[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Isn't the purpose of religion at least partly defined by what religion is? Doesn't the definition of religion rule certain things in or out regarding its purpose? You said the purpose of religion was to bring people peace of mind and make them feel better and not about following an old book and not practising closed-minded bigotry. Yet following an old book and practising what you call closed-minded bigotry is what defines most religions. You were the one who first conflated the purpose of religion with the definition of religion.

Most religions get their set of beliefs and moral code from a written or oral source. For us Christians it's the 1611 KJV. Uncompromisingly following this moral code to the letter makes us "closed-minded" in your eyes. But this perfectly fits the definition of religion. The good thing about the definition of religion is that it is concrete. Where did you get your idea about the purpose of religion? Who gets to decide that? Can you quote a reliable source that will give a concrete answer that applies to religion in general?

Yes, it was a broad definition. You were the one who extended the scope beyond Christianity by talking about what you think religion should be like in general.

So what is your particular religion? Is it a stripped-down version of Christianity? I asked you before what you believed, whether you were agnostic/ atheist. I would appreciate a straight answer. It would make things a lot easier if I knew.

So there is doubt in your mind as to whether the Bible was inspired by God and whether the God of the Bible exists? You believe the Bible could be right and God could exist?

The Bible tells us that Creation clearly reveals God existence. Creation isn't in the Bible; it's all around you.

I decide the purpose of religion in my view. It's what religion does for me personally. Probably doesn't apply to you. I'm telling you that what you think the purpose of religion is is probably really twisted, judging by these forums.

Gonna ignore that question about my religion seeing as I'm here to tell you how you're wrong.

Of course there's doubt. There's a chance that you're right about everything but it's extremely improbable. Like I said before, all the evidence we have may have been subtly put on earth by an invisible fish. But I'm not going to believe that because, based on what we know about reality, that's not what's happening. No one can conclusively prove your religion wrong and you can't prove it right, but there's a far greater chance that mainstream science is right than your religion.

So Creation -> Bible/God.
How do you know Creation is right though? Not sure how you can feel it all around you.

Also is this a satirical forum? Because the "Humanism is evil" thread was hilarious.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

The purpose of religion is never being wrong.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Anyway, purpose of religion=/= definition of religion.

Isn't the purpose of religion at least partly defined by what religion is? Doesn't the definition of religion rule certain things in or out regarding its purpose? You said the purpose of religion was to bring people peace of mind and make them feel better and not about following an old book and not practising closed-minded bigotry. Yet following an old book and practising what you call closed-minded bigotry is what defines most religions. You were the one who first conflated the purpose of religion with the definition of religion.

1 a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Most religions get their set of beliefs and moral code from a written or oral source. For us Christians it's the 1611 KJV. Uncompromisingly following this moral code to the letter makes us "closed-minded" in your eyes. But this perfectly fits the definition of religion. The good thing about the definition of religion is that it is concrete. Where did you get your idea about the purpose of religion? Who gets to decide that? Can you quote a reliable source that will give a concrete answer that applies to religion in general?

However, using that definition, the purpose of religion could be a lot of things, depending on the person.

Yes, it was a broad definition. You were the one who extended the scope beyond Christianity by talking about what you think religion should be like in general.

The one I stated would be the purpose of my particular religion, which is a stripped down version of another religion. So that part's cleared up. Oh and when I said "your version", I did not mean only your version.

So what is your particular religion? Is it a stripped-down version of Christianity? I asked you before what you believed, whether you were agnostic/ atheist. I would appreciate a straight answer. It would make things a lot easier if I knew.

What I'm arguing here is that the bible was probably not created by God, that God probably does not exist

So there is doubt in your mind as to whether the Bible was inspired by God and whether the God of the Bible exists? You believe the Bible could be right and God could exist?

Why do you believe in God? The answer can't be "because it's in the bible", and I'll explain why if you can't figure that out. But what is it that makes you think God actually exists?

The Bible tells us that Creation clearly reveals God existence. Creation isn't in the Bible; it's all around you.

Rom 1:18-20
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Religion can be defined as

That is what a religion is. It has to meet these criteria. If it meets these criteria, it is a religion, regardless of whether it brings peace of mind or makes people feel better or adheres to an old book or promotes close-minded bigotry. So who are you to decide what the purpose of religion is? Sounds to me like something you just made up.

Quote was getting too long. Anyway, purpose of religion=/= definition of religion. However, using that definition, the purpose of religion could be a lot of things, depending on the person. The one I stated would be the purpose of my particular religion, which is a stripped down version of another religion. So that part's cleared up. Oh and when I said "your version", I did not mean only your version.

Your creation science forum is just sad. First thread, "Are Stars Actually Diamonds?!" would be just fine if it wasn't backed up by "Science and Math confirms it!" Ignoring the fact that you're all against science, it's the most flawed science ever. You seriously cannot use just observation and expect to be right, especially if you're apparently observing space without a telescope. And since when was the sun a lump of coal?

What I'm arguing here is that the bible was probably not created by God, that God probably does not exist, and that, after reading some threads, most of you have some serious.. problems..


Okay. New question. Why do you believe in God? The answer can't be "because it's in the bible", and I'll explain why if you can't figure that out. But what is it that makes you think God actually exists?

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

There's so many things wrong with this that it's hard to figure out where to start.
First of all, creation scientists? You can't call yourselves scientists when you spend half your time bitching about science.
Second, please link me to this mound of evidence supporting a young earth. Meanwhile, look up the even larger mountain of evidence supporting evolution and a 4 billion year old Earth.
Next up, bible- any evidence that any holy spirit ever existed to contact anyone? No. And no, you can't use the bible as evidence for the creation of the bible.

Science is pretty damn solid compared to religion. The men in white coats find some rock hard evidence and base their conclusions off it. Your religion is based off an outdated book that some people made up. You have no evidence that God actually exists or that the bible was written by 'men inspired by the Holy Spirit'. He might exist, and when there's solid proof of that, I'll gladly believe it.

Rational thinking is just the better way to do things, simple as that. God MIGHT exist and to be honest, the bible MIGHT be true, even though there's a pile of contradicting evidence. We MIGHT all be living inside someone's furry fingernail right now and he's tampering with all the evidence. But since it is far more likely that the evidence is correct, there's a load more of it supporting science than your version of Christianity. And that's what I'll choose to believe, because I can think rationally, while all of you are apparently being restricted from doing that.

I've never read the Bible and don't intend to so don't bother with the quotes. But your analysis of that quote is a little off, doesn't really say anything about fearing God.

I think the purpose of religion is to bring people the peace of mind and pretty much to make them feel better. It certainly isn't about following an old book or promoting close-minded bigotry.

Totally missed the point about science never being able to make its mind up and lacking certainty. Deep down every scientist knows he's wrong and is going to need to change his mind at some point while every True Christian is convinced he's right.

This is what God gives you: certainty!

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

There's so many things wrong with this that it's hard to figure out where to start.
First of all, creation scientists? You can't call yourselves scientists when you spend half your time bitching about science.
Second, please link me to this mound of evidence supporting a young earth.

First off, I don't call myself a Creation scientist. But I am a Creationist.

Second, you want links? You can always try our own Creation science forum or you can try Answers in Genesis.

Rational thinking is just the better way to do things, simple as that. God MIGHT exist and to be honest, the bible MIGHT be true, even though there's a pile of contradicting evidence. We MIGHT all be living inside someone's furry fingernail right now and he's tampering with all the evidence. But since it is far more likely that the evidence is correct, there's a load more of it supporting science than your version of Christianity. And that's what I'll choose to believe, because I can think rationally, while all of you are apparently being restricted from doing that.

How can the Bible be true if there is any contradicting evidence, let alone a whole pile of it, as you claim? If God exists, how can there be any evidence against His existence? That is logic. What are you exactly? An agnostic? An atheist? An agnostic atheist? And what do you mean by "our version of Christianity?" Do you mean that the scientific evidence casts doubt on the existence of the God of the 1611 KJV Bible and on the beliefs of Evangelical Baptists but not on other "versions of Christianity," such as liberal, fluffy-bunny Christianity? I don't see how the evidence could cast doubt on only "our version" of Christianity. If the Bible is wrong and the earth wasn't created by God over six days 6,000 years ago and Jesus didn't really rise from the dead, then all "branches of Christianity" are wrong. If that evidence really existed, it would be huge. It would destroy Catholicism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, Methodism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Mormonism. I could go on, but I think you get the picture. If the Bible is wrong and God doesn't exist, then neither is any good to anyone, whatever their "version of Christianity."

I've never read the Bible and don't intend to so don't bother with the quotes. But your analysis of that quote is a little off, doesn't really say anything about fearing God.

If you're going to argue with Christians, you should get to know the Bible a bit. You can't criticise us for quoting the Bible to you; that's what we do. If you actually read it, I think you would realise that liberal, fluffy-bunnyism is completely incompatible with it.

The verse I quoted was in response to your comment:

You're a horde of followers who can't think for yourselves because you probably got brainwashed by your parents or some preacher somewhere.

I was trying to demonstrate that the Bible tells Christian parents to instil Biblical doctrines in their children's heads. The fear of the Lord is one of those things.

Ps 111:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments.

In this verse the fear of