• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. NaturalNews? Enough said. And that rat study has been explained to death like thousand times. Sigh. Are they still hanging on to it? The rats chosen for the study are already (relatively speaking) prone to spontaneous tumors (, there was no dose response relationship cited and lot of data cherrypicking etc.. These are horrible ways to conduct a study - I could technically "prove" anything if I don't give a flip about adhering to any of that either. PS: Here's the readers digest version of why the study was really poorly done: http://www.newscientist.
  2. Agnostic Atheist and Skeptic. I don't believe in any religions or supernatural in general. Probably leaning towards pantheism a bit, as I do deem, as Dawkins, it to be "sexed up atheism". Used to be a theist for a long time, although not a strictly religious one. Eventually lost my faith through lots of reading and when I got into science.
  3. geek


    i would mostly agree with what Ian says above. And to add, there is reasonable skepticism and irrational skepticism. Reasonable skepticism, for instance, is to remain skeptical of claims where there isn't ample evidence to back it. Irrational ones are for instance, questioning the very fundamental realities we know and accept - for instance, questioning our very senses, etc - while it may very well be all an illusion, there is no way for us to know, and it's hardly productive simply posing such questions. As Feynman would say " "Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out"
  4. Yes, absolutely. But with restrictions, as in speech that causes DIRECT harm - for instance, the one @Lilley1 mentioned above is an example. Or say, personal defamation or bullying. These are all exceptions. But one should not be restricted from making any sort of criticisms against any religion, group etc. even if it's bigoted. We could easily use our freedom of speech to criticize their opinion. We're not some children that need to be spoon fed of what we need to know or don't.
  5. Great. Some evidence would be a great place to start. And if I'm going to hell for not accepting the concept of heaven and hell, then the god you believe in is a total and utter psycopathic a-hole. No offense. How would you feel if I torture you for not agreeing with me? That makes Hitler seem like Buddha in comparison. That's not it's "beauty", that's just one of the terribly vile emotional blackmailing invented by humans to control people. (Okay, probably bit of an exaggeration, but still).
  6. I believe that it's incredibly stupid and ignorance of even some basic biology. As for cancer, people just don't seem to get that cancer is not one disease, but there are different types of cancer - so it's impossible to find a single "cure'. Even when it comes to specific types of cancers, since it's caused by deleterious mutations, the treatment is extremely tricky in itself. Although the chemotherapy, radiation and surgery itself has improved life expectancy MASSIVELY. I just can't stand when people just say stuff like that when researchers work their bloody arse off for such a thankless
  7. What a cool guy. Seriously, what's the point? I mean he's as terrible as a person could get - we've seen a lot of blood thirst warlords etc - but this guy was just a murdering racist psycopath who managed to inspire a whole nation to hate a race. That ranks pretty high as far as "bad" goes in my list. And LOL@the comparisons between Hitler and Bush - yeah right. And I hate Bush FTR.
  8. Penn and Teller is awesome! A lot of awesome videos from the series. Although I disagree with Penn personally on some regards (politically), the show's still classy. Louis CK is pretty good too IMO. BTW Speaking of vatican:
  9. Women are able to give birth, but the amazing "design" still makes mortality rate so high than one would expect it to be. And thankfully which is reduced considerably due to advancements in science. If you mean I don't go looking for desperate reasons to believe, you're right, I'm not. I don't make presumptions without any rational reasons to do so. Seems like you missed my point regarding the "why" situation. Lets say, I'm asking you "Why do you beat your wife?" - which is a loaded question and presumes that you're married, and you beat your wife. Similarly, the "why" question is loaded. W
  10. I don't believe in science, I accept science as the best method we have to make sense of reality and the natural world. Sometimes why and how questions are meaningless - why has to be there a "why"? That's a loaded question - it assumes there is a purpose. No, the body does have it's share of flaws as well - it's hardly "pre programmed", unless you're keen on cherry picking whatever suits your position, of course, When you say "organized" define "organized" and at what stage it would become "disorganized"? Most of the observable space is uninhabitable for life, there are debri floating arou
  11. Whether it's a force for "good" or not is not what I'm referring to. It's the FDA regulation that is in place at the moment. And it's a good one, regardless of what you think of FDA. I don't agree with every single FDA ruling, but that doesn't mean I have to carry such notions as FDA being some force of evil plotting against humanity. I agree and disagree with each cases individually, by analyzing the pros and cons - and mostly they are right. They (mostly) do it on the basis of evidence based scientific research which is for everyone to see.
  12. Yeah I know of the so called "documentaries". Point me to one meta analysis in any reputed peer reviewed journals that supports your position. I'll look into it. Some of the citations in that article isn't even relevant to what they're saying. Have you gone through all the citations too?
  13. Yes, sunlight is a potential risk factor for cancer. "Risk factor" doesn't mean everyone who's exposed to it WILL get cancer. Just like drinking elevates the risk of cirrhosis or smoking lung cancer. Doesn't mean every single smoker, or even most of them, are dying of it. But it considerably elevates the risk. And as for the sunlight delivering life part, good heavens. We can't survive without sunlight, but how on earth does it imply sunlight isn't associated with cancer? We can't live without glucose either, but that doesn't mean it's benign, does it? Same with fat, cholesterol, etc. Sunli
  14. Yeah, I'm converting to Mithraism then. Y'know, just in case. There are thousands and thousands of religions to pick from, and they all have their versions of afterlife. So hypothetically, even if there is a heaven and hell, and assuming god isn't an unreasonable jerk, I could always say I had no rational reason to pick any religion over the other. However if you pick one religion randomly, and the other turns out to be true, then not sure how you'd justify your position.
  15. Ah, good old biomedicine woo by Martha Herbert. When will people stop taking these quacks seriously? She's an anti-vaxxer and a whole lot of her stuff is just quackery at best. I've read about her in ScienceBlogs (by Orac I think), Steve Novella's blogs and Plos. Haven't watched the video but if it exceeds the permitted limit, the guy's got grounds to sue.