How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[Kylie]

Just clearing my throat.

You may not be aware of this, but you don't need to post that you have cleared your throat.

And if you have some compulsion to do so, I suggest you do it on social media. Perhaps you can tweet about it. Or perhaps you can start a throat-clearing thread if you absolutely must do it on this site. How about it?

 

[AV1611VET]

You may not be aware of this, but you don't need to post that you have cleared your throat.

And if you have some compulsion to do so, I suggest you do it on social media. Perhaps you can tweet about it. Or perhaps you can start a throat-clearing thread if you absolutely must do it on this site. How about it?

Would you like me to remove it?

Nevermind ... I'll go ahead and do so.

 

[Lost Witness]

Of course.

Now, no doubt, you are going to suggest that I should trust him when it comes to God, and if he believes, then I should trust his judgement and I should believe too.

I wonder if you'd ever say to him, "Do you trust your wife? Of course you do. So maybe you should trust her when she says there is no God, and you should give up your belief."

Funnily enough, I don't think you'd ever say that.

The fact of the Matter being is, GODS Real,
Regardless if you want to believe it or not,
It's 100% truth.
why risk being wrong (which you are) and losing him for eternity?

 

[YahuahSaves]

It was genuine. You came in and said you doubted I was being truthful when I told you what I had done.

You just responded to your quote I was referring to that you asked me to prove. Right there ^
So you directed it at me sarcastically and I didn't register the fact. Point taken.

You didn't show where I said a Christian had hurt me.

And then you deny immediately, even though you just answered my question regarding your own quote. *eye-roll*

And here we go with the arrogance again. You are telling me that my heart is not open despite the fact that I have been abundantly clear that I am ALWAYS open to the truth.

Only if it's based on scientific "fact", right? That's not my idea of being "open", but whatever, your  choice.

Now stop saying this sort of thing or I will report you.

For what? Standing up for the truth about Gods existence against hypocrites who tell me my belief is in my mind and theirs is based on reality? Give me a break.

Wow, you just can't understand the point I was making at all, can you?

I see your God the same way you see Zeus. Nonexistant.

Exactly the point. You aren't "open" to seeking the truth. You're waiting for evidence of what your eyes cannot see. You're waiting in vain.

If it can't be tested, you can't know that it's true.

Again, telling me I can't know what is true. Do you know what is true? Can science disprove the existence of God?

The OP asked if there was scientific evidence for God. That is the discussion. You came in here and started giving non-scientific answers. And yet you accuse me of not staying on the topic.

Yes and she also asked how we prove the existence of God to non-believers. Did you answer her question?

Good for them.

Doesn't mean that it's Jesus though.

How would you know?

You told me I found the existence of Jesus upsetting. I do not.

Unbelief is a hardened heart. You didn't like me trying to talk to you about God or questioning your position on God. So I naturally thought you were upset.

You told me I had not made the effort to pray to God when I stated repeatedly that I had.

I'm not repeating myself as you are. I've told you what I saw you expressing in your posts and what it appeared to be at surface level. You still never elaborated on your prayer either so I'm not pushing the point any more. You either understand my words or you don't. I wasn't trying to offend you.

You said I think that Jesus the person is exactly the same thing as a person's belief in Jesus. I do not.

No I didn't. Go back to the context. You said Jesus and religion are the same thing. They're not. You can believe in Jesus without religion.

You said that a Christian must have hurt me. You seem to think that only something like that could cause a person to lack belief in God.

Because religious trauma is the most common cause of rejecting God.

You said our conversation was making me upset because you were trying to get me to think more deeply about "these things" (which were just you telling me what I believed and that someone must have hurt me).

No I was trying to get you to think beyond the physical. But it was a pointless feat (obviously).

You made fun of @ruthiesea because she chooses to write G-d instead of God. This is something that people do as a sign of respect, but you instead chose to tease her.

I thought she was another athiest. My apologies.

And you gaslight. You didn't get "jumped on" for sharing your views on God, you got jumped on for telling people that what they said about their own beliefs was wrong.

Now you're accusing me of gaslighting? I seem to recall after my initial post people jumped on me for talking about God in a scientific thread, on a Christian forum. I quoted the OPs full context, but no one would listen. Talk about gaslighting. Unbelievable.

So yeah, don't tell me you haven't done it.

I haven't done it. Just because you believed I did doesn't make it true. Read my posts in full context again. Stop cherry-picking my quotes.

I want you to accept what people say and stop telling them that they are wrong about their own belief position.

