GOD: How much do you believe in him?

[seagullmouse]

god facepalm!

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

If you mean the advancement of science to construct technologically superior weaponry and kill people, maybe.
But often religion is the motivation that enacted the conflict in the first place.

The atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were dropped in the cause of ending the war. To which end, they succeeded.

The greatest motivation and cause for the loss of human life is greed and politics, religion comes in a distant third.

Religion may one day disappear but greed and politics will be as always ever present.

 

[DerbyGull]

god facepalm!

 

[NMH]

From what age? I'm pretty sure young children will believe what their parents tell them, and if they aren't even presented with the alternative viewpoint it's pretty unlikely it would even occur to them that their parents are wrong about how they, the world & the universe were created.



Er, what?

Herbal/natural remedies that do work, are treated as normal medicine. For example - aspirin. It's a 'natural' remedy, derived from the willow tree. No-one makes a profit out of it - it sells because it works.

Herbal remedies that don't work, are called "alternative" because it would be an offence to market them as being proven to work.

There are plenty of quacks out there who would have you believe that "big pharma" exists solely to make money, but they not only ignore examples like aspirin, but they also ignore examples like Boiron. Boiron are an "alternative medicine" company who's financial figures dwarf those of 'big pharma' - they spend ~€50m a year just on marketing! Their turnover & profit is enormous. Your arguments here are a mere straw man - and this is before we factor in the doubling of life expectancy since we relied on herbal "medicines".

Herbal remedies that DON'T work aren't called anything, they wouldn't be "remedies" if they didn't work!
Medical companies do not put money allocations into "proving" herbal remedies! They ignore them in favour of creating 'cure-alls' when herbs can do the job better and leave you less reliant on them!
Of course, penicillin is a natural cure that was discovered and put into pill form, and you could argue that all medicinal science is ultimately 'natural'.

Doctors are aware that the 'cillins' antibiotics will eventually allow bacterias to slowly become immune to them. Thus when you use antibiotics to wipe out the bad stuff, it also wipes out your own natural defences too and takes over. Don't always go to antibiotics to treat everything!

When tribesmen existing without modern medicine have been discovered and studied, they have known cures and treatments that technology has eclipsed or ignored, and they survived through the years using them.

The native American Indians have certainly a lower life expectancy - but their knowledge of nature has enabled them to appreciate cures and aids that modern man has forgotten or ignored.
Don't knock the power of the human spirit to also help eradicate sickness.
That's what their medicine man was there for. The negro slave's concept of 'the healer' was related to this, and usually linked to music too.
Doctors of modern medicine won't think to prescribe anything to work on the spirit - except maybe to lie down a bit!
How about a surgery that combined a herbalist, a spiritualist, a masseur and a doctor of modern medicine?
One should do their own studies I suppose, and know when and who to go to see

 

[Tricky Dicky]

Religion may one day disappear

I would like to say the sooner the better .... unfortunately the basic psychology of the human is to bond to others through whatever you have in common. The upshot of this is by forming any group, whether it be by colour, race, religion, hair-colour, football team, the process of inclusion inevitibly has the opposing effect of exclusion. Exclusion breeds fear and suspicion, so there will always be ways of differentiating between people in one way or another, resulting in conflict at some scale or another.

(I don't think I explained that very well, but I know what I mean - I am now bowing out of this argument - as interesting as it is, I doesn't really lead anywhere and you won't change anyones mind).

 

[DTES]

No I don't believe those attitudes changed because of technology and science, they just made those attitudes less required.

Its not like is stopped the Jews being butchered in their millions or the planet coming close to mass destruction because of a cold war arms race.

No, it didn't stop the Nazis. But given that that did happen, I'm not sure what your point is then about things having been worse if it had happened earlier? Having 'seen' it happen (not with my own eyes, but you know what I mean from the perspective of the world) surely had an impact on attitudes as to not letting it happen again? That would have happened at whatever time?

When you speak of attitudes changing because of technology perhaps you are right, but it's not exactly a positive thing in a lot of ways.

Look at the society you live in, do you think the sense of community is anything like it used to be when people would socialise on a far greater scale with their neighbours etc. There's less respect for the elderly these days than any time in the last 100 years.

Less respect for the elderly? 100 years ago, life expectancy was 50. There weren't very many elderly to have respect for! What a bizarre comparison. (Besides, I have perfectly sufficient respect for the elderly, thank you very much - as do most people I know).

Obesity has been on the rise for many years now, any coincidence that the trend it follows is that of technology gearing life to be convinient and fast.

Yes, it has. No arguments, but...

I'd swap modern day medicines to rid the world of all weapons.

Madness. Life expectancy for every single person in the developed world would be cut in half instantly. No vaccinations, no antibiotics, no treatment or pain relief for those suffering chronic conditions. Not only would we all die earlier, but a lot more of us would do so in agony. And this is a better world?!

(Statement of interest here - I've had necessary surgery in the past, so I would be dead. Is it just this that makes me so biased...?)

That kind of question all depends on who's willing to make the sacrifice at the expense of others or for the greater good of others.

The "greater good of others", as I explained above. Yeah, much "greater".

 

[DTES]

Herbal remedies that DON'T work aren't called anything, they wouldn't be "remedies" if they didn't work!

I had a headache/cold, so I took an "alternative remedy". Within days it had gone! It must work! - a simple argument that will create the belief that a "remedy" must work. Of course it's a complete fallacy, because the headache would have cleared whether they took the "remedy" or not. Similar logic could prove that my daily bowl of cornflakes was responsible for my broken leg healing.

Medical companies do not put money allocations into "proving" herbal remedies! They ignore them in favour of creating 'cure-alls' when herbs can do the job better and leave you less reliant on them!

Yes. They. Do. Boiron - the company I named above, is just one example of a company that puts money only into "alternative remedies". Stop pretending the money is against alternative treatments; it's a bare faced lie.

The fact is, herbs cannot do the job better. Less reliant? Yeah, probably in a lot of cases. But better? No. You yourself admit this when you follow up with:

The native American Indians have certainly a lower life expectancy - but their knowledge of nature has enabled them to appreciate cures and aids that modern man has forgotten or ignored. Don't knock the power of the human spirit to also overthrow.

...but a more simple example is obvious - our very own civilisation here in good old England, 100 years ago when modern medicine didn't exist.

Of course, penicillin is a natural cure that was discovered and put into pill form, and you could argue that all medicinal science is ultimately 'natural'.

Spot on. And those that work best are those that have made themselves part of mainstream medicine. Yes, this includes chemicals, but it also includes examples like penicillin and aspirin. Capitalism & Money does not decide what makes it - efficacy does.

 

[thejackal]

From what age? I'm pretty sure young children will believe what their parents tell them, and if they aren't even presented with the alternative viewpoint it's pretty unlikely it would even occur to them that their parents are wrong about how they, the world & the universe were created.



Er, what?

Herbal/natural remedies that do work, are treated as normal medicine. For example - aspirin. It's a 'natural' remedy, derived from the willow tree. No-one makes a profit out of it - it sells because it works.

Herbal remedies that don't work, are called "alternative" because it would be an offence to market them as being proven to work.

There are plenty of quacks out there who would have you believe that "big pharma" exists solely to make money, but they not only ignore examples like aspirin, but they also ignore examples like Boiron. Boiron are an "alternative medicine" company who's financial figures dwarf those of 'big pharma' - they spend ~€50m a year just on marketing! Their turnover & profit is enormous. Your arguments here are a mere straw man - and this is before we factor in the doubling of life expectancy since we relied on herbal "medicines".

Not so sure about your Boiron figures. According to the interwebz, annual turnover (2010):

Boiron - 520 million Euros, 4,081 employees

GSK - 32,276 million Euros, 100,000 employees

Yes, Boiron spent 20 times more on marketing than R&D in 2009 but they are a tiny organisation compared to the likes of Glaxo.

 

[NMH]

Don't be silly, it's lust for power, desire for expanded borders. Desire for oil, mineral extraction (Libya, Iraq).

Very few wars have been down to those causes.
Money, yes. Freedom from restriction was the cause for Hitler's rise, as Germany was prevented from doing business, and having a military after WWI.
People were starving, and the country was not prospering - having to watch while other nations did fine.

The Crusades? Not about oil or expanded borders were they?
They were about religion, and leaders like Saddam Hussein and GW Bush liked to bandy about the religious manipulation to galvanize the religious fanatics even though that wasn't what the (illegal) invasions were all about.

 

[DTES]

Not so sure about your Boiron figures. According to the interwebz, annual turnover (2010):

Boiron - 520 million Euros, 4,081 employees

GSK - 32,276 million Euros, 100,000 employees

Yes, Boiron spent 20 times more on marketing that R&D in 2009 but they are a tiny organisation compared to the likes of Glaxo.

Yes, granted they aren't of the scale of GSK. Apologies.

The point I was intending to make still stands - the suggestion that all the money is directed to 'put down' alternative treatments (or however you want to word it) is utter nonsense.

Boiron's marketing to R&D spend being 20:1 is utter, utter madness though. Even I didn't realise it was that big.

I do object to the word "tiny" though. $520m per year, and "there's no money in alternative medicines"? Rubbish. This is not a question of money.

 

[k2bluesky]

Faith is just as it says, belief, without the proof of existence, which in both the case of God and the beginnings of The Universe can and will, never be proved so all sides have a good case and neither should be discounted, merely debated but no-one can claim their belief is true/correct/the only one.

 

[DerbyGull]

The Crusades? Not about oil or expanded borders were they?
They were about religion.

They were to deal with the threat of Islam conquering europe.

 

[DTES]

They were to deal with the threat of Islam conquering europe.

Islam being an example of a....?

(It begins with an 'R')

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

No, it didn't stop the Nazis. But given that that did happen, I'm not sure what your point is then about things having been worse if it had happened earlier? Having 'seen' it happen (not with my own eyes, but you know what I mean from the perspective of the world) surely had an impact on attitudes as to not letting it happen again? That would have happened at whatever time?

I was merely posing a hypothetical question in regards to how the planet might be a different place had more destructive technology existed further back in time.

Less respect for the elderly? 100 years ago, life expectancy was 50. There weren't very many elderly to have respect for! What a bizarre comparison. (Besides, I have perfectly sufficient respect for the elderly, thank you very much - as do most people I know).

It's not bizarre, not when you can pick up the paper and see on a far more regular basis old people being the targets of random violence. 30 yers ago I'd see elderly people out walking at night all the time, now if I see it I think damn I hope they are almost home.

Just because you have respect for them doesn't mean that sentiment is shared by all.

Madness. Life expectancy for every single person in the developed world would be cut in half instantly. No vaccinations, no antibiotics, no treatment or pain relief for those suffering chronic conditions. Not only would we all die earlier, but a lot more of us would do so in agony. And this is a better world?!

(Statement of interest here - I've had necessary surgery in the past, so I would be dead. Is it just this that makes me so biased...?)

I mean no offence by this, but your attitude is that of a westerner who lives the good life(when compared to others).

We (an I include myself in here) would not give up the advantages of living in a western society even if it meant improvement in the lives of others in less developed nations.

I mean would you accept dying at 60 instead of 70 so that say 100,000 others life expectancy went from 40 to 50?

The "greater good of others", as I explained above. Yeah, much "greater".

Which means forget about heart transplant surgery, use the money to build a well in Africa instead.

That's about a greater good surely?

 

[NMH]

I had a headache/cold, so I took an "alternative remedy". Within days it had gone! It must work! - a simple argument that will create the belief that a "remedy" must work. Of course it's a complete fallacy, because the headache would have cleared whether they took the "remedy" or not. Similar logic could prove that my daily bowl of cornflakes was responsible for my broken leg healing.



Yes. They. Do. Boiron - the company I named above, is just one example of a company that puts money only into "alternative remedies". Stop pretending the money is against alternative treatments; it's a bare faced lie.

The fact is, herbs cannot do the job better. Less reliant? Yeah, probably in a lot of cases. But better? No. You yourself admit this when you follow up with:



...but a more simple example is obvious - our very own civilisation here in good old England, 100 years ago when modern medicine didn't exist.

Spot on. And those that work best are those that have made themselves part of mainstream medicine. Yes, this includes chemicals, but it also includes examples like penicillin and aspirin. Capitalism & Money does not decide what makes it - efficacy does.

Tsk, you are weird when it comes to discussion.
When I said modern tech medicine companies not spending to study herbals - you refute it with a company who SOLELY STUDY NATURAL REMEDY!
Then THEY are not who i am talking about, are they!!

American Indians' life expectancy isn't entirely down to using ancient remedies!
I am not suggesting or arguing against the use and knowledge of technology, FFS!
I AM saying that the herbal remedies are ignored or eclipsed, when herbal remedies could be a better choice.
FOR INSTANCE; and from PERSONAL experience; I had been diagnosed with "late onset asthma" and given an inhaler. I tried it, and it only offered temporary relief, while the symptoms continued unabated. No cure for asthma??
Then I found out about echinacea, used it and found out that not only did it work - the symptoms decreased and the asthma almost completely disappeared.
Now, I only very occasionally get a bit of that feeling in my lungs and I use echinacea again, and get rid of it. Available across the supermarket counter, no prescription.
The Doctor? When I mentioned it, he told me that echinacea wasn't proven to work, and there weren't studies to back up any evidence that it worked.
Be ridiculous about a bowl of cornflakes curing broken bones, you are not scoring with scornful analogies like that. No, you don't look intelligent by coming back with that, you really don't so please drop it.

 

[ArcticBlue]

Religion has been used to control and engineer the masses (for good and bad) ever since man had a lust for power over man. God is different. An all knowing God is a metaphor for creation itself. That is to say everything that surrounds us (the Universe et al). Physically we are all made from the same "stuff" so we are all made up of God in some way. Science has proved this. What makes you different from me is our experiences and this is called the Soul. That's all.

 

[DTES]

It's not bizarre, not when you can pick up the paper and see on a far more regular basis old people being the targets of random violence. 30 yers ago I'd see elderly people out walking at night all the time, now if I see it I think damn I hope they are almost home.

This is not a sign that violence has increased - it is a sign that how violence is reported has changed, paired with your personal thoughts on seeing an old person. I'm willing to bet money that instances of random violence on innocents hasn't increased per capita at all in the last 30 years. Any numbers to back up your statement?

I mean no offence by this, but your attitude is that of a westerner who lives the good life(when compared to others).

We (an I include myself in here) would not give up the advantages of living in a western society even if it meant improvement in the lives of others in less developed nations. I mean would you accept dying at 60 instead of 70 so that say 100,000 others life expectancy went from 40 to 50? Which means forget about heart transplant surgery, use the money to build a well in Africa instead. That's about a greater good surely?

But this isn't even close to what you said. You said you would sacrifice all of modern medicine in exchange for eliminating all weapons. If you're talking about helping those in Africa (for example) it brings us full circle - surely improving technology (for example cheap medicines, or even just 'well technology') will improve their lives, which runs completely counter to your argument that science has made the world a worse place?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

The Crusades? Not about oil or expanded borders were they?

The Crusades involved a huge amount of plundering for wealth.

There's records of the crusaders attacking a city and looting it only to discover after much blood shed that they'd attacked a Byzantine Christian city, their supposed allies...

There was always a secular elelment involved in the Crusades. More greed than religious salvation.

They were about religion, and leaders like Saddam Hussein and GW Bush liked to bandy about the religious manipulation to galvanize the religious fanatics even though that wasn't what the (illegal) invasions were all about.

Saddam crushed the religious fanatics, not galvanised them.

He was just a good old fashioned military dictator.

 

[seagullmouse]

 

[DTES]

Tsk, you are weird when it comes to discussion.
When I said modern tech medicine companies not spending to study herbals - you refute it with a company who SOLELY STUDY NATURAL REMEDY!
Then THEY are not who i am talking about, are they!!

No, they're not. I read your post to mean that all money is used to study "mainstream" medicine - so I refuted it with evidence that it isn't.

So to be clear, your argument is what? That some money goes on mainstream medicine and some goes on herbal? Fine - I agree. Not sure how that proves anything, other than "the money is on both sides so doesn't play a part", which was my point. Efficacy decides it. Which is exactly what I said.

American Indians' life expectancy isn't entirely down to using ancient remedies!

I am arguing that if they had access to modern, western medicine, but no other aspects of their lives were changed, their life expectancy would be increased. This is all.

I am not suggesting or arguing against the use and knowledge of technology, FFS!

Ok.

I AM saying that the herbal remedies are ignored or eclipsed, when herbal remedies could be a better choice. FOR INSTANCE; and from PERSONAL experience; I had been diagnosed with "late onset asthma" and given an inhaler. I tried it, and it only offered temporary relief, while the symptoms continued unabated. No cure for asthma?? Then I found out about echinacea, used it and found out that not only did it work - the symptoms decreased and the asthma almost completely disappeared. Now, I only very occasionally get a bit of that feeling in my lungs and I use echinacea again, and get rid of it. Available across the supermarket counter, no prescription. The Doctor? When I mentioned it, he told me that echinacea wasn't proven to work, and there weren't studies to back up any evidence that it worked.

Well I am glad you've found something that works - I do hope you wouldn't assume otherwise. However this point actually covers both parts of the debate.

We've established now that money goes into investigating herbal remedies - yet still no-one has been able to prove under reasonable, standard, experimental conditions that echinacea works. A study like this should be simple to do. Take 100 people with your symptoms, give 50 echinacea and 50 a placebo, but don't tell them which they have. If the 50 with echinacea improve significantly better than the 50 with a placebo, you have evidence it works. Nobody has been able to do this.

What does this say to you, honestly? And secondly, if money has been pumped in and no-one has been able to prove it (here using 'it' to mean any treatment that this applies to, not just echinacea), do you honestly believe that the NHS should use public funds to provide it?

Be ridiculous about a bowl of cornflakes curing broken bones, you are not scoring with scornful analogies like that. No, you don't look intelligent by coming back with that, you really don't so please drop it.

You know as well as I do that this was a deliberately ridiculous example to show the complete logical fallacy of the argument "I did A then B happened therefore A caused B". It's nonsense.