And the blind shall see

[Beldaran]

Whether or not Jesus cured the blind and gave them sight is something each person has to take on faith.

Whether or not science can cure the blind and give them sight is now a matter of fact. In a first for humanity, scientists have cured a person of blindness.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-blind-man-who-was-given-the-gift-of-sight-by-gene-therapy-816629.html

I have faith in the gods that I can see, and the only god I can see is the human mind. I've seen this god help us cure the blind, walk on water, fly, instantly communicate with people on the other side of the globe; I've seen this god destroy cities and bring the dead back to life. There is no savior quite like reason itself.

[Shazza Dani]

tl;dr

Did they cure someone who was 100% blind from birth?

[Russ]

I have faith in the gods that I can see, and the only god I can see is the human mind. I've seen this god help us cure the blind, walk on water, fly, instantly communicate with people on the other side of the globe; I've seen this god destroy cities and bring the dead back to life. There is no savior quite like reason itself.
And this god was given to us by an even greater God, which can't be seen but whose works can be seen clearly.

Anyways, I am amazed at what has happened. Curring near total blindness is an astounding accomplishment.

And Beldaran, when has this "god" brought the dead back to life? Or walked on water?

[AtmaWeapon]

Yes. So long as your definition of "blind" is expanded to include "poor vision" and "cured" means "vision improved".
Steven Howarth, 18, from Bolton, who has a rare inherited eye disorder which has left him with extremely poor vision and completely unable to see in the dark, improved sufficiently after the treatment to be able to navigate a "maze" in conditions similar to street lighting at night. Also, you have to expand "blind" to mean "in only one eye:
The injection was given into the back of Mr Howarth's worse- affected eye, which had almost no vision, especially in low light. A video of him with his "good" eye covered, taken before the treatment was carried out[...]You also need to include "sometimes it doesn't work":
However, one of the American patients developed a hole in the retina, thought to be due to the surgery, though this did not affect their sight.Additionally, "improving the vision of people that are nearly blind in one of their two eyes" is hardly new medical science. I was born legally blind in my left eye and through corrective lenses and a few other weird things I have better vision in my "bad" eye than my good.

The only godlike quality I see about the human mind is it is as destructive as it is creative. I've seen it raise cities and raze them. I've seen it bring life into the world and snuff it out large-scale. I've seen it take pleasure in bringing suffering and relief alike. The name of science has been used to cause some pretty nasty things to people (see: any biological weapon, atomic weapons, high-tech weaponry, etc.); it's hardly blemish-free.

Also, I'd like to see cited sources of science doing the following, but I'm going to define the terms since you seem to take liberties. If you're going to claim science can parallel the miracles of God, I want evidence of identical circumstances. Otherwise, reduce your claim to something more believable, like "science has reproduced many of the Bible's miracles, such as curing the blind". Walking on water. This requires a reproducible method to make a naked human being float on or above the surface of a freestanding body of water, without the assistance of: A platform A machine that provides thrust Ropes Optical illusionsThe Bible claims walking on water was done without assistance; I require science to perform in the same environment. Flight. This requires a reproducible method to make a naked human being leave the surface of the Earth without the assistance of any of the items mentioned in the previous point. Airplanes don't count: this is making a large piece of metal that holds people fly, not a person. I can't recall specific instances of flight in the Bible, bit if there are I'm sure they were claimed without assistance. Resurrection of the dead. "Dead" must mean a complete lack of brain activity, heart activity, breath, etc. "Back to life" must mean the person is able to function at least somewhat normally; "from death to endless coma" doesn't count. Bonus points if the person was dead for an extended period: Jesus was for 3 days.

Thanks for taking a really neat article, giving it a religious spin for fun, then looking like a dick though, I appreciate the effort.

