@marbles:

Let me get this straight... A young kid gets vaccinated, suffers an adverse reaction to it which leads to "autism like" symptoms. And the vaccine did NOT cause autism? The kid was going to get autism anyway? Bullshit. You have no evidence to back up that position.

Yup, that's what I'm saying because they don't suffer 'adverse reactions'. What tends to happen is that a kid gets their shots, sometime later they start showing signs of autism, and then the parents start trying to look for a reason and so latch on to the last thing that happened, no matter HOW UNRELATED it is.

Autism starts showing itself, generally, around the age that kids get these vaccines. They're just two things that happen around the same bloody time.

You have lost the ability (or never had it) to be able to see how things happening around the same time are not necessarily related. You have to show a CAUSAL link. And none have been shown.

YES, in a tiny segment of the population there are adverse affects to vaccines. YES these adverse affects are sad and horrible for those it occurs to, but also does occur due to pre-existing conditions/predispositions (so it'd be great if you could pre-screen for these, but can't as yet). These are tiny percentages, and, while bad, cannot really be avoided, NO treatment of ANY kind has zero potential side effects.

And all that which you quote there... I'll chose to not even read it considering the source... Neil Miller Director of the Thinktwice Global Vaccine Institute. a bullshit anti vaccination group who peddle herbal clensers and fucking homeopathy. Sorry, anyone who gives homeopathy any credence whatsoever is a blathering idiot in any scientific way.

So, sorry, anything written by him can now be written off as 'horseshit'.

@SDGundamX

On the So-Called Benifits of Religious Belief

First, I'm going to assume that you simply googled "religion+health+studies" or stg like that, and did not read before posting; frankly, I don't blame you. I can only hope you are not as intellectually (and downright) dishonest as the second link you posted: the very first study cited is completely misinterpreted; basically, since kissing multiple partners can increase probability of meningococcal disease, and strict religious tradition would prevent that, religion prevents meningococcal disease. Yeah, really strong science in favour of faith right there. Some of the studies cited actually prove the opposite of what the site is peddling, but they excuse this by accusing the meddling of "Jews and Buddhists" in the prayer groups. I'm actually surprised at some of the studies the website cites, one of which concludes that "Certain forms of religiousness may increase the risk of death." Some of the studies make no mention of religion whatsoever. I could go on, but the point is made.

As for the studies - and they exist - that show positive correlation between health and religion, they concern only the social benefits of religion as community*. The so-called "New Atheists" are the first to point out this positive role, although the uniting and socially reinforcing factor of religion is the same force that fosters and reinforces hate, prejudice and discrimination against the self (guilt) and the "Other" (non-members of the ingroup, "heathens", gays, blacks, "Westerners", you name it). When people use the socially unifying and reinforcing benefits of religious organisations to defend religious beliefs, a certain comparison quickly comes to mind, which Godwin's law prohibits me from making...

As for faith itself, a recent study suggests that it can actually have negative effects on health, because of the stress and guilt believers put upon themselves when prayed for (link). Regardless, even if a positive placebo effect could/can be attributed to faith/rel. belief, it does not make it any less idiotic or objectionable than the belief in homeopathy or vaudou.
_{(if interested in what I think of the "faith is comforting" argument, pm me, I'm filling this thread enough as is)}

Your "two-sides of same coin" analogy fails entirely: telling a believer they're delusional is not denying their perception of their own happiness. A child happy at the prospect of Santa delivering presents is delusional, but truly happy. The idea that there is the same amount of evidence against and for religious belief is pure ludicrous. The Abrahamic God (let's not bring in the thousand and one others for now) has been logically disproven, even before el Jeebs showed up with his promise of hellfire. There is also substantial evidence that he is man-made, as are the book(s) describing him, which are full of inconsistencies (and outright fallacies) themselves.

Your comment about John Smith suggests that the only evidence that could convict a fraudster is confession; good thing you aren't a judge! Seriously though, your doubt probably stems from your lack of acquaintance with the evidence. You can start by reading his brief biography on Wikipedia; his con trick of "glass-seeing" (looking at shiny stones in a hat and pretending to see the location of treasure), for which he was arrested several times, is eerily familiar to the birth of the Book of Mormon (looking into a hat and "transcribing" gold plates that probably did not exist). He even had to change a passage after losing some pages of the transcript He received a divine revelation that the exact pages of the transcript that he lost needed to be changed, and that God had foreseen the loss of those papers (link).

