jamesmahon

Joined

• started 25 topics
• posted 592 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by jamesmahon

• 
  23

  Will Hitler be forgiven just because he died????????

  by The Searcher in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  i cannot fathom how the vast majority of my 7.5 million brothers and sisters, (especially all who are members of the worldwide order of special full-time servants of jehovahs witnesses) can believe for one second, the "given" explanation of romans 6:7. this is what taught; .

  insight book - 2p.138judgmentday - "those resurrected will not be judged on the basis of the works done in their former life, because the rule at romans 6:7 says: he who has died has been acquitted from his sin.".

  therefore, the following 6 scriptures can be ripped out of our bibles, because jesus does not have the god-given right to judge any dead people - because our own death has washed our sins away!!!

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  WTWizard

  Hmm, lets see.

  The case for Hitler

  • He built good roads
  • He loved animals
  • He stabilised the currency

  The case against Hitler

  • He was responsible for sterilising 400,000 people with disabilities and euthanased a whole lot more
  • He staked a claim over most of Europe and thought that war was a suitable way to gain this territory and sorted the men from the boys. Even looking at this purely from military and economic strategy this was stupidity and fighting a war on two fronts brought the German economy to its knees
  • Oh - that whole Jewish, slavic, anyone who is not Aryan genocide thing.

  It is truly amazing that the world spends so little time on his amazing accomplishments and so much time on the minor errors he made along the way in 'doing so much for Germany'. I guess people must have not been pointing out what a nasty little man he was before the war.

  Thanks for converting me - now where can I join my local neo nazi cell where I can read mein kampf and go and beat someone up who is racially inferior to me?
• 
  59

  Music therapy for pain .. scientists on board or anyone .. any thoughts?

  by talesin in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am wondering if there is any research on this subject.. .

  it's kind of obscure, i realize that.

  playing my guitar takes me to a better place mentally, but does it produce oxytocin?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  Good thread Talesin and nice to read you to.

  Don't worry - I think Mr Woods and I were actually agreeing. Although he may disagree of course...

  BTW - only downside of the Cochrane stuff is that it clearly they are only as up to date as when they did the review. They do update them every few years but it is sometimes worth having a trawl for new info if they are a few years old. On the whole though they often save a lot of time when you are interested in getting a considered unbiased judgement and summary on peer reviewed evidence rather than just the normal fluff you get from google.
• 
  59

  Music therapy for pain .. scientists on board or anyone .. any thoughts?

  by talesin in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am wondering if there is any research on this subject.. .

  it's kind of obscure, i realize that.

  playing my guitar takes me to a better place mentally, but does it produce oxytocin?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  If she didn't need the meds then she should not have been prescribed them. Which in a way supports my point that the physicians were more at fault rather than the drugs. They are on prescription for a reason - because they are potentially very harmful and a trained professional needs to make sure the benefit to you outweighs the risk and then monitor usage and your symptoms. This does not appear to have happened from what you say. It is very sad but I am not surprised.
• 
  59

  Music therapy for pain .. scientists on board or anyone .. any thoughts?

  by talesin in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am wondering if there is any research on this subject.. .

  it's kind of obscure, i realize that.

  playing my guitar takes me to a better place mentally, but does it produce oxytocin?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  I sit on a guideline development group for chronic neuropathic pain which coincidentally met yesterday. There are members on the group that are patients with MS, diabetic neuropathy etc as well as neurologists and pain specialist physicians. The concensus from the group is that care has to be taken to monitor the meds people are on, but that unfortunately long term pharmaceutical pain relief is the best answer for many people where pain is a constant symptom of a chronic condition. This group is open to recommending alternatives though as part of a management plan (the neurologist in partiuclar is an advocate for non-pharma interventions).

  Don't disagree with the dangers Mr Woods, and I would like to think that I could cope with the pain and avoid the meds. But then I have not had MS for five years. What is important is that physicians monitor dosage carefully, try to prevent what are termed 'breakthrough pain' events where rescue meds (such as opiates) are required and don't just prescribe and forget about the patient.

  I obviously don't know the circumstances of your friend, but would suspect that the meds only killed her indirectly. If it was accidental then her physician maybe should have informed her better of possible contraindications with other meds or potentially lethal doses. If it was deliberate, given chronic pain and depression are often bedfellows the prescribing physician maybe should have been keeping a closer eye on her mental wellbeing before writing the next script. Anyway, I don't think it is appropriate for me to speculate on the events surrounding the events of your friend's death beyond the point that I would be looking at the physician before the drug.
• 
  59

  Music therapy for pain .. scientists on board or anyone .. any thoughts?

  by talesin in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  i am wondering if there is any research on this subject.. .

  it's kind of obscure, i realize that.

  playing my guitar takes me to a better place mentally, but does it produce oxytocin?

