Suffering for the Sins of the World

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Well, Ed, you've been presenting the "evidence" for god before the jury of Ex-christian for over a decade now; and we're all still pretty much convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that if he existed, he'd be guilty as hell.

 

But every time we have a trial, it drags on for 17 pages and then you get pissed because we're ready to pass judgment on god based on the evidence we have instead of waiting around until some glad morning when you can finally present us with all the things you claim we don't currently comprehend.  

 

Quit wasting the court's time, or I'll hold you in contempt and sentence you to a month of foot washing detail with @florduh.

Done and done...lol

[freshstart]

9 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Our current system of justice doesn't follow what you just said.  We bring in all the evidence we can....ALL THE EVIDENCE we can bring in, and then have a jury system of multiple minds, multiple perceptions, and an supposed non bias judge, before making a decision of "evil" or not.  

So what exactly are you saying here. . . there is not enough evidence to weigh in on whether what happened to Rosa Maria was "evil or not?" What other "evidence" are we to look at? You have presented none so far.

All I hear is that we need to open our minds and allow ourselves to believe that there is a good reason for evil like this. How is this any different from what your mythical Satan believes?

And isn't this what Hitler did. . .convince the German masses that extermination of the Jews was for the betterment of society. . . for a "greater cause?"

I guess I shouldn't be, but I'm amazed. . . truly amazed. . .  at how you are willing to allow for some godly purpose for the rape and murder of children. The fact that you do not see that as the least bit twisted, nor does it create even a glimmer of cognitive dissonance for you is. . . kind of frightening.  . . and sad.

 

[freshstart]

5 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Done and done.

Amen

[TheRedneckProfessor]

As I see it, @Edgarcito, you cling to your beliefs out of fear.  You've been around long enough, and put enough thought into your religion to know how ridiculous the bible is--virgin birth, parting the Red Sea, a god who can create the entire universe out of nothing, but can't defeat an army with iron chariots--yet you still hold on to these ridiculous myths in spite of what you know.  On the subject of christianity, you have willfully suspended disbelief.  Yours is not the intrusive and pervasive fear of "oh god, if I don't believe I'll be judged and sent to hell;" rather, your fear is more subtle, more cerebral.  Your fear stems from this nagging thought that somewhere out there, there is a stone that has been left unturned, a missing puzzle piece that will show us all the complete picture, a missing link that will finally connect the chain all the way from Adam and Eve to the New Jerusalem.

 

Now, christianity has been around for 2,000 years.  And in that time, it has produced tens of thousands of different denominations, made up of billions of people.  Some of those people were relatively brilliant thinkers and scholars: Pascal, Aquinas, some would even rank C.S. Lewis among them.  I say "relatively" because their thought processes were limited to the parameters of christianity; and it is hard to be truly brilliant if you are thinking with one arm tied behind your back, as it were.  Nonetheless, despite the handicap thrust upon christian thinkers and theologians, they still have access to the mind of an omniscient god, who supposedly knows everything.  Additionally, pretending for a moment that the lord really does use the foolish to dumbfound the wise, christian history is filled with children, slaves, people not in possession of their full mental faculties... and just regular schmucks.  It seems to me that, with so many years, so many different perspectives, and so many people involved in the search, if there was some missing "thing" that we just don't comprehend, it would have been found by now.  It seems to me that, by now, somebody would have come upon the proverbial unturned stone and said, "Hey, here's one we ain't looked under yet.  Quick!  Get the crowbar!" 

 

But nobody has.

 

Why?

 

Maybe it's because god's mysterious and shit.  Maybe he just hasn't revealed it because humanity isn't ready to comprehend it.  But, if we're still not ready after 2,000 years of Suffering, then when the hell are we ever going to be?  It seems to me that, if god truly is all-loving, he'd have allowed the Suffering to end by now and revealed the missing puzzle piece.  We talked before about god not being willing that anyone should perish; but, if this were really true, if god really is not willing to let anyone perish, then why is he still holding on to that piece of the puzzle, while so many people are perishing?!  Here again, though, there's nothing mysterious about hanging on to information that could save lives and letting them all die anyway, any more than there's anything mysterious about having the ability to prevent a child being raped but just not wanting to.

 

It seems to me that a more plausible explanation is that we already have  turned over every stone there is to turn over; and there's just nothing there.  We already have all of the pieces of the puzzle; and the picture seems incomplete because it never was true to begin with.  We already have all of the links in the chain; but it cannot connect Adam to the New Jerusalem because myths don't actually work out that way in real life.  It seems to me more plausible to accept that, after 2,000 years of searching, we haven't found anything else, because there is nothing else left to find.  We have all the information we're going to get; because it is all the information that exists.

 

You have presented us with all of the evidence you have; and, in more than a decade, you have never presented us with anything new.  The most likely explanation for this is that there is simply not any more evidence out there.  Obviously, the evidence you have presented us is not good enough to convince us.  But, in reality, it isn't even good enough to truly convince you.  This is why, every time you get pushed into a corner, every time you are presented with a point you cannot counter, every time you are confronted with a reality like Rosa Maria, your initial instinct is to lash out and claim, "We don't comprehend everything!  There's more evidence out there; we just ain't found it yet!"  Because you know the evidence we currently have at our disposal simply is not good enough.  

 

Which seems more plausible to you, Ed?  Which seems to best fit with Occam's Razor?  That an all-loving god, who is not willing that anyone should perish, would withhold the critical evidence that would save both temporal lives and eternal souls, for some mysterious, as yet unexplained reason?  Or that the evidence we have is all the evidence there is?

[walterpthefirst]

16 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Done and done...lol

 

I see that Edgarcito has left the building.  But the story about his garden in Texas isn't over - so I'd better finish it.  That way we can see how things pan out.

 

After he failed to act to save his daughter from the rattlesnake she underwent a terrible transformation that made her repulsive in his eyes.  So, he threatened her with death and forced her out of the garden at gunpoint - forever.  Eventually she died.  But that is not the end of the story.  Obviously I've written about Ed's garden in Texas as a parallel for god's garden in Eden.  Ed's two young children are parallels of Adam and Eve and the rattlesnake (which Ed would shoot immediately) is a parallel of Satan.

 

So, lets continue the parallel to its conclusion.

 

After Ed's daughter was poisoned by the rattlesnake she infected Ed's son and were both forced to leave the garden under threat of death.  The moment Ed's boy became infected the entire world became infected in the same way.  Everyone alive became disgusting and abhorrent to Ed.  Every animal, bird and fish became infected with the slow -acting poison that leads to death.  The world (people and animals) was swept with horrific diseases and babies were born with dreadful deformities.  This was the rattlesnake's venom spreading instantly to every living thing. 

 

Just as Ed's daughter had undergone a personality change, so everyone in the world went underwent the same, permanent change to their morality.  People began to prey on each other, stealing and harming each other.  The weak and the vulnerable were preyed upon by the wicked, even though these wicked people did not cause their own wickedness. 

 

No.  The true cause of all the wickedness in the world was Ed himself, when he failed to stop the rattlesnake from biting his daughter.  But, rather than be true and honest to himself he blamed everyone else for his own failure to act like a loving, caring and protective father.  He blamed the rattlesnake, even though he knew that it had no choice but to act according to it's harmful nature.  It could not decide to do good, but Ed could have decided to.  He blamed his children, even though he knew they were too young to realize the danger that the rattlesnake represented.  It was his responsibility to keep them safe - not theirs.

 

So Ed blamed everyone in his garden but himself.  Not satisfied with that Ed went on to blame everyone else in the world for his failure to act, even though they couldn't in any way have been culpable or responsible for his shortcomings.  They weren't in his garden.  They had no way of knowing what was happening there.  They could not and should not have been held responsible by Ed for what he failed to do.

 

Everyone else was made to suffer by Ed for his failure.  They suffered and still suffer disease, disfigurement and death - thanks to Ed.  All of the crime, warfare, slavery, torture and cruelty people inflict upon each other was ultimately caused by Ed when he failed to protect his daughter from that rattlesnake.  The blame lies squarely at his door and nobody else's.

 

This is all Ed's fault.  Nobody else's.  Rosa Maria's suffering and death are down to Ed (i.e., god) and nobody else.

 

And the question still hangs in the air, unanswered.

 

Edgarcito would immediately kill a real rattlesnake threatening his children.

 

So why can't Edgarcito see that god's failure to protect Eve is an EVIL deed?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

5 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As I see it, @Edgarcito, you cling to your beliefs out of fear.  You've been around long enough, and put enough thought into your religion to know how ridiculous the bible is--virgin birth, parting the Red Sea, a god who can create the entire universe out of nothing, but can't defeat an army with iron chariots--yet you still hold on to these ridiculous myths in spite of what you know.  On the subject of christianity, you have willfully suspended disbelief.  Yours is not the intrusive and pervasive fear of "oh god, if I don't believe I'll be judged and sent to hell;" rather, your fear is more subtle, more cerebral.  Your fear stems from this nagging thought that somewhere out there, there is a stone that has been left unturned, a missing puzzle piece that will show us all the complete picture, a missing link that will finally connect the chain all the way from Adam and Eve to the New Jerusalem.

 

Now, christianity has been around for 2,000 years.  And in that time, it has produced tens of thousands of different denominations, made up of billions of people.  Some of those people were relatively brilliant thinkers and scholars: Pascal, Aquinas, some would even rank C.S. Lewis among them.  I say "relatively" because their thought processes were limited to the parameters of christianity; and it is hard to be truly brilliant if you are thinking with one arm tied behind your back, as it were.  Nonetheless, despite the handicap thrust upon christian thinkers and theologians, they still have access to the mind of an omniscient god, who supposedly knows everything.  Additionally, pretending for a moment that the lord really does use the foolish to dumbfound the wise, christian history is filled with children, slaves, people not in possession of their full mental faculties... and just regular schmucks.  It seems to me that, with so many years, so many different perspectives, and so many people involved in the search, if there was some missing "thing" that we just don't comprehend, it would have been found by now.  It seems to me that, by now, somebody would have come upon the proverbial unturned stone and said, "Hey, here's one we ain't looked under yet.  Quick!  Get the crowbar!" 

 

But nobody has.

 

Why?

 

Maybe it's because god's mysterious and shit.  Maybe he just hasn't revealed it because humanity isn't ready to comprehend it.  But, if we're still not ready after 2,000 years of Suffering, then when the hell are we ever going to be?  It seems to me that, if god truly is all-loving, he'd have allowed the Suffering to end by now and revealed the missing puzzle piece.  We talked before about god not being willing that anyone should perish; but, if this were really true, if god really is not willing to let anyone perish, then why is he still holding on to that piece of the puzzle, while so many people are perishing?!  Here again, though, there's nothing mysterious about hanging on to information that could save lives and letting them all die anyway, any more than there's anything mysterious about having the ability to prevent a child being raped but just not wanting to.

 

It seems to me that a more plausible explanation is that we already have  turned over every stone there is to turn over; and there's just nothing there.  We already have all of the pieces of the puzzle; and the picture seems incomplete because it never was true to begin with.  We already have all of the links in the chain; but it cannot connect Adam to the New Jerusalem because myths don't actually work out that way in real life.  It seems to me more plausible to accept that, after 2,000 years of searching, we haven't found anything else, because there is nothing else left to find.  We have all the information we're going to get; because it is all the information that exists.

 

You have presented us with all of the evidence you have; and, in more than a decade, you have never presented us with anything new.  The most likely explanation for this is that there is simply not any more evidence out there.  Obviously, the evidence you have presented us is not good enough to convince us.  But, in reality, it isn't even good enough to truly convince you.  This is why, every time you get pushed into a corner, every time you are presented with a point you cannot counter, every time you are confronted with a reality like Rosa Maria, your initial instinct is to lash out and claim, "We don't comprehend everything!  There's more evidence out there; we just ain't found it yet!"  Because you know the evidence we currently have at our disposal simply is not good enough.  

 

Which seems more plausible to you, Ed?  Which seems to best fit with Occam's Razor?  That an all-loving god, who is not willing that anyone should perish, would withhold the critical evidence that would save both temporal lives and eternal souls, for some mysterious, as yet unexplained reason?  Or that the evidence we have is all the evidence there is?

I thought we were going to cease and desist.  ??  Don't make me come back.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

16 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Don't make me come back.

Of course I'd never make you come back.  That would violate your free will; and the Prof thy Mod doesn't do that sort of thing.

 

I was just offering some food for thought.

[Edgarcito]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

As I see it, @Edgarcito, you cling to your beliefs out of fear.  You've been around long enough, and put enough thought into your religion to know how ridiculous the bible is--virgin birth, parting the Red Sea, a god who can create the entire universe out of nothing, but can't defeat an army with iron chariots--yet you still hold on to these ridiculous myths in spite of what you know.  On the subject of christianity, you have willfully suspended disbelief.  Yours is not the intrusive and pervasive fear of "oh god, if I don't believe I'll be judged and sent to hell;" rather, your fear is more subtle, more cerebral.  Your fear stems from this nagging thought that somewhere out there, there is a stone that has been left unturned, a missing puzzle piece that will show us all the complete picture, a missing link that will finally connect the chain all the way from Adam and Eve to the New Jerusalem.

 

Now, christianity has been around for 2,000 years.  And in that time, it has produced tens of thousands of different denominations, made up of billions of people.  Some of those people were relatively brilliant thinkers and scholars: Pascal, Aquinas, some would even rank C.S. Lewis among them.  I say "relatively" because their thought processes were limited to the parameters of christianity; and it is hard to be truly brilliant if you are thinking with one arm tied behind your back, as it were.  Nonetheless, despite the handicap thrust upon christian thinkers and theologians, they still have access to the mind of an omniscient god, who supposedly knows everything.  Additionally, pretending for a moment that the lord really does use the foolish to dumbfound the wise, christian history is filled with children, slaves, people not in possession of their full mental faculties... and just regular schmucks.  It seems to me that, with so many years, so many different perspectives, and so many people involved in the search, if there was some missing "thing" that we just don't comprehend, it would have been found by now.  It seems to me that, by now, somebody would have come upon the proverbial unturned stone and said, "Hey, here's one we ain't looked under yet.  Quick!  Get the crowbar!" 

 

But nobody has.

 

Why?

 

Maybe it's because god's mysterious and shit.  Maybe he just hasn't revealed it because humanity isn't ready to comprehend it.  But, if we're still not ready after 2,000 years of Suffering, then when the hell are we ever going to be?  It seems to me that, if god truly is all-loving, he'd have allowed the Suffering to end by now and revealed the missing puzzle piece.  We talked before about god not being willing that anyone should perish; but, if this were really true, if god really is not willing to let anyone perish, then why is he still holding on to that piece of the puzzle, while so many people are perishing?!  Here again, though, there's nothing mysterious about hanging on to information that could save lives and letting them all die anyway, any more than there's anything mysterious about having the ability to prevent a child being raped but just not wanting to.

 

It seems to me that a more plausible explanation is that we already have  turned over every stone there is to turn over; and there's just nothing there.  We already have all of the pieces of the puzzle; and the picture seems incomplete because it never was true to begin with.  We already have all of the links in the chain; but it cannot connect Adam to the New Jerusalem because myths don't actually work out that way in real life.  It seems to me more plausible to accept that, after 2,000 years of searching, we haven't found anything else, because there is nothing else left to find.  We have all the information we're going to get; because it is all the information that exists.

 

You have presented us with all of the evidence you have; and, in more than a decade, you have never presented us with anything new.  The most likely explanation for this is that there is simply not any more evidence out there.  Obviously, the evidence you have presented us is not good enough to convince us.  But, in reality, it isn't even good enough to truly convince you.  This is why, every time you get pushed into a corner, every time you are presented with a point you cannot counter, every time you are confronted with a reality like Rosa Maria, your initial instinct is to lash out and claim, "We don't comprehend everything!  There's more evidence out there; we just ain't found it yet!"  Because you know the evidence we currently have at our disposal simply is not good enough.  

 

Which seems more plausible to you, Ed?  Which seems to best fit with Occam's Razor?  That an all-loving god, who is not willing that anyone should perish, would withhold the critical evidence that would save both temporal lives and eternal souls, for some mysterious, as yet unexplained reason?  Or that the evidence we have is all the evidence there is?

On the contrary, I've brought several new thoughts to the argument.  Who in the world would compare Moses to inductively coupled plasma.  Btw, Jesus and the Holy Spirit New Covenant are very similar to liquid liquid extraction if you hadn't noticed already...water(Spirit) being the universal solvent.  

 

Kinda of a cool thing.....when you don't open the Bible for years but spend years visiting with a bunch of heathens, when you DO open the Bible again, the arguments made and subsequent answers pop out rather boldly.  Anyway just goes to show you that new understanding IS there vs. the fundamentalist's all-certain view.  

 

I want you to answer this part if nothing more to this response.  So, when I say, "we don't comprehend everything", even backed up in the Standard I use, the Bible, this is illegal somehow.  But when science does it, i.e., we are constantly updating our knowledge and certainty, that your use of "we don't comprehend everything" is somehow more valid?  

 

What a joke. A joke, a joke I say boy.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

14 hours ago, freshstart said:

So what exactly are you saying here. . . there is not enough evidence to weigh in on whether what happened to Rosa Maria was "evil or not?" What other "evidence" are we to look at? You have presented none so far.

All I hear is that we need to open our minds and allow ourselves to believe that there is a good reason for evil like this. How is this any different from what your mythical Satan believes?

And isn't this what Hitler did. . .convince the German masses that extermination of the Jews was for the betterment of society. . . for a "greater cause?"

I guess I shouldn't be, but I'm amazed. . . truly amazed. . .  at how you are willing to allow for some godly purpose for the rape and murder of children. The fact that you do not see that as the least bit twisted, nor does it create even a glimmer of cognitive dissonance for you is. . . kind of frightening.  . . and sad.

 

Sorry, the Prof left the damn door open to the thread.  I'm saying our jury system provides for innocent until proven gulity and that's after all possible evidence is assembled.  Christianity says you don't have all the evidence yet, and the Judge will judge later.  From a non-believer's standpoint, you want to convict everyone now, because you have facts and science, and ego to convict.  Which one is more like Hitler my dear.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I've brought several new thoughts to the argument. 

But no new evidence.  I can't allow you to conflate.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

 

I want you to answer this part if nothing more to this response.  So, when I say, "we don't comprehend everything", even backed up in the Standard I use, the Bible, this is illegal somehow.  But when science does it, i.e., we are constantly updating our knowledge and certainty, that your use of "we don't comprehend everything" is somehow more valid?  

Because science updates it's comprehension using evidence, Ed.  The bible, your standard, does not.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Christianity says you don't have all the evidence yet

This means that god is deliberately withholding evidence while millions suffer.  All the more reason to convict.

[Edgarcito]

11 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Because science updates it's comprehension using evidence, Ed.  The bible, your standard, does not.

You don't believe there will be any more evidence in the religious case.  I do.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

30 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You don't believe there will be any more evidence in the religious case.  I do.

This is exactly the point I covered in my previous post, Ed.  Billions of people have been searching for that evidence for thousands of years, and nobody has found a single scrap of it.  If it was there to be found, Ed, somebody would have found it by now.  Unless god is deliberately withholding it, while millions of people suffer and die, in which case god is evil for doing so and god is a liar for claiming not to be willing that anyone should perish.

 

Of those two options, which one seems more plausible, reasonable, simple, logical?

 

Seriously, Ed.  You've got a water sample that has been tested for PCBs 2,000 times, by multiple technicians in multiple labs, and every test has come back clean; but you want to keep testing it, just in case it might have PCBs in it.  They're simply not there to be found, son.  They ain't.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Kinda of a cool thing.....when you don't open the Bible for years but spend years visiting with a bunch of heathens, when you DO open the Bible again, the arguments made and subsequent answers pop out rather boldly.  Anyway just goes to show you that new understanding IS there vs. the fundamentalist's all-certain view.  

 

This looks a lot like a private interpretation.

 

But I was also a fundamentalist that thought the Bible was inerrant and I just had to figure it out. 

 

So yeah. If I were more like you. A liberal and very lax Christian. I probably wouldn't have had as much of an issue with the fallacies I began seeing while studying. 

 

In the end bro. If your belief makes you happy and gets you through the day. Ill fist bump to that. We all gotta do what we feel is best until the end of this thing right? 

 

I'm loving the Bible being a book of historical thought rather than being an actual guideline for life to heaven. And a rule book that if I don't follow ill be damned. So yeah. I feel that I'm free from religious oppression and you feel like your free from sin. 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

You don't believe there will be any more evidence in the religious case.  I do.

 

But what you call evidence isn't acceptable as evidence, Ed.

 

You use faith to see things in the bible as being scientific evidence.

 

But faith plays no role in the gathering or interpreting of scientific evidence.

 

We've been over this before. (How many times?)

 

But you won't accept it.

 

 

[midniterider]

Ed:I want you to answer this part if nothing more to this response.  So, when I say, "we don't comprehend everything", even backed up in the Standard I use, the Bible, this is illegal somehow.  But when science does it, i.e., we are constantly updating our knowledge and certainty, that your use of "we don't comprehend everything" is somehow more valid?  

 

Prof:Because science updates it's comprehension using evidence, Ed.  The bible, your standard, does not.

 

......

 

What if evidence leads to a wrong conclusion? For many years? 

[Edgarcito]

19 minutes ago, midniterider said:

Ed:I want you to answer this part if nothing more to this response.  So, when I say, "we don't comprehend everything", even backed up in the Standard I use, the Bible, this is illegal somehow.  But when science does it, i.e., we are constantly updating our knowledge and certainty, that your use of "we don't comprehend everything" is somehow more valid?  

 

Prof:Because science updates it's comprehension using evidence, Ed.  The bible, your standard, does not.

 

......

 

What if evidence leads to a wrong conclusion? For many years? 

Then the serpent was indeed more crafty...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Then the serpent was indeed more crafty...

According to the story, which was written under the direction of the same god who is, by your own testimony, deliberately withholding the vital evidence that would save lives and souls.  But craftiness is not necessarily evil.  Hiding evidence while millions suffer and die, though...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

26 minutes ago, midniterider said:

What if evidence leads to a wrong conclusion? For many years? 

When new evidence comes in and reveals that the current conclusion is wrong, new conclusions can be drawn.  

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

When new evidence comes in and reveals that the current conclusion is wrong, new conclusions can be drawn.  

 

So new evidence could regularly challenge what we thought we knew. 

 

A current theory and its future replacement theories could all be incorrect? 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 minute ago, midniterider said:

So new evidence could regularly challenge what we thought we knew.

It can and does.

 

2 minutes ago, midniterider said:

A current theory and its future replacement theories could all be incorrect?

This depends on whether you are using the term "theory" in the scientific sense or using it as a substitute for "hypothesis", "educated guess," or "something I thought up while I was in the shower" as it is used in the commoner's tongue.  A scientific understanding does not become a "Theory" until a large, well-developed, and well-supported preponderance of evidence is gathered that points to that understanding being correct.  As such, while a Theory might be modified by new evidence, it is not likely to be replaced entirely.  @walterpthefirst could probably explain using Newtonian Gravity and all that astrophysics shit that I don't understand.

 

If you're simply referring to a common "theory", then, yes, they could all be incorrect; and should be replaced once their incorrectness is recognized.

[Edgarcito]

33 minutes ago, midniterider said:

 

So new evidence could regularly challenge what we thought we knew. 

 

A current theory and its future replacement theories could all be incorrect? 

 

 

The obvious danger here is Christian antitheism has consequences....but you knew that.  My response is obligatory.  Carry on.  

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

It can and does.

 

This depends on whether you are using the term "theory" in the scientific sense or using it as a substitute for "hypothesis", "educated guess," or "something I thought up while I was in the shower" as it is used in the commoner's tongue.  A scientific understanding does not become a "Theory" until a large, well-developed, and well-supported preponderance of evidence is gathered that points to that understanding being correct.  As such, while a Theory might be modified by new evidence, it is not likely to be replaced entirely.  @walterpthefirst could probably explain using Newtonian Gravity and all that astrophysics shit that I don't understand.

 

If you're simply referring to a common "theory", then, yes, they could all be incorrect; and should be replaced once their incorrectness is recognized.

 

Let me replace the revered term "scientific theory" with scientific knowledge instead. Or scientific understanding. I like that term as well.  

 

So these ideas do get modified at times. 

[midniterider]

42 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

The obvious danger here is Christian antitheism has consequences....but you knew that.  My response is obligatory.  Carry on.  

 

Elaborate, please.