Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / May 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

What is faith?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Fred Jones - 24 Apr 2008 14:39 GMT
Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith to believe.
You must have faith to understand. What is faith and why is it such a popular
buzz-word in the christian world? Is it used wrong? Is it used right? Is it used
too much like the word love so that it has lost it's real meaning?
J666 - 24 Apr 2008 15:01 GMT
> Just what is faith?

Believing something you cannot prove.
Andrew - 24 Apr 2008 18:17 GMT
> Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith to
> believe. You must have faith to understand. What is faith and why is it
> such a popular buzz-word in the christian world? Is it used wrong? Is
> it used right? Is it used too much like the word love so that it has
> lost it's real meaning?

Fith means something akin to 'trust'. It's living in the assumption
that you are right about something about which you could be mistaken.
The nicest analogy I've heard comes from the founder of Sufism. Faith
is like when a rich merchant puts all his goods and gear on board a
ship bound for a distant market. He cann ot be sure that they will ever
reach it, but lives in the assumption that it will.
bob young - 25 Apr 2008 07:41 GMT
> > Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith to
> > believe. You must have faith to understand. What is faith and why is it
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> ship bound for a distant market. He cann ot be sure that they will ever
> reach it, but lives in the assumption that it will.

"I refuse to prove I exist", says god. "Because proof denies
faith and without faith, I am nothing"
[Douglas Adams].

"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational
thinking, which leads by a slippery slope toward
constitutional democracy."
[Robert Anton Wilson]

Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
[Richard Dawkins]
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 25 Apr 2008 07:44 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofsByGOD
Bill M - 26 Apr 2008 11:25 GMT
Thats is easy. Faith is believing in something for which there is no
objective verifable evidence!

> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
>
> <><
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofsByGOD
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 26 Apr 2008 18:09 GMT
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
>
> Thats is easy. Faith is believing in something for which there is no
> objective verifable evidence!

Incorrect.

Many believe that the universe is finite even though there is no
objective verifiable evidence that the universe is finite.

This is not the same as writing that many have faith that the universe
is finite.

Faith is a composite of both belief **and** trusting that one will
receive objective verifiable evidence that the belief is correct.

Your not being correct shows that you are being guided by the spirit
of error (self) and that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to
convict you:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts

May we, who are Christians, continue to pray for your perishing soul,
dear Bill:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForBill

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/GreatAssembly
Bill M - 26 Apr 2008 16:46 GMT
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Many believe that the universe is finite even though there is no
> objective verifiable evidence that the universe is finite.

What does this have to do with evidence of the existence of your god?

> This is not the same as writing that many have faith that the universe
> is finite.
>
> Faith is a composite of both belief **and** trusting that one will
> receive objective verifiable evidence that the belief is correct.

This sounds like pure hope - not evidence!

> Your not being correct shows that you are being guided by the spirit
> of error (self) and that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to
> convict you:

I'm waiting!

> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
>
> May we, who are Christians, continue to pray for your perishing soul,
> dear Bill:

Pray on, it never creates anything but imagination!

> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForBill
>
> <><
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/GreatAssembly
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 27 Apr 2008 00:22 GMT
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> What does this have to do with evidence of the existence of your god?

It is related because GOD created this universe, which serves well as
evidence of HIS existence just as a house serves well as evidence of
the existence of its builder.

It logically follows from the observation that we have difficulty
taking in the entirety of the universe to even know whether it is
finite or not that we would have difficulty seeing beyond the universe
to take in the existence of the Creator, Who is an infinite and
timeless Being, Who is GOD.

> > This is not the same as writing that many have faith that the universe
> > is finite.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> This sounds like pure hope - not evidence!

It seems you are having difficulty taking in the full scope of the
statement that the Holy Spirit has guided me to write above.

More concisely, faith is belief synergistically combined with hope.
The result is something much more than an arithmetic sum.

Here is a simple analogy given in hopes of promoting greater
understanding:

You are booked for a transatlantic flight to London, England.

Your reaching London, England, will require that you place your faith
in the pilot of the plane, sight unseen.  This means that you believe
the pilot to be competent (knowledgeable, well-trained, experienced,
and not impaired) **and** hope that you are correct in your belief.
Without faith in the pilot, you won't even be able to bring yourself
to board the plane.

With faith in the pilot, you would find yourself able to board the
plane and hearing his/her voice over the intercom will reassure you if
that voice is clear, concise, and unwavering dispelling any concerns
that the pilot is either inexperienced or impaired.  The ultimate
objective and verifiable evidence of the pilot's competence will be
your safely arriving at your destination.

By GOD's design, the affirmation of righteous faith is given **after**
the faith is placed in something that is true.

Bottom line:

Objective verifiable evidence is given to the faithful and not to the
faithless.

May we, who have placed our faith in LORD Jesus Christ, continue to
pray for your perishing soul, dear Bill:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForBill

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/GreatAssembly
Bill M - 26 Apr 2008 19:54 GMT
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> to take in the existence of the Creator, Who is an infinite and
> timeless Being, Who is GOD.

Dream on!

>> > This is not the same as writing that many have faith that the universe
>> > is finite.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> It seems you are having difficulty taking in the full scope of the
> statement that the Holy Spirit has guided me to write above.

> More concisely, faith is belief synergistically combined with hope.
> The result is something much more than an arithmetic sum.
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> objective and verifiable evidence of the pilot's competence will be
> your safely arriving at your destination.

Your defying logic again. There are thousands of flights daily proving the
competence of the pilots and the
religability of the aircraft. You do not need 'faith' to trust in flying!

