Miraculous Healings

[SSarazine]

Great topic it is good to see that people can talk about something else that is motivating

[falcon9]

Great topic it is good to see that people can talk about something else that is motivating

Tasers and cattleprods can be motivating so, we've discussed those briefly too.

[Abrupt]

When I was working at a convenience store, this young couple ran in crying and hysterical that a relative of one had just been shot point blank in the head inside his apartment which was behind the store.  After establishing that the ambulance and authorities had been contacted a woman that worked with me suggested we join together in prayer for the man that was shot.  More to calm the two I participated.  It was later that I found out more information, the doctors had said the man was lucky to be alive (naturally of course, though, point blank .375) and lucky if he lived through surgery.  They also said he would be lucky if he wasn't a vegetable if he survived surgery.  A week or so later he walked into the store and purchased some goods.  The only lingering effect he said he still had was a loss of balance at times and sensitivity to loud noise.  Additionally, the man that shot him lived too, and he was worked over (until the police arrived) by the other 5 relatives of the man who got shot that were also present (the shooter was unrelated to them).

There's no reason to either believe or, disbelieve such testimonial accounts, (sans police reports, hospital records ... evidence).

Are you kidding me? 

Why even reply to this if you are only going to accuse me of being a liar -- and don't even try to pretend that you are not suggesting that because you used your typical weak and cowardly format of trying to dance around a point and pretend to remain objective when your intent is blatantly obvious.  You call in question the authenticity of my statements and thus you question me and are such is ad hominem.  Do you honestly think that if I were the sort to lie that it would involve a story of me working in a convenience store (nothing wrong with such work mind you, but I would have much grander duties (perhaps I would be an agent in some classified military operations that I couldn't reveal to civilians and the lesser peoples) in any tales I twisted)? 

That I cannot even make a statement without some sort of confirmation or paper trail or other official documentation is absolutely ridiculous of you to suggest and says quite a bit about you.  I am now quite sure that even if I produced such evidence you would then question it and claim it to be unbelievable without a notary -- and if such notarization was supplied that would then be unbelievable without additional proof.  Quite pathetic.

Of course those devout adherents to the atheist religion ...

Since atheism isn't a "religion", (except to those misinterpreting _disbelief_ as a religious belief ... illogical as that may be), it has no "devout", (religious), adherents.  Nice try slipping that by again though.  Presumably, you keep trying that schtick and getting shot-down, however.

That is what your mouth says (figuratively speaking).  Again liberal dodging in your definition does not hold up to challenges placed against it.  If you are lacking in the courage (see how I too can use such forms of saying something without having to be held accountable for what I am saying) to say what you mean, then get in my pocket.  Atheism is indeed a religion and that makes you one of the most religious people on these forums and I imagine that annoys the hell out of you.  It has never been shot down, and in fact using your own rules of definitions from dictionaries it was 'proved' to be a religion with as much authority as your definitions 'proved' it not to be.  Let us not forget that I also supplied additional proof that you could not refute and were only left to try and dismiss it with whatever reasons you could desperately reach for.

... will attempt to dismiss this as coincidence for whatever purpose other than to either comfort themselves or criticize others. 

Actually, I'd dismiss it on the basis of a lack of evidence to support a potentially fictional story.  If not fictional, I'd attribute the medical procedures preformed on the patient with a lot more credit than speciously attributing such a recovery to any intercessory magical evocation rituals hypocritically prohibited by the religion subscribed to, (e.g., no false credit for 'prayers').

Again you use the standard liberal method of making your decision and at the same time convicting your opponent on every possible case you can think of.  Here you have either condemned me as being a liar, or you are saying the results was purely coincidental.  To follow, you insult my religion and me again and in your cowardly way instead of saying it outright.  Fear not and speak your mind.  Why duck and dodge the issue as we are not face to face?

I don't really care about that, and post this here simply as my testimony to these events to share with those of faith.

On the contrary, you did "care" enough to mention what you allegedly don't "care about".  That kind of thing used to amuse me; now I just find it to be a non sequitur.

I don't care at all as to why you would deny my statements, and I never asked for any explanation as to why -- and in fact I supplied the only two possibilities so that others wouldn't have to.  You have absolutely no bearing on whether I share here or not as I demonstrated in my sharing and will continue to demonstrate in my additional sharing.  How pretentious of you to feel as you do, but you shouldn't waste yourself with me since I must be a liar as you so timidly stated.  In fact the only way you can not make yourself out to be the liar here is to keep me out of your mouth or perhaps you should even go as far as to put me on ignore.

[falcon9]

Why even reply to this (?)

