Evolution convicts criminals

[lucaspa]

I partly agree with this but I also believe that certain definitions of deities can indeed be tested. For instance, a giant deity who eats a 100 people every day in downtown Manhattan is an example of a falsifiable deity.

I would say that particular theories about deity can be tested. But yes, essentially you are correct. This is one way that theists have tested theories about deity over the centuries and have discarded most of them. The religions we have today are those that survived the falsification process (much like the scientific theories we have today are those that have survived falsification )

I think there is such a thing as a militant atheist and I even see Dawkins as being one. However, I don't remember Sagan ever making the claim that science had refuted religion in Cosmos. All I remember him saying, in much the same manner Hawking has, that God was unnecessary to explain the universe.

That last sentence is itself bad science and can only be true if one accepts as true the basic statement of faith of atheism: natural = without God.

Sagan was more subtle. "The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be." the book Cosmos, pg 5. Then for the book (or series) the Cosmos is spoken only in terms of the physical universe. So Sagan is saying there is nothing but the physical universe. Later Sagan discusses the Hindu concept that the universe is the realized result of a divine dream. Sagan then says "These great ideas are tempered by another, perhaps even greater. It is said that men may not be the dreams of the gods, but rather that the gods are the dreams of men."

"We are, in the most profound sense, children of the Cosmos."

Sagan also espoused scientism:
"Science is not perfect. It's often misused. It's only a tool. But it's the best tool we have, self-correcting, ever changing, applicable to everything." pg 242

 

[lucaspa]

So in other words it is science and can be taught to students!!

It can be taught the way we teach flat earth and geocentrism to students: theories that are wrong.

Is that the way you want it taught?

 

[lucaspa]

What atheist need to reconsider is if there is creator who loves them. I believe that God doesn't show partility with anyone. And i believe that even Dawkins is equally loved by God as God loves me.

That is your belief. Dawkins' belief is that there is no creator to love or hate him.

I believe that everyone will be confronted with their wickedness, i know i was that, and then they need to be aware that God sent his Son to die for their sins so that they could feel peace.

If God is as forgiving as you say, then God won't "confront" them, will He? He'll just forgive them.

This is where the doctrine of forgiveness runs up against our sense of justice. Jesus says God forgives us and loves us unconditionally. But our humanness wants wicked people to face justice. According to Jesus, that ain't gonna happen. God's rules are not our rules.

Thats actually everything we need to share with scientist and those who attack christianity, because they have made up their minds, even if a person would come bcak from the dead they wouldn't believe in God,

Are you saying that all scientists are atheists? It looks like it. Do you ever change your mind when confronted with evidence? You say atheists won't. But do you? The evidence is overwhelming that most scientists believe in God. Are you willing to change your mind or are you going to "reject the evidence as invalid".

even if i show them all evidence there is for Gods existance they wouldn't believe in it, and reject the evidence for being invalid. They have made up their mind, they don't want to believe in God.

The evidence for God's existence is personal experience of God. Atheists don't have that experience. There is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. The personal experience data can legitimately be doubted. After all, you doubt atheists' evidence that God does not exist, right? In fact, you will misinterpret science in order to find reasons to reject atheism.

But there will be a time, parahaps in their fourties, parahaps when they are on the death bed, were they will be confronted with their sins.

Sorry, but the evidence again shows you are mistaken. Very few atheists/agnostics have changed their minds as they approach death. I can think of only Anthony Flew as an example. Bertrand Russell never did. Neither did Carl Sagan. Darwin was an agnostic, but he did not embrace belief in God on his deathbed, either.

Again, the evidence contradicts you. Are you going to reject the evidence?