1. Hints of structure beyond the visible universe

Comment #191827 by qster on June 11, 2008 at 11:53 pm

fasinating stuff,
Steve Zara or others, Im not very well read on the subject but could it not be feasible that the universe is simply in a state of continuous expansion until some point (and i believe there is some evidence of a slow in the rate of expansion) that the universe begins to contract in a scenario as you describe and therefore we exist in one of these infinte cycles thus indicating that 'this' universe is x billion years old but we are simply one of many bfore and many to come. The greatest challenge to Humans is to get our rather feeble brains around the concept of infinity, also that time is relative and not constant and that a million years appears a long time to us but is relative - might be like a day to another more intelligent form of energy?

2. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190927 by qster on June 9, 2008 at 11:51 pm

Goldy,
I read a bit about that and the synchotron here in melbourne. I love that sort of stuff, perhaps you might argue that is a search for 'god' - fair point. Whether that beast finds what scientists are looking for I guess depends on if we are ready to comprehend the immensity of the discovery and secondly use the info wisely. The two are not necessarily linked. The likes of Tesla, I believe, played on the verge of several massive technologies which may provide a paradigm shift in human thinking, but some institutions possibly felt that we werent ready for the technology or that there may be a loss of 'control'. Cant wait to see what happens her on in.
BTW which fish do you most resemble?

3. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #190913 by qster on June 9, 2008 at 9:58 pm

Ahhh the usual suspects, 'me-too MaxD', the foul mouthed Diacanu, verbally incontinent Rev Dark et al.
Lads, let me reiterate for your information, Evolutionary biologists deal with Evolutionary Biology, Science deals with Science, philosophy deals with philosophy, medicine as a branch of science deals with the treatment of ailments. Science does not busy itself with looking for evidence of God for several reasons, primarily because we have more pressing things to deal with right here in the land of the Humans on this planet that we think we own. But perhaps also because God does not exist as described in religious texts… but as for highly evolved beings/extra terrestrial intelligence â€" how do you propose we measure their existence particularly if they don't wish to have it measured. If you can imagine any being of higher intelligence than your own, then perhaps you don't have the intelligence.
'Athiest wails â€" "but…but….show me the evidence, I need evidence, something I can understand….! You don't need a 'Scientist' to help you use your imagination.
As an aside, the shark or croc hasn't changed (in any significant way) since the time of dinosaurs because they have reached the pinnacle of harmonious existence with their environment. Really, Goldy, do you think the internal mechanisms of a shark/croc have changed just because the type of meat they eat has changed â€" surely a pair of lungs, a stomach, bowel etc have had pretty much the same process function since their early development, humans on the other hand are a relatively young 'species' and still have far more to evolve to suit the environment â€" indeed, one could argue that as we change/pollute the environment more and more, we are required to adapt and evolve at an ever increasing rate but also we do tend to tinker in that process quite unlike any other species. Probably with a negative net result.

4. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189256 by qster on June 5, 2008 at 10:54 pm

Goldy,
you are one of the more considered of the contributors to this site and good on you for that. I understand the lack of rationality completely - no problems there - but that is a result of a nonsense argument. Using current science to try and demonstrate that a God does not exist is like the joke about the old Irish fella when asked for directions...he says 'Well....Oi wouldnt start from here...
I feel that the argument is pointless, circular and will never end because it is based on a false start. Its easy to demonstrate that the God of the bible doesnt exist, easy to pick on huge inconsistencies in the bible - it was written over a period of many years by many different authors each with an agenda - it was only ever used as a tool of control by those that claimed the only way to 'heaven' was through the church etc etc. Dawkins to his credit has done that one to death however arrogant it reads.
Much of the argument here are conducted from a this limited perspective, try looking at the world from a different perspective, perhaps not as a discrete human - i cant give an example because its really for the individual to understand when he is ready.

And of course evolution has been around since adam was a boy :-P - things evolve. Although interestingly such creatures like sharks/crocodiles dont appear to have 'evolved' for aeons...why is that?

5. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189226 by qster on June 5, 2008 at 9:41 pm

The converts corner surely must be populated by people who were becoming aware of a change in their understanding and were looking for an alternative viewpoint. The discovery of this site or any other alternative source of information was made because they were looking for it. If you are not looking for something, its likely you wont see it. maybe there are some exceptions but i doubt it.
Science is governed by the human quest for information and as such is designed by humans to discover and measure what is observable and measureable by humans using the technology available. That is great and perfectly valid but should not rule out the inherent capacity of the human to be consciously aware of things that are unmeasureable yet real and understood to the individual. The embrace of science is great but people must be aware of its limitations and not regard it as absolute.

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189212 by qster on June 5, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Sometimes I get the chance to check into the creme de la creme of atheist sites (this one!) to see whats new in the world of atheist thinking and each time I'm dissapointed but not surprised to find that actually nothing is new. In this thread like may others >6700 posts amounts to utter monotony..

Theist proposes god (intelligent force) designed and continues to design all living things...

