Talk:Christian Science/Archive 1

Christian Science Given the following definitions, I would like to know how it is that one could consider the name an oxymoron?

Christian: Following the teachings or manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus Christ.

Science: Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain (as in Christian Science the healing of sin, disease or death)

Seems pretty straightforward. I see no "Pseudoscience" as is depicted by the "misinformed" and obviously hateful author of this article.

Many documented and verified (thousands upon thousands) healings exist to substantiate the claims of Christian Science and I might add, not JUST Christian Science but also SCIENTIFICALLY and other religious beliefs as well.

Why is there such a big deal made out of the "casualties" of Christian Science anyhow when in fact there are millions of people dying each year under conventional medical care? The original article written is only written in spite and has no backing whatsoever.

Is the Nancy Brewster article all you can come up with? The article that is written about Nancy does NOT depict a true Christian Scientist as they are taught to be in Christian Science. Perhaps I should list the millions of casualties caused by conventional medical care that far outweigh the handful of Christian Science? Does this site allow for several million pages full of names and cases? ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.95.5.89 / talk / contribs}

Okay, now that the meta issues are resolved. Let us take a look at what you are saying. First of all your definition of science is certainly not one that is accepted generally. Science is usually defined as the body of knowledge derived from using the scientific method, or the act of deriving knowledge using the scientific method. There are also important ideas such as falsifiability and peer review that are important to the proccess if not the definition.

Can you provide some of the scientific evidence you claim to have, of a single case, just one, is all I need, where Christian Science provided a cure for an illness? tmtoulouse 18:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Christian Science isn't killing millions of people because, luckily, they can't get their hands on millions of people. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 12:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proofs

Before I address your request, I would also like you to provide proof of what your article states about CS. The Nancy Brewster article is no proof whatsoever. I have read the Science and Health twice and listened to it on audiobook all the way through 5 times, so I am well versed in how it operates and how it REALLY is supposed to be practiced, and I can assure you, the Nancy Brewster article shows some "wackos" that thought they were using CS and were definitely not. Mrs. Eddy clearly declares that if one feels they need medicine they should use it until they can understand better. And I might add I have studied many other religions wherein prayer is used and those too are almost always vastly misinterpreted and abused just like CS.

You will also notice that I not only defended CS but also other religions and the scientific community that has also done experiments to prove the power and effectiveness of prayer. Your "opinion" about the correct definition of science is only your opinion because from the latest dictionary (2008) I have sitting in front of me also shows the definition I provided as an acceptable one (and in all fairness) in addition to the one you state.

As to scientific proof.... perform a google search and you will see that there are thousands upon thousands of people, healed not only by CS but by other religious beliefs as well, which were in fact verified by competent medical doctors as healings of real conditions (the conditions being also verified) as compared to a handful of failures in CS and any other religion. Now look at the millions every year (and you did not deny this) that die at the hands of regularly accepted medical practice. A medical doctors opinions should suffice as "scientific" evidence. There are also several books filled with verified (in the same manner) healings.

[[1]]

Documented scientific proof (more scientific for you that is), exists for many experiments done where a group of people pray for peace (for example) and there are scientifically measurable differences in levels of violence, crime and illnesses while the prayers were taking place. Now this stuff is more I'm sure of what you're looking for, but I want to state that a medical doctor's opinion is also considered "scientific". And this "scientific" proof is easy to find.

Just one of many examples you can google:

[[2]]

Here's more:

[[3]]

Now, look in the obituaries of any newspaper and go to the hospitals and view the records and I can assure you that there are many many of those that could have had something different done that could have saved their lives (even adding prayer to treatment), but... no one says anything about those cases, or at least hardly at all. Even in my small town, we've all heard about the local hospital's "mistakes", but those are brushed off. But.... heaven forbid someone should attempt to heal by prayer and it fails, and all of sudden it's a national crisis.

The whole truth behind any of this is that there is scientific proof that shows "beliefs" and not merely the religious followings that heal people, so I not only stick up for CS but any religion that believes in the healings through prayer. It's just that this article points the finger at CS exclusively.

Now please, provide me with proof that backs your claims in your article. It appears the evidence is just not there. Your article is merely an opinion and an accusation without merit. Just a minor point made here but, googling links to stories for those who die at the hands of doctors = 53,100,000 links as compared to those who died from religious causes = 14,400,000 links.

Here's the ones for those who died from the general medical practices:

[[4]]

Once again, please provide your proofs now to back up your article because as I said above, Nancy Brewster's Mother, family or the alleged Practitioner obviously had no understanding whatsoever about CS.

And, if I made a mistake here (it was a lot to write) I will correct it. However, I stand firmly when I say that CS is definitely not a Pseudoscience. If it is, then so is conventional medicine. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.95.5.89 / talk / contribs}

Now hang on a second, lets slow it down a bit, you are pushing a strategy known as the Gish gallop, where you throw as much as you possibly can at the discussion and say "here this is proof." The amount of time/effort needed to debunk one of your examples far exceeds the amount of time needed to claim it as proof. As such I can only address a small fraction of what you toss out, and then you can claim that all the things I didn't address prove I you are right.

I am not here to argue the relative merits of conventional medicine, right now we are addressing christian science, pray, and other spiritual "healing." Even if conventional medicine was a giant scam, that does not prove the validity of your proposed alternatives. Those things must stand and fall on the merits of the evidence for them. Not the merits of real medicine. Also the no true Scotsman approach you are applying to defend against Nancy Brewster's mother doesn't really fly either. But realize that you are making a positive claim here so you need evidence to back up your claim, not arguing against the lack of evidence against it.

The important bit about our definition of science is it helps to establish what counts for evidence. Evidence are things that have gone through predictions, testing, and replication. Things that do not count as evidence: random anecdotes on google, testimonials, statements from "experts," etc. This is not a body of evidence that is scientific. There are many reasons for it, such as the fact that people lie, the placebo effect, confirmation bias, etc.

So how about this, you pick what you think is the absolute strongest example of evidence that there is some validity to spiritual healing. Once you have picked this one piece of evidence I will go out and review it and offer my thoughts on it. At which point, if it fails to live up to proof, you can provide another piece of evidence. And we can continue this till you don't want to do it anymore, you run out of evidence, or perhaps you manage to prove you are right and I am convinced. tmtoulouse 20:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can address that google-fu stuff on doctors killing people ("googling links to stories for those who die at the hands of doctors = 53,100,000 links") because it's just too damn easy. For a start, most people in the western world (which is the predominant contributor to the internet thus far) will rely on evidence-based, i.e., conventional, medicine. Far fewer will rely on alternative medicine. So, even if the "number of google hits" was acceptable "evidence" (and I can't believe I even have to think it is even for the sake of argument) the numbers are unreliable. For it to be any indication, you'd have to know the number of people using alternatives to mainstream medince. 52 million links vs 14 million. Now, assume google links are proportional to actual deaths (they're not, for multiple reasons), for this to show that prayer and whatnot kill fewer people, this would mean that at least a quarter as people should rely on alternative medicine as mainstream medicine, otherwise, as a proportion, it will be higher. Not that this matters, as the point is useless on many, many levels. But I thought I'd poop shoot the easy stuff first. I'm looking forward to something more definitive, preferably double-blind and controlled (and no special pleading, these are the only terms) to look over. ^gnostic 21:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, these two search terms are far more useful to try: [5] [6] ^gnostic 21:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Google fights Q.E.D. It is a bit of reversal of the standard Argumentum ad Google ranking, though I am starting to wonder if this concept might deserve to be upgraded out of fun and made into a real article.

I agree with all that you said, I just tried to avoid getting into it. My many, many wasted hours of debates has taught me that you can not win these kind of gish gallop wars without getting the person to zero in on specific evidence for their positive claims. Otherwise you get lost in the non-sequiturs and never get out. tmtoulouse 21:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, the second piece in the first Google search gives a Washington Post article that states:

“”But these and other studies have been called deeply flawed. They were, for example, analyzed in the most favorable way possible, looking at so many outcomes that the positive findings could easily have been the result of chance, critics say. "It's called the sharpshooter's fallacy," said Richard Sloan, a behavioral researcher at Columbia University. "The sharpshooter empties the gun into the side of a barn and then draws the bull's-eye. In science, you have to predict in advance what effect you may have."

—here

Sterile lava 21:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Moar ironically, because of the googling without quote marks, I saw this summary on the first page of links: "A DOCTOR who examined Gloria Thomas three months before she died from ... for their baby's death because they shunned conventional medical ..." So this search surely contains every death by prayer that uses the word "doctor" in any way. Sheesh... ħuman 22:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know we had anything like "argumentum ad google" or whatever, but since we've seen it in use, it's definitely worth looking at in more detail. It seems to go far beyond CP's ranking obsession. ^gnostic 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Still waiting on your proof

And I quote you: "The important bit about our definition of science is it helps to establish what counts for evidence. Evidence are things that have gone through predictions, testing, and replication."

You are (without realizing it), sticking your foot in your mouth by writing that article and then making that statement I just quoted. I provided a very small body of evidence and yet you still cannot validate your article which anyone with half a brain can see is nothing more than a poke at Christian Science without being properly researched.

Your only evidence thus far has been the Brewster article and as I stated, I know the Science and Health inside and out and I can assure you that those people were not Christian Scientists. They vastly misunderstood what Mrs. Eddy taught, so your article remains a worthless rant without "evidence" yet you want me to provide evidence?

Alas, once again here's something a little simpler for you to digest; three books, full of evidence of healings, with medical doctors providing their written testimonies and I might add not only doctors but people of many upstanding positions in society both past and present, and that is not "Gish gallop":

A Century of Christian Science Healing, Spiritual Healing in a Scientific Age (which provides affidavits of numerous healings in which the disease had been medically diagnosed and the healings medically confirmed ((and not just simple diseases but ones such as spinal meningitis, cancers, tuberculosis, and many more)) and finally Healing Spiritually.. And, this is only 3 books of many that you can borrow from a local library, so check them out.

