Comments by Healing One

Comment #46218 by Healing One on May 30, 2007 at 3:32 pm

CARLY GAMMILL: I intend to help further the administration of justice and to do justice. And I believe in absolute truth, and I believe in absolutes. Not grey, you know, not relative truth but absolute truth. And that's what God's word is.

"God's word is absolute truth." She is barking mad. She has been programmed to frame debates about the moral status of embryos, fetuses, stem cells, and non-human animals in terms of whether or not these entities possess immaterial souls.

The strong intuitive pull of dualism makes it difficult for people to accept what Francis Crick called "the astonishing hypothesis." Dualism is mistaken — mental life emerges from physical processes. People resist the astonishing hypothesis in ways that can have considerable social implications. For one thing, debates about the moral status of embryos, fetuses, stem cells, and non-human animals are sometimes framed in terms of whether or not these entities possess immaterial souls. For instance, in their 2003 report (Being Human: Readings from the President's Council on Bioethics), the President's Council described people as follows: "We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects. We are embodied spirits and inspirited bodies (or, if you will, embodied minds and minded bodies)."

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bloom07/bloom07_index.html

Jay Sekulow, Regent's legal graduates like Carly Gammill, and the President's Council on Bioethics belief in a immaterial soul has resulted in a supreme court decision banning "partial birth" abortion.

Sekulow now heads up Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice, and was hand-picked by the White House to be an advisor on judicial nominations.

Last month, when the ascendant majority on the Supreme Court upheld a federal ban on "partial birth" abortion. Sekulow declared victory for the religious right and for Regent.

JAY SEKULOW: Well the end result is that a lot of the findings of fact that the Court made in NY, the finding of fact in our favor about the horrific nature of this procedure were incorporated in the Supreme Court decision that came out today.

There is no medical procedure called "partial birth" abortion. It was coined by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady.

Since it was first coined in 1995 by pro-life congressman Charles T. Canady, the term "partial birth abortion" has been used in numerous state and federal bills and laws, although the legal definition of the term is not always the same. In the 2000 Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, a Nebraska law banning "partial-birth abortion" was ruled unconstitutional, in part because the language defining "partial-birth abortion" was deemed vague.[9] In 2006, the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. Carhart found that the 2003 act "departs in material ways" from the Nebraska law and that it pertains only to a specific abortion procedure, intact dilation and extraction.[2] The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act defines "partial-birth abortion" as follows:

" An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

The law omits an exception for the health of the woman (as opposed to the life of the woman) reversing the precedent that was set by Roe v. Wade.

It's back to self-abortion attempts and hospital abortion floors. Thank you Justice Alito, Alberto Gonzales, Regent University, Pat Robertson, Mitt Romney, and George Bush.

2. 'Einstein - His Life and Universe'

Comment #44150 by Healing One on May 23, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Einstein's "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" quotation in context.

For example, a conflict arises when a religious community insists on the absolute truthfulness of all statements recorded in the Bible. This means an intervention on the part of religion into the sphere of science; this is where the struggle of the Church against the doctrines of Galileo and Darwin belongs. On the other hand, representatives of science have often made an attempt to arrive at fundamental judgments with respect to values and ends on the basis of scientific method, and in this way have set themselves in opposition to religion. These conflicts have all sprung from fatal errors.

Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Though I have asserted above that in truth a legitimate conflict between religion and science cannot exist, I must nevertheless qualify this assertion once again on an essential point, with reference to the actual content of historical religions. This qualification has to do with the concept of God. During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.

Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?

Source: Einstein's Ideas and Opinions, Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

3. Dawkins vs Haggard: the Python Edition

Comment #29914 by Healing One on April 5, 2007 at 1:19 pm

I am still laughing as I try to write this comment.

"He puts on woman's clothing and hangs around in bars."

"I wish I'd been a girlie - just like my dear papa."

OMG that's funny.

4. The God Debate

Comment #29370 by Healing One on April 2, 2007 at 4:46 pm

MSNBC should allow us to view the entire unedited four hour debate and provide a complete transcript. We need to see, hear, and read all the evidence a video and transcript of the debate would provide. The carefully framed "debate transcript" they provide is cowardly and dishonest.

5. The God Debate

Comment #29229 by Healing One on April 2, 2007 at 6:52 am

Has Sam Harris got the spirit? What follows is an analysis of the following passage about spirituality and spirit in the debate.

Warren: Can you have spirituality without a spirit?

Harris: You can feel yourself to be one with the universe.

