatment'.
So the question remains: if God is able to intervene directly to alleviate suffering for some. why not for all?
enki, I think that john's juxtpositioning of the words 'healing' and 'saving' points to a confusion, especially when he places the thread on the Christian board - since divine healing isn't a uniquely Christian concept. Having said that, there are those who don't want to be healed, either by medical science or religion. I can think of some who have a full and round life who - regardless of their age - are happy to die; my mother lost her husband in 1982 and lived a full life till about 2006. Following a number of niggly illnesses and pains - colds, joint problems, etc, she effectively 'gave up the ghost'. She actually told me the night before she died that she was ready to die.
-
Yes, life isn't everything. Sometimes people have just had enough.
-
If God can save some why does he not save all? What faith can there be in a God so capricious, selective and deaf to the suffering of innocents?
Because God wants us to learn.
-
Because God wants us to learn.
Learn what? That a child dying in pain is what he wants?
-
Because God wants us to learn.
Learn what, it enjoys watching humans suffer?
-
Mr Hope
Cut the waffle and answer the question.
As a Christian advocate you have a duty to do so.
You have claimed on this forum on numerous occasions to have personal knowledge of individuals who have been cured by divine intervention.
OK I'll give you that for the purpose of this question the OP raises here, simplified for you.
If God has the power to cure Mrs Brown's cancer. Why does he not cure Mr Clarke's cancer who lives in the next town?
God loves all his creations but obviously some more than others by your claim. Is that a just even handed God?
Defend your claim that this God, who can cure some but ignores others is not cruel and capricious.
Help us to understand. It is not just me this is exactly the sort of point that leads intelligent thinking people to reject Christianity. By making the claims you do and not explaining Gods selective use of his powers you greatly harm your cause.
-
I know I have told this story many times but I will repeat it as it is relevant, imo. When my husband suffered a brain haemorrhage ten years ago next month, many people said prayers for his recovery. At the same time a 'born again' friend of ours was extremely ill and of course many prayers were said for him too. My husband lived, our friend died. He had a young family and his death had was more than traumatic for them. Now if god was in receipt of these prayers why did it not let my husband, an atheist, die, and let one of its own live? If my husband had died yes of course that would have been sad, but as our children are all adults leading their own lives it wouldn't have been devastating, especially as my husband has been left with half a functioning brain.
-
Unfortunately, Sri, the term 'spontanteous healing' is often applied to recovery from a condition or illness that has been going on for a very long time, and that Western medicine with all its experts has been unable to find a cure for. It has nothing to do with our inner consciousness (whatever that term might mean) since there are occasions when the person concerned has given up all hope themselves and accepted that they will die.
I think the problem lies with your definition of illness - something where we as individuals have no say in what happens to us - aka fatalism. I am aware that this way of thinking is in-built into languages such as Hindi and Nepali - and other sub-continent languages - whereas it isn't in=built into others - such as English or other European languages. Not sure about African and languages from other continents or eras such as Maori or Australian Aborigine, Mayan, Inca, etc.
A person giving up all hope could in fact be the significant aspect of triggering the Inner consciousness.
Think of the Inner consciousness as the Unconsciousness mind. It is active and influential regardless of the condition of the consciousness mind. In fact if the conscious mind is troubled and less prominent, the unconsciousness mind is likely to be more powerful.
-
Sririam
I do enjoy hearing your interesting take on all sorts of issues.
But in this OP I am trying to get a specific point about Christian belief.
Why does a God who can cure all only cure some and why do Christians think that's OK?
-
Sririam
I do enjoy hearing your interesting take on all sorts of issues.
But in this OP I am trying to get a specific point about Christian belief.
Why does a God who can cure all only cure some and why do Christians think that's OK?
Yes John...i understand. The point is that there are certain phenomena that are not apparent to us. They are non sensory and exist below the surface. These phenomena give rise to surprising experiences. These experiences in turn give rise to beliefs and myths about their origins.
So...if we want to understand the myth or belief, we need to understand the experience... and from that the actual phenomenon that triggers the experience. Only then we understand how and why the belief has arisen.
That is what I was trying to do.
Condemning people and considering them as idiots is very easy. But that doesn't help. It only alienates people.
-
Learn what? That a child dying in pain is what he wants?
Learn what, it enjoys watching humans suffer?
That life isn't the be all and end all?
