They Sold Their Souls

[razerbelkin]

Using some random person’s YT as proof that an individual “sold their soul to the devil” is the thought process of a mentally ill person

See, theres a mistake I fear, it´s not some "random person´s YT", but usually the artist himself stating that he made a pact with the devil. What else do they need to do? Or do you think they dont mean it? Very often the videos I came across from said channel quote people close to the artist who state aswell that he/ she is/was possessed.
As I believe in God, I think the devil exists aswell. But in the bottom line it doesn´t matter if you or I believe, the artists do.
By the way, I am more than curious what you think of the Judgement Day thread, you only left a funny comment there and left.
For an atheist (I assume) it should be very easy to show me my errors of thinking there aswell..., no?

[fkizz]

Abiogenesis is the term used to describe a variety of evolutionary steps that result in the creation of biological life from non living matter. It didn't "come" from anywhere, it's just a term we use to describe a process.

Your question of "why abiogenesis" doesn't really make any sense. Are you asking why we chose that word?

Yes, we were taught of biogenesis on highschool at least, nothing new there.

Point being, why do you have so much zeal on the idea that abiogenesis is the source of life? Could you educate us, if you have what it takes? You express faith in the origin of life hipothesis in absolutes (except when giving evasive replies)

Do we have any proof that abiogenesis precedes all life? Why would life come to exist via abiogenesis? Enlighten us, willing to learn.

[Akar]

Yes, we were taught of biogenesis on highschool at least, nothing new there.

So why are you asking me to explain it to you if you claim to understand it?

Point being, why do you have so much zeal on the idea that abiogenesis is the source of life?

Because that is what the evidence points to.

Could you educate us, if you have what it takes?

Didn't you just say you understood abiogenesis?

You express faith in the origin of life hipothesis in absolutes (except when giving evasive replies)

I'm not sure what a "hipothesis" is, but I feel like you're one of those people that thinks that "hypothesis" means "doesn't really exist" or "just a theory without evidence".

What evasive replies have I given? You're the one who has refused to answer questions here, after all.

Do we have any proof that abiogenesis precedes all life?

Abiogenesis isn't something that precedes or antecedes anything, its simply the process through which biological life evolves from non living matter.

Why would life come to exist via abiogenesis

Because that is the process through which life comes to exist? This is a stupid question.

[Cyclops]

See, theres a mistake I fear, it´s not some "random person´s YT", but usually the artist himself stating that he made a pact with the devil. ..

Nothing in that YT video where Hendrix said he sold anything. Got anything else? If not /thread.

Its feature of pre modern thought to explain mental and other illness by demonic possession, and people with a respect for the Bible sometimes confuse reverence for God with reverence for Bronze Age medical opinions. Perhaps Hendrix had that belief too, or perhaps as his girlfriend thought, he was using it as an excuse after he hit her.

This seems like garbage Satanic panic era stuff, not worth discussing further.

[razerbelkin]

At least Hendrix confessed to practice whitchcraft, he believed to be possessed by some spirit, I quote Fayne Pridgeon: "he used to always talk about some devil, or something was in him, and he didn´t have any control over it" and I take her word for it. You dont, thats your choice. I will post some more vids during the continuation of the thread, but I have a real life too. Heres what Bob Dylan had to say, whats your opinion?

[Muizer]

Do we have any proof that abiogenesis precedes all life?

That's not a reasonable question. Within any framework where the word 'proof' has meaning, it's going to be axiomatic that first life was preceded by a universe in which the building blocks for life were present, but not life itself.

[fkizz]

So why are you asking me to explain it to you if you claim to understand it?

I'm asking why you put so much faith on abiogenesis being the thing, not how it works.

Because that is what the evidence points to.

Which evidence? if you show none, it's as good as Phantom Evidence or a Bluff.

What evasive replies have I given? You're the one who has refused to answer questions here, after all.

All of your replies have been evasive, you haven't answered my question which I will have the patience to re-ask:

[Atention, Question Incoming] I'm asking why you put so much faith on abiogenesis being the thing that originated life, not how it works. [/Atention, Question Incoming]

Because that is the process through which life comes to exist? This is a stupid question.

It's only normal to question (third time now) to ask you why you believe abiogenesis is the Origin of Life, unless you want to backpedal what you said. Either way nice Dogma on Origin of Life you have there.

That's not a reasonable question. Within any framework where the word 'proof' has meaning, it's going to be axiomatic that first life was preceded by a universe in which the building blocks for life were present, but not life itself.

Well, it wasn't a reasonable assertion either, so I got curious to what would make one believe in such. While I do agree with you that at best it's axiomatic, the poster who got such question asked was defending something else than you are.

[antaeus]

Akar doesn't believe that abiogenesis is anything other than a term to describe a process.

A process occurred, whereby existing organic compounds and other non-living matter went from having near living properties to having living properties. Acknowledging that there are grey areas in understanding this process doesn't undermine that we have evidence that this process occurred.

There are a number of competing theories on how this process occurred, and you can add the hand of god in there if you like. But a process did occur.

In this context, your semantic argument is unreasonable. It is not a question of belief, but a question of seeking to understand how something that is evidenced to have happened, did so.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Chemical evolution exists.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[basics]

To make Darwin's theory work one has to have billions of years of which there is no evidence for. The thing is that there is plenty of evidence that God made all things in the six days of creation to be mature as well as up and running and if Jesus Christ is not that evidence then what is?

[antaeus]

To make Darwin's theory work one has to have billions of years of which there is no evidence for.

Basics. You may not like or agree with the evidence for the age of the universe, that doesn't mean there is no evidence. You do yourself a disservice.

[Muizer]

To make Darwin's theory work one has to have billions of years of which there is no evidence for.

Darwin's theory does not pertain to abiogenesis.

The thing is that there is plenty of evidence that God made all things in the six days of creation to be mature as well as up and running and if Jesus Christ is not that evidence then what is?

Oh that. The 'god created the universe 6000 years ago exactly as if it were billions of years old' theory does not hold, because the only way to create the universe exactly as if it were billions of years old would be for it to be billions of years old. The 'fake' past would either be detectable as such or it wouldn't be fake by scientific standards. And all you have to gainsay it is testimony? Testimony that by its own rules could as easily have been faked. For all you know, god created the world yesterday. You wouldn't be able to tell. And this you cannot but accept as a possibility, because it is exactly what must have happened to all the creatures that sprung into life out of nowhere 6000 years ago. Just like you are sitting reading this, those creatures would have been convinced of the reality of yesterday's meal. You assume you have a past, that your saviour was in it, while you admit that at some point in the past there were people who science tells us were pretty much exactly like you sprung into existence out of nowhere. Pushed to its ultimate conclusion, you would entirely untether yourself from the reality around you today. You cannot, of course, which is why your position is fundamentally inconsistent, arguably hypocritical, and definitely entirely arbitrary.

[mishkin]

I recently stumbled upon this interesting Youtube series called "They Sold Their Souls". It´s about very famous persons that supposedly sold their soul to the devil, for fame, success and glory. In this thread we can discuss whether this is bollony, or if people really get possessed by demons. Personally I believe so. The videos are usually not that long, and I hope you find them as interesting as I do. Let´s start with Jimi Hendrix, as the video has some interesting things to say about drug abuse and it´s biblical context aswell.

it is baloney

by the way, I also once told a guy that I had sold my soul to the devil.

[conon394]

To make Darwin's theory work one has to have billions of years of which there is no evidence for.

Lots of evidence if stop ignoring it.

[razerbelkin]

Hm, I am no expert, but as far as I know evolution cannot explain the so called "Flagellum" (latin) or in german: "Geißelmotor", which some bacteria use for movement. The motor needed to move the "string" attached to the bacteria is way too complex for evolution, so I heard.


And with regard to the earth beeing only 6ooo years old, I once read, that there might have been some translation issues and it didn´t read "7 days" but 7 "ages" for example.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Lots of evidence if stop ignoring it.

Christian kids are often pre-loaded with alot of psychological defense mechanisms to stop them from thinking critically about science, so that later in life they just don’t think about it much at all. By kids I mean me. My whole life I was warned about the “evolutionists” and things to “watch out for.” The goal is to make science equivalent to religion by leaning heavily on terms like “theory” and “hypothesis” to make it seem like the evidence for even simple concepts is all speculation. I was today years old when I found out scientists have already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans and apes share a common ancestor, that simple molecules can rapidly evolve into more complex molecules, or that we have machines that can actually measure the age of rocks and fossils, and it’s not just a statistical estimate.

Of course, given even this basic information, one realizes how extremely remote the possibility is that the “unerrant and infallible” Biblical portrayal is actually so. I mean, as far as evidence goes, this is basically it:



It’s necessarily the case that if all living things were created during the creation week, then man and dinosaurs were on the earth at the same time, regardless of whether one wants to argue the days were literal or thousand year periods, because death did not exist before man sinned. This is “evidence” and it’s the same as the evolutionists’ evidence, so don’t let anyone tell you any different. I feel big dumb of course, but the scarier part is how many people believe this.



Truth be told, It’s shaken my sense of identity because it really seems like only America is this stupid. Having a hypothesis is fine, but any hypothesis has to at least be consistent with the underlying observations.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Akar]

God I'm so ing proud of Legio right now it's insane.

The motor needed to move the "string" attached to the bacteria is way too complex for evolution, so I heard.

Rolls eyes

Where did you hear it?

[razerbelkin]

Sorry I can´t tell Akar, that was years ago. Nonetheless it makes sense to me. If evolution was indeed the only explanation, at one point in time, there would be bacteria around with a not fully developed "motor", and such were never found. It´s too complex to have developed step by step.

[Cope]

Christian kids are often pre-loaded with alot of psychological defense mechanisms to stop them from thinking critically about science, so that later in life they just don’t think about it much at all.

Everyone is a product of their environment. We're all "pre-loaded with psychological defense mechanisms" to defend the fundamental axioms which we centre our lives around.

By kids I mean me. My whole life I was warned about the “evolutionists” and things to “watch out for.” The goal is to make science equivalent to religion by leaning heavily on terms like “theory” and “hypothesis” to make it seem like the evidence for even simple concepts is all speculation. I was today years old when I found out scientists have already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that humans and apes share a common ancestor, that simple molecules can rapidly evolve into more complex molecules, or that we have machines that can actually measure the age of rocks and fossils, and it’s not just a statistical estimate.

Evolution has been integrated into Christian reasoning for decades. If I recall correctly, the Roman church acknowledged its legitimacy seventy years ago. Welcome to the debate.

On the point about theories and hypotheses: all knowledge is provisional in that it is always subject to new evidence and/or interpretation. Neither is there settled science nor settled theology. These different ways of learning and knowing are not in competition with each other.

Of course, given even this basic information, one realizes how extremely remote the possibility is that the “unerrant and infallible” Biblical portrayal is actually so. I mean, as far as evidence goes, this is basically it:



It’s necessarily the case that if all living things were created during the creation week, then man and dinosaurs were on the earth at the same time, regardless of whether one wants to argue the days were literal or thousand year periods, because death did not exist before man sinned. This is “evidence” and it’s the same as the evolutionists’ evidence, so don’t let anyone tell you any different. I feel big dumb of course, but the scarier part is how many people believe this.

The story of Adam makes more sense in the context of evolution, not less. It follows man's coming of age, with the tree of knowledge symbolizing the development of agency and an awareness of the inevitability of mortality (which, among earthly creatures, is unique to humanity). Genesis concerns the beginning, which necessitates time and therefore change. Only God was ever immutable.

Truth be told, It’s shaken my sense of identity because it really seems like only America is this stupid. Having a hypothesis is fine, but any hypothesis has to at least be consistent with the underlying observations.

It's always good to question what we think we know. It's how we learn. The dilemma for religious educators is to be truthful without inadvertently leading people away from Christ. It is without doubt that they have often fallen short of the task.

[Akar]

Evolution has been integrated into Christian reasoning for decades.

The Catholic church believing in evolution officially is absolutely not the same thing as "evolution being integrated into Christian reasoning for decades", because it's not true. The majority of Christian groups absolutely do not acknowledge the legitimacy of evolution - nor do you personally, if I recall.

https://protestia.com/2020/12/12/pew...-in-evolution/

Christians, especially in America, are far more likely to not believe in evolution compared to non-religious persons.

40% of American's don't believe in Evolution at all.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/261680/...eationism.aspx

It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest there is any sort of consensus amongst the Christian community regarding the truth of evolution.

The story of Adam makes more sense in the context of evolution, not less. It follows man's coming of age, with the tree of knowledge symbolizing the development of agency and an awareness of the inevitability of mortality (which, among earthly creatures, is unique to humanity). Genesis concerns the beginning, which necessitates time and therefore change. Only God was ever immutable.

That just ignores the huge portion of believers who believe the bible is literally true.

31% of Americans for example believe the bible to be literally true, while even more believe it to be the inspired word of god.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/148427/...literally.aspx