Do Healers Believe?

[Cyphermage]

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

I think most people who attend faith healing performances believe that healing sometimes works, but don't believe that everyone who participates is healed.

They hope they will be healed, and they want the healer to wish real hard for that to happen.

Anecdotal stories about people teetering on the brink who croak right after the performance, while touching, need to be taken in context as part of a population statistic.

Is attending a Benny Hinn performance while critically ill more or less dangerous than sitting in the front row of a professional wrestling show? Is it more dangerous than skiing? Than parachute jumping? Than BASE jumping?

If you can present evidence that Benny Hinn attendees expect guaranteed healing for all audience members, or die more often on a per capita basis than other popular slightly dangerous forms of recreation, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind about you rescuing them.

 

[Cyphermage]

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?

1. I've seen televised performances of most of the well-known faith healers. I've never felt motivated to attend a live performance. If you feel the show is something that can only be truly appreciated live, I'll go to one the next time it comes to town. I draw the line at giving money, however.

2. They are there for a spectacularly produced show, and are entertained. Whether they call it "entertainment" or "religion" is kind of like a distinction between whether a pro wrestling audience calls it "entertainment" or "a sporting event." What things really are, is often not what they are called, particularly by enthralled audience members. That's sort of the essence of being in showbusiness.

3. The charged lightning shooting crystal was a joke.

 

[Curnir]

I'm perfectly willing to change my mind about you rescuing them.

You don't seem to understand.

I...am...interested...in...removing...the...hucksters...quacks...charlatans...and...frauds.

If they are legit. Well then it would not be hard for them to show that, get a lot of money and revolutionize the world of science.

 

[Curnir]

1. I've seen televised performances of most of the well-known faith healers. I've never felt motivated to attend a live performance. If you feel the show is something that can only be truly appreciated live, I'll go to one the next time it comes to town. I draw the line at giving money, however.

Nice. Then tell me. Which ones? What were their claims. Did any of them say things like "Right now, to the left of me, a CANCER OF THE ABDOMEN is beeing healed by GOD."?
2. They are there for a spectacularly produced show, and are entertained. Whether they call it "entertainment" or "religion" is kind of like a distinction between whether a pro wrestling audience calls it "entertainment" or "a sporting event." What things are, is often not what they are called, particularly by serious atendees.[/QUOTE]
Wait... I am reading this correctly? Are you comparing faith healing "shows" to "wrassling"?

Anyway, I take that answer too mean that you indeed think that the sick people who attend faith healing "shows" are there for the entertainment, and that they don't really belive that they will be healed. Am I right in this assumption?

3. The charged lightning shooting crystal was a joke.

Noooooooo really? Then I guess the allegation that some people want to smite Benny Hinn with lightnings was, just some baseless bashing attempt.

 

[Cyphermage]

You don't seem to understand.

I...am...interested...in...removing...the...hucksters...quacks...charlatans...and...frauds.

If they are legit. Well then it would not be hard for them to show that, get a lot of money and revolutionize the world of science.

Yes, but we've discussed all this in detail back earlier in the thread.

The implied contract here is that the healer is representing that he will wish real hard for God to do something, which may or may not happen. He's wishing real hard. He's delivering what was advertised.

We have consenting adults, of their own free will, going to a highly entertaining performance.

Absent the faith healer making more specific claims, or telling people to stop seeing their doctors, I just don't see anything actionable here.

You're free to stand outside the auditorium with a big sign reading "God Doesn't Exist, and God Doesn't Heal. People who believe in God are stupid."
Good luck.

But when you talk about "removing" people who are providing something which is at most mildly harmful to intelligent adult clients who want it, based on you substituting your judgment for theirs, that sounds just as sinister as the wishful thinking about God making cancer go away.

 

[Curnir]

Is attending a Benny Hinn performance while critically ill more or less dangerous than sitting in the front row of a professional wrestling show? Is it more dangerous than skiing? Than parachute jumping? Than BASE jumping?

Do wrasslers tell people that they are healed from their ailment?
How often does a parachute jumper walk away from a landing thinking that he/she has been cure from his diabetes and no longer need to take his insulin.
How many ski instructors have told their stuents that "the SKISLOPE has BURNED AWAY their CANCER?

 

[Cyphermage]

Nice. Then tell me. Which ones? What were their claims. Did any of them say things like "Right now, to the left of me, a CANCER OF THE ABDOMEN is beeing healed by GOD."?

I've seen Oral Roberts, Peter Popoff, the late Katherine Kuhlmann, and a few others.

As far as non-specific healing claims go, I've seen Pat Robertson sitting on The 700 Club ranting on that "hemmorhoids are being healed in Montana, a brain tumor is shrinking in Detroit" or whatever. Only an idiot would take such a performance seriously. When Pat's wife had breast cancer, he certainly rushed her to the best specialists in the country for a quick boob-ectomy. That should show how much he believes his own nonsense.