> By GOD's design, the affirmation of righteous faith is given **after**
> the faith is placed in something that is true.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> May we, who have placed our faith in LORD Jesus Christ, continue to
> pray for your perishing soul, dear Bill:

Dream on!

> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForBill
>
> <><
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/GreatAssembly
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 27 Apr 2008 01:51 GMT
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Dream on!

You may pinch yourself to verify that this is not a dream.

> >> > This is not the same as writing that many have faith that the universe
> >> > is finite.
[quoted text clipped - 32 lines]
> competence of the pilots and the
> religability of the aircraft.

There are also case reports of inebriated pilots, incompetent pilots,
and mechanical failure.

> You do not need 'faith' to trust in flying!

You will need faith in order to board a plane.  Indeed, many have had
their faith in flying shaken by the events of 9/11/2001 so that many
have not flown ever since.

> > By GOD's design, the affirmation of righteous faith is given **after**
> > the faith is placed in something that is true.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Dream on!

It remains my hope and not my dream that you will wisely choose to
repent soon by declaring with your mouth that "Jesus is LORD:"

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/TheWay

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/GreatAssembly
Bill M - 27 Apr 2008 14:06 GMT
Dream on!

>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/GreatAssembly
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 27 Apr 2008 19:24 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/PrayForBill

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Faithful
monkfish - 27 Apr 2008 02:11 GMT
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc15@emorycardiology.com> wrote in

>> More concisely, faith is belief synergistically combined with hope. The
>> result is something much more than an arithmetic sum.
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> religability of the aircraft. You do not need 'faith' to trust in
> flying!

So you have faith in statistics.
How did you get that faith?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

monkfish - 27 Apr 2008 02:38 GMT
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <heartdoc15@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
>> ....
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>> Objective verifiable evidence is given to the faithful and not to the
>> faithless.

So, we need faith to understand.
Sounds rather reassuring and probably true.
But not convincing enough for many modern people.

How are we going to rephrase it
to make it intelligible to atheists?

I think even atheists need faith in something
to be able to function in this world.
They do need to trust airline pilots, to fly.
They even need to trust their Christian brothers
to share the highway with them.
They sure seem to believe in money
as much as religious persons.
Most importantly, they are proud
to believe in the scientific method.

Do atheists know what it means
to have faith in the scientific method?
I guess they would strongly protest
against my choice of the word 'faith'.
I wonder, what they would say is
their relationship with the scientific method.
Puppy love?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 27 Apr 2008 07:50 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForMonkFish

> > Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote in part:
> >> ....
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> So, we need faith to understand.

No.  For understanding, we need wisdom and intelligence.

> Sounds rather reassuring and probably true.

It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.

> But not convincing enough for many modern people.

GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not convince.

> How are we going to rephrase it
> to make it intelligible to atheists?

No amount of rephrasing will help those who lack wisdom and
intelligence.

Would suggest we pray that GOD help them by giving them wisdom and
intelligence.

> I think even atheists need faith in something
> to be able to function in this world.

Those that are able to function in this world have faith though they
may lack the wisdom and intelligence to understand this fact.

> They do need to trust airline pilots, to fly.

Nowadays, that does mean trusting someone you have not seen and do not
know **and** who does not know you, with your life.  GOD is infinitely
greater than any pilot plus HE knows you ! ! !

> They even need to trust their Christian brothers
> to share the highway with them.
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> their relationship with the scientific method.
> Puppy love?

Regardless of what they say or write, an atheist's faith in self is a
misplaced faith.

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/GreatAssembly
Dubh Ghall - 28 Apr 2008 19:16 GMT
>I think even atheists need faith in something
>to be able to function in this world.

But not *blind* faith, only trust in the empirically tried and tested.
monkfish - 28 Apr 2008 20:52 GMT
>>I think even atheists need faith in something to be able to function in
>>this world.
>
> But not *blind* faith, only trust in the empirically tried and tested.

Good for you!
That basically means you trust other people.
Of course, we all prefer it to be
experimentally repeatable.
But we cannot always have it our way.

It all comes down to whether you are going to trust
the eyewitnesses of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I can understand why you just cannot believe them.
But we need to figure out what the resurrection means
in terms of modern scientific worldview.

Many people believed that
a certain animal is the ancestor of them.
Some still do.
We can see why they would say that.

Can you see why anyone would say that
she saw a bodily resurrected person?
Wouldn't it be a lot easier to say that
he didn't die or she saw a ghost?
Was the idea of bodily resurrection
in vogue at that time?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

Dubh Ghall - 29 Apr 2008 00:19 GMT
>>>I think even atheists need faith in something to be able to function in
>>>this world.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>Good for you!
>That basically means you trust other people.

In so far as I can check their claims/work/whatever, or I have
previous observations to indicate that their words/acts, are reliable.

>Of course, we all prefer it to be
>experimentally repeatable.
>But we cannot always have it our way.
>
>It all comes down to whether you are going to trust
>the eyewitnesses of the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

You have no evidence that such ever existed, and there is nothing in
the bible, written by any of the supposed "eyewitnesses", or by your
Jesus.

>I can understand why you just cannot believe them.

Actually, you have no idea why.

>But we need to figure out what the resurrection means
>in terms of modern scientific worldview.

It is a myth, and so has no meaning in a scientific world view.

>Many people believed that
>a certain animal is the ancestor of them.

Which animal would that be?

