Jump to content

Does hatred cause cancer?


Aristarchus in Exile
 Share

Recommended Posts

Do your personal laws demand that it is the person making the claim who has to provide the evidence?

 

kind of.

 

they don't need to be the originator of the evidence but they should at least put forward the evidence by way of referencing so that the evidence can be independently reviewed.

 

for instance 'I done an experiment that proved it' may seem good but how can we tell how good the experiment was? you'd need to post the methodology and so on so it can be tried out to see if the experiment is valid and the results a representative of what you describe.

 

If you say you read it in a science journal then you should be able to provide an exact reference(surely you keep such critical information close at hand and documented in case you need to revisit it?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Bignose: Your words: "You like the attention more than you like actually knowing the answer to the question that is this thread title."

 

This is a typical accusation on internet forums. Accusations against me have been made here before your latest one, including paranoia, which is also a typical internet forum accusation. Posters responding to my posts have added words of their own fabrication to my thoughts, for intance changing the meaning "sometimes" to "allways." This is typical of internet discussion forums, along with the accusation that I consider myself a martyr .. hence, this is a typical internet forum .. and please don't respond with 'well, with so many people saying these things, don't you think it might be true' because these things are done to many other people besides me on these typical internet forums.

 

 

To whoever posted the newspaper information about the Centre for Disease Control recommendations that boys aged 11 and 12 up get the HPV vaccine (because of an "epidemic" of mouth and throat cancers,) but unless you can post an original copy signed by the CDC Director the information may not be acceptable to Mooeypoo.

 

Also, you yourself admit that definitions of hatred are varied, making statistical comparisons probably impossible. I only have so much time, so much internet time, so much sleep time. I post these things to generate interest in people who might be benefited. Many people might be benefited from your inclusion from the CDC, so this thread is beneficial. I am satisfied. I will, over time, continue to think on these things, and when I find significant information will try to publicize it.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, you seem to face one of two options here. Either continue stomping your feet on the ground and insist that everyone is persecuting you, which would make this thread just deteriorate further, or let it go, accept my partial apology about my *own* flaw and in return work on the flaws you have in your statements.

 

Instead of bashing heads with us, can we go back on topic? You were asked quite a number of questions which you need to answer with proper evidence. This whole "But it's you!" argument isn't really beneficial.

 

Just remember, we're a private forum that has a set of rules. When you joined, you agreed to those rules. We aren't here to argue the rules, we're here to discuss science.

I think you should go over the requirements of this forum again, and pretty soon this will stop being a kindly suggestion.

 

Can we move on, or are we going to go back round and round about how horribly unfair we are?

 

~mooey

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look, you seem to face one of two options here. Either continue stomping your feet on the ground and insist that everyone is persecuting you, which would make this thread just deteriorate further, or let it go, accept my partial apology about my *own* flaw and in return work on the flaws you have in your statements.

 

Instead of bashing heads with us, can we go back on topic? You were asked quite a number of questions which you need to answer with proper evidence. This whole "But it's you!" argument isn't really beneficial.

 

Just remember, we're a private forum that has a set of rules. When you joined, you agreed to those rules. We aren't here to argue the rules, we're here to discuss science.

I think you should go over the requirements of this forum again, and pretty soon this will stop being a kindly suggestion.

 

Can we move on, or are we going to go back round and round about how horribly unfair we are?

 

~mooey

 

You really should stop accusing me of thinking I'm being persecuted. It shows a lack of judgement on your part. Perhaps you don't read my posts in which I say "I do not think I'm being persecuted"? If so, go back and reread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really should stop accusing me of thinking I'm being persecuted. It shows a lack of judgement on your part. Perhaps you don't read my posts in which I say "I do not think I'm being persecuted"? If so, go back and reread.

 

Well, you insist on talking more about what we're missing rather than address the questions we posed to you. You posted a thread "does hatred cause cancer", and while the first post was vague question about definitions, you continued to make some claims about this. We ask that you back those claims up, and no matter how much you avoid it, this is very simple: You will never convince anyone (forum dwellers or the scientific community) if you don't back your claims up with proper evidence.

 

Are we going to get back on topic or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really should stop accusing me of thinking I'm being persecuted. It shows a lack of judgement on your part. Perhaps you don't read my posts in which I say "I do not think I'm being persecuted"? If so, go back and reread.

!

Moderator Note

You were warned to stay on topic and stop arguing with Staff and start supporting what you claim as fact. Warning level increased.