-
enki, I think that john's juxtpositioning of the words 'healing' and 'saving' points to a confusion, especially when he places the thread on the Christian board - since divine healing isn't a uniquely Christian concept. Having said that, there are those who don't want to be healed, either by medical science or religion. I can think of some who have a full and round life who - regardless of their age - are happy to die; my mother lost her husband in 1982 and lived a full life till about 2006. Following a number of niggly illnesses and pains - colds, joint problems, etc, she effectively 'gave up the ghost'. She actually told me the night before she died that she was ready to die.
The title of this thread is 'Spontaneous healing'. As John, in his opening post makes clear, this is to do with the idea of your God saving people from suffering and dying. There is no confusion on this point in my mind at all. I quite accept that all sorts of reasons are given for spontaneous healing(e.g. Sriram's take on it) but it was put on the Christian message board in the context of your God being able to intervene directly to alleviate suffering. Again, no confusion at all.
Next you bring in the idea that some people don't want to be healed for a variety of reasons. This has no bearing on the question at all. What about the many people who do not want to suffer or die, be they adults or children? If 'spontaneous healing' occurs through your God's intervention, why is it not consistently applied?
You bring in the idea that much suffering and death is the result of human actions/inactions. The cause then(and leaving aside the vexed problem that God is supposed to have created us) rests squarely with human beings. I have no reason to disagree with you.
However, much suffering and death(often premature death) is not caused by humans at all, but is a direct result of natural happenings, which you also seem to agree with.
So, the question stands:
On what basis,(assuming that He has both the capability and desire) would you say that your God intervenes to alleviate suffering (which has come about either as a result of natural or human causation) for some, but not all?
-
That life isn't the be all and end all?
That is SO SICK! :o
-
If God has the power to cure Mrs Brown's cancer. Why does he not cure Mr Clarke's cancer who lives in the next town?
God loves all his creations but obviously some more than others by your claim. Is that a just even handed God?
OK, let's look at western medical science for a while. Many people have conditions/illnesses/diseases which medical science is capable of either resolving or moderating. Yet does it manage to cure or moderate all these incidents? No, of course it doesn't. Does that mean that medical science is unfair, unable, uncaring? There are many occasions where - a bit like my mother - people have simply decided that they don't want to live any longer; and age doesn't come into this - I know of several teenagers who have had life-limiting conditions who have chosen to simply allow themselves to die - be that as a result of having vital equipment turned off or by simply stopping taking medication. At the same time, many conditions - such as cancer - may never be fully recoverable from (few patients who have overcome cancer are deemed to have recovered; more often they are deemed to be in remission). Could it be that praying/hoping that a loved one is healed from whatever they have says more about the pray-er/hope-er, than about the patient?
Help us to understand. It is not just me this is exactly the sort of point that leads intelligent thinking people to reject Christianity. By making the claims you do and not explaining Gods selective use of his powers you greatly harm your cause.
It is also one of the things that makes intelligent people turn to Christianity, and away from atheism. Until you can explain that, your seemingly deliberate ignoring or evasion of the answers that have been given over the years, both here and elsewhere, would seem to be a tad hollow.
-
The title of this thread is 'Spontaneous healing'. As John, in his opening post makes clear, this is to do with the idea of your God saving people from suffering and dying.
So, why did he introduce the term/concept of 'saving'? Does medical science use that term to mean healing? He even used the two terms in the same sentence; and it could be that God uses the Lucian idea of Jesus as a doctor as a way to help us understand the spiritual healing that can run alongside physical healing.
-
OK, let's look at western medical science for a while. Many people have conditions/illnesses/diseases which medical science is capable of either resolving or moderating. Yet does it manage to cure or moderate all these incidents? No, of course it doesn't. Does that mean that medical science is unfair, unable, uncaring? There are many occasions where - a bit like my mother - people have simply decided that they don't want to live any longer; and age doesn't come into this - I know of several teenagers who have had life-limiting conditions who have chosen to simply allow themselves to die - be that as a result of having vital equipment turned off or by simply stopping taking medication. At the same time, many conditions - such as cancer - may never be fully recoverable from (few patients who have overcome cancer are deemed to have recovered; more often they are deemed to be in remission). Could it be that praying/hoping that a loved one is healed from whatever they have says more about the pray-er/hope-er, than about the patient?
