no they don't. in fact, one study showed a DECREASE in recovery (heart operations) when prayed for, probably because if you tell someone they need to be prayed for they fear things are worse than they are.
>Even for medics I don't think it's that important...
you might be fine with doctors that think prayer is as effective or more effective than (evolution-based) medicines, but I want the doctor who'd rather spend his time reading medical journals than the bible/koran/dianetics. I'm fussy like that.
unfortunately religious bullshit is reaching far beyond dirt farmers and the pollution of science with faith is impacting other areas, such as pharmacists who are fighting for the right to withhold medicine from patients if they personally dislike it e.g. contraception.
if it spreads much further we might see things like police officers being able to refuse to investigate crimes against people they consider sinners. (on the other hand if it gets much worse America will collapse so hard people will realise why the 1st amendment was such a good idea in the first place.)
The new group's website has lesson ideas for science teachers Parents are being encouraged to challenge their children's science teachers over what they are explaining as the origins of life.
An organisation called Truth in Science has also sent resource packs to all UK secondary school science departments.
It promotes the idea of intelligent design - that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe.
Humanists and a Christian think tank want the government to tell teachers to keep "a wholly scientific perspective".
The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in England has said it does not endorse the resources sent out by Truth in Science.
The less patient part of me wishes medicine would be renamed 'evolution-based medicine' or something, so that the idiots would remove themselves from society.
Unfortunately, it's more likely the children would suffer. Just look how retarded some Catholics (and other nuts) are in opposing the HPV vaccine - they would rather have their daughters die of cervical cancer than take the chance of making them think sex is okay by promoting a STD vaccine.
for a start your use of the word 'murder' clearly shows your opinions have no grounding in reality. you are simply wrong, legally and morally, and your disgusting language has shown disrespect for an entire profession of people who save countless lives on a daily basis. shame on you.
using birth as a line is only arbitrary in the most abstract philosophical sense. for people who live in the real world the practical purpose of it is obvious. the rationale is blindingly obvious.
congratulations, but attributing any of that success to a defect would be doing yourself and your daughter a great disservice.
the idea that you would refuse something that could eliminate the defect is as retarded and cruel as when deaf people seek to have deaf children because of the 'culture that only deaf people can appreciate'.
if, by chance, your grandchildren are not defective will you shun them? of course not, and surely you aren't going to argue that intentionally trying to help your children is worse than leaving it to chance?
>How many Stephen Hawkins are people going to kill in the quest for perfection?
so your argument is that HawkinG's intelligence is genetic rather than environmental, but the genes for intelligence only activate when combined with the genes for a terrible disease?
>What happens if all humans are genetically selected and accidentally a necessary gene for the survival of humanity is lost?
how about you wait until we're at the point where the human race is organised enough to provide every person with food and water before you worry about what will happen if everyone uses genetic selection?
>Sorry, but I don't find "birth" a convincing demarkation point between human and non-human.
so? what's your point?
that you would not like or choose to have an abortion?
or that you would like your government to use its power to force women to continue with unwanted pregnancies because that, and the huge number of deaths that inevitably arise from making abortion illegal, is a far better scenario than one in which you aren't happy with the position of where a line is drawn?
the original point to prove was along the lines that greed is unavoidable, and your first assumption is that all humans are greedy. don't you see the problem there?
I want you to prove that first assumption; what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
I am willing to accept that all healthy humans act in their own interest, but that is not greed.
I received a 'proof of concept trojan' in Mac Mail a few days ago. It was an email telling me my university account was being updated and I should reply with my username and password to confirm it was still active.
Fortunately I received a 'patch' shortly after in the form of another confirming my suspicions that the first one was a hoax.
Honest question; aside from advertising for some security company and 'Macs aren't teh 100%%%%% sekure!1' flamebait, what purpose does this article serve?
The RCC *is* guilty of coercion in this decade. Children raped by priests were told that speaking to anyone about what had happened to them they would be violating the sanctity of confession and land them in hell for all eternity.