I might also point out that there have been some documentaries done on television where prayer was studied under more "scientific" scrutiny more to your liking and it was shown to be effective although I cannot recall off hand what those were. If I remember then I will direct you to those too. I personally don't need to see anything beyond all of what I have provided to you to believe in it, albeit as much as I stand up for Christian Science I am not a Christian Scientist myself. I have however known many that were and I have seen things for myself which was proof enough for me. Although I honestly do not and never did understand the need to see "air" in order to believe in it.

So, once again I offer more proof. Somehow though I suspect this will not be adequate. You ask for one piece and I give you a whole pie. I see no sense in providing anything else and therefore rest my case, although I still await your evidence. So come on now, let's be fair. You have an article to defend and so far it's me = 2 and you = 0. It's your turn. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.95.5.49 / talk / contribs}

In order to demonstrate that your dismissal of the Nancy Brewster case is not a No True Scotsman, perhaps you can cite something Mrs. Eddy said that the Brewster family flouted, with the effect that Nancy remained ill.

Also, do not cite books brought out by the Church of Christ, Scientist to demonstrate the veracity of the church's position; one can go and check the Bible and two commentaries out from the local library, but that does not demonstrate the truth of young Earth creationism. ListenerX^TalkerX 14:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You have failed to provide any evidence at all, nothing, nada, zip. You talk in terms of vague generalities, and citing 3 books "full of examples" is a classic Gish Gallop. The amount of time needed to refute every case in the book far, far exceeds the time needed for you to say "Look in that book!" I will give you one more chance, pick the single best example of spiritual healing that I can go and examine the evidence for. Continued refusal to do that, and more attempts at obfuscation will likely just lead to me given up.

As for Nancy Brewster case, as ListenerX has stated, you are making a positive claim that her mother is not a "true" Christian Scientist. Can you provide specific examples of things she said and did that could make your case? There should be a common theme at this point in our conversation, if you make a positive claim, we ask you to provide evidence for it. Pro-tip: Regardless of how much evidence we provide, or don't provide, our relative lack of evidence does not count as evidence for your claim. I tell you this truthfully, what you put on this page can change the article content. If you provide a coherent argument, with evidence, I am more than willing to rewrite any of this. tmtoulouse 16:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

And there you have it folks....

And now a third time you are unable to defend your article. Not unlike anyone else I have successfully shut down when I defend CS.

Anyhow...

I cite those books (and one of them was NOT published by the CS Library which shows once again your lack of proper research. I can assure you that you did not in fact go borrow or read anything in those books, because if you did you would clearly see the verification process is quite stringent for submitting testimonies. Once again you judge without facts as your article so eloquently proves.

As for you continued ignorance of my requests (obviously everyone can see you have absolutely no knowledge of anything you claim to know about CS so I'm really wasting my time here) but.... I present what Mrs. Eddy said in Science and Health (per your request) that the Brewster's and the alleged practitioner were not authentic Christian Scientists.

In the Brewster article it mentions about Nancy being made to exercise and forced to eat. In S&H it states:

Christian Scientist's medicine is Mind (and I should add "Mind" is God in CS), the divine Truth that makes man free. A Christian Scientist never recommends material hygiene, never manipulates. He does not trespass on the rights of mind (mind is lower cased thus meaning human mind) nor can he practice animal magnetism or hypnotism.

There was obviously a great deal of manipulation going on with Nancy.

It also states:

In order to cure his patient, the metaphysician must first cast moral evils out of himself and thus attain the spiritual freedom which will enable him to cast physical evils out of his patient; but heal he cannot, while his own spiritual barrenness debars him from giving drink to the thirsty and hinders him from reaching his patient's thought,-- yea, while mental penury chills his faith and understanding. Obviously there was a great deal of cruelty going on with Nancy and it was NOT CS being practiced properly.

Here is more against the Brewster article. It appears from the article that the disease was given attention to thus once again NOT following CS properly:

Avoid talking illness to the patient. Make no unnecessary inquiries relative to feelings or disease. Never startle with a discouraging remark about recovery, nor draw attention to certain symptoms as unfavorable, avoid speaking aloud the name of the disease. Never say beforehand how much you have to contend with in a case, nor encourage in the patient's thought the expectation of growing worse before a crisis is passed.

And more:

Is it skillful or scientific surgery to take no heed of mental conditions and to treat the patient as if she were so much mindless matter, and as if matter were the only factor to be consulted?

And even more:

When you manipulate patients, you trust in electricity and magnetism more than in Truth; and for that reason, you employ matter rather than Mind. You weaken or destroy your power when you resort to any except spiritual means. Obviously they employed more than spiritual means.

And even more:

It is foolish to declare that you manipulate patients but that you lay no stress on manipulation. If this be so, why manipulate? In reality you manipulate because you are ignorant of the baneful effects of magnetism, or are not sufficiently spiritual to depend on Spirit. In either case you must improve your mental condition till you finally attain the understanding of Christian Science.

And even more:

If hypocrisy, stolidity, inhumanity, or vice finds its way into the chambers of disease through the would-be healer, it would, if it were possible, convert into a den of thieves the temple of the Holy Ghost,--the patient's spiritual power to resuscitate himself. The unchristian practitioner is not giving to mind or body the joy and strength of Truth. Which the alleged practitioner and the mother were very guilty of.

And I quote from the Brewster article:

Both her mother and the practitioner believed that Nancy was just being stubborn. Her mother sometimes even beat Nancy and blamed her for not getting healed.

From S&H addressing the above:

Argue at first mentally, not audibly, that the patient has no disease, and conform the argument so as to destroy the evidence of disease.

When Nancy was obviously not being healed, the Practitioner should have known to drop the case as is evidenced by what Mrs. Eddy states here:

If patients fail to experience the healing power of Christian Science, and think they can be benefited by certain ordinary physical methods of medical treatment, then the Mind-physician should give up such cases, and leave invalids free to resort to whatever other systems they fancy will afford relief. The mother, being the adult, should have known this and especially the practitioner. The practitioner should have suggested she seek medical help. It would not be the first time any practitioner has done so, and wouldn't be the last.

The mother was way off as evidenced by this simple statement from S&H:

f the case is that of a young child or an infant, it needs to be met mainly through the parent's thought, silently or audibly on the aforesaid basis of Christian Science.

And although I could give you countless more evidence, here is one that even a complete non-christian (or true scientist) can understand and proves how silly the Brewster article is:

Sickness is neither imaginary nor unreal,--that is, to the frightened, false sense of the patient. Sickness is more than fancy; it is solid conviction. It is therefore to be dealt with through right apprehension of the truth of being. If Christian healing is abused by mere smatterers in Science, it becomes a tedious mischief-maker. Instead of scientifically effecting a cure, it starts a petty crossfire over every cripple and invalid, buffeting them with the superficial and cold assertion, "Nothing ails you."

The mother had Nancy exercising. Mrs. Eddy states:

The discord which calls for material methods is the result of the exercise of faith in material modes,--faith in matter instead of in Spirit. The mother was "mixing" her own beliefs which obviously Mrs. Eddy states is not CS. Nowhere does Mrs. Eddy say to exercise.

To prove that statement I offer the following from S&H:

We hear it said: "I exercise daily in the open air. I take cold baths, in order to overcome a predisposition to take cold; and yet I have continual colds, catarrh, and cough." Such admissions ought to open people's eyes to the inefficacy of material hygiene, and induce sufferers to look in other directions for cause and cure. Jesus never taught that drugs, food, air, and exercise could make a man healthy, or that they could destroy human life; nor did he illustrate these errors by his practice. He referred man's harmony to Mind, not to matter, and never tried to make of none effect the sentence of God, which sealed God's condemnation of sin, sickness, and death.

In closing, I will point out that your 1 piece of evidence as compared to my many doesn't hold water because of the plethora of evidence I have produced, once again at your request. You on the other hand have spent no time proving your article to be fact but have shown me and anyone else that it was definitely not researched at all. Pulling opinions from the internet is not research. What I have done is. I am asking once more (and finally), please provide proof for your side of it, but I truly believe you won't, because you can't.

By the way, I had a friend of mine who writes articles (and has for over 30 years, ((and gets paid handsomely for it I might add)) read your article. He pointed out a large lack of credible evidence in your article (as I not being a writer pointed out), saying that if he wrote something like that he would have been fired.

Before you respond, I truly hope you actually read everything this time. Other than that, case closed I'd say. 3 - 0

Well. It seems that the size of your contributions is increasing exponentially. You will be crashing the Wiki next!

1. You continue to practice dishonest debate tactics; only those who wish no debate consistently attempt to stop a debate before they have obtained a concession from their opponents.
2. If someone applies the principles of Christian Science and it does not produce the expected results, the principles have by definition been misapplied? Sounds like a No True Scotsman to me!
3. Also, in what sense is a book by Robert Peel, one of the Church of Christ, Scientist's most prominent spokesmen, not a book brought out by the Church of Christ, Scientist? ListenerX^TalkerX 18:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, one more thing......

Honestly I could care less if you remove or edit your article or the Nancy Brewster one. You're asking for stuff that not even the world's greatest Scientist could provide other than anything I have already provided. I already typed in a crapload of evidence and certainly am not going to get out the books and type more. If you were honestly "scientific" you would take the time to read rather than judge.

In order to prove anything, I have to cite that which proves the point so when you say "it's over" if I do, and you still do not offer your side, then you basically really stuck your foot in your mouth and anyone that reads your article and sees what I offer here is going to side with me more than with you (unless they're your friends or acquaintances).

Your article obviously makes you look bad and you don't care and that's fine with me. It makes you angry because i can provide points of proof and you can't and that too is fine with me. I had my say and provided my proof. You provided absolutely zilch and everyone can see that because it is blatantly obvious.

Case definitely closed.