It is also one of the things that makes intelligent people turn to Christianity, and away from atheism. Until you can explain that, your seemingly deliberate ignoring or evasion of the answers that have been given over the years, both here and elsewhere, would seem to be a tad hollow.
More likely the other way around! ::)
-
So, why did he introduce the term/concept of 'saving'? Does medical science use that term to mean healing? He even used the two terms in the same sentence; and it could be that God uses the Lucian idea of Jesus as a doctor as a way to help us understand the spiritual healing that can run alongside physical healing.
If I was to refer to a firefighter rescuing someone from a burning house, I might well use the phrase 'saving that person from terrible burns or even saving them from dying'. What's so hard to understand? In the context of this thread on 'Spontaneous healing', I suggest that 'saving' is clearly to do with curing/healing(as John says) 'in the context of medical science' as you said.
You still don't seem to want to answer the question:
If God is able to intervene directly to alleviate suffering for some. why not for all?
Or, perhaps, you hope that it will go away.(the question, that is) :)
-
That is SO SICK! :o
To you maybe but I agree with Hope there.
Doesn't mean we shouldn't make the very most of it while we have it but we know it isn't going to go on forever and there usually comes a time when people have had enough.
Sadder if they don't feel like that.
Regarding why God doesn't cure everyone, it isn't something I've ever worried about too much.
I accept that life is full of highs and lows, including illness and recovery. It has always been so. I can't imagine a world without it.
It's quite natural for people of faith to pray for help when someone is ill, including ourselves, but healing doesn't always mean curing.
Feeling happier, better able to cope and make the most of what is still there is important.
Relieving pain and discomfort is important and usually possible to an extent.
We pray for help with other things too, not just health.
-
OK, let's look at western medical science for a while. Many people have conditions/illnesses/diseases which medical science is capable of either resolving or moderating. Yet does it manage to cure or moderate all these incidents? No, of course it doesn't. Does that mean that medical science is unfair, unable, uncaring? There are many occasions where - a bit like my mother - people have simply decided that they don't want to live any longer; and age doesn't come into this - I know of several teenagers who have had life-limiting conditions who have chosen to simply allow themselves to die - be that as a result of having vital equipment turned off or by simply stopping taking medication. At the same time, many conditions - such as cancer - may never be fully recoverable from (few patients who have overcome cancer are deemed to have recovered; more often they are deemed to be in remission).
So what? We know that some conditions are treatable, others less so and some where success is very minimal or short-term. Medical science will progress but aside from accident/injury everyone will eventually die of something.
Could it be that praying/hoping that a loved one is healed from whatever they have says more about the pray-er/hope-er, than about the patient?
It might well say something about those doing the praying, and might even be appreciated by some of those being prayed for, but there is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between prayer and the alleviation of symptoms or recovery from illness: if there were then medics would be surely prescribing prayer on a routine basis, and they don't!
It is also one of the things that makes intelligent people turn to Christianity, and away from atheism.
Is that so: how do you know this?
It is certain a puzzler to me that some intelligent people fall for Christianity, especially given the tendency towards fallacious reasoning we see from some (but not all) Christians here, but I'd suggest that perhaps their inclination towards theism isn't an indication of their intelligence (or lack of it) but that other personal aspects are involved.
Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse reject atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.
Edited to replace espouse with reject (which is what was intended).
-
I know quite a few intelligent people, including my husband, who were Christians as young people but became non believers when they began to seriously question the faith.
-
I know quite a few intelligent people, including my husband, who were Christians as young people but became non believers when they began to seriously question the faith.
And I know of quite a few intelligent people who grew up as atheists and became believers when they began to seriously question atheism, Floo. We have several in our church membership, who are lawyers, medics, teachers or scientists.
-
So what? We know that some conditions are treatable, others less so and some where success is very minimal or short-term. Medical science will progress but aside from accident/injury everyone will eventually die of something.
Not quite sure how this answers the bit of my post you quote. That said, I think that everyone - even the youngsters who like to think that they're indestructible - know that death will come at some point in time.
It might well say something about those doing the praying, and might even be appreciated by some of those being prayed for, but there is no demonstrable cause and effect relationship between prayer and the alleviation of symptoms or recovery from illness: if there were then medics would be surely prescribing prayer on a routine basis, and they don't!
Not sure that we have any idea what percentage of doctors suggest that prayer is the way to go. However, I do know of some doctors who have said to patients and or families that prayer is the only option they have 'now'.
Is that so: how do you know this?