The further one goes back in history, the harder it is to get historical evidence against religious beliefs, but there are always logical arguments that count as evidence as well (in arguing the idiocy of certain beliefs). Since my Santa analogy above seems not to have appealed to you, here's a different one. Imagine Kate were to have said "I do not believe in witchcraft/vampires because I'm not an idiot." Audience response? "Duh!" or stg similar. And yet there is the same amount of evidence for witches and vampires as there is for deities and afterlife**. The only difference between these three once highly common delusions is that one of them persists, even demanding respect, when it deserves at best critical scrutiny, at worst nothing but scorn.


<sub>*(and sometimes those benefits stemming from certain rules, like no alcohol/extra-marital sex etc... still nothing to do with belief.)

**Actually, there is relatively more evidence in favour of vampirism than of deities and afterlife</sub>


tl;dr: faith/rel. belief has no health benefits (check sources b4 posting); argument of religion's social role is double-edged; delusions are still delusions if they make you happy (try drugs); Joseph Smith Jr was a (convicted) fraud; idiotic beliefs are still idiotic when shared by the majority, just more socially unacceptable to mock.

>> ^SDGundamX:


See my answer to @BicycleRepairMan--what people accept as evidence in this matter and how much evidence is required for people to believe (or not believe) in a religion varies from person to person. Further complicating matters is that belief is not binary--it's a very wide continuum that includes people who aren't sure but practice the religion anyway.
My point about the New Atheists is that they feel the evidence against religion is sufficient. They are entitled to that opinion--but at the end of the day it is only an opinion. They should be free to express that opinion and tell people their reasons why they came to that conclusion. But they shouldn't pretend that their opinion is "fact" or belittle those who haven't come to the same conclusion.
About the "faith improving lives" bit--there is a fair bit of empirical evidence for the benefits of religious faith (in terms of both physical and psychological health: see here and here for more info) so I can't see how you can argue it is "delusional." Unless you meant that religion isn't the only way to obtain the same benefits, in which case I absolutely agree. But I find an interesting parallel in your thinking the New Atheists can tell a religious person that he/she is delusional if that religious person believes religion has a positive effect on their life with Christians who claim that atheists think they are happy but in reality suffering because they aren't one with Christ. Seems like two sides of the same coin to me.
I'm glad I amused you with my reference to Scientology. But this is a very rare case where we have a "smoking gun" so to speak. While I agree with you that there is a some suspicious stuff going on with Mormonism (how some passages in the Book of Mormon are very similar to other books available at the time John Smith lived), I'm unaware of any hard evidence that John Smith actually admitted to making it all up. Again with Mormonism, we're back to people having to personally decide for themselves what to believe (and all the issues that entails). [...]

@SDGundamX (warning, long post, in 2 parts, w/tldr @end)

From the content of your reply I'm going to assume (or should I hope?) that you are playing the devil's advocate in your defense of religious belief/faith(addressed in 2nd comment below); correct me if I'm wrong. As for me, I readily admit that my defense of rudeness is presented in a spirit of controversy; I also prefer direct but insultless argumentation in these kinds of debates, but am not against the occasional use of painful - even insulting - truths.

On "Rudity"

Before answering on this subject, I think it is important to stress that the woman above is a comedian, something surely stated in her presentation at the show's beginning. I would defend her exclamation regardless, but the fact definitely makes it easier, since hyperbole, shock and insult are all tools of the comedian's/satirist's trade. You might say that she's not at a comedy show, to which I would answer that one need not be.

You ask for examples of rudeness/insult-laden arguments being productive. I would gesture very generally in the direction of those whose wavering minds were decided by the argumentation of the "New Atheists", some of whom are utterly disrespectful of faith and religious beliefs... 'insultingly so' I might add. Sure, they do not say outright "religious believers are idiots" (nor does Kate mind you), but say as much and worse about their beliefs. PZ Myers, one of the most foul-mouthed "New Atheists" on the web and irl (one example which even I found excessively harsh), has been encouraged by ex-believers to continue debating creationists (something he, like others, has renounced, because of the weight of the stupidity); because it works.

I don't think my personal anecdotal evidence counts for much, but since you asked (and since I'm rambling)... The process of my parents' deconversion from evangelical christianity, brought about by yours truly, contained copious amounts of insult, the quality and quantity of which would make the mild "idiot" comment above seem like a compliment in comparison. I'm not particularly proud of my teenage, anger-spurred vulgarity of that time, and were it to be redone I'd definitely tone it down, but I am proud of my relative success: one of my parents is now about as antitheist as I, and while I suspect the other of harbouring a remnant of faith in the supernatural, at least it is never brought up and no longer affects family life or decisions.

