15 March 2007, 03:26 in

Why won't God heal amputees?

Spinboy’s recent posts (here and here) on religion reminded of a great website I found last year called Why Won’t God Heal Amputees. Despite the slightly abrasive title, it seems quite objective:

If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands. We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put “In God We Trust” on the money, pray in our schools and eliminate the theory of evolution from every curriculum. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance.

On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. We should eliminate God from our society because God is meaningless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be completely delusional.

I haven’t read it all, but, from what I have seen, the writing is clear and concise, and I think it effectively argues that religious people are delusional. I particularly like the section entitled Understanding Delusion. Check it out.

It is good to see people critically analysing and questioning religion, despite it being somewhat of a taboo topic in our society.

  1. Sorry, but this looks really weak to me. The sort of thing that drove spinboy to announce his surprise at finding sensible discourse on the topic. Your excerpt jumps straight from it’s-untrue to it’s-harmful without even considering the need for an argument.

    And can you really imagine a religious person reading the linked section and seeing the light? So who was it written for? Dare I suggest it’s intended to reassure atheists with insufficient trust in their own powers of reasoning? Or maybe just stroke their sense of smug superiority a little.


    — Greg    Mar 15, 12:36 pm    #

  2. hey it’s me.

    i do agree with greg that the excerpt is not really going to win any favour in the eyes of a theist (though not entirely for the reason greg states, i could elaborate but it’s moot), similar to the way i’m not particularly keen on richard dawkins style of presentation.

    though having actually read the entire article, i would say that that particular excerpt doesn’t represent it well as a whole. in the article i think the author does a good job of presenting some good arguments in a clear, logical and rational manner, which earns him some brownie points. But he loses some ground through some weak/inconsequential arguments, some arguments which lack strong logical consequence (as greg was alluding to), and mostly his tendency to slip into a somewhat sinister tone/attitude. some of the potential merit of the article is lost through this. still, the article makes some good arguments if you can make it past the “self-righteousnous”.

    as far as “who was it written for?”, i wouldn’t be so keen to attribute to malice what you can to stupidity. so while it may be true that the author is preaching to the choir in an attempt at reassurance/ego stroking, i would say it’s just as (in fact probably more) likely that the author is simply not sensitive or smart enough to realise that the way he presents things is as important as what he presents. perhaps some would say that of myself too? i don’t know…

    as an aside, i would rather not have my original post referred to as being driven by “surprise at finding sensible discourse on the topic”. i don’t think it is that surprising to find sensible discourse on the topic, as i have read many before, and my post was in reference to being happy to have found a good example of one at a good time. in fact, my original post and the original reddit discussion was less to do with religion vs non-religion, and more to do with the semantic differences of atheism vs agnosticism. in the original reddit discussion, both sides of the argument had already agreed on the likely non-existance of god(s). anyway, what “drove” me to post about it was more my desire to procrastinate than anything (and with a topic i am interested in). these are small, and perhaps pedantic differences to what you were suggesting the intention of my post was, but still i don’t like being misrepresented.

    and like i said in my very original post, absolutely none of what i have said or what anybody of the “onetwenty” group has said, or what has been said on any of the articles that have been posted, presents anything original or new on this topic of discussion. as we all know, every single avenue of debate has been beaten to death by millions before us, and it will likely be so after us too. at the end of the day it comes down to what you value more, faith or evidence. and ultimately that value is personally derived. and while i still enjoy reading the debates, my interest in it is as much the “tabooness” and sensitivity of the topic (as it reveals human nature) as anything else.

    well this has been a long post, i better get back to work. oh wait, i don’t have any :(

    twiddles thumbs


    — "spinboy"    Mar 15, 03:02 pm    #
  Textile Help