 

I'm sad to note that yesterday you claimed you would be banned soon and are now doing everything you can to make that happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rosicrucians say;

 

 

"this Great Hierarch is, from the viewpoint of these Esoteric Christian teachings, the evolved form of the third aspect of God, the creative energy in Nature, which is reflected in man as sex energy;[22] the misuse or abuse of that power, the holy creative force [of God] in man, for gratification of the passional nature, and particularly perversion[23] (see also human sexual behaviour), constitutes the sin against the Holy “Ghost”;[24]

- the great transgression, the abuse of sex function or generative force for sense gratification, must be expiated, under the Law (of Cause and Consequence), through suffering in diseased and incapacitated bodies and minds, mainly afflicted with developmental disabilities – as there is a close connection between sexual activity and mental activity, as well as the power of speech[25] – and incurable cancer (see alsocarcinogenesis and cancer treatment) for those who abuse the sex function in a very marked and bestial degree:"

 

 

 

 

Just something I found interesting & wanted to share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rosicrucians say;

 

 

"this Great Hierarch is, from the viewpoint of these Esoteric Christian teachings, the evolved form of the third aspect of God, the creative energy in Nature, which is reflected in man as sex energy;[22] the misuse or abuse of that power, the holy creative force [of God] in man, for gratification of the passional nature, and particularly perversion[23] (see also human sexual behaviour), constitutes the sin against the Holy "Ghost";[24]

- the great transgression, the abuse of sex function or generative force for sense gratification, must be expiated, under the Law (of Cause and Consequence), through suffering in diseased and incapacitated bodies and minds, mainly afflicted with developmental disabilities as there is a close connection between sexual activity and mental activity, as well as the power of speech[25] and incurable cancer (see alsocarcinogenesis and cancer treatment) for those who abuse the sex function in a very marked and bestial degree:"

 

Thanks Appolinaria .. a lot of good stuff there. Sex in its good form is wonderful and creative in many ways, but it's not the creative energy of man. The creative energy of man is creative in all areas of life.

 

 

 

 

Just something I found interesting & wanted to share.

 

!

Moderator Note

You were warned to stay on topic and stop arguing with Staff and start supporting what you claim as fact. Warning level increased.

 

I'm sad to note that yesterday you claimed you would be banned soon and are now doing everything you can to make that happen.

 

It was only a matter of time to my being banned once I posted evidence that Big Bang doesn't work .. that and the fact that you moderators are sadistic dictators which I knew from the beginning here because of the 'big heat' you're all packing. Farewell.

 

Well, you insist on talking more about what we're missing rather than address the questions we posed to you. You posted a thread "does hatred cause cancer", and while the first post was vague question about definitions, you continued to make some claims about this. We ask that you back those claims up, and no matter how much you avoid it, this is very simple: You will never convince anyone (forum dwellers or the scientific community) if you don't back your claims up with proper evidence.

 

Are we going to get back on topic or what?

 

YOU made claims that I made claims, changing 'some' to 'all', changing 'if' to 'anti-if'. You moderators are typical internet moderators, sadistic, narcistic power trippers .. carrying big guns no less .. you really are hillarious.

 

kind of.

 

they don't need to be the originator of the evidence but they should at least put forward the evidence by way of referencing so that the evidence can be independently reviewed.

 

for instance 'I done an experiment that proved it' may seem good but how can we tell how good the experiment was? you'd need to post the methodology and so on so it can be tried out to see if the experiment is valid and the results a representative of what you describe.

 

If you say you read it in a science journal then you should be able to provide an exact reference(surely you keep such critical information close at hand and documented in case you need to revisit it?)

 

You couldn't find response to the rest of my post? The clear examples. The end is nigh. Farewell, MooeyPoo.

 

Okay, seriously now. You can say I made a mistake a billion times and I can agree with you a trillion time, and it will still not change the fact that someone ANSWERED YOUR QUESTIONS and you, instead of relating to questions and points that were raised in a rather lengthy and well thought-of post, decided to attack their integrity instead.

 

Are you more interested in shifting blame, or discussing? How many times do I need to tell you I accept the error I made before you start listening and cooperating? We're not here to rub your ego, we're here to get facts, which you're not supplying in the least.

 

Please. PLEASE, read the post I put up. You SERIOUSLY need it.

 

But you cannot admit what mistake you made .. admitting to vague generalizations goes against your rules, doesn't it? I see nothing in any of your posts where you admit making accusation and inuendoe and saying what they were .. providing evidence of your wrong doing in the way you expect evidence to be presented. I see nothing in the way of apology which says, "I'm sorry that I said ...... " whatever it was you admitted, which I have no idea of.