You might argue that my insulting descriptions of their dearly-held beliefs were not what convinced them, and you'd be partially right. There were plenty of actual arguments amongst the harsh words. But I was told later (by the parent I fully convinced) that my passionate (read "insulting") tirades against their beliefs is what got them to be questioned; it was the fact that a person they considered as not entirely unintelligent could voice such statements so bluntly that shook them from the comfort of their position of belief. I have also reacted with mocking contempt when facing friends and/or family tempted by other nonsense like conspiracy theories or homeopathy. After OBL's death, one of my close friends let slip that her soon-to-be husband was a 9/11 truther and that she found his stance convincing. I spoke my mind freely (as I do with friends), with words including "pathetic", "stupid" and "he's lost a lot of intellectual respect". Needless to say she was angered (especially since I'd never met the bloke yet), but it did not hinder her from accepting the follow-up argumentation. Had I been more diplomatic, she might have let my argumentation pass by ignored, in favour of an emotionally charged stance.

Yes, I realise the examples above do not concern public debate, but private discussion with people who already had a favourable opinion of me. I don't usually spend time in the company of people who dislike me (or vice-versa), nor do I make a habit of being blunt with people I don't know (okay, maybe a bit on the webs). I have been known to tell evangelical work colleagues that their belief that humankind is twice the offspring of incest is both ridiculous and disgusting, and yet they still speak to me (it helps that here in Europe such beliefs are held by a fringe). Dunno if it had any effect on their beliefs though (and really don't care).



tl;dr: it's a comedian's role to speak truths in uncomfortable ways; persuasion can still be efficient when insult is involved; I'm a contrary bitch with very few friends (but quality ones )
>> ^SDGundamX:
[...] since you believe there are times that being rude or insulting can be productive, I'd like to know if you have any examples (personal examples are fine) of that being the case. I'm just curious what brought you to that conclusion.

Well, again, not exactly, since only last year supplies of homeopathic preparations (I can't call them "medicines", I just can't) originating in India were found to contain illegally high amounts of alcohol and heavy metals (http://tinyurl.com/3hcs9xo) and homeopathic pills marketed in the US to soothe teething babies were found to contain toxic quantities of belladonna (http://tinyurl.com/2cckjbd). Unlike real medicines, homeopathic preparations do not have to be vetted by the FDA before they go on sale. This is the reason why protest "mass overdoses" of homeopathic preparations like those seen in the 10:23 campaign in the UK last year (http://tinyurl.com/yj9v945) may not be all that wise - you just don't know what the homeoquacks have shoved into those bottles.

In any case, homeopaths don't give a shit about the possible side effects of their preparations - the manufacture of homeopathic preparations involves the dumping of huge amounts of homoepathically-activated waste solutions into the environment. If homeopathy really worked, this would be an industrial waste scandal that would put the oil wells of Nigeria in the shade. Fascinating article by Michael Edmonds on this subject at http://tinyurl.com/3msvpsk.
>> ^hpqp:

Hehe, of course. But the water/sugarpills homeopathic medicine itself shouldn't have any negative side effects...

Hehe, of course. But the water/sugarpills homeopathic medicine itself shouldn't have any negative side effects...

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^hpqp:
homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.

Not exactly true.
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

>> ^hpqp:

homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.

Not exactly true.
http://whatstheharm.net/homeopathy.html

>> ^hpqp:

You're such a charmer.
Unfortunately, I cannot ingest water because I am a surveillance bot at the service of the guv'mint, Big Pharma, the Zionists and the Illuminati. Water would only destroy my circui-- ooooh, I see what you tried there!
>> ^marbles:
>> ^hpqp:
homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.

Really? Does it cure immaturity and gross ignorance? Maybe you should look into it if so.



A dis-info agent/apologist working for the government. That wouldn't surprise me.

>> ^hpqp:

homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.


Really? Does it cure immaturity and gross ignorance? Maybe you should look into it if so.

homeopathy doesn't have bad side effects either, you know.

The FDA have never been successful in discrediting this guy, they've never even been able to claim that his antineoplastons are unsafe. Why not let him sell his medicine instead of fighting so hard to suppress his work? If the medicine is out there it won't be long before its effectiveness can be evaluated by the people that really matter - those of us who have, or have had some form of cancer. If it doesn't work then people won't want it. We allow homeopathy and that's got to be some really messed up pseudoscience, so I don't see why the FDA use such considerable resources to continually impose restrictions on the sale and export of this treatment. Chemo's gonna kill us, might as well try the alternatives.

