 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / May 2008What is faith?
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? > 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. > > 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] http://HeartMDPhD.com/Doomedsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofsByGOD 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, 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 >> 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, 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 >> 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, 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 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 http://HeartMDPhD.com/PrayForBill <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Faithful > "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?  Signaturemonkfish * 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" <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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. 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 >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. >>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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. >>>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. >>>>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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. > 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. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Worthlesssatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthBeatssatan > 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. > Thats is easy. Faith is believing in something for which there is no > objective verifable evidence! Do you have faith in the scientific method? Signaturemonkfish * 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. > 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. 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 >> 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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. >>> 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. >>>> 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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. >>>>> 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. >>>>>> 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 Signaturemonkfish * 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.” 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? > 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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. >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. >>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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. > 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. >> 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.(:-) >> 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 >> 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. >Do you have faith in the scientific method? Dishonest semantics. Besides: In science, faith is irrelevant >>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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. >>>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. >>>>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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. > 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, 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 >> 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, 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 >> > http://TruthRUS.orgy/Fiction >> >> Those are facts? > > Yes. Chang - do that back flip, quick!!! >> 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, 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 >> 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, 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 >> 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, 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 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. > "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 >> 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. >> > 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. Signaturemonkfish * 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. http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Faith <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/KnowingHIM > 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? Signaturemonkfish * 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. >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 ***** > >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 >> >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. > >> >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. http://HeartMDPhD.com/TooStupidsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthCutssatan 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. > 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 http://HeartMDPhD.com/Stupidsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Warns > > 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? http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthCutssatan > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan > > <>< > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthCutssatan Andrew, do you ever have the feeling that you are shrinking in size? (followup addresses restored ) http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthStabssatan > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan > > <>< > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/ Truth Stabs the chung demon >> http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (followup addresses restored ) You really shouldn't have. Signaturemonkfish * 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. > >http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > (followup addresses restored ) Hell, maybe we could replace Chung with Horschack. "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love15@thetruth.com> barked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91osdKotK8I SignatureDavid Silverman aa #2208 Defender of Civilisation Lord Mayor of Dis Lawful copyright holder of the term "Earthquack". Not authentic without this signature. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Whimperingsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthCutssatan >>> >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. And which airline do you fly that let's you personally inspect the flight deck while in flight? I just want to know so the next time I need to fly... >>>> >Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith >>>> >to believe. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > deck while in flight? I just want to know so the next time I need to > fly... It says a lot about your level of intelligence that you think that's a clever reply. If you know of an airline that flies without pilots, and doesn't document those pilots, and that couldn't prove that it has pilots up front while the plane is in the air, let us know. On the other hand, whyt don't you just have your supernatural beings show themselves to mankind and prove their powers? And don't tell me they did thousands of years ago, as the bible has been shown to anything but credible. >>>>> >Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith >>>>> >to believe. [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > It says a lot about your level of intelligence that you think that's a > clever reply. It says a lot about yours you think you know what I think. > If you know of an airline that flies without pilots, and doesn't document > those pilots, and that couldn't prove that it has pilots up front while > the plane is in the air, let us know. You're asking me to prove to you there's an airline that doesn't have certain properties? Don't you know you can't prove a negative? > On the other hand, whyt don't you just have your supernatural beings show > themselves to mankind and prove their powers? > > And don't tell me they did thousands of years ago, as the bible has been > shown to anything but credible. Fine, I won't. But now you're making a positive claim for which you provide no evidence whatsoever. You're saying someone has "shown" the Bible is not credible. To whom are you referring? And don't tell me about some nondescript no-mind with a grudge against religion and enough spare time to keep a website. They have been shown to be anything but credible ;-) >>>>>> >Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have faith >>>>>> >to believe. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > It says a lot about yours you think you know what I think. I don't say I "know what you think", I said your reply was stupid. >> If you know of an airline that flies without pilots, and doesn't document >> those pilots, and that couldn't prove that it has pilots up front while >> the plane is in the air, let us know. > > You're asking me to prove to you there's an airline that doesn't have > certain properties? Don't you know you can't prove a negative? Again, not very bright. If you say a bucket is empty, and someone asks you to prove it, you just show them the bucket. Show us an airline that flies without pilots. The FAA and the airlines all keep records, and showing us the records for flights without pilots would be the same as showing us the empty bucket. >> On the other hand, whyt don't you just have your supernatural beings show >> themselves to mankind and prove their powers? >> >> And don't tell me they did thousands of years ago, as the bible has been >> shown to anything but credible. > Fine, I won't. But now you're making a positive claim for which you > provide no evidence whatsoever. You're saying someone has "shown" the > Bible is not credible. To whom are you referring? And don't tell me > about some nondescript no-mind with a grudge against religion and enough > spare time to keep a website. They have been shown to be anything but > credible ;-) Moron, the bible makes claims that earth was created in a matter of days, that woman was created from a man's rib, and that people used to live hundreds of years. Are you saying science hasn't disproved those things? >>>>>>> >Just what is faith? You here of it all the time. You must have >>>>>>> >faith to believe. [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > If you say a bucket is empty, and someone asks you to prove it, you just > show them the bucket. You seem to be missing the point. You say every airline flight has a pilot, even though you can't see them, and have none of this verification you're talking about. No one has suggested that airlines fly without pilots; only that YOU'RE taking it on faith they don't. You can yammer all you want about "verification" and "evidence", but you don't have any worth a damn...and yet you believe. >>> On the other hand, whyt don't you just have your supernatural beings >>> show themselves to mankind and prove their powers? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Moron, the bible makes claims that earth was created in a matter of days, No it doesn't. Try doing a bit of research into the metaphors of the day in which Genesis was written. > that woman was created from a man's rib, and that people used to live > hundreds of years. > > Are you saying science hasn't disproved those things? If anything, I think science has shown it's possible to make a whole new person out of the tissue of another; that it doesn't even require a miracle. As for the genealogies in Genesis, many Bible scholars I've read don't believe they really do intend to convey that people lived hundreds of years. But it's certainly not impossible that they did just because it's impossible now. Things change over time...or didn't you ever read Origin of Species? Now you've just shown me that you are confused; and think bad manners equates to valid argument. As such, you're a waste of my time. Chuck Stamford >> If you say a bucket is empty, and someone asks you to prove it, you just >> show them the bucket. > You seem to be missing the point. You say every airline flight has a > pilot, even though you can't see them, and have none of this verification > you're talking about. Anyone can go to an airport and use their eyes to verify all the flights leaving have pilots. > No one has suggested that airlines fly without pilots; Yes you did. You said that verification that airliners have pilots, is analogous to verifying there are supernatural beings guiding our lives. It's obviously a totally stupid comparison. >only that YOU'RE taking it on faith they don't. You can yammer all you >want about "verification" and "evidence", but you don't have any worth a >damn...and yet you believe. What are you babbling about? You seem to be reversing your postion, but you're incoherent. >>>> On the other hand, whyt don't you just have your supernatural beings >>>> show themselves to mankind and prove their powers? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >>> spare time to keep a website. They have been shown to be anything but >>> credible ;-) >> Moron, the bible makes claims that earth was created in a matter of days, > > No it doesn't. Try doing a bit of research into the metaphors of the day > in which Genesis was written. LOL. What a worm-out. It says what it says. Now you're saying "god" didn't know how to describe his creation of the earth. >> that woman was created from a man's rib, and that people used to live >> hundreds of years. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > person out of the tissue of another; that it doesn't even require a > miracle. So we're all laboratory clones now with identical genes. That might appeal to your inbred mind, but I don't think science supports it. > As for the genealogies in Genesis, many Bible scholars I've read don't > believe they really do intend to convey that people lived hundreds of > years. LOL. Again, you "god" could create the world, but couldn't write a coherent description? > But it's certainly not impossible that they did just because it's > impossible now. Things change over time...or didn't you ever read Origin > of Species? > > Now you've just shown me that you are confused; and think bad manners > equates to valid argument. As such, you're a waste of my time. Your defense of the bible is laughble, like your defense of the existence of airliner pilots existing to the existence of supernatural beings. Since you believe in the bible, you must also believe in this passage which sets out "god's" rules for fathers selling daughters into sexual slavery. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT) When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Meaninglesssatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthStabssatan > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Meaninglesssatan > > <>< > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthStabssatan Stupid, repetitive, brainless git. >>> If you say a bucket is empty, and someone asks you to prove it, you just >>> show them the bucket. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Anyone can go to an airport and use their eyes to verify all the flights > leaving have pilots. Now who's being a moron? What would that prove, if the issue is has ANY flight EVER flown without a pilot? Absolutely nothing. Commerical passenger flights have been taking off world-wide since before you were born! There are how many airports in the world? And how many flights a day take off from them? Yet, because you need to deflect attention from the fact you're taking it on FAITH that no flight has ever flown without a pilot (which is an perfectly reasonable BELIEF, btw, but you need to acknowledge that it IS a belief, and one for which you have no "verification" whatsoever!), you resort to this "anyone can" nonsense. Well, the fact is, no one can. All anyone "can" do is try to resurrect as many flight records world wide as they can, to help empirically justify their BELIEF. The main justification, however, would remain common sense, which tells us that if commercial airlines haver always been designed so that they cannot fly unless piloted by a pilot - ergo, all commercial airlines that fly are piloted. However, nothing in that common sense rationale precludes a commercial airline being piloted by an "unseen" pilot, as is proved to me each and every time I fly and don't ever see the pilot. Now go away, you miserable person, and spew your hatred and bile on someone else. Chuck Stamford >>>> If you say a bucket is empty, and someone asks you to prove it, you >>>> just show them the bucket. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Now who's being a moron? What would that prove, if the issue is has ANY > flight EVER flown without a pilot? You're being the moron - you're incompetently trying to foist a false argument. Chung's (5/7) post said: " 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. " So there it is moron - you're incompetently trying to foist a false argument. All 747 airliners have pilots, and that can be verified by going up front to see them and/or checking all the documentation thta accompanies flight regulations. Howerver, nobody can get your supernatural beings to show themselves, and nobody can construct and evidence they exist. Absolutely nothing. Commerical > passenger flights have been taking off world-wide since before you were > born! There are how many airports in the world? And how many flights a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > airline being piloted by an "unseen" pilot, as is proved to me each and > every time I fly and don't ever see the pilot. That's becasue you're an idiot who thinks the closed cockpit door is analogous to the lack of evidence backing your moronic myth tales If you think proof of the existence of a pilot on an airliner, is of the same kind problem as proof of "god", you are truly a stupid a.s. > Now go away, you miserable person, and spew your hatred and bile on > someone else. It is the the stupid a.s, that being you, who should go away. Now scat, moronic twerp. > Chuck Stamford http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted: > >> satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Now who's being a moron? Wiser to simply rebuke satan and move on: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/Rebukesatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Love > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Wiser to simply rebuke satan and move on: You're a weasel who can't defend his corrupt mythology, that's why you hide behind mindless repetition. > If anything, I think science has shown it's possible to make a whole new > person out of the tissue of another; that it doesn't even require a