Drug testing in meds

[NLengr]

I'm sure that the drug bosses out there are more than happy to make every person in this country addicted to their product, and they do a damn good job these days in tricking children and even adults into taking their products, trying it, getting hooked on it and eventually selling it. If we don't have laws to control these forces, how do you imagine our country will look in a decade?

 

As for social/liberalist movements, I think we've had quite enough of those in the last century. Rates of divorce, obesity, illiteracy, unemployment, and just all-round social decay that we are seeing in North America are simple proof that we've swung too far along the pendulum, and we need to reconsider the direction we've taken as a society in many of the things we do. Our generation's LIFE EXPECTANCY is expected to be lower than our predecessors - and we're not even waging any massive wars. Maybe if all the liberalist hippies stopped condoning all the self-gratifying, unbridled frivolity that marks our generation, we might not end up like continental Europe.

 

You realize that the organized criminal organizations you are complaining about derive all most all their power and funds by drug prohibition right? That they are given GREATER access to children because there is no real regulation (like booze and cigarettes)? That the underground use of drugs secondary to prohibition has driven a huge amount of the HIV spread in North America?

 

ISOLATED DRUG PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK! We've tried it since Nixon, and it's never worked. It's time to rethink how we do things.

 

As for the 'Socialist/Liberal' boogeyman being responsible for "Rates of divorce, obesity, illiteracy, unemployment, and just all-round social decay", get real.

 

America is far more conservative than Canada and Europe, yet they are fatter and more illiterate than the others. They have an economy in shambles in large part to conservative policies of unrestrained banking and finance operations. Canada, with it's 'socialist' banking regulations is in much better shape. Furthermore, conservative America has much more social decay (race tension, massive prision populations, huge numbers of people without medical care, high murder and violence rates etc.) than Canada or Western Europe.

 

You also realize that Sweden has implemented most of the policies you rail against, yet is widely regarded as one of, if not the best country in the world in which to live.

 

God, sometimes I wonder if these hardcore conservatives even hear the words coming out of their mouth.

[Mr_Obvious]

You're ignoring the massive and important FACT that drug abuse leads thousands of people to ruin and death every single year in this country. Drugs used for creative purposes make up a very small minority of drug use, and unfortunately, recreational drug use has the tendency of evolving into full blown additions without much warning. Waging a "war" against drugs isn't the terminology I'd use, but like somebody else said, putting the control into the hands of authorities is a far better long-term plan than the laissez-faire attitude you have. I'm sure that the drug bosses out there are more than happy to make every person in this country addicted to their product, and they do a damn good job these days in tricking children and even adults into taking their products, trying it, getting hooked on it and eventually selling it. If we don't have laws to control these forces, how do you imagine our country will look in a decade?

I think you're missing the point. Despite the current prohibition "drug abuse leads thousands of people to ruin and death every single year in this country". It hasn't helped. And I am not saying "laissez-faire", I am saying it is clear, from America's alcohol prohibition example, that the government can do a better job of regulating usage and distribution when they have some degree of control over it, which cannot be done even a fraction as effectively while it is illegal. With booze being legal, it is regulated by liquor stores. Illegal, it's regulated by the Al Capones of the world. Simple as that. Not to mention charging tax on usage instead of spending millions on fighting unnecessary gang activity. It is really quite clear and simple - prohibition is what allows immoral "drug lords" the ability to profit from "tricking" people into addiction. It is obvious you think little of people's inherent rights and capabilities to choose however they wish to live their own private lives so I won't even get into that whole can of worms, other than to say it's incredibly elitist, arrogant and ignorant.

 

And it is a war on drugs, don't kid yourself there. A real war with deaths, firearms, tonnes of POWs, billions of tax dollars being spent and a whole lot of collateral damage.

 

Your whole second paragraph is just ridiculous and going a whole other direction, which seeking1 did a nice job of pointing out. Hippy dippy liberalist movements like the womens' rights movement have certainly affected the divorce rates though, I'll give you that...

[thebouque]

Maybe if all the liberalist hippies stopped condoning all the self-gratifying, unbridled frivolity that marks our generation, we might not end up like continental Europe.

 

I don't see why people are wasting their time arguing with you.

[apache]

I'm at a talk at the moment, I'll look it up when I get home, transparency is my middle name .

 

I wasn't attacking pharma in a literal sense (well not as bad as I made it seem). The point of bringing pharma into the equation is to juxtapose what I presume itimebomb sees as a positive entity with one that he doesn't, the illegal drug cartels. The point I was trying to make was that, although many psychiatric drugs have potentially deleterious effects, under the supervision of a physician they can be used responsibly and purposfully. This itself begs the question about illegal drugs. Would these drugs be as dangerous if they were kept out of the hands of criminals and put into the hands of government and capable health professionals with advanced knowledge of medicine and psychopharmacology? I personally don't think so. The British have medicalized maintenance heroin for people who fail on methadone, and this campaign had been successful by numerous measures. Go to the Netherlands, I've been there and I've never seen so many productive people running well organized marijuana cafes. Go down to Vancouver, where users can use on a supervised basis... huge success, the point is, drugs are bad for some people, and bad for far more people if they are left in the interest of criminals. They are also great for some, and would be great for many if we had responsible usuage guidelines in place (i.e. Like the responsible use of psychiatric drugs).