If that's not coercion, what is? Bear in mind, that just because many people have the intelligence to know the RCC is full of shit when it threatens burning in the fires of hell for all eternity, doesn't mean children are able to see things that way, least of all raped children.
Also, the RCC still uses public humiliation as a tool for control e.g. get a divorce and you can't take part in communion - you are deliberately singled out of the community as being less deserving than everyone else.
>Surely I am not the only one asking, "How is this a crime?"
See your laws on marijuana. Some dumb fuck (in your case Harry J. Anslinger) gets pissed off by something and decides to launch a crusade against it, lies about it, forces their belief on others, and then nobody else has the bravery and/or intelligence and/or power to stand up to them despite all medical/social/scientific evidence, logic, or moral arguments.
>People like this, living in the Dark Ages need to get with the program.
I agree with you but America is hardly unknown for religious stupidity. Religion is ignorance in all places and at all times; nationality is largely irrelevant. Western secular societies are by far the lesser culprits though.
they just released the first game in 3.5 years. aside from downloadable content, the rumours are that the next full game won't appear until the next generation of consoles.
Slashdot Mirror
agreed
Douglas Adams would approve of your hypothesis
Progress is slow when new medicine is constantly under attack and being made...
illegal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071900524.html
'sinful': http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7287071.stm
and unteachable: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080627-louisiana-passes-first-antievolution-academic-freedom-law.html
reserves are not known by the people in the auction. minimum bids are. when the information available to you changes, so does the 'game theory'.
it should be illegal (depends where you live).
if you want a minimum price then set a reserve, not all this BS.
or just make this a law; if you are in any way financially associated with the auction, it must be declared on every bid you make.
otherwise, how is this not bait and switch or thuggery?
thug: "give me $10!"
person takes out wallet containing $30
thug: "give me $30!"
no they don't. in fact, one study showed a DECREASE in recovery (heart operations) when prayed for, probably because if you tell someone they need to be prayed for they fear things are worse than they are.
>Even for medics I don't think it's that important...
you might be fine with doctors that think prayer is as effective or more effective than (evolution-based) medicines, but I want the doctor who'd rather spend his time reading medical journals than the bible/koran/dianetics. I'm fussy like that.
>And what part of "including, but not limited to" don't we understand?
how do you not understand that's a standard legalese phrase used to spell out your intentions for your bill without limiting its future uses?
unfortunately religious bullshit is reaching far beyond dirt farmers and the pollution of science with faith is impacting other areas, such as pharmacists who are fighting for the right to withhold medicine from patients if they personally dislike it e.g. contraception.
if it spreads much further we might see things like police officers being able to refuse to investigate crimes against people they consider sinners. (on the other hand if it gets much worse America will collapse so hard people will realise why the 1st amendment was such a good idea in the first place.)
here in the UK this is all I heard of:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5392096.stm :
'Design' attack on school science
The new group's website has lesson ideas for science teachers
Parents are being encouraged to challenge their children's science teachers over what they are explaining as the origins of life.
An organisation called Truth in Science has also sent resource packs to all UK secondary school science departments.
It promotes the idea of intelligent design - that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe.
Humanists and a Christian think tank want the government to tell teachers to keep "a wholly scientific perspective".
The Department for Education and Skills (DfES) in England has said it does not endorse the resources sent out by Truth in Science.
The less patient part of me wishes medicine would be renamed 'evolution-based medicine' or something, so that the idiots would remove themselves from society.
Unfortunately, it's more likely the children would suffer. Just look how retarded some Catholics (and other nuts) are in opposing the HPV vaccine - they would rather have their daughters die of cervical cancer than take the chance of making them think sex is okay by promoting a STD vaccine.
for a start your use of the word 'murder' clearly shows your opinions have no grounding in reality. you are simply wrong, legally and morally, and your disgusting language has shown disrespect for an entire profession of people who save countless lives on a daily basis. shame on you.
using birth as a line is only arbitrary in the most abstract philosophical sense. for people who live in the real world the practical purpose of it is obvious. the rationale is blindingly obvious.
grow up and get a clue.
congratulations, but attributing any of that success to a defect would be doing yourself and your daughter a great disservice.
the idea that you would refuse something that could eliminate the defect is as retarded and cruel as when deaf people seek to have deaf children because of the 'culture that only deaf people can appreciate'.
if, by chance, your grandchildren are not defective will you shun them? of course not, and surely you aren't going to argue that intentionally trying to help your children is worse than leaving it to chance?
