Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

[IDMclean]

I recently was shown a site about a book called "Why Won't God Heal Amputees?" and thought I would share the link with everyone here as I feel that it will be appreciated by our community.

 

I think, from what I've read so far, that this book pretty well presents the most compelling argument for the non-existence of God/gods (in the supernatural definition); furthermore, the book presents a compelling argument for what religion is: a delusion.

 

I look forward to the ensueing discussion, but I caution those who participate: This thread is about the site, book and argument they present, stay on topic and remember the Hypography rules.

 

Thank you for your consideration and let the games begin :)

[HydrogenBond]

I am pressed for time so I only read the abstract. From a religious point of view, life is an educational stepping stone to something better. To an atheist the stepping stone of life is all that there is. An analogy is going to school. This can be inconvenient to some students. "Why is there homework; Why can't we listen to music and skip school when we want, etc.? The reason for this control over their whims is to educate the students for the future. An atheist only sees as far as the school year and wants constant real time gratification. The parents and teachers expect more since their vision of the future sees the demands of adulthood, which the child can't grasp. It is only when they overcome and reach an adult state, it all makes sense. But if life is only 70-90 years, everyone will assume we need a constant warm fuzzy.

 

To put it into perspective, say a child has a disease and was only going to live to 14. Compassion would cause one to by-pass the strict needs of training the child to become an adult. One would let them be a child so their time is as happy as possible. If he was to make it to 50, then one would be a little more strict in childhood, so they are better prepared for their happiness occurring all the way to 50. If they will make it 100 years, then we would prepare the stages to optimize all that time. If it was to eternal life, then the preparations will need to change even more. The atheists sets their ticker with much less time and tries to optimize that. They blame God for not making their school of life one big recess.

 

Relative to the amputee, it is like if we place a strict diet, exercise and educational standards on the child who will live to 14. This would seem very cruel since it would rob him of his small time span of joy, unless that was his joy. For the person who will live to 100, this short term sacrifice, will pay off in the end and will not be seem as a hardship. It is exactly the same event, but with different time perspectives making it feel different. I pity the atheist since their fear of a short life needs constant instant gratification. They lower restrictions on behavior so they can get stronger feeling buzzes to make they short life expectancy as happy as possible.

[Freddy]

Being a left AK amputee I am a bit offended by the title of the book. It is clear that either a person is an amputee or not an amputee. There is no doubt as with illnesses. Researchers are trying to understand the gene controlling regeneration to help amputees regrow their partial limbs. My leg is not going to grow back from prayer, but someday from regeneration it may!

 

Giese was not cured of rabies due to a miracle. Doctors using new treatments were able to change the outcome, not as a result of prayer. What nonesense!

From wikipedia:

"The reasons for her survival remain controversial. Giese's doctors knew most rabies deaths were caused by temporary brain dysfunction, not permanent brain damage. They reasoned that if they protected Giese's brain by intentionally putting her into a coma, she would survive long enough for her body to fight off the virus. While the treatment appears to have worked as planned, other rabies researchers suggest Giese might have been infected with a particularly weak form of the virus, or that she might have an unusually strong immune system. The bat that bit Giese was not recovered for testing, and doctors were unable to isolate the virus from her body."

[IDMclean]

Interesting responses, but I find that they fail to address the material of the site and the topic of the discussion; perhaps, it would help to post an excerpt of the argument.

 

It is necessary for the integrity of this thread to examine the argument with more than cursory glance. I've read two of the thirty-two chapters. Freddy has addressed perhaps one page of those thirty-two chapters.

 

HydrogenBond, I fail to see how your post follows from the material presented (Non-Sequitur). Perhaps, you could elaborate how your comments follow from the argument presented? I would greatly appreciate it. :)

 

[....]

Executive Summary

 

In this book we look at God from many different angles. What we find is that God is completely imaginary. God does not answer prayers. God did not write the Bible. God has not incarnated himself.

 

How do we know, for sure, that God does not answer prayers? As described in section 1, we simply pray and watch what happens. What we find is that nothing happens. No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincerely they pray, no matter how worthy the prayer, nothing ever happens. If we pray for anything that is impossible -- for example, regenerating an amputated limb or moving Mt. Everest to Newark, NJ -- it never happens. We all know that. If we pray for anything that is possible, the results of the prayer will unfold in exact accord with the normal laws of probability. In every situation where we statistically analyze the effects of prayers, looking at both the success AND the failure of prayer, we find that prayer has zero effect. Prayers for amputees never work. Medical prayers never work. Prayers for "good people" never work. Battlefield prayers never work. That happens, always, because God is imaginary. Every time a Christian says, "The Lord answered my prayer," what we are seeing instead is a simple coincidence or the natural effects of self-talk. Christians never discuss failed prayers, but if we look at all the prayers that fail as well as the prayers that work, a statistical analysis proves that God does not answer prayers. See section 1 for details.

 

How do we know, for sure, that God did not write the Bible? As discussed in section 2, we simply read the Bible and note how uncomfortable it is in so many places. We note that God is a huge proponent of slavery in the Bible, despite our absolute certainty that slavery is a moral abomination. We note that God is a huge misogynist in the Bible, despite our absolute certainty that misogyny is a moral abomination as well. We note that God kills huge numbers of babies and small children in the Bible, and we know that this is both an atrocity and horrifically disgusting. We note that God, who is supposed to be all-knowing, knows no more than the primitive men who actually wrote the Bible. And so on. Anyone who takes the time to actually read the Bible will rapidly reach the conclusion that the Bible was written by primitive men, not by an all-knowing God. See section 2 for details.

 

How do we know, for sure, that Jesus was a normal human being? As described in section 3, we can ask this simple question: If a man were to proclaim himself to be the son of God today, what would we do? We would ask to see incontrovertible proof. Jesus does not get a pass because he lived 2,000 years ago. We note the fact that none of Jesus' miracles left any lasting evidence. For example, even though Jesus proclaimed that anyone can move a mountain, we note that no one -- not even Jesus -- has moved a mountain. All of Jesus' miracles are either faith healings or magic tricks, and we all know that faith healers and magicians are frauds. We also note that there is no evidence that Jesus is resurrected. Jesus could easily appear to each of us in the flesh to prove that he is resurrected, just as he did with Paul. And he promises that he will. Yet Jesus never appears. If he did, there would be thousands of videos floating around on the Web showing Jesus' appearances. We note that Jesus says dozens of things in the Bible that are plainly wrong. We note that even though Jesus is the all-powerful creator of the universe and promises to answer prayers, all of his churches depend on the money of mere mortals to support themselves. And so on. It is obvious that Jesus was a man like any other and that the Bible's description of Jesus is standard mythology. Jesus, in other words, is like Zeus. See section 3 for details.

 

It is also interesting to note that, by proving any one of these things, we have automatically proven the other two. For example, once we know that the Bible was written by primitive men rather than God, then it is automatic that God does not answer prayers and that Jesus was a completely normal human being. The Bible is the book that tells us about prayer and Jesus, so if the Bible is meaningless then prayer and Jesus are meaningless as well. The fact is that we have proven all three things separately. Jesus is not God, the Bible is not the word of God, and God never answers prayers. These three things are true, therefore, both directly and by association.

 

It is plainly obvious to any intelligent human being that all human gods are imaginary. The belief in God and prayer is pure superstition, nothing more. It has come time for rational, intelligent people to openly discuss this fact because superstition and fraud are detrimental to society.

[...]

Taken from the summary page of the site.

 

Thank you for reading and responding responsibly. ;)

[modest]

I’ve always thought that prayer is rather arrogant.

 

If there is a god capable of creating the universe and the laws of physics that direct it then that god would seem to be beyond human persuasion. Humans do not have a ‘personal relationship’ with an omnipotent being and it is ironically impious to think so because it lowers such a being to a dreadfully human level.

 

It is equally arrogant to think that there is no omnipotent being on the basis that prayer is not answered. This argument assumes that ‘God’ is sympathetic toward human discontent. It doesn’t look like the book makes this argument which I like - very sensible.

 

I am pressed for time so I only read the abstract. From a religious point of view, life is an educational stepping stone to something better. To an atheist the stepping stone of life is all that there is.

 

Too many people equate the existence of god with the existence of an afterlife. Your argument makes this assumption as the basis for your post. This seems odd to me considering the afterlife is a Christian and Muslim afterthought to the Jewish religion they are based on. This argument makes no sense when discussing the Jewish religion as life is not a “stepping stone” in that context. Your argument ignores the “make the best of your life” aspect of religion. This is in addition to your complete mischaracterization of atheists. Here is just one:

 

The atheists sets their ticker with much less time and tries to optimize that. They blame God for not making their school of life one big recess.

 

Atheists don’t blame god for anything. The atheist’s anthem is taking responsibility for life and accepting the nature of things rather than blaming god or the devil for their actions or the world around them.

 

Well, here is one more:

 

They lower restrictions on behavior so they can get stronger feeling buzzes to make they short life expectancy as happy as possible.

 

Lower restrictions on behavior? Ridiculous. Atheists don’t fight religious wars or crucify witches. Atheism is not a standard of morality - how do you get that?