I will review the material on Nancy Brewster, but you need to role back your ego about 20 notches or so, your posts are full of logical fallacies and non-sequiturs, and you have failed to meet what I consider to be a basic level of argument. The reason I haven't addressed specific claims you have made is you avoid specific claims like the plague, and rely and generalities instead. I offered you an opportunity to defend that CS was anything but pseudoscience of the worst sort, I explained to you how you could go about doing that, several times. Instead you relied on rhetorical techniques designed to make debate impossible, then you declare victory. None of this really reflects positively on you, or your "arguments." At this point, as I have said, I will review what you have strung together about the Nancy Brewster case, but your limited ability to address these issues in a coherent, fair and rational manner will likely greatly reduce any potential impact you could have had. Now, if you choose to role back your ego and actually want to address this issue in a real and substantive manner I would be glad to continue you this. But I am done responding to your tirades of fallacies, feel free to declare yourself the victor once more....tmtoulouse 18:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actual improvement of this article

The mega-tirades of the bunch of numbers not-withstanding, this subject does deserve a much better article. Maybe the talk page activity will motivate people to do some expansion on the subject? tmtoulouse 18:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree, although it's not exactly my area of expertise. We should probably just ignore the BON because it's going completely cyclic and unconstructive. Should I whack the WP template on for now? It's certainly the kind of article that it's meant to be used on as we're hardly going to take a balanced look at it (although it certainly will be a fair one). ^gnostic 00:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And you have done the same without realizing it

Actually, you have done exactly what Ann Coulter and people like her do all the time. In other words, demand so much of everyone else and skirt your way around the initial point and repeat yourself never actually answering.

You gave up never proving your point or justifying your article and never answered questions given you. Like I said, anyone that reads all this will side with me and I have no ego to roll back because I am confident on what I have offered and there is a vast difference between ego and confidence.

I gave sufficient proof, offered by doctors and (I might add) scientists (if you took the time to read the books or even portions thereof you'd see this) which is sufficient proof in itself and since some was by scientists, is obviously acceptable by the scientific community. You are asking for more than what is acceptable. I was only asking for one thing from you and never got it.

I second this notion, Michael Jackson's conversion to Islam was obvious and we should not disrespect his faith by not mentioning it in this article, here are ten sources and his brother is a Muslim so please fix this.71.193.206.116 19:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) If you dislike our demands, quit smearing your logorrheic caterwauling all over the Wiki; nobody is compelling you to remain here. ListenerX^TalkerX 19:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The lurkers support me in p-mail! tmtoulouse 20:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I haven't had a chance to link didactic megalomania in a while either. tmtoulouse 20:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the first time I have read this talk page but I'm afraid BoN's arguments are an epic fail. Not once has s/he come up with a single case as asked for that would stand up to scrutiny (just one case, not dozens, so the Coulter comparison is invalid). Even the Catholic church requires a thorough investigation before they will declare a miracle at Lourdes and over 150 years they have credited just 66 cases with a miracle verdict. Over 70,000 people visit Lourdes every year and yet the success rate is about one every 2.5 years. With all the intense and earnest praying that must go on there, this is a staggeringly low rate of success. Even when an alleged miracle does occur it doesn't mean that it has been the result of intercessory prayer and we cannot rule out the placebo effect in every case. If scientific medicine had the same success rate as Lourdes it would deserve to be criticised but given the number of people involved the odds are in favour of getting successful medical treatment from trained professionals than relying on some religious credo. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 20:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh....

So now I'm a lurker because you cannot validate your claims? LMAO... Whatever. Like I said I could give a rats behind what you do with the article or this talk section. And anyone that knows anything about IP addreses knows that many users can have the same IP address. Sheesh.... I mean come on.

I'm still waiting for the proof you cannot provide. Really, I see only 2 people that sided with you and most likely you had to call them in. Whatever. My 11 year old daughter is smarter than anything you or your 2 buddies have come back with. I do find it funny that you would need back up though and I need none. And when you cannot defend your silly article then you resort to calling me a lurker.

Whatever. I'm through arguing with children.

And anyone who actually knows what "lurker" means would know that we are not calling you one... ListenerX^TalkerX 20:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for proof that CS is a Pseudoscience and an oxymoron. Remember, 1 ignorant article is hardly proof. I continue to await the proof or any kind of intelligent answer. I played fair now put your money where your mouth is.

An intelligent answer, sadly, requires an intelligent question. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I will try one more time, pseudoscience is having the trappings of science but none of the substance. Christian Science makes all kinds of claims that is says are scientific, but it provides no acceptable evidence to back up those claims. It does not subject itself to any kind of experimental, controlled testing, it doesn't make falsifiable predictions, it doesn't offer concrete causal theories or explanations. That is why. You can disprove my statement above by showing me where CS offers this evidence, or even better, to show me what directly what evidence there is that is "scientific." I am looking for an example a "miracle" if you will, that can be verified by uninvolved disinterested parties. I am looking for evidence that is not testimonial or anecdotal. Ideally, you can show me an example of a double-blind, controlled experiment submitted to peer review. If CS stood up to that kind of scrutiny, it would not be pseudoscience.

As I have explained multiple times, I don't play rhetorical games, and tactics like the Gish gallop will merely be met with scorn. Find me one example that meets any of the criteria I have laid out, and if it is a valid example I will admit that CS is not pseudoscience. tmtoulouse 20:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

---

Okay, one more time for me...... as for ListenerX, your comments have nothing to do with this topic other than to slander me. Your ignorance is apparently your virtue in life. I asked a basic intelligent question about proving how CS is a Psuedoscience and an oxymoron. What is so NOT intelligent about that?

To tmtoulouse; apparently verified healings with affidavits from doctors and scientists is not proof enough for you. Also, you may want to pay attention to the time period in which CS was first discovered and realize that the word science and it's meaning have undergone some changes over the past hundred or more years. Back then it was likely much more relevant, but time changes things and meanings as in the word "gay". Do you see what I'm saying here? What would it benefit the church to change the name now? Even so, Science still holds the meaning I addressed and therefor the name is basically still relevant.

The books I cited, especially the one by Robert Peel (which was not published by the CS Publishing Society) provides the proof you ask for. I honestly do not want to sit here and type it out, so please go borrow the book and you will see that it does in fact address your concerns. And be sure your buddies accusing me of providing you nothing do the same so that they can address this issue intelligently and quit slandering me with terms they have to get out of dictionaries in order to do so.

Without even looking at the books I mentioned how can you even accuse it of not proving what you're looking for? Come on, let's be fair about this. And all the stuff I quoted from the Science and health by Mrs. Eddy does prove that the Brewster mother and her alleged practitioner were nothing more than screwed up people that gave CS a bad name. I honestly fail to see how that is not proof in itself when it came straight from the horses mouth.

please now. Provide me with your verifiable evidence of your claim. I have given you plenty and your angry buddies are quite wrong in their accusations that I have not.

You might get a (very) slightly more positive response to your many, varied, and slightly hysterical claims if you had the common courtesy to sign you posts.--Bob^{bing up} 21:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(EC) What was there in your extensive quotes that could not be applied to any other case of Christian Science principles failing? I refer specifically to the paragraph containing the phrase "...the metaphysician must first cast moral evils out of himself..."

How about picking your favorite case from one of the books and providing a summary here? Are you concerned that if you get any more specific your claims will be shown up for what they are? ListenerX^TalkerX 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No, citing a book and saying "it is filled with what you want to see" isn't going to work. Pick the best example out of that book and tell it too me and I will go look at the evidence for that example. Remember, statements, testimonial, anecdotal evidence, no matter who it is from is not evidence. Do not cite "so so says he saw a miracle" even if it is a "doctor" or "scientist." We need something that has actual evidence. I don't have to provide evidence for my claim, because I am making stating that something doesn't exist (in this case evidence of miracles). I can not provide evidence for the lack of something, you must provide evidence that it exist. tmtoulouse 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been following this thread with interest, but mostly only in Tmtoulouse's clarity and facility in talking about science and the scientific method. To state it charitably, Tmtoulouse is taking it easy on you. You've yet to provide any scientific evidence of CS's claims, and indeed seem to have a flawed understanding of what counts as science. I suggest you take Tmtoulouse up on his offer to evaluate one piece of evidence of CS's claims. Referring to "verified healings with affidavits from doctors and scientists" without citation is useless. Anecdotal "evidence" is anecdotal. It's not evidence. That's why we have the scientific method, which begins with a good idea and falsifiable predictions subjected to controlled experiments. Referring to a book with a self-serving characterization of its contents is also useless. It's not our burden to go borrow a book, read it, and make your arguments for you. If you're going to make positive claims, you've got to back them up. So go for it - give one single piece of scientific evidence backing CS's claims and everything else will fall into place. Barring that, someone here that cares will get around to writing a better CS article, or not, and you'll go on your merry way to defend CS and hone your debating skills somewhere else. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 21:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Who cares about "science" or "evidence" when you have people being healed and the divine word of God?

Prove a single person has been healed by the divine word of god and I'll buy you 10 internets. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 22:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hell, at this point, I would settle for evidence that could actually be reviewed....tmtoulouse 22:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

According to Christian Science neither of are really here. Accordingly, evidence or, for that matter, signatures, are irrelevant.

(I think the latest two unsigned posts are a different BON taking the piss) ħuman 22:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Once again into the breach

Obviously you're too lazy to do anything for yourself nor any one of your buddies will either. Minds like yours are unfortunate since the cure for cancer can stare you in the face and you will never know it since you are so closed minded.

You had to call in a bunch of people to stand behind you and cannot stand on your own. I stood on my own and I'm satisfied. The evidence you want is there anytime you' re ready to take a stand, read it and be a man about admitting your mistake in writing your fallacy. Until then, enjoy your life cutting down things you know nothing about. You failed to prove anything other than you have a dictionary on your lap as you're typing and can bullshit fairly well. At least I don't need anyone to stand behind me. None of you are scientists, you're nothing but wannabees. - Bob

Well, Bob. I'm sure you guess that we respectfully disagree. Why don't you make an account to carry on the good fight? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 00:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Bob, I am disappointed, though not surprised, by your tactics. Pressed to provide specific evidence for your claims, and not hand wavy generalities you start in on the ad hominem attacks. I will give you a 100 million to 1 odds that the "cure for cancer" is going to be discovered by scientist, following the scientific method, working with in peer-reviewed literature, and not through prayer, bleeding statues, magic dirt, or any other "miracle." When your mind is so open it falls out, you get lost in what "feels good" and what you "want to believe" instead of learning about the real world. The real world, discovered through careful observation and controlled experiments, is far more wonderful and exciting than the make believe world you structure around yourself because you are too prideful to not want to admit that you are not the special creation of an all powerful being. You are missing a lot.

