I Know That God Does Not Exist

Why wouldn't it? Science can discuss anything.

What part of "never" did you not understand? A mutation is defined as a change in the DNA sequence of an organism. You can't "prove" a definition.

How do they do that, exactly? What evidence would they have that would cause them to believe?

We used to have a bakery in town where they baked raisin bread on Sunday afternoons. If i was anywhere near, I'd detour past the bakery to smell it.

Believers dont need evidence. They merely need inner confirmation. Perhaps this is why so few of you understand us. You have allowed the concept of evidence to override or block any inner functions of confirmation. Now to be fair, im not going to get into an intellectual definition match with you on the meanings of words. You will tie me up every time. Im simply answering your question of how believers may have skipped the scientific method in their respective born-again experiences. It may also explain why so few critical thinkers ever get saved. Put another way, believers avoid the scientific method of falsification. It smacks of double-mindedness and doubt. Salvation is not some logical experiment.And don't go explaining to me again how you once were saved. If you defend any claim that you were, you couldn't reverse being saved unless you are in denial due to the science of word definitions.

"Evidence" is believers favorite word. The word is in the title of tons of Christian books: Evidence That Demands a Verdict, Evidence for the Historical Jesus, The Evidence of God, Evidence for Christianity, Jesus: The Evidence, and on and on. You know who's saved and that critical thinkers get short shrift? Wow!Do you perhaps mean born again?--Percy

I suspect that almost all unbelievers recognize and understand the rationalization of believers. Many of us grew up with exposure to religion and other supernatural beliefs.In my case I attended Sunday school and Episcopal church with my mom, but my dad was an atheist. I learned all the biblical stories and at 12 I took classes for confirmation. I was really fascinated with ancient history and so I read the bible that year also. My Santa Claus fantasy had already primed my skepticism, but the absurdities in the bible were so obviously fiction, that I declared my atheism to my parents on the day I was forced to go through confirmation. My mom apologized years later for making my go through that. The church tried to recruit me as an alterboy the next week so I declared my atheism so forcefully to the priest that he told me to enjoy my Sundays elsewhere, and I always have.I would have had to pretend to believe that there is a magical undetected realm in my head but that cannot be separated from a fantasy. And when I look at the behavior and character of almost all believers in your brand of religion it does not reflect comprehension of what the bible says and specifically what it says Christ did and said. I just hope I am never faced with having to declare belief in some religion in order to save my life from Christian or other fanatics. That's the future I see Republicans and the religious right striving to bring about in America.ABE: I think what we don't understand is adults that don't seem to have a Bullshit Filter.

Thank you, but no need to apologise ... my dumb argument deserved your criticism. I should avoid writing things in haste.Hopefully my other response to your argument made more sense.

So you're saying science can't prove anything about DNA and genetics?

No, for fuck's sake!Ringo's saying that science isn't even trying to prove anything, because science relies on supporting evidence, not proof.

You just brought up the situation that I was wanting to present in my planned reply to Phat's Message 3007 addressed to Dredge: Up to the point of confirmation, kids are just putting in their pew time (when Mike Doonesbury's daughter wanted to stop going to church, he nixed it with "Kids have to put in their pew time."), learning the words to say and the motions to go through, all with just whatever reasons they can gather through osmosis and Sunday School. As a result, they develop some vague idea of what they are supposed to believe mostly without having to think about it much.But with confirmation classes, they have to start studying what they are supposed to believe and the doctrine behind it. For perhaps the first time in their church experience, they have to start thinking about their beliefs and why they hold those beliefs. Part of that, as in your case, may involve actually reading the Bible for the first time.I would think that confirmation would be a very dangerous time for one's faith. For one thing, now they're having to actually think about it. For another, the actual teachings will undoubtedly conflict with the childish ideas that they had developed through their pew time, such that they suddenly realize that what they had always thought was so, isn't -- they have to shed their long-held beliefs for new ones. And, of course, they may come to realize that what they are supposed to believe just does not make any sense. Going through the confirmation process would be a key time for one to lose their faith rather than to strengthen it.Unfortunately, many Protestant churches don't have any form of confirmation. Kids growing up in those churches can very easily grow to adulthood without ever having to learn what they are actually supposed to believe. These were described in a book, Stupid Ways and Smart Ways to Think About God (I've mentioned it on this forum before), which described many adults as holding childish ideas about God precisely because they had formed those ideas as children and they then never revisited them to bring them up to a more mature level. In those churches, only a few kids would be motivated to actually read the Bible in order to discover what they are supposed to believe.That was my case. I attended a non-denominational main-stream Protestant church for years with our neighbors and chose to be baptized around age 11. Then a year later I decided I should get serious about this religion stuff so I started reading the Bible. Made it well into Genesis, past Sodom and Gomorrah (but I don't remember about Lot being gang-raped by his daughters). I found what I was reading so unbelievable that I realized: If I cannot believe what I'm supposed to, then I should just leave quietly.My mistake was that I had made the naïve assumption that I was supposed to read the Bible literally, which thinking back I now don't think that that was part of our church doctrine. Ironically, half a decade later (c 1970) I encountered the Jesus Freaks and they were very emphatic about biblical literalism, the very thing that had turned me into an atheist.My advice to theistic parents who don't want their children to become atheists (I hold that theism is something you need to grow out of, not be forced out by stupid beliefs like biblical literalism or YEC): Never leave your child alone with a Bible!

Yes. Same basic thing.Now to be fair, I believe that being "born again" is not simply a onetime experience. Daily Behavior and introspection are expected from a Christian.Yesterday, I attended a 12 step group at 5280 Ministries, a homeless ministry. It was my first time there, and I went with a friend who goes there often.
We all bonded and became closer as believers. (and fellow humans) I was amazed how many homeless people there are.I also read an interesting article after the meeting in Decision Magazine. Five Signs Your Church Might Be Heading Toward Progressive ChristianityWhat are the five signs, you may ask?

1. There is a lowered view of the Bible

​

One of the main differences between progressive Christianity and historic Christianity is its view of the Bible. Historically, Christians have viewed the Bible as the Word of God and authoritative for our lives. Progressive Christianity generally abandons these terms, emphasizing personal belief over Biblical mandate.

​

Comments you might hear: (which I hear a lot around this place)

​

“The Bible is a human book.”

​

“I disagree with the Apostle Paul on that issue.”

​

“The Bible condones immorality, so we are obligated to reject what it says in certain places.” (This gets better! )

​

2. Feelings over facts

​

quote

---

In progressive churches, personal experiences, feelings and opinions tend to be valued above objective truth. As the Bible ceases to be viewed as God’s definitive Word, what a person feels to be true becomes the ultimate authority for faith and practice.

---

​

3. Essential Christian doctrines are open for reinterpretation

​

Comments you might hear:

​

“The resurrection of Jesus doesn’t have to be factual to speak truth.”(I've discussed that one with jar!) Of course we disagree.

​

“The church’s historic position on sexuality is archaic and needs to be updated within a modern framework.”(Actually I agree with this one to a point.)

​

“The idea of a literal hell is offensive to non-Christians and needs to be reinterpreted.”...*cough* Tangle! *cough*

​

4. Historic terms redefined

​

Some comments reflecting this assertion:

​

“God wouldn’t punish sinners—He is love.”

​

“Sure, the Bible is authoritative—but we’ve misunderstood it for the first 2,000 years of church history.”

​

“It’s not our job to talk to anyone about sin—it’s our job to just love them.”

​

and finally!

​

5. The heart of the Gospel message shifts from sin and redemption to social
justice
Comments:
“Sin doesn’t separate us from God—we are made in His image, and He called us good.”

​

“God didn’t actually require a sacrifice for our sins—the first Christians picked up on the pagan practice of animal sacrifice and told the Jesus story in similar terms.”

​

“We don’t really need to preach the Gospel—we just need to show love by bringing justice to the oppressed.”

​

The author concludes with this statement:
The signs are not always obvious—sometimes they are subtle and mixed with a lot of truth. Progressive Christianity can be persuasive and enticing, but carried out to its logical end, it is an assault on the foundational framework of Christianity.

​

We shouldn’t be surprised to find some of these ideas infiltrating our churches. Jesus warned us, “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves” (Matthew 7:15). So if you spot any of these five danger signs in your place of worship, it might be time to pray about finding fellowship in a more Biblically faithful church community. ©2017 Alisa Childers

​

jar is a progressive as is EvC in general. My own family is likely progressive.

​

I guess im just an old stick-in-the-mud.

---

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
“…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox

“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a Kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a Cross.”
H. Richard Niebuhr, The Kingdom of God in America

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).

No, "born again" and "saved" are not the "same basic thing." One is an early step on the path to the other. Why is it always non-Christians who have to explain their own religion to them?
​
--Percy

Science can't prove anything about anything. How many times do you have to be told?It's as if you're asking if a bus driver can do brain surgery. No, he can't. He can't do ANY kind of surgery. Surgery is not part of a bus driver's purview.

You're being dishonest. You asked Dredge if he compiled evidence and you said that, " Some folks would do exactly that." (Message 3007) Don't try to weasel out now with your "beievers don't need evidence" dogma. YES! Thank God we do that!If the doctor is about to amputate your gangrenous foot, do the want his "inner functions of confirmation" to tell him to remove the healthy foot instead? Or do you want him to follow the evidence? That wasn't my question. Your statement, in Message 3007 was that some folks would compile evidence and I asked how they would do that. I couldn't care less what excuses believers use for skipping the scientific method. That's no mystery. Their first critical thought is, "What do I need to be saved from?" and the answer, given by you believers, is that we need to be saved from God's wrath. So having God save us from God's wrath doesn't even come close to passing the critical thinking test. Put another way, believers take the lazy way out. Both good things. They suggest tentativity.Believers, on the other hand, pick a side without putting a moment's thought into it. "Gimme that old-time religion. It was good enough for mother and it's good enough for me."But you're likely to have picked the wrong one. Why not? What good comes from leaving logic by the wayside? I was, as much as you are. Maybe more-so. (After all, you feel guilty about not following your so-called leader as much as I do.) I don't need to defend anything to you. God decides who is and/or was saved. You don't. You can reverse "being saved" by recognizing the truth - that it's a crock of shit.

Edited by ringo, : Speeling.