Atheist argues "Darwin discovered evolution ergo things evolve without god ergo there is no god"

Occasionally there are intelligent comments on both sides but mostly the argument collapses into a series of infinitely detailed discussions about DNA replications sprinked with offensive/arrogant one liners from atheists who think they have found the ultimate truth and therfore everyone else should believe same.
The fact is that no-one is likely to be convinced to change their mind by such exchanges - many atheists have come to their realisation from an alternative (usually theist) perspective. Any and everyone is exactly where they need to be in terms of their understanding of their existence and the concept of God. All knowledge and understanding is transitory. To place absolute trust in science is a mistake for the same reason.
What the hell is the point of this post I hear you say?
Only to say that it is worth considering an alternative view point that somewhere between Theist and Atheist lies a world of possibilities. The likes of Eckhart Tolle, Deepak Chopra and so many others have explored this area. But if you are looking for science to provide you with proof before you 'understand' (its not about belief) then you may not find it ever - you must come to your own realisation about what is right, until then you are where you are. Perhaps this site could explore the boundaries where science meets philosophy. Until then have a look at the future of humans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6057734.stm

7. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139443 by qster on March 5, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Robo, then we exist at opposite ends of the spectrum..

8. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139437 by qster on March 5, 2008 at 8:38 pm

Jay, Dissent, rebellion, and all-around hell-raising remain the true duty of patriots.

"Bloody Oath" as they say here.
(otherwise known as wholehearted agreement) even if you are being sarcastic - I cant tell with text.
Edit - How can 'exposing' benign/peaceful and age old practices possibly help the well being of humanity. In our so called age of enlightenment who are we to say that we must ban homeopathy, astrology - what else is on your "to Ban' list?
Why not ban meditation too and Biodynamic farming?
Robotaholic - Clear thinking is a subjective term and depends on context. Please define clear thinking?

9. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139430 by qster on March 5, 2008 at 8:06 pm

Goldy wrote:
"Ummm, the more recent contributions show some dissent"

Dissent among the ranks eh? Is that how it is viewed here? A band of merry atheists sore from the resounding backslaps and mutual agreements that its all sorted out now. If it werent for dissenters (or otherwise known as people with a different POV) this site would be the dullest spot on earth. How long can you talk about nothing?

10. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139340 by qster on March 5, 2008 at 3:57 pm

Steve, If i understand your point of the two posts you are trying to illustrate why my thought is irrational. Again I state that Im not talking about the recycling of mass/molecules as per the ilkleymoor song but my perception of something less tangible - difficult for me to put into words exactly which does leave me a bit vulnerable I guess

11. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139326 by qster on March 5, 2008 at 3:26 pm

"We musn't make leaps in the dark. Or, if we do, not too many and not too far. We have to build up our understanding carefully from what we know, else we can get fooled."

On that point Steve, I a cannot agree with you more. Luckily we have many lifetimes to learn the mistakes of the past and learn to trust ourselves rather than the myriad of schisters we call priests.

Not a Yorkshireman eh?? Let me look at those hands, I'll wager those hands have never bin used to cover a hole in a steam boiler for 3 weeks while mill owner were on holidays in skegness so that we could get wool spun and med inta proper suits for sooutherners

12. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139323 by qster on March 5, 2008 at 3:19 pm

If ad known this siiiite wa full o yorkshamen, ad ave oppend a shop an a pub

13. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139320 by qster on March 5, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Sorry steve, please elaborate. I know that Buddhists are 'A-theists'. I dont think you can have a theist buddhist - might as well say you are a catholic buddhist.
Do YOU diasgree with that statement?
Which part?
Surely as our understanding/awareness/enlightenment and skills of observation improve along side our scientific endeavours we see more and more that we never thought possible or were aware of previously. That does not mena it didnt exist before we observed it...

14. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #139309 by qster on March 5, 2008 at 2:51 pm

See, its exactly that sort of response that puts me right off. The innate belief of atheists that nothing can exist outside of the observable physical, measureable universe - remarkably narrow minded i would say. Im not advicating belief in ghosts, fairy goblins or whatever but nor do I think that, in our current feeble state of mind, that we have it all wrapped up thanks very much. Ever since Humans have had the cognitive powers, we have believed in the existence of some form of higher power. To now suddenly say that its actually far simpler than that - "There's Sweet FA out there" is to my mind too simplistic.
Rationality is determined by a framework of what is observed and known - fair enough but you would then argue that there can be nothing else exiosting outside that framework? Correct?
Perhaps thats why you are afraidtodie

15. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #138829 by qster on March 4, 2008 at 8:18 pm

Bonzai, liked the joke! I dont mind If I do end up as cowshit on some farmers shoe...
Thoughtful post, thanks. As I say still trying to figure things out in my own noggin. I still cant and dont really want to reduce my existence to a biochemical process with a start and finish - thats all folks, thanks for coming. Maybe wishful thinking but deep down I think not. Whilst the human race is still so extraordinarily deep in the shite, it is so obvious that we have much more to learn about our own existence, our place in the universal scheme of things, death, rebirth etc.

16. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #138811 by qster on March 4, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Black wolf, only half joking about the fury bit. Some respondents are somewhat more agressive than you. But to come to your reply, I appreciate that what you have said is correct and I dont pretend to have formed an exact model or explanation of the process of reincarnation but it has been embraced by Buddhists for a long time. We wont understand the process if we think in terms of our current knowledge and try to liken it to hardware or tangible physical known processes. What I'm trying to say, and I freely admit to not having any solid evidence that would satisfy the regular RD.net contributors, is that what makes a human the person he/she is is not just a physical mass and not just societal influences although of course that is a major factor. It is more than that and just as my mass is returned to the earth or air or wherever, that mass will in time also be recycled. I dont think its so much that an identity/lifetime of experiences is transferred upon death and required a harddrive to upload to - rather more esoteric I think??

Just an aside on the NI conflict, the origins of the conflict were not as a result of religious differences between protestant and catholic but the occupation of Ireland by the English and the subsequent annexure of NI by The UK. Religion just happens to be a heavily identifiable difference between the two sides and floats on the surface a little bit like a scum.

17. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #138743 by qster on March 4, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Im disapponted to have missed much of this enlightened discussion about the merits or otherwise of Buddhism. I am pleased to see that some find buddhism to be in some ways acceptable as an alternative to religion. Lets also be clear, Buddhism is a philosphy of living and not a religion. My question though is can you really take out the central tenet of reincarnation and still call it buddhism? As I understand and believe it reincarnation does not really mean that you will return to this earth as 'you' or even that your reincarnation will be aware that it was once you (although this may be possible in more evolved beings). I know that this might be like bringing pork chops to a barmitzvah but reincarnation is not such a crazy idea. Consider that all mass is energy, all thought and mind (and spirit) is energy and energy can neither be created or destroyed - what is to say that my energy is not recycled into another being?
(....sits back and waits for the fury....;-))

18. Leaving the Faith

Comment #137954 by qster on March 3, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Not sure of your position Playball but I find the likes of Chopra and Tolle to be far more enlighteneing and positive than the plethora of popular atheist texts. With Atheism, I can only see a dead-end - where do you go from there?
In my local book shops, there are tables in prominent positions with at least 7 or 8 popular atheist books alongside the likes of Spong, chopra, Tolle etc. What I see is the fall of religion and the rise of free thought with , hopefully, higher awareness and enlightenment of the human condition. Right now I feel the human race has so far to go but the end of Religion is a good start. I feel, however, that Atheism is a natural but excessive knee-jerk reaction to religion and its dominanace of philosophy, science and goverment for way too long.

19. Changing my Mind

Comment #133806 by qster on February 26, 2008 at 9:15 pm

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080226/tuk-antidepressants-not-working-dba1618_2.html

Not that anyone is reading this thread anymore but thought this news out of the UK may be rather appropriate as an example of the how valuable the peer reviewed, double blind, blah blah studies produced by big pharma actually are

20. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129210 by qster on February 18, 2008 at 9:29 pm

The key to much of the God debate is the preconcieved image of God as a tangible, living breathing being (white beard, lives on a cloud etc). This is what I find to be the greatest challenge. I dont have an answer but it is easy to understand Dawkins argument if we keep this image in mind. Further to that, To assume that a mind requires a brain is to simplify the issue a bit isnt it? why do we think that the mind exists in the brain only. The brain is a processor for our sensual experiences, I agree, but is the mind reduced to a series of synapses and neurochemical transmiters. Why do humans have such advanced minds when we dont have the largest brains. Surely the largest brains would be the most intelligent?
By timeline I refer to the concept of Human time as being a constant with a start and finish, past and future divided into discrete bits known as seconds minutes etc. I guess Im saying that time is an abstract human construct and has been observed to behave in non-linear fashion at the speed of light or where gravitational forces are exteme - Black hole theory, parallel universes etc..
Its not that I seek to contracdict Dawkins, i just think the argument starts from a simplistic perspective of the religious view of God and from our as yet primitive understanding of our existence. Seeking to obtain current scientific evidence for the existence of god is a challenge - what are the units of God by which we should measure its existence?

21. Why Darwin matters

Comment #129189 by qster on February 18, 2008 at 8:52 pm

To follow the thread between krisking and Steve and the hypothesis contained in TGD. Dawkins argues that God does not exist because for a God to exist would require that being to be unimaginably complex and anyway, who could have created that God and on the circular argument goes. Let me just state that I fully support evolutionary theory (with some exceptions) and would argue that it doesnt necessarily have to contradict the existence of God.
Why would a god have to be anymore complex that that which is created? Secondly, are we to assume that we are the most complex creation in the universe? On what basis?
Thirdly, the argument above presumes the existence of a single timeline and that nothing existed anywhere before life began (on earth) in the primordial soup. What is to say that life began in a random fashion. Could life not have arrived from some other planet? Were talking about theories and nothing more here. Lets put our current situation in perspective. we are emerging from 2000 years of dark age religion, our minds are soaked in the science, philosophy and dogma of this rather long stretch. As the human species begins to open its eyes and observe what is in a fresh light, much more will be come clear about our place in time and space, the origins of life and the future paths. I believe that we make critical discoveries at a time that we can best cope with the information it contains. Again, lets be honest, we are still in the infancy of Humnan evolution. Still a long way off a highly evolved society. Which is why I struglle to accept Dawkins to the absolute degree that some here do.

