Creationist Science Fair!

[Belisario93]

really, although it may make me seem as a selfish douche bag, my beliefs all revolve around my needs and my happiness. If it doesn't look like it will benefit me, I just won't do it. It's how our way early ancestors (cavemen) did it, and they are the only reason we're here today.

[Electro Tomato]

really, although it may make me seem as a selfish douche bag, my beliefs all revolve around my needs and my happiness. If it doesn't look like it will benefit me, I just won't do it. It's how our way early ancestors (cavemen) did it, and they are the only reason we're here today.

He's obviously a scientologist.

[Belisario93]

really, although it may make me seem as a selfish douche bag, my beliefs all revolve around my needs and my happiness. If it doesn't look like it will benefit me, I just won't do it. It's how our way early ancestors (cavemen) did it, and they are the only reason we're here today.

He's obviously a scientologist.

*looks up scientology on wikipedia* Really the only part of that I can agree with fully (after about 2 minutes of scanning the wikipedia page) is the only do things that benefit you part. They have quite a few points I don't agree with.

[vedicardi]

that was a joke

[azoschke]

On the contrary. Isn't it worth pondering our views?

I'd like you to go to a a site. Here. Read it. Think about it.

Yeah, I've read through that site before. There's waay too much to respond to on this little forum, but in summary he makes the following errors:
1. Takes verses out of context and claims that Christians interpret them a certain way which they do not (straw man argument)
ex. Jesus didn't teach that God aligns his will with our prayers, rather He taught that we align our prayers with His will.
2. Uses irrelevant or even outright false information
ex. Christianity did borrow dates from other religions, but that doesn't affect doctrine. Mithras did not resurrect, he didn't even die. He wasn't born of a virgin, he was born from a rock. These arguments are old, dating back to the fifties and were refuted back then. The Internet has revived the argument with most people not realizing that the matter has been settled.
3. He assumes what God should and should not do.
ex. God should appear to everyone all the time. Why? Billions believe without seeing and His appearance on earth was recorded for us to read. Or God should answer all our prayers all the time. Why? As already mentioned, God doesn't conform His will to us.

Anyways, there's not enough time to go through all 53 points here. But he makes these and other mistakes repeatedly. Marshall David Brain has degrees in electrical engineering and computer science, but not philosophy or religion. This is shown in his basic misunderstandings of Christianity.

[1337buddha]

Anyways, there's not enough time to go through all 53 points here.

sure there is.

[Lysdestic]

Dare I say, an eternity?

[LedfortheHead]

really, although it may make me seem as a selfish douche bag, my beliefs all revolve around my needs and my happiness. If it doesn't look like it will benefit me, I just won't do it. It's how our way early ancestors (cavemen) did it, and they are the only reason we're here today.

I agree 100% bruh

[random0guy]

You can't tell God what to do...that pretty much sums up alot of arguments.
Although, people pray to God asking for what they want, it's not certain that God will do it, He will most probably listen but might no do it. It's like making suggestions to a boss at work, the boss will listen to them, but does not necessarily have to obey them, because in fact it's the other way around. You aren't the boss, you can make suggestions but they might not come true.
And although Jesus asked God not to have him crucified, at the end of the prayer he said, "May your will be done," which basically means that it was a suggestion and highlights that God can do what he wishes. The line, "May you will be done," is even in the Our Father, one of the most important prayers in Christianity so most Christians so know that.

[Rapt0r]

What most of you here don't see that the bible is open to interpretation. If you took every word in the bible in the literal sense, most of us would probalby be dead right now (there are some pretty violent things in there that you are to do to sinners). How one person interprets it could be entirely different than someone elses interpretation. No living person was around when it was written so who's to say this way is rigth and every other way is wrong? The whole "my religion is right so yours is wrong" buisness is stupid and gets nowhere.

Even though I may be an atheist myself but I've grown up a christian household so I know more than my fair share of christianity.

[random0guy]

Rapt0r is right. Most atheists here are literalists who take the Bible literally. There are two types of Bible readers - Literalists and Contextualists, the difference is obvious.
btw I have nothing against atheists and their opinions as long as they have real arguments and reasons, like Rapt0r.

[vedicardi]

Very few people take it literally. If every Atheist became and Atheist only because they saw that Noah's Ark wasn't real and **** like that, well I don't really know what. I think it's just obvious people have a better understanding of it than that.

Most Atheists (as far as I can tell, I'm just generalizing here) are Atheists because there isn't evidence to prove the existence of god ("You only need evidence to prove something does exist. You don't need evidence to prove something doesn't exist." That kind of thing), rather than because there is evidence that disproves or contradicts events/statements etc made in the bible itself.

There is simply no reason to argue that something doesn't exist if there is no evidence that it does exist in the first place.

Now I have seen people bring up "Noah's Ark" as a counter argument, but only when the person they are arguing with does take the bible literally, or the person in question is an 8th grader.

I hope that makes sense.

[random0guy]

I agree with you, Vedicardi. I guess I wrongly put in "most atheists" in my post. But I agree with the whole evidence argument. I know that evidence in proving God is real (in a scientific sense) is impossible or near impossible, but I guess that's the way people are - they believe it for many reasons. Some believe it because they were brought up in that kind of community and some people convert to it because maybe something happened in their lives that seemed like a miracle and thus they tied it to religion. But that's the way it is. Overall, other than people trying to convert you, I really don't think that there is much of a reason to have a big religion debate because frankly, I think this is getting a bit too off-topic to this thread.

/thread

[vedicardi]

Exactly. Though I gotta admit, these little debates can be fun time wasters. Can we wrap this up?

[random0guy]

Yup, and that's what off-topic is for (most of the time)...wasting time :P