Science, Meet Your Maker!

Originally posted by optimistic skeptic


When I read the title of your thread, I thought, "looks interesting..." Then, I clicked on it and said (out loud), "OMG. This guy - again!"

LOL that is funny, at least you called out to God . hehe

Seriously, I am not going to exhaust myself with all the points that people have already made to you based on logical reason and scientific proof. Obviously, nothing ever gets through anyway.

You know we feel the same way don't you ?

Also, you seem like a very educated person, so I'm sure you already know all the facts that I could list here to argue with you. (Which also confuses me - because you DO seem education and reasonable, I don't understand for the life of me why you haven't seen right through your "truth" and "faith" already.)

Well,, you would be correct, whammy is an engineer, he got straight A's in physics, Calculus, Chemistry but just what did you mean with the rest of that? Are you saying he seems too smart to believe what he does?

But...I have another point to make. As a person who lived a life of Christianity for the first 21 (brainwashed) years of my life, I don't see anything "Christ-like" about you in any of your threads.

I wouldn't know about that one until I see some of Jesus posts, I couldn't make that kind of judgement.

You waste so much time here trying to prove a point that is unable to be proven.

Well that kind of futility never stopped Darwinists from doing the same thing with an even more difficult to prove theory.

I'm referring to things such as serving soup in a transient home, working in Africa for the eradication of Malaria, volunteering at an animal shelter, delivering meals to the sick, etc, etc, etc.

Oh, by the way - all of the above are activities that I enjoy. And - I don't think I'll be "rewarded" in an afterlife for them.

I guess that brainwashing didn't take or you took your first years experience as a Christian and repeated it for 20 years because the Bible is pretty explicit about saying your works are as filthy rags for it is not for the good that we do that we are saved, but is the gift of God.

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology


Wow...you took a lot of time addressing my comments that took me 30 seconds to come up with...thanks - I feel important! :duh

Anyway...I'm sorry that you feel the same way about "nothing getting through" to us "science people." Trust me honey, I grew up in the Baptist church 4 times a week and was married to a preacher's son - there's not a lot about the bible on which you can enlighten me.

And yes - I am saying that I think he's too intelligent to believe what he believes. It's simply my opinion as a fellow educated person that reached my conclusions after mastering the very courses that you speak of in your comments. Please don't take offense - it's simply an opinion. It's been my personal experience that through simple logic and reasoning, one could at least have doubts about such a story as the basis for Christianity.

And no - the brainwashing apparently didn't "take." It was only when I separated myself from the bombardment of religious propaganda and took my first course on evolution that I began to understand how I'd been lied to my entire life.

And to address your final comment - if I recall (forgive me, it's been 10 years since I've been in the church)....the entire "mansions and streets of gold and everything your heart desires" descriptions of your heaven are based solely on your "deeds" you do on Earth in the name of Jesus...am I wrong, sir?

Also, as a disclaimer - I have nothing but love for most Christians. Almost everyone I know is of your faith. However, I simply cannot understand people who stake claims on religion, and don't serve their fellow man.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

if you're living in bizzarro world.


argument ad populum

he's good because he sells a lot of books, therefore a lot of people think he's good

Mad if you are going to continue using the protocols for logical fallacy, please learn them first. He isn't good because he sells a lot of books Madnessss. He sells a lot of books because he is good.

argument from authority.

...and honestly, this isn't a political forum, so i'm not going to go there

Again this is NOT an argument from auithority madness you need to read some examples for that so you get a better idea what it looks like rather than say it everytime someone establishes credentials. Oh and by the way, it was Nancy that was going to the astrologer.

What are Hitchens qualifications? Free lance writer and known drunkard? - Bigwhammy

argument ad hominem


well, at least he's got logical consistency, something you've not demonstrated

in fact, you've got 3 logical fallacies in response to one of my points.

Well I guess you told him huh madness. I mean the last person we wouldn't want to listen to on the subject of debate is the undefeated champion of ATS. NO one has ever beaten you as you have boasted to me , so I guess we are in the presence of an expert who never loses
No he does not, furthermore, YOU don't know how to distinguish logical fallacy from a simple inquiry. He was ASKING a Question Madness not a supposition for you to exploit fallacy logical or not. Can you tell he is is speaking extemporaneuously or do you think you are in a damn debate about hitchens being a foul mouthed drunk?

Ad Hom? NOPE,, and wouldn't matter because what I just said is a fact.

nice justification. god also supports genocide. does that mean that your vendetta against atheists is now genocidal?

I thought I told you their is no vendetta madness why do you insist on superimposing your false assumptions on us like that. If you are going to do things like that than why do you bother asking us questions when you already know what we think. Apparently you are a mind reader.

honestly, admire the good things atheists have done for humanity
don't want to? then get off ATS because you shouldn't be using the computer you're on...invented by a gay atheist.
that's a double whammy against god, eh?

Sorry madness if you are going to escape culpability by saying nothing was done in the name of Atheism than no computer was either.

no, it's a personal statement and interpretation of the consequences of atheism and a display of my personal journey towards atheism.

Journey of Atheism? Kiinda strange when you consider Atheism doesn't do anything, think anyting say anything al all that other stuff you say they don't do but NOW all of a sudden its a Journey

to nowhere I assume.

no, and the times you've attempted to prove this have been thoroughly refuted.

communists didn't kill in the name of atheism, they killed in the name of communism.

No they didn't kill in the name of Communism but they were communists second, Atheists FIRST so nice try slick.

i'd like to see you prove that people have died in the name of there not being a god.

HUH???? what?? english please.

- Con






[edit on 5-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

Originally posted by optimistic skeptic


Wow...you took a lot of time addressing my comments that took me 30 seconds to come up with...thanks - I feel important! :duh

Ha ha Ok then.

Anyway...I'm sorry that you feel the same way about "nothing getting through" to us "science people." Trust me honey, I grew up in the Baptist church 4 times a week and was married to a preacher's son - there's not a lot about the bible on which you can enlighten me.

Oh hehe I wasn't going to try, that lol just was curious about that one issue but I think that explained well enough and no offense was ever taken so nothing to concern ourselves over then.

And no - the brainwashing apparently didn't "take." It was only when I separated myself from the bombardment of religious propaganda and took my first course on evolution that I began to understand how I'd been lied to my entire life.

Yeah Religion preys on people I have seen that too.

And to address your final comment - if I recall (forgive me, it's been 10 years since I've been in the church)....the entire "mansions and streets of gold and everything your heart desires" descriptions of your heaven are based solely on your "deeds" you do on Earth in the name of Jesus...am I wrong, sir?

Mmmm I think you are right on that so I stand corrected.

Also, as a disclaimer - I have nothing but love for most Christians. Almost everyone I know is of your faith. However, I simply cannot understand people who stake claims on religion, and don't serve their fellow man.

I wouldn't know how they are not serving there fellow man. I don't have that kind of intimate knowledge of them.

I know our church is very involved in activities like you suggest.

- Con

reply to post by Conspiriology


Thanks for your reply. And, that's all I'm saying.....that we should all strive for the betterment of our world, with or without a faith in a higher power. I'm glad to hear that your church is involved in those things.
Other people who like to label themselves as people of faith could take a lesson from you.

Conspiriology:

I've seen your insults, bigotry, ignorance, and misrepresentation of facts.

Now let's see some evidence. You seem to forget that the one making the radical claim, the one trying to prove the positive, is the one that needs to present the evidence. So far there is none.

reply to post by optimistic skeptic

Seriously, I am not going to exhaust myself with all the points that people have already made to you based on logical reason and scientific proof. Obviously, nothing ever gets through anyway.

I haven't heard not even one attempt at debunking the theme OP with evidence yet. This thread has been up a while and not one attempt to explain away the rational intelligibility of the universe. (which is why Einstein believed in God)

Also, you seem like a very educated person, so I'm sure you already know all the facts that I could list here to argue with you. (Which also confuses me - because you DO seem education and reasonable, I don't understand for the life of me why you haven't seen right through your "truth" and "faith" already.)

Actually I have been fortunate to get a decent education. And I grew up agnostic leaning toward atheist. No need to be confused. I had an encounter with God and became a Christian at age 37. I'm sorry you have been deceived into being brainwashed in to the exact opposite of truth.

But...I have another point to make. As a person who lived a life of Christianity for the first 21 (brainwashed) years of my life, I don't see anything "Christ-like" about you in any of your threads.

As Jesus said in Matthew 24:13, "He who endures to the end will be saved."
Sounds like it wasn't your idea. Maybe you are just rebelling against your parents. You are right though- perhaps I am too easy on atheists- I could always be more "Christ- like" perhaps like this...

Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

Matthew 21:12

You waste so much time here trying to prove a point that is unable to be proven. Couldn't you be using your time to serve humanity - the supposed entire basis on which Christianity rests?

Waste? And you presume to know the details of my current situation to make this judgment from where? your overblown EGO? I happen to be on chemotherapy for 6 months so I am pretty confined to the internet. So this is my mission field.

And for people not spiritually blinded it Is proven by the evidence.

I'm referring to things such as serving soup in a transient home, working in Africa for the eradication of Malaria, volunteering at an animal shelter, delivering meals to the sick, etc, etc, etc.

I guess that was with the Atheist Society?

I have done and do similar things as well. My 70 year old mother will be in Africa on missions in a month. We all serve in different ways. Right now its in the realm of ideas as I am physically unable. Ideas have consequences - sometimes eternal ones. All the u2us I get from other believers in support of what I write here tells me that my time is not wasted.

Plus the amount of resistance I get from the dark side shows me I'm on the right track

Oh, by the way - all of the above are activities that I enjoy. And - I don't think I'll be "rewarded" in an afterlife for them.

Oh, by the way - From what the Bible says- if you persist in that unbelief, being rewarded is the last thing you will be thinking about in the afterlife.

[edit on 6/6/2008 by Bigwhammy]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I'm glad you cleared all that up for me.

Branches of Science Founded By Christians

1. Antiseptic Surgery - Joesph Lister
   
2. Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur
   
3. Calculus - Issac Newton
   
4. Chemsitry - Robert Boyle
   
5. Comaparative Anatimy - Charles Cuvier
   
6. Computer Science - Charles Babbage
   
7. Diensional Anyalysis - Lord Rayleigh
   
8. Dynamics - Issac Newton
   
9. Electronics - John Ambrose Fleming
   
10. Electrodynamics - James Clark Maxwell
    
11. Electromagnetics - Michael Faraday
    
12. Energetics - Lord Kelvin
    
13. Entomology of living insects - Henri Fabre
    
14. Field Theory - George Stokes
    
15. Fluid Mechanics - George Stokes
    
16. Galatic Astronomy - Sir William Herschel
    
17. Gas Dynamics - Robert Boyle
    
18. Genetics - Gregor Mendel
    
19. Gynecology - James Simpson
    
20. Hydrography - Matthew Maury
    
21. Ichthyology - Louis Agassiz
    
22. Isotopic Chemistry - William Ramsey
    
23. Model Analysis - Lord Rayleigh
    
24. Natural History -John Ray
    
25. Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernard Riemann
    
26. Oceanography - Matthew Maury
    
27. Optical Mineralogy - David Brewster
    

Notable theist scientists today are Francis Collins director of the Human Genome Project Professor Bill Phillips who won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997, Sir Brian Heap former Vice President of the Royal Society, Sir John Houghton former director of the British Meteorological Office, and Paleontologist Simon C. Morris to name but a few.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Bigwhammy


one thing that stuck out like a sore thumb is that calculus isn't a science, it's mathematics. there's nothing experimental...eh, whatever, it just bothered me a bit

another thing that sticks out like a sore thumb is the complete lack of logic the point of that list is based off of.

it's a historical list, of course there won't be as many atheists.
atheists weren't a significant portion of the population throughout history, partially because they would be killed or ostracized by societies history.

and you can come up with an equally illogical counterpoint quite easily...
historically, a greater percentage of atheist scientists have won the nobel prize

it's illogical for the same reasons. it doesn't take into account that the nobel prize hasn't been around very long and that atheists now make up a very disproportionate part of the scientific community.

and pointless list comparing is useless...but here's just a list to show that atheists have also taken part in science to quite a degree and that many have made important contributions to the field of science.

here's a list from wiki

one last thing i'd like to mention is that...well...um...newton would be labeled a heretic...and that a person's religious preference plays no part into their worth as a scientist, author, journalist, filmmaker, mathematician, or human being...

edit: to fix link and add some words

[edit on 6/9/08 by madnessinmysoul]

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Hello? Reality is awesome! remember?

There was no logical argument there - just a list of names and branches of science founded.

How can a list be illogical? Oh you must mean it threatens your faith in atheism and that bothers you?

Sorry just da FACTS

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


one thing that stuck out like a sore thumb is that calculus isn't a science, it's mathematics. there's nothing experimental...eh, whatever, it just bothered me a bit

Yeah, it figures you'd say a Science that is increasingly proving evolution is bunk, is not Science but I'm afraid many don't agree with you. It is more about geometry and math calculating changes such as those proving Dawkins arguments impossible by Mathmatician Lennox when he stomped Dawkins and his Book in a debate about the God delusion which was more about Dawkinism or the sneering spiteful book of slippery semantics scripts for Atheists to memorize and use to confound Christians.

That was for calling Newton a heretic, something that may or may not have happened and that YOU can only speculate. My critique of Dawkins book however is as evident as the pages in it convey.

This is one of the many ways I have seen you try to diminish theists who have achieved any notable station in life from calling the framers and einstein merely "Deists" to absolute known theists, "heretics". Another thing I find Atheists think they have some right to judge is anything that may threaten your TOE as being "Not Science"

The science of fluxions was Sir Isaac Newton's terminology for the new field of science known today as calculus

There are two major types of calculus, known as Infinitesimal Calculus and that part of the total which is called Differential Calculus. Both types are built on a foundation on analytic geometry and are related by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus. In simple terms, the theorem states that the sum of infinitesimal changes over time or some other quantity will add up to the net change.

www.buzzle.com...

Perhaps next time your thumb hurts when you see calculus as not being science, you might want to have more respect for it when just about all science depends on it from physics, chemistry, astro physics to name a few.

a person's religious preference plays no part into their worth as a scientist

Oh I'm afraid you're wrong again Madnesss, I mean I WISH that were true but alas, Atheists have proven time and time again just what worth a Scientist with religious preferance has, to the dismay of the entire Government,



I agree it shouldn't have anything to do with it but as long as their are those in Science and our Public Schools whose bigotry and hate of religion, and the religious Scientist, they will be treated as worthless pieces of garbage that are discriminated against in the name of protecting a silly theory from being debunked,, and,

a conspiracy forum named ATS


from being destroyed

- Con
,











[edit on 13-6-2008 by Conspiriology]

reply to post by Bigwhammy


actually, it doesn't bother me at all.

and you're right, a list on its own isn't illogical, it's pointless.

and, to address what con said...
um...that's just stupid

calculus seems to be more mathematical, which means it's actually more concrete than science...

ah, i'll upload just the comic to explain my position




...see, you're just trying to start a conflict

i have no problem with calculus, i just see it as far purer than the experimental sciences.
i guess all of mathematics can be seen as science, but i'd prefer to make the distinction.

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Mathmatician Lennox when he stomped Dawkins and his Book in a debate about the God delusion which was more about Dawkinism or the sneering spiteful book of slippery semantics scripts for Atheists to memorize and use to confound Christians.

two things i don't see in this statement
1: an argument
2: any proof of the statements made

i actually found the debate, but i'd like you to point out why your statements are right

also, i'd like to point out that calling a book "sneering" and "spiteful" is both sneering and spiteful.

That was for calling Newton a heretic, something that may or may not have happened and that YOU can only speculate.

it's not speculation. if you read newton's opinions, they are heretical.
also, by the definition of many christians these days, he was an occultist. he dabbled in alchemy and was quite enamored by it.

My critique of Dawkins book however is as evident as the pages in it convey.

calling a critique evident when no evidence is used in it seems to be a way of saying "i haven't read it but it's bad because i disagree"
have you actually read it?

This is one of the many ways I have seen you try to diminish theists who have achieved any notable station in life

i have?
i praise gandhi and mlk jr...
i love newton, though a heretical christian, he was, without a single doubt, a theist.
i have no problem with theists who achieve status, i just like to point things out

from calling the framers and einstein merely "Deists" to absolute known theists, "heretics".

1: many of the framers were deists, though not all
2: einstein was an atheist, not a deist
3: theist and heretic aren't mutually exclusive terms. jesus was considered a heretical jew, luther was considered a heretic by catholic standards, the pope is considered a heretic by protestant standards, etc. for his time and the religious situation in the period, newton was, without doubt, a heretic for his views.

Another thing I find Atheists think they have some right to judge is anything that may threaten your TOE as being "Not Science"

...just because it's not science doesn't mean it isn't bad. please refer to the cartoon.

unfortunately, with creationism, it's just not science even though it claims to be, but that's not a discussion for this board.

Perhaps next time your thumb hurts when you see calculus as not being science, you might want to have more respect for it when just about all science depends on it from physics, chemistry, astro physics to name a few.

more attempts to create false conflict....
they all rely on simple addition as well, but i'd still prefer to label simple addition as mathematics, because i'm associating mathematics with purity.

Oh I'm afraid you're wrong again Madnesss, I mean I WISH that were true but alas, Atheists have proven time and time again just what worth a Scientist with religious preferance has, to the dismay of the entire Government,

i snipped the image

that had nothing to do with religious preference, as has been explained ad nauseum, though you have absolutely not decided to listen to the evidence.
i guess all i can do is repeat the truth about the smithsonian "controversy"

www.expelledexposed.com...

to quote from the link

Expelled claims that Sternberg was “terrorized” and that “his life was nearly ruined” when, in 2004, as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, he published a pro-intelligent design article by Stephen C. Meyer. However, there is no evidence of either terrorism or ruination. Before publishing the paper, Sternberg worked for the National Institutes of Health at the National Center for Biotechnology Information (GenBank) and was an unpaid Research Associate – not an employee – at the Smithsonian. He was the voluntary, unpaid editor of PBSW (small academic journals rarely pay editors), and had given notice of his resignation as editor six months before the Meyer article was published. After the Meyer incident, he remained an employee of NIH and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian was extended in 2006, although he has not shown up there in years. At no time was any aspect of his pay or working conditions at NIH affected. It is difficult to see how his life “was nearly ruined” when nothing serious happened to him. He was never even disciplined for legitimate violations of policy of PBSW or Smithsonian policy.

also, can i get a reference code or a place where i can look up that very official looking picture's text?
and how about some backing about it being "to the dismay of the entire Government"
you gave one image from one committee the house of reps...that shows it was supported by at least one person...nowhere near the entire government

you seem to be misrepresenting something...and you know what that guy jesus had to say about lying

to sum this little section up, there haven't been any cases of people being discriminated against for their religious beliefs.

con, you just seem to be very light on the evidence

edit to add:
image credit
xkcd.com...

[edit on 6/15/08 by madnessinmysoul]

i just realized now that the image i posted in the previous post was a bit cut off, please click on it for the full image so you can properly understand how it illustrates my point.

the mathematician to the right is cut off on my computer . But i've seen the comic before.

who's the guy all the way on the right?

a philosopher (?)

thanks for crediting the comic site


the OP's allegations have yet to be refuted it seems?

[edit on 6/16/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

For instance "In the Beginning" the first words in your bible comes from one Hebrew word "resh-t" that always means a period of time not a point in time.So "in the beginning" could be 7 days or 10 billion years we do not know. Th 7 day account is describing the preparation of the place for man to live; not the creation of the actual universe that was done "in the beginning" and he doesn't say how exactly. But I think we can definitely pull out some clues from scripture and I find nothing that really conflicts.

Actually there is a very strong case that the phrase, "in the beginning," should be read, "Gods in the beginning," and then it goes on to, "created the heavens and earth."

Note the plural, "Gods," if this is the case then that puts a whole new twist on creation which I think positively effects the picture.

Gods in the plural also fits and makes more harmony with other verses in Genesis such as Genesis 1:26 were it reads plural again and is translated, "let US make man in OUR image."

Also if you look at the Hebrew you will see that the earth was not, "created," without form or void but that it, "became," without form and void.

Verse 1:1 of Genesis it the creation of the heavens and the earth verse 1:2 is where the earth becomes without from and void.

There is no reference to time made between verse one and verse two.

In other sections of scripture you can read accounts of the original creation what we now live in is sometimes referred to as the second heaven and earth which was the remains of the original simply redesigned.

This is why when you get to Genesis 1:9 Gods do not have to create anything it is simply put into a new working order by uttering the spoken word, let there be light for instance, it is not a creating it is a reordering of this heaven and earth.

There are only three acts of creation mentioned in Genesis that I am aware of..

1/ The original creation of verse 1:1
2/ The creation of soul or breath life in animals of verse 1:21
3/ The creation of the image of the Gods in man of verse 1:27

The heaven and earth that we now live in was not created or the result of the original creation but the reordering of the original heaven and earth after it became tohuw bohuw or without from and void in Genesis1:2.

You can read about how the original heaven and earth became empty and shapeless in other sections of scripture from the bible and in other holy texts from other religions.

But back to this whole issue of tring to convince others of the existence of God and get ashiest and science to see the light.

If a creator God exists and is everywhere present and all powerful then it is literally impossible for anyone who is conscious, at a certain point and level of consciousness, not to be aware of that fact.

This is the reason that they as all of us are without an excuse, and you are wasting your time, because it is not that they don't, "KNOW," of the existence of a creator it is impossible not to, "KNOW," it is that we choose to believe in belief or we choose to believe in disbelief.

You can not change a persons mind about their belief whether it is belief in the existence of creator God or belief in the non existence of a creator God.

No matter how persuasive an argument you make the changing of the a persons heart requires the energizing of spiritual power within the life or soul of an individual in order for that individual to become aware of the goodness of God so that they are able to change.

The natural man cannot know the things of the spirit of God, they are discerned by spiritual means, the greater reality of the spiritual can not be analyzed it can only be ascertained.

To the mind which only know logic and reason the things of the spirit are foolishness and can never be more.

Your mistake is in not knowing the purpose for the existence of the reality in which we find ourselves.

It is not for the benefit of us who believe but to allow for disbelief.

All of us should be thankful when a person refuses to believe, without the unbeliever no believer would ever be born.

Our goal should be to manifest spiritual power, to have revelation knowledge, wisdom, faith, miracles and the gifts of healing to impart to those who believe not to those who do not.

God must reveal to us by supernatural means who to speak with and who to allow to be delivered into the hands of the God of this world for the destruction of the body.

