Sorry, I am now going to directly acknowledge two things you have said, because I am indeed reading all of these posts. You said science has the challenge of disproving a negative; I have already explained that via the scientific method, you cannot prove a negative. The invisible elephant/God thing. Cannot prove that either are not there, but that does not mean that they are.

Second, you say "acknowledging" that you are in a relationship with a creator. A more appropriate word would be "believing", since there is no empirical evidence, much less proof, that such a being exists. Your belief in a higher power is a matter of faith, not fact. Please choose your wording carefully. If it was a verifiable concrete fact, it would be labeled as such, and not as religion.

Finally, I would like to hear what you have to say about the third paragraph in my previous post, about other people who believe in other deities just as passionately as you believe in yours: why do you think you can be so sure that you're right and they're all wrong? They (non-Christians) are, after all, a global majority by a good margin.

Thank you. That was the point of the thread.

Do Christians realize, do you UNDERSTAND, that every other religious person on the planet believes in their god just as much as you believe in yours?

Do you UNDERSTAND that their proof of their god is JUST AS VALID as your proof of your god?

To put it another way, you can't find one single non-Christian on the planet that will tell you that proof of Jesus (as God) and/or the Christian God is more valid than proof of any other god.

Rodney - between Olorin's post and mine (I was making the same point, in more generic terms) I think we have it covered already. Name the other world religions where God is the primary initiator of a relationship with man. Name another world religion where justice is served by God himself taking punishment in place of man's. Name another world religion where their God became man and made his dwelling amongst his people.

"Proving" God's existence is secondary to me since believers in all world religions need to be tasked by unbelievers with the same illogical challenge (proving something that is spiritual with physical tools).

And, passionate belief does not mean any more than deep sincerity if you have your ladder leaning up against the wrong wall.

I realize the logical/philosophical impossibility of disproving a negative. That is not the point. Believers say there IS a God. Atheists say there is NOT a God. So, if anyone is tasked with disproving a negative it is the Atheists.

This is part of what is so frustrating to Atheists and to the dialog we are having. They/you can do nothing other than wave science around because science is the only tool they/you have.....but is not equipped to discover/verify anything spiritual. By saying something does not exists, you throw out any philosophical tools due to this logical impossibility.

As soon as they pick up philosophical tools (such as what the judicial system uses to establish motive), they become agnostics.....no longer atheists. This is because they are acknowledging that something spiritual could be out there.

So, atheists by their own choice take away the tools of logic and reason. Tools which are so integral to what they are about in the first place.

"And, passionate belief does not mean any more than deep sincerity if you have your ladder leaning up against the wrong wall."

Again, why do you feel you have the right to tell billions of people that their "ladder" is up against the "wrong wall"? They believe in their religion with every bit as much certainty as you believe in yours.

"Name the other world religions where God is the primary initiator of a relationship with man. (just because your religion teaches this, does not make it more valid than others). Name another world religion where justice is served by God himself in place of man's (this does not qualify as any sort of proof; you are just listing beliefs held by members of your religion). Name another world religion where their God became man and made his dwelling amongst his people (this is just what your religious book teaches. It is not fact, nor does it elevate your religion above others)."

These are just the teachings of your religion. Anyone of a different religion could name similar unique factors of their religion and say that those verify it as the correct one. It's downright pompous for you to claim that you somehow know the others are false. You merely believe, on faith, that they are- HUGE difference.

If I asked people of various non-Christian religions why THEY believe their religion is correct, they could list such things as: vastly more people believe in it, their religion has been practiced for far longer than Christianity, people are passionate and certain enough about it to blow themselves up, etc.

"So, atheists by their own choice take away the tools of logic and reason."

Absolutely wrong. Atheists rely solely on logic and reason, backed up by empirical evidence and scientific proof. This is the Age of Reason and science is at the frontier. Religion hasn't even started on the journey toward truth. You have your conclusion already printed in a book centuries ago, unable to change or admit its mistakes. If something cannot be tested by the scientific method (the existence of a higher power), you cannot say with any certainty that it is real. You can only believe on faith.

"As soon as they pick up philosophical tools (such as what the judicial system uses to establish motive), they become agnostics.....no longer atheists. This is because they are acknowledging that something spiritual could be out there."

When you say "philophical tools", you are really referring to the way in which religious questions and answers are commonly worded similarly to riddles. Just because you can create a seeming inconsistency by cleverly arranging language, that does not count as any sort of proof or evidence or even legitimate philosophy.

The source of your beliefs is an ancient book. You have started with the conclusion in mind, then used seemingly clever phrases and sayings to make it seem proven, or cited the things that your book says as proof of your book's legitimacy (a logical farce). Science begins with an open mind, examines all the FACTS, then makes a conclusion that can be tested and retested and proven.

"Do you UNDERSTAND that their proof of their god is JUST AS VALID as your proof of your god?"

Clearly, he does not. It's nice to have someone else in my corner for a change.

One last thing (for now) that I need to point out:

"Name another world religion where their God became man and made his dwelling amongst his people."

So your story goes: God made people, people were sinful, God became a man and died for everyone's sins in order to save their souls from an angry God (himself). God incarnated himself as a man, then killed himself in order to appease himself? It makes no sense when you actually think about it logically.

Ace D - why is this stuff important to you? What is the source of your passion?

I have shared very personally my story and why this is important to me. Have you read it all the way through? (I did see your comment on my "post script" and a conclusion I have drawn.)

I sincerely would like to hear from you personally. I may have missed it, but it seems like all you are doing is talking about stuff that keeps your personal investment in the topic at arms length. Stuff like science theory, atrocities that happened years before you were born or in countries that you have probably never been to, and ancient texts that you clearly do not understand and seem uninterested in understanding.

If God is really imaginary, why are you investing so much energy and passion into this?

We have gone over every point you just brought up in your last several posts. I have addressed them all already. On some topics there is just the fundamental issue of science not having the tools to approach spiritual matters.

On the things you say about me personally, you are wrong: Either you did not read the story I wrote, or you failed to comprehend what I said, or you are calling me a liar (which is fine with me if you will just admit like a man that you are doing that).

So, I feel it is time therefore to move to looking at these things from a different angle. I took the lead and the risk of sharing some very personal stuff. Can you do likewise?

The source of my passion is simply that I am incredulous that people still embrace so many supernatural notions in the Age of Reason. If all you have to back up religious claims are feelings perceived as coming from a higher power, and that is not enough to declare any religion to be factual. That's the main point I'm trying to get across. You have no way of knowing that you're not just hearing your inner monologue saying what you want to hear or what you would expect a divine being to say.

There are dozens of points I've made on here that no one has even touched on (especially in my last four posts). No one has made any real progress in explaining why all other religions are incorrect, only shared some beliefs contained within their own religious doctrine. The truth is that an atheist is able to pull out concrete, irrefutable arguments from every field of science, while a theist can only point to their ancient book of choice and describe some vague feelings/ anecdotes of coincidences they have experienced during their life. Every time you tell me you've addressed all the things I've brought up, I've gone point-by-point and I know that most have not been addressed.

I also put so much energy into it because I see it as good exercise for my brain, drawing upon everything I've learned and spouting the facts. It's fun.