(Disclosure: I am Christian)
This is wrong: “Christianity was created when the Old Testament proved itself wrong”
This is wrong too: “the New Testament proved itself wrong”
For one with faith, the OT and NT are consistent, coherent, and correct. For staunch unbelievers I’m not trying to convert and convince anyone. But those statements are very wrong.
Would you say that Japan is or is not the central feature of Earth? For you, as a disinterested third party, would the fact that a Shinto priest might have some rationalization available be likely to change your opinion on whether or not Japan is the central feature of the planet Earth?
Japan, the central feature of Earth? No. A Shinto priest having information that might change my mind on that? I’d listen.
Okay, he tells you that the Japanese failed to please the gods, so they reorganized the world to diminish its import, until the Japanese please the gods again.
Another point, perhaps a lesser point: the people who currently accept climate change didn’t used to. When global warming first arrived on the scientific stage, it was a crackpot theory that not only did not have sufficient evidence, no one knew quite how to go about getting such evidence. Or, more often crucial, how to get the funding necessary to get the data.
Now, we have it. Took far too long to get it, but now a thirty megapage GIGObomb can be dropped on an argument. That is what changed scientific minds. Those who used to sneer, sneer no longer. When was the last time anyone heard of a climate-change scientist changing his mind and deciding there was no such thing as human-provoked climate change?
And how many have made the opposite journey?
Theologians aren’t scientists. There’s no long and proven record of the methods that theologians use actually solving mysteries, revealing facts about existence, etc. There’s no reason to believe they have any better insight into the nature of existence, the universe, or any potential higher powers, than plumbers or electricians.
Cite?
And do they believe in the same god, analogous to the way 97% of climate scientists accept the same overall scenario of global warming? If they believe in different gods, it would be like if 40% of climate scientists thought the earth was warming, 30% believe it’s cooling, etc.
Well, instead of a MOAB GIGObomb 
I have pointed before to this short video of a former skeptical scientist, who got funding from rich deniers, he did check the data and even included more past records… only to conclude that yes, the research made before by other climate scientists was indeed solid. Climate Change deniers of humans causing it like Anthony Watts at WUWT had no reply but to also deny that he had promised to follow the conclusions of Professor Muller and the BEST team.
Richard Muller: I Was Wrong on Global Warming
Just as it is important to deny that the consensus also depends on a preponderance of evidence, deniers of science also deserve to be called deniers because they also deny that confirmations by teams of skeptic scientists have been done too. So there was a big lie when the few skeptical scientists left told congress a few weeks ago that we needed a “red” team of scientists to check the issue (of course the Republicans in congress were the ones that continue to swallow the misinformation). The powerful interests behind the few skeptical scientists left only try to perpetuate the idea that there is a big controversy when there is very little of it.
95% of the people reading this thread think the OP is incorrect.
I admire your diplomacy.
Which “god”? Which sect’s deity does your premise supposedly bring into existence?
I think what Bullitt was trying to say, is that the New Testament wasn’t created because the writers of the New Testament believed that the Old Testament “had proved itself wrong”. The point of the New Testament, for its authors, is that recent events had occurred that fulfilled and expanded on the promises of the Old Testament. The authors wanted to talk about the OT in relation to current events. They didn’t fully discard the OT as false; they expanded on it.
This is not to say - for us in this discussion thread - that the authors of the OT were correct in their understanding of current events, merely to say that this was their historical purpose.
No it’s not actually. Your analogy is equivocating experts on something that is observable and testable by all with the faculty to observe it with experts on something that cannot be observed and tested by anyone and that is explicitly supposed to be taken on faith. It equivocates experts whose work can be peer reviewed by anyone with the skills, training, and equipment to do so with experts whose only work that can be peer reviewed in any sense of the word is their proper use of long dead languages and understanding of histories.
In short, your analogy equivocates between experts in concrete matters with experts in abstract matters. There are enough substantial differences that make your analogy inapt.
Also, your overall argument seems to be coming close to not understanding that there is a proper appeal to authority and an improper appeal to authority, the latter of which is a fallacy and not what occurs in proper arguments for the reality of AGW.
I’d like to hear more about the 5% of theologians who read the Bible, studied other evidence, and came to the conclusion that God does NOT exist.
Apart from the postings above, you can add:
(Neither group have any evidence for their belief.)
P.P.S. If there is a God, he would weep at the foolish arguments you are using to prove He exists.
It is a sad world where accepting “Overwhelming amounts of physical evidence” vs a “evidenceless belief in a sky fairy” becomes a ‘flimsy excuse’. Truly, Fox News has won.
Turns out that Satan has been living below an empty apartment.
God is a feeling. Those are kind of hard to “prove” – but maybe neurology will improve to the point that it is possible to.
Which god are you talking about here?
I looked out this morning, and god was gone
Turned on some science to start my day
I lost myself in a familiar double blind, independently replicated study…