 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / April 2008Daily Spirit-guided thought for 03/29/08.
http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com/103275.html May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD Hunger is wonderful: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Hunger It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good. Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives. Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish ( gone !!! ) forever ... http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob ... gone: http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Qb6d_z5C35E Such will be the demise of all those who refuse to know **and** love the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Luke6_21 A simple parable for the wise and discerning: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Parable Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be healthier: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > http://ABChung.LiveJournal.com/103275.html > > May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful > 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Chri <snip rubbish> The whole thing is a myth with many obvious factual errors. The gospels of the New Testament contradict each other on important points. These books were written decades after the crucifixion by unknown authors. Even the dating of the birth of Jesus in the gospels is unclear and contains misstatements of fact. The Gospel according to Luke says that Jesus was born in the year when Caesar Augustus ordered a census for the purpose of taxation and that this happened at a time when Herod reigned in Judea and when Quirinius was governor of Syria. The problem is that Herod died four years before Christ and that during his time of ruling, the governor of Syria was not Quirinius . The only historical mention of a census ordered by Augustus was by the Jewish historian Josephus, but that happened six years after Jesus was supposed to have been born, and did not require people to return to their places of birth. Probably, the reason for all this confusion stems from the fact that the Old Testament prediction for Messiah has him coming from Bethlehem. Big problem -- Jesus's parents were apparently from the town of Nazareth and if they had a child he probably would have been delivered there. The whole thing is a myth with many obvious factual errors. > On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > The whole thing is a myth with many obvious factual errors. It's also possible that people turned certain facts into a myth by imposing their misunderstandings on them. Just think about it a little. At that time, most people believed that humans can turn into gods, augurs can predict the future, and magicians can turn water into wine. Still they knew that a regular person cannot be born from a virgin, a regular person cannot raise the dead, and a regular person cannot come back to life after death. So, something wonderful must have happened for them to feel the need to invent a myth. There was a special person, maybe?  Signaturemonkfish > > On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > > <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > for them to feel the need to invent a myth. > There was a special person, maybe? Wrong. That would be an equally good argument for Zeus, Neptune, Mars etc. Myths about virgin births, having gods for parents, rising from the dead, miracle cures, etc., existed for many centuries before "jesus". They simply created a new myth by borrowing from old ones. There's an easy way for supernaturalists to prove atheists wrong - simply have their supernatural beings show themselves and prove their powers and knowledge.. It never happens becasue the supernatural beings don't exist. >>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > > It never happens becasue the supernatural beings don't exist. You don't seem to understand what 'supernatural' means. Anyhow, what you are not getting is that we can meaningfully talk about "something" that is prior to existence. Take a class in ontology, please. Signaturemonkfish > >>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > You don't seem to understand > what 'supernatural' means. I know what it means. I also know that instead of having the character to admit that your jesus god is phony, you try to play games with words meanings. 'supernatural' 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world. 2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. 3. Of or relating to a deity. 4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous. 5. Of or relating to the miraculous. > Anyhow, what you are not getting is that > we can meaningfully talk about "something" > that is prior to existence. > Take a class in ontology, please. You should take a course in reality and logic. > -- > monkfish- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - >>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 69 lines] > > You should take a course in reality and logic. So you think you understand reality and logic? We can start there as well. How do you know that reality exists? Signaturemonkfish > >>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > How do you know that reality exists? If you can't even believe that you yourself exist, then why bother worrying about whether mythic beings exist? >>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > If you can't even believe that you yourself exist, then why bother > worrying about whether mythic beings exist? If you cannot even prove that you exist, what makes you think you should be able to prove that God exists? Signaturemonkfish > >>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > what makes you think > you should be able to prove that God exists? I'm here showing up the facile logic you try to employ in evading the lack of proof for any gods - that's good evidence that I exist. You're following a sophomoric line here, that impresses no one. >>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > You're following a sophomoric line here, that impresses no one. So you think you know what you are. Actually you can be whatever you wanna be. But you cannot make God whatever you wanna make it. Do you know what God is? Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > > So you think you know what you are. > Actually you can be whatever you wanna be. No you can't. People with a leg missing can't make it grow back. People exist in reality. Try being invincible and test it by stepping in front of a truck > But you cannot make God whatever you wanna make it. Of course you can, people have been doing it ever since they started inventing gods. Zeus and Neptune are different than yahweh, etc. > Do you know what God is? It's a fantasy, until there is some supernatural being with great powers and knowledge that shows up and proves his powers. Schizophrenics have all sorts of ideations and people and monsters inside their minds. Those are not real, any more than jesus or yahweh or Zeus. > -- > monkfish [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > inside their minds. Those are not real, any more than jesus or yahweh > or Zeus. Do you know what money is? Can you prove that money exists? Do you know what self is? Can you prove that self exists? Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>>>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 105 lines] > Do you know what money is? > Can you prove that money exists? If you don't believe money exists how can you have a computer and an internet acct? Those things require money. > Do you know what self is? > Can you prove that self exists? If you really think you exist only as a thought, then take your body out to a highway and step in fron of a truck. > >>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > > How do you know that reality exists? By the way, if you don't believe in "reality", then go out to a highway and step out in front of the next "imaginary" big truck coming along. >>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > highway and step out in front of the next "imaginary" big truck coming > along. You are missing the point. I'm not saying that reality does not exist. I'm asking how you prove that reality exists. As you question the existence of God, I'm saying that: if you prove that reality exists, I will show you that God exists. Is your grandfather alive? Dead? How do you prove that he exists? How do you prove that you exist? Signaturemonkfish > >>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > > You are missing the point. No I'm not. I know what sophomorism when I see it. > I'm not saying that reality does not exist. > I'm asking how you prove that reality exists. And I told you. Simply step in front of that truck and you will have reality proved to you quickly. > As you question the existence of God, > I'm saying that: > if you prove that reality exists, > I will show you that God exists. Bullshit. Step in front of that truck while imagining that god will protect you from any harm - you will know the difference between reality and fantasy. You think this sophomoric stuff you put out is clever? > Is your grandfather alive? > Dead? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > You think this sophomoric stuff you put out is clever? People get emotional and become rude when they feel they are losing. How do you prove that something exists? If you answer that question, I will show you how you might not even exist. Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. On Mar 29, 1:24 pm, monkfish > I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology > from the header soon. I think some will agree with that. Would recommend that you ignore the statements that you cannot hold your own on SCM and that is why you are running away. Sometimes getting "emotional and rude" can be an effective way of countering an absurd response or endless absurd questions in place of a response and trying to sound sophisticated and profound and sometimes can be a sign of losing an argument. It is usually obvious which it is. > On Mar 29, 1:24 pm, monkfish > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > It is usually obvious which it is. If you are serious about the debate, you can talk to me at alt.christnet.theology. Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. On Mar 29, 1:58 pm, monkfish <monkfish > If you are serious about the debate, > you can talk to me at alt.christnet.theology. It is interesting that you consider your endless pseudo-Socratic questions to be a serious debate. Instead of endless sophomoric questions, why not debate with your beliefs and any evidence you have to back up those beliefs. I will let the reader decide his/her reason for your typical response. > On Mar 29, 1:58 pm, monkfish <monkfish > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to back up those beliefs. I will let the reader decide his/her reason > for your typical response. Can you even prove to us that your awareness exists? If you do that, I will show you how to prove that God exists. Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. > > On Mar 29, 1:58 pm, monkfish <monkfish > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Can you even prove to us that > your awareness exists? Yes, your replies are evidence. On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:36:35 -0500, J A wrote > Yes, your replies are evidence. But, some people talk to God and the Holy Spirit and some even claim that God and the Holy Spirit talk to them, so perhaps they are talking to you in the same way, except you are Satanesque. > On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:36:35 -0500, J A wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and the Holy Spirit talk to them, so perhaps they are talking to you in the > same way, except you are Satanesque. Perhaps. But I repeatedly asked Mr MonkeyCarp to walk out in front of a truck if he REALLY disbelieved his own senses that he was an alive being. He kept posting. Ergo: his belief that he's not actually a brain in a nutritive bath, just imaging all this, proves that we are all actually doing this, or something. http://HeartMDPhD.com/CrazySockPuppets On Sun, 30 Mar 2008 11:05:41 -0500, J A > Perhaps. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > just imaging all this, proves that we are all actually doing this, or > something. That seems logical http://HeartMDPhD.com/Flounderingsatan is still http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan forevermore http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega <>< May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD Hunger is wonderful: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Hunger It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good. Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives. Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish ( gone !!! ) forever ... http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob ... gone: http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Qb6d_z5C35E Such will be the demise of all those who refuse to know **and** love the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Luke6_21 A simple parable for the wise and discerning: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Parable Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be healthier: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 93 lines] > > > You think this sophomoric stuff you put out is clever? > People get emotional and become rude > when they feel they are losing. LOL. More sophomorisms. "Bullshit" is a very appropriate response to the stuff you put out. If you don't think reality exists, then test it by stepping in front of a truck. You won't try that becasue you know what will happen - IN REALITY. > How do you prove that something exists? The scientific method - google it. > If you answer that question, > I will show you how you might not even exist. If you think you don't exist, then step in front of a truck. > -- > monkfish [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > > If you think you don't exist, then step in front of a truck. How do you prove the scientific method? Does it even exist? You might need God to prove its existence. What is science? Does it even exist? How do we know it exists without referring to nothingness? Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>>>>>>>> <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 111 lines] > How do you prove the scientific method? > Does it even exist? You keep repeating the same sophomoric falacies. If you don't believe any of the things around you exist, then just lay down and stop eating and moving. If you don't believe I exist, why are you posting to me? > You might need God to prove its existence. No, I don't need supernatural beings to prove that I've got you hjooked on replying with sophomoric posts. I KNOW that. ;-)) > nothingness? Ah, the nothingness from the great story and movie, the Never Ending Story. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Idioticsatan http://HeartMDPhD.com/Nothingness http://HeartMDPhD.com/Flailingsatan http://HeartMDPhD.com/FlailingChung On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:18:37 -0500, J A > There's an easy way for supernaturalists to prove atheists wrong - > simply have their supernatural beings show themselves and prove their > powers and knowledge.. > > It never happens becasue the supernatural beings don't exist. If there is a God and that God did show him/herself and prove His/Her existence and power, then there would be no reason for faith and basicially God would be an omnipotent "dictator" The believers would counter that God requires faith, then God could not prove His/Her existences. > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:18:37 -0500, J A >> There's an easy way for supernaturalists to prove atheists wrong - [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > The believers would counter that God requires faith, then God could not prove > His/Her existences. Can you start a business without money? Can you buy a car without money? Can money buy you love? Does money control your happiness? Do you believe in money? Can money prove its existence? Signaturemonkfish On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:41:43 -0500, monkfish > Can money prove its existence? Money is man-made so is God man made? > On Sat, 29 Mar 2008 10:41:43 -0500, monkfish > >> Can money prove its existence? > > Money is man-made so is God man made? Have you seen a bird bribing its possible mate? Some theologians think God can only be understood through imaginative construction. Is your self-awareness man-made? Signaturemonkfish >>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" [...] > There's an easy way for supernaturalists to prove atheists wrong - > simply have their supernatural beings show themselves and prove their > powers and knowledge.. > > It never happens becasue the supernatural beings don't exist. I could probably come up with lots of ways for you to prove you exist, rather than you simply being a clever emacs program. If you choose not to accommodate my desire for proof, does that mean you don't exist? > >>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > rather than you simply being a clever emacs program. If you choose not > to accommodate my desire for proof, does that mean you don't exist? That's really dumb. It's easy to prove whether or not a particular human exists by the traces he leaves - the police do it all the time, and often can produce the person if neccesary. Nobody can produce any of the gods people have claimed over the centuries. People over time have ascribed all sorts of things in the physical world to various gods, like weather, disease, insanity, etc. The