Nope, not the homes of psychic readers, tarot card readers, Reiki practitioners or anyone claiming to be a "healer".
Same unscientific nonsense to attract the desperate and gullible, just different names.
Sorta sounds like a creationist on visiting a Natural History museum. Don't confuse me with evidence, my mind is made up.
Just because the rationale seems goofy does not mean the effect is not real. The human primitive brain does an excellent job of keeping the body healthy. It may be that healers have found a way to get through to the primitive areas to point out that there are ailments that need attention. It may also be that the patient is doing all the work by focusing on the ailment, and all the healer is doing is focusing the conscious mind to do so.
Belief is critical to the process, but fortunately the belief centers of the brain are up to the job.
What you said J'Carlin, is true. I've read about the midbrain because of the need to find out about involuntary muscle contraction. Midbrain injury will cause the muscles to tighten involuntarily; requires wearing braces to inhibit this. A person I worked on was a normal 3 mo. old baby, then had the recommended neonatal shots, and then he was not normal anymore, lost the use of his body. After the shots, he was left with the use of one hand, which use deteriorated over time. At the time I began working on him, he was 9 years old. Was unable to talk, was diapered 24 hours a day.
You've probably heard of "muscle testing". It is a muscular response when asking a question. The muscles will jerk to either one side or the other denoting a "yes" or "no" answer to the question. This response has nothing to do with the conscious mind, so must be a midbrain-to-muscle response. It is used by healers to obtain information about the peoples' bodies they are working on. It allows healers to "see" into the body without doing a lot of tests. Works great.
What if one society says it is right to cut out the heart of a innocent person to satisfy the priests and another society says that it is wrong to do so?
They don't actually say it satisfies the priests. They say it satisfies the gods. If the gods require it, on what basis do you say it's wrong?
(I can tell you why I think it's wrong, but I can also tell you why they think it's right.)
Its wrong because all humans are created in the image of the true God, and therefore is an attack against God, also God has given all innocent humans the right to life, and therefore no human has the right to end it. The Aztec god does not exist and can be shown not to exist by using laws of logic.
ec: That means right and wrong are canceled out and that actually therefore they don't exist.
mm: That's a very silly thing to say. Even you can work out why.
If white can also mean black, then it actually means nothing.
Christine: I'll be satisfied when women make as much money as men for the same job...religious right.
El Cid: No, the religious right has nothing to do with it. Studies have shown that because most women drop out of the work force for long periods to have and raise children, they generally don't have as much work experience as men and that is why the natural processes of economics cause them to make less money. This is Economics 101 and in most cases not sexism.
Christine: No, I think you are wrong. Read this. Religions teach gender discrimination. If God says women must obey men, then by God men will have their way with women. I think it can be traced back to religion. Read this:
"In 2010 the median income of FTYR workers was $42,800 for men, compared to $34,700 for women. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.81, slightly higher than the 2008 ratio. The female-to-male earnings ratio of 0.81 means that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 19% less than male FTYR workers. The statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, education or hours worked, as long as it qualifies as full-time work. However, in 2010, an economist testified to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that studies "always find that some portion of the wage gap is unexplained" even after controlling for measurable factors that are assumed to influence earnings. The unexplained portion of the wage gap is attributed togender discrimination.:80"
SOME religions teach gender discrimination, such as Islam. But biblical Christianity does not. It does teach gender differences and roles in the church and family. Just as a man cannot be a mother so also a woman cannot be a preaching elder in the church. These are roles that genders were designed for by the creator. Science has actually shown that men and women are different. Christianity does not restrict any roles for men or women in society in general. BTW your article says nothing about religion so it does not support your point.
SOME religions teach gender discrimination, such as Islam. But biblical Christianity does not.
I continue to complain how you, like the huge majority of fundies, never read your bibles. Paul, for instance, is said to have said -
1 Corinthians 14 33 For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints, 34 the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.
1 Timothy 2 8 I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 also that women should adorn themselves modestly and sensibly in seemly apparel, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly attire 10 but by good deeds, as befits women who profess religion. 11 Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. 12 I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.
and whether these sentiments are correctly attributed to him or not, they've been part of Christian tradition and practice for two thousand years.
So you persist in your vice of inventing your 'facts' and pulling whatever pleases you at the moment out of the back of your trousers.
" What if one society says it is right to cut out the heart of a innocent person to satisfy the priests and another society says that it is wrong to do so? That means right and wrong are canceled out and that actually therefore they don't exist."
MORE evidence that simply believing this stuff corrudes reasoning ability.
The conclusion doesn't follow either in math or philosophy. The most that can be said is these 2 social policies are contradictory. And they are.
If a word has two contradictory meanings, then it has no meaning at all.
Umm, no. It means it has two meanings. where do you come up with these things?