Basically because I have been told this by some of that type of person, or I've read it in autobiographies.
It is certain a puzzler to me that some intelligent people fall for Christianity, especially given the tendency towards fallacious reasoning we see from some (but not all) Christians here, but I'd suggest that perhaps their inclination towards theism isn't an indication of their intelligence (or lack of it) but that other personal aspects are involved.
I suspect that the same could be said the other way round. I'd repeat what I have said a few times before, both here and elsewhere - namely that I find it hard to understand that intelligent people don't see the truth of Christianity - especially as it is so different from every other form of faith.
Oh, and by the way, this thread has pointed out the importance of faith for all forms of understanding. We've had non-religious people suggest that spontaneous healing is simply a current lack of scientific knowledge that science will 'discover' at some point in the future - can't get much closer to a statement of faith or belief than that. Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something www.oxforddictionary.com
Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.
Whilst your generalisation that I suggested that this was a generalisation is astonishing and belittles your argument.
-
And I know of quite a few intelligent people who grew up as atheists and became believers when they began to seriously question atheism, Floo. We have several in our church membership, who are lawyers, medics, teachers or scientists.
Very nice: but there are other lawyers, medics, teachers and scientists of presumably similar intelligence, being similarly qualified, who aren't Christians. Would you not agree that this perhaps suggests intelligence is unlikely to be an key indicator of a tendency towards theism.
What would be useful to know are the proportions of Christians vs atheists in each of the groups you mention since, presumably, if you think intelligent people are attracted to Christianity from atheism, then each group should show a majority who are Christians - since you raised this matter perhaps you can conform that this is indeed the case.
-
Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.
Reject atheism in favour of Christianity?
I read Hope's post and think he was just saying that there are intelligent people who become Christians, ie just because someone is a Christian, it doesn't mean they are not intelligent; Christianity is not the prerogative of the thick :D.
-
Very nice: but there are other lawyers, medics, teachers and scientists of presumably similar intelligence, being similarly qualified, who aren't Christians. Would you not agree that this perhaps suggests intelligence is unlikely to be an key indicator of a tendency towards theism.
You don't say!! Shock, horror! Well, if I remember correctly, it was either you and/or one of the others from your side of the debate (Floo?) who introduced the issue. So, I'll simply return the ball for one of you to answer the question.
What would be useful to know are the proportions of Christians vs atheists in each of the groups you mention since, presumably, if you think intelligent people are attracted to Christianity from atheism, then each group should show a majority who are Christians - since you raised this matter perhaps you can conform that this is indeed the case.
It would be an interesting study, but then one would have to have an extremely tight definition of the term 'intelligent', as well as needing a very tight study hypothesis. As for your suggestion that I conform (sic) 'that this is indeed the case', as I didn't actually make the point that you claim that I have perhaps you need to rethink your question.
-
Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.
Reject atheism in favour of Christianity?
I read Hope's post and think he was just saying that there are intelligent people who become Christians, ie just because someone is a Christian, it doesn't mean they are not intelligent; Christianity is not the prerogative of the thick :D.
Nor is atheism the prerogative of the intelligent - despite what some here would like to believe.
-
Nor is atheism the prerogative of the intelligent - despite what some here would like to believe.
There is a tendency nothing more than that for more intelligent people to be less religious.
Possibly because they understand and value evidential analysis more. They may also be more able to accept a don't know answer as the only honest answer to some questions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
-
Not sure that we have any idea what percentage of doctors suggest that prayer is the way to go. However, I do know of some doctors who have said to patients and or families that prayer is the only option they have 'now'.
Do you mean literally or as a form of expression to less bluntly say that death is likely to be imminent?
Basically because I have been told this by some of that type of person, or I've read it in autobiographies.
More argument by anecdote.
I suspect that the same could be said the other way round. I'd repeat what I have said a few times before, both here and elsewhere - namely that I find it hard to understand that intelligent people don't see the truth of Christianity - especially as it is so different from every other form of faith.
Perhaps intelligence isn't a key factor then - what makes you think that Christianity is a position based on intelligence: that some undoubtedly intelligent Christians here argue fallaciously might indicate that something other than intelligence accounts for their faith.
Oh, and by the way, this thread has pointed out the importance of faith for all forms of understanding. We've had non-religious people suggest that spontaneous healing is simply a current lack of scientific knowledge that science will 'discover' at some point in the future - can't get much closer to a statement of faith or belief than that. Faith - Complete trust or confidence in someone or something www.oxforddictionary.com
Whilst your generalisation that I suggested that this was a generalisation is astonishing and belittles your argument.