 

Please update us as to the name of that bill of Congress and its current position as potential legislature. I wish to know more.

 

Also, I think you're jumping the gun here. While I agree that the killing that pharma is currently making on antidepressants is mind-numbing, I can't say there is a way out of the conundrum of producing drugs for clinical depression and other psychiatric disorders. Never mind that its an uphill battle in the minds of people to convince them that psychiatric conditions are things that warrant serious medical attention.

 

Also, don't change the topic to pharma, stick to illegal drugs. Be relevant.

[itimebomb2]

I am with you on your previous paragraph, but this polemic is just disappointing. Prove what you are saying regarding this stuff about life expectancy sucking due to liberalism, then connect it to the drugs stuff. I know far more people who are conservative that abuse drugs because they can because they are the authority/in charge. See: old people and abuse of alcohol.

 

But thats just stereotypes of social causes you were talking about. What should really matter to you is the understanding of the divide between social democrat/liberal/conservative. I assure you itimebomb2, all the things you lament get better under a social democratic society. See: Sweden, Denmark, Norway. Once you figure that divide out, you'll get the bigger picture.

 

You're telling me to get the picture? YOU'RE the one who needs to learn something here. The socialist/fascist and conservative/liberal dichotomies are two different axes on the political spectrum - maybe if you got your basic terminology right, you'd see my point. Here's a crash course on political leanings for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum

 

Also, Sweden, Norway and Finland are not part of continental Europe - maybe some basic geography will serve you well as well. Here's something we call a map --> http://studentweb.cencol.ca/wtsang15/COMP%20213/Midterm/midterm213.htm

 

Making comparisons with Nordic countries is absolutely ridiculous - Norway has a population about the size of the GTA, and has an almost completely homogenous ethnocultural make-up, distributed over a geographical area the size of southwestern Ontario. To compare socialist outcomes in what is effectively a city-state to countries like Canada and the US is just pointless. But anyways, like I said before my beef is with liberalism, not socialism, which I generally espouse.

 

 

You realize that the organized criminal organizations you are complaining about derive all most all their power and funds by drug prohibition right? That they are given GREATER access to children because there is no real regulation (like booze and cigarettes)? That the underground use of drugs secondary to prohibition has driven a huge amount of the HIV spread in North America?

 

ISOLATED DRUG PROHIBITION DOESN'T WORK! We've tried it since Nixon, and it's never worked. It's time to rethink how we do things.

 

As for the 'Socialist/Liberal' boogeyman being responsible for "Rates of divorce, obesity, illiteracy, unemployment, and just all-round social decay", get real.

 

America is far more conservative than Canada and Europe, yet they are fatter and more illiterate than the others. They have an economy in shambles in large part to conservative policies of unrestrained banking and finance operations. Canada, with it's 'socialist' banking regulations is in much better shape. Furthermore, conservative America has much more social decay (race tension, massive prision populations, huge numbers of people without medical care, high murder and violence rates etc.) than Canada or Western Europe.

 

You also realize that Sweden has implemented most of the policies you rail against, yet is widely regarded as one of, if not the best country in the world in which to live.

 

God, sometimes I wonder if these hardcore conservatives even hear the words coming out of their mouth.

 

To those of you who think that the "war" on drugs is actually helping the cause, you're points are totally moot. Underground sales of drugs can't be stopped - but that doesn't mean that they won't go UP if we stop fighting against them! The arguments that have been put forward (a cop died trying to arrest a weed operation?) could just as easily be applied to any given crime that currently exists.

 

Perhaps we should legalize murder and rape? That way, no police officers will have to put themselves in harms way to stop what was inevitably going to happen anyway? For the small (or large) number of drug deals the authorities are able to stop (as in rape or murder) - it makes it that much harder for crime syndicates to establish a foothold on our society, and it makes it that much less attractive for individuals to take up illicit drugs.

 

I think you're missing the point. Despite the current prohibition "drug abuse leads thousands of people to ruin and death every single year in this country". It hasn't helped. And I am not saying "laissez-faire", I am saying it is clear, from America's alcohol prohibition example, that the government can do a better job of regulating usage and distribution when they have some degree of control over it, which cannot be done even a fraction as effectively while it is illegal. With booze being legal, it is regulated by liquor stores. Illegal, it's regulated by the Al Capones of the world. Simple as that. Not to mention charging tax on usage instead of spending millions on fighting unnecessary gang activity. It is really quite clear and simple - prohibition is what allows immoral "drug lords" the ability to profit from "tricking" people into addiction. It is obvious you think little of people's inherent rights and capabilities to choose however they wish to live their own private lives so I won't even get into that whole can of worms, other than to say it's incredibly elitist, arrogant and ignorant.

 

And it is a war on drugs, don't kid yourself there. A real war with deaths, firearms, tonnes of POWs, billions of tax dollars being spent and a whole lot of collateral damage.

