Religion's affect outside of religion

[Drich]

Drich,

"Proof" is something that you can present to me that I CANNOT argue with.

:Roflol: Maybe if the universe revolved around you, and you got to set the standards of proof... However in the Real world we have a standard or definition for the word proof. Proof according to good old google is:
proof
/pro͞of/
noun
noun: proof; plural noun: proofs
1.evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

What you are describing is undeniable proof.

For me to believe in God, God need NOT provide you with undeniable proof. Because again the axis of the cosmos does not center around you, and what you have experienced/believe. All God needed to do is provide me with undeniable proof, for me He has done that.

I might even personally be prepared to believe that you sincerely had a personal experience,
but that STILL does not automatically translate into accepting your claim of an experience,
into my own proof of God's existence.

Even if I want to believe your claim,
if I am to be conscientious and honest with myself,
I am compelled to remain skeptical,
until I am personally provided with INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF, myself.

Fail. your presumption is that my experiences are only unique to me. Thus requiring your 'belief' in order to validate. when in fact God offers the Same proof for you or anyone else who can Humble Himself before God to experience on their own. Proof of God is not found in a philosophical or scientific argument. Proof of God are a set of instructions (A treasure Map) that tells you how to Find Him. If you want validation of any map, one need only follow it.

Using your mother as an example is redundant,
because, if called upon,
you COULD actually provide proof to others
of your mother's existence,
whereas you cannot, with regard to God's existence.

Again, only if you ASSume that 'proof' was mine to give. When in fact God provides 'proof' for all those who A/S/K for it.

And I'm sorry, Drich...but I have to honestly say that I find it a bit tedious
that I had to explain that very obvious difference to you.

What is tedious is deconstructing the atheist 'proof' argument for like the thousandth time. To explain something as elementary as the true definition of 'proof' to someone who fancies himself a 'thinker.' Verses the 'thinkers' goal post relocation version of proof. It's like you guys were all programed to think one certain way about God. Rarly if ever does one of you have an original thought. You all speak to stereotypes and reference/plagiarize arguments constructed by men who at best have an elementary sunday school understanding of Christianity.

Yet, here I am and have been explaining how your perceptions of God, Christianity and proof fail without complaint. (until prompted.)
Did you really think, you are the first person to raise these concerns on this website? or, better yet did you really think I would not be able to answer your challenge?

Secondly,

You go on to claim that God HAS already given man proof of Himself.

Where is that?

I have seen no such thing.

Maybe because God does not answer to you. Or maybe because you are not the bright and shinny center of the universe you think yourself to obviously be. This means all of creation does not have to check in with you, and things can and do exist without your knoweledge

God did give man 'proof' in the Holy Spirit that was pour out in Acts 2.

what better proof of God is there than God fusing with you in your life? You don't have 'proof' because God does not want to give you any the way you are now. Despite what you may thing God is not in the business of providing undeniable proof. We have been given this life apart from God's known glory (undeniable proof) to show ourselves where our heart lie in relation to God. So at our final judgement we will know that whatever Christ judges for us will be just.

Thirdly,

How do you know that your experience of God is legitimate?

how do you know that you are not delusional,
seeing things no one else sees,

or, let's assume you are perfectly sane,
and that your experience was genuine
....you actually, legitimately experienced interaction with a supernatural being.

How do you know that the entity you observed
was actually who He claimed to be?

I can think of many, many reasons why a demon
might want to masquerade as God and fool humans into worshiping him,
...assuming there IS in fact a spirit realm, and such things as demons exist...

and by what yardstick to you gauge the authenticity of the manifestations and claims of spirits?

This is indeed a legitimate concern. Two whole other religions were started because of 'an angel speaking to a prophet.'

The answer to your senerio is simple. I look to serve the God of the bible. If said experience is not in line with scripture then the experience can easily be identified as not coming from God. Meaning if I'm told to do something or to believe differently.. then that message is not from God of the bible. Which is why we all must know what the bible actually says.

(And remember, as a Theist,
there is far more reason for YOU to be suspicious that you are being conned by a demon,
than there is reason for ME to think so,
since I'm not inclined to believe in demons, at all).

Finally Drich, to dismiss science because of conflicting theories or findings is so absurd that it angers me.

The cache of human knowledge reaped from Science is one where we have STEADILY MADE GAINS,
despite many backslides along the way.

lol
You did not actually read my first post to you did you?
I pointed out, that one who truly knows scripture (what it says and what it does not say) Does not fear 'science.' Those who can reconcile 'science with belief often see science' as man's attempt to explain the natural processes God has put into place.

The claims of Religion have STEADILY LOST GROUND over thousands of years.

Ah, no. the only thing loosing ground is the idea that God has to be magic, or God must keep Himself in line with the dark ages understanding of him. This is the only thing 'science' as done.. To completely dispel the dark ages understanding of God.

There is nothing 'science' can offer that religion can not assimilate, without compromising the intergrity of scripture.

I know it's hard for you not to argue the atheist Christian standard (Atheist smart! because Atheist believe in science, and Christian dumb because Christian believe in magic) but do try and put a little more effort into what you say. do try and meet the topical standard Ive set if for no other reason that not looking foolish infront of your peers by arguing against straw men.

Religion only continues to thrive and grow in numbers
because the majority of humanity chooses solace over facing hard truths,
is intellectually lazy, or ignorant,
or simply wants to win wars and wield power over those who do not agree with them.

Oh, the Irony...

It's truly funny that you can not see past your own set of sterotypes and ignorance toward all things 'religious,' yet you are so quick to identify this trait in a dying system of belief. Well done sir.. Well done. I think Dry Sand has to step down from the role of flag ship Atheist on this site.. Because you obviously fly that flag just a little bit higher than he does.