Faith is the substance of things hoped for an evidence of things not seen.
Faith is believe that which isn't visible.
you have to have faith that evolutions is real... you have to have faith to believe in the big bang theory... you have to have faith to believe we evolved from "apes" ( there is no physical proof that we are)..

Well Joseus, from my perspective what you've provided is all irrational bunk, but if you're into the whole "personal manifestation" thing, then you would probably find a movie/"documentary" called "The Secret" very interesting. Here is a clip with a small preview from it. Again, for the record I think it's total nonsense, but I figured you'd enjoy it.

**The Secret**

There is one thing that I have a great deal of faith in - that the odds of me wasting any further time in addressing your hopeless irrationalism are 0.

how is what i say irrational?
is not more irrational to believe that we just suddenly came into exhistence from a BOOM? lol

Well that would be your perspective, yours being that what is rational is what is current in belief and acceptable realities by authority of the majority, and absolute without change.
What I've provided is humor to go along with your example which is not really founded on any genuine study and presentation of religion. Your example is similar to other generalizations made from a platform of beliefs similar to those who follow religious beliefs, but from a different box, possibly grounded in the perspectives of the illusional majority.

By the way I've seen **The Secret** and it's not a secret.
One pointed commitment and focus is what achieves quick results.
Resonance follows intuitive open-ness or having an open mind or innocense, rather than a closed mind to possibility.
It is common that we experience others in their emotional state when in close relationship. A partner who is having feelings can be felt before they express what they feel.
What many fail to open themselves to is that this can be extended beyond the comfort zone of close relationships if one would drop their inhibitions and protective shields created by the fear that they may lose something by being open and innocent rather than in a constant protective or defensive mode.

The approach of The Secret is very similar to that Anton LaVey describes in his Satanic Bible.

All gods lose eventually. Here are some examples of dead gods:

http://img64.imageshack.us/img64/8475/romangodsxe0.jpg

Actually, the graveyard is very large and will hopefully, very soon, become larger and then remain constant forever.

I thought Ceres was the goddess of agriculture, not Saturn. Then I looked it up at

http://www.pantheon.org/articles/c/ceres.html

Saturn is the god of agriculture, and his daughter, Ceres, is the goddess of agriculture. We're both right.

I think we can invent gods faster than they are forgotten. Consider

http://www.venganza.org/

the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Culture comments: "Lindsay I really do not understand why you keep harping this pessimistic tune in my acceptance as death as the end of a journey. "
L:I have checked my posts for the last few days, I do not remember telling you or anyone: "You are a pessimist..." If I did, I apologize.

===
L:Take a look at how I responded to Tech:
(Technologist @ May 19, 2007, 02:01 AM) *
...I don't believe that there is an after life...This isn't meant as a knock on your perspective, btw; morality is a very personal thing. I just happen to see things one way and you see them another...
L: And, IMO, this is an excellent attitude. It makes for a good foundation on which to build a meaningful dialogue. Thanks.
====
L: Like you say, "Each to his own." BTW, when you write about the way you faced death at 20, I take you at your word, and we can leave it at that.
L: Culture, here is my word: Through my experiments using pneumatism (a spiritual form of hypnosis), I have enough evidence, for me, to move forward with the smae attitude expressed by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow,1807-1882, in a poem he wrote in 1825.

A Psalm of Life
Tell me not, in mournful numbers,
Life is but an empty dream! —
For the soul is dead that slumbers,
And things are not what they seem.
Life is real! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Not enjoyment, and not sorrow,
Is our destined end or way;
But to act, that each to-morrow
Find us farther than to-day.

For the full poem:
http://oldpoetry.com/opoem/4413-Henry-Wads...A-Psalm-of-Life

C: Perhaps if believers entertained the idea that maybe, just perhaps death is final, their lives would be enriched. I am not knocking your belief, each to their own.
I , too, try never to knock any sincerely helad belief.
C: I have lead a good life and should there be anything on the other side I see no reason why I would be penalised for not believing there is life after death.
Culture, as a unitheist, I am not that kind of Christian
C: In fact I would think that my zest and enthusiasm would count for quite a lot.
L: I agree!
C, you ask me: If it were possible that you could experience death (and afterwards return to life) and in the experience received confirmation that there in fact is nothing after death what would your life amount to? L: C, let me put it this way: What would I do with my life if I became as convinced as you are that all life ends at death?
I hope I would remain the same moral and ethical person I feel that I am now. It would be phony of me to say that life would have the same incentive it has now. I do not believe it would. I would be very tempted to spend most of my time--morally, of course--looking after my own comforts. All forms of altruism would have no value-added incentive. This, I think is the philosophy of objectivism as it was preached by Ayn Rand, right?

2. Would you be disappointed? L: More than that: I would probably feel very pessimistic, frustrated and depressed. I could also be angry at the absurdity of it all. BTW, Culture, how long would you continue to work for someone and expecting a reward, if you found out that the reward was a beheading?

Majority? What majority do you speak of, Joesus? Absolute without change? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Make a cogent argument and I can give you a useful response. Spout off unsubstantiated opinions and all I can do is point out that your internet presence is vacuous.

I think perhaps you may be starting to glimpse the truth. But be of good cheer, we find strength beyond these thoughts and without relying on wishful thinking. Having nature-given strength based in actuality is the best possible way to be.

Lindsay, you might take heart from this:

when paths decay afore each step upon the trial
or fleeting glances note a beckoning, should rest a while
no more, or less, can move the miles for men
who’s shoulders thrust against the tide of time, must then
encounter more of loves and loss in battle, to behold
much as God did spurn the dark, so visualising ether, life untold

But, hopefully, without a g,G,o,Ø,d in sight, more from this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIYZolVt3y0

Keep in mind: I do not think of myself as one who was created by a god, or God, and that this God expects all his creature, including me, to obey and worship him in return for rewards in some far off hereafter called heaven. The bad news is: if we fail Him, he will "reward" us with a hell of eternal punishment.That, to me, is the stuff of traditional monotheisms.

As a believer in process theology--unitheism, neo-theism, panentheism--I think of myself as working, much in the same way as a moral, ethical and loving scientist does: I am working to discover as many of the laws of nature as I possible. I seek to use them, to work with them, and thus help build a heaven in the here and now, for all who want it to enjoy.

GØD does not create, reveal and do all things to and for us; GØD is all things in which we live, move and have our being. Our reward comes in being part of the process and, one with GØD, we will reap the rewards we sow.

comments Rick, to me, once again speaking ex cathedra about glimpsing "the truth"

Then Rick adds: " Having nature-given strength based in actuality is the best possible way to be." For a shorter way of writing, "nature-given strength based in actuality" I use GØD.

Ok I'll attemtpt to refresh you're memory. (your quote to me in the conscious singularity thread)

The Majority would be that which you believe has the greater authority.
"All that is logically possible" would be your absolute changeless reality which cannot be added to or taken from.

Basically I was pointing to your reference to religious insight via YouTube and all of those associated with the teachings of Jesus, Joseph Smith and Muhammad in a Tabloid version.

I assume you speak of yourself as having a modicum of intelligence.
If you're like Hey Hey who made a reference to consciousness and self awareness being similar between Humans and Chimpanzees in that they can react to repeated stimuli and respond by imitating what they see and hear then I will put the reference into the less than intelligent reasoning and in the mindless absorption of limiting thoughts category of monkey see monkey do.
Generalizing worst case scenarios does not really paint an accurate picture of the nature of religious insight nor the desire of the human to expand its relationship with something greater than the meatsack theory of Birth and Death with a short personal agenda in between that is chaotic and without any value to the universe.
Any intelligence in the universe being connected to this cycle, and whether there is anything greater than the current need to make an assumption and go no further than an assumption should allow all examples of ingorance to lead us to greater thought without judging our adolescence and progress.

There is always someone who will assume themselves as an authority of man without ever having worn another mans clothes. They are like the empty vessels in the form of preachers who speak of God without ever having an experience of God.

If you yourself speak in generalities giving your reference to a rational foundation of thought that cannot be added to or changed to remove that which doesn't serve anymore then you give all absolute reference to the subject to your belief which has to be a constant. This would be the same as any religious fanatic, seeking to uphold and strengthen a castle of sand in the face of an uncontrollable environment.

