Ah, Those Catholic School Girls...

[Gawdzilla Sama]

My phone just started doing it last week.

[Coito ergo sum]

There aren't enough Moslem girls masturbating with copies of the Koran.

Perhaps someday there will be.

Moslem girls shout "Oh, Allah!" when Achmad is shagging her good and hard?

[Coito ergo sum]

In other words, they name their school after a total douche who lies about healing the sick when he obviously can't,

You have critically robust scientific proof that he didn't heal the sick do you?

No, but what does that have to do with anything?

We don't have critically robust scientific proof that he wasn't really a reptilian overlord either. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

The fact is, you don't have critically robust scientific proof that he did heal the sick. In fact, you don't have critically weak proof that he healed the sick. It is an extraordinary claim that a man would be able to magically heal the sick, because there is critically robust proof that humans do not have magical powers of this sort, generally speaking. If the extraordinary claim that a particular person was endowed with magical healing powers is to be believed or given any credence whatsoever, it ought to be backed by some pretty solid evidence. As it happens, if anyone has any such evidence, they've not making it public.

[Seth]

In other words, they name their school after a total douche who lies about healing the sick when he obviously can't,

You have critically robust scientific proof that he didn't heal the sick do you?

No, but what does that have to do with anything?

You said, "In other words, they name their school after a total douche who lies about healing the sick when he obviously can't, because he's human..."

How does his being human preclude him from being the vessel for a miracle of God by way of healing the sick? It's really not obvious at all.

We don't have critically robust scientific proof that he wasn't really a reptilian overlord either. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Have you examined the evidence of the claims of miraculous healing and shown with critically robust scientific evidence that no such healings occurred?

The fact is, you don't have critically robust scientific proof that he did heal the sick.

I didn't make the claim.

In fact, you don't have critically weak proof that he healed the sick.

Nor did I make that claim.

It is an extraordinary claim that a man would be able to magically heal the sick, because there is critically robust proof that humans do not have magical powers of this sort, generally speaking.

I love the waffle-words you use. Since I didn't make any claim, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You made a specific claim, I asked you for your critically robust evidence supporting your claim.

If the extraordinary claim that a particular person was endowed with magical healing powers is to be believed or given any credence whatsoever, it ought to be backed by some pretty solid evidence.

Maybe it is. Where's your investigatory data showing that no such evidence exists.

As it happens, if anyone has any such evidence, they've not making it public.

Ah, I see...just because YOU haven't heard about means it doesn't exist.

How....non-scientific of you.

I'm merely demonstrating a sauce-goose-gander example here.

You made a claim, now prove it or retract it.

[Animavore]

Healing powers me arse. If I had a penny for every person I've met who claimed to have healing powers I'd have 59p. Sure, it's possible Pius could have been "the real deal", different to every other fraud in the broad sense but without some sort of evidence he did then why believe that over he was just another pious fraud?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Healing powers me arse. If I had a penny for every person I've met who claimed to have healing powers I'd have 59p. Sure, it's possible Pius could have been "the real deal", different to every other fraud in the broad sense but without some sort of evidence he did then why believe that over he was just another pious fraud?

There's no evidence anybody ever healed anybody. Just anecdotes.

[Svartalf]

Well, I'll still trust my usual witch doctor, his prescriptions have done me good in the past.

[Animavore]

Healing powers me arse. If I had a penny for every person I've met who claimed to have healing powers I'd have 59p. Sure, it's possible Pius could have been "the real deal", different to every other fraud in the broad sense but without some sort of evidence he did then why believe that over he was just another pious fraud?

There's no evidence anybody ever healed anybody. Just anecdotes.

Well certainly in my own experience being involved with bullshido sorts that is how it has been. In fact I even naively entertained it for a time. I'm willing to be turned if someone brings the evidence. But so far it's been a case of, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

[Seth]

Healing powers me arse. If I had a penny for every person I've met who claimed to have healing powers I'd have 59p. Sure, it's possible Pius could have been "the real deal", different to every other fraud in the broad sense but without some sort of evidence he did then why believe that over he was just another pious fraud?