 

Your whole second paragraph is just ridiculous and going a whole other direction, which seeking1 did a nice job of pointing out. Hippy dippy liberalist movements like the womens' rights movement have certainly affected the divorce rates though, I'll give you that...

 

The difference between alcohol and illicit drugs is that alcohol was by far a more established drug than marijuana and cocaine are today. You might say that MAYBE marijuana has reached a certain level of ubiquity, but it is by no means the same as prohibiting something like alcohol, which has huge cultural and historical significance. By abolishing certain pandemics before they begin, governments can seek to control illicit drugs before they become to widespread to take back. I see your point - it can be very difficult, but that doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

[apache]

lol, i try not too, but it's so tempting, i'll argue with anyone... it's good for the mind imo, keeps you sharp

 

I don't see why people are wasting their time arguing with you.

[sfinch]

The nordic countries have some of the most draconian drug policies in the world. Sweden has essentially a zero tolerance policy, even for pot. As a result, drug use is estimated to be among the lowest in the world by a lot!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy#Sweden

Sweden is so strict, they can require blood and sweat tests from anyone suspected to be taking drugs, even if not bothering anyone. It is that strict!!

 

Netherlands has a unique policy, and is chastized by neighbors France and Germany alot about it. But even still, their drug use laws generally confine pot to well controlled areas in only large urban centers. The government is clamping down and closing down 'coffee shops' in record number. Holland has suffered several great social ills because of their policy - and much of the public is now taking a stand against it. Bans against mushrooms are also new. Hard drugs are treated VERY harsly in Holland.

 

Apparently some right wing guy won the election in Toronto - Bob Ford. What's funny about it is that from my classmates and people from toronto at uwo in general - there is complete outrage. No one admits to supporting Ford. I'm no right wing person - but I would probably vote for someone against crime and against high taxes. Some of you liberal drug loving criminal loving anti-law people are very self righteous in your beliefs. But there are conservative people out there. They do exist.

 

Thank You Itimebomb...sometimes it seems like all the new medical students are drug loving zombies. I know your class unfortunately has more than their fair share of such people.

 

And Muse - You need serious help. I know you're a medical student in Alberta - but honestly, keep your illegal drug loving beliefs as a doctor to a minimum. Wouldn't want one of your patients to rat you out.

[Wayward son]

Apparently some right wing guy won the election in Toronto - Bob Ford. What's funny about it is that from my classmates and people from toronto at uwo in general - there is complete outrage. No one admits to supporting Ford. I'm no right wing person - but I would probably vote for someone against crime and against high taxes. Some of you liberal drug loving criminal loving anti-law people are very self righteous in your beliefs. But there are conservative people out there. They do exist.

 

I think that Rob Ford is a great example. Tough on crime? Hell yeah....except his own... like his arrest for drinking and driving and illegal drug possession in Florida a decade ago. Here is the hilarious thing. If people had been as tough on Rob Ford's crimes as his supporter’s feel that we should be on other people's crimes then Ford would not have become a city councillor in 2000 let alone its mayor on Monday. Rob Ford also has a history, while on council no less, of public displays that are hardly examples of the professional conduct generally expected of a mayor especially of a major city (The leaf game incident for starters). And although I think that the voters of Toronto had very poor options for mayoral candidates I would be embarrassed to have Ford as my mayor – not because of political positions although I don’t support him politically – but because of his behaviour and innapropriate comments. I also have significant doubts that Ford will reduce taxes. I have read about his ideas and I don’t see any concrete plan for savings. Sure he will cut 10 or 20 thousand from the Mayor’s expenses but in a 9 billion dollar budget that is less than peanuts. Neither do his big supporters, like the Toronto Sun, seem to have confidence that large parts of his platform are anything more than a poorly hashed out pipe-dream.

 

My personal opinions on drugs:

 

I drink minimal alcohol. Tried weed twice about a decade ago (not with Rob Ford). Otherwise I have no interest in cigarettes or drugs.

 

I think that professional organizations and university programs can enact and enforce the rules they wish to with regards to drug use and professional conduct based on the standards they wish to promote to the public.

 

However, I do not support governments deciding, directing and enforcing moral behaviour upon its population. I, or anyone else, should be free to do whatever I wish to with my own body free of government interference as long as it does not directly harm others. Therefore I feel that drugs should be legalized. I would have no desire or plan to express that freedom myself, but if others choose to that is their own choice for them to make. I also feel that the war on drugs has been a very expensive total failure and has only greatly increased the wealth and power of criminal elements in our society. Legalizing, regulating and taxing recreational drugs would be an improvement as far as I am concerned. If you are so concerned about high-taxes then perhaps you should be concerned about the billions spent by government on the drug war in an attempt to force people to abide – in their own homes during their own free time – by the moral dictates, traditions etc of others.

[NLengr]

If you are so concerned about high-taxes then perhaps you should be concerned about the billions spent by government on the drug war in an attempt to force people to abide – in their own homes during their own free time – by the moral dictates, traditions etc of others.

