HIV-AIDs seems to be more on the rise than ever, despite all efforts to combat it. (And no, merely "practicing 'safe' sex" isn't likely to help much... it only takes one time to get infected.)
Obviously, there is one foolproof, sure-fire way to never end up with the virus: Don't be promsicuious, just stick with one sexual partner, as the vast majority of cases are contracted sexually, not inherited or through infected blood supplies/ accidental finger pricks, etc.
However, being faithfully monogamous seems to have been discarded in today's society in favor of jumping into bed with as many people as you want, in constant pursuit of the almighty perfect orgasm. So, if you have it already, one thing that a few studies say might help, is a combination of four necessary nutrients that are severely depleted by the virus: Tryptophan, Cysteine, Selenium, and Glutamine.
My thanks to mercola.com for the article source and link. :)
January 12, 2014
Christianity and Hope
I was browsing search results for a question I had, (What's the most compelling argument against theism? [or for atheism] So I could pick it apart :) ) when I saw this video embedded in an article, by Ravi Zacharias:
So,
If anyone (atheist, Christian, or otherwise) has any responses/comments to this, please comment below. :) Thanks for reading. :D
So,
If anyone (atheist, Christian, or otherwise) has any responses/comments to this, please comment below. :) Thanks for reading. :D
January 11, 2014
Coin collection...
Apologies for my promised coin collection pictures being late in coming... I'm having a few technical issues, (besides also being slightly lazy :P) please bear with me. I promise to only post the interesting/neat/of historical interest coins, so hopefully they'll be worth the wait. :)
Colorado now the 'Highest' state in the Union
...with the state of Washinton soon to follow.
Please forgive the rather lame pun starting off this post... I just couldn't resist. :P
I'm afraid I'm not much of an expert in either politics or drug dependence/ effects, so please bear with me. :)
The news coming in that Colorado is now legalizing medical marijiuana (though, without a prescription) comes as no particular surprise to this blogger. Legalizing weed is something that Libertarians, the medically suffering, and hardcore addicts have all been clamoring for for years now. So, I guess the question, morally and politically, is 1) Does the US Federal Government even have the Constitutional authorization to be regulating drugs like marijiuana, cocaine, etc, (I know they like to use the Interstate Commerce Clause as their pet loophole to justify regulating absolutely everything that crosses state lines that they deign to regulate, but I mean other than that....besides which, and I'm not 100 percent positive on this, but I'm pretty sure there has to actually be legal interstate commerce in said article to begin with before the Feds can start regulating/ taxing it, so it would seem like something that is really up to the States) and, 2) Even if they do have that power, should they do so, morally, even if they can do so?
I'm going to try and do some research on the drug, it's effects, (both beneficial and not) and, possibly, try to see what this means for drug policy in the future. One thing that I do remember hearing from experts on a documentary on the substance, (I think it was the History Channel...please don't hold me to it though :) ) and so far as it's detrimental effects on judgement and the like go, it seems it's much worse/ has much more of a pronounced negative effect on "newbie" users, whereas in those who commonly smoke a couple pipes a day of the stuff, they're hardly effected at all when they're "high", so far as judgement, reaction time, etc. Maybe something to keep in mind, given that Colorado is likely to have new users, with legalization.
On the flip side of the issue, one benefit frequently mentioned by drug legalization advocates (including such libertarian groups as the Cato Institute) is massive reductions in the funding and money illegal drug cartels and terrorist groups, such as MS-13 and Al Qaeda, will get, once there is legal competition in place. (Price wars will [theoretically] cause their profits to plummet) And, on top of that, the Feds will no longer have to spend the X number of billions of dollars they are currently spending on their hopeless, failed, drug "war". (As drug advocates call it, anyway)
Myself, I find it hard to choose which position to take. On the one hand, I'm the last person that wants the USA to turn into a nation of lazy, dependent, good for nothing wastrels, wasting all of their money to get their next fix, sitting sideways in some Govt trough. (Being supported by the "rest of us") Just making drugs "legal" doesn't mean all of the deadly, dangerous, and inconvenient (to society, at least) side effects just magically disappear. And, on the other, it would be nice if we no longer had to spend billions and billions of dollars in a war where there are no victories, only countless causalties, and where the more effective the Feds are at tightening up drug supplies, the more money illegal, criminal enterprises are able to make once they do manage to slip past the Feds. In my opinion, as long as the taxpayer isn't required to pay for the consequences, I say, let 'em be legalized. Just make it so their insurance doesn't cover whatever illnesses and injuries (including psychological) they may incur from their addiction.
(Or if it does, make it so it's out of their pocket, and not the taxpayers.... I mean, c'mon, why should the rest of us have to pay for your lack of character, just because you feel like you need to get high???)