I can't do that. You're on a Christian forum and it's in the bible to share the good news. It's a responsibility of a believer to tell you your belief that there is no God is wrong. Why are you on a Christian website again? to tell Christians they're arrogant and their belief is a delusion. Did I read between the lines too much there?

You quoted NOTHING at the top of this post.

This is getting ridiculous.

 

[Kylie]

The fact of the Matter being is, GODS Real,
Regardless if you want to believe it or not,
It's 100% truth.
why risk being wrong (which you are) and losing him for eternity?

Oh, again with the unsupported claims and also Pascal's wager.

Old and tired arguments that I have seen countless times before.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, again with the unsupported claims and also Pascal's wager.

Old and tired arguments that I have seen countless times before.

Hell is full of those who lost Pascal's wager.

 

[Lost Witness]

Oh, again with the unsupported claims and also Pascal's wager.

Old and tired arguments that I have seen countless times before.

I pray one day you'll never have to find out i'm right the hard way

 

[YahuahSaves]

Just for the record. I'm very much a Lover of God. Just not of the Christian kind as I tend to pray to whom Jesus prayed to.

Your words that I was responding to here ^

So just be be clear, are you saying that whom Jesus prayed to is not conscious?

He is.

Or if He has consciousness, that consciousness is limited to a specific time and space?

God is not limited to time and space, he created time and space, so he exists independently of it.
But your consciousness is limited to time and space.
I inserted the definition of consciousness in my earlier response.
This is why I asked if you prayed to yourself, because you deny the Christian faith (which centres around Jesus). And the Holy Trinity (which is the one true God).

No one here is saying that we are God. Sorry, but I don't even understand where that came from.

Your previous statements indicate that your notion of God that is "consciousness" actually comes from new age belief that God is just energy that we're all a part of and return to when we die. In other words, we are Gods consciousness. Is this what you were getting at? Please clarify for me if I'm mistaken.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well apart from the buzzwords you included, such an argument would seem to render Christianity completely unverifiable. Why then should we accept it as fact over some other similar text?

Yes, you're partly right, I think. There are some aspects of Christianity that are unrecoverable since the weight of most of its central content is "encased" in human writing of a historicized nature that belongs to the far flung past. While I don't think every historical nuance or fragmentary aspect of Christianity is "completely" unverifiable, much of its overall essence will be. But then, this more or less means that Christianity as a possible historical phenomenon in the past is subject to the same limitations that any idea, person or event from the past is subject to.

Many of us agree with you that there is a HUGE epistemic deficit here, one that not only most of your fellow atheists empathize with, but one for which Christians like Pascal, Kierkegaard, Kant and a host of modern historians also empathize with (myself included, obviously). Skeptical reaction to the core ideas of Christianity should be expected to be the norm because we all know those core ideas, as "encased" as they are, present severe complications of all kinds for the 21st century "mind" to accept.

On my part, I would never say you have to accept Christianity as fact over some other text. You're free to decline it as such.

But then, philosopher that I am, and being that I'd ply you in a "l.a.m.e." sort of way as only a modern philosopher would, I'd ask you: which specific text(s) of all those in the world do you feel motivated to accept as fact over any other texts (and not just over Christian texts)?

 

[Kylie]

You just responded to your quote I was referring to that you asked me to prove. Right there ^
So you directed it at me sarcastically and I didn't register the fact. Point taken.

The Christian I was referring to was YOU, and that was AFTER you came in here and started telling me what my beliefs were.

When you asked the question, I had NOT stated that anyone had hurt me.

Only if it's based on scientific "fact", right? That's not my idea of being "open", but whatever, your  choice.

Yeah, how completely unreasonable of me to want some way to make sure something is true before I believe it...

For what? Standing up for the truth about Gods existence against hypocrites who tell me my belief is in my mind and theirs is based on reality? Give me a break.

No, for you coming in and thinking you know my beliefs better than me.

I have been abundantly clear that this is what is ticking me off, and you keep doing it and deny it when you get called out on it.

Exactly the point. You aren't "open" to seeking the truth. You're waiting for evidence of what your eyes cannot see. You're waiting in vain.

The truth has nothing to fear from investigation.

Again, telling me I can't know what is true. Do you know what is true? Can science disprove the existence of God?

Funny how you seem perfectly happy to treat me like this, but when you're on the receiving end, all of a sudden you get upset. It's almost like you have a double standard...

Yes and she also asked how we prove the existence of God to non-believers. Did you answer her question?

I answered the question where she asked, "Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?"

\If you want to get upset because you think I need to answer EVERYTHING in a post, then that's up to you.

How would you know?