2. They are there for a spectacularly produced show, and are entertained. Whether they call it "entertainment" or "religion" is kind of like a distinction between whether a pro wrestling audience calls it "entertainment" or "a sporting event." What things are, is often not what they are called, particularly by serious atendees.
Wait... I am reading this correctly? Are you comparing faith healing "shows" to "wrassling"?

I think pro wrestling is a wonderful metaphor for a lot of things in society, party politics included. I use it a lot. You have promoters. You have writers. You have marks. You have things the promoter knows that the mark doesn't.

It's fraud and fun all at the same time.

Noooooooo really? Then I guess the allegation that some people want to smite Benny Hinn with lightnings was, just some baseless bashing attempt.

It's actually a reference to Hinn being struck down made by a prior poster.

 

[Cyphermage]

Do wrasslers tell people that they are healed from their ailment?
How often does a parachute jumper walk away from a landing thinking that he/she has been cure from his diabetes and no longer need to take his insulin.
How many ski instructors have told their stuents that "the SKISLOPE has BURNED AWAY their CANCER?

Are you upset?

 

[Curnir]

Yes, but we've discussed all this in detail back earlier in the thread.

The implied contract here is that the healer is representing that he will wish real hard for God to do something, which may or may not happen. He's wishing real hard. He's delivering what was advertised.

And I suppose you can give me examples of such preachers?

We have consenting adults, of their own free will, going to a highly entertaining performance.

Do you have any basis for your assumptions that these adults are only going there for entertainment?

Absent the faith healer making more specific claims, or telling people to stop seeing their doctors, I just don't see anything actionable here.

And what would you call such preachers?

You're free to stand outside the auditorium with a big sign reading "God Doesn't Exist, and God Doesn't Heal. People who believe in God are stupid."
Good luck.

Why would I want to do that? If the faith healer truly can heal. It would be very easy for him to, show it, get lots of money "for GOD", revolutionize science AND bring in lots and lots of believers.

But when you talk about "removing" people who are providing something which is at most mildly harmful to intelligent adult clients who want it,

What do they provide? Could it be false hope? Is that mildly harmful?

based on you substituting your judgment for theirs,

People can belive whatever they want, the ones that piss me off are the ones who live as parasites off the suffering, this does not only mean faith healers.

that sounds just as sinister

How did you know I was left-handed?

as the wishful thinking about God making cancer go away.

Want some M&Ms? They're blue...

 

[Curnir]

Are you upset?

Nope I am quite calm.

 

[Curnir]

I've seen Oral Roberts, Peter Popoff, the late Katherine Kuhlmann, and a few others.

As far as non-specific healing claims go, I've seen Pat Robertson sitting on The 700 Club ranting on that "hemmorhoids are being healed in Montana, a brain tumor is shrinking in Detroit" or whatever. Only an idiot would take such a performance seriously.

Are you calling the true believers "idiots"?

When Pat's wife had breast cancer, he certainly rushed her to the best specialists in the country for a quick boob-ectomy. That should show how much he believes his own nonsense.

And yet people believe. And the parasites take their money.

 

[Yahzi]

Hmm. So, tell me, how do you react when you see someone smoking?

That's a bad example, because I don't know a single smoker who isn't already aware of the damage it does, and wants to quit.

I don't have to lecture my friends, because all of them are in various stages of trying to quit. (Admittedly some of those stages look like total surrender, but still. )

As for strangers, presumably their friends, or the surgeon general, or the TV, has already informed them of the dangers, so I don't need to. Furthermore, nobody in the media is suggesting that smoking is good for you.

A better example would be: If I saw somebody aggressively arguing that smoking was good for you, then yes, I would lecture them at every turn. If they were selling cigarettes as a cure to lung cancer, I would lecture them. If they were buying cigarettes as a cure for cancer, I would lecture them. Wouldn't you?

 

[Yahzi]

I don't agree that it is my mission in life to run around stomping on things I find imperfect.

We all understand: you don't care if other people are being victimized. It's not your problem. And in fact you often find it amusing.

We get it.

Again, less nonsense is usually better than more nonsense, but I have not been appointed to the job of redecorating the planet.

Your delusions of granduer are misplaced. Nobody is asking you to redecorate the planet. We just expect you to pick up the stray cigarette butt or two, and when you see someone dropping one, we would appreciate it if you asked him to stop.

This is the typical right wing babble

The idea that morality is an objective concept, like mathematics, is not a right-wing idea.

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

You define trying to stop frauds and conmen as saving the world from sin?

I don't have a moral duty to try to run other peoples lives

Or to care when they are being put on, lied to, or decieved. Yes, we understand: you don't give a damn.

If you mean allowing others to live their lives unmolested,

Your definition of harm as only ""iminent danger of death or serious injury" leaves lots of room for children to be molested.

See, here's the thing: I bet you define harm far more widely when it is being done to you. So your notion that unless the rapist is about to kill or maim somebody, he should be left alone, comes off as hypocritical - since we know if you were being raped, you'd be livid. Heck, you'd probably hit the roof if somebody merely sold you a car that didn't run and lied about it.

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

And selfishness is the ultimate failure of morality.

 

[Yahzi]

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?

