Elizabethan World view Debate

Quote from: ClockTower on September 03, 2010, 05:31:35 PM

Spoken like a quack! Any treatment that gives false hope, like homeopathy, harms.

Spoken like one wise in his own conceit whom no amount of truth or evidence will ever convince.

...modern medicine cures people in more cases than alternative medicine.

Say what you want...

These alternative medicines just don't get the consistent results with the same illness and with different people. Modern medicine doesn't get it also in some cases but it's still more effective and more consistent than alternative medicines.

The temperaments are used in diagnosis in order that the ensuing treatment annihilate the cause of the problem in order that it does not recur or resurface in another form.  Modern medicine neglects to do this.

I repeat what I said about you before:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047732#msg1047732

Since he evidently reads what I post in spite of his disagreement, LordDave is at least a bit conversible, but I am not wasting my time on you.  Talking to you is like having a conversation with a brick wall.

Quote from: Lorddave on September 03, 2010, 02:57:30 PM

As for Hippocratese, ... to put him on such a high pedestal and say that he was able to heal better than modern medicine is preposterous.

You repeat your fallacy of judging a matter by its antiquity.

Quote from: Lorddave on September 03, 2010, 02:57:30 PM

As for Penicillin being an artificial drug, you really should read up more on it.

Penicillin is from a naturally occurring fungus.  Modern medicine is about taking out the fungus and keeping only what works: The drug.
A good analogy would be the history of aspirin.

All this is accurate.  The point I was making about penicillin is that Penicillin is a chemical and a the widespread use of Penicillin in the late 1940's was paralleled by the abandonment of herbs.

Quote from: zork on September 03, 2010, 05:13:49 PM

You should invest more in discovering the new and harmless ways to do things instead of burrowing itself in the old books and talking how good the old ways are and how bad the current ones are.

Spoken like a true homeopath.  Homeopathy is harmless, but it is also not very effective.  That is the best that your recommendation could hope to achieve.  You are worse than homeopaths because you ignorantly condemn the good.  At least homeopaths are too cautious to do something that stupid.

Quote from: zork on September 03, 2010, 04:47:30 PM

...modern medicine cures people in more cases than alternative medicine.

This is false.

Humoural medicine acknowledges all the problems that modern medicine does, but looks past the problems to the cause of the problems.

I repeat what I said about you before:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047732#msg1047732

Since he evidently reads what I post in spite of his disagreement, LordDave is at least a bit conversible, but I am not wasting my time on you.  Talking to you is like having a conversation with a brick wall.

Quote from: 17 November on September 03, 2010, 11:29:08 PM

I repeat what I said about you before:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047732#msg1047732

Since he evidently reads what I post in spite of his disagreement, LordDave is at least a bit conversible, but I am not wasting my time on you.  Talking to you is like having a conversation with a brick wall.

Yeah, it's best to just ignore ClockTower, he's just a troll.

Quote from: Roundy the Truthinessist on September 04, 2010, 04:51:39 PM

Quote from: 17 November on September 03, 2010, 11:29:08 PM

I repeat what I said about you before:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41927.msg1047732#msg1047732

Since he evidently reads what I post in spite of his disagreement, LordDave is at least a bit conversible, but I am not wasting my time on you.  Talking to you is like having a conversation with a brick wall.

Yeah, it's best to just ignore ClockTower, he's just a troll.

Evidence?

I would like to understand what makes four humor method better than the current medicine. So I do some speculations. In case of illnesses we must at first ascertain what illness we have. I don't see here the benefits from four humor because current medicine performs quite well and even better having more resources and medical apparatuses. If we go to illnesses which are more hard to detect then the four humors just lack information. How do you even make sure how balanced your four humors is? You can have some hidden sickness about what you don't know anything but some tests performed by modern medicine can reveal it but in case of four humors... they just say that you are perfectly well which really isn't the case. So, nothing really gets better if we use four humors for diagnosing illnesses and I really don't see the benefits here.
 But what about curing illnesses? With simple cold and other illnesses four humors doesn't perform better than modern medicine. In cases of cancer the four humors is powerless. And what about rabies, tetanus, smallpox and other difficult illnesses. How can person get his/her four humors in balance again in these cases? It's not possible with the herbs. So again, no benefits from four humors, or in any other alternative medicine. I really don't see any good reason why we must trust and use more alternative medicine. I acknowledge that there are uses for alternative medicine but it isn't able to replace the current medicine and perform in same levels and get the same results.

