The arrogance of the atheists

Re Jennybee35

You wrote to zero314 on the inverse christian 'logic' of finding the answer before the facts:

["Thanks for making the OP's point for me! Nothing like posting a chart and adding nothing to it to cement your argument for/ against the OP!"]

If you need the 'answer-before-fact' dilemma explained to you....well, I'll try to be polite and say nothing.

Quote: ["Well, I am asking the more militant atheists here to explain why they feel the need to browbeat believers. Why is there this obsession to force others into their way of unbelief. Why does it matter to them?"]

There's generally no need to force anyone into unbelief, but there is a real need to stop fascist christians from trying a return to medieval Europe theocracy.

Quote from your response to Phatpackage:

["You really amaze me. I'm sorry that you have such difficulty understanding me. Really, I am sorry for you. Seems you may be unteachable. That is always a sad state to be in."]

"Seems you may be unteachable". We're at the rhetoric level now, just as I was afraid of. Because people disagree with you, they are 'unteachable'?. It needs just a bit more than that to categorize otherwise intelligible persons. Get to some basis, from where you can verify such demagogic accusations.

Re Freedish

You wrote:

["They have already chosen not to believe in their heart so it doesn't matter what evidence you bring to the table...]

Please read my long post on epistemology, and you'll se why your ilk is criticised. In your opinion those who "have already chosen not to believe....etc" are incapable of any valid opinions of existence.

Your options are: Believe or not believe.

The atheist (and other religionist critics') option is: Use logic, observation, examination, control etc instead of 'belief'.

But as a good little extremist christian this alternative option is OFCOURSE worthless, because "you're right, because you're right" eventually.

And what constitutes 'evidence'? Your doctrinal values?

Re Rezwar

You wrote:

["If god didn't start the big bang what did? Science says you cannot destroy matter only transform it. Where did this matter originate that started our universe? It didn't appear out of thin air, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Science will never find the answers with laws that conflict with the universes laws."]

You made an excellent point for demonstrating hijacked logic and science, without having much knowledge about what science and logic is on its own.

From a later post: ["If you were the adversary of god what would be the best way to attack him? Take over his churches and twist the truth to make the people turn away from god."]

IF an alledged 'god' and his alleged 'adversery' are real, there's another option: That the adversery started the religions from the start.

Quote: ["If I die and nothing happens so be it, nothing gained or lost, but if I die and there really is a god and I spent my days trying to turn people away from him I would be very worried."]

You like the old clichée fake-arguments? Pascal's wager isn't even that popular with christians these days, and your slightly changed version isn't better than the old one.

Quote: ["That figure * is about to go way up since britain seems to have a fertility problem as most atheist european countries do."]

(* About fertility rates. My comment)

Being a european and familar with the situation, I would say, that your postulate is an example of inventing 'facts' to prove an pre-existing answer. A recurrenct phenomenon amongst extremist religionists. Stay with what you really know.