Yes, we can prove that god does not exist.

The point you're missing is that their opinions and claims do not matter from a scientific standpoint, just as your claims about your god do not. I don't believe their claims because they go against my experience personally, they are contrary to reasonable expectations, and they are lacking in supporting evidence, again like your god claims. Your own alleged experiences matter only to you. I point to others who are evidently equally adamant about other beliefs that you, I would reasonably assume, do not share, even if you wouldn't go so far as to say that they're wrong. You still wouldn't agree that they're right without them providing some compelling evidence, right?

 

1. Genesis is the story of evolution.
2. GM can only build new cars, but the greater genius would be building an aged evolving system.
3. The Bible isn't God.
4. The Bible isn't God.
5. The Bible isn't God.

 

Then the opinions of scientists are not to be construed as evidence either.

 

And mohammed supposedly got everything from a face to face relationship with Allah. So much so, that the entire quran was "revealed" to him.

Seems Mohammed's relationship superceded Moses' relationship, if one believes in such.

 

Did you ever get the idea that perhaps there are some people out here in the world who hold a like regard for the opinions of scientists and others who support some of the silly notions presented by the scientific community?

 

We are (or should be) interested in the evidence produced by science.

And, it makes a lot of sense to listen to the opinions of experts on their topic of expertise. That is, if we run into a cosmologist somewhere we may value that person's comments on cosmology more than that person's commons on psychiatry or whatever.

 

Now that seems like a little bit of bias if you ask me. Preferential treatment toward the opinions of one group while arbitrarily excluding the opinions of other groups.

 

Muhammad never met Yahweh, he spoke with Gabriel.

 

Perhaps I failed to understand your argument as often science is used to try to prove that there is no God.

 

Without showing any ambiguity, what specifically is that "scientific definition" of the term "theory"?

 

Preferential respect for those who are experts - those who are producing evidence.

And, yes, preferential DISrespect for those who are not.

Why should I respect the opinions of those who are ignorant on the subject at hand?

There are charlatans out there. It is our JOB to identify them and ignore what they say - to prevent their nonsense from creeping into any important decision we make.

 

Then it is OK for Christians and other Theists to hold a level of preferential DISrespect for scientists and Atheists who are not producing evidence to show that there is no God. That is cool with me.

Why should I respect the opinions of those who are ignorant of the subject matter when the subject matter is God?

Yes indeed there are charlatans out there and it is likewise our responsibility to identify and ignore what they say ... to prevent their nonsense from creeping into any important decision that is made relative to God.

 

You're failing to think again.

You quote that at me as if I disagree. But, I do not.

Religion is pure belief, unblemished by anything that science could possibly consider to be evidence - as I've pointed out, presenting it to you from a few different angles, verified by the Pope, etc.

I don't expect you to invite someone whose expertise is in science to speak at your church. Why would you want to do that?

Likewise, I DEMAND that religionists stay the heck out of science classes where we do education. And, for any decision that the USA needs to make, we need to consider evidence. And, that is the realm of science. This is quite logical, as the issues our government faces are of the natural world.

Plus, no person of religion should want our government diving into their religion.

 

Are you talking about scientists' personal opinions? Everyone has opinions. They don't matter in science, though, no matter who happens to hold them.

 

Now that is a false claim if I ever saw one. I would have to be thinking in order to type the messages you are responding to.

If you do agree, then why are you complaining?

Science is pure belief. Please tell me it is not belief but rather it is fact.

So the congregation could pray for his/her deliverance from such dogmatic views as are holding him/her in that box of man-made make believe called materialism.

Likewise, I DEMAND that scientistss stay the heck out of religion classes where we do education. And, for any decision that the USA needs to make, we need to consider faith. And, that is the realm ofreligion . This is quite Theological, as the issues our government faces are of the natural world and need spiritual guidance.

Now that last statement of yours I can agree with 100%. Which reminds me. What was the reason that the Puritans left England to find a land in which they could live without the interference of the English Parliament?

 

All of their opinions are personal opinions. If they were not personal opinions, then they would be merely reciting the personal opinions of other people.

 

Those who colonized America were opposed to freedom of religion.

While it's true they didn't like the state religion of England, they had no intent of moving toward freedom of religion.

Freedom of religion is a secular concept.

 

Well, maybe it will help you better understand by me putting it in a different frame of reference. Those that left England because they wanted to practice 'freedom from religion'... freedom from the English State Religion. Gee... that almost sounds like some of the Atheists in this day and age... except the Atheists of this day and age want everyone, without exception, to be free from any and all religion with the exception of the new state religion called Atheism. And just for your information.... Atheism along with Secular Humanism are the only two state sanctioned religions found in the US. Sanctioned by the Federal Government in declaring both to be Religions for purposes of the 1st Amendment.
"sanc·tion
n.1. Authoritative permission or approval that makes a course of action valid. See Synonyms at permission.
2. Support or encouragement, as from public opinion or established custom.
3. A consideration, influence, or principle that dictates an ethical choice."

 

No, those who came to the US were NOT interested in freedom of religion.

They were interested in establishing their OWN religion and requiring that instead of the English religion.

Freedom of religion came later.

 

Come on you can do better than that. What I said was "Those that left England because they wanted to practice 'freedom from religion'... freedom from the English State Religion." Not what you suggested above.

And their rationale was that they wanted to be 'free from Religion' free from the State Religion.

Exactly my point. At first it was 'freedom from religion' as dictated by the State.

 

No. The early settlers wanted their own religion to be the law. Multiple religions were tolerated by having separate regions and governments.

They burned "witches" at the stake and/or drowned nonbelievers.

They were opposed to religious freedom. They wanted their own religion to be the state religion, enforced by law.

 

Yet since Gabe was sent by Allah, he was divine.

 

Well, I am waiting for PROOF in the form of documentation which shows what the settlers wanted to 'be the law'. Can you provide that PROOF?

Ahhh... you make reference to the Salem witch trials. Have you done much study on that subject? OR... are you simply reciting what has been told to you by others?

Again... show proof of what they 'wanted' to be the state religion.

 

So are humans if you accept the theology. Muhammad never met Yahweh and Moses did, no a amount of goal post moving will change that.

 

Did God say all these things? And to whom?

While many priests do correctly, truthfully, and honestly hear the VOICE OF GOD, doesn't mean that all priests or all people do equally. Some holy and wise men are CLOSER TO GOD (TRUTH) than others.

However, most religious and spiritual texts are still true, despite meager and pathetic attempts by atheists to disprove holy texts.