text:
This site is a public resource celebrating The Who. It is not sponsored or formally affiliated in any other way with The Who or the band's members, management or other representatives. In accordance with laws regarding copyright and other forms of intellectual property, material excerpted and posted on this site is strictly for nonprofit research, scholarship & commentary about The Who, its members and their activities.
I'm One
Success Story
Guitar and Pen
Goin' Mobile
My Generation
Article Archive
Who Associates
See Me, Feel Me
Photo Archive
Irish Jack's Webpage
Who Theater
Join Together
Odds & Sods
Chat Room
The Seeker
A Legal Matter
A Word about Copyrights
Privacy Policy
Liner Notes › It's Hard
All studio tracks recorded June 1982 at Turn-Up-Down Studios (Glyn Johns' home studio) in Surrey, England.
Produced and Engineered by Glyn
It's Hard was originally released as Polydor WHOD 5066 on September 4, 1982. It reached #11 in the U.K. In the U.S. it was released as Warner Brothers WB 23731 also on September 4, 1982 and made #8 in the Billboard charts; the last Who record to date to reach the U.S. Top Ten. It was also the first Who album to be released as a compact disc, shortly after its LP release, as Polydor 800 106-2, pressed in West Germany as they had the only CD pressing plant at the time and it was the last Who album to come out as an 8-track. The album was awarded gold record status by the RIAA November 3, 1982.
Liner notes by Brian Cady [with research help from Jim Jackson]
...a welter of
cliché and listener-friendly FM rock sludge...
...their most
vital and coherent album since Who's Next...
It's difficult to
get away from the notion that The Who's final album was recorded purely because
they owed it to their American record company who'd paid them a substantial
advance which might have had to be returned if no album was forthcoming.
The album that
the Who are working on now is probably the most self-conscious and probably the
most dangerous record we've ever set out on.
I hated it. I
still hate it. Hate it, hate it, hate it!
Welcome to The Who's last studio album (to date) and certainly their most controversial. It's Hard received some rave reviews when it came out but quickly became their most reviled studio release and one of the biggest reasons why The Who didn't record another for 24 years. Before it was released, however, Pete Townshend didn't just promote the album, he was enthused about it as a revitalization of the band and there are Who fans (and I'll admit I'm one of them) who find this album very under-appreciated. It's Hard began under curious circumstances and it is impossible to properly approach the album without knowledge of both what was then happening in The Who and in the world at large.
Face Dances, The Who's previous album, had been commercially successful but was very disappointing for the group. Both Roger and Pete talked of the band being disengaged from the material and Pete was determined that it wouldn't happen with the next album. However, he had problems of his own to solve first. By the end of 1981 he was not only drinking heavily, but was also addicted to Ativan and sleeping pills and was freebasing cocaine mixed with heroin. When he went to his parents' home for Christmas holidays, he looked so close to death that they begged him to get help. Reuniting with his wife Karen, from whom he had been separated for the last two years, Pete flew to California to a clinic run by Meg Patterson. Here he underwent the same NeuroElectric Therapy that had helped Eric Clapton overcome his drug addiction. While he was there he sent word back to The Who that he wanted to return to work. Pete: "I managed to convince the guys in the band that I would stay alive if they allowed me to work with them again. After the Rainbow fiasco [the 1981 concert where Pete drank four bottles of brandy and got in a backstage fight with Roger], I had difficulty proving to Roger in particular that I was going to enjoy working with the Who, and that it was important to me that the band end properly, rather than end because of my fucking mental demise."
When Pete returned from California in February, The Who were ready for him, having been rehearsing at producer Glyn Johns' house. "The band was working, they were active, they were writing. Roger was playing the guitar. If I had said right then and there, 'Listen chaps, I don't feel like making the record,' they looked as if they would have gone on and done something without me. And they weren't making any demonstrations to me, either. They were just doing it because they wanted to do it. It was really strange. I thought 'I'd really like to play with those guys.'"
But what would they play? Pete only had two songs ready for the new album and the failure of The Who to respond to the Face Dances material was foremost on his mind. "Before we started recording, I sat down with everybody and I said, 'listen, what's the fucking album going to be about? What are we going to say? I can't just go and write a load of songs again and bring them in and hope that you're going to feel good about them or hope that they are going to be right for the band or hope that the band's fans are going to think that they are right for the band. Let's at least all decide how we want the album to fucking sound, whether we want it to be different or old sounding, open or loose or tight or what, and even further, what we actually want the subject of the songs to be about before we commit ourselves and then at least we know when we've completed the album, we won't feel like we did about Face Dances.'"
Two weeks later, the Soviet Union
invaded Afghanistan and relations between the two superpowers began to break
down. In the fall of 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected president of the U.S.
Opposed to the SALT II nuclear arms-limitation treaty and with plans to increase
the U.S. military budget by $32 billion, Reagan set out to heighten the arms
race. Britain's conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, elected in 1979,
supported his efforts.
In interview after interview in 1982 Pete spoke of how The Who's new approach excited him and revitalized the band. "[The Who] all feel a great...sense of urgency I think it the only way to put it." "...it's changed our attitude a bit, because now we have something we want to take out and work one hundred percent; we want to shove it down people's throats, in a sense." "...a lot of material we're doing at the moment is quite anguished." "I thought, 'fuck it! There must be something! I've got two growing children, there must be something I can do about the planet. There must be something other than the occasional fucking concert for Amnesty International. I must be able to do something, express something." "I felt that suddenly the band had an outside purpose and it really did unify us a lot, it made us feel like human beings, part of society, living on a planet, not as isolated superstars who were worried about advancing middle age, money problems, whether they could buy another radiator cap for their Rolls-Royces. We were living in the real world again. Despite the fact that we can't alter who we are, or the fact that we are set apart from society, but to re-establish our position as observers, as commentators, as writers with a heavy emotional bias. To a great extent, it has given the band a feeling of being again." "Recording has rejuvenated us. Not so much in musical terms, but in the sense of standing together and saying that we're prepared to actually change the way that we live and the way that we operate, if it will make a difference."
And Pete also spoke of how happy he was with his songs and the recording. "I think the writing I'm doing now for the band has come out much more successfully." "I haven't tried particularly hard on the material. I haven't sat and ruminated and tortured myself to get anything out. I've just written the songs that I think are right for the band and they're much, much, much better for them; much more effective." "We're working with Glyn Johns who produced Who's Next and Who Are You and all the early, very early Who stuff, he engineered. And it's going extremely well." "I must say the material's come out really good and I'm really pleased with it so far." "The new Who songs are violently aggressive, the most aggressive stuff we've ever come up with. The songs that I've written are totally preoccupied with the danger and tension of living in the '80's. And that is the common attitude and stance that the band has." "Six weeks later the album was finished and it was a natural, unconsidered, spontaneous record; the kind I would imagine a brand new group could easily make. Perhaps in the context of a lot of Who records, particularly Who's Next and Quadrophenia it's not quite such a landmark, but from our point of view it's a tremendous record."
Roger's reaction to it in 1982, however, was negative even as he tried to sell it. "It's more of a live type album. I think it's very unpretentious. It's not particularly my favorite Who album. I think there's about five really good tracks on it...it's a stopgap album...I think musically you just cannot keep doing the same old thing. I think that's been one of our mistakes; that's one of my main criticisms of this album. It is a bit like this is The Who doing what they know how to do and I don't like that particularly. I like taking chances."
In the end, if you are sympathetic to the record, you tend to believe Pete that The Who were putting out an impassioned political statement. If you're not sympathetic, you tend to believe Roger that It's Hard was nothing but a contractual obligation. Which is the truth? It's hard to say.
Pete also wrote about this later in the thinly fictionalized short story
"Champagne On The Terraces" in his book Horse's Neck. Some
of the lyrics are quoted there as well as in the story "Horses" where he
recounts a dream about discovering a decaying white horse in a cottage
with a massive snake curled inside of it. He explains the meaning of the
dream, as "this is a gift from God, a presentation of his grace. If it
arrives with the package torn I can't argue. I'm ready to be humiliated,
to suffer, to go through whatever I need to go through. I won't betray
God or his world." Although Pete says this song was not intended for
Lifehouse, a character named Athena appears as the voice of
The Grid in Pete's 1993 Lifehouse re-write Psychoderelict.
Pete and The Who have been involved with charities in Chicago (and many other places besides) and The Who performed twice at the House Of Blues in Chicago November 12 and 13, 1999 raising money for Chicago's Maryville Academy charity benefiting neglected and abused children. This song was performed live only once during The Who's October 6, 1982 show at The Horizon in Rosemont, Illinois and has not been performed again after that. The ending of the version on the 1997 CD is extended by 8 seconds from the original fadeout and an echo is put on Roger's "people are suffering...people are hungry" towards the end. Click here to see the original lyric sheet: Cooks County.
The demo is available on Pete's album Scoop. "It's Hard" was released as The Who's last commercial single of new studio material in the U.S. to date on February 1983. The b-side was "Dangerous". It failed to chart. Footage of the band playing the song backstage at the Capital Center in Largo Maryland September 22, 1982 was used in the tour advertisement for Schlitz Beer. The 1997 CD version lacks a guitar "fix up" in Pete's opening solo that was in the original. Click here to see the original lyric sheet: It's Hard.
Tim Gorman was in a San Francisco cult band called Lazy Racer which had an album produced by Glyn Johns. When Pete said he was looking for a new keyboard player, Johns played him the Lazy Racer album. Pete liked what he heard, so Johns called Gorman in San Francisco and told him he was now a member of The Who! He continued to play with The Who through their 1982 tour. John "Rabbit" Bundrick, The Who's usual keyboardist from 1979 on was not in The Who at the time. He had been fired after a violent, drunken incident in the summer of 1981. He was reinstated in Pete's solo band Deep End after The Who's 1983 breakup. Gorman went on to play with Paul Kantner in the late 1980's and with Jefferson Starship in the early 1990's. On the 1997 CD version of It's Hard there is a reprise of the bass/organ duet from 1'13 to 1'28 that was cut on the original and an echo is added to Roger's voice starting at 2'26 that wasn't in the original mix. Click here to see the original lyric sheet: Dangerous. The line "back to the stone age" is a reference to an infamous remark made by U.S. General Curtis LeMay in 1965 that in response to aggression by North Vietnam, the U.S. should "bomb them back to the stone age."
