GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-10-2013, 11:07   #501
void *
Dereference Me!
 
void *'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: #define NULL ((void *)0)
Posts: 10,239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
Again, atheism's doctrine is absolute. Anything else put's one in the agnostic catagory.
Atheism doesn't have a doctrine. There is no atheist equivalent to the council of Nicaea, for instance.

'Agnostic' doesn't describe whether or not you believe or disbelieve in something, it describes whether or not you consider something to be provable.

I am perfectly fine disbelieving in anything that there isn't evidence for up until there actually is evidence for it, at which point I will change my mind. That's not absolute, that's conditional.
__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Last edited by void *; 02-10-2013 at 11:10..
void * is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:07   #502
Blast
'nuff said
 
Blast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: NKY/Cincinnati area
Posts: 19,625


void, I am going by the definition I posted. Which is the official standard. I didn't make the definition up. It seems you are trying to define atheism the way you want it to be, not how it is actually defined.
Make your case to those who set the standards for dictionaries, encyclopidias, and our educational system.

Merriam-Webster
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity


__________________
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be - Albert Einstein
Blast is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:10   #503
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by Gunhaver View Post
That would suggest that you either disregard a whole poop load of evidence for evolution (or even for abiogenesis if that's your only hangup) you consider a whole bunch of stuff to be evidence of creation that scientists don't consider to be evidence of creation. Which is it?
Please try to pay attention. I don't have a problem with evolution, I believe in evolution. I think there is no convincing evidence for creation or abiogenesis. In my opinion much of the firm believers in both chose to believe in them for their own reasons, likely because it fits in with their other beliefs.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:18   #504
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Please provide evidence that the self identified atheists involved in this conversation are attempting to claim absolute knowledge.

If you can't - then why should we pretend that they are?
We both have our opinions on that. It's not true with everything, or everyone. But many have beliefs on the creation vs natural phenomena that are beyond a reasonable doubt by their own words. Again my opinion, but it seems that some have no doubt.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-10-2013 at 13:13..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:23   #505
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
You continue to stick with what is possible. Any of the myths listed below are possible. That's why what is taught in a science class should be based on what the evidence supports.


I'm not arguing that life was not designed, merely pointing out that an Intelligent Designer (in the Christian I.D. sense) can be pretty well ruled out. Like you, I accept that a pretty dumb designer could be responsible for the current state of things. If somebody would care to present the evidence to make that case, I'd be glad to review it.


Yes, more than the (lack of) evidence warrants.
  • Judeo-Christian: man from dirt, woman from his rib
  • Scientology: involves Lord Xenu, DC8-like spaceships, frozen aliens, volcanoes and hydrogen bombs
  • Japanese: elements appear in the form of an egg, and Izanami gives birth to the gods
  • Greek: Nyx, the bird, lays an egg that hatches into Eros, then the shell becomes Gaia and Uranus
  • Iroquois: Sky Woman fell from a floating island (actually pregnant and pushed by her husband) and gave birth to the world
  • Hindu (one version): Brahma created primal waters which grew into a golden egg which was split into heaven and earth
  • Chinook: great egg laid by the Thunderbird
  • African Bushmen: people and animals lived in harmony, then Great Master and Lord of All Life, Kaang, planted a tree that spread over it and dug a hole to bring up the people and animals
Keeping in mind that the Judeo-Christian explanation has no more evidence to support it than Scientology or any of the other stories, do all of these, and all other explanations, deserve mention in a science class?

As said before, if somebody wants to teach them in their home, in a Bible study class, in a private school science class, or even a public school mythology class I have no problem with that. If they want something taught (or even mentioned as an alternative explanation) in a public school science class, then they should have the evidence to back up the claims.

ETA: I'm not interested in proving there was no designer/creator, as I believe it would largely be a waste of time. As I've said numerous times, even if chemists could create life in the laboratory at will, that would not prove that there was not a designer/creator. At most it would demonstrate that one was not necessary.

-ArtificialGrape
I have trouble believing in any perfect being.

I do think that if life can be created in a lab, it would be a good indication that an omnipotent being was not necessary for life to happen, and it would be proof that life can be created.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:27   #506
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE View Post
Atheist do not claim absolute knowledge. The very principle of atheism is, I Don't Know.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
Well, not by definition it's not.

You may have atheism confused with agnosticism.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:31   #507
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
He has no evidence whatsoever. There is none. But he believes it, therefore it its solid enough to include in science class

Randy

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
You would deny children the knowledge that there is no proof of abiogenesis or creation?

Nope, no agenda there.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:34   #508
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by void * View Post
Atheism doesn't have a doctrine. There is no atheist equivalent to the council of Nicaea, for instance.

'Agnostic' doesn't describe whether or not you believe or disbelieve in something, it describes whether or not you consider something to be provable.

