Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In spite of the fact that your posts tended to present ‘one liner’ evidence that’s contrary to my general impression, I like your contributions. You stick to the issues and even make some effort to investigate points that others have made. That’s good in its own right and I commend you for not just talking off the top of your head.
But it’s hard to see how that limited amount of contrary ‘evidence’ stacks up against the cumulative evidence in 8 or 10 books on the matter.
Re, the negative report of Arigo spending time in gaol, even while I was suggesting in a previous post that any critic of Arigo should at least check the Wikipedia researcher’s report, I knew that that gaol report was there, but hoped that a reader would interpret it the way I did. He was illegally practicing medicine according to the law of Brazil, and gaoled. It was a technical issue in the first Court case. It had nothing to do with his claim that he was possessed by a Dr Fritz and driven to help people.
Anyhow, it was back in the 1970s that I looked at those books and others, and formed my opinions on spirituality, so before I commented any further, I decided to re-read the one by John Fuller on 'Arigo: The Surgeon of the Rusty Knife'. I’m only half way through at this stage, so I’ll get back to the forum with some more comments later.
But for now, I’m convinced that if anyone wishes to criticize that story, they would have to read the book. Not one single person who witnessed him in action appears to have become a critic. On the contrary, the book describes eye witness reports from many medical professionals who all conceded that his methods were successful but inexplicable. Arigo was successfully diagnosing and treating patients at an astounding rate of approximately one a minute for 20 years -- all free of charge.
I’ll get back to it when I’ve completed re-reading the book.
A pleasure Doogles...
Why do you call my posts "one liners?" I'm certainly not "talking off the top of my head" in any case, though of course what I comment about is all in my head after a good many decades of considering the likes of your recommendations, thoughts and books. If I could read EVERYTHING in addition to all I have already read, studied and considered along these lines, I really don't think my conclusion(s) would change, because I've been around this block so many times, your comments and books don't really hit me as anything new or that I haven't come across, many times before in one form or another.
If I had a nickle for every book recommended to me by people who tend toward books and/or people like the ones that have impressed you, I'd have a whole lot of nickles. Really! I wish I had the time to tell you about all those people and books that have been recommended to me over these many years as I am now pushing through my 60s. Many of these books I have actually read from cover to cover, but typically they just don't read for me like they do the people who recommended them to me.
What I initially read about Arigo doesn't hold up to your claim that "not one single person who witnessed him in action appears to have become a critic." Might also kindly suggest that when reading books like this, the critics are not commonly quoted.
Still, because I don't really like to turn a "blind eye" to anything someone seriously puts forth as worthy, I did some more reading about Arigo. No doubt interesting, and I can easily see the allure of what has been reported, but how much of it to believe? There seems to be that lacking evidence and corroboration that I'm more inclined to require before I can consider this anything but yet another tale like so many others about people who some think possessed supernatural powers.
This made for some interesting reading, for example:
"In a critical review, sceptic Martin Gardner rejected Fuller’s account, calling it ‘despicable’. Gardner criticized the author for accepting anecdotes as facts and charged that his book would encourage some sick patients to expose themselves to quackery, perhaps dying ‘a needless death’.6"
Besides the truth about these stories, the other concern I always have about this sort of thing is as expressed here just above. It can be a very dangerous thing when people begin to lean toward those who practice outside the limits of traditional medicine. Something like all the anti-vaxxers pose a threat to themselves and the rest of us, because they don't trust sound medical practice and/or science. Real science.
How "an indiscriminate scold who seems to equate domestic violence and spousal abuse with using unpleasant adjectives" has much of anything to do with truth is well beyond me. Just like most of your notions...
How "an indiscriminate scold who seems to equate domestic violence and spousal abuse with using unpleasant adjectives" has much of anything to do with truth is well beyond me. Just like most of your notions...
I have noted that same deficiency in your comprehension.
Yes, and duly noted a great many times! Your highness of awareness and agape love. Thank you.
I do love you (agape, of course), LearnMe. That is why I seek to enlighten you about the current status of the science you revere and its implications for your atheism.
I do love you (agape, of course), LearnMe. That is why I seek to enlighten you about the current status of the science you revere and its implications for your atheism.
A big hug and kiss to you too Mystic, but I've really got to sign off now. Almost reads like you're trying to save me, but I'm okay with my reasons for being an atheist. Really. Don't concern yourself none about any of that.
If the source of your interest in me is born from agape love, I'd really hate to think what comments you would post if I didn't enamor you so...
You misunderstand the quoted exchange between myself and Mystic. That's okay, I can understand why.
I'll explain and fill you in:
Myself and Mystic have known each other on here a for LOOONG time.
I'm an extremely staunch and firm atheist. I'm probably one of the firmest atheists you will ever come across. Mystic obviously isn't. He's the extreme opposite.
Clearly there is MUCH we disagree about. However over these 10 years and through many, many conversations we have learned to find some common ground, and have a mutual respect.
The conversation you quote where Mystic talks about Holy spirit and whatnot, is not something I hold with obviously, since I don't believe in god, I don't believe in a holy spirit and I'm not a follower of Christianity... But I no longer feel the need to nit-pik at everything everyone says to me. I can let some things go. Mystic will know that since he knows me.
I can though see why you would be confused about it going unchallenged.
My conclusion that the concept of spirituality is close to the emotion of love is a conclusion I came to on my own after reading many posts and then after I typed it realised I'd already mentioned it back in post #1 if you care to re-read the opening post. So I don't know how you think I have derailed my own thread:
Here's the original opening post to this thread for reference:
My apologies for not noticing this a few days ago Cruithne. Thank you for the clarification.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