 

No no, high taxes are unacceptable to conservatives only if they go toward helping people out. They are completely acceptable if they go towards imposing your morals on others, spending money on the police/justice system to infringe on civil rights or to buy things that kill brown people overseas. That's how Jesus would want it.

 

NOTE: Before someone gets all self righteous in here (like junior med students/pre-meds love to do) check to make sure your sense of humor is intact.

[apache]

Dude, do me a favour and mind your own business, it's not a crime to have an opinion, especially when it's evidence based and in the best interest of my future patients (I wouldn't be pro-drug decriminalization if I believed that unregulated criminal control of our drugs was less dangerous than government regulation supervised by health care professionals), I even helped develop a presentation based on heroin legalization which was presented publicly to my whole class. If you read these boards, know me in person, and go the same school as me... it's pretty obvious who I am. A large number of my classmates know about my views, and some of my past experiences, so it's not any sort of secret to anyone in my class, my faculty and educational administration, so please cut the personal threats/warnings.

 

By the way, my views are going to be very very public when I'm done, I'm not in medicine just for the MD, I'm too talented (and yeah, maybe arrogant, but not undeservingly) for that. I want to make a significant impact on this world, and small thinkers like you who care for nothing more than prestige, stature, and wealth don't have a chance of getting in my way, because I've been through too much to be stopped, and will settle for nothing but the best of myself.

 

As Winston Churchill said: You have enemies? Good, it means you stood up for something, sometime in your life.

 

Hopefully one day you'll be able to embrace this instead of going through a 5-6 life of self-flatulence, gawking at two gleaming letters on your business card. Maybe they'll even put a plaque up in the hospital with your name on it! Then again, being a flagrantly bigoted, narcissistic, elitist racist often supersedes those countless hours you put in at the hospital when they're deciding about the plaque thing, so maybe not.

 

Anyhoo, have fun with life.

 

And Muse - You need serious help. I know you're a medical student in Alberta - but honestly, keep your illegal drug loving beliefs as a doctor to a minimum. Wouldn't want one of your patients to rat you out.

[cgardiner]

Yes... I think that using recreational marijuana is OK as long as it doesn't impinge on your daily life. Besides, its gonna be legal soon in Cali, and Canada will be soon to follow no doubt!

 

There are clearly no implications of addiction, and the only side effects are mild (lower short-term memory) and non-permanent... I wouldn't mind some discussion on the topic, as long as the thread doesn't get too out of hand!

 

go canada

 

/10char

[sfinch]

Dude, do me a favour and mind your own business, it's not a crime to have an opinion, especially when it's evidence based and in the best interest of my future patients (I wouldn't be pro-drug decriminalization if I believed that unregulated criminal control of our drugs was less dangerous than government regulation supervised by health care professionals), I even helped develop a presentation based on heroin legalization which was presented publicly to my whole class. If you read these boards, know me in person, and go the same school as me... it's pretty obvious who I am. A large number of my classmates know about my views, and some of my past experiences, so it's not any sort of secret to anyone in my class, my faculty and educational administration, so please cut the personal threats/warnings.

 

By the way, my views are going to be very very public when I'm done, I'm not in medicine just for the MD, I'm too talented (and yeah, maybe arrogant, but not undeservingly) for that. I want to make a significant impact on this world, and small thinkers like you who care for nothing more than prestige, stature, and wealth don't have a chance of getting in my way, because I've been through too much to be stopped, and will settle for nothing but the best of myself.

 

As Winston Churchill said: You have enemies? Good, it means you stood up for something, sometime in your life.

 

Hopefully one day you'll be able to embrace this instead of going through a 5-6 life of self-flatulence, gawking at two gleaming letters on your business card. Maybe they'll even put a plaque up in the hospital with your name on it! Then again, being a flagrantly bigoted, narcissistic, elitist racist often supersedes those countless hours you put in at the hospital when they're deciding about the plaque thing, so maybe not.

 

Anyhoo, have fun with life.

 

Evidence based is such a buzzword, when in reality it is selective evidence based in your case. You sound like one of those arrogant little donks on campus with a poorly made plackard pushing every far left wing agenda like it's the worlds most important thing - while not even listening to the other points of view. In some ways, you are no different that the right wing crazies that hate minorities and believe in God's law - the arrogant mindset is the same if not the actual opinions.

 

Sweden is a great example that you drug loving people love to ignore. It was a country with a very liberal drug policy in teh 60s/70s. The social problems that resulted from that led to one of the stricted anti-drug policies in the world, where even the use of pot is considered a crime, and police have the right to drug test anyone on the spot. Result? One of the lowest drug use rates for ANY country in the world - and basically near number 1 in the world for most social matters. Sweden is also a very open socialist society with liberal immigration laws, high taxes, great environmental record, anti-war and anti-poverty, feminist, and a great social safety net. They are also VERY ANTI DRUG.

 

Netherlands, while lax with pot - is in fact VERY strict with hard drugs within the nation (albeit, not withstanding being the largest producer of E in the world). Sentences for hard substances are harsh!