To use the mind to determine for yourself who to speak to and with about the things of God is nothing but religion, the work of Satan to deceive the mind, to bribe your heart, by offering your hearts desire, the things of this world.

Let us grow together until the harvest.

When there is none left who do not believe and none left to be born who will not believe then the creator will dissolve this reality and give us a new body, source for life not of the air, and a new heaven in earth in which to dwell peacefully forever.

Just as implying science is based on fact, calculation and observance over time, as well as exorcising the option of tossing in some experimentation along the way, a side of fact on a bed of mathematics, and finally, placing a garnish of "the big bang is as good as any theory" to top off the cosmetic value, thus completing the main course presentation to our dinner plate of creationism, then, through interpretation of a request discovered in consideration of an additional half shekel, the meal can be super-sized and includes evolution - (with or without faith). Suddenly an overlooked realization materialized within conscious thought from outside the universe that, as a result of subconscious error calculating required logistics, manifested lack of sufficient room on our dinner plate to accommodate the now additional portions. Rather than engaging in argument over beliefs, the evolution and faith were quickly devoured, eliminating the need for space.

Without the need for space, man then poked and prodded the Earth, and in cohabitation with everything on the planet, it was soon evident that to deduce results in findings, we must then conclude that the only thing needed, or necessary is ourself and as creator of ourself, religion and God concepts were tossed out like a dirty snot rag to the trash.

After building amazing and wonderful structures and devices, the only real and verifiable all encompassing fact was:
Anything man-made, will eventually fail, brake, or be destroyed.
All else is not verifiable as fact.

reply to post by JPhish

the OP's allegations have yet to be refuted it seems?

No that ones just a little too challenging. No one one has really even addressed the rational intelligibility of the universe. I found this short video clip that talks about the same concept as the "uniformity of nature". Which is a basic assumption science starts out with...

reply to post by newday


Have you looked at the word resh-t in Hebrew newday? It is a period of time not a point in time. I was refering to the book genesis unbound by Hebrew scholar Salihamer for my information. What is your source?

[edit on 6/26/2008 by Bigwhammy]

Originally posted by Bigwhammy

Have you looked at the word resh-t in Hebrew newday? It is a period of time not a point in time. I was refering to the book genesis unbound by Hebrew scholar Salihamer for my information. What is your source?

The idea I mentioned rests on the fact that the Book of Genesis, " biblov genesewv," or "book of the generations," from the greek Septuagint, was called in the hebrew language Bere#h, "beginnings," or "in the begriming," taken from the first word, "reshyth," and the customs of the people.

It is not an accepted idea so no one is willing to put their approval on it, like the idea that the word, "elohym," is actually in the plural, "Gods," not singular, "God."

Many people have known this down through the ages and have verbally told it to others, in an oral tradition kind of way, but no one of religious authority who depends on the maintaining of officially recognized and sanctioned notions of belief for their livelihood, ever has or is going to put their, "good name," at risk by endorsing such things.

They may talk about them behind closed doors with someone they know and trust but that would be the extent of it.

People by in large keep any number of secret, question, thoughts, and beliefs, they may have about things like that, to themselves, especially those individuals of stature or status who are invested in the system so to speak, like professional people, because they fear how they may be seen by their communities and what consequences might befall them if they speak freely as to their true feelings.

It is an intrinsic failing of organized religion, and most all forms of government for that matter, that they breed conformity and submission covertly among those who use them as the means of sustaining themselves.

I am of the opinion that true worship is true spirituality, the power of all in all, all the power of God in the hands of all the people involved, nothing is hidden.

All the great religions began as true movements of God in true spirituality, they then declined to religion

Religion is a denial of the power of God, the giving over of your power to the hands of those few who organize the religion and live at the expense of those who practice it.

Science is born out of religion, because it is a sense knowledge attempt to regain some of the power we once enjoyed in true worship, which we have lost to religion.

What is your view of religion and science?

[edit on 26-6-2008 by newday]

[edit on 26-6-2008 by newday]