I think one good thing to come out of Dawkin's and Hitchens' books and the attention it brought to atheism is that many more people feel free to voice their dis-belief than did before. Even though their thoughts and points weren't original to them, their relative fame has made dissent easier. Groups are popping up all around my city (Fort Wayne Freethought!), and this is the freaking City of Churches for christ's sake.
I really don't see what you describe in Freethinker's responses... He's simply asking for evidence to back up claims. But I see your rhetorical strategy is basically to accuse him of what he accuses others of doing, which may be effective but is not exactly true. With you being as familiar with the scientific process as you claim to be, then you certainly understand that theories are constantly subjected to efforts to disprove them and that new knowledge is continually being factored during the process, whereas religious knowledge is static and not subjected to new evidence. In that way, science is vastly more open-minded than theology could ever hope to be.
Well put, Nukstick. I don't think Mr. Kling's story is one of medical miracles and the love of a deity, but rather one of arrogance and opportunism. To believe that one has been chosen to survive a horrible disease over all others who have died speaks to a pathology that is quite disturbing if you analyze it. I do wonder how this story would be different if people saw the day-to-day human suffering that you do. And thanks for your service.
Being open-minded does not imply that one can't be critical, especially after the evidence for the existence of a deity has been weighed and discussed for centuries and is still inconclusive (because it can't be proven or disproven, just like the existence of unicorns can't). And I think we are beginning to understand the neurological basis for faith, although the research is still in its infancy and no serious conclusions can really be drawn. But I suspect that this research would have little bearing on the faith of religious people, because most are too busy using theology to justify their pre-existing prejudices.
The arrogance implied in the statement "we all know better" is pretty staggering. No, actually, we "all" don't. A quick intro to epistemology will tell you that we actually do not know much at all for sure, and the little we do know was arrived at through experimentation and observation, not revealed truth. If we still relied on revealed truth to settle things, a person with cancer would probably be stoned to death for having a demon inside. You say that god gave scientists their brains, let me just say that I'm glad we used those brains to realize how much we don't need deities to explain our world anymore.
I think it's fantastic that this man is cancer free due to the efforts of a talented group of individuals who have gained significant knowledge and skills through the scientific process and have used those skills to heal others. That Mr. Kling credits his healing to a miracle is actually disrespectful to the multitude of people who have died from cancer, and it seems to me that his intention is to use his story to start a career as a faith guru and profit from his situation. I don't think its a surprise that Mr. Kling is in sales and marketing. Not that this is new, of course, people have always preferred miraculous stories to the mundane details of life.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Opus