physical effects of the "gods" always wind up being explainable and managable by science. If you think your gods are the explanation for what you see in the world, then go live in a cave and eat wild food. >>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>> powers and knowledge.. >>> It never happens becasue the supernatural beings don't exist. >> I could probably come up with lots of ways for you to prove you exist, >> rather than you simply being a clever emacs program. If you choose not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Nobody can produce any of the gods people have claimed over the > centuries. I think you missed my point. Let me try to use smaller words so you won't think I'm dumb. If there are supernatural beings, why should they accommodate your demands to prove their existence? In other words, if you decree that supernatural beings have to show themselves in order for them to exist, why would they be subject to your decree? Suppose I decree that they should not show themselves? What's a supernatural being to do, given that anyone can decree anything about their existence? In the simplest terms I can phrase it, you don't know if they exist or not, you simply don't believe they do, and you mistake your disbelief as some kind of proof. > >>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >> [...] [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > not, you simply don't believe they do, and you mistake your disbelief as > some kind of proof. It is you who is simple, little sophomore. You don't know basic logic, idiot. It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it. It's not up to everyone in the world to prove that an infinite number of dumb propositions don't exist. All you're doing is evading the real question. People who claim a god exists should prove that the god exists before anyone should accept that the god exists. Otherwise, its just something going on in your head. Do you think the stuff going on in a schizophrenic's mind is also real and would require no proof to be real? >>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > Do you think the stuff going on in a schizophrenic's mind is also real > and would require no proof to be real? I guess you just cannot comprehend what it means for God to be prior to existence. I guess you believe in money. What does it mean for money to exist? Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. > >>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > I guess you just cannot comprehend > what it means for God to be prior to existence. This is a meaningless statement. This thread was started on the topic of Chung raving to a very well know supernatural being. I don't think that supernatural being exists. If you do, then prove it. > I guess you believe in money. > What does it mean for money to exist? If you don't believe money exists, then how do you pay for an internet acct., or a computer? If you don't use money, how do you get along day to day? >>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > acct., or a computer? If you don't use money, how do you get along > day to day? Kindly tell me what money is and how you can prove that money exists, please. Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. > >>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > acct., or a computer? If you don't use money, how do you get along > > day to day? > Kindly tell me what money is > and how you can prove that money exists, please. Money is what you yourself use to buy your computer and pay for your internet acct. See how easy it was to defeat your pseudo intellectual prattle? >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > See how easy it was to defeat your pseudo intellectual prattle? I use credit cards for that. If you use cash, it does not say "money" on it; it probably says "In God We Trust". Can you see money? If so, what do you actually see when you think you see money? If I make a hundred dollar bill exactly as it is made by the government, is it still money? Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. > >>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > If you use cash, it does not say "money" on it; > it probably says "In God We Trust". And reply that shows just how facile your pseudo logic / philosophy is. > Can you see money? > If so, what do you actually see > when you think you see money? > If I make a hundred dollar bill > exactly as it is made by the government, > is it still money? No, it would be counterfeit, just like your facile "logic". >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>>>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > No, it would be counterfeit, just like your facile "logic". Show me money. Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > >>>>>>>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > Show me money. For a quarter, will you disappear? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mar 29, 4:03 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" >>>>>>>>>>>> [...] [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > For a quarter, will you disappear? If you don't know how to prove that money exists, what makes you think you can prove that God exists? Signaturemonkfish I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon. > I'll be removing sci.med.cardiology > from the header soon. When. It is getting like the old Saturday Night Live catch phrase: "Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead" that you'll " be removing sci.med.cardiology from the header soon" is another. I did notice that you did not pase that as a question but as a statement [...] >> If there are supernatural beings, why should they accommodate your >> demands to prove their existence? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It is you who is simple, little sophomore. So you do know if they exist or not? How? > You don't know basic logic, idiot. Basic logic would eliminate things like "I haven't seen it so it doesn't exist". > It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it. In some contexts yes. In the context of a discussion about supernatural beings, no. Requiring empirical proof of non-empirical beings isn't reasonable. You believe in them or you don't. > It's not up to everyone in the world to prove that an infinite number > of dumb propositions don't exist. In a discussion about something that can't be proved empirically one way or the other, nothing is incumbent on anyone to prove anything empirically. It's not that kind of discussion. > All you're doing is evading the real question. > > People who claim a god exists should prove that the god exists before > anyone should accept that the god exists. According to who? You? Why do you get to decide something like that? Why would someone who believes in God have to comply with your wishes to do so? > Otherwise, its just something going on in your head. > > Do you think the stuff going on in a schizophrenic's mind is also real > and would require no proof to be real? I didn't say anything was real. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Basic logic would eliminate things like "I haven't seen it so it doesn't > exist". A poor attempt at a strwman argument. You lose. > > It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it. > > In some contexts yes. No, in all contexts. >In the context of a discussion about supernatural > beings, no. Requiring empirical proof of non-empirical beings isn't > reasonable. You believe in them or you don't. You're confusing a "supernatural" with "non-empirical". A supernatural being has powers and knowledge past what what humans would consider natural. That doesn't imply that its existence couldn't be proved. A supernatural being could appear to people and simply prove its existence any time it wanted, assuming its powerful enough. Yahweh is said to be "all powerful", so he could do that, if he existed. <snip> >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > You lose. You were complaining that people who believed in supernatural beings couldn't produce them, and that their lack of doing so was because they don't exist. >>> It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it. >> In some contexts yes. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > would consider natural. That doesn't imply that its existence couldn't > be proved. Please state the rules for proving the existence of a supernatural being. > A supernatural being could appear to people and simply prove its > existence any time it wanted, assuming its powerful enough. What if it doesn't want to, or isn't powerful enough? > Yahweh is said to be "all powerful", so he could do that, if he > existed. If He wanted. > <snip> Indeed. > >> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > > You lose. > You were complaining that people who believed in supernatural beings > couldn't produce them, and that their lack of doing so was because they > don't exist. Wrong. I wasn't complaining - I was pointing out the obvious. > >>> It is up to the person who says something exists, to prove it. > >> In some contexts yes. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Please state the rules for proving the existence of a supernatural being. This is just stupid. Can't you figure out for yourself what would convincing to the world that some all powerful all knowing superantural could perform ? > > A supernatural being could appear to people and simply prove its > > existence any time it wanted, assuming its powerful enough. > > What if it doesn't want to, Then it must not care whether people believe it exists. >or isn't powerful enough? Do you even know what the discussion is about? <snip> [...] >> Please state the rules for proving the existence of a supernatural being. > > This is just stupid. > > Can't you figure out for yourself what would convincing to the world > that some all powerful all knowing superantural could perform ? Sure, but I'm not the one claiming they don't exist because they don't do something, you are. When asked for specifics you start throwing dust in the air. >>> A supernatural being could appear to people and simply prove its >>> existence any time it wanted, assuming its powerful enough. >> What if it doesn't want to, > > Then it must not care whether people believe it exists. That's the only option? >> or isn't powerful enough? > > Do you even know what the discussion is about? > > <snip> I'm fairly sure I do. This group has really gone into the weeds. You used to be able to have a sensible discussion here, guess I've been gone too long. Go ahead and claim victory, I have better things to do. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > do something, you are. When asked for specifics you start throwing dust > in the air. You're arguing for belief in things for which there is no evidence. That is stupid. The thread concerns supernatural beings that chung posts about. A great deal of marketing literature exists about these beings, but none of it is credible or could be considered evidence for their existence. I can write books about some being that I conjure up in my imagination, and if those books are read by people a few thousand years from now, they will not constitute proof or even evidence for its existence. >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > The thread concerns supernatural beings that chung posts about. Actually, what's stupid is arguing against something that can't be disproved. What would it take to know, and demonstrate, that something doesn't exist? It's not enough that there is no evidence for it. Evidence keeps showing up, and things there were no evidence for a hundred years ago are common knowledge now. You just never know what there might be evidence for tomorrow. Saying that "what I know is all there is" is obviously wrong, for any human being. Claiming to be able to give empirical proof for assertions about non-empirical beings is also obviously wrong. > A great deal of marketing literature exists about these beings, but > none of it is credible or could be considered evidence for their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > years from now, they will not constitute proof or even evidence for > its existence. That's mostly correct. Don't miss the important part though. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofByGOD http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ScienceByGOD http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/KnowingHIM "With man this is impossible, but with GOD all things are possible." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Matthew 19:26) Amen. May you and other dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD Hunger is wonderful: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Hunger It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good. Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives. Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish ( gone !!! ) forever ... http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob ... gone: http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Qb6d_z5C35E Such will be the demise of all those who refuse to know **and** love the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Luke6_21 A simple parable for the wise and discerning: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Parable Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be healthier: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow > >> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > disproved. What would it take to know, and demonstrate, that something > doesn't exist? No, actually what you're advocating is totally stupid and has been recognized as such for centuries. You're saying people should believe in any number of things, and give these things authority in their lives, with no proof they exist. It's basic logic that it's up to someone saying something exists, to prove that it exists. It's not up to people to disprove every goofy idea that someone might imagine. However, you can win just by prodcuing your supernatural being(s) to prove their existence and powers. Yuo can't do that, can you. You lose, dummy. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Flounderingsatan is still http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan forevermore http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega guaranteed http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofByGOD <>< May dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus Christ as the Son of Man ... ... by being hungrier: http://TruthRUS.org/KnowingGOD Hunger is wonderful: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Hunger It's how we know what GOD wants, which is what is good. Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve paid for with their and our immortal lives. Those who suffer from the powerful delusion predicted by the prophecy of 2 Thessalonians 2:9-11 would deny this and perish ( gone !!! ) forever ... http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyOne http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyTwo http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyThree http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/CrazyFour http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Bob ... gone: http://YouTube.com/watch?v=Qb6d_z5C35E Such will be the demise of all those who refuse to know **and** love the truth, Who is LORD Jesus Christ: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love/TheTruth Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/BeBlessed "Blessed are you who hunger NOW... ... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21) Amen. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Luke6_21 A simple parable for the wise and discerning: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Parable Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be healthier: http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/BeHealthier Prayerfully in the infinite power and might of the Holy Spirit, Andrew <>< -- Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Lawful steward of http://EmoryCardiology.com A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow On Apr 5, 9:37 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: > http://HeartMDPhD.com/It'sallinyourmindAndrew GOD ON THE BRAIN Reviews the book 'Why God Won't Go Away: Science and the Biology of Belief,' by Andrew Newberg, Eugene D'Aquili and Vince Rause. WHY BELIEVERS SHOULDN'T TAKE THE SCIENCE OF SPIRITUALLYSERIOUSLY Andrew Newberg, M.D., Eugene D'Aquili, M.D., and Vince Rause (Ballantine Books, 2001) Reviewed by Michael Shermer, Ph.D. God is puzzling. According to the Oxford World Christian Encyclopedia, there are no fewer than 10,000 distinct religions worldwide, with a total of 5.1 billion adherents. The quantity and diversity of beliefs means that something is going on here that cries out for explanation. That explanation, say Andrew Newberg, M.D., and his late colleague Eugene D'Aquili, M.D., both affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania and pioneers in the neurological research of religion, is to be found in the brain. We are, they say, wired for God. To understand this wiring Newberg and D'Aquili studied Buddhist monks as they meditated and Franciscan nuns during prayer. When their subjects slipped into an altered state of consciousness, the scientists injected them with a radioactive substance and then tracked the changing activity of their brains. The researchers did this with Single Photon-Emission Computed Tomography, or SPECT, a device similar to the more familiar CAT and PET scan machines. The most dramatic finding in the book, primarily (and admirably) written by journalist Vince Rause, concerns a portion of the brain the authors call the orientation association