>Some still do.
>We can see why they would say that.
>
>Can you see why anyone would say that
>she saw a bodily resurrected person?

What makes you so sure that she did say that?

What makes you so sure that she existed?

Why could her existence, and therefore her words, not be a fiction.

>Wouldn't it be a lot easier to say that
>he didn't die or she saw a ghost?

As there is no empirical evidence that your Jesus ever existed, would
it not be easier to just ignore it?

>Was the idea of bodily resurrection
>in vogue at that time?

Well Jesus wasn't the first, nor was he the last, to have that claim
made for him.
monkfish - 29 Apr 2008 01:42 GMT
>>>>I think even atheists need faith in something to be able to function
>>>>in this world.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> In so far as I can check their claims/work/whatever, or I have previous
> observations to indicate that their words/acts, are reliable.

So you have blind faith in your judgment?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

J666 - 26 Apr 2008 18:34 GMT
> Many believe that the universe is finite even though there is no
> objective verifiable evidence that the universe is finite.

Believing something is true and having faith something is true are not the
same - faith is absolute.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 26 Apr 2008 18:51 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Worthlesssatan

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthBeatssatan
J666 - 26 Apr 2008 19:13 GMT
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Worthlesssatan
>
> <><
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthBeatssatan

Thank you - your above response to my statement that "Believing something is
true and having faith something is true are not the same - faith is absolute"
to your statement "Many believe that the universe is finite even though there
is no objective verifiable evidence that the universe is finite" shows that
you have no answer.   If you cannot realize that, then it is your problem.
monkfish - 26 Apr 2008 22:16 GMT
> Thats is easy. Faith is believing in something for which there is no
> objective verifable evidence!

Do you have faith in the scientific method?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

Phobos - 26 Apr 2008 22:33 GMT
> Do you have faith in the scientific method?

I believe the scientific method will give us answers.

Believing something, like the scientific method, and having faith in
something, liek a God, are two different things.  If you cannot understand
that and do not know the difference, then no sense continuing since we are
not using  the same meanings of the words.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 26 Apr 2008 23:25 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForPhobos

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForMonkFish

> > Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>
> I believe the scientific method will give us answers.

It has had its utility...

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/2PD-OMER

... but is too limited for one to put one's faith in it for all the
answers.

> Believing something, like the scientific method, and having faith in
> something, liek a God, are two different things.

This would be because GOD is infinite while the scientific method is
limited.

By placing our faith in GOD, it means we believe that GOD is an
infinite and timeless Being **and** we trust that HE will give
objective verifiable evidence that we are right to believe HE is an
infinite and timeless Being with all the answers:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Alpha_Omega

> If you cannot understand
> that and do not know the difference, then no sense continuing since we are
> not using  the same meanings of the words.

Hopefully what the Holy Spirit has guided me to write above will
promote the greater understanding that is needed to help you further
this discussion for the benefit of all participants and onlookers
while also glorifying GOD.

Laus Deo !

http://HeartMDPhD.com/LausDeo

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/GreatAssembly
monkfish - 26 Apr 2008 23:50 GMT
>> Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> understand that and do not know the difference, then no sense continuing
> since we are not using  the same meanings of the words.

What does it mean for you to "believe"
in the scientific method?
Is it rather like to believe in logic?
But is the scientific method logically true?
What is the scientific method?
Is it even falsifiable?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

Dubh Ghall - 28 Apr 2008 17:53 GMT
>>> Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>What does it mean for you to "believe"
>in the scientific method?

It means that the evidence has shown, that the scientific method
works.

>Is it rather like to believe in logic?

Not exactly.

Logic has many uses.  It comes into play as a *discipline* of users of
the scientific method.

An excellent example is Occam's Razor.

Unfortunately it also comes into play in philosophy, and theology, in
which instances it can give subjectives, and other utter bullshite, a
veneer of quasi-validity.

>But is the scientific method logically true?

The question is meaningless outside of a philosophical, or
theological,  debate; You might as well ask "Is red more real than
blue?"

Science, OTOH, is about reality, which, in my experience, has no place
in the fantasy world of philosophers, and theologians.

>What is the scientific method?

If you do not already know that, then it makes your previous question,
rather dishonest.

Of course, if you do know, then it makes this question, dishonest.

>Is it even falsifiable?

I suspect that you are just plucking words out of the air, and
stringing them together.

So, before we go any farther, explain what is meant by
"falsifiability", within the scientific community, because I don't
think that you know.

You might have changed you nym, but method, remains the same.
monkfish - 28 Apr 2008 18:01 GMT
>>>> Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> You might have changed you nym, but method, remains the same.

You seem to think the scientific method is
something fixed, unchanging, and eternal.
Think again, please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
It's an evolving set of faith.

[quote]
Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical
possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a
physical experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
[/quote]

Is the scientific method falsifiable?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

Dubh Ghall - 28 Apr 2008 19:05 GMT
>>>>> Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>You seem to think the scientific method is
>something fixed, unchanging, and eternal.

It is, pretty well.

It is a bit like cooking.

The modern Blue Riband Chef, uses the same basic methods as out fore
bears used once they had discovered fire?

I'll grand you that today's high tech kitchen would be totally beyond
the comprehension of Ug, but he would soon learn where to put his leg
of mammoth, to get it properly charred.

So also with the scientific method.

>Think again, please.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Method
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
>[/quote]

I can only assume from that, that you do not know.

You are trying to test us on something about which you know sweet
Fanny Adams.

That is dishonest.
monkfish - 28 Apr 2008 19:14 GMT
>>>>>> Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 82 lines]
>
> That is dishonest.