>How many Stephen Hawkins are people going to kill in the quest for perfection?
so your argument is that HawkinG's intelligence is genetic rather than environmental, but the genes for intelligence only activate when combined with the genes for a terrible disease?
do you have ANYTHING to base that assumption on?
>What happens if all humans are genetically selected and accidentally a necessary gene for the survival of humanity is lost?
how about you wait until we're at the point where the human race is organised enough to provide every person with food and water before you worry about what will happen if everyone uses genetic selection?
>Sorry, but I don't find "birth" a convincing demarkation point between human and non-human.
so? what's your point?
that you would not like or choose to have an abortion?
or that you would like your government to use its power to force women to continue with unwanted pregnancies because that, and the huge number of deaths that inevitably arise from making abortion illegal, is a far better scenario than one in which you aren't happy with the position of where a line is drawn?
>But then, embryos certainly don't opt into the euphemistic "medical procedure" being performed upon them.
*rollseyes*
suddenly "medical procedure" is a euphemism but you throw around words like "kill" and "individual" as if you have any fucking clue what words mean?
the original point to prove was along the lines that greed is unavoidable, and your first assumption is that all humans are greedy. don't you see the problem there?
I want you to prove that first assumption; what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.
I am willing to accept that all healthy humans act in their own interest, but that is not greed.
>Let us assume that humans are greedy, and will, if given the chance, take as much as they can.
sorry mate I stopped reading at this point.
ever heard of circular reasoning?
Agreed.
I received a 'proof of concept trojan' in Mac Mail a few days ago. It was an email telling me my university account was being updated and I should reply with my username and password to confirm it was still active.
Fortunately I received a 'patch' shortly after in the form of another confirming my suspicions that the first one was a hoax.
Honest question; aside from advertising for some security company and 'Macs aren't teh 100%%%%% sekure!1' flamebait, what purpose does this article serve?
>The belief that human greed in the world can be defeated by replacing corporations with other structures is fallacious.
prove it. dicto simpliciter, ignorantio elenchi.
>that is the action of each individual priest who participated.
one of which is now the pope, so yeah I think it's important.
The RCC *is* guilty of coercion in this decade. Children raped by priests were told that speaking to anyone about what had happened to them they would be violating the sanctity of confession and land them in hell for all eternity.
If that's not coercion, what is? Bear in mind, that just because many people have the intelligence to know the RCC is full of shit when it threatens burning in the fires of hell for all eternity, doesn't mean children are able to see things that way, least of all raped children.
Also, the RCC still uses public humiliation as a tool for control e.g. get a divorce and you can't take part in communion - you are deliberately singled out of the community as being less deserving than everyone else.
>Surely I am not the only one asking, "How is this a crime?"
See your laws on marijuana. Some dumb fuck (in your case Harry J. Anslinger) gets pissed off by something and decides to launch a crusade against it, lies about it, forces their belief on others, and then nobody else has the bravery and/or intelligence and/or power to stand up to them despite all medical/social/scientific evidence, logic, or moral arguments.
>People like this, living in the Dark Ages need to get with the program.
I agree with you but America is hardly unknown for religious stupidity. Religion is ignorance in all places and at all times; nationality is largely irrelevant. Western secular societies are by far the lesser culprits though.
>it just seems that GTA is going the way of FIFA
what... the... fuck... ?
they just released the first game in 3.5 years. aside from downloadable content, the rumours are that the next full game won't appear until the next generation of consoles.
so I ask again: what... the... fuck... ?