Do you really believe the YouTube example defines those three religions in their entirety and all who have given themselves to the study of their relationship with God and resonate with the spiritual insight?

Have you read the Qur'an, the Bible or the Book of Morman?
You can ask any number of people to read the bible and no two will really ever come to the exact same thoughts about what they read.
Religion is meant to be personal in that each has their own unique reflection of consciousness because consciousness itself cannot be contained in a single reflection.
The idea that people who have free will to believe what they will and think what they will harm the population of the planet as was suggested by your Youtube example would exemplify that normal people should all think alike and in such a way that doesn't threaten anothers beliefs suggesting there should be a majority that is sane and with rules to the extent of their thinking and beliefs. Rules that are rational and within the boundaries of all that is logically possible to use your teminology.

So as I said before, as long as you are educating yourself on youtube and are taking on that example as truth and standing by that as absolute, then I made reference to humoring you but also putting another internet example which at least extends itself into something more positive and less judgmental and bloated.

There is some good education on YouTube. For example, I have one or two of my lectures there .

I don't doubt its entertainment value..

One of these days I would really like to start my own forum where, just like Survivor, members can be voted off the island.



Joesus my agenda is knowledge and, from a pragmatic and political perspective, useful knowledge (ie, "technology"). Authority be damn, I go with whatever method provides the best results. And so far as I can tell, the modern world which we live in is almost entirely a product of scientific reasoning. Ergo, if one was to erroneously view a method as an authority then, yes, my authority is the scientific method, and on speculative philosophical matters, Bayesian reasoning.



How can there be something greater than infinity? I would argue that it is not even truly possible to imagine infinity, other than as a referent to "unimaginably vast". To foolishly take on an omniscient perspective without the proper qualification is a most common form of hubris.



This is a moral interpretation, and a shallow one at that. Each and everyone of us construct a meaning for our reality. It is just that, from a particular perspective, another perspectives meaning may not relate in a meaningful way. Recognize your perspective as just that - a perspective - and you will be light years ahead of where you are right now in understanding.



One can be spiritual without being irrational, it just requires one to not be intellectually lazy.

How about scientology, what about the fly spaghetti monster, or Russell's orbiting tea pot? Where does it end? There needs to be a formal criteria for what one should believe and what one should not believe.

If one wants to conceptualize religions as somehow allegorical, then that is fine. This resolves the obvious logical contradiction of differing religious belief structures, but to view religious texts as literal truth is illogical. But then again, you proudly declare that you are not a man of logic, so who am I to make such moral pronouncements?! Believe what you like to believe Joseus, but remember that when you try to argue for your illogical mysterian bunk you'll need to justify it in logical terms, and that's when fall apart like a house of cards. Your framework is a sloppy collection of half baked, pretentious pseudo-intellectualism, and anyone with half a brain can see this.



It was a funny video with more than a grain of truth to it, nothing more, nothing less.

But allow me to be blunt. Religious beliefs ARE delusional. The requirements for qualifying something as *truth* are clear. I shouldn't have to lecture you like some five year old child who doesn't understand what it means to build up a case with evidence.

If you believe something is "the truth" then demonstrate this to us with irrefutable evidence. Otherwise you're just hot air, my mysterian friend.

They can be. Just ask Annie Moses

Don't let's crucify Joesus. (Again?) After all, this particular board is "Theology" and without the theology it would be just ... well it would be better actually.

More youtube educational material:

**Kissing Hank's Ass**

This product, the modern world, which you defend to be that of scientific reasoning in your interpretations would include religious belief systems, global warming, polluted ground water, corrupt governments, poverty, famine, disease, vanishing wildlife and fauna, war, greed, lust, poor medical practice and protection against drugs that cause illnesses as well as temporary cures, etc, etc.
Is what is useful to you that which is self serving or that which serves all mankind? Cause I gotta tell ya there isn't much happening here to move this world toward spiritual unity.
Technological advances aren't exactly replacing the historical tendency of humanity to be self destructive and selfish.

Wouldn't putting infinity into the category of logic be imagining infinity? After all if anything is infinitely possible why deny anything absolutely?


Said another way, I would be closer to living in your box if you could see a way to fit me in it. But since you can't I should be avoided and judged. Or banished from your island.