area (OAA). The OAA, say Newberg and D'Aquili, is largely responsible for helping us distinguish between ourselves and other things. People with damage to this part of the brain have problems navigating their way around a room: They actually cannot discriminate between their bodies and the furniture. The researchers discovered that during meditation and prayer, at the moment when the monks were at one with the universe and the nuns felt the presence of a universal spirit, there was reduced activity in the OAA. Like patients with damage to this brain area, their selves became indistinguishable from their nonselves. From these findings the authors conclude "that spiritual experience, at its very root, is intimately interwoven with human biology. That biology, in some way, compels the spiritual urge." > On Apr 5, 9:37 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > <heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > root, is intimately interwoven with human biology. That biology, in > some way, compels the spiritual urge." Does that mean at lest your brain believes in God? Signaturemonkfish >> >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > give these things authority in their lives, with no proof they > exist. I didn't say people should believe in anything. Why don't you address what I actually said instead of making stuff up and addressing that? > It's basic logic that it's up to someone saying something exists, to > prove that it exists. It's not up to people to disprove every goofy > idea that someone might imagine. It's not up to anyone to disprove something that can neither be proved or disproved. Some people believe things, they're not stupid because they don't follow whatever rules you want to lay down for them. > However, you can win just by prodcuing your supernatural being(s) to > prove their existence and powers. > > Yuo can't do that, can you. > > You lose, dummy. If I'm playing by your rules maybe. Why should you get to decide what other people can believe, and what the rules are for them? You seem to think this is about you personally, that having to admit you're overreaching in your pontification is somehow going to diminish you. I'm talking about the ideas you're putting forth, not you. > >> >> [...] > [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > I didn't say people should believe in anything. Why don't you address > what I actually said instead of making stuff up and addressing that? I was answering a post by "dzho", is that you "joe" ? In any case, I don' think you even know what you were asking. > >> Actually, what's stupid is arguing against something that can't be > >> disproved. What would it take to know, and demonstrate, that > >> something doesn't exist? I replied to that with: > > It's basic logic that it's up to someone saying something exists, to > > prove that it exists. It's not up to people to disprove every goofy > > idea that someone might imagine. > It's not up to anyone to disprove something that can neither be proved > or disproved. You're stupid. Of course the existence of "god" could be proved. All he/she/it would have to do is present itself and prove its powers. >Some people believe things, they're not stupid because > they don't follow whatever rules you want to lay down for them. It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. Evolution has been proven. There is NO PROOF OF ANY GOD. > > However, you can win just by prodcuing your supernatural being(s) to > > prove their existence and powers. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If I'm playing by your rules maybe. Why should you get to decide what > other people can believe, and what the rules are for them? There are rules of logic and proof upon which modern civilization has been created. If you want to live in a dream world, go live in a cave. <snip> > It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. > > Evolution has been proven. > > There is NO PROOF OF ANY GOD. Most smart atheists would not say these. You seem to be confused about "proof." What does it mean for anything to be proven? Signaturemonkfish > > It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What does it mean for anything to be proven? Look up the scientific method, and see if you're capable of understanding it. >>> It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. >>> Evolution has been proven. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Look up the scientific method, and see if you're capable of > understanding it. I read enough philosophy of science. But we are not going to go there yet. What does it mean for you to prove anything? Does that mean you have seen it with your own eyes? Signaturemonkfish > >>> It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. > >>> Evolution has been proven. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -- > monkfish What does it mean for you to be asking vague meaningless questions? Does that mean you are now convinced that you exist? Does your use of modern communications mean you are a hypocrite who uses the products of science and rational intellect, while vaguering endlessy about how we can't know anything and that means we should accept supernatural beings? >>>>> It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. >>>>> Evolution has been proven. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > endlessy about how we can't know anything and that means we should > accept supernatural beings? You misunderstood me. I'm all for science; but for its intended purpose only. I don't think science can replace religion. So long as you are trying to do so, you have a blind faith called scientism. It's a beloved idol of communists. Are you a communist? Signaturemonkfish > >>>>> It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. > >>>>> Evolution has been proven. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > I don't think science can replace religion. It already has. Genesis described the earth's origin and origin of humans in ways that have been shown to be wrong. You are a ridiculous person. > >>>>> It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. > >>>>> Evolution has been proven. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Are you a communist? Wasn't jesus? http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan >>>>>>> It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. >>>>>>> Evolution has been proven. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Wasn't jesus? No, He is above the capitalism communism dichotomy. How about you? Signaturemonkfish >>> Are you a communist? >> >> Wasn't jesus? > > No, He is above the capitalism communism dichotomy. > How about you If Jesus was alive today would he live in a kibbutz? http://HeartMDPhD.com/Ignorantsatan > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Ignorantsatan Of course Satan would be ignorant as to whether Jesus would live in a kibbutz and I was not asking Satan, but it seem that you, with whom the Holy Spirit gives you direct quotes and uses your web site and you being hungry and therefore knowing what God wants, should know. Perhaps what you claim is a lie. > >>> Are you a communist? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > If Jesus was alive today would he live in a kibbutz? People on kibbutzes work 16 hours a day. A goldbrick like jesus would be thrown out on his a.s. >>>>> Are you a communist? >>>> Wasn't jesus? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > People on kibbutzes work 16 hours a day. A goldbrick > like jesus would be thrown out on his a.s. Preaching is hard work, dear. If not, better get your tuition refunded, padre. Signaturemonkfish > Preaching is hard work, dear. > If not, better get your tuition refunded, padre. Yup, the Rev P.T. Barnum worked hard as there was a sucker, oops mean a believer, born every minute. > >>>>>>> It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. > >>>>>>> Evolution has been proven. [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > No, He is above the capitalism communism dichotomy. Then why should he care? http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Idioticsatan >>>>>>>>> It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. >>>>>>>>> Evolution has been proven. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Then why should he care? I'm trying to prevent him from becoming a mass murderer. Signaturemonkfish > What does it mean for anything to be proven? Yes, 1+1+1=11 >> What does it mean for anything to be proven? > > Yes, 1+1+1=11 Are you trying to prove that you are clueless? Do you know how to prove that "12345 * 54321 = 670592745"? Signaturemonkfish [...] >> > No, actually what you're advocating is totally stupid and has been >> > recognized as such for centuries. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > In any case, I don' think you even know what you were asking. I'm pretty sure I do. I'm not so sure you do. >> >> Actually, what's stupid is arguing against something that can't >> >> be disproved. What would it take to know, and demonstrate, that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > prove that it exists. It's not up to people to disprove every goofy >> > idea that someone might imagine. This isn't logic, it's a point of view. As it turns out that point of view isn't very logical. See below. >> It's not up to anyone to disprove something that can neither be >> proved or disproved. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > All he/she/it would have to do is present itself and prove its powers. One of the attributes commonly ascribed to supernatural beings is that they cannot be perceived by human senses. You clearly accept that as one of their attributes because it's what you say must be taken away to prove their existence. Requiring that an invisible being be visible is a self contradiction, therefore not a particularly logical requirement. If you disbelieve in such beings, then you do. That's all. If others belive in them, then they do and that's all. >>Some people believe things, they're not stupid because >> they don't follow whatever rules you want to lay down for them. > > It's been proven that the earth wasn't created as genesis sets forth. In order to know that you would first have to understand what it is that Genesis sets forth. It doesn't sound like you do. I understand that some people think it was some kind of history in the way we think of it, but that's certainly not the only possible understanding of it. Look, you're obviously a lot more emotionally invested in this than I am, and I hope you're able to work that out. There just isn't enough reasoning going on here to interest me any more. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > This isn't logic, it's a point of view. Bullshit. That IS logic you idiot. As it turns out that point of > view isn't very logical. See below. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > One of the attributes commonly ascribed to supernatural beings is that > they cannot be perceived by human senses. Idiot. The supernatural beings which perople like chung etc. claim exist are jesus and yahweh etc. They suposedly have appeared to people and chung thinks onel of them talks to him. <snip further garbage> [...] >> >> I didn't say people should believe in anything. Why don't you >> >> address what I actually said instead of making stuff up and [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Bullshit. That IS logic you idiot. I have to stop caring about this, but the fact that you keep insisting that you're being reasonable while exhibiting only emotional rants intrigues me. If what you claim was logic was, indeed, logic, you could have given a logical response. You could have shown in what way I was mistaken for example. > As it turns out that point of >> view isn't very logical. See below. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message