Everyone who came to this page and wrote to you did so on their own accord, not everything in life is a vast conspiracy. And finally, I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the credentials of this group. I am pretty sure almost everyone on this page could easily out credential you. Some of us are scientist and have work published in relevant fields. However, you should note, that none of us smeared our credentials across this page as a way to prove we are some how correct. Ideas stand or fall upon the evidence, not the person making the argument. You could learn a lot, and have some significant inter-personal growth if you just dropped the attitude and the attack dog posture and tried to have a real conversation. tmtoulouse 00:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

And once again you completely succeeded in avoiding providing the proof. how can you expect to have a real conversation when you have consistently avoided the original post and question and skirted the subject, demanding that I prove myself but you don't have to do the same?

I would like to point out however that there's no way in hell that anyone here could out credential me when in fact if you took the time to go back through all of the posts you would see numerous grammatical and spelling errors. And you got published?

Oh, and I already said I wasn't a Christian Scientist, but I have experienced healings through prayer. And sorry to say, cancer has been healed through prayer already and that happened a long time ago as well as recently and there is credible evidence to back it up. I also personally know people that have been healed of many things. I saw them both before and after, meaning that I saw their diseased condition when it was upon them and after when it was gone, and all done with prayer. Being open minded has its rewards far and above being closed minded. I really should be going now. I've made my point over and over, which is why I take the "attack dog" position because I'm talking to a wall here. If you really were scientists then you would look at every angle and not just your own, and a real (spoiler alert) scientist has an open mind (gasp). And a real one would do his own footwork and not demand someone else to especially when they were given the materials to do so. Funny, that's what I was taught in school, even though that was a long time ago.

Like I said, when you decide to get off your duffs, the evidence is there. I did all the footwork, you have to (gasp) go pick up the book. In the meantime you can all yuck it up as I'm sure you will, never learning anything. - Bob

You're the one making the claim, not us. Please provide one strong example from your arsenal of evidence, surely we'll be able to track it down on the web if it's so compelling and realize the rectitude of your claim that incantations, performed "properly", can consistently sarcomas. ħuman 01:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The only claim that I have made is that there is no evidence to back up what you are trying to push, I can not "prove" a claim like that, other than that to reiterate again and again that there is no evidence that has yet been presented. Every time you refuse to present your evidence you are providing evidence for my original claim. And yes, I have multiple publications, and multiple lines of research going on at this moment. I am a "scientist." But that is neither here nor there. My credentials have nothing to do with the validity of any of my statements. You really can't see why you coming in here and claiming to have seen a miracle doesn't count as proof? Really? I find that level of ignorance to be extremely hard to believe.

Did you know that one day I woke up and found a tiny pink elephant sitting on my desk playing poker? I saw it, and came here to tell you that I saw it. That is complete and utter proof that tiny pink poker playing elephants are real. Any refusal to believe that they are real merely shows you are a closed minded bigot. We all know that my absolute conviction that I saw this would be all the evidence any real scientist would need.

Doesn't quiet work does it? tmtoulouse 01:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

BON/Bob, you have done very little "legwork". You've typed stuff into Google and claimed that "it's there", yes, it probably could be there but it's a waste of time and resources for many people to go trawling through those lists, most of the contents of which would actually disprove what you want to claim (as shown several times by Human above). I'm sorry you think that an anecdote equals truth, but it isn't. These are the rules; proper evidence, controlled trials, real results. So far - in the world at large as well as on this talk page - these evidences are extremely lacking. This can be shown very simply: if they weren't lacking, James Randi would have lost a lot of cash, the Nobel Laurates for the last 100 years would be much different and Rational Wiki would be proclaiming across the internet the power of prayer. We do want to see this proof, really. Our perceptions are meant to be challenged but only by things that are real. Personally, I think the world would be much more cool and interesting if the supernatural was real, ghosts and ghouls haunting us or gods and goddess playing with our fates. How it all works in Dogma, for example, is awesome and I'd love it if that happened so I'm more than willing to accept it if it was real, but it's not, it's fictional. Unfortunately, the real world is considerably more boring than that and we plain and simple don't have the evidence to say that it isn't like that. If you can prove this wrong, I'd be exceptionally happy so don't go around accusing everyone here of being closed minded about it. ^gnostic 02:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Playing with our fates is the Weird Sisters' job. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

---

You know. I just had a thought. Since you are claiming to be scientists; You could conduct the experiments and tests for yourself. Hell, you could make a documentary or perhaps write a book, filling it with everything you did and the results you got. Most likely you'd have a following and make some money too.

Here's something really easy. There's a film made by Gregg Braden wherein they have visually documented evidence that no one has been able to debunk, with a woman that goes through a prayer process and her tumor disappears on camera, within 3 minutes. Perhaps seeing that would help? He does talk about experiments conducted in that one and there's no effort in watching it because you can watch it on youtube for free. It's called The Science of Miracles and it's in 7 parts. How easy is that? At least I'm making an effort here to make it easier for you.

- Bob

Bob

One piece of video does not constitute scientific evidence. Show me properly constructed double blind trials and I will be interested. Show me videos constructed by woomeister charlatans and I'll just laugh.

Silver Sloth 13:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and Bob, we are NOT going to conduct the experiments ourselves, because we are not the ones making the claims. If we were to take it upon ourselves to scientifically test every woo claim in the world then not only would we all be bankrupt, we'd also be quite annoyed that the likes of people such as yourself would (1) ignore the results, and (2) make up another stupid claim for us to test. Therefore, if you are going to try and pedal crap then the burden of proof lies with you. Sorry. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 14:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Ok Bob, you're still not getting it. Read our article on the scientific method. Read the one at Wikipedia too. Then go look at the evidence you're referred to and pick 1 scientific proof of the healing power of CS, if you can find one. I don't think you can. I realize CS uses the word "science" in its own way. This doesn't render the truth value of our arguments equal. I tend to believe that any claim based on denying the reality of physical matter in favor of the world being a sort of pleasant spiritual illusion is inherently untestable. Interesting philosophical problem, but not science. Once again, you've been invited over and over and over to provide evidence of the claims of CS's healing power. Are you going to continue galloping or get down to business? I hope you'll agree we've been very courteous and patient with you. But after a while this repetition gets old, no? User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 14:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

One wonders exactly what credentials "Bob" has, because so far all the evidence points to a solitary diploma in gullibility. If you want to understand the scientific method and how to design medical trials then I suggest you read Ben Goldacre's excellent book Bad Science. Even some scientists don't always get it right and that's why we have peer-review. YouTube videos do are not evidence, TV camera crews can be (and frequently are) duped, after all they are not medical experts. Michael Schermer made this point in his Skeptic column in this month's issue of Scientific American concerning evidence for UFOs. Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 15:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

-------------------- <rolls eyes, hangs head and shakes it side to side> Could you type out the article you gave me a link too? My finger doesn't want to raise and click it. This is exactly the excuses you have been throwing at me. And once again you pass judgment without looking at what I offered you. You guys are a joke and your spelling and grammatical errors show just how much of scientists you really are. The Wikipedia article also offers some mistakes but as much as (even here) it states we can edit it, it always goes back to the original "crap" that is written about it because some "know it all" thinks they have it right and all without proper research (as in your case). I could care less about you being "nice to me" or that you leave your article up or that your buddies jump in to defend you. I maintain that none of you are scientists and are no more than some group of teens that like to trash (without knowing anything about what your trashing) things that bother you. The traits are there and I've seen it all over the Internet and I'm glad you had fun but I'm through playing your silly ass games. 20 or 30 years down the road you'll look back on your high school pranks with a chuckle (much like I did or anyone else that matures) and say "boy, was I dumb back then"

Have a good life, seriously.

- Bob

Okay, okay, okay, even though it is not what was asked for I gave in and watched the video. There is a problem, I can't find this "disappearing tumor." It is just some guy sitting around making stuff up in what looks like a bus. Could you maybe tell me where this disappearing tumor is? Which segment of the video? The time? He mentions "experiments" but unfortunately does not provide a single source for his claims. So I can't go back and verify that the experiments even happened, let alone that they showed what he claims. All I am left with is having to take some guys word for it. That is not evidence.

As far as "doing it ourselves," we shouldn't have to. You came here telling me that the scientific evidence was overwhelming and that there was tons of it out there. But now you are telling me that we are going to just have to do it ourselves?tmtoulouse 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bob, do you know what an ad hominem attack is? Do you know why this is a bad debate tactic? Resorting to it at all usually means you are failing miserably at whatever you are trying to show. But when you are reduced to arguing only through ad hominem attacks, well there is nothing left. It is embarrassing. If all you are going to do is attack us personally, then I would recommend giving up now. Ideally of course you would provide some of this "amazing evidence" you keep promising but never deliver on. tmtoulouse 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone questioned your credentials, Bob. They're not relevant to a discussion like this. You don't need to rise to the bait and turn around with a specious insult that we're not scientists. On its own, this doesn't mean we're more correct than you are, but you ought to know lots of people here are well-credentialed scientists and science writers and very few here are younger than college age. Even Mrs. Eddy would tell you to stick to the facts and not let the discussion devolve into a turd-slinger just because some feelings got hurt. None of this is real anyway, right? Bob, you're starting to look like a troll. We're obviously very interested in seeing scientific evidence of your claims. Your belief that we have any obligation to read your sources, conduct your experiments, or make your arguments for you reflects you don't understand how science works. Seems to me that your consistent failure to provide even a scintilla of scientific evidence for your positive claims means we ought to move on. This discussion is going nowhere, slowly. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't vouch for others on this site but I am a 57-year old physicist/geologist. When I was a youngster, I too used to half-believe some of the supposedly amazing stuff that people claim to have seen or done such as bare-hand surgery to remove tumours and not leave any scars? Well I have learned that there are many opportunistic people who are only to ready to con the gullible, and once you take a serious interest in performance magic you find out all the tricks that the con-men use to fool people. Unfortunately some people remain gullible all their lives. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 15:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes but, TM, a video on YouTube is irrefutable evidence, so shut up. For example, see this video of how mobile phones can cook a steak! Therefore it's true!