The scientific method itself is not falsifiable.

"Taking Science on Faith" By PAUL DAVIES
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html?
ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

IN the New York Times

November 24, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Taking Science on Faith
By PAUL DAVIES

Tempe, Ariz.

SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge
about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by
contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas” well illustrates
the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional
necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is
regarded as a virtue.

The problem with this neat separation into “non-overlapping magisteria,”
as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has
its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption
that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t
be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of
odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper
level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their
instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical
order. And so far this faith has been justified.

The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos
is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature
runs. The laws of gravitation and electromagnetism, the laws that
regulate the world within the atom, the laws of motion — all are
expressed as tidy mathematical relationships. But where do these laws
come from? And why do they have the form that they do?

When I was a student, the laws of physics were regarded as completely off
limits. The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws
and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated
as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment
of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist,
you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable,
immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified
origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t
wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of
light changing by the hour.

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of
physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific
question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason
they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist
reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a
scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered
logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one
traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the
laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a
mockery of science.

Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about
us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a
fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow
masquerading as ingenious order and rationality.

Although scientists have long had an inclination to shrug aside such
questions concerning the source of the laws of physics, the mood has now
shifted considerably. Part of the reason is the growing acceptance that
the emergence of life in the universe, and hence the existence of
observers like ourselves, depends rather sensitively on the form of the
laws. If the laws of physics were just any old ragbag of rules, life
would almost certainly not exist.

A second reason that the laws of physics have now been brought within the
scope of scientific inquiry is the realization that what we long regarded
as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but
more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-
cosmic scale. A God’s-eye view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of
universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws. In this
“multiverse,” life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly
bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks
universe — one that is just right for life. We have selected it by our
very existence.

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn’t so much
explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a
physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them.
This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come
from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the
universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely,
on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an
unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge
ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic
religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of
physical existence.

This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical
law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many
scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute,
universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God
created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage
God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while
physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent
realm of perfect mathematical relationships.

And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for
its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare
a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-
laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the
universe.

It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical
universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-
laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The
alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern
as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together
within a common explanatory scheme.

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the
universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics
of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science
comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to
be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Paul Davies is the director of Beyond, a research center at Arizona State
University, and the author of “Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just
Right for Life.”

Dubh Ghall - 28 Apr 2008 21:09 GMT
snip

>> You are trying to test us on something about which you know sweet Fanny
>> Adams.
>>
>> That is dishonest.
>
>The scientific method itself is not falsifiable.

So if you know that also, then your question wrt it, was also
dishonest.

You see, this is the sort of thing that makes me ask if you are
capable of civilised discourse.

Clearly, you are not: or perhaps you do not consider honesty, a
prerequisite of civility?
monkfish - 28 Apr 2008 21:34 GMT
> snip
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> Clearly, you are not: or perhaps you do not consider honesty, a
> prerequisite of civility?

You are being disingenuous and not even aware of it.
It was an almost, but quite, rhetorical question.

You seem to hate Christians.
Christians are told to love even their enemies.
I do my best not laugh at atheists.

Do you know of any atheist who love her enemies?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

Dubh Ghall - 29 Apr 2008 00:54 GMT
>You are being disingenuous and not even aware of it.
>It was an almost, but quite, rhetorical question.
>
>You seem to hate Christians.

What makes you think that I rate xtians, that highly?

>Christians are told to love even their enemies.

We know, it is another difference between us.

When xtians care, it is because they are told to, when atheists care.
it is simply because we care.

You do right, because you are told to, in your book of rules, as a
prerequisite of your entry into heaven; We do right, because it is
right to do so.

You do it for pay, we do it for charity.

>I do my best not laugh at atheists.

Let your self go, kid; It will not affect us, one iota.

>Do you know of any atheist who love her enemies?

Yes.
monkfish - 29 Apr 2008 01:44 GMT
>>You are being disingenuous and not even aware of it. It was an almost,
>>but quite, rhetorical question.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> You do it for pay, we do it for charity.

Does this mean you have blind faith in yourself?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

J666 - 28 Apr 2008 19:22 GMT
> I'll grand you that today's high tech kitchen would be totally beyond
> the comprehension of Ug, but he would soon learn where to put his leg
> of mammoth, to get it properly charred.
>
> So also with the scientific method.

Through science, the chickens today are much better than before. The
Celestial Chicken welcomes science as a way for man to improve himself.

The Celestial Chicken is confident enough in the WAY, not to be frightened by
progress.
Dubh Ghall - 28 Apr 2008 21:03 GMT
>> I'll grand you that today's high tech kitchen would be totally beyond
>> the comprehension of Ug, but he would soon learn where to put his leg
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>The Celestial Chicken is confident enough in the WAY, not to be frightened by
>progress.

That's always good to know.(:-)
J666 - 28 Apr 2008 21:12 GMT
>> Through science, the chickens today are much better than before. The
>> Celestial Chicken welcomes science as a way for man to improve himself.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> That's always good to know.(:-)

Cannot go wrong following the WAY of the Celestial Chicken
Pastor Frank - 27 Apr 2008 20:46 GMT
>> Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> that and do not know the difference, then no sense continuing since we are
> not using  the same meanings of the words.

   The scientific method does not apply to qualities, and religion concerns
itself solely with qualities of a person which will advance the Kingdom of
God.
Dubh Ghall - 28 Apr 2008 19:18 GMT
>Do you have faith in the scientific method?

