Evilbible - the Polemical Saga Continues, part 1 of 5

Please note: this essay has been moved to True Freethinker at this link.


  1. Note that this question [Why won't God heal amputees] is premised upon a theological position: if God was then God would heal amputees and since God does not heal amputees God is not.

    No, the question is: why we don't see any obvious miracles?

    a) God doesn't want to reveal himself in more direct way (wants us to believe in him)

    b)God doesn't exist

    Atheist just accept "b" as the correct answer.

    In fact, what would an atheist say to an amputee? “Evolution sucks don’t it? Why won’t evolution make it so that human amputees can grow their limbs back? Oh well, deal with it.”

    Too bad we haven't evolved directly
    from salamanders. High five!

    This question presupposes knowledge of all amputees and knowledge than none were ever healed.

    No, it just states that we don't have even one example of obvious miracle which has been confirmed by modern science (hence example of amputees always comes up. It could be something else of course). But again it could be point "a"

    Perhaps, God has healed many amputees, perhaps in countries in which getting high tech prosthesis is not possible and in which the healing did not make it into the news/journals.

    If thats true then God would be (to say the least) a deceptive one. (or "a" again)

    One thing in for certain: if an amputee was healed they could certainly care less that they cannot provide evidence enough to satisfy atheists.

    It is not certain. In fact it is completely improbable that the person possessing absolute proof that God exist would keep it to himself. I mean Pat Robertson would pay $$$$$ to have him/her.

    This questions, of course, does not consider at least one historical record of an amputee healed by God,

    And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.
    But Jesus answered and said, “Permit even this.” And He touched his ear and healed him (Luke 22:50-51).

    (Luke 22:50-51)

    Facepalm. Could at least give him a name tag.

    (place for a quote about Wilt Chamberlain claiming he slept with 10000 women)

    The bible has been changed and is itself a double translation from the origianl [sic] (now lost) hebrew [sic] to greek [sic] (only fragments remain) and then to latin [sic] again in bad repair.

    Grammar police or what? Lets stone him for not capitalizing.

  2. It required a troubled mind to engage in eisegesis (or isogesis: reading preconceived notions into a text) and infer what was not being implied.

    That sure condemns a lot of theists... Christian ones in particular... in one fell swoop. In fact, it snags a majority of them as being of troubled mind. There's a lot of mutually exclusive inferences from given texts out there, and unless the text is itself inconsistent, that means you have a lot of inferences which could not have been implied.

    Mariano, you're even harsher on the poor theists than many atheists!

  3. MK,
    Yes, the question was "Why won't God heal amputees?" just read the question, that is the question.

    Whatever faulty inference you are drawing aside; the issue was the faulty inference that John Lennon's murdered drew from "Catcher in the Rye" and that this inference required a troubled mind.


  4. Yes, the question was "Why won't God heal amputees?" just read the question, that is the question.

    I'm sorry Mariano, but on that point, you are in disagreement even with large portion of Christians.

    The underlaying concept of "amputee question" is as I presented in point "a" and deals with the power of prayer.

    If God would perform obvious miracle like this, human faith would not be required anymore (everybody would know God exist).

    To quote (very) famous Christian site on that question:
    [...]God doesn't need to prove Himself to us (we’re on trial, not Him), nor does He “need” to bless us.