 

You are one of the most arrogant users on this site. You also will admire your MD and the perceived power it will give you, and push your views on non-MDs like there is no tomorrow. Your super drug loving agenda is one of the most dangerous agendas I can think off - but that is my opinion. You have essentially no tolerance for those that support the law - or at least its enforcement of it - and as a future physician that will have power, that is disturbing. Kind of like having a previous mafia member as the head of police.

 

And my racism?!? Look - I was inappropriately scared about moving to a small town because of experiences growing up, but racism is real - and your ignorant view that non-whites are all treated without discrimination is one of the most racist things I have ever seen. There were racist signs in my city during the recent mayoral campaign. But of course - you'll ignore that. And I come from a pretty humble background - so I'm not sure what elitism you talk off.

 

Canada does not have the Nixonian 'war on drugs'. We do not spend billions like the US does. I am very anti-war as well and I think the Afghan war is a waste of Canadian money. I am christian, but also am pro-choice, and don't want to push my religious values on others, especially on the public dime. Not all 'conservative's's are the same - and I actually tend to vote liberal (out west, alot of conservatives are also social conservatives, and sadly often bigoted against people of colour).

 

I don't know Ford very well - being non-Ontarian. He doesn't seem like a perfect person - probably a bit of a hypocrite. But being anti-crime, doesn't mean one did not do crime before - or having done bad stuff prevents you from changing you mind.

 

Drug legalization is advocated by Libertarians in the belief that one can do personal things, as long as it does not affect others. That is the problem. It often does effect other people. Drug use (and even legal alcohol use) can lead to MANY psych issues, social issues and risks to innocents in society, that society pays for. This includes drunk/drug impaired driving, child neglect, institutionalization (tax dollars for prisons or hospitals), and so forth. Maybe I would support your argument for decriminalization, if the taxpayer did not have to pay for the consequences of the actions of drug users. Anyways, the arguments for and against legalization is another issue.

 

The real issue of the thread was this: DRUG USE IS ILLEGAL. IF A DOCTOR/MEDICAL STUDENT IS CAUGHT USING ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES, YOUR CAREER MAY BE IN JEOPARDY, AND YOUR PROVINCIAL AGENCY WILL PROBABLY PUT IN ON YOUR PUBLIC RECORD. AND SOME PEOPLE, LIKE MYSELF, WILL HAVE NO PROBLEM REPORTING THEM TO AUTHORITIES IF IN MY OPINION, THINGS ARE REALLY OUT OF HAND.

[flobot222]

Muse, wtf, I love you...or at least your attitude.

[RAW]

I am christian, but also am pro-choice, and don't want to push my religious values on others, especially on the public dime.

 

How do you live with being a christian?

 

You're putting it up as a facade to fit in with this asian populace immigrated/ing to the western countries that has this christian fever sweeping the religion-less cultures they come from. (well, not religion-less, there's taoists and what not, but not that strong)

 

Intelligence and Science don't kill concept of god, but they do quash christianity and the bible.

[itimebomb2]

How do you live with being a christian?

 

You're putting it up as a facade to fit in with this asian populace immigrated/ing to the western countries that has this christian fever sweeping the religion-less cultures they come from. (well, not religion-less, there's taoists and what not, but not that strong)

 

Intelligence and Science don't kill concept of god, but they do quash christianity and the bible.

 

Since you've obviously never given religion more than the 15 seconds of thinking that it took you to come up with that statement, let me take the time to educate you on a few things.

 

First of all, religions inherently move from place to place. Christianity, you may be surprised to know, wasn't started by a white male, but grew out of the middle east. It was predominantly a Jewish sub-religion at first, and became adopted as a "Western" religion when the Roman emperor made it the official religion in Rome (which, by the way, still isn't the white Canadian culture you're accusing Asians of trying to assimilate into). Today, Christianity isn't a western religion at all, and in fact geographically is better described as a "southern" religion, since the majority of its true adherents exist in South America, Africa and Asia. As a percentage of the population, Canada less Christian than many Asian countries (including Hong Kong [where most Canadian Asians immigrate from, and yes I know its not a country], possibly China [where Christian statistics are difficult to estimate], and Korea [which is one of the most Christian countries in the world]).

 

So to answer your dumb comment - Asians don't come to Canada to assimilate by becoming Christians - most Asian Christians were Christian before they got here. Those are some facts to decrease your ignorance (ever so slightly).

 

Secondly, if I had a nickle for every time some arrogant first year bio student regurgitated some sad line from a 10th grade textbook about natural selection, I'd be a rich man by now.

 

Here's something to consider asking yourself - what do you presume to know about "science" that I don't (as a Christian)? Do you think I got into medical school by failing biology classes since the 10th grade when they started force feeding Darwinian garbage down my throat? Guess what - I dominate biology, and I can recite to you a thousand pieces of "evidence" that have been posited to "prove" evolution - many of which I bet you've never even heard of. I know everything you think you know about the theory of evolution and "science" - and then some. The only difference between people like you and me is that I've actually done research supporting the opposing side of the argument, and my independent, scientific opinion is that evolution is a poor theory at best, and not a fact, and that science has never proved Christian thinking wrong.