 

If you disagree please respond here: atheism - theism

I would be glad to discuss it.

[Boerseun]

The only conclusion I can draw from the thread title is that lizards are much better Christians than we are.

[rockytriton]

An argument like this could not argue for the non-existence of a god, only the non-existence of a father-figure personal type god.

[IDMclean]

This argument targets, near as I can tell, the Christian god of the bible.

[palmtreepathos]

First I spent WAY too much time looking over the site. It is REALLY well made and I am sure will appeal to athiests and those looking for the atheistic loophole. While I think it will mostly appeal to those who have never studied the Bible, it does accurately describe the reasoning power of many church programs/attendees in the way it describes the "elementary" views and superstitions they might have. Having been a child with childish beliefs AND an adult I can identify with how appealing the simplistic logic at the Heal Amputee site might be. As an adult I think it sounds the same as if I had a website and was spouting what little I know about Quantum Theory. Just a "tad" simplistic for those who know the Bible and the Issues for real.

 

It does point out that some stay at that Sunday school level in their beliefs until they are grown and this is just a shame. This site/info could be a stumbling block for them or it may anger them into verifying their own faith and growing into the Christ.

 

On the other hand if anyone thinks that relieving people of all forms of religious faith is going to cure the ills of mankind you are sorely mistaken, "that" is the superstition of Atheism. There are just as many selfish, illogical, narrowminded and delusional atheists as you may think there are "Christians".

 

But you may find it interesting in the last book of the Bible it says that "the Great Harlot" of Babylon(who represents most forms of worship on the earth) will be destroyed by the governments! (the idea comes from God). Revelation chapters 17-18.... God says his people better get out of her while they have time!(Rev 18:4) Quite a drama!

 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

I’ve always thought that prayer is rather arrogant.

If there is a god capable of creating the universe and the laws of physics that direct it then that god would seem to be beyond human persuasion.

Arrogance is deciding for another person of superior intelligence/power who He will or will not have a relationship with. If he created creatures to his delight and expects a relationship with them, then who can decree the boundaries or possibilities of said relationship?

 

Humans do not have a ‘personal relationship’ with an omnipotent being and it is ironically impious to think so because it lowers such a being to a dreadfully human level.

 

The Bible quotes the creator as putting qualities like his own (power, love, justice, wisdom) into his earthly children. How dare them give him credit for this then? Designed in His image but never to acknowledge him? Or for Him to create a lovely garden with humanity and then cast it off to the wilds and never desire to walk about in it(metaphorically speaking)? The Bible says he condescends to reach mankind, not to look down on them but to elevate them. Psalm 113:6, 7

 

It is equally arrogant to think that there is no omnipotent being on the basis that prayer is not answered.

 

You are all over the map here. (I agree on this point but am sure for vastly different reasons) :doh:

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

The Bible says that the demons believe in God and have the good sense to shudder in fear. James 2 vs 19 (they don't have faith though, which requires a humble and willing submission to God's right to have things His way.)

[modest]

 

I’ve always thought that prayer is rather arrogant.

If there is a god capable of creating the universe and the laws of physics that direct it then that god would seem to be beyond human persuasion.

 

Arrogance is deciding for another person of superior intelligence/power who He will or will not have a relationship with. If he created creatures to his delight and expects a relationship with them, then who can decree the boundaries or possibilities of said relationship?

 

Yes, I agree. It is arrogant for religions around the world to put God in a box, or an arc, or a book, or their 'left pocket' and make him a members-only commodity. As you say:

 

Arrogance is deciding for another person of superior intelligence/power who He will or will not have a relationship with.

 

This is exactly the religious montage created by humanity up to this point and it is arrogant. The catholic church goes as far as to say - whatever the church says here on earth, God will make true for eternity. There is no bigger "deciding" for God as this. Let me quote from the christian bible as it seems to have your favor:

 

romans12:33 - O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!

 

There, see. Any omnipotent being is beyond human understanding. It is arrogant to put that concept in a religious box.

 

The Bible quotes the creator as putting qualities like his own (power, love, justice, wisdom) into his earthly children.

 

Yes, Gen 1:26 is a great example of what I'm talking about. In one verse it says that we are God-like, we rule the animals, and we rule the earth. Does it get more arrogant? I suggest you read Alexander Pope's an essay on man. It is a great reminder that the universe carries no favor for mankind or the devout. Or, I should stick to a source you'll be more convinced of:

 

Ecclesiastes7:15 - All things have I seen in the days of my vanity: there is a just man that perisheth in his righteousness, and there is a wicked man that prolongeth his life in his wickedness.

 

See, karma doesn't grant favors or prayers for the righteous.