THE LEGACY OF MODERN WESTERN MEDICINE

After the franks usurped the papacy in A.D. 999, western europe became much more thoroughly separated from the tradition, knowledge and light of Eastern Christian Rome than it had been before.  Ignorance multiplied, and the spiritual and scientific traditions of the west were changed into a hideous civilization.   Thus, humoural medicine was viciously attacked during the early renaissance and late medieval west which resulted in horrors like the Black Death which annihilated over half the population of western europe. 

The Islamic countries of this time, on the other hand, were practicing the Hippocratic humoural medicine which they had received from Avicenna, and they got through the Black Death of the mid-1300's rather unscathed compared to what western europe went through.

History repeats itself.  Shortly after many doctors followed Rudolf Virchow in the years after 1858 and began to ignore humoural medicine, the west was again inundated with an influenza pandemic in 1918.

Anyways, without any malicious intent, I have to say that you very obviously do not know or understand anything about humoural medicine or you would not have said any of these things.  It's not even like we're talking about a flat earth minority viewpoint here - whole schools of professionals practice this kind of medicine for a living.  You can believe whatever you like, and if I were to "insist" against people like yourself or LordDave, then I would feel like I was forcing you into something, and I won't do that. 

I will repost David Osborn's website which is so informative and so well organized.  I might add that I do not believe in astrology, and therefore that part of his website is the one aspect which I do not accept.  Otherwise, David Osborn's website (and Hakim Chishti's two books on amazon) is very well laid out.

http://www.greekmedicine.net/

I should add that I came across this website within a day or two after I made the post about the Elizabethan book and perhaps a day before LordDave initiated this thread.  I only discovered Hakim Chishti through Osborn's greekmedicine.net website.  And I have only ordered and received the first of Chishti's books during the course of this thread.  Although, I honestly was unfamiliar with greek medicine before six weeks ago, one reason that I have taken to this school of medicine like a duck to water is that I have a long standing interest in this subject and have previously looked into both Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese Medicine to some extent.  I was unaware of the Unani / Greek school of medicine among the muslims of the Middle East and India.  An initial investigation into this Hippocratic medicine clearly revealed that it lacks the mixing with religious beliefs which occurs perhaps a little bit with TCM and especially with Ayurveda.  That was decisive.  Although I am not too knowledgeable of Ayurveda, I am aware that it does have concepts like the chakras which correspond to concepts in Hippocratic medicine.

I must say I am highly sympathetic to 17 November in the context of this argument - I myself am something of a humourist.

I am very sceptical of the notion that people in the ancient world lived shorter lives than those in modernity. What do the proponents of this modern longevity theory make of Noah, who reportedly lived for some nine centuries in spite of his reckless, hedonistic lifestyle?

I must say I am highly sympathetic to 17 November in the context of this argument - I myself am something of a humourist.

I am very sceptical of the notion that people in the ancient world lived shorter lives than those in modernity. What do the proponents of this modern longevity theory make of Noah, who reportedly lived for some nine centuries in spite of his reckless, hedonistic lifestyle?

Am I particularly notorious for conflating religion with fact?

In any case, I am not deferring to any high-minded metaphysical or theological subject matter here. To clarify, I am referring to the historical personage of Noah, not to Noah in the context of religious doctrine.

Am I particularly notorious for conflating religion with fact?

In any case, I am not deferring to any high-minded metaphysical or theological subject matter here. To clarify, I am referring to the historical personage of Noah, not to Noah in the context of religious doctrine.

I myself am something of a humourist.

