Author
|
Topic: Revisiting the Great Faith Wars (Read 20512 times) |
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender: 
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
 
|
 |
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #75 on: 2009-12-24 15:06:24 » |
 |
hmmmmm, well, lets see. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Hermit and Lucifer are the primary proponents (according to Meridian voting that is) of returning "Faith" as the first sin. It seems that Hermit takes a slightly prescriptive use of language approach, using his shiney word "weyken" to obviate the need for any potentially non-dogmatic uses uses of "Faith". It has shades and phases of "phaith" from our previous GFWs, however I think those of us using the word "phaith" were using it precisely because it was a homonym of "faith" and mostly with the understanding that it was a word mostly useful for one argument and not really intended to become a regularly used word.
Hermit seems to have a different agenda as he has made a word he intends to use outside the confines of the argument, however to the best of my understanding "weyken" has so far mostly become a word to use with one person, our favorite Hermit, rather than just one argument. Perhaps thats a slightly larger audience than before, but so far I suspect not by much. So I'm not going to unecessarily belittle progress however modest, but it seems that most of us aren't catching the meme fast enough not to mention the greater cultural pools, even though it continues to have some currency with Hermit and those who regularly converse with him.
Hermit seems to think that Anthropogenic Global Warming is pretty important too, and lately I've been focusing a bit more on that, not mention health care reform, and the Afghanistan adventure, and Obama failing miserably . . . What's a child of the collapsing empire to do? I keep up with current events and get excoriated for not caring about them enough, I fall behind and I "exceed expectations". Something is wrong with this gauge.
Anyway, I'm not sure what Lucifer's point is anymore except to dissect Hermit and Mermaid's point of view. And Mermaid's point of view is the same as it's always been, our favorite attention whore!  At least she doesn't pretend otherwise. Yeah, Deepak Chopra, most homeopathy, most chiropracty (and this from a guy who LOVES having his back popped but just realizes its no better than a simple massage if that), astrology, etc. Mostly on all these subjects I say do no harm. Many of them work on giving the recipient the illusion of control, also known in the medical world as the placebo effect. The irony is that the placebo effect has real consequences. We just need to mostly make sure that we aren't doing any harm or preventing real improvement. That's how I weyken it. And mostly that involves informing patients of medically well known procedures and their various success/survival rates, instead of automatically locking them into your favorite dead-end placebo.
Outside of that, while he's doing a great job responding to others, I'm still unclear why Lucifer continues to stick with "faith" as the first sin. Perhaps he is just trying to exhaust all the arguments before we return to the previous status quo? I seem to have read something about how he thought dogma was just watered down version of faith. Perhaps in terms of the immediate passion it inspires, "Faith" may inspire a quicker reaction than "Dogma". On these grounds, I'd be the first to recommend it as our first pet peeve, but in terms of having a lasting and meaningful discussion it doesn't make a good fall-back conversation except to confirm to the "faithful" that you simply want to kill all their joy and are worthy eternal damnation if not enhanced interrogation procedures.
On those grounds I think its actually "faith" which is the sloppier and more watered down word in that it leads to less verbal precision and ever nosier emotional response. On the other hand, as modest as the word "dogmatic" may seem initially, almost nobody wants it seriously applied to them. So while they may take comfort in not violating their faith, if you insist enough it will continue to annoy them to be thought of as "dogmatic" even if they aren't always sure what that word actually means.
We do. We own it, its ours. Which is why I think we should stick with it, and makes wonder why should we give it up mid-stream? Yeah it doesn't make the zombies spontaneously explode, but does anything really? On the other hand it does slow them down a bit, so I suggest firing away on that "dogma" thing. So yeah, "Faith" can be my favorite pet peeve but "dogma" is something evil I know I can always ethically trump if I'm otherwise patient and not apathetic in pursuing it.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.46
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #76 on: 2009-12-24 15:15:19 » |
|
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2009-12-24 15:06:24 Anyway, I'm not sure what Lucifer's point is anymore except to dissect Hermit and Mermaid's point of view. And Mermaid's point of view is the same as it's always been, our favorite attention whore! At least she doesn't pretend otherwise. Yeah, Deepak Chopra, most homeopathy, most chiropracty (and this from a guy who LOVES having his back popped but just realizes its no better than a simple massage if that), astrology, etc. Mostly on all these subjects I say do no harm. Many of them work on giving the recipient the illusion of control, also known in the medical world as the placebo effect. The irony is that the placebo effect has real consequences. We just need to mostly make sure that we aren't doing any harm or preventing real improvement. That's how I weyken it. And mostly that involves informing patients of medically well known procedures and their various success/survival rates, instead of automatically locking them into your favorite dead-end placebo.