Note: I'm starting to get too tired, (was up too late the other night... :( ) so, dear readers, I'll be adding links and research data later. (Hopefully tomorrow if I can happen to get on. :) ) Thanks for reading. :)
Please forgive the rather lame pun starting off this post... I just couldn't resist. :P
I'm afraid I'm not much of an expert in either politics or drug dependence/ effects, so please bear with me. :)
The news coming in that Colorado is now legalizing medical marijiuana (though, without a prescription) comes as no particular surprise to this blogger. Legalizing weed is something that Libertarians, the medically suffering, and hardcore addicts have all been clamoring for for years now. So, I guess the question, morally and politically, is 1) Does the US Federal Government even have the Constitutional authorization to be regulating drugs like marijiuana, cocaine, etc, (I know they like to use the Interstate Commerce Clause as their pet loophole to justify regulating absolutely everything that crosses state lines that they deign to regulate, but I mean other than that....besides which, and I'm not 100 percent positive on this, but I'm pretty sure there has to actually be legal interstate commerce in said article to begin with before the Feds can start regulating/ taxing it, so it would seem like something that is really up to the States) and, 2) Even if they do have that power, should they do so, morally, even if they can do so?
I'm going to try and do some research on the drug, it's effects, (both beneficial and not) and, possibly, try to see what this means for drug policy in the future. One thing that I do remember hearing from experts on a documentary on the substance, (I think it was the History Channel...please don't hold me to it though :) ) and so far as it's detrimental effects on judgement and the like go, it seems it's much worse/ has much more of a pronounced negative effect on "newbie" users, whereas in those who commonly smoke a couple pipes a day of the stuff, they're hardly effected at all when they're "high", so far as judgement, reaction time, etc. Maybe something to keep in mind, given that Colorado is likely to have new users, with legalization.
On the flip side of the issue, one benefit frequently mentioned by drug legalization advocates (including such libertarian groups as the Cato Institute) is massive reductions in the funding and money illegal drug cartels and terrorist groups, such as MS-13 and Al Qaeda, will get, once there is legal competition in place. (Price wars will [theoretically] cause their profits to plummet) And, on top of that, the Feds will no longer have to spend the X number of billions of dollars they are currently spending on their hopeless, failed, drug "war". (As drug advocates call it, anyway)
Myself, I find it hard to choose which position to take. On the one hand, I'm the last person that wants the USA to turn into a nation of lazy, dependent, good for nothing wastrels, wasting all of their money to get their next fix, sitting sideways in some Govt trough. (Being supported by the "rest of us") Just making drugs "legal" doesn't mean all of the deadly, dangerous, and inconvenient (to society, at least) side effects just magically disappear. And, on the other, it would be nice if we no longer had to spend billions and billions of dollars in a war where there are no victories, only countless causalties, and where the more effective the Feds are at tightening up drug supplies, the more money illegal, criminal enterprises are able to make once they do manage to slip past the Feds. In my opinion, as long as the taxpayer isn't required to pay for the consequences, I say, let 'em be legalized. Just make it so their insurance doesn't cover whatever illnesses and injuries (including psychological) they may incur from their addiction.
(Or if it does, make it so it's out of their pocket, and not the taxpayers.... I mean, c'mon, why should the rest of us have to pay for your lack of character, just because you feel like you need to get high???)
Note: I'm starting to get too tired, (was up too late the other night... :( ) so, dear readers, I'll be adding links and research data later. (Hopefully tomorrow if I can happen to get on. :) ) Thanks for reading. :)
Against "Religous Extremism"? A little Extreme.....
It seems that everyone these days, from Government to news organizations to lobbyists, are all against "religious extremism" and "religious fanaticism". Whatever happened to being against "terrorism"?
Anyhow.... I wouldn't normally have a problem with that, except when most of those organizations use the term, "religious fanatic" = someone with a belief about religion who also happens to think that they are right. Incidentally..... that puts liberals, the Government, and others in the same category.... they all (undoubtedly) have positions/thoughts/ideas about religion, and the all (undoubtedly) think that they are right. But since when have I expected either the Government, or liberals, to act in a logically consistent manner?
Besides all of that, a Buddhist could also quite accurately be described as a "religious fanatic" yet to the best of my knowledge they haven't harmed or threatened anyone yet... nor do they plan to do so.
I think it's high time that politicians, news anchors, and others, all got some guts and admitted it: "religious fanatics" didn't ram two airliners into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon... Islamic Jihadists did. Not Amish, not Christians, not Jehovah's Witnesses, certainly not Buddhists.... but MUSLIMS blew up the WTC.
Good God.... does it take another terrorist attack on U.S. soil before people start waking up again?
November 29, 2013
Your Brain on Naturalism
Okay, in this post, I would like to illustrate one problem I've heard with the worldview/philosophical point of view called "naturalism", also known as "philosophical or metaphysical" Naturalism to distinguish it from other forms, such as methodological naturalism. (the form used by many scientists, for example)
Philosophical naturalism is basically the point of view that, in the totality of existence, only the universe itself exists. Only physical objects exist, and anything that we think isn't can be explained away as being caused by something, or being something, physically existing somewhere in the Universe. Obviously, under such a system, nothing Supernatural can possibly exist.