John's bass line on the 1997 version is from a different take and is mixed higher. The intellectual firebrand Camille Paglia said, "I would cite the Who's magnificent, rumbling 'Eminence Front', with its penetrating insights into psychology and politics, as an example of what an evolved punk can and should achieve." Click here to see the original lyric sheet: Eminence Front. According to R. Rowley, the background music is played on a Yamaha E70 organ. Click here for more details.
Pete: "I'm in a kind of Catch-22 situation, because what I've done best for twenty years has damaged that part of my hearing. The only time I did it recently was on a couple of John's songs because it was what he wanted, and I came out of those two sessions with my ears ringing for a week. And I thought, 'Well, there's another db lost, you know.' I'm just very anxious to preserve my hearing." Click here to see the original lyric sheet: One At A Time.
Six months after the release of It's Hard President Reagan would announce the SDI initiative, popularly known as "star wars"; an attempt to build a nuclear missile defense system Reagan was characterize as an "umbrella" against nuclear attack. The 1997 CD keeps the song going another 38 seconds past the point where the original mix faded out. Click here to see the original lyric sheet: Why Did I Fall For That.
Pete: "I think in people of our generation it expresses itself not as an aggressive frame of mind but rather a realization that we've been a pretty useless generation of people, I think. We've done very, very little. We haven't actually even fought for what we've believed in. We've been pacifistic, we've been spoiled by peace...I'm trying to deal with my life and trying to face up to my responsibilities as a human being. That's boring to seventeen- and eighteen-year old kids. They don't want to know how miserable their lives are going to be, how much hard work they're going to have to do when they're thirty or forty years old. They just want to believe that they can stand onstage with a guitar and change the world."
In the original version, Kenney's martial-style drumming doesn't begin until 35 seconds into the song. On the 1997 CD it has been extended back to the beginning of the song. That CD's version also extends the ending another 43 seconds for some more Townshend power chords. Click here to see the original lyric sheet: Cry If You Want.
If you want to
contact me about something on this page, click on my name. I want corrections!


text:
IOWA CITY, Iowa - Heavy rain overnight, in addition to heavy rain over the past 36 hours, has lead to additional flash flooding issues across Eastern Iowa.
The city of Cedar Rapids has announced that it is closing Cottage Grove Parkway SE because of rising levels on Indian Creek. Emergency flood protection is being installed along Cottage Grove Parkway SE starting at Sundland Drive working to the east. Door to door notifications have been made along Cottage Grove Parkway giving residents time to move cars. Officials said that significant flooding has been noted on the upper end of the Indian Creek watershed in Marion. The northern part of Cedar Rapids has received 4 or more inches of rain at some locations in the last 24 hours.
The city has also closed J Street SW at Prairie Creek because of flooding. Officials are monitoring the creek near Bowling Street SW and may close the road if the creek continues to rise. Officials also announced they are dropping off sandbags in the Time Check area of northwest Cedar Rapids, as a precaution, as the Cedar River continues to rise.
Flash flooding in Dubuque lead to the closure of several roads this morning. Rupp Hollow Road and Herber Road were both closed due to rising water.
Flooding in low-lying areas of Kalona has also been reported by NewsLine9 callers.
The Iowa Department of Transportation has closed Highway 6 near West Liberty to near Atalissa due to flooding. NewsLine9 callers report that the community of West Liberty is seeing significant flash flooding.
In Solon and North Liberty, residents are being asked to conserve water usage due to an influx in storm sewer draining.
In Iowa City, University of Iowa officials believe that the hill behind Mayflower Residence Hall is now stable after a mudslide overnight caused minor damage to vehicles in the parking lot. The mudslide was the result of soil and construction debris that had been at the top of the bluff that was washed down the side of the hill into the Mayflower parking lot after heavy rain Wednesday, UI spokesman Tom Moore said. Officials closed a portion of Dubuque Street so they could clean-up the mudslide. Our crew on the scene reports that northbound Dubuque Street remains open, southbound lanes are closed.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers reduced outflow at Coralville Lake from 4,000 cubic feet per second to 1,000 cfs at 7 a.m., said Rick Fosse, Iowa City's public works director. He hopes the city, which is downstream from the lake, will see the effects of that later today and the street can reopen by midday.
However, Fosse said, the unknown is flows out of Clear Creek and Rapid Creek, which flow into the Iowa River and are downstream from the lake but upstream from Iowa City.
The rest of the city is doing fine, with the lack of heavy rain overnight allowing drainage systems to catch up, he said.
In Coralville, southbound traffic on First Avenue was backed up nearly to Interstate 80 around 8:15 a.m.. First Avenue and Dubuque Street are two major entryways to the University of Iowa campus and downtown Iowa City from the interstate.
There are no reports of significant flooding in Coralville and city officials are monitoring creeks and streets, Assistant City Administrator Ellen Habel said.
Cedar Rapids, Iowa News, Sports, and Weather

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Jump to content
|Last action by
|Devices Confirmed To Receive Lollipop in Android
|How is Windows 10... even remotely close to being complete? in Microsoft Beta (Windows 10)
|Win 10 Preview to RTM question. in Microsoft Beta (Windows 10)
|Looking for Back up software advice in Microsoft (Windows) Discussion & Support
|Windows 10 Insider Preview in Microsoft Beta (Windows 10)
Posted 27 March 2013 - 09:50
I simply from a bandwidth point of view do not see the need to diabled IPv6. From a security point of view, of course.
Others might disable it because of a misperception that having both IPv4 and IPv6 enabled effectively doubles their DNS and Web traffic. This is not true.
Posted 27 March 2013 - 15:36
Posted 27 March 2013 - 16:04
Posted 27 March 2013 - 22:47
Well, there was a object basically called "WAN" then any then "WAN1_PPP". I tried any as I literally wanted it to come from anywhere but that didnt work out. Later I believe I either tried WAN (which is a service group containing WAN1_PPP, WAN2_PPP etc) or WAN1_PPP. One of those as source did it so....
"I finally got it to work by tinkering around."
I wince every time I hear something like this - what did you do? You need to understand what was wrong.. not just randomly trying ****.
Posted 28 March 2013 - 00:43
Posted 30 March 2013 - 17:42
Posted 30 March 2013 - 20:39
Posted 30 March 2013 - 20:44
Hey pes2013 !!
Listen to BudMan,,
he has really good advice, he has helped me out of a jam once or twice as well. and I have been running networks since before windows was a household name.
Posted 30 March 2013 - 21:18
"The wireless clients are MACed controll and WEP"
So completely open to anyone that can google then Since both are completely and utterly useless as security measures.
Posted 02 April 2013 - 07:54
Posted 02 April 2013 - 13:42
Its enabled out of the box.
Did you read the article I pointed out saying that there are some built in programs that if IPv6 is disabled on W7, could break normal operations???
And our DC is Windows Small Business Server 2003


text:
In today's ever changing healthcare environment, hospitals are finding they have to do more with less:
- Admit more patients with less reimbursement
- Work more efficiently to drive less waste
- Drive more savings with less revenue
Introducing, the next-generation Presource® Products and Services.
Presource® is the provider of low cost, high quality kitting solutions serving integrated healthcare providers across the continuum of care with innovative products and services that improve their cost effectiveness and their ability to serve patients.
Our promise: We go above and beyond to help you reduce costs and deliver high quality care.
More information
To learn how we can help you reduce cost and operate more efficiently without sacrificing quality, contact your local Presource® sales representative or contact us online.
Based on your region, find the Sales Operations support team for your facility.


text:
This conversation is closed.
existence of god (why religion is the answer)
today i had a conversation with a friend about religion ,god,quantum physics and forbidden archaeology .
the real question was ,does god exist ,if yes then why he created the universe ,was he bored ? religion can not give us satisfactory answer !
also religion is some thing very new , comparing it with human existence (forbidden archaeology) .
who created the universe ? is it better to believe that god created it instead of no one .(if we say god created it then the question is ,with what ?)
sorry for my english :(
one more thing ,please do some research on forbidden archaeology before replaying .
Gail .
Oct 1 2012: If you look at what quanatum mechanics is suggesting, it appears that there is an energy field. It is not "a" being, but it is "being". It's not a person. It's an energy field, called the quantum field, the morphic field, and the unified field. It appears that this energy field is aware.
- +6
This awarized energy does not make the energy a being. It has no power OVER you, but it is the power that you do use as you manifest your reality according to your desires. (So many around the globe have learned how to do this deliberately (consciously)
I believe that the energy field is all that is, and as all that is, of which I am an integral part, as are you, we chose to manifest ourselves as all that appears.
The three big religions ask you to close your mind to this new information. The would have you deny your own immense power to manipulate your own reality. Religion, like politics, are about money and power. The more they can disempower you, the more power they have over you - including the power to take your money under false pretenses.
There are other quasi religions that do know this. Pantheism, Panentheism, Wicca, and a few others encourage you to know yourself. When you know yourself, you will find your power, and you will learn how to depend on it, rather than a scary god.
Oct 1 2012: Very good answer, nicely explained and just what I would have said only better.....Oct 5 2012: That is all very interesting and great answer but I do have one question that I'm not sure if you touched upon:
why couldn't your answer remain a scientific one instead of being construed to ultimately become one of religion?