|
i dont see why you have to insult me by bringing up deepak chopra. i also dont understand why you say 'most' homeopathy...'most' "chiropracty"? does this mean "some" homeopathy or chiropracty works?
i have proof through my personal experience with homeopathy that it works for ME. i am not pushing it towards you. you, lucifer et al, on the other hand, would rather rely on others' words..which is fine, but it is, to me, no different than a xian believing the word of his priest that tampons are satan's cotton fingers.
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #77 on: 2009-12-24 15:22:43 » |
|
wow, fast response there, Mermaid. Homeopathy - some procedures for lessening allergic responses were taken straight from homeopathy. Not much else, but its the one of the few if only remaining areas of homeopathic theory seriously considered by allopaths.
Chiropracty . . . well, like you I'm down to personal experience. While I'm willing to be a lab animal, it would probably take an interested third party to set up appropriate controls etc.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #78 on: 2009-12-24 15:30:24 » |
|
Re: Deepak Chopra. From what little I've seen of him, I think he's quite the quack, however as best I know he's not responsible for anyone dying yet, so perhaps his perscriptions aren't lethal which is probably quite a compliment for a quack. I'd never take him as my first or second opinion, but if you're down to a third opinion he might be safer than many others. However if I were him, I'd make sure I had some lawyers on call just in case. Seeing as how he rakes in the big bucks, I bet he does.
PS - I really piss my mom off about Andrew Weil . . . same issue. She's certain I'm doomed for an early grave it doesn't help that she keeps quoting people like that to me. Makes me want to drink hard liquor and smoke Cuban cigars, just about.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #79 on: 2009-12-24 15:52:27 » |
|
Incidentally, just because you may try homeopathy, or read your horoscope, or other things like that, doesn't make you necessarily dogmatic to me. Mostly I think the issues lies in not ignoring established science, considering your own circumstances reasonably, and once you've made up your mind, you can tell whatever narrative story of control holds it all together for you in your mind. Maybe Dee Pak Chopra is just the pattern of wrapping paper you prefer, and if that's all the function he performs for you, then feel free to use him that way. We who understand that about you may eventually remember to leave you off of our next holy war to-do list. Not all drums require beating to death of course.
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #80 on: 2009-12-24 16:12:12 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-24 13:33:57
i dont consider your point of view to be valid. i.e. there is little difference between homeopathy and intercessory prayer. also, i dont understand why you bring up intercessory prayer which praying on behalf of others. i.e. priest prays for his congregation. mother prays for her child. church prays for community etc. if i take a homeopathic remedy instead of giving it to a patient, then your parallel makes sense.
|
From your response I'm guessing you don't believe intercessory prayer is a valid healing modality which is causing you some cognitive dissonance now.
Quote:
i am not a lab or an experimenter. since you place so much importance on double blind studies, how come you have arrived at your conclusions re homeopathy without personally conducting any tests. all you have is a dozen studies from wiki. if you have faith in 'science' and you are willing to their words over your personal experience, then it's your call.
|
Try reading just one of the studies >> http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/1/69.full
CONCLUSION
The evidence from rigorous clinical trials of any type of therapeutic or preventive intervention testing homeopathy for childhood and adolescence ailments is not convincing enough for recommendations in any condition.
Quote:you expect me to have a control group and double blind studies over my personal experience while you have demonstrated nothing to show that you are actively involved in the studies that disprove homeopathy. except what you read on wiki. i'll take my personal experience over wiki anyday.
|
No I don't expect you to have a control group. I expect you understand why I would believe a large set of rigorous clinical trials over your testimony.
