pbaylis

Someone get me a can of insect spray.

Agnostic Theist

Why? My post works on both the theistic and atheistic levels.

For the atheist it's a stand against theism

For the theist it's a stand against the manipulation of beliefs for personal gain, viz. money or religious prosperity, etc.

Even as a theist I am not one to condone faith healing. To me it is naive mysticism and promotes belief for irrational reasons (such as superstition and birfurcational weak evidence), rather than rational or arational reasons.

JPD

Ah oh ah ha ha ha.
You are absolutely hilarious. Get it together - like you you mean?
My sides are aching I tell you.
Now let me think.....what is it that I am supposed to be praying to exactly?
Given the inability of Christians to formulate accurate and meaningful arguments, and the fact that the bible contains more than a few errors, I think I might just leave it to those amongst us who are more mentally challenged.
So my only goal in life is to take away the delusions of others? No, that's more of a hobby really.
Again, unfortuantely, you are talking nonsense. You might do better if you concentrated on formulating coherent arguments rather than pretending you understand the minds and lives of others.

JPD

Your God has babies? Could you just explain the mechanisms involved?

JPD

Not only are your arguments confused but your knowledge of biology is also questionable.

JPD

It isn't worth replying when your arguments are so badly constructed but it does provide entertainment.

If you get silence, it could be that the person you have responded to is not at that moment in time online. Unless your God can intervene and act as a telepathic go-between you will need to wait until that person is back online.

If the person like me is not worth replying to, why do you respond/argue in such a way that it eliminates any possibility of you "squashing my retorts like a flea"?

greyline

Per the OP, I did ask for personal experiences of miracles and healing, not reported events from Chicago.

seebs

Y'know, there are reasonable criticisms you could be making, but mocking the terminology like this is just silly.

seebs

I run into a serious epistemological problem. How am I supposed to determine whether a story is a miracle or not? Is it enough for me to personally think it likely that it represents some amount of divine intervention? Must it be physically impossible, or is it enough for it to be a very conveniently timed event that was otherwise unremarkable?

In short, what exactly are the standards?

Gunnaheave

Mod Note: The personal bickering in this thread needs to stop. There is no need for anyone to mock anyone else here, nor is it helpful to mock other people's claims. If anyone here feels there is no point in responding to someone else, then they should realize there is no need to do so at all. If you can state your reasons for disagrement respectfully, then you are welcome to do so, but this forum is not here for the purpose of belittling others.