miracle. It requires an aseptic lab environment. Extraction of the donor DNA requires a microscope. The clone itself is an exact duplicate of the donor, meaning the same sex. >> If anything, I think science has shown it's possible to make a whole new >> person out of the tissue of another; that it doesn't even require a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > donor DNA requires a microscope. The clone itself is an > exact duplicate of the donor, meaning the same sex. Thank you for belaboring the obvious. > >> If anything, I think science has shown it's possible to make a whole new > >> person out of the tissue of another; that it doesn't even require a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thank you for belaboring the obvious. The obvious what? That god really _did_ create Adam and Steve? You'll never be able to blame us atheists for THAT one. >> >> If anything, I think science has shown it's possible to make a whole >> >> new [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > The obvious what? Trouble reading your own posts? Chuck Stamford > >> >> If anything, I think science has shown it's possible to make a whole > >> >> new [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Trouble reading your own posts? Struck a nerve? http://HeartMDPhD.com/Foolishsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/TruthCutssatan >> >> > On May 11, 2:55 am, "Chuck Stamford" <shell__stamf...@cox.net> >> >> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Struck a nerve? Just curious. You don't seem to recognize your own post when I made a reference to it. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly queried: > > > Struck a nerve? > > Just curious. You don't seem to recognize your own post when I made a > reference to it. It does require an inordinate amount of effort for satan to keep track of his lies: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Liarsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofsByGOD > >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. IOW 'Faith' = 'brainwashed' > duke, American-American > ***** > "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer." > Pope Paul VI > ***** >> >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 - 7 lines] > > IOW 'Faith' = 'brainwashed' By whom, with what? How come you are not? Signaturemonkfish * 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. > By whom, with what? > How come you are not? Why? Where? Who? When? Which? > > By whom, with what? > > How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > When? > Which? the above monkfish's 'stock in trade' Faith is simply not believing that God is going to play any tricks on you. ---firefly >> > By whom, with what? >> > How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the above > monkfish's 'stock in trade' >>> By whom, with what? >>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the above > monkfish's 'stock in trade' Yes, monkfish's (aka DejaVuJr's) stock in stupidity. Obviously just a troll, and not a very good one. I wonder if monkfish is good at anything. Can anyone come up with something, anything, that monkfish does well or even not badly? > Can anyone come up with something, anything, that monkfish does well or even > not badly? Monkfish is at the moment infinitely better off than either satan or his legion of sockpuppets (corporeal demons) who have unwisely blasphemed against the Holy Spirit: http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Warns <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForMonkfish >> Can anyone come up with something, anything, that monkfish does well or >> even [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts/PrayForMonkfish Rather faint praise that monkfish is better satan and his demons. Hardly sonmething monkfish would want to put on his/her/its resume >>>> By whom, with what? >>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Can anyone come up with something, anything, that monkfish does well or even > not badly? He irritates folk like you. And he does have a point. There are plenty of atheists who come onto this group demanding answers to all sorts of questions. Perhaps he's simply replying in kind. On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:59:32 -0500, Andrew wrote > He irritates folk like you. And he does have a point. There are plenty > of atheists who come onto this group demanding answers to all sorts of > questions. Perhaps he's simply replying in kind. What you, and monkfish, say is really worthless and so do not find it irritating, but at times amusing. At least monkfish is not giving medical advice and using an MD signature. It seems very strange coming from you, who says you have the truth, that you would be complaining when people come looking for answers. Of course, they are not accepting your answers, so you view them as unreasonable Your comment about "simply replying in kind" is very interesting as it seems that is exactly what you are doing. > On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:59:32 -0500, Andrew wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What you, and monkfish, say is really worthless Likewise, I'm sure. > and so do not find it > irritating, but at times amusing. At least monkfish is not giving medical > advice and using an MD signature. > > It seems very strange coming from you, who says you have the truth, Have I said that? I don't think so. Please feel free to search my posts if that is possible for you. I have belief and I have faith. Truth? I know what I think is true. It takes a real dogmatic - as many of whom can be found among the ranks of atheists as among the theists - to claim one has "the Truth". Please be aware, however, that I am not the Andrew who uses an MD signature. I'm just a science teacher with no pretensions beyond that. > that you > would be complaining when people come looking for answers. Of course, they > are not accepting your answers, so you view them as unreasonable No. I don't. I think they are entirely reasonable (sometimes). I appreciate that they are working from different assumptions an experiences from my own and that makes it hard for them to accept my answers. > Your comment about "simply replying in kind" is very interesting as it seems > that is exactly what you are