[Beldaran]

Atma is not impressed with curing blindness because it's not as cool as his magic fairy tales.

http://www.gdargaud.net/Humor/Pics/Bible.jpg

[Dechipher]

Ha! Point proven. You are as much biased by your distaste of anything religious as any religious zealot is by their fanaticism. You can't even discuss the wonders of science without bashing religion; therefore any conclusion you come to is tainted by your disgust with religion, and so cannot be trusted.

Narrow-mindedness is a disease. I pity the souls who are stricken with it.

[Beldaran]

and so cannot be trusted.

You're right! I cannot be trusted to be illogical. I am only capable of rational thought.



Narrow-mindedness is a disease.

If reason is a disease, it doesn't appear to be half as virulent as delusion. I would rather be "infected" with rational thought than live in a delusional, primitive intellectual state.


I pity the souls who are stricken with it.

I am immune by virtue of not having a soul.

[Feasul]

Ok, so perhaps this surgery wasn't as impressive as the miracles described in the Bible, but I think it has the distinct advantage of being shown to be real. I mean, I will grant that we haven't seen science cause someone to make an invisible wall capable of parting a sea, or raise the dead, or make a planet pop into existence, but strictly speaking we haven't seen God do any of those things, either. We've been told that God did those things, but that's not quite the same.

Also, Bel, you do have a tendency to turn every discussion into an argument about religion. We get it, you don't like religion. How about we just step back and admire the fact that doctors have found a new, quicker way to drastically improve eyesight than years of corrective lenses.

[Dechipher]

You're right! I cannot be trusted to be illogical. I am only capable of rational thought.



If reason is a disease, it doesn't appear to be half as virulent as delusion. I would rather be "infected" with rational thought than live in a delusional, primitive intellectual state.



I am immune by virtue of not having a soul.

Singling out isolated parts of my post and responding in a condescending way with fairly unrelated jabs is definitely the rational way to make any sort of point.

[Icey]

Also, Bel, you do have a tendency to turn every discussion into an argument about religion. We get it, you don't like religion. How about we just step back and admire the fact that doctors have found a new, quicker way to drastically improve eyesight than years of corrective lenses.

I won't argue that Bel isn't always as elegant with his arguments concerning religion than he could be, and probably not even that he can be a little narrow minded. The fact is, though, this thread is not meant as a serious debate, and quite honestly, it's way more entertaining to see him be an ass about this (perhaps it's because I agree with him, though).

The thing is, if you want to see a well-argued defense of his beliefs regarding religion, there are a bajillion other threads where you can find it.

So carry on with the snide remarks, Bel. You know we all love it.

[DarkDragoonX]

tl;dr

That small bit of text qualifies as too long for you?

Wow. Just wow.

[Beldaran]

If you guys are coming to my threads for some serious info on atheism, then you suck at research. Read a good book by Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or any other great book on atheism for the top notch arguments. I'm just here to express my contempt for your childish unfounded delusions and to be as big a smart ass as I want. [as Icey so deftly pointed out!]

[Dechipher]

I have no delusions, sir, I merely find it childish to mock people with different beliefs than yours.

[Beldaran]

I have no delusions, sir, I merely find it childish to mock people with different beliefs than yours.

I am not mocking you because your beliefs are different. I am mocking you for having beliefs at all.

A belief is a mental error. A piece of knowledge created without the most important ingredient: evidence.

A belief is inferior to an idea in every way. A belief cannot be changed as easily as an idea. Beliefs cause wars. Ideas cause debate. You can't debate between beliefs because no belief is based on any evidence that can be compared. It is simply emotional delusion versus emotional delusion.

Beliefs are a mental smallness that our species will hopefully outgrow at some point in the distant future.

[Dechipher]

Um. I'm not sure if you've been paying attention, but I don't believe anything sir. I don't believe that there is anything 'out there' so to speak, but I don't believe that people who do think that are mindless idiots who deserve to be scoffed at and ridiculed everytime science does something. In the end, no one knows, but the widespread nature of religion causes me not to bother with it, because while it IS illogical to believe, it's also incredibly important to a lot of people, and can cause people to do a lot of things. I generally try to avoid messing with anything as explosive as that.

