Anti-reality culture

[ClubV12]

I don't have a problem seeing decreased cell growth as a result of alcohol being labeled as "killing brain cells", or as Ellen White specifically called it, "the delicate nerves of the brain." The end result is the same, limited growth, some cells don't grow, aren't manufactured, never come to life. They are aborted, cease to exist, never got a chance to grow. HOW is that NOT "death"?

I don't buy the "spin" that because brain cell growth increases following the discontinuance of alcohol that that makes it "OK". Following THAT logic any number of vices are "OK". Meth? Heroin? Tobacco? All "OK", as long as you stop soon enough, if you can stop soon enough, if your lucky enough to get help before it's to late. That line of reasoning is "insane"!

Maybe we should recommend only "moderate use" of drugs, vices and other KNOWN substances and lifestyle practices that will SURELY result in catastrophic consequences if they are allowed to continue? Moderate use? You know, some things are SO dangerous it's a fools game to recommend moderate use. You need to stop, period, game over, just quit, unless your "feeling lucky". Well, are you? Feeling lucky enough to tell you son or daughter a "little alcohol" won't hurt, you'll be fine in the morning.

So you line up "100 teenagers" and have them drink alcohol for however long you want to run the study. And if none of them show any injurious effects in their lives, then the study concludes "drinking is OK". In fact, we could call the results "absolute proof" (maybe, a 100 proof ha ha) that drinking is OK if none of them die as a direct result of alcohol poisoning!

Like phk said, sometimes you just need to employ simple logic to see the truth, you don't need a scientific study.

Outside of the realm of science and as a Seventh-day Adventist:

In the case of Ellen Whites counsel, it is NOT some "hypothesis", it is one of two things:

1. Divinely inspired.

or

2. Personal opinion.

If you go with "personal opinion", then DON'T use "pseudo science" to make your case. DON'T declare "absolute proof" when it doesn't exist. Frankly, such claims make a person look as much like a stupid scientist as they make someone else look like a stupid christian.

This IS a two way street.

[Gerr]

Just tagging on again.

Re: Alcohol doesn't kill brain cells?

Teenage Binge Drinking Might Have Long-Term Effects Free

July 12, 2010

Barbara Geller, MD

Psychiatry

Researchers find neurodegeneration in the hippocampi of nonhuman adolescent primates, even after alcohol cessation.

Reviewing:

Taffe MA et al., Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2010 Jun 15; 107:11104.

Related Searches: adolescence, alcohol drinking, binge drinking, brain development, hippocampus (brain), macaca

{These particular monkeys were chosen because of their hippocampal similarity with humans.)

ALCOHOL AND THE CEREBELLUM.

July 15, 1994

KI Marton

General Medicine

Cerebellar atrophy is one of the main neurologic consequences of heavy drinking. These Finnish investigators retrospectively assessed the cerebellar effects of lesser amounts of alcohol . . .

Reviewing:

Karhunen PJ et al., BMJ 1994 Jun 25; 308:16631667.

[Bravus]

There's a looooong thread on this particular issue that we had recently: can discussions of alcohol specifically be moved there? This thread is for broader discussion of faith and science.

[Bravus]

Here 'tis: http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/422302/1.html

[ClubV12]

Good call Bravus, while alcohol certainly fits THIS thread, it is better handled in the other link you posted.

Now back to "insane" stuff.

"I have advised out-of-door work for piano tuners, telling them that unless they changed their business, they would have to deal with insanity. -Letter 104, 1901."

Sister White referred to many different things as causal when it comes to insanity. Even marital disputes! Now, who would have thunk marital disputes could result in "insanity"? I don't need a scientific study to confirm THAT!

Following her logic here, as it concerns piano tuners, the counsel could be applied to office workers! Or any number of workers who need to get outside in the fresh air, or,,, risk "insanity".

Scoff all you want, I've come to be very cautious about dismissing Ellen Whites counsel to quickly. I think she's onto something about "office workers" and "insanity". Dilbert approves this message....

[ClubV12]

Those crazy Millerites!

"In the early 1840's, as Millerite enthusiasm approached its zenith, asylum superintendents in the Northeast began reacting with alarm to the influx of patients seemingly deranged by "the Miller excitement." Samuel B. Woodward, superintendent of the Worcester State Lunatic Hospital and soon to become the first president of the Association of Medical Superintendents of American Institutions for the Insane (the present-day American Psychiatric Association), noted in his annual report for 1843 that nearly 7 percent of all admissions during the previous year—and over half of all cases resulting from religious causes (15 of 28)—could be charged to Millerism."

[CoAspen]

So maybe everyone could stop using the word 'pseudoscience' when they want to bash someones point of view or belief. Basically, that is the reason it is used....bashing...which doesn't speak well for the 'bashor'!!

[CoAspen]

It matters not what you think is true or surmise, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. So where is your proof??

So, if sexual release through masturbation leads to insanity, than we would have to include any type of sexual release!!! Say what!!!!!!!!

Can't we just stop all of this silliness? Talk about anti-reality!!

[Overaged]

Also, there's no absolute way of proving sanity of a sample of 100 teens who masturbate regularly?