I am perfectly fine disbelieving in anything that there isn't evidence for up until there actually is evidence for it, at which point I will change my mind. That's not absolute, that's conditional.

We'll just have to disagree a bit there. No problem.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:39   #509
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
And of course we just know exactly what temperature, moisture content, humidity, and barometric pressure were then.

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/newspi...n-terrestrial/

http://www.livescience.com/241-early...-suggests.html


No guess work at all there huh? I'm trying to think of the nicest way to ask this, but how reasonable do you really think it is to believe you have it all figured out?
I think I see your misunderstanding now. No one in the scientific community, and no non-believer posting on this board that I know of (Can't speak for all non-believers everywhere) is claiming to have it all figured out. We have some of it figured out for sure.

But you're trying to change the discussion again. It seems you try and drag every topic back to Atheists claiming that 1. Evolution proves there is no God or 2. Science has all the answers figured out about our origins. This is what it always comes back to for you.

No one is making these claims Cav. My question to you was how can you give equal (50/50) credence to creationism Vs Abiogenesis when one literally has a great deal of evidence supporting it... and the other none?
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:43   #510
Glock36shooter
Senior Member
 
Glock36shooter's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,159
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You would deny children the knowledge that there is no proof of abiogenesis or creation?

Nope, no agenda there.
I'd have no problem being honest with children that creationism has no real evidence to support it, and abiogenesis, while still not a proven fact, has much evidence to support it and is highly more probable than creationism.

And this is a fact. You're being dishonest if you are attempting to assert that there is just as little evidence for Abiogenesis as Creationism. This simply isn't true.
Glock36shooter is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:49   #511
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
I'd have no problem being honest with children that creationism has no real evidence to support it, and abiogenesis, while still not a proven fact, has much evidence to support it and is highly more probable than creationism.

And this is a fact. You're being dishonest if you are attempting to assert that there is just as little evidence for Abiogenesis as Creationism. This simply isn't true.
You are being dishonest by claiming that you know I am being dishonest about my opinion.

Your whole "you're a poopy head if you don't believe what I believe" style of debate is tiresome and weak.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 12:55   #512
muscogee
Senior Member
 
muscogee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 6,841


Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
Merriam-Webster
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
The subtleties of the language evade you. A disbelief in the existence of deity is not same as believing there is no deity. "I don't believe you", is not a belief. I don't believe that I don't believe you. I know I don't. I really don't.
__________________
"We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes."

Leona Helmsley
muscogee is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 13:11   #513
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by muscogee View Post
The subtleties of the language evade you. A disbelief in the existence of deity is not same as believing there is no deity. "I don't believe you", is not a belief. I don't believe that I don't believe you. I know I don't. I really don't.
Did you read the post he was responding to at all. It had to do with the doctrine.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 13:14   #514
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by Glock36shooter View Post
I think I see your misunderstanding now. No one in the scientific community, and no non-believer posting on this board that I know of (Can't speak for all non-believers everywhere) is claiming to have it all figured out. We have some of it figured out for sure.

But you're trying to change the discussion again. It seems you try and drag every topic back to Atheists claiming that 1. Evolution proves there is no God or 2. Science has all the answers figured out about our origins. This is what it always comes back to for you.

No one is making these claims Cav. My question to you was how can you give equal (50/50) credence to creationism Vs Abiogenesis when one literally has a great deal of evidence supporting it... and the other none?

See post 504.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 13:18   #515
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blast View Post
void, I am going by the definition I posted. Which is the official standard. I didn't make the definition up. It seems you are trying to define atheism the way you want it to be, not how it is actually defined.
Make your case to those who set the standards for dictionaries, encyclopidias, and our educational system.

Merriam-Webster
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

You're missing the context in which Void was using the word doctrine

Merriam-Webster
Definition of DOCTRINE
1 archaic : teaching, instruction
2 a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
c : a principle of law established through past decisions
d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
e : a military principle or set of strategies

In which context do you think Void was using the word doctrine?

In addition MW is not the end all be all of dictionaries.

Oxford
Definition of doctrine
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group: the doctrine of predestination

US a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs: the Truman Doctrine

Oxford
Definition of atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

The point I think Void was making is that the only requirement to be an atheists is the above. There are no additional beliefs, rules or dogma necessary. Atheism is one singular belief, position, disbelief, lack of belief etc...not a belief system.

Last edited by juggy4711; 02-10-2013 at 13:23.. Reason: clarity
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 13:25   #516
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
You're missing the context in which Void was using the word doctrine

Merriam-Webster
Definition of DOCTRINE
1 archaic : teaching, instruction
2 a : something that is taught
b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma
c : a principle of law established through past decisions
d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
e : a military principle or set of strategies

In which context do you think Void was using the word doctrine?

In addition MW is not the end all be all of dictionaries.

Oxford
Definition of doctrine
a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group: the doctrine of predestination

US a stated principle of government policy, mainly in foreign or military affairs: the Truman Doctrine

Oxford
Definition of atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

The point I think Void was making is that the only requirement to be an atheists is the above. There are no additional beliefs, rules or dogma necessary. Atheism is one singular belief, position, disbelief, lack of belief etc...not a belief system.
Shouldn't we ask void that? It does appear that blast had a point, and contrary to void's assertion, atheism does have a doctrine. "Atheism doesn't have a doctrine." seems pretty straight forward on the context issue.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-10-2013 at 13:31..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 13:48   #517
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You would deny children the knowledge that there is no proof of abiogenesis or creation?

Nope, no agenda there.
Perhaps you have "people believe" class mixed up with science class.

You still haven't given us any examples of witch doctoring in your med school curricula. People believe in witch doctoring too. You really must teach the controversy if you expect doctors to be well informed.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 13:49..
steveksux is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 13:53   #518
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
You are being dishonest by claiming that you know I am being dishonest about my opinion.
Since you're the subject matter expert about being dishonest, I'm sorely tempted to believe you on this point.

Except for the whole part about being dishonest.

Quote:
Your whole "you're a poopy head if you don't believe what I believe" style of debate is tiresome and weak.
Listen, if you've got that line or reasoning trademarked, lets see the documentation.

Until then he's free to borrow your style.

Randy
steveksux is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 13:59   #519
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc
As far as I can tell, there is no evidence one way or the other. we have evidence of what occurred after life was here, but virtually none about how it started. There are quite a few contradictory theories.

It's easy to pick a side and declare you are convinced. For many, it's hard to simply state they don't know for sure. Testicles aren't really relevant. Many women scientists would agree.

We know life is what it is today, and there are some ideas of how it began, many different beliefs, but if one is honest, no knowledge of how it really began. The unknown is scary to many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
I don't know but I believe. Thing is I believe in the things there is evidence for. See it's not that hard. As far as what you can tell...you couldn't tell sh** if it was fresh out of you ass.

And again with your insinuations that I am scared of something. Well it sure as heck isn't you or any of the assclown beliefs you have. Damn there I was not being sensitive again. I apologize for owning you over and over. It was not my intention to make you so insecure as to feel the need to do so.

It's clear that you have issues regarding science and religion that make you feel inferior to others else you would not take the stupid stances that you do.

I'll pray that you can one day get over it. (insert sarcastic smilee here)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Are you on something you should not be, or off something you should be on?

This is only a question.
Juggy, haven't you been paying attention? You've heard of Rick Rolling? You've just been Doc Trolled. Don't fall for it. Don't believe for a moment he's being honest here. His goal is to troll and goad people, try to get them banned. He's admitted it before. Don't enable him.

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 14:21..
steveksux is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 14:01   #520
ArtificialGrape
CLM Number 265
Charter Lifetime Member
 
ArtificialGrape's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 5,542
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
I have trouble believing in any perfect being.

I do think that if life can be created in a lab, it would be a good indication that an omnipotent being was not necessary for life to happen, and it would be proof that life can be created.
Here we're in agreement.

I just don't see that the Judeo-Christian version of Creation has any evidence to distinguish it from any other mythological creation story, and as such does not deserve even a mention as an alternative explanation in a public school science class.

-ArtificialGrape
ArtificialGrape is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 14:17   #521
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtificialGrape View Post
Here we're in agreement.

I just don't see that the Judeo-Christian version of Creation has any evidence to distinguish it from any other mythological creation story, and as such does not deserve even a mention as an alternative explanation in a public school science class.

-ArtificialGrape
You'll have to take that up with the proponents of the Adam and Eve version of events. I don't subscribed to that theory.

I think that in a science class, simply admitting that the answer between intelligent design and abiogenesis is still unanswered.

Specific creation stories should be saved for classes on religion, sociology, political science, literature, history etc. but only as necessary for context. Indoctrination should be strictly prohibited.

Last edited by Cavalry Doc; 02-10-2013 at 14:21..
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 14:54   #522
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Perhaps you have "people believe" class mixed up with science class.

You still haven't given us any examples of witch doctoring in your med school curricula. People believe in witch doctoring too. You really must teach the controversy if you expect doctors to be well informed.

Randy
We did receive training on many different kinds of alternative medicine and religious beliefs that influence patient treatment decisions. You should have at least a passing familiarity with them, as you will run into patients that do believe in them. I had a patient about 2 years ago with a maltoma that refused all conventional treatment, he wanted to go to Mexico to have an herbal treatment. I was able to talk him into at least getting a follow up CT in 4 months to evaluate the edfectiveness of the treatment, had I not, he'd have walked out the door never to return. His tumor had enlarged, and then I was able convince him to take conventional therapy, last time I saw him he was tumor free. Another colleague had a patient that needed a liver transplant, he was a Jehovah's Witness, and a bloodless transplant isn't really feasible, as the transplanted liver contains blood. We did some research and found that some Jehovahs witnesses believe the prohibition on blood is a cannibalism issue, and a gift freely given is different than taking flesh or blood from another, he consulted with his clergy and ended up deciding to get the liver. It's also important to at least understand the ethical considerations of parents religious beliefs influencing treatment decisions for their children. Learning that they exist and a little about the concerns of those that have different beliefs can help. I have had patients tell me they were going to leave their diabetes in gods hands, and I was able to talk them into taking a more active role in their treatment, after all, if you believe god is in control, is there any chance god sent you to me so I could convince you to take care of yourself?

Intentional ignorance of the beliefs of others is not a recommended course of action in medicine.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 16:11   #523
juggy4711
Nimrod Son
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Galveston County, TX
Posts: 3,807
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
Shouldn't we ask void that? It does appear that blast had a point, and contrary to void's assertion, atheism does have a doctrine. "Atheism doesn't have a doctrine." seems pretty straight forward on the context issue.
It does? What is the doctrine of atheism?

Folks seem to be all about MW so:
Merriam-Webster
Definition of CONTEXT
1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs

I've read enough of void's post to take an educated guess as to what he meant but I would of course allow him to correct me. The only way one would have a point is in regards to doctrine and atheism are the first two MW definitions (1 and 2a). Definitions 2b-2e are not applicable. Again void will correct me if I misunderstood his point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by steveksux View Post
Juggy, haven't you been paying attention? You've heard of Rick Rolling? You've just been Doc Trolled. Don't fall for it. Don't believe for a moment he's being honest here. His goal is to troll and goad people, try to get them banned. He's admitted it before. Don't enable him.

Randy
I'm well aware. Such attempts do not intimidate me.

Last edited by juggy4711; 02-10-2013 at 16:12.. Reason: spelling
juggy4711 is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 16:19   #524
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,155


Quote:
Originally Posted by juggy4711 View Post
It does? What is the doctrine of atheism?

Folks seem to be all about MW so:
Merriam-Webster
Definition of CONTEXT
1: the parts of a discourse that surround a word or passage and can throw light on its meaning
2: the interrelated conditions in which something exists or occurs

I've read enough of void's post to take an educated guess as to what he meant but I would of course allow him to correct me. The only way one would have a point is in regards to doctrine and atheism are the first two MW definitions (1 and 2a). Definitions 2b-2e are not applicable. Again void will correct me if I misunderstood his point.



I'm well aware. Such attempts do not intimidate me.
Intimidate? Where did you get the idea I want to intimidate you? How would one even go about intimidating someone on an Internet forum?

Well, you made a guess, agreed.

His statement was very clear, and incorrect. The doctrine is as stated in the definition, that's all.
Cavalry Doc is offline  
Old 02-10-2013, 16:29   #525
steveksux
Massive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 13,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc View Post
We did receive training on many different kinds of alternative medicine and religious beliefs that influence patient treatment decisions. You should have at least a passing familiarity with them, as you will run into patients that do believe in them. I had a patient about 2 years ago with a maltoma that refused all conventional treatment, he wanted to go to Mexico to have an herbal treatment. I was able to talk him into at least getting a follow up CT in 4 months to evaluate the edfectiveness of the treatment, had I not, he'd have walked out the door never to return. His tumor had enlarged, and then I was able convince him to take conventional therapy, last time I saw him he was tumor free. Another colleague had a patient that needed a liver transplant, he was a Jehovah's Witness, and a bloodless transplant isn't really feasible, as the transplanted liver contains blood. We did some research and found that some Jehovahs witnesses believe the prohibition on blood is a cannibalism issue, and a gift freely given is different than taking flesh or blood from another, he consulted with his clergy and ended up deciding to get the liver. It's also important to at least understand the ethical considerations of parents religious beliefs influencing treatment decisions for their children. Learning that they exist and a little about the concerns of those that have different beliefs can help. I have had patients tell me they were going to leave their diabetes in gods hands, and I was able to talk them into taking a more active role in their treatment, after all, if you believe god is in control, is there any chance god sent you to me so I could convince you to take care of yourself?

Intentional ignorance of the beliefs of others is not a recommended course of action in medicine.
Nice try.
So you admit they're not given equal weight as alternate treatment. There's a big difference between that and an actual alternative theory of medicine. which is what you're proposing for science classes by including mythology.

So at what point does medicine teach a new treatment? When studies prove its effectiveness? When some people believe something might be effective? When an internet troll thinks on the basis of nothing whatsoever that its about a 50/50 chance compared to treatments that actually have been tested?

Randy

Last edited by steveksux; 02-10-2013 at 16:38..
steveksux is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:18.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 920
242 Members
678 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42