You seem to be conflating justified knowledge (such as science) with religious faith, and also deploying the good old 'god of the gaps' argument along with a straw man: bearing in mind that science (such as medicine) is progressive then that current 'don't knows' may in time be better understood is a reasonable conclusion based on the history of increasing knowledge via methodological investigation - religious faith is a very different entity no matter how hard you try, and fail, to equate the two.
-
It would be an interesting study, but then one would have to have an extremely tight definition of the term 'intelligent', as well as needing a very tight study hypothesis. As for your suggestion that I conform (sic) 'that this is indeed the case', as I didn't actually make the point that you claim that I have perhaps you need to rethink your question.
Why are you using the term 'intelligence' then?
-
Your generalisation that intelligent people espouse atheism in favour of Christianity does seems simplistic in the extreme.
Reject atheism in favour of Christianity?
I read Hope's post and think he was just saying that there are intelligent people who become Christians, ie just because someone is a Christian, it doesn't mean they are not intelligent; Christianity is not the prerogative of the thick :D.
You're right - I used the wrong term: I meant to say 'reject' in responding to Hope, and I have made the point in other posts that I don't think intelligence is a factor.
I'll edit the post.
-
Nor is atheism the prerogative of the intelligent - despite what some here would like to believe.
No, it works both ways.
-
Mr Hope
Clearly you are not unintelligent and are capable of understanding the question being asked.
Why so much evasion? Just try to answer the question please.
Have you not claimed here on many occasions that you KNOW of people who have been cured by religious intervention?
The explain yourself, how does God decide who to save and who to ignore and why?
It is a very very simple question which so far you have made no attempt at all to address.
-
Mr Hope
Clearly you are not unintelligent and are capable of understanding the question being asked.
Why so much evasion? Just try to answer the question please.
Have you not claimed here on many occasions that you KNOW of people who have been cured by religious intervention?
The explain yourself, how does God decide who to save and who to ignore and why?
It is a very very simple question which so far you have made no attempt at all to address.
I have answered the question, and sadly, it isn't as simple as you like to make out. As I've pointed out, there are a huge number of conditions that impact on all forms of healing - be that divine or scientific. The fact that you have to have this spelled out so often is a tad worrying.
-
I have answered the question, and sadly, it isn't as simple as you like to make out. As I've pointed out, there are a huge number of conditions that impact on all forms of healing - be that divine or scientific. The fact that you have to have this spelled out so often is a tad worrying.
The evidence for 'divine' healing is what, exactly?
-
No, it works both ways.
I agree - but in Hope's earlier posts he did express surprise that intelligent people weren't attracted to Christianity, noting that some in his church were lawyers etc, but he hasn't seemingly considered that others who are also intelligent and belong to these professional groups aren't Christian.
On that basis I'm surprised he raised the issue of intelligence in this way.
-
I agree - but in Hope's earlier posts he did express surprise that intelligent people weren't attracted to Christianity, noting that some in his church were lawyers etc, but he hasn't seemingly considered that others who are also intelligent and belong to these professional groups aren't Christian.
Yet again, I didn't in any way "express surprise that intelligent people weren't attracted to Christianity" in my earlier posts on this thread (I only made that comment in my last post here). What I did point out was that, contrary to the views of some here, there are those for whom their faith is a result of intellectual consideration. As an example, I noted that we have lawyers, doctors, scientists and teachers (to name but a few professions) amongst the membership of our church.
On that basis I'm surprised he raised the issue of intelligence in this way.
Except that I didn't 'raise the issue of intelligence in this way'. I simply responded to posts that had done that.
-
The evidence for 'divine' healing is what, exactly?
Much the same as for other forms of healing, Gordon. After all, do you have any definitive evidence that drug C heals disease Y, or is it simply a belief that it does which comes from personal or reported experience?
-
Much the same as for other forms of healing, Gordon.
The question was 'The evidence for 'divine' healing is what, exactly?' - it seems you've forgotten to include the evidence.
After all, do you have any definitive evidence that drug C heals disease Y, or is it simply a belief that it does which comes from personal or reported experience?
