Must faith oppose reason?

However im talking specifically of non lethal injuries. a deep cut to the palm of your hand will heal much more quickly under a doctor's care and treatments alone, then it will under a churches prayers alone.

We as a so called civilization have been casting blame and giving blame probably before anyone was inspired to record a metaphysical Genesis. Psychologist seem to have very little problem with the fact that psychology itself evolved from Greek mythology . I read some where that the man I believe to be my great-great - however great uncle worked with and studied micro organisms before Louis Pasteur. No matter who discovers a truth is not relevant to the fact discovered. Inventors seem to create things that did not exist before. A DOCTOR can only enhance the natural ability to heal by controlling the environment of the wound in most cases. Your boss does not fire up a cigarette to put the harmful effects of the smoke in yours or his lungs. The Nobel peace prize winner who brought the chemical balance of our environment to the consciousness of many is probably not doing it because of greed . I believe tobacco smoke and carbon monoxide can be lethal, yet I have burned fuel inefficiently to carry the same lady I drive to church to the tobacco outlet

I fail to see the relevancy to the topic at hand, or how it addresses what i said.

Rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html

Many people fail to see the forest with all of the damn trees in the way
Definition: overly concerned with detail; not understanding the whole situation

Explanation: Used when expressing that a person is focusing too much on specific problems and is missing the point

Examples: I'm afraid you can't see the forest for the trees. - He often can't see the forest for the trees and needs to have the most relevant points explained to him.

My favorite Einstein Quote
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."

"We as a so called civilization have been casting blame and giving blame probably before anyone was inspired to record a metaphysical Genesis."

Yes. We are THE BENCHMARK of civilization. if we are not civilized, then by our standards, no one is. the creation of metaphysical genesis, that is to say a 'substance-less beginning' has nothing to do with ANYTHING, no matter how you look at it.

"Psychologist seem to have very little problem with the fact that psychology itself evolved from Greek mythology ."

Most CULTURES evolved from the Greeks and the Greek mythology (not all of course.) it would be extremely stupid of anyone to say otherwise

"I read some where that the man I believe to be my great-great - however great uncle worked with and studied micro organisms before Louis Pasteur."

congrats. it is irrelevant whether your great great uncle studied micro organisms before or after Louis Pasteur, because despite Pasteur having several amazing medical breakthroughs from his own research, he never claimed to be the first to study it. sequence is irrelevant, success and contribution is relevant.

"No matter who discovers a truth is not relevant to the fact discovered. Inventors seem to create things that did not exist before."

define:Invention-An invention is a new composition, device, or process. An invention may be derived from a pre-existing model or idea, or it could be independently conceived in which case it may be a radical breakthrough. ...

"A DOCTOR can only enhance the natural ability to heal by controlling the environment of the wound in most cases."

Yes. a coat can only keep you warm by controlling the immediate air around your body. oxygen can only alter your brains ability to function by controlling the environmental factors upon it. food can only alter the levels of energy in your body. white blood cells can only alter the effectiveness of your body to fight disease. what the hell is your point?

"Your boss does not fire up a cigarette to put the harmful effects of the smoke in yours or his lungs."

he fires it up because he enjoys it and is probably addicted. this statement is irrelevant.

"The Nobel peace prize winner who brought the chemical balance of our environment to the consciousness of many is probably not doing it because of greed ."

everyone does everything out of greed. even the most devout followers of faith do so for the promise of heaven and salvation from their sins, aka, THEIR OWN BENEFIT.

"I believe tobacco smoke and carbon monoxide can be lethal, yet I have burned fuel inefficiently to carry the same lady I drive to church to the tobacco outlet"

everything is lethal in a high enough dosage, even oxygen. i dont even understand what point youre making here... you are unconcerned with pollution, and are unashamed that you expedite it?

I think i would attribute it to the fact that ever so slowly, all systems are breaking down. a symptom of that breakdown might be the acquisition of more SHIT than is needed within an individual, or the expansion of the universe beyond a threshold, or the eventual destruction of all life.

