Do Healers Believe?

[blutoski]

And, it's not limited to born-agains:
Soloflex Ad

 

[Cyphermage]

And, it's not limited to born-agains:
Soloflex Ad

I'm sure the "God only knows" in the ad was a humorous reference, and not an attempt to suggest the device works by supernatural means.

Vibration apparently has a positive effect on bone strength, and is a recommended therapy for people unable to do normal exercise. Exactly why it works has yet to be precisely explained.

http://www.powerplateusa.com/research/docs/Leuven Bone Density Study ~ 3-04.pdf

 

[Yahzi]

Similarly, I think most people who attend faith healer shows are aware of what they are doing and are willing to pay the price.

They are aware that the faith healer has never actually healed anyone?

I find this highly unlikely.

We skeptics aren't asking for faith-healers to be shut down (despite CypherMage's repeated paranoid fantasies of fascism). We are asking that the Surgeon General's warning be put on the faith healer's tents, that TV shows routinely acknowledge the failure of faith healers to actually heal, that the conventional wisdom about faith healers be as scientifically accurate as it is about smoking, that people who say falsehoods (like smoking isn't dangerous) be held legally liable.

And that childen not be exposed to it.

After that, party on!

 

[Yahzi]

I have stated numerous times that "right" and "wrong" are value judgments. "Fraud is Fraud" doesn't associate either right or wrong with fraud. It just indicates an unwillingness on my part to play the litmus test game with you.

What if I defrauded you?

Would that be wrong?

Is asking you to treat others the way you want to be treated a limus test?

Well, I suppose it is. And you have failed.

Apparently you have your own litmus test - "imminent bodily harm." But of course expecting me to adhere to your litmus test is perfectly reasonable, no matter how much you reject mine. And my pointing out that even you reject your own litmus test when you are the victim is apparently against your rules of debate.

Your basic rule is: "The rules are different for me than for other people." The classic woo position: morality is a social construct whose purpose is to benefit me.

 

[Cyphermage]

They are aware that the faith healer has never actually healed anyone?

Well, certainly some people get better after seeing faith healers. Many diseases are cyclic, and people tend to seek help when they are at their worst. There is the placebo effect, and many ailments are psychosomatic.

There is no scientific evidence which suggests that wishing that the patient doesn't know about affects the outcome. Wishing that the patient is aware of can be positive, neutral, or negative, depending on which study you look at.

Saying "no scientific evidence suggests" is a lot different than saying "such and such has never happened." Things happen for a wide variety of reasons.

We skeptics aren't asking for faith-healers to be shut down (despite CypherMage's repeated paranoid fantasies of fascism).

You're now speaking for all skeptics, some of whom in this very thread have suggested faith healers should be sent to jail, and the only problem is collecting evidence that will stick?

Your detachment from reality is worsening.

We are asking that the Surgeon General's warning be put on the faith healer's tents, that TV shows routinely acknowledge the failure of faith healers to actually heal, that the conventional wisdom about faith healers be as scientifically accurate as it is about smoking, that people who say falsehoods (like smoking isn't dangerous) be held legally liable.

What would the warning say? Faith healing is hardly double blind.

"The Surgeon General has determined that prayer has no direct effect on the course of an illness, apart from psychological effects stemming from the person being aware of the praying."

I doubt that's going to stop anyone from attending, and who's to say increasing a person's positive mental attitude doesn't in some cases help their body fight back.

And that childen not be exposed to it.

Religion, presented in any context other than historical, is harmful to children. Trying getting that warning on things.

As usual, good luck with your experiments. We look forward to hearing back from you about the results.

 

[Cyphermage]

What if I defrauded you?

You could try. I did not just fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

Would that be wrong?

It would, at the very least, be educational. For one or both of us.

Is asking you to treat others the way you want to be treated a limus test?

Well, I suppose it is. And you have failed.

Putting preconditions on admission to the debate which have your conclusions built in is a litmus test.

Apparently you have your own litmus test - "imminent bodily harm." But of course expecting me to adhere to your litmus test is perfectly reasonable, no matter how much you reject mine.

I have indicated that "iminent danger of death or serious injury" is my criteria for interfering in the free choice of a competent adult.

You are not being required to do anything.

It merely indicates I would grab your collar if you were about to walk in front of a speeding cement truck, but not if you were asking someone to pray that God would heal your cranial-rectal inversion.

Again, you are not being required to do anything.

 

[Yahzi]

You could try. I did not just fall off the turnip truck yesterday.

