health information
Recognizing Alcohol & Drug Addiction : The Effects of Withdrawal From Addiction
Learn about the effects of withdrawal from addiction in this free home health video. Expert: rivrsurvivor Bio: John DePalma, born and raised in, Queens, NY, has been a recovering alcohol and drug addict for over 17 years. Falling off the wagon, after five years, John learned a no nonsense approach to dealing w
-
-
#2 written by ZELIG500 2 years ago
-
#4 written by DazedExistence 2 years ago
No ZELIG, an athiest doesn’t believe in magic, a religious person does. We require evidence, you require faith. We can prove things through reasoning, you claim things through wishful thinking. And PLEASE do yourself a favor and read a book on evolution, you created a straw man argument b/c you obviously don’t understand it.
-
#5 written by ZELIG500 2 years ago
I’m not like you. I don’t know everything. I do know however that the greatest scientific geniuses in history were devout Christians—and scientists from Newton to Einstein insisted that biblical religion provided the key ideas from which experimental science could develop. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair, and witch hunts together make up less than 1% of the murders that have occurred during modern atheist regimes like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.
-
#6 written by DazedExistence 2 years ago
I never claimed to know everything, in fact, that’s the whole point…I don’t. That’s why I require evidence and make judgements based on facts. And Einstein wasn’t a Christian btw, he was a deist. There is a big difference. Furthermore, Hitler professed to be Catholic and even if he lied, his troops who commited the murders themselves were absolutely religious. Stalin was an athiest, but he founded a political system that was religious in nature. Political ideas are often religion in disguise.
-
#7 written by ZELIG500 2 years ago
Circular reasoning is legitimate due to circular reasoning being legitimate. That’s what I hear.
Anti-religious people are as bad as fundamentalists in their fashionable left wing absolutism.
There is so much intellectual laziness behind what passes for religion bashing today. People who like to attack religion think they’re being risqué. Most of their arguments are just conformist and insipid. -
#8 written by DazedExistence 2 years ago
Circular reasoning, glad you mentioned that: The Bible is correct because it is the word of God. It is the word of God because the Bible says so. Therefore, the Bible is the word of God. That is the definition of intellectual laziness. How can arguments be conformist if most Americans believe in God? If it’s conformist, it can’t be risqué. If it’s risqué, it can’t be conformist. Make up your mind. Furthermore, no athiest believes you will burn in a lake of fire, but you do, and that’s sadistic
-
#9 written by ZELIG500 2 years ago
Your zeal has made you blind to reasoned debate. I’m not talking about the Bible. One of my past posts clearly states that I don’t believe God lives in any house of worship or the Bible. Do your homework. A simple review would reveal that all I’ve ever claimed is that faith dares the soul to go beyond what the eyes can see. Lake of fire? Are you on drugs?
-
#10 written by DazedExistence 2 years ago
Am I on drugs? That would figure to be your argument, your an addiction counselor, anyone who disagrees with you must be on drugs, right? No, addiction is a biological/social issue, not a religious issue. And if you did your homework, you’d realize that you haven’t responded to a single argument, you pull ad hominem claims against me. Note how you attack me, but don’t respond only to the arguments themselves. And “lake of fire” was theoretical, it still represents what you have shown to believe.
-
#11 written by ZELIG500 2 years ago
Your user ID says more than I ever could. Is that hominenen enough for you? And you’re a bore. You’re like a dog that barks at a car. Car’s gone, dog’s still barking. At what? Don’t know. Don’t care. As for God, there are some drawn to that mystery, I say let them be. Its your aggressive aggrandizement of atheism that scares many religious people away from working toward a world were all beliefs, religious and philosophical, can exist together harmoniously.
-
#12 written by DazedExistence 2 years ago
For one, attacking my ID is proof enough that you can’t understand the idea that it is based on the concept of living in an absurd world without drugs. The fact is your ideas are not only wrong based only on evidence, but wrong on ethical grounds too. If you are going to fight, do it with facts and evidence, not with attacks against me. Stick with the argument, and I will too. I think you are intelligent and know better than to attack me as a person, so prove it, or prove me wrong.
-
#14 written by mathias7777777777777 2 years ago
Hi Dazed, you say atheists require evidence. I have a challenge for you. Do you believe that your position is more likely to be nearer to or closer to the truth than theism? If you don’t, why then are you an atheist? If you do, then what evidence do you have to support your position that atheism is truer than or at least more likely to be nearer to the truth than theism? A simple question.
-
#17 written by M1thotyn 2 years ago
Uhh, that’s not what withdrawals are. You’re saying that withdrawals are merely the time between consuming the substance someone is addicted to. No, withdrawals are a physiological response that effect every organ in the body. Alcohol withdrawals for example: Heart rate spikes, blood pressure spikes, stroke and seizure activity emerges, shakes develop, hallucinations can occur. It’s not just merely the time between usage. No wonder this video has a low rating.
-
#25 written by Ouija88 2 years ago
@broadcastmyass4u almost tru, im an addict, but i only drink in the evening, in the day im sober, but when it’s gone to evening i get the urge to drink alcohol. but sometimes i stay a month without alcohol but when some bitchin on me again i gonna drink again. But i don’t have a storage for so on, i just buy the day i need it, nothing more.
- Comment Feed for this Post
To say that abiogenesis isn’t popular is about as off as one can get. It is currently THE most favored view on the origin of life amongst biologists, biochemists, et al. Please quite spouting disinformation.