Homeopathy

MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Homeopathy

I'm surprised this hasn't been here before. I'd say homeopathy is an irrational precept. It basically says diluting a chemical to the point there is one fucking molecule of it in a gallon of water is just as effective (or even more so!) as full strength - the water somehow "spiritually remembers" what the chemical does. (????????) wtf

Anyone who knows a little more please post, including anyone who wants to defend this ridiculous idea.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Re: Bleh

Jillswift: Thanks for your experience. I won't believe in water homeopathics anymore, specially when I've never seen any in use, ever. Nobody here prescripts it, probably for a reason. Only pills made by Boiron, I guess the water is too tempting to fake. These pills are the only homeopathy I can talk about.
Also, it's interesting when the pet shop applied homeopathics as an attempt to cure a lethal virus. Are they insane? Homeopathy is a supporting medicine, it stimulates endocrine system, thus works indirectly, that's no match for a very direct and agressive virus.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Jillswift:

Luminon wrote:
Jillswift: Thanks for your experience. I won't believe in water homeopathics anymore, specially when I've never seen any in use, ever. Nobody here prescripts it, probably for a reason. Only pills made by Boiron, I guess the water is too tempting to fake. These pills are the only homeopathy I can talk about.


Also, it's interesting when the pet shop applied homeopathics as an attempt to cure a lethal virus. Are they insane? Homeopathy is a supporting medicine, it stimulates endocrine system, thus works indirectly, that's no match for a very direct and agressive virus.

Besides the sugar content, what the hell makes you think the pills (which are just the magic water mixed into a solid) are any different?

And you'll note that the claim is that homeopathy can cure disease. That includes viruses like the ones that cause the "common cold". Parvoviruses aren't all that different from rinoviruses. Homeopathy has been tested under far more rigorous conditions than what I was able to. It has zero effect. None. Water, pill, paste.... no difference. No effect.

People who sell homeopathic products are thieves.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Besides the

JillSwift wrote:
Besides the sugar content, what the hell makes you think the pills (which are just the magic water mixed into a solid) are any different?

And you'll note that the claim is that homeopathy can cure disease. That includes viruses like the ones that cause the "common cold". Parvoviruses aren't all that different from rinoviruses. Homeopathy has been tested under far more rigorous conditions than what I was able to. It has zero effect. None. Water, pill, paste.... no difference. No effect.

People who sell homeopathic products are thieves.

I have a confidence in Boiron pills, because they work on me and all the family, for years, in cases of diseases like a flu or sore throat. Boiron is a big company with a long tradition (since 1932) and as such can't escape an attention and inspections, this is why it's safe from people, who produce "homeopathics" by a special and precise technique of turning a water tap on. Inspectors can't make the production of homeopathics scientific (only inventors of the new can) but at least they can check if everything is done properly.
There's a doctor (MUDr.) in clinic of near town, he does all kinds of alternative medicine, like several types of acupuncture, cupping-glasses, magnetic therapy, vitamine injections, and so on, including homeopathy. I have never seen him during years prescript or use any liquid homeopathics, only these sugar pills from Boiron, mostly in form of small balls, about 3 mm in diameter, with precise dosing, if 5 or 10 of them and how often.
Also, some my experiences points to the basis of homeopathic theory, why it actually can work. I'm able to perceive to some degree (yet very intensely) a soft-material part of reality, on which the homeopathic information is supposed to transmit, thus I see there's a way and the result, the rest is an assumption, putting these two experiences together. Yes, I know, that I can't convince anyone, who doesn't have these experiences, and that's right. When I won't convince you, I hope, that next time, when someone will try to convince you that God told him about weapons of mass destruction hidden in my country, you'll be just as sceptical Smiling
I'm quite surprised, how much deceivers with labeled water is out there, that's bad. Yes, they're thieves, after all, who can recognize a water from water?
I think the claim that homeopathy can cure disease is unprecise. It non-chemically stimulates the endocrine system, which afterwards should be more succesful in fighting the disease. Also, the claim, that small amounts of chemical agens will start the curing is unprecise, when it's practically not present in the dilution. Dunno what smartass claimed them. Yes, there is still a lot of disinformation and thieves in this area, but it's not all false, so by time it may clear it up. I believe it's one of discoveries awaiting us with a change of a worldview, currently in progress. While rules of scientific experiment remains the same, there is still a lot of other factors  not depending on them, which can affect the final results and how the public will understand it, and a worldview is one of them. With different world view will come new discoveries, because we can research only that part of world, we can see or cognitively grasp.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
You just don't listen, do

You just don't listen, do you Luminon.

You want this stuff to be true. So much so that you ignore all evidence to the contrary.

The folks who tested homeopathy wanted it to be true as well - like I did when I did my experiment while working at the pet place. The difference between you and the rigorous testers is one thing only: They are smart enough to follow the evidence where it leads, rather than stuffing fingers in ears and squeezing eyes shut. Where did the evidence lead? Homeopathy has no effect at all. None. Zero.

You say you've experienced homeopathy helping with colds and flu? Did taking the magic water reduce the time you were ill to, say, about seven days?

I think I can explain that.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Read this. Don't bother

Read this.

Don't bother coming up with excuses for them. The fact is pseudoscience does real harm, it kills people. Stop pretending and face facts before such harm befalls someone you care about.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
What a load of twaddle. You

What a load of twaddle.

 

You misunderstand science. You misunderstand your own endocrine system and you misunderstand simple words like "world" and "view".

 

You are proof that god is not the only fantasy that people will delude themselves over (and even die prematurely in the pursuit of the delusion).

 

Homeopathic "treatment" is water-drinking. Get over it.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
..

Jillswift: as I see, all these cases of death are examples of human stupidity, when they chose homeopathy (a supportive medicine only) when being in a critical state, instead of directly working treatment. It's sad, but it's a fault of these people, not homeopathy. You're blaming the tool.
Note, that a text isn't a proof. There can be written anything, with practically any numbers, names, story lines, scientific titles, and still, it can be less or more fake, unprecise or incomplete. It's not in human powers to keep all text on the internet verified, not for every reader. Believing in something somewhere written, is unsure, at best. All texts of world are nothing, compared to an empiric experience. If something is written, and empiric experience is different, I'd believe the experience. I believe in what I had personally observed, and according to it I judge a text. Please, note that I won't argue about water homeopathics - I simply haven't ever tried them and I don't know their producing standards. I know only Boiron sugar pills, nothing else, I can't have any opinion on every message about some random "homeopathics".