Going by your logic; there is no way to prove your sanity either. Infact, it would be really interesting to see what people say "sanity" is!

[Overaged]

Ya; well, just incase he is wrong; I have kept in store an ascension robe for my wife & I, along with our crowns. The robe on the right is mine.

[BobRyan]

"But wait, we only reject false science!"

True - we reject notions about "massive decreases in entropy over billions of years" so that you can turn gas and rocks into a human brain. (Isaac Asimov for details)

We reject the birds come from reptiles fictions of evolutionists.

We reject even the birds come plants fictions of evolutionists.

And why not? It is not actual science!

In fact, when based on the fossil record these stories are just "tories easy enough to tell" (Collin Patterson)

in Christ,

Bob

[Gerr]

It matters not what you think is true or surmise, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. So where is your proof??

So, if sexual release through masturbation leads to insanity, than we would have to include any type of sexual release!!! Say what!!!!!!!!

Can't we just stop all of this silliness? Talk about anti-reality!!

If it were just a matter of release of semen, I would have to agree masturbation per se has no more deleterious effects than having sex with your own spouse. I believe the problem is the fantasizing that goes with it. Here's an EGW statement:

Self-respect Destroyed by Masturbation. [sEE CHILD GUIDANCE, PP. 439-468.]--The effect of such debasing habits is not the same upon all minds. There are some children who have the moral powers largely developed, who, by associating with children that practice self-abuse, become initiated into this vice. The effect upon such will be too frequently to make them melancholy, irritable, and jealous; yet such may not lose their respect for religious worship and may not show special infidelity in regard to spiritual things. They will at times suffer keenly from feelings of remorse, and will feel degraded in their own eyes and lose their self-respect.--2T 392 (1870).

How many would be interested in spiritual things after having masturbated fantasizing over pornographic material? I would like to have had the opportunity to ask Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer & Gary Ridgeway how they got started in the path they travelled.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Life, I know you like quoting Bible verses, but quoting Bible verses has about as much impact on someone who doesn't believe in their inspiration as me quoting Captain Picard would have on you.

That said, studying the "heavens" has shown me a merciless and indifferent universe with no sign of a benevolent god who cares.

I also don't believe that an omnipotent, omniscient, perfect being could ever consider faith a virtue, but that's a longer post.

This ole former atheist is getting a late start commenting on this topic. My apologies.

I am a retired physician whose many experiences as a doctor led to a re-activation of my faith from a position of rabid atheism.

As for evaluating belief in God, immortality, and a host of other concepts you now consider improbable, start with simple questions and observations. What questions and observations? Listen to Jesus as recorded in Matthew 7: 12 - "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek and you shall find ; knock, and it shall be opened to you---"

Do this systematically and "scientifically",that is, skeptically. The scientific method is, of necessity, founded on skepticism. But scientific skepticism must be honest skepticism, if such be possible. Scientific skepticism must always consider the possibility that even one’s most cherished but rational beliefs are open to question. Your questions should be based on your own life experiences. Keep a daily log of your experiences related to your questions.

Yeah, yeah. I know. Such an approach sows its own seeds of bias. But so do approaches looking at the Universe as frightful and hostile, “merciless and indifferent”. All of us, even Stephen Hawking and Richard Dawkins, are riddled with doubt, bias, and uncertainty, no matter what our perceptions of existence. And the more dishonest our positions in personal belief systems, the more stridently we tend to defend those beliefs.

You are truly missing out on overwhelming joy and peace if you believe the Universe is only a sterile, hostile “place”. Just think, this Universe gave you life. Surely in your life you had experiences that even now provide pleasure in their recall – even pleasure that may not be of a spiritual nature.

Such an approach entails not much effort, but it is at least a miniscule start in looking at the other side of your cold, humorless paradigm.

I would even preface your questions with an atheistic prayer for guidance and wisdom. Prayer is so wonderfully calming and healing. Atheistic prayer? Simply pray to the wisest, most benevolent Entity in your mind. Should you believe that Entity subconsciously to be you, so much the better. Surely you can trust yourself.

Even so, quit just knocking heads with others about beliefs. Go about your arguments in a cool, organized manner. ("Argument" as a philosophical concept is not a futile activity. Look it up.)

Best regards,

JawgeFromJawja

[JawgeFromJawja]

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Here Einstein got it partly right. He did make mistakes, and he made a mistake in this statement.

Experiments may raise questions about scientific theory. They never (I practically never say "never" in matters of science.) totally disprove a position, but make the position less likely.

JawgeFromJawja

[Igakusei]

Thanks for your reply.

From my perspective, I still see much more intellectual honesty coming from the educated atheist crowd than from the SDAs I talk to (and yes, I'm much less confrontational in person).

I should clarify that I'm quite content with the way my life is going, and I certainly count my "blessings." I consider my blessings a combination of hard work and luck, however, rather than the administrations of a higher power. To assume the latter means he has to account for the suffering of those without my "blessings," and I don't believe the apologists are even close to answering that one satisfactorily.