Your observation is naively simplistic - but I'm on familiar territory here since back in the day I was involved in several drug trials. These trials do often include the accounts of people taking the 'drugs' (e.g. of claimed side-effects), and of course they had no idea whether or not they taking the active preparation, and neither did the research team dealing directly with them. Double-blind trials are like that, and involve a strict research protocol: drugs don't get approved on the basis of personal experience alone, and then there is the chemistry involved in the mode of action.
So, do you have an equivalent method for 'divine' healing: one that involves more than just anecdote?
-
The question was 'The evidence for 'divine' healing is what, exactly?' - it seems you've forgotten to include the evidence.
No, I simply pointed out that is was the same as for 'scientific' healing - or are you saying that there is no evidence for that?
Your observation is naively simplistic - but I'm on familiar territory here since back in the day I was involved in several drug trials. These trials do often include the accounts of people taking the 'drugs' (e.g. of claimed side-effects), and of course they had no idea whether or not they taking the active preparation, and neither did the research team dealing directly with them. Double-blind trials are like that, and involve a strict research protocol: drugs don't get approved on the basis of personal experience alone, and then there is the chemistry involved in the mode of action.
So, you acknowledge that the only evidence for 'scientific' healing is by observation.
So, do you have an equivalent method for 'divine' healing: one that involves more than just anecdote?
I get the impression that you have a serious case of double standards here, Gordon. You can't provide anything other than observation for your preferred form of healing, but won't accept it for any other form.
-
Except that I didn't 'raise the issue of intelligence in this way'. I simply responded to posts that had done that.
In doing so your responses included your own take on intelligence though:
From #33
It is also one of the things that makes intelligent people turn to Christianity, and away from atheism.
From #40
And I know of quite a few intelligent people who grew up as atheists and became believers when they began to seriously question atheism, Floo. We have several in our church membership, who are lawyers, medics, teachers or scientists.
-
In doing so your responses included your own take on intelligence though:
So, I'm not allowed to refer to the concept when others are? Anyone heard of double standards?
-
No, I simply pointed out that is was the same as for 'scientific' healing - or are you saying that there is no evidence for that?
I'll ignore the straw-man (which is a fallacy you know) - so do you have evidence for 'divine' healing that has been obtained using a method similar to that used in drug trials?
My guess is that you'll evade again.
So, you acknowledge that the only evidence for 'scientific' healing is by observation
Don't be daft: read my post again, for comprehension this time - there are clues there, but you haven't understood them.
I get the impression that you have a serious case of double standards here, Gordon. You can't provide anything other than observation for your preferred form of healing, but won't accept it for any other form.
Utter drivel, and a misrepresentation of what I said. In #56 you say the following, quoted below, which just betrays your lack of knowledge and relevant experience, hence I pointed out that drugs trials aren't quite so simplistic as you imagine them to be.
After all, do you have any definitive evidence that drug C heals disease Y, or is it simply a belief that it does which comes from personal or reported experience?
So the fundamental issue here, and you've been exposed on this before, is that you really don't have a clue about either research methods or medicine in general, as is blindingly obvious to someone like me who spent a large chunk of their career doing both.
-
So, I'm not allowed to refer to the concept when others are? Anyone heard of double standards?
Not double standards at all: you set out your own take on intelligence, as quoted earlier, and I responded to what you said.
That is, generally speaking, how this place works.
-
Mr Hope
Your total failure to respond to this simple question in any way at all, means that you are not worth listening to.
You are clearly deluded and worse still prepared to deceive others.
-
Much the same as for other forms of healing, Gordon. After all, do you have any definitive evidence that drug C heals disease Y, or is it simply a belief that it does which comes from personal or reported experience?
Hope your responses beggar belief. ::)
-
From the things you have mentioned in your posts on the forum, it appears that you are quite worldly and reasonably well educated; what happened!
ippy
-
Young children, not yet capable of speech and independent movement and therefore unlikely to have sinned in anyway
If your argument rests on this assumption, then the answer is that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, whatever age.
-
If your argument rests on this assumption, then the answer is that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, whatever age.
Which is stupid nonsense! ::)
-
Mr Hope
If God can save some why does he not save all? What faith can there be in a God so capricious, selective and deaf to the suffering of innocents?
Mr John,
“My people perish for a lack of knowledge.”
If, people believe GOD they would learn his words and then become like Christ and do what he did.
-
If your argument rests on this assumption, then the answer is that all have sinned and fallen short of God's glory, whatever age.
