Do Healers Believe?

[Cyphermage]

I switched on my TV the other day, and the TiVo, for some unexplained reason, had switched the channel to TBN. Benny Hinn was interviewing a very elderly looking Oral Roberts, and they were talking about their experiences in the faith healing business. Benny said that Oral was his mentor, and the person his own ministry most emulated, and that he had always looked up to him.

Now the impression I got from watching them, is that most of the people they touched had nothing happen to them, but sometimes, a healing took place that no one could explain. They did not come across as a pair of professional hucksters, such as Robert Tilton or Peter Popoff, who spend endless hours thinking up ways to bilk people out of their money. Oral related one tale of a boy who followed him after the service, wearing a leg brace, as he was leaving the building, and asked to be healed. Oral touched him, and didn't think anything had happened, but the next day, the boy threw away his brace, and walked normally. The ministry has followed his case through the years, and he is now in his 30's, and apparently still healthy.

Now we can't subject most such stories to the scientific method, because they are anecdotal, and the people weren't followed closely though the entire process by doctors and tested in a way which generated an airtight paper trail. Many of the illnesses were things that could spontaneously remit on their own, so there's no way to tell if "woo" had anything to do with it.

I think, however, that there's another interesting question we can ask about such healers, and that takes us to the topic of UFO Abductions.

Years ago, people who related stories of UFO Abduction and contact with extraterrestrials, were accused of lying to get attention, and of having fabricated their stories. Since clearly, someone telling a story of such an experience is usually relating something which could not possibly have happened, it is natural to assume that some form of deliberate deception is at work.

In recent years, starting with the publication of Whitley Streiber's book, this viewpoint has undergone a certain evolution. Studies of "abductees" have demonstrated that aside from their alien experiences, most of them are unremarkable individuals, and function quite normally in every day life. They do not commit other kinds of fraud, and don't seem particularly dishonest in other respects. So we are left with individuals who are relating things which could not possibly have happened, but from their perspective, they are not lying, nor engaging in any form of deliberate deception. Some people feel this is a interesting phenomena worth studying in and of itself, regardless of the reality of outer space aliens or abduction experiences.

Now back to faith healing.

Skeptics often attack faith healers by attempting to portray them as money grubbing con artists with camel-sized balls, who know full well what they are doing, and when the cameras are turned off, crack jokes about the poor idiots they have scammed. Sometimes this is an accurate characterization. eg Robert Tilton, who learned his trade while in college and visiting tent revival meetings, coming to the conclusion that this was a far too easy way to make lots of tax-free money.

Other healers, like Oral Roberts, whom I've seen perform since I was a small child, give no indication at all that they are doing anything they believe to be dishonest. Sure they ask for money, and publicly embarrass themselves. But there is no indication that when the cameras are turned off, and they don't think anyone is listening, that they don't still believe they have been called by God to the ministry, that healing by the laying on of hands is a real phenomena, and that sometimes, perhaps rarely, something unexplainable happens when they touch a sick person, and God heals that person through them.

So the questions I'd like to pose are the following ones. Do skeptics, in general, view all faith healers as deliberate con artists.
Or, like the UFO thing, are some of them honest people, normal in every other respect, relating things that could not possibly have happened, but not viewing themselves as engaging in any deception while doing so.

If true believers exist, who aren't engaging in deliberate deception, what is the best way to debunk them? It is fair to portray them as crooks to put them out of business?

Is Oral Roberts a crook, or a man who sincerely wants to help people who are hurting? Is Benny Hinn a crook?

[demonologist]

we don't know. It's pretty pointless to speculate what other people believe since we have no way of knowing and will never know what others think. But I agree that skeptics are quick to jump on people and accuse them of being con artists when we really have no idea most of the time. Though clearly there are some, maybe even most, who are con artists, i don't think the innocent but simply mistaken should be treated like dirt by association.

[rustytunes]

Skeptics are merely seekers of truth.

[Cyphermage]

Skeptics are merely seekers of truth.

Skeptics are smart seekers of truth. Dumb seekers of truth frequently find something other than truth, and can't tell the difference.

[thaiboxerken]

Benny Hinn is a con-artist. A person doesn't cheat like he does and not know he's cheating.

[rustytunes]

Skeptics are smart seekers of truth. Dumb seekers of truth frequently find something other than truth, and can't tell the difference.
I would agree with that! What do you call a dumb seeker of truth?

[rustytunes]

Benny Hinn is a con-artist. A person doesn't cheat like he does and not know he's cheating.
I believe that to be the truth. Otherwise he is just deluded, and I find that hard to believe.

[capall]

I would think most healers are sincere and have a misguided belief that they are doing good.

[Luke T.]

It's like psychics. Some know they are frauds, some really believe they are psychics.

Skepticism could stop at just showing that psychic phenomena is not proven, I suppose. It's a whole other ball of wax to then pursue the truth further to find out if a particular psychic is a fraud or just deluded, and much, much harder to prove either way. Especially since skepticism can't prove the negative that psychic phenomena doesn't exist to begin with.

You have to catch a fraud red-handed. In the act of cheating. So then you have proven a fraud, but you have not proven the phenomena not to exist.

The whole thing is an uphill battle against the skeptic.

[rustytunes]

The whole thing is an uphill battle against the skeptic.
So we end up as cynics?

[Kochanski]

So we end up as cynics?

Nope, not cynics at all. Yes, catching them red-handed will prove them to be frauds, but remember, what they claim to do is an extraordinary claim that has not been proven to be real, despite many, many years that faith healing has been around. The burden of proof is on their part, not the skeptics part and if they could really heal, why don't they apply for the JREF challenge?

Cyphermage, if you really want to know what Faith Healers are up to read Randi's book Faith Healers it is exceptional and you will learn a lot from it. Just be prepared, these guys do very, very scummy things.

[Kochanski]

As to whether they believe or not, perhaps some do. Perhaps some just are just self-deluded enough to get caught up in it and think they are doing something real. I am inclined to believe most are just frauds with little conscience.

And as a spoiler to Randi's book, yes Randi has caught them red-handed.

[SezMe]

There is a difference between psychics and faith healers. Psychics make vague predictions about events some time in the future. Their veracity is impossible to test.

Healers, however, make specific claims about current events. They don't say you will be cured some time in the future. Hinn whacks you on the forehead and you throw your crutches away NOW and walk away. If there was an honest bone in their body, they would do an honest follow-up study and publish the results for all the world to see.

Do they. Nope. Are they crooks? Yep.

ETA: I wonder if any journalist has ever confronted any one of these guys with this line of thought?

[Cyphermage]

As to whether they believe or not, perhaps some do. Perhaps some just are just self-deluded enough to get caught up in it and think they are doing something real. I am inclined to believe most are just frauds with little conscience.

And as a spoiler to Randi's book, yes Randi has caught them red-handed.

"Faith Healers" has been scanned for Amazon's "Search Inside the Book" program, so I was able to read a good chunk of it online just now.

It's not the most rigorous work imaginable, and a lot of it is just spitting bile at obvious frauds.

Useful, I guess, but somewhat reinforcing of the metaphor of "Mean Skeptics" we discussed in another thread.

[Kochanski]

"Faith Healers" has been scanned for Amazon's "Search Inside the Book" program, so I was able to read a good chunk of it online just now.

It's not the most rigorous work imaginable, and a lot of it is just spitting bile at obvious frauds.

Useful, I guess, but somewhat reinforcing of the metaphor of "Mean Skeptics" we discussed in another thread.

Don't go by the little of the book you can read on Amazon. You need to read the whole book. Really, do more than read an excerpt and judge by that, that is hardly a rigorous way to find out information.

And anything Randi has to say about what they do is well deserved when you read the circumstances.

[rustytunes]

As to whether they believe or not, perhaps some do. Perhaps some just are just self-deluded enough to get caught up in it and think they are doing something real. I am inclined to believe most are just frauds with little conscience.

And as a spoiler to Randi's book, yes Randi has caught them red-handed.

Its hard not to become cynical sometimes.

I agree that the majority of faith healers are frauds, but I feel that the majority of new-age type healers, psychics and the like, are deluded.

[Cyphermage]

There is a difference between psychics and faith healers. Psychics make vague predictions about events some time in the future. Their veracity is impossible to test.

Healers, however, make specific claims about current events. They don't say you will be cured some time in the future. Hinn whacks you on the forehead and you throw your crutches away NOW and walk away. If there was an honest bone in their body, they would do an honest follow-up study and publish the results for all the world to see.

Do they. Nope. Are they crooks? Yep.

ETA: I wonder if any journalist has ever confronted any one of these guys with this line of thought?

Yes, but the whacking on the forehead and falling into the arms of the attendant thing is just social ritual. Like hypnosis, it's not an altered state, it is just the minister acting like he thinks a person slaying people with the Lord's power acts, and the client behaving like he's been taught to believe someone struck by God acts.

If you have a surge of adrenalin, and toss your crutches away, and act like you're healed, only to wake up the next morning in excrutiating worse pain, well, that's too bad.

But that performance nonsense isn't the healing. Hinn doesn't claim that everyone he touches is healed, or that even everyone who thinks they're healed, has been healed.

He's providing a religious service people want. With music, an act, and if need be, dancing clowns.

I get the impression that deep down inside, Benny Hinn, like Oral Roberts, believes that very rarely, he touches a person, and that person is healed of something chronic that medical science had no answer for.

That probably isn't the case, and he's probably mistaken, but how does this rise to the level of him being a "crook."

[Cyphermage]

Don't go by the little of the book you can read on Amazon. You need to read the whole book. Really, do more than read an excerpt and judge by that, that is hardly a rigorous way to find out information.

And anything Randi has to say about what they do is well deserved when you read the circumstances.

Amazon scans the book in its entirety, and provides a search feature into the text. Although they stop you when you've displayed a third of the pages, in order to keep people from simply reading books online and not buying them, you are free to read whatever third of it you desire.

Of course, if you have three Amazon accounts, you can rip the whole thing from their database, and not buy it. :)

But I'd never cheat Randi out of his cut of the $16.50.

[Kochanski]

Cyphermage, you need to read the book from beginning to end, not simply skim pages. You want the whole story, read it. In the meantime, here are some links from within this forum to more about Benny Hinn:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57621

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55607

[Cyphermage]

Cyphermage, you need to read the book from beginning to end, not simply skim pages. You want the whole story, read it. In the meantime, here are some links from within this forum to more about Benny Hinn:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57621

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55607

Yes, I've seen those. I've been following the Benny Hinn thing here.

Are you suggesting that one gains something from reading the pages of Randi's book in numerical order, which can't be obtained by reading particular sections randomly?

[Kochanski]

Yes, you do gain an awful lot from reading everything in context, not merely skimming through various sections. The book has a lot to say.