 

You don't think atheists have religious agendas? As you aptly demonstrated with your brazen message, atheists get just as much of a kick of self-righteousness through trying to win others over into their "religion" as anybody else, and the trickle down effect has certainly led to the widely use (but rarely defended) notion that "science/intelligence" > "Christianity/Bible".

 

You ask, how do we live with being Christian? Well, very happily I should say. I think the better question is how do you live with not believing in an after-life, and that any day you could be hit by a bus, be diagnosed with an insidious deadly illness, or at best live another 60 years and die, knowing that your whole life was a totally meaningless blip in an infinite universe without purpose? I don't remember the last time I or a Christian friend of mine broke down in despair in contemplating our mortality. Enjoy that, though. Or deceive yourself long enough into thinking you don't care - but sooner or later, it will hit you.

[AdamP]

The only difference between people like you and me is that I've actually done research supporting the opposing side of the argument, and my independent, scientific opinion is that evolution is a poor theory at best, and not a fact.

 

 

Sorry, i don't know too much biology and am interested. can you please post all this research disputing evolution so that I may read it.

[RAW]

So to answer your dumb comment - Asians don't come to Canada to assimilate by becoming Christians - most Asian Christians were Christian before they got here. Those are some facts to decrease your ignorance (ever so slightly).

 

Firstly, you're a presumptuous fool.

 

Secondly, you're an fool.

 

Your post consisted of teaching me the most general history you can about christianity and then shooting down Darwinism by pushing concepts like afterlife, ahahahahahha. You presumed I didn't know christianity originated from the middle east and then came to europe? cool.

 

Where did I say asians COME here TO assimilate by becoming christians? In fact, your statement itself doesn't even make logical sense.

 

My post accuses sfinch, an individual, of superficially shoving christianity in his image to assimilate with the ALREADY CHRISTIAN ASIANS! The last sentence I wrote was evidence of why I believe sfinch is superficially accepting christianity--it's because he seems to have enough intelligence and scientific information to know that christianity is too very flawed.

 

My post is directed towards sfinch, not christian asians or christianity. Stop trying to twist it.

 

I think the most intelligent persons can accept the concept of God. However, they know christianity and its bible as a whole are unacceptable.

 

One further note: intelligence ≠ amount of scientific information you know. My post says intelligence AND science, their synergy, their combination; they're aren't the same thing (unless you have a very specific definition of science that makes it so).

 

How do you live with being a christian?

 

You're putting it up as a facade to fit in with this asian populace immigrated/ing to the western countries that has this christian fever sweeping the religion-less cultures they come from. (well, not religion-less, there's taoists and what not, but not that strong)

 

Intelligence and Science don't kill concept of god, but they do quash christianity and the bible.

 

---

Here's something to consider asking yourself - what do you presume to know about "science" that I don't (as a Christian)? Do you think I got into medical school by failing biology classes since the 10th grade when they started force feeding Darwinian garbage down my throat? Guess what - I dominate biology, and I can recite to you a thousand pieces of "evidence" that have been posited to "prove" evolution - many of which I bet you've never even heard of.

 

To repeat: intelligence ≠ amount of scientific information you know

Just so you know, you don't need to be intelligent to get A's in biology classes and get into medschool. That's why christians, muslims, stupid athiests, intelligent humanists, douchebags, nice people will all get into medschool. The fact that you're in meds doesn't mean anything. What an airhead..

 

You ask, how do we live with being Christian? Well, very happily I should say. I think the better question is how do you live with not believing in an after-life, and that any day you could be hit by a bus, be diagnosed with an insidious deadly illness, or at best live another 60 years and die, knowing that your whole life was a totally meaningless blip in an infinite universe without purpose? I don't remember the last time I or a Christian friend of mine broke down in despair in contemplating our mortality. Enjoy that, though. Or deceive yourself long enough into thinking you don't care - but sooner or later, it will hit you.

 

GAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAahaha. Wow, the level of presumptuousness you exhibit is unparalleled (unless if you can compare it somehow to your level of idiocy). Do you think every non-christian thinks that there is NO purpose to life? Do you think one MUST believe in an AFTERLIFE in order to have a purpose to life? Acutally, that's all I'll leave it at. Good going budd..

[sfinch]

Firstly, you're a presumptuous idiot.

 

Secondly, you're an idiot.

 

Your post consisted of teaching me the most general history you can about christianity and then shooting down Darwinism by pushing concepts like afterlife, ahahahahahha.

 

Where did I say asians COME here TO assimilate by becoming christians? In fact, your statement itself doesn't even make logical sense.

 

My post accuses sfinch, an individual, of superficially shoving christianity in his image to assimilate with the ALREADY CHRISTIAN ASIANS! The last sentence I wrote was evidence of why I believe sfinch is superficially accepting christianity--it's because he seems to have enough intelligence and scientific information to know that christianity is too very flawed.

 

My post is directed towards sfinch, not christian asians or christianity. Stop trying to twist it.

