Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

There are 71939 comments on the Newsday story from Jun 21, 2008, titled Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel. In it, Newsday reports that:

Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Newsday.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70913 Apr 5, 2014
typo

RICHARD DAWKINS MAKES A FOOL OF HIMSELF

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70914 Apr 5, 2014
RICHARD DAWKINS MAKES FOOL OF HIMSELF YET AGAIN

IN THE GOD DELUSION, Richard Dawkins says that a partially formed wing would work to the extent that it is formed - a quarter of a wing would function up to 25%, a half formed wing up to 50% and so on.

He fails to see a system as an integrated whole composed of connected parts that bring the system into existence and are responsible for the functional capacities of the system.

Would a bird with a quarter of wing fly - would its pinion be capable of generating the requisite power against air currents to cause it to lift off from the ground?

Would a partially formed wing be sufficiently aerodynamically streamlined to minimize air resistance during flight?

Would a partially formed wing maintain the center of gravity of the body by keeping the line of equilibrium within the needed range to sustain balance? Of course not.

The bird with a partial wing (or with partial wings) would neither take off nor be capable of flying.

If it happens to take off from a tree branch it would simply crash to the ground below and injure itself or die due to the impact of the fall.

Take an aeroplane. Would it fly if it has a wing that is just 50% of its requisite length and the needed aerodynamic shape? No.

If the wing of a plane in midair breaks off to the extent of 25% or 50% as the case may be would it continue flying up to 25% or up to 50% in the air or would it crash? Obviously, it would crash.

The systems view is that a system is an integrated whole with all the parts of it being interconnected; destruction of any part would disable the system and the absence of any part would render the system non-functional.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#70915 Apr 5, 2014
RICHARD DAWKINS MAKES A FOOL OF HIMSELF - EYE

According to the fool Richard Dawkins, half an eye would help the eye to see 50%, a quarter of an eye would help the eye to see 25% and a three-fourth of an eye would help the eye to see 75%.

LOL.

He cites the case of a cataract which he says makes the person see fuzzily even in the presence of the coating over the lens.

What Dawkins forgets is that a cataract is formed over the lens only after the lens is fully formed and that the density of the coating over the lens could be partial as it is in many cases which then would enable the person to see partially from those parts of the fully formed lens that remain unaffected by the disease.

What needs to the noted is that the lens has been fully formed after which the cataract develops over it leading to gradual loss in eyesight depending on the severity of the coating causing cloudiness of vision or no vision if the diseases covers the whole lens.

If Dawkins thinks that a quarter of an eye can see up to 25% he's wrong since it is not the organ that sees but the consciousness in the optic center of the brain that does the job of seeing and taking note - qualia.

Besides, a quarter of a lens would not be functional.

And, if the connecting optic nerve is partially formed then too the eye would not work.

Let us take a fully formed eye belonging to a person and under anaesthesia let an ophthalmologist slice off 50%% of the eye without killing the patient and then seal up the wounds.

Would the eye work when the patient revives?

Obviously not.

So, as usual, Dawkins is wrong.

As per systems thinking and logical reasoning, every part of the eye should be in place before it can become functional and damage to any part would knock out the capacity to see.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70917 Apr 5, 2014
I think it was the physicist, JOHN WHEELER, who said:

"Never run after a bus, a woman and a cosmology theory since after a few minutes many more come along."

LOL. How true!

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70919 Apr 5, 2014
CAN COMPLEXITY ARISE FROM SIMPLICITY?

PART 1

The ignoramus RICHARD DAWKINS writes in the GOD DELUSION:

page 185

"Time and again my theologian friends returned to the point that there had to be a reason that there is something instead of nothing......Yes, I said, but it must be simple...The first cause that we seek must have been the simple basis for a self-bootstrapping crane which eventually raised the world as we know it into its present complex existence..."

JOEL: This is seriously flawed logic of looking at things and events from the outside instead of seeking out the internal mechanism.

If we look at an open system like a seed from the outside or even if we rip it open it does not look remarkable or complex but resembles a mass of undifferentiated protoplasm but in the tiny seed is the entire genetic blueprint needed to bring a gigantic tree with all its complex parts into existence on interaction with its environment - it draws in nutrients from outside and exchanges materials with its immediate surroundings but its genetic blueprint resides within it.

Now, the first cause of an isolated system may be a simple-looking event but in it resides the blueprint of the entire complex universe. the universe does not exchange information/energy with anything outside of itself.

The first cause or the seed cause is always the state of pure potentiality which on manifestation gives rise to complex forms which makes us blink in wonder at the nature of things.

The undifferentiated state or the unmanifest state of the entire potentiality of a first cause makes it appear to the ignorant mind of Dawkins that the first cause of an isolated system has to be simple but not complex and that complexity develops from simple beginnings by accretion or via natural selection.

What he conveniently forgets is that if many parts join to form an operational isolated system the question still remains - how could an ensemble of equally constituted parts in terms of information content ever give rise to a more complex system?

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70920 Apr 5, 2014
PART 2:

The gradual manifestation that a first cause is subject to over time appears to the ignorant mind as if each stage of development is a strictly partial formation and that for a new stage of development to appear a simple rearranging of its existing parts or an accretion of parts taken from its vicinity should take place for greater complexity to appear in the rudimentary system.

However, as said, the entire potentiality of an isolated system inheres within it and that it keeps manifesting more and more of its innate attributes when it encounters suitable stimuli from within.

Had an isolated system not contained the entire potentiality within itself in unmanifest form to begin with, then, the observed complexity would not have emerged in it.

So, the best model to explain complexity is to suggest an isolated system that contains within itself the entire potentiality needed for the complexity that the system would need in the manifest state to sustain itself.

Thus, the 3 phases that an isolated system would need to manifest its inner complexity are:

1) Devolution from the first cause after lose of inner equilibrium.

2) Involution of the contents of the above system subjected to devolution.

3) Evolution or emergence in the isolated system in gradual stages of manifestation of the involved information.

This model of sustainability applied to the constant source of energy that manifests from itself the entire complex universe from itself makes better sense than the scientific model of simplicity that somehow gives rise to complexity either in Darwinian mode or through some other accretion process.

Bottomline - Sentience and energy and blueprints inhere in the isolated system which upon manifestation in gradual stages give rise to a complex functional system of name and form and of remarkable fine tuning and the presence of life forms.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70921 Apr 6, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure what she (and you) expect from science short of what they are already doing. Neuroscience does study these types of experiences and offers sound, logical explanations for them that typically center around brain chemistry. What other "source" for these "uncanny experiences" is she looking for? sorry, but this sounds like we're getting awfully close to Deepak Chopra territory. I don't think I need to tell you what I think of that guy's ideas.
Do I detect a little bias here?

How you feel about someone's ideas is (pun intended) immaterial.

The question is when you have a hypothesis and no way (yet?) for science to prove or discard it. That does not mean you have grounds to reject it. Or accept it. That's all she is basically saying. She is not rejecting science, just observing its limitations.

Just because we dont have the sensors (yet?) to detect life on planet Q in galaxy X, does that mean there is no life on planet Q? One would have to take an agnostic position by necessity.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70922 Apr 6, 2014
Reductionist assumptions prove nothing - they can't answer fundamental questions on the origin of the universe, fine tuning, consciousness, origin of life, personality and appearance of complex biological forms.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70923 Apr 6, 2014
BEST MODEL TO EXPLAIN COMPLEXITY IN THE UNIVERSE

The best model to describe complexity in the universe involves the following 3 functional phases:

DEVOLUTION of the cosmic complexity from an unmanifest state that is followed by an INVOLUTION of the devolved complex information which in turn is followed by an EVOLUTION (gradual emergences) of information from the state of involution.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#70924 Apr 6, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Do I detect a little bias here?
How you feel about someone's ideas is (pun intended) immaterial.
The question is when you have a hypothesis and no way (yet?) for science to prove or discard it. That does not mean you have grounds to reject it. Or accept it. That's all she is basically saying. She is not rejecting science, just observing its limitations.
Just because we dont have the sensors (yet?) to detect life on planet Q in galaxy X, does that mean there is no life on planet Q? One would have to take an agnostic position by necessity.
But you haven't answered my question. What is it that science isn't doing that she wants them to do? Or what is it that science is rejecting outright that they shouldn't be? Let's be very specific here.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70927 Apr 6, 2014
RED HOT ISRAELI CHICK

Wow! Israeli super model, Bar Refaeli, is red-hot in a transparent black bra.

I just saw a pic of her.

I couldn't take my eyes off her "assets" and ended up with an erection.

On my, my self-control has broken down despite all the frequent yogic experiences.

(winks)

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70928 Apr 6, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
But you haven't answered my question. What is it that science isn't doing that she wants them to do? Or what is it that science is rejecting outright that they shouldn't be? Let's be very specific here.
Thats your bias. I dont think she is asking science to do anything other than continue on. Its more an acknowledgement that the journey never ends. You are taking an defensive interpretation of the main idea of the piece. If anything, the piece reaffirms science.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70929 Apr 6, 2014
Cult of Reason wrote:
<quoted text>
Along this line, there's a somewhat humorous book called "The bad people stole my god" by Doug Philips. It's about the author's loss of religion. Needless to say, the Internet had a lot to do with it.
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/04/new_study_say...

If you read that article carefully, other than the headline, the article makes no claim that the internet is linked to the loss of religiosity. The claim is that the internet, through information AND through virtual connection, is linked to the loss of ORGANIZED religious affiliation.

I.E. it leaves open that spirituality may (or may not) be at the same levels, but in different, perhaps more individualistic forms. Which is totally consistent to my observation and generational experience, as well as (in the case of the Jewish religion) 100% consistent with a recent Pew study.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#70930 Apr 6, 2014
JOEL COOL DUDE wrote:
RED HOT ISRAELI CHICK
Wow! Israeli super model, Bar Refaeli, is red-hot in a transparent black bra.
I just saw a pic of her.
I couldn't take my eyes off her "assets" and ended up with an erection.
On my, my self-control has broken down despite all the frequent yogic experiences.
(winks)
For most of us, it would not be noteworthy to post when an erection is attained.

But to you, I offer a hearty MAZEL TOV.

May you have the wisdom to use it wisely.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70931 Apr 6, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>

For most of us, it would not be noteworthy to post when an erection is attained.

But to you, I offer a hearty MAZEL TOV.

May you have the wisdom to use it wisely.
Thank you.

The erection was quite unexpected since my senses are very much under control though of course the sensual urges have not been fully transformed due to yogic discipline.

Anyway, take care.

Since: Jan 14

Location hidden

#70932 Apr 6, 2014
I am going out with friends. Later.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#70933 Apr 6, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats your bias. I dont think she is asking science to do anything other than continue on. Its more an acknowledgement that the journey never ends. You are taking an defensive interpretation of the main idea of the piece. If anything, the piece reaffirms science.
All this round and round, and talk about mysticism and alternate consciousness, just to tell me that Science is a journey that never end? well, duh :-) Then you wonder why I approach topics of spirituality/mysticism/meta-ph ysics with skepticism. It adds nothing new to our knowledge as far as I can tell, but sure as heck does muddy the waters with an imprecise vocabulary.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#70934 Apr 6, 2014
Deepakese: The Woo-Woo Master Deepak Chopra Speaks

Deepak Chopra is unhappy with my brand of skepticism--the type that identifies woo-woo nonsense and calls it for what it is: baloney - By
Michael Shermer

Last week Deepak and I debated life after death on Larry King Live, which did not include Larry King and was not live, but did feature guest host Jeff Probst, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Dinesh D'Souza, a reincarnation researcher, a young boy alleged to be a reincarnated World War II fighter pilot, and Deepak rolling his eyes and mumbling to his table-mates in the New York studio while I was alone in the Hollywood studio trying to get an edge in wordwise. You can read my account of the show at TrueSlant.

No one uses fuzzy language more adroitly than Deepak Chopra, who has an uncanny knack for stringing together words and phrases that, with his punctuated delivery style, actually sounds like something intelligible is being said.(All quotes are from the complete transcript of the show available here.) Deepak Chopra is obviously a smart guy, and maybe it's just me, but what do you make of Deepak's explanation for Near-Death Experiences?:

"There are traditions that say the in-body experience is a socially induced collective hallucination. We do not exist in the body. The body exists in us. We do not exist in the world. The world exists in us."

Maybe I'm dim witted, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what this means. Likewise this ditty on life and death:

"Birth and death are space-time events in the continuum of life. So the opposite of life is not death. The opposite of death is birth. And the opposite of birth is death. And life is the continuum of birth and death, which goes on and on."

Uh? Can someone please tell me what this means? Likewise this gem of obfuscation:

"And life is, as he said, it's a process. It's one process. It's perception, cognition, emotions, moods, imagination, insight, intuition, creativity, choice making. These are not the activities of your networks. You orchestrate these activities through your synaptic networks. But if I ask you to imagine the color red or look at the color red, there's no red in your brain. There's just electrical firings."

If these "are not the activities of your networks" what are they? Oh, they are "just electrical firings." Uh? Isn't that a contradiction? What am I missing here?

During the show segment on reincarnation, I asked Deepak if the little boy's body is now occupied by the soul of a World War II fighter pilot, where is the boy's soul? Chopra offered this jewel of Deepakese:

"Imagine that you're looking at an ocean and you see lots of waves today. And tomorrow you see a fewer number of waves. It's not so turbulent. What you call a person actually is a pattern of behavior of a universal consciousness. There is no such thing as Jeff, because what we call Jeff is a constantly transforming consciousness that appears as a certain personality, a certain mind, a certain ego, a certain body. But, you know, we had a different Jeff when you were a teenager. We had a different Jeff when you were a baby. Which one of you is the real Jeff?"

Guest host Jeff Probst looked as confused as I felt.

Deepak has challenged me to a debate. I accept. I'm looking forward to collecting many more quotable maxims from the master of Deepakese.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-shermer...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#70935 Apr 6, 2014
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/04/new_study_say...
If you read that article carefully, other than the headline, the article makes no claim that the internet is linked to the loss of religiosity. The claim is that the internet, through information AND through virtual connection, is linked to the loss of ORGANIZED religious affiliation.
I.E. it leaves open that spirituality may (or may not) be at the same levels, but in different, perhaps more individualistic forms. Which is totally consistent to my observation and generational experience, as well as (in the case of the Jewish religion) 100% consistent with a recent Pew study.
Perhaps true, but I see a loss of ORGANIZED religious affiliation a first step towards a loss of belief in general. Baby steps. And I would argue that there are those (myself included) that have taken that least leap away from faith with the aid of information more readily available on the Internet - Debates, Philosophical arguments, firmer understanding of logical fallacies, deeper understanding of scientific principles and explanations, etc...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#70937 Apr 6, 2014
CORRECTION: ...taken that LAST leap away from faith

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Arenas Valley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News About the cover May 20 Bruce Brown 1
Review: High Country Collision Specialist (Jul '14) May 18 angry customer 2
Review: Custom Steelworks May 18 angry customer 2
News Local surgeon injured while bicycling May 12 best wishes 1
Federal law enforcement agencies conduct meth s... May 10 A view from the c... 2
News Lawsuit filed in federal court alleges murder c... (Jul '14) May 7 Pepper Dine 2
Do you know how safe your kids are around trust... May 5 jbik 3
More from around the web

Arenas Valley People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]