It would, at the very least, be educational. For one or both of us.

Read closely, and what do you see here?

After you get past the blinding level of egotism, you notice the classic "blame the victim" ideology. CM's morality is of the level of, "If you got tricked, it's your own fault for being so stupid! HAHAHAHA!"

Putting preconditions on admission to the debate which have your conclusions built in is a litmus test.

Demanding that you agree not to lie is a built-in conclusion on my part? Are you suggesting that, denied the ability to prevaricate, distort, and decieve, you recognize the wrongness of your position is a fore-gone conclusion?

When merely admitting that some acts are wrong renders your case indefensible, I sumbit that is sufficient evidence that your case is indefensible.

Again, I don't know why you are so proud of your complete lack of empathy for people who do not have your intellectual or social advantages. I don't know why you think stealing from people is OK as long as they are too dumb, ignorant, or emotionally involved to notice it.

Well, certainly some people get better after seeing faith healers.

And here you are, actively shilling for the crooks. Some people don't die from smoking - in fact, about 2/3s of them don't. By your logic, that means the tabacco industry should be allowed to declare that smoking cures cancer.

Saying "no scientific evidence suggests" is a lot different than saying "such and such has never happened." Things happen for a wide variety of reasons.

Now you're suggesting it is actually possible that someone was healed by Magic Prayer. But since you don't have a single case to present, you're retreating to the "You can't prove it's false, so I can believe it's true" crap.

What you overlook is that this defense works all too well. If you just shoot everyone who can prove that racism is bunk, you have suddenly made racism as intellectually defensible as anything else. This is why we do not allow this principle of believing the unproven: because it leads to people believing unprovable things.

But you're on top of the heap at the moment, and like any bully, you are utterly incapable of imagining that you might someday be at the bottom of the heap. So you have no interest in creating a world in which fairness is the guiding principle, rather than strength and duplicity.

Please don't take this abuse the wrong way. You are, in fact, my favorite woo on this board. You are the sterling example of how an educated, sophisticated, intelligent adult can talk themselves into believing nonsense, all for the sake of silencing their personal sense of morality. If I could plate you in gold and put you on exhibit around the world, I would.

Now if that's not love, what is?

 

[Cyphermage]

Read closely, and what do you see here?

After you get past the blinding level of egotism, you notice the classic "blame the victim" ideology. CM's morality is of the level of, "If you got tricked, it's your own fault for being so stupid! HAHAHAHA!"

You are abstracting from the specific to the general, a well-known form of false argumentation. I was speaking of you tricking me. Not about any other person tricking me or anyone else.

Again, appeals to the victim being blamed are the first resort of a right wing crank when someone refuses to jump on their bandwagon.

In fact, I'd even go so far to say that right wing cranks wouldn't be where they are today, were it not for the successful exploitation of purported victimhood.

Demanding that you agree not to lie is a built-in conclusion on my part? Are you suggesting that, denied the ability to prevaricate, distort, and decieve, you recognize the wrongness of your position is a fore-gone conclusion?

Demanding I take your little "Fraud is Wrong" oath in order to discuss faith healers, after I have explained to you that I don't do value judgments, or believe in moral absolutes, is a precondition and a litmus test.

Right wing cranks like litmus tests almost as much as they like bestowing victimhood.

When merely admitting that some acts are wrong renders your case indefensible, I sumbit that is sufficient evidence that your case is indefensible.

Ann Coulter couldn't have put it better.

You're like someone holding a debate on age-of-consent laws, and inviting only people who are willing to admit, "Sex before age 18 makes childrens' heads explode."

I don't have to ridicule your antics. They are self-parodying.

Again, I don't know why you are so proud of your complete lack of empathy for people who do not have your intellectual or social advantages. I don't know why you think stealing from people is OK as long as they are too dumb, ignorant, or emotionally involved to notice it.

I never said any of that, but a right wing crank on a roll never lets itself be confused with facts. Right wing cranks feel the truth. Facts are for people who hate our troops. LOL.

And here you are, actively shilling for the crooks. Some people don't die from smoking - in fact, about 2/3s of them don't. By your logic, that means the tabacco industry should be allowed to declare that smoking cures cancer.

At least smoking cures right wing cranks.

Now you're suggesting it is actually possible that someone was healed by Magic Prayer. But since you don't have a single case to present, you're retreating to the "You can't prove it's false, so I can believe it's true" crap.

No, I'm giving a number of reasons why someone might get better after visiting a faith healer. I'm not suggesting it is possible that the prayer actually affected the course of their illness, other than psychologically.

