Toxin has anything at all to do with one being sensitive to a substance?

So knives are a toxic reaction?

Toxicity has to do with one being sensitive to substances, whereas allergy deals with many being sensitive to one substance.

Knives are neither toxic nor are people allergic to them, as when you are stabbed, your body has a good response, as your body tries to heal the wound; you are allergic to certian knife-bearing people though.

???
I don't get it...

The response of your body to a pollen is no different: When one breaths it in, the body has a 'good' response to it, as it tries to remove the foreign substance.

The response of one's body to a knife is just as validly an

Due to the hypersensitivity we have to being stabbed, and that our body's bleeding can kill us (and if any organ was struck expect possible malfunction)... It is an allergic reaction. Maybe not a hugely bad one... but it is still bad enough to register, I think

saerules wrote that the dictionary Wrote:allergy |ˈalərjē|
noun ( pl. -gies)
a damaging immune response by the body to a substance, esp. pollen, fur, a particular food, or dust, to which it has become hypersensitive.
• informal an antipathy : their allergy to free enterprise.

No, allergys are an error in the persons genes, a person who is allergic to peanuts, wich are not poisonous, eats a peanut, their body will attack the peanut and produce a reaction that is harmful to itself. when somebody else stabs you, the only adverse reaction to you is caused by the other person, your immune system produces a positive [b]not negative[b] response to being stabbed, as in it fixxes the damage.

saerules Wrote:I don't get it...

The response of your body to a pollen is no different [than being stabbed]: When one breaths it in, the body has a 'good' response to it, as it tries to remove the foreign substance.

The response of one's body to a knife is just as validly an allergy [definition removed] Due to the hypersensitivity we have to being stabbed, and that our body's bleeding can kill us (and if any organ was struck expect possible malfunction)... It is an allergic reaction. Maybe not a hugely bad one... but it is still bad enough to register, I think

No, not everyone is allergic to pollen, in most people the mucus membranes catch it, and you sneeze(not an allergic reaction) and the pollen is expelled; in people who are allergic to pollen, the bodys immune system reacts to the pollen, and the result is damage done to your body caused by your body in response to whatever you are allergic to. An allergy to knives would be some kind of mental disorder where upon seeing a knife near you, you get the uncontrollable urge to cut yourself with it.

"Due to the hypersensitivity we [the human race] have to being stabbed" this would be improper use of hypersensitive, as everyone is damaged by being stabed, it would be a sensitivity, as 'hypersensitive' deals with people in the population that have a worse sensitivity than normal (average).

Plus if knives are toxic, then what happens when you get stabbed in the kidneys?

Words are defined by how people use them, and people dont says we have an allergy to knifes.

(October 1, 2009 at 9:00 pm)Saerules Wrote: The response of one's body to a knife is just as validly an

---

allergy |ˈalərjē|
noun ( pl. -gies)
a damaging immune response by the body to a substance, esp. pollen, fur, a particular food, or dust, to which it has become hypersensitive.
• informal an antipathy : their allergy to free enterprise.

---

Due to the hypersensitivity we have to being stabbed, and that our body's bleeding can kill us (and if any organ was struck expect possible malfunction)... It is an allergic reaction. Maybe not a hugely bad one... but it is still bad enough to register, I think

No, because an allergy is a chemical response to another chemical. If you had an allergy to steel then a steel knife would produce an allergic reaction. Being stabbed produces physical damage not allergic damage. Therefore we are not allergic to knives.

theblindferrengi and fr0d0: I can't believe you guys are actually taking the time to explain that. Your patience is extraordinary.

(September 30, 2009 at 3:48 pm)Eilonnwy Wrote: And you would be justified in saying there really isn't a dragon in my garage because you can't verify for yourself, and you know I could also be lying or delusional.

When you see atheists making statements like this, solarwave, call them on it. It's really faulty reasoning, like nails down a blackboard to the critical thinker. To conclude that something is false ("there really isn't a dragon") because it has not been proven true is a case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. A lack of evidence for P does not establish ¬P.

(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: Science proves there is no God? I would like to hear that.

