Do Healers Believe?

[Cyphermage]

Either Cyphermage is the most unprincipled woo I've ever met to set up such malicious straw men, or he's got the world's worst reading comprehension ability.

Clearly, you don't like being disagreed with. But you think you have the right to decide for others when they have been victimized, and save them against their wishes.

How does this differ from burning heretics? You think what you do is ok because you think you are right, and "they" are wrong.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The road to Iraq as well.

 

[HopperUK]

How does this differ from burning heretics?

In that... nobody's getting burned?

 

[Cyphermage]

I don't think CM is particularly unprincipled for a woo; indeed, I find him/her at times refreshingly honest. It's not a character fault we are talking about, but a philosophical position. The essence of woo is that a) the world derives from metaphysical truths, and b) metaphysical truths derive from your own mind.

They're at least half right...

Of course, you all look like "woo" from where I'm sitting.

I just don't feel it is my mission to declare you victims, leap in, tell you what your feelings and experiences are, and save you from yourselves.

This is how my relationship with you differs from your own relationship to those who look like "woo" from your perspective, and like "woo-squared" from mine.

Absent iminent danger of death or serious injury to someone, I resist the temptation to meddle. I hint, and occasionally pontificate, but I don't run around telling children they have been defrauded by their parents telling them about Santa Claus, or telling old people whose only entertainment is going to Benny Hinn performances of the hopelessness of their conditions.

 

[Cyphermage]

In that... nobody's getting burned?

Sort of like Teleological Suspension of the Ethical for Skeptics?

You wouldn't advocate that everyone who thinks they are right, and someone else isn't, barge in and "save" the other person from their own stupidity, would you?

What makes you more immune to self-delusion than the next person? What happens if the person you are saving is more advanced than you are, and you are misinterpreting something they clearly understand, and calling it "woo" through ignorance?

That's the problem with the world today. Everyone wants to tinker with the timeline.

 

[HopperUK]

What makes you more immune to self-delusion than the next person?

Well for one thing, I'm acutely on the look-out for it, since I'm too aware of how prone we all are to believe what we want to believe. Otherwise, dude - I was just pointing out that you were saying something ridiculous. The difference between skeptics trying to convince woos and burning heretics is that skeptics are not burning anyone. Burned? On fire? Nobody! That's not a pesky little detail, it's - the difference between setting someone on fire until they die, and challenging their beliefs. Not the same thing.

 

[Cyphermage]

Well for one thing, I'm acutely on the look-out for it, since I'm too aware of how prone we all are to believe what we want to believe. Otherwise, dude - I was just pointing out that you were saying something ridiculous. The difference between skeptics trying to convince woos and burning heretics is that skeptics are not burning anyone. Burned? On fire? Nobody! That's not a pesky little detail, it's - the difference between setting someone on fire until they die, and challenging their beliefs. Not the same thing.

The similarities are that the people doing the burning believed that they were in the "right" and that they were saving the people being burned.

The rest is just a matter of degree.

 

[HopperUK]

The rest is just a matter of degree.

So you see no qualititative difference between arguing with somebody, and murdering them with fire. That's, um. Interesting.

 

[Yahzi]

No, I wouldn't agree.

You don't agree that it is bad for people to defraud other people?

I don't believe in nonsense.

Forgive me if I am unable to take this sentence at face value.

Clearly, I think not having nonsense is better than having it,

It is not clear that you prefer this. Your spirited defense of fraud confuses the issue.

but I don't use terms like "right" and "wrong", as they are value judgments, not facts.

You don't think fraud is "wrong?"

On a side note: why do so many woos think it is a mark of distinction to not have a functioning moral sense?

Now, there's a difference between not believing in nonsense, and thinking it is ones mission to stamp it out everywhere it exists, or run around declaring it all "wrong."

Yes. One of these positions is called "indifference," and is an abandonment of your moral duty towards your fellow humans.

The idea that you could watch a man drink a dose of poison every day, slowly killing himself in the most painful manner, and yet not speak up to him because "he says its what he wants to do" is not the moral high ground. It is not "empowering" other people. It is empowering yourself to be selfish and escape your social duty.

Few follow the path of the non-nonsensical life, and fewer still develop any deep insight into the meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything. It's not my job to club people on the head, and point in the direction of less nonsense.

In other words: I got mine, so screw you!

Why is it that every single time I scratch a woo (including the Christian ones), I find this ethic underneath?

Do-gooders, savers, and converts, are to be distrusted.

The hallmark words of a con in action.

They think they know what's best for everyone, and that the end justifies the means.

Where in my posts have I ever endorsed this? Please point to the sentence that made you think I would ever suggest that the ends justify the means. If all you have left to offer is baseless charges of immorality, then I'll stop reading your posts.

Hence my question, is it proper to put a sincere faith healer out of business by calling him a crook.

Hence the answer: if he is a crook, yes. How do you tell if he is a crook? By seeing if he delivers what he takes payment for.