Spud I'm so glad I brought up my children away from the likes of people that take your view on life, the only way anyone could come up with a statement like this one of yours #66, has to be indoctrinated, probably at a very young age, into this line of non-thought.
Go back to your post 66 have another read and try to think for yourself instead of quoting indoctrinated dogma, Floo summed it up rather well as stupid nonsense, I very much agree with her, thank goodness people like you are on the decline.
If you think my post is offensive, have a really good look and think about that stupid posting of yours.
ippy
-
Mr John,
“My people perish for a lack of knowledge.”
If, people believe GOD they would learn his words and then become like Christ and do what he did.
I like you? ;D ;D ;D
-
Why doesn't God save all?
Jesus died to save all... this shows God wants all to be saved.
God can intervene more in the lives of those who have give their lives to him through Christ than those who reject him.
Like a doctor can intervene and do more with a patient willing to accept treatment and one who cannot.
Sometimes atheists are left to their own devices they put their trust in medicine but forget God.
If you had to trust in medicine or God which would you trust?
The believer has the benefit of both.. But it is a choice. Do you as an atheist call on God?
I heard someone on tv the other day say they were driving somewhere and they came around a corner and there was suddenly cattle in front of them. They cried out to God and suddenly they were on the other side without harm.
You all make the decision of what and whom you trust in...
-
Why doesn't God save all?
Jesus died to save all... this shows God wants all to be saved.
God can intervene more in the lives of those who have give their lives to him through Christ than those who reject him.
Like a doctor can intervene and do more with a patient willing to accept treatment and one who cannot.
Sometimes atheists are left to their own devices they put their trust in medicine but forget God.
If you had to trust in medicine or God which would you trust?
The believer has the benefit of both.. But it is a choice. Do you as an atheist call on God?
I heard someone on tv the other day say they were driving somewhere and they came around a corner and there was suddenly cattle in front of them. They cried out to God and suddenly they were on the other side without harm.
You all make the decision of what and whom you trust in...
you should take out a law suit of negligence against your god for not giving you the power of reason .
-
If you had to trust in medicine or God which would you trust?
The believer has the benefit of both..
...but which do you trust more?
-
Why doesn't God save all?
Jesus died to save all... this shows God wants all to be saved.
God can intervene more in the lives of those who have give their lives to him through Christ than those who reject him.
Like a doctor can intervene and do more with a patient willing to accept treatment and one who cannot.
Sometimes atheists are left to their own devices they put their trust in medicine but forget God.
If you had to trust in medicine or God which would you trust?
The believer has the benefit of both.. But it is a choice. Do you as an atheist call on God?
I heard someone on tv the other day say they were driving somewhere and they came around a corner and there was suddenly cattle in front of them. They cried out to God and suddenly they were on the other side without harm.
You all make the decision of what and whom you trust in...
I'm reminded of a certain Daniel Miller who was trapped recently in a mud hole in Australia for several hours with only his nose and forehead above the surface. By using his mental faculties and a huge dose of luck, he managed to survive until he was rescued. When interviewed afterwards, he was asked if he had prayed, and he answered that he hadn't because it hadn't crossed his mind. He had focused on his wife and children, and used a yoga position which, he suggested, helped save his life.
-
I heard someone on tv the other day say they were driving somewhere and they came around a corner and there was suddenly cattle in front of them. They cried out to God and suddenly they were on the other side without harm.
You all make the decision of what and whom you trust in...
Leaving aside the detail of this remarkable claim, it seems a pity that God couldn't be trusted to have paid equally close attention to events in the Reading branch of Top Shop yesterday.
-
you should take out a law suit of negligence against your god for not giving you the power of reason .
Not true! Whereas in reality you have no one to blame but yourself for not being able to form a proper argument or express an informed opinion about the contents of my post. I think I still do a better job when making replies. At least my posts apply to the contents of the thread and not a personal attack.
-
...but which do you trust more?
Without God, we would not have either...
-
Leaving aside the detail of this remarkable claim, it seems a pity that God couldn't be trusted to have paid equally close attention to events in the Reading branch of Top Shop yesterday.
Why did a Christian drive a car into top shop and find cattle in there? What exactly was your point as I found no relevance to what I told you?
-
Why did a Christian drive a car into top shop and find cattle in there? What exactly was your point as I found no relevance to what I told you?
Well now.
