Sample clip of my debate with an
atheist on the issue of morality.
Find the whole debate at this link

Atheists Fulfill Scripture: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” / “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

Indeed, as the Bible records King Solomon’s words, “There is nothing new under the Sun.”

Satan has not had an original idea in millennia—and sadly, he had not had to since we keep falling for the same old tricks nay, we want to fall for them.

Likewise, atheists have not had an original idea in…well, perhaps ever—and sadly, they are falling for the wiles of the Father of Un-Originality.

One example of this is when they take advantage of and manipulate those who have lost limbs which is why it is an ubiquitously promulgated well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-point to ask “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and/or “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

Now, I do not know if any amputees have become atheists due to not being healed. But the atheists who are pushing this idea are fulfilling that which the Bible has stated for 4,000 years. Indeed, four millennia ago the Book of Job records that Satan said to God, “Skin for skin!...stretch out your hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will surely curse You to Your face!” (Job 2:4b-5)—this referred to a physical affliction.

Book of Job, bible, atheist, true freethinker.jpg

Sadly, the atheists who push this idea are attempting to get people to do just that. They want people who have had their bone and flesh touched to curse God (though Job was not subject to amputation, the concept still relates).

Sadly, they are promulgating a Satanic idea.

Since atheists believe that our bone and flesh, the material, is all that we have they cannot bear the thought of having their bone and flesh touched. Now, the deeper point is that on this sort of materialistic view they know very, very well that the pain and suffering that would come about if their bone and flesh were touched would be for utterly nothing.
This is what atheism guarantees them; suffering is for nothing at all (and I do not here mean that we do not learn to not touch something hot after having been burned; I am referencing something transcendent, something to do with ultimate meaning or purpose)—see: Meaning and Purpose and Four Succinct Statements on Suffering.

Their non-sequitur is to expect, or demand, that God be as singularly interested in that which is of ultimate concern to them as are they. God must “care” about our physical bodies and heal them on demand or else God is not “love” and if God is not love then God is not—see: "Love" and "Hate" - Defining Terminology.

And yet, as with Job their idea fails again and again and for various reasons.

One such reason is explored in Fundamentalist Theologian Asks: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

------------------------

The illustration above is by Philip James de Loutherbourg (1740-1812); a French painter and scenographer

This essay is copyrighted by Mariano Grinbank of the website "True Free Thinker" at www.truefreethinker.com.

It may be republished in part or in its entirety on websites, blogs, or any print media for whatever purpose (in agreement or in order to criticize it) only as long as the following conditions are met:

Give credit to Mariano Grinbank of the website "True Free Thinker" and provide the url: www.truefreethinker.com/articles/atheists-fulfill-scripture-%E2%80%9Cwhy-won%E2%80%99t-god-heal-amputees%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%9Cwhy-does-god-hate-amputees%E2%80%9D.
Inform me as to where it is being reproduced via the comments section or use the Trackback url: http://www.truefreethinker/trackback/1534

Yes it is you that blows

mark (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 5:09pm

Yes it is you that blows smoke. If you did any research at all you would know that evolution is falling apart and no, no one is claiming intelligent design the victor just that it has a real place in acceptance, much more than unprovable evolution. As to Darwin it very much matters as to his personal opinion for it was based on his own research. And he is the one held up as the shining light. Finally you as I said are not willing to do any real research. I 've gone to great lengths in the past to supple the information that you ask for to others. It is a waste of time I will no longer bother with. For I never expected to win you over from the start. Christians do study the pro and con of subjects against them. Most of the wild claims made on atheist sites about Christians can be proved wrong with a simple history lesson. This free thinker site has more than enough information on it to make anyone that really thinks things thru realize the blind box atheist live in. Now go ahead and make some excuse or mock me. Your rudeness thru out your post to others shows you have no respect for others which means others write you off as a jerk with nothing of value to say. One last question. What if Christians are right? Don't answer just think about the possibilty

I forgot to explain what dark

mark (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 5:49pm

I forgot to explain what dark matter has to do with the subject. dark matter has long been held as fact that could not be disputed. Now with new ways to research dark matter it is being shown that it does not exist but the methods used at that time were what lead to the belief that it existed. Science continues to change as we are better able to test subjects. That is why evolution is being seen more and more for it's many weakness.

amputees

mark (not verified) — Fri, 06/18/2010 - 2:40pm

I always get a kick out of reading atheist post. They truly believe their post are the final answer yet they prove nothing, they claim there are no provable miracles when there are. The question of amputees being healed assumes that it is a sickness, it is not. and that people can control God to do what they want when they want.

I get a kick out of reading

Anonymous (not verified) — Fri, 06/18/2010 - 3:09pm

I get a kick out of reading christian posts. They truly believe that an invisible man in the sky exists, despite no evidence at all for this proposition. When you argue with a Christian, they never manage to engage your argument with the same academic or intellectual merit that an atheist would. They never answer the questions you ask, they only make up excuses and non-answers and claim that these poor attempts to respond to even the most innocent inquiry are proof that an invisible man who lives in the sky controls the universe.

I get a kick

mark (not verified) — Fri, 06/18/2010 - 5:40pm

Atheist will not except proof of any kind but always have an excuse of some kind no matter how sound the christian answer is. Atheist do not want to believe and have closed their minds to anything that goes against what they want to believe. They try to make fun of Christians in an attempt to silence them. Kind of child like in their behaviour patterns.

As an atheist, I want to

True Beer Drinker (not verified) — Fri, 06/18/2010 - 8:27pm

As an atheist, I want to believe. I really, truly do. It sounds wonderful to have a religion and to feel like you belong to a group like that, and to have that rich tradition, but I just cannot bring myself to that level of delusion.

I don't want to silence you at all, I think the idiot stuff you write is hilarious. Keep at it, stupid.

Maybe if you had evidence, then you'd convert some people. Why is it that the number of atheists keeps rising? Seems like if Christianity was so apparently right, the number of atheists wouldn't keep growing every day.

