Jump to content
Heather Mills - Amputee Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About LauraG

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 04/09/1976

Contact Methods

  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    Bogota, Colombia
  • Interests
    Lots!! You can always e-mail me and ask. :)

Profile Fields

  • Membership Type:
  • Amputation Type:
    Right AKA
  • Amputation Date:
    January, 1996
  • Amputation Cause:
    Auto accident
  1. LauraG


    Lizzie, I'm sorry to insist, but I don't think I'm getting my point across effectively. The website doesn't argue that god doesn't exist because amputees do. The website argues that god doesn't exist because he doesn't answer prayers. They use us in their argument because it's a binary indicator. Either your limb regrows or it doesn't. Any equally unambiguous indicator could have been used. They chose amputees. I'm not sure how you arrive at "learning disability" or "problematic ego", but I'm sure most people acknowledge they're a small part of a huge universe. Belief in a god isn't a necessary part of that acknowledgement. That's easily accomplished by simply looking up at night. Believing in anything, including a god, is personal. That belief being true, however, isn't. I'm not debating yor right to believe. I'm debating the truth value of belief in a god. I don't believe in the supernatural because there isn't a shred of valid evidence supporting it. Some do, but not many. Around 90% of the scientists in the NAS have no belief in the supernatural. That aside, the number of scientists who believe or not is irrelevant to the question of the lack of evidence supporting the existence of the supernatural and the abundance of evidence against it. Those are all amazing scientific accomplishments and I'm looking forward to enjoying them. I'm sorry to hear you won't be participating in the thread any longer, but I disagree with the reasons you've based your decision on. I read the replies thoroughly and objectively. My answers are presented respectfully and, when required, appropriately supported. As for sensibility, that's quite subjective. The fact that you disagree with what I say doesn't mean I'm being insensitive. That said, I also enjoy a good debate and hope you reconsider your decision to leave this one.
  2. LauraG


    As a Rabbi he, of course, assumes the existence of a god. Even more, he assumes the existence of his god and no others. ...and of course, quantifying the unexplained is science's territory, not religion's. Faith is required by religion. In fact, it wouldn't be faith or religion if the existence of a god were adequately demonstrated. It would be knowledge. Again, the Rabbi's starting position is that, despite the lack of evidence supporting it, his god must exist. The default starting position of a rationalist is "let's follow the evidence where it takes us". If there were a shred of valid evidence supporting the existence of a god, I'd be the first to revert my position. I don't understand what you meant to express here. Not everyone needs a god to feel part of the universe. The fact is we're all part of it, belief or lack of it. Was the Rabbi open to the notion that he was worshipping the wrong god? What if he turns out going to Thor's hell because he believed in Yahweh all his life? Of course, but the website isn't debating the existence of amputees. It's debating the existence of Yahweh because of his lack of response to legitimate prayers asking for limb regrowth. Yep. Pretty witty.
  3. LauraG


    There's quite a bit more room for speculation of divine healing in blindness which is, I assume, the reason the site's authors didn't use it to illustrate their position. Why would he test you and what kind of results does he get from testing you with amputations that he couldn't get otherwise? I mean, an omniscient god wouldn't need to test you at all. He's supposed to know exactly how it's going to turn out even if he doesn't, so what's the point? Of course. Most of us do. Even those of us with no belief in the supernatural. My motivation to survive and thrive is having a better life, making myself, my daughter, my family and everyone else I can happy. I don't need to believe any god is testing me to achieve that. As I said above, you're perfectly entitled to your belief. In my case that would be me, my daughter, my family, my friends and whomever else I can make even a little happier. To state the obvious, I'm much happier alive than I would be dead. ;)
  4. LauraG


    Those are all important questions, Lizzie, but have nothing to do with the site's objective. What they are really asking is "why, when faced with an absolute situation (an amputee either regrows a limb or doesn't), are there no credible accounts of god intervening, while when the situation is less strightforward, all sorts of unsubstantiated attributions of divine healing pop up"? Amputation is just the absolute situation the site's authors needed to illustrate their point. Nothing demeaning to us there. You're obviously entitled to that belief. :)
  5. LauraG


    Hi, Lizzie. :) Would you mind stating the reasons you think the site's rubbish? Was there anything in the site that didn't make sense, or is it just an opinion based on your beliefs?
  6. LauraG


    While religious belief requires faith, by definition a suspension of reason, logic and reason have everything to do with a lack of religious belief. It is by reason and logic that we come to see the internal contradictions in the support for belief and we conclude, from evidence, that the supernatural doesn't exist. I can see how religious belief can be comforting, specially for someone in a psychological state deserving of concern, but that doesn't make religious belief rational or true. I prefer a painful verifiable fact over a lie. Most religions, if not all, claim to be "the one true religion" or to be based on "the revealed truth", so right off the bat you have a disqualification of other beliefs as weak or inferior. By your own definition, that's a morally repugnant statement reflective of underlying issues. Your assessment is verified by the sheer number of bloody conflicts caused throughtout history by differing religious beliefs.
  7. LauraG


    Define "silly". :P Seriously, though... I disagree with Kencor's assumption that the author of the site hates any god. There's a lot of rational statements in that website that would need addressing before jumping to that conclusion.
  8. LauraG


    Religious discussions tend to get quite heated... but if the mods OK it, I'll have a go.
  9. LauraG


    Hardly, but I'm not sure getting into a religious discussion of this depth is appropriate (or well-received) in this forum. Feel free to PM or e-mail me if you'd like to discuss further. :)
  10. LauraG


    One of my favorite websites. Well thought-out and presented. It's also devastatingly rational. B)
  11. LauraG

    Prosthesis or Crutches?

    No need for the sad-faced yellow guy, though. As I said in the thread title and in the first post, wearing a prosthesis or using crutches is a choice that depends on comfort and functionality... or it should be considered as such. Now how about on of these? :) ;)
  12. LauraG


    Welcome aboard, Martin! I couldn't help but notice the photo you posted is of just the masked leg brace. I'm not seeing the socket, so I can't picture how it works for you in the shower. Curiously, Laura
  13. LauraG

    Totally off topic & a bit grisly

    Two years of unpaid bills and her power hadn't been cut? Hmmm.
  14. LauraG

    Happy Birthday

    Sorry! I just saw this! THANK YOU! :D
  15. I think she'll eventually get curious enough about a prosthesis that she'll ask or want to try one out... or not... but the point is she has to know she can choose to wear one or not without being considered "more rehabilitated" or "less rehabilitated", which often equates to "more succesful" and "less succesful" as far as rehab professionals are considered. I think that, of course, is wrong.