1. I have been, you just don't like what I have to say.
2. It depends, but I don't discount it because I know it has worked.
3. That is a Constitutional issue. I don't believe it is a question of guilt; but if they are guilty in the eyes of the law, then it follows that anyone who tries to heal and fails because they were wrong about what they thought would work, should also face trial.
4. No, because murder involves intent. It could be manslaughter, though.
5. it depends on what you mean by faith.

Thanks for actually discussing the article. Want to share how you "know" prayer has worked? Why did it not work in this case?

1. Because it saved the life of a relative of mine, when the doctors refused treatment because Medicare would not pay enough.

2. How would I know that?

Now, since I have answered all your questions, I have a couple of my own.

1. Why do you think prayer did not work in this case?

2. And if you think these people should be prosecuted for murder, which is not what they are being prosecuted for by the way, do you think others who fail to heal because they are mistaken about the means should also be prosecuted for murder?

The children died. "Prayer works" is a falsifiable hypothesis. Unfortunately, in this completely unethical experiment, it was clearly demonstrated that the hypothesis is false.



You are correct about the manslaughter charges. And, I do believe that if one has the choice between faith-healing and medical science and faith-healing leads to the patient dying that it should be considered manslaughter as in this case.



Prayer did not save the life of your relative. Imagine what pharmaceutical and insurance companies would do if prayer and faith-healing actually did work. Imagine how happy amputees would be if prayer and faith-healing actually did work.

If prayer actually worked, you'd think we be able to measure the effect.

I did. My relative recovered, DESPITE the doctors.

Prayer did save her. The doctors abandoned her. You have stated that Prayer did not save her. What is your proof of your claim?

As to prosecuting faith healers, and my relavtive did not go to a faith healer, who fail we should also prosecute doctors who fail.

Your relative recovered despite the prayers.



It completely depends on particular circumstances. In this case, it is clear that lives were lost due to negligence. Absolute faith kills.

She recovered despite the prayers? And the proof of your claim?

As to "absolute faith kills" that is a baseless assertion: and is itself the kind of absolute statement that has led to persecutions. Of course, I suppose it depends on what you mean by faith.

Per Russell's teapot, the "burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion."

If prayer actually worked, the free market would tap into it. Insurance companies would hire priests to prayer for the clients to reduce the number of claims. Drug companies would hire priests to prayer and increase the effectiveness of their drugs and hence their profits. All hospitals would hire priests to improve the outcomes of all the patients. And so on.



The people in the news story had absolute faith that prayer would be as effective as medical science. You apparently have absolute faith that prayer enabled your relative to recover.

A complete non sequitur; prayer is not something that is amenable to the capitalist "free market" or promises of money or profit of some kind. It is not something for hire, and my relative did not go to a "faith healer".

I took a gamble telling you my experience, expecting ridicule, and you have simply said, in so many words, that it did not happen for the reasons I state.

My relative TRIED MEDICAL SCIENCE. And MEDICAL SCIENCE abandoned her, for FREE MARKET REASONS.

But you will simply reject anything that does not comport with your naturalistic faith, which is unfalsifiable. Because no matter what I say about it, you will assert some other explanation.

Of course not. Prayer does not work.



I think you are saying that your relative did not have medical insurance. No need to blame science. Support universal healthcare.



Are you actually suggesting that the recovery of your relative is beyond any explanation? If your relative obtains insurance in the future and finally gets to see doctors again, are you really suggesting they will not be able to examine your relative and explain how your relative managed to recover?

and boom goes the dynamite.

Nope, as I pointed out before, she did have insurance. But the doctors would not take it because it would not pay enough.

Universal health care would have left here in the same situation. She would have been "triaged", which is what happened anyway.

The doctors failed.

It was a failure of health insurance. Not a failure of science.