22. Why Darwin matters

Comment #126651 by qster on February 13, 2008 at 6:44 pm

For Fecks sake, If you ignore him, he will go away!!!. By responding to each and every bizarre post you simply encourage it. This site used to be engaging and interesting but now Its a rather lame exchange of insults....plenty of that on the net already. There are some geniunely intelligent people on this site, some pretentious wannabes and then youve got the likes of Wooter.
The problem with atheism is that once youve agreed there is no god and there is nothing but this single simple existence, your left with not much else to talk about really. I'd like to steer the discussion into a more enlightened area if I may. If we are to accept the evolution of man from apes, can someone help me to understand the evolution of intelligence, speech, emotion, reason and thought which are so specific to the Human species. How do such characterstics develop and how are they beneficial to the species?

23. Why Darwin matters

Comment #125640 by qster on February 11, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I have not studied darwins theory to the extent that Prof Dawkins has so I ask this question from a perspective of relative ignorance. Darwin explains the process of biological evolution beautifully and seemingly without exception. However, can darwin explain the evolution of the nonbiological (emotional) aspects specific, as far as we know to Humans, such as humour, love, jealousy, hate, speech, language, deceit, intuition etc etc.? I know some of these and more are present to various extents in animals but how have humans developed these aspects to such a degree and no other species?? (and perhaps at the expense of other species). I hesitate to ask this question too but have Humans found the real source of the sepcies. I know we postulate a number of intermediate evolutionary species before we get to the 'modern man' originating alledgedly in the rift valley area of Africa but are these now proven? Perhaps the anthropology students can enlighten me?

24. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #112290 by qster on January 16, 2008 at 6:57 pm

Goldy, lets be honest - sophie is hardly a fat lass either. Aint nothing wrong with a bit of skin on the bones is there? It appears that most fashion models are required to look like anorexic coke heads if they arent already and thats male or female.

25. The Group Delusion

Comment #111472 by qster on January 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm

wooter,
take a look at this extract http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp
You're not supposed to be using these arguments any more mate, sorry.

26. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #111450 by qster on January 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Goldy, i think the concept of nature being good or bad, benevolent or malevolent is wrong. Nature is simply a part of the whole a system in constant flux operating within many timescales from nanosecond or instantaneous reactions at a cellular or quantum level to era's lasting millions of years. Humans as we know today have evolved within nature to our current state. We have the tools to survive and live harmoniously in nature but our Egos prevent this. Sure, if we simply count numbers as a guage to success then we could argue we do pretty well realy with 6 Billion and rising rapidly. It is wrong to attribute a beautiful sunset as good nature and a hurricane as bad. Nature is not our friend nor is it our enemy. Its a litle too early to know how the growth in population and technological age will affect the evolution process but I suspect future humans will look back with puzzled faces and ask what the F were they thinking?? and probably curse us for our distinct lack of foresight ,our utterly useless governmental systems, bizarre division of lands, nationalism, wasteful practices and counter productive trade and agricultural policies.

27. The Group Delusion

Comment #111430 by qster on January 14, 2008 at 2:56 pm

According to the bible and my very feint recollection of it, didnt god bugger up his first attempt at a human population and have to start again. Didnt they all get all 'evil on his ass' resulting in a rather hacked off god?? Probably somewhere in Genesis?

28. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111411 by qster on January 14, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Perhpas if you had an infinite number of million year old monkeys typing on an infinite number of typewriters, they would have already written The God delusion and the bible.

29. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #111407 by qster on January 14, 2008 at 2:19 pm

spaceman,
I think 'Good' and 'bad' are quite relevant here also. To me, good human nature means that which promotes a peaceful, harmonious existence with fellow man and surroundings ( and much more than this simple line). Bad is that which damages/destroys the environment and the future prospects of mankind by the instigation of war, isolation and the persistence of the concept separation from each other and the earth.

30. Changing my Mind

Comment #111398 by qster on January 14, 2008 at 2:08 pm

G'day all,
I dont know if anyone is still reading this particular discussion but to add my comment to the fray. I think it is important to look at the true mechanisms of disease to understand what an effective treatment is. To be honest, thsi is where i see conventional medicine has it completely wrong. CM treats the symptom only in most cases. I know its generalising but much of the diseases prevalent in todays society are lifestyle related - eg smoking, stress, diet, lack of exercise, pollution, excessively sterile envorinments etc etc but can also be emotionally linked eg toxic relationships, lonliness, isolation from society. Disease is caused by a great number of factors to which CM is very poorly trained to deal with and where the naturopath has her role. Lets also be clear too, the Pharmaceutical industry has no interest in a 'healthy' populaion - where are the profits there? I see an inherent conflict of interest in the CM sector which is primarily driven by pharma treatments to effect a cure.
I dont really see the parallel with religion. I think a trust in alternative medicine wheer appropriate is consistent with a secular and scientific belief system. I repeat my 'mantra' from earlier in this discussion - just because we dont understand how something works, we shouldnt write it off as nonsense or magic. It can still have instrinsic value when applied in the right circumstance.