 

It is equally arrogant to think that there is no omnipotent being on the basis that prayer is not answered.

You are all over the map here. (I agree on this point but am sure for vastly different reasons) :doh:

Yes, I am all over the Christian map. I agree.

 

The Bible says that the demons believe in God and have the good sense to shudder in fear. James 2 vs 19 (they don't have faith though, which requires a humble and willing submission to God's right to have things His way.)

 

Yes, here is where we disagree in spirit. Defining God's will by creating religion is not "humble and willing submission". It is the opposite of that - it is arrogant. Imagine the christian priests in the conquistador's fleets in the 16th century blessing the soldiers who were slaughtering the natives. Saying "It's OK to kill the natives, they don't have souls." They blessed the soldiers and preyed "God give these men the strength to kill as many Indians as you will."

This is what happens when humans think they know the will of god. This is arrogance. Will God answer these prayers? Did god help Joshua slaughter every man, woman, child, and beast in Jericho and most of Israel? Did God answer that prayer?

 

Joshua6:21 - And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city' date=' both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ***, with the edge of the sword.[/quote']

 

The omnipotent being that created all of existence answered Joshua's prayers and helped kill them kids?

 

Joshua 6:2 - And the LORD said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thine hand Jericho

 

Wow. Nothing arrogant about that?

[Mike C]

To 'kick ***'

 

I hope this solution is 'on topic'

 

The trouble is that it may take about one hundred years before it can happen. I thouight about this problem and figured that one way to stimulate the bodies 'genes' is by eventually learning the electrical pulsations that control the 'growth' factor to stimulate the body to grow another 'foot, hand or whatever.

 

I think with the advancement of science in the future, this could be an achievable goal.

 

Mike C

[IDMclean]

To 'kick ***'

 

I hope this solution is 'on topic'

 

The trouble is that it may take about one hundred years before it can happen. I thouight about this problem and figured that one way to stimulate the bodies 'genes' is by eventually learning the electrical pulsations that control the 'growth' factor to stimulate the body to grow another 'foot, hand or whatever.

 

I think with the advancement of science in the future, this could be an achievable goal.

 

Mike C

:)

 

It is infact on topic, but I will point out that the argument being made is for miraculous healing like the spontaneous recovery from blindness, parapalegia, cancer, etc by way of "faith" healing. Scientific or medical recovery are different matters because they are developed through research and development; that is, medical treatments and cures are developed by essentially emperical methods rather than faith in a deity. :)

 

Would you disagree with my assessment based on the web page? :)

 

Thank you for the contribution; cheers :cup:, I look forward to future discussion,

-Kicky

[Mike C]

Clown

 

That type of religious healing (miracle) is not well publicised.

 

Naturopathic physicians perform miracles every day just by 'dietary' corrections and vitamin/mineral supplementation.

 

However, the creation/replacement of missing limbs is not now possible.

 

The best option now is the advancement of the artificial limbs to appear as natural as possible.

 

Mike C

[Pyrotex]

You know, if'n there wuz a god, and s/he healed the blind, the lame, the possessed, the lepers--those with cancer, TB, leukemia, diarhea, worms, and tumors in the brain-- the very fact that this god never, never, ever caused a missing leg to grow back, says something.

 

I think it says that god is totally powerless to grow back missing limbs. This god just can't cut that particular mustard. In the face of amputeeship, this god is hopelessly helpless. Not a clue. Impotent.

 

Of course, it wouldn't be the FIRST time. :lol: In the first chapter of Judges, we see that god was also powerless against iron weapons.

 

Now, if we could only raise an army of quadruple amputees with iron weapons...

:hihi:

[modest]

I think it says that god is totally powerless to grow back missing limbs. This god just can't cut that particular mustard. In the face of amputeeship, this god is hopelessly helpless. Not a clue. Impotent.

 

Pyrotex, that is so ridiculous.

 

The real reason he doesn't heal amputees is clearly set out in Matthew 5:30. It's not that he doesn't have the power. He just advocates amputation.

 

And if thy right hand offend the, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

 

By healing amputation he would clearly be damning people to hell :hihi:

[Pyrotex]

...Matthew 5:30. ...By healing amputation he would clearly be damning people to hell ;)

OH!!! MY!!! GOD!!! :eek::eek::eek:

 

 

You are so right. How could I have missed that? God WANTS us to be amputees! ;) And hand-amputees at that! Hmmm... Do you suppose god has something against masturbation???

 

NAH! Couldn't be! ;):hihi:;):lol::eek:

[InfiniteNow]

This quote from the executive summary shared in post #4 really says it all:

 

God is completely imaginary.