I didn't misunderstand the science. I know scientific laws, I'm just afraid, that some scientists bends them, because they want, because they must, or because they were taught so in all their life. We don't live in a fairy tale, you can call it a conspiracy, I call it a real life.  A laboratory provides an isolated environment for a research. I believe, that even the laboratory itself should be in another, outer laboratory, to separate it from disturbing elements, like personal interests, financial issues, expectations of sponsors, or professional prejudices. The "outer laboratory" should work on removing these affections from a protected environment, in which the "inner laboratory" would stand. If it would work, all the science would be different, because it would reflect the world more like it really is.
 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
If homeopathy is the

If homeopathy is the practice of using incredibly minute quantities of substances dissolved in water to cause powerful effects, then wouldn't minute traces of poison kill?

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
No because homeopathy says

No because homeopathy says minute traces (actually substances reduced in water to nothing) actually do the opposite of what the original substance does - so minute traces of poison would cure the poison or be good for you. Maybe minute traces of nutrients or poison antidote would kill you?

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
lol

lol


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Jillswift: as

Luminon wrote:

Jillswift: as I see, all these cases of death are examples of human stupidity, when they chose homeopathy (a supportive medicine only) when being in a critical state, instead of directly working treatment. It's sad, but it's a fault of these people, not homeopathy. You're blaming the tool.
Note, that a text isn't a proof. There can be written anything, with practically any numbers, names, story lines, scientific titles, and still, it can be less or more fake, unprecise or incomplete. It's not in human powers to keep all text on the internet verified, not for every reader. Believing in something somewhere written, is unsure, at best. All texts of world are nothing, compared to an empiric experience. If something is written, and empiric experience is different, I'd believe the experience. I believe in what I had personally observed, and according to it I judge a text. Please, note that I won't argue about water homeopathics - I simply haven't ever tried them and I don't know their producing standards. I know only Boiron sugar pills, nothing else, I can't have any opinion on every message about some random "homeopathics".

I didn't misunderstand the science. I know scientific laws, I'm just afraid, that some scientists bends them, because they want, because they must, or because they were taught so in all their life. We don't live in a fairy tale, you can call it a conspiracy, I call it a real life.  A laboratory provides an isolated environment for a research. I believe, that even the laboratory itself should be in another, outer laboratory, to separate it from disturbing elements, like personal interests, financial issues, expectations of sponsors, or professional prejudices. The "outer laboratory" should work on removing these affections from a protected environment, in which the "inner laboratory" would stand. If it would work, all the science would be different, because it would reflect the world more like it really is.

Luminon, you credulous git:

There is an "outer laboratory" in science, which you would know about if you knew the first thing about science. It's called "Peer Review". Peer review exists because we know people can skew their results, and because there is no such thing as "empirical experience", only empirical measurement.

Second: Are you pretending that Boiron sugar pills are not water homeopathy dissolved into a solid sugar solution? Or do you ingest things when you have no idea what they are?

Finally: All you are doing is ignoring the evidence placed before you under the guise of being skeptical. You are lying to yourself and helping perpetuate an industry that takes lives.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Luminon, you

JillSwift wrote:
Luminon, you credulous git:
Thanks for being creative and relatively polite at the same time, really.

JillSwift wrote:
There is an "outer laboratory" in science, which you would know about if you knew the first thing about science. It's called "Peer Review". Peer review exists because we know people can skew their results, and because there is no such thing as "empirical experience", only empirical measurement.
I know the peer review, but it's still not a perfect system, it can be affected by professional bias and jealousy, but I mainly mean, that this process would require some really different view, not from a "peer in business". Peer review is basically asking someone, who has a lot to lose, to risk the carieer for other's research, it's not very receptive towards radically different ideas. An idea of "outer laboratory" should remove also these problems, but in that case, the whole Earth would have to be in "outer laboratory", to be protected from a real life. Empirical experience exists, and it's everything, what you perceive. When you observe something in all circumstances, nobody can refute it, because it just happened.

JillSwift wrote:
Second: Are you pretending that Boiron sugar pills are not water homeopathy dissolved into a solid sugar solution? Or do you ingest things when you have no idea what they are?
I believe that Boiron meets necessary standards in homeopathics production, I just don't know, if the other manufacturers does it as well. From the 'proofs' you provided, it seems, that not much. There is a principle, on which the homeopathics can work, which my experience supports, and the results as well. If this doesn't reflect a situation in the world, there must be a reason, explaining both cases, it can't deny the existence of my observations.

JillSwift wrote:
Finally: All you are doing is ignoring the evidence placed before you under the guise of being skeptical. You are lying to yourself and helping perpetuate an industry that takes lives.

You made me laugh. It actually may be a thing you do. What about a medical industry, killing hundreds of thousands per year? (or millions, with these outside USA) That's a real industry, which takes lives. Many medications have dangerous side effects, or are downright toxic, and even if not, their gathering presence in body takes people to grave. All of them are approved to be freely sold or prescribed.
Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US 
Not even it continues, it increases.
Increase In Death Rates and Side Effects From Prescription Drugs 
Would you expect a death rate increase without a doctors?
Death Rate Drops During Doctor Strike In Israel

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
So how exactly does mixing

So how exactly does mixing the ineffective water homeopathy with a neutral substance make it effective? Magic? Are there any real standards in homeopathy production? Links to woo woo websites won't convince us. We demand real evidence - not made up shit or testimonials. Anyway in another thread it was demonstrated these pills are actually less effective than water homeopathy - water homeopathy will effectively treat dehydration (though rather more expensive than the traditional cure) Boiron pills will not by themselves.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


Theia
Theia's picture
Posts: 207
Joined: 2008-04-13
User is offlineOffline
I didn't know homeopathy was

I didn't know homeopathy was supposed to be anything spiritual. I thought their arguments were that it stimulated some sort of immune response. Nevertheless, I agree homeopathy is nonsense. However, it's not all of alternative medicine. Some herbal and nutritional supplements are helpful but I don't think the vast majority live up to their claims.

"The Bible looks like it started out as a game of Mad Libs" - Bill Maher


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
..

MattShizzle wrote:
So how exactly does mixing the ineffective water homeopathy with a neutral substance make it effective? Magic? Are there any real standards in homeopathy production? Links to woo woo websites won't convince us. We demand real evidence - not made up shit or testimonials. Anyway in another thread it was demonstrated these pills are actually less effective than water homeopathy - water homeopathy will effectively treat dehydration (though rather more expensive than the traditional cure) Boiron pills will not by themselves.

