Don't dictate beliefs

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

Look out into space as far as man can and look at life on earth all of it. How could it all have been created by a roll of the dice billions and billions of times. I don't think so and you do.

You really need to pare the argument down to that to believe it, don't you? The full argument contrasts that thought with an analogous one regarding your god. Imagine your god, with sentience, will, infinite knowledge, infinite power, immortality, and perfect morality - far more complex than what is essentially empty space with occasional chunks of matter orbiting and bumping into one another mindlessly - and explain how it can possibly exist uncreated.

If you find your argument against the universe strong, you will find that the same argument applied to your god - something infinitely more complex and less likely - makes the first hypothesis the preferred one.

If you prefer to cling to faith rather than impartially evaluate a compelling argument, then you should either continue to do what you just did - disregard the god half of the argument like it's not even there - or try special pleading. Say that your argument applies but mine doesn't because [insert any irrelevant and unsupported claim about your god here].

[derek4]

re-posting some favorites:

“Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words:'Ye must have faith.'“
Max Planck

“Belief in evolution makes atheists of people. One can have a religious view that is compatible with evolution only if that religious view is indistinguishable from atheism." -William Provine, Professor at Cornell University

[It aint necessarily so]

Thinking wrote:

And? You won't get a cigarette paper between my logic and IANS'

Well thank you - I think.
:)

[Thinking]

Over capitalisation! You're quoting a crackpot.

derek4 wrote:

You DARE to Criticize SCIENCE?!
1998 William Beaty
Here is an attitude which I've encountered repeatedly:
Science is extremely important. Also, it is a very fragile structure, and mankind always remains a few steps away from another dark age. Science is so fragile and easily destroyed that we must expend enormous and valiant efforts to defend it from the many attacks being launched by the hoards of ignorant and superstitious people who surround us on all sides. Anti-science sentiments are at an all-time high in modern society, and therefore we must fight fiercely against all who criticize science. We are engaged in a sort of war. In war, the propaganda of the enemy must be suppressed. In war, critical examination about 'our side' must be controlled, lest we give our enemies an opportunity to damage us in the eyes of the public.
How many of us are Good Scientists? How many really take the above sentiments to heart? There are words for this sort of thing:
SUPPRESSION OF CRITICAL THINKING
STIFLING OF INTELLECTUAL DISSENT
BREAKING THE CYCLE OF CORRECTIVE SELF-EXAMINATION
SELF-AGGRANDIZING PROPAGANDA
XENOPHOBIC PARANOIA
It has been my experience that if any person or group suppresses outside criticism, they provide a safe haven where unexamined error can take root and blossom. If people suppress self-criticism as well as group-criticism, then they open themselves to all sorts of pathological conceits and self-congratulatory narcissism. Humility goes out the window, and soon, without our even noticing it, an attitude of arrogance and unexamined superiority can take hold and become the norm within our group. Along with insecurity and denial will come our subconsciously-motivated attacks made upon anyone who dares to puncture our self-importance and to expose our genuine flaws. It's a kind of evil mental illness. Any group, even Science, can become its victim.
I see that the cure for this illness is simple. Science should always maintain a cycle of brutally honest self-examination and constructive self-criticism, then follow this up with major efforts at self-improvement. We must pursue the truth about ourselves, even if it's something we prefer not to know.”
http://amasci.com/freenrg/dares.html
[But most scientists and their adherents feel they are above scrutiny.]

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

atheist lie. They know that church has a lot to offer. And they are jealous of it.

Is that why we steadfastly avoid churches even when there is one on every corner - because we believe that they have a lot to offer?

And that is how you know that we lie?

Do you think that that is an effective argument?

[Thinking]

Likewise... I just don't see why fundies don't get logic.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Well thank you - I think.
:)

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

Once your body has died you keep repeating that as you're being judged.

Are you waving the Scary Chicken On The Stick again? You know that that doesn't work here,so why do it? Everybody in our demographic that can be scared by the Scary Chicken has already been captured. You need to focus on children and the desperate - skid row, death row, suicide hotlines and the like.

On second thought, save the Scary Children for the children. With the desperate, you'll need the carrot, not the stick. Use promises of forgiveness now and of riches in the afterlife. And bring sandwiches.

[Roxxanna29]

True or False wrote:

The article lumps all Christians as the same, united against Atheists, that is the farthest thing from the truth.
The true Christians today, and they are very evident among mankind, do not argue or fight with anyone over their beliefs, they imitate Jesus and let peace be their goal in preaching the good news of God's Kingdom to all people on earth.
Each individual is responsible for his or her own relationship with our heavenly Father, Almighty God Jehovah.
Each individual will be judged before the great tribulation starts, as to whether they want to live in righteousness or not.
It is good news to know that Jesus is King ruling in heaven today, but only over people who accept Jehovah God as Universal Sovereign.
Whether you are Atheist, pagan or part of Christendoms denominational Churches, you must live in harmony with the truth of the Bible to have Almighty God's approval.
Acts 10:34
Jehovah's witnesses will be happy to show you that truth from your own Bible, no matter what Bible you use. Christendom does not know it or want it, they are not acceptable to Jehovah God.
Revelation 18:4

Absolutely... How often do you see a Christian starting a thread that says: "Prove to me there isn't a God?" I've never seen one. Yet, in the Atheist Forums, they are constantly creating antagonistic threads. Asking Christians to prove to them. that there IS a God. Then, they get mad when we do

[NightSerf]

Roxxanna29 wrote:

<quoted text>
Absolutely... How often do you see a Christian starting a thread that says: "Prove to me there isn't a God?" I've never seen one. Yet, in the Atheist Forums, they are constantly creating antagonistic threads. Asking Christians to prove to them. that there IS a God. Then, they get mad when we do

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

[Khatru]

KJV wrote:

They have no real ammo so they are starving. They take anything they can, they are very big on typo's also. Typical children.
Keep on posting Derek.

Nice explanation why Dim can't come to terms with my correct spelling of "plough".

[Thinking]

If American English was good enough for jesus, it should be good enough for all of us.

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice explanation why Dim can't come to terms with my correct spelling of "plough".

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

Vietnam vets don't need anymore crap we served our county we've watched the guy next to us taking a bullet in the face we've come home to dope smoking hippies calling us baby killers.

Let's be fair here. If drug use is a reason to demean people, then it applies ten-fold to the troops that came back junkies.

Also, anybody who works, saves, spends and pays taxes serves his or her country. There is nothing special about putting on a uniform. Being a soldier is no more honorable than being a mother or a teacher, and no more worthy of adulation than being a fireman, a cop,or the lineman that restores power to your home after a tornado, hurricane or ice storm.

And I question how the Vietnam War served Americans' interests. I told you that I've been to Vietnam on holiday - Saigon, now Ho Chi Minh City - and I saw what we were saving the Vietnamese from. If you saw it, you would be ashamed that your country sent you there to carpet bomb, napalm, and agent orange those people.

I think you served your government and the war profiteers it supports with its endless series wars more than any of the rest of us. That's not your fault,and I don't think you deserve to be castigated for it. But frankly, I think that we war protesters served Americans at least as well as any soldiers did. Who do you think got those soldiers home?

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

You make the decision to go to hell when you reject God. He doesn't “decide” to send you there.

Then tell your god I'm not going.Dim.

And let him know that if I ever get the chance to throw HIS ass in hell, I will - for inventing hell and the monsters he staffed it with, for throwing human souls in it while still conscious, and for keeping them conscious forever just so that they will suffer more. In MY universe, that's an unforgivable sin.

Of course, I'll tell him he sent himself.

[It aint necessarily so]

Khatru wrote:

Yeah! It was great news! Percentage of Christians down by 14 to 59%, Non-believers up 10 to 25%

Congratulations again!

derek4 wrote:

Let's ASSUME that's true. What does that prove, exactly?

That your church is gracing the West by wasting away. Good riddance.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

Have I ever posted anything that contained an error? Probably so.

An error? Is that what they're calling it these days? You got caught lying about Dawkins.

derek4 wrote:

Most of what I post doesn't please atheists

Where do you get that? Because we flay it and you? What do you think brings people back to this thread if not to greet your fetch-and-pastes with eager anticipation? I love them.

derek4 wrote:

I'm not here to please atheists.

But you do. You serve our purpose nevertheless. I'm very pleased with you, Dim.

derek4 wrote:

Did I put my stamp of endorsement on every quoted link I ever posted, or did I refer the forum participants back to the source? I have repeatedly referred them back to the source.

That was just your cowardice. In the absence of criticism of them, posting your fetch-and-pastes constitutes a tacit endorsement of them. That's why we laugh at you when they misunderstand them and fail to note when they contradict you.

derek4 wrote:

I am not interested in other poster's critiques of web material.

We know, and we're good with that. We're still all here, right?

derek4 wrote:

don't bother me with your trivial rebuttals

Don't read them. They're not for you. Just keep fetching more grist for the mill. Go fetch some more now.

[It aint necessarily so]

Khatru wrote:

<quoted text>
The link was posted when your lying caught you out.
You're the one who admits to not reading posts so the problem is yours - not mine.

Good pick-up! Dim upbraids others for not providing links even as he claims that he doesn't read others' posts. Of course, the only link with the Mathis thing was to Mathis.

That's why he's our Dim!

[It aint necessarily so]

Khatru wrote:

Your religion has been in trouble ever since Johannes Gutenberg introduced moveable type printing to Europe. Prior to the printing press, Christians had a monopoly on the production of documents and books. They also had the authority to and influence to ensure that any documents it deemed to be heretical could be seized and destroyed as well as being able to torture and kill the authors.

Yes, indeedy! That was the first source of information and the first blow to Jesus. Literacy (along with scholasticism) resulted in the Renaissance, then the Enlightenment with its great inventions: science, and the liberal secular state, from which came freedom of the press and of expression - more information.

The next major blow was from that science - more information. First we had deism following Newton et al. and the clockwork universe. We didn't need a god to run the universe.

Then Darwin and Hubble, who showed us a godless natural history, and with it, atheism. It turns out that we didn't need a god to build the universe, either. The god of the gaps became very small indeed.

And the death knell rang when information took another quantum leap. Satellite telecommunications lifted the rock on theistic violence and hypocrisy, and the Internet gave atheism a venue and a voice. It's not just that we are learning so much from one another here. The Internet is a place where people on the fence can read the argument against Christianity and for humanism, things we rarely or never heard growing up.

Religion cannot survive the light of scrutiny.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
I always enjoy your humorous posts. Keep up your great work. Your statement is absurd and proves how meaningless you are.

... says the fetching-and-pasting empty silhouette.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

Exactly: Atheists have no rules or moral requirements

You'll find out just how wrong you are if you live long enough. It will take us most of the next fifty years to assume majority stats, take the reigns, and redefine mainstream morality. You and I may well be dead before then.

derek4 wrote:

so they can judge others but use a book (the bible) which they say they don't believe in to condemn others for “allegedly” judging.

Of course we can. And ought to. You fail by your own standards, which are too low to start with. Why wouldn't we point that out?

derek4 wrote:

LMAO

Your ass is ours, chew toy.

derek4 wrote:

So, they use the bible when it serves their purpose, then when it does not serve their purpose, they say it doesn't apply. I see. That sounds like the typical atheist logic, okay.

Yes it is. Likewise with the multiplication table. We use it only when it serves our purpose. When it doesn't, we would say that it also doesn't apply.

Why does that seem odd to you, Dim? With time, some of our ways may start to make a little sense to you.

derek4 wrote:

Your post provides us excellent proof of atheist inconsistency, and your own personal inconsistency and corruption.

And your interpretation of it is a nice illustration of Christian thought. Thanks for all you do, Dim one.

[It aint necessarily so]

derek4 wrote:

So you believe what the bible says?

Not a word.

derek4 wrote:

I mean, after all, it was you who referred to the bible

And will continue to ad lib.

Does that confuse you, Dim?