Edited by Aristarchus in Exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was only a matter of time to my being banned once I posted evidence that Big Bang doesn't work .. that and the fact that you moderators are sadistic dictators which I knew from the beginning here because of the 'big heat' you're all packing. Farewell.

But you posted NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. That's the really sad part, you make a claim you can't back up and then further claim you're being persecuted for proving your claim, WHICH YOU NEVER DID. You have no clue what evidence really is. It's been explained but you continue to ignore everyone who tries to tell you. And it's pretty clear, from what you've told us, that this has been happening your whole life. Everyone is wrong but you.

 

My heart goes out to you, truly it does. You need your god's salvation because your life must be hell right here.

 

Sorry to be so harsh. I keep hoping different approaches may help get through.

 

 

YOU made claims that I made claims, changing 'some' to 'all', changing 'if' to 'anti-if'. You moderators are typical internet moderators, sadistic, narcistic power trippers .. carrying big guns no less .. you really are hillarious.

After you made the patently ridiculous claim that swansont, one of our best and brightest minds and someone whose character and intellectual integrity are above reproach, was on some kind of power ego trip because you mistook his avatar for a picture of him holding a gun, swansont explained to you who James Bond is and we thought it was funny. When you couldn't admit your mistake and kept harassing him about changing his avatar to suit your sensibilities, some of the rest of the staff chose celebrities with guns too, to show the absurdity of your stance. Essentially we did what Jesus told us to in Luke 22:36, we sold our garments and bought a sword.

 

In the end, we don't much care what you think. You've demonstrated that you didn't come here to learn like the rest of us. You came here to change all of us, to show us that we are all wrong, and we should think like you instead. All of science is wrong because it disagrees with what you've come to know as THE TRUTH.

 

You couldn't find response to the rest of my post? The clear examples. The end is nigh. Farewell, MooeyPoo.

You quoted insane_alien, not mooeypoo.

 

And yes, the burden of proof is always on the person making the outrageous claims. Always has been, always will be.

 

 

But you cannot admit what mistake you made .. admitting to vague generalizations goes against your rules, doesn't it? I see nothing in any of your posts where you admit making accusation and inuendoe and saying what they were .. providing evidence of your wrong doing in the way you expect evidence to be presented. I see nothing in the way of apology which says, "I'm sorry that I said ...... " whatever it was you admitted, which I have no idea of.

Wow, dude, seriously? After every single point you've made was refuted but you continue to argue that you're right, you slam someone else for not admitting their mistake?

 

Okay .. if this forum does not welcome beginners to science, you should remove the misleading invitation. Do you expect newcomers to substantiate every statement, idea, fact, as if they are writing a PHD thesis? Am I a newcomer to science? I have no formal education but scored third year university levels on mature student application testing. But because I have no PHD or Masters or even Bachelors I might be able to claim beginner status, and you can view me as an unlearned and naive young person despite the 170 IQ I scored in high school. Up to you.

I missed this part. If you have no formal education in science, why are you so convinced everyone is wrong but you? How does that even make sense to you?

 

Beginners don't typically show up and start telling everyone they're not doing it the right way. So it's not your lack of knowledge, it's the fact that you lack the knowledge but adamantly claim you're right that gets you into trouble.

 

Seriously, man, this should be starting to make sense to you. You won't be taken seriously if you keep doing this.

 

Imagine:

 

"Coach, I've never played football before, but I think you should play me because I see the mistakes you're making."

 

"Mr Trump, I've never studied business but it's clear to me that you're going about this all wrong!"

 

"Yo, Yo-Yo Ma, I've never played an instrument before, but it doesn't seem right to rest that guitar on the ground like that. Throw away that hairy stick and listen to me!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a search on Google Scholar for "hatred causes cancer" and got no hits, another one for "stress causes cancer" didn't bring up anything directly either, but "stress contributes to cancer" brought up the first one from 2007, but alas, it was payperview.

Edited by Realitycheck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Bignose: Your words: "You like the attention more than you like actually knowing the answer to the question that is this thread title."

 

This is a typical accusation on internet forums. Accusations against me have been made here before your latest one, including paranoia, which is also a typical internet forum accusation. Posters responding to my posts have added words of their own fabrication to my thoughts, for intance changing the meaning "sometimes" to "allways." This is typical of internet discussion forums, along with the accusation that I consider myself a martyr .. hence, this is a typical internet forum .. and please don't respond with 'well, with so many people saying these things, don't you think it might be true' because these things are done to many other people besides me on these typical internet forums.