This statement doesn't mean much, until you realize it is the response to this question:

"You don't think fraud is wrong?"

Cyphermage has just gone on record as saying, "Fraud is OK."

While I see he has made other points that would be amusing to refute, it is against my policy to debate with people who confess they have no intention of arguing in good faith.

 

[Cyphermage]

This statement doesn't mean much, until you realize it is the response to this question:

"You don't think fraud is wrong?"

Cyphermage has just gone on record as saying, "Fraud is OK."

While I see he has made other points that would be amusing to refute, it is against my policy to debate with people who confess they have no intention of arguing in good faith.

No, I have just gone on record as saying "Fraud is fraud." You will be taken much more seriously if you omit the lying.

I have previously stated that I don't do hoops, litmus tests, or value judgments. If you require these things in order to discuss, you will have limited success.

 

[Cyphermage]

We all understand: you don't care if other people are being victimized. It's not your problem. And in fact you often find it amusing.

Arguing will be expedited if you confine yourself to stating your views, instead of misstating mine.

To summarize up to this point. You are bestowing victimhood on people who find you to be a nuisance. When this is pointed out, you appeal to "not caring," "blaming the victim," "lacking morals," and anecdotal stories about people who experienced sudden unexpected death.

Whether it's religion, sex abuse, politics, or the earth is flat, such antics are the mark of a zealot. Zealots are generally pests, and spend their lives wondering why nobody loves them, except other zealots.

We just expect you to pick up the stray cigarette butt or two, and when you see someone dropping one, we would appreciate it if you asked him to stop.

You're perfectly welcome to ask people nicely not to go into the Benny Hinn auditorium. Let us know how that turns out, will you?

I'm sure that once you give them the leaflet explaining how there's no God, and faith healing doesn't work, they will run and demand their donations back. Or will they? Hmm?

You see, my argument is that the vast majority of these people are attending the event because they have made a perfectly informed and free choice to do so. There isn't some secret, which if blurted out as they were filing in, would make them turn around and leave. Not even "It's a Cookbook!!"

The idea that morality is an objective concept, like mathematics, is not a right-wing idea.

The idea that there is an objective morality, independent of situational ethics, is a religious crackpot idea.

You define trying to stop frauds and conmen as saving the world from sin?

Which part are you disagreeing with? The "saving" part or the "sin" part?

Your definition of harm as only ""iminent danger of death or serious injury" leaves lots of room for children to be molested.

The last resort of the right wing crackpot is to try and change the subject to be about sex and children.

So your notion that unless the rapist is about to kill or maim somebody, he should be left alone, comes off as hypocritical.

I don't recall saying anything about rapists. I'm talking about people who believe being prayed for can expedite God's healing, visiting people willing to perform the praying function.

What part of this doesn't strike you as Constitutionally protected private religious practice by consenting adults?

 

[Cyphermage]

Are you calling the true believers "idiots"?

And yet people believe. And the parasites take their money.

Common memes confer a survival advantage through encouraging bonding and cooperation, which through natural selection, results in brains wired to seek and acquire profound myths.

Would you take their myths away, and condemn them to lives of unfulfilled longing, because it irks you to see them give money to the myth-makers?

Mean skeptics, indeed.

 

[SezMe]

You see, my argument is that the vast majority of these people are attending the event because they have made a perfectly informed and free choice to do so.

My emphasis...and that is where you are wrong. They may have made their decision based on deliberately false information and you appear to have to no problem with that. I do.

 

[Curnir]

Common memes confer a survival advantage through encouraging bonding and cooperation, which through natural selection, results in brains wired to seek and acquire profound myths.

Yes yes yes we are patternseeking animals... What's you're point?

Would you take their myths away, and condemn them to lives of unfulfilled longing, because it irks you to see them give money to the myth-makers?

Mean skeptics, indeed.

Not answering the question, intimating that I want to take away peoples beliefs, and naming me a "mean skeptic".... Well done.

Now what is that technique called?

 

[jon]

Common memes confer a survival advantage through encouraging bonding and cooperation, which through natural selection, results in brains wired to seek and acquire profound myths.

Would you take their myths away, and condemn them to lives of unfulfilled longing, because it irks you to see them give money to the myth-makers?

Mean skeptics, indeed.

Just as a side-point, you seem to have misunderstood what memes are. If you believe in what Dawkins, Dennett and so forth have had to say about this, surely you'd have to view memes as selfish - the memes that persist will be those that reproduce effectively, regardless of what they do to individual humans. This means that memes such as a belief in the virtue of female genital mutilation can and do persist. Is challenging such common memes and profound myths mean?

It's feasible that our brains are 'hard-wired' to acquire certain beliefs - you call these beliefs profound...I could think of other short anglo-saxon words to describe them It's quite feasible that our brains are 'hard-wired' for a range of undesirable behaviours; however, we might actually attain fulfillment through overcoming such 'hard-wiring' in order to find better ways to behave. I wouldn't call this mean - words like 'progress', achievement' or 'enlightenment' spring to mind instead...