Dishonest semantics.

Besides: In science, faith is irrelevant
monkfish - 28 Apr 2008 20:41 GMT
>>Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>
> Dishonest semantics.
>
> Besides: In science, faith is irrelevant

Where did you get that blind faith?
Can you say the same thing without resorting to faith?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

Dubh Ghall - 29 Apr 2008 00:20 GMT
>>>Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>Where did you get that blind faith?
>Can you say the same thing without resorting to faith?

I already did.
monkfish - 29 Apr 2008 01:43 GMT
>>>>Do you have faith in the scientific method?
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> I already did.

Is it your blind faith
that faith is irrelevant in science?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

Fred Jones - 27 Apr 2008 20:00 GMT
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan
>
> <><
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofsByGOD

Matthew 7:7.  Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock,
and it shall be opened unto you:
                8.  for every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh
findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.
                9.  Or what man is there of you, who, if his son shall ask him
for a loaf, will give him a stone;
              10.  or if he shall ask for a fish, will give him a serpent?
              11.  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto
your children, how much more shall your Father who is in heaven give good things
to them that ask him?

James 5:15.  and the prayer of faith shall save him that is sick, and the Lord
shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, it shall be forgiven him.
            16.  Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray one for
another, that ye may be healed. The supplication of a righteous man availeth
much in its working.

It would seem to me that doctors should be out of work if this prayer thing is
so true.

James 5:17.  Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed fervently
that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth for three years and six
months.
            18.  And he prayed again; and the heaven gave rain, and the earth
brought forth her fruit.

I'll tell you what doc, the next hurricane that comes up. Pray real fervent like
with all that humble crap you like to talk about and ask god to make it
disappear, not change direction disappear. We'll see what happens.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 27 Apr 2008 21:55 GMT
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> It would seem to me that doctors should be out of work if this prayer thing is
> so true.

Clearly you are blind to the following facts:

(1) Many are like yourself without faith in LORD Jesus Christ.

(2) Without faith in LORD Jesus Christ, there is no way to be
righteous:

http://TruthRUS.org/BeRight

> James 5:17.  Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed fervently
> that it might not rain; and it rained not on the earth for three years and six
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> with all that humble crap you like to talk about and ask god to make it
> disappear, not change direction disappear. We'll see what happens.

That has already happened with Hurricane Katrina when many of HIS
brethren prayed faithfully so that GOD mercifully weakened the
category 5 hurricane and changed its direction, else there would have
been casualties rivaling those of the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004 when
283,100 lives were lost.  Instead, only 1836 lives were lost in 2005
because of Hurricane Katrina despite 81.2 billion dollars worth of
property damage so that GOD still made HIS point regarding Who is
sovereign and that we have strayed from HIM for the love of money.

This reminds me of 9/11/2001 when GOD allowed 3 symbols of American
power to be attacked:

(1) New York World Trade Center Towers - Symbolizing American Economic
Power

**Destroyed** with loss of more life (2998) than Katrina 4 years later
to teach us that we have strayed from HIM for the love of money.

(2) Pentagon - Symbolizing American Military Power

**Damaged** with some loss of life (125) to teach us that our faith
should remain with HIM rather than in our military power.

(3) United States Capitol - Symbolizing American Government.

No damage and no loss of life to inform us that as our KING of kings
and LORD of lords, HE is the Authority of the government of the United
States, which has "One nation under GOD" in its pledge of allegiance
and "In GOD we trust" on its currency.

Therefore, GOD did not allow harm to happen to that which glorifies
HIM !

Laus Deo ! ! !

http://HeartMDPhD.com/LausDeo

May we, who are Christians, continue to pray for your perishing soul,
dear Fred:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForFred

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
Fred Jones - 27 Apr 2008 22:09 GMT
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> (2) Without faith in LORD Jesus Christ, there is no way to be
> righteous:

Those are facts? Where does the data come from for support?

> http://TruthRUS.org/BeRight
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> property damage so that GOD still made HIS point regarding Who is
> sovereign and that we have strayed from HIM for the love of money.

This is not such a merciful god to let any body die from that storm. You don't
know much about hurricanes do you? Cat 5 storms generally fall apart some what
before making land fall. Nothing happened out of the ordinary. This god let down
on his promise and killed 1836 people. This is an evil god.

> This reminds me of 9/11/2001 when GOD allowed 3 symbols of American
> power to be attacked:
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 27 Apr 2008 22:31 GMT
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>
> Those are facts?

Yes.

> Where does the data come from for support?

You have provided the data with your observation that doctors are not
out of work.

In your blindness to facts, you misapplied your observation toward
concluding that the faithful prayers of the righteous are unanswered.

> >> James 5:17.  Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed
> >> fervently
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
> know much about hurricanes do you? Cat 5 storms generally fall apart some what
> before making land fall.

In 1998, Hurricane Mitch did not fall apart and killed 11,000 - 18,000
people in the less populated country of Honduras.

> Nothing happened out of the ordinary. This god let down
> on his promise and killed 1836 people. This is an evil god.

Most assuredly, without doubt, I know GOD to be kind, just, and right
(Jeremiah 9:24).

> > This reminds me of 9/11/2001 when GOD allowed 3 symbols of American
> > power to be attacked:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> >
> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/LausDeo

May we, who are Christians, continue to pray for your perishing soul,
dear Fred:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForFred

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
Dancing Monkey - 27 Apr 2008 22:36 GMT
>> > http://TruthRUS.orgy/Fiction
>>
>> Those are facts?
>
> Yes.

