[A CA Guy]

But the ones you are bringing out against him as your buds are scientific atheists. I just never heard in my life of atheism validating anything of a religious nature.

The chances of atheist saying something positive about religion are about the same as Hillary becoming a Republican tomorrow.

So, I find any conclusions they make, highly biased against the religious.

[snarks_when_bored]

There's a distinction to be made between evidence and argument. The article I linked to contains evidence gathered by the reporter, Nickel, about Hinn's activities and their detrimental effects on some of his 'healed' subjects. It's the evidence that is so damning, not the little bit of argument that's also included. Ignore the argument, if you wish, but don't fail to at least examine the evidence.

And even if one claims that the evidence against Hinn is itself fake or tainted, how could one possibly decide that without examing the evidence for oneself? That's one of the puzzling things to me about CyberAnt's position.