> -----Original Message-----
> From: nemesis [mailto:nam### [at] gmailcom]
> my main issue with modern medicine is not with the science of it, but
> commercialism:  its huge attachment to the pharmaceutics/drugs
industry
> and
> what I observe to be some lack of etics by the "doctors".

I've been hugely fortunate in my experience with Doctors; the ones I've
known have seemed to be genuinely caring & sincere in their desire to
help.

Of course, the only doctors I've been in contact with in the last 10
years have been ER staff, so maybe that has something to do with it...

...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

A render isn't slow unless it won't finish until after your next
birthday.

Post a reply to this message

"andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:495### [at] hotmailcom...
> On 24-Dec-08 11:08, nemesis wrote:
> > "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:

> > Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or
ear
> > inflamation it's the same damned thing:  get her some antibiotics.
F*ck, no!
> > I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.

> Come to the Netherlands where such actions are frowned upon if not
> downright forbidden by their peer group. The reasoning behind that is
> that unnecessary antibiotics will increase the number of resistant
> microbes such as MRSA.

That's where the paradox lies, and I am not sure if one resolution is better
than the other. From the point of the individual, it's not his or her
problem that antibiotic use in general populace and in the long term breeds
resistant strains. The personal benefit is real, and outweighs the personal
risk. Limiting the use of antibiotics out of concern for breeding resistant
strains places the society before the individual. Such sacrifices are fine,
but I think they should be voluntary instead of mandated.

Post a reply to this message

On 25-Dec-08 14:49, somebody wrote:
> "andrel" <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
> news:495### [at] hotmailcom...
>> On 24-Dec-08 11:08, nemesis wrote:
>>> "Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> 
>>> Whenever I bring my daughter to the doctor when she gets some cold or
> ear
>>> inflamation it's the same damned thing:  get her some antibiotics.
> F*ck, no!
>>> I do not intend for her to be an antibiotics zombie or something.
> 
>> Come to the Netherlands where such actions are frowned upon if not
>> downright forbidden by their peer group. The reasoning behind that is
>> that unnecessary antibiotics will increase the number of resistant
>> microbes such as MRSA.
> 
> That's where the paradox lies, and I am not sure if one resolution is better
> than the other. From the point of the individual, it's not his or her
> problem that antibiotic use in general populace and in the long term breeds
> resistant strains. The personal benefit is real, and outweighs the personal
> risk. Limiting the use of antibiotics out of concern for breeding resistant
> strains places the society before the individual. Such sacrifices are fine,
> but I think they should be voluntary instead of mandated.
> 
Whether the personal benefit is real is questionable, possibly in the 
very short term, but probably not on a longer time scale. Having every 
individual make that decision is silly. Any responsible government or 
professional healthcare organisation should make that because that is 
their responsibility. All in all a very 'American' point of view if you 
ask me (and I don't even know where you are living).

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:

> In the first case, it would be unjust to blame someone for not
> believing in your religion if such disbelief is entirely the fault of
> external circumstances.


#declare Christian_Proselytization=on;

I think that I have a problem with the presuppositions here.  Christianity might
not make much sense if it were like this:  we're all doing fine, just trying our
best, and all of a sudden you find out that you had to have had one particular
sports team's logo on the shirts of your closet or you face eternal torment.
Then you spend a lot of time in philosophical analysis wondering how fair or
unfair it was that you had to choose one sports team.

As a Christian, I don't find that line of argument very convincing at all, I
might "disbelieve" a religion that was accurately described by the analogy.


It ultimately boils down to conviction of sin. If you're not feeling "terrors of
the conscience", you need not apply.

I think what I'm talking about is best described in C.S. Lewis' Mere
Christianity, Chapter 5.
#include " http://tinyurl.com/96hf7a "
#declare useful_QUOTE="Most of us have got over the pre-war wishful thinking
about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion."

Post a reply to this message

gregjohn wrote:
> I think that I have a problem with the presuppositions here.

[snip]

> As a Christian, I don't find that line of argument very convincing at all, I
> might "disbelieve" a religion that was accurately described by the analogy.

I'm pretty sure that "believing in Jesus" is required to get you into heaven 
in most evangelical christian religions.

In any case, the point I was making is that if you don't believe in free 
will, it's not up to you whether you "believe" or "disbelieve", or whether 
you feel the "conviction of sin."

It's like calling a religion "unjust" if you are punished because you chose 
to be born female.

The very fact that anyone feels it's useful to argue about religion means 
they feel your religion is a choice. That when it's time to decide whether 
you "accept jesus as your personal savior" or "accept that Mohamed is his 
prophet", that it's actually a choice and not completely predestined. If you 
could no more "choose" to believe in Jesus than you could to disbelieve in 
gravity, there's not a whole lot of point in discussing whether you should 
or shouldn't believe in a particular religion. *That* was the kind of belief 
I was talking about w.r.t. "free will."