Chang - do that back flip, quick!!!
Fred Jones - 27 Apr 2008 23:16 GMT
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 50 lines]
> You have provided the data with your observation that doctors are not
> out of work.

So prayer does not work.

> In your blindness to facts, you misapplied your observation toward
> concluding that the faithful prayers of the righteous are unanswered.

Faithful, unfaithful, righteous, unrighteous, does not matter prayer does not
work.

>> >> James 5:17.  Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed
>> >> fervently
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> In 1998, Hurricane Mitch did not fall apart and killed 11,000 - 18,000
> people in the less populated country of Honduras.

I worked the restoration effort after the storm, I know what happened. The
flooding afterwards is what killed so many people. A lot of that can be
attributed to the people of Honduras, just like with Katrina. The people were
warned, they were told to leave, they stayed. The rest is history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Mitch
hurricane hit Honduras as a minimal hurricane. It drifted through Central
America, reformed in the Bay of Campeche, and ultimately struck Florida as a
strong tropical storm.

>> Nothing happened out of the ordinary. This god let down
>> on his promise and killed 1836 people. This is an evil god.
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 27 Apr 2008 23:25 GMT
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 53 lines]
>
> So prayer does not work.

Personally, GOD has answered all my prayers.

> > In your blindness to facts, you misapplied your observation toward
> > concluding that the faithful prayers of the righteous are unanswered.
>
> Faithful, unfaithful, righteous, unrighteous, does not matter prayer does not
> work.

Personally, GOD has answered all my prayers.

> >> >> James 5:17.  Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed
> >> >> fervently
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> America, reformed in the Bay of Campeche, and ultimately struck Florida as a
> strong tropical storm.

Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly affirm that Hurricane Katrina could have killed
many more people if it were not for HIS mercy and grace upon hearing
the faithful prayers of the righteous.

> >> Nothing happened out of the ordinary. This god let down
> >> on his promise and killed 1836 people. This is an evil god.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> >> >
> >> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/LausDeo

May we, who are Christians, continue to pray for your perishing soul,
dear Fred:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForFred

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
Fred Jones - 27 Apr 2008 23:35 GMT
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
>
> Personally, GOD has answered all my prayers.

Good for you.

>> > In your blindness to facts, you misapplied your observation toward
>> > concluding that the faithful prayers of the righteous are unanswered.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Personally, GOD has answered all my prayers.

Good for you.

>> >> >> James 5:17.  Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed
>> >> >> fervently
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
> many more people if it were not for HIS mercy and grace upon hearing
> the faithful prayers of the righteous.

I suppose those that did die, did so because of gods plan?

>> >> Nothing happened out of the ordinary. This god let down
>> >> on his promise and killed 1836 people. This is an evil god.
[quoted text clipped - 43 lines]
> A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 27 Apr 2008 23:42 GMT
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 61 lines]
>
> Good for you.

The glory is all HIS.

> >> > In your blindness to facts, you misapplied your observation toward
> >> > concluding that the faithful prayers of the righteous are unanswered.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Good for you.

Again, the glory is all HIS.

> >> >> >> James 5:17.  Elijah was a man of like passions with us, and he prayed
> >> >> >> fervently
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
>
> I suppose those that did die, did so because of gods plan?

Without the LORD, your supposings and guesses are meaningless
(Ecclesiastes).

> >> >> Nothing happened out of the ordinary. This god let down
> >> >> on his promise and killed 1836 people. This is an evil god.
[quoted text clipped - 29 lines]
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://HeartMDPhD.com/LausDeo

May we, who are Christians, continue to pray for your perishing soul,
dear Fred:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForFred

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
Fred Jones - 27 Apr 2008 23:47 GMT
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 146 lines]
> Without the LORD, your supposings and guesses are meaningless
> (Ecclesiastes).

So then you agree.

>> >> >> Nothing happened out of the ordinary. This god let down
>> >> >> on his promise and killed 1836 people. This is an evil god.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> May we, who are Christians, continue to pray for your perishing soul,
> dear Fred:

News flash love, neither you nor I have a soul.

> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForFred
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> A latter-day disciple of the KING of kings and LORD of lords.
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/DiscipleNow
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 28 Apr 2008 01:42 GMT
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> >> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 141 lines]
>
> So then you agree.

Incorrect.  I answered your question.

> >> >> >> Nothing happened out of the ordinary. This god let down
> >> >> >> on his promise and killed 1836 people. This is an evil god.
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
>
> News flash love, neither you nor I have a soul.

It is by your soul that the Holy Spirit convicts you:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts

It is by our souls, that we, who are Christians, are praying for your
perishing soul.

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
Agent Haskell, IRS - 10 May 2008 07:36 GMT
On Apr 27, 6:25 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<heartdo...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:

> Personally, GOD has answered all my prayers.

Pray for employment.
J666 - 25 Apr 2008 15:03 GMT
> "I refuse to prove I exist", says god. "Because proof denies
> faith and without faith, I am nothing"
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> the lack of evidence.
> [Richard Dawkins]

³Religions die when they are proved to be true. Science is the record of dead
religions.²  Oscar Wilde

³Faith is believing in things when common sense tells you not to² George
Seaton

³'Faith' means not wanting to know what is true²  Friedrich Nietzsche

"The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason.² Benjamin Franklin
Andrew - 25 Apr 2008 16:37 GMT
>> Fith means something akin to 'trust'. It's living in the assumption
>> that you are right about something about which you could be mistaken.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> faith and without faith, I am nothing"
> [Douglas Adams].

