Originally posted by: tealk
Mormans and jehova's Witnesse's are NOT anywhere near the same as Christianity. In fact, they are some of the most misguided.
Originally posted by: tealk
You're not doing a very good job. Don't you have a duty to convert the nonfaithful? Why not answer my question, anyway? You're being very rude, and I don't think your religion encourages that.
My question is simple: how could I possibly start to believe in your particular religion instead of all the others out there? What makes it inherently so much better? Because I can tell you, from the outside looking in, they are similar in a lot of respects. You have a holy book, they have theirs. So tell me, how am I supposed to believe in the Alpha and the Omega or whatever in the face of equally strong words from advocates of other religions?
Originally posted by: tealk
The greatest sentence you have said that I agree with 110% "(and that logic is all we have in the absence of faith). " Which answers all questions you asked me.
Worldy things are not of God, Logic is of the world. Thus my Faith. You dont have to beleive what I say, but I think you will understand what I just said.
Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Originally posted by: tealk
The greatest sentence you have said that I agree with 110% "(and that logic is all we have in the absence of faith). " Which answers all questions you asked me.
Worldy things are not of God, Logic is of the world. Thus my Faith. You dont have to beleive what I say, but I think you will understand what I just said.
I don't quite understand, honestly. Are you saying that we're just screwed if we don't believe? Either we should have some basis for beginning belief when we don't have it yet, or not. If not, we are at least blameless. If so, I'd like to know what it is. And I'd like to know what sets it apart from what other religions offer.
You could read the Bible a million times over, but if you don't believe that everything it says is true and from God, you won't receive the true benefit. Even Gandhi read the New Testament (more so than even than many today who claim to be Christians), and did gain a surface insight, but he never received the true joy or knowledge that comes from the infinite depth that is the Word of God.Originally posted by: 6000SUX
Okay... but why should I do these things instead of studying the Quran, the Torah, etc.? Also, if faith comes from hearing, why hasn't it come to me? I have heard plenty of the words of Christ, and read the entire Bible several times when I was in the military. Don't snow me with "those who have ears will hear" etc.-- I studied the words.
It can't serve as proof, unless you believe. To those who believe, the Word is Truth, and it serves as a testimony to what God has said. In those who are willing to relinquish selfish pride, and have their "eyes and ears" of the heart open to receive the Word of God, the Word can bring a person to the point of salvation. Perhaps that is tealk's hope; it is definitely mineThe first section is purely words from the Bible, or conclusive statements. For someone who doesn't believe yet, how can these serve as proof?
[/quote]I appreciate your time, honestly. I am trying to do two things: help you understand that your statement before about us all going to hell was fairly sanctimonious, since we nonbelievers really can't be faulted for our nonbelief; and get your honest perspective on why I should rationally strive for belief, in the absence of belief. This latter bootstrapping problem fascinates me, because it almost always seems like the faithful of all religions cannot even grasp that some people deal with these things logically (and that logic is all we have in the absence of faith).
Originally posted by: tealk
The greatest sentence you have said that I agree with 110% "(and that logic is all we have in the absence of faith). " Which answers all questions you asked me.
Worldy things are not of God, Logic is of the world. Thus my Faith. You dont have to beleive what I say, but I think you will understand what I just said.
Originally posted by: UnixFreak
I believe in God, and am willing to admit I have no evidence he exists. My belief is based on faith, which is based on much introspective thought on why things are the way they are and how they are created. Simply put: I dont think this world created itself. Not very logical or scientific, but I don't care.
I also believe we as humans don't have the first clue as to how it all works, and never will. I also think that most religions likely have it way off also. So Science may prove a lot of things wrong that were written in the bible, but there is no way science will ever prove there is no god, and nobody will ever be able to prove their is a god.
But people will argue about it till the end of days. I choose not to get into it most of the time. I can see both sides honestly.
You are closer to the Kingdom of God by acknowledging that truth.Originally posted by: UnixFreak
I believe in God, and am willing to admit I have no evidence he exists. My belief is based on faith, which is based on much introspective thought on why things are the way they are and how they are created. Simply put: I dont think this world created itself. Not very logical or scientific, but I don't care.
Science has never proven anything wrong that is written in the Bible. People use faulty science to attack the Bible, just as they have done for centuries. Anyone willing to acknowledge that science changes, scientific assumptions and theories can be wrong, and therefore is not absolute truth, will realize why you cannot justly use science to attack the Word of God. The Bible is absolute truth, and science (by its own very definition) is not. What is held to be true in the "scientific community" today, may not be so in 100 years, but the truth of God's Word is the same today, yesterday, and will be so forever.I also believe we as humans don't have the first clue as to how it all works, and never will. I also think that most religions likely have it way off also. So Science may prove a lot of things wrong that were written in the bible, but there is no way science will ever prove there is no god, and nobody will ever be able to prove their is a god.
Originally posted by: tealk
Mormans and jehova's Witnesse's are NOT anywhere near the same as Christianity. In fact, they are some of the most misguided.
Originally posted by: tealk
You are 100% correct Crono......my meaning behind saying Logic is not of God...was ....the "Logic" he/they were discussing in evolution, and "seeing is beleiving" mentallity was and is not of God...I just didn't clarify.
Very good to hear your words....Amen brother.
Bless You
Originally posted by: Crono
You are closer to the Kingdom of God by acknowledging that truth.Originally posted by: UnixFreak
I believe in God, and am willing to admit I have no evidence he exists. My belief is based on faith, which is based on much introspective thought on why things are the way they are and how they are created. Simply put: I dont think this world created itself. Not very logical or scientific, but I don't care.
Science has never proven anything wrong that is written in the Bible. People use faulty science to attack the Bible, just as they have done for centuries. Anyone willing to acknowledge that science changes, scientific assumptions and theories can be wrong, and therefore is not absolute truth, will realize why you cannot justly use science to attack the Word of God. The Bible is absolute truth, and science (by its own very definition) is not. What is held to be true in the "scientific community" today, may not be so in 100 years, but the truth of God's Word is the same today, yesterday, and will be so forever.I also believe we as humans don't have the first clue as to how it all works, and never will. I also think that most religions likely have it way off also. So Science may prove a lot of things wrong that were written in the bible, but there is no way science will ever prove there is no god, and nobody will ever be able to prove their is a god.
The difference between religions and the Truth of the Bible, is that all religions teach that, through some type of works or work, man can be saved. Christ taught, and so does the entirety of the Bible, than it is only God who can save man from sin and death. All the religions of this world have come demons, who wish to see as many people as possible fall into false doctrines and lies. There is only One way to salvation, as Jesus said: "I am the way, the truth, and the life."
Originally posted by: Crono
You are closer to the Kingdom of God by acknowledging that truth.Originally posted by: UnixFreak
I believe in God, and am willing to admit I have no evidence he exists. My belief is based on faith, which is based on much introspective thought on why things are the way they are and how they are created. Simply put: I dont think this world created itself. Not very logical or scientific, but I don't care.
I also believe we as humans don't have the first clue as to how it all works, and never will. I also think that most religions likely have it way off also. So Science may prove a lot of things wrong that were written in the bible, but there is no way science will ever prove there is no god, and nobody will ever be able to prove their is a god.
Science has never proven anything wrong that is written in the Bible.
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Science has never proven anything wrong that is written in the Bible.
You know, science changes every time new information comes to light. Scientists used to think the earth is 100 million years old. Then, through the various radiometric methods that have been developed, they moved that estimate to 4.5 billion years. That estimate is based on the assumption that half-life decay rate of various isotopes is constant. Now I'm not saying that assumption is necessarily wrong, but it wouldn't be the first time mistakes have been made by scientists. For all I or you know, there could be a discovery 2 months or 2 decades from now showing the earth to be 8 billion years old. My point is that you can't state with absolute certainty that any scientific "fact" is true, because science is always changing.Also, Geology, Physics, Biology, Chemistry all agree that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
I'm not saying the biblical account of creation isn't literal; inf fact, I am saying it is literal. Your point is exactly right: people are trying to accommodate scientific theories by changing "Day" to millions of billions of years, when there is no biblical support for this at all. These people who are saying this do not have a strong biblical knowledge or of that passage or Hebrew, or they wouldn't be making these claims.Say that the Bible's acount is not meant to be literal..fine. My question is, why choose to change the stance of literal 7-day creation only after the evidence brought forth from science? (Not saying that you have, but this is the majority consensus among those that are ordained...you know, those "officially" allowed to interpret the word of God for all of us peons.)
[/quote]Certainly, had the Inquisition won it's way, and reason was smoten, there would be no argument from any theist that the Bible is not meant to be taken "literally."![]()
The world is heading for environmental catastrophe ? or so we are constantly being told by the politicians and self-appointed experts.
They warn us that unless we take drastic action, the earth will soon be devastated by climate change and global warming.
Entire species will be lost, crops will be obliterated, floods and famine will sweep across the planet, and western economies will slide into depression.
Tonight, Channel 4 will broadcast The Great Global Warming Swindle, which suggests that the whole subject has become such a political hot potato that other explanations for climate change are not being properly examined.
Certainly, there have been many sweeping predictions of global ruin, few more emphatic than the report from Sir Nicholas Stern into the economics of climate change, which states with an air of unchallengeable conviction: 'The scientific evidence is now overwhelming. Climate change presents very serious global risks and it demands an urgent global response.'
His study, commissioned by the Government in July 2005 and published amid much Whitehall hype in October 2006, seemed to carry all the more weight because Stern is one of the most senior civil servants in Britain, the head of the Government's economic service.
His conclusions appeared to be based on powerful scientific authority, since his team of 20 or so officials had drawn on a wide range of published papers and data.
Tony Blair has described it as the most important document produced during his ten years as Prime Minister, and urged that the Stern blueprint, with its calls for more regulation and taxation, be adopted in full.
'The disaster is not set to happen in some science fiction future, but in our lifetimes,' said Blair, who went on to claim that the 'the world faces nothing more serious, more urgent and more demanding of its leadership than climate change.'
All this has helped put the Stern report at the very forefront of the debate. The central theme of it is that there is a near universal consensus of opinion within the scientific community about the dangers of climate change. But this is not true.
There is no such unanimity among scientists.
Throughout the 550 pages of his document, Stern continually strikes a confident note, as if there were no dispute about the issues.
Completely divorced from scientific reality
Yet this self-assured stance is completely divorced from scientific reality. It is an inconvenient truth for Stern and his political allies that there is, in fact, precious little hard evidence to back up his sweeping claims.
In a revealing recent comment, Stern admitted that when he was appointed by the Government, he 'had an idea what the greenhouse effect was but wasn't really sure'.
This lack of understanding of science shines through every chapter of his report.
He is guilty of misreading the data, of distorting the evidence to suit his political masters' dogma, of throwing numbers about with reckless abandon, of promoting alarmism in place of rational discussion, and of reinventing climate history.
There are fundamental misconceptions throughout the document. He seems to think that climate prediction is a mature science stretching back to the early 19th century, hence the confident tone science stretching back to the early century, hence the confident tone of his pronouncements.
But in reality climate prediction is a relatively modern science, which has emerged only in recent decades thanks partly to the emergence of computers.
So there are no easy certainties about the past ? or the future.
Stern states boldly that the scale of global warming has been unprecedented for at least the past 1,000 years, but he cannot possibly be sure on this point because data from previous centuries is unreliable.
At most, we have a 50-year span of accurate measurements. The only genuine global records of temperature come from weather balloons, since 1958, and from microwave sounding units, since 1978.
What they indicate is a very gently warming trend, nothing approaching the apocalyptic vision of Sir Nicholas.
Moreover, this minor trend could have easily have been caused by irregularities such as volcanic eruptions or El Nino events (major fluctuations in ocean temperatures in the Pacific which affect climate).
Stern's report 'ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology'
In support of his gloomy thesis, Stern, like all global warming enthusiasts, ignores the evidence that does not suit his ideology. He glosses over the fact that, according to a host of historical accounts, Europe was far warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, or that the 17th century was much colder, prompting what was known as 'The Little Ice Age', when the Thames was often frozen over for months at a time.
Stern also refers to 'significant melting of and an acceleration of ice floes' near the coast of Greenland because of global warming.
Yet several reputable scientific studies have shown that the mass of the Greenland ice sheet is actually expanding, while Stern also fails to note that the temperature of Greenland is now lower than it was in 1940 and little changed from the first measurements in the 1780s.
Environmentalists are fond of jerking heartstrings with pictures of polar bears struggling on supposedly melting icebergs, but it is estimated that there are now 22,000 polar bears compared with 5,000 in 1940.
Nor can we be sure that any long-term changes in our climate are due to mankind. There are any number of other possibilities and the programme tonight examines the possibility that the sun's radiation is primarily responsible for climate change.
Indeed, the climate can fluctuate without any external cause at all ? something again ignored by Stern, who wants only to indulge in the fashionable notion that western capitalism is entirely to blame for every drought and disaster.
Further, Stern takes no account of the capacity of mankind to adapt to, and improve his, environment.
There can be little dispute that, more than a century after the peak of the 19th-century industrial revolution, Britain is a cleaner, healthier, less polluted country than it was in the late Victorian age, when smog, disease and slums were rife.
Genuine science is about gathering evidence and testing the veracity of theories, not cheerleading for a particular ideology.
That is what is so disturbing about the current debate on global warming. Healthy scepticism, which should be at the heart of all scientific inquiry, is treated with contempt.
Far from being the powerful masterpiece that Blair claimed, Stern's report is manifestly incompetent.
It is another dodgy dossier, where assertions are presented as facts and data is twisted to suit a political purpose.
I agree with the economist critic who noted: 'If a student of mine were to hand in this report as a masters thesis, perhaps if I were in a good mood, I would give him D for diligence, but more likely I would give him an F for fail.' We are shifting away from science and into the realm of religious fanaticism, where the followers of the creed, brimming with self-righteous fury, believe that they are in possession of a higher truth.
Like a religion, environmentalism is suffused with hatred for the material world and again, like religion, it requires devotion rather than intellectual rigour from its adherents.
It is intolerant of dissent; those who question the message of doom are regarded as heretics, or 'climate change deniers', to use green parlance.
And, just as in many religions, the route to personal salvation lies in the performance of superstitious rituals, such as changing a lightbulb or arranging for a tree to be planted after every plane journey.
What is so tragic is the way that this dubious ideology has achieved such dominance in our public life.
Politicians love the green agenda, of course, because it means more control, more regulation, more taxes, more summits, and more opportunities for displays of self-important zeal.
The tragedy is that the likes of Sir Nicholas Stern are using bogus science to push forward this agenda.
Richard Lindzen is Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