Yes when atheist lose their

mark (not verified) — Sat, 06/19/2010 - 12:17pm

Yes when atheist lose their augment they turn to insults. You would be amazed at the high IQ I and many Christians hold. As too the number of atheists growing . If you look at the complete time span they have been around it is amazing how few there are. Also science is never a settled fact but continues to grow as new things are learned and more and more science outside of the atheist small world are coming to understand that there is a design factor that they can not wright off to chance. I do not insult as you do I simply understand that your research has been kept to areas that only agree with your belief.

You haven't refuted my

True Beer Drinker (not verified) — Sat, 06/19/2010 - 2:10pm

You haven't refuted my argument at any point. As there really isn't any substance to your argument, I resort to mocking it.

If your IQ is so high, how come your grammar and spelling sucks?

Atheism is the second or third most popular religious position in the world depending on how you count. However, atheists are not generally the majority in any specific region (outside of Europe), but as a "religious" group, they're everywhere and unlike all true religions, more or less evenly geographically distributed.

Also, at times various religions have decided to kill any atheists within their ranks, making it difficult for the movement to really catch on when it is easier to just pay lip service to god than be executed for heresy.

Cite one single evidence for this designer. Just one. Then tell me what the practical applications of this whole designer theory are. In fact, just name one application for intelligent design as a scientific theory.

And I take it that when you

mark (not verified) — Sat, 06/19/2010 - 4:12pm

And I take it that when you are tired you have never made mistakes. I would rather have the ability to clearly access information than simply be locked in to a belief system that can not look at all evidence. Atheist do not look at anything that does not already agree to their thoughts. And last an adult does not have to mock but can exchange ideas with anyone on any level. Athesist do not have this ability in most cases. And lastly IQ simply means the ability to learn quickly. Something no Athesist has been shown able to do. As your last statement shows you have not really looked at much of the science that is on record or you would know what I say is true. You would not have to ask for just one example but would have seen that there is much out there to point to intelligent design.

Studies have been done and

True Beer Drinker (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 2:27am

Studies have been done and studies have been published and they all find that atheists in general have higher IQs than theists. Sorry, the truth sucks sometimes.

I'll make the challenge once again, since there is so much out there to support intelligent design, you should be able to at least name just one little thing.

Cite one single evidence for this designer. Just one. Then tell me what the practical applications of this whole designer theory are. Just name one application for intelligent design as a scientific theory.

And when you mention the whole not reading the science on this, I have a degree in biology. I'm curious as to what you've been reading that I haven't that suddenly proves all of this designer nonsense.

American science journal for

mark (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 6:54am

American science journal for one. Also when your study is from an atheist biology tilted view you will see only what you want to see. For example I can look at the same studies you have and I see the hand of God. Why are atheist so lazy that they never look at any other published science outside of biology? Then they claim it does not exist. When you give them the exact information quoted by well known scientists they still will not accept. If you really want to believe as you claim ( by the way I do not believe you ) you would start your search outside your field, quit being lazy and look. No don't tell me you have, what you have looked at is what you already knew would confirm your belief. Yes it is a belief system that can not be proved. There is no science fact that supports the fact that God does not exist. Only questions that confirm there must be a greater power in the design of everything. This is nothing new. It is simply a non bias look at the science that has been available to anyone who does not have a preconceived opinion as to the outcome. I'm tired of lazy atheist who's only excuse is The information was not handed to me on a platter so I do not believe. I'm so glad that the instructors I had taught us how to think and did not just spoon feed us what they wanted us to learn. I see from your other post outside of being rude which is a common trait of atheist you have no answers other than to mock. This does not make what you say correct or the person you mock wrong. Mocking only shows you have not the capabilities to reason as an adult. I guess atheist as they so often like to claim Christians are retarded are really the retarded ones. Unable to share ideas or except others who do not agree with them.

Look dude, I'm just going to

True Beer Drinker (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:01pm

Look dude, I'm just going to ask, one more time, for some evidence for this designer. You claim you have a lot of it and you should be able to point out just one little piece that points to a designer.

But you haven't.

Cause you can't.

Nice try blowing smoke up my ass, with the whole, you're a biased atheist who has a preconceived opinion on the matter. You're a biased christian who has a preconceived opinion on the matter. The difference is, I can cite studies that prove evolution. Richard Lenski's 20 year e. coli experiment is evidence that evolution is real.

Name just one fact that supports a designer.

Better yet, just name one practical application for the theory.

Evolution is used to understand micro-organisms and in term, we've learned a lot about how disease works through evolution. In this way, the theory of evolution can be applied to prevent and cure disease.

What can we do with intelligent design? Name one application for the theory. You should be able to do this, even if I am a biased atheist.

Evolution is no longer

mark (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 2:23pm

Evolution is no longer excepted in many scientist's circles for it's many problems. You are the one blowing smoke. You can not offer any proof that science has a solid answer. It has just recently been found that dark matter long to have been thought unquestionable does not exist. Science is always reevaluating itself. Darwin himself in his published letters did not believe in evolution as it is taught. Your last sentience says it all. You have never looked because you are biased were I have looked at evolution along with many other subjects. That is why I can find information that atheist try to claim does not exist. Smoke not at all. I'm trying to get you to do research on your own, then you can not make excuses. Try reading up on intelligent design by the scientist who have spent their life working on it. There are many published works that can easily be found. I'm not going to do for you what you should already have done on your own, that is to have researched all sides of the questions. Anyone who has done that can not reject intelligent design. The scientific research and published work speaks loud. Yes I know you want it handed to you and since I won't hand it to you, you will go on claiming it does not exist. Well since it is on record that just makes you one more foolish atheist.

Please tell me which major

True Beer Drinker (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 3:12pm

Please tell me which major research institutions have abandoned the theory of evolution in favor of intelligent design. What "major science circles" are now in favor of design? Name one major university that is doing this.

What does dark matter have to do with the theory of evolution?

Also, it doesn't matter what Darwin said in his personal letters. Darwin could have believed all sorts of things personally and this would have no bearing on the validity of the theory of evolution.

See, I can go on and on and on about things that help support the theory of evolution. I don't have to make demands that you go read about it yourself because the evidence is so overwhelming that I could just list fact after fact in favor of the theory.

I have read the intelligent design literature. I remain unconvinced. In those books the authors manage to fail to answer the same questions I've asked you. I know you're going to pretend that this isn't the case, but if it weren't, you would be able to provide at least one piece of evidence, and you haven't.

This is like if I started claiming that I knew the definition to a word that you didn't know the definition of, and that I wasn't going to tell you what the word means because you have to go learn yourself. That's childish to an extreme, and if I did that, you would begin to doubt that I knew the definition to the word in the first place, and rightfully so.

In the interest of fairness, I'll make the challenge again and I'll make it easier by allowing you to ignore the question of evidence entirely:

Name one practical application for the theory of intelligent design. That's it. Just one. You don't have to convince me that the theory is real or not, you just have to name one thing that can be done with the theory. If you can name that one thing that the theory can be used for, then I will have no problem with it, even if I don't understand the evidence. In fact, if you can name this one application, I will apologize and begin to tell people about the wonders of Intelligent Design.

You can win a convert if you just tell me one thing that can be done with the theory. That's all. Just tell me one thing we can do with intelligent design and I will fully accept the whole thing as fact.

Skeptical Rationalist wrote:

Anonymous (not verified) — Fri, 06/18/2010 - 2:38pm

Skeptical Rationalist wrote: "The regeneration of a limb would be a true miracle, beyond the bounds of biological plausibility."

Please consider two quotes; the first is from chapter 10 of The God Delusion:
"A statue of a madonna could wave its hand at us. The atoms that make up its crystalline structure are all vibrating back and forth. Because there are so many of them, and because there is no agreed preference in their direction of motion, the hand, as we see it in Middle World, stays rock steady. But the jiggling atoms in the hand could all just happen to move in the same direction at the same time." (italics are Dawkins' emphasis)

The second is from the book of Luke, chapter 16, verses 27-31 where the rich man, in torment, is talking to Abraham with Lazarus there beside him:
27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:

28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.

29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.

30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.

31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

In other words, some people are simply not going to believe in God no matter what happens. If people who were missing body parts were to suddenly start regrowing them, how long do you think this "true miracle, beyond the bounds of biological plausibility" suddenly 'proving' God's existence would last with the nay-sayers? What would the next 'challenge' be? "Why don't humans who are drowning suddenly grow gills?" And then what? "How come people in car crashes can't suddenly change their skin to steel before impact?" The possibilities are endless, and people who make their minds up to not believe aren't going to do so anyway.

That isn't true at all. If

Anonymous (not verified) — Fri, 06/18/2010 - 3:06pm

That isn't true at all. If there were real miracles Atheists would believe. If believers had hard evidence that God existed or influenced the world in any way, then all atheists would convert. Unfortunately, there is no such evidence, and atheists don't feel like wasting their time worrying about things that probably don't exist. That's why atheists usually have more money and higher IQs than believers.

Interesting...

Anonymous (not verified) — Sat, 06/19/2010 - 8:06am

anonymous wrote: "That isn't true at all. If there were real miracles Atheists would believe. If believers had hard evidence that God existed or influenced the world in any way, then all atheists would convert."

Are you claiming to be a better spokesperson for atheism than Dawkins? He said himself that he'd look for a naturalistic explanation in the face of something as unlikely as a statue moving its hand. And since when did you get the authority to speak on behalf of all atheists?

"Unfortunately, there is no such evidence, and atheists don't feel like wasting their time worrying about things that probably don't exist."

How do you know there is no such evidence, or that you'd even recognize such evidence if you were to see it? And if you were to see, say, a burning, talking bush like Moses did what would you do about it? Write it off as an illusion? Look for a naturalistic explanation? Or would you dedicate every waking moment of your life from that point forward to serving God?

And as far as "wasting time" is concerned, you might want to contemplate your own words before you reply. I mean, if this is all a grand delusion and people like us Christians are going to be considered lunatics in 200 years time, why waste so much of your own time on a board such as this? I'm not replying to any flat Earth forums. Catch my drift?

"That's why atheists usually have more money and higher IQs than believers."

Then if that's the case, I truly pity you. You're foolishly frittering away countless minutes/hours of your precious time trolling when you should be out there living the high life with your mountains of cash and using your impressively high IQ to help solve the problems of the world in the process.

Atheism has no spokesperson.

True Beer Drinker (not verified) — Sat, 06/19/2010 - 8:45am

Atheism has no spokesperson. We're not a religion. Atheists can make generalized statements about other atheists, and generally atheists don't give a shit.

Yes, if God showed up as a burning plant or a deep booming voice from the sky or wrote messages to me with a comet, then I'd probably become a believer. This doesn't seem to happen that often, so I'm probably in the clear.

Mostly I write things here for my own amusement. It isn't hard to argue with you guys, and really doesn't take up much of my time. In a way, I'm flattered that you don't like me posting here like this, probably because you find it difficult to argue with me.

Well, when I'm not sitting on my mountain of cash or looking at all the awards I've won over the years, I do try to help make the world a better place. Sometimes I do this with charity, sometimes by volunteering my time, and others by having really good ideas. Still other times, I try to help the less fortunate (the religious) see how they're wasting their time, and hopefully get them to start doing something of true practical value, like science.

True Beer Drinker wrote:

Anonymous (not verified) — Sat, 06/19/2010 - 10:53am

True Beer Drinker wrote: "Atheists can make generalized statements about other atheists, and generally atheists don't give a shit."

So a collection of people who seemingly like to think of themselves as individualists that follow no set dogma or institutionally imposed guidelines don't mind when an apparent self-elected spokesperson paints them all with a broom? Mmmmkay...keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better.

"Yes, if God showed up as a burning plant or a deep booming voice from the sky or wrote messages to me with a comet, then I'd probably become a believer. This doesn't seem to happen that often, so I'm probably in the clear."