Warren: OK, then why can't you just take the next step? (Subtle referral to Dawkin's next step from not believing in Zeus to one God further) Because right now you're talking in extremely non-rational terms. (Calling Sam irrational and putting him on the defensive)

Harris: There's nothing irrational about it. You can close your eyes in meditation and lose the sense of your physical body, totally. (I agree. I can do it myself. But I can't prove it. I believe it because I can also achieve a similar state.) Many people draw from that the metaphysical conclusion that "I'm just spirit, and I can transcend the body." That's not the only conclusion you have to draw from that experience, and I don't think it's the best conclusion. (What is? Isn't this a conscious state? Why not say so?)

Warren: You're more spiritual than you think. (A slick framing casting Sam as spiritual) You just don't want a boss? (As Warren turns to address his faithful believers) You don't want a God who tells you what to do. (As Warren looks down into the eyes of the believers reading Newsweek in the front pew)

Sam should not let Warren get away with calling him non-rational or suggesting he is "more spiritual" than he thinks. Sam did respond but when you talk about meditation, that "I'm just spirit, and I can transcend the body" you give Warren and his handlers an image they can work with - as in "Holy Spirit" - as in "In the Spirit" - or as in "Sam Harris has got the spirit".

Sam should consider switching from using the word spirit to consciousness or conscious state or better yet consider using the binocular rivalry experiment Edelman talks about on pages 107-110 of his book Wider Than The Sky. The experiment uses magnetoencephalograhy to demonstrate the phenomena of a subject flipping between seeing red vertical bars and blue horizontal bars and the resultant patterns the instrument records. The findings clearly support the the theory of neuronal group selection (TNGS).

You have to have a living functioning brain to experience all kinds of different conscious experiences including the sensations observed while participating in the binocular rivalry experiment or a self induced meditative state. Sam said "There are many reasons not to believe in a naive conception of a soul that kind of floats off the brain at death and goes somewhere else" but then he undoes it for "believers" by saying "but I do not know". (Even though I know Sam really means he doesn't know.)

I would recommend Sam stop using the word spirit. They will continue to pound him with it even if he carefully defines what it means every time he uses it. People will always use their preconceived world view of what spirit means. One can attempt to define consciousness and conscious state but one will still have the problem of relating what their conscious state is to someone else. Sam's readers and listeners still have to "believe" they actually had the conscious state he is describing. If they have not experienced it or something like it themselves - they will not believe him. Whenever we are communicating with "believers" we have to seriously consider using hard evidence. There is no comeback for hard evidence (unless of course someone can show it is wrong). But then - isn't that what science is all about?

Sam should seriously consider using the terms consciousness or conscious state, very tight reasoning, and hard evidence when debating "highly respected" believer representatives like Warren.

6. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #18766 by Healing One on January 22, 2007 at 10:18 pm

The last and most memorable noted that all she'd do was stand around and diddle on the canvas with a brush while a witness was there. The girl's father would explain it away, the girl'd eventualy get tired, and the witness would leave for lunch or to allow a break. When they'd come back the painting would be done, or all but, and the father would explain that she'd had a burst of creativity and she worked like that.

Supposedly this happened more than once, and the father was going to let someone watch again so they'd see a full work done. As far as I know it's never happened - but who knows.

http://forums.studioproducts.com/showthread.php?t=27656

Something about her painting skills seems suspect. Why are there no videos on her website of her actually painting?

Watch the video carefully when she is "painting" from minute 1:33 to 1:36 and from minute 2:49 to 3:04. Pause the video frequently to observe the pallet, brushes, strokes, color choices, and color mixing techniques. What do you notice?

I am more impressed that at the age of nine she had figured out all by herself how to put the penumbra and "bump" on the shadow of Jesus's nose. The Caravaggio lighting is pretty cool too. The way she gets that bodacious impasto by dabbing, dabbing, and licking with those tiny little brushes is a miracle.

http://forums.studioproducts.com/showthread.php?t=27656

Did this self taught painter actually paint "Father Forgive Them", "Madonna with Child" or the "African American Woman with Child"? Are either the father and/or mother painters? Has anyone asked them?

Could the parents be directly involved in creating these paintings? Her prints are selling for between $1,800 and $3,000 a piece. Is the income from her paintings a significant portion of the family's income? This family enterprise needs to be investigated thoroughly. (http://www.artakiane.com/contact.htm)

Who or whom is the painter? You can analyze her paintings at (http://www.artakiane.com/akiane_art.htm#). Are they copies of other artist's work? Is this a Marjoe level family fraud?

7. Hybrid embryo work 'under threat'

Comment #16186 by Healing One on January 5, 2007 at 11:42 am

In the White Paper, the Government said it proposes to ban the creation of human embryos from animal eggs because of the "considerable public unease with the possible creation of embryos combining human and animal material".

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2125424.ece

What does "considerable public unease" mean exactly? No legal or ethical reasons are given to support the ban in any of the reference articles. Why is the government unable to say exactly what the "public unease" is? Where is their evidence? Where is their reasoning?