Quote:
my original point during the discussion about the sin of faith vs sin of dogma..was that your faith in science and scientists is no different from a religious person's faith in god and priests. i think that still holds true. sadly.
|
It is sad. Sad that you can't see the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #81 on: 2009-12-24 16:33:41 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-24 14:36:06
i think we should end this discussion re homeopathy because i feel you are veering towards hermitesque argument with your previous parallel of homeopathy vs intercessory prayer. however i have to admit that you are more civil and i do enjoy discourse with you. so i present to you this..
i ask you to step into my shoes. you have an illness and you are not susceptible to mumbo jumbo. yet buoyed by curiosity due to first hand witnessing of recovery of your animals, you test homeopathy. and it works. you are pleased with the results, but you want to understand the system. not everything makes sense to you. the primary steps are shrouded in confusing language and inexplicable science. yet once you are past it, everything else fits logically.
you benefit from homeopathy. you help others and they benefit from homeopathy. having experienced something first hand even if you cant understand it, can you, in good conscience, abandon something that offers immeasurable benefit without side effects.
|
Once again, I'm not trying to convince you to abandon homeopathy. If it works for you, great, keep doing it.
Quote:
as a scientist, how do you reconcile the results with a method you do not understand. do you discard it because you cannot find a probable explanation or do you continue to try and understand why things work the way they do?
|
Whoever figures out how distilled water can have a memory and cure diseases will no doubt get the Nobel prize in medicine.
Quote:
i have been thinking about double blind testing and why you brought it up. i cannot think of one good reason why you'd expect a lay person like me to conduct double blind tests with a control group. here is a link to double blind testing in rational wiki(no friend of homeopathy, i assure you) > http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/Double-blind_testing
|
Once again, I don't expect you to do rigorous clinical trials. But you should understand that the fact that homeopathy doesn't work in clinical trials puts in the same category as reiki, intercessory prayer and chiropractic.
Quote:
i have to remove myself from this discussion, not because i disagree with you, but because i dont know where it's going or it's purpose. it would thrill me to bits if you would actually read or study homeopathy to understand how it works and explain it to me.. i'd love to know..i really would!
|
I'm pretty sure no one knows how it works. I will concede that homeopathy has no side effects!
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.46
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #82 on: 2009-12-24 17:00:34 » |
|
you continue to annoy me by bringing up deepak chopra. i should not be open to all kinds of abuse just because i do not discard homeopathy as a valid healing modality.
bottom line: if homeopathy doesnt satisfactorily give me results, i can go back to allopathy or maybe even ayurveda or TCM. but those who are not open minded(while still being discerning, of course), will have no other recourse. i do not wish to put myself at the mercy of any one institution. i certainly do not believe that allopathy is infallible.
with that, i end this.
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2009-12-24 15:52:27 Incidentally, just because you may try homeopathy, or read your horoscope, or other things like that, doesn't make you necessarily dogmatic to me. Mostly I think the issues lies in not ignoring established science, considering your own circumstances reasonably, and once you've made up your mind, you can tell whatever narrative story of control holds it all together for you in your mind. Maybe Dee Pak Chopra is just the pattern of wrapping paper you prefer, and if that's all the function he performs for you, then feel free to use him that way. We who understand that about you may eventually remember to leave you off of our next holy war to-do list. Not all drums require beating to death of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mermaid
Archon
Posts: 770
Reputation: 8.46
Rate Mermaid
Bite me!
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #83 on: 2009-12-24 21:18:26 » |
|
crap. now you have to go and bring up reiki.
Quote from: David Lucifer on 2009-12-24 16:33:41
Once again, I don't expect you to do rigorous clinical trials. But you should understand that the fact that homeopathy doesn't work in clinical trials puts in the same category as reiki, intercessory prayer and chiropractic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
 |
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #84 on: 2009-12-24 23:30:37 » |
|
Quote from: Mermaid on 2009-12-24 17:00:34
No, no, no. Pulllleeeeeeeeeeeeeeaase don't leave me. I don't want it to ever end! This is emotional extortion. Okay, Okay, I'll agree with whatever you say, just don't throw us away like a used tissue. It hurts our feelings.