Yes. a coat can only keep you warm by controlling the immediate air around your body. oxygen can only alter your brains ability to function by controlling the environmental factors upon it. food can only alter the levels of energy in your body. white blood cells can only alter the effectiveness of your body to fight disease. what the hell is your point?

My point is that you do not have to be aware of the ancient perseption of the mind to have your neurons stimulated

What does that have to do with the scientific vs spiritual medicine?

What the hell is my point Hell is a really a poor place to start while discussing Faith because according to the law of opposites doubt belongs with hate and despair. In a solely natural world life begins at a point and it ends at a point . Eternity can only be imagined because science only covers the natural world. All naturalist are doomed anyway so you are correct in assuming that hell should not matter to them. Nature is very unforgiving and our colonies have done as well as the ant colonies with our workers and soldiers . Before you dream about changing the nature of man by destroying his rituals you might want to try to train lower case social creatures

Have you read the old testament? there are some 'rituals' that its good to move forward from.

and the teachings of science are moving farther and farther toward the fore front and prestige of society. i dont need to destroy mankind's rituals, society is doing it for me, and it is replacing it with something far more glorious and fullfilling in real time.

How did you get it in your mind I am against medicine ? I am heavily medicated can't you tell?

Rituals are natural...... good spirituality is a higher path

Come on Mikey, this is your thread and usually the creator of a thread is the one asking for people to stay on topic, not the one tangenting off in every direction like spurts of egg yolk in a hot frying pan.

Faith without knowledge is ignorance
knowledge without faith is inhuman

therefore we must have faith in knowledge, in science.

There is nothing at all wrong with science

I just don't consider all philosophers owners of the truth

I do not agree with the Marxist

..and Kevin the yolk may be on us if there is DNA in SHIT Tangents are usually not effective while commutating with those who somehow believe they could fit all of their relatives in a single thread. Faith is not confined by time, yet time is relevant to what we believe . If you believe that empirical knowledge is a cure all to the challenges that face mankind that is good . No matter what you want to call it, our moral compass has more to do with the future of this planet than splitting atoms on the eve of destruction. The humanness of us all is not without flaw as XYZ might say, and TS125 seems to have higher goal than intercourse with a source of power. So what is your point?

Firstly lets ditch the idea of adam and eve, the levels of incest required to make a population that would last more than 5 generations would reduce that gene pool to a smoldering ruin.

I prefer not to put my faith in a smoldering ruin, so by all means let's go into the land of Nod

What is our point?

What is your point Micheal? You've got everyone in this thread constantly asking you to clarify just exactly what the intercourse you are going on about.

Must faith oppose reason?

Yes, if you are the one explaining it!

There is more to the story of creation than just the birds and the bees
I was hoping to find signs of intelligent design in your consciousness of your origin
Should we start with the big bang or a really big cigarette? I believe there are some witchdoctors that still dispense weeds, and other herbs, used by the earlier shamans

. (Participation in shamanic ritual does not make one a shaman, any more than participation in a Catholic mass makes one a Bishop.) A shamanic professional, who is a highly-trained and very often spiritually selected individual, is sometimes known as a shaman

NEW YORK, NY Psychiatrists and witch doctors are first cousins, a top psychiatrist declares.
s true says noted author Dr. E. Fuller Torrey.
The similarities in techniques used by witch doctors and psychiatrists far outweigh the differences.
And psychologist Dr. Stanley Krippner's made an in-depthy study of witch doctors practices pointed out striking similarities between African tribal medicine men and their counterparts in the psychiatric profession:
- Witch doctors and psychiatrists both prescribe medication.

- Witch doctors and psychiatrists both prescribe medication.

bees and bats both fly.

gasoline and milk are both liquids.

water and air are both fluids.

wool and steel are both worn on the body.

many things are similar, and not the same, in fact everything shares a similarity. i can perceive both volcanoes and nazis empirically, therefore nazis and volcanoes have something in common.

intelligent design is not exactly an accepted theory because it was not a conclusion arrived at scientifically. it is a spiritual teaching, and therefore i do not accept it as a viable scientific explanation.

Pragmatic as in of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.
Dogmatic as asserting opinions in a doctrinaire or arrogant manner; opinionated

.
Automatic having the capability of starting, operating, moving, etc., independently: an automatic sprinkler system; an automatic car wash.
2.
Physiology . occurring independently of volition, as certain muscular actions; involuntary.
3.
done unconsciously or from force of habit; mechanical

TS do you think you could install an electronic chip in every bodies brain to make them
agree without an act of congress, and if you were elected to the executive branch could you take the oath with a clear conscience?

Well yes. it would be like a reward system. do something compliant and the chip releases a jolt that triggers the release of endorphins which make you feel good in order to enforce the behavior. perhaps even the reverse, be in-compliant and suffer a mild stomach ache type feeling.

im certain that many people in the executive branch have done FAR worse, however that type of chip would make me so wealthy that i would just buy key members of the executive branch. why would i want to be a political pin cushion?

It would be like OMG I will never eat at another Mexican place again, in 2012, the end of the world as we know it

Reward and punishment , I wonder why God didn't think of that?

More like i wonder why, if he had a sense of good behavior and bad behavior, he swapped most of the feeling around it. if you ask me, a lot of the acts and behaviors involved in following faith are unnatural to a humans root behaviors.

the ideology being, "i can resist the urge to have fun, therefore im better than you."

at least in a general over all sense.

It may surprise you that I have found the more holier than thou are the most offended by true holiness. Life was meant to be a gift and not a burden.

Evolutionist are as concerned with points or purpose as any thiest I have had the honor to meet

Everyone is concerned with the ends, "why are we here?"

but mostly not everyone agrees on the means "how did we come to be here?"

Everyone is concerned with the ends, "why are we here?"

but mostly not everyone agrees on the means "how did we come to be here?"

Do you believe science can tell us which means justifies the end em'perically?
* These answers represent basically the same meaning from several perspectives.

Answer
This phrase, originating from Niccolo Machiavelli's book "The Prince", is interpreted by some to mean doing anything whatsoever that is required to get the result you want, regardless of the methods used. It does not matter whether these methods are legal or illegal, fair or foul, kind or cruel, truth or lies, democratic or dictatorial, good or evil.

Answer 2
The phrase the end justifies the means refers to the morality of an action. It means that the morality of an action is based solely on the outcome of that action and not on the action itself. Example: Telling a lie that has no negative effect on anyone, and saves someone grief, is good. Killing someone to save others may also be morally justifiable.

A deontologist would say lying/killing is always bad. A consequentialist would say that it is acceptable if the outcome is positive. It can involve illegal activities and what some would consider immoral methods, but definitely is not based on that.

Answer 3
This refers to the idea that if you need a specific outcome, it doesn't matter how it is achieved as long as you get the desired result. For instance, if you need to pass a test in order to graduate (the end) you can justify cheating in order to pass the test (the means).

Answer 4
This is normally used to comment on the ethics or morality of a given action. By itself, it might be reprehensible. But as the only method to achieve a goal, it could be acceptable on a practical basis. A simple example would be knocking down historic buildings as a last resort to control rat populations. A more complex example would be World War II, which included bombing German and Japanese cities to reduce their munitions production.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_end_justifies_the_means_mean#ixzz1LhuLyRA0

I didnt say the ends justified the means, i said that there were ends and that they were means. no justifiability mentioned.

i do think science explains our purpose empirically, and i think in many ways its more optimistic than a christian outlook. for instance:

we are here to reproduce, to love and continue the evolutionary process by continuing to be the best (as a species) as possible, and in failing, we fail as a species.

vs.

we are here to prove to god that we are worthy so that when we die and are brought upon judgment at the gates of heaven, our indelibility will be so purified as to allow entry.

i would rather spend life enjoying life than spending life getting ready for my death.