Still, if you're terribly sick, even having your mood lifted a bit might be something you value greatly. Not something I have the right to take away from people, if that is their choice.

What you overlook is that this defense works all too well. If you just shoot everyone who can prove that racism is bunk, you have suddenly made racism as intellectually defensible as anything else. This is why we do not allow this principle of believing the unproven: because it leads to people believing unprovable things.

You're the only person here talking about believing the unproven. Everyone else is talking about the Constitutional right of competent adults to engage in private religious practice without you harrassing them.

A subtle point, I know, but please try to pay attention.

But you're on top of the heap at the moment, and like any bully, you are utterly incapable of imagining that you might someday be at the bottom of the heap. So you have no interest in creating a world in which fairness is the guiding principle, rather than strength and duplicity.

For all you know, I'm homeless, and typing this in my refrigerator box next to a Wi-Fi hotspot.

Please don't take this abuse the wrong way. You are, in fact, my favorite woo on this board. You are the sterling example of how an educated, sophisticated, intelligent adult can talk themselves into believing nonsense, all for the sake of silencing their personal sense of morality. If I could plate you in gold and put you on exhibit around the world, I would.

This is a surrogate issue you have invented to divert attention from the one everyone else is discussing. This is not about my believing in nonsense. I don't. This is about you bestowing victimhood on people who want you to piss off and die, substituting your judgment for theirs on the content and meaning of their life's experiences, and meddling.

Of course you call it something else, because that's what right wing cranks do.

 

[jon]

Again, appeals to the victim being blamed are the first resort of a right wing crank when someone refuses to jump on their bandwagon.

In fact, I'd even go so far to say that right wing cranks wouldn't be where they are today, were it not for the successful exploitation of purported victimhood.

Demanding I take your little "Fraud is Wrong" oath in order to discuss faith healers, after I have explained to you that I don't do value judgments, or believe in moral absolutes, is a precondition and a litmus test.

Am I missing something here - isn't calling people right-wing cranks, and (presumably) objecting to their views on this basis, a value judgement? You seem to be arguing that Yahzi's value judgements are wrong - isn't this also a value judgement on your part?

 

[Cyphermage]

Am I missing something here - isn't calling people right-wing cranks, and (presumably) objecting to their views on this basis, a value judgement? You seem to be arguing that Yahzi's value judgements are wrong - isn't this also a value judgement on your part?

No. I am pointing out that attributing to me things I did not say, demanding litmus tests, creating surrogate issues, and setting oneself up as the protector of people one has bestowed victimhood on, are typical debating tactics of right wing cranks. As is accusing someone who disagrees of attacking the fabricated victim class.

A value judgment would be to say that "right wing cranks are wrong."

 

[jon]

OK, if you don't think right-wing cranks are wrong (I'd prefer to say unethical, but take your pick) does that mean you intend calling people right wing cranks to be purely descriptive? If so, presumably you'd acknowledge that those you accuse of being right-wing cranks could still be entirely right in what they say - regardless of their alleged crankyness.

tbh, if you intend 'right wing crank' to be a descriptive term, I'd think you could find somewhat richer/more useful/more subtle terms to describe groups on the political right, anyway.

Edited for grammer.

 

[Cyphermage]

OK, if you don't think right-wing cranks are wrong (I'd prefer to say unethical, but take your pick) does that mean you intend calling people right wing cranks to be purely descriptive? If so, presumably you'd acknowledge that those you accuse of being right-wing cranks could still be entirely right in what they say - regardless of their alleged crankyness.

tbh, if you intend 'right wing crank' to be a descriptive term, I'd think you could find somewhat richer/more useful/more subtle terms to describe groups on the political right, anyway.

Edited for grammer.

Oh yes. The right wing crank could very well be a highly successful political animal who will beat all other forms of rhetoric into the ground, and win the accolades of an adoring public.

Perhaps it's the wave of the future. Trickery-based argumentation driving out fact-based argumentation.

Stranger things have happened.

 

[Hellbound]

No. I am pointing out that attributing to me things I did not say, like claiming you want to get rid of all religion demanding litmus tests, like running into a church and yelling "There is no God!"creating surrogate issues, and setting oneself up as the protector of people one has bestowed victimhood on, like those who are being saved against thier will? are typical debating tactics of right wing cranks. As is accusing someone who disagrees of attacking the fabricated victim class.

A value judgment would be to say that "right wing cranks are wrong."