Me too. The sycophantic fanboy mentality that Dawkins and Hitchens display about science is embarrassing. When people like them and Stenger claim that science shows "there most certainly is not a God," and a review of the scientific literature reveals no such thing, the claim qualifies as delusional—"a false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence." Have you read Why the Universe Is the Way It Is by Dr. Hugh Ross? It almost seems he had Stenger in mind when he wrote it (and in fact makes references to him).

(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: As for the second book, I bet he doesn't take into account the good by religion as well.

Of course not. (I borrowed the book to read it, refusing to give that man so much as a dime.) Examining the sociological impact of religion with intellectual responsibility and integrity is anathema to his anti-religion bigotry, which he is by no means shy about. The idea is to vilify religion, not examine it honestly. He is a very gifted writer, to be sure, but eloquence is no substitute for scholarship.

(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: The Problem of Evil is quite a big one, and not one I can answer at the moment.

I have yet to encounter a version of that argument that actually succeeds. If there is ANYONE here on this site who thinks the Problem of Evil argument can withstand the test of critical scrutiny (and I don't care whose version you employ), I would accept a formal debate challenge without a moment's hesitation. That is a permanently open invitation.

(October 2, 2009 at 5:40 am)Arcanus Wrote: When you see atheists making statements like this, solarwave, call them on it. It's really faulty reasoning, like nails down a blackboard to the critical thinker. To conclude that something is false ("there really isn't a dragon") because it has not been proven true is a case of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. A lack of evidence for P does not establish ¬P.

You completely twist my words. This is basic principle of burden of proof. If someone does not meet the burden of proof, then you are justified in not accepting their claims until they do. The Dragon in the Garage story is an example to show how people avoid burden of proof by making claims that protect them from scientific inquiry.

This is basic logic. I find it laughable you disagree with this since you're such a self proclaimed philosopher.

Argument ad ignorantiam deals with when you disbelieve something because you can't imagine it's possibly true. For instance when people refuse to believe the Big Bang because they can't imagine the universe came into being from an explosion. (In fact Big Bang was a term invented to mock the concept) When you refuse to consider evidence because of ignorance then you are making that fallacy.

However, as in the Dragon example, which was proposed by the brilliant, and sadly late Carl Sagan in The Demon Haunted World, when you propose methods to prove this dragon is really there and every effort is shot down by excuses or evasions, you are then justified in not believing it because the person making the claim has not met the burden of proof.

Irving Copi Wrote:The argumentum ad ignorantiam [fallacy] is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false, or that it is false because it has not been proven true.
A qualification should be made at this point. In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence despite searching, as positive evidence towards its non-occurrence. (Copi 1953)

Source= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

---

(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: How does that prove there isn't a God. For me I dont think it is so clear cut as if your a christian or not.

It's just one aspect in the house of cards, so to speak. People claim the know and understand God and yet no one can get agree with each other. If God is revealing himself to people, why can't they agree? What is so inconsistent about his message? It also seems ridiculous to me, that a God who cares so much about faith would let the issues get so muddied by it's followers. I know what apologists would say, "well humans are imperfect and make mistakes." Bullshit. Humans witnessing an event might get details wrong and differences in the story, but if they are being truthful, you can parse out what's true. Really, if God is as powerful as people claim, I see no reason why he can't do something to fix the contradictions but instead he'd rather let people doubt, not believe, get it wrong, and go to hell. Loving god my ass.

(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: Is that not just the nature of man and the physical world? Suffering comes as part of living in a physical world and if God stopped every bad thing happening wouldn't it bring the world into chaos? If we didn't know if whether God would stop us everytime we act because it could have a bad consequence. The problem of evil is quite a big one and not one I can answer at the moment. So are you saying that there is no possible reason that a loving God could have from holding back, that you KNOW there is no reason, or are you saying it is just unlikely. Something being unlikely has never stopped it being true.

The Problem of Evil is a complicated subject, and unlike Arcanus, I've never seen it satisfactorily explained by a Theist. Maybe I'll take up Arcanus's challenge, to be perfectly honest I have too much on my plant right now to add another writing project to my schedule.

In short, Christianity asserts an all-loving and all-powerful god. For such evil to exist as it currently does, he cannot be both.

(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: I havn't seen any unexplainable ones.

Then you haven't looked hard enough.

In my thread the Disunity of the Bible there is a link to a podcast that details many of these inconsistencies and there's another podcast a few months back that details how the Gospels are soo contradictory.

