Will science ever wipe out organized religion?

Page 16 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

tealk

Diamond Member
May 27, 2005
4,104
0
76
Mormans and jehova's Witnesse's are NOT anywhere near the same as Christianity. In fact, they are some of the most misguided.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,503
136
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.

Don't forget Roman Catholics... oh snaps, what am I doing back in this thread?
/runs away
 

tealk

Diamond Member
May 27, 2005
4,104
0
76
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?

[/quote]


He can't answer your questions because he doesn't have the answers. I love it when people come to my door...Mormon's, Jehova's Witnesse's, et al...they can never the answer the questions I have about their faith--b/c they are kept ignorant, or b/c those answers don't exist.

He won't admit that he doesn't understand the theology as well as he would like to. "Because I have faith" is a blanket answer to fall back onto, that doesn't really answer anything.

But again...the debate itself is irrational. His truth system is based in faith; your's is in logic--why bother?[/quote]

There is much that could be said in answer to this question. I will be as brief as I can for now. . .



Some Biblical and technical reasons why you should believe in Christ over other gods.

v Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created through Him and for Him.

o First of all, Jesus Christ is utterly unique in all of the world. He is the creator God. There is nothing made, that was not made by Him.

v Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

o Jesus rose from the dead. He lives. All the other professions speak of dead gods.

v You have said that He lived a sinless life. You are right. Nobody else has ever done this. It is not possible for us to do this. Because God required a ?perfect sacrifice?, it was necessary that the sacrifice to cover sin, be without sin. A book could be written on this subject alone.

v Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

o There is no other way to forgiveness, salvation from sin, or to find peace with God in Heaven for eternity. . . John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

o Perhaps you have heard this said: Many who do not profess to believe, will say, ?Jesus was a good man. Or, He was a prophet? But, if someone got up and said that every knee and every tongue would confess before him someday, or would say, ?I and the father are one?, and claim to be at one with God the father, if this is not true, than this person is an imposter, a self deluded fool, and perhaps an idiot. So, if Jesus Christ is not who He said he was, I would totally reject him as a crack pot.



Some practical/technical answers as to how you could possibly start to believe in Christ as the only true religion and God. . .



v Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

o The Word of God is spiritually discerned. This is a quote from the Scriptures. Nobody comes to saving faith, except through the hearing of the Word of God. So one thing that you can do, is read the Word of God. Read the book of John. Pray to God each time before you read, and ask Him if He will reveal Himself to you. Let this verse encourage you: Revelation 3:20 'Behold, I [Jesus Christ] stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

o I did what I am suggesting to you many years ago. I was wondering if there really was such a thing as Jesus Christ, and if He was really God Almighty. I prayed and read the Bible, and then prayed over Rev. 3:20 which I just quoted. God marvelously revealed Himself to me in my mind, and gave me the ability to believe in His Word with faith. I have never wavered in my faith since that time.

o You could meet with someone who knows the Bible, who is not overbearing, and will not try to put these things down your throat. Someone who could pray and study with you, if you truly wish to know the truth regarding the Living God.

o Jesus prayed to God: JOH 17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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?


He can't answer your questions because he doesn't have the answers. I love it when people come to my door...Mormon's, Jehova's Witnesse's, et al...they can never the answer the questions I have about their faith--b/c they are kept ignorant, or b/c those answers don't exist.

He won't admit that he doesn't understand the theology as well as he would like to. "Because I have faith" is a blanket answer to fall back onto, that doesn't really answer anything.

But again...the debate itself is irrational. His truth system is based in faith; your's is in logic--why bother?[/quote]

There is much that could be said in answer to this question. I will be as brief as I can for now. . .



Some Biblical and technical reasons why you should believe in Christ over other gods.

v Colossians 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities - all things have been created through Him and for Him.

o First of all, Jesus Christ is utterly unique in all of the world. He is the creator God. There is nothing made, that was not made by Him.

v Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

o Jesus rose from the dead. He lives. All the other professions speak of dead gods.

v You have said that He lived a sinless life. You are right. Nobody else has ever done this. It is not possible for us to do this. Because God required a ?perfect sacrifice?, it was necessary that the sacrifice to cover sin, be without sin. A book could be written on this subject alone.

v Acts 4:12 "And there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men by which we must be saved."

o There is no other way to forgiveness, salvation from sin, or to find peace with God in Heaven for eternity. . . John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

o Perhaps you have heard this said: Many who do not profess to believe, will say, ?Jesus was a good man. Or, He was a prophet? But, if someone got up and said that every knee and every tongue would confess before him someday, or would say, ?I and the father are one?, and claim to be at one with God the father, if this is not true, than this person is an imposter, a self deluded fool, and perhaps an idiot. So, if Jesus Christ is not who He said he was, I would totally reject him as a crack pot.



Some practical/technical answers as to how you could possibly start to believe in Christ as the only true religion and God. . .



v Romans 10:17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.

o The Word of God is spiritually discerned. This is a quote from the Scriptures. Nobody comes to saving faith, except through the hearing of the Word of God. So one thing that you can do, is read the Word of God. Read the book of John. Pray to God each time before you read, and ask Him if He will reveal Himself to you. Let this verse encourage you: Revelation 3:20 'Behold, I [Jesus Christ] stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

o I did what I am suggesting to you many years ago. I was wondering if there really was such a thing as Jesus Christ, and if He was really God Almighty. I prayed and read the Bible, and then prayed over Rev. 3:20 which I just quoted. God marvelously revealed Himself to me in my mind, and gave me the ability to believe in His Word with faith. I have never wavered in my faith since that time.

o You could meet with someone who knows the Bible, who is not overbearing, and will not try to put these things down your throat. Someone who could pray and study with you, if you truly wish to know the truth regarding the Living God.

o Jesus prayed to God: JOH 17:1 Jesus spoke these things; and lifting up His eyes to heaven, He said, "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, 2 even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He may give eternal life. 3 "This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.
[/quote]

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.

Here's a technical question: what's the value of praying to a god in whom I don't believe? I'm not worried about blasphemy, obviously-- just wondering how that can possibly work. Because I've done it, and it didn't work.

The first section is purely words from the Bible, or conclusive statements. For someone who doesn't believe yet, how can these serve as proof?

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).
 

tealk

Diamond Member
May 27, 2005
4,104
0
76
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.

 

6000SUX

Golden Member
May 8, 2005
1,504
0
0
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.
 

UnixFreak

Platinum Member
Nov 27, 2000
2,008
0
76
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.
 

tealk

Diamond Member
May 27, 2005
4,104
0
76
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.

It's not ultimately about belief....it comes down to one thing, and one thing only....excepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior. That is the only way to enter the Kingdom of heaven. I just hope you find the truth before your days end my friend. Becasue there is only one truth, no matter what you are tempted to beleive.

John 14:6

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,503
136
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.
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.
[q/]
Here's a technical question: what's the value of praying to a god in whom I don't believe? I'm not worried about blasphemy, obviously-- just wondering how that can possibly work. Because I've done it, and it didn't work.
[/quote]
There is no benefit if you do not believe. The only prayer of an unsaved person that God will hear is "Lord, please save me", and He will hear that prayer only if you pray so with a broken and genuine heart, with sincerity and humility. Prayer isn't a hotline to a magic genie who will grant you wishes, it is a means of intimate communication between God and His children (those who He has saved who have the Holy Spirit within them). If you are living in rebellion against God, and you are if you have not repented of sin and received salvation, why should or would He heed your prayer? First you must be saved, then you can speak to God in the intimate fashion that is prayer, but even then you don't have the audacity to ask for selfish things ("God, give me some money this month so I can pay my rent! Give me a new car!"). Just like a good father won't give his child everything he/she asks for, so the heavenly Father won't give His child everything he/she asks for, but that which is good. Making petitions of God is not the main focus of prayer, anyways. The main focus should be on praising God for who He is, thanking God for what He has done and continues to do, and asking that your will may be conformed to His, because He knows what is best, and His will and plan are perfect and beyond human knowledge ("His thoughts are greater than our thoughts, and His ways are greater than our ways").
The first section is purely words from the Bible, or conclusive statements. For someone who doesn't believe yet, how can these serve as proof?
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 mine :)
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).
[/quote]

Those who reject God can be and will be judged, not for not believing, but for sin. God forgives sin by the gift of salvation, but if you are unwilling (out of your pride) to accept this gift, how can you be saved from sin? If you hear the truth, and choose not to believe it, you are responsible to God. You have no excuse. Every person knows in his/her heart that he/she is a sinner, and every person knows (because all of creation testifies to it, just as the Lord says) that there is a God. I can cover my eyes with my hand and say I don't believe in LCD screens, but that doesn't mean it's true; there is one right in front of my face, and whether I ignore it or not or deny it's existence, it's still there. The real reason people say "there is no God", or follow false gods, is that they do not want to be accountable to Him. People would rather try and "earn" salvation through works (but only God can save), or just "eat, drink, and be merry" for this short time that we call life, than come face to face with the reality that there is a God, the God of the Bible, and in the end He will judge each person according to his/her works. Those who He has saved will be with Him in paradise; and all those who have rejected Him will be cast out of the kingdom away from God, and will remain in the outer darkness for all eternity.

Logic is good, and indeed logic is from God. But when you pervert logic, and reject the need for faith in God, that is when you will run into serious trouble.
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,503
136
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.

You might need to rephrase that. There are the things of this world, and there are the things of God. The world is focused on temporal pleasures and lies, while Christians are called to focus on eternal joy and truth. Logic, though, is not inherently good or bad, but can be perverted and corrupted (just like anything else on this earth) to the will of demons or man. Logic itself is no more evil than mathematics is.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
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.

All Hail the Science IDOL!

The arrogance of man is limitless. Your decision not to argue about it shows the one thing that Gasbags such as Vic and 600sux don't have and that a lot of overeducated know-it-all types suffer with out is WISEDOM.

;)
 

tealk

Diamond Member
May 27, 2005
4,104
0
76
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
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,503
136
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.
You are closer to the Kingdom of God by acknowledging that truth.
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. 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.

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, that it is only God who can save man from sin and death. All the religions of this world have come from 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."


 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
"Gasbag?" Dude, I believe in the Hokey Pokey. That's what it's all about! ;)
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,994
31,558
146
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.


I agree, but it doesn't refute my point ;)

ALL religions are formulated by a faith-based belief structure (I'm not talking about what those beliefs are, but how they are)

 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,503
136
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

It is good to hear a fellow believer every once and a while on these forums! I just pray that someone, even if it is only one, would come to the saving truth of God's Word on these forums, even if it isn't from what I have shared but from another. May the peace and grace of God be with you wherever you go :)
 

tealk

Diamond Member
May 27, 2005
4,104
0
76
Originally posted by: Crono
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.
You are closer to the Kingdom of God by acknowledging that truth.
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. 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.

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."

AAAAAAAAAAAAMEN!
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,994
31,558
146
Originally posted by: Crono
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.
You are closer to the Kingdom of God by acknowledging that truth.
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.

I don't know...science has yet to observe asexual reproduction occuring within mammals, or vertebrates...or multicellular organisms for that matter (if you discount plant propagation, which is really cloning...)

Also, Geology, Physics, Biology, Chemistry all agree that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old. 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.)

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." ;)
 

ed0ggyd0gg

Member
Aug 30, 2006
187
0
0
So....does science disprove religion? Is that the fate that religious people will one day come to (or not)?
 

undeclared

Senior member
Oct 24, 2005
498
0
86
I am someone who went from EXTREMELY religious (I wouldn't go into your car if you had downloaded mp3s)
to 95% atheist (the 5% is for belief in life after death)

Believe me when I say this, when you can look at religion from an externalized perspective without fearing anything, I must say this.. Religion is and always will be MASS dellusion on a grand scale.

If you were born in Asia, you'd believe in Gods.
If you were born in North America, you believe in God.
If you were born Christian, you believe in Jesus.
If you were born ...., you believe in ...

Religion is the best thing in the world for mental health. I believe that 100%. Because it's harder to believe we can help ourselves (some people are at that stage, but not the majority), and easier to believe our imaginary friend is going to make everything better.

And hey, everyone else believes in my imaginary friend, so uh, he must be real!
 

Crono

Lifer
Aug 8, 2001
23,720
1,503
136
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Science has never proven anything wrong that is written in the Bible.

I don't know...science has yet to observe asexual reproduction occuring within mammals, or vertebrates...or multicellular organisms for that matter (if you discount plant propagation, which is really cloning...)
[/quote]
Where do you find asexual reproduction in the Bible?
Also, Geology, Physics, Biology, Chemistry all agree that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
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.
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.)
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.

If you read Genesis, you can only come to the conclusion that each day is a literal day/night period of time, which means that the universe and earth (and everything on the earth) in 6 days. The total of human history, from the genealogies given, could only reasonably total 6,000 - 10,000 years.
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." ;)
[/quote]

What's your point?
 

Kanalua

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2001
4,860
2
81
Global warming: the bogus religion of our age
by PROF. RICHARD LINDZEN (Professor of Meteorology at MIT)

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.
 

MysteryLeo

Junior Member
Mar 9, 2007
1
0
0
I don't see religion ever being wiped out, because religion offers people hope in desperate times. No matter how evolved we claim to be, we are still pretty irrational entities when it comes to dire times. Religion offers us hope that there's something better for us. Oftentimes, people find god when they are suffering. Religion is a great thing sometimes (and we all know a terrible things when the power is abused)