 

 

To whoever posted the newspaper information about the Centre for Disease Control recommendations that boys aged 11 and 12 up get the HPV vaccine (because of an "epidemic" of mouth and throat cancers,) but unless you can post an original copy signed by the CDC Director the information may not be acceptable to Mooeypoo.

 

Also, you yourself admit that definitions of hatred are varied, making statistical comparisons probably impossible. I only have so much time, so much internet time, so much sleep time. I post these things to generate interest in people who might be benefited. Many people might be benefited from your inclusion from the CDC, so this thread is beneficial. I am satisfied. I will, over time, continue to think on these things, and when I find significant information will try to publicize it.

 

 

Sure, guy, we all have time limitations. But, you'd think that if you really believed in your idea, you'd actually do a tiny bit of leg work to see if it had merit. I'm not demanding an answer in the next 20 minutes or anything. Take a week, a month, whatever and actually do some leg work. That way, you can actually have answers to some of these questions. That's all any of us are really asking -- to put in an honest effort to answer the questions, rather than act surprised when your unsupported idea isn't immediately accepted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, I did admit my mistake, apologized for it, and posted a link that was opposite to what I said, hence I corrected my claim.

 

That's the way things should happen when people make mistakes.

 

Thank you. I obviously missed it. There is just too much to read on this forum to get every word .. which is why I sent you a personal message about something at the same time I posted it. I admit and apologize for my inability to respond with pure kindness, which is the Christians command and ideal, when I am accused and abused, which has happened a few times on this forum, from a few participants. It becomes difficult to keep straight who has said what when and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you. I obviously missed it. There is just too much to read on this forum to get every word ..

 

the forum is a place for non-realtime communications. there is nothing stopping you from taking a few hours to digest a particular post. I imagine very few of us are sitting waiting in earnest for responses. I usually just have a wee browse every now and again or subscribe to a thread and pop back when i get a notification.

 

take all the time you want to read a response and formulate a reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

After you made the patently ridiculous claim that swansont, one of our best and brightest minds and someone whose character and intellectual integrity are above reproach, was on some kind of power ego trip because you mistook his avatar for a picture of him holding a gun, swansont explained to you who James Bond is and we thought it was funny. When you couldn't admit your mistake and kept harassing him about changing his avatar to suit your sensibilities, some of the rest of the staff chose celebrities with guns too, to show the absurdity of your stance. Essentially we did what Jesus told us to in Luke 22:36, we sold our garments and bought a sword.

 

I missed this part. If you have no formal education in science, why are you so convinced everyone is wrong but you? How does that even make sense to you?

 

 

Sword: Read onto the next verses past Luke 22:36 .. Jesus said "One sword is enough." The only other time a sword appears in the New Testament after the garden scene is in Revelation, one sword, the sharp, two edged sword preceeding out of the mouth of the person with white white hair and firey eyes.

 

No formal education makes me independant of consensus. I believe I can think more clearly. As a child I read enormous amounts of non-fiction especially on cosmology (my friends nicknamed me Sputnick) and I have continued to read enormous amounts. I scored 170 IQ in high school and I have an affinity for information. Although because of problems as a child in family and finances I only graduated high school from a four year commercial program, but three years later I scored second and third year university level on a mature student application test at University of Western Ontario. Formal education sometimes can be (I am not saying it always is) like blinders on a horse, although not with a person who manages to remain truly open minded, and some of those highly educated people have written fantastic books on cosmology. Being part of a consensus SEEMS TO put horse blinders on many people becuase they don't want to think outside their group. I do not think "I am right" .. but I know that I have a right to believe that I may be right despite when the consensus says.

 

Evidence: Evidence will come if the theory is correct or even partially correct. If a theory is not put forth no one will look for the evidence to support it. If a theory is found interesting by someone, they might search for evidence. A straightjacket of rules which says a person must provide evidence for every statement is just that, a straightjacket.

 

I might be able to search for more evidence but I don't have internet at home .. I use a public library's service and have a two hour daily limit. Sometimes I buy a coffee at an internet cafe and use their wi-fi for my netbook there, but it's a slow machine.

I must also restrict the topics I participate in, which will free up time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sword: Read onto the next verses past Luke 22:36 .. Jesus said "One sword is enough."

Well, you're wrong. You should have studied this first.

 

Luke 22:38

But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said to them, It is enough.

 

The only other time a sword appears in the New Testament after the garden scene is in Revelation, one sword, the sharp, two edged sword preceeding out of the mouth of the person with white white hair and firey eyes.

