A question for those who believe in faith healing

You didn't understand what I said. I said that it was unusual because Pat Robertson appeared to be talking directly to me that day. It was as if no one else in the world existed. It happened that my daughter was in a state of severe depression and at that moment it suddenly lifted, to the point where she found it so strange that she called me to ask if I had just prayed for her. Now do you get what I said?

 

That's Pat Robertson's job. He WANTS to make his appeal personal..and you fell for it.

I do get what you said and it's anecdotal. People often find vague comments appear to be directed at them personally, well....that's why they craft it that way. No mystery.

 

Everyone has their cross to bear, but God will perform miracles to increase one's faith. Can you imagine how cruel everyone would be if they didn't suffer at all? What God does give is the strength and peace of mind to endure the hardships. Hey that's life!

 

Again you didn't understand . He didn't make any comments, it was as if the TV came out to me. It was as if he was alive in the room. Also my daughter called immediately afterwards to ask if I had just prayed. Now are you going to say that he had it all planned with her? Frankly I can't understand why you call yourself logically yours, since it appears you're projecting what your own motives would be if you were Pat Robertson?

 

Really?...So you "the TV came out to me"...and you questioning my ability to reason? wow.......

Every you have stated IS anecdotal...and not proof of ANYTHING other than your delusion that something not real, is real.

Riddle me this, the homeless, starving child prays every day for food and relief and gets none...and yet you pray for your daughter and your prayer is answered? How would you, as god, rationalize that decision to not help that starving child?

You're just like my mother...you view events that you believe are "good" and assign the positive interaction of god as the reason. Well, how about the bad?

 

Wow!
That didn't respond to my post at all!
Well done!

 

WOW...your god is a complete (*)(*)(*)(*)ing (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*). Cross to bear....like the children being murdered, women being raped....???

Forgive me but, you're an idiot.

 

Another unresponsive post to my inquiry.
You are nothing but consistent, I'll give you that.

 

Just like you projected your wants and needs on a generic puppy dog appeal by one of the foremost hucksters ever to hit the airwaves.
Trust me. Robertson REALLY loves you.

 

Not specifically however there is some evidence that even placebos can affect some cures. It is also known that one's own outlook can affect one's health. Not in all cases, of course, but often enough to suggest some kind of inner ability to 'heal' oneself.

Given the above, I can see where a so-called 'faith healer' could bring about a cure IF the person (being 'healed') has a strong enough belief that it can be done.

 

Not the point. The point is that there is no reasonable way for you to differentiate between the oil healing you and the minor illnesses going away on their own. It's like the guy who, each time he gets a cold, drinks a bottle of spring water from the spring of the Buddhist shrine behind his house, and the cold clears up within the next day or two. Of course, it's simply a coincidence that the cold was liable to clear itself up in approximately that time either way...

I strongly recommend that you continue the recommended treatment. Chemotherapy treatments for cancer are by no means perfect, but they are by far the best shot anyone has got at beating such diseases. They work considerably better than nothing at all, and there isn't really an alternative that works to begin with.

Yeah. It's not like your cousin had a disease which is more often than not lethal. This statement really does boggle the mind. "My cousin had a chronic disease which is very commonly lethal. Then he died. Must have been the treatment." No, I'm sorry, that's really dumb.

"Freak" is accurate; "health" is not. Pat Robertson is completely insane. The man thinks that the earthquake in Haiti was the result of a deal with the devil the natives made to shake off the yoke of French colonialism and that homosexuals spread AIDS with rings that cut your finger when you shake their hand. I don't know why you or anyone else would pay any attention to what he has to say. His statements about Chemotherapy are similarly ludicrous.

See, this is completely wrong. It's not just bad advice in the sense that you're abandoning your best shot at treatment, it's bad advice in the same way "dip your genitals in radioactive waste" is a bad idea - it's actually going to kill you faster than simply abandoning treatment and praying. Removing glucose from your diet actually makes the tumor more aggressive. And yes, chemotherapy usually sucks. It is, for the most part, a miserable process that leaves you in a terrible condition. But it's what we have, and it's what works. And I'd sooner have a better chance at living than avoid nasty therapy.

Where'd you read that? I'm mainly wondering because it's actually a real thing. The substance you are referring to is apigenin, a naturally occuring flavone, and using it instead of chemotherapy completely misses the point - It sensitizes cancer cells to chemotherapy. Of course, this all needs a big fat magic asterisk behind it, because as usual, we're talking about certain cancers in certain situations - as is the case with literally every "cure" for cancer, because cancer is not one disease, but rather upwards of 200 different diseases under a certain subheader.

If I seem harsh, it's because this kind of thing matters. When people ignore the advice of trained medical professionals and search for alternative, unproven cures, while ignoring the proven, tested ones because of personal incredulity or the fear, uncertainty, and doubt spread by morons like Pat Robertson, Mike Adams, Joe Mercola, and the like, people die as a result. In many cases with cancer, if you ignore chemotherapy, you are cutting your chance of survival down to less than half of what it normally would be. And the reasons to ignore chemo are just so bad. Myths spread around the internet that make no sense by people who really ought to know better, repeated by people who wouldn't understand the source material if it was presented to them without an explanation and as a result never thought to check the source. I mean, it's one thing if you fall for some smart, witty quack. But Pat Robertson? Damn.