For my own view, when I think of faith healers I always have the image of "The Walrus and the Carpenter" in my mind. Only faith healers are far more heartless, than that pair.

[rustytunes]

Wikipedia is also an excellent source of information - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_healer

[SezMe]

If you have a surge of adrenalin, and toss your crutches away, and act like you're healed, only to wake up the next morning in excrutiating worse pain, well, that's too bad.
And you're OK with that?

But that performance nonsense isn't the healing.
Tell that to those who swoon at just the right time.

Hinn doesn't claim that everyone he touches is healed, or that even everyone who thinks they're healed, has been healed.
What does he claim, specifically? And would you claim that all those thousands of people who come to his gigs would have a nuanced understanding of his claims?

If Hinn and his ilk spread crap all over the dance floor and then wants to declaim any responsibility when someone steps in it, it just won't fly.

I get the impression that deep down inside, Benny Hinn, like Oral Roberts, believes that very rarely, he touches a person, and that person is healed of something chronic that medical science had no answer for.
What is the basis of this "impression" of what is "deep down inside" these faith healers? Do you know any personally? Have you travelled with them and their entourage to get to know what they are like offstage? Have you discussed their philosophy with them in depth?

And the bit about medical science having no answer is a dodge. Medical science has no answers for lots of things. Doesn't mean a miracle is lurking in the wings.

That probably isn't the case, and he's probably mistaken, but how does this rise to the level of him being a "crook."
He is a crook because he fraudulently takes people's money for a service he cannot deliver. "Crook" is about the kindest word I can find for him.

I think I told this story here long ago, so excuse me if I am repeating myself. I attended a Hinn revival in a large, indoor sports arena that held probably 20,000 people. In the central area of the floor they had admitted hundreds (literally) of people with all manner of crippling diseases. There were wheelchairs and oxygen tanks everywhere. It was quite depressing. But that was mild compared to watching Hinn's minions working these people with prayer and the ubiquitous money pails. I had binoculars with me and watched scene after scene of people giving money and checks to the "officiants". This went on for a couple of hours while the show built up to Benny's eventual appearance.

So forget the theatrics on stage. It is the mind-bending hours of poaching on the utterly helpless that is the real crime. I will never, ever find an ounce of charity for people like Hinn. "Crook", as I said, is the nicest thing about him that can be said. I hope he rots in hell.

[Cyphermage]

What does he claim, specifically? And would you claim that all those thousands of people who come to his gigs would have a nuanced understanding of his claims?

I think he claims that his religious beliefs teach that it is possible for one person to heal another by the laying on of hands, and that if people who share that belief show up at his services, he will *TRY* to heal them.

It is unremarkable that sick people in wheelchairs with oxygen tanks who share his belief that this kind of healing is possible show up at his services.

Would we substitute our judgment for theirs? In another thread, it was argued that an assisted suicide clinic in Switzerland that has processed 450 people, some of them not particularly disabled, represented a choice by those people that we had no right to interfere in. Benny Hinn isn't giving his patrons poison to drink. If we have no right to prevent his audience members from going to Switzerland and drinking poison, what right do we have to tell them they can't let him touch them and wish real hard, which is far less harmful?

If Hinn and his ilk spread crap all over the dance floor and then wants to declaim any responsibility when someone steps in it, it just won't fly.

What responsibility is he disclaiming. (I believe "declaim" means to make a speech.) They want to go to a person who will touch them and wish them to be healthier. He is offering to touch them and wish. Sounds like a valid implied personal services contract to me.

I think I told this story here long ago, so excuse me if I am repeating myself. I attended a Hinn revival in a large, indoor sports arena that held probably 20,000 people. In the central area of the floor they had admitted hundreds (literally) of people with all manner of crippling diseases. There were wheelchairs and oxygen tanks everywhere. It was quite depressing.

So Hinn is evil because sick people are depressing? Or sick people are like small children who can't make their decisions, and we must take the role of their parents, and make their decisions for them? I'm trying to find an axis here that makes Hinn an bad person, and I'm failing.

But that was mild compared to watching Hinn's minions working these people with prayer and the ubiquitous money pails. I had binoculars with me and watched scene after scene of people giving money and checks to the "officiants". This went on for a couple of hours while the show built up to Benny's eventual appearance.

So forget the theatrics on stage. It is the mind-bending hours of poaching on the utterly helpless that is the real crime. I will never, ever find an ounce of charity for people like Hinn. "Crook", as I said, is the nicest thing about him that can be said. I hope he rots in hell.

Yet, were these sick people to go to Switzerland, and ask for a big glass of poison to drink, it would be their right. How is it not their right to give some of their money to Benny Hinn's ministry, when that is so much less harmful to them.

[Luke T.]

How is it not their right to give some of their money to Benny Hinn's ministry, when that is so much less harmful to them.

It emotional predation. And that's as disgusting as it gets.

There is also the risk that someone may forgo real medical procedures which could be of actual benefit to them, and die as a result.

[Luke T.]

The burden of proof is on their part

The burden of what is proof is on the skeptic. For too many people, anecdotes and self-promotion are proof.

[Mongrel]

Well callous as it may sound that "big glass of poison" is scientifically proven and I'd presume your also monitored throughout the procedure to ensure it's working as intended.

Extorting people and offering false hope is a far worse thing, I'd suggest reading Fowlsounds "Doing the least to save your life (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55887)"

[Kochanski]

I know I keep saying this, but read Randi's book.

What faith healers do is evil for many reasons.

One very important one is that there are people out there with cronic illnesses, things like diabetes, high blood pressure and other things, illnesses that require them to monitor blood sugar and take medications daily, illnesses that could be fatal or cause them to be severely disabled if not controlled.

Faith healers encourage these people to believe they will be healed, to throw away their medications. Faith healers tell them that only if they truly believe they will be healed and if they take their medications, then they are showing a lack of faith.

Now, don't you see a potential serious problem with this? Do you want to be the physician who has to deal with someone in a diabetic coma or who has suffered a stroke because they stopped taking their medication? All on the word of a faith healer, who is not a doctor, who is not following up to see whether this person is doing alright without medication. And how does that physician, if they can manage to keep this person alive, deal with getting the person to take their medication as they should when the faith healer says that if the person is not healed it is because they did not believe? How does the physician convince this believer that the medication is necessary and that they should not rely on the faith healer without alienating this person who has a strong belief?

Now, you may think that just because the faith healers do not say that everyone will be healed that they are blameless. Wrong. The whole point of their endless show is to get people worked up enough to believe enough to give lots of money. They encourage everyone to believe they will be healed. It matters not to them whether the people in their audience are putting themselves at severe risk by believing. They just don't care as long as they get the money.

And in the end they have an out. Anyone who feels better, whose illness does get better, not because of the faith healer but because of the medical attention they have gotten has done its work, will likely just remember the remarkable spiritual experience they had when they were "healed" and believe all the more that the faith healer through the power of god has healed them. For those who are not healed, well they just didn't believe enough and the faith healer keeps his faithful flock and the poor ill individual believes that they are to blame, for not believing.

Do you not see what is terribly wrong here? Do you not see the danger? The irresponsibility?

[Kiwiwriter]

I think that movie "Leap of Faith" was a terrific expose of these quacks. Steve Martin bounces around a Kansas tent stage with an earpiece, being fed "psychic information" by Debra Winger and her canvassers, and cons poor people out of their money.

Most of these guys know they're con men, and that's what they are and what they do. Which is why Leroy Jenkins landed in clack for arson, and Jimmy Bakker and Swaggart got nailed.

I think Oral Roberts is very skilled at being a con man...I like how he went up in that tower and said he would die if he didn't get a certain amount of money by a certain date. And by Willy Dingo, he got that money!

You can't tell me that he chatted with one of his big givers, and said, "20 minutes before deadline, make sure you provide me with enough money to make up the difference between what I've taken and what I said I'd need." Knowing his fund-raising abilities, it probably wasn't that much.

Some of these guys probably believe they have powers. But I suspect that the vast majority of them know they're frauds.

[Anti_Hypeman]

I have seen it live and in person the healers certainly know they are fake. You dont see the HOURS of money squeezing before the healings start. They slam it into your head that if you give enough you WILL be healed, not giving every penny you have shows a lack of faith. You cant out give Jesus he will give it all back with interest!

The ushers certainly know the scam they are just hired thugs that push the borken bodies out of sight after their endorphins wear off. I think some of the crew think it is genuine, I saw one of the camera man crying during the sermon.

[Cyphermage]

Faith healers encourage these people to believe they will be healed, to throw away their medications. Faith healers tell them that only if they truly believe they will be healed and if they take their medications, then they are showing a lack of faith.

Well, that's certainly a testable statement. Can you provide evidence of a case in which one of the serious non-Tilton-esque faith healers like Oral Roberts told someone with a diagnosed illness like diabetes or heart disease or a seizure disorder to prove their faith by stopping medication prescribed by a physician?

A short clip of Benny Hinn telling an epileptic that Dilantin is the "work of the devil" would do nicely. :)

[Luke T.]

In the 60 Minutes report in 1998 the reporter opened by declaring that Benny Hinn is a "dangerous fake" and a shameless salesman selling false hope.

The report featured people who had been declared healed but still suffered with their illness, including one woman who had stopped taking her doctor's medication.

Hinn said that neither he nor his staff would recommend that anyone throw away their medicine or stop going to their doctors.

http://www.rickross.com/reference/hinn/hinn57.html

[Luke T.]

Are you taking both medicines and supplements? Are you substituting one for the other? Taking a combination of supplements, using these products together with medications (whether prescription or over-the-counter), or substituting them in place of medicines your doctor prescribes could lead to harmful, even life-threatening results.

Benny Hinn Ministries (http://www.bennyhinn.org/yourlife/Healthy-Living-Vitamins-and-Supplements/Tips-for-Older-Dietary-Supplement-Users.html).

[Luke T.]

Secondly, the word "healing" means "to free from errors and sins." Isn't it interesting that the same word that means "to cure" is also connected to sin? One of the most common things that keeps people from being healed is sin that has not been confessed before God.

Sin will keep you from being healed because it takes faith to be healed, and sin turns your faith off.

Benny Hinn Ministries (http://www.bennyhinn.org/yourlife/Healing-Healing-and-Faith/Receive-Your-Healing.html).

[Anti_Hypeman]

Taking a old womans cain and making her jump around to amuse the audience is harmfull. Just go to a live show and see what dosent make the TV cut. You should be there when the old woman returns to relaity and has to limp back to her car with a now heavily aggrivated injury.

None of them including Hinn and Roberts have ever tried to heal a amputee. Shouldnt they give it a shot? Do you think its just chance that the only people who make it on stage are suffering from non visible injuries?

Just go to one of his crusades and see if your opinion changes. You have to see the non televised bits to understand how truly horrid these people are. The fact that Benny has not been mightily smited is strong evidence against god.