Because assuming something is true when there is no testable evidence is not way to actually be sure. Because you can't eliminate other explanations.

Unbelief is a hardened heart. You didn't like me trying to talk to you about God or questioning your position on God. So I naturally thought you were upset.

I have been very clear that the only "upsetting" (note the quote marks so you know I'm not sitting here crying over this, but using the term figuratively) thing is your arrogance in saying that you know my beliefs better than I do.

I'm not repeating myself as you are. I've told you what I saw you expressing in your posts and what it appeared to be at surface level. You still never elaborated on your prayer either so I'm not pushing the point any more. You either understand my words or you don't. I wasn't trying to offend you.

And how did you take my posts saying that I had prayed to God as meaning that I hadn't prayed to God? Because you literally said, "I doubt it."

No I didn't. Go back to the context. You said Jesus and religion are the same thing. They're not. You can believe in Jesus without religion.

I said no such thing. If you'd bothered to actually read my post, you'd see I said, "Belief in Jesus is a religion. It's called Christianity."

See that word there? Belief?

I said BELIEF in Jesus is a religion. I did NOT say, "Jesus is a religion."

Because religious trauma is the most common cause of rejecting God.

Oh please.

BBC - Religions - Atheism: Reasons people choose atheism

This article is an in depth look at some of the reasons why people choose atheism, and some of the most influential atheist thinkers and their arguments.

www.bbc.co.uk

9 Reasons People Don't Believe In God

When I look back on my life, I realize it wasn't so much that I was an atheist as I was more just apathetic. I didn't believe in God, but mostly I didn't care. Believing in God was irrelevant to me. Is there anything we can we do to be more effective in our mission of leading people to faith?

cityonahillstudio.com

Why Do People Become Atheists?

What makes a person choose atheism over theism? There are perhaps as many reasons for being an atheist as there are atheists.

www.learnreligions.com

4 Major Reasons Why People Become Atheists

BLOG ? READ ? SHARE? COMMENT ?

crossexamined.org

While, of course, people can and do reject religion because they have had bad experiences with it, it is completely wrong to say that this reason is the biggest reason. There are lots of reasons.

No I was trying to get you to think beyond the physical. But it was a pointless feat (obviously).

You were trying to get me to think beyond the physical by saying, "No, what you have claimed about your beliefs is wrong, but I know what you really believe"?

I thought she was another athiest. My apologies.

I don't buy this.

Ruthie's religion is clearly marked as Judaism. She responded to you with a direct quote saying, "You obviously know little about the customs of my religion." Since it was a direct quote of your post, you would have received a notification about it, and she cleared stated that she held a religious belief. And you even responded to her post by teasing her again!

And even if she WAS an atheist, that's still no justification for treating her that way.

And why are you apologizing to me? Ruthie's the one who deserves an apology.

Now you're accusing me of gaslighting? I seem to recall after my initial post people jumped on me for talking about God in a scientific thread, on a Christian forum. I quoted the OPs full context, but no one would listen. Talk about gaslighting. Unbelievable.

You apparently don't know what gaslighting is.

Gaslighting is when someone does or says something, and then when you bring it up, they claim to have not said or done it.

Like you when you act like you understand my beliefs better than I do, and then claim you never acted in such a way.

I haven't done it. Just because you believed I did doesn't make it true. Read my posts in full context again. Stop cherry-picking my quotes.

Here we go with the gaslighting again. I literally showed you exactly where you said and did the things I claimed you did.

I can't do that. You're on a Christian forum and it's in the bible to share the good news. It's a responsibility of a believer to tell you your belief that there is no God is wrong.

"Physical and Life Sciences" is NOT a subforum for preaching.

Why are you on a Christian website again? to tell Christians they're arrogant and their belief is a delusion. Did I read between the lines too much there?

I've already answered this, haven't I?

 

[Kylie]

Yes, you're partly right, I think. There are some aspects of Christianity that are unrecoverable since the weight of most of its central content is "encased" in human writing of a historicized nature that belongs to the far flung past. While I don't think every historical nuance or fragmentary aspect of Christianity is "completely" unverifiable, much of its overall essence will be. But then, this more or less means that Christianity as a possible historical phenomenon in the past is subject to the same limitations that any idea, person or event from the past is subject to.

Many of us agree with you that there is a HUGE epistemic deficit here, one that not only most of your fellow atheists empathize with, but one for which Christians like Pascal, Kierkegaard, Kant and a host of modern historians also empathize with (myself included, obviously). Skeptical reaction to the core ideas of Christianity should be expected to be the norm because we all know those core ideas, as "encased" as they are, present severe complications of all kinds for the 21st century "mind" to accept.

On my part, I would never say you have to accept Christianity as fact over some other text. You're free to decline it as such.

But then, philosopher that I am, and being that I'd ply you in a "l.a.m.e." sort of way as only a modern philosopher would, I'd ask you: which specific text(s) of all those in the world do you feel motivated to accept as fact over any other texts (and not just over Christian texts)?

I would accept claims from texts (there's no reason for me to have to accept an entire text or none of it).

I would accept those claims for which there is independent and verifiable evidence. Such as coins minted with the person's face on them, letters written by the person, sources that come from the time that the person actually lived which detail the things that the person did...

 

[YahuahSaves]

The Christian I was referring to was YOU, and that was AFTER you came in here and started telling me what my beliefs were.

When you asked the question, I had NOT stated that anyone had hurt me.

Exactly and I kept going with that assumption because you didn't tell me it was I that offended you, you just stated it as "Christians". Sarcasm is not always easy to identify in a post.

Yeah, how completely unreasonable of me to want some way to make sure something is true before I believe it...

If you knew the importance of the choice between life and death, it wouldn't be unreasonable. But I cannot get you to think of these things yourself, you have to want to think about it.

No, for you coming in and thinking you know my beliefs better than me.

I have been abundantly clear that this is what is ticking me off, and you keep doing it and deny it when you get called out on it.

So you're not an athiest? I only ever referred to your unbelief as the issue, which from the perspective of God, it is.

The truth has nothing to fear from investigation.

And investigation has nothing to fear from the truth.

Funny how you seem perfectly happy to treat me like this, but when you're on the receiving end, all of a sudden you get upset. It's almost like you have a double standard...

Where did I get upset? I was pointing out your double standards. We do come from opposite ends of the spectrum. Mine is belief, yours is unbelief. We're never going to agree.

I answered the question where she asked, "Is there any scientific evidence to support GOD?"

And that was your choice to disregard everything else she said.

These are the points I responded to in my initial response in the OP (while still keeping in mind she was asking if there was any scientific evidence for God). Full context matters.

Some of these university professors, who have PHDs and a lot of education under their belt, like to say that GOD does not exist because its not smart or something like that.

Well, I was born pretty smart (for a human) and I still believed anyway. So why does belief in God possibly make me stupid? It does not is what I am saying.

For someone who, unlike me, won't believe on their own and they need, like, science to try and help them find GOD, what should I say to them?

\If you want to get upset because you think I need to answer EVERYTHING in a post, then that's up to you.

I didn't. You and 2 others said I had no basis for replying to the OP based on the title. I said I did - due to the full context of her post. If no one responded to my post to the OP, we wouldn't even be in this conversation.

Because assuming something is true when there is no testable evidence is not way to actually be sure. Because you can't eliminate other explanations.

But you forget God is sovereign and can reveal the truth to whomever he pleases. (Oh, my bad, you don't believe he exists.) Nevermind.

I have been very clear that the only "upsetting" (note the quote marks so you know I'm not sitting here crying over this, but using the term figuratively) thing is your arrogance in saying that you know my beliefs better than I do.

Again with the insults.
You told me you don't believe God exists, that is atheism is it not? I never put words in your mouth.

And how did you take my posts saying that I had prayed to God as meaning that I hadn't prayed to God? Because you literally said, "I doubt it."

Because you specifically said you prayed because you love your husband. I said point number 1. You didn't pray because you wanted to pray, you did it for your husband. You said you wanted to know the truth and asked God to reveal himself to you.
Point number 2, I basically said why should God reveal himself to you when you have a heart of unbelief (heart posture) and you weren't seeking him for him? You tried to have a go at me for this so I asked you to elaborate more clearly since I was taking what you wrote at the surface level. You didn't. You just claim I'm telling you what to believe. I told you faith is important to God, because it is. That means trusting in someone you can't see.

I said no such thing. If you'd bothered to actually read my post, you'd see I said, "Belief in Jesus is a religion. It's called Christianity."

See that word there? Belief?

I said BELIEF in Jesus is a religion. I did NOT say, "Jesus is a religion."

And my response was "Christianity" was coined after Jesus death and is something he never created to begin with. He had followers.

Belief in Jesus is not a "religion", it's faith.

While, of course, people can and do reject religion because they have had bad experiences with it, it is completely wrong to say that this reason is the biggest reason. There are lots of reasons.

I said it was "the most common" for people rejecting God, and I wasn't just talking about atheists, I'm saying all people who follow any god that is not the one true God (Father/Son/Holy Spirit). And before you come back at me on that, don't forget you're on a Christian website.

You were trying to get me to think beyond the physical by saying, "No, what you have claimed about your beliefs is wrong,

Yes, because you're an athiest who believes God is non-existent (your words) and as a believer, scripture tells us to tell the truth and share the Gospel. Do you want to hear it? Oh, I forgot, you have a Christian husband, so my guess is  no.

Ruthie's religion is clearly marked as Judaism. She responded to you with a direct quote saying, "You obviously know little about the customs of my religion." Since it was a direct quote of your post, you would have received a notification about it, and she cleared stated that she held a religious belief. And you even responded to her post by teasing her again!

How did I tease her when I initially thought she was an athiest and her spelling of G-d seemed to speak volumes to me? That is what I said. Once she mentioned "religion" I thought of the old testament Jews, so I genuinely asked if it were the same "reverence" for God they had. And then I stated my view, because no where in scripture does it tell us we cannot use Gods title? It mentions it all through scripture. I don’t need to apologise for anything because 1. I wasn't aware of her faith initially and 2. She's not a Christian by definition of the bible. in Judaism they do not believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. They believe he was a false prophet. It's not in line with the Christian view. See below:

Jewish views on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

And even if she WAS an atheist, that's still no justification for treating her that way.

Saying something speaks volumes about someone's attitude to God is not treating them badly. I don't have to agree with your opinion on the matter, I take Gods word as truth before yours.

And why are you apologizing to me? Ruthie's the one who deserves an apology.

It wasn't serious. You were including a conversation with someone else that had nothing to do with ours. I meant what I said about overlooking initially her "religion", due to having so many notifications to get through. I am not concerned about your false accusations.

You apparently don't know what gaslighting is.

I do - and you do it well (or at least you try to).

Like you when you act like you understand my beliefs better than I do

Again I understand you're an athiest who believes there is no God - which is contrary to the truth.

"Physical and Life Sciences" is NOT a subforum for preaching.

I didn't preach to begin with, I genuinely wanted to understand your unbelief and perhaps open you up to another view, (natural vs. Supernatural), but you're not interested in viewing things that way. The reason I'm telling you now what truth is, is because you clearly don't understand what Christianity is truly about, otherwise you wouldn't be on here taking such a strong stance against it.

 

[Neutral Observer]

which specific text(s) of all those in the world do you feel motivated to accept as fact over any other texts (and not just over Christian texts)?

First let me say that your perspective on the shortcomings within the historicity of Christianity is quite refreshing, and does more to address the legitimacy of your arguments than any fervency in defense of them ever could. When skeptics know that you recognize the weaknesses in your own arguments it gives them a reassurance that you won't just blindly dismiss the legitimate concerns of others either. That's a very constructive position from which to begin any exchange. So kudos on your honesty.

Now, as for specific texts it's difficult to compare early Christian texts on a level playing field with other historical texts, because from at least the third and forth centuries onward the Catholic Church held such sway over what was and wasn't approved dogma that whatever history has been preserved has to be filtered through the lens of the Church's influence. Many later texts, and indeed many claims about saints, and martyrs, and holy artifacts have to be taken with a grain of salt. For well over a thousand years the Catholic Church decided what was and wasn't historical. I can think of no other instance of historical texts that have such an institutionalized foundation.

However, neither will I dismiss any legitimate early Christian texts, I just believe that such texts are far fewer and less definitive than most Christians are willing to admit. But the later that Christian texts get, and the more that they tend toward Church dogma, the more skeptical that many people become, and rightly so in my opinion.

I think Christians often oversell the historical evidence that they claim to have for their beliefs, and I also think that this tendency to fervently defend that questionable historicity harms the legitimate historical evidence that may indeed exist.

At least that's my opinion, but I'm open to any arguments to the contrary. But trust me, I've been around awhile, I've heard most of them.

 

[MissRowy]

Exactly and I kept going with that assumption because you didn't tell me it was I that offended you, you just stated it as "Christians". Sarcasm is not always easy to identify in a post.


If you knew the importance of the choice between life and death, it wouldn't be unreasonable. But I cannot get you to think of these things yourself, you have to want to think about it.


So you're not an athiest? I only ever referred to your unbelief as the issue, which from the perspective of God, it is.


And investigation has nothing to fear from the truth.


Where did I get upset? I was pointing out your double standards. We do come from opposite ends of the spectrum. Mine is belief, yours is unbelief. We're never going to agree.


And that was your choice to disregard everything else she said.

These are the points I responded to in my initial response in the OP (while still keeping in mind she was asking if there was any scientific evidence for God). Full context matters.




I didn't. You and 2 others said I had no basis for replying to the OP based on the title. I said I did - due to the full context of her post. If no one responded to my post to the OP, we wouldn't even be in this conversation.


But you forget God is sovereign and can reveal the truth to whomever he pleases. (Oh, my bad, you don't believe he exists.) Nevermind.


Again with the insults.
You told me you don't believe God exists, that is atheism is it not? I never put words in your mouth.


Because you specifically said you prayed because you love your husband. I said point number 1. You didn't pray because you wanted to pray, you did it for your husband. You said you wanted to know the truth and asked God to reveal himself to you.
Point number 2, I basically said why should God reveal himself to you when you have a heart of unbelief (heart posture) and you weren't seeking him for him? You tried to have a go at me for this so I asked you to elaborate more clearly since I was taking what you wrote at the surface level. You didn't. You just claim I'm telling you what to believe. I told you faith is important to God, because it is. That means trusting in someone you can't see.


And my response was "Christianity" was coined after Jesus death and is something he never created to begin with. He had followers.

Belief in Jesus is not a "religion", it's faith.


I said it was "the most common" for people rejecting God, and I wasn't just talking about atheists, I'm saying all people who follow any god that is not the one true God (Father/Son/Holy Spirit). And before you come back at me on that, don't forget you're on a Christian website.


Yes, because you're an athiest who believes God is non-existent (your words) and as a believer, scripture tells us to tell the truth and share the Gospel. Do you want to hear it? Oh, I forgot, you have a Christian husband, so my guess is  no.


How did I tease her when I initially thought she was an athiest and her spelling of G-d seemed to speak volumes to me? That is what I said. Once she mentioned "religion" I thought of the old testament Jews, so I genuinely asked if it were the same "reverence" for God they had. And then I stated my view, because no where in scripture does it tell us we cannot use Gods title? It mentions it all through scripture. I don’t need to apologise for anything because 1. I wasn't aware of her faith initially and 2. She's not a Christian by definition of the bible. in Judaism they do not believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah. They believe he was a false prophet. It's not in line with the Christian view. See below:

Jewish views on Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Saying something speaks volumes about someone's attitude to God is not treating them badly. I don't have to agree with your opinion on the matter, I take Gods word as truth before yours.


It wasn't serious. You were including a conversation with someone else that had nothing to do with ours. I meant what I said about overlooking initially her "religion", due to having so many notifications to get through. I am not concerned about your false accusations.


I do - and you do it well (or at least you try to).

Actually if anyone is the gaslighter it is you.

Again I understand you're an athiest who believes there is no God - which is contrary to the truth.


I didn't preach to begin with, I genuinely wanted to understand your unbelief and perhaps open you up to another view, (natural vs. Supernatural), but you're not interested in viewing things that way. The reason I'm telling you now what truth is, is because you clearly don't understand what Christianity is truly about, otherwise you wouldn't be on here taking such a strong stance against it.

Why should she have to have it rammed down her throat? Maybe that is why she is so strong against it. People don't appreciate having someone tell them about something they already know.

 

[Kylie]

Exactly and I kept going with that assumption because you didn't tell me it was I that offended you, you just stated it as "Christians". Sarcasm is not always easy to identify in a post.

I was very clear.

I said I had done essentially what you told me to do in post 2865. In post 2878, you said, "I doubt it." In post 2880, I called you out for this, saying that you were once again claiming to understand my beliefs better than I understand them.

If you knew the importance of the choice between life and death, it wouldn't be unreasonable. But I cannot get you to think of these things yourself, you have to want to think about it.

Do you see how unconvincing this argument is?

If I said, "It's important that you understand the difference between the Light side of the Force and the Dark side. So it's very important that you open your mind to the ways of the Jedi," you wouldn't buy it for a moment. Do you see that your argument only works for people who already believe what you are telling them.

So you're not an athiest? I only ever referred to your unbelief as the issue, which from the perspective of God, it is.

I am an atheist.

You are trying to tell me you understand WHY I am an atheist better than I do. You claim that I haven't honestly sought to see if God exists, when I have told you I have. You have claimed that I must be an atheist because some Christian hurt me, when I have told you that is not true.

This is your final warning. You will stop telling me I am wrong about my own beliefs or I will report your posts.

And investigation has nothing to fear from the truth.

Investigation requires verification.

Where did I get upset? I was pointing out your double standards. We do come from opposite ends of the spectrum. Mine is belief, yours is unbelief. We're never going to agree.

It's got nothing to do with belief.

It got to do with the fact that when I said that you can't KNOW your belief is true, you thought it was a valid response to call me out on it, yet when our positions are reversed, you seem to think that you are justified.

And that was your choice to disregard everything else she said.

So what? I was under no obligation to respond to every point she raised, was I?

I didn't. You and 2 others said I had no basis for replying to the OP based on the title. I said I did - due to the full context of her post. If no one responded to my post to the OP, we wouldn't even be in this conversation.

Your first response to the OP was to quote Bible verses. The Bible is the claim, not the support.

But you forget God is sovereign and can reveal the truth to whomever he pleases. (Oh, my bad, you don't believe he exists.) Nevermind.

You are so close to getting the point that you must demonstrate to me that God exists before you can expect me to believe in what you claim he has said.

You told me you don't believe God exists, that is atheism is it not? I never put words in your mouth.

How do you not understand that the issue is not you saying I am an atheist (and I freely state that I am an atheist), but instead your arrogant claim that you understand my reasons for being an atheist better than I do?

And my response was "Christianity" was coined after Jesus death and is something he never created to begin with. He had followers.

So what?

The term "dinosaur" wasn't coined until 1841, that doesn't mean that triceratops wasn't a dinosaur.

Belief in Jesus is not a "religion", it's faith.

You can say that all you want, doesn't change the fact that belief in Jesus is religious in nature.

I said it was "the most common" for people rejecting God, and I wasn't just talking about atheists, I'm saying all people who follow any god that is not the one true God (Father/Son/Holy Spirit). And before you come back at me on that, don't forget you're on a Christian website.

First of all, the claim that mistreatment by Christians is THE MOST COMMON cause of turning away from Christianity is ludicrous. You've haven't provided anything at all to support it.

Secondly, even if it is true, there are 2.2 billion Christians, and almost 6 billion non Christians. So are you suggesting that each Christian has mistreated on average two or three people who are non Christians? That really paints Christians in a bad light, doesn't it?

Yes, because you're an athiest who believes God is non-existent (your words) and as a believer, scripture tells us to tell the truth and share the Gospel. Do you want to hear it? Oh, I forgot, you have a Christian husband, so my guess is  no.

My husband has the decency to not go around proselytizing when it's not asked for.

How did I tease her when I initially thought she was an athiest and her spelling of G-d seemed to speak volumes to me?

You said you "loved" it how she couldn't write out the word, and then suggested that she found the word difficult to spell.

Saying something speaks volumes about someone's attitude to God is not treating them badly. I don't have to agree with your opinion on the matter, I take Gods word as truth before yours.

Ah, well in that case, I love how you can't even spell "atheist (you put the I before the E), as though you don't even know enough about what you are talking about to spell the word correctly. That speaks volumes to me.

Surely you don't find that rude at all.

In any case, you thought it was a valid enough point to offer me an apology for it in post 3004.

Again I understand you're an athiest who believes there is no God - which is contrary to the truth.

Your "truth" can't be shown to be the truth, since it is completely unverifiable.

I didn't preach to begin with, I genuinely wanted to understand your unbelief and perhaps open you up to another view, (natural vs. Supernatural), but you're not interested in viewing things that way. The reason I'm telling you now what truth is, is because you clearly don't understand what Christianity is truly about, otherwise you wouldn't be on here taking such a strong stance against it.

Again the Christian arrogance that anyone who is not a Christian simply hasn't been exposed to Christianity.

Did you ever think that maybe we have, and we just find it to be unbelievable?

 

[YahuahSaves]

Why should she have to have it rammed down her throat? Maybe that is why she is so strong against it. People don't appreciate having someone tell them about something they already know.

I never "rammed" anything down her throat. She responded to my response to the OP, so I eventually inquired why she held the athiest position and from there the conversation ensued. Who are you and why are you jumping to someone else's defence? It's got nothing to do with you. Besides, I don't believe you would have gone back to read the entire conversation and ended up parroting her accusation unless you're an athiest as well. (My guess).

 

[Kylie]

I never "rammed" anything down her throat.

You've literally said you believe it is your responsibility to come and preach and share the word of God with people.

 

[MissRowy]

I never "rammed" anything down her throat. She responded to my response to the OP, so I eventually inquired why she held the athiest position and from there the conversation ensued. Who are you and why are you jumping to someone else's defence? It's got nothing to do with you. Besides, I don't believe you would have gone back to read the entire conversation and ended up parroting her accusation unless you're an athiest as well. (My guess).

No I'm not atheist. At the moment I don't know what I believe. But its none of your business anyway. Also just an fyi, spellcheck will help you spell the word "A T H E I S T" correctly

 

[SelfSim]

No I'm not atheist. At the moment I don't know what I believe. But its none of your business anyway.

There's always the option of learning how to distinguish whether or not some belief is at play at any given time, and then choosing whether to go on believing it, or not.
I don't think that's Atheism .. (which, in my case is one reason I don't call myself one)

 

[YahuahSaves]

I said I had done essentially what you told me to do in post 2865. In post 2878, you said, "I doubt it." In post 2880, I called you out for this, saying that you were once again claiming to understand my beliefs better than I understand them.

Your attempt at prayer was not a belief, it was unbelief and is what I was trying to point out to you.

Do you see how unconvincing this argument is?

It wasn't an argument, it was a statement. I clearly drew the line at trying to convince you. Does not mean I didn't continue relaying the truth of Gods word in the rest of the post.

I am an atheist.

I know.

You are trying to tell me you understand WHY I am an atheist better than I do. You claim that I haven't honestly sought to see if God exists, when I have told you I have. You have claimed that I must be an atheist because some Christian hurt me, when I have told you that is not true.

This is your final warning. You will stop telling me I am wrong about my own beliefs or I will report your posts.

No, I tried to tell you why you didn't get an answer to your prayer. You never provided my quotes to show I told you what you believe either, all I did was point out your unbelief. And you keep twisting everything I say, even though I've provided your quotes in my posts that I've responded to. Again, you have no basis for your report as I haven't accused you of anything, I stated facts regarding faith and you are the one in denial of your own words in your own posts. Only your unbelieving friends have attacked me on your behalf, any person with any integrity wouldn't respond the way you have in such a spiteful way.

It's got nothing to do with belief.

It got to do with the fact that when I said that you can't KNOW your belief is true, you thought it was a valid response to call me out on it, yet when our positions are reversed, you seem to think that you are justified.

I am justified because you started saying my belief is a just a belief, then turned and accused me of judging you for your unbelief. It's just not accurate in the context of our conversation.

So what? I was under no obligation to respond to every point she raised, was I?

Neither was I.

Your first response to the OP was to quote Bible verses. The Bible is the claim, not the support.

I was directing my post at the OP as a fellow believer, not non-believers like yourself. You and 3 others responded to my OP, yet It had nothing to do with you.

How do you not understand that the issue is not you saying I am an atheist (and I freely state that I am an atheist), but instead your arrogant claim that you understand my reasons for being an atheist better than I do?

I never stated your reasons for being an atheist I stated the reasons many turn away from God, and I queried if you had experienced the same thing. You making me repeat myself is not proving your point, it's showing you have assumed I said something I didn't say.

So what?

The term "dinosaur" wasn't coined until 1841, that doesn't mean that triceratops wasn't a dinosaur.

You keep proving my point of not being interested in understanding Christianity. (As you claimed you were on this website to do).

First of all, the claim that mistreatment by Christians is THE MOST COMMON cause of turning away from Christianity is ludicrous. You've haven't provided anything at all to support it.

Secondly, even if it is true, there are 2.2 billion Christians, and almost 6 billion non Christians. So are you suggesting that each Christian has mistreated on average two or three people who are non Christians? That really paints Christians in a bad light, doesn't it?

Try watching delafe testimonies on YouTube.

My husband has the decency to not go around proselytizing when it's not asked for.

Sharing of the Gospel is never asked for, but God commands that we do.

You said you "loved" it how she couldn't write out the word, and then suggested that she found the word difficult to spell.

Here we go emphasising words out of context again. I've already explained my initial error, and therefore I don't have to explain it again. See my previous post.

Ah, well in that case, I love how you can't even spell "atheist (you put the I before the E), as though you don't even know enough about what you are talking about to spell the word correctly. That speaks volumes to me.

It's called auto correct. *eye roll* My phone does it automatically when I don't hit the letters right. But maybe I shouldn't have bothered attempting keyboard etiquette since you misinterpret and twist everything I say anyway.

Surely you don't find that rude at all.

No I couldn't care less what you think of me. unlike you, I'm not spiteful or hateful.

In any case, you thought it was a valid enough point to offer me an apology for it in post 3004.

It was sarcasm. See what I meant about not understanding you were calling me an arrogant Christian? Sarcasm doesn't compute well in writing, does it.

Did you ever think that maybe we have, and we just find it to be unbelievable?

Yes I definitely have and it's a sad fact of Gods word that not everyone will be saved. I just have to live with that.

Have a nice life.