Any of the other 'testimonial' posts would've gotten a similar reply.  

if you are only going to accuse me of being a liar -- and don't even try to pretend that you are not suggesting that because you used your typical weak and cowardly format of trying to dance around a point and pretend to remain objective when your intent is blatantly obvious.

What you inaccurately characterize in an irrational and biased manner was emphasizing the possibility, (not assertion), of fictional accounts.  If I want to call you a liar, I'll simply do so.  In the meantime, why don't you take the hanky you're stopping on why crying about imagined insults and ram it up your *bleep*?
 

You call in question the authenticity of my statements and thus you question me and are such is ad hominem.

I call into question _any_ unverified/unverifiable account which lacks presented evidence, (beyond unsupported 'testimony').  Surely you noticed this by now, (maybe not - who knows what you remain blissfully unaware of).  If doing so, even in general, is an ad hom, (and I'm not conceding that description), then doubt is not equivalent to "you're a liar".  If you believe it is, that wouldn't surprise me much as you have began displaying your propensity for redefining terms to suit your personal preference and agenda.

Do you honestly think that if I were the sort to lie that it would involve a story of me working in a convenience store (nothing wrong with such work mind you, but I would have much grander duties (perhaps I would be an agent in some classified military operations that I couldn't reveal to civilians and the lesser peoples) in any tales I twisted)?  

Now, if I were a paranoid and insecure "fugitive from the law", I might consider that last bit as an ad hom.  Fortunately, I'm not and I don't.

That I cannot even make a statement without some sort of confirmation or paper trail or other official documentation is absolutely ridiculous ...

For someone who self-aggrandizes themselves as 'intelligent', (even if as a joke), you seem to have missed a not-that-subtle point.  That is, anyone can say/write anything and the options for those who hear/read it are to take it at face value/accept it on 'faith', question the validity of the account, (as part of a decision-making process, not as a foregone conclusion that it's false), or disbelieve the account because some aspect of it rang false.  My reply made no assumptions in advance other than to suggest such accounts may be accurate or not, (which is true of any account given as 'witness testimony').  You merely jumped to the conclusion that your account wasn't believed.  Quote where I stated that, (not where you determined it was implied/inferrable/deducable or anything else but asserted outright).  If you can't, get another hanky out.

I am now quite sure that even if I produced such evidence you would then question it and claim it to be unbelievable without a notary -- and if such notarization was supplied that would then be unbelievable without additional proof.

That would depend upon what such evidence consisted of.  If it's solid evidence which supports the account, (not 'interpreted' as substantiating evidence in some loose manner), then I'd be able to draw my own conclusions on the basis of such evidence.  A 'because-I-said-so' from a complete stranger is nominally not considered to be 'hard evidence'.

---

Of course those devout adherents to the atheist religion ...

Since atheism isn't a "religion", (except to those misinterpreting _disbelief_ as a religious belief ... illogical as that may be), it has no "devout", (religious), adherents.  Nice try slipping that by again though.  Presumably, you keep trying that schtick and getting shot-down, however.

Atheism is indeed a religion ...

Despite your repeated empty claims, (along with your attempts to stretch definitions to prop up your weak assertions), your claim remains unsubstantiated.  Therefore, atheism remains a non-religious disbelief rather than some unspecified religious belief, (as you claim).  We've already had this debate; you didn't 'win' it, (that is, persuade anyone but the odd xtian lacking veracity here & there of the validity of your atheism=religion claims).  Now you want to rehash/repeat the argument as if repeating it will somehow support your specious conclusion.  Get yet another hanky out.
 

It has never been shot down ...

According to you, that is.  Even one or two religious xtians didn't buy your argue and stated their rejections of your contention regarding atheism.  A few 'mind-blind faithers' who were already biased enough to jump on your false conclusion bandwagon hardly count as impartial.
The archived records shows that your argument was bullet-ridden and now wanders an FC forum as a zombie.
 
 

... will attempt to dismiss this as coincidence for whatever purpose other than to either comfort themselves or criticize others.  

Actually, I'd dismiss it on the basis of a lack of evidence to support a potentially fictional story.  If not fictional, I'd attribute the medical procedures preformed on the patient with a lot more credit than speciously attributing such a recovery to any intercessory magical evocation rituals hypocritically prohibited by the religion subscribed to, (e.g., no false credit for 'prayers').

Again you use the standard liberal ...

I'm not a liberal and never have been.  You've made this unsupported assumption before, is it any wonder that other unsupported contentions you cough up are questioned?
 

Here you have either condemned me as being a liar, or you are saying the results was purely coincidental.

