Critique Time!

[Tonus]

I've done that here, with God.

You have made claims, but not testable claims or claims backed by observations. Like many theists, you have mentioned that you have reasons and experiences that you will not discuss with us. That is your prerogative, but it means we are only left with claims.

My testimony was and is open to investigation and research, no one hear has done either, why?

As far as I can tell, your testimony amounts to citing the Bible. Citing the Bible to prove that the claims in the Bible are true is circular.

I think indifference. Now let me get this straight, when one scientist makes a claim and gives his supposed truth, it is then the other scientists responsibility to prove the first right or wrong, right. Then why is this not afforded to Christians and what we claim. We make a claim and give our results, we ask to see it disproved and the same atheist reaction comes, it's up to the claimant to prove, this is not so with how you described scientist and their claims.

Which results do you speak of? Again, if you are simply citing the Bible, you are using the source of the claim for the results, and that is circular. If you are claiming that your own experience is evidence of the truth of your claims, then your results should be repeatable by anyone who takes the same steps. Yet we know this is not the case: if a hindu claims to have experienced god by taking different steps, you dismiss his claims. If a Christian takes the same steps and gets a different result, you may dismiss his claims or say they are legitimate, but that just shows that it is impossible to test the claims reliably.

Yet atheist do not do this when a Christian makes a claim here. The most recited answer we get,"you're wrong. That sound like the way to disprove what we claim.

The most common response is to challenge the claim with an explanation of why it is not accepted. That would be consistent with the scientific approach.

This can be said about scientific claims as well.

But as I said above, scientific claims can be investigated through a standard process which can support or undermine those claims. Religious belief does not have a standard process for determining the truth of a claim, and many religions consider it either dangerous or even blasphemous to question doctrine.

Well it does mine, if it's true a new part of creation has been found, if not then I am tempted to believe it's a way scientist want to disprove creation, which really makes no sense. Isn't discovery just that, no matte how something came about.

I think that many of the scientists who made breakthrough discoveries about the planet, galaxy, and universe were not trying to disprove creation. In fact, as has been pointed out by theists here a few times, many of those men were devout believers in god and had no reason to seek to undermine the creation account. But as you say, discovery is about learning new things, even if they are not what we want to believe. Those scientists who were driven to learn and discover kept finding out new things about our world and universe, but they never did find god.

Yes I think so, people just reject God, no rigorous searching, yes I've heard what's been said here and every story is the same, just some little difference but, he basic story is the same. If there was rigorous searching wouldn't you expect the stories to widely vary, whoever if there was a single influence you would find the stories to be the same, so a single influence is a rational determination.

Some people probably do reject god without doing much searching, but that is natural-- most of them came to believe by the same mechanism. In any case, atheism is not a single influence, it's simply a possible destination once a person begins to question his faith.

For me, if there was a god, then everyone who took certain steps would get nearly the exact same results. Instead, their lives are no different than anyone else's. They come up with explanations for why their lives are special and why their path matters, but even that just makes them like anyone else. And they dismiss any approach that isn't like theirs regardless of the results, but to someone on the outside there is no difference between the two. The world "with god" does not work any differently than the world without god. That doesn't make sense.