You tell us there is a report that God responded to prevent injury by apparently transporting a person and their vehicle in some way to the other side of a herd of cattle they would have collided with: given this presumably occurred off the main highway, involved a vehicle moving at speed where the collision would be imminent (within a few seconds), it shows remarkable attention to detail by God. Unfortunately God didn't extend the same attention to detail when a child was killed in what appears to be a freak accident in a clothes shop.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-38966649
Unless of course if we dismiss the cattle avoidance story as being too unlikely to take seriously.
-
Without God, we would not have either...
...but which do you trust more?
-
Without God, we would not have either...
You have no evidence to support that statement.
-
Without God, we would not have either...
You have no evidence to support that statement.
And you know this how, just out of interest?
-
And you know this how, just out of interest?
Well have you any verifiable evidence to support the statement, or the existence of any god? No I thought not!
-
Without God, we would not have either...
You have no evidence to support that statement.
And you know this how, just out of interest?
Well, it would be a first from Sassy - or any theist for that matter...
-
Well have you any verifiable evidence to support the statement, or the existence of any god? No I thought not!
Nice evasion!
your question to Sassy was
You have no evidence to support that statement.
How do you know this?
-
Nice evasion!
your question to Sassy was
How do you know this?
No, you're the one doing the evading -as usual, I might add. Remember the NPF?
-
No, you're the one doing the evading -as usual, I might add. Remember the NPF?
So Floo can make a positive statement (Sassy has no evidence), and not have to back it up?
Isn't that double-standards?
-
So Floo can make a positive statement (Sassy has no evidence), and not have to back it up?
Isn't that double-standards?
I can assure you we will all step back, utterly defeated, as soon as you produce a fact we can all rely on.
-
I can assure you we will all step back, utterly defeated, as soon as you produce a fact we can all rely on.
Cardiff City won the FA Cup in 1927 ;)
-
Nice evasion!
your question to Sassy was
How do you know this?
Because there is none. If I state there are fairies at the bottom of my garden you would ask me to produce evidence for such a statement, god is in the same category, imo.
-
And you know this how, just out of interest?
god lives in my fridge!
-
god lives in my fridge!
:) I wish I was good at wit! I don't think I will waste any more time posting in response to any of SotS's posts. From his pposts, it seems to me he takes a personal pride in evading questions, but that is an assumption of course!!
-
So Floo can make a positive statement (Sassy has no evidence), and not have to back it up? Isn't that double-standards?
Not really - it is a summary of the discussion so far - it's a positive statement where the evidence to back it up is already displayed in the record, in the lack of any evidence supplied by Sassy. It's a slight (but only slight) presumption, as of course Sassy could change the habit of her posting history and suddenly drop some evidence on us.
O.
-
When there is no verifiable evidence is presented to prove that any god exists outside of the human psyche, one has to assume that either gods don't exist, or if they do, they aren't communicating with humans.
-
I can assure you we will all step back, utterly defeated, as soon as you produce a fact we can all rely on.
Ok.
You are unable to defend your position without reversing the point and throwing it back to the religious believer.
-
Ok.
You are unable to defend your position without reversing the point and throwing it back to the religious believer.
If you say a god exists, then you have the burden of proof.
-
If you say a god exists, then you have the burden of proof.
So if Floo says to Sassy in #81
You have no evidence to support that statement.
Does the burden of proof lie with Floo to back up her claim?
Floo's reasoning is circular. In #94, the impression is given that non-belief is because of a lack of verifiable evidence, yet in #81, the impression is given that lack of evidence is due to a claim being false.
-
So if Floo says to Sassy in #81Does the burden of proof lie with Floo to back up her claim?
Floo's reasoning is circular. In #94, the impression is given that non-belief is because of a lack of verifiable evidence, yet in #81, the impression is given that lack of evidence is due to a claim being false.
There is no evidence that fairies exist either, so one can be forgiven for thinking they don't.
-
So if Floo says to Sassy in #81Does the burden of proof lie with Floo to back up her claim?
Floo's reasoning is circular. In #94, the impression is given that non-belief is because of a lack of verifiable evidence, yet in #81, the impression is given that lack of evidence is due to a claim being false.
It's a statement that shows someone has made a positive claim of gods existence, but has not supplied the relevant evidence.
If you say a god exists, you must demonstrate this, and not by faith!
-
Cardiff City won the FA Cup in 1927 ;)
like it, ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
ippy