I am not exactly a contemplative monk myself , but many monks express that their lifestyle is more of a calling than anything else. I have felt the call of the wild. I have felt the need to separate my limited intellect from my overwhelming emotions . I must say that I have seen machines that had spirit. I respect your personal sense of higher power or even an egocentric desire to be complaint to something larger than a short life span

We have not come to the fountian of youth age

"From the fool's gold mouthpiece
The hollow horn plays wasted words
Proved to warn
That he not busy being born
Is busy dying."

TS125 you are reasonable human being ...never stop dreaming

You don't have to believe what I was taught, nor do I, we can just go to hell

But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.

this entire 'prediction' has been going on for a much, much longer time than just the past couple days. maybe more like 50 years. also, that prediction isnt so much a radical idea at any time, people had only to look around at progress around them, and realize it was simply an inevitability. such people probably just thought that the end of Christianity would be the end of mankind. i personally am inclined to believe that christianity was neither the beginning nor the end of mankind. just a transitional step between before and after, like all man made concepts.

Well, lets break this one down a bit, but at this point im hoping youre joking. i dont know for certain about this, but i believe the devil was cast down to earth as pre history, and not in 1914..... the bible is man made, we are the only creatures on earth who read and write human languages. therefore we had to at least transcribe it at some point. the earth is NOT in fact flat, it is actually (for all intents and purposes) quite round. Ecclesiastes 1:7 does not describe the water cycle. It merely says that water returns to the source of streams; it does not say how. man does not need god, mankind lived for thousands of years before 'god' this particular god entered the picture. as george carlin would say, this world is not falling apart, the earth is doing perfectly well. HUMANS are fucked. when humans die, the earth will only be earth + plastic. the earth has seen worse than us. war, famine, greed, earthquakes.... these have all been around for thousands of years, in fact some earlier than mankind has existed. ill tackle the 'how did we come about' in the next comment

Firstly, lets look at the VERY BEGINNING. big bang scenario, or as string theory defines, planar collision. before this, is impossible to determine, i prefer to side with string theory but theres no good way to prove it, in any event MASSIVE RELEASE OF ENERGY. the entire universe (much smaller at this point) is heated and filled with incomprehensible amounts of heat and energy, altering the fabric of space and forming hydrogen. hydrogen clouds, compresses, nuclear fusion occurs, first stars form. more nuclear fusion, first stars create all the other common elements by ramming hydrogen into hydrogen forming helium, helium into helium, carbon into carbon, hydrogen into carbon, so on. these stars eventually fail and splutter out, think super nova.

diverse matter is spread throughout the universe, clouding and condensing, forming a massive system of stars, failed stars, and planets, on of these is the earth; ooooh.

early earth would have been molten, its at this point that a large, perhaps mars sized object crashes into earth, dislodging a large molten mass that will later form the moon. the earth recovers due to being mostly viscous liquid and reforms a spherical shape. the earth cools.

then water. lots and lots of water. perhaps in the early equation, held captive by an intense radioactive and magnetic atmosphere, or perhaps delivered gradually from meteor showers. most likely both.

looking at the composition of the atmosphere, and the early earth, youve got phosphates, youve got acids, youve got energy, heat, liquids, etcetera etcetera. biochemical fluke occurs in an ocean or a river or a lake somewhere and the first RNA strands start building themselves and discovering the wonders of self replication. not even cells at this point. these start succeeding more succesfully at self replication when coated in a protective layer of... not even tissue. first single cellular organisms begin evolving. colonies of single cellular organisms start evolving, structures are formed. cell specialization occurs in complex symbiotic relationships. the first multicellular organisms emerge.

BAM life without god.

String theory, not big bang. big bang has a lot of missing variables in it that string theory explains, however string theory we lack the instruments to conduct empirical experiments to verify it.

firstly im not saying that in every situation, if the right components were there, they miraculously form a finished product. im saying that given enough chances, it will eventually happen. for instance, imagine taking a deck of cards and just winging it as hard as you can, millions of times. eventually, one of those times, when all the cards come to rest, they will all be face down. its that sort of phenomenon. eventually, somewhere, of all the millions upon billions of planets and stars, this had to happen on one of them statistically.

how did the universe come about? thats an interesting philosophical question. perhaps the universe never came about, and you are simply percieving nothing, and your mind is filling it with something. perhaps all empirical input is an illusion.