1. the real money is in managing chronic conditions and not chemotherapy, and as they say, dead patients don't pay the bills.

2. Antineoplastons sounds like a scam to me simply because it's not been in the news before and as the wikipedia article states - "A 2004 medical review described this treatment as a disproven therapy".
If it was as good as it claims then it would have no problem proving it scientifically.
So go right ahead and use that if you get cancer, you might even want to throw in a bit of homeopathy while your at it.
But i will stick with science.
>> ^marbles:

2. The Powers-that-be don't really want a cure to cancer. Antineoplastons show great promise as a cure. They're non-toxic and replicate natural occurring chemicals in the body that inhibit the abnormal enzymes that cause cancer. Antineoplastons are responsible for curing some of the most incurable forms of terminal cancer. Why have you never heard of it? Good question. This is the answer: http://videosift.com/video/Burzynski-Cancer-Is-Serious-Business

No matter what you think about vaccinations, this piece was a meaningless attack piece. On the one side, grieving parents who cry and say how sad they are while saying nothing authoritative about vaccines, and on the other side, two wingnuts who are fervent and dogmatic, and not necessarily representative of the anti-vaccine lobby as a whole. I have worked with activist organizations, and they sure can attract weirdos, but it doesn't invalidate the issue itself.

Very disappointing for 60 Minutes. It's the same style as the CBC piece on homeopathy.

To be clear, I'm knocking the style of this piece because it removes credibility from anything presented. An opinionated journalist can make any opinion convincing.

I can't be certain what you mean by "up here" but in the Canada I live in, physical therapy is not lumped under chiropractics and is covered by healthcare.

Physiotherapy is covered by our healthcare system because it is an accepted and proven medical treatment. Chiropractic 'medicine' is not, and therefore should not be covered, just as fairy dust and tiger penis potions are not covered.
>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^jwray:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
Very sad. I've seen good people in my home state (NC is my home state) worry about receiving coverage. My brother sells insurance in that state. He even knows the system is fucked.
At some point we gave over our power to choose medical treatment to the insurance companies. Today our insurance plans are meal plans (meaning visits to preventive care is covered, such as pediatricians, OBGYNs, etc.) instead of catastrophic care (meaning emergency visits, unexpected health emergencies and hospitalization).
Nowadays doctors and dentists have raised their prices to offset the constant denials of coverage from insurance companies. Out of necessity they've raised their prices knowing the ins. companies will usually deny coverage.
For a year now I've tried to have a "gum graft" cleared through my insurance. After going back and forth, finally it was cleared. But a year ago when I made the request it would've cost me just my copay of $10. A year later they've raised my premium, modified my treatment meal plan and raised the copay, and now I owe a copay of $20 plus $238 of the treatment. I don't mind paying that much because I really need this done, but it's obvious they waited for the changed so they could save a couple hundred bucks.
And the treatment would'nt cost so much if the dentists (and doctors!) didn't require insurance. And they've raised prices mainly to subsidize the staff needed to handle the insurance companies (and the time spent going back and forth with the insurance companies). When's the last time you've ever heard a doctor or nurse give you dollar amount for your visit? Not often, because all we care about is the copay, right?

"At some point we gave over our power to choose medical treatment to the insurance companies."
I am terrified to ask this Blankfist, but what is the alternative? Presumably like this guy you can just not bother with insurance and choose medical treatment yourself based on what you can afford, right? Isn't any other alternative the evil machinations of Statists like me?
I am after all Canadian, and we truly have given over our power to choose medical treatment to the government. Though, it's a mixed bag up here where private hospitals and medicine is illegal and vehemently decried as inherently evil, while at the same time dental, chiropractic and optical medical treatments are all 100% private for profit enterprises and good luck getting the government to spend a dime on you if you need treatment in those fields.

Chiropractic is not a real medical field in the same way that homeopathy and voodoo aren't. If you have back problems, go to a real GP doctor and they can refer you to whatever kind of specialist you need (which is NOT a chiropractor).

Up here any physical therapy generally gets referred to or lumped in under chiropractors, and you've got a big fight on your hands to get the government to count it as a covered universal health care treatment. If you need any physical therapy from a major join injury, good luck to you. Despite the government refusal to allow the existence of any for profit hospitals, those for profit hospitals frequently don't provide the recovery therapy for many things that people end up doing without, or paying out of pocket for.
I guess my overall point is what is the alternative to the insurance companies? It basically amounts to some form of government intervention to either regulate, replace or ban them. None of which I can imagine being alternatives that Blankfist is willing to tolerate, let alone advocate for.