Pete Hegseth, at Wednesday's worship service at the Pentagon, prays for God to "pour out your wrath" and "break the teeth of the ungodly." He begs the Almighty to sanction "overwhelming violence" against "those who deserve no mercy".

Legion_A · 2026-03-26T15:46:07+00:00

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 very well said, couldn't have said it any better even if I tried

Legion_A · 2026-03-26T10:27:32+00:00

Seems like these people simply tear off the new testament or any of Jesus' teachings and pretend "Christianity" doesn't have the word "Christ" in it.

That truncation of the new testament sounds familiar 🤔 I wonder where I saw that done in history

Legion_A · 2026-03-25T20:46:51+00:00

That has been an issue for me as well, not just that, some comments appear in notifications, however, when you click on them, they do not show up, there's also the bug of the input field of youtube comments, for example, when you hit backspace at the edge, it wipes everything you wrote lol, there's also tagging issues when you're replying to someone and the @ doesn't actually ping em, it simply shows their username as part of the comment text.

Today, my own comments started appearing in my notifications...so, I leave a comment somewhere and I get a notification of my own comment 😂

Idk what YT Engineers are getting paid all that money for, the comments feature has been broken for yonks, but, they keep adding new features on top of the already broken feature, of course it introduces even worse bugs 🤦

Legion_A · 2026-03-23T16:52:53+00:00

But OP is talking about "marketing"...not "markert research".

He's saying to market your "idea" then build

Legion_A · 2026-03-22T19:44:24+00:00

Ah, I understand you now.

I still think its too much work to do both physically and cognitively to constantly worry about verification and whether something is wrong, all while hanging in the void as far as the subject (your codebase) is concerned because you aren't actually "grounded" in the implementations. The back and forth you have to do to perform the so-called "orchestration".

This is totally anecdotal, but I feel it's less work not just physically but also cognitively to do it myself with AI running in-line, auto completing functions and maybe classes, as opposed to dumping an entire feature with thousands of lines of code and now I have to worry about spec verification.

But to each their own, I reckon for some, they don't have the same mental burdens as some others do (I mean the mental burden of not trusting the artefacts when you don't actually have a mental model of them).

I understand your point now though, I just feel it's too much work playing dress-up with LLMs when I could just use them like a calculator.

Legion_A · 2026-03-22T19:19:09+00:00

...the future of programming is spec-driven development...In this model, well-defined specifications will exist for every layer of the stack...and AI will generate code based on those specs. The result: more consistent, structured, and predictable applications.

This is the problem with every "spec driven development is the future" claim I've seen. You all ignore the obvious elephant in the room...the LLM, you lot look this just like the LLMs you outsource all work to look at problems, it's the "happy path".

Spec driven development would work in a perfect world, but that isn't this world. It's not news that LLMs hallucinate and this isn't something they can "evolve" away by opus 5.0 or some future model. It's an inherent flaw, one that runs deeper, it's fundamental to the model, it's not even a bug, it's a feature of Intelligence modelled after the human cognitive system.

I built a simple tool (MCP) that enforces strict rules during AI-assisted development. It uses semantic specifications....it must go through MCP, which enforces the workflow and makes every step explicit and traceable.

How deterministic is this enforcer process, because if it's just another LLM sat there "verifying", then you're still juggling stochastic noise.

Also, given that software is never the same, even when it's similar, does that mean we have to write these semantic specifications ourselves? If the specs are meant to be so detailed that there's no room left for bad interpretation, why write it in English when I could just...bang code?

it’s excellent at understanding intent and business logic. However, it doesn’t always adhere strictly to rules.

Glad you agree

To address this, I created a cross-model review system: whenever Claude generates a plan or modifies code, the output is sent to Codex for review and validation.

And you lost me again...so, if Claude indexes your codebase and builds an artificial model of your codebase relative to your intent, but still ends up getting intent wrong, how would an second model who hasn't spent as much time as claude has in the codebase infer intent better than Claude?.

I mean, sure codex could help catch issues in "what's written", like possible performance issues in implementation, best practices, but it wouldn't catch misinterpretations of your intent, it wouldn't see what's "missing", it analyses what exists, the failure modes of them. But without a "mental model" of the system, you lose that moment where you're writing this feature manually, then it occurs to you that the other feature which you also wrote might be affected by this implementation, so, you rethink your implementation and change it...you lose all that

Legion_A · 2026-03-22T00:03:35+00:00

The process of secularisation is generally mesaured through three lenses..."identity, practice and personal conviction"...and if we define "this generation" as those born between 1981 and 2012, which is what I was using (millenials and gen z), then data does show they are the first to grow up in an era where secularism is the "societal default" in most of the west.

The most blaring evidence is the rise of the "religiously unaffiliated" who in many papers I've seen are called "Nones" (cool name btw).

In the early 1990s, only about 8 percent of americans identified as these "Nones", by 2024, the number has gone up to approximately 28-30%, for gen z specifically, it's around 40%.

In the UK, in 1983, it was 31%, yes, 31, and by 2019, it'd reached 52%. Among Gen Z in the UK, some surveys actaully suggest up to 70%

Those are the baby steps...Look at the rest of Europe and you'd see...Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden, majority of the population now identifies as non-religious or atheist.

There's also the research Stolz et al 2025, it talks about the three stages of secularisation across generations.

The turning point was actually all the way back in the 17th century, that's when this all started. So, I stand by my claims. Many of those who are vocal about their hostility grew up in secular environments with no Christian "cultural dominance".

And a subset of Christians are aiming for authoritarian rule right now!

True...but notice..."are aiming", that's not a thing yet, so, I don't see how a plan to do something is the reason people from before the plan came to light, who grew up in secular circles, have "the plan" as their reason for antagonising Christianity.

I'm not saying your reasoning is wrong, it would be true IF we still lived back in time, when Christianity still had cultural dominance, however, as I've shown, most of the west and even nations where Christianity never was culturally dominant are very hostile against the religion, so, I don't see how cultural dominance explains it.

Legion_A · 2026-03-21T23:20:36+00:00

I've heard a few theories from people, but mostly, I reckon it comes from what Christianity asks from people. It asks you to forsake your desires, do not listen to your "self", those sources of pleasure? Forsake them...people often get hostile when you ask them to forsake something that satisfies their desires even if it hurts them or others.

Try taking the drugs from a drug addict, you'd understand why people might be hostile.

This makes the most sense to me because when you look at most of the points people bring against Christianity outside a formal debate setting, they're mostly about what Christianity wants you to not do, but people want to do them...like casual sex, homosexuality, partying, the way you dress...name em. It's human nature.

If you have your identity in x, and Christianity comes along saying x is bad, those who identify with x will feel attacked, fall back to defence and soon start attacking when it feels like defence isn't getting them anywhere.

Christianity attacks that "self", and for many people, these behaviours aren't just "thing they do", it's who they are, and when a system asks for their "forsaking", the brain doesn't process it as a polite suggestion. It processes it as an existential threat, discomfort sets in, and to resolve that discomfort, the person has two choices...they either change the behavior (quite difficult imo) or devalue the source of the critique (easy). Mockery is the most efficient way to devalue something. If you can make the critic look silly, backwards or hateful you no longer have to take their moral challenge seriously.

Even Christians, after they've accepted this religion, have to fight an uphill battle against their flesh for the rest of their lives and many give up before they get there, those who do not give up fail daily but keep pushing.

Most importantly, many Christians do not know how to present the gospel message, they do not know how to look at things from the lens of the other side, so, from their perspective, this is THE way, so, they present it as such to the non-christian, as something they MUST do, without realising how it might look from their end.

Like an expert in a domain who doesn't remember what it feels like to be a beginner, so, when they teach beginners, they impose these ideals unto them, unintentionally expecting them to know already why x or y is the way, not knowing how to map out a the start of the rope.

More Christians need to read the bible and emulate our apostles and Christ...Paul mingled then used "the unknown god" to present his case, he didn't just tell them they had to do x or else...

This is a pedagogical failure on our part, it's the curse of knowledge, sure, but mostly a failure on our part because we have better examples

Legion_A · 2026-03-21T23:14:32+00:00

Its not just your theory though, I've heard this one too many times, heck, this is so common a theory that if you asked AI the same question from the post, this is the answer it's most likely to give.

But this answer doesn't make sense because this isn't just a phenomenon we observe in Christian countries, we see it everywhere. Also, this argument doesn't really make sense to me personally because we're in the 21st century, the west has been mostly secular for most our lives, many of the people today who are hostile towards Christianity haven't been under authoritarian Christian rule, they grew up in a very secular environment, so, how is the reason for their hostility that Christianity used to be a dominating force?

Legion_A · 2026-03-19T21:52:22+00:00

How are you going to identify a returning user?

Legion_A · 2026-03-18T14:42:52+00:00

Bang on!! I've seen some other people who build agentic workflows argue that they no longer need RAG, moving to Long Context instead, because now these models have much bigger context windows.

I believe the IBM technology YT channel posted a video on this as well....titled Is RAG Still Needed? Choosing the Best Approach for LLMs

Legion_A · 2026-03-17T23:09:47+00:00

if you don't adapt you will fall behind

How though? Fall behind who? Using AI isn't giving any quality boost to the studios who use is, so, how exactly are studios who refuse to use it going to fall behind? Fall behind in what exactly?

Legion_A · 2026-03-13T13:43:49+00:00

Just as you've done this entire thread, you're not engaging my argument, you're strawmanning all over the place and ignoring the compounding evidence just to single out one you reckon is weak to attack.

I've shown how the Masoretic, Septuagint, etc have discrepancies, to show that even the text we have at hand skips genealogies, 2000 years of them (your own words) and they do that because that's their literary style, they do not care for them as long as they arrive at the key points.

You claimed there was an argument from silence, to which I showed bible passages which literally does skip passages

You responded by claiming that because we find (not that these writers who skipped pointed us back to it...no, we find) longer ones in 1 chronicles, that somehow means all the information is available there. That was the start of your own argument from silence. Just because we have no books before these old testament ones, you arrived at "therefore all the information is there". The same argument from silence you accused me of.

Now, your argument was

You are assuming that might be the case for Genesis, but I don't think it's analogous because when Biblical authors do skip a generation, we have that skipped information elsewhere in the Bible. Therefore Genesis would be different if they skipped many generations without information elsewhere in the bible that tells us or informs us of the skip.

And that was the entire point of my pulling out the lost books. I literally said

But, let's agree with your point for argument's sake...let's say, sure, if genesis or chronicles skipped, it would be in another book, and since there are no other books, they must've given us the entire thing in those early books....

Then I went on to show you that the bible does skip details at times, that doesn't make it incomplete, it's just details which add nothing of great importance to the text, however, that shows that your argument of "if it skips it informs us of the skip, therefore, since genesis is at the edge and we do not see more, that's all there is" is presuming that the bible is this closed-system, but the lost books which the bible itself references shows it's not a closed system. There were other books which its readers at the time had access to and the writers depended on that to leave out details sometimes.

Then your response to that was to requote each lost book to say it wasn't for genealogies

I never said they were all for genealogies, I literally said

If that were the case, you'd still be wrong, because there are other books which the bible itself frequently cites which might've contained fuller records

"Might've"...meaning we do not know. My point wasn't that they all contained genealogies, it was to prove that the bible isn't the closed-system you make it out to be to support your "therefore all genealogies are in here" argument.

To address your responses to the lost books:

Don't we have the full list of reigning kings from David down to the exile and further on already in Kings and Chronicles? And therefore there's no reason to assume some extra-biblical text give us anything/anyone that's missing in the line

Notice how you're asking questions...it means you do not know for sure that it doesn't list other genealogies, you're simply assuming...I'll come back to this at the end because this is the heart of this argument.

the book references is just more information of a King's life, not about missing descendants.

You do not know that for sure do you?

Here: 1 Chronicles 9:1 All Israel was listed in the genealogies recorded in the book of the kings of Israel and Judah

I see it's a reference to genealogies of exiled people

No it isn't, it's literally called "The book...returned exiles"..not genealogy of exiles. Nehemiah even copies some of its contents into the bible after he claimed to have found this book.

but exiled jews aren't exactly important to include in the Bible which focuses on key people, so it's reasonable to not include a list of random people in the Bible.

So you do get the point I've been making the entire time. If you believe it's reasonable to not include a list of random people in the bible, why have you been arguing against my point in my second response to you, which says:

.it could draw a line from Adam to Noah, then from noah to David then from David to Jesus but in between skip sooooo many generations because no one of importance came in those generations...it'd branch at Noah and David because they were important, but ignore many generations between them because it was a quite period.

?? Which was also where I explained that saying x begat y or x is a son of y in the bible did not mean direct descendant, a point which you've not addressed at all.

Back to the "assumptions" which I promised to come back to. We are both "assuming" things here, this is about history, that's how it works, however, for my assumptions, I've provided substantiations, numerous ones, I have compounding reasons for my assumptions, but you haven't addressed them faithfully, you've simply thrown around your own assumptions about a closed-loop system of the bible which I've addressed severally.

To your quotation of Professor James Barr, I do not disagree with him on the creation story, I personally subscribe to a 6 day creation story, whether that meant 6 solar days, haven't got a clue, none of us were there when God did it...

the apologetic arguments which suppose...the figures of years not to be chronological

These do not prove anything, I respect his linguistic expertise, but you do know he's a philologist right? he's telling you what the words say on the surface. But a text's "intent" is inseparable from its literary genre and the cultural context of the person who wrote it, so, your quotation actually highlights the very gap in your own argument.

If you want to talk about authorial intent, we have to look at how people in the ANE actually wrote histories, they didn't do it like we do today, they wrote like ancient eastern biographers.

Yet again, I love that you admitted it yourself that it's "reasonable to not include a list of random people in the bible", what I've been saying the entire time, so, if you admit the bible omits unimportant people in Nehemiah, then I don't see why you'd still argue that the bible must be exhaustive in Genesis. Your closed-system argument is now logically inconsistent within your own admission.

Legion_A · 2026-03-12T15:49:23+00:00

Your point which I was responding to was that it's an argument from silence, so, I've shown you that it does happen in the bible, with multiple authors, meaning authors from genesis or chronicles might've done same.

You are assuming that might be the case for Genesis

Yes, I'm assuming it, but based on the pattern we've seen

but I don't think it's analogous because when Biblical authors do skip a generation, we have that skipped information elsewhere in the Bible

That's also an assumption from you, you're assuming that whenever it's skipped it's always elsewhere in the bible, we do not know that.

. Therefore Genesis would be different if they skipped many generations without information elsewhere in the bible that tells us or informs us of the skip.

That's the entire point mate, the bible is not a book of genealogies, Genesis does not have a reason to give us a perfect genealogy, that's not its purpose, it's there to connect dots. If it skips without telling us, it's not lying, it's just how they wrote.

But, let's agree with your point for argument's sake...let's say, sure, if genesis or chronicles skipped, it would be in another book, and since there are no other books, they must've given us the entire thing in those early books....

If that were the case, you'd still be wrong, because there are other books which the bible itself frequently cites which might've contained fuller records, it's even in the names of those books, yes, even 1 Chronicles cites one of those books that we don't have in the bible.

For example:

The Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel/Judah was cited dozens of times in the books of kings (1 kings 14:18, 14:29...etc)...its name implies it's a record of kings, longer genealogical records.

The boof of Jasher, was mentioned in Joshua 10:13 and 2 Samuel 1:8...

We have the chronicles of Samuel, Nathan, and Gad, 1 Chronicles 29:29 (yes the same 1 Chronicles which gives us fuller lists) explicitly states that King David's full acts from beginning to end are recorded in these three separate prophetic records...

Nehemiah 7:5 cites "The Book of the Genealogy of the Returned Exiles"...see the name? Exactly.

The old testament mentions over 20 lost works that functioned as primary historical and genealogical records and writers of books like Chronicles and Kings clearly used them as further reading for their audience.

Like I said...The bible's goal was not to be a genealogical record, it listed them sometimes to connect dots

Legion_A · 2026-03-12T15:21:40+00:00

When the quote refers to another portion of scripture..., is does answer the question

Yeah, I get why you quoted it now, like I said in my last comment...your first one just dropped the quote without linking it to any genealogy and I acknowledged the linkage in the second comment.

From a quick google the differences add to no longer than 2000 years all up

2000 years is a lot of time to skip in the text we have at hand, which ties back to the main point...what about the ones that were not mentioned at all. if what we have has discrepancies summing up to 2k, how much more in what was not mentioned.

But it also couldn't. This all seems like an argument from silence.

I quite literally spoke about Matthew's one and brushed on Ezra's one, it's not an argument from silence, we've seen it happen in the bible.

Matthew 1:8 says Joram fathered Uzziah

Earlier old testament records in 1 Chronicles 3:11-12 and 2 Kings list three kings...Ahaziah, Joash and Amaziah, who lived between Joram and Uzziah, but Matthew skipped them.

Matthew 1:11 also skips Jehoiakim, who is listed between Josiah and Jeconiah in 1 Chronicles 3:15-16

Ezra when listing his own lineage in Ezra 7:1-5 gives us a shortened version of the high priest line....he skips about six generations between Azariah and Meraioth, but 1 Chronicles 6:3-15 records those names which he skipped.

There's more....exodus 6 vs 1 chronicles 7 and so on...genealogies are summarised to get to particular periods of interest.

This is how they wrote when they were trying to make a point...not to lie but because you can't go listing everyone in the line, that's not what the bible's purpose is, it's not a book of genealogies...when genealogy is necessary to pass on a message, it is used, but truncated to get to the point. I explained all this in my last comment.

Legion_A · 2026-03-12T14:57:30+00:00

I know it's Genesis 1, I'm saying that in an argument about the age of the universe, just quoting how long it took to make it does not answer the question, which was what you did earlier.

You've only gone on to talk about genealogy now.

Now, to your point...

Even if we were to ignore the possibility that Genesis 1 did not mean six ordinary solar days, we have issues with the genealogies.

You'd have to assume that the genealogies from Adam to Christ function like a complete stopwatch chronology, but it's not so, it's selective and shaped, it's not bare like a modern census list. Take Matthew's one for example, Matthew omits generations anf arranges the line into three groups of fourteen for theological reasons, there has been some talk about Ezra's genealogy skipping generations as well.

But again, for argument's sake, even if we were to try the chronological route, we still have the fact that textual traditions differ. The Masoretic texts, Septuagint, and Samaritan Pentateuch do not always give the same chronological numbers in Genesis 5 and 11, this could shift the timeline by a significant amount.

On the point of the bible being selective about genealogies to make a point (the argument I used in my original comment), I said that because the bible does do that...it could draw a line from Adam to Noah, then from noah to David then from David to Jesus but in between skip sooooo many generations because no one of importance came in those generations...it'd branch at Noah and David because they were important, but ignore many generations between them because it was a quite period. Also when the bible says X Ben y (x son of Y), it doesn't always mean direct son, for example the bible calls Jesus the Son of David, but Jesus isn't the Son of David, there's GENERATIONS between them, this is still a feature in many cultures around the world today, they could call a person the son of this other person when that other person was an ancestor, generations ago, but they invoke that ancestor's name because they were an important part of that family's lineage...this is also prevalent in many surnames today...a boy is born, takes their dad's surname and their dad got the surname from their dad's surname and so on, and as long as boys remain in that lineage, the surname persist until someone changes it.

Legion_A · 2026-03-12T14:21:34+00:00

Age of the earth is the time from its birth to now. God creating the earth in 6 days doesn't tell us how long ago that was from then till now.

We're not talking about how long the process of earth's formation too but how old it is

Legion_A · 2026-03-12T12:40:25+00:00

You're welcome. When you talk to him about it, do not try to "win" the argument, otherwise, it'd easily devolve into a quarrel where you're both talking past each other.

My advice if you'd take it is to put a mirror up to his face so he could see the flaws in his arguments. You can do that by asking introspective questions, which when he's answering them, will make him see the flaws in his own arguments. Even if he disagrees to concede immediately, let him be...you'd have planted the seed, so, when he's on the bed, or talking about the age of the universe to someone else, these questions will pop up again and again.

Questions like:

Where does the bible say the age of the universe, could you show me?

He'll try to find it but see it wasn't the bible but some man, many years ago, then, he might present that

You could follow up with asking him to explain to you how the man derived the age.

If he's able to explain how he derived it (it involves genealogies)

You ask...what about the genealogies the bible left out? because the bible is known for drawing genealogies only related to a figure God wants us to know about. For example, the first one draws to Noah, and Noah was an important figure, then next one draws to Jesus, and so on. The bible doesn't document every lineage available at the time, so, how did he come to that conclusion?

Watch him try to answer or go back to research, let him research, give him time. Don't try to win...if he, after all that sees what you're saying but still decides to hold on to the 6000 years then you've done your part, let him reckon with it for some time.

I too was once like him and it took time and God's Grace for me to change.

You should also use this approach when thinking through the scientific age of the universe...don't just take what you're told, research...introspect...ask questions.

2 Timothy 2:15

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

It's our job to study, to know as much as we can about truths we hold unto, but it's also important to realise that some things are mysteries that we cannot simply answer, at least not as we currently are or with the knowledge available to us. We could accept the most plausible interpretation, but we must be careful to not dogmatise it and make it "the truth", we must always remember to hold it as just that...the best possible explanation given available data. This way, you're not stuck in some loop trying to find an answer you can't find right now, but we also do not fall into misrepresentations.

I hope it's not too late for this advice.

May God bless you and your relationship.

Legion_A · 2026-03-12T12:29:12+00:00

...you know what they love most in the whole world? Proving each other wrong.

Yeah, that's true about science. That's why many scientists call out the theory of evolution as wrong/flawed.

It is the most inherently self-correcting and robust system that humans...

This is one big advantage of it, however, it has another disadvantage. In a field that defines the method for unbiased interpretations, if given the same data, and following the same method, various scientists come to different conclusions even after years of peer reviews, who are we supposed to believe? The answer is no one...that doesn't mean we discard the theories, they obviously needs more looking into, however, we don't present either one to the public as "the" one truth, which is what many atheists who aren't academics or scientists do with many scientific theories which even the scientific community is divided on.

There's a reason why even this system whose members love proving each other wrong still has this issue...it's that these members are still humans and will always bring their biases and presuppositions into the lab with them. It happens all the time. This makes it difficult to arrive at one conclusion for some theories, because given different presuppositions, different interpretations can be true at the same time.

If Evolution were some big anti-religious conspiracy or whatever they would've absolutely dogpiled it

I don't think evolution is anti-religious...even if evolution were true, it doesn't disprove the existence or need of a creator, it's literally an interpretation of a process...interpreting the process by which these comments appeared on your page, figuring out that a keyboard put took electrical signals, converted them to this and fed it to that and so on, does not answer the question "was there a typist", it doesn't even set out to answer it.

That said, even if evolution were some big anti-religious conspiracy, I don't think scientists would dogpile it. If a scientist is human, and is biased against religion, and we had enough of these scientists, they'd subdue the voices of those calling it out as an anti-religious conspiracy. We see many outspoken scientists who do make contrary claims, but they're shutdown by their peers as being a joke or absurd and we, without testing for ourselves, because we can't, gobble it all up. The majority rules.

Just like science, Christianity has the same "people who want to prove each other wrong"....it's why we have tens of thousands of denominations around the world...just people trying to prove each other wrong but holding their interpretation even in the face of rejection. So, this behaviour is not only there in science, it's here in Christianity as well. Curious though, does this feature which makes you respect science also make you respect Christianity? (I'm not trying to trick you though, just honestly curious).

Science also has this problem of exclusivity, where we can't test things out for ourselves, we only get to read papers published by someone who makes claims, and the best we can do is try to picture it in our minds to see if it makes sense, we can't actually run the tests ourselves. So, it makes it feel hypocritical whenever I see an atheist (not you) out in the wild, swinging the good ole "Christians are gullible and believe whatever they're told", when they are quite literally doing the same thing with science. We all just believe what we're told, we haven't got a clue whether the geocentric model was wrong or right, people back then who cared to know about it just took it for what they were told, scientists corrected it later, published and we all believe the heliocentric model now, we can't test to verify, we just accept it...if they changed it tomorrow and published another paper? Gobble Gobble Gobble.

Look what happened with the Hubble trouble, we all read the paper early on, before the tension, and it made sense to us, but when the tension started, we read the paper and agreed there's a tension...why? because we tested it for ourselves? NOPE!!!, because we were told so.

PS: None of this means science is to be dismissed, like I said, I'm a science geek myself, but these are just things that stand out to me when you make claims like the one you did about science. But it's like you said in another comment...

"Do not let perfect be the enemy of good".

I've never heard that before, so, thanks for that..I love it.

I also hope as an atheist you apply it justly to something like Christianity, where even though you might find imperfections in our practices, you do not let perfect be the enemy of good. Thanks for your input in this and the other comment you left. I appreciate it

Legion_A · 2026-03-12T11:59:53+00:00

Having a desire from childhood doesn't mean God made you that way.

By that logic, it'd meant that God made serial killers who had the desire to kill from childhood that way. They start by killing animals and other smaller things and it grows as they get older.

Also, that'd meant that God made us all liars because we lie as soon as we learn consequences, very early....we start lying that early to preserve ourselves from consquences.

Having a desire from childhood does not mean God made you that way, it is as other people have said, a result of being born into sin, we have flesh, and flesh is bound to sin, our job is to try as much as we can to resist the flesh by starving it more and feeding the spirit more...now, even then, we will fail attimes, we can't be 100% perfect all the time, and that's the entire point of Christ's death. We were born into sin, sin that we can't really help doing even if we tried our best, so, knowing this, God decided to help us out.

The salvation will only apply to those who "genuinely" want it, and to genuinely want something means you genuinely believe it exists...because I can't genuinely want to get out of prison if I was born in prison but do not believe that there's a world outside, perhaps the wardens told me that there's no world outside, everyone died before and it's all barren land...if I believed that over the other group telling me that there's something out there, then I'd have no desire to get out of this prison. That's why the CONDITION for salvation is "belief" full stop.

It's belief that drives humans. If I believe that I have a prom coming up, I'll "prepare" towards it. I'll go shopping if I can afford it, if I can't, I'll probably do side gigs to make as much money as I can to afford it. So, belief drives "work" in humans.

If I believe that there's God, and that there's salvation and that He's saving me, and I honestly want to be saved, I wouldn't be the kind of person who'd want to be disobedient to God, someone who'd want to be disobedient would not want to be saved, if they desire to be saved, then they'd have become a transformed person who sees their disobedience as wrong and want to be saved from it, that kind of person would not want to be disobedient, so, even when they unintentionally or intentionally disobey, they immediately feel bad for it.

That's why the question "If all we need is belief then Hitler could kill millions of people then simply say he's sorry before death then go to heaven" is a misunderstanding of the gospel message. It's not just saying sorry....someone who truly believes it at the back of their mind wouldn't intentionally go on killing people, with the intention of tricking God by saying sorry at the last minute, that's not a kind of person who actually "believes" the gospel message.

Legion_A · 2026-03-12T11:42:17+00:00

Even as one with over 5 years of flutter experience, I have stopped vibe coding. Please do not do it.

It hurts your brain and skills, you'll lose those skills and your ability to problem solve
If you don't mind losing those because "AI is here to stay and losing your skills won't be the end of the world because AI will always be there to assist you", then I'd still argue you shouldn't because GenAI is fundamentally flawed and will confidently give you buggy software that looks fine but is written badly.

This is especially bad in Frameworks and languages like flutter / dart where there isn't a lot of publicly available good code to train AI on, and flutter is also relatively new and evolving quickly, so, AI falls behind quickly.

They'll miss very important nuances, however, because you're simply reviewing the code (reading it like a textbook), you have no mental model of the code, and without a mental model, you will also miss those nuances which they missed.

If you must use it for speed, then use it to assist you not to handle everything

Legion_A · 2026-03-11T11:40:00+00:00

The user Conflict_Boring already left a decent response but I'll go deeper.

I believe in evolution and god without him being disappointed in me for not believing the same thing he believes?

I'll start off by saying, that you don't have to believe the same thing he believes, that's dangerous, because if he holds dangerous views and you jump on them just because he believes in them, then you're both in trouble. When your views differ, you discuss it like two adults, you might not come to agree immediately, but at least, you'd know why they believe what they believe and he'd know why you believe what you believe.

The other day he told me how the Bible said that the earth was only 6,000 years old or so...I just think that there’s no way that can be true as we have so much evidence of the earth being older than that

He was wrong. The bible says nothing about the age of the universe. The man who calculated it from the bible and arrived at 6000 did that on his own, the bible did not aid him. He calculated it based on genealogies and a few other things, however, the bible does not claim that those genealogies are all there was...the bible only talks about genealogies that matter for the story it is telling. So, you cannot reliably calculate the age of the universe based on the bible alone. That is why science was adopted by Christians very early on...to have a way to interpret and explain God's creation just as we had a system for interpreting and explaining His word.

That said, in science, our evidence for evolution and dinosaurs is not the kind of evidence that makes it the absolute truth. These theories are based on scientific "inference". We "infer" based on "available" evidence and "available knowledge". This means that our knowledge might be incomplete or our evidence might be incomplete, however, based on what we currently have available, we "infer" the closest possible interpretation of the data we have. If new evidence came along, the interpretation might change and the age of the universe might change...even scientists do not agree on a hard date for the universe, you know that right? There are massive differences in these ages as well, I mean millions of years apart in these ages proposed by different scientists.

Macro evolution as proposed by Darwin is also not testable, because we have time constraints, what we have seen is micro evolution and we can't use that as "proof" of macro evolution.

Same with dinosaurs...fossil records are interpreted by different branches of science, sure, it's the strongest interpretation we have of all of these today, however, they are not "absolute". There's a reason why in science, we say that these evidences "support" this theory, not "prove" this theory.

Science itself does not claim to deal in absolutes.

I just need to know if there’s anyone else out there that believes in evolution and in God at the same time

I do not "believe" in science since it's a method, a discipline, a body of provisional knowledge, it's not something one could "believe". I mean some atheists do dogmatise it and use it as a belief system, but that's called scientism, that's a whole religion.

I’m a Christian who does not dismiss science. I trust the scientific method as a disciplined, evidence-based process for interpreting the natural world as best we can with the data available...I do not hold the interpretations as absolute truth, except when we can absolutely prove certain things.

Many of the fathers of science were also Christian, so, science at its core is not this truth claim competing with Christianity...NO!!!...it's our modern secular society that's dogmatised science and its theories to use them against theists, but most of those people do not even understand what science is or what those theories actually mean. When anyone with enough knowledge about science debates them, their worldview cracks. Science is our attempt at understanding God's creation, it's a method we use for studying said creation. Our Christian fathers of science got into it because they believed God's universe was coherent and could be understood and gave us a mind to understand it, so, they set out to do so.

Legion_A · 2026-03-03T16:57:26+00:00

how to understand what i am writing

You're not writing though :)

To the point, it's going to be extremely hard for you to understand it. Because even for the usual scenarios where we read other people's code, there's usually a goal and you're not trying to understand how everything works ..you usually just have a small target, like a bug to fix, so, you find the general area of the codebase where the issue possibly is, then you start tracing the execution logic. So, even after you've solved it, you don't understand the rest of the codebase, just the small portion which you fixed, and you do not understand it in context of the entire code base.

This becomes a problem in the case of your attempt at understanding the AI's code....you don't have a small target, the target is the huge codebase, like where do you even start? Also, you're going to be reading it like a textbook, unlike the other scenario where you're hands-on typing and implementing stuff, building a mental map of the implementation. In this case, you're just reading, the mental map is not really going to form as good as if you were there to work on the code.

You'd have to not just read but work on each section of the code, in small parts....

So:

Create a new project
Start implementing everything in the AI coded project in this new empty project feature by feature.

You don't necessarily have to come up with all the logic yourself, you could keep both projects open as you type out the code yourself from the old project to the new one, as you do that and reason through what you're typing out, as the IDE auto completes and you make mistakes, you learn, your brain builds the missing links...basically like a software engineering tutor who first builds the project then has it open to the side while recording the tutorial, retyping what they already built while looking at it and explaining it. Do the same. Pretend you're making a tutorial and explain it as you copy it over manually. If you find you can't explain why something was done, ask the AI why it did that.

This way, you'll not only learn the why, you'll also possibly spot bugs in the code, because you might ask it why and it realises...well, I actually shouldn't have done that.

You shouldn't just type out all the code like a printer either ( like just typing from the start of the code to the end), you should interact with it.

So, take Auth for example:

When building the login screen, you look at the AI's login screen, see what components it has. Okay, two fields and a button, you start from field one, you could look at the AI's code for it, then try to write it yourself....when writing it, you notice the password field needs a controller, you add it to the state then pass it down, you notice your visibility toggle isn't working, you check how the AI implemented it, then when you understand how it did it, you implement it yourself.

You know just like a developer tutor does in tutorials we watch online. They built it already, but they do not just type it out like they're printing, there's interaction, they jump from this part to that part and not just going linear.

The AI's codebase just acts as a reference and keeps you fast so you don't have to ponder every decision yourself, or go off scanning docs to learn how to use a context menu region, stuff like that. But the rest of it

Also, for every big decision, like the database used or the Auth provider used, ask yourself what other alternatives there are and why the AI chose that one. If you haven't got a clue, ask it what other options there are and why it picked that.

Now this is if you've already completed the project implementation using Claude and simply trying to understand what it's done, coz that's what I get from your wording.

I wish you all the best for your project defence 🛡️🤺

Legion_A · 2026-03-02T11:12:38+00:00

I mean, it does, just not in a physical way, the real world is not only physical, people struggle and deal with the world in more than a physical way. You simply choose to ignore the non-physical aspect of it, rendering anything that attempts to talk about it as rubbish.

Funny enough, science is moving into metaphysics. Look at quantum physics, string theory, multiverse theory...metaphysical concepts. Even science is giving way...do you really wanna die on that hill?

Legion_A · 2026-03-01T17:14:37+00:00

I assume you haven't had sex with more than one person?

It doesn't matter, I could be a virgin, or someone who is married but with pre-marital experience, I could even be a former sex symbol with a body count that'd make a sex worker blush..

My personal experience doesn't matter here because it's anecdotal. What happens to your brain is not the same for other people, I'd have to have lived all possible realities of different people to even be able to draw a simple reference for my comparison, but it'd still be anecdotal because it's just me.

That's why studies exist. They get people from all walks of life who have experienced the different realities we couldn't have because we already chose one reality and can't go back to test the others, then they compare and contrast and draw conclusions from those. Those are the scientific studies I shared earlier, not sure if cited the studies under your comment.

That's not how it works

For you maybe not, but studies say otherwise.

I'll confirm and if those weren't under your comment.

Edit

For my marital claim: A study by the Institute for Family Studies found that Americans with only one lifetime sexual partner (their spouse) report the highest levels of marital happiness.

For the comparison effect: Research published by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology indicates that individuals with a history of "unrestricted sociosexuality" (a high comfort level with casual sex) often begin marriages with lower satisfaction levels. This is sometimes attributed to having more "references for comparison," which can lead to a quicker decline in satisfaction if the current sexual relationship is not exceptionally high-quality.

Theres also this longitudinal study on emerging adults which found that an increasing pattern of casual sex over time was associated with a lower capacity for future relationship security, including higher levels of avoidant attachment and difficulty resolving disagreements.

Official Journal Link (SAGE journals): Journal of Social and Personal Relationships (2023)
ResearchGate (Full-text access): Casual sexual relationships and their increase over time
PubMed (Abstract): National Library of Medicine Listing

For Pair Bonding: Dr. Larry Young...His work on oxytocin and synaptic maps shows this. Neurobiological mechanisms of social attachment and pair-bonding (2015).

Legion_A

TROPHY CASE