What part of this do you not understand?

Instead, you assert that if people are made happy, how they are made happy doesn't matter. You are the one suggesting the ends (happiness) justifies the means (fraud).

Please discuss amongst yourselves.

We'll have to, because you don't seem to have anything to offer the conversation.

 

[Yahzi]

But you think you have the right to decide for others when they have been victimized, and save them against their wishes.

So what you're saying is, if the con artist can fool the person into thinking they weren't conned, that makes it ok.

How does this differ from burning heretics? You think what you do is ok because you think you are right, and "they" are wrong.

No, we know what we do is ok, because we know we are right. See, there is this thing called "objective truth." Either the medicine makes you better, or it doesn't. That is an objective fact. The emotions or opinions of the patient, healer, or you are simply irrelevant to the objective truth of whether or not the patient got better because of the medicine.

It is on the basis of objective fact that we seek to justify our actions.

But of course, you don't beleive in objective fact. Which means there is no more point to discussing anything with you. All I can ever do is present objective facts, and you don't care about them. What I cannot do is stroke your ego and make the world look pretty until you decide to agree with me. If that is what you want (and it clearly is the basis for how you decide truth from fiction), you'll need to go elsewhere.

 

[Yahzi]

What makes you more immune to self-delusion than the next person?

The fact that you can ask this shows you have learned nothing from your time here.

The answer, which should be obvious, is: double-blind studies are what allow us to remove observer bias and uncover objective truth.

What happens if the person you are saving is more advanced than you are, and you are misinterpreting something they clearly understand, and calling it "woo" through ignorance?

If they were more advanced, they wouldn't need saving. In fact, you can tell who is "advanced" because they are out there saving others.

If you aren't using your superior knowledge and power to help others, you aren't "advanced."

 

[Beth]

The idea that you could watch a man drink a dose of poison every day, slowly killing himself in the most painful manner, and yet not speak up to him because "he says its what he wants to do" is not the moral high ground.

Hmm. So, tell me, how do you react when you see someone smoking? Everytime you see someone light one up, you are watching them inhale poison into their lungs, slowly killing themselves in a most painful manner. Do you take what you describe as the "high moral ground" and lecture them about what they are doing? Or do you take what you would describe as the "selfish" position of allowing them to poison themselves without interference?

 

[Cyphermage]

So you see no qualititative difference between arguing with somebody, and murdering them with fire. That's, um. Interesting.

We aren't discussing the qualitative difference between arguing with someone and murdering them with fire. We are discussing the qualitative difference between presuming to substitute your judgment for that of someone else, and deciding to save them from their own free choices, because you think it might be harmful to them, and presuming to substitute your judgment for that of someone else, and deciding to burn their physical body to save their even more valuable (in your opinion) immortal soul.

In one instance, you are forcing your opinion on someone that their soul is more important than their body. In the other, you are forcing your opinion on someone that their physical safety is more important than their exercise of free will.

It's all meddling, and in typical camel's nose under the tent fashion, the more of it you do, the more your appetite to manage the affairs of others increases, because of course, you know so much better than they do what's best for them.

 

[Cyphermage]

You don't agree that it is bad for people to defraud other people?

I don't agree that it is my mission in life to run around stomping on things I find imperfect. Again, less nonsense is usually better than more nonsense, but I have not been appointed to the job of redecorating the planet.

It is not clear that you prefer this. Your spirited defense of fraud confuses the issue.

This is the typical right wing babble that anyone less hyperbolic than you on some issue is "defending," "advocating", and "promoting" whatever it is you disagree with.

That I do not consider it my mission to reconfigure the world to my standards, and that I respect the right of others to make choices I disagree with, does not in any way constitute advocacy of imperfection.

Again, absent iminent danger of death or serious injury to a specific individual, I don't run around pre-empting the choices of my fellow citizens.

You don't think fraud is "wrong?"

Fraud is fraud. Do you want me to make you do what I think you should do the next time you are in a situation I think I know better about than you do?

On a side note: why do so many woos think it is a mark of distinction to not have a functioning moral sense?

On a side note. Why do supposedly scientific skeptics act so much like religious crackpots trying to save the world from "sin."

Yes. One of these positions is called "indifference," and is an abandonment of your moral duty towards your fellow humans.

I don't have a moral duty to try to run other peoples lives, except, as I previously stated, in situations where there is iminent danger of death or serious injury to a specific individual.

The idea that you could watch a man drink a dose of poison every day, slowly killing himself in the most painful manner, and yet not speak up to him because "he says its what he wants to do" is not the moral high ground. It is not "empowering" other people. It is empowering yourself to be selfish and escape your social duty.

That would be a case of "iminent danger of death or serious injury to a specific individual," which we have previously discussed.

In other words: I got mine, so screw you!

If you mean allowing others to live their lives unmolested, absent iminent danger of death or serious injury, constitutes screwing them, I certainly don't want you running my life.

Why is it that every single time I scratch a woo (including the Christian ones), I find this ethic underneath?