There's no evidence anybody ever healed anybody. Just anecdotes.

Ever hear of "spontaneous remission?"

There are plenty of examples of "healings" that are not attributable to anything medical science understands.

So what causes them?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Healing powers me arse. If I had a penny for every person I've met who claimed to have healing powers I'd have 59p. Sure, it's possible Pius could have been "the real deal", different to every other fraud in the broad sense but without some sort of evidence he did then why believe that over he was just another pious fraud?

There's no evidence anybody ever healed anybody. Just anecdotes.

Ever hear of "spontaneous remission?"

There are plenty of examples of "healings" that are not attributable to anything medical science understands.

So what causes them?

Argument from ignorance.

[Coito ergo sum]

In other words, they name their school after a total douche who lies about healing the sick when he obviously can't,

You have critically robust scientific proof that he didn't heal the sick do you?

No, but what does that have to do with anything?

You said, "In other words, they name their school after a total douche who lies about healing the sick when he obviously can't, because he's human..."

How does his being human preclude him from being the vessel for a miracle of God by way of healing the sick? It's really not obvious at all.

Humans don't generally have that ability. It's like if a human being claimed to have the ability to levitate objects by moving his pinky toe. Certainly not "precluded", but it is not a human characteristic, so absent some reason to believe he can levitate objects by moving a pinky toe, the rational conclusion is that he doesn't have this extraordinary ability.

It's also not precluded that he is a uranium based life form cleverly disguised to seem like a carbon based life form, but only an idiot would believe it without critically robust evidence of uranium based-ness. Only an idiot would look for evidence that a person is not uranium based, simply because it cannot be precluded.

CANNOT BE PRECLUDED is meaningless. Pointless. Irrelevant. There is nothing that can be "precluded" in the absolute sense of being impossible under any circumstances. I might be able to jump to the moon, or ejaculate 1,000 gallons over a mile at a shot. You can't "preclude" it, because I might be a vessel of Priapus or some other divine thingamajig, but it would not be reasonable to believe those things unless there was evidence FOR it. The fact that you have no evidence to prove I can't ejaculate the 1,000 gallons doesn't justify you, rationally, in believing I can do it.

We don't have critically robust scientific proof that he wasn't really a reptilian overlord either. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Have you examined the evidence of the claims of miraculous healing and shown with critically robust scientific evidence that no such healings occurred?

Not all of them. The ones that I have examined have been revealed to be bogus. And, it is the claim that must be supported by critically robust evidence before there is any obligation to refute a claim. A baseless claim needs no refutation. A claim offered without evidence may be rejected without evidence.

The fact is, you don't have critically robust scientific proof that he did heal the sick.

I didn't make the claim.

Neither you, nor those who have made the claim have shown critically robust scientific proof.

In fact, you don't have critically weak proof that he healed the sick.

Nor did I make that claim.

So what are you arguing? Neither you nor they have offered any critically robust evidence.

It is an extraordinary claim that a man would be able to magically heal the sick, because there is critically robust proof that humans do not have magical powers of this sort, generally speaking.

I love the waffle-words you use. Since I didn't make any claim, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You made a specific claim, I asked you for your critically robust evidence supporting your claim.

I don't have evidence that he wasn't possessed of magical powers, nor do I need such evidence to be justified in rejecting such evidence. Humans don't have magical powers to heal. There is critically robust evidence of that. So, if some human claims to be an exception, then it is incumbent up on him to present the evidence, or incumbent upon anyone who makes the assertion. I am logically justified in rejecting the notion that a human has magical powers, whether be to heal, to give orgasms from a distance, to bend metal bars with the power of their eyelashes flickering from a mile away -- whatever.

If the extraordinary claim that a particular person was endowed with magical healing powers is to be believed or given any credence whatsoever, it ought to be backed by some pretty solid evidence.