Speaking of intellectual laziness..
That sounds pretty much like the thinking that spurred the Spanish Inquisition and the Christian Holy Wars, not to mention Hitler and a few other fanatical thinkers.

You mean in order to have my beliefs I must satisfy the criteria of opposing belief systems? You're a funny guy...

I'll use your own verbiage to meet the moment "Recognize your perspective as just that - a perspective - and you will be light years ahead of where you are right now in understanding."

Just a thought..half a brain doesn't always get the job done.

You shouldn't have to argue anything unless you're seeking to protect something you can lose.
Just from personal experience it pretty much goes without saying that you can't lose what you don't have and what is Truth never changes.
Beliefs change but God never does. Beliefs can only reflect the infinite imaginings of the human ego. Once one stops trying to confine the universe into definitions and beliefs then all beliefs and definitions are like passing thought streams. The awareness can expand itself into infinity if the mind can step back and just let go of any tendency to narrow infinity into what it isn't.
That you have to find out for yourself. Sorry but I can't do that for you.

Technology is technology, and human nature is human nature. The two are separate and distinct. One can use technology for good or bad, just look at nuclear power. None of this is relevant to the discussion however. There is, I would argue, a general trend toward enlightenment and *progressivism*, but the real insight of transhumanistic philosophies is that humankind will eventually be able to turn technology "in upon itself" and reinvent/modify its basic drives and desires. So, the solution still isn't some kind of spiritual awakening in the traditional sense that you espouse, because any attempt made using our current architecture is bound to fail as a result of our human nature. Change the nature and the problems could very well go away. This will become a necessity as technologies become more powerful and potentially disruptive to society as a whole. You can debate the ethics or virtue of my framework until you are blue in the face, Joesus, but the fact of the matter is that *progress* continues unabated. Pulling the old "ostrich-with-head-in-sand" routine isn't the solution to the problems which we are facing (and will continue to face) as a result of our cultural/technological evolution. Despite what you and your colleague the unibomber believe, there is no going back.



Logic, at some level, is necessary for every cognition. You can't think abstractly without logic - without relations between mental intentional objects. We *assume* that there is a real world that is external to our cognition because to believe otherwise is utterly futile, but this doesn't justify taking conceptual liberties over what we do and do not know, or what we can and can not imagine.

All logical contradictions can be summed up in one simple logical symbol. That is the total conceptual space which your philosophizing (if it can even be called that) takes up in Reality - one symbol.

You're arguing over nothing as far as I can tell. Just total nonsense. Babble. Infinity plus one. Is that your deep thought? How about infinite plus infinite? Give me a break. Go ground yourself in the basics of philosophy and get back to me when you have clue.



Certainly, we all make value judgements constantly. I make no apologies for this. I make the claim that your framework is vacuous and founded upon fundamental confusions about the very purpose of philosophy. I present my reasoning for this position. You attempt to counter my arguments. And then the readers of this interaction can make up their minds one way or the other. It's really rather simple. Logical argumentation is the only means for effective inter-agent communication. Thus, those who refuse to submit to logical expression are at an inherent disadvantage, of course conceptually, but also in terms of their ability to communicate. Or in your case, spew rhetoric.




Funny you should bring up a bunch of fanatical christian movements gone a wry. I believe strongly in freedom of thought. As such, I believe it is my right to criticize, if I feel so inclined, other frameworks which are suboptimal. Arguing against a framework isn't equivalent to physical coercion. If everyone adopted this live and let live mentality the world would be a much better place.



Wow, more opinion without any argumentation to back it up. To imagine that you know God shows right there that you arrive at your truth very differently than I do. You're over confidence in your intuitions is what betrays you. A stricter standard for interpreting the world around you would lead to intellectual and spiritual growth, but I doubt you will ever take this route. Sometimes cognitions go down a dead end road and never recover. You call this dead end your "path to enlightenment". Hehe, the human mind is so susceptible to deluding itself. Well, good luck with your "enlightenment". I'll continue to optimize and occasionally mock your absurdity.

Moral interpretation? Yes. What isn't a moral interpretation?

And never the twain shall meet...


I wouldn't think of taking away your pride, or the ideas you hold so sacred. Tho progress is often measured from a foundation of perception that is becoming obsolete.