My primary source for Noah's life is actually the Epic of Gilgamesh; given the biases of the Christian Bible I am very wary of biblical evidence. The Gilgamesh, however, insinuates that Noah was immortal - an easy mistake to make for commentators on the life of a 900 year old man - but I hold this to be empirically false based on the fact that he is not known to be alive today.

My primary source for Noah's life is actually the Epic of Gilgamesh; given the biases of the Christian Bible I am very wary of biblical evidence. The Gilgamesh, however, insinuates that Noah was immortal - an easy mistake to make for commentators on the life of a 900 year old man - but I hold this to be empirically false based on the fact that he is not known to be alive today.

I am very sceptical of the notion that people in the ancient world lived shorter lives than those in modernity. What do the proponents of this modern longevity theory make of Noah, who reportedly lived for some nine centuries in spite of his reckless, hedonistic lifestyle?

• After all those times that someone doubted the atheist credentials of the FE'rs and we were all assured that FE'rs are really atheists (and no FE'r said anything about being theist), now you are talking about Noah?
• And then, we are not talking about Noah, but Gilgamesh, as if they were the same person. And there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the two myths (of Noah and of Gilgamesh) are clearly different in key aspects.
• Also, the whole idea of longevity of a whole species is referred to the longevity of either Noah or Gilgamesh, and at least Gilgamesh is mentioned as an immortal being.
• And further, the discussion is moved to the times where no historians existed, not to mention statistics experts. And meanwhile, the recent history, including the last two centuries, when careful statistical information was compiled, is ignored.
• Also, the numeric information on the Bible is considered metaphorical, not numerically exact, by even the most traditional priests. Only a few fanatics consider the Bible as literally exact.
• The same conditions that reduced longevity in past centuries are occurring even now in Africa and other places

After all those times that someone doubted the atheist credentials of the FE'rs and we were all assured that FE'rs are really atheists (and no FE'r said anything about being theist), now you are talking about Noah?

And then, we are not talking about Noah, but Gilgamesh, as if they were the same person. And there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the two myths (of Noah and of Gilgamesh) are clearly different in key aspects.

Quote

My primary source for Noah's life is actually the Epic of Gilgamesh; given the biases of the Christian Bible I am very wary of biblical evidence. The Gilgamesh, however, insinuates that Noah was immortal - an easy mistake to make for commentators on the life of a 900 year old man - but I hold this to be empirically false based on the fact that he is not known to be alive today.

So... 1) Your source doesn't confirm your thesis that Noah lived 900 years. 2) Your source attributes long life to a single, now forever lost, plant. 3) Your source is a myth.

LOL

Talk about trying to cover up the fact that Christianity is actually a plagiarism of other religions. At best this is a poor attempt by Christians to claim all religions are that of Christianity lol. And you clearly show your degree of delusion here.

Quote from: James on September 13, 2010, 11:30:52 PM

I am very sceptical of the notion that people in the ancient world lived shorter lives than those in modernity. What do the proponents of this modern longevity theory make of Noah, who reportedly lived for some nine centuries in spite of his reckless, hedonistic lifestyle?

There are so many things that are plainly wrong in this short paragraph.

• After all those times that someone doubted the atheist credentials of the FE'rs and we were all assured that FE'rs are really atheists (and no FE'r said anything about being theist), now you are talking about Noah?

• And then, we are not talking about Noah, but Gilgamesh, as if they were the same person. And there is no explanation whatsoever as to why the two myths (of Noah and of Gilgamesh) are clearly different in key aspects.

• Also, the whole idea of longevity of a whole species is referred to the longevity of either Noah or Gilgamesh, and at least Gilgamesh is mentioned as an immortal being.

• And further, the discussion is moved to the times where no historians existed, not to mention statistics experts. And meanwhile, the recent history, including the last two centuries, when careful statistical information was compiled, is ignored.

• Also, the numeric information on the Bible is considered metaphorical, not numerically exact, by even the most traditional priests. Only a few fanatics consider the Bible as literally exact.

• The same conditions that reduced longevity in past centuries are occurring even now in Africa and other places

Nobody wants to know what you believe. There is evidence to the contrary.