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message

My thoughts:

Clarification: I haven't read all posts.

Recently, creationists have claimed that they have found a proof of 
creation: something to do with a radiation emitted by certain atoms on 
peace of matter, I was very sleepy at the time of seen this on a 
sleepless night.

So, that "proof" as any other theory is only that. As some people 
pointed out, you cant actually find a single proof of God existence and 
probably you wont in your lifetime, hence the belief in God is by faith 
and by faith alone. So, my belief is: a Supreme Being that created our 
universe, and the universe evolved naturally to create everything else, 
maybe even life, a Being that designed matter and energy that could be 
the root of a nice existence with free will, so we don't be puppets for 
the fun of a Superior Being, so I deduct He loves us so much that would 
let it all happen even if that means saying He doesn't exist at all.

I also believe that dying is simply growing up spiritually, going to a 
"purely functional" spiritual world where we can see what the real deal 
was all about as a child enters the adult world. I think we will be 
judged by our hearts and good deeds and not for the following of a "true 
religion". Even the Bible says people without law will be judged without 
law (in that case, Jewish law, Torah), so I think that day God will 
square things for everyone, people that unfairly took advantage for no 
good reason and leaved un-judged a "good life" would have their punishment.

I think: God=Love, and from there everything good can come to us, that 
is the root of everything good.

  Defining Love as a 100% non-selfish behavior, hence we can't love with 
perfection because we always take a little "payment" for us (always a 
little selfish at least).

Defining violence as the near 100% selfish behavior.

Is so simple, yet so hard to do...

Post a reply to this message

Forgot to say:
The Big Bang is to The universe as Love is to our spirituality.

Post a reply to this message

Corrections:
> and lived un-judged a "good life" would have their punishment.

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> Recently, creationists have claimed that they have found a proof of 
> creation:

If they have, they're wrong. If nothing else, one piece of evidence does not 
make for "proof", especially if one also claims evolution is "only a theory."

> something to do with a radiation emitted by certain atoms on 
> peace of matter, 

Someone found evidence of radioactive decay of short-life radioactive atoms 
embedded as a physical mark (a ring, to be exact) inside crystals of stone 
that are normally thought to take much longer to solidify than it takes the 
radioactive particles to decay.

The creationist interpretation was "god put them all there at the same 
time", conveniently ignoring the evidence of the Big Bang on which many of 
them also rest arguments for the existence of God.

Other physicists and geologists look at that and go "Huh, that's 
interesting. Someone ought to look further."  Creationists claim success in 
forming a global theory of the existence of the universe based on lack of 
theory to explain one piece of evidence, as usual.

> I was very sleepy at the time of seen this on a sleepless night.

You didn't miss much.

> So, that "proof" as any other theory is only that.

Don't confuse "proof" and "evidence". "Evidence" doesn't lead to "proof" 
without other supporting evidence, which is what science actually provides.

(Note the lack of comment on your beliefs. This comment is about science, 
not belief. :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
   There aren't any trees on Mars.

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> (Note the lack of comment on your beliefs. This comment is about 
> science, not belief. :-)
> 
Hmm. Good call, given that I couldn't make much coherent out of it. It 
is, as honest scientists would tell you, basically meaningless. If you 
can't detect it, detect how it reacts with the world, or even if it 
does, and your hypothesis about its attributes does nothing to generate 
testable question, which "might" give a clearer view of the world, its 
no more useful to postulate god = love, than it is to postulate an 
undetectable tea pot in orbit of Pluto. A list of assertions is just 
that, a list of assertions. The problem isn't that people believe these 
things, or assert them in describing their beliefs, but that they quite 
often think that they should "replace" science. The left and right have 
similar groups of people in that respect, though, while for the right 
its assertions about gods, for the left its become assertion of a wacky 
mix of new age gibberish and altie medicine, on which the "same" basic 
argument gets made, "Scientists are all a huge conspiracy to deny the 
'spiritual' stuff in the world (which doesn't, from hundreds of years of 
evidence, actually work, or is, in the worst cases, a total con game) 
and replace it with a purely 'materialistic' view, which denies 
everything from magic healing crystals, to Exstenze male enhancement 
pills, to the divinity of Jesus (if your one of the people on the other 
end of the spectrum). That, as one doctor put it, any "alternative" to 
medicine, if it actually worked, would be called "medicine", doesn't 
faze such people any more than the other end of the woo line is 
disturbed by their total lack of any ability to show that prayer 
actually effects the recovery of "anyone" in a hospital (or, in the 
funniest case where one of their unthink-tanks ran a study, actually 
killed more people).

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message