[Beldaran]

Hey, when I smell shit I plug my nose. I'm more sensitive than you to the aroma of destructive mind smut.

[Dechipher]

It's not destructive to me. I don't believe it. I don't see it being destructive to most people that I know. Regardless of whether I agree with it, I still respect other people's choice to do what they want. I also don't ridicule them for it. Somewhat in the way I don't ridicule homosexuals for liking what the like. That's their business. Same with religion. Not my business. Nor is it yours.

[phattonez]

Beliefs cause wars. Ideas cause debate.

Eugenics.

[rock_nog]

I have but two things to say on this topic; unfortunately for me, they have already been said by other people.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.

[Beldaran]

I don't see it being destructive to most people that I know.

http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/images/wtc-9-11.jpg



I still respect other people's choice to do what they want.

Really? (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/law/09/14/jeffs.trial/index.html)



Not my business. Nor is it yours.

By your logic, my contempt and disgust with religion is none of your business either, so why are you debating this with me? You should just be open minded to my attitude and accept that I have a perfectly legitimate stance. By your own logic, you should not be having this conversation with me.

[clubs you over head with your own reasoning]

[AtmaWeapon]

So, in short, you're a troll. Thanks for admitting it so I know to stop bothering. I still think it's silly to try and turn "science can kind of help out people with small maladies" into "science is performing Biblical miracles", but hey, whatever gets the most outrageous replies right?


Let me remind all citizens of the dangers of magical thinking.
We have scarcely begun to climb from the dark pit of our the evolution of our
species. Let us not slide backward into oblivion, just as we have finally
begun to see the light. If you see this so called free-man, report him.
Civic deeds do not go un-rewarded and likewise complicity with his cause will
not go un-punished. Be wise. Be safe. Be aware.

[rock_nog]

Oh see, now you're just making an ad hominem attack. You're implying that because Dr. Breen said that, and Dr. Breen is horribly evil, that what he said must also be evil. So? Hitler was a Christian. Does that make Christianity wrong, or Hitler right? Obviously, as an atheist, I would argue that, in fact, Christianity is wrong, but not on the grounds that Hitler was a Christian.

[Dechipher]

Because I knew the people who attacked the World Trade Center.
Regarding that link, THAT is just an example of the mentally deficient that happens to be disguised behind religion. If we were to pull that shit out, then mine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa would have just as much weight. Unfortunately, it's just a really nice woman disguised behind religion. So neither arguement of "this person did such and such so religion is good/bad" can hold up.
And lastly, when people needlessly attack the beliefs of others without at all appearing to try to understand, or at least admitting that YOU DONT KNOW and that YOU ARENT ALWAYS RIGHT and that as much as your system works for you, there may be another way, then it becomes my business. The world needs balance, and I am your balance.

Additionally, you continuously pick apart my posts and peck at the scraps, as opposed to taking them as a whole. I can only assume that you are admitting that my viewpoint is superior, and that you can find nothing substantial to refute, but must do something because you've dug yourself in this deep.

[Shazza Dani]

That small bit of text qualifies as too long for you?

Wow. Just wow.

The page he linked to? That was pretty long. I skimmed it.

[rock_nog]

And when religion is used to convince Catholics that birth control is a sin, thus contributing to the spread of AIDS and other STDs as well as the population crisis this planet is facing? What then? I mean, the issue of whether birth control is acceptable or not wouldn't even be raised without religion, so you can't say that it's good or evil hiding behind religion.

[phattonez]

Well abstinence is more effective, but a lot of people don't like it.

[Aliem]

So about the whole "guy was blind-ish but can now sort of see" thing. Neat.