Arguing? Wouldn't think of it. Not my thing...

Yes, you don't seem to be able to see any further than that. C'est la vie.



Sort of like "Honey I'm home goddammit"

Well that is a problem. If someone does not comform to an ideal they are immediately wrong and incapable of knowing anything. Ummhmm yeah..sort of


I could tell that right away when you said."There needs to be a formal criteria for what one should believe and what one should not believe."

Ok you go first..
I hate when that happens..


I don't think you are capable of imaging that but I will agree to the idea that we do think differently.

The bridled intuition path to enlightenment. I've heard of this approach, it's where the mind has enlightenment figured out before getting enlightened so that one knows what to expect and how to act enlightened. This is so...ya know, rhetorical..


*sigh* Sad but true.. But there is always hope!! God is always on your side and you can always try it again in another lifetime.

Of course you will.. after all its that human nature thing you mentioned in the beginning of your post.

Ah yes, you are the one who likes to get the last word, even if you're just repeating yourself. Go ahead, take it!

The intellectual flatulence is overwhelming me. Free speech should only apply when you actually have something to say.

I assume then, since your standards are so...unfettered by any "formal constraints" that scientology is a completely respectable belief structure, right Joesus? It's totally reasonable to believe that an alien war lord named Xenu transported billions of other aliens to earth 75 million years ago, placed them in volcanoes and then blew them up with hydrogen bombs. It all makes sense, doesn't it? That would explain humanity's flawed nature perfectly! The souls of the aliens are attaching to our minds and causing all of the problems.

If these are the kind of beliefs that work for you, then enjoy my friend. I hope you become an operating thetan in the very near future.

I see that "I believe strongly in freedom of thought," thought, is still just a thought....

Oh well, at least you won't fail your commitment to your low opinion of human nature.

Religious beliefs may well be delusional, but the religious experience cannot be denied. Don't take my word for it: read Plotinus, Spinoza, Einstein, Oppenheimer, or many other great minds who well appreciated the power of rationality and understanding, but who realized that certain experiences are not amenable to description or scientific validation. The problem here seems to be that there are two primary criteria for truth: 1) scientific truth that assumes 3rd person perspective and is open to validation by others, and 2) for lack of a better word, spiritual truth, that is 1st person (often composed of "mystical" experiences) and that is often not open to validation by others. Correct me if I have misunderstood but, Technologist, you seem to fall into the first camp, whereas Joesus falls into the latter. Neither of you is speaking the other's language, nor recognizing the other's concept of truth; hence the irreconciliation. It is not possible to elevate one of the above notions of truth over another. In fact, both notions of truth are very likely partially complete and will give rise to a more coherent notion of truth down the road that subsumes both. Clearly, you cannot deny the rationality and the intelligence that is implicit in Nature and is all about us, seemingly independent of whether we are consciously aware of it or not; hence the need for the scientific method to ferret out these relations. But neither can you deny the direct experience of transcendent forms of consciousness that utterly transform one into something beyond words. Is it delusional? Well, since everything we experience is a mental construct, and since most scientists assume there exists a world that exists independent of us, we can't firmly say that it is purely delusion without admitting certain assumptions (about the nature of reality) that we can never fully justify.


I really appreciate your sense of humor, Hey Hey

Lucid, I think you're misunderstanding my perspective. For the record, I consider myself a very spiritual person, and I place almost as much value on my "meaning" as I do on my realism. Hence my usual mantra; Mind-Reality Coalescence.

What I take issue with is not mildly subjectivist accounts of reality, but mysterian doctrines which flagrantly violate logical inferences and reject the principle of causality. No progress in comprehending reality can be made with this approach - NONE. As I said earlier, it's intellectual flatulence.

Please don't try to make this out to be a clash of perspectives between a heterophenomenologist and a phenomenologist. Such an interpretation is far too generous.

thanks for the clarification, Technologist. As usual, things are not as simple as black and white, as I gather from reading your above posts.

You can support the principle of intellectual freedom while still acknowledging the fact that some perspectives are CooKoo for Cocoa Puffs (that is my prerogative afterall). I'm going to hold your feet to the flames on this one Jesus. No more lackluster riddles. Do you or do you not believe that Scientology is a valid perspective?