Spooky physics is interesting and from what I know about it, transcends Newtonian laws of physics. Nonetheless the queerness of quantum mechanics (such as the assertion that sub-atomic particles are fundamentally not physical, therefore their is not such thing as materialism) is what gives way to religious propositions..
I'm not saying your incorrect or anything but was just curious as to why spooky physics can become a matter of both religion and science, instead of just science?
Gail .
Oct 6 2012: I surely don't endorse religions. I endorse learning.
- +1
Until everything that can be known is known, anything can become a religion if you choose to make it so; but to keep an open mind and keep looking for rational answers is the realm of science alone.
The spookiness of quantum physics, that Einstein called spookiness at a distance, certainly does throw traditional understanding of life out the window, but too much has been proven legitimate to discard it. The question then becomes how to offer a rational explanation for how so many inconsistencies can occur at the same time.
quantum physicists, after having found what appears to be an energy field, spurred study into "mind". There is now evidence that our electromagentic thoughts (or feelings) extend from our bodies measurable up to 9 (feet or meters? can't remember). There is evidence that if two people in distant well-sealed rooms wear a halo that allows them to experience themselves at the same frequency, that one can know things happening in the reality of the other. There is evidence that we are psychic, but don't realize it.
there is so much happening, not only in Q Physics, but in study of the mind - that it is impossible for me to ignore it. It is also impossible for me to fill in the gaps with a "god". Thus, I do not endorse gods to explain that which we will one day be able to explain if we keep an open mind.Oct 4 2012: There is no evidence that we need to accept the hypothesis of a creator -let alone a conscious creator- of the universe.
The best answer we have, given the current knowledge we have, is that we don't know how the universe came to be.
A quick google search on "forbidden archaeology " makes my pseudo-science sensors go wild... You should be very skeptical with the theories proposed by mr Cremo.Oct 1 2012: Fazeel,
This question seems destined to go on.....and on.....and on.....perhaps forever! I do not believe in a god, so the rest of your questions...why he created the universe...was he/she/it bored...are not relevant to me.
I do not believe "religion is the answer" to anything. Religions were/are created and promoted by humans. Religions are actually seperate from the question of god/no god, except religions have chosen to adopt a god(s) as something to honor and adore.
The book, "Forbidden Archeology", written by Michael A. Cremo, has been called "antievolutionary", Cremo has identified himself as a "Hindu creationist", or "Vedic creationist", and his arguments are similar to christian creationists. His ideas have been criticized by many mainstream scholars for his unorthodox views on archeology. While his theories may be offered a little differently, what he proposes does not seem to be new information.
People spend a LOT of time and energy speculating whether or not there is a god(s). I prefer to spend the time and energy wholeheartedly living my life while I am here on this earth. To me, it does not matter. I respect those who choose to believe in a god.... IF.... their beliefs and actions DO NOT adversly impact others. I think being HERE, NOW is the important part of the earth life experience.
I agree with TED Lover, that there is an energy field, and "god" is one term used to try to describe the energy field, which connects everything that is.
Dan Gillgren
Oct 4 2012: There are too many things that don't make sense regarding the existence of God. If he did indeed create mankind and the planet on which we live, why would he make the universe so very large? To create billions of galaxies each with billions of stars, for the sake of mankind and Earth, it makes little sense. And why create all of the other exo-planets are discovering around distant stars? Why would he create an energy source such as the Sun with a finite lifespan?
- +2
Surely God is aware that most people on Earth question his existence, so why doesn't he simply provide proof of his own existence? If God were to simply pay us a brief visit, we'd be able to clear up the whole "this religion" vs "that religion" nonsense, allowing everyone to focus on the one single God (whoever he might be).
"God" is hope that mankind has when we question our own mortality. It would be nice to think that "God" has a place for us when we die, but the more we learn about the cosmos and how everything is constructed, I think it is unlikely.
Anyone with undeniable proof as to the existence of God can contact me for a $50 reward.Oct 1 2012: Separately from the answers regarding the presence or absence of god, is the issue that religion is a man made social construct. It provides rituals of passage, relief from uncertainty, social cohesion and sanctified norming. However, it is often a terrible influence as people sue it to control populations and enhance political ambitions.
I am always careful to differentiate clearly between religion and spirituality. Humans need spirituality, we appear to be hard wired for it, however, religion we can do without.
Oct 2 2012: Can you point to a reference to support a claim that we appeared "hard wired" for it?
There was recent research that pointed to an analytic brain rejecting the notion of a religion even in devour believers:
The study, published April 12, 2012 in the journal Science, finds that thinking analytically increases disbelief among believers and skeptics alike, shedding important new light on the psychology of religious belief. "Our goal was to explore the fundamental question of why people believe in a God to different degrees," says lead author Will Gervais, a PhD student in UBC's Dept. of Psychology. "A combination of complex factors influence matters of personal spirituality, and these new findings suggest that the cognitive system related to analytic thoughts is one factor that can influence disbelief."
Read more at: http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-04-analytic-decrease-religious-belief.html#jCp
Even spirituality causes some mental gymnastics: where does this spirit interface with our physical being? Spirit is often confused with mind and consciousness but I have reservations about any concept that provides for us to retain an identity shaped in this material realm.
Oct 2 2012: I was looking for a good link other than Andrew Newberg, but right now I cannot put my finger on the name of the books about our "god" part of our brain that responds to mediation and the experiments that show when certain parts of our brain are stimulated we think we have had a contact with a higher power.
Apparently humans feel better when they do this series of actions that tend to surround religion (repetative chanting, prostration, rituals etc) regardless of the belief system to which they subscribe. The sense of having connected to the larger universe is important in people's well being and is physically good for them. Hence the focus on developing spirituality rather than religion.
One of the better introductions is on a Morgan Freeman Through the Wormhole Show
Oct 3 2012: Ok, have you listened to the TEDTalk by the neuroscientist Jill Taylor Bolt? She discusses a first hand account of what happens to the left and right hemispheres during a stoke, and how the consciousness of the right hemisphere seems to be the spiritual side, I underline "seems".
But, this sensation is also disputed by V S Ramachandran, who speaks about cases where the corpus callosum is severed,creating a split brain.
VS Ramachandran explains the case of split-brain patients with one hemisphere without a belief in a god, and the other with a belief in a god. (Clip taken from talk at 2006 Beyond Belief Conference, link below)
Link to Ramachandran's full talk (about 39 minutes into the video):
http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-science-religion-reason-a...Oct 7 2012: Don't you mean parts of our brain are active when we think that we are in contact with some supernatural realm?
We can not tell if there is actual contact.
I note when people dreams or children have imaginary friends we don't assume these to be real in the physical sense even though the brain is actively imagining these things.
Something is going on it our brain when I meditate and I'm an atheist. The benefits or experience may be real, but the interpretations are often very subjective.Oct 10 2012: Sharon,
The following link describes the distinction between how the right hemisphere of the brain differs from the left, how the two relate, and what has happened in recent times. Hope this is of help.
www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain.htmlOct 4 2012: I dont need supernatural superstitious spirituality. Both religion and individual spirituality are subjective with unverifiable beliefs at heart.
Oct 7 2012: Exactly. What I mean is that the parts of our brain that are active when we mediate (or engage in the rituals that are often related to spiritual actvities tend to relate to the loss of our sense of our physical place in the universe. Most people report a sense of oneness with the larger universe. HOw this is interpreted in entirely individual.Oct 1 2012: If God created the universe (which I believe He did), then there must be a purpose and our role as His creation in fufilling that purpose.
As a christian, The Bible (James 1:27) tells us the purpose of true religion. The Bible tells us about the purpose of humanity, which is: to be in the image and likeness of God. Our creativity and intelligence are God-given endowments. But with such endowments comes responsibilities. We must use our intelligence and abilities in line with God's will.
That is why God gave us His word; because without it humanity will not submit to God's higher purpose, and may use God-given abilities to hurt each other; just as a loaded gun in the hand of a child.
Bible teachings are also guidelines for human relationships. If our relationship with God and with fellow human beings is not right, then we would not be able to fulfil our purpose.
God's word is meant to answer certain questions about life here on earth and about humanity and about God.
The Bible is not a physics/geography/chemistry/space science/archaeology textbook.
That is why God gave us our brain. We have to seek knowledge; but science wont answer all our questions; just as God did not write everything there is to know in the Bible.
Oct 1 2012: Hi Feyisayo
As always, great wisdom.
Your well versed in the Book of Revelation? Do you think this is an apt interpretation of our future organic selves?
A higher evolved/transformed sexless human,synced with everyone around him/it,timeless/immortal, complete from when God split us in two, linked to him through Christ?
Oct 2 2012: I believe that the book of Revelation is trying to describe with human words things that can not be fully comprehended by our brain. The imagination that is born of the words could be inadequate, but the idea is that the righteous will be like the resurrected Jesus, and there will be a new heaven and a new earth, and evil will be seperated from good, the righteous seperated from the unrighteous.
Oct 3 2012: That's one way of looking at it but i'm not a christian,i stepped back knowing the contract can only be signed knowing full well all there is in it,all the fine print, so i'm still reading it and trying to see it through many different eye's and what i've found is the old churches are stuck in a feudal type system with a business side to it,it's leaders drape themselves in fine clothes of office threaded with gold and walk in false humble piety as if they walked clothed in sackcloth,i'm still looking for the poorest of the 7 and the closest one that i have found that is logical and tries to follow the book is the Jehovahs Witnesses.It's strange how christianity has so many different views and interpretations.I personally believe it also challenges you to read between the lines and that which you can't figure out will be answered when Christ returns which he said he will reveal.Oct 5 2012: Hi Ken, could I introduce you to a spiritual interpretation of the Book of Revelation?