The only other time?! This is another example of how your adamancy betrays you. After the garden, within this very same chapter of Luke, Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, and this happened:

 

Luke 22:48-50

48 But Jesus said to him, “Judas, are you betraying the Son of Man with a kiss?”

49 When those around Him saw what was going to happen, they said to Him, “Lord, shall we strike with the sword?” 50 And one of them struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear.

 

And after that, even outside the Gospels, I find eight more references to "swords" before Revelations. Making adamant statements like, "The only other time a sword appears in the New Testament after the garden scene is in Revelation" shows that you spoke first without studying what you were talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hatred, anger, cancer.

 

http://www.mindhealings.com/?p=251

 

Well, you're wrong. You should have studied this first.

 

Luke 22:38

 

 

 

The only other time?! This is another example of how your adamancy betrays you. After the garden, within this very same chapter of Luke, Jesus went to the Mount of Olives, and one of his disciples said:

 

Luke 22:48-50

 

 

And after that, even outside the Gospels, I find eight more references to swords before Revelations. Making adamant statements like, "The only other time a sword appears in the New Testament after the garden scene is in Revelation" shows that you spoke first without studying what you were talking about.

 

Okay .. you're probably right, I'm probably wrong, but I haven't check yet as I'm looking for evidence of hatred and anger causing cancer. I am an old guy and tired, maybe I was thinking but not writing that after Peter used his sword in the garden no disciple was seen with or used a sword .. supporting the Christian belief that Christians are not to use violence.

Edited by Aristarchus in Exile
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this seems to have strayed somewhat from the original topic.

 

who cares how many swords are in the bible?

 

hatred doesn't cause cancer.

 

I know some happy people who have contracted cancer (my uncle) I'm sure there are other examples.

 

Does oncology mean nothing to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

none of them provide actual studies.

 

one even dubiously references a study showing cancer patients have low anger scores and then immediately assumes that this means they are repressing anger instead of being genuinely happy.

 

I cannot accept these as evidence as they seem to use very sketchy logic filled with fallacies to attempt to substantiate their claims.

 

even ignoring that the claims are very weakly supported compared to current knowledge with cancer.

 

do you have eny scientific studies you can link to rather than anecdotal evidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: Does hatred cause cancer?

A: No

 

Q: Do our personal emotions have an effect on our biology

A: Yes, it's well known without quoting references that the "mind/body connection" plays a huge part in our health. Your body will react to stress, anxiety or being upset. It will know something isn't right and could result in high blood pressure, stomach aches/ulcers. Poor emotional health can weaken your body's immune system. In cases of clinical depression, it seems the human body just wants to shut down and suicide it's self. The best thing you can do, is try keep a positive out look on life, and embrace the bad things for what experience they are worth. "That's life"

 

Q: Do our personal emotions towards other people have an effect on their biology

A: This is a tricky one to test, discuss or even acknowledge as we would never want to believe we could be hurting one another just by thinking it. One of the best links I can give you comes from the research of Dr. Masaru Emoto

 

Ref:

 

He is an internationally renowned researcher who has demonstrated the effects of individual and collective consciousness and the effects they have on water molecules. In short, a slide with the words like 'love' or 'kindness' associated with them result in positive molecular responses while words like 'hate' or 'mean' result in negative molecular responses. His methods have been verified and repeated by other scientists. His conclusion is that if our thoughts can have these kind of results on water, imagine what they can have on people.

 

Edited by Light Storm
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q: Does hatred cause cancer?

A: No

 

Q: Do our personal emotions have an effect on our biology

A: Yes, it's well known without quoting references that the "mind/body connection" plays a huge part in our health. Your body will react to stress, anxiety or being upset. It will know something isn't right and could result in high blood pressure, stomach aches/ulcers. Poor emotional health can weaken your body's immune system. In cases of clinical depression, it seems the human body just wants to shut down and suicide it's self. The best thing you can do, is try keep a positive out look on life, and embrace the bad things for what experience they are worth. "That's life"

 

Q: Do our personal emotions towards other people have an effect on their biology

A: This is a tricky one to test, discuss or even acknowledge as we would never want to believe we could be hurting one another just by thinking it. One of the best links I can give you comes from the research of Dr. Masaru Emoto

 

Ref: www.masaru-emoto.net

 

He is an internationally renowned researcher who has demonstrated the effects of individual and collective consciousness and the effects they have on water molecules. In short, a slide with the words like 'love' or 'kindness' associated with them result in positive molecular responses while words like 'hate' or 'mean' result in negative molecular responses. His methods have been verified and repeated by other scientists. His conclusion is that if our thoughts can have these kind of results on water, imagine what they can have on people.

 

 

Especially since such a large amount of our body consists of water! ohmy.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.