Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
boots

My Perspective on Modern Christianity

Recommended Posts

"Oh but you're missing the point completely omg!"

I see what you're trying to do. I simply reject that type of reasoning as a foundation for critical though.

 

Hey newb, don't try to argue for me, and then respond to it. :P what are you doing? Fantasy arguing with fantasy me and typing it up for us all to read?

 

 

Well, I know that there is more to life than we currently can explain with science. But if we're comparing the track record of methods of increasing our understanding of the world, then I'd say that science is out scoring every other method pretty handily.

 

 

I don't believe they're two competing methods, I believe they're two different aspects of life entirely. I also don't believe we should mix them, ever. Except the way I mix them, "God, please please please help me get this experiment to work, I really really really want to graduate!" <----thats the ONLY appropriate way to mix religion and science ^_^

 

on that note, I'm heading off to the lab on a Sunday morning, why don't you call me a heathen? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the fact that this might very well turn into Chemist vs. Physicist, a battle to the death!

 

With a theoretical mathematician acting as play by play commentator!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom_of_choice

 

Thats not even going in to the fact that our entire system of mathematics is based on axioms.

 

But, it's worked thus far. It's allowed for missiles that can hit a pin head from miles away consistently, among other neat things (Just about everything we have really).

 

 

Also, how do religions get out dated? That's dumb.

 

When did it become un-christian to burn gays? When the USA decided it was illegal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3) Trillions? There hasn't even been more than 100 billion humans born throughout human history.

 

 

For the sake of arguing about completely trivial and beside the point statements, since that's all anyone does on these forums anymore... If you include gametes, the estimate of trillions of DNA combinations for humans doesn't sound as bogus.

 

 

----------------------

 

boots,

 

From a biologist to a chemist.... the complexity of life isn't evidence for there having to be a god. The odds aren't as astronomical as you would like to believe. Consider infinite time and infinite space, I'd bet for life, not against it.

 

On that same note, foundation for the theory of evolution and an understanding of the amount of time allotted to our universe doesn't disprove god's helping hand in creation either. It is what it is, we'll never know on this earth, id just rather people not try to use science, or the lack of understanding science, or the complexities of science to prove or disprove any sort of religion or spirituality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boots,

 

From a biologist to a chemist.... the complexity of life isn't evidence for there having to be a god. The odds aren't as astronomical as you would like to believe. Consider infinite time and infinite space, I'd bet for life, not against it.

 

On that same note, foundation for the theory of evolution and an understanding of the amount of time allotted to our universe doesn't disprove god's helping hand in creation either. It is what it is, we'll never know on this earth, id just rather people not try to use science, or the lack of understanding science, or the complexities of science to prove or disprove any sort of religion or spirituality.

 

 

I realize the complexity of design isn't an argument many atheists like or approve of. (then again, there isn't an argument to approve of it for them).

 

And I've stated numerous times on this thread, I'm NOT trying to convince anyone that I'm right. I'm simply answering questions about my own faith and why I believe it (as people asked in the other thread), and trying to debunk the myth that all Christians are illiterate hateful homophobes.

 

I'm not asking you to believe the complexity of design as an argument. There's an entire book written by a microbiologist on it call Darwin's Black Box, if anyone is interested in it. Its widely criticized by folks who don't like the argument. And while I'm not going to get into the discussions of whether or not an owl's eye is more or less complex than a human eye and wtf would God do that for? :rollseyes: I AM stating that I PERSONALLY don't see the probability of evolution without a God as a possibility. For those that do, good for them, they should play the lottery more often with faith like that!

 

I once saw a talk about a single protein folding. Like I said, I'm not a biochemist in any way shape or form. But the math probability talk of a protein folding and the possible ways it could fold was simply astounding. Theres like, 2 bazzillion conformations that proteins can fold. The guy mapped them out, on a huge 3D graph, and showed that the conformations that were actually active, were like a teensy little island on the entire graph of possibilities. And it doesn't usually fall into place, there are other things inside our bodies that help fold these proteins into the specific shape that makes them active.

 

I find that absolutely dumbfounding. And thats for a protein we can actually map out and theorize about its possibly conformations with computer software and do math probability on. The transmembrane protein I'm working with in my project doesn't even have a known structure, (transmembrane proteins are, I guess, particularly hard to get a structure for, and my university here is a center for x-ray crystallography and they LOVE to crystallize and solve structures here!)

 

 

Like I said, if you don't think thats evidence of a God, then thats fine. If you really think that could happen by itself if given an extended unlimited period of time, thats fine. Thats your choice. I don't hate you for it. But please don't hate me for my choice not to have the same faith you have.

 

I still see the "getting something out of nothing?" argument a pretty good argument for a God too, just the fact that we "are" kind of is an evidence for something bigger/better or more important. But if thats not your thing, then I don't care. I'm not trying to convince anyone here that I'm right, I'm simply sharing with anyone who is interested to explain what modern Christianity is. We don't burn people, we don't hate people, we don't write ridiculous things on news sites, and its not the fault of the religion as a whole that some people are crazy zealots with their priorities screwed up. I was attempting (perhaps futilely) to correct some of the misinformed perspectives on what we are and what we believe. I felt that some people, who I consider efriends, were judging us as a whole based on only the crazies who talk the loudest. (should we be judging all the black people in the USA now based on the Black Panthers? Should I assume all my black students are out to murder me because I'm a "Cracka Woman" ??) So I was trying to present a logical perspective by which to balance out the discrimination and bias.

 

 

I don't really view Christianity or a belief in God as a battle of the sciences either, nor do I see it as something that uneducated bigotted masses own. I know PhD chemists who are hardcore atheists, and some that are hardcore Christians both in my dept. My uncle has a PhD in Math and teaches at a reputable university in FL and he's a fundamental Christian. My brother will have a PhD in Physics in a year or so and already has a Masters in it, and he's a Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, how do religions get out dated? That's dumb.

 

You're right, forgive me, I used a vague term and grouped you up with the others who had misinformed opinions of Christianity. I'll use different and more descriptive terms for your views on Christianity:

 

illiterate

uneducated

biased

bigot-worthy

stupid

ignorant

 

and the worst part, you'll never be able to see that these are actually true and descriptive words for you. Which makes you a laughable idiot.`

 

When did it become un-christian to burn gays? When the USA decided it was illegal?

 

ah, my point proven.

 

 

You guys dropped the ball. I suppose I'll pick it up.

 

tl;dr

 

 

thank you. I've been waiting for that ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Catholic church is down with evolution. It's gotten the Pope seal of approval, along with pretty much everything in science except for stem cells (which is retarded and the church should feel bad about that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't really view Christianity or a belief in God as a battle of the sciences either, nor do I see it as something that uneducated bigotted masses own. I know PhD chemists who are hardcore atheists, and some that are hardcore Christians both in my dept. My uncle has a PhD in Math and teaches at a reputable university in FL and he's a fundamental Christian. My brother will have a PhD in Physics in a year or so and already has a Masters in it, and he's a Christian.

 

I didnt make a judgement on faith, or a science minded person having faith. My judgement is with a science minded person finding evidence in the presence of no evidence. Im sorry, but if you're a chemist, you should know by now what evidence is. You cant run experiments and present to your PI some astonishing association without testable/repeatable data. You'll get laughed at and ruin your/ your PIs career.

 

Using science, particularly evolution and its years of evidence/data/testing, as an overly complex system that must show evidence of god is bad science. So don't mix them like that is what I'm saying. Just say I believe in god, and I have faith that he had a hand in guiding evolution. There exists no evidence for or against that statement, just faith.

 

I dont have an agenda to persuade your beliefs, I haven't even stated my own -- you just assumed atheism. I would just like people to stop screwing up what science actually is---and i felt the need to comment to you because you're a chemist and should know better :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt make a judgement on faith, or a science minded person having faith. My judgement is with a science minded person finding evidence in the presence of no evidence. Im sorry, but if you're a chemist, you should know by now what evidence is. You cant run experiments and present to your PI some astonishing association without testable/repeatable data. You'll get laughed at and ruin your/ your PIs career.

 

Using science, particularly evolution and its years of evidence/data/testing, as an overly complex system that must show evidence of god is bad science. So don't mix them like that is what I'm saying. Just say I believe in god, and I have faith that he had a hand in guiding evolution. There exists no evidence for or against that statement, just faith.

 

I dont have an agenda to persuade your beliefs, I haven't even stated my own -- you just assumed atheism. I would just like people to stop screwing up what science actually is---and i felt the need to comment to you because you're a chemist and should know better :P

 

Win. As for protein structure and folding, 3.4 BILLION YEARS... almost an infinite number of protein formations are possible during that amount of time. The probability that a system (with parts that are evolving concurrently) just happens to work is not improbable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, forgive me, I used a vague term and grouped you up with the others who had misinformed opinions of Christianity. I'll use different and more descriptive terms for your views on Christianity:

 

illiterate

uneducated

biased

bigot-worthy

stupid

ignorant

 

and the worst part, you'll never be able to see that these are actually true and descriptive words for you. Which makes you a laughable idiot.`

 

Awesome. But that doesn't explain how a religious view gets outdated despite the source material never changing. That being said I'm pretty agnostic really. I just really don't believe any organized religion has it right, as their sentient god archetype wouldn't let them fuck up so bad.

 

 

 

ah, my point proven.

 

Ok, fair enough. Not like that exact action was in the source material for about every version of Christianity (and others whoa). Can I get a specific time frame on when it stopped being ok to sell your daughters into slavery?

 

Extra points if you tell me the old testament's rules about how hard you're allowed to beat the slaves.

 

 

 

 

Seriously, you take the bible as the word of god but then don't take ALL of it as the word of god? That's so hypocritical and self serving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just say I believe in god, and I have faith that he had a hand in guiding evolution. There exists no evidence for or against that statement, just faith.

 

This, along with the rest of Carny's post, explains my viewpoint on Christians vis a vis science perfectly. I don't like it when people go around claiming signs here and symbols there and proof in the lack of some monkey-human walking around in Indonesia, and then going from that to Christianity.

 

In the end, as boots (almost) said, believing in religion is an arbitrary choice - and it creates happiness, so who are we to tell someone not to do what makes them happy. I have no problem with that, at all. I just don't want someone, having made that choice, to walk around and find things which reinforce that arbitrary choice, and then point to them as proof that their choice was correct - because when you're looking for a reason to justify what you believe, you're almost always going to find it. Simply be aware of what it is - a choice which was made without fact or science or knowledge to back it up. If it was based on any of those things, it wouldn't be faith. It would be a logical conclusion.

 

If faith requires no evidence, why bother trying to find it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic reminds me of a discussion with former SG mates.. lol

 

Anyway, my opinion is that religion is outdated in this modern world, and I'm not talking about christianity alone.

 

General population was dumb in the olden days; a smart guy with a talent to sweet talk will drive these people into a frenzy of massive magnitude. Its a super version of propaganda at the hands of the powerful to suppress the weak/poor and twist them into believing what the former wanted the latter to believe. I.e: Iran used to issue certificates to troops to go heaven, in return for their bravery in war.. thats WTFLOL.

 

Most major societies have had a religion of sort. I don't believe they just "made it up".

People do not regard eclipse as god's response nowadays, or do they still?

The Chinese used to pray to the moon until Neil Armstrong stepped on it.

Do one still believe drought is actually God's work? The weather man could tell us what's coming in the next 24 hours. Is that godhood or science?

 

So.. be it heaven or hell (if there is one) no one has the right to decide where u go.. for that would be the all-familiar dictatorship in contrast to what the general populace know as love. And about love.. even animals are capable of that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didnt make a judgement on faith, or a science minded person having faith. My judgement is with a science minded person finding evidence in the presence of no evidence. Im sorry, but if you're a chemist, you should know by now what evidence is. You cant run experiments and present to your PI some astonishing association without testable/repeatable data. You'll get laughed at and ruin your/ your PIs career.

 

Using science, particularly evolution and its years of evidence/data/testing, as an overly complex system that must show evidence of god is bad science. So don't mix them like that is what I'm saying. Just say I believe in god, and I have faith that he had a hand in guiding evolution. There exists no evidence for or against that statement, just faith.

 

I dont have an agenda to persuade your beliefs, I haven't even stated my own -- you just assumed atheism. I would just like people to stop screwing up what science actually is---and i felt the need to comment to you because you're a chemist and should know better :P

 

You'll understand then, that was not meant to be submitted to JACS :P This is simply meant to correct the misunderstandings of Christianity that was being presented in the other thread.

 

I can in fact, say that I don't believe that 3.4 billion years is sufficient enough to time to create something out of nothing, and sufficiently provide the random happenstance that all the correct amino acids happened to arbitrarily link up together and make proteins that happen to bump into all the correct protein folders-things (which also just happened to bump into eachother in some little cesspool that they were floating in) and voila life is formed? I don't believe that could have happened without the assistance of God.

 

I find atheistic evolution illogical. And I don't personally believe it can happen, regardless of the infinite number of years you want to tag onto it and claim it can! (Although I enjoyed Richard Dawkins trying to show that it could in his book, haha!)

 

I'm not using this as a science based religion of facts, nor am I asking anyone else to agree with me. I'm simply stating I don't personally find it plausible. If Pan and Disco or whoever else wants to believe that, thats their choice.

 

And I don't honestly care if you think thats bad science, I still don't find it plausible. And my being a chemist has done nothing to deteriorate my faith, but rather made my belief that there HAS to be a God more firm. But no, I'm going to write a damned journal paper on it, or include it into my dissertation ^_^ Except maybe in the acknowledgments at the beginning, I found an old dissertation that I was using for one of my procedures and saw a sincere thanks to both his wife and to his Lord and Savior at the beginning and I thought it was really sweet. Never met the guy though, he graduated several years before I joined the group.

 

 

As far as mixing religion INTO my science I stated this a few posts up:

 

I don't believe they're two competing methods, I believe they're two different aspects of life entirely. I also don't believe we should mix them, ever. Except the way I mix them, "God, please please please help me get this experiment to work, I really really really want to graduate!" <----thats the ONLY appropriate way to mix religion and science ^_^

 

 

 

Win. As for protein structure and folding, 3.4 BILLION YEARS... almost an infinite number of protein formations are possible during that amount of time. The probability that a system (with parts that are evolving concurrently) just happens to work is not improbable.

 

 

If I still believe its improbable, you can't hate me for disagreeing with you, nor is it fair for you lump me up with the crazed homophobes :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't believe they're two competing methods, I believe they're two different aspects of life entirely. I also don't believe we should mix them, ever. Except the way I mix them, "God, please please please help me get this experiment to work, I really really really want to graduate!" <----thats the ONLY appropriate way to mix religion and science ^_^

 

You keep saying this, but by your responses in your very own thread, that's not the case at all. I'm not asking you the write a journal paper that will come under scrutiny. I'm asking you to take your career- life skills and apply them in a logical way that will allow you to actually follow your above quoted statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should technically say that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Life appeared 3.4 billion years ago (fossil prokaryotes). That's 0.9 billion years to come up with an organism that is DAMN SIMPLE. So simple that humans have actually made a functional prokaryote. It took almost twice as long (1.9 billion years) until we actually started seeing actual eukaryotes. The complexity in life started increasing drastically after that. To give you a time line, the sun is only 5 billion years old. A billion years is a shit-load of time. "Complex" molecular structures really aren't all that complex. Sure they can fold a ton of ways, but inefficient folding gets eliminated through selection.

 

Also, I'm sick of hearing you say that I lump you into the mix with homophobes and the crazies. Sure many of you have something in common (Jesus), but I also wrote the GRE like every other poor fuck out there (shout out to the grad student population) and understand the principle of inclusion-exclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep saying this, but by your responses in your very own thread, that's not the case at all. I'm not asking you the write a journal paper that will come under scrutiny. I'm asking you to take your career- life skills and apply them in a logical way that will allow you to actually follow your above quoted statement.

 

 

Okay, so I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not trying in the least bit to be "scientific".

 

If my husband came home and said "I flew home from work today" I would assume naturally, that a plane or a helicopter had to be utilized for that to occur. To say "I don't think its probable that he was able to fly home without the assistance of a plane or helicopter" isn't really scientific evidence, its more of me saying "I don't think this is probable without outside assistance"

 

Which is all I'm saying when I'm looking the world around me, "I don't think this is probable without outside assistance".

 

I'm not saying "AH! Life is SO COMPLEX this is scientific evidence that there's a God!" I'm just saying "I don't personally think this is all very probable without a God" (contrarily, probably if I were a giant blob without structure or awesome amazing folded proteins I'd still look at myself and say, "I don't think my existence is probable without outside assistance!" the awesomest little amino acids + properly folded proteins just make the statement more firm imo)

 

 

Perhaps I didn't word it clearly before. To me personally, I see this is as further evidence in my own life that there is a God. But I don't expect anyone else to be convinced or accept this as "evidence" (now are you SURE you're a biologist and not a lawyer? ;) ), its each person's own choice to make those decisions themselves.

 

 

I don't see this as mixing science and religion. I'm not trying to prove anything with science to anyone else, nor am I trying to wave my hands and say "My synthesis yields fluorescent nanoclusters because God performed a miracle in my flask!" VOILA! Religion + Science = Win!

 

Not at all. I see them as two different ways of studying life around us. Separate and distinct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm getting is the tired (non-)argument from supposed complexity.

 

A hurricane is intricately complex. But no one says it's an act of God anymore (except insurance terms for lack of better). It's just a mundane interaction of winds, convection cells/supercells and the coriolis effect.

 

If you want to look for counterexamples to supposed complexity (and I'm just an inch away from using "intelligent design", which I suppose would be extremely demeaning to you), boots, Neil deGrasse Tyson is who you're looking for, not Dawkins.

 

Ever had one of those bad days? Those days where bad coincidences line up one after another? Did you believe someone really cursed you on one of those bad days? Except in life's and evolution's case, those happen to be good coincidences.

 

That is just what they are. Using them to then justify the existence of a God is faith, not logic. Additionally, probability presumes logic, so even "justifying" your belief with probability is a travesty of logic.

 

Are my litany of examples making the point everyone has been saying? Keep belief where it's supposed to be kept - not mixed with logic.

 

Agnostic here btw.

 

P.S.: Your textwall PM didn't materialise. Edit: I just saw your latest msg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when is arguing that the complexity of life supports faith in god an illogical or fallacious statement? Unless you start throwing around things like "... and that's why the THEORY of evolution is bananas", it's just the same inherently unprovable idiom of faith that all 'miracles' are. Quite frankly, I'd put the people who try to argue that natural laws somehow disprove or discredit a deity on the same level of ignorance as the creationists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I still believe its improbable, you can't hate me for disagreeing with you, nor is it fair for you lump me up with the crazed homophobes :P

 

can hate you for not understanding probability... don't worry, that whole 'pick a door, open one, then switch your choice' riddle used to always get me too. again, infinite time and infinite space means the improbable in general becomes very probable in the specific.

 

 

wait, how can i synthesize fluorescent nanoclusters?

 

i think it's pretty ignorant to claim that faith leads to happiness. <3 crusades, those poor damn turks were just too dark to be saved by jesus.

 

faith leads to personal decisions which should be kept private. Matthew 6:6 ftw imo. if you tell people what you wished for when you blew out the candles for it won't come true!

 

i don't think a life without faith is worth living. i don't care what you do with your own faith, as long as you keep it out of my business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×