How do you know that the Bible is true? Isn't it just a bunch of fables? – Part 6 | Prognosis Cancer

Talk Cancer » Prognosis Cancer » How do you know that the Bible is true? Isn't it just a bunch of fables? – Part 6

How do you know that the Bible is true? Isn't it just a bunch of fables? – Part 6

Categories: Prognosis Cancer

Question:

What about people who have never heard of Christ?

Hey, idiot… why don’t you ever respond to the answers?? RS

Response:

Now it seems to me the only real weakness in this tree of evidence is #1, the diagnoses of the condition. Weakness in what respect?

People are misdiagnosed all the time. I have a friend, for example, who had a problem with his eye. His doctor sent him home and told him it was nothing. Within a few weeks they were carving out a good chunk of his cornea… But a misdiagnoses doesn’t only happen in one direction. What if the opposite had occurred? What if his doctor had concluded that he had a very serious bacterial infection, and scheduled him for treatment, when it was truly nothing?

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Not that anybody is the LEAST BIT interested in a serious discussion. Oh no, perish the thought! The people around here aren’t interested in anything more difficult than an ass-kicking contest with a one legged man. But…. "Miracle" cures, as defined by the Catholic church must meet the following criteria: 1) The illness/injury must be medically diagnosed. 2) The condition must be serious. 3) The prognosis irrevocable. "You will never walk again" works fine, but "You have a 98% chance of never walking again" doesn’t cut it. 4) The condition must be organic or result from an accident. (and I’m not sure exactly what these means myself) 5) There must be no treatment. An example here would be an inoperable cancer. 6) The cure must be "sudden and instantaneous," which strikes me as a bit redundant and repetitive. 7) Finally, the cure must be total & lasting, without any period of convalescence. Slowly regaining the use of your legs over a period of months doesn’t make the grade. Now it seems to me the only real weakness in this tree of evidence is #1, the diagnoses of the condition. If you’re the least bit confident in the diagnoses, the other conditions are actually pretty tough, not at all leaning in favor of establishing miracles. One could easily imagine scenarios where, even with treatment (disallowed under #5), a complete restoration of tissue or function could not be explained. Burn victims for example, nerve damage or any kind of scaring (internal or external). Anyhow, I put this forward for anyone to pick about or defend, be it however you please, and just out of curiousity concerning how others view these "Issues." I await the total lack of interest.

It’s a good subject for discussion. But the Catholics can have all the "conditions" they want and still not be taken seriously. All this does is cut down the number of events they feel justified in calling a miracle. Big deal. The real issue is the same … is a supernatural cause for something justified? I say it isn’t. Every religion has claims of such miracles, all postulated to be "well-documented" and "impossible" without the actions of their god(s). I don’t care how well-documented they are, you need to do a lot of leg work and research to determine any "miracle" could only happen through supernatural intervention. Any "spontaneous remission" simply means we don’t know what caused a cure. This doesn’t mean it’s supernatural, only that we don’t know the actual cause. As always, "Goddidit" becomes a holder, a marker that at bottom means "we’re ignorant and prefer to stay that way." — Nemo – EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations. Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!) BAAWA Knight! – One of those warm Southern Knights, y’all! Charter member, SMASH!! http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus Quotemeister since March 2002

Response:

Speaking of, how come such "miracle cures" have never included regeneration of a lost limb? Tell you what: show me that, or, say, a case of Down Syndrome being cured, and we’ll talk. Until then…

Response:

It is a big deal. You see, unlike in most every other example when it comes to religion, we have a clear definition. We have an understanding, an agreement. We’re all on the same page. When we say "miracle" we all mean the same thing, the exact same thing. So we do have a basis, a starting point. The real issue is the same … is a supernatural cause for something justified?

You make an excellent point. Every religion has claims of such miracles, all postulated to be "well-documented" and "impossible" without the actions of their god(s).

Yes. But this is different. These "Miracles" require the documentation of medical science BEFORE the miracle takes place. In other words, the illness/injury has to be documented (diagnosed) BEFORE the miracle takes place. This is *Very* different than just other religious claim. I don’t care how well-documented they are, you need to do a lot of leg work and research to determine any "miracle" could only happen through supernatural intervention.