Why do these morons always come here, claim we're all uneducated kids (oh Bob, I have a degree in Pharmacology by the way, so I have studied experiment design and analysis) and then just leave a parting shot saying they're fed up with bombarding us with "proof" when the only thing they can actually prove is how crap they are at backing up their arguments? See ya Bob, don't let the door hit ya where god split ya. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The Science of Miracles

Seriously guys, you have to check this out. Bunch of Numbers aside it is such a ridiculous hodge-podge of quantum woo I haven't seen something this painful since What the bleep do we know. The guy just sits there talking about a bunch of "experiments" and "lab results" and "published papers" and he never tells us once who did the research, a single university, scientist, not a name not a citation nothing. Guy is just making this shit up as he goes along. It is a great example of exactly what pseudoscience is. tmtoulouse 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh god, the more I look into this this more silly it gets. He is a Hay House product, and likes to hang out with the likes of Doreen "the angel lady" Virtue. It is more Law of Attraction bullshit. And this is the spectacular scientific evidence! tmtoulouse 15:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for fucks sake. This video is such inutterably mindless shit. Even the soundtrack is making me want to stab myself in the head. We need an article on this bearded twat, Gregg Braden, post haste. User:Nutty Roux/sigtalk 16:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good lies guys. Yuck it up. You're really showing your "teen" colors now. Like I said I'm no Christian Scientist, never claimed to be, therefor I do not follow what Mrs Eddy said about such things as this. A true Christian Scientist would have never even looked at the garbage you purport to be true much less argue with you about it. You were trolling for someone gullible enough to fall into your trap and I (like a sucker) fell into it. My bad. I accept the tongue lashing I deserve for being fooled. Well, we're always learning. Enjoy your youth while you can. - Bob

I would ask that you stop attacking and go back to the conversation at hand. We have asked for evidence, you have provided none. I gave in and watched the video you showed me. You promised two things would be in that video, one information that I could use to find scientific experiments to back up your points, and two video evidence of a shrinking tumor. I could not find either of these. Would you mind telling me where those are in the video? And if they are not there, maybe you could actually present the evidence we asked for instead of making silly attacks? tmtoulouse 16:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't like to do this as this is a talk page where grammar and spelling may be overlooked, but pots and kettles come to mind with accusations about spelling and grammar:

"Could you type out the article you gave me a link too? My finger doesn't want to raise and click it. This is exactly the excuses you have been throwing at me. And once again you pass judgment without looking at what I offered you. You guys are a joke and your spelling and grammatical errors show just how much of scientists you really are."

Генгис^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I always thought that poor spelling and grammar where characteristics of most scientists. :)  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 16:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's got to be frustrating to realize there is no proof for something you already believe in. Most people stop believing. Others watch YouTube videos and blog about mysterious experiments. ^{— Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs} 16:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Spelling and grammar are exactly the reason we have peer review in science; your peers read over your papers and send you great long lists of purported spelling errors, and you have to expend considerable effort picking out the ones that are actually spelling errors and the ones demonstrating that your peers do not know how to spell. The more accurate lists come from the foreign reviewers. ListenerX^TalkerX 16:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In case any one cares I am going to play "case study" with this supposed evidence here, follow along or join in, or not. tmtoulouse 17:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So I am done, check it out, I doubt it will be surprise to anyone but Braden is a proven fraud, and the claim I tracked down is a long trail of dead ends and crazy alties. No science. tmtoulouse 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Great bit of work there TM. In theory our BON "Bob" should now either admit he's wrong or search up some real scientific data to back up the youtube video. But he'll do neither. As you say, he will instead Gish Callop into: - "Ah, yes will you may have spent a few hours debunking that one, but what about all these other (lunatic) youtube videos I can find?" --Bob^{bing up} 19:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring questions, shifting the burdon of proof, aggressive wiki posts. Does "Bob" remind you of anyone?

Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 20:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Bob (that's Bob_M, not BON/Bob), I too seriously doubt that will happen. You can tell from the pattern of the talk page. It goes 1) BON-Bob posts a new subsection with a long meaningless rand 2) RWikians discuss it. 3) BON-Bob ignores this and posts a new subsection 4) Go to 2. Whether any of this has gone in is debatable, although it has provoked some interesting stuff. ^gnostic 21:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Questionable

Gentlemen;

I decided to go on a little "case study" of my own and found some interesting information that neither one of us considered, and that is not mentioned in your article here on rationalwiki about scientific method nor here.

After having read this information I find it interesting that any of this would go on considering the age of Christian Science (the time period in which it was "named") and the fact that science itself was conceived from Christianity. It appears that both are in all honesty meant to go hand in hand because neither one can disprove the other. So my attempting to provide proof to you would definitely be met with the opposition it was met with and vice versa. I offer as partial evidence; The Origins of Modern Science by Herbert Butterfield.

To suppose Christian Science then as a pseudoscience is a pseudo in itself given that there have been changes to scientific method over the past 120 years. If indeed you are scientists then I don't need to convince you of at least the changes that have taken place in scientific method I'm sure. Therefor, judging the name of this 120 year old religion based on modern day scientific methodology would not seem appropriate.

Many of the founders of modern science were in fact Christians, however other religions as well seem to have given us great discoveries as well such as the introduction of zero from the Hindus and Algebra from the Muslims as I'm sure you will agree. This is just an added tidbit of course because the main contributions, historically recorded seem to point to science in itself evolving from Christianity. Bacon was an outspoken Christian and formulated the scientific method as you well know, although you did not mention the part about his being an outspoken Christian.

Galileo and his conflict with the roman catholic church has been used to support an anti-scientific bias of Christianity towards science, but when referencing the book; The Galileo Connection Galileo actually had many high ranking catholics on his side. It was his "Aristotelian" professors who actually caused him his problems with the Pope. Kepler, whose discoveries are the basis for our space program wanted to be a minister. In his writings, he frequently quotes psalms and relates the order of his discoveries to "God's rational creation." Pascal, (almost anyone knows this name) credited with being the father of probability theory, hydrostatics, mass transit, modern French prose, computers, and Christian Apologetics defends the Christian faith in his "Pensees". Boyle, the first to show the difference between compounds and elements, was a lay preacher.

So, rather than an obvious battle of wills here, I offer a peace settlement of sorts. Obviously science as well as theology have their limits and I'm sure you will agree with that. The "how" in theology is not explained and in the same respect, the "who" and metaphysical "why" is not explained in science. A scientist has to step beyond the bounds of the 4 dimensional time-space continuum to understand the creator or else just brush the creator off (which would seem nonsensical). In the same respect a Christian is bound by Gods revelations in the Bible and cannot gain any knowledge to make scientific pronouncements unless he too steps beyond those bounds.

So, in closing I think I did a very thorough case study of my own and offer as argument against your calling Christian Science a pseudoscience and an oxymoron. As far as the subject of relying on healing by prayer alone, well, it is within its own bounds as I have offered and one has to experience it for themselves or see it firsthand (as I have) and read what evidence there is, thus making their own conclusions. I nor anyone else can convince you otherwise just the same as you cannot convince me that CS is what you state it to be. Whether you pull it, modify it or leave it is up to you because in the long run it's not hurting it any.

My only other problem is with the Nancy Brewster article because I did actually offer direct from the Science and Health by Mrs. Eddy (as you requested) where she does speak against such things as were done by Mrs. Brewster and the practitioner, which in the long run does not properly represent official CS practices. The same of course goes for that too, namely; whether you choose to remove, modify or leave it the same, the impact it makes will be minimal at best. I've offered about the best argument I can here as I did with the evidence I have been able to find thus far that shows prayerful healings as a very real method. I also submit my apology for being hot headed. I've always had a temper and especially when someone attacks something I feel very strongly about.

So, there you have it. Do with as you see fit. And seriously, do have a good life. - Bob

I am attempting to follow your argument, but it is a little difficult. From what I can tell you are arguing that Christian Science can not be a pseudoscience because it was formulated a 120 years ago, and was a "science" based on the definition of science 120 years ago, and that only modern definitions of science would find it non-scientific? You also seem to argue that science needs Christianity or emerged from Christianity? Then you toss in some NOMA for good measure.

Assuming this is roughly your argument my response would be that the basic methodology of science has not changed significantly in hundreds of years. The body of knowledge it contains, the tools it can use, the questions it asks, and some of the social aspects have changed considerably. But the basic core of the idea, of prediction, experiment, analyze, communicate, replicate, repeat has not changed in the least. This argument also falls flat because modern Christian Science is still making the same claims of being able to heal people, and is still refusing to be submitted to the testing needed to validate its claims. We are not calling Christian Science pseudoscience because of the word "science" in its name, but because of its claims and its refusal to have those claims assessed in any meaningful manner.

As for the role of Christianity in the development of science, that is a far less interesting discussion for me. I don't particularly care. My main thought on this is that some people who were christian helped formulate the ideas of science, but it was not Christianity that formed science. Such a claim sounds an awful lot like "brown hair is responsible for science because Bacon had brown hair." Perhaps some elements of Christianity facilitated some aspects of the development of science but I hardly think it was a necessary component and certainly not a sufficient component. Regardless, this doesn't matter in respect to whether Christian Science makes pseudoscientific claims.

As for NOMA, and the role of religion and science in dictating whys and whose and what for..........meaningless to the conversation at hand and even less interesting to me than the history of religion in science. I reject all religion as silly superstition, and have no use for it in defining a working morality, and there for do not think it is needed. I am also not into scientism, it is an amazing tool but not used for everything. But that doesn't mean that I think we need to ever resort to non-materialistic interpretations of reality.

In the end we are left where we were to begin with. Claims are made about miracles, often proponents claim that they have been verified or are scientific, or that their is scientific reasons to think it is possible. When asked for evidence all we get are anecdotes, testimonials or out right lies as the Science of Miracles has proven to be. Looking at Braden's claims showed him either to be a terrible scholar or a fraud. This is the kind of evidence I have always seen, and why I feel confident calling it all pseudoscience.