Be very careful here. Whatever Adams's religious beliefs, he was quite
happy to satirise anyone. I fear your argument here may be a pile of
dingo's kidneys.

> "Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational
> thinking, which leads by a slippery slope toward
> constitutional democracy."
> [Robert Anton Wilson]

Unless you think belief in constitutional democracy also involves an
act of faith.

> Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
> evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
> Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
> the lack of evidence.
> [Richard Dawkins]

But then Richard Dawkins is sufficiently intellectually dishonest on
the subject of religion for me to care little for what he says on the
matter.
monkfish - 25 Apr 2008 19:51 GMT
>> > Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith
>> > to believe. You must have faith to understand. What is faith and why
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> of, the lack of evidence.
> [Richard Dawkins]

Without faith in the scientific method,
we cannot do any science.
Without faith in God,
we cannot understand the meaning of existence.

Faith is trust in human beings, nature,
and reality itself.
Without it,
you would not even know who you are.

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 25 Apr 2008 20:00 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Faith

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/KnowingHIM
monkfish - 24 Apr 2008 22:09 GMT
> Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith to
> believe. You must have faith to understand. What is faith and why is it
> such a popular buzz-word in the christian world? Is it used wrong? Is it
> used right? Is it used too much like the word love so that it has lost
> it's real meaning?

Wonderful!
You have to come to your senses
and are asking questions instead of regurgitating
whatever you have swallowed in blind faith.

What is faith?
To whom?
Of what?
In what?
Where?
In what context?

How many points of perspectives can you think of
to view the question from?

Signature

monkfish       * alt.atheism is removed from the header
because atheists there consider quoting the Bible proselytizing
and as such it is prohibited by their undebatable policy.

duke - 07 May 2008 18:10 GMT
>Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith to believe.
>You must have faith to understand. What is faith and why is it such a popular
>buzz-word in the christian world? Is it used wrong? Is it used right? Is it used
>too much like the word love so that it has lost it's real meaning?

Hebrews 11:1 (New International Version)
1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 07 May 2008 21:28 GMT
> >Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith to believe.
> >You must have faith to understand. What is faith and why is it such a popular
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Hebrews 11:1 (New International Version)
>  1Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

A person putting his/her faith in the unseen pilot of a Boeing 747
Jetliner would surely hope to get to his/her destination in one piece
and would surely be certain that the unseen pilot is competent to do
the job.

GOD is infinitely greater than any such unseen pilot who typically
does not even know his/her passengers' names simply by HIS knowing
each one of us here on earth by name and more.

Thus, GOD is deserving of all our faith in HIM and more.

Indeed, it is when an atheist's faith is shaken as perhaps in this
example by severe turbulence tearing the plane apart, that we are
likely to witness his/her realization that his/her faith is best
placed in GOD.

Let us continue to pray for the perishing souls of non-believers, in
Jesus' awesome name.

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Love
J A - 07 May 2008 23:12 GMT
>> >Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith to
>> >believe.
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> and would surely be certain that the unseen pilot is competent to do
> the job.

The difference, dummy, is that the pilot can be verified to actually exist,
whereas "god" doesn't, and can't.
Agent Haskell, IRS - 08 May 2008 00:42 GMT
> >> >Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith to
> >> >believe.
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> The difference, dummy, is that the pilot can be verified to actually exist,
> whereas "god" doesn't, and can't.

I'd sooner be comfortable with Vinnie Barbarino at
the yoke rather than jebus.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 08 May 2008 08:48 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/TooStupidsatan

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthCutssatan
Agent Haskell, IRS - 09 May 2008 06:16 GMT
On May 8, 3:48 am, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <lov...@thetruth.com>
wrote:
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/TooStupidsatan
>
> <><
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthCutssatan

And Horshack as the navigator.
Guardian Snow - 09 May 2008 06:58 GMT
> And Horshack as the navigator.

A frequent problem in history is a common thread that lies between those
who are in the medical profession and serial killers.  Consider the
likes of Jack the Ripper or Chicago's "Devil in the White City".

Devil in the White City was a little known Doctor during the Chicago
World Fair that started killing his patients and selling the bones to
Chicago University for classroom purposes.  When considering the
Antisocial behavior of Chung, we find many things to compare between his
reactions.

First off is the assumption that his will is, "The will of God" or that
of the "Holy Spirit".  Notice that he assumes the role of judge, jury
and executioner for anybody that doesn't agree with him. Public posting
of pages to attempt to shame then which he then repast links to on a
daily bases.  Not people like Mark (me) but CONVICTs or some other label
that makes them less human in his view.

His role is without question in his self deluded states, that of God. He
assumes that he is righteous in all his actions because of this delusion.

Then we have cases like Dr. Harold Shipman.

> http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/shipman/dead_1.html

> Raising the Dead
>
> Harold Shipman (AP)
>
> His patients - mainly elderly women - were living alone and
vulnerable. They adored their doctor, Harold "Fred" Shipman.
> Even when their contemporaries began dying in unusually high numbers,
patients remained loyal to the murderous M.D.
> For as long as he spared them, his victims loved their doctor — to death.

When we consider how Chung "dehumanizes" people with whom he disagrees
with by not calling them by name but calling them, "convicts" and
labeling them "convict1", "convict2" or "sock puppets", "satans" which
means they personify evil...  Of which, I myself have earned a title of
besides the fact that I am in fact Christian and profess faith in the
Messiah of scriptures.  It bring to mind stark comparisons between "Dr.
Chung" and The Silence of the Lambs.

