I'm very sorry to hear of your loss, vjack. It's never easy losing a loved one--we lost my mother this past December.

My mother was an RN for forty years. She used to tell me that what would today be called "physician-assisted suicide" used to be fairly standard practice in cases like your grandmother's (and my mom's). Obviously, physicians used to face much less pressure and/or interference from the state and so could give greater consideration to things like the family's wishes, quality of life issues, etc. How sad it is that so many of us have to watch our parents and loved ones slowly--often agonizingly slowly--waste away in severe pain, and all in the name of the sanctity of life!

I'd say you're on the right track, vjack. This I know: in many, many churches, children are still--in this day and age--taught that they shouldn't "ask too many questions", that "we aren't meant to understand the mind of god", etc. My kids' friends are taught this--almost to a child--in their various churches of various denominations. This tactic has been standard practice for at least the last 1600 years, since St. Augustine.

Talk about maintaining the status quo! Don't like answering the tough questions? No problem, just teach the masses that the very asking of the question is a sin. Attacking atheists and/or painting them as radicals or fringe extremists is just the flip side of the coin: "what do we do if someone does ask a question?"

Well, I guess it depends on your definition of "fanboy". Typically, at least in computer culture, a fanboy would be a person blindly, if not irrationally, DEFENDING Apple's messed-up iTunes Gift Card system and failing to admit that it is anything less than perfect--not the person pointing the finger at Apple, explaining how the system is broken and questioning whether something better could be done, as I have above...

Well, yeah, but for me that's an easy trade-off; it's precisely the tight control on hardware that allows for the tighter integration of the software, which leads to the "user experience" we both prefer.

Plus--for me--there is the "paradox of choice" issue. My last PC at home is a game platform for my son (when a game's not available on PS/3, it often is available on PC). It seems like I spend more time upgrading video cards alone (DirectX 8, 9, 10!) for that one PC than I spend maintaining my three Macs! My son, obviously, would disagree, but I'd be much happier having fewer options as far as PC gaming goes! (hehe)

Sad, but true.

Well, Olga, if you'll open your eyes, you'll see that countless "real" scientists have studied homeopathy. Hell, even if you take the position that the MD who wrote the article I linked above isn't a "real scientist", you can easily find a plethora of information from "real" scientists the vast majority of which closely parallels the article above. Unless, of course, you prefer to practice willful ignorance, or expect your listener to take it on faith--neither of which has anything to do with "real" science.

And just who are you quoting? I never said anything remotely approaching your quoted text. No, my position is one of provisional skepticism. As we all well know, the burden of proof rests with the person asserting the claim. My position is simply that you and the other proponents of homeopathy have not been able--in the last 200+ years--to overcome that burden. If ever you manage to overcome that burden, I for one will change my position as dictated by the evidence.

And why would you think that the foregoing was "somewhat medieval"? If anything, my position, which is rooted in the scientific method, skepticism, and the fundamentals of philosophical logic, would have to be regarded as the enlightened position. Perhaps it's easier for you to call me names than to cite compelling sources? That's fine, but who is truly being "medieval" in their thinking?

Lastly, no. I have not burned anybody recently, have you? I mean, burning people has always been a practice of those who have "belief without evidence" and not those who have "evidence without belief".

Olga, you strike me as a "true believer". As I stated above, all it will take is compelling evidence to change my mind. What would it take to change yours?

Why, thank you so much helensilvergoldstein--really. How refreshing it is to hear a believer tell me that I'm going to HEAVEN!

But believe me, if heaven exists and I go there when I die, and Ben Stein is waiting for me at the pearly gates, I'll still be of the opinion that he's full of shit on this specific issue.

But the real question is, how many scientists does it take saying the same thing that I'm saying here, to convince you that Stein's allegations are unfounded?

Ok. Go ahead then, Torrunn, school me up, and give me the real inside information, too. Because everything I've read about homoeopathy--from proponent and skeptic alike--makes it sound fucking insane.

How does it work again? The shaking transfers some sort of energy to the molecules that get so diluted (to varying degrees) that there's nary a chance of the original substance actually being present?

Placebos "cure" people too...

Yeah, not to detract from his greatness--and he is the best there's ever been, there's no doubt about that. But within the last 5-8 years, it seems that he moved from the guy who could explain anything in terms understandable to even the most casual of fan, to the guy who routinely pointed out the obvious, and often the painfully obvious.

Yeah, I bet a lot of people either chuckled or grimaced at that one! Of course, while he probably just misspoke--we've all done it--it is precisely the sort of thing Rush would jump all over if the speaker were someone with whom he disagreed...