(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote:

Quote:Free will versus "everything happens for a reason". This idea that you're in control, but not. All the good things in life are God, all the bad things are your own failings or God is "testing" you.

Can you expand upon this? Im not sure exactly what your saying. Thanks.

People get around the problem of evil by claiming Free will, but in the same breath claim all the good things in life are a direct result of God answering prayers, blessing you, etc... Or sometimes they will say if something bad happens, that "it happens for a reason" or "god has a plan", essentially saying there's a greater good this bad thing serves. It's in direct contradiction with the concept of Free Will.

(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: What possible evidence could there be for a world beyond our own? Near Death Experiences: I dont mean the ones with fuzzy feelings, I mean the ones where someone is brain dead yet when they wake up know things that happened in the room when dead, or other things unknowable while dead.

The soul could be a mirror of the brain. A copy in spiritual form. Or the soul could be the soul be the explaination of consciousness or free will, but this depends upon whetherits possible for science to explain consciousness in the future. The soul isn't even necessary for life after death. God could recreate the body in spiritual form after death, which i acctuallly think makes sense with the christian idea of resurrection.

Near Death Experiences have been shot down. It's completely explainable as a phenomena of the brain dying and shooting off signals which cause these realistic feeling hallucinations. Funny how NDE's always have the experience relevant to their culteral/religious beliefs. Hmmm

Science is doing an excellent job of explaining everything we do as a phenomena of the brain. You know there's a specific part in the brain, and I wish I could remember what it's called, that gives you the experience that you are in your body. They can use a drug to affect this aspect of the brain to make you feel "out of body"

There have also been tests down where they place a note on top of a cabinet face up, and people should be able to read them if they are having out of body experiences, they can never accurately been able to read it.

As far as any hypothesis behind spirits, I don't know why people think they can begin to explain something they admittedly don't know anything about. A hypothesis is nothing more than that until evidence and data can be gathered to prop it up as a workable theory. Science shows no need for a soul. And if someone could come up with a workable hypothesis and support it with evidence, I'd happily change my mind.

I don't like the idea that when I'm dead I'm done. Who doesn't want to live forever? But reason tells me it's just not so.

Arcanus seems to think the burdon of proof is with athiests, where it comes to the existance or not of god ,I beleive the reverse is true.

Please Arcanus, define for me exactly what this god thing is, I have heard many contraditory things said about it.

If you have time explain why the attributes you assign it cant be natural giving examples.

You seem like an intelligent and articulate fellow so you stand the best chance of explaining to me what this god thing is, because I JUST DONT GET IT.

Arcanus: I've also come across a good defence against the problem of evil but I havn't exactly got it sorted out into a good arguement in my head yet to explain properly.

(October 2, 2009 at 10:10 am)Eilonnwy Wrote: The Problem of Evil is a complicated subject, and unlike Arcanus, I've never seen it satisfactorily explained by a Theist. Maybe I'll take up Arcanus's challenge, to be perfectly honest I have too much on my plant right now to add another writing project to my schedule.

In short, Christianity asserts an all-loving and all-powerful god. For such evil to exist as it currently does, he cannot be both.

Love doesn't mean no pain, it means doing whats best.

(October 1, 2009 at 4:10 pm)solarwave Wrote: What possible evidence could there be for a world beyond our own? Near Death Experiences: I dont mean the ones with fuzzy feelings, I mean the ones where someone is brain dead yet when they wake up know things that happened in the room when dead, or other things unknowable while dead.

The soul could be a mirror of the brain. A copy in spiritual form. Or the soul could be the soul be the explaination of consciousness or free will, but this depends upon whetherits possible for science to explain consciousness in the future. The soul isn't even necessary for life after death. God could recreate the body in spiritual form after death, which i acctually think makes sense with the christian idea of resurrection.

Quote:Near Death Experiences have been shot down. It's completely explainable as a phenomena of the brain dying and shooting off signals which cause these realistic feeling hallucinations. Funny how NDE's always have the experience relevant to their culteral/religious beliefs. Hmmm

Im not talking about fuzzy feelings, Im talking about NDE's where the dead person learns something that is true while dead that there is no way of them knowing.