[c4ts]

I find it makes too little a difference whether they believe it or not. It's not helping either way.

[Cyphermage]

None of them including Hinn and Roberts have ever tried to heal a amputee. Shouldnt they give it a shot? Do you think its just chance that the only people who make it on stage are suffering from non visible injuries?

Healing amputees is not part of their religious tradition, which does include making the blind see, the crippled walk, and the raising of stinky corpses from the dead after days of rotting. It doesn't include limb restoration.

Fundamentalists are not permitted "writer's embellishments" to scripture.

Just go to one of his crusades and see if your opinion changes. You have to see the non televised bits to understand how truly horrid these people are. The fact that Benny has not been mightily smited is strong evidence against god.

If he's knowingly doing harm, he deserves to be smited. If he's only being voluntarily paid by consenting adults to fill their psychological and entertainment needs, he's providing a service at the request of his clients.

Would you have us pass a law that says that lonely sick people can't visit someone, to be told that God loves them, and that there is always hope? Or that they can't give such people gifts and money?

I can see it now. Police in riot gear with pepper spray, beanbag guns, and fire hoses, beating the crap out of a large crowd of sick people in wheelchairs with oxygen, to save them from their adult decisions.

By the way, what's your opinion on Jerry Lewis and the whole MDA circus? There you have mostly kids, not consenting adults, performing in a yearly pity parade for dollars. Is that exploitation, and is it better or worse than Benny Hinn exploitation?

[blutoski]

ETA: I wonder if any journalist has ever confronted any one of these guys with this line of thought?

Depends on what you call a 'journalist' these days. I think Jon Ronson deals with Hinn in one of his books.

[blutoski]

Taking a old womans cain and making her jump around to amuse the audience is harmfull. Just go to a live show and see what dosent make the TV cut. You should be there when the old woman returns to relaity and has to limp back to her car with a now heavily aggrivated injury.

None of them including Hinn and Roberts have ever tried to heal a amputee. Shouldnt they give it a shot? Do you think its just chance that the only people who make it on stage are suffering from non visible injuries?

Just go to one of his crusades and see if your opinion changes. You have to see the non televised bits to understand how truly horrid these people are. The fact that Benny has not been mightily smited is strong evidence against god.


Mm. That's Randi's observation about Lourdes: lots of discarded canes and crutches and bottles of heart pills, but no discarded glass eyes or prosthetic arms.

[Anti_Hypeman]

By the way, what's your opinion on Jerry Lewis and the whole MDA circus? There you have mostly kids, not consenting adults, performing in a yearly pity parade for dollars. Is that exploitation, and is it better or worse than Benny Hinn exploitation?


If Jerry took the wheelchair bound kids by the hands and made them step across the stage I would be against it. You have obviously never been to a miracle crusade if you cant see the harm. Have you ever seen somebody with severe back problems goaded into a minute of furious jumping after the adrenaline wears off? Its not a pretty sight.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Why does god hate amputess?

[Kochanski]

Well, that's certainly a testable statement. Can you provide evidence of a case in which one of the serious non-Tilton-esque faith healers like Oral Roberts told someone with a diagnosed illness like diabetes or heart disease or a seizure disorder to prove their faith by stopping medication prescribed by a physician?

A short clip of Benny Hinn telling an epileptic that Dilantin is the "work of the devil" would do nicely. :)

I provided one way in which faith healers are a problem. I did not say that was the only reason. I merely pointed out that this is a very DANGEROUS thing. Even if they do not out and out say throw away your medication, they encourage it by the way they preach and that is dangerous.


Again, I say read Randi's book, then come back and argue whatever points you have.

[Yahzi]

Do skeptics, in general, view all faith healers as deliberate con artists.
Not all of them; only the financially successful ones.

Is Oral Roberts a crook, or a man who sincerely wants to help people who are hurting? Is Benny Hinn a crook?
Is he rich? Did he get rich off of something no one can demonstrate, let alone prove or scientifically verify?

There's your answer.

[Cyphermage]

If Jerry took the wheelchair bound kids by the hands and made them step across the stage I would be against it.

In the shape Jerry's currently in, it's more likely the kids helping the wheelchair bound Jerry.

But I digress.

I think we should return to our original irony here, which is that people who say consenting adults should be permitted to go drink deadly poison in Switzerland, believe it is terribly harmful for them to go to a boisterous revival and healing event, because they might sprain something jumping up and down and yelling "Jesus!"

[Cyphermage]

Is he rich? Did he get rich off of something no one can demonstrate, let alone prove or scientifically verify?

There's your answer.

Sounds like the cosmetics industry, the Feng Shui industry, the Roman Catholic Church, psychic crystals, and about 100,000 other products and organizations.

[Kochanski]

But I digress.

I think we should return to our original irony here, which is that people who say consenting adults should be permitted to go drink deadly poison in Switzerland, believe it is terribly harmful for them to go to a boisterous revival and healing event, because they might sprain something jumping up and down and yelling "Jesus!"

People who need crutches or walkers to walk and stand can frenquently do more than just sprain something jumping up and down and yelling "Jesus". You are ignoring the fact that people who attend these healing sessions are frenquently very, very ill or have serious disabilities. They are frequently the people whose bodies can not be mended.

If they get carried away with the moment and the endorphin rush they can need to be carried out by others and cause serious damage to already damaged bodies. DO NOT BELITTLE their situations.

[Kochanski]

Cyphermage you are seeking to justify something unjustifiable. You need to stop comparing what faith healers do to other things.

What they do is prey upon people who often have no hope. This is despicable. That they do this in the name of some god makes it even worse. They trade on the faith people have and the hopelessness they feel and use it to the greater glory and enrichment of themselves.

[Luke T.]

Sounds like the cosmetics industry, the Feng Shui industry, the Roman Catholic Church, psychic crystals, and about 100,000 other products and organizations.

Sounds like you get it.

[blutoski]

Sounds like the cosmetics industry, the Feng Shui industry, the Roman Catholic Church, psychic crystals, and about 100,000 other products and organizations.

All organizations that come into Skeptics' crosshairs on a regular basis, yes.

Be mindful that skeptics are not only concerned with the philosophical / ethical issues: we are active in pitching to legislative bodies, and often believe the laws are too lax or too excessive, depending on the issue.

For example, here in Canada, Dr. Beyerstein and Dr. Polevoy often speak at senate hearings with regard to healthfraud issues like the supplement/vitamin industry and testing services.

The principle concern is *demonstrably false claims*, whether the claimant is aware or not. This is skeptical starting territory.

After that, skeptics vary. Some want to know if the claimant is aware of the falsehood, and apply a judgement. Others go further, and argue for remedies ranging from educating the consumer to legal punishment of the claimant.

[Cyphermage]

They trade on the faith people have and the hopelessness they feel and use it to the greater glory and enrichment of themselves.

Sounds like what God does with us. Maybe they are just seeking to emulate him.

[Donn]

I would agree with that! What do you call a dumb seeker of truth?
An Acceptic.





:rolleyes:

[Kochanski]

Sounds like what God does with us. Maybe they are just seeking to emulate him.

Stop justifying these leeches Cyphermage. They are trading on hopelessness of ill people.

If you can not see that is wrong then I give up.

[Donn]

In a funny kind of way Cyphermage is pushing us to come up with stronger arguments than the ones we have.
You could see it this way:
* Those who bleev go to the healers.
* Those who bleev find no dishonesty in the situation. If they did, where are the movements of bleevrs against the healers?
* When sceptics point out that the healers are frauds and are hurting people, the acceptics do not listen (investment in their bleef) and the only ones left are not involved or are skeptics - and they are in the choir already.

So, how do we reach the bleevers? How do we articulate the objections in another way?

Maybe I'm just wrong. I have never been into or remotely touched by a healing ministry dooh-dah.

[Rissask]

Do skeptics, in general, view all faith healers as deliberate con artists.
Or, like the UFO thing, are some of them honest people, normal in every other respect, relating things that could not possibly have happened, but not viewing themselves as engaging in any deception while doing so.

I see them con artists but some of them aren't aware they are. If that makes sense. Some truly believe they have a gift, I think. But most are aware they are cons.

If true believers exist, who aren't engaging in deliberate deception, what is the best way to debunk them? It is fair to portray them as crooks to put them out of business?

I have to say yes because I think we should be striving to be smarter as a species and not perpetuating superstitions.

Is Oral Roberts a crook, or a man who sincerely wants to help people who are hurting? Is Benny Hinn a crook?

Oral- hard to say, I think he is a true believer and is somewhat sincere. Benny is an outright fake and should be charged.

[Anti_Hypeman]

Do you really think Oral believes he saw a 900 foot Jesus?

[Rustle]

Sounds like the cosmetics industry, the Feng Shui industry, the Roman Catholic Church, psychic crystals, and about 100,000 other products and organizations.

"It's fine, because its just like these other horrible, predatory frauds"

I'm not sure if that flies with me.

[blutoski]

Do you really think Oral believes he saw a 900 foot Jesus?

Or that God would kill him if Oral's listeners didn't load him up with cash? Man's a crook, of the highest calibre.

[Cyphermage]

In a funny kind of way Cyphermage is pushing us to come up with stronger arguments than the ones we have.
You could see it this way:
* Those who bleev go to the healers.
* Those who bleev find no dishonesty in the situation. If they did, where are the movements of bleevrs against the healers?
* When sceptics point out that the healers are frauds and are hurting people, the acceptics do not listen (investment in their bleef) and the only ones left are not involved or are skeptics - and they are in the choir already.

So, how do we reach the bleevers? How do we articulate the objections in another way?

Maybe I'm just wrong. I have never been into or remotely touched by a healing ministry dooh-dah.

Movements often metamorphose from their original goals. A good example of this is sex abuse prevention, which now seems to be more about "hurting perverts" than "protecting victims."

Criticism of faith healing, which started out as "protecting the vulnerable" has kind of shifted focus to "sticking it to the charlatans."

Ranting against the Hutterites is a good example of this. Who exactly are the victims of the Hutterites? Again, it's "sticking it to superstition" divorced from helping the people that superstition hurts.

I think I'll worry about the death of privacy and the creeping universal mandatory biometric ID without which one can do nothing, before I worry about a pacifist sect that eschews having their picture taken.

If sick people want to go to a Benny Hinn show, and Benny says "keep seeing your doctor" and "don't toss your medications," I think that's enough truth in advertising to require from a religion, since after all, in our system, religion is separate from the state, and religions are widely known to be based on comfortable myths, rather than fact.

So while I understand why some would like to see Benny Hinn fried by a bolt of cosmic lightning while delivering his sermon, I just don't think that's the best use of our debunking reputation capital at the moment.

Cries that I am "belittling the victims" because I don't jump on the Hinn-lynching bandwagon parallel similar claims from other popular movements that have also experienced "Agenda Creep."

[Curnir]

Movements often metamorphose from their original goals. A good example of this is sex abuse prevention, which now seems to be more about "hurting perverts" than "protecting victims."
hmm.
Lets say I buy a dozen big bags of M&Ms, and sort M&Ms after colour. And that I put the blue "pills" in bottles with penicillin on the lable, the yellowones in bottles with a painkiller lable on, the red in a bottle labled nitroglycerin, gree -> anti-deppresant etc. and sell these "pills" online to people who desperately need them........
Should I be allowed to continue?
(I didn't name any brand names)

Now imagine that I am a man of god who during my sermons give these pills to the people saying that I have prayed to the lord asking him to transform the M&Ms to real medicin, and that good appeared in a dream too say that he had. And that as long as YOU believe that the pills are real medicin, they are... But if YOU doubt the lords powers even for an instant the lord shall remove his hand from YOU and the pills will once more be mere candy.
....sends around the collection/donation plate....

What is the differance between the too examples?
Criticism of faith healing, which started out as "protecting the vulnerable" has kind of shifted focus to "sticking it to the charlatans."wow...Stop the M&M charlatan... help the vulnerable.

Ranting against the Hutterites is a good example of this. Who exactly are the victims of the Hutterites? Again, it's "sticking it to superstition" divorced from helping the people that superstition hurts. Stop the chalatans... etc.

I think I'll worry about the death of privacy and the creeping universal mandatory biometric ID without which one can do nothing, before I worry about a pacifist sect that eschews having their picture taken.
Big brother seeeeeees you.
If sick people want to go to a Benny Hinn show, and Benny says "keep seeing your doctor" and "don't toss your medications," I think that's enough truth in advertising to require from a religion, since after all, in our system, religion is separate from the state, and religions are widely known to be based on comfortable myths, rather than fact.If all Hinn did was to say "keep seeing your doctor" and "don't toss you medication" I wouldn't have a problem with him....
But he claims to be able to heal people by the grace of god doesn't he?

So while I understand why some would like to see Benny Hinn fried by a bolt of cosmic lightning while delivering his sermon, I just don't think that's the best use of our debunking reputation capital at the moment.
Who want's Hinn to be fried by "a bolt of cosmic lightning"? And where would such a "bolt of cosmic lightning" come from?
Cries that I am "belittling the victims" because I don't jump on the Hinn-lynching bandwagon parallel similar claims from other popular movements that have also experienced "Agenda Creep."

Want some M&Ms?

[Cyphermage]

hmm.
Lets say I buy a dozen big bags of M&Ms, and sort M&Ms after colour. And that I put the blue "pills" in bottles with penicillin on the lable, the yellowones in bottles with a painkiller lable on, the red in a bottle labled nitroglycerin, gree -> anti-deppresant etc. and sell these "pills" online to people who desperately need them........
Should I be allowed to continue?
(I didn't name any brand names)

Now imagine that I am a man of god who during my sermons give these pills to the people saying that I have prayed to the lord asking him to transform the M&Ms to real medicin, and that good appeared in a dream too say that he had. And that as long as YOU believe that the pills are real medicin, they are... But if YOU doubt the lords powers even for an instant the lord shall remove his hand from YOU and the pills will once more be mere candy.
....sends around the collection/donation plate....

What is the differance between the too examples?


The difference is that the second is probably legal. If everyone knows they are M&M's, and that the other claims are religious belief, it's just another goofy religious sect.

We allow religions where people handle poisonous snakes, and drink strychnine, believing that God will prevent them from being harmed.

Surprise, adults in a free society have the right to make bad decisions.

If all Hinn did was to say "keep seeing your doctor" and "don't toss you medication" I wouldn't have a problem with him....

But he claims to be able to heal people by the grace of god doesn't he?

Religious claims, like professional wrestling claims, sometimes consist of some stretching of the truth.

He doesn't claim everyone he touches gets healed. He just claims he will ask God to heal people, and based on the processing of large numbers of people in such a fashion, he believes he can identify some examples of such healing taking place.

Maybe he's right. Probably he's mistaken. Again, these are adults. The risk of harm times the length of exposure doesn't rise to the level where it justifies pre-empting their abililty to make their own choices.

For the occasional person where it does, there's legal guardianship, and the invisible fence.

Who want's Hinn to be fried by "a bolt of cosmic lightning"? And where would such a "bolt of cosmic lightning" come from?

From my charged magic crystal, of course. :D

[Curnir]

The difference is that the second is probably legal. If everyone knows they are M&M's, and that the other claims are religious belief, it's just another goofy religious sect.
If their preacher tells them that the pill no longer are candy, but by the grace of god they have been tranformed into *insert medicin*.
The people now KNOW that it is no longer candy, that it is in fact *insert medicin* even though it still is candy, and will not help them, except give them slightly higher sugar levels in the blood for a few minutes, and some effects from the tebromin


We allow religions where people handle poisonous snakes, and drink strychnine, believing that God will prevent them from being harmed.

Surprise, adults in a free society have the right to make bad decisions.

Yeah that's right blame the victim.


Religious claims, like professional wrestling claims, sometimes consist of some stretching of the truth.Some stretching of the truth? You got to be glavin kidding me.
He doesn't claim everyone he touches gets healed. He just claims he will ask God to heal people, And I suppose you have some of his shows?and based on the processing of large numbers of people in such a fashion, he believes he can identify some examples of such healing taking place. oooh would be great to see some of his evidence.

Maybe he's right. Probably he's mistaken. Again, these are adults. The risk of harm times the length of exposure doesn't rise to the level where it justifies pre-empting their abililty to make their own choices.

For the occasional person where it does, there's legal guardianship, and the invisible fence.

As I said blame the victim. I prefer to blame the charlatan.
From my charged magic crystal, of course. :D
There were two question lillgrabben.

[SezMe]

Surprise, adults in a free society have the right to make bad decisions.
This is a consistent attempt on your part in this thread to change the subject. Yes, yes, yes, adults have the right to make mistakes. That is not the issue. We are focusing on faith healers (see the title of this thread).

Focus, Cyphermage: Do adult faith healers have the right to fraudulently take money from other adults?

[Cyphermage]

Yeah that's right blame the victim.


There is a huge difference between rendering assistance to someone who comes to you and represents that they have been victimized; versus declaring someone to be a victim, because you have decided to substitute your judgment about their feelings and experiences for theirs.

Those who believe their world view is superior, and that they must inflict it on those who disagree, are the first to invoke the "blame the victim" cliche when they are criticized.

The world of full of do-gooders who feel it is their job to save others from themselves, because they think they know better. The Legion of Decency providing LD-imprinted boxer shorts to naked native peoples comes to mind here.

If I were chronically ill, I wouldn't go to Benny Hinn. Does being entertained by a Benny Hinn performance rise to the level of probable harm that I must rush out and save sick people from him? No. Does claiming I'm just targeting Benny Hinn, and not the people who wish to recieve his entertainment services, mean I'm not interfering in their lives? No.

I think that covers everything.

[Cyphermage]

This is a consistent attempt on your part in this thread to change the subject. Yes, yes, yes, adults have the right to make mistakes. That is not the issue. We are focusing on faith healers (see the title of this thread).

That is misdirection. The faith healers and their clients are coupled. You can't interfere with one, without interfering with the other.

It's like applying an absolute age-of-consent law to a 17 year old 364 day old minor in a jurisdiction where the legally mandated age is 18, and then saying you're not doing anything to him, and he has no standing to complain, because the law only punishes his 19 year old "child molester" girlfriend, and anyone who differs with that interpretation is "blaming the poor victim of sexual abuse."

It makes no difference whether you tell people they are not allowed to visit Benny Hinn, or you put Benny Hinn out of business. You're still meddling in the lives of people who haven't invited you.


Focus, Cyphermage: Do adult faith healers have the right to fraudulently take money from other adults?

Absent iminent danger of death or serious injury to a specific identified person, or a complaint by a person claiming to have been defrauded, yes. Unless you think you get to run around defining "fraudulently" for everyone else, which I doubt would be a good idea.

[Gravy]

I think that covers everything.
Not quite. I've seen Hinn and Roberts use "plants" or "shills" or whatever you want to call them: people who are not terribly ill or disabled who act terribly ill or disabled until they are "healed."

Below is a snippet about Roberts. It doesn't give sources (except for the part about Randi), so I take it with a small grain of salt. But it does raise the question of what happens to these "healed " people when they leave the auditorium. How long is this "healing" supposed to last, just as long as the money keeps flowing? It's too bad we can't see a tally of the people who died within a month of being "healed."

Some of Oral's "successes" were in fact failures. In 1956, a woman appeared in Oral's TV show testifying that she had been miraculously healed, with the evangelist’s prayers, of cancer. Twelve hours after the show was taped, the woman was dead. In the same year another woman appeared in his show, giving an enthusiastic testimonial about her miraculous cure of spinal cancer. She succumbed to the disease three days later. Oral once even claimed that he had actually resurrected the dead! When James Randi, in June 1987, wrote to him asking him for more information on this alleged resurrection, Oral, perhaps wisely, never responded to the request. [2] Mindless, baseless and outright erroneous claims are still being made and are still being swallowed wholesale by credulous believers.
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/faithheal.html
Harmless my ass.

[Bronze Dog]

I recall hearing something about a different spinal cancer victim who was "healed" and painfully died months later as a result of her spine collapsing after she did some jumping around on stage.

[Cyphermage]

Not quite. I've seen Hinn and Roberts use "plants" or "shills" or whatever you want to call them: people who are not terribly ill or disabled who act terribly ill or disabled until they are "healed."

Below is a snippet about Roberts. It doesn't give sources (except for the part about Randi), so I take it with a small grain of salt. But it does raise the question of what happens to these "healed " people when they leave the auditorium. How long is this "healing" supposed to last, just as long as the money keeps flowing? It's too bad we can't see a tally of the people who died within a month of being "healed."


Harmless my ass.

Sledding is mostly harmless. We let kids sled down snow-covered streets. Touching stories about decapitations from sledding under parked cars are not a counterexample to this, nor a reason to collect all sleds and burn them.

Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts are also mostly harmless, as is the planet Earth, according to Douglas Adams.

[SezMe]

Absent iminent danger of death or serious injury to a specific identified person, or a complaint by a person claiming to have been defrauded, yes. Unless you think you get to run around defining "fraudulently" for everyone else, which I doubt would be a good idea.
First, "absent" is, in fact, not absent. As cited above, these people do real harm.

Second, worrying about me defining fraud is another attempt at changing the issue. The law defines fraud - my assistance is not necessary.

[Gravy]

Sledding is mostly harmless. We let kids sled down snow-covered streets. Touching stories about decapitations from sledding under parked cars are not a counterexample to this, nor a reason to collect all sleds and burn them.

Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts are also mostly harmless.
Do you believe that a drug manufacturer should be required to prove that a product has specific curative effects, and should also post information about possible side effects and contraindications?

[Curnir]

There is a huge difference between rendering assistance to someone who comes to you and represents that they have been victimized; versus declaring someone to be a victim, because you have decided to substitute your judgment about their feelings and experiences for theirs.
Is a person only a vicitm fi he/she goes to someone and represents that they have been victimized?

What if they're DEAD, for instance due to them ceasing their INSULIN treatment because reverend wossname told them that their diabetes is cured?
Who is this DEAD person going to talk to? Syliva Brown?

Those who believe their world view is superior, and that they must inflict it on those who disagree,Yupp that sounds just like me.

are the first to invoke the "blame the victim" cliche when they are criticized.

Ohh dear... Go on tell me how you REALLY feel pojkvasker
The world of full of do-gooders who feel it is their job to save others from themselves, because they think they know better.
hmm yeah Law enforcement is a bitch.

Seriously though.

What do you, Cyphermage, think we should do with hucksters, quacks and charlatans who make a living of tricking people to give them money?

The Legion of Decency providing LD-imprinted boxer shorts to naked native peoples comes to mind here.
Never heard of them.

If I were chronically ill, I wouldn't go to Benny Hinn.
Good for you.
Does being entertained by a Benny Hinn performance rise to the level of probable harm that I must rush out and save sick people from him?
I'm sorry can you state that in a diffrent way... it made no sense when I read it
Does claiming I'm just targeting Benny Hinn, and not the people who wish to recieve his entertainment services, mean I'm not interfering in their lives? No.
I'm sorry. Are you saying that the folks who go to Benny Hinn's shows only go there to be entertained?

I think that covers everything.

Yeeeeeees well see that's where you're wrong.

You have "forgotten" to answer couple of questions.

[Cyphermage]

Second, worrying about me defining fraud is another attempt at changing the issue. The law defines fraud - my assistance is not necessary.

By all means try to get the FDA to charge Benny Hinn with something. It will be a battle between those who don't want state interference in religion, versus those who think they can substitute their judgment for other competent adults who don't consider themselves victims.

Want to bet who'll win?

It is absurd to suggest that religious beliefs, based on myth and metaphor, are fradulent if they don't conform to testable facts using the scientific method.

I'll settle for keeping Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts out of science classes. I'm not going to waste time trying to regulate what they can say and do in church, absent, as I said before, iminent danger of death or serious injury to an identified individual.

[Cyphermage]

Do you believe that a drug manufacturer should be required to prove that a product has specific curative effects, and should also post information about possible side effects and contraindications?

Yes, because the pharmacutical business is a scientific enterprise, and it should be regulated by those standards.

On the other hand, I don't believe the local priest should be required to prove that Jesus walked on water, and rose from the dead, or be prevented from practicing his profession.

One does not subject a myth and metaphor based enterprise to the same standards as a scientific enterprise.

[Bronze Dog]

By all means try to get the FDA to charge Benny Hinn with something. It will be a battle between those who don't want state interference in religion, versus those who think they can substitute their judgment for other competent adults who don't consider themselves victims.
Until they die and become victims. And who says religion has anything to do with it? Sorry, but changing the subject doesn't work on people like us. He tells lies that put people at risk of death. Are you saying that lying is okay?

Want to bet who'll win?
The con artists.

It is absurd to suggest that religious beliefs, based on myth and metaphor, are fradulent if they don't conform to testable facts using the scientific method.
Why?

I'll settle for keeping Benny Hinn and Oral Roberts out of science classes. I'm not going to waste time trying to regulate what they can say and do in church, absent, as I said before, iminent danger of death or serious injury to an identified individual.
In other words, lying is okay by you as long as it doesn't kill someone right away.

[Cyphermage]

Until they die and become victims. And who says religion has anything to do with it? Sorry, but changing the subject doesn't work on people like us. He tells lies that put people at risk of death. Are you saying that lying is okay?

The only candidates for untruths on his part are the claim that God can heal, and the claim that some small fraction of people he touches and prays for experience beneficial aftereffects.

You aren't seriously suggesting that claims about what God can and cannot do, or will and will not do, made by the faithful, fall into the category of lying, or should be regulated by government, are you?

[Bronze Dog]

The only candidates for untruths on his part are the claim that God can heal, and the claim that some small fraction of people he touches and prays for experience beneficial aftereffects.
Does he claim that some small fraction experiences benefits? If a person makes a claim, he should be able to back it up.

You aren't seriously suggesting that claims about what God can and cannot do, or will and will not do, made by the faithful, fall into the category of lying, or should be regulated by government, are you?
I never said anything about the government.

[blutoski]

The only candidates for untruths on his part are the claim that God can heal, and the claim that some small fraction of people he touches and prays for experience beneficial aftereffects.

You aren't seriously suggesting that claims about what God can and cannot do, or will and will not do, made by the faithful, fall into the category of lying, or should be regulated by government, are you?

I think most skeptics agree that the reason these guys get away with it is that they claim they are merely a conduit for a greater power, over which they have no control. In other words: the contract is for effort, not for efficacy.

However, we know from candid observation of these people that they don't personally believe they are such a conduit, and this is what consitutes fraud.

If you're in Florida, stop by the JREF, and ask to see the Popoff footage. In particular, where Popoff calls this one woman who donated her last dollar a "...fat, stupid, ****** who thinks we can actually help her." That's when it clicks, and you go: "Ah. I see. He *is* a fraud. How come he's not in jail?"


I used to be pretty slack on this, since I come from a very religious background and appreciate that most people involved in the profession are sincere. However, these jackasses are a cancer, and religion is better off without them.


Oh, recently, Randi has some good footage from a Hinn visit to Maple Leaf Garden in Canada, with interviews of the money-counters and their pre-show audience data-collectin. There's also footage of them literally throwing a retarded kid down a flight of stairs and locking him out, because his parents were critical of Hinn.


ETA: Due to the way the forum edits profanity, a naughty word was asterisked out in a quotation above. It was "the n-word".

[Bronze Dog]

By all means try to get the FDA to charge Benny Hinn with something. It will be a battle between those who don't want state interference in religion, versus those who think they can substitute their judgment for other competent adults who don't consider themselves victims.Translation: It's only cheating if they get caught specifically by their victims, if they notice they've been cheated.

[Cyphermage]

I think most skeptics agree that the reason these guys get away with it is that they claim they are merely a conduit for a greater power, over which they have no control. In other words: the contract is for effort, not for efficacy.

However, we know from candid observation of these people that they don't personally believe they are such a conduit, and this is what consitutes fraud.

If you're in Florida, stop by the JREF, and ask to see the Popoff footage. In particular, where Popoff calls this one woman who donated her last dollar a "...fat, stupid, ****** who thinks we can actually help her." That's when it clicks, and you go: "Ah. I see. He *is* a fraud. How come he's not in jail?"

I've previously identified Tilton and Popoff as hucksters who don't believe a single word of what they are saying.

I used to be pretty slack on this, since I come from a very religious background and appreciate that most people involved in the profession are sincere. However, these jackasses are a cancer, and religion is better off without them.

By "these jackasses" do you mean all healers, or all healers who aren't sincere? I really don't disagree that someone who runs the thing as a carnival game, and regards the clients as marks, deserves to have his head handed to him. The real problem is how to weed just those people out without interfering with the free choice of adults to visit people who are only sincere but misguided

[blutoski]

The real problem is how to weed just those people out without interfering with the free choice of adults to visit people who are only sincere but misguided

I don't think it can be done. That's why they're still in business.

[Bronze Dog]

The knowing hucksters should be exposed. The sincere believers who can't really heal should be exposed.

The way you weed them out is to test them:

Those who can heal, aside from gaining a million dollars, will be shown to be authentic.

Those who can't, regardless of intention, should have their inability exposed to the world.

[Gravy]

Yes, because the pharmacutical business is a scientific enterprise, and it should be regulated by those standards.

On the other hand, I don't believe the local priest should be required to prove that Jesus walked on water, and rose from the dead, or be prevented from practicing his profession.

One does not subject a myth and metaphor based enterprise to the same standards as a scientific enterprise.
Why should someone who makes the most serious health claim of all, that he can cure chronic, life-threatening illnesses of all kinds, not be subject to the same standards? The pharmaceutical business is not regulated because it's scientific. It's regulated because it's in the business of making specific health claims.

[blutoski]

The knowing hucksters should be exposed. The sincere believers who can't really heal should be exposed.

The way you weed them out is to test them:

Those who can heal, aside from gaining a million dollars, will be shown to be authentic.

Those who can't, regardless of intention, should have their inability exposed to the world.

I think the problem still remains, though, that none of them are explicitly selling the 'healing' part. They're selling the 'effort' part. And they're keeping their end of the bargain, or so anybody can tell.

In the case of the retarded kid in Maple Leaf Gardens, Hinn was very cautious: "lord, please heal this kid in your own time... maybe tomorrow... maybe a year from now... maybe in heaven..." How do you test this?


And one of the things that was interesting about 'exposing' them is that it's just water off a duck's back for true believers. It doesn't impact their business.

OTOH: I think a 'vice'-type of investigation, perhaps getting a candid admission that the performer does not believe it actually works, and is only in it to fleece the believers, *might* result in a class-action suit from those who have donated money. The problem is that you'd need to get a warrant to do surveillance, which means you have to have reasonable cause for a criminal investigation. Which brings us back to square one: can we say that they're scamming until proven real?

[Bronze Dog]

One does not subject a myth and metaphor based enterprise to the same standards as a scientific enterprise.
And the natural response to this should always be "Why?"

Science is the study of reality. If someone makes claims about reality, they should have scientific backing.

[Gravy]

I think the problem still remains, though, that none of them are explicitly selling the 'healing' part. They're selling the 'effort' part. And they're keeping their end of the bargain, or so anybody can tell.
I know that they do try to invoke the Lord's healing powers, but the fact remains that they are implying that they have special powers as the conduit that make this possible. They aren't claiming that people watching at home can heal their own lung cancer through prayer.

[Cyphermage]

Science is the study of reality. If someone makes claims about reality, they should have scientific backing.

I seem to recall that Classic Communism tried to outlaw religion as unscientific nonsense and the equivalent of opiate addiction.

Would you happen to know how that turned out?

[blutoski]

I know that they do try to invoke the Lord's healing powers, but the fact remains that they are implying that they have special powers as the conduit that make this possible.

Yes, they claim to make it possible. If even one gets better, they've proven it's possible, which is frustrating if you want to test them.



They aren't claiming that people watching at home can heal their own lung cancer through prayer.

I'm not sure about that last part. I think it's a mix of claims. Some go on tour, but have TV shows where people are told just that: heal yourself with prayer, just as I heal others with my prayers.