I have to wonder if he's not starving some poor girl in his basement
telling her, "It puts the lotion on".

This summery is particularly interesting...

"I'm the most cold-blooded sonofabitch you'll ever meet," said Ted
Bundy. "I just liked to kill, I wanted to kill." The hallmark of the
psychopath is the inability to recognize others as worthy of compassion.
Victims are dehumanized, flattened into worthless objects in the
murderer's mind. John Gacy, never showing an ounce of remorse, called
his victims "worthless little queers and punks," while the "Yorkshire
Ripper" Peter Sutcliffe brashly declared that he was "cleaning up the
streets" of the human trash.

In the 19th century, psychopathology was considered to be "moral
insanity". Today it is commonly known as "antisocial personality
disorder" or "sociopathology." Current experts believe that sociopaths
are an unfortunate fusion of interpersonal, biological and sociocultural
disasters.

Psychopaths/sociopaths are diagnosed by their purposeless and irrational
antisocial behavior, lack of conscience, and emotional vacuity. They are
thrill seekers, literally fearless. Punishment rarely works, because
they are impulsive by nature and fearless of the consequences. Incapable
of having meaningful relationships, they view others as fodder for
manipulation and exploitation. According to one psychological surveying
tool (DSM IIIR) between 3-5% of men are sociopaths; less than 1% of
female population are sociopaths.

Psychopaths often make successful businessmen or world leaders. Not all
psychopaths are motivated to kill. But when it is easy to devalue
others, and you have had a lifetime of perceived injustices and
rejection, murder might seem like a natural choice.

The following are environmental factors, psychiatrists say, which create
a sociopath:

    *
      Studies show that 60% of psychopathic individuals had lost a parent;
    *
      Child is deprived of love or nurturing; parents are detached or
absent;
    *
      Inconsistent discipline: if father is stern and mother is soft,
child learns to hate authority and manipulate mother;
    *
      Hypocritical parents who privately belittle the child while
publicly presenting the image of a "happy family".

Genetics

Tests are showing that the nervous system of the psychopath is markedly
different — they feel less fear and anxiety than normal people. One
carefully conducted experiment revealed that "low arousal levels" not
only causes impulsiveness and thrill-seeking, but also showed how dense
sociopaths are when it comes to changing their behavior. A group of
sociopaths and a group of healthy individuals were given a task, which
was to learn what lever (out of four) turned on a green light. One lever
gave the subject an electric shock. Both groups made the same number of
errors, but the healthy group quickly learned to avoid the punishing
electric shock, while sociopaths took much longer to do so.

This need for higher levels of stimulation makes the psychopath seek
dangerous situations. When Gacy heard an ambulance, he would follow to
see what sort of exciting catastrophe was in the making. Part of the
reason for many serial killers seeking to become cops is probably due to
the intensity of the job.

Genetics and physiological factors also contribute to the building of a
psychopath. One study in Copenhagen focused on a group of sociopaths who
had been adopted as infants. The biological relatives of sociopaths were
4-5 times more likely to be sociopathic than the average person. Yet
genetics don't tell the whole story; it only shows a predisposition to
antisocial behavior. Environment can make or break the psychopathic
personality.

When a psychopath does inherit genetically-based, developmental
disabilities, its is usually a stunted development of the higher
functions of the brain. 30-38% of psychopaths show abnormal brain wave
patterns, or EEGs. Infants and children typically have slower brain wave
activity, but it increases as they grow up. Not with psychopaths.
Eventually, the brain might mature as the psychopath ages. This may be
why most serial killers are under 50. The abnormal brain wave activity
comes from the temporal lobes and the limbic system of the brain, the
areas that control memory and emotions. When development of this part of
the brain is genetically impaired, and the parents of the child are
abusive, irresponsible or manipulative, the stage is set for disaster.

Can psychopaths be successfully treated? According to the psychiatrists,
"No." Shock treatment doesn't work; drugs have not proven successful in
treatment; and psychotherapy, which involves trust and a relationship
with the therapist, is out of the question, because psychopaths are
incapable of opening up to others. They don't want to change.

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/notorious/tick/psych_6.html
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 09 May 2008 07:41 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Stupidsatan

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Warns
Agent Haskell, IRS - 09 May 2008 07:46 GMT
> > And Horshack as the navigator.
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> Antisocial behavior of Chung, we find many things to compare between his
> reactions.

(snip rest of informative post, to save space)

So Chung is like Kevorkian's evil opposite?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 09 May 2008 07:55 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthCutssatan
J A - 10 May 2008 00:12 GMT
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan
>
> <><
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthCutssatan

Andrew, do you ever have the feeling that you are shrinking in size?

(followup addresses restored )
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 09 May 2008 23:29 GMT
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan

<><

http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthStabssatan
J A - 10 May 2008 01:36 GMT
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan
>
> <><
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/      Truth    Stabs    the chung demon
monkfish - 10 May 2008 01:50 GMT
>> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> (followup addresses restored )

You really shouldn't have.

Signature

monkfish   * alt.atheism is removed from the header because trying to prove
the existence of God is prohibited by their undebatable policy.
** Atheists have blind faith in their ability to know of all actual or
possible modes of existence. Such hubris cannot be good for science.

Agent Haskell, IRS - 10 May 2008 07:38 GMT
> >http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan
>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> (followup addresses restored )

Hell, maybe we could replace Chung with Horschack.
Sanity's Little Helper - 10 May 2008 12:04 GMT
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <