10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[normanchateau]

Drugs are evaluated on that basis. A drug is only considered effective if negative side effects are less severe than the positive effect. For example, a drug that reduces a tumor size by 50% but causes liver failure is not considered effective.

I suspect that you are confusing the effectiveness or efficacy of a drug with the benefit-risk profile of a drug. Health Canada has produced a useful glossary of drug licensing terminology:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/homologatio...ss/index_e.html

[Riverwind]

I suspect that you are confusing the effectiveness or efficacy of a drug with the benefit-risk profile of a drug. Health Canada has produced a useful glossary of drug licensing terminology:

My description of drug effectiveness is accurate.

Working Definition on Effectiveness

Benefits and risks of drug use in the real world

- in the typical clinical setting

- in clinical practice

Benefits and risks of therapeutic product (medications) as used in the Canadian population(s).

Agreed upon definition: 'Benefits and risks of therapeutic products use in defined population(s)'.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/cons...g-medica_e.html

Medicine is not an exact science and it is silly to pretend it is. The science of medicine requires that the the scientists look at the overall outcome and any given therapy. A therapy that has high efficacy would not be considered effective if the side effects are too severe.

[Riverwind]

And as I've already pointed out, that logic is circular.

Only because you are reversing what I said. I said that it is logical to believe in a deity if one has evidence that the belief could produce positive benefits. This evidence could take the form of individual experiments or the experience of others. In these cases, the decision to believe comes after evaluating the evidence. Furthermore, this logic does not presume a deity exists or that the effect is caused by a deity. The only assumption is that belief in a (possibly fictional) deity can deliver positive effects.

[normanchateau]

I suspect that you are confusing the effectiveness or efficacy of a drug with the benefit-risk profile of a drug. Health Canada has produced a useful glossary of drug licensing terminology:

My description of drug effectiveness is accurate.

Working Definition on Effectiveness

Benefits and risks of drug use in the real world

- in the typical clinical setting

- in clinical practice

Benefits and risks of therapeutic product (medications) as used in the Canadian population(s).

Agreed upon definition: 'Benefits and risks of therapeutic products use in defined population(s)'.

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medeff/cons...g-medica_e.html

Your definition of effectiveness was indeed accurate based on the Health Canada 2001 workshop on defining drug effectiveness/outcomes. Below are the definitions from the 2007 Health Canada glossary I cited previously:

Effectiveness

How well a drug does what it is intended to do under in "real world" circumstances. This is a measure of how well a drug treats the symptoms of a condition when average, everyday patients are taking it.

Efficacy

How well a drug does what it is intended to do under ideal circumstances. This is a measure of how well a drug behave according to controlled scientific expectations when used in clinical trials and drug development.

Benefit-Risk Profile

The current interpretation of benefit-risk profile for a drug is a reflection of the overall balance of the product's potential benefits with its identified risks as revealed through the safety and efficacy evidence, and through consideration of how that evidence contextualizes with normal conditions of use on market. As new information becomes available, this can affect the overall benefit-risk profile.

[Mad_Michael]

And as I've already pointed out, that logic is circular.

Only because you are reversing what I said. I said that it is logical to believe in a deity if one has evidence that the belief could produce positive benefits. This evidence could take the form of individual experiments or the experience of others. In these cases, the decision to believe comes after evaluating the evidence. Furthermore, this logic does not presume a deity exists or that the effect is caused by a deity. The only assumption is that belief in a (possibly fictional) deity can deliver positive effects.

If belief in a (possibly fictional) diety can deliver positive results, this only reinforces the old adage about the 'power of positive thinking'. It logically proves nothing about this (possibly fictional) diety.

Indeed, one could apply the same argument to argue that belief in the infamous Flying Spagetti Monster is logical.

Now if you are willing to accept that the Flying Spagetti Monster has the same logical validity as your God, then, I say 'go for it'.

[buffycat]

Indeed, one could apply the same argument to argue that belief in the infamous Flying Spagetti Monster is logical.

Now if you are willing to accept that the Flying Spagetti Monster has the same logical validity as your God, then, I say 'go for it'.

Touched by His noodly Appendage

[normanchateau]

If belief in a (possibly fictional) diety can deliver positive results, this only reinforces the old adage about the 'power of positive thinking'. It logically proves nothing about this (possibly fictional) diety.

Just like placebos, false beliefs can indeed result in positive results. Unlike placebos, they can also lead to catastrophically negative results.