- Joined
- Sep 23, 2007
- Messages
- 597
- Reaction score
- 5
Also, answer this: many people say that osteopathic medicine isn't based on evidence. Be honest, doesn't that sound like it does more harm than if a physician believes in evolution? Shouldn't we close down all these D.O. schools that can't produce evidence for OMM? (Btw, I am all for DOs and OMM!!!!)
Osteopathic philosophy is NOT based on OMM. It has historical roots dating back to 100+ years ago when other practitioners were prescribing cyanide for common cold and some guy came along and said maybe we shouldn't do that. Also nobody in their right mind argues with tenants of Osteopathy (structure and function/self-healing/body being a unit/rational treatment). But as a premed you obviously don't know that because most of your information regarding osteopathy came from SDN.
Furthermore, there has been multiple studies on OMM proving its effectiveness in treating musculoskeletal dysfunction as well as few other pediatric conditions in addition to its effectiveness in providing symptomatic relief in some conditions. As you can imagine, it is very difficult/impossible to do double blind studies on manipulation. Having said that, I would have the same opinion regarding anyone who claims that OMM does anything else without solid evidence. Also, there is almost ZERO side effects to OMM, if done correctly, so I don't know where the danger that you are referring to comes from.
This thread is NOT about osteopathy so don't change the subject unless you are trolling.
Great, if you want to say that atheism is not a religion, then I agree. However, please notice that I never said it was. I said it was a belief system. Sure, the word belief is perhaps the exact same thing as religion to you, but if you are wanting to play semantics, then at least take the time and argue something I actually said. Your "evidence" in that video refers to atheism not being a religion.
I love how these conversations also start with "religion (or whatever)... where's your evidence in your arguments" only to be followed by a comic routine. One can't say back your arguments with logic and then fall back to Bill Maher. But I'm sure you'll say he makes all the perfect points and he's schooling us all.
You can't counter any of Bill Maher's main/underlying points (ignoring the satire) so you are just attacking Bill. Also, Bill's video is NOT my evidence. My evidence is the dictionary. That video was a tool to help you better understand my point through satire.
I, according to your post, said that creationism and evolution are equals or should be accepted as equals. The point I'm assuming (correct me if I'm wrong) is that because evolution is scientific, then all should consider it as fact, end of story. Thus a school that denounces, for religious beliefs, it should not be allowed to be opened. So, what if the school wasn't faith based and still denounced evolution? Should they be allowed to be opened? Only if they have evidence I'm sure? How much evidence? What kind? Only the kind that would influence you? As long as it's not faith based?
If you'd read the entire discussion you would realize that no one is saying evolution is 100% fact. This is science and we go by theories. Evolution is the BEST scientific theory we currently have and it works pretty da** well for our purposes. Unlike religion, it can be proven wrong based on scientific knowledge/evidence. It has stood the test of time for the past 100+ years but tomorrow someone can come along with a better theory. There are no absolutes. That's the difference between evolution and religious stories/creationism. One can be proven wrong the other can't. Hence, one is science and the other is not and therefore, they should not be equated to one another.
Any school (faith based or otherwise) that doesn't teach evolution (or whatever the scientific belief of the day is) should not be allowed to have a medical school.
So, I'm willing to have a discussion or whatever, but take the time and address my post properly (it was really about tolerance). If you want to change it, then provide some text other than Bill Maher's quotes (well quotations if I need to be correct). Also, let's be without bias here, how is this different than the above paragraph?
Just because you used the word "tolerance" doesn't mean everyone should clap for you regardless of what you say. There is no tolerance in science. You may be right until proven wrong; and once proven wrong then that's it; your ideas would be considered ridiculous and people move on with NO tolerance for the wrong ideas.
There is a significant correlation with a liberal political philosophy and an atheist religion
See the video above to help you with better understand the word.
Last edited: