That's the wonderful thing about getting a good education, though: you learn new ways of perception and perspective
absolutely true - but this will do no good if you go into the situation with preconceived notions, especially with regard to a STEM degree
Scientific thinking--and for that matter, new ideas in every discipline--have been similarly dismissed by closed-minded individuals. They forced Galileo to publicly recant his idea that the Earth orbits the sun, for example. Just because an idea doesn't fit your (or my) worldview doesn't make further research fruitless
first off, if you will please revisit your history books and note that it was the religious leadership who forced Galileo to recant.... and that is a huge lesson you should remember about why religion doesn't mix with science. Science advances on the power of it's evidence, regardless of what you believe, whereas religion grows because people believe regardless of the evidence against their belief.
next thing to know regarding your comment is that history is rife with people dismissing science, and you can see it still today with climate change to evolution. One of the major contributors to these beliefs is a choice to believe what you want over the evidenciary proof that directly contradicts it. see also:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0075637
one last point regarding dismissal of certain things in science today: usually it is for a good reason, be it evidence or simply the violations of known laws well established as scientific facts. the perfect example of this is the "intelligent design" cult or even the electric universe and their cult of idiocy.
taking random historical dismissals of evidence from history without context only demonstrates your willingness to completely ignore relevant evidence and data to argue on behalf of your belief system, which is one reason you will not do well in a STEM field.
Who said I don't have evidence?
you have provided absolutely zero reputable evidence to the forum, and as such that means, by definition, you do not have evidence. (anecdote is not real evidence unless you can provide a means to replicate said evidence - see link below). in fact, your "evidence" is at best
unsupported conjecture. You can't even consider it an untested claim as i provided a refute that is actually based on hard physical evidence that can not only be replicated, but can also make accurate predictions as well as can be falsified.
logic says you have no evidence.
also note: there are different
levels of evidence, and as such you've provided only anecdote, one of the lowest and worst levels of evidence you can have.
The claim: God sometimes communicates with man through body signals.
check
physical evidence supporting claim: decades of personal observation, correlation and experience.
check
compatible with observation and validated knowledge: yep
check
now to apply the scientific method which you refuse to accept but somehow want to get a degree in
is it able to be replicated?
nope
is it validated through secondary non-related sources?
nope
is it falsifiable?
nope
is it then, using the scientific method, something that can be considered a fact?
nope
this is, at best, a belief that you have about yourself and your world and can be explained by actual science that is backed by experimental replication as well as evidence elsewhere. you can see the same arguments you've made from:
religious fanaticism
medical ailments
mass hysteria
psychosomatic illnesses
delusional mental illnesses
schizophrenia
I'll stop there ... there is a lot more that can explain your situation with far more accurate and better scientific evidence compiled from far greater experiment and or collections of data for statistical analysis.
Please explain your point in quoting Jeremiah--I don't get it.
imagine that... you're not educated in your own bible. sigh...
for starters, you need to choose which "covenant" you wish to follow per the Abrahamic biblical record. there are only two.
then note that to be a chosen one able to teach others in the way of the religion per the
first covenant requires application of a known set of rules (laws) and appointment which you do not have (and this is well known by simply studying the OT, and there are places to find these appointments even on the web)... so you've directly violated your own biblical laws for the sake of promoting heresy and or your personal belief.
given your refusal to abide by the direct commandments of the first covenant and your failure to provide your heritage from the House of Israel as well as the other mandated requirements per the Abrahamic religion then this means, by definition, that you abide by the
second covenant.
saying you abide by the
second covenant means you are directly violating your biblical law and that you do not believe in the power of or the words of your own supposedly omniscient omnipotent deity as it plainly explains (JER 31: 33-34) that your deity said thus: "I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."
so as such you're violating your own biblical law, either way you look at it.
please note that if you want to promote a religion, you either have to abide by said religions mandate or create your own like Joseph Smith who, like any religious leader, simply made sh*t up in order to control others.
that is proven fact that can be demonstrated from all the written history of the human race. period.
this is one reason religion is not considered amenable to science.