You're right about that...miracles of that magnitude don't happen very often. I know the miracles in the Bible seem sort of back to back as you read it, but you have to keep the time frame in mind, and remember that those miracles happened to men who went on to do something about it.

Considering your penchant for arguing and your apparent hostility since you can't go for more than three posts without dropping some insults or expletives, does it come as a great big surprise why miracles aren't personally delivered to you? Can you say then, beyond a shadow of a doubt that you'd acknowledge a miracle was from God if you saw one? I don't know if I could, and I'm a believer!

"In a way, I'm flattered that you don't like me posting here like this, probably because you find it difficult to argue with me."

I never said I didn't like you posting here, I was just trying to figure out why you were posting here, going on your own statements. If you don't lose any sleep in being a walking contradiction, then rest assured that it's probably not bothering anybody else either. Actually, I find it somewhat amusing to read the posts from dime-a-dozen internet tough talkers on forums not geared for them in the first place...but then, I'm a fan of really bad B-movies too, so go figure.

These two statements could use some clarification though, if you don't mind:
"Mostly I write things here for my own amusement."
&
"Still other times, I try to help the less fortunate (the religious) see how they're wasting their time, and hopefully get them to start doing something of true practical value, like science."

So which is it? Are you here for the lulz, or are you here out of a genuine concern for us religious people? Contradictions out of you shouldn't come as a surprise at this point, but I couldn't help but be a little curious.

I really find the whole quote

True Beer Drinker (not verified) — Sat, 06/19/2010 - 2:01pm

I really find the whole quote thing you do annoying. You can simply refute what I've said point by point as opposed to this needless copying and pasting. My original statements are on the same damn page. Unless you'd like to pick a semantic argument, there really isn't any need to quote me directly.

And yes, this happens for atheists all the time. Many, many people declare themselves spokespersons for atheism, and the truth of the matter is that most atheists don't care. We don't care enough to have a religion, so you really can't expect us to give a shit when one of our own speaks up. Good for Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, it's fun to read their stuff, but I don't think many atheists would call these people the leaders of all atheists. We don't have an establishment.

The Bible is a neat story. You know what else is a neat story? Star Wars. Look at all the miracles that "The Force" does in that movie. Seems pretty cool and "The Force" is doing shit all the time. Also, the Bible has a relatively small time frame in a lot of ways, even if you buy into all of the bullshit about people living to be nine-hundred years old (Seriously, have you seen a ninety year old? What horrible god would make someone live to be nine-hundred?). Surely we'd still have some major miracles occasionally today if that were the case, but history doesn't record any major miracles in the past two thousand years. Funny, that's a large portion of the time frame of the Bible.

As for the ad hominem attacks, yes, I make a lot of them, I use expletives and I apologize. I largely come to this website after I've had a few beers to get a laugh out of refuting Mariano's bullshit. At the same time though, I really don't give a shit. I still deal with the content of the argument, and the personal attacks make me giggle, fuck you, I'll keep making them.

We could begin to debate the psychological aspects of how people attribute the cause and effect of good or negative events differently based on a number of variables, but there wouldn't be a point. Miracles by nature have to defy cause and effect relationships, at least as far as we understand them to exist, and the other word for something that defies these cause and effect relationships is magic. A lot of things we used to think were miracles or magic we now know are completely natural in origin and have predictable cause and effect relationships. When I find something that defies all cause and effect, and genuinely seems to be magic, then I will accept that miracles exist (although this in and of itself is not proof for the existence of god, it is just proof for the existence of magic or miracles).

The nature of debate is to do it with people you disagree with. I know it would be more comfortable for everyone here if this was simply an echo chamber devoid of dissent, but that would be boring and nobody would be calling Mariano out on all of his bullshit. It's hard to have a discussion when everyone agrees on every single point anyways.

I'm really sorry you haven't developed emotionally to the stage of being able to deal with ambiguity. Hopefully you will continue to develop cognitively and eventually gain the abilities to both deal with ambiguity and abstraction. Those two statements aren't mutually exclusive, and at no point was I dealing in absolutes. I can have genuine concern for the future of the species in light of how dangerous religion can be, and I can get a kick out of how delusional you all are too. In fact, I could do one half the time, and the other the other half of the time.

Here we go again...

Anonymous (not verified) — Sat, 06/19/2010 - 4:29pm

True Beer Drinker wrote: "I really find the whole quote thing you do annoying."

I'd rather write up a direct reply rather than having to write in the gist of the original statement to which I was replying. At least that way you can't think I was taking anything you said out of context. Besides, the quotes are in bold, stand out pretty easily, and if they're so annoying just overlook them.

"We don't care enough to have a religion, so you really can't expect us to give a shit when one of our own speaks up. Good for Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, it's fun to read their stuff, but I don't think many atheists would call these people the leaders of all atheists. We don't have an establishment."

Still, you missed the point of why I brought it up in the first place. Here you have Dawkins saying that he'd search for a naturalistic means in light of a miracle, odds are a lot of other atheists (and religious people for that matter) would probably do the same thing, and you flat out declared that what I surmised from his statement wasn't true at all. If you'd only spoken for yourself it would've been a different matter, but you seemed to imply that atheists are thinking in lockstep, and moreover that they all think in your personal brand of lockstep. That's where I began to wonder about some sort of possible delusion of grandeur on your behalf.

"Surely we'd still have some major miracles occasionally today if that were the case, but history doesn't record any major miracles in the past two thousand years. Funny, that's a large portion of the time frame of the Bible."

A huge portion of the Bible takes place within a 2000 year span? Uh, okay...well, for the sake of argument, let's just assume that you're right (I was always under the impression that there was about a 3000-4000 year time span in the Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, but I could be mistaken) and then count up the number of miracles to the number of years. You'll see that even with your figures miracles are few and far between. Not only that, but consider too what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 16, verse 4:
"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed."
I know you don't take seriously what the Bible has to say, but since we're on the subject at least take it into some account.

"I still deal with the content of the argument, and the personal attacks make me giggle, fuck you, I'll keep making them."

Make them all you like, just don't sit around dumbfounded when nobody takes what you have to say very seriously. Surely even an internet tough talker like yourself can't be so socially backward as to think that insulting people is a good way to make them sit up and listen to you. I've debated and had discussions with some very nice and highly intelligent atheists, and even know and am friends with at least two in real life...they have brought interesting ideas and perspectives to the table even if I wound up not agreeing with them. You just smack of an angry little man that resorts to building himself up by trash talking (safely over the internet no less) rather than having anything of any real substance to add to the discussion. Maybe I'm wrong, but all I have are your posts to go on, and so far all I've seen is a lot of anger.

Prove me wrong...show me, Mariano, and every other religious person on this forum that you have something of merit to add without all of the mockery and bigotry. Dissent is good when it's fruitful...but you can find flame wars anywhere. How seriously do flaming trolls get taken? But then, if you don't mind being comic relief then please continue posting how you've been posting.

"A lot of things we used to think were miracles or magic we now know are completely natural in origin and have predictable cause and effect relationships. When I find something that defies all cause and effect, and genuinely seems to be magic, then I will accept that miracles exist (although this in and of itself is not proof for the existence of god, it is just proof for the existence of magic or miracles)."

Wait a minute...you said earlier, and I quote:
"That isn't true at all. If there were real miracles Atheists would believe. If believers had hard evidence that God existed or influenced the world in any way, then all atheists would convert."

Do you wish to retract or backpedal on your original statement? Once more you've contradicted yourself, and furthermore proved me right in saying that some people still wouldn't believe in God in light of a miracle. And still you wonder why miracles aren't flung out once a week or so?

"It's hard to have a discussion when everyone agrees on every single point anyways."

No argument here, and apparently Mariano agrees too or you'd be getting your comments deleted. I think I covered this thoroughly enough already, but again, if you want to get taken seriously tone down the anger and propaganda, and turn up the substance.

"I can have genuine concern for the future of the species in light of how dangerous religion can be, and I can get a kick out of how delusional you all are too. In fact, I could do one half the time, and the other the other half of the time."

If we were having this conversation in the real world, face to face, then ambiguity could be excused because of facial expression, body language, tone of voice, etc. But since we're dealing with cold print text, then you have to work on keeping your statements and train of thought straight. You can't type up two opposing views and expect people to give you a free pass.

And just to show you how

True Beer Drinker (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 2:17am

And just to show you how awful this is...

The trouble with writing like this is that it inherently stifles the creative process by forcing you to respond to only what I've said without adding any true ideas of your own. "Taking things out of context" happens every time you quote something simply because you cannot quote everything. If you simply paraphrase or respond in a way that clearly puts across everything someone said, not only does it help the cohesiveness of your writing, it also forces you to provide a synopsis of the writing itself, so you can't quote out of context. The first quote you provided is only a small part of a paragraph on the subject, and it is intellectually disingenuous to pick and choose which parts of an argument you're going to refute and ignore the rest.

Besides, the quotes are in bold, stand out pretty easily, and if they're so annoying just overlook them.

Just so you know, you're misquoting from a stylistic perspective as well as the creatively stifling perspective. Since the quotes are in bold, there is absolutely no need to put quotes around them.

Here you have Dawkins saying that he'd search for a naturalistic means in light of a miracle, odds are a lot of other atheists (and religious people for that matter) would probably do the same thing, and you flat out declared that what I surmised from his statement wasn't true at all. If you'd only spoken for yourself it would've been a different matter, but you seemed to imply that atheists are thinking in lockstep, and moreover that they all think in your personal brand of lockstep. That's where I began to wonder about some sort of possible delusion of grandeur on your behalf.

As to Dawkins and Atheists as a group, I wrote,

Good for Richard Dawkins and PZ Myers, it's fun to read their stuff, but I don't think many atheists would call these people the leaders of all atheists. We don't have an establishment.

You've ignored the what I said in favor of what you wanted me to say. I know and have stressed repeatedly that atheists are not in any way a collective outside of a label. There are atheists of all different flavors, but all of us have a few things in common. We have no religion, if we have heard about religion we are either skeptical/apathetic or both, and none of us have a collective nor do we recognize a collective for all atheists. In many parts of the world, Atheists suffer for expressing even innocent skepticism. Atheists often have other terms for themselves apart from atheist, and I think they should be allowed those terms. If it makes things more comfortable for you, I'll start branding myself with an alternative label instead of an atheist. Since Mariano already has stolen, "True Freethinker" I'm going to start calling myself An MechaChristian. As the official spokesperson for the An MechaChristians, we really don't give a shit about what other atheists write, and can generalize about them because we're absolutely sure most other An MechaChristians don't give a shit either and they're the only ones we An MechaChristians can trust. Everyone else is a servant of the Anticrutch.

2000 years is two-thirds or one-half of 3000 or 4000 years, or at least last time I checked. Here I'll check again just to make sure things haven't changed. Yep, here, I'll just quote myself to make sure I'm not taking things out of context.

2000 years is two-thirds or one-half of 3000 or 4000 years.

I talked to my lawyer, and he said that is roughly (give or take here) equal to either sixty-six-point-six-six-six (repeating of course, HAHAHA) or half of the number you gave. Here, I'm checking to see if that's a large part of something by eating from two ice-cream cakes I picked up from the grocery store. I'll have two-thirds from one and half of the other.

Oh god. Fuck me.

That's a lot of fucking cake.

Since you brought it up, hold on, I'll quote so I'm not taking you out of context,

Genesis to Revelation

and

count up the number of miracles to the number of years.

and

you don't take seriously what the Bible has to say, but since we're on the subject at least take it into some account.

Please explain how anything in either of those books is not a miracle. All of this shit defies fucking logic, what we know about the universe, and are examples of shitty story telling. Also, since we're on the topic of Genesis, why do the first two chapters contradict each other? If these books are supposed to be the literal word of god, why do they contradict? Did god get confused?