Nope. Here's what I actually stated, "Actually, I'd dismiss it on the basis of a lack of evidence to support a potentially fictional story.  If not fictional, I'd attribute the medical procedures preformed on the patient with a lot more credit than speciously attributing such a recovery to any intercessory magical evocation rituals hypocritically prohibited by the religion subscribed to, (e.g., no false credit for 'prayers')."  You even quoted it before going off on some "liberal" ad hom vector.

Nothing in that statement referred to liars or coincidence.  Reference was made to attributing recovery to medical procedures performed and to magical intercessory rituals.  Although I will concede an extremely distant connection between someone who claims 'prayer' had any physical effect and 'lying', (since such a contention has never been substantiated by directly-attributible hard evidence).  How's that, one less hanky to stomp for you?

To follow, you insult my religion and me again and in your cowardly way instead of saying it outright.

As a preface, you and several other faith-based religious adherents advertently or, inadvertently insult those who are non-religious or, disbelievers in your particular flavor of religion by incessantly interjecting 'prayer' nonsense left and right into unrelated threads.  Some of those religious adherents, (like you), even go so far as to get huffy when your specious claims are questioned.  Tough break there too.  There I was, not too long ago, using a PTC site to earn some change and new as any other newbie.  Suddenly, I noticed there were forums loaded with 'bible-thumping', empty proclamations of religious 'faith' and xtians 'praying' for this and that instead of viable/useful answers/replies to questions and concerned. That was and is insulting not only to me but, from their remarks, to several others as well.  

I've stood up to stem the rising tide of blind faith many times, in a direct way which can only be called "cowardly" as a result of a defective reasonng process and a malfunction ego-defense mechanism.

Fear not and speak your mind.  Why duck and dodge the issue as we are not face to face?

I say exactly the same things face-to-face as I do online.  There's no duplicity, "fear", "ducking" or "dodging" from my end, is there from yours?
The religion which you adhere to is based upon duplicity, plaguarisms and unsupportable blind-faith.  You may not like that such conclusions have been arrived at based on solid evidence disputing the religious claims of xtians, (and the unanswered challenges to those species claims which have always carried the burden on proof inherent in making such claims in the first place), and that's another tough break for you since you haven't bothered with the burden of proof any for your 'faith-based' claims anymore than other xtians in 2,000 some-odd years.

If you somehow believe that you can 'intimidate' an ex-military person, (whose job description was not as 'file clerk' and remains personal information), then proceed at will.  Such activities neither intimidate me on or, offline.  Ya 'pansy'.<--sarcasm

I don't really care about that, and post this here simply as my testimony to these events to share with those of faith.

On the contrary, you did "care" enough to mention what you allegedly don't "care about".  That kind of thing used to amuse me; now I just find it to be a non sequitur.

[vmcutshall]

Children learn to work on a farm at an early age.
It does not matter what the unbelievers say, 50 years ago they did not have the advancement they have in medicine at this present time.
if you want to belittle what happened then that is your privilege, but I could belittle your unbelief, But God teaches us to pray for the unbelievers.  And as for my father not watching me did your parents watch you 24 hours a day 7 days a week?

[zgalhardo]

Pray for healing
   Did it work?
      Yes - God is great
       No - God works in mysterious ways, it's all part of his plan, etc.

Also, the placebo effect is real and very significant.

[falcon9]

Children learn to work on a farm at an early age.
It does not matter what the unbelievers say, 50 years ago they did not have the advancement they have in medicine at this present time.

Medical science was even less advanced 100, 1000 or 2,000 years ago.  That would account for the yearning for alternate methods back then however, does not account for superstitious alternates nowadays, (with the current advancements in medicine now available).

if you want to belittle what happened then that is your privilege ...

Making the observation that people can be superstitious isn't inherently belittling them if such observations are supported by facts and reason, (which they are).  Just as a less-than-complimentary statement would not be adjudged as 'libelous' or slanderous' in a civil proceding if it could be demonstrated by evidence to be accurate.  That is, if someone called you a "crook" and couldn't provide evidence under the burden of proof requirements, you could litigate in civil court under a libel tort. However, if substantiating evidence can be produced to support the 'accusation', then it isn't libelous, (which means that if you are a "crook" and someone mentions that, you aren't be libeled or slandered).

... but I could belittle your unbelief, But God teaches us to pray for the unbelievers.  

How would you "belittle" reasoning without using reasoning; merely by making unsubstantiated claims?  As for 'praying' "for the unbelievers"; those who wish to engage in unsolicited intercessory magical rituals are free to do so, (such was not always the case, wherein Inquisitors used to put others to death by deeming such as "witchcraft" for doing essentially the same as xtians who redefine such as "prayer").