I’d say you don’t go far enough. I would, but you catch yourself here: Any "spontaneous remission" simply means we don’t know what caused a cure.

Exactly. It’s unexplained.

Response:

Not that anybody is the LEAST BIT interested in a serious discussion. Oh no, perish the thought! The people around here aren’t interested in anything more difficult than an ass-kicking contest with a one legged man. But…. Speaking of, how come such "miracle cures" have never included regeneration of a lost limb? Tell you what: show me that, or, say, a case of Down Syndrome being cured, and we’ll talk. Until then…

That’s kind of lame, isn’t it? "If you don’t show me a different unexplained event I can safely ignore these others!" Personally, I’d love to see a catalog of the medical "Miracles" documented using the criteria mentioned here, the more recent the better. It might be interesting to look for a pattern…

Response:

What about people who have never heard of Christ?

I envy them because they don’t have to endure deluded idiots like yourself.

Response:

The real issue is the same … is a supernatural cause for something justified? I say it isn’t. Every religion has claims of such miracles, all postulated to be "well-documented" and "impossible" without the actions of their god(s). I don’t care how well-documented they are, you need to do a lot of leg work and research to determine any "miracle" could only happen through supernatural intervention. Any "spontaneous remission" simply means we don’t know what caused a cure. This doesn’t mean it’s supernatural, only that we don’t know the actual cause. As always, "Goddidit" becomes a holder, a marker that at bottom means "we’re ignorant and prefer to stay that way."

if you don’t know the actual cause then anyone may step up and claim it…….there is one factor that can be overlooked would be the placebo effect which can be gotten through prayer or a total belief in a particular drug etc….the key word would be absolute * belief* in a thing…..and since god cannot be proven or disproven and if one wished to believe god did it….who can offer an arguement? and why would one want to? agnositc #7674039896 – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Nemo – EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations. Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!) BAAWA Knight! – One of those warm Southern Knights, y’all! Charter member, SMASH!! http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus Quotemeister since March 2002

Response:

Fuck off and take your book of crap with you. — Jez ‘Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to accept, without much questioning, someone else’s version of what that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of someone else’s description of reality.’- Howard Zinn Skype callto://hellward

Response:

Not that anybody is the LEAST BIT interested in a serious discussion.

You can’t have a serious discussion with folk who believe in ancient myths and superstitions, as has been proven on alt.atheism time and time again ! Oh no, perish the thought! The people around here aren’t interested in anything more difficult than an ass-kicking contest with a one legged man. But…. "Miracle" cures, as defined by the Catholic church must meet the following criteria:

So ? Who gives a flying fuck what a bunch of men in weird dresses says ? — Jez ‘Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often led to accept, without much questioning, someone else’s version of what that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be skeptical of someone else’s description of reality.’- Howard Zinn Skype callto://hellward

Response:

What about people who have never heard of Christ? Hey, idiot… why don’t you ever respond to the answers??

Drive by shouting… — Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org "Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole" — Douglas Adams

Response:

Now it seems to me the only real weakness in this tree of evidence is #1,

Actually, this one is also weak: 3) The prognosis irrevocable. "You will never walk again" works fine, but "You have a 98% chance of never walking again" doesn’t cut it.

In that there are very few conditions in which there can be 100% certainty *at *all. I mean, if your leg is cut off, we can say it’s not going to grow *back. But a lot of what people style as "miracles" are remissions. Diseases do that. We don’t know why or how but it does happen. And to people of all faiths and even those who have no faith. Claiming a prognosis of "irrevacable" is questionable to my mind. Unless somebody can show me, oh, limbs regenerating. Now *that would be impressive… — Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org "Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole" — Douglas Adams

Response:

Not that anybody is the LEAST BIT interested in a serious discussion. Oh no, perish the thought! The people around here aren’t interested in anything more difficult than an ass-kicking contest with a one legged man. But…. Speaking of, how come such "miracle cures" have never included regeneration of a lost limb? Tell you what: show me that, or, say, a case of Down Syndrome being cured, and we’ll talk. Until then…

Yeah. Funny how it always involves diseases which can go into remission rather than things like limbs regrowing… — Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org "Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole" — Douglas Adams

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now it seems to me the only real weakness in this tree of evidence is #1, the diagnoses of the condition. Weakness in what respect? People are misdiagnosed all the time. I have a friend, for example, who had a problem with his eye. His doctor sent him home and told him it was nothing. Within a few weeks they were carving out a good chunk of his cornea… But a misdiagnoses doesn’t only happen in one direction. What if the opposite had occurred? What if his doctor had concluded that he had a very serious bacterial infection, and scheduled him for treatment, when it was truly nothing?

Which happens with disturbing frequency. People would also be very disturbed to discover the startlingly high rate of false positives (and negatives) of many common medical tests. Not to mention that the way statistics work, a test that’s "99%" accurate (which sounds really good huh?) can actually mean "accurate as flipping a coin." ("Drug testing" that’s so common these days is one that drives me up walls. The false positive rate is so high, you might as well be flipping a coin and firing people based on "heads or tails." This is true even though the accuracy of the tests is rated–on average–at 95%) It is actually *far more common than people realize that all the tests will indicate you probably have something but when they go *look to see, there’s nothing there. It’s just reality that medicine, while a science, still has a lot of ground to cover. There’s a lot of unexplored, unknown territory. (Such as that it’s quite common that we use medications which we know work but we don’t know *how they do. Anti-depressants are in that territory. We know they work and work well enough to use them, we just don’t know *why they work.) — Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org "Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole" — Douglas Adams

Response:

The Bible makes it clear

You misspelled "makes the unsupported claim" that through nature and conscience each person has some knowledge about God and sin for which he is accountable. (Read Romans 1:18-2:16.) Thus, everyone really knows, if he is honest, that God exists.

Or that "Paul" is just plain wrong. Have you considered that possibility?

Response:

What about people who have never heard of Christ?

Would that I were among them! — Denis Loubet http://www.io.com/~dloubet

Response:

The Bible makes it clear You misspelled "makes the unsupported claim" that through nature and conscience each person has some knowledge about God and sin for which he is accountable. (Read Romans 1:18-2:16.) Thus, everyone really knows, if he is honest, that God exists. Or that "Paul" is just plain wrong. Have you considered that possibility?

I would never have imagined anybody could be so stupid until I discovered American fundies.

Response:

Utter bullshit. That’s what annoys me about you fucking superstitious fools, you wipe your shit religion on everything whether we want it or not. Pious bastards! Right. If you were ‘honest’, ‘everyone REALLY knows’, ‘nature and conscience’,’knowledge’….. what double speak, ignorant garbage. If any of you stupid christians believe this load of maggot speak, see a shrink as soon as possible. Warlord Steve BAAWA www.sonic.net/~wooly

Response:

What about people who have never heard of Christ? The Bible makes it clear that through nature and conscience each person has some knowledge about God and sin for which he is accountable. (Read Romans 1:18-2:16.) Thus, everyone really knows, if he is honest, that God exists. Christianity teaches that one is condemned to hell for continually thumbing his nose at God. But the Bible also teaches that God is fair as well as just. Ultimately only God can judge as only He knows the individual’s heart. On the one hand, we are confident that God will not hold anyone accountable for any knowledge he did not receive. At the same time, since Christ is the only way to salvation, it is imperative for the church to take the gospel to those who have not heard it. To reject Jesus is a serious matter. It is tantamount to refusing God’s offer of reconcilation to sinful man. As R.C. Sproul points out (book, noted in the resource list), those who have heard and reject Christ face double jeopardy. Thus "religion" without Christ does not redeem people but may add to their ultimate guilt.

Response:

To reject Jesus is a serious matter.

Not really. I lost my belief in Jesus without even really noticing… — Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org "Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole" — Douglas Adams

Response:

In the case of a missing limb, I wouldn’t need a doctor to tell me the limb was missing. 2) The condition must be serious.

I would not require this. A missing limb would suffice for me. 3) The prognosis irrevocable.

This would require knowledge of future medical capabilities. 4) The condition must be organic or result from an accident. (and I’m not sure exactly what these means myself)

Mutant without arms vs. amputee, I imagine. 5) There must be no treatment. An example here would be an inoperable cancer.

So presumably, as medicine advances, we should see fewer miracles. 6) The cure must be "sudden and instantaneous," which strikes me as a bit redundant and repetitive.

And I would like to see the missing limb recovery caught on film in front of expert witnesses. 7) Finally, the cure must be total & lasting, without any period of convalescence. Slowly regaining the use of your legs over a period of months doesn’t make the grade. Now it seems to me the only real weakness in this tree of evidence is #1, the diagnoses of the condition.

Weakness in what respect? K.

Response:

Not that anybody is the LEAST BIT interested in a serious discussion. Oh no, perish the thought! The people around here aren’t interested in anything more difficult than an ass-kicking contest with a one legged man. But…. "Miracle" cures, as defined by the Catholic church must meet the following criteria: 1) The illness/injury must be medically diagnosed. 2) The condition must be serious. 3) The prognosis irrevocable. "You will never walk again" works fine, but "You have a 98% chance of never walking again" doesn’t cut it. 4) The condition must be organic or result from an accident. (and I’m not sure exactly what these means myself) 5) There must be no treatment. An example here would be an inoperable cancer. 6) The cure must be "sudden and instantaneous," which strikes me as a bit redundant and repetitive. 7) Finally, the cure must be total & lasting, without any period of convalescence. Slowly regaining the use of your legs over a period of months doesn’t make the grade. Now it seems to me the only real weakness in this tree of evidence is #1, the diagnoses of the condition. If you’re the least bit confident in the diagnoses, the other conditions are actually pretty tough, not at all leaning in favor of establishing miracles. One could easily imagine scenarios where, even with treatment (disallowed under #5), a complete restoration of tissue or function could not be explained. Burn victims for example, nerve damage or any kind of scaring (internal or external). Anyhow, I put this forward for anyone to pick about or defend, be it however you please, and just out of curiousity concerning how others view these "Issues." I await the total lack of interest.

Response:

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." (Luke 19.27) http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/murderers.htm — PETER If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – To reject Jesus is a serious matter. Not really. I lost my belief in Jesus without even really noticing… — Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423 EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org "Being surprised at the fact that the universe is fine tuned for life is akin to a puddle being surprised at how well it fits its hole" — Douglas Adams

Response:

So your point here would be that even if a person has never heard the name "Jesus," let alone heard about your idiotic, blood-soaked, worthless mind-fuck, they’ll be sent to hell by this *GAWD!* that is the definition of "love"? I know you don’t care how revolting others consider your religion, but honestly… one would think you’d keep the more disgusting concepts under covers until after someone joined up. — Nemo – EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations. Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!) BAAWA Knight! – One of those warm Southern Knights, y’all! Charter member, SMASH!! http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus Quotemeister since March 2002

Response:

<What about people who have never heard of Christ? < <The Bible makes it clear that through nature and conscience each person <has some knowledge about God and sin for which he is accountable. (Read <Romans 1:18-2:16.) Thus, everyone really knows, if he is honest, that <God exists. < Christianity teaches that one is condemned to hell for continually <thumbing his nose at God. But the Bible also teaches that God is fair as <well as just. Ultimately only God can judge as only He knows the <individual’s heart. < On the one hand, we are confident that God will not hold anyone <accountable for any knowledge he did not receive. At the same time, <since Christ is the only way to salvation, it is imperative for the <church to take the gospel to those who have not heard it. Um, why again? If someone gets a free pass by virtue of being unaware of all this, why muck around with his ignorance and possibley get him into deep dodo by enlightening him? I mean, if ignorance of heart attacks were a guarantee of not getting one, the last thing I’d want to say in anyone’s presence would be "myocardial infarcts"; < To reject Jesus is a serious matter. It is tantamount to refusing <God’s offer of reconcilation to sinful man. As R.C. Sproul points out <(book, noted in the resource list), those who have heard and reject <Christ face double jeopardy. Thus "religion" without Christ does not <redeem people but may add to their ultimate guilt. < < <

Talk Cancer