Right off the bat in Genesis I have one other big lingering question. Who created God? If God created God, then how could something that didn't exist will itself into existence. If there is no beginning or end to god, not only does that fuck up the alpha and omega thing, it also introduces a state incongruity between the existence of god and the existence of the universe. Between Genesis and Revelation a clear beginning and ending to the universe is implied. What number universe are we? Does god occasionally get bored, say fuck it, and start from scratch? What a quitter.

Also God's powers seem to be at least not what they're made out to be, or he is the most fucked up and dumbest omniscient being ever described. He creates the tree of knowledge, blah blah blah don't eat you'll die, and then he leaves. The snake shows up, the talking snake no less, and coerces Eve by... telling her the truth. The fruit of knowledge won't kill you. She eats it. It doesn't kill her. Adam eats it. The fruit doesn't kill him either. Then they manage to hide from the all-knowing, all-powerful god. Wait, what? Then he manages to find them, when they reveal themselves to him, and then he punishes them. He makes the snake crawl on the ground. Yeah, great going pal, it's a fucking snake. Also, what about snakes in trees or sidewinders? Did god miss some snakes? Hey, if god is supposed to know the future or have a master plan, shouldn't he have known about Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge? And if so, why put it in there? Or get pissed off when they eat from it like you knew they would?

Furthermore, when is all that Revelation shit supposed to happen? Like with the star crashing into the Earth and the planet not being completely destroyed, but only one-third destroyed even though it just was hit by a star, the smallest of which are thirteen-times the size of Jupiter? Sounds kind of far-fetched to me, but I wasn't sold on the whole virgin birth thing either. My mom was at least grown up enough to just tell me it was a broken condom.

And then, about what Jesus said, hold on, I'll quote you here so

At least that way you can't think I was taking anything you said out of context.

Oh yeah, the Jesus thing.

what Jesus said in Matthew chapter 16, verse 4:
"A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed."

Sounds like a half-ass excuse to me. I wonder how long people have been throwing that shit around to quiet down questions about the lack of miracles. Since we're gonna start quoting our favorite works of fiction, I'd like to share with you something Lord BattleJesus said from the An MechaChristian bible. It's from the book of weed, chapter 4, verse 20:
"And the Lord BattleJesus did say, when I am not present, it is your fault, and when I do not hear your prayers or seem to not exist, I am away on vacation and have unplugged my answering machine to save on my electricity bill."

I know you don't take seriously what theAn MechaChristian Bible has to say, but since we're on the subject at least take it into some account.

Moving on,

Make them all you like, just don't sit around dumbfounded when nobody takes what you have to say very seriously.

You took me seriously enough to write a response.

Surely even an internet tough talker like yourself can't be so socially backward as to think that insulting people is a good way to make them sit up and listen to you.

Seemed to work with you. You listened enough to try to respond.

I've debated and had discussions with some very nice and highly intelligent atheists, and even know and am friends with at least two in real life...they have brought interesting ideas and perspectives to the table even if I wound up not agreeing with them.

I like how you count your atheist friends. I don't count my friends of any religion, An MechaChristian or not. I'm glad for your atheist friends, but you haven't managed to bring any original ideas to the table at all and seem to be only responding to things I've said, hence your need to quote at all times. Do you have anything original to add or are you going to continue to quote either me or the bible?

You just smack of an angry little man that resorts to building himself up by trash talking (safely over the internet no less) rather than having anything of any real substance to add to the discussion. Maybe I'm wrong, but all I have are your posts to go on, and so far all I've seen is a lot of anger.

I have laughed myself silly over reading and writing the bullshit here. Also, the anything of real substance bit is hard to justify. Obviously my argument is worth enough substance to get you into this little comment war.

A couple of things: Give me something that is worthy of more than just mockery, sounds like me being here is making you uncomfortable again, and you take me seriously enough to post a reply. Also, I could never ever be funnier than Mariano, even after all of the brain damage from doing whip-its in high school.

You wrote: Do you wish to retract or backpedal on your original statement? Once more you've contradicted yourself, and furthermore proved me right in saying that some people still wouldn't believe in God in light of a miracle. And still you wonder why miracles aren't flung out once a week or so?

In response to when I wrote:

A lot of things we used to think were miracles or magic we now know are completely natural in origin and have predictable cause and effect relationships. When I find something that defies all cause and effect, and genuinely seems to be magic, then I will accept that miracles exist (although this in and of itself is not proof for the existence of god, it is just proof for the existence of magic or miracles).

Oh wait, you cut out one of the most important parts of that paragraph and then ignored it entirely. Oh wait, here it is:

Miracles by nature have to defy cause and effect relationships, at least as far as we understand them to exist, and the other word for something that defies these cause and effect relationships is magic.

Basically, in the original paragraph, I operationally defined miracle for the sake of our argument. You misquoted me and then ignored what I said completely under the guise of me having made my mind up already. I didn't say that miracles were impossible, I only said what I would consider to be a miracle. You ignored the entire magic parallel, and tried to misconstrue what I said as something it wasn't. This is called intellectual dishonesty.

As for, oh wait, don't want to take your quote out of context...

you wonder why miracles aren't flung out once a week or so?

As an An MechaChristian, I don't have to make up excuses for why my god doesn't perform miracles like he used to in the bible. The An MechaChristian god retired a couple of years ago. He's in Florida, living it up now.

I've often found that instead of waiting for miracles, it works best if I just get off my ass and get busy.

I'm pleased to find out that you find censorship so palatable. Again with the anger and propaganda and the call for substance. Look, I'm the only one who has written anything of substance here, you're responding to my ideas at this point, not yours.