31. Changing my Mind

Comment #110215 by qster on January 10, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Roland et al, youre right, homeopathy is a bit if a funny one really. There is quite a large industry built around it (For something that allegedly has no effect over placebo) and Germany it seems is leading the world in this industry. Of course you can argue that religion and God has a fair sized industry built around it too and you would be right.
The Pharma lobby is extraordinarily powerful and like the OIl industry does an effective job of supressing alternatives - has anyone seen the film "who killed the electric car". I havent yet but I hear it suggests a similar issue.

32. Changing my Mind

Comment #109798 by qster on January 9, 2008 at 6:14 pm

walk, its a pleasure but my word its quite tough holding what some may think to be a contradictory POV. I admit to lying awake a bit these last few night thinking about stuff.
I will also admit that my 2 litres of water all too often comes with added hops and yeast. Good luck and cheers.

33. Changing my Mind

Comment #109779 by qster on January 9, 2008 at 4:54 pm

Walk,
if you put the question in a less confrontational form like you have done above, I would be willing to answer them but I have alreadu answered your question previously. Here again, No I dont advocate fooling anybody, your question presumes the following,
All naturopaths are liars.
All patients are willing to accept whatever lies they might be told
All naturpoathic cures rely on nothing but Palcebo and have done so since day one
No-one has ever been cured by a naturopath.
The Chinese have been using herbal medicine and acupuncture for thousands of years - are they all magicians?
I meant to illustrate a simple point before and so I will do it now.
Your body is 80% water approx. If you wish to treat any of the following, you can simply increase your intake of water as a first measure before you resort to the doctors surgery.
Dry skin, muscle cramps, chronic fatigue, halitosis, chronic headaches, water retention, constipation, etc etc.
Drinking enough water will help prevent cancer, liver disease, kidney disease and the lisrt goes on. Water isnt patentable and there is no money in it But your naturopath may prescribe you to drink 2 litres a day or more. A 'cure' may be found in many ways.

34. Changing my Mind

Comment #109763 by qster on January 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Walk,
I'm a bit tired of your weak as piss inferences and twisted logic, Dont be ridiculous. read and re-read my previous posts please. My post following your was directed to Steve Zara.

And is its all the same to you, I wont bother correcting you if your intention here is stir rather than debate.

35. Changing my Mind

Comment #109761 by qster on January 9, 2008 at 4:21 pm

I would hate to be accused of labouring a point but I'll do it anyway and apologise in advance. I just feel that the lable of magic applied to all complimentary medicine is grossly undeserved. Sure there are quacks and they can be found in every aspect of medicine including conventional.
Put it this way, just because you have proven the efficacy of a drug and presented it in the lancet this does not mean there are no effective alternatives for the condition it seeks to cure.
The reason you wont find evidence of the efficacy of Natural medicines in the peer reviewed pages of the Lancet is that there is no benefit whatsoever to the natural practitioner - He cannot patent a herb, a massage method or where to place an acupuncture needle. Nor can he afford the multiple double blind trials required to meet the requirements and why should he, he is too busy treating the 50% of the population who choose to use his services.
There is much to life and nature that is not yet presented as hard evidence but is observed as remarkable. I use common sense, intuition and healthy skepticism before I call it magic. This I find makes my life a whole richer experience -perhaps a bit too poetical for this site but why would i sit a pat the backs of like minded people when i can enjoy these exchanges with you. Thanks for your time and energy in trying to change my mind.

36. Changing my Mind

Comment #109289 by qster on January 8, 2008 at 6:34 pm

One of Mr Dawkins friends - the late WD Hamilton was infact researching the very question of the source of HIV when he died. He too had his hypotheses rejected by journals such as the lancet because, possibly, they didnt conform the establishments views at the time. A great deal of research is rejected by the lancet perhaps for that reason, perhaps for the reasons you postulate.
"I was not the one suggesting HIV was probably artificial because alternative medicine was ineffective against it. Perhaps you would consider Smallpox artificial. Or West Nile virus. Or Ebola."
Neither was I Steve, you take these quotes and infer whatever meaning suits your argument choosing to disregard bits that might in some way weaken your argument.
The topic of this debate is as you say, i'm not here to change your mind, its of no interest to me. When I learn something new, my mind 'changes'. The process is ongoing and not a discrete step change.

37. Changing my Mind

Comment #109279 by qster on January 8, 2008 at 5:53 pm

and the Lancet is a medical journal written by Medical practioners for medical practitioners with an agenda no less than a newspaper. Do you have a preferred newspaper without an agenda or do you get the lancet delivered daily?
Just be prepared to question the evidence presented to you and ask who benefits from and sponsors the research.
I was aware of the virus being 'related' to that found in great apes - obviously natural. Its seems to me that you are trying to twist the argument to suit your beliefs
If its noo personal a question, Can i ask have you had any experience of alternative/natural therapies?