I will give you this much, the Nancy Brewster article needs to be rewritten, as it stands now it is a poor article. But that is because it is a stub. This is a wiki, with a fair chunk of content. We rely on volunteers who have an interest and desire to expand and write on topics. I will add the article to my list of things to look at eventually, and others may step in as well. You are also free to participate in the rewriting of the article. It would be easier if you addressed specific content issues and didn't go off on metaphysical tangents. I don't mind the tangents, it is just all that leads to is debate not article improvement. Or you can go merrily on your way to some place else as you see fit. tmtoulouse 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done, Martin (even wiv de poorly elbow). I don't have the patience to argue with idiots. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_{and marmalade} 21:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Trent, for some reason I thought that was TotnesMartin's screed. MY BAD. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_{and marmalade} 21:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

if that had been one of mine it would just be three long sentences (with tangential bits in brackets), and would end up stating the opposite of what it started off saying. And there'd be a Monty Python/George Orwell/Dr Who quote in the edit comment. Totnesmartin 21:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself "Christian Science" is neither Christian, nor science. Apologies to Voltaire. ListenerX^TalkerX 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was right. Bob the BON simply ignored Trent's work on "The Science of Miracles" and went straight off onto another subject. He makes no attempt to back up his earlier posts with facts, he does not even acknowledge that his youtube video was soundly trounced. Just goes somewhere else and tries again.--Bob^{bing up} 07:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Bob BoN's post is riddled with spelling and grammar errors. I'm not going to highlight them all but I think he should apologise for denigrating the intelligence, credentials or integrity of TMToulouse just because of his typing proficiency on a wiki talk page. Генгис^{Is the Pope a Catholic?} 08:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents

Bob,

I've been sitting here on the sidelines a couple of days watching this thread. I too have a strong scientific background and recently retired after serving 41 years in a lab in which we used scientific method everyday. You posed a good question in the beginning and did (I think) present evidence as best you could, although I know what these fellows were looking for. There has been a couple of double blind experients done in regards to prayer and healing that I recall vaguely. One of them actually came out favorable, however it was later discarded because apparently the doctor was a baptist and would only allow baptists into the experiment. That's par for the course I guess.

Regardless, I took it upon myself to look at some of the links you offered and I actually went down to the library and took out the Robert Peel book you mentioned. Quite a good book if I do say so myself and I can see what you were saying about the evidence, although like I said before, it just wasn't what these guys were looking for. Nonetheless after spending a fair amount of time looking at what you offered (I'm retired and bored what can I say). I actually came to see exactly where you're coming from and I see no problem with it. I am actually guilty of attemptig to change the christian science and nancy brewster articles because I actually agree with you, and now especially after your last post. however I soon found that this is not your typical wiki so I gave up.

I can see what you're saying and have to admit I'm in agreement with you, just so you know you're not alone here. I agree that scientific methods have changed as I did the revisions of our standards in the lab amongst other things over the period of time I served there. I also agree that picking a religion with the name science in it to point out that it is a pseudoscience and an oxymoron shows me that someone is bored indeed. I should also mention that I read all of the responses given here to you and I must point out that the case study done by the other fellow here, tmltouse or whatever his name is, I have to admit, carried some holes in it. In his study it appears he likes to theorize. In science theorizing is just fine, you just don't want to overdo it. it also qappeared to be a rush study and one thing I know is that you cannot rush your research.

In some instances I also agree with some of what the fellows here said as far as your evidence goes, but all in all your last presentation here is the one that finally sold me. I should like to point out to you Bob that you shouldn't take their last responses here to heart because we had many people just like them come and go in the lab over the time I was there, and really they're just being hard nosed scientists and nothing else. I learned to deal with those types early on in my career and we almost always agreed to disagree. I myself am just a bit more open minded than these fellows here.

In closing I want you to know once again Bob that even though you don't strike me as a scientist I think you gave it your best shot and did a fine job. I agree with you on the removal of the article in question and the changes you said should take place, but as I said before I know these types of scientists and you shouldn't take it personally. You admitted to your temper and apologized and I will acknowledge that that in itself is an admirable thing to do. My many years as a scientist taught me to keep a slightly open mind and not take scientific method as seriously as some would like to believe you should because there's always room for some change.

Take care from Jim

Perhaps you would like to share some specifics? What in the Peel book was some of the more interesting/convincing evidence? How has the scientific method changed substantially in the last, oh, 150 years? What specific holes do you find in my "case study"? Do you, after having reviewed what I put up, really think the "phantom DNA effect" has any scientific evidence to back it up? Do you think that Gregg Braden actually read the research or had any idea about it other than what he read on internet postings? tmtoulouse 01:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This is getting surreal. Luckily, it's also hilarious. At least the lurkers support him in pmail... ħuman 01:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well hello, "Jim". So nice that you just happened to be in the vicinity and were able to offer some moral suport when "Bob" was getting pwned for promoting his gullible, unscientific claims. I am reluctant to level charges of sock/meat puppetry but getting two like-minded souls dropping into the same talk page of our little wiki in a remote corner of the internet at the same time is very coincidental, but hey, I am a scientist and know that highly improbable things can occur so will gloss over this point. If we happen to get some "Sams", "Dons" or even a "Gordon" with anonymous IPs turning up then I may start to get suspicious. Your "attempted" edits to the Nancy Brewster article seem to ony have occurred yesterday and I see nothing in the Christian Science edit history to indicate that you tried to edit that so it doesn't sound like you have been around here long. I am intrigued by your claim of working in a lab for 41 years "using the scientific method every day" but then saying that you've learned not to take the scientific method seriously. Now you may well have worked in a lab for 41 years, but using the scientific method every day is probably stretching the point. The scientific method under discussion here is not just doing titration, measuring cell counts, etc., it's the philosophical approach behind how one proves or disproves a concept or the efficacy of something. Even double blind trials can be flawed if they use too small a sample or are subject to researcher bias. People - and some scientists are guilty of this - often tend ignore evidence that doesn't support their hypothesis, so it is important that the scientific method demands repeatability and that this should be done by other researchers too often the case these woo research claims are done by people with a vested interest in the outcome and are not repeatable by others. True scientists are not wedded to dogma, if the evidence shows something not to be true or that something else is true then they will revise their viewpoint. That's what science has always done and will continue to do. Opening one's mind does not mean letting in all the rubbish and giving it equal weighting it means being skeptical and prepared to accept something, no matter how contrary to one's previously held viewpoint if it is supported by evidence. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

While not wishing to cast aspersions, it does seem remarkably coincidental that two users with similar views and writing styles, both of whom are either unwilling or unable to create user identities should decide to post supportive material on the same subject.--Bob^{bing up} 07:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Although we don't have anything in the usage guidelines that says that a person's multiple personalities arn't allowed their own socks. If we did, Jinx _{hi Jinx!} would never show up. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:01, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

"41 years in a lab". Cool. Which field? ^gnostic 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care

It worries me not that idiots believe tripe (like aSK & "Christian" "Science"). What does really annoy me is their constant attempts to "spread the word" and to apply it to innocent third parties. I applaud all the arguments above directed at the trolling multisocker but it must be obvious that this person has a definite agenda and will never accept that they might be wrong. All that can be done on an open wiki like RW is to maintain constant vigilance against attempted dilution of the rational viewpoint. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_{and marmalade} 08:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we should refuse to debate any further with a person when it becomes clear they have no intention of reading replies or responding to questions posed, and just start new sections as if the previous conversation never happened. This page reminds me of 'DOC' from the JREF forums. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 08:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree about invoking Don't feed the Troll. He may be a troll, but the "Jim" post above a classic, it gets high points for humour anyway. Also I'm not sure that the has an "agenda" as such. In fact, I suspect that he's just suddenly found out that he's bitten off more than he can chew, hence his desire to change the topic away from "The Science of Miracles" - the only "evidence" he presented - and what looks like a sudden descent into multiple personality syndrome. Anyway, he's said "goodbye" a couple of times already, so I imagine it's only a matter of time before he finds things to hot and finally declares victory and retreats for ever.--Bob^{bing up} 10:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On humour grounds I agree that trolls are worth it & honing the debating skillz on such is a useful tactic. What I really tried to say was that I hate their proselytising of their totally loony ideas to the bewildered and susceptible masses. The multiple personality thing remninds me of someone. Who could it be (Ken?). Thinking that anyone could be taken in by two such idiots appearing "coincidentally" on the same site within hours says more about the (lack of) intelligence of the troll than does their silly discourse. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey

And I got the chance to do some fingers based calculating with the google stuff above! ^gnostic 11:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should have a mass debate? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 11:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I made this: so trolls have their uses. ^{This message brought to you by: respond}_and honey 11:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Christian Science is a non-evangelizing religion. Not many try to 'spread the word' (which is in part why C.S. is dying). To be more precise - in C.S. they believe it is the absolute truth which cannot die regardless of member numbers. There is not incentive to 'recruit' because everyone is considered inherently a Christian Scientist (or held to those rules). There is no heaven to gain nor hell to shy away from.

---

Guys,

I avoided saying this before, but given your response to Jim's post, I guess I just have to get this out: I apologized for my previous actions and attempted to get some evidence for you that I felt would be more to your liking. I was attempting to offer some peace here by trying to do it your way even though I am no scientist. Under normal circumstances a person would respond by acknowledging that at least I was attempting to make an effort. I honestly had suspicions that even this would be met with some kind of retort since after my temper went off kilter I looked around your site and noticed something:

Anyone that dares to question anything you have here is slowly circled in upon by the same group of people and in the same time frames generally. then they are slowly and methodically verbally bashed which eventually leads up to name calling and attempts at humiliation no matter how hard the person tries to offer up anything of any worth to you. I've only known a couple of professors in my life that mentioned scientific method a few times, but none of them ever spoke in tones or displayed such pompous attitudes of self righteousness as you guys do here, and they especially did not need to be backed up by their friends.

I could care less whether you feel Jim and I are the same people but I highly suspect that because Jim found some flaws and decided to mostly side with me that you had to resort to attacks since absolutely no one is allowed to question your authority and intelligence. If Jim is as smart as he claims I suspect he wouldn't waste his time with you like I have.