[Cyphermage]

Why should someone who makes the most serious health claim of all, that he can cure chronic, life-threatening illnesses of all kinds, not be subject to the same standards? The pharmaceutical business is not regulated because it's scientific. It's regulated because it's in the business of making specific health claims.

Because the claim isn't that the performer can cure chronic life-threatening illnesses of all kinds. It is that God can cure these illnesses, and that the performer will wish real hard for this to take place.

The performer is promising to wish hard, and he is wishing hard. He is doing what he advertised he would do.

Clearly, the after-the-fact interpretation of what, if anything, God did, may vary with who is telling the story. But since it's not a double blind controlled experiment done in a laboratory which can produce only one incontrovertible result, we should hardly be surprised by this.

If you want to hear six different stories, listen to six eyewitnesses recount what they think they saw at the scene of a traffic accident.

[Rissask]

Do you really think Oral believes he saw a 900 foot Jesus?

Oh shoot.....newbie blunder, sorry....I was thinking of Billy Graham :o .... heck yeah, Oral Roberts is a crook. :D

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think worse than out-and-out frauds OR pious frauds (the deluded self-beleivers) are those who know they're lying, but believe that it's for some greater mandate.

"I'm doing God's work, so that justifies any means I think are necessary."

One shade off of this category are the willfully ignorant. They refuse to look at the evidence because they'd no longer be able to remain in blissful ignorance.

I'm not talking only about psychics and healers either.

[Cyphermage]

Oh shoot.....newbie blunder, sorry....I was thinking of Billy Graham :o .... heck yeah, Oral Roberts is a crook. :D

Billy Graham dedicated Oral Roberts University.

[SezMe]

By all means try to get the FDA to charge Benny Hinn with something.
The issue is not drugs so the FDA is irrelevant. Fraud is a crime, whether it involves the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge, some beachfront land in Florida or Hinn and his ilk promising cures.

[Cyphermage]

The issue is not drugs so the FDA is irrelevant. Fraud is a crime, whether it involves the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge, some beachfront land in Florida or Hinn and his ilk promising cures.

The FDA regulates claims of medical efficacy. There is no historical precedent for subjecting religious beliefs to fraud testing.

[SezMe]

The FDA regulates claims of medical efficacy. There is no historical precedent for subjecting religious beliefs to fraud testing.
Man, you're dense. The fraud is NOT the religious beliefs of either the healer or the victims. The fraud is the claim of medical benefits obtained as a result of attending a healing session. Try to pay attention.

[Cyphermage]

Man, you're dense. The fraud is NOT the religious beliefs of either the healer or the victims. The fraud is the claim of medical benefits obtained as a result of attending a healing session. Try to pay attention.

First you said that the FDA was "irrelevant", because drugs weren't involved. You were wrong. The FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims.

Next you say the "fraud" is not the religious beliefs, but instead the "claim of medical benefits." Medical benefits provided by God certainly fall under the umbrella of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, stated as such, are not actionable as fraudulent misrepresentation.

It is certainly not actionable under either criminal or civil law to represent that God can heal, or that one is going to wish real hard for God to heal someone.

If faith healers said something like "In 10 minutes, God will perform an appendectomy on you, if you give me $100" or "God has transformed this Kool-Aid into heart medicine, so you no longer need your Lanoxin" you could certainly charge them for practicing medicine without a license.

However, the claims are, as I understand them, the following.

1. God can heal sickness. This obviously follows from the definition of God as all-powerful, and able to do anything not tautologically phrased.

2. People can certainly pray to God, and one of the things they can pray about is for God to heal them of their afflictions, which he may or may not do.

3. People may pray to God to heal the afflictions of others, and according to scripture, placing their hands upon the sick person while doing so is a practice that may be employed.

4. Even through the prior doctrine is part of many religious denominations, most priests and pastors avoid the can of worms which a healing ministry entails, and limit their attempts at healing to praying and conducting religious services for people who request it

5. A very small number of priests and pastors will make touching people while praying for God to heal them a public part of their ministry.

As long as no medical claims are made, people aren't told not to see their doctors, no one is told to stop taking their medicine, and no one is subjected to the practice except those who believe and show up and ask for it, I think it falls under the scope of a protected personal religious practice.

[Gravy]

As long as no medical claims are made, people aren't told not to see their doctors, no one is told to stop taking their medicine, and no one is subjected to the practice except those who believe and show up and ask for it, I think it falls under the scope of a protected personal religious practice.
That's a good description. I agree with you.

[Kochanski]

If I were chronically ill, I wouldn't go to Benny Hinn. Does being entertained by a Benny Hinn performance rise to the level of probable harm that I must rush out and save sick people from him? No. Does claiming I'm just targeting Benny Hinn, and not the people who wish to recieve his entertainment services, mean I'm not interfering in their lives? No.



The point you are missing here is that people who go to faith healers are NOT seeking entertainment they are going to be healed and they are being falsely led to believe that will happen. Faith healers do not represent themselves as entertainment, they say they are healing through the power of god. Where in that statement do you see them as doing a show for entertainment purposes only? I don't see that and neither do most of the people who go to them.

Stop defending them. Face it they are lying, thieving individuals who are hiding behind the protective cloak of religion.

[blutoski]

As long as no medical claims are made, people aren't told not to see their doctors, no one is told to stop taking their medicine, and no one is subjected to the practice except those who believe and show up and ask for it, I think it falls under the scope of a protected personal religious practice.

This means they're not practicing medicine without a licence, but that doesn't mean it's legal.

It could still be criminal fraud if it can be demonstrated that they're lying.

Hinn et al claim to have had a litany of proven healings - that's part of their credentials - and they claim to receive information from God (thus, the radio gimmick). If they were caught admitting these were lies, their followers would have a case.

Consider: there are cases where ministers get positions leading congregations, and then it is revealed that they do not have the credentials they claimed. For example, they turn out not to have been ordained, or have been excommunicated. Congregations have succesfully recovered donations in these circumstances, because fraud is fraud.

The question is not whether they can be prosecuted: they can. The questions are: "What would constitute evidence," and "How do we collect this evidence legally," and lastly, "How do we get the victims to sue?"

[SezMe]

First you said that the FDA was "irrelevant", because drugs weren't involved. You were wrong. The FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims.
Point taken. But faith healers, by their fraudulent claims, may come under scrutiny of both the FDA and the Department of Justice. I'm not a shark, but I would guess that both may have a role to play.

Next you say the "fraud" is not the religious beliefs, but instead the "claim of medical benefits." Medical benefits provided by God certainly fall under the umbrella of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, stated as such, are not actionable as fraudulent misrepresentation.
But there are no demonstrable "medical benefits provided by god" so your "umbrella" does not exist.

To anticipate, you might say, "How do you know there are no medical benefits provided by god?" Not my problem. Faith healers claim god provides medical miracles - it is up to them to provide evidence for this claim. It is not my responsibility to disprove such claims.

It is certainly not actionable under either criminal or civil law to represent that God can heal, or that one is going to wish real hard for God to heal someone.
Well, as stated, I'm not a shark so I don't claim to know what is "actionable" or not. Are you a lawyer with expertise in the area of consumer fraud so that you can make this statement?

That said, again, the issue is not what god can do, but what the faith healers claim that they can do. They claim to bring god's healing to us mere mortals with a head smack. That is an earthly claim that would be, I assume, subject to earhly adjudication. No?

If faith healers said something like "In 10 minutes, God will perform an appendectomy on you, if you give me $100" or "God has transformed this Kool-Aid into heart medicine, so you no longer need your Lanoxin" you could certainly charge them for practicing medicine without a license.
I take it you have never been to one of these faith healer gigs. They are well orchestrated, sophisticated productions. The music builds slowly. Various presenters talk about the power of god. The music builds some more. Saved souls testify. The music builds some more. Finally, the "star" appears and shouts "Praise Jesus, his miracles to observe." The music reaches a creshendo.

Did anyone say $100 is gonna buy you health? No. Do the bleevers think so? Yep. But the lack of an explicit statement to that effect does not mean that the implied benefit is lacking.

[Bronze Dog]

I seem to recall that Classic Communism tried to outlaw religion as unscientific nonsense and the equivalent of opiate addiction.

Would you happen to know how that turned out?
You say that as if I approve of the outlawing of religion. Nice little variation on the "argumentum ad Hitlerum," by the way.

[Cyphermage]

You say that as if I approve of the outlawing of religion. Nice little variation on the "argumentum ad Hitlerum," by the way.

You said that if someone makes a claim about reality, it should have scientific backing. I was merely citing one example of an attempt to vet religious claims for factual accuracy.

[Bronze Dog]

You said that if someone makes a claim about reality, it should have scientific backing. I was merely citing one example of an attempt to vet religious claims for factual accuracy.
And yet, you posted something about a tyrranical government and seemed to imply that there was some sort of connection between that and my post.

Besides, what's wrong with requesting factual accuracy?

[Cyphermage]

And yet, you posted something about a tyrranical government and seemed to imply that there was some sort of connection between that and my post.

Besides, what's wrong with requesting factual accuracy?

The only connection was that the tyrannical government was an example of holding religious claims to factual standards.

Factual accuracy is fine for fact-based things. It is silly for allegory-based things, for reasons which should be obvious.

[Bronze Dog]

The only connection was that the tyrannical government was an example of holding religious claims to factual standards.
So, if I were to say "People should be nicer to each other." you'll bring up that old Doctor Who episode featuring a planet where everyone was forced to be happy?

Factual accuracy is fine for fact-based things. It is silly for allegory-based things, for reasons which should be obvious.
In other words, when people tell allegory-based things as if they were fact, we should just smile politely and nod?

[Cyphermage]

In other words, when people tell allegory-based things as if they were fact, we should just smile politely and nod?

Generally.

[Santa666]

First you said that the FDA was "irrelevant", because drugs weren't involved. You were wrong. The FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims.

Can you show me where the the FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims? To assist you, I have provided a link here to the FDA website where it specifically notes what the FDA regulates.

http://www.fda.gov/comments/regs.html

Next you say the "fraud" is not the religious beliefs, but instead the "claim of medical benefits." Medical benefits provided by God certainly fall under the umbrella of religious beliefs. Religious beliefs, stated as such, are not actionable as fraudulent misrepresentation.

It is certainly not actionable under either criminal or civil law to represent that God can heal, or that one is going to wish real hard for God to heal someone.

If faith healers said something like "In 10 minutes, God will perform an appendectomy on you, if you give me $100" or "God has transformed this Kool-Aid into heart medicine, so you no longer need your Lanoxin" you could certainly charge them for practicing medicine without a license.

However, the claims are, as I understand them, the following.

1. God can heal sickness. This obviously follows from the definition of God as all-powerful, and able to do anything not tautologically phrased.