As (I think it was Carl Sagan) said, "The Universe is all there is, was, or ever will be"
Note: It's quite common for atheists to follow this sort of system, however if it's by no means necessary that they do so. In other words, many Atheists are (Philosophical) Naturalists, however, not all Atheists are Naturalists. (And vice vesa, all Naturalists are and must necessarily be Atheists)
Here's the the problem: (and this came to my attention via a CS Lewis writing, so it's not like this some original argument I came up with, just FYI [I don't intend to be a plagiarist!!])
According to Naturalism, everything (and I do mean everything, from your dog to your shoes to your grandmother, to the planets, on and on) came about totally randomly, by chance, from natural processes. In fact, those natural processes themselves came about by random chance in the Big Bang. (along with everything else in the Universe) So, this means that my thoughts, and everyone else's thoughts, are all the result of random, irrational, illogical, chemical and electrical firings in my brain, which in turn evolved randomly from an ape-like ancestors lesser developed brain, which in turn evolved from some ape's brain, which in turn...well, you get the picture.
The problem? If my thoughts (and everyone else's as well, for that matter) are simply the result of totally random, chaotic, irrational chance events, then why on earth should I believe that those thoughts are in any sense rational, or true? Think about it, not only is that a problem for rational thought in general, it also means that the theory of Naturalism itself is irrational, for it is, itself, (according to it's own, fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality) only the product of irrational, random chance. Do we have any reason at all to presume that something that's the product of irrational chance (many times over) should be, itself, rational and logical?
To me, that just seems highly improbable, and highly irrational, to assume that Rationality, Logic, Order, Functionality, can arise form Random, Chaotic, Irrational, Chance.
*Editor's Note: I'll be adding quotes from Sagan and Lewis later. :D
Philosophical naturalism is basically the point of view that, in the totality of existence, only the universe itself exists. Only physical objects exist, and anything that we think isn't can be explained away as being caused by something, or being something, physically existing somewhere in the Universe. Obviously, under such a system, nothing Supernatural can possibly exist.
As (I think it was Carl Sagan) said, "The Universe is all there is, was, or ever will be"
Note: It's quite common for atheists to follow this sort of system, however if it's by no means necessary that they do so. In other words, many Atheists are (Philosophical) Naturalists, however, not all Atheists are Naturalists. (And vice vesa, all Naturalists are and must necessarily be Atheists)
Here's the the problem: (and this came to my attention via a CS Lewis writing, so it's not like this some original argument I came up with, just FYI [I don't intend to be a plagiarist!!])
According to Naturalism, everything (and I do mean everything, from your dog to your shoes to your grandmother, to the planets, on and on) came about totally randomly, by chance, from natural processes. In fact, those natural processes themselves came about by random chance in the Big Bang. (along with everything else in the Universe) So, this means that my thoughts, and everyone else's thoughts, are all the result of random, irrational, illogical, chemical and electrical firings in my brain, which in turn evolved randomly from an ape-like ancestors lesser developed brain, which in turn evolved from some ape's brain, which in turn...well, you get the picture.
The problem? If my thoughts (and everyone else's as well, for that matter) are simply the result of totally random, chaotic, irrational chance events, then why on earth should I believe that those thoughts are in any sense rational, or true? Think about it, not only is that a problem for rational thought in general, it also means that the theory of Naturalism itself is irrational, for it is, itself, (according to it's own, fundamental assumptions about the nature of reality) only the product of irrational, random chance. Do we have any reason at all to presume that something that's the product of irrational chance (many times over) should be, itself, rational and logical?
To me, that just seems highly improbable, and highly irrational, to assume that Rationality, Logic, Order, Functionality, can arise form Random, Chaotic, Irrational, Chance.
*Editor's Note: I'll be adding quotes from Sagan and Lewis later. :D
My Coin Collection
Hey guys! Sorry that I haven't posted in such a long time, but I've been busy with various things. Like, for instance, my Doberman Pinscher, very to dear to me and the 'Love of my life' has passed away after 9 years on this earth. I'm actually still in shock, and depressed about it, 6 months later... she will be missed. :( RIP
That sad news aside, I plan to make a series of somewhat autobiographical posts about my coin collection, possibly posting phots and descriptions of some of the more interesting ones. You guys are free to browse them if you want, but these posts are mostly for my own/ my family's own amusement. Fun fact: I recently found out that I have two coins in my collection that are both worth roughly $1500!!! Wow! Boy was I surprised to find that out...I thought that, at most, they had to be worth maybe $50 each? o_0
Will be posting those in series over the next couple weeks.
That sad news aside, I plan to make a series of somewhat autobiographical posts about my coin collection, possibly posting phots and descriptions of some of the more interesting ones. You guys are free to browse them if you want, but these posts are mostly for my own/ my family's own amusement. Fun fact: I recently found out that I have two coins in my collection that are both worth roughly $1500!!! Wow! Boy was I surprised to find that out...I thought that, at most, they had to be worth maybe $50 each? o_0
Will be posting those in series over the next couple weeks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)