And if you want to talk about the ad hominem attacks, I'd like to quote you just a few more times, if I may:

I truly pity you
If you don't lose any sleep in being a walking contradiction
dime-a-dozen internet tough talkers on forums not geared for them in the first place...but then, I'm a fan of really bad B-movies too, so go figure.
Contradictions out of you shouldn't come as a surprise at this point, but I couldn't help but be a little curious.
That's where I began to wonder about some sort of possible delusion of grandeur on your behalf.
Surely even an internet tough talker like yourself can't be so socially backward
You just smack of an angry little man that resorts to building himself up by trash talking
f you don't mind being comic relief then please continue posting how you've been posting

And what did the Crow call the Raven?

and Lastly,

Once again, you've more or less ignored what I've said and then you tried to argue something totally unfounded.

Point by point, there's less ambiguity in a real world conversation because of body language. It's called the 60-30-10 rule. Generally, communication between people is sixty percent body language, thirty percent tone and only ten percent substance. Obviously, on the internet this is somewhat impossible, but on this point you really couldn't be more wrong.

My statements and train of thought were straight. You've chosen to deliberately misconstrue them as being opposing when they're not. I don't expect a free pass, but I do expect some basic reading comprehension.

Ambiguity is in most good writing. It's called depth.

Furthermore, it doesn't really matter what my motives are for debating you, as that doesn't enter into the nature of the argument.

Well, this has been fun, I've gotten a big kick out of your retarded fucking quote thing, and I hope you've learned exactly how stupid and annoying it is, but then again...

Besides, the quotes are in bold, stand out pretty easily, and if they're so annoying just overlook them.

Do you wish to retract or backpedal on your original statement?

It's been fun True Beer Drinker

Anonymous (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 6:23am

As tempting as it is to go through that smoking wreckage of a post and tear the whole thing apart bit by bit, I think I'll let you get the last word in. You've hung yourself with your own words repeatedly, and if you can't see it then I'm not taking the time to point it out to you over and over and over again. For somebody who claims to only spend a few minutes at a time here and doesn't take this all that seriously to begin with, clearly you have more free time and an urge to win these online debates than I ever will.

But go ahead and play the victim though, claiming your words were so badly misconstrued and taken out of context. And now you can claim victory because I'm backing out of this. Obviously this means more to you than it ever will to me, so you can have it. Consider it a parting gift since I annoyed you so much with the quoting thing. It's funny how you cry about getting annoyed when you don't mind openly insulting other people, but again, contradictions and hypocrisy seem to be standard fair with you.

Just for the record, not that your opinion of me really matters at this point, I don't count my atheist friends; they're just two friends who have admitted to being atheists, but thanks for taking that so wildly out of context. Also, thanks for putting words in my mouth about censorship being "palatable", something that I never claimed in any way. Once again, contemplate your own words, and next time actually practice reading comprehension before you call for somebody else to do the same. And maybe think about how it feels to get insulted before you so easily do it to other people.

I look forward to more of your rebuttals to Mariano's posts. I've had my fun watching you talk in circles and contradict yourself, but now that I have a basic idea of the instability of the character I'm dealing with I won't be so quick to prod you next time. I mean, you spent Saturday night typing up that ginormous reply for crying out loud...go talk to some girls...go out on a date...live a little man! If something I typed caused you to spend any part of Saturday night home alone then I'm truly sorry, and I won't do it again.

It's been said that every forum needs a troll, and, well, if nothing else you are entertaining.

May the God that you're too smart to believe in bless you.

Get the last word now...the ball is in your court.

Well, at least I finally got

True Beer Drinker (not verified) — Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:36pm

Well, at least I finally got you stop with that stupid quote thing. Looks like you really do want to backpedal and retract your original statement about quotes. Glad I could help.

I noticed that you ignored the entire substance of my argument in your last reply. You claim it would be really easy to show what a stupid jackass I am, but then, despite it being so easy, you don't manage to do so at all. In fact, you don't even attempt to refute my argument at all.

Then you launch into a long series of ad hominem attacks and insults. Not that I care, but for someone who seems to make such a big deal out of this, you certainly seem to throw your own rules out the window when it becomes inconvenient for you to argue with someone based on their argument. Then some more stuff about contradictions, not realizing you're committing the same sin you're accusing me of.

What about all that stuff about Genesis and Revelation? You didn't answer any of my questions. You didn't bring any of that up at all. It must have been awfully inconvenient for you to try to answer those innocent questions about your holy book for you to just ignore them all completely. Here I thought you wanted to talk about the bible too, you were the one to first bring it up in this conversation, and even brought up the book of Genesis which is what I tried to talk about. Nice try changing the subject, but I'd still like to know a few things. You know, who created god? Why do the first two chapters contradict? Why put the tree there in the first place? How come god doesn't seem that omnipotent or omniscient at times?

I've noticed that this big motif in your work seems to be thinly-veiled attempts to try to embarrass me into leaving. Getting a little tense for you? You continue with the ad hominem attacks, and try to repeatedly imply that I'm somehow mentally ill for posting here, but you always ignore the substance to my argument in favor of the same ad hominem attacks you so proudly attacked me for making.

This is an example of your favorite word (contradiction).

Took my thirty minutes to type up that response while I was drunk, trying to sober up a bit before crashing. Really wasn't difficult or that time consuming at all and I laughed a lot. Especially the part about An MechaChristians. You're not going to embarrass me into not posting here.

Now get the last word, and ignore everything I said and attack me for making ad hominem attacks by... making a series of ad hominem attacks. Then make up some more excuses about how it is so easy to refute my argument that the whole task is beneath you. Then ignore my argument completely so all outside readers know that you probably really didn't have an answer for the things I was saying.

As for the censorship comment, implying or suggesting that it would be perfectly acceptable for Mariano to just start deleting the things I've written is where I drew the conclusion that you're a censor. That and the repeated attempts to somehow shame me into silence.

Oh man, I don't know if you're capable of understanding how hilarious you are, being a guy who loves throwing around the word hypocrite when he himself is, you know, being a hypocrite, but if you can't, let me tell you, it's pretty hilarious.

Don't forget, be sure to tell me how pathetic it is that I even argue with you here at all and try a few more things to see if you can bully me into submission, instead of taking to task the points I've raised.

Now that I know what thin skin you have, and how when faced with an argument you'll avoid engaging the substance of what I said, in the future I will try extra-extra hard to be as antagonistic as possible, by raising even more questions you don't have any answers for.

You're beginning quote is

Anonymous (not verified) — Thu, 06/17/2010 - 10:26pm

You're beginning quote is hilarious because the same phrase was used by Terence in a play only in Latin, "Nihil sub sol nova est" and there is very little actual evidence outside of the Bible to suggest any of the things the Bible attributes to Solomon are actually true, and so more likely the quote was ripped off from the Roman poet and added in after the fact.

You've misunderstood the question at hand (Why doesn't god heal amputees?). It is assumed that people of faith, when they become ill, pray for god for alleviation of their illness. Faith healing is an example of this supplication to god for cure of illness, although double blind studies have shown that faith healing is no more or less effective than a placebo effect.

With this assumption that people of faith believe their deity cures illnesses, the question is then that why aren't amputees treated to the same? Does god have something against amputees? If god is willing to heal other ailments, then why not amputees?

The trouble is that your answer to this question (if you actually choose to answer it) becomes a short of weird rationalization, usually in the form of a non-answer like, "The lord works in mysterious ways..." which is another way of saying, yo no se, I don't know.

Atheists don't have to make this rationalization. Our answer is we can't heal your legs because people block stem cell research. If we had researched stem cells in the way we wanted to over the past ten years, maybe we could grow you some new legs and perform a leg transplant. Sorry pal, vote blue next time.

The other big trouble is that atheists don't believe in Satan. Seriously. A big red guy? With a pitchfork? I mean, that Flagg guy out of The Stand was pretty damn frightening even if he wasn't nearly as cool as The Joker, but from what I've heard and read, the Prince of Darkness (not you Ozzy) is kind of a pussy bitch.

If you look through the Bible, and compare the number of people Satan kills and the number of people God kills, God has a much, much higher score. Granted, Satan only ever appears in my favorite book of the Bible, Job, and he manages to kill ten people by knocking over a house, after he asks God if this is cool, and God says go for it. Meanwhile, God is killing people left and right. In genesis he kills everyone in the world except for an alcoholic named Noah and his family.

This raises serious issues for me, ethically, because if God is omniscient, then he knows 'a priori' (since you seem to love interjecting this small piece of Latin into your speech) that not only will Eve eat from the tree of knowledge, that he will also have to kill everyone on the planet except for one dude and his family.

What a complete dick! How is that asshole worth worship? Fuck, Satan just seems to be his friend on the side that is asking the question, "Wow dude, this is pretty fucked up. Are you sure you want to be doing this?"

If you look at the whole Biblical canon as a work of fiction, and I do, there's a lot of problems with God as a character. Outside of the power that God wields in the story, God is rarely a very pleasant character. He continually is unleashing plagues, killing people in mass, ordering genocides, allowing his so-called chosen people to have the shit beaten out of them all the damn time; God sounds like a pretty half-assed deity.

Understandably, having a creator and master of the universe who acts like a petulant child all the time is more than likely the result of a group of authors who lived in a scary, and mysterious world; completely lacking in any of the technology or even the basis of the technology we use today that makes our lives so wonderful and cushy and allows us to have this debate in a format that at its most basic is simply binary mathematics computed on machines allowed for only by the ideas of an atheist homosexual named Alan Turing. The world sucked back then, and their writing pretty much shows it. Looking at just the Old Testament and comparing it to the writing of the Romans, the Israelites come off as being a completely technologically inept people who were terrified of their world, while the Romans were a group of highly advanced pagans who found the world and life to be lovely plane of existence to make the most out of, and for a long time, they did (including conquering the Israelites).

My big problem is that absolutely none of this bronze age god gibberish is relevant to my life. In fact, it's usually more of hindrance to the exploration of the world than a help, and often chooses to persecute people for no good reason. I don't seem to need it in my life to be happy and successful and so I wonder why anyone else needs this intellectual poison. I've read lots and lots of books, in more than one language, both new and old, and frankly, nothing in the Bible is even wonderful literature. Fuck, if you thought Star Wars was the literal truth about the universe I would be more understanding as to why you delude yourself with this nonsense.

All my life, I've wanted to be Spider-man. If I had any faith, it would be that someday, I'm going to be Spider-man. I know this isn't going to happen and the whole idea makes me giggle.

I don't understand how someone could, with a straight face, think there is a god or devil and not at the same time, think all kinds of other nonsense is totally real, like we're going to find an alien from a planet called Krypton who, by the power of our yellow sun, has all of these ridiculous superpowers. The trouble is that your fiction is less fun, and even less relevant to the world today.

I can recommend A Song of Ice and Fire as a hold over until you get at least some modern day irrational beliefs.

missing the point

Skeptical Rationalist (not verified) — Thu, 06/17/2010 - 9:33pm

You couldn't possibly be more wrong about the underlying intent of the question "why won't God heal amputees."

People wake up from comas, it's an answered prayer. People's cancer goes into spontaneous remission, God intervened. The blind see, the lame walk, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Why, then, has there never once been any credible account of God *having healed* an amputee, or someone who's lost an eye, or had their noses and ears burned off? Why does it never happen? Why does every "healing" god ever perform conform to well-known positive outcomes which are within the realm of naturalistic possibility? The regeneration of a limb would be a true miracle, beyond the bounds of biological plausibility. Instead, he's given credit for placebo effects and naturally-occurring recovery, not to mention the well-documented frauds of so-called "faith healers."

Blowing smoke about the book of Job has nothing whatsoever to do with it. It's not an attempt to say amputees should be atheists, or hate god for their misfortune, or to play on sympathies. It's a response to a specific claim of evidence for the existence and powers of god.

amputees

mark (not verified) — Thu, 06/17/2010 - 2:51pm

I tell atheists as an amputee I do not need healing as I am not sick. Also just because in their small world they have not seen it does not mean that God has not restored a limb.