 

I am quite happy to attribute healing powers to the placebo effect, but that's all conventional medicine, whereas faith healing is specifically defined to be healing "through spiritual means" (according to wikipedia) which is, per definition, alternative medicine. And for those who are not familiar with the terms, alternative medicine is, per definition, medicine which has not shown to be effective.

 

I don't so quickly discount the placebo effect. Which, by the way, is being studied.

Here....

The challenge now, says Kaptchuk, is to uncover the mechanisms behind these physiological responses—what is happening in our bodies, in our brains, in the method of placebo delivery (pill or needle, for example), even in the room where placebo treatments are administered (are the physical surroundings calming? is the doctor caring or curt?). The placebo effect is actually many effects woven together—some stronger than others—and that’s what Kaptchuk hopes his “pill versus needle” study shows. The experiment, among the first to tease apart the components of placebo response, shows that the methods of placebo administration are as important as the administration itself, he explains. It’s valuable insight for any caregiver: patients’ perceptions matter, and the ways physicians frame perceptions can have significant effects on their patients’ health.

http://harvardmagazine.com/2013/01/the-placebo-phenomenon

It is clear that patient perceptions can be significant. But then what is perception? Rather intangible. Just something to think about.

 

Where is the "Love" button when you need it?

- - - Updated - - -

He didn't discount the placebo effect. Read his post again.

 

I really didn't say he did discount it I said..."I don't discount it"........albeit I probably could have worded it better. It seems to me that the placebo effect is directly tied to perception. If one perceives a curative effect from a 'faith-healer' then it is truly faith (perception) that brings about the cure. Is it the faith-healers own faith that spurs the 'patient' to believe (have faith or perceive) that the faith-healer has the power to truly heal them? Is it the atmosphere (as referred to in the link to that placebo study I posted) i.e. other faithful chanting, supporting, etc? Maybe all those things. Just because a faith-healer uses religion is no reason to reject the notion.

 

Disingenuous.
"I don't so quickly discount the placebo effect" is what you actually said.
This implies the person you are addressing discounted it quicker than you did.
Why not just say "Whoops, I misunderstood him" rather than create a whole post to hide it where you are simply stating you agree with everyone else?

 

Yeah...so?

It may have implied that to you but I don't think the way you do I guess. Apparently if I was trying to hide something it didn't get by your estimable powers of observation.

 

No, it didn't.

 

Not only did you say he discounted it, you went further and said he did so 'quickly'. If you didnt mean to say that he discounted it, then you definitely could have worded it better. Still, you've clarified now, so it's clear that it was just a slip of the tongue - a mistake, even if you are too entrenched to admit it - so I guess we can leave it at that.

Indeed, but I always like to point out that 'faith' has two meanings, and the kind of faith used here is definitely not of the religious kind.

 

Provide any quote where I said that or stop lying about what I write. In any case, the subject was about the placebo effect which you don't really seem very interested in.

I believe 'faith' can have many meanings to many people. Apparently you have limited your thinking here.

 

I guess we can't leave it at that after all. Shame about the pigheadedness.

It's already been pointed out, so I dont know why you are incapable of grasping this.

(Emphasis added)

What you said was that he discounted the placebo effect more quickly than you. Happy to help educate you in the English language.

A fair point. But none of the meanings relevant to the placebo effect are truly religious in nature.

 

You were lying about what I wrote, I nailed you on it. Now you write that I am 'pigheaded'.....Are there no depths to which you won't sink to win a false argument you made up out of whole cloth?

Why not?

 

Maybe it does!
Fooling oneself that something that actually is completely ineffective has real benefits and having that psychologically influence your recovery.
Maybe they ARE related.
But I am not so quick to think so.

 

Oh, this is precious. You DID use the phrase "so quickly". So what in your warped idea of reality is the supposed lie that has been told about you? This should be amusing. Go ahead, point out the lie.

It's not a dead horse unless you're admitting you did indeed say he discounted it. But of course, if you admit that, then you admit nobody is lying about you. You've painted yourself into a corner by trying to have your cake and eat it, it seems.

The kind of faith implicated in the placebo effect is faith in the efficacy of the intervention. What that intervention is, is not directly relevant to the faith the human mind has in it.

 

Here is another kind of faith we see among this class of religiositists.
Boundles faith.... in themselves!

They simply cannot ever admit to being wrong about anything.

Ever notice that, like every day?

In another thread we have someone who said they've never been proved wrong!
And right there next to it was their post that scientific theories can be and often are proved right.

So I point out that no theory can ever be proved right, and they are dumbfounded by the absurdity.
Never mind that every source a person could check says Im right. Being wrong is just unacceptable and will not be tolerated by that class of goddiist.

I wonder why it is, did they start that way, or did goddism turn them?