the big bang says that before the event, there was nothingness, and all the laws of nature were contained within one 'super law'. nothingness, is, however, unstable as it is unaffected by the laws of physics (there is nothing to be affected) ripples formed, ripples reacted booooooom massive explosion, this law splits into the electro weak and the strong force. the electro weak breaks down into the electro magnetic, the weak force, and the strong force remains, and the rest of the universe follows suit pretty much as i explained in my previous statement. luckily, space is capable of traveling faster than light, light is not, and matter is not, but space is, and given that explosion, the universe would be (to light's reference frame) instantaneously filled. woo hoo we have a big bang dictated universe supported by the fact that all celestial systems are slowly drifting away from a general central point.

string theory has the same general product, however a different explanation. see the strong force (otherwise known as gravity) is for all intents and purposes not very well understood. sure its there, and we can measure it, but how is gravity transmitted? we know that gravity cannot travel faster than the speed of light, implying it is bound by the laws of matter and particles.

thats an interesting implication that had scientists searching for a 'graviton' or a particle that transmitted gravity from one space to another, i believe they used the hedron collider to do so, but they never found one. granted they have a handful of observations and are playing insane odds, but still no graviton particle. then string theory comes along

string theory dictates that the world isnt made up of particles called quarks, but instead of tiny vibrating strings, planes, loops, tubes, free ended strings (think line) and so on. each different 'frequency' of vibration determines a different state of matter. this explanation more clearly explains the formation of early hydrogen, as if the entire unvierse is a hyper expanding plane, then strings might have been broken off of it with enough energy to create hydrogen. but the source of this energy to begin with? and why did i talk about gravitons? and if gravity is called 'the strong force' why do things defy it all the time?

heres where we blow your mind. we know that the world is in 4 empirical dimensions of space and time, BUT string theory actually defines a total of 11 dimensions of space and time!! 11!! gravitons may actually be close ended strings capable of falling off of their respected dimensions, while still having an effect on it! matter, existing outside of matter, affecting it, while moving through, around, over it!

and the big bang, energy creation explanation? the actual SPATIAL collision between two separate planes, the meeting of spatial entities of different realities quite easily creates enough energy to re-create a whole new universe! perhaps this universe we are in was not the first, nor will it be the last.

Its all higher theoretical physics...

http://arxiv.org/

you can read about it all in more depth if youd like. i personally find it fascinating

Also, if youre interested in string theory, theres a really cool set of youtube videos that explains it in pretty low physics terms if youre interested i can message you the link to them. its taped from the discovery channel i think

^ That's a great site TS. I'm a fan of string theory as well.

Now, falling snow, I hope you know that you're using the Teleological argument to prove god's existence. If not, then try to research on it cos its your best possible reference.

Anyway it came from William Paley and this is how it goes:

1. Human artifacts are products of intelligent design; they have a purpose.
2. The universe resembles these human artifacts.
3. Therefore: It is probable that the universe is a product of intelligent design, and has a purpose.
4. However, the universe is vastly more complex and gigantic than a human artifact is.
5. Therefore: There is probably a powerful and vastly intelligent designer who created the universe.

But numerous criticisms have been shot at it by philosophers and physicists that it has came to be ridiculed and let down, here are some:

1. The universe does not exhibit that much order.
2.argument from parts to whole is not valid
3.analogy fails because there are no other universes to compare this one to
4.the argument does not prove the existence of only one ( 1) such god
5.the argument does not prove that the creator is infinite

Other critiques:

6. the argument does not prove that the creator is good
7. the argument does not prove that the creator is all intelligent
8. Naturalistic Theory and Evolutionary Theory Can account for the Order

want to read articles about this?:

http://philpapers.org/s/counterarguments%20against%20the%20teleological%20argument

What happened to all of falling snows posts? they seem to have been deleted....

Account deleted I assume.

Yes, that happens when a member deletes their account. It's unfortunate.

I hope i didnt pressure them off... i suppose it would be arrogant to believe that though....