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

 

[jon]

Oh yes. The right wing crank could very well be a highly successful political animal who will beat all other forms of rhetoric into the ground, and win the accolades of an adoring public.

Perhaps it's the wave of the future. Trickery-based argumentation driving out fact-based argumentation.

Stranger things have happened.

Again, are you making a value judgement that trickery-based argumentation is worse than fact-based argumentation - or would you be happy to see the move from the latter to the former?

Highly successful and popular politicians can still be wrong.

 

[Cyphermage]

Again, are you making a value judgement that trickery-based argumentation is worse than fact-based argumentation - or would you be happy to see the move from the latter to the former?

Highly successful and popular politicians can still be wrong.

Trickery-based argumentation is more likely to produce the wrong answer, because it does not consist of a linked chain of irrefutable steps.

However, this is "wrong" as in "not correct." Not "wrong" as in "immoral."

 

[Yahzi]

Trickery-based argumentation is more likely to produce the wrong answer, because it does not consist of a linked chain of irrefutable steps.

However, this is "wrong" as in "not correct." Not "wrong" as in "immoral."

So why do you object to imminent bodily harm? You said you would intervene to pull someone out of the way of a speeding bus to save their life. But why?

Isn't the notion that "saving lives is good" a value judgement? Didn't you present your particular take on that value judgement as evidence that we deserved your approval? As evidence that you were not wholly morally bankrupt?

As Jon has quite successfully pointed out, you are trapped in your own contradiction. You want to disavow any value of "right" or "wrong," but you want approval for your willingess to do what is "right," and you want disapproval on me for doing what is "wrong."

And to buttress your arguments, you fall back on moral universals - that life is good and lying is less likely to produce truth and therefore inappropriate in a truth-seeking argument. Just what the **** do you think people mean by "right" and "wrong" anyway? They mean good and not helpful!

Why shouldn't we execute preachers for saying things we don't like? Surely you don't object to such behaviour just because it's wrong?

This is why moral relativism doesn't work. This is why you are my poster child for the New Age.

 

[Cyphermage]

This is why moral relativism doesn't work. This is why you are my poster child for the New Age.

I assure you secular humanism is alive and well.

Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in George W. Bush, whom God has chosen to lead our government?

Do you believe in the War in Iraq, a country God told George W. Bush to attack?

Do you believe in absolute morality, given to us by God.

Do you believe that marriage is a union between a man and a woman?

Do you believe in a life after this one?

Do you believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God?

Do you believe Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day?

There we go. A Right Wing Crank Test. Just for you.

 

[Yahzi]

I assure you secular humanism is alive and well.

Speaking of typical rhetorical tactics, changing the subject to personal attacks is right up there.

I'm not a ring-wing crank. A crank, perhaps; I forebear to pass judgement on myself. That's for others to decide.

But right-wing... demonstrably not. I am the secular humanist in this conversation. I assure you, we as a group do not admit members who have no functioning moral sense. Here's a link to the SecHum manifesto for you:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html

And the relevant passage:

from Ethics: "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."

Note that this applies directly to my comments that right and wrong mean good and not helpful. Furthermore, note that they also support the notion that objective morality is not only the province of the religious. And finally, note that the SecHum manifesto has no problems whatsoever with value judgements - indeed, it falls back on the same moral universals as both you and I do.

The only difference is you refuse to admit that you do. And when cornered, you change the subject to personal attacks.

 

[Cyphermage]

http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto2.html

And the relevant passage:

from Ethics: "We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest."

Note that this applies directly to my comments that right and wrong mean good and not helpful. Furthermore, note that they also support the notion that objective morality is not only the province of the religious. And finally, note that the SecHum manifesto has no problems whatsoever with value judgements - indeed, it falls back on the same moral universals as both you and I do.

The only difference is you refuse to admit that you do. And when cornered, you change the subject to personal attacks.

Situational ethics and absolute moral fiats are incompatible with each other.

The closest one can come to a standard of morality is "The greatest good for the greatest number."

As for personal attacks, you are the person who decided to make this thread about me instead of faith healing. Now you're whining because you're getting some back.

 

[Curnir]

As for personal attacks, you are the person who decided to make this thread about me instead of faith healing. Now you're whining because you're getting some back.

Well, you have intimated that I am, among other things, a sinister and bad skeptic who have a craving for control and hates true believers.

So don't go accusing other folks of using 'ad hominem' techniques.

(oh, and you are right, I am a sinister 'lefthanded' skeptic)