38. Changing my Mind

Comment #109226 by qster on January 8, 2008 at 3:44 pm

http://www.newstarget.com/side_effects.html

Take a look at this and maybe a 100,000 other sites listing the dangerous and toxic side effects of the immense numbers of drugs on the market. Imagine the horror of discovering that your natural health care product has been contaminated with a drug....or worse that your drug would be contaminated with a natural product. ;-)
I have a reasonable insight into the pharmaceutical manufacturing process as I have designed, built, commissioned and modified plant to make the stuff. I know exactly what goes into them and the measures required bfeore you can even enter some of the cytotoxic manufacturing facilities so please do not lecture on the side effects of natural therapies.
But lets talk about the 'Placebo effect'. What does the pacebo effect indicate? to me it means that by a process of suggestion and without any active component, patients are capable of 'curing' themselves. Hmmmm. If one person is capable of doing this why not everyone given the right treatment. Secondly, if humans are fundamentally natural then disease is a natural process and can be resolved by natural methods. Yes, SteveZara, you might use AIDS as an axample of a disease that is uncurable by natural means. Well I have my doubts that HIV is a 'natural' virus.

SteveZara; "No, but a lot of them are certainly deluded into thinking there is more to these treatments than there actually is. I think that is a problem"
Have you spoken to a lot of 'them'? Can I use your line? "These are very strong claims. I would require strong evidence for them. I know of none"
I sincerely doubt that anyone visiting a legitimate and conscientious naturopath would be advised that they are receiving something that they are not. The same argument also applies to conventional doctors who incidentally do not have a flawless record in the correct and appropriate diagnosis and treatment of disease. And would do far more harm with a false diagnosis than a naturopath.

"This is not just a matter of people spending their own money. It is how public money should be spent."

As far as I am aware, most of these treatments are not available on the NHS and therefore are sought by people wishing to spend their own money. If there are rebates available then they are no more than those sought by users of conventional medicine –most are tax payers either way.
This extract from Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine) states thus:
Many people utilize mainstream medicine for diagnosis and basic information, while turning to alternatives for what they believe to be health-enhancing measures. However, studies indicate that a majority of people use alternative approaches in conjunction with conventional medicine.
Edzard Ernst wrote in the Medical Journal of Australia that "about half the general population in developed countries use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM)."[4] A survey released in May 2004 by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, part of the National Institutes of Health in the United States, found that in 2002, 36% of Americans used some form of alternative therapy in the past 12 months, 50% in a lifetime — a category that included yoga, meditation, herbal treatments and the Atkins diet.[5] If prayer was counted as an alternative therapy, the figure rose to 62.1%. 25% of people who use CAM do so because a medical professional suggested it.[6] Another study suggests a similar figure of 40%.[7] A British telephone survey by the BBC of 1209 adults in 1998 shows that around 20% of adults in Britain had used alternative medicine in the past 12 months.[citation needed]
The use of alternative medicine appears to be increasing. A 1998 study showed that the use of alternative medicine had risen from 33.8% in 1990 to 42.1% in 1997.[8] In the United Kingdom, a 2000 report ordered by the House of Lords suggested that "...limited data seem to support the idea that CAM use in the United Kingdom is high and is increasing



This article from the DT supports my argument that as a whole we are getting sicker and require a far more holistic approach. I just cant reconcile your unwavering support of conventional medicine as the only way ..http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=TNR304U2RMMMDQFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2008/01/08/nbrown108.xml

Epinephrine – Heavy metals can be found in much of the food we eat and drink that are also grown in Soil or plucked from the sea! I love prawns and mussels but I suspect that they are (in some cases ) heavily contaminated. This is a legacy of the farming practices we see these days that are focused on extracting the maximum crop per hectare by the excessive use of artificial fertilizers. The run off into rivers starves the water of oxygen and this the fish life in the waters. Driving your car or living on a main road exposes you to lead, arsenic and many other toxic/carcinogenic compounds. Insecticides on your veg and fruit, chlorine residues on your little packets of washed salads, phthalates/plasticizers leaching from packaging. With all respect, get things into focus. No-one is suggesting you take a spoonful of sheabutter to fix syphilis (which comes from too much of the wrong type of 'love' of course, ) (Joke)
"Even when they aren't harmful or contaminated they are often of no benefit, and serve as a vehicle to weaken belief in traditional medicine, encourage irrational belief in untested or discredited therapies, and provide a means to traffic drugs illegally."….???????
To borrow SteveZara's line again: "These are very strong claims. I would require strong evidence for them. I know of none"

Walk, I appreciate and respect your point of view and I will revisit my copy of the 3rd book to see if my opinion can be supported by the substance of the text rather than the cover and intro. I don't have either book 1 or 2 so I cant refer to them. But putting aside the argument over whether he 'spoke to God' or not, much of the book debunks religion in favour of a far more rational view of 'God' and before you jump on me I want to say that 2000 years of Judeo-Christian religion has well and truly aligned us with a very clear cut description of what God is. In the mean time can I refer you to a very well thought out post by dr Jonez (post 48) in reponse to my intial query.

Regards

39. Changing my Mind

Comment #108888 by qster on January 7, 2008 at 7:48 pm

My head huts a bit now. Maybe the effort of such vigorous debate or maybe just need a drink of beer flavoured water and a lie down

40. Changing my Mind

Comment #108887 by qster on January 7, 2008 at 7:43 pm

First of all, i think I will take a step back and say this. I am not here to support, argue, or otherwise, the efficacy of homeopathy. Unfortunately (for me) I used a quite well known piece of anecdotal evidence in my post some days ago when I said that animals have been known to respond well to homeopathic treatments. Never my intention to push such a wheelbarrow just to elaborate on a point unconnected with such issues but here we find ourselves. I dont have the time to produce hard evidence if any exists to back this up so I used a random piece of heresay floating in my head.
For the benefit of walk Let me make my position clear as possible. (incidentally I think we too are on the same chapter if not the same page)
1. I don't support misrepresentation or the fraudulent use of anything let alone drugs. Just as in conventional medicine the term caveat emptor applies wrt to potential side effects or the efficacy of the drugs or therapy chosen. At least with Natural therapy, the side effects will be negligible.
2. I should use the term "natural" therapies instead of the word alternative as this seems to spook people.
3. Natural therapies, of which there are many eg. Herbalism, massage, reiki, acupuncture etc etc etc.. are used by a huge number of people with great success - not all are gullible and docile faith freaks.
In fact if conventional medicine were to recognise the benefits these natural therapies could offer then the huge waiting lists for National health service hospital beds would be significantly reduced. A great deal of people sitting in the waiting rooms of the doctors surgeries would be best served by some echinacea and vitamin C, better diet and exercise rather than another dose of antibiotic which seems to be a default order these days. It is not the role of the NHS to dictate what treatments people should or shouldn't use. I believe a huge amount of money would in fact be saved by the very argument above.
Steve, I do not support faith healing because I don't believe in it but it is the right of any person to seek any therapy they wish and spending their own hard earned without being dictated to by anyone particularly an atheist.

To Walk again, The CWG series by walsch would appear to be as you describe with a superficial scan of the cover and a little light reading. Im surprised you read on if the cover gave the impression of a big lie. If you read a bit deeper into the text I think it is quite clear that Walsch is really responding to his own questions but the book is marketed quite differently. Thats my opinion anyway. I don't follow the theories or beliefs of any particular person or group and would describe myself as a religious atheist just like mr Bateson's Friend.

I would like to put this example to the forum for discussion:
We are all sitting around in a room in 150 years ago, I propose that some time in the future it may be possible to communicate wirelessly at the speed of light using new fangled typewriters and a ship orbiting earth in space.
I think the response, after pants have been wet from laughing, would be that is so highly improbable as to be unbelievable. Of course, Very little that is improbable now will be found to be true least of all that theory of god proposed by the classical theists but I suggest that our understanding of the earth and our nature is still very limited, we have a lot more to learn and this will occur exponentially as our technology also increases such. However, many mistakes will be made as we attempt to tinker with things we don't understand. I like to keep my eyes and mind open which as a true atheist I feel is quite difficult – where can you go from there?

41. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108741 by qster on January 7, 2008 at 1:49 pm

spaceman,
are you referring to harris as the writer? I agree with you, we are nature and everything in it but it seems this belief is not necessarily consistent with the thrust of this site to my disappointment.

42. Changing my Mind

Comment #108735 by qster on January 7, 2008 at 1:42 pm

SteveZara,
you speak with great conviction against the sorts of alternative medicines that I am suggesting may be of help to a lot of people who through no fault of their own put their entire trust in the medical profession to cure them of ailments with a vast array of drugs which can have side effects equally as harmful as the condition they present. I am married to a Naturopath who has successfully treated many people with a number of herbal and alternative medicines for which they get immediate and lasting relief without resorting to drugs. But not only that, as an example, many patients present with chronic fatigue, headaches, tiredness etc...a common complaint. After eliminating any other potential diseases and following the principles of 'occams razor' Do you know the prescription? I'll give you this one for free...WATER!
To mmurray - the first principle of homoepathy is first do no harm so your analogy to blood letting and skull drilling is rather lame.
Ultimately, surely it is best to work with nature - i.e where possible to assist the body in treating itsself before attacking the system with chemicals. Steve of course there are many conditions that we are only capable of treating with pharma...thats and easy argument to make. Why be so resistant to alternatives? Have you had a bad experience? If people choose to seek alternatives to either support conventional or when conventional is really not working for them then why not? This happens frequently but of course there are no stats to support this.
Cheers

43. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108438 by qster on January 6, 2008 at 10:09 pm

SteveZara,
people are living much longer I agree, because we are treating the diseases more effictively - I also agree but the diseases I refer to are not really geriatric in nature. For example Asthma is far more prevalent these days in children than even in my time as a child 20-30 years ago. I dont remember any kids in my school with it, now there are at a guess at least 1 or 2 in 10 with symptoms. Diabetes is treatable but the incidences are also very high - mainly due to diet and weight of course. Working with nature amongst the myriad of meanings also means that to sucessfully treat an individuals physical wellbeing, we m ust also treat the mental and emotional hence a more wholistic natural approach. Mainly my point which I havent put across very well. I admit to not having access to figures and data to support my point- just anecdotal observation. I feel if we followed this approach more, we wouldnt need the huge pharma industry that has grown in the last 20-30 years.
Antibiotic discovery has made an incredible contribution to the human race - derived of course from a natural source. However, the (over)use of which has resulted in its own challenges too. I will try to elaborate more on the my meaning of work with nature when i get more time. Cheers.

44. Changing my Mind

Comment #108428 by qster on January 6, 2008 at 8:59 pm

mmurray,
to your fist question - yes, but I dont know exactly where yet...
I dont think that the universe is 'full' of intelligent life. But lets put it into perspective. As far as we know, the universe is infinite, therfore there are infinite possibilities existing. I dont know how far we have been able to 'see' much less travel within space but to discount such options and to sit back and think "yeah, its 2008, I think we have it mostly covered now, probably not going to discover much more" is arrogance in the extreme.
Regarding homeopathy, i refer you to a previous post where I propose that much alternative medicine is supressed by the medical establishment because there is very little money for them in such treatments. Are you aware of the amount of money injected that the main pharma companies make on their drugs. Who do you think funds the medical schools and training clinics, the doctors expensive trips away etc etc. It is very much in the interests of big pharma to ensure that every visit to the doctor ends with a prescription.
The only evidence that would be accepted by the establishment for the use of homoeopathy is that which would be sponsored by the pharma companies - is it likely to happen?
By the way, I dont believe that Homeopathy is a panacea either. Just another of many options.

45. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108398 by qster on January 6, 2008 at 6:10 pm

"It has had amazing success, with the virtual eradication of major diseases such as smallpox and polio, and with an increasing numbers of cures and successful treatments for other illnesses such as diabetes and cancer. One of the most exciting medical advances in recent years was the development of the vaccine against strains of HPV, which will prevent most cervical cancers."

I think you may have picked about the only two that we have had much success against. There are now higher incidences of many types of cancer and diabetes than ever before. The treatments are more aggressive and some more efficient but not really 'cures".

46. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108390 by qster on January 6, 2008 at 5:32 pm

OK, I'll try but Im no genetic scientist. What I mean by "weakening" is by medical intervention in the case of severe hereditary disease or chromosomal abnormality we essentially allow that 'gene' to be passed on where it would not otherwise be. With regard to such things as flightless birds, we only need to look at the Dodo to see what happens there.
I know there are no easy answers and again, If were in the position where i had to save the life of my own family, I wouldnt hesitate to use any means available.

47. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108384 by qster on January 6, 2008 at 5:11 pm

"Due to the scarcity of things in the world, there is a constant, and rights-based, "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). Life in the state of nature is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"
Radesq, I had to look this one up, nice retort!
I dream of a day when mankind does not start wars over the perceived ownership of a peice of land or a resource such as Oil and thus man does not fear his own violent death therfore does not need to defend himself. He can then enjoy the company of fellow man and experience what can be achieved when humans work together. Its along way off though. :-)...see I'm learning

48. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108383 by qster on January 6, 2008 at 5:03 pm

I do apologise with regards to the "F-off and find another planet to populate - good luck, I'm sure there are some out there. " comment. I forgot to add the little ;-) that makes everything alright again of course...a little light hearted Sarcasm is a tough one to portray through text.

SteveZara, you are spot on and I agree entirely my comment (if not taken out of context) is a statement of fact - not necessarily an opinion. The theory is that by intervening with regards to genetically inherited disease we are potentially weakening future generations. Should we do nothing about that and leave nature to it? Of course not, it is within our nature and our right to attempt to save the lives of all. I fully support the progression of medicine to eradicate disease, it just doesnt seem to work very well. Again I revert to my fundamental argument that we must strive to work with nature not against. I havent heard a fair argument against that yet? But I am prepared to change my mind....
Steve root, did you mean morons?

49. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108365 by qster on January 6, 2008 at 2:47 pm

I suggest stop fighting nature and let the source of all you eat, drink, breathe, wear, see, love, hate etc etc sort you out into something even more beautiful and adapted to the confines of the earth we live on. Or F-off and find another planet to populate - good luck, I'm sure there are some out there.
Nancy2001, the reason we have weak and ineffective methods of curing disease is precisely that we choose to modify the natural evolution process that atheists argue so strongly for. Plus we choose to put ourselves in the condition where we have damaged our bodies and natural immune systems. Prior to modern medicine, Nature would choose the fittest and best specimens to ensure the survival of the species.

50. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #108357 by qster on January 6, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Diacanu, steve zara,
I humbly suggest that if you are true atheists and you believe that this life is your one and only chance to live and spread your gene's etc that you have a lot to do before you die in a flaming car wrieck at 190km/hr off a cliff. However, I observe that a lot of time is spent writing angry monologues about some bloke with an eye dropper messing up your great x 10 grandkids - dont worry about it - you are an atheist remember.