doing. Fun, isn't it? >>>>> By whom, with what? >>>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > of atheists who come onto this group demanding answers to all sorts of > questions. Perhaps he's simply replying in kind. Aren't you too young to have heart problems? Signaturemonkfish * 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. > >>>> By whom, with what? > >>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > of atheists who come onto this group demanding answers to all sorts of > questions. Perhaps he's simply replying in kind. Yes Andrew we are annoying people with our logic and direct questioning, which, of course is why we are atheists. We are devoid of faith, many of us had that knocked out of us by the rough and tumble of every day real life. Why do 'Believers' get so uptight about atheism? If so convinced god is real atheists can be disregarded. >> >>>> By whom, with what? >> >>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Why do 'Believers' get so uptight about atheism? If so > convinced god is real atheists can be disregarded. You are so full of blind faith that you are difficult to be made aware of it. Do you believe that we are all created equal? Signaturemonkfish * 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. >>> >>>> By whom, with what? >>> >>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> Why do 'Believers' get so uptight about atheism? If so >> convinced god is real atheists can be disregarded. It's you Bob who is trolling out pristine Christian NGs and are "uptight about" us believers, not the other way around. We all told you now so many times, that your god, that invisible creature in the sky, that frightens you so much, does indeed not exist. For our Christian "God is love" (1 John 4:8,16) become fully manifested in Jesus Christ giving His life for us sinners on the cross of Calvary. We therefore know our God and have seen Him through Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour. (Jesus in John 14:6-10) Atheists don't know our God and therefore can't see manifestations of love and care in human beings, and to the death if need be, such as we see in Jesus Christ. (Jesus in John 3:3) > > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted: > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > love and care in human beings, and to the death if need be, such as we see > in Jesus Christ. (Jesus in John 3:3) Actually, satan is not an atheist: http://HeartMDPhD.com/Narcissticsatan However, he does keep some of his sockpuppets (corporeal demons) in the dark about the existence of GOD: http://HeartMDPhD.com/CrazySockPuppets <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/ProofsByGOD >> > satan via a sockpuppet (corporeal demon) despairingly posted: >> > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > However, he does keep some of his sockpuppets (corporeal demons) in > the dark about the existence of GOD: "Satan" infects his victims with delusions that supernatural beings exist. You are an example, Andrew. http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/Truthstabssatan >>>>>> By whom, with what? >>>>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Yes Andrew we are annoying people with our logic and direct > questioning, which, of course is why we are atheists. And yet you have an antipathy to those who ask questions in return. > We > are devoid of faith, How touching unself-aware. > many of us had that knocked out of us > by the rough and tumble of every day real life. > > Why do 'Believers' get so uptight about atheism? We don't. Seems to me in recent exchanges with monkfish you're the one who has become increasingly "uptight" > If so > convinced god is real atheists can be disregarded. That would be impolite. > >>>>>> By whom, with what? > >>>>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > We don't. Seems to me in recent exchanges with monkfish you're the one > who has become increasingly "uptight" Ha Ha > > If so > > convinced god is real atheists can be disregarded. > > That would be impolite. Ha Ha ..........You mean "That would be 'impossible" ! http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Warns >>>>>>>> By whom, with what? >>>>>>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > Ha Ha ..........You mean "That would be 'impossible" ! Sorry? You said something? > >>>>>> By whom, with what? > >>>>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > And yet you have an antipathy to those who ask questions in return. No I enjoy an open frank sensible discussion, but I do not enjoy my questions being 'answered' [!] with another question, as so often happens here. > > We > > are devoid of faith, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > That would be impolite. > No I enjoy an open frank sensible discussion, but I do not > enjoy my questions being 'answered' [!] with another > question, as so often happens here. Then do not respond to those who only answer with a question because they are not really interested in adding to a discussion but only getting a response - they are called trolls. There are enough appropriatedly responding to have a discussion without needing the obvious trolls. > > No I enjoy an open frank sensible discussion, but I do not > > enjoy my questions being 'answered' [!] with another [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There are enough appropriatedly responding to have a discussion without > needing the obvious trolls. Well I tend to try a few times in case they repent ! Then I give up >>>> By whom, with what? >>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Can anyone come up with something, anything, that monkfish does well or > even not badly? Laughing at you without name calling? Signaturemonkfish * 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. > >>>> By whom, with what? > >>>> How come you are not? [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Laughing at you without name calling? I did not resort to name calling during our first thirty or so exchanges, but your unhelpful cute and annoying off topic replies become so frustrating no wonder people call you names. You seem incapable [or unwilling] to face anything that questions your religious beliefs head on - mind you I think I know why. > -- > 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. On May 9, 10:18 pm, bob young <alaspect...