This principle is not yet defined in a science, but we can expect this discovery in our lifetime. I can't appeal on any scientific authorities for this, because there aren't any at the moment. This is why you must play safe and stay sceptic, because no scientific machinery pre-chewed it for you. You passively expect to get informed, but all science has to start at some moment and develop by time and effort to a common part of our lives. What do you really expect? You want the woo-woo proven in the greatest world laboratories, by the most able researchers, with the most academic titles and popularized in TV science shows for children (the sort of it which leaves a kitchen messy after the experiment), and then you'll believe it? No problem, just wait a few of decades, with world full of people with attitude like yours, it will take a while.

All right, I can answer you how it exactly can work. I don't know, how they do it in factories, this is a theory.
There are seven possible states of matter. Three of them we call solid, liquid, and gaseous. Four remaining are called etheric.  It's only a work therm, I don't insist on it. The etheric state isn't a matter as we know it, it's something else, or just behaving differently. We can't have etheric oxygen and hydrogen and ignite them to make an etheric explosion. We can observe processes on etheric level rarely, but we definitely can. For example, as a psi-sphere technique, (very good thing for any scepticist to try, it gives you literally a tangible proof) or as a medium for searching for water by a stick or metal spring.
Very dangerous is a radiation on the etheric level. Common radiation in reactor can be stopped by a heavy water, but not the etheric part of it. This yet undiscovered radiation leaks from reactors and contributes on spreading of Alzheimer's disease. If you want to find a cause of most of the A. disease cases, search here.

Living beings lives at least on all etheric states, a change made on higher etheric levels affects (with a delay) lower levels, including material. Information, inserted into water fills all the volume on etherical level, when it's shaked, this information later in homeopathic medicine affects etheric parts of recipient's body, and the affection is with a delay transferred on physical body. It works with reactors, and it works with elements like mercury, in some homeopathic water bottles.

There are some useful schemes,  but they won't make much sense to a scientist at first.  A professional bias makes it look far-fetched, but there's a huge field of possibilities for scientific researchers, and a sure Nobel prize, or several of them. Also, there are some first clues to start with. Don't say, that if the etheric state of matter would exist, scientists would already discover it. They wouldn't, it's radically different to what they pursued for centuries, and also labeled as woo-woo, which allows people to reject it in ignorance, and feel good. Arrogance is not limited only on religional dogmatics and politics, it's deeply rooted even in a temple of the (only true) science. But we can expect, demand and support a change, this is, what I do.
I see you're tired by all this woo-woo shit, you don't keep it secretly. But keep in mind, rational scepticism is one thing, a selective nihilism is the other.

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Wow. You clearly belong in

Wow. You clearly belong in the looney bin.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon: You've used the

Luminon: You've used the exact same arguments (ie: making shit up) and ad-hom attacks (ie: arrogance) as theists use when defending the idea of god.

Etheric? Are you kidding? The states of matter (5: solid, liquid, gaseous, and plasma) describe the matter's thermal energy. Is "ethiric" lower or higher in energy than the real material states? What are the exact properties of the state? Or is it just made up?

You have the gall to wag your finger at us about "attitude"? It's not an attitude to say "if something exists it leaves evidence". It's not attitude to recognize that "the invisible and the non-existent look a lot alike". It is however attitude to claim that something that has been about for over a hundred years (homeopathy) and has been examined untold times by untold scientists and found lacking is somehow real anyway. It's the attitude of "What I want to be real, is real."

Also known as "being deluded".

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Luminon:

JillSwift wrote:
Luminon: You've used the exact same arguments (ie: making shit up) and ad-hom attacks (ie: arrogance) as theists use when defending the idea of god.

Well, I write as I think, and if I think I see an arrogance, I'm sometimes unfortunately not diplomatic enough about it. It's diffcult to see from the other's point of view, we ignore each other's facts. You probably don't even believe, that I have any facts.

JillSwift wrote:
Etheric? Are you kidding? The states of matter (5: solid, liquid, gaseous, and plasma) describe the matter's thermal energy. Is "ethiric" lower or higher in energy than the real material states? What are the exact properties of the state? Or is it just made up?
"etheric" is a work therm, it shouldn't be taken literally. Or do you also believe, that neutrinos have actually different kinds of smell? It's not that when you'll heat up a gas, you'll get an etheric matter, here it describes a difference between density, or solidity, of single matter and ether states. If any scientist would discover these planes of existence, there will be new, different and certainly better sounding therms for it. Until then, this is how it's known.
A complete set of properties is unknown, this is why we need scientists, to find them out, their scientific usage may cause the greatest revolution since a discovery of electricity. Without a methodic research, just some people will be aware of certain aspects of etheric matter, like that it serves like a medium, a conductor for energies, an information storage, an extension of material life, and that it may feel like a gooey weightless mass, floating in space.
No, I didn't made up anything. It's not a matter of faith. All living beings have etheric body parts, and I'm trained to use mine as an extension of touch. It's just a question of training. I can focus my touch sense specially on etheric matter to start perceiving it,  and I can do that just by a single thought. Every time, 100% of attempts was so far succesful. I really don't know what others examined so much and failed to find, I don't even have to search, I just reach for etheric matter, and it's always there.
Well, I actually can't switch it off again, I must always wait till it fades away (which may take even more than a hour, depends on attention), and until then, I feel the etheric gooey matter crawl on my hands or just float around me. I can feel it's exact shape, density, elasticity, stickiness, feeling of temperature, even color (well, I'm just exploring that possibility recently), and I can change and create it by a thought and maintain it with some effort. It just doesn't go away when I stop believing in it, this is, I guess, a definition of reality. Yes, it's very strange feeling (as said one my friend who learned it too, by a simple exercise) but I'm used to it for all my life, I'd once would like to see, how it feels like for a complete newbie. It would surely scare the hell out of you at first. For now, you just feel a little freezing on your back, realizing, that out there, there are people deluded like this, in the dark night behind your windows.

JillSwift wrote:
You have the gall to wag your finger at us about "attitude"? It's not an attitude to say "if something exists it leaves evidence". It's not attitude to recognize that "the invisible and the non-existent look a lot alike". It is however attitude to claim that something that has been about for over a hundred years (homeopathy) and has been examined untold times by untold scientists and found lacking is somehow real anyway. It's the attitude of "What I want to be real, is real."

Also known as "being deluded".