[AtmaWeapon]

Oh see, now you're just making an ad hominem attack. You're implying that because Dr. Breen said that, and Dr. Breen is horribly evil, that what he said must also be evil. So? Hitler was a Christian. Does that make Christianity wrong, or Hitler right? Obviously, as an atheist, I would argue that, in fact, Christianity is wrong, but not on the grounds that Hitler was a Christian.No, I just found a nice parallel between the nature of Beldaran's mannerisms regarding religious thought and Dr. Breen's mannerisms regarding rebellion against the Combine. Dr. Breen promised enlightenment in exchange for parting with mankind's desire for freedom, and this has about as much to do with Beldaran promising enlightenment for joining his religion as guinea pigs have to do with Mario Kart.

I don't see why you're so incensed by my "ad hominem" which is nothing more than a restatement of Beldaran's words:
I'm just here to express my contempt for your childish unfounded delusions and to be as big a smart ass as I want.
An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.If Beldaran can use "witchcraft" and "magical fairy tales" to refer to religion in general, I can use "troll" to refer to "making multiple strong-opinioned posts about a controversial topic for the sake of starting heated arguments". At one time, I actually enjoyed posting against Beldaran because he put forth minimal effort at addressing my points. Now, he's playing Fred Phelps on the side of the athiests.

With respect to Hitler being a Christian, I have failed to find good evidence for or against it. What I do find is strongly biased sources presenting flawed evidence from either direction. If he believed he was a devout Christian, he didn't follow any Jesus I know of. I was going to point out some of the regimes that practiced state atheism, but after reading your post again I see you were just using hyperbole because you couldn't think of a better way to accuse me of attacking Beldaran with my bad analogy gun.

I do have a response to the picture of the attack on the WTC (the attack's connection to religion is easy to jump to, but there are many more complicated reasons why terrorists attack us as well):
http://students.umf.maine.edu/~donoghtp/Images.htm

Take a look at the aftermath of Hiroshima. How about Unit 731 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731), who worked in the name of science? We even granted them a special immunity from being prosecuted so that we could benefit from their research! No, I'm afraid that no system of belief (or non-belief, if you prefer I call it that) is untainted. Humans like to fight over resources and will use any justification they can, including but not limited to invisible friends and invisible (but detectable!) atoms that happen to form shiny metals. Sometimes it's invisible lines in the dirt, or invisible weapons that exist inside of boxes and might be there so we have to open the box with a missile to find out. Honestly it seems like we fight more over things we can't see than things we can.


And when religion is used to convince Catholics that birth control is a sin, thus contributing to the spread of AIDS and other STDs as well as the population crisis this planet is facing? What then? I mean, the issue of whether birth control is acceptable or not wouldn't even be raised without religion, so you can't say that it's good or evil hiding behind religion. Oh you posted this while I was posting. See, a good Catholic who follows everything the believe wouldn't have premarital or extramarital sex. This means that STDs can maybe spread to one other person, or their offspring. Any good Catholic who feels guilt for their sins would take having an STD as a sign to not have children, thus the STD would not spread. Of course, that is the ideal; the "if everyone did this then these problems would not exist". People break the rules, and the consequences of breaking them exist. Besides, how does birth control prevent AIDS anyway? Last I checked, you can get herpes through a condom and the pill isn't protecting anyone from anything. With respect to the population crisis and whether Catholics are to blame, how do you explain the overcrowding in India and China, regions where Hinduism, atheism, and Buddhism outnumber Catholicism by probably orders of magnitude?

No, the spread of STDs is caused by casual sex. Birth control does nothing to hinder it. Abstinence is an excellent means of control, as is celibacy.

The population crisis is caused by casual sex. Birth control helps, but is not always effective and the vast majority of the planet's population has no access to it. Abstinence is an excellent means of control, as is celibacy.

It sucks when a bunch of men living in huts several thousand years ago come up with a strategy more effective than dozens of years of research, doesn't it?

[rock_nog]

Well abstinence is more effective, but a lot of people don't like it.
Kinda like how not driving is a lot safer than wearing a seatbelt. But you're not gonna demand that all seatbelts be removed from cars or anything to encourage people to walk.