;)
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4287
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #85 on: 2009-12-25 17:04:39 » |
|
[MoEnzyme] hmmmmm, well, lets see. Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that Hermit and Lucifer are the primary proponents (according to Meridian voting that is) of returning "Faith" as the first sin. It seems that Hermit takes a slightly prescriptive use of language approach, using his shiney word "weyken" to obviate the need for any potentially non-dogmatic uses uses of "Faith". It has shades and phases of "phaith" from our previous GFWs, however I think those of us using the word "phaith" were using it precisely because it was a homonym of "faith" and mostly with the understanding that it was a word mostly useful for one argument and not really intended to become a regularly used word.
[Hermit] While weyken has been used and defined in depositions (so part of the court record) and is used and defined in a book I rather hope will eventually become popular, the case for defining faith as the primary problem that leads to dogma has been articulated here and does not need your strawman interpreting what I said which is simply that without faith, dogma cannot exist. I always try to address problems at the source.
[Mermaid] you continue to annoy me by bringing up deepak chopra.
[Hermit] throws up chunks of Deepak Chopra all over Mermaid. A nutcase so bizarre that even the TM movement disassociated itself from him.
[Mermaid] i should not be open to all kinds of abuse just because i do not discard homeopathy as a valid healing modality.
[Hermit] If you imagine that this is abuse, or that your delusion is the only reason that you are found disagreeable, go back and reread your effluvium.
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
David Lucifer
Archon
Posts: 2642
Reputation: 8.94
Rate David Lucifer
Enlighten me.
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #86 on: 2009-12-26 12:17:33 » |
|
Here's a snapshot of the vote as it stands today:
What should we call the first Virian Sin?
Faith 39.34 (42.40%)
Dogmatism 53.44 (57.60%)
decisiveness (14.10%)
unvoted equity (7.22%)
voted equity (92.78%)
So the first sin will remain "dogmatism" for now
|
|
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #87 on: 2009-12-26 17:22:18 » |
|
for now . . . we wouldn't want to be dogmatic or anything. 
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #88 on: 2009-12-27 05:47:47 » |
|
@ everyone who has followed this thread.
At first I felt apprehensive, but then I saw the wisdom of revisiting these decisions lest anyone accuse us of dogmatism, and lest we become legitimately vulnerable to such accusations.
@ Hermit
Just for clean-up sake, Hermit made some accusations of my strawmanning his argument into something about "weyken". Well for the record, I don't consider such vocabulary as necessarily strawman material. Corrupting the English language, while not impossible, can be hard work, and I congratulate Hermit on his stamina in such undertakings. If we were all speaking French, he would have been toast long ago by now on that point, so I'm thankful we aren't.
Keep those new shiney words polished up, 'cause we'll probably have these conversations again soon enough. I'm guessing our Virtues and Sins may not change so radically, but I weyken we'll be inevitably mentioning many other useful and shiney new words by the time we finish the inevitable conversations such an ethical menu ultimately inspires. Even if "Dogmatism" remains our first sin, I'm reckoning we still have a lot to say about "faith", as a phenomenon and how various manifestations of it relate to our ethos.
-Mo
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
MoEnzyme
Acolyte
Gender:
Posts: 2256
Reputation: 4.60
Rate MoEnzyme
infidel lab animal
|
|
Re:Revisiting the Great Faith Wars
« Reply #89 on: 2009-12-27 06:12:47 » |
|
Quote from: MoEnzyme on 2009-12-27 05:47:47
. . . even if "Dogmatism" remains our first sin, I'm reckoning we still have a lot to say about "faith", as a phenomenon and how various manifestations of it relate to our ethos.
-Mo
|
Indeed, I suggest that this become the essential subject line for the remainder of this thread, now that you've called the vote for the time being. If we get some explosion of dissent, or some big change in the conversation which suggest opening the vote again it should be simple enough to do at such a time. So by all means, everyone, please carry on.
-Mo
|
I will fight your gods for food,
Mo Enzyme
(consolidation of handles: Jake Sapiens; memelab; logicnazi; Loki; Every1Hz; and Shadow)
|
|
|
|
Logged