I think humans should take care of each other and do what we can to eliminate human suffering. Religion tends to be more concerned with the next life than this one (and is only concerned with this one as a means to get people into their theological boat), and as someone who can only be sure of this life, I find that a less-than-ideal approach.

[JawgeFromJawja]

Pseudoscience would then largely consist of clinging to something that science has falsified. Homeopathy is a good (and relatively non-controversial, at least here) example, as is astrology.

Bravus, me lad, this ole boy takes a jaundiced look at your preemptive dismissal of homeopathy. I have helped a buncha patients with such practices. Before you dismiss me as a quack (which may or may not be true), lemme state that most of the time I practice conventional, conservative medicine.

Both you and Igakusei need to read Shakespeare:

"There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Hamlet, Act I, Scene 6

On second thoughts, just as 16th century French surgeon Pare said, "I treated him. God healed him."

Laughingly,

Jawge

[JawgeFromJawja]

You are correct. The boiling point of water can be absolutely established and the rock will come down.

Which has "absolutely" nothing to do with 100 teenage boys "going blind".

I dunno. The incidence of near sightedness is known to significantly increase at puberty. Must prove something.

Jawge

[fccool]

Quote:

How many would be interested in spiritual things after having masturbated fantasizing over pornographic material? I would like to have had the opportunity to ask Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer & Gary Ridgeway how they got started in the path they travelled.

I'm guessing plenty of people would! After all, masturbation and fantasy is a reality of almost every single boy on this planet... especially if they have to suppress their sexual urges until they are in their early 20, which is the case for may Christian homes today. I would argue that sexual suppression is the very thing that breeds very high levels of imbalance in Christian culture, and is responsible for so many divorces over a non-issue. If all of us are more honest about sexuality, this would be a more balanced view of something that should be talked about like true adults.

[ClubV12]

There is healthy fantasy and there is unhealthy fantasy, it is not all created equal. There are some people that can drink in moderation and some that can't. Do you need to experiment to find out which group your in? Risky business, you might find out YOU are the people your mother warned you about, to late.

"Self abuse" can take a turn not unlike drinking or drugs. A little drink can lead to more simply because you NEED more. You will need more drugs (higher dose, stronger drug) in time if you continue. You will need greater and more perverse fantasy in time as well. Regardless of any religious connection, God has empowered mankind to understand they are certain lines of "decency" that cannot and should not be crossed. If and when you DO cross those lines, the inevitable result will be self loathing, depression, bodily injury, thoughts of suicide and insanity. YES, insanity! No qualifications are required for that plain statement, no scientific studies are needed, the concept is inherent to man's fundamental understanding of how nature works. The path is fraught with danger when you enter upon any vice. And make no mistake, masturbation is vice and some, don't recover.

Shall we "talk nicely" about why we shouldn't steal for fear we will bring "guilt" upon some poor soul? Or shall we speak plainly that is it hurtful to yourself and to others? From a CIVIL stand point, not a religious stand point, somethings are as obvious to an atheist as they are to a christian.

You can experiment with how far you should go with any given vice, but be advised, the path is a dangerous one from which some will not escape and it will surely prove their ruin.

Moderation is advised in all cases, it's just common sense.

[fccool]

Self abuse is not masturbation, or alcohol consumption and etc... I think that self abusive relationship starts when it becomes the escape from reality of guilt that people are spun into by some very unhealthy reasoning.

I particularly like the point that was made in that last video. A certain perspective of hurt and suffering expectation is created. There's much more mature way of handling these issues.

Going around and exaggerating the effects for purpose of scaring people into doing good is immature and plainly does not work.

[Gerr]

Quote:

How many would be interested in spiritual things after having masturbated fantasizing over pornographic material? I would like to have had the opportunity to ask Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer & Gary Ridgeway how they got started in the path they travelled.

I'm guessing plenty of people would! After all, masturbation and fantasy is a reality of almost every single boy on this planet...

After what Jesus said? NCV Mt 5:27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You must not be guilty of adultery.’  28 But I tell you that if anyone looks at a woman and wants to sin sexually with her, in his mind he has already done that sin with the woman."

Yeah, right!

[fccool]

Hmm, does it by the same extention means that if I want to donate a million dollars to charity it's as though I've donated the money?

Yeah, right! Keep shoveling that guilt, Gerry :)

[Guest]

You either believe what the Bible says, or you don't believe what the Bible says. Simple as that.

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

You are correct. The boiling point of water can be absolutely established and the rock will come down.

Which has "absolutely" nothing to do with 100 teenage boys "going blind".

I dunno. The incidence of near sightedness is known to significantly increase at puberty. Must prove something.

Jawge

And somewhere after 40 vision worsens again and later on vision tends to get still worse along with development of cataracts... Apparently old people are doing it more as correlated to their vision problems...

[Tom Wetmore]

Originally Posted By: ClubV12

You are correct. The boiling point of water can be absolutely established and the rock will come down.

Which has "absolutely" nothing to do with 100 teenage boys "going blind".

I dunno. The incidence of near sightedness is known to significantly increase at puberty. Must prove something.

Jawge

And somewhere after 40 vision worsens again and later on vision tends to get still worse along with development of cataracts... Apparently old people are doing it more as correlated to their vision problems...