[Beldaran]

Because I knew the people who attacked the World Trade Center.

I was under the impression that you knew some Americans.



Regarding that link, THAT is just an example of the mentally deficient

Oh I AGREE. Same with Mother Theresa.



And lastly, when people needlessly attack the beliefs of others without at all appearing to try to understand, or at least admitting that YOU DONT KNOW and that YOU ARENT ALWAYS RIGHT and that as much as your system works for you, there may be another way, then it becomes my business. The world needs balance, and I am your balance.

There doesn't need to be a balance between realistic and delusional. There doesn't need to be a balance between smart and stupid. But if you want to stand on the stupid side and try to hold up their end, then have at it.

[AtmaWeapon]

Kinda like how not driving is a lot safer than wearing a seatbelt. But you're not gonna demand that all seatbelts be removed from cars or anything to encourage people to walk.Bad analogy. Seat belts stop you from flying out of the car, a common cause of death in accidents. One could argue that some deaths are caused by becoming entangled in seat belts, but that's nitpicking.

Let's make the easy comparison and see if it was a good analogy:

Seat belt: prevents death or severe injury in the most common accidents.
Condom: Prevents a few STDs and usually prevents pregnancy.
The Pill: Does nothing for STDs and rarely fails.
Morning-after: Does nothing for STDs and I have no idea on its failure rate.
Pulling out early: Does nothing for most STDs and can fail for various reasons
Celibacy: Pregnancy is impossible barring divine intervention or if you are in a Michael Crichton book; STDs are only possible via other bodily fluid contact.
Abstinence: Pregnancy happens when you expect it. STDs can spread slowly but hopefully we select away from infected individuals.

Seat belts make a decent analogy to condoms, but when we consider other means of birth control seat belts fall flat.

[rock_nog]

Well yes, but primarily, I'm referring to condoms, because they prevent the spread of STDs. And for the record, I was not "incensed" by your comparison of Beldaran to Dr. Breen. You were taking me way too seriously. Though I do fail to see what was wrong with Breen's basic message, that magical thinking is bad.

[AtmaWeapon]

I guess the answer to whether magical thinking is bad or not depends on if you are David Blaine or something.

Still, your belief in condoms is troubling.
http://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.htm

The surest way to avoid transmission of sexually transmitted diseases is to abstain from sexual intercourse, or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.
[...]
Epidemiologic studies that compare infection rates among condom users and nonusers provide evidence that latex condoms can protect against the transmission of chlamydia, gonorrhea and trichomoniasis. However, some other epidemiologic studies show little or no protection against these infections. Many of the available epidemiologic studies were not designed or conducted in ways that allow for accurate measurement of condom effectiveness against the discharge diseases. More research is needed to assess the degree of protection latex condoms provide for discharge diseases, other than HIV.
[...]
A number of studies, however, do show an association between condom use and a reduced risk of HPV-associated diseases, including genital warts, cervical dysplasia and cervical cancer. The reason for lower rates of cervical cancer among condom users observed in some studies is unknown.They do their best to make sure you know using a condom is a good idea, but for everything except HIV the wording is carefully chosen because the research is conflicting and they don't want to say either way until they're sure.

It's more accurate to say condom's probably prevent the spread of STDs. In general, it's not wise to encourage those with STDs to have sex, because accidents happen.

[rock_nog]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

And look, I'm just saying, sex with a condom is a risk, yes, but a reasonable risk. We face all kinds of risks in our daily lives that we simply accept. I mean, every time I eat a hamburger, I run the risk of food poisoning, especially if it's a burger I didn't cook myself, and yet that doesn't discourage me from eating hamburgers. Let's face it, the fact that the risk involved with sex is such a thorny issue is not because the risks are so much greater than the risks associated with other activities that we regularly engage in, but because sex outside of the context of marriage is considered taboo.