2. People can certainly pray to God, and one of the things they can pray about is for God to heal them of their afflictions, which he may or may not do.

3. People may pray to God to heal the afflictions of others, and according to scripture, placing their hands upon the sick person while doing so is a practice that may be employed.

4. Even through the prior doctrine is part of many religious denominations, most priests and pastors avoid the can of worms which a healing ministry entails, and limit their attempts at healing to praying and conducting religious services for people who request it

5. A very small number of priests and pastors will make touching people while praying for God to heal them a public part of their ministry.

As long as no medical claims are made, people aren't told not to see their doctors, no one is told to stop taking their medicine, and no one is subjected to the practice except those who believe and show up and ask for it, I think it falls under the scope of a protected personal religious practice.

Have you actually witnessed one of these "Miracle Tours" or "Spiritual Revival" events? Perhaps attending one, and really, you just need one, would help you understand what these people are attempting to do. Practically dragging people on stage, telling them with the power of faith and the lord the will be healed, announcing jesus is here and will heal you; these things encourage folks with truly crippling diseases to cause further and perhaps irreversible damage to themselves.

Drug companies claim there medication can do something, they test it, they outline the side effects, then they sell it to the public. Hinn and company do not inform people that dancing and jumping or even walking could permanently or fatally injured them if they are not healed. This is one of the big problems with these types of people.

Cyphermage, what you really need to do, if at all possible, is attend just one of these events.


Santa

[Kaylee]

Can you show me where the the FDA has jurisdiction over all medical claims? To assist you, I have provided a link here to the FDA website where it specifically notes what the FDA regulates.

http://www.fda.gov/comments/regs.html[

<slightly off topic> I was surprised to see that the FDA regulates food and even pet food. I probably should be embarrassed that I didn't realized that the F stood for "food" but ...

I had heard that the reason the FDA doesn't regulate herbal medicines is because they reguard them as food and they don't regulate food.

Well, obviously they do regulate food (because their web site says they do) -- so what is the real reason they don't regulate herbal medicines? :confused: </slightly off topic>

[Hellbound]

<slightly off topic> I was surprised to see that the FDA regulates food and even pet food. I probably should be embarrassed that I didn't realized that the F stood for "food" but ...

I had heard that the reason the FDA doesn't regulate herbal medicines is because they reguard them as food and they don't regulate food.

Well, obviously they do regulate food (because their web site says they do) -- so what is the real reason they don't regulate herbal medicines? :confused: </slightly off topic>

You're half-right.

They only regulate food for safety, not effectiveness. So herbal suppliments (and dietary supplements) are regulated for safety, but not for thier effectiveness as medicine.

Hopefully that makes sense :)

[Kaylee]

...

Faith healers encourage these people to believe they will be healed, to throw away their medications. Faith healers tell them that only if they truly believe they will be healed and if they take their medications, then they are showing a lack of faith.

Now, don't you see a potential serious problem with this? Do you want to be the physician who has to deal with someone in a diabetic coma or who has suffered a stroke because they stopped taking their medication?

...



Sorry for responding to this late, but I just saw this thread.

I think it would be very interesting if one of the news reporters showed a faith healer (or one of their immediate family members) getting contact lenses, hearing aids, or medicine for diabetes, high blood pressure, etc.

Given the number of faith healers and how common the above health issues are, it shouldn't be difficult. And it would be very interesting to see them try to explain it. :D

[Kaylee]

You're half-right.

They only regulate food for safety, not effectiveness. So herbal suppliments (and dietary supplements) are regulated for safety, but not for thier effectiveness as medicine.

Hopefully that makes sense :)

Sort of, thanks. :)

But what about the possibility of people overdosing themselves on the herbal supplements because one can't really be sure what the potency is in any one bottle?

So I don't see how the FDA can avoid regulating the herbal medicine industry more stringently. If one doesn't know what the potency is for some (maybe even many?) of the herbal medicines, how can one say it's safe? :confused:

[Hellbound]

Sort of, thanks. :)

But what about the possibility of people overdosing themselves on the herbal supplements because one can't really be sure what the potency is in any one bottle?

So I don't see how the FDA can avoid regulating the herbal medicine industry more stringently. If one doesn't know what the potency is for some (maybe even many?) of the herbal medicines, how can one say it's safe? :confused:

That's pretty much been the argument, in part. However, safety is assessed via the usual dosage of the finished product, IIRC. So, you won't get enough to OD if you use the product as directed. However, the bigger issues are the possibility of drug interactions and the fact that these are sold to "help" with medical problems, and haven't been tested to see if they work for those problems.

The whole thign was a result of the dietary suppliments people lobbying for the ruling to regard them as food. The FDA at the time was massively overloaded (still is), and that was a major reduction in workload. Now, I'm recalling most of this from memory, so I probably have some details wrong, but that's the situation as I recall it.

It ain't the right way to do it, IMHO, but that's how it's currently done.

[SezMe]

WARNING: Evidence from crappy memory.

I think Huntsman has it right. I believe Orrin Hatch (R-UT) led the legislative effort to exclude herbs and supplements from regulation at the urging of a number of firms that produce this stuff that are located in Utah.

[Kaylee]

Thanks Huntsman and SezMe,

Can't say I think its right, but at least I can follow the govt.'s "reasoning" now.

[Yahzi]

Sounds like the cosmetics industry, the Feng Shui industry, the Roman Catholic Church, psychic crystals, and about 100,000 other products and organizations.
Now that's a novel defense.

"But your honor, lots of people are getting away with murder!"

"Well, then, off you go..."

Can I defend the KKK by pointing out they are no different from the Nazis? Can I defend Stalin by saying he was no worse than Ghengis Khan? Can I defend Jeffery Dahmer by saying he was no worse than Hannibal Lecter?

[SezMe]

Can't say I think its right, but at least I can follow the govt.'s "reasoning" now.
Well, the "reasoning" part is a bit too generous. Just put it down to well-heeled lobbyists and a compliant senator.

[Cyphermage]

Now that's a novel defense.

"But your honor, lots of people are getting away with murder!"

"Well, then, off you go..."

Can I defend the KKK by pointing out they are no different from the Nazis? Can I defend Stalin by saying he was no worse than Ghengis Khan? Can I defend Jeffery Dahmer by saying he was no worse than Hannibal Lecter?

Are cosmetics and Feng Shui as bad as mass murder and cannibalism? Only, I would imagine, to very extremist skeptics.

[Yahzi]

Are cosmetics and Feng Shui as bad as mass murder and cannibalism? Only, I would imagine, to very extremist skeptics.
This is what makes a woo a woo: the rejection of principle. Not a principle, but the idea of principle. The very idea of formal logic; that "if A then B, if B then C, therefore if A then C" is true no matter what A,B, and C are. This is what they reject.

(Edit: This website says exactly what I was trying to say here:

Living like this, of course, makes the world look like a dreamy fairy tale, where nothing is necessarily constant from one minute to the next and anything can be as true as anything else at any time.

http://www.dansdata.com/danletters167.htm
)

You suggested that because the Catholic Church was committing fraud, it was ok for other healers to commit fraud.

I provided some very over-the-top examples to illustrate that the notion of defending a evil act by pointing out that other people are doing the same evil act is silly.

You responded by complaining that defrauding people is not as bad as murder.

To accept your argument, we would have to accept that defending something by appealing to similar behaviour is or is not acceptable depending on what the behaviour is.

If it's wrong for healers to defraud people, it's wrong for the Catholic Church to defraud people. Your pointing out that many, many instituitions and individuals also defraud people hardly counts as a defense for healers doing it. Wouldn't you agree?

[SezMe]

Are cosmetics and Feng Shui as bad as mass murder and cannibalism? Only, I would imagine, to very extremist skeptics.
BAR THE DOOR! We got us some extremist skeptics among us. :( They have to be cleaned out, root and branch. Call the NSA. Hell, call the dowsers. Find 'em. Sic the mods on them. Lets scrub this mess up. :mad:



Sigh .......

[Bronze Dog]

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.

In other words, when people tell allegory-based things as if they were fact, we should just smile politely and nod?

Generally.

Unprincipled. He apparently believes that the search for truth has no value.

[Yahzi]

Either Cyphermage is the most unprincipled woo I've ever met
I can only assume you have not met very many woos, then.

:D

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...

[Cyphermage]

You suggested that because the Catholic Church was committing fraud, it was ok for other healers to commit fraud.

I provided some very over-the-top examples to illustrate that the notion of defending a evil act by pointing out that other people are doing the same evil act is silly.

You responded by complaining that defrauding people is not as bad as murder.

To accept your argument, we would have to accept that defending something by appealing to similar behaviour is or is not acceptable depending on what the behaviour is.

If it's wrong for healers to defraud people, it's wrong for the Catholic Church to defraud people. Your pointing out that many, many instituitions and individuals also defraud people hardly counts as a defense for healers doing it. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't agree. I don't believe in nonsense. Clearly, I think not having nonsense is better than having it, but I don't use terms like "right" and "wrong", as they are value judgments, not facts.

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."

There's also a difference between not believing in nonsense, and thinking one has the right to substitute ones judgment for someone elses in evaluating their life experiences.

Many are called but few are chosen. 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.

Do-gooders, savers, and converts, are to be distrusted. They think they know what's best for everyone, and that the end justifies the means. Hence my question, is it proper to put a sincere faith healer out of business by calling him a crook.

Please discuss amongst yourselves.

[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?

[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...huckst ers...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...huckst ers...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. :D )

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...

[Cyphermage]

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.

The test of that is to go and yell...

There is no God!!
There is no Faith Healing!!

And see how many of them turn around and leave when presented with this new information which you claim they didn't have when deciding to attend.

If correcting the false information doesn't cause them to change their decision, and leave, then you don't get to claim the false information was the basis for their attending.

[Cyphermage]

Not answering the question, ...


Oh, I'm sorry. Yes, people who believe Pat Robertson gets messages directly from God telling him about unverifiable healings in vaguely described locations are idiots.

An unkind word, I know, but one has to draw the line somewhere in terms of consumer awareness.

[Cyphermage]

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...

Well, the notion of selfish memes is that they reproduce effectively, which means that the community of individuals survives, perhaps at the expense of self-sacrifice of particular individuals that carry them.

A honeybee will commit suicide by stinging you, because it is genetically identical to all the other worker bees produced by the same queen. So it can extinguish its individual existence for the good of the community that carries identical genes.

By "profound" myths, I mean those which illustrate a moral or spiritual truth, and encourage people to exhibit traits which the community as a whole thinks of as valuable, even at some sacrifice to themselves.

Clearly, this can have a downside. What is a profound myth to a culture that values female genital mutilation above all else? Probably some touching story about a person who gave their life to ensure no clitoris escaped pruning. Or a girl who killed herself rather than spend life with her tingley bump still attached.