Zen is like a mirror. If an chimpanzee looks in, an adept does not look back.

 

[Cyphermage]

So what you're saying is, if the con artist can fool the person into thinking they weren't conned, that makes it ok.

But you will always consider someone doing something you think you know better about as having been "fooled," because they lack what you believe to be your own advanced insight into the situation.

You've just reworded the license to meddle in terms others find less offensive. Lipstick on a pig.

No, we know what we do is ok, because we know we are right.

"Mr. President, it isn't the things you don't know that worries me. It's the things you're absolutely certain of that ain't so."

 

[Cyphermage]

The fact that you can ask this shows you have learned nothing from your time here.

The answer, which should be obvious, is: double-blind studies are what allow us to remove observer bias and uncover objective truth.

The world is full of little cliques of non-science, that publish their own peer-reviewed journals replete with what they represent are scholarly articles and research projects adhering to the highest scientific standards.

Chiropractic, for instance. Once you get all the kooks in a group, it's pretty hard for a layman to tell the work product from valid science.

If they were more advanced, they wouldn't need saving. In fact, you can tell who is "advanced" because they are out there saving others.

If they are more advanced than you, your opinion that they need saving might be based on a Cargo-Cult-like misinterpretation of events.

If you aren't using your superior knowledge and power to help others, you aren't "advanced."

Well, of course, we musn't judge all the advanced by whom you think needs help from them, now should we.

 

[Curnir]

The world is full of little cliques of non-science, that publish their own peer-reviewed journals replete with what they represent are scholarly articles and research projects adhering to the highest scientific standards.

And what would you call the people who critize these no-science folks by calling what they're up to "pseudo science"?

 

[Curnir]

I don't agree that it is my mission in life to run around stomping on things I find imperfect. Again, less nonsense is usually better than more nonsense, but I have not been appointed to the job of redecorating the planet.

Again, absent iminent danger of death or serious injury to a specific individual, I don't run around pre-empting the choices of my fellow citizens.

Who does?

Seriously though, I like the "specific individual" part of your rant.

Tell me. I you came to a bridge and saw that the middle section had been destroyed (very hard to spot in time, when you're driving) would you Cyphermage put up some sort of warning sign? I mean, no "specific individual" is facing "iminent danger of death or serious injury", you have after all no frickin idea who will drive over the edge. And you wouldn't want to "meddle in others affairs" now would you?

Personally I would put up signs informing the motorists of the damaged bridge, and contact the proper authorities.

Hey that sounds almost like what the skeptics do, after establishing that there is a danger, WARN ABOUT THE DANGER, and try to get the authorities to put a stop to the danger.

 

[Cyphermage]

Who does?

Seriously though, I like the "specific individual" part of your rant.

Tell me. I you came to a bridge and saw that the middle section had been destroyed (very hard to spot in time, when you're driving) would you Cyphermage put up some sort of warning sign? I mean, no "specific individual" is facing "iminent danger of death or serious injury", you have after all no frickin idea who will drive over the edge. And you wouldn't want to "meddle in others affairs" now would you?

Personally I would put up signs informing the motorists of the damaged bridge, and contact the proper authorities.

Hey that sounds almost like what the skeptics do, after establishing that there is a danger, WARN ABOUT THE DANGER, and try to get the authorities to put a stop to the danger.

The specific individual does not have to be an identified specific individual, but the danger has to be a great risk to such a person, as opposed to a very tiny risk to a large number of people. Also whether the person is knowingly taking the risk is a factor.

If someone aware of the bridge problem decides to try jumping their car over the gap, it is a different kind of risk than someone driving across the bridge not knowing the missing section is there.

A broken bridge would qualify for intervention. Jumping up and down and praising Jesus wouldn't..

 

[Cyphermage]

And what would you call the people who critize these no-science folks by calling what they're up to "pseudo science"?

Depending on the politeness with which the criticism is conducted, I would call them either "consumer advocates" or "hecklers."

 

[Curnir]

The specific individual does not have to be an identified specific individual, but the danger has to be a great risk to such a person, as opposed to a very tiny risk to a large number of people. Also whether the person is knowingly taking the risk is a factor.

Tiny risk?

If someone aware of the bridge problem decides to try jumping their car over the gap, it is a different kind of risk than someone driving across the bridge not knowing the missing section is there.

And those who go to Faith Healers belongs in which category?
Would you say that they know that the healing doesn't work? Or that they fervently believes the bridge is there err the healing works?

A broken bridge would qualify for intervention. Jumping up and down and praising Jesus wouldn't..

Dead is dead, who are the dead people going to complain to? Sylvia Brown?

Once more.
Would you warn people about the danger?
Would you contact the proper authorites?

And of course:
1. Have you seen any faith healers "show" (like Benny Hinn's for instance)?
2. Is it your argument that the sick people who attend the "shows" are there for entertainment purposes only?
3. Can you tell me more about that magic stone that shoots lightning?