Stop saying a lot of nothing and take a position already.

All perspectives are valid in the sense that you can't invalidate direct experience, however absurd. Granted, it may not be a useful perspective for adapting, thriving, understanding, etc..., but then it comes down to whether you are equating 'valid' with pragmatic criteria for assessing the utility of different perspectives, or alternatively, whether you mean consistency of the belief systems underlying a perspective with science.

Ok, what you disagree with exists. How is it that you are suggesting yourself to be a spiritual person but can't seem to connect the existence of all things being in accord with the manifest universe?
Do you believe that which has absolutely no value could should and would exist in a universe and do you in a personal vain see the universe as a perfect universe or an imperfect universe?
Then what makes your opinions important other than your beliefs and what allows them to exist along side of what you strongly oppose? Is that which governs such a universe conscious and judgmental?

If you were to be God do you think you could do a better job than the current administration in maintaining a more perfect universe?

let me clarify that I do not espouse simple relativism where anything and everything is valid, or at any rate on a par with scientific (or otherwise rational) understanding. Thus, Xenu and the thetans are utterly ridiculous beliefs that only the seriously deluded (i.e., Tom Cruise) or those with very low self-esteem and understanding would yield to. The beliefs of religious institutions I regard as unnecessary and in fact, undesirable. People accept them because they know of no better way to live. They submit to authority (i.e., dogmatism) because they cannot think for themselves. This is a simple fact of life.

(EDIT: I wrote this before I saw your latest comments)

In the long run, optimizing for truth could be pragmatic in unforeseen ways even if short term gains are produced by living a life of delusion. Yet this is something of a conjecture on my part. Ultimately there is no justification for anything other than "our Will compels us".

So really, my use of the term validity was not to connote the internal consistency of a perspective from point a to point b, but to establish a criteria for arrivng at truth and incorporating it into a framework. This is not to say that religious doctrines are internal consistent. Logical speaking they contradict themselves repeatedly, some more than others - and this can be documented. However the major point I was trying to make was regarding induction and the obvious state of conflict most religious perspectives maintain with external reality.



Indeed. Despite its philosophical short comings, most rationalists have agreed long ago that the adoption of positivism was, to some extent, unavoidable. THE WORLD IS NOT FLAT. I am fairly inflexible in this particular belief.

I understand the point you are trying to make when you state, "All perspectives are valid in the sense that you can't invalidate direct experience, however absurd." People are free to believe what ever sorts of craziness they like, but I am also free to point out the total absurdity of these beliefs. My pointing out absurdity is something that I feel will ring true with other reasonable perspectives. Hence, there is a utility to such activity.

So again Joesus, is Scientology a legimitate, respectable position?

How about magical flying monkeys coming out of my butt every night while I'm asleep?

How about back in 1997 when the Hale-Bopp comet was in our neck of the woods? Should we all have traveled out to the heaven gate compound in california and drank the kool-aid? Should we believe that this was the only way that our souls could commune with Jesus, who was hiding on a spaceship inside of the comet?

I could go on and on. The absurdity of such a perspective is, just based on common sense, rather easy to establish.

Many examples of these within and/or due to various religious enterprises around the world, historically and present day.

(Just a bit more on the pharmaceuticals as I have some qualification in this area. Your term "temporary cure" is meaningless. Side-effects are ubiquitous, but evidentially MOST often are minor, in particular when examined relative to the signs and symptoms of diseases and illnesses that untreated can include death. I would prefer to have the several minor side-effects that my ACE-inhibitor causes rather than risk the heart attacks and strokes that many of my relatives suffered due to their poorly managed hypertension prior to the availability of such medication. Should there be an available alternative (hippy) treatment with evidence for efficacy then I would preferentially and happily take it. But there isn't. And incidentally, most so-called natural medicines also cause noticeable side-effects at therapeutic doses [In this context I use "therapeutic" loosely]. I have also dismissed the use of prayer in the treatment of the hundreds of different illnesses that afflict mankind since examining substantial experimental research that has statistically excluded its role.)

Just for fun...

This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
80,000 -- infections in hospitals
106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs
These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!
What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.

Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:

First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.
If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).

Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings,with:

116 million extra physician visits
77 million extra prescriptions
17 million emergency department visits
8 million hospitalizations
3 million long-term admissions
199,000 additional deaths
$77 billion in extra costs
The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.

However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.

An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors.

This might be tolerated if it resulted in better health, but does it? Of 13 countries in a recent comparison, the United States ranks an average of 12th (second from the bottom) for 16 available health indicators. More specifically, the ranking of the US on several indicators was:

13th (last) for low-birth-weight percentages
13th for neonatal mortality and infant mortality overall
11th for postneonatal mortality
13th for years of potential life lost (excluding external causes)
11th for life expectancy at 1 year for females, 12th for males
10th for life expectancy at 15 years for females, 12th for males
10th for life expectancy at 40 years for females, 9th for males
7th for life expectancy at 65 years for females, 7th for males
3rd for life expectancy at 80 years for females, 3rd for males
10th for age-adjusted mortality
The poor performance of the US was recently confirmed by a World Health Organization study, which used different data and ranked the United States as 15th among 25 industrialized countries.

There is a perception that the American public "behaves badly" by smoking, drinking, and perpetrating violence." However the data does not support this assertion.

The proportion of females who smoke ranges from 14% in Japan to 41% in Denmark; in the United States, it is 24% (fifth best). For males, the range is from 26% in Sweden to 61% in Japan; it is 28% in the United States (third best).
The US ranks fifth best for alcoholic beverage consumption.
The US has relatively low consumption of animal fats (fifth lowest in men aged 55-64 years in 20 industrialized countries) and the third lowest mean cholesterol concentrations among men aged 50 to 70 years among 13 industrialized countries.
These estimates of death due to error are lower than those in a recent Institutes of Medicine report, and if the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000.

Even at the lower estimate of 225,000 deaths per year, this constitutes the third leading cause of death in the US, following heart disease and cancer.

Lack of technology is certainly not a contributing factor to the US's low ranking.

Among 29 countries, the United States is second only to Japan in the availability of magnetic resonance imaging units and computed tomography scanners per million population. 17
Japan, however, ranks highest on health, whereas the US ranks among the lowest.
It is possible that the high use of technology in Japan is limited to diagnostic technology not matched by high rates of treatment, whereas in the US, high use of diagnostic technology may be linked to more treatment.
Supporting this possibility are data showing that the number of employees per bed (full-time equivalents) in the United States is highest among the countries ranked, whereas they are very low in Japan, far lower than can be accounted for by the common practice of having family members rather than hospital staff provide the amenities of hospital care.
Journal American Medical Association July 26, 2000;284(4):483-5

Dont hijack the thread please. Stick to the topic or post in the appropriate forum.

It is on topic. The information supports the comment I made prior to HH's comment.

Okay forget the fun part....

I accept entirely the information you provided. But is has as much to do with the value of medical/pharmaceutical intervention as: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39236 . Of course medical treatments are far from perfect. Of course some medics can be charlatans and inept. Of course there still few actual cures for the major killer diseases and illnesses. Of course, the scientific/medical community is generally open and provides the sort of information you have shown! Of course, the reason is that based on this type of EVIDENCE there can be a debate on how to prevent the problems and how to improve the quality and standard of care. Of course, you would use the information to beat YOUR drum, to make a noise and thus divert attention from the real issues. Just look at parts of the world where medical treatments and drugs are not available. Look at the scale of morbidity, the mortality rates and causes, the life expectancy there. Would you recommend to them, that due to a small % of errors and side-effects, they should not hope for surgery to treat disfiguring facial tumours due to neurofibromatosis or not hope for supplies of chloroquine to treat malaria that otherwise will be painfully fatal? Should we not have vaccinated to eradicate smallpox? Should we halt the program to eradicate poliomyelitis?

Come on, get real. Or maybe you should write to Bill gates and tell him to save his money before he wastes it! But I do appreciate the possibility of cost savings due to your rejection of medical treatments when you are ill and I sincerely wish that your prayers and other hocus pocus will get you better.

Of course you do, it is within your ability to comprehend the written word as long as it remains within acceptable personal standards of comprehension.

The response I gave to T's statement that the world is a product of current technology.


Why would I? I'm not the one arguing against freedom of choice or belief.