Scientific evidence AGAINST Islam

Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »
- abdalwali
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Scientific evidence AGAINST Islam
Reply #30 - January 02, 2009, 01:37 PM

Quote from: PeruvianSkies on January 02, 2009, 01:32 PM

You should visit it, Sheffield is a great city indeed

Insha Allah one day

Strange thing about Iqbal - he's quoted in the Hamas Charter. Wonder if they know about his 'it was all a metaphor' views.

The language of the mob was only the language of public opinion cleansed of hypocrisy and restraint - Hannah Arendt.
- sojournerlumus
- Pub Regular
- Belief beggars reason.
- offline
Re: Scientific evidence AGAINST Islam
Reply #31 - January 02, 2009, 01:46 PM

Quote from: Humanoid on January 01, 2009, 06:39 PM
Interestingly there is heavy medical debate as to whether alcohol really has the "benefits" we have been led to believe.

The research , If I remember correctly, did not involve 2 groups of people, one who had always been teetotal and the other who only drank the mythical 1 glass of wine a day. The people in the study actually reported a wide range of alcohol consumption .

The people who were non-drinkers in the study tended to be ex-alcoholics - who by definition to have probably had plenty of damage to their internal organs in the past - thus were more likely to die sooner.

This is highly likely to have skewed the results and given us the impression that not drinking is more dangerous than drinking a little.

Interesting. Can you point me to the refs on that please.

Religion is ignorance giftwrapped in lyricism.
- SmartAssmodeus
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Scientific evidence AGAINST Islam
Reply #32 - January 02, 2009, 05:59 PM

Quote from: abdalwali on January 01, 2009, 07:13 PM
Drinking is good!
If you're drinking bhang.

Definitely the elixir vitae.
- Man-Machine
- Ex-Muslim
- Future Robotics
- offline
Re: Scientific evidence AGAINST Islam
Reply #33 - January 02, 2009, 06:21 PM

Quote from: sojournerlumus on January 02, 2009, 01:46 PM
Quote from: Humanoid on January 01, 2009, 06:39 PM
Interestingly there is heavy medical debate as to whether alcohol really has the "benefits" we have been led to believe.

The research , If I remember correctly, did not involve 2 groups of people, one who had always been teetotal and the other who only drank the mythical 1 glass of wine a day. The people in the study actually reported a wide range of alcohol consumption .

The people who were non-drinkers in the study tended to be ex-alcoholics - who by definition to have probably had plenty of damage to their internal organs in the past - thus were more likely to die sooner.

This is highly likely to have skewed the results and given us the impression that not drinking is more dangerous than drinking a little.

Interesting. Can you point me to the refs on that please.

I'll try and track them down. Gimme a day or so.
I heard this a couple of years back at a lecture given by public health specialists regarding how "critical reading" of medical/scientific papers should be done.

We are in favor of tolerance, but it is a very difficult thing to tolerate the intolerant and impossible to tolerate the intolerable.

-George Dennison Prentice
- Man-Machine
- Ex-Muslim
- Future Robotics
- offline
Re: Scientific evidence AGAINST Islam
Reply #34 - January 02, 2009, 06:40 PM

Here's an interesting one , not exactly what I was saying but worth reading : ( NB CHD = coronary heart disease)
Quote
Comment: Even if moderate drinking lowers risk for CHD (a hypothesis that has not been confirmed yet in clinical trials), alcohol ingestion appears to have no such benefit for people who exercise, eat fruits and vegetables, and do not smoke. The authors cite one large cohort study, done in the U.S., with similar results. Therefore, they recommend that this typically overlooked variability in the effect of moderate drinking be emphasized in public health messages and advice about alcohol use. Such a message ? which would acknowledge potential benefits among people with certain unhealthful behaviors ? also would emphasize lack of benefit in others and the importance of healthful behaviors. The message is complicated further by the lack of controlled trials, by research that suggests benefits accrue mainly to those with genetic predispositions to alcoholism, and by harms associated with moderate drinking (e.g., excess risk for certain cancers).

Taken from 18 Dec 08 issue of Journal watch
http://general-medicine.jwatch.org/cgi/content/full/2008/1218/1

We are in favor of tolerance, but it is a very difficult thing to tolerate the intolerant and impossible to tolerate the intolerable.

-George Dennison Prentice
- Radagast
- Member
- offline
Re: Scientific evidence AGAINST Islam
Reply #35 - January 09, 2009, 06:24 AM

Quote from: Cheetah on January 01, 2009, 02:26 AM
A glass of red wine a day isn't bad for your liver or your brain. In fact it is, as Lana said, good for your heart. So absolute teetotalism is just as damaging for your health as binge drinking.

Sadly, Allah didn't know that. How strange for a creator of the human race not to know how our biology works.

But then if Allah was the real creator of the universe (and according to his "rules"), he wouldn't have made a glass of red wine a day beneficial. He would simply have made zero glasses more beneficial than 1 glass.

However, if I was god, I would have made 1 bottle a day beneficial. What is better for the world than happy people who live longer? Oops... apparently Allah prefers unhappy people who blow themselves up!
Previous page 1 2« Previous thread | Next thread »