 

I think the most intelligent persons can accept the concept of God. However, they know christianity and its bible are unacceptable.

 

I'm a christian probably because my parents are christian. Many of my asian friends are nominally christian or even atheists. I remain a christian because it gives me comfort, provides community, and in my opinion gives me a set of core values with which to live my life that makes me feel good. This doesn't mean I'm a fundamentalist of believe everything that evangilicals believe either.

 

I actually believe in evolution, and feel that Christianity can agree with it (I admit - a very liberal view for practicing christians and not mainstream). But even though I think evolution is correct, and it seems to make sense, the concrete proof that pro-evolutionists believe is at best circumstantial. The idea that randomness leads to intelligent life out of nothingness is still as hard to believe as a magical being creating everything. The Big Bang and it's true origin is still entirely conjecture.

 

On that issue, even if religion is 'fake', it exists independently EVERYWHERE on the planet. In my opinion, there probably was an evolutionary benefit for groups to adopt religious codes that helped keep law and order. Sure - when opposing religions fight there is disorder - but in insulated societies with a common religious heritage, which probably existed commonly 1000+ years ago, religion had its advantages. Even today, religion can provide community for otherwise lonely people. When one goes through the loss of siblings, jobs, and relationships, as one gets older, religion and culture can help.

 

A good chunk of Canada is christian - and attacks on christians for simply existing are often pretty appalling. Not all people that go to church are crazy fundamentalists that want to kill all moslems, and prant a 'jesus, jesus' mantra like zombies wherever they go, or condemn education. It was, afterall, christian nations and christian peoples that founded most of the greatest liberal education facilities in the world (oxford/harvard/mit/etc etc).

Even Darwin, who stated he was probably was best described as an agnostic, did live most of his life as a Christian (and almost became an anglican priest when young). Even as a non-christian, he did believe in God, and God's moral authority.

 

I will argue a few points that itimebomb made, even though we are generally on the same page. Me and him are of similar background mind you. China has relatively few true christians - in rural areas basically none. There is some noticable christianization in big cities, like Shanghai or Bejjing - but I'd wager the number of christians is barely higher than the number of moslems there. Of course in a country of 1.3 billion, even 2-3% christian is a HUGE number. Most people are still pretty atheist, and follow traditional chinese traditions of taoism/confucianism/etc. South Korea still has more buddhists than christians (christians are maybe only 35% at most), BUT most immigrants from Korea to Canada are christian, or join a church, for community reasons. The Phillipines is the only true majority christian country is Asia where the natives were primarily of non-abrahamic faiths. The few native moslems in the south near Mindanao basically never converted and are still moslem.

The most christian continents are still Europe, North America, Australia, and South America - nominally over 90% in all three.

 

Anyways...some of us like the cultures and religions we were born into, or adopted. Accept it. And no - I still dislike drugs, and I believe in obeying the law.

[nosuperman]

Sorry, i don't know too much biology and am interested. can you please post all this research disputing evolution so that I may read it.

 

The Bible pretty much refutes it with more evidence than science could ever hope to obtain.

[oto]

The Bible pretty much refutes it with more evidence than science could ever hope to obtain.

 

Oh boy, really? Can I haz evidence? Post plz.

[itimebomb2]

First of all, you don't know me - so calling me stupid repeatedly only makes you look like a 12 year old girl. Besides, the fact remains that I sailed into med school with stellar grades (in more than just biology) and have pretty much dominated every academic and non-academic endeavor I've ever engaged in. If you have a better measure of intelligence, I'm happy to hear it. Am I knowledgeable? Yes. Intelligent? Much more so.

 

In any case, intelligence has nothing to do with this. Are you saying that by being more intelligent, you can understand the concepts of evolution MORE than someone else? It's a simple concept, buddy. There is no correlation between religious belief and intelligence, and a well studied knowledge of the historical evolution of religions (not just Christianity) will demonstrate quite decisively that most major religions cannot be intellectually unjustified due to problems in basic epistemology. Since you've obviously never studied religion to any great extent, you have no way of knowing that, so I can forgive your flagrant ignorance.

 

Again - what do you presume to know or understand that I don't?

 

Firstly, you're a presumptuous fool.

 

Secondly, you're an fool.

 

Your post consisted of teaching me the most general history you can about christianity and then shooting down Darwinism by pushing concepts like afterlife, ahahahahahha. You presumed I didn't know christianity originated from the middle east and then came to europe? cool.

 

Where did I say asians COME here TO assimilate by becoming christians? In fact, your statement itself doesn't even make logical sense.

 

My post accuses sfinch, an individual, of superficially shoving christianity in his image to assimilate with the ALREADY CHRISTIAN ASIANS! The last sentence I wrote was evidence of why I believe sfinch is superficially accepting christianity--it's because he seems to have enough intelligence and scientific information to know that christianity is too very flawed.

 

My post is directed towards sfinch, not christian asians or christianity. Stop trying to twist it.

 

I think the most intelligent persons can accept the concept of God. However, they know christianity and its bible as a whole are unacceptable.