I clearly stated before that I gave you the best evidence I could, and I already agreed with you (and Jim) that it is not what you were looking for, yet you still came back and said that I still didn't offer any proof and this and that and bla, bla, bla, proving to me you skimmed across my previous posts, which also explains some of the other things that have been said to me all along.

If I ever do find the type of evidence that you seek I may stop by again, but I strongly suspect that by the time I do your site will be a ghost town because you guys are definitely not user friendly and as far as you are concerned you are never wrong. I would also suspect that you would have something to say against the evidence, even if it was blatantly obvious and done in strict accordance with scientific methods.

Well, regardless.... thanks to Jim, at least someone understood what I was saying here. And now you can jump in and yuck it up with the name calling and verbal bashing in the exact same style you always do, which is evident across your entire site.

And as a warning and to save time for anyone else, these guys do the same thing all across this site. Same style, same people, even the same lines (LOL).

Jim/Bob - If you come on to a wiki with professed aims of promoting the rational and then promote woo you need to provide more than anecdotal evidence. Yes, it's the same names because the inner core of this wiki is quite small and yes, we speak with one voice on woo because we all believe roughly the same thing. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence ane what we have seen so far is nothing like that. Furthermore, we see the burden of proof to be on those making the extraordinary claims, especially when they are making money out of it. Oh, and sign your posts with four tildes Silver Sloth 13:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Jim-Bob. That's funny. Wasn't that one of the characters from The Waltons? --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 13:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Could be the one from Carter the Unstoppable Sex Machine. Totnesmartin 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Reading Jim/Bob's post it seems like it's our fault for wanting evidence. How very wrong of us! How un-user friendly for a rational wiki to think that the scientific method was the best way to establish the scientific credentials of a claim. How silly of us not to understand that youtube videos contain the real scientific truth! Well that's us told then.--Bob^{bing up} 14:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob, you were met with a level of animosity because your tone quickly became insulting and brash as soon as you realised that your "arguments" were nothing more than rumors and misinterpretations. You started slating people here for their spelling and grammar, as well as accusing us all of being adolescents, and then wonder why we wern't all showering you with kudos for your excellent points. Had you have provided an example of your evidence, and then responded to the criticisms politely, we could have got a good debate going. Instead this whole page descended into a massive series of ad-homonium attacks. Please do find some other evidence, link to it here, and we promise to view it and give you an opinion on it amicably. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 16:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this talk page makes me feel good

Who would have known way back in October 2007 that the stub article I created with the single infamous sentence - "Christian Science is an oxymoron." would lead to all this nearly two years later. --Edgerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Tsisnaajini!} 13:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Much in the way Ed Poor "writes" Wikipedia articles? Aboriginal Noise ^Punkrock 13:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Very well done Edge. Only one essay I've wrote has ever had that effect. SJ ^Debaser 13:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I freely admit that I share that less-than-commendable trait with Ed Poor. I think I see another variation on my signature. Maybe - --Ed( Poor)gerunner⁷⁶_{Save me Jebus!} 13:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

cough

I can see these guys are stuck in the 70's. In the past several years real scientists have been embracing the joining of spirituality, mysticism (and whatever else you want to call it) as a viable part of science itself. many of the legitimate quantum physics discoveries of the past several years speak volumes of possibilities that these yo-yos laugh at. this site is a joke. ^{— Unsigned, by: 69.95.5.25 / talk / contribs}

Well, if science suddenly managed to explain something like a miracle then it wouldn't be spiritual or mystic, it'd just be another part of naturalistic reality... I've yet to see many real scientists embrace "mysticism" as part of "science itself". And if you really knew anything about quantum mechanics, you'd know that it doesn't "peak volumes of possibilities" at all, simply because quantum level phenomena just don't appear at the macroscopic level. ^gnostic 16:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Name one phenomenon, and one "real" scientist? tmtoulouse 16:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

cough cough Javasca₧ the most colourful sig on RationalWiki! 16:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Age of Newton’s Mechanical Clockwork is over!

These alleged scientists don't realize that the age of Newton's Mechanical Clockwork is over.

Just to clarify; Newton declared that everything operates mechanically and can be predicted like clockwork. Science in Newton’s view, being nothing more than the act of observing, meant that this world view was easily perpetuated by independent observers all over the world. In the late 19th century, science entered into the era of subatomic physics, which changed everything. Scientists discovered that the so-called ‘subatomic particles’ were not particles at all. They behaved like particles when they were measured but they traveled like waves. Quantum theory has changed everything, because what was once a mechanical, external universe has now become a web of intelligence. Science finally admits that the simple act of observing changes the result of any experiment, and by extension, that the observer and the observed are not separate.

What follows from this new understanding is a completely different way of dealing with the world we perceive. Our old model of an objective world view has to be replaced with a new model that states everything is subjective, the observer influencing the observed. Enter the healings that are spoken of and (laughingly) cut down here. Whether it be Christian Science, 7th day Adventists, eastern religious beliefs or some other belief system. These guys here know nothing and what I see myself is nothing more than hate mongering, and they cannot even prove anything they lay out here at their site!

Maybe these guys should offer proof for once! All I can see from this whole discussion is a bunch of know it nothings shooting off their mouths like they actually know something. Science is not limited to 1 definition as one of the original boneheads here stated. It can also be interpreted as was originally posted by Bob. All I see on this site no proof of anything.

Maybe the creators of this site should put up or shut up for once.^{— Unsigned, by: 69.95.5.38 / talk / contribs}

I'm sorry, but what does subatomic physics have to do with faith healing? How can the fact that light is both a wave and a particle affect the ability to wave your hands over an third degree burn victim and have him be miraculously restored to full health? This sounds suspiciously like Quantum woo to me. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 18:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Trust me, there are those of us here that know far far more about quantum physics than you ever will. It is you who has just enough exposure to a few of the "words" used to think you know something, then try and misapply it in a weird pseudoscience of "intelligent webs" and "subjective healing." It is all bullshit and has NOTHING to do with quantum physics. Tell you what. If you could explain to me Schrödinger's equation, at some respectable detail, I will take you seriously that you might know something about quantum physics. tmtoulouse 18:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah Trent, you do bring up a good point. There are definitely a lot of newspaper headlines, sci-fi storylines (forgivably) and crackpot websites that basically just flip through a QM textbook, read the titles and think "wow, this is awesome! ANYTHING GOES!!!" and you get stuff like What The £%&*£ Do We Know? and other hash-job films. Though more generally, does it really matter what Newton said? Science is not a personality cult. ^gnostic 18:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi BON. (Not Bob) It would be great to respond to this but there there are too many non sequiturs to begin.--Bob^{Not Jim} 18:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I bung'd something up here. ^gnostic 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice work. I started laughing as soon as the original post used the word "quantum"... ħuman 21:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I spent quite a while on this site but when I came across this particular article and talk section I just had to step in here (when I could stop myself from laughing so hard) and ask you timmymouse (and your alleged scientific buddies) just what legitimate scientist would waste time writing such crap about a religion for? Of course the reason I came here in the first place was because of several forums of which I'm sure you're aware, where you made complete asses of yourselves. Nonetheless, I see no evidence supporting the aricle (or much of any other on this site for that matter) that properly supports it and especially scientifically. You truly do prove what they say about skeptics that cannot back up their statements about others. (the burden of looking that one up is on you BTW).

Regardless, you stepped in the other forums to shoot off your mouth and when you were challenged for proof, you disappeared because you couldn't prove anything. Just as with this talk discussion, I can plainly see what the intial poster (Bob) was questioning, and he offered enough proof as far as I can see as he quoted directly from the science and health (which is the source) to answer some of your specific your questions, yet I can see you avoided his answers (most likely because he was spot on and you were caught once again without a good response). So what if he gish galloped a bit. At least he was trying (and succeeding in allot of cases). So what if he attacked you. Look at how you come across in other forums. Another point in case, you did nothing but a short internet search on Gregg Braden and called that "research", coming up with some bullshit you pulled off the internet. My science teacher would have kicked my ass out of class for that one and yet your supporters say "nice work". Yeah, right, whatever.

As with any of the forums you have run away from, you once again have made an ass of yourself here and your lame buddies back your ass up to prove how lame they are. You know shit about Shinola because you claim no proof on Bob and yet Bob offered far more than you ever did. If you're going to be true skeptics then you should practice true Scientific Method and not your own interpretation of it. There is more than one definition of Science and the method used depends upon the application as with the religion in question here.

Bob is right. This place will be a ghost town one day because your reputation as dumbasses is quickly becoming known across the Internet. To the dork who wrote the article in question and especially provided NO proof to back it up. Now THAT's Scioentific Method! <sarcasm intended> ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.97.101.253 / talk / contribs}

What evidence has "Bob" offered, all he did was start waffling something about quantum mechanics? What are these other forums you allude to, can I have some proof of those? - π 02:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what an amazing amount of gibberish that was. A few key points, what "other forums" are you rambling about? What evidence was ever presented? You obviously have a lot of issues, and need to calm way down. Take a deep breath, stop with the aggressive, childish attack posture, and actually come back with something to say and maybe we can have a real discussion. Otherwise you just look like a hyper-aggressive troll. tmtoulouse 03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning: Pseudoskeptic Alert!

Titmouse; You proved my point. Once again you fail to offer any scientific evidence to back up your silly article, or anything else I accused you of. I gave you several days, thinking (mistakenly) that you may attempt some defense. Instead you throw a few rants at me and run off as you do here and elsewhere. You addressed nothing I mentioned, which is typical of your kind. You never will in fact because you have no defense . Unfortunately (for you), you will continue to get needled to death about all of this until you offer evidence to back up your claims. You and your gang are definitely what all the forums declare you to be; Pseudoskeptics You make claims of something being wrong yet you offer no evidence to support those claims. Then when evidence is offered to you, you dismiss it.

As for what forums, you know where you've been so why should I remind you of it, unless you have Alzheimer's? As you say, the burden is upon you. Of course there are a few where you haven't been and are still the object of laughter and ridicule. I guess you'll have to search for them too.