Maybe it is. Where's your investigatory data showing that no such evidence exists.

There can be no data evidencing nonexistence. Other than, perhaps, that everywhere we've looked, there is no evidence for the proposition. There are those who make the assertion. Those who have made the assertion have not presented evidence. Therefore, the assertion is not accepted, pending further evidence.

I do have data that faith healing, prayer and other attempts to invoke supernatural assistance in healing do not work. I also point to the absence of any known credible, critically robust, example of magical healing by any human being. That is rock solid. So, if one particular human is claimed to have or have had such an ability, then it is incumbent upon them making the assertion to provide critically robust evidence. Until they do, the only rational conclusion is that he doesn't have that ability. The mere claim to have that ability is not itself evidence. Otherwise, I could claim to have foot long Johnson that moves like a jack-hammer, and the ladies here would be logic-bound to give my claim credence until they could present evidence that I did not have that in my pants.

As it happens, if anyone has any such evidence, they've not making it public.

Ah, I see...just because YOU haven't heard about means it doesn't exist.

How....non-scientific of you.

No, not because I haven't heard of it. Because THEY (who are making the claim) have not presented it.

And, that is scientific. What alternative do I have? Should I presume they have the evidence? Or, are you simply saying I need to be open to the evidence if it ever comes? If the former, of course not. If the latter, of course -- I am open to it, but I can't believe first and then let the evidence come later. That would be non-scientific, and dumb.

I'm merely demonstrating a sauce-goose-gander example here.

You made a claim, now prove it or retract it.

I did. And, it isn't sauce-goose-gander. You're comparing apples to bumper cars here. It is never incumbent upon a person to prove that an unfalsifiable claim isn't true. So, saying "Jesus had the power to heal the sick" is just a claim. I can't prove it false, sure -- but, claims that can't be proven false are all over the place. There are an infinity of them. They aren't useful claims, and it is not logical to believe an unfalsifiable claim.

My only claim is"Those who say Jesus had the power to heal the sick have not produced critically robust evidence." That much is true, because they have not. It is, of course, a given that we all simply operate within the bounds of what we know or have perceived. But that does not change the fact that it would be stupid of me to believe that Jesus had the power to heal the sick until someone produced critically robust evidence that he did heal the sick.

Is it conceivable that he did? I could imagine it -- it may be that there is an as yet undetected force that allows people with special brain structures to send out beams and waves that heal the sick. But, it would be unreasonable an irrational for me to believe it until there was critically robust evidence presented for it. It is not sauce for the goose for me to be called upon to present evidence that there is no such force and there are no such as yet unknown structures. Savvy?

[Animavore]

Healing powers me arse. If I had a penny for every person I've met who claimed to have healing powers I'd have 59p. Sure, it's possible Pius could have been "the real deal", different to every other fraud in the broad sense but without some sort of evidence he did then why believe that over he was just another pious fraud?

There's no evidence anybody ever healed anybody. Just anecdotes.

Ever hear of "spontaneous remission?"

There are plenty of examples of "healings" that are not attributable to anything medical science understands.

So what causes them?

I don't know. What?

[Azathoth]

Healing powers me arse. If I had a penny for every person I've met who claimed to have healing powers I'd have 59p. Sure, it's possible Pius could have been "the real deal", different to every other fraud in the broad sense but without some sort of evidence he did then why believe that over he was just another pious fraud?

There's no evidence anybody ever healed anybody. Just anecdotes.

Ever hear of "spontaneous remission?"

There are plenty of examples of "healings" that are not attributable to anything medical science understands.

So what causes them?

The fact that people sometimes just get better detracts from your claims rather than backing them up.

[Svartalf]

Post hoc ergo propter hoc and all that

[Animavore]

I don't remember any Catholic schoolgirls like that.

That's because the Catholic schools in the UK make sure they pick the best pupils where as the ones in Ireland are just the same as what you call, "school."

I remember Catholic schoolgirls like that