I don't like this topic
Belongs in pard
Hail Satan

If you don't like this topic you are free to move on to another one and let me be. satan is judged and will be thrown into the lake of fire along with his followers. I hope you will decide to follow Jesus Christ.

Ok, I don't hate your topic, it's just in the wrong section.
Belongs in pard
You wouldn't like me posting osrs trades in the diablo 2 section would we?

PaRD/10

belongs in PARD hypocrite

My sister did a tarot reading for me recently. I'm not superstitious in the least yet the reading gave me insight.

She has always been Christian but is now seriously doubting her faith and seems to think she is "gifted" spiritually in the occult.

I can't help but feel she traded one cult for another. Trading Christianity for mysticism. While she speaks with passion and love, I am genuinely concerned that either of these choices is a dead end and will only sow for more uncertainty.

I've argued my views in this topic before but these recent events reaffirmed my position that any belief not born of scientific logic is ultimately destructive even if the person cannot perceive the effects.

Furthermore, I considered myself agnostic for a very long time but recently I have adopted an atheist mentality. Frankly, the concept of God is completely illogical to me and if God does exist in any capacity, I suspect he is unlike any description beheld by man.

two choices really. either creation
or
evolution, that life arouse by some kind of naturalistic accidental process. do you believe life just swirled itself together some were then began some grand building up process began?

I am in fact working towards a degree in biology. From what I have learnt thus far (from textbooks and lectures on my courses) is life arose from abiogenesis or "chemical evolution" as defined in my books. This is essentially the premise for all biology as well as the principles of application for health and medicine.

So to answer your question, yes I am compelled to believe what I am learning in school. However, this does not mean I accept all as fact and law. I am still sceptical on chemical evolution because it still does not address the non-living state of the universe before the first life forms appeared.

Likewise, any description that "God" created the world is just as invalid because they is no evidence of such a creator just as there is no evidence of what caused chemical evolution.

I also think it's important to note that what I am learning has been under intense scientific scrutiny since the topics of biology were first studied. Whether or not you accept the evidence as presented if your prerogative of course. However, there is far more supporting evidence of chemical evolution compared to any theistic belief.

If you go to the doctor and get medicine, that same medicine is built on the premise of evolution which is exactly the reason why medication works.. because the chemistry has been traced back chronologically as well as the simple fact that you can perform many of these experiments yourself, one such experiment is the creation of a plasma membrane or "cell", that is, the smallest known unit of life.

I fail to see how whether or not some grand architect (God) is responsible when he is completely devoid from all quantitative and qualitative analysis carried out in the lab.

life (living systems) is the most complex and interdependent systems know to man. light years ahead of any thing man has done. interdependent means all systems need to be in place at the same place and at the same time or the system dies.
craig ventor a real scientist (also an atheist) working in a lab.


This post was edited by TiStuff on Jan 13 2023 03:14am

I certainly agree that life and what is essentially our consciousness is for lack of a better word a miracle. I've also had the stark realization that what we think we know scientifically has been acquired only in the last 200 years which is an extremely short amount of time. This suggests to me that humans (both religious and scientific) really have no idea of the true nature of reality.

To that end, I think it's the best application of my energy to focus on building what we CAN know through experiment rather than pulling all my eggs in the basket of "faith".

I'll never say that God does or does not exist because I can't know that. However there isn't even a single shred of me that thinks he does exist because the concept of God does not conform to the scientific method nor have I seen any evidence myself aside from the testimony of others.

This is of course why I reject religious testimony because the scientific method has been circumvented. You folks here have presented some interesting evidence in support of God that I will at some point re-examine because as a good scientist, I must give all possibilities their due consideration.

For example, either you or CK post stuff on the great flood. This is interesting to me because I have a few geology courses coming up. I'm sure you guess which direction I'll lean to nonetheless it is important to me to keep an open mind.

I hope you can appreciate my viewpoints and that I am making a genuine effort to seek out answers as best they can be found. Surely then I hope you can see why I consider any logic not born of the scientific method to be innately harmful because people begin their search for more answers on false premises. One such false premise (in my opinion) would be that chemical evolution did NOT occur. If it did not occur, then explanations for why medicine works become imperative because if you are to reject one extremely effective working theory (medicine) then it must be superseded by an even more accurate description. Can you really say your belief system is a valid replacement?