Well, I've got more evidence than even a blockminded person would need (if I'd be one). I'm trying to gather more evidence or attention for others, so I'll support this idea to not be forgotten in future. I hope in a future scientific research of these planes of existence, but it's not a question if they exist or not, I have that answer already. I expect just what you expect from me, an exact properties of etheric planes, I'm well aware, that nobody can research it alone, with a single point of view.  Unlike you, I don't expect it all at once, everything new has a diffcult beginnings. I don't want you to necessarily believe me, I'm just making this kind of information known as best I can, maybe someone will try it out of a curiosity, and sincirely. (so-called psi-sphere technique may be a good start ) For those, there's an advice, don't ponder about what you read, if you want, just do it. No matter how incoherently it sounds, do it, no matter how. This can't be done as a mere reaction on instructions or text, start acting on your own.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Well, I've got

Luminon wrote:
Well, I've got more evidence than even a blockminded person would need (if I'd be one).
The hell you do. If you did you'd present it. All you do is make assertions and point to web sites that make similar assertions. Fallacy of popularity.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:Luminon

JillSwift wrote:
Luminon wrote:
Well, I've got more evidence than even a blockminded person would need (if I'd be one).
The hell you do. If you did you'd present it. All you do is make assertions and point to web sites that make similar assertions. Fallacy of popularity.

Of course I make assertions, I write a text. Excuse me, but do you expect anything else than some kind of a text? Do you expect a text as an evidence? I'm sorry, the real evidence is only one per capita, it's in fact an extended sensitivity, so you can perceive the things I mentioned. No text can be compared to this ultimate evidence. Nobody can extend your own consciousness, but you. Do it and you will have your evidence. I don't care if you do it or not, nothing changes for me, but it migth a lot for you. Notice, that I won't make myself responsible for any succes or failure of such an attempt, it's simply dependent on your effort and intention, not mine.

I somehow didn't notice the fallacy of popularity. I though it requires some web pages about the etheric matter and I don't remember posting any links like this. Also, I don't remember appealing to a greater number of people, just one my friend, that's hardly enough to make an argument (just an assertion). I could mention some forums focused on ESP, but I didn't do it, I don't know the guys there personally. This is not a philosophical battle of arguments, this is a description of my daily routine. You don't like it, fine, it's not the end of days, you just don't believe in a piece of text, that is, how it is for you. But you can hardly expect me to become un-deluded from my interpersonally confirmed, lifetime daily experience, which still persists, also in the moment I write this.

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Of course I

Luminon wrote:
Of course I make assertions, I write a text. Excuse me, but do you expect anything else than some kind of a text?
Yes, I do. I expect independent measurements of a phenomena. If this supposed "extended consciousness" existed, then it could be measured or its effects could be measured. The same with an "ethereal" state of matter. But all attempts to measure these things or thier effects result in no data.

Why?

Because, like all things that do not exist, they don't leave anything behind to measure.

Your "personal experience" is due to confirmation bias and delusion. I say that with great certainty, certainty that could be changed if you would provide solid, empirical evidence.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
This is getting old

Simple question, Luminon:  Will you, or won't you accept the results of a controlled, double-blind test?

Not childhood anecdotes, not unsupervised "studies" from non-scientists with mail-order degrees; a double-blind test, where bias (either for or against) cannot affect the results?

 

As a bonus question:  If someone were to consume an entire bottle of homeopathic remedy, what do you think will happen?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Simple

zarathustra wrote:
Simple question, Luminon:  Will you, or won't you accept the results of a

controlled, double-blind test

?

Not childhood anecdotes, not unsupervised "studies" from non-scientists with mail-order degrees; a double-blind test, where bias (either for or against) cannot affect the results?


Yes I would accept the results, as a fact, that the test went this and this way.  Assuming, that everything else is all right. There must be a mutual confidence between scientists and test participants. A double-blind test is a good method, it's a standard, but it must be used with a proper testing principle and without any unpleasant surprises. I believe, that a test meeting all criteria would generally support my side, but it would raise many questions for a further work, because the reality is described to be much more complicated. However, these are the nearest things for us to get known with, if we manage to create a mutual trust between science and esoterics-practising people.
 

zarathustra wrote:
As a bonus question:  If someone were to consume an entire bottle of homeopathic remedy, what do you think will happen?
I really don't know, I can only speculate. I suppose the effect would be temporarily increased. It probably depends on whether you actually need that kind of remedy or not. Certain healing means have significantly lesser effect, if the body is relatively healthy, or it doesn't have a kind of ailment the healing means are designed for.

JillSwift wrote:

Luminon wrote:
Of course I make assertions, I write a text. Excuse me, but do you expect anything else than some kind of a text?
Yes, I do. I expect independent measurements of a phenomena. If this supposed "extended consciousness" existed, then it could be measured or its effects could be measured. The same with an "ethereal" state of matter. But all attempts to measure these things or thier effects result in no data.

Why?
Because, like all things that do not exist, they don't leave anything behind to measure.
Your "personal experience" is due to confirmation bias and delusion. I say that with great certainty, certainty that could be changed if you would provide solid, empirical evidence.


Would be these measurements in a form of text? ....just kidding. The problem of measuring is in measuring devices - our instruments are just too crude, they're solidly material, unable to react on etheric planes of existence. However, there could be one promising machine for this kind of experiment. I have heard of a plants, connected to a lie detector, reacting on a nearby person's thoughts, and very significantly, even remembering the person. Someone even considered the plants to be used as an alarm trigger. A plant, as a living being, and unable to lie, could be a good basis for experiments. A trained human would be better, but in tests people tends to not trust human witnesses.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
For fuck's sake, is there

For fuck's sake, is there any utterly absurd insane nonsense besides religion you don't believe! Homeopathy, UFO's Past life regression and now plantperception? The tests he used were very seriously flawed. How the fuck can plants perceive anything without a brain, nervous system, or even sensory organs? You seriously lack in the logic, common sense and scientific understanding departments. Whatever school you went to wants its diploma back.

You seriously need to be bitch-slapped by James Randi. Are you serious or are you here as a joke parodying this shit? I never thought anyone was that gullible. If you really believe all that, then this is for you.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:zarathustra

Luminon wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
Simple question, Luminon:  Will you, or won't you accept the results of a

controlled, double-blind test


Yes I would accept the results, as a fact, that the test went this and this way.  Assuming, that everything else is all right.

That is the nature of a double-blind test; neither the investigators nor the participants can skew the results by their own biases.

Luminon wrote:
A double-blind test is a good method, it's a standard, but it must be used with a proper testing principle and without any unpleasant surprises.

Unpleasant surprises such as what?  That homeopathy is a complete failure?  I would find that neither unpleasant, nor a surprise.

Luminon wrote:
I believe, that a test meeting all criteria would generally support my side...

Great.  Let us know when you're ready to proceed with such a test.

Luminon wrote:

zarathustra wrote:
As a bonus question:  If someone were to consume an entire bottle of homeopathic remedy, what do you think will happen?
I really don't know, I can only speculate.

Speculate?  What happened to that "confidence" you were talking about?

Luminon wrote:

I suppose the effect would be temporarily increased. It probably depends on whether you actually need that kind of remedy or not. Certain healing means have significantly lesser effect, if the body is relatively healthy, or it doesn't have a kind of ailment the healing means are designed for.

"...the effect would be temporarily increased."  Actually, Randi has consumed an entire bottle of homeopathic pills on multiple occasions for demonstration purposes, with no effect, much less a "temporarily increased" effect.  Surprised?  Unpleasantly?

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:MattShizzle

Luminon wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

I pretty much give up here. Luminon you continue to post things that are utterly absurd and downright paranoid. It seems you have no idea how science actually works. Do you wear a tinfoil helmet so the alien or CIA satellites can't control your mind? Are there any irrational ideas outside religion you don't support? So far you buy the absurd claims of homeopathy, past life regression and I believe psychics. I would recommend some of James Randi's books, checking out skepdic.com , Also this book I have read quite a few times (a good source for debunking pseudoscience for anyone) - Quantum Leaps in the Wrong Direction - where real science ends and pseudoscience begins 


All right, I'll give it up here too, just keep in mind, that there are people with very different life experience, who follows the same logics, but comes to different conclusions.
I just write, what very often happens to me, eventually to members of E.K., for mainly several last years and before. (E.K. is the citizen association for a personal development, residing in this house). I don't close my eyes, even if things I experience doesn't fit into the current scientific knowledge. That's not my problem, a science should reflect a reality, and when it doesn't, it's time for science to change. When you don't believe in non-material stuff, that's OK, you have your reasons. But I have to, I hold a proof in my hand, so it's not a question of belief anymore. You can write as many times you want, that this and this phenomenon had been completely refuted, but this doesn't erase it from my hand (it feels quite strange), or explain it in a range of current official knowledge.
I am vaguely aware of people wearing tinfoil helmets and afraid of CIA mind controlling satellites, but I have never seen or heard anything which could support it, so I don't consider it possible. Even woo-woo misguided people avoids more misguided people than them. Everything, what I'm sure about, must show to me or to people who I know and trust. Nothing more, nothing less. Blame the non-material world, that haunts my house, for incoherence with a current scientific knowledge, not me Smiling

 Just don't ban me, I really liked the free podcasts, I consider buying a few of the first shows, and I need an online english communication (for a practice). A chat would be nice, but last time I was there, everyone was talking about food and ninjas.

 

 

Luminon,

 

Which/what god do you believe in?

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:For fuck's

MattShizzle wrote:
For fuck's sake, is there any utterly absurd insane nonsense besides religion you don't believe! Homeopathy, UFO's Past life regression and now

plantperception?

 The tests he used were very seriously flawed. How the fuck can plants perceive anything without a brain, nervous system, or even sensory organs? You seriously lack in the logic, common sense and scientific understanding departments. Whatever school you went to wants its diploma back.


I don't say I really believe it - wasn't there enough of "maybe"s and "could"s? It was just an idea, last time I remember I saw something about this...plantperception was maybe 15 years ago in a book about nature, in a plant section. It was a normal book, no woo-hoo as far as I know, this small part just stayed in my memory. Since then, I heard no credible news of it. If the plantperception was actually caused by a wrong setting of polygraph, well, so that was a big mistake. It's actually quite weird, that it was rather seriously mentioned in a nature book, together with scientific facts about flora and fauna. I'd have read something first, but I didn't really know how this idea is called in english, well, plantperception, I'll keep it in mind.


zarathustra wrote:
Unpleasant surprises such as what?  That homeopathy is a complete failure?  I would find that neither unpleasant, nor a surprise.
To give you an example, if the test would involve Tesla's "radiant energy" tablets, their effect can be restricted or outshadowed by certain polymers or organic materials, like teflon. If any mischievous people would want to test Tesla's tablet and ensure a kind of result they want, they could "forget" some teflon surfaces in a testing area, on vital places. If it even would be discovered, they could claim it as a coincidence, and then apologize for that unfortunate mistake, but the media would already spread the previous results. I mean, there should be no such unpleasant surprises, no dirty tricks.

zarathustra wrote:
Speculate?  What happened to that "confidence" you were talking about?
Unlike James Randi, I don't waste homeopathics or any other medicine, when I don't need it. If Randi would get for example, a non-bacterial sore throat, and take the correctly prescribed Boiron pills (which I support) then there should be an effect. But if he was healthy, or took homeopathics for something else than he had a problem with, then it could hardly do any effect, there was no opportunity. 
For example, if you don't have a headache, and take pills against headache, would you expect your headache to disappear?
As I see, Randi took "homeopathic sleep pills". What's that? Never heard of it. I've used only things like oscillococcinum, nux vomica, mercurius solubilis,  Angin Heel, and so on. Homeopathic sleep pills, well, what will be next, a bacon with caffeine, or a chewing gum with a ham flavor? Yeah, and this both will be labeled as "homeopathic".


aiia wrote:

Luminon,

Which/what god do you believe in?


I don't believe in a god, this concept is a mistake for defining of anything morally or spiritually superior.
My worldview has no belief, except of believing in my own senses. Other things are provisory theories, I use them as tools, when they work for me, fine, when not, they can be updated or replaced. They're just tools, not a thing to identify with, just like words or concepts, nothing obligatory. When you ask me if I believe in a god, you ask me if I'm inferior to a tool.
If you'd like to want what I identify myself with, let's say, I like paradoxes, like unity, and diversity at the same time.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Plant perception has been

Plant perception has been completely debunked - including on Mythbusters. Not even going to bring up there's serious doubt whether lie detectors actually work - that's why they're not admissible in court. I believe the problem was what was actually being detected was water moving through the plant. Your comparison to headache pills was inadequate - I wouldn't expect my "headache" to go away if I didn't have one, but if I took an entire bottle of actual sleeping pills I would expect to die or at least wind up in the ER.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
Luminon's "unpleasant

Luminon's "unpleasant surprises" thing is not a criterion for acceptance of results. It's an escape clause so he won't have to accept.

With it he can call into question any result that differs from what he wants. Observe: his questions about Randi's testing.

S.O.P. for any pseudoscience apologist.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote: aiia

Luminon wrote:

aiia wrote:

Luminon,

Which/what god do you believe in?


I don't believe in a god, this concept is a mistake for defining of anything morally or spiritually superior.

You're not making any sense. Is English your normal language?
If the word 'god' is a mistake for defining "a concept" that is morally or spiritually superior what word can be used?

What is this thing that you are implicating that is morally or spiritually superior? Are you Hindu?


Quote:
My worldview has no belief, except of believing in my own senses.

Then what "spirit" are you refering to?

 

Quote:
Other things are provisory theories, I use them as tools, when they work for me, fine, when not, they can be updated or replaced.

But you just said you believe in using your own senses. You contradict yourself.

 

Quote:
They're just tools, not a thing to identify with, just like words or concepts, nothing obligatory.

What are you talking about? What tools?

 


Quote:
When you ask me if I believe in a god, you ask me if I'm inferior to a tool.

I don't think there is any god, so I am not "asking if you are inferior".


Quote:
If you'd like to want what I identify myself with, let's say, I like paradoxes, like unity, and diversity at the same time.

 

What paradox? What unity? You do not make any sense.

 

 

 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
..

JillSwift wrote:
Luminon's "unpleasant surprises" thing is not a criterion for acceptance of results. It's an escape clause so he won't have to accept.

With it he can call into question any result that differs from what he wants. Observe: his questions about Randi's testing.

S.O.P. for any pseudoscience apologist.

After the text, everything is revealed, right? And scientists usually aren't deeply educated in woo-woo, right? So, there's a possibility, they could unintentionally change something seemingly harmless, but vital for a test results. A woo-woo related person may recognize it, but only after the test, when all the process is revealed. Such a reason for "escape clause" can't be anything made up on place, but a fact already generally known and written in woo-woo books, magazines and theories. This is, how I meant it, and the example too. There must be a confidence, that nobody will do such a thing, unintentionally or not.

aiia wrote:
You're not making any sense. Is English your normal language?
If the word 'god' is a mistake for defining "a concept" that is morally or spiritually superior what word can be used?

No, english is not my normal language, but that's not the problem here. You surely listened RRS shows, they showed God immoral and they were damn right. A spirituality, as I understand it, is a part of higher morality. It's defined as a way you deal with world around, within, and things greater than you. (no matter if you're aware of them)        

aiia wrote:
My worldview has no belief, except of believing in my own senses.
But you just said you believe in using your own senses. You contradict yourself.
Yeah, you made a good point. My senses are the only tools I can't replace, I have no other choice than to believe them. Things like words, thoughts, therms and also theories, are tools for communication and thinking. Theories and philosophies are nothing else, than just more words. They're again a cognitive instruments. All such instruments can be replaced for some better, when it's needed, except for  the senses. But the senses can be willingly updated and improved, or discovered some "new", which is my case, among others. A little citation from one book, for this topic: your body restrains you no more, than legs restrains an eagle for flight.

aiia wrote:
Quote:
When you ask me if I believe in a god, you ask me if I'm inferior to a tool.
I don't think there is any god, so I am not "asking if you are inferior".
No offense, but all this forum is based on a considering believers in god(s) as inferior, though mostly benevolently. I'd be labeled as theist, but as I mentioned, I don't identify myself with labels, philosophies or concepts. They're limited, they will never cover the whole reality.

aiia wrote:
What paradox? What unity? You do not make any sense.
Paradox is an assertion, connecting notions considered as opposite, into a new, meaningful and surprising unit. The senselessnes of paradox is only illlusory. Wikipedia definition.
 

 

 

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Is it just me or should

Is it just me or should believers in homeopathy and ID get together?

Both can be considered science...if science is redefined.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Is it just

jcgadfly wrote:
Is it just me or should believers in homeopathy and ID get together?

Both can be considered science...if science is redefined.


You mean intelligent design, right? Well, I won't pretend I know, how a chaotic environment can produce a non-homogenous, highly structured thing, like a fully working and living cell, nothing simplier is acceptable for a start of life. No viruses, no crystals, no micro globes or bubbles full of organic molecules, but a cell.
I also don't understand how a main propagator of intelligent design can be a book, which just says in the beginning, that God did it, and then by one row of text skips milliards of years, before God started to play his interactive version of Popolous with Jewish tribes. And people who believes in that book.
I know, I think too much, dammit, that thing behind my eyes needs a serious beer flush.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:jcgadfly

Luminon wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Is it just me or should believers in homeopathy and ID get together?

Both can be considered science...if science is redefined.


You mean intelligent design, right? Well, I won't pretend I know, how a chaotic environment can produce a non-homogenous, highly structured thing, like a fully working and living cell, nothing simplier is acceptable for a start of life. No viruses, no crystals, no micro globes or bubbles full of organic molecules, but a cell.
I also don't understand how a main propagator of intelligent design can be a book, which just says in the beginning, that God did it, and then by one row of text skips milliards of years, before God started to play his interactive version of Popolous with Jewish tribes. And people who believes in that book.
I know, I think too much, dammit, that thing behind my eyes needs a serious beer flush.

Well, if I'm reading your posts correctly, you believe that substances with no capacity for information storage can hold information...

Doesn't seem all that much different from astrology and alchemy.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Tarpan
Special Agent
Posts: 26
Joined: 2006-06-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't get the impressoin

I don't get the impressoin you're doing any thinking on the issue of Homeopathy.  Reciting, perhaps, but not critical thinking.

Homeopathy has been around a long time.  If there was any truth to it, it would have been found...or at least the possibility that it might be true would have been found.  But there is nothing.  Nothing at all that shows that it even has the potential to be truth.  It has less foundational evidence than a belief in god.  The entire basis for belief in homeopathy is "faith" that it works.

Homeopathy is, at best, a placebo.  That's all.  There is no test, no evidence, no study, nothing that has shown it any more effective than a placebo.


aiia
Superfan
aiia's picture
Posts: 1923
Joined: 2006-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:aiia

Luminon wrote:

aiia wrote:
You're not making any sense. Is English your normal language?
If the word 'god' is a mistake for defining "a concept" that is morally or spiritually superior what word can be used?

No, english is not my normal language,


This  might be why you are not making sense.

Quote:
but that's not the problem here.

What problem are you referring to?

Quote:
You surely listened RRS shows, they showed God immoral and they were damn right. A spirituality, as I understand it, is a part of higher morality. It's defined as a way you deal with world around, within, and things greater than you. (no matter if you're aware of them)

What is this "spirituality", "higher morality", "things greater than you"?
If you're not aware of it how can you make the claim that it exists?

 

Quote:
aiia wrote:
My worldview has no belief, except of believing in my own senses.
But you just said you believe in using your own senses. You contradict yourself.
Yeah, you made a good point. My senses are the only tools I can't replace, I have no other choice than to believe them. Things like words, thoughts, therms and also theories, are tools for communication and thinking. Theories and philosophies are nothing else, than just more words. They're again a cognitive instruments. All such instruments can be replaced for some better, when it's needed, except for  the senses. But the senses can be willingly updated and improved, or discovered some "new", which is my case, among others. A little citation from one book, for this topic: your body restrains you no more, than legs restrains an eagle for flight.

When you talk about your "senses" are you talking about sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell? What is better than these?
Thinking is good but I think the employment of logic is missing.

Quote:
aiia wrote:
Quote:
When you ask me if I believe in a god, you ask me if I'm inferior to a tool.
I don't think there is any god, so I am not "asking if you are inferior".
No offense, but all this forum is based on a considering believers in god(s) as inferior, though mostly benevolently. I'd be labeled as theist, but as I mentioned, I don't identify myself with labels, philosophies or concepts. They're limited, they will never cover the whole reality.

You either believe there's a god or you do not. You cannot believe both. I think believers are irrational. The belief in supernature is irrational.

Quote:
aiia wrote:
What paradox? What unity? You do not make any sense.
Paradox is an assertion, connecting notions considered as opposite, into a new, meaningful and surprising unit. The senselessnes of paradox is only illlusory. Wikipedia definition.

 Here you are not making sense.

 

 

 

 

People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
aiia wrote: What problem are

aiia wrote:
What problem are you referring to?

See below, I'll mention that topic, I hope.

aiia wrote:
Quote:
You surely listened RRS shows, they showed God immoral and they were damn right. A spirituality, as I understand it, is a part of higher morality. It's defined as a way you deal with world around, within, and things greater than you. (no matter if you're aware of them)

What is this "spirituality", "higher morality", "things greater than you"?
If you're not aware of it how can you make the claim that it exists?

The morality can be divided in four stages.
1) to fill own stomach (biologic level)
2) to be socially active and succesful in society (majority of today's people)
3) to become a better person (an increasing minority)
4) already being holy
Well, in fact, a spirituality is a property of all people, it's just sometimes guised as a lust for power, money or women. Whoever gets for example money, soon realizes, that it is not what he wanted and still wants something else. This searching eventually leads to higher morality levels, which shows the spirituality as more what it really is.

To be precise, I am aware of some things greater than me, and I see, that others are in interaction with them, even if they're not consciously aware of it. This is what I wanted to write.

aiia wrote:

When you talk about your "senses" are you talking about sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell? What is better than these?
Thinking is good but I think the employment of logic is missing.

Yes, these five senses. But even better is keeping them at a full extent and exploring the possibilities further. People are not necessarily limited on a physiological definition of a body senses. Five of them is physiological and has a clear limitations (for example, we can't see or hear radar waves),  but the etherically material or non-material rest is a versatile receiving apparatus, not easy to descibe by distinguished senses.

aiia wrote:

You either believe there's a god or you do not. You cannot believe both. I think believers are irrational. The belief in supernature is irrational.
I think it's not so simple. The world is not just black or white. I know of quite a few of things, which were, are or can be called God. Some of them existed and doesn't anymore, some of them exists even today and some of them never existed. Some of them were called God and are till today, but shouldn't be, and some of them weren't called so, but are the best candidates for this therm. The current christianic idea of God is a combination of several these phenomenons, beings, or notions, thus it's just a legend, a thing which never existed. However, there is several of various other phenomenons, which uses this and related religious "places in mythology" as a space for their activity. This is why I find the question "do you believe in god?" as very complicated. Let's say, I think, that some aspects of the God legend had in their times a rational basis, but were incorrectly interpreted.
According to all I know, some things exists and some doesn't, if something needs a belief, without any fact supporting it, I don't take it fully seriously. Yes, belief in anything you don't have a rational reason for, is irrational. As you know, evidence must be followed, wherever it leads. I have the evidence, so I follow it, you don't have it, so it doesn't lead you anywhere, both cases behaves correctly. It would be very suspicious, if you'd have no rational evidence and yet you'd make any assumptions. The less I'm pleased if you think it about me. From my point of view, I just take into account a very scarce, but substantial evidence. Seriously, it must be scary, does people think, that when someone "believes" in one supposed "nonsense", that he can equally easily believe in another nonsense, like to go and commit a murder?

By the way, is there a word for a phenomenon, which can't be disproven, only positively proven? I'm just asking, I'm almost sure there must be somewhere a special therm for it, together with a heap of interesting reading about it's controversy.

aiia wrote:
Quote:
aiia wrote:
What paradox? What unity? You do not make any sense.
Paradox is an assertion, connecting notions considered as opposite, into a new, meaningful and surprising unit. The senselessnes of paradox is only illlusory. Wikipedia definition.

 Here you are not making sense.


Well, it's quite precise translation of what is written in local version of Wikipedia as a definition of paradox. The sense is, that paradox means, that some contradictions can be in fact unified, creating a new fact. What you see as opposites, aren't in fact exact opposites and unifying them is possible.
For example, I have heard some very rational people to say, that if non-material things exists, we can never know of them, because we're material, and matter is the opposite of spirit.  But it is, like they would claim, that a temperature of 10 Celsius degrees is the opposite of 100 Celsius degrees. All is just a various quality on the same scale. This is, how I understand things, the world is not just black and white. If I'd extend this metaphor for a bit, there are at least also a dimensions of lightness, color, and saturation (aka h,s,v), and all colors are just various qualities of a white color, which contains all colors

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


metroatheists
BloggerRRS local affiliate
metroatheists's picture
Posts: 57
Joined: 2008-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:Homeopathics

Luminon wrote:



Homeopathics isn't based on chemicals. It's based on information. You can say it's not physical, but it's physical just like are data on your NAND Flash memory. It's just a change in microstructure. You certainly know the japanese guy's experiments, when he took the same water and put a papers with words around it and then he froze it and photographed the ice crystals. Water with words like love enveloped around it had beautiful crystallic structure, bad words caused the photo look like  a sewage. You see, the water is really an information carrier. It's quite unique substance, I have read somewhere has the highest known energy in its chemical bonds, it can gather the most heat in it, and so on.

 

Water can not be imparted with the chemical information of other molecules and I challenge you or anyone else to show otherwise.  No scientific evidence has ever indicated such a thing and modern scientific theory completely contradicts it.


ronin-dog
Scientist
ronin-dog's picture
Posts: 419
Joined: 2007-10-18
User is offlineOffline
Homeopathy =

Homeopathy = bullshit.

Although I think most alternative medicine is total BS, I agree with peppermint that you can't totally dis all of it. Modern medicine is derived from traditional medicine. However modern medicine has had lots of research done on it and is proven (yes, drugs have side effects, so do traditional cures if there is anything in them). The problem is that even in traditional medicines it is a very mixed bag and we need proper scientific testing to see what works and what does not.

There are also more charletans out there than real practitioners, which makes it even harder to find the truth.

Also a lack of quality control, I know of cases of lead poisoning caused by people taking herbs mixed in a sweat shop in India with lead mortar and pestles.

In Oz the government subsidizes most real medicine and medical tests, yet people will spend thousands of dollars on unproven rubbish.

Zen-atheist wielding Occam's katana.

Jesus said, "Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." - Luke 12:51


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
I just read on an old

I just read on an old Randi.org article that that "Head On" product is a homeopathic remedy! If you aren't aware for at least 2 years they have had an extremely annoying commercial that is on quite often - showing a woman rubbing a stick of the product on her head while an announcer keeps repeating "Head On - apply dircetly to the forehead." Apparently it contains homeopathic ammounts of an herbal product and a cleaner in a stick of wax. I always wondered why the commercial never actually said what the product was for - maybe because if they don't claim it actually does anything they can't be sued or prosecuted for fraud - after all, they only told you to apply it to your forehead - they didn't say it actually does anything.

Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team


snafu
atheist
snafu's picture
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
I thought I'd add a couple

I thought I'd add a couple of things about supposed Scientific research done in the name of "water memory"  and leaped upon by the homeopathic community. (btw, I know it's crap)

 

The most popularised research was that done by JAcques Benveniste in 1988 which was actually published as a paper in science journal, Nature.   As can be expec ted, the scientific community were intensely skeptical and called for the experiment to be repeated under the watchful eye of an outside panel including James Randi.   His results were never repeated satisfactorily and he was, quite rightly, pariahed from the scientific commmunity for continuing to cling to his beliefs and even suggesting that the information stored by water could be transmitted electronically - Imagine that!   Hold your glass of water by the phone, call your homeopathist and, hey presto!, instant cure.

 

20th anniversary article by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7505286.stm

Link to Benveniste's company Digibio where you can buy your very own digital homeopathy kit for the bargain price of $1000: http://www.digibio.com/

Link to the Annal of Imrobable research, who awarded Benveniste 2 IgNobel prizes for his work :http://improbable.com/ig/winners/#ig1997

"The World is my country, science my religion" - Christiaan Huygens


snafu
atheist
snafu's picture
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
MattShizzle wrote:How the

MattShizzle wrote:

How the fuck can plants perceive anything without a brain, nervous system, or even sensory organs? You seriously lack in the logic, common sense and scientific understanding departments.

 

Question Matt:

How do plants know to open up in the daytime and how do sunflowers move to follow the sun?   They perceive light and dark.

How does the venus fly trap perceive the fly that lands on it?   It perceives touch.

Why do shoots of plants grow up and roots go down?   They perceive gravity. 

Many plants have inducible defense molecules which are only produced after the plant has perceived an attack by a herbivore or insect. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5684/665)

 

I agree that none of these stimuli/response pairings are likely to be conscious but they DO happen.  Many of them you can go and witness for yourself.   If there's any other science behind it then I'd like to know (I've done the experiment where you germinate a seedling in a rotating tube to prove that plants perceive gravity and everyone knows that most plants grow towards sunlight).

 

 

"The World is my country, science my religion" - Christiaan Huygens


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
snafu wrote:MattShizzle

snafu wrote:

MattShizzle wrote:

How the fuck can plants perceive anything without a brain, nervous system, or even sensory organs? You seriously lack in the logic, common sense and scientific understanding departments.

 

Question Matt:

How do plants know to open up in the daytime and how do sunflowers move to follow the sun?   They perceive light and dark.

How does the venus fly trap perceive the fly that lands on it?   It perceives touch.

Why do shoots of plants grow up and roots go down?   They perceive gravity. 

Many plants have inducible defense molecules which are only produced after the plant has perceived an attack by a herbivore or insect. (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5684/665)

 

I agree that none of these stimuli/response pairings are likely to be conscious but they DO happen.  Many of them you can go and witness for yourself.   If there's any other science behind it then I'd like to know (I've done the experiment where you germinate a seedling in a rotating tube to prove that plants perceive gravity and everyone knows that most plants grow towards sunlight).

 

 

Is that perception or simply responses to stimuli?

 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Why do some people's

Why do some people's reverence for one infamous book not extend to the dictionary too? They'd save themselves a lot of embarrassment if they opened the latter with anything like the same frequency as the former.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
snafu wrote:I agree that

snafu wrote:
I agree that none of these stimuli/response pairings are likely to be conscious but they DO happen.
Then they're not perception.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Well pointed out JillSwift.

Well pointed out JillSwift. Shoud atheists mabe find a sugar-daddy too so that we can afford to leave dictionaries behind us in every hotel room?

 

The world might be a safer place ...

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


snafu
atheist
snafu's picture
Posts: 101
Joined: 2006-12-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Is that

jcgadfly wrote:

Is that perception or simply responses to stimuli?

 

Surely to respond to any stimulus it must be perceived in some way?

"The World is my country, science my religion" - Christiaan Huygens


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
snafu wrote:jcgadfly

snafu wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Is that perception or simply responses to stimuli?

 

Surely to respond to any stimulus it must be perceived in some way?

I meant a conscious perception as JillSwift brought up earlier. apologies for the lack of clarity.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


pablotar
pablotar's picture
Posts: 117
Joined: 2008-10-23
User is offlineOffline
  Hi, everybody! I've been

  Hi, everybody! I've been lurking around for a couple of days and figure I'd add my two cents:

I used herbs and homeopathy for years and I always thought it worked because I felt better. Lately (2 years or so ) I only really use aspirin or ibuprofen(symptom blockers, fever reducer) and guess what? I always get better anyway! My immune system seems to be doing it's duty, for some strange reason, all by itself! ( I probably wouldn't recommend this for staph infections or testicular tortion, though).

Oh, and caffeine. Lots and lots of caffeine. (I wonder if I dilute a tiny amount of valium into a bunch of water would I be up for days?). Smiling

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Eden had a 25% murder rate and incest was rampant.