Nonetheless, I think most myths people look up to are either encouraging of good behavior, or harmless delusions. It's all stuff like "God loves you," "Feed the poor," "You will be rewarded in the afterlife."

"God can heal you" is probably one of the more harmless delusions, on a per capita basis. At least compared to things like "All infidels must die."

[SezMe]

The test of that is to go and yell...

There is no God!!
There is no Faith Healing!!

And see how many of them turn around and leave when presented with this new information which you claim they didn't have when deciding to attend.

If correcting the false information doesn't cause them to change their decision, and leave, then you don't get to claim the false information was the basis for their attending.
OK, I'll try to get my point through your thick skull one more time: It is NOT about the people and their religion. So stop bringing up this misdirection time after time.

The issue is the fraud commited by the sham preachers, not the believers who buy his schtick.

[Cyphermage]

OK, I'll try to get my point through your thick skull one more time: It is NOT about the people and their religion. So stop bringing up this misdirection time after time.

The issue is the fraud commited by the sham preachers, not the believers who buy his schtick.

You stated that the people attending made the decision to do so based on false information. I suggested a simple test you could easily perform to try and confirm your hypothesis.

If the people are not attending based on false information, then the preachers are not committing fraud, and as we have previously discussed, claims about what God can and cannot do in a religious context don't fall under the fraud statutes anyway.

[Yahzi]

No, I have just gone on record as saying "Fraud is fraud."
I asked you a simple question: do you think fraud is wrong?

Your response was... "Fraud is fraud."

The evidence is in this thread, for anyone to examine for themselves.

You will be taken much more seriously if you...
While I appreciate your advice, I must shamefully confess that I cannot return the favor. I can think of no way to end the above sentence that would make it true for you.

:)

If you require these things in order to discuss, you will have limited success.
So my requirement that you discuss in good faith is too much? You feel the need to reserve the right to be dishonest?

Do you actually think there is anyone here who wishes to discuss anything under those conditions?

What part of this doesn't strike you as Constitutionally protected private religious practice by consenting adults?
What part of telling people they are being defrauded strikes you as not Constiutionally protected free speech?

It's not just that you want the hucksters to be free to huck... you want to silence the people who are anti-hucking.

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.
This is a factual claim. As such, it can be examined. If you choose to do so, you can rather quickly establish for yourself that it is patently false.

The entire point of this thread is that their information is misleading, distorted, and false.

If the people are not attending based on false information, then the preachers are not committing fraud
The people in the pews are attending based on false information. The preacher knows this, and carefully does not tell them. This makes him a fraud.

"God can heal you" is probably one of the more harmless delusions, on a per capita basis.
Sure it is. Because it's not you being harmed by the delusion.

Your recent posts have done nothing to dispel the conclusion that the basis of your argument is that you don't give a damn about how much other people suffer, as long as it's amusing to you.

[Yahzi]

The test of that is to go and yell...

There is no God!!
There is no Faith Healing!!
We are.

And you are bitching at us for doing so.

Would you care to resolve this contradiction?

No, I didn't think so.

[SezMe]

You stated that the people attending made the decision to do so based on false information. I suggested a simple test you could easily perform to try and confirm your hypothesis.
Your test does not address the issue at hand. Here is a better one: The preacher produces a FULL-disclosure regarding his (not god's) ability to perform the cures he touts. This includes evidence.

Now, with this evidence in hand, we can see how many people still come to his services.

[jon]

Well, the notion of selfish memes is that they reproduce effectively, which means that the community of individuals survives, perhaps at the expense of self-sacrifice of particular individuals that carry them.

A honeybee will commit suicide by stinging you, because it is genetically identical to all the other worker bees produced by the same queen. So it can extinguish its individual existence for the good of the community that carries identical genes.


Again, you seem to be misunderstanding what a selfish meme would be. The memes that persist will be thosethat survive and reproduce most effectively - this might involve strengthening a community, or the memes might for example be parasitic and do nothing but damage to the community(s) in which they reproduce. For example, look at all the bogus health scares that replicate so effectively - they generally do no good to anyone (except maybe those who profit by selling 'cures'), but can still be very successful memes :(


"God can heal you" is probably one of the more harmless delusions, on a per capita basis. At least compared to things like "All infidels must die."

The cruder theories of memes often view memes as overly independent/isolated, and thus fail to explain the interrellations between different ideas/different memes. 'God can heal you' may, in some but not all situations, be a fairly harmless delusion if you view it as a wholly isolated meme; however, it is often linked in to a range of other delusions (many harmful, some beneficial). In terms of 'faith healing' this meme is often linked to the belief that certain people have special powers or special links to God, that you should give them money, that you should support their political goals (which are often extremely dangerous delusions), that illnesses such as cancer can be healed without medical intervention etc...

[Beth]

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.

While I don't know anyone who isn't aware of the potential damage, I also don't know any smoker who is actively trying to quit. The ones I'm acquainted with tell me that they enjoy smoking and it's worth the price to them.

Similarly, I think most people who attend faith healer shows are aware of what they are doing and are willing to pay the price. While I may not agree with their choice to do so, I don't see any more reason to object to what they are doing (or the people who are selling it to them) than those who make, sell or buy cigarettes.

[Cyphermage]

Again, you seem to be misunderstanding what a selfish meme would be. The memes that persist will be thosethat survive and reproduce most effectively - this might involve strengthening a community, or the memes might for example be parasitic and do nothing but damage to the community(s) in which they reproduce. For example, look at all the bogus health scares that replicate so effectively - they generally do no good to anyone (except maybe those who profit by selling 'cures'), but can still be very successful memes :(


I didn't say "strengthen." I said "survive." A meme that kills its host before it can be communicated doesn't persist.

[Cyphermage]

I asked you a simple question: do you think fraud is wrong?

Your response was... "Fraud is fraud."

The evidence is in this thread, for anyone to examine for themselves.


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 part of telling people they are being defrauded strikes you as not Constiutionally protected free speech?

It's not just that you want the hucksters to be free to huck... you want to silence the people who are anti-hucking.

I have no objection to you SAYING anything you wish about faith healing. However, you continue to talk about "removing" the frauds and flim-flam artists, which has more dire implications.


The people in the pews are attending based on false information. The preacher knows this, and carefully does not tell them. This makes him a fraud.

Religious "information", being metaphor and allegory-based, as opposed to fact-based, doesn't fall into the category of fraud for not being factual. Would you force every priest to prove Jesus walked on water before opening the doors of his church? Claims that God can do something no more constitute fraud than claims the Easter Bunny can do something constitute fraud.


Your recent posts have done nothing to dispel the conclusion that the basis of your argument is that you don't give a damn about how much other people suffer, as long as it's amusing to you.

As I said, right wing debating tactics. Make the topic about the poster instead of the subject being discussed, and when all else fails, start talking about children being molested.

[Cyphermage]

We are.

And you are bitching at us for doing so.

Would you care to resolve this contradiction?

No, I didn't think so.

No, I have encouraged you to yell "faith healing doesn't work" as loudly as you can to the sick people entering the auditorium.

I've just maintained that.

1. Few of them will care.

2. Finding some pretense to put the faith healer out of business, as opposed to just engaging in consumer education, interferes with the freely chosen religious choice of his clients.

[jon]

I didn't say "strengthen." I said "survive." A meme that kills its host before it can be communicated doesn't persist.

A meme that destroys *all* its hosts prior to their spreading it will not survive. A meme that kills its host after it is communicated can survive, though, as can one which destroys most but not all of its hosts. For a meme to kill its host in certain ways - for example, for people to commit suicide in a particularly spectacular way or to refuse medical treatment for serious illness while loudly proclaiming their faith in God - may actually be a very effective way for memes to be reproduced. Bit of a shame for the hosts, though...

[blutoski]

While I don't know anyone who isn't aware of the potential damage, I also don't know any smoker who is actively trying to quit. The ones I'm acquainted with tell me that they enjoy smoking and it's worth the price to them.

Similarly, I think most people who attend faith healer shows are aware of what they are doing and are willing to pay the price. While I may not agree with their choice to do so, I don't see any more reason to object to what they are doing (or the people who are selling it to them) than those who make, sell or buy cigarettes.


I'm not sure this is true. The faith healers operate by deploying agents into the audience to collect private information. They then claim to be receiving this information from God, while they are in fact reproducing it from compiled surviellance intelligence. Audience members are persuaded that the healers claims about God are true, because his claims about his own abilities (to be in direct contact with God) appear to be confirmed. It's a confidence scam.

The participants' faith in God is not what draws them: it's the confidence in the healer's confirmable, produceable, claims about himself that are persuasive. Since these claims are based on lies, the crime being committed is fraud. It doesn't matter whether this is in a religious context, pretending to get information from God, or in a commercial context, pretending he just got off a call with a doctor, and telling the patient he needs medical treatment when it's not true. A lie is a lie, and lying for cash is fraud.

[Cyphermage]

I'm not sure this is true. The faith healers operate by deploying agents into the audience to collect private information. They then claim to be receiving this information from God, while they are in fact reproducing it from compiled surviellance intelligence. Audience members are persuaded that the healers claims about God are true, because his claims about his own abilities (to be in direct contact with God) appear to be confirmed. It's a confidence scam.

Some faith healers have been caught using this scam. Are you suggesting that ALL faith healers do this?

[blutoski]

Some faith healers have been caught using this scam. Are you suggesting that ALL faith healers do this?

Nope. My argument is that the ones who do should be charged.

[Cyphermage]

Nope. My argument is that the ones who do should be charged.

I think they should be. I never understood why Peter Popoff was never charged with anything when Randi caught him using a radio receiver disguised as a hearing aid to receive the information on cards people had filled out.

[blutoski]

I think they should be. I never understood why Peter Popoff was never charged with anything when Randi caught him using a radio receiver disguised as a hearing aid to receive the information on cards people had filled out.

The further value is that the ones who get charged will set an example. Others will think twice before trying to reproduce the stunt.

[Beth]

I'm not sure this is true. The faith healers operate by deploying agents into the audience to collect private information. They then claim to be receiving this information from God, while they are in fact reproducing it from compiled surviellance intelligence. Audience members are persuaded that the healers claims about God are true, because his claims about his own abilities (to be in direct contact with God) appear to be confirmed. It's a confidence scam.

Regarding those that do this: Yes, you're correct.

[blutoski]

And, it's not limited to born-agains:
Soloflex Ad (http://www.soloflex.com/print_ads/Soloflex_Healing_6.438x10.5.pdf)

[Cyphermage]

And, it's not limited to born-agains:
Soloflex Ad (http://www.soloflex.com/print_ads/Soloflex_Healing_6.438x10.5.pdf)

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? :D

[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? :D

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)

[Cyphermage]

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.

Intimation, like beauty, is usually in the mind of the beholder. :p