Apparently you're more concerned with dismissing or ignoring than doing any research as in your 1st grade attempt at debunking Gregg Braden (for example). It appears to me you're nothing more than mouthy little bastards that sit around watching your site all day, living off your parents income (or Welfare) so you can argue with people about their beliefs or write sheer nonsense about things you know nothing about. Oh, and a lot of copying and pasting from other sites too.

There is obviously (as you proved very well here and elsewhere) no discussion with you or your associates. You refute nothing logically, rationally or scientifically. You offer no evidence (see above reason) and especially do not practice Scientific Method. You apparently fear what you do not understand and you definitely cannot defend anything you proclaim.

As for my attitude, are you afraid to answer my accusations because I'm aggressive? If you're going to set up such a website then you're going to be called out on the carpet and you'd better learn to deal with it, or pull it down. You shouldn't try to address issues you don't understand or care to understand. Your Christian Science article was written because someone here lost their Grandmother when she decided to pray about her illness rather than seek medical help. The person obviously misses his Granny and this is his way of dealing with it. Now, go ahead and ignore me again, Pseudoskeptiic.. That's what all of you excel at. You're a joke on a lot of forums and as long as you don't mind, then we enjoy needling your ignorance and laughing at your lack of knowledge. Please. Prove me wrong. Wait, <snickers> you can't.

Toodles ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.97.101.253 / talk / contribs}

Speaking of burdens of proof, my little troll, do you have any real proof to back up your claims, or are generalized statements bashing this community your only proof? I'm willing to bet the latter is the case. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 02:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OMG you are a tool. Actually you are a handle, you're not together enough to be a tool. - π 01:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. _& marmite^chat 01:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

AND THERE YOU HAVE IT FOLKS! TYPICAL PIECE OF SHIT PSEUDOSKEPTIC. Thank you for responding as I expected you would and proving to all who come here what worthless mouthy fuckwads you all are. And you sir are not enough together to be a human much less a penis. We are so gonna have fun with your stupid fucking asses!!!

WHY DONT WE TRY AND CALM DOWN? Ace^McWicked 04:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

THIS POST MAKES ME SO ANGRY I WANT TO CHOKE... on "Titmouses cock ħuman 05:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys are so going to lose when you debate with SCEPCOP. Fucking losers! LMAO!!!!! ^{— Unsigned, by: 24.97.101.253 / talk / contribs}

Five exclamation marks, I recall a quote about that. - π 23:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see you are from that lot that does not think we should dismiss paranormal claims just because you have no experimental results to show that it occurs. I am willing to accept it the moment any actual evidence arrives, you know burden of proof and all that. If all you are going to do is claim that I have to prove a negative then there is no point debating you. - π 23:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

24.97.101.253, Amusing name calling aside, any chance you could point me towards these forums? Unfortunately I neglected to install tracking devices in everyone here, well mostly everyone, and I'd love to see these fabled forums. I'm curious to know if you're actually speaking for a group of people, or are you using "we" in the royal sense of the word? --^{Ask me about your mother} 00:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think he is talking about Wiki Synergy and other shit like that. SCEPCOP has forums that he maybe talking about. - π 00:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Just bold the whole damn thing, dude. Sterile lava 00:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Pi. That SCEPCOP thread is a journey in to insanity, not least of all because of Wu's odd arguments with the contents of his own essay.-^{Ask me about your mother} 00:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Javasca₧ do do da de do da de 02:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a feeling this is our schizophrenic friend Wu himself. Best left alone. tmtoulouse 02:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I love his "chosen name" - rhymes with woo... Also, yeah, his syntax is rather fractured, at best. ħuman 05:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Officially

my favourite talk page on RW. That is all. Fox 09:47, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree. Although it's not my favourite article by a long shot - and not our best by a longer one - the talk page gets enough attention to make it hilarious. ^gnostic 10:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Best of amusement? - π 10:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now I've found BoA, I may go on a catting spree. ^gnostic 10:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you are suppose to ask first, given that it goes on the main page. - π 11:01, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Does it? Well, there's hardly anything actually in the category and we could do with some variety on the mainpage I reckon. But that's just me. ^gnostic 11:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

In those little lists at the bottom. - π 11:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I see now. ^gnostic 11:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd vote "for" this talkpage being in that cat. Of course, now we are obliged to keep it funny... pieces of eight! ħuman 18:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep it funny. How rich. I've been lurking here for a while now and just had to comment. That's WHY you fail in your pseudoskeptical views!! You make things funny when you know you should be challenging. You fail to challenge so you cover up with funny instead because you cannot defend what you try to claim. Of course, you'll IGNORE this, or just try to make a Joke out of It but because you don't understand it you'll go on happily living in your parent's basement looking after your Little Site and wondering why the whole world is laughing at you.

Sincerely, Paul.

I wish my parents had a basement I could live in. - π 05:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

When you laugh the whole world laughs with you. You have to actually say something other than personal attacks to elicit a conversation "Paul." tmtoulouse 05:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

After lurking and reading this conversation for some time, I decided I had to butt in. That was not a personal attack tit mouse. YOU do the Personal Attacks when you attack people for just believing in a philosophy with an Open Mind. Because YOU just have a closed mind and can't truly think outside your bubble of psudeoskepticism. You're just as bad as people who hate because you ignore evidence that doesn't suit your psudeoskeptic and atheist views. You ignore people's opinions as evidence, I'm not going to add this evidence to you so called "rational" wiki because you will just delete it. If you can't be bothered to find it, then I can't be bothered to find it. Grow up and get some real jobs. Regards - Brian.

LMAO.... tmtoulouse... evades the topic, makes excuses and runs away (as usual). - Jay

Wait, you were Jim before, why are you know Jay? - π 02:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) LMAO, stupid BON makes excuses, evades topic, and hit-and-runs Tmtoulouse, and runs away. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 02:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Paul, thank you so much for your assistance in keeping this talk page funny! You too, "jay". ħuman 03:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oooh, don't forget Brian. And Jim. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 03:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to bring you all down, but Brain and Paul are Armondikov. - π 03:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

DAMMIT! I shall have to learn to use Tor. But on a serious note, guys, keep an eye out for stuff like that, don't always trust that an edit is by who signs it. ^gnostic 18:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob? Jim? Jay? How many names does this guy have? --GastonRabbit (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Where I come from, we would say: successful troll is successful. (9/10.) Fyrius (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone notice the bolded text "Bob"/Bon had in his posts? I thought he sounded like conservapedia...69.181.254.128 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Christian Science HQ

My apartment here in Boston is about 3 blocks away from the Christian Science HQ and I have to say, it is a magnificent complex. The building itself is workof art and the massive reflecting pool is a nice place to sit on a warm summer eve. And all I can think about when I walk past it is that, and $45 Million, it is such a fucking waste of money. I mean, cmon, why even bother. Think of how much good you could do with $45 Million. Think of the medical supplies, food, books you could pay for to help make others lives better. That much money could probabley feed a third worl country for a month. Thats what pisses me off about so many churches, is their grandoise construction. Spend the money on somthing other than a massive fucking building. IS god so vain you need to meet in a massive building, or that you need 13 acres in the middle of Boston to worship. For fucks sake!--BenB (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a library, not a church. It also has an awesome "globe" with a walkway through the middle. ħuman 18:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I know they have a library but they also have a huge friggin church. My point still stands though. Why waste so much money when it could be used for better purposes. Sure, I'm all for libraries but it dosnt need to be so fucking ornate. A simple room with book shelves and some comfy chairs would be far more appropriate--BenB (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read up on the building in question (the Mary Baker Eddy Library). ħuman 19:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't generally think beauty is a waste of money. Shall we also close public parks, shall we shut down Universities that have too grandiose classrooms? That comes down, then, to the morality of a free-market system - not how churches spend their contributions. If you mean 'but its so POINTLESS!' Well, so is the rock-and-roll hall of fame. Except to all those people who value it of course. Aye, theres the rub.

My head hurts...

Seriously, it does. First i laughed. Then i cringed in pain. Of stupid. Then i laughed again. It was a demented, agonized laugh. Finally, after going through the whole thread (finishing an overdue thesis was the alternative), all that was left was the headache and a twitch in my left eye that pops up every time someone says "quantum". Orcinus (talk) 19:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think i'll go pray now. Maybe the headache goes away and my twitch gets cured. Orcinus (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Hilarity

OK, Bob-Jim-Jay-whatever. You claim that the burden of proof in regards to this is on us. You have unilaterally claimed victory several times despite the fact that you have provided no actual proof that your side was the correct one. You even either decided to write more things under other pen-names or got some friends to write in here to cast away suspicion from you and at the same time make it look like as if you are drumming support around here.

You aren't. At most, you are drumming some laughs. And also, you fail.

1) Danth's Law states "If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly." Clearly you haven't realised this. 2) The burden of proof is always with the one making the claims. For example, the recent discovery of neutrinos flying faster than light was published, but the scientists that made the experiment didn't claim this was proof that the speed of light in vacuum had been surpassed by non-massless particles and then stopped everything, saying that it was now the work of others to prove that it was incorrect, but admitted there was a chance that a mistake was made and asked for help in determining whether the discovery was real. 3) As it has been said previously, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far, you have only provided us with some videos where nothing important is seen and books written by those that are actually involved in trying to make it become mainstream. It is like those studies proving that tobacco was not dangerous for health that were done and paid for by tobacco companies.

I doubt it is that hard for you to actually provide an actual proof. One proof. One study, developed with the scientific method, using proper methods, carried on by third parties that have nothing to do with the field of Christian Science, and published in a peer-review medical journal, that actually proves that Christian Science is better than medical science in healing people.

Of course, there is a chance that you will answer this with another Gish Gallop, or cast aspersions on me and my character, or even claim that I am moving the goalposts. If you check the whole talk page, you will notice that there is a string of petitions for actual proof, not anecdotes and videos that don't actually show anything.

By the way, I am a Physics student in a Spanish university, and I know that the scientific method is actually useful. And it has always amused me that, in the nation that is supposedly the most advanced one in the world there are still people that think that God created all the animals in six days, 6000 years ago. - RationalSpanish^{Sí, soy español, ¿y qué?} 10:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC+2)

You will likely not find proof - not of the sort you require at least. It would actually be kind of against C.S. to use the Scientific method in that manner. -Kate