Of course science changes, it's called progress.

Religion is rooted in the primitive history of Man - it would be best left there.

Well put, very lucid, and intriguing. (Wow, my saying that is a first...mea culpa lula)

~Alderic

Speaking of fallacies, this is a whopper, maybe the whopper of the whole thread.

Lula, there is such thing as moral relativsm. Take a look at the different cultures for example, their morals, their right and wrong have been shown to be different to yours, or others.

Saying that certain things are not relative, i.e. different according to cultures and so on - means you're just full of it.

~Alderic/hope4iran

Lula, you have to understand that Einstein, when he often spoke about God, et al. - he often did not mean the same God as you do. That, I think, is where you fail to understand him. In fact, here he is in his own words:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal god and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

In fact, Einstein is reported to have said that he felt Jesus to be a myth.

He was no christian. If nothing else, we was...a combination of naturalistic deism. Or, in a sense, someone who relied on science.That's my interpretation at least. In fact, the comment there - in my eyes - seems to point to not religion, or faith or anything like that, but the desire to explore and understand the world. There's an interesting bit, on page 234 of this book. It starts at "The religious genius'..."

Addendum:

To clarify things a bit - Einstein could, and likely does - fall into the category of people who:

1. He says he believes in Spinoza's God.

2.Spinoza's God is a pantheistic God, in which the universe and nature and God, are one in the same.

3. So, taking that into account - it is logical to assume that Einstein believed that God could be found through science, nature, etc.

You get where I'm going with this?

Alderic,

Yes, I KNOW there is such a thing as moral relativism...that's exactly what I'm writing about...As a matter of fact, moral relativism abounds in this day and age....and I bemoan this fact. The relativist dogma is that there are no absolutes, except relativism.

Your misunderstanding is due to failure to appreciate what faith and study really is and its basic role in the sphere of science and religion.  

Religion and science call for belief both by faith and study from whom?  An authority.

Divine faith isn't an emotional, blind submission to the unknowable. Rather Divine faith is an intellectual assent of the mind to something not seen, and the acceptance of truth upon the authority of someone else. In religion it's Divine Authority, that cannot decieve or be decieved. 

Umm....yes. In science, even observation of data begins on human faith and study from a fallible human authority, that may or may not be right depending upon its personal integrity.   

There are of course alot of things that are absolute truths, there are also a hell of a lot of things that are relative. 

There is a truth about gods existance, there are realtive moral values.

That's only because you believe what you see is not just evidence, but self-confirming proof.  No matter how you slice it, you cannot provide any evidence of God's existence or of the 'truth' of the Bible, only circular reasoning.

Mind you, that doesn't mean I believe you can't or shouldn't practice your religion and adhere to the beliefs you hold dear.  Just don't pretend those beliefs are something that they aren't.

I for one am willing to admit that I could wrong in be denying the existance of your 'god'.  I am also willing to admit that I could be wrong in denying the existance of the flying spaggetti monster, etc.  I'm not willing to list the number of gods that I admit I could be wrong in denying the existance of.

If you prove a) that any god exists that your god exists over the evidence for every other god I will agree with you.

AGGHHHH  "b  )"

But ulimatly it is impossible to say 'there is no god'.  A god capable of creating the universe is also capable of hiding. 

It is possible to say that 'I think god existance is as likely as the existance of tiny invisable ass monkeys flying out of my ass every night'

Actually that's not my job.  It's not up to me to prove God's existence.  Besides all that, even if I did, you wouldn't believe.  For most there isn't enough proof that would convince them. 

alrighty then.  You see just perfectly.  But you don't see God? 

ya, that's good.  But he says that if we seek him we will find him. 

It would be more correct for you to say "I don't know." 

Because I do know.