Don't dictate beliefs

[derek4]

Meet Green Locust ...

Green Locust says he can prove with codes, math, and numbers that the devil exists.

Locust tells us how at this link:

http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index...

Note that there are other comments after the Locust post, so you can decide for yourself if the devil exists.

I didn't put much confidence in either poster, lol.

However, I've always found it interesting that atheists constantly ask for proof of God, but they don't seem the least interested in asking for proof of the devil.

[KittenKoder]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
We don't have to deal with it since it doesn't exist.
We read the Bible, and when “religion” doesn't match up to what the Bible teaches, we recognize it as religious heresy, not Christianity, and we reject it.
Thank you for demonstrating this to us in your post 10590, where you refer to “religious fraud”, which isn't Christianity.

A masked no true Scotsman fallacy, how cute.

[derek4]

Read about “Atheistic Satanism” at the included link below.

These kind of atheists follow the nine Satanic statements in Anton LaVey’s Satanic Bible.

They are a special kind of atheists who admittedly align with their spiritual father, Satan, who reigns over all atheists.

http://deck16.net/post/4338299532/atheistic-s...

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

Anton LaVey was founder of the “First Church of Satan”

Mr. LaVey's sad last words:

"What have I done, there is something very wrong".

Were any atheists present to comfort Mr. LaVey in his final moments?

I wonder if Khatru wrote another verse to a hymn just for Mr. LaVey.

[derek4]

Atheist fans of Aleister Crowley, Ayn Rand, and Friedrich Nietzsche, will cherish their abiding influence on Anton LaVey's philosophies.

Atheists and Satanists are amicable bedfellows, and neither group requires proof that the devil exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

No copyrighted material was reproduced in this post.

[KittenKoder]

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
You seem to forget a very important item. Once a failed attempt is tried nature does not cross it off the list, every go around starts at zero all over again. After 300 chances your odds hasn't changed one bit.

Actually, it does, in a manner of speaking "cross it off the list."

[KittenKoder]

KJV, my calculations for the odds were not based on the reality of the situation, I did them using your own failed concept of the method of natural selection. That would be the odds if it "started from scratch" each time, since natural selection isn't random it doesn't do that, so the odds for success are much, much, much higher.

Here's why:

Suppose you have three doors, behind one is a great prize, you don't know which one. The announcer asks you to pick one, and you do. Your odds are 33% of choosing the correct one.

Then the announcer shows you one of the two doors you didn't pick, which don't contain the prize. Your odds of having chosen the correct door are still 33%... but then he let's you change your choice.

What are your odds of selecting the correct door if you change your decision? It's a simple answer. So ... what are your chances now?

[derek4]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Yet, you do that with every post, removing all doubt of your idiocy.
It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.- Mark Twain (bible)
When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than at what He doesn't know.- Mark Twain (bible)
Who's next? Asimov? I like Asimov too.

Mr. Twain would have done well to confine his remarks to subjects about which he was informed, lol. Like you, he isn't respected for his expertise on the Bible.

[derek4]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
A masked no true Scotsman fallacy, how cute.

We will continue to look forward with great anticipation to the day you may eventually make a meaningful post to our forum, but we shall not hold our breath waiting.

LMAO

[polymath257]

derek4 wrote:

Meet Green Locust ...
Green Locust says he can prove with codes, math, and numbers that the devil exists.
Locust tells us how at this link:
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index...
Note that there are other comments after the Locust post, so you can decide for yourself if the devil exists.
I didn't put much confidence in either poster, lol.
However, I've always found it interesting that atheists constantly ask for proof of God, but they don't seem the least interested in asking for proof of the devil.

Numerology of that sort is always garbage.

[KittenKoder]

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
Mr. Twain would have done well to confine his remarks to subjects about which he was informed, lol. Like you, he isn't respected for his expertise on the Bible.

It's not the parts of the bible he didn't understand that worried him, it was the parts he did understand that disgusted him, and I agree.

He knows more of the smut you call the bible than you want to admit because you think you can trick naive children into following your command and buying your snake oil. The real reason you can't stand us atheists is because we work to prevent you from taking advantage of the naive minds, perverting them with your twisted lack of logic, destroying their wills to accomplish greatness just so you can pretend you know everything while you lack even basic comprehension of facts. Your level of intelligence is that of a gnat, stuck on a window pane, caught in the web of lies that your religion is made of. You know you're an idiot, so you must attempt to convince others to become as stupid as you so you don't feel like a total idiot. You are self centered and arrogant, yet unlike me, you did not earn that arrogance. You are a conman, a serpent charmer, and nothing more.

[Reason Personified]

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, Huckleberry Finn does require a highschool level to comprehend the basics, beyond the basics you need a college degree to actually understand the social nuances and very valid points against prejudice and racism in that book.
The bible is more akin to Dr Seuss, if Dr Seuss wrote smut. The bible was intended to be for illiterate idiots.

It's not exactly smut, but the religitard world would consider it so. It is an adult book, that my children loved.

Seven Lady Godivas: The True Facts Concerning History's Barest Family by Dr. Suess. "The Seven Lady Godiva's, is a beautiful story of love, honor and scientific achievement.

I've had a "every body get's to thumb through this one" copy in my living room for over 20 years, and another mint copy hidden away.

http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Lady-Godivas-Conc...

[KittenKoder]

Reason Personified wrote:

<quoted text>It's not exactly smut, but the religitard world would consider it so. It is an adult book, that my children loved.
Seven Lady Godivas: The True Facts Concerning History's Barest Family by Dr. Suess. "The Seven Lady Godiva's, is a beautiful story of love, honor and scientific achievement.
I've had a "every body get's to thumb through this one" copy in my living room for over 20 years, and another mint copy hidden away.
http://www.amazon.com/Seven-Lady-Godivas-Conc...

Great, now I have to figure out a more accurate descriptive of the bible. Maybe it's like Mr. Roger's writing smut ... erm ... that won't work either, would it? lol

[Lil Ticked]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Irrelevant.
Ten cubits across, and 31 cubits, two hands around. No fractions are needed to specify those dimensions.

WTF is a cubit?

[Givemeliberty]

First, why should anyone care about what the bible says? It's words have been changed more than a porn star's boyfriend.
Second, why should anyone accept god as anything more than the product of someone's imagination?

KJV wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes there is. One item of evidence is the Bible.
I do know how life started its right there in the first few pages of the Bible.
Just because you can't get it to work your way doesn't mean we don't know how it really happened.

[Givemeliberty]

Speaking of meaningful posts maybe one of you theists can finally answer this question. Why should anyone accept god as anything more than the product of someone's imagination?

Stop being a coward answer the question.

derek4 wrote:

<quoted text>
We will continue to look forward with great anticipation to the day you may eventually make a meaningful post to our forum, but we shall not hold our breath waiting.
LMAO

[Givemeliberty]

This is why I say we need to stop arguing science with the theists on here and in general. For one they don't comprehend what they are dying and asking they just repeat lines they steal from apologetic websites. They have no interest in learning and even if they did since when did atheists become free teachers for the world? When we allow them to make the conversation a god vs science argument it is a futile venture because of the above reasons and most importantly because we are allowing them to frame the debate to their fallacy filled liking.

Atheism is not believing in god/s. it's not evolution, the Big Bang, abiogenesis or science in general these are all different subjects and it's time we start holding their feet o the fire on showing evidence for what they believe instead of arguing unrelated science facts with people who couldn't grasp it if you paid them to.

polymath257 wrote:

<quoted text>
Numerology of that sort is always garbage.

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event ..."

That's not what is taught or believed. Life on a planet like earth was probably inevitable.

KJV wrote:

"they (and most of us, really) just haven't gotten around to some actual calculating on some of these problems."

The relevant "calculation" is this, and it's only semi-quantitative: The least likely thing to exist uncreated is an solitary, infinite, immortal, sentient, volitional, omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly moral being. Virtually anything else is more likely. A race of such creatures is more likely than just one.

A very smart, very powerful, and very long-lived race of beings is more likely than such a god. Even more likely is man. Even more likely than man is the jellyfish. And even more likely than any of these is a microbe.

To make the argument that the most likely of these is too unlikely to exist, and that therefore the least likely of them must exist to account for them is wishful thinking and a poor argument.

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

"let's take a look at the time it would take for one simple gene to arrange itself by chance ... Let us give chance the unbelievable number of attempts of eight trillion tries per second in each set! At this speed on average it would take 10^147 years to obtain just one stable gene. What does this number really mean?"

It means that you are guilty of Hoyle's fallacy, and that you are also ignoring the argument just presented.

KJV wrote:

"This means that all the people living on earth, man, woman and child, counting day and night, would be counting for five thousand years just to count the number of entire universes which this amoeba would have transported across a distance of thirty billion light years, one atom at a time."

LOL. How many amoebas would it take to build a god?

KJV wrote:

"the more information comes to hand, the more preposterous the whole idea of a naturalistic origin of life becomes."

This very same arguments rules out the existence of an uncreated god. Anything ekse is more likely to exist.

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

String theory is dying pretty fast.

Do you have a larger point? Is this part of an argument against science? If so, we need to revisit a comment you brought us at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :

"There are plenty of reasons not to like string theory. Philosophical and logical arguments against the theory have long been apparent. Strong scientific evidence is increasingly joining them. The discovery of the Higgs boson exactly where the Standard Model says it should be last summer at the LHC was a first blow."

I'll let you contemplate why.

[It aint necessarily so]

KJV wrote:

Assume that the ribozyme is 300 nucleotides long, and that at each position there could be any of four nucleotides present. The chances of that ribozyme assembling are then 4^300, a number so large that it could not possibly happen by chance even once in 13 billion years, the age of the universe.

Your understanding of statistics is inadequate. And your imagination regarding how such a thing likely happened is also lacking. Such a ribosome would not be constructed one nucleotide at a time as it is in vivo. In an environment where nucleotide exist and can join, we have a sea of fragments of various sizes - some six nucleotides long, some eight, some fourteen, and so on. The three hundred nucleotide sequence would likely form from a few dozen such pieces finding one another. That changes your mathematics radically.

From your own post at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... :

"Time is in fact the hero of the plot. The time with which we have to deal is of the order of two billion years. What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless there. Given so much time, the “impossible� becomes possible; the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles."

What are the odds of the parts of an infinite god finding one another without an intelligent designer? Zero? My money is on a gene existing without a god before a god existing without a gene.