Peter Kirby

To be frank, I think Metacrock's posts demonstrate a few things, on a level with the often unhelpful psychologization so common in religio-political debates, but still really blatantly on the surface in the posts above.

1. Metacrockian philosophy really hates the idea of converting to another philosophical tradition outside Christendom. No fact on the ground would ever make a Metacrockian want to abandon his heritage--no, since Christianity is true a priori, this would just show we have to reinterpret Christianity--no God, no Jesus, no problem! Spong does the same thing, if Christianity must change or die on a host of points in dialogue with modernism, why do you always choose change and never just let it die. It's like anti-euthenasia arguments extend to metaphysical matters, and it should be sustained on life support against its will.

2. Metacrockian philosophy really hates the idea that there was no historical Jesus, so much so that he'll show both that Christianity needs a historical Jesus (so myth is wrong) and that showing no HJ wouldn't discredit Christianity! (so myth don't matter) And, besides, the Metacrockian school has developed airtight methods for proving the existence of Jesus--they are unanswerable (so myth is wrong again)--so considering the implications of mythicism is just an intellectual exercise. (so myth don't matter so much, it so very matters that it don't matter that I'll rap about it like a mad hatter)

I say "Metacrockian philosophy" because that doesn't wrap it up with the identity of Meta, but it's like something he can take on or off like a baseball cap, unless it's a really beloved cap that he hasn't taken off since the Reagan era--I hope not.

best,
Peter Kirby

Koyaanisqatsi

That's your response? Argument from big words?



Everyone in here knows exactly what those terms mean and how they apply to what you've regurgitated.

If you'll recall we did this pointless dosey-do about a year or so ago, where, if memory serves, I thoroughly trashed each and every one of these "studies," showing how they didn't apply to the argument you were making then, just as they don't apply to the argument of this OP. I have no intention of debunking them all over again in this thread, so if you want to dance this dance one more time, start a new thread and we'll do it all over again.

You know, for a man who allegedly prides himself on his scholarly integrity, you certainly don't provide any evidence of it when you make these kinds of meaningless, baseless accusations.

I "can't do data?" What does that even mean and how in the hell would you know what I can't or can "do?" Likewise with "placebo." I know exactly what the word means and have given it great thought over the years and as to who "uses it," what's your point? That it's a medical term? Congratulations. You've just invented a brand new fallacy. I'll call it, Argument from Metacrock.



Do you realize you've just linked to yourself for confirmation of your own argument and that the only response you provide to this is that nobody "on the net" has ever provided you with data on the placebo effect in relation to religion, only to then go on to provide yourself data describing the placebo effect in relation to religion?

Yes, the effects are real (and thanks for contravening your own post and supporting the notion that the effects are real), but they have nothing to do with a specific belief in any specific dogma, or, indeed, any specific correlation to religious institutions.

The placebo effect comes from the belief in authority; that what one is told to be the case becomes manifest in some way in the individual who ascribes a value to the person telling them that the something is "true." It can apply to politicians, priests, teachers, doctors, parents; in short, anybody in an authority position that the individual ascribes value to.

No, you didn't. You linked to your own argument (which you regurgitate in your next post) and included tenuous assertions of causality, which I'll be more than happy to address if you'd like to create (or should I say, recreate) a new post on the placebo effect as it relates to religion.

You could "allude to" a million studies and it wouldn't make any difference if your application of what is found in those studies is demonstrated to be tenuous at best, which, again, has been demonstrated prior many times over, but, if you want to dance this dance again, my card's empty at the moment so create a new thread and I'll bring the music.

Asking you if you've received written permission to quote what you quoted when it states specifically that one needs written permission to quote what you've quoted is an example of fascism?

I only brought it up because others here have been admonished and their posts deleted because they were breaking copyright laws, thereby putting the board itself at risk.

Well, then, perhaps you should brush up on copyright laws and discuss it with the admins/mods around here. Your own post stated quite clearly that nothing could be quoted without express written permission to quote it. As much as I detest your shoddy scholarship, I at least didn't want you to suffer the same fate as others around here trying to make their points by breaking copyright laws.

My mistake for trying to look out for your own asinine arguments.

Celsus

This thread no longer bears semblance to the OP, so I'm locking it. If you want to discuss the powers of prayer, Metacrock, feel free to start a specific thread for it, preferably in Science & Skepticism. If you're still interested in Doherty's interpretation of Paul, restart the thread.

Joel
BC&H Moderator