Accepting the reality of God is painful to many:

[Lawdog]

No they don’t. Please stop spewing this crap. You must understand it is not that the non-believer rejects God because that would imply that God exists, but it is that we don’t accept your assertion that he exists so we have no feelings one way or another about what your fantasy might want.

Moderator comment – You are in danger of preaching here which violates forum rules. Please be careful.

Ok, Cris, as you wish.

Please understand, most people on sciforums have not considered my conviction that it is improper to present evidence of God to Science.
They still think that theology is a scientific discussion.
It is not, Science can make no statements in this area.
Some in the name of Science say, "we observe no evidence of a deity" Thats like Science saying "we observe no evidence of a perfect circle"
It is a ridiculous statement.

I had before presented non-physical "proof" here (from philosophy) of a non-physical deity.

I also presented physical proof of the incarnation.

The opposing veiws I found to be irrational.

Although by myriads of great minds outside of sciforums, such as philosophers and historians the evidence I submitted is considered of highest merit.

Therefore I fail to see why I must still "prove" and show evidence, which is neveretheless improper to the subject.

then I might sound preachy by talking about God to them in a hypothetical mode, ie. "if God existed...we know that he would be like this..."

Here there seems to be more of a gathering place of unbelievers who use Science as a defense against Reason.

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic: How many religious practitioners support someone strapping a bomb to their chest? How many religious practioners support starting illegal wars? It's not the acts themselves, but those who support it which is the dangerous thing.

Christian and Muslim nutjobs really have turned the world into a right mess in the last 5 years lightgigantic, incase you hadn't noticed. How do you wish to explain this? Oh let me guess, religion has nothing to do with it, right?

guess it depends if you view economic development as a sub branch of piety I guess

 

[Cris]

Lawdog,

Please understand, most people on sciforums have not considered my conviction that it is improper to present evidence of God to Science.

I believe it has been considered and appropriately dismissed.

Science means “knowledge” and the search for it through very exacting methods. If you think you have some knowledge of any type (remember science has no boundaries of where it can look) then present your findings under these well proven established methodologies.

You can’t because you have nothing that can pass even the simplest tests, so instead religionists claim their “knowledge” is somehow special and must be exempt from science. Huh – copout. If you have something then show that your methodologies are superior to science.

It is not, Science can make no statements in this area.

Of course not, there is nothing to look at.

Some in the name of Science say, "we observe no evidence of a deity"

Which is entirely accurate. Note that science does not say that deities do not exist but simply that there is nothing to examine.

Thats like Science saying "we observe no evidence of a perfect circle" It is a ridiculous statement.

What? That is not a good analogy.

A better one would be science saying “we observe no evidence of fairies”. Exactly the same applies to deities. Remember that gods, fairies, leprechauns, etc, are all imaginary characters from many past mythologies.

I had before presented non-physical "proof" here (from philosophy) of a non-physical deity.

No you haven’t. You presented unsupported speculations.

I also presented physical proof of the incarnation.

Where?

The opposing veiws I found to be irrational.

Coming from a religionist that doesn’t hold much weight.

Although by myriads of great minds outside of sciforums, such as philosophers and historians the evidence I submitted is considered of highest merit.

And NONE of it shows that a god exists.

Therefore I fail to see why I must still "prove" and show evidence, which is neveretheless improper to the subject.

I think you overstate what you think is evidence. I cannot see you have come close to convincing anyone of your claims, or any other claims made by religionists

then I might sound preachy by talking about God to them in a hypothetical mode, ie. "if God existed...we know that he would be like this..."

Why? What about the Deist god?

Here there seems to be more of a gathering place of unbelievers who use Science as a defense against Reason.

LOL. Science is based on reason whereas religion is based on the opposite (faith).

But really most here are just extremely skeptical of your claims and won’t take any religionist BS without it passing at least some the simplest requirements for real knowledge – i.e. a single scrap of real evidence.

 

[leopold]

Please understand, most people on sciforums have not considered my conviction that it is improper to present evidence of God to Science.
They still think that theology is a scientific discussion.
It is not, Science can make no statements in this area.
Some in the name of Science say, "we observe no evidence of a deity" Thats like Science saying "we observe no evidence of a perfect circle"
It is a ridiculous statement.

what evidence?
where is this evidence at?
you do realize that 'god' has been argued for centuries don't you?

 

[Lawdog]

Cris,

You are wrong in your belief that Science has no boundries. It remind's me of Descartes' fallacy of trying to contrive an ethics using mathematics. This is the primary disfunction of the self destructive and unhappy modernist mind.

True Religion is based on both Reason and Faith.
Science is a tool of Reason

 

[Silas]

No they don’t. Please stop spewing this crap. You must understand it is not that the non-believer rejects God because that would imply that God exists, but it is that we don’t accept your assertion that he exists so we have no feelings one way or another about what your fantasy might want.

Moderator comment – You are in danger of preaching here which violates forum rules. Please be careful.

Can someone explain to me why I've never seen a moderator intervention on posts which actually preached, and what's more, preached religion?

 

[Silas]

Atheists, Agnostics, and others, either consciously or subconsciously, have habituated themselves to thinking of God as some sort of adversary, and to his followers in Christ as enemies. As an atheist, try to catch yourself doing this and you will see that its true.

But nothing about God could be further from the truth.

God loves Atheists and Agnostics so much that many Christians, if they discovered how much, would be scandalized by it!

How exactly would they go about learning how much God loves atheists and agnostics? Hang on a minute - how do you know God loves atheists and agnostics? Are you some kind of prophet?

The true reason that they will not acknowledge God is far from 'intellectual freedom." To acknowledge the existance of God they must say that they were wrong. Pride of their life prevents them from this admission.

Therefore we must beg them to seek true humility.

In other words, atheists must abandon intellectual freedom. The true reason we atheists don't acknowledge God is because there is no evidence for his existence. If atheists lived substantially poorer, unluckier, lower salaried lives than Christians and Muslims, I for one would consider that "evidence". I would acknowledge God, but I would still become his implacable enemy. Sometimes I wish God did exist and would show himself, and then maybe a lot of Christians would wake up to what their slavish devotion actually means. But of course, that is the very point. Their slavish devotion actually means nothing, and deep down they all know that, otherwise they would look at themselves and say, "Real or not, Almighty or not, what the hell am I following him for?" The majority of born-again Christians are American, and I truly wished Jesus really was coming back. And then after only a few weeks of Jesus's new Kingdom on Earth, they'd suddenly remember that they rejected Kings over two hundred years ago, and unless Jesus was willing to submit himself to a regular plebiscite of the people, then He would be in contravention of the Constitution, and shown the door.

many have adopted a sinful lifestyle which they refuse to change or in any way alter. They wrongly think that God wants them to change every little imperfection all at once. This is not the case. God wants them to change gradually, little by little, until they are ready to give themselves full to God.

Many atheists have adopted a lifestyle which is not sinful in the smallest iota - other than not believing in God. They are not interested in God's opinion of how they live their lives, they base their morality on causing the minimal harm to fellow human beings. And many Christians and Muslims have adopted sinful lifestyles which they refuse to change or in any way alter. But as long as they either a) "accept Jesus into their heart", b) go to confession or c) pray five times a day (and do the other mitzvahs), they've got their "Get out of Hell Free" card and that's all they care about. Not what their actions may have meant to other people's lives.

Even those believers who call themselves "saved" as if their relationship to God were based on some sort of contractual moment, and who think that they were saved because they went up to "the altar call," ....are not saved, but they must continue to work towards salvation.

God does not look with more favor upon believers than unbelievers, but he doles out good things to both, hoping that the believer will improve himself and expecting much from him, and hoping that the unbeliever will repent of his unbelief and begin to live in Christ.

It's this "hotline to God" thing you've got going that I think is the most worrying aspect, mostly to your fellow Christians I should think.

Eventually you will recognise that what you "know in your heart" about God is only what you want to believe about him. Other people want to believe that deceased atheists and agnostics are burning in hell right now. Still others don't give a monkeys about what's happening to atheists and agnostics as long as the gays are getting the red-hot-poker-up-the-bum treatment. My point is not that all Christians are hateful, my point is that you actually have no idea, Lawdog, what God wants from humanity. There are verses in the Bible that will justify anybody's view of God. Based on the Bible, I would have to say that God is not a liberal.