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  Hi Talesin

  The place I always start when i have a question like this is the Cochrane Collaboration, an international group that produces independent systematic reviews on health interventions. They have produced reviews for music therapy for depression, end of life care and schizophrenia. They conclude that whilst evidence is limited, it has shown to be useful for depression and schizophrenia but the jury is definately out for end of life care. This does not mean that it is not of use for reducing pain at the end of life, but the evidence does not currently support the conclusion it does make a difference. (see www.cochrane.org - there is some really interesting stuff there)

  NICE, the clinical guidance and regulatory body over here, has also produced guidance recommending music therapy for schizophrenia. I work a lot with NICE and they would not recommend something without being convinced of its value so that is enough for me to say it has clinical benefit for at least one condition.

  James
• 
  195

  Theistic Evolution

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

  the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

  it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  Bohm

  Can you try rewording your last post? I don't understand the point you are trying to make. Not being arsey - just genuinely not sure what you are saying. Perhaps you can explain what you mean by a 'justified true statement'?
• 
  195

  Theistic Evolution

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

  the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

  it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  Bohm

  Never heard of Dembski. Just googled him. Seems there are lots of people arguing against what he is saying (such as http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/02/bill-dembski-an.html)

  Maybe you have not been looking hard enough. It could also be that most real scientists are too busy, well, doing real science and are tired of having to argue with people have made their mind up and ignore or misrepresent evidence. I don't know whether Dembski falls into this latter category so apologies if I have misrepresented him. I know that I don't waste my time reading silly pseudo science to understand how the world works anymore than a Christian reads the Quran to better understand god.
• 
  195

  Theistic Evolution

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

  the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

  it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  I find threads that degenerate into dictionary definitions as painful as having your eyeballs pulled back through your arse. I find hyperbole even more painful.
• 
  195

  Theistic Evolution

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

  the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

  it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  Now Cofty is that 'boring' under the definition "the act or process of making or enlarging a hole"?. Perhaps either definition would apply.
• 
  195

  Theistic Evolution

  by cofty in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  thoughtful christians including scientists like francis collins and kenneth miller accept the evidence for evolution unconditionally.

  the only thing that distinguishes their understanding of life from the views of dawkins is that they believe god planned and started the process intentionally.. just a word about the subtle but vital distinction between "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design".... over-simplifications alert - intelligent design is creationism in disguise.

  it is a modern twist on the "paley's watch" argument.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  jamesmahon

  Hi All

  Just a post on probability.

  If a system is closed and fully understood - such as a lottery - then the probability of an event within that system can be given with certainty. So Binadub is right that if a lottery of 6 from 59 balls (odds of about 17 million to 1 of winning) was won by the same person even twice in a row you have evidence that the lottery is rigged or there is something special about that person. In effect this means you may not fully understand the system and/or it is not closed. So you need to investigate. Of course, repeat enough lotteries enough times and the same person will win any number of times in a row - however unlikely.

  Where systems are not closed and are not fully understood then the best we can do is give our estimate of a probability of a specific event given our current information set.

  In the case of biological processes for some things we know the system reasonably well enough to be able to estimate with accuracy an event happening provided the environment is closed. For example, biologists can estimate the probability of a new protein arising in an organism over a specific time period that has a useful function if they know the number of genes required to mutate to generate that protein coupled with the rate of mutation. They can then conduct an experiment where they can control the environment to see if they are right.

  For biological processes where the system is only partially understood or the system is open to interference from a range of exogenous factors it becomes far more difficult to estimate the probability of an event with any degree of accuracy. What biologists can try and do to estimate the probability of an event in this instance is make observations. This is very difficult though in the case of chemicals coming together to start life. To begin we still do not understand the mixture of chemicals, how it gets sparked and what the first step looks like. Biologists speculate and from those speculations conduct experiments to see what happens. From those experiments they may ascribe a probability of a specific event happening based on observations under a closed system. But that event may not be how life started and the conditions when the event happened may be markedly different then the closed system in the experiment.

  So the upshot of all this is that we should not confuse and use in an argument the known probability of an event in a fully understood and closed system such as a lottery with the estimated probability of an even in a system we do not fully understand and is open. In any case, as has been pointed out before it is not just the probability that matters in isolation but the number of opportunities the event has to happen.

  As a final aside I always find arguments about probability from creationists a bit odd. If the likelihood of life originating by 'chance' is really low non-creationists only need that unlikely instance to happen once. So do creationists, just a step back.