 

One further note: intelligence ≠ amount of scientific information you know. My post says intelligence AND science, their synergy, their combination; they're aren't the same thing (unless you have a very specific definition of science that makes it so).

 

---

 

To repeat: intelligence ≠ amount of scientific information you know

Just so you know, you don't need to be intelligent to get A's in biology classes and get into medschool. That's why christians, muslims, stupid athiests, intelligent humanists, douchebags, nice people will all get into medschool. The fact that you're in meds doesn't mean anything. What an airhead..

 

GAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAahaha. Wow, the level of presumptuousness you exhibit is unparalleled (unless if you can compare it somehow to your level of idiocy). Do you think every non-christian thinks that there is NO purpose to life? Do you think one MUST believe in an AFTERLIFE in order to have a purpose to life? Acutally, that's all I'll leave it at. Good going budd..

[nosuperman]

I actually believe in evolution, and feel that Christianity can agree with it (I admit - a very liberal view for practicing christians and not mainstream). But even though I think evolution is correct, and it seems to make sense, the concrete proof that pro-evolutionists believe is at best circumstantial. The idea that randomness leads to intelligent life out of nothingness is still as hard to believe as a magical being creating everything. The Big Bang and it's true origin is still entirely conjecture.

 

Don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis or the beginning of space-time. The theory of evolution describes how speciation occurs, and the proof for this has yet to be scientifically refuted.

 

On that issue, even if religion is 'fake', it exists independently EVERYWHERE on the planet. In my opinion, there probably was an evolutionary benefit for groups to adopt religious codes that helped keep law and order. Sure - when opposing religions fight there is disorder - but in insulated societies with a common religious heritage, which probably existed commonly 1000+ years ago, religion had its advantages. Even today, religion can provide community for otherwise lonely people. When one goes through the loss of siblings, jobs, and relationships, as one gets older, religion and culture can help.

 

It does exist everywhere - but so does fear, ignorance and superstition. If everyone was doing human sacrifices to appease the Gods, it wouldn't necessarily allude to human sacrifice being an adaptive strategy. There's far more to behaviour than genetics, and even to the extent that genetics influence behaviour - it may do so in a harmful, maladaptive way. Rape and murder exist everywhere and may increase fitness in some sense but that doesn't lend them any credibility. My point is that you can't use the argument of "its everywhere so it must have some benefit".

 

To address your second point - in the same way that we can't cherry pick the bad aspects of religion, you can't cherry pick the community aspect. Its a side effect of religious organization, it isn't inherent to religious thinking itself. There are communities that surround sports teams, political ideologies, celebrities etc. When I see someone who needs a hand, or someone to talk to, or anything, my motivation to seek them out isn't "I'm doing this because the bible/priest/parish requires that I do so". Religion isn't unique in the community sense. Forging communities, not unlike religion, seems to be part of human nature.

 

This isn't to take away from the value of your own experience with religion or the religious community though, just keep in mind it is subjective and doesn't hold weight in the scientific sense.

[itimebomb2]

Don't confuse evolution with abiogenesis or the beginning of space-time. The theory of evolution describes how speciation occurs, and the proof for this has yet to be scientifically refuted.

 

Scientifically refuted? That's not a term we use in science. We tend to make conjectures and then prove them, not assume truths and then disprove them.

 

That said, it is a great example of how the theory of evolution has become cannon without being fully justified. We've assumed evolution is true, without conclusive evidence of it. Thanks for the great set up.

[nosuperman]

Scientifically refuted? That's not a term we use in science. We tend to make conjectures and then prove them, not assume truths and then disprove them.

 

That said, it is a great example of how the theory of evolution has become cannon without being fully justified. We've assumed evolution is true, without conclusive evidence of it. Thanks for the great set up.

 

At this point I'm tempted to say you're trolling. You have to know that you're misrepresenting science here. Nobody just said "Hey lets make up a theory and wait until its refuted." The discovery of DNA and gene mutation, the sequencing of genomes, the direct observations of speciation in the wild, the direct measurement of genetic drift, all of these things are predicted by and therefor strengthen the theory of evolution.

 

The part of my post that you've quoted refers to the fact that in light of conflicting evidence, theories are amended or abandoned. What I said was no evidence has caused us to question the validity of evolution.

 

The law of gravity predicts that larger objects should have a stronger gravitational force. If voyager 2 flew by Jupiter and didn't notice a gravitational force then we'd have to examine what the hell was going on and perhaps amend our understanding. That didn't happen with voyager 2 and it has yet to happen with evolution.

 

The process of stating "This is true and you can't prove it wrong" is far from scientific (though it is reminiscent of a certain ancient tribe of semi-literate desert dwellers). Theories are constantly amended or abandoned to accommodate new evidence. This is why science has advanced at explaining the world so successfully and why the realm of questions "answered" by religion is constantly shrinking.

[nosuperman]

Oh boy, really? Can I haz evidence? Post plz.

 

 

 

Also, seriously people lets argue like adults here and refrain from petty personal attacks. If not we'll never settle the issue on whether drug testing occurs in med school.