@netvigator.com> wrote in regards to monkfish: > I did not resort to name calling during our first thirty or > so exchanges, but your unhelpful cute and annoying off topic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > questions your religious beliefs head on - mind you I think > I know why. The reason is that this monkfish is a TROLL - only need to look at his posts to know that - it is really very obvious http://HeartMDPhD.com/Lovelesssatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Warns BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." "... this is a hard world to be ludicrous in, with so many human beings so reluctant to laugh, so incapable of thought, so eager to believe and snarl and hate. So many people wanted to believe me! Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith, I consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!" [Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Mother Night] > http://HeartMDPhD.com/Lovelesssatan > > <>< > > http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Warns http://HeartMDPhD.com/Despairingsatan <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Warns > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "The way to see by faith is to shut the > eye of reason." [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > consider a capacity for it terrifying and absolutely vile!" > [Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Mother Night] Just look at what they have done with their blind faith in Communism! Signaturemonkfish * 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. > > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "The way to see by faith is to shut the > > eye of reason." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Just look at what they have done > with their blind faith in Communism! Look what the People's Temple disciples did with their blind faith in Jim Jones. > > > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "The way to see by faith is to shut the > > > eye of reason." [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Look what the People's Temple disciples did > with their blind faith in Jim Jones. A brilliant example of what religion can do to the mind and how one human can manipulate a crowd just like he manipulates an imaginary god >> > > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "The way to see by faith is to shut the >> > > eye of reason." [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > and how one human can manipulate a crowd > just like he manipulates an imaginary god You guys are almost there in terms of hatred. Signaturemonkfish * 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. > >> > > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "The way to see by faith is to shut the > >> > > eye of reason." [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > You guys are almost there in terms of hatred. http://ffrf.org/awards/heroine/1989_mcqueen.php You just dissed one of the finest, brightest, most gentle, most loving humans ever to grace our planet. Go pee on a transformer. There was a very religious woman who lived in a duplex and man, an atheist, lived next door. Every morning she would go out on the front porch and praise God for the rain or sunshine depending on the weather and the atheist would tell her there was no God. One morning she went outside and praised God and asked God to give her groceries. The next morning she went out and her front porch was filled with groceries. She raised her arms and praised God for the groceries. Her atheist neighbor came out and told her that there was no God and that he, not God, bought and delivered the groceries. At that point she raised her hands and praised God not only for the groceries, but also for having Satan pay for and deliver them. > There was a very religious woman who lived in a duplex and man, an > atheist, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > At that point she raised her hands and praised God not only for the > groceries, but also for having Satan pay for and deliver them. Yes, that story is typical of our braindead friends. That's why it should always be rememered that they are to be treated as a source of amusement. > There was a very religious woman who lived in a duplex and man, an atheist, > lived next door. Every morning she would go out on the front porch and [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > At that point she raised her hands and praised God not only for the > groceries, but also for having Satan pay for and deliver them. That was me, not Satan, and that wasn't groceries in that bag. http://HeartMDPhD.com/CrazySockPuppets <>< http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit/Warns > > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "The way to see by faith is to shut the > > eye of reason." [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Just look at what they have done > with their blind faith in Communism! Yup -the American economy is going to the dogs in the face of mass production odf desirable goods from China. China will be number one in less than fifteen years. The chances are your cell phone was made there > -- > 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. >> > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "The way to see by faith is to shut the >> > eye of reason." [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > The chances are your cell phone was made there They seem to be doing well in spite of Communism. But only after killing tens of millions of their own people. Signaturemonkfish * 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. > >> > BENJAMIN FRANKLIN: "The way to see by faith is to shut the > >> > eye of reason." [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > They seem to be doing well in spite of Communism. > But only after killing tens of millions of their own people. cite all the data with the proofs. Or is this simply more *Imagination* > -- > 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. > They seem to be doing well in spite of Communism. > But only after killing tens of millions of their own people. Give Shrub a third term and he might match the score. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.