Just as Swedenborg explained the internal, or spiritual, sense of Genesis and Exodus (word for word) he also did that in this set of books about Revelation. It is not just consistent and understandable, it is very applicable to the life of each and every individual human being. I also very much agree with everything Feyisayo says.
This link is to volume one and see what you think while, as you say, it shows what "reading between the lines" means.
http://sites.google.com/site/liveitupspiritually/home/writings/Apocalypse_revealed_01.pdf?attredirects=0&d=1Oct 1 2012: Quote: "If God created the universe (which I believe He did), then there must be a purpose and our role as His creation in fufilling that purpose."
Question: Who is he?
If he is not you, he must be apart from you, separated. If so, he isn't all compassing because then you would be part of his being.
If one created everything than everything is one.
Bible stories reveal such things in ways you would do when you address little children but today even little children understand abstractions and have no need for projecting plots. Don't be caught into duality where there is none.Oct 1 2012: The biggest issue i have with this line of thinking is how you pecieve God as a being. Is he omniscient? Is he omnipotent? and is he all-loving? so the problem for a theist is that if he is all three then how do "bad things happen" or how does "evil" exist, and if he is only two then he is not God or atleast the God we think he is. I think this is a common debate, Im not the first one to say it, but its definitely one that should be discussed in this dialogue.
Oct 1 2012: God created beings that have the power of choice. Now, having such power also brings the possibility of abusing it. Just as democracy and freedom is also abused by some people. Nature has its ills, no doubt about that. But human beings inflict pain on each other by the abuse of their freedom and by seeking pleasure in perverted forms.
In a democratic society, someone may decide to be a law-abiding citizen; while another choses to abuse his or her freedom. In life; we either choose to be God-like, by doing His will; OR to become that representative of the devil or evil, by adding to human misery.
Oct 2 2012: What you have written is belief and therefore conjecture.
Richard Dawkins recently said this about the belief in God, "It's a little unfair to say it's like the tooth fairy. I think a particular god like Zeus or Jehovah is as unlikely (to exist) as the tooth fairy, but the idea of some kind of creative intelligence is not quite so ridiculous."
In response to a question regarding Pascal's wager, the 17th century philosopher who argued that it was smarter bet to believe in God, Dawkins also adds, "(W)hat if we choose the wrong god to believe in? And even if you pick the right god, why should he be so obsessive about you believing in him?
Morality is not the sole domain of the believers.
Ken brown
Oct 2 2012: You're refering to Abraham's God aren't you Gabriel? There are 4000 and something religions that have been documented to exist on the planet.When it comes to God/s then we have to clarify which one we are refering to otherwise we could come away more confused than what we first asked for.
- +1
Oct 2 2012: I wasn't replying to the original question, my question was regarding Feyisayo's comment. It is pretty obvious what God we are referring to.Oct 2 2012: So you've read the book? because that is all we have to go on,even for myself i haven't read all of it or can comprehend all of it,sometimes i forget or recall things wrong.
Juniper Blue
Oct 15 2012: It seems to take as much "faith" to believe there is a "god/God/gawd" as it takes to be atheist. To have a solid opinion on this issue, in either direction, one must have strong convictions. I think that it is alright to say "I don't know."
- +1
I heard of a funny bumper sticker: the militant agnostic says "I don't know and neither do you!"
Oct 16 2012: Great bumper sticker.
The militant agnostic is taking a gnostic position in claiming to know that others dont know.
How does it take more faith to not believe in gods given there is no evidence to support their existence.
I'm not talking about absolute certainty, just with holding belief.
Does it take the same faith not to believe in the tooth fairy as it does to believe?
We don't know much with absolute certainty, but I suggest not believing in bogus unverifiable claims is a more sound position than believing in them.
Oct 17 2012: Obey, the key is not to force our beliefs or disbeliefs concerning unverifiable claims on others, but exchange of ideas is always great :).
Would you agree that "I exist" or "reality is real" are unverifiable claims? Do you believe these claims? Why don't you require evidence for them? Why don't you require definition for "time" to understand what it is?
How about human rights declared as "self-evident" in the Declaration of Independence? Do you believe in those? The Declaration gives no evidence or reasoning for these "rights" - they exist in our mind only. Why is that claim not challenged?
Again, I'd like to make a disclaimer that I do not attempt to prove existence of God. This post has a purpose of showing that we believe many things without evidence - there is nothing wrong with that.
Oct 18 2012: I agree on the exchange of ideas, not forcing. I'm not forcing anyone to quit their religion. Just pointing out supernatural religious claims are subjective and unsubstantiated.
the claim that you exist is mundane and I guess there is sufficient evidence to prove yes or no. The claim to know details about the existence and nature of the creator of the universe and all sorts of supernatural claims is an extraordinary claim. You Would expect reasonable proof, yet there is less evidence for gods existing then there is fr you and I existing.
All claims are not equal if you are interested n the truth. And mutua
Lay exclusive beliefs can not be true. That's afoundation of logic. Contradiction. Earth can not be both 6000 and 4 billion years old. If the muslims Correct the Buddhists, Christians, Hindu and myself have it wrong.Oct 18 2012: Obey, you over estimate human intelligence and reasoning abilities. Reason, science, logic - all have limits. Circular concepts are incomprehensible. Yet, they are all around us. If you look at something and you don't see a circular process of some kind, most likely, you don't see the whole thing. But where it starts and how it ends is beyond understanding. And there are cycles forming cycles forming cycles, expanding like fractals. You can zoom in or zoom out indefinitely, but you still see the same conformal patterns. Conflict and contradiction is at the core of progress. When experience contradicts a theory, science makes progress. Cognitive dissonance changes our behavior and beliefs. Self-contradiction is at the core of this process. Yin-yang, life through death, etc. - all the same thing. Self-contradiction is circular. Simply get used to it. There is nothing wrong with it, really. Just because it does not fit nicely into your logical mind does not make it right or wrong. It's just there. Take it as is, as any other reality.
Re: "the claim that you exist is mundane and I guess there is sufficient evidence to prove yes or no."
You guess. But try. You will see that it is trivial, but defies all logic and reason. You simply believe that you exist, without much evidence, just because of the fact that you believe it. "Cogito ergo sum". Read Descartes, then read Hume, then other philosophers. The question "How do we know that we exist" has been debated for millenia.
The most mundane things are the most difficult to explain or define. Define time, for example. Why do you believe time exists? All you see is present. There is no future and there is no past. "Past" and "future" only exist in our heads. We are so used to this concept that we never think what it means. We think, we understand what it is, but we don't.
Oct 18 2012: Let me assure you I don't overestimate humans ability to reason or even comprehend the quantum or cosmic scales etc.
Your argument seems to be we can not prove anything absolutely. I agree. But practically can reasonably know things. I don't know the sun will come up tomorrow but it is reasonable to assume it does. Again are those cars outside your house real. Are you real. You don't know if you are just a cosmic dream, but you still won't walk in front of speeding cars. You will go to work to feed your family. You believe in a reality or act as you do. And within that framework you can discern some claims are more justified than others.
The claim your car is real can be better demonstrated than any god, ghost, demon, astrology etc.
Sure you can wonder what is matter. Does anything really exist. But that does not mean all claims are equal in a practical way. Would you agree that we have ways to reasonably demonstrate claims about reality even if we absolutely can not be certain of anything.
I may be a brain living in a vat. Or a computer programme. But we practically choose to assume the physical universe is real enough that we modify our behaviour accordingly. Life may be a dream, but I'm still not going to leap off the balcony and within the constraints our our senses and technology some things have evidence and some don't.Oct 18 2012: Obey, I agree with you on most counts. I do not advocate solipsism. I just wanted to point out that solipsism is self-consistent. It's impossible to prove with logic or evidence that it is wrong. It's unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable ideas are not scientific.
I don't advocate solipsism. But, perhaps, we both can agree that belief that "reality is real" is a belief without evidence. It's just a practical belief that we "sense" without understanding, like concepts of space and time. God or "free will" are other concepts that resist reason. Therefore, beliefs about God and free will should be chosen by their usefulness, not by their truthfulness which is impossible to rationalize or prove through evidence. That's all. :)
Oct 19 2012: Hi Arkady, I kind of agree in regards to the first half of your comment.
I partially agree with your final point, that beliefs in gods should be considered in terms of usefulness. If you are going to believe some completely subjective probably false gods and associated dogma at least make it a positive one.
I still suggest a better foundation for life is basing it on what is more reasonably correct in a practical sense rather than any of the millions of conflicting religious beliefs.
You are basically suggest picking out what is useful. Well we might leave the killing of homosexuals and rules for slavery and focus on the few bits that make sense independent of religious scripture and authority.
I suggest it is better to drop the most likely false religious window dressing and certainty and dogma and just focus on what improves the human condition. Dogma free.
If you are interested in truth, then usefulness is a different question.
If you are interested in truth, then faith in conflicting unverifiable probably man made religions is not a great starting point.
You might find some truths or usefulness in religion, but if their foundation is conflicting falsehoods and unverifiable claims and dogma, we can do better. Surely our best guess is a better starting point that unverifiable conflicting iron age and new age frameworks?
And then there is still the argument for pursuing the best approximation of truth and understanding for its own benefits.Oct 19 2012: Re: "You are basically suggest picking out what is useful. Well we might leave the killing of homosexuals and rules for slavery and focus on the few bits that make sense independent of religious scripture and authority."
Nobody kills homosexuals, sabbath breakers, and adulterers any more. From my experience, most of the church activity is focused on personal psychological and relational issues and charitable activity. I think, religion is already going in the direction you suggest. There have been huge changes in religion even in the past few decades. It is completely incorrect that religion remains unchanged for centuries.
Re: "If you are interested in truth..." There is no "truth" in moral beliefs. How do you determine "truth" in questions like human rights or female suffrage? Moral beliefs are not based on facts or reason. Moral beliefs are always based on passions. Read Hume.
Re: "If you are interested in truth, then faith in conflicting unverifiable probably man made religions is not a great starting point." When it comes to moral beliefs, conflicting and self-contradictory statements are a great starting point. "Do to others as you would have them do to you" is an unverifiable circular statement. "Don't do unto others as you would have them do to you - they might not like it." (the opposite) is also true. We find the right answer in any particular situation by weighing these contradicting and opposing propositions in our mind. Moral problems always involve internal conflict. They cannot be resolved by reason.Oct 14 2012: I have a saying I like to live by. "You can believe in one hand and learn in the other. See which one gets filled first." Believing represents religion and learning represents science.Oct 14 2012: Why is the hypothesis that God exists and created everything seen and unseen treated as a scientific hypothesis? Karl Popper said that scientific hypotheses must be falsifiable. Can anyone propose an experiment to falsify this hypothesis? Doesn't it show a lack of knowledge of what science can do?
Why do people of faith try to come up with evidence for their beliefs? Doesn't it show a lack of faith?
Why using science to prove or disprove religious beliefs is considered more rational than using religion to prove or disprove scientific theories?
"God created universe" or "the universe appeared by itself from nothing" seem like equally absurd statements. Nobody can tell what "God" or "nothing" are. Both statements cannot be proved. How do I use my reason to chose between two absurdities without evidence? Where should I draw the line between knowledge and belief?
Those who know don't tell; and those who tell don't know :-)
Oct 14 2012: Hi Arkady, I am very curious as to what your reaction would be to my two posts, way down below, on Oct 5.
About knowledge and belief.. One definition of faith is "a personal, internal (mental) acknowledgement of truth." There also is not one person who has exactly the same faith or belief as another. It is only when there are enough similarities that an organized religion would make sense. Until the religion takes over and changes the interpretation for its own sake, that is when truth goes out the door.
I strongly believe we can only have some idea about God through Divine Revelation and its interpretation. But I do not want to start a whole new page.
Please let me know what you think..
Oct 15 2012: So called Revelation doesn't seem to offer any objective truth. As evidenced by all the conflicting revelations. In fact we have no way of verifying whether there is some spiritual realm or whether personal religious experience is just Natural cognitive experience like trances, dreams, hallucinations that are interpreted as something more than they probably are - product of our physical minds.
Oct 15 2012: Brain is physical. Mind is not. Nobody knows what mind or consciousness is. Equating mind with brain activity is like equating book contents to characters on paper or computer software to electrical impulses. Ideas are separate from things they represent. What I say does not imply physical existence of any mystical things like souls or spirits. However, as ideas, in metaphorical sense, they, certainly, exist.
I agree that there might be a neurological basis for religious experience - trances, dreams, hallucinations, etc. As for interpretations, we always see more than there is in everything. E.g. money are just pieces of paper, but what they represent can make a subject of a book.
Here is what Julian Jaynes wrote about reason: "Reasoning and logic are to each other as health is to medicine, or — better — as conduct is to morality. Reasoning refers to a gamut of natural thought processes in the everyday world. Logic is how we ought to think if objective truth is our goal — and the everyday world is very little concerned with objective truth. Logic is the science of the justification of conclusions we have reached by natural reasoning. My point here is that, for such natural reasoning to occur, consciousness is not necessary. The very reason we need logic at all is because most reasoning is not conscious at all."
And I love Mark Meijer's maxim from a different thread: "what is useful and what is true are two entirely different considerations."Oct 15 2012: Obey you seem to be stuck in the box of time and space, and loving it. You can mention the word "evidence" for the next thousand times, but you cannot pull God into your box.
Until we can put love in a jar or paint wisdom a color, we have to recognize the fact that they are in a spiritual realm. They are not nothing and they are not physical either but many times more important. In fact they are the cause of things.
See if you can find an opeing in the box.Oct 15 2012: Adriaan, Thank you for replying to my post.
The purpose of it, essentially, is to show the emptiness of the debates regarding the existence of God. I don't think that existence of God can be proven through scientific method. It is as unreasonable to ask for such "evidence" or "proof" as to try finding it. People on both sides of this activity seem to know not what they are doing.
I agree with your definition of faith. My beliefs about beliefs are based on the writings of David Hume, William James, Julian Jaynes, and others. According to Hume, we believe things that make a strong impression on us. The reason why we believe something is purely emotional. Repeated experiences simply increase the "vivacity" of the impression, thus, strengthening our beliefs. However, we all may have strong emotions about things and believe regardless of our physical experience.
Julian Jaynes mentions that people reach most conclusions subconsciously. Reason is used to justify these conclusions afterwards. Think, for instance, how scientific method works. A scientist comes up with a hypothesis, designs tests to verify it, then hypothesis is tested and accepted or rejected based on the results. How he comes up with the hypothesis is a mystery - perhaps, by associations and subconscious reasoning, a.k.a. intuition.
All our language is metaphorical, if you "see" what I mean. What I understand by "divine revelation" is a strong emotional belief, reached subconsciously, perhaps with strong connections to physical or emotional experiences, which we accept as true, even though there is no evidence for it. Jaynes also links such "revelations" with brain neurology and has a theory why ancient people experienced them on a regular basis.
What I say here has no implications on the existence of God. To me, it makes total sense to say things like "God revealed to me" or "I was moved by the Holy Spirit to do XYZ". I think, I understand what it means.
Oct 15 2012: Thank you, Arkady, for your thoughtful response, and I totally agree with what you say. The names you mentioned might also indicate that we have something in common.
In fact if there was some issue this post would be longer :)
There normally is a perfect 'connection' between the mind and the brain which gives us total responsibility for what we dwell on and wish for. What throws off so many people is that our mind itself has a balance, a freewill (which make us human), and any decision we make regarding life is manifested in parts of the brain, the receiver of the body.
This, for many, means that the brain does it all, which is totally wrong and limiting.
It is very unfortunate that humanity, at least on this Continent, seems to have divided into two sides. One is the literal interpretation of life and the other the literal interpretation of the Bible. If only they could unite on a higher level.
Thanks again for your great thoughts.Oct 17 2012: So basically you have defined god as love and wisdom but also a being also a perfect person.
How do you know these things are true? You can not convincingly prove any of this.
Having evidence does not remove free will. It let's you make an informed choice. there is good reason to believe I might go to jail if I break the law, but it is still my choice.
Having no proof, just relying on feelings fits with there actually being no gods. what a sad joke if one particular religious view actually has it right but we can not differentiate between that and other claims.
I love how the assumptions are made to excuse the lack of evidence. Apologetics....
Love how defining something arbitrarily is supposed to make it a fact.
Often these definitions are contradictory. You can not be all merciful and perfectly just at the same time. All loving yet send people to hell or let them experience crappy lives.
There is no need for a physical universe if there is a spiritual realm. Seems like it was just invented with millions of different interpretations as a fill in for things we did not understand. Like disease. God sent the plagues before we had germ theory.Oct 17 2012: Hi Obey, you said:
"So basically you have defined god as love and wisdom but also a being also a perfect person."
How can one that is infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient not be perfect?? God is the only true Human Being. We are just, well we've been through this before..
Just as there is no animal that knows what it means to be human, so there is no human who knows what it means to be God.
The closest we can come is to recognize Revelation (because it makes sense), and believe it as truth and live by it. That's the way it has been from the very beginning.
I'd rather follow something that has a purpose explaining life, than follow something that is dead as matter and sees no purpose in life.
A belief in a higher power has always existed
"You can not be all merciful and perfectly just at the same time. All loving yet send people to hell or let them experience crappy lives."
I am not saying I am :)
Where is the evidence about sending anyone to hell? Does this also mean you believe hell actually exists?? Well, that's good, I suppose one has to start somewhere :)
This all loving God allows people to go to hell because they would be miserable in heaven. Which would you prefer?Oct 15 2012: "Literal interpretation" is a figure of speech. :)
Our whole language is metaphoric. Here is another quote from Julian Jaynes: "It is by metaphor that language grows. The common reply to the question "what is it?" is, when the reply is difficult or the experience unique, "well, it is like —." In laboratory studies, both children and adults describing nonsense objects (or metaphrands) to others who cannot see them use extended metaphiers that with repetition become contracted into labels. This is the major way in which the vocabulary of language is formed. The grand and vigorous function of metaphor is the generation of new language as it is needed, as human culture becomes more and more complex."..."Understanding a thing is to arrive at a metaphor for that thing by substituting something more familiar to us. And the feeling of familiarity is the feeling of understanding."
People use words like "mind", "soul", "spirit" to describe the real world, just like all other words.
Those who insist on literal interpretation of the Bible might be able to explain why they don't cut off their limbs or pluck their eyes according to Mark 9:43-47 and why they don't "make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven" according to Matthew 19:12. Those who think they always interpret physical reality in a literal and meaningful way might be able to answer, "Where does the light go when it goes out?" :)
Oct 16 2012: "Our whole language is metaphoric" and so it is. Some languages call what we sit on a chair, others call it a 'siton' :)
What Swedenborg wrote about the levels of meaning in Scripture is that there are several levels. Also, most certainly, to make the literal text applicable to different levels of 'development' over the thousands, maybe millions of years humanity has existed.
It is possible that so many years ago, to portray a spiritual situation or condition, people used stories to express and pass on the information.
This is what Swedenborg wrote about the Creation Story. Which is indeed just a story, but that is used to, in this case, portray 6 stages of spiritual development and has nothing to do with this physical world. If it did, who'd care what was done on day one or day four, etc.??
"Where does the light go when it goes out?" Who knows, maybe it did not go out, but we closed our eyes. :)Oct 16 2012: Hi Adriaan
Interesting to see how the theist mind works.
Do you consider claims about the existence and nature of a being(s) that created the universe the same sort of question as the existence and nature of love and wisdom?
Can we define love and wisdom and actually identify evidence that a person exhibits these traits? Yes we can.
You are basically saying that the existence of the entity of god is the same sort of thing as human traits or feelings.
I thought god was supposed to be a being, an intelligence, an entity, not just a definition of an abstract feeling or trait.
So god is just an abstract idea. I agree.
I keep coming back to evidence because how else do we discern what is true in regards to claims about the existence of a being and its nature.
When you don't rely on compelling evidence, when you rely on the foibles of human intuition and imagination you end up with billions of conflicting claims that can not all be true, and are probably all false.
No wonder you equate the existence of god with feelings and other abstract concepts because there is no physical evidence for any of the claims. In fact science indicates religious experience is probably natural cognitive processes such as the assumption of agency misfiring or being misinterpreted.
Oct 16 2012: "Do you consider claims about the existence and nature of a being(s) that created the universe the same sort of question as the existence and nature of love and wisdom?"
"You are basically saying that the existence of the entity of god is the same sort of thing as human traits or feelings."
I am wondering what made you ask that.. We have been created in His image and likeness. Because God is Love itself and Wisdom itself, and since we are all in His image (and can progress toward a likeness) we have loves that drive us (a will) and wisdom to guide us (an understanding).
But we can throw that all out the window, listen to the serpent in us, and go our own route.
"I thought god was supposed to be a being, an intelligence, an entity,.. "
What makes you think He isn't?? He is, and was, the only and perfectly Human Being and we are just images of that. It was not until 2000 years ago that He needed a body to better connect with humanity and save it (on its own ground).
"I keep coming back to evidence because how else do we discern what is true in regards to claims about the existence of a being and its nature."
I keep saying that convincing evidence takes your freewill away to think the way you are thinking now. If there were convincing evidence, why even be born here? We could all be put in heaven or hell and not have a free choice at all.
As humans, and images of God, we DO have a choice. To make that choice (what to love) is the very reason for creation and us being here. The ball is in our court.
On our side the same thing, we try everything possible to make a child determine his or her own future, in freedom. The more we force them, the less likely they will be happy.
BTW you keep coming back to the many different gods and what nots. There is one God, but there are as many conceptions of God as there are people on this planet. None are 100% identical.
That's why the definition of Faith is a mental acceptance of what we see as truth. What makes sense to us..Oct 15 2012: Most atheists I know suggest we don't know everything about how the universe came about.
Just that believing different gods or goddesses exist and had a role in the origin of the universe without any compelling evidence is not a great approach.
We don't know is probably the most appropriate position.
Claiming there is an invisible intangible god is not a scientific claim as it can not be tested. Just as saying I have a spiritual potato in my garage is not testible.
However saying the universe is 6000 years old or that the earth rests on the back of a giant elephant is tesible and shown to be false. Although a solution for theists for the former is to saY their gods just made the universe to look older than it is. Which goes back to being speculative and untestible.
Oct 15 2012: Obey No1kinobe, I would never argue for existence of God. However, I'd like to make a few points.
To me, it's OK when someone says, "I believe that the universe appeared from nothing on its own" or "I believe that God created universe" as long as the person realizes that this is not a factual truth. However, I've met people who think that there is *scientific evidence* that the universe appeared from nothing or that God does not exist. Well, that I would argue with.
I agree that "God did it" does not explain much. We still need to figure out, "how he did it". But proving or disproving that "God did it" is beyond science.
"We don't know" is the appropriate answer, but I don't think it is unreasonable to have emotional beliefs one way or the other.
I would not compare God to spiritual potato, orbiting teapot, flying spaghetti monster, dragon in someone's garage, invisible pink unicorn, or a tooth fairy. This faulty technique is known as a "straw man argument". William James in his essay "Ethics of Belief" classifies hypothesis (as propositions for belief) as "live" and "dead". A "live" hypothesis is a proposition which has potential to affect someone's behavior, rise interest. Existence of God is a live hypothesis for many people. Existence of spiritual potatoes is a dead hypothesis. Nobody cares about spiritual potatoes. I would repeat again that I do not argue that God exists. I have no evidence or reasonable arguments for that. Again, I just point out the absurdity and fallacies of this argument on both sides.
I would never make a religious argument on a scientific question, such as the age of the Earth. However, a lot of things in the Genesis book have deep metaphorical meaning for me and many other people.
Oct 16 2012: We actually agree in a lot of ways.
Science can not disprove any of the thousands or millions of interchangeable spiritual type gods proposed by humans. Likewise none of the theists can prove their interpretation is correct.
Suggest you might look for evidence that the god exists and its nature before you move on to how it did something. When people ponder these things it is just speculation built on speculation.
So a key difference between the flying spaghetti monster and Mormonism or Scientology or Vishnu or Yahweh or Zeus is that some humans take/took the latter examples seriously. So if you can dupe some people, does that make the claims any more valid?
Simple logic suggests if the Jews are right then Jesus is not god. If the Mayans were right everyone else was wrong.
I think you get the point though. That you have all these conflicting supernatural claims and mine about a spiritual potato god has just as much evidence.
Popularity doesn't make a belief true or any more valid than my spiritual potato.
Are the key claims of Christians true. Or the Muslims. Or the Hindus. Or the Buddhists. These are the most popular belief systems and at best 1 billion people have it kind of right and 6 billion are wrong. Have you any way to differentiate between the claims of the existence of Yahweh or Allah or the Triune Christian or Vishnu or Mormon God?
People care about scientology. I don't think that makes the story of Xenu or thetans any more reliable than a story I made up. They are faith based beliefs. Supernatural unverifiable claims.
People finding meaning in contradictory scriptures and mythology also does not make the key supernatural claims correct.
Can you see the absurdity of treating all these baseless speculative conflicting god claims as something approaching truth? I'm all for freedom of religion, but when you look at them, at their history, and try and determine which if any of them have a sound basis for their key claims you get nowhere.Oct 16 2012: Do you have any evidence of mind without it being related to something physical like a brain?
If a brain gets damaged does this often impair cognitive function?
I'm not saying there may not be something more. I'm okay saying we don't know everything.
But I suggest there is plenty of evidence to support the hypothesis that human minds seems to be a product of the brain. I can not prove spirits don't exist. But NoOne has proven the spirit realm exists. Being unverifiable does not make for a strong claim. In fact it makes any subjective nonsense just as likely as any other. Did you know god is a giant duck. Did you know our are brains in a test tube. The matrix is real. Can't disprove it.
I Suggest what we can demonstrate is pointing to the mind being a product of the brain. Whereas there is nothing to consistently indicate the spirit realm exists or its nature. Its just another argument from ignorance. We don't know so magic is a possibility.
Everything web have developed a demonstrated understanding off , from earthquakes, to disease, to lightening, has not needed magic or gods of spirit.
If gods and spirit do exist they might as well not because we can't tell if they exist, we can not tell anything about them, we can't tell if they interact with us etc. In fact the dragon god living in my lounge is just as unverifiable than any traditional gods.
Oct 16 2012: Re: "Do you have any evidence of mind without it being related to something physical like a brain?"
Let's see. I can "blow one's mind", "wrap my mind around" things, things can "cross my mind", I can "keep things in my mind" or "put things in others' mind", I can "give you a piece of my mind" (just need to watch that I don't run "out of my mind"), or "give you a peace of your mind", I can "change my mind" (cannot change my brain), "make up my mind", I can "have two minds", "read one's mind", "close my mind", "open my mind", have a "frame of mind", "lose my mind", etc... "Have evidence of mind" is not in the dictionary... What does an evidence of mind look like?
I know that people can be "out of their minds" and there are things that "have mind of their own": "A machine or other object can be said to have a mind of its own if it seems to be controlling the way it behaves or moves, independently of the person using it." -- http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/have-a-mind-of-its-own.
Does it make any sense? Aren't there better topics to discuss? This discussion will go nowhere, don't you think? Why do we say all these things about minds? How come that all this nonsense "makes sense"? Do I still "have a mind" when I'm asleep? I don't even know. I'm not self-aware, so, perhaps, not. Where does it go when I fall asleep? How can we meaningfully discuss a concept that does not even have a clear representation in reality?
These are all metaphoric idioms. We understand them not with reason and logic, but simply because we heard them many times and we think we understand what they mean, but, really, we don't. It's all nonsense. We cannot use reason to understand nonsense. Why bother?
Oct 16 2012: So the answer is no.
You just have some figures of speech.Oct 16 2012: Obey No1kinobe,
What does it mean to have a meaningful discussion? In my definition, a meaningful discussion is a discussion without circular reasoning or infinite regress. To have a meaningful discussion, we need to accept some concepts without definition (like axioms in geometry). In your definition, "mind" means "brain activity". If we accept this definition, then, yes, there is no mind without a brain. However, we disagree on the definition of "mind". You might say, "OK, what's your definition?" And my answer is that I cannot define "mind" without circular reasoning. "Mind" is synonymous to "self". "Self" is the very concept of circularity. I cannot define "self" without circularity. It means that "self" does not have meaning, according to my definition, and, if you question my definition of a meaningful discussion, we will go into circular arguments. Does it mean that "self" does not exist? Ask yourself "do I exist?" What does it mean "to have meaning"? (another circularity).
Some things like "self" or "meaning" people accept without definition. If we question these two concepts, we question our own existence and we question the meaning of everything. Figuratively speaking, we cannot "make sense" - we either "have sense" or not. Sorry, I cannot explain it better.
The question "does God exist?" is closely related to the question "do I exist?" It cannot be rationalized. It's circular at the core. One can either believe it or not. In fact, you cannot say "I am" (I exist) without saying the name of the Lord, because "I am" IS the name of the Lord, if you read Exodus. What does it practically mean? It means whatever meaning we can find in it. "It is as you say". If you don't see any meaning in it, then there is none. There is not much we can discuss. To me, it's fairly simple and there is nothing mystical in it.
Oct 17 2012: If you can not define something we really can not discuss it can we.
If you can not define it there is no way to work out whether it is a reasonably valid claim or not.
You can go down the we don't know anything absolutely even whether we exist or you can take a practical approach and consider what can be reasonably demonstrated.
we can be reasonably confident we exist, that other people exist, that this computer exists.we can consistently and repeatibly test evidence for the existence of these things.
Not absolutely certain. But it is not all or nothing. Not all claims are equal.
Or do you consider all claims are equal. Maybe that car does not exist so you should walk in front of it. Practically you assume there is some reality. There is evidence for the car and you. No compelling evidence for the spiritual realm. That is why humans imagine all sorts of different spiritual realms. If it does exist we have no reliable way of knowing anything about it.
For you is the claim that Mormon god lives on a hidden planet the same as claiming Barack Obama exists. If you choose not to differentiate between practical reality and subjective conjecture that is your choice.Oct 16 2012: Circular questions cannot be answered in a logical way. Most basic questions are circular: "Who am I?" "Is reason reasonable?" "Is reality real?" "Is meaning meaningful?" "Can I understand what is understanding?" "How do I know that I know something?", "If God created everything, who created God?", "Can the all-powerful God create a rock too heavy for him to lift up?", Epicurean paradox, etc. ad infinitum. All these questions do not have an answer. They do not mean that "I do not exist" or that "reality is not real" (solipsism) or that reason is useless or that God does not exist. When I see a circular question, I just recognize that it is circular and move on with my life. I've thought about these questions enough to be very familiar and comfortable with them and to know that they do not deserve much anxiety or arguments. As Julian Jaynes wrote, feeling of familiarity is the feeling of understanding.
What makes us more intelligent than hamsters is our ability to stop running and get out of the hamster wheel.
So , this "divine revelation" of which Adriaan speaks is the same mental process by which we believe that "I exist", that "reality is real", etc. It's not reason and it's not experience - that much I know.Oct 17 2012: --"Do you have any evidence of mind without it being related to something physical like a brain?"--
Since you only seem to believe what science can proof, how would you describe or 'explain' a Near Death Experience where the scientifically 'dead' person later describes the deathbed scenario, in your 'only matter matters' approach??
Oct 17 2012: Well, Adriaan, there are studies showing that at death, endorphins are released into the bloodstream as pain killers. This makes sense from evolutionary point of view, because it helps injured animals who suffer pain from loss of function of some organs escape from danger and then recover, if they can. So, it is possible that a brain during an NDE is hallucinating. Again, this may explain "how", but no more than that.Oct 17 2012: Arkady, how is it possible that endorphines could have 'restore the sight' of a blind person on e.g. the operating table who was just pronounced as dead? When at some point this person sees from the ceiling!! what is happening around his/her body??
Obviously we have always a way out. Even if God were to stand next to us, we'd wonder if this was because of what we ate or drank.
We are free human beings with a tremendously addaptive mind. We can justify any and all actions within 3 seconds flat. Whether it is letting someone go first at the check-out or firing a gun into a crowd.
BTW Just a thought, did you ever hear about a connection between William James and Swedenborg?Oct 5 2012: How are we to understand comments such as this?
"It is pretty obvious what God we are referring to."
Yes indeed, we are all discussing the one true god, but we're not all sure which one that is, there have been so many.
All religions think their god is the one true god. This goes without saying, but they all can't be right. My suggestion is that you can work that out amongst yourselves first, as to who is right, before asking everyone to join in.
Let me add that I do see religions as useful and positive belief systems, but they have become misinformed about their own teaching, in most cases.
Many with a belief in a God are rioting and advocating killing over a cartoon or a video. There are real dangers in these distorted points of view, and while they are an extreme example, it serves as a demonstration of how those with such beliefs seek to ignore the "truth" found in their own religions.
Oct 7 2012: Hi Theodore. I do support your first few points, but disagree in regards to the negative outcomes of religion simply due to misinterpreting or being misinformed. This may be the case sometimes. But in other cases the religious foundation is simply negative.
What is there to misinterpret when you read Yahweh or its prophets commanding homosexuals, witches, adulterers etc to be killed? When women are treated as chattel etc?
Some religions have promoted animal or human sacrifice. This was core to the beliefs not misinterpretations.
I don't think all the bad associated with religion is misinterpretation. Some of it is just bad.
Oct 7 2012: The misinformation is about the Bible itself. Often the Bible is viewed as the literal word of God.
But the bible does not stand up to the historical facts of the day.
Jesus and Pilate never spoke together without a translator in the room.
There was no tax that require Joseph to travel to Bethlehem with a pregnant wife.
The Story of King Herot is off by a decade.
These are all elements in a story that have been distorted and mashed together to filled the prediction the prophets made,
The worst part is that there are Gospels left out of the bible that Christianity doesn't explain. And they matter to the entire story
If the whole story was presented for what it is. church would no longer be about to exercise control over people, or requirement people to fund the churches riches.
See"The Unauthorized Version" by Robin Fox Lane
Oct 8 2012: I agree Theodore. The bible is not particularly reliable.
How do you tell the distortions from the truth?
As opposed to what is positive and useful versus negative and harmful.
Suggest we start with seeking the truth, not utility.Oct 3 2012: We don't seem to have a reliable way to know anything about gods or goddesses.
Whether they exist.
What they do or want.
What are they.
How they do stuff.
Not one ounce of evidence that they exist, their form, intent etc.
Because of this humans seem to imagine up millions of conflicting subjective supernatural religious or spiritual god related beliefs.
If there are gods or goddesses we don't seem to have a reliable way to know anything about them?
Typically intangible, unknowable, not material, outside of time and space. They might as well not exist. How do you distinguish between a god that exists and one that doesn't.
You can not.
Instead people rely on subjective personal experiences that could be entirely a product of their brain/mind, similar to childhood imaginary friends.
I could say my dog made the universe when he was in a spiritual incarnation and this is just as plausible as any other god claim in principle. We may not know everything about the universe but saying it was magic or gods are the answer for every gap is pretty weak. Human, but weak.Oct 1 2012: God, Brahma or whatever terms one use to call the highest (primeval) being is that what is - and there's no outside to it.
Being that what is - any separate being reflects in it - to see itself from its point of focus and evolves through this proces of interaction.Oct 29 2012: Where does the belief that God created the universe come from?
What is the earliest references to this concept?Oct 25 2012: What god? Do You think that You elected the correct religion? The other 4 too. Hindus have thousands of gods. :)


text:
FORT WALTON BEACH — The Okaloosa County Commission will hold a public hearing Tuesday on transferring the collection of bed taxes from the clerk of court to the tax collector.
The board is expected to vote on the change following the hearing.
A majority of commissioners are in support of tax collector Ben Anderson's bid to take over the collection, enforcement and audit of tourist development taxes. The board voted 4-1 on March 19 to move forward with the public hearing. Commissioner Dave Parisot opposed the measure.
"I think there's a very strong indication from that vote what the feeling of the board is," clerk of court Don Howard said.
Howard said he will attend Tuesday's hearing but has no plans to argue against the transfer.
"When the law gives (commissioners) that authority, certainly I'm going to respect that," he added.
Anderson's proposal to shift bed tax collection is in direct direct response to the clerk of court's role in processing the questionable purchases made by former tourism head Mark Bellinger.
Anderson has blamed Howard's office for the county's financial losses resulting from Bellinger's thefts and criticized the clerk for not discovering the fraud earlier.
He said the transfer would provide the county with greater checks and balances.
"It brings a credibility in helping the public have their confidence restored in the government," he said.
Anderson also has predicted that his office could increase bed tax collections by 25 percent during the first year.
Howard currently has one employee overseeing the collection, enforcement and auditing of bed tax revenue. Anderson said he can immediately assign three employees to those duties.
If the board approves the transfer, the change will take effect Oct. 1.
Contact Daily News Staff Writer Kari Barlow at 850-315-4438 or firstname.lastname@example.com. Follow her on Twitter @KariBnwfdn.


text:
Some brown rot, uneven halves, suture bulge, ok taste
Plant Patent #15661 issued on 03/15/2005. ORIGIN OF VARIETY The new nectarine tree {hereinafter referred to as the P.F. 11 Nectarine tree} was originated by Paul Friday in an experimental orchard, which is maintained for the purposes of breeding peach trees, located in Coloma, Mich., USDA Zone 6a. Coloma is located in the southwest section of Michigan. In an ongoing mass selection breeding program, superior seedlings of unrecorded parentage are maintained as seed sources for the production of seeds which are collected and planted in mass. The seeds producing parent trees are maintained solely as proprietary trees for breeding purposes and have not been released from the experimental orchard, where such trees can be evaluated for their adaptability to local and regional growing conditions. Seeds resulting from open pollination of the trees in the experimental orchard are regularly planted in mass to produce new populations of seedlings which are cultured and monitored to maturity. Trees with superior attributes are retained for further observation and testing, and contribute seeds to advancing generations of new populations of seedlings. The tree of this application, `P.F. 11 Nectarine`, was a single plant from one such a seedling population, and was based on the numerous superior genetic attributes of this tree which are described in the botanical description to follow. While not comprehensive, the details of the botanical description to follow are believed to be a reasonably complete botanical description of the tree of this disclosure. ASEXUAL REPRODUCTION OF THE VARIETY The new and distinct variety of nectarine tree was asexually propagated by budding as performed in an experimental orchard, located in Coloma, Mich. The asexual propagation demonstrates that such reproduction of the characteristics of the tree are consistent and are established and transmitted through succeeding propagation. SUMMARY OF THE VARIETY The new and distinct variety of nectarine tree is of moderate upright growth and a regular and productive bearer of nectarines. The blossoms are characterized by being contracted or partially spread when in full bloom. The blossoms of the present nectarine tree at full bloom may be characterized as being showy. More specifically, the blossoms of the present nectarine tree have angularly spaced five-blossom petals projecting upwardly at an inclined angle so as to form a blossom having a diameter of about 11/2" measured across the blossoms. The typical showy blossom as exemplified for example by the "Loring" (non-patented) peach has five (5) radically extending and angularity spaced petals projecting upwardly at a relatively steep inclined angle so that the diametrical measurement across the outer edges of the petals is also about 11/2". The flesh of the fruit of the present nectarine tree is firm and is yellow with a minimum of red around the pit. The skin is smooth and is of dark red color over almost 100 percent (100%) of its surface at full maturity. The fruit is large with an average diameter of 21/2". It is noteworthy that the fruit of this tree is further characterized as having smooth, gently rounded cheeks at the blossom end of the fruit. These protrude to form fruit surfaces higher than the blossom point. This characteristic reduces fruit damage in harvest, shipping and storage, by reducing the exposure of and damage to the apical blossom protrusion in handling. Thus breaching of the skin and formation of an entry point for microorganisms which cause rot in many other commercially important nectarines varieties harvested in the same production period is avoided in this fruit. The fruit has a firm flesh and may be described as resilient to the extent that the flesh is yieldable and restorable to its original state when subjected to impact forces, which may cause permanent deformities in nectarines of the commercial varieties. The firmness of the fruit facilitates handling and packaging of the nectarines without damaging the same for shipment. This results in less spoilage and also increases the shelf life.
The description of each variety of peach or nectarine fruit under each group is in different formats as this information is collected from varied sources and hence is not consistent


text:
I have been looking into donating breast milk because currently I have more than my little one knows what to do with. I was all paranoid he wouldn't have enough when I went back to work so now I have a terrific supply and a freezer full of it. I would love to donate to someone who either has supply issues or has adopted a baby but how? I went to milkshare and they have yet to contact me, is there any other way to donate except to a milk bank? Has anyone else ever donated?
AnnouncementAnnouncement Module
No announcement yet.
Help donating milk?Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
Conversation Detail Module
new posts
New Forum Member
- Mar 2008
- 1326
Naomi- Leader API of Frederick MD
Mother to O (4yrs) and E (1.5)
Have you been to the Milkshare Yahoo site?
That is great for a quick response!
You could also find someone locally who needs milk and do a casual exchange. Maybe a new mother of multiples or an adopted baby--maybe find the local clubs for those groups
Yeah to sharing liquid gold!
New Forum Member
- Mar 2008
- 1326
Naomi- Leader API of Frederick MD
Mother to O (4yrs) and E (1.5)
A milk bank will supply milk for sick babies, which really need the milk most
While this is good for anonymous donors, if you can find someone with whom to develop a personal milk share relationship, you can bypass all that!
Thank you for the advice, naomifrederickmd. I have contacted three mommas and am just waiting to see if any of us "fit". While I support any woman who wants to donate to a milkbank it's just not something I could stomach. I can't imagine how heartbreaking it would be if my insurance wouldn't cover the VERY hefty price or if I had no insurance at all. The milkbank is great in theory but it just furthers how atrocious our medical system has become. I am more in favor of local mothers organizing to help ALL babies to have breastmilk. If it were a more common, accepted practice I think it we could help those highly in need sick babies ourselves. But, like I said props to moms who donate at all however they choose to.


text:
Nike is an innovator in sports gear. They continuously develop technological advances to enhance the performance of athletes. Nike has become a leader in the industry by selling products like performance apparel, technological sports equipment, gear for fans and a wide variety of sports accessories.
Nike is known for their cutting edge athletic apparel. Nike's apparel is optimized to allow for full range of motion while moving. Fight perspiration with Dri-FIT technology. This breathable material makes it possible for air to pass through the fabric keeping you dry throughout your game or workout. Turn to Academy for nike shoes on sale and othe items, including shirts, gloves, shorts, socks, hats, sunglasses, pants and swimwear, you'll find just what you're looking for.
Professional athlete, Adrian Peterson, relies on Nike football gear to protect him as he runs through the trenches on the gridiron. Get what your player needs for football season by browsing through items like Nike football cleats, Nike gloves, nike sneakers, Nike footballs and Nike chin straps.
Make Nike your one-stop shop for all sporting gear. They've got gear for:
• Nike Baseball
• Nike Basketball
• Nike Soccer
• Nike Swimming
Sports can sometime be time-consuming meaning your athlete could be outside for long periods of a time. Make sure you prepare your players with everything they need to endure the long hours. Stock their backpack with refreshments to keep them going. Store all athletic gear in the Nike duffle bags to keep everything in the same place. Be prepared for all weather conditions by carrying ponchos and umbrellas to keep you dry from the rain.
Fan shop
Show your team spirit with Academy Sports + Outdoors Nike sports memorabilia. Visit our fan shop where there is an endless assortment of fan apparel. Find thousands of licensed products from your favorite NFL, MLB and NCAA teams.


text:
You know that the Cups and Balls is one of the most famous tricks in magic. Well, Cups and Balls Outdone uses a totally different method and gets the same amazed reaction! Even seasoned magicians won't know how you are doing this one!
In the routine, you make an ordinary sponge balls appear, disappear and travel between a set of black cups. During the entire routine, an empty white cup is sitting just off to your side. As the Grand Finale of the routine, your spectator tries to follow the ball as it moves between the black cups, only to find that it has travelled to the WHITE cup!
As great as this effect is, it has two drawbacks. First, the trick does not come with any balls- you are supposed to supply your own. And second, the printed instructions that come with it are not that good. Never fear- we've got you covered!


text:
Fairmont Hotels & Resorts provide the world's finest accommodations for discerning travelers - giving our customers easier access to more destinations worldwide. Elegant accommodations and impeccable service in the world's finest destinations are elements that our brands share. This summer take advantage of this special offer at our properties throughout India.
Kindly email us at:
Upgrade to next best category subject to availability
Complimentary early check in late checkout subject to availability
© Jet Airways (India) Ltd.


text:
Some people like show cars for their craftsmanship, glossy shine, and flawless detailing. Others like show cars the same way they like looking at a piping-hot steak on a plate. They don't ponder too long before tearing into it, savoring every bit. Ron Johnson doesn't like to stare longingly at his steak; he likes to eat it, and so it is with his beautifully customized '67 midyear. This glistening inky-black roadster looks the part of a show-stopper and is anything but a pampered poodle. The Rockwall, Texas, native isn't known for his cautious driving prowess but rather for standing on the skinny pedal while letting the tires wail.
Though easily considered one of the single-most desirable Corvettes produced, a big-block-powered '67 convertible wasn't enough to satisfy Ron's needs for performance. Answering an advertisement from Fayetteville, North Carolina, Ron discovered the drop-top Vette had been preserved well, living most of its life in a garage and in decent, restored condition. Undoubtedly, the previous owner was slightly saddened when the Texan exchanged keys for currency and drove back west in the black roadster. Almost immediately upon his arrival back home, Ron began gathering up various restoration pieces, intent on returning the car back to its former glory.
It was during the process of tearing down the '67 to the frame that Ron befriended the motorheads at Corvette Corner, Rich Koehler and David Mullins, who explained that a '67 roadster is just a regular, old roadster that everybody either has or lusts for, but most don't know it can be so much more. Intrigued, Ron handed over the roadster and all of its bits and pieces. Corvette Corner in Rowlett, Texas, then contacted Paul Newman's Car Creations and purchased one of its modified '77 C3 chassis. The modded frame was coupled to a full '86 suspension using a C4 rack-and-pinion, IRS, and front geometry.
Baer discs (13 and 12 inches, front and back, respectively) bring the roadster to a skidding stop. Corvette Corner also swapped out the original Dana 36 for a newly cast Car Creations Dana 44 with new 3.77:1 ratio gears, making hazing the back 18-inch meats a cinch. QA1 coilovers ensure a smooth and stable ride, while a Flaming River column spins the rack. An Ecklers '66 hood replaced the factory bonnet as a pair of reengineered Car Creations quarter-panels-1 1/2 inches wider to accept larger rolling stock-were installed before the body was sent off to Randy Fawks in Royce City, Texas, where the body was coated in DuPont black over and over again. Once the hue looked three miles deep, the rolling roadster was sent back to Corvette Corner for the interior install.
The C4 gave up its bucket seats that were recovered in black leather before being bolted to the floorboards. Super clean and mostly restored, the cabin was made cozy and tight while still comfortable. A Grant wheel with an Audio Sound stereo backed by Kenwood speakers stood in for creature comforts. Auto Meter gauges replaced the factory dials but with modern carbon-fiber faces reading off the vitals. No power trickery here; it's all basic with roll-up windows, a small A/C system, and a manual top. All the modern gadgetry would be saved for underneath the hood.


text:
Dr. Curtis has an extensive medical research background and exceptional skills as a surgeon. He is available to see patients requiring minimally invasive surgery for management of a variety of concerns including conditions of the esophagus, hernia, gallstones, splenic problems, appendicitis and surgery to manage biliary, pancreatic and liver problems.
To request a referral or to make an appointment, call the Physician Referral Line.
For questions regarding the information shown on this page, contact our Physician Liaison.


text:
Yadira Hurley, M.D., from the department of dermatology is recruiting participants for a multi-center trial aimed at treating moderate to severe psoriasis.
Eligible persons will receive a new investigative oral medication.
Patients may be eligible if they have moderate to severe plaque psoriasis with >10% BSA affected. If a patient is currently receiving psoriasis treatment, he/she may still qualify for the study if there is >10% BSA affected after a washout period.
The study is 52 weeks with visits approximately every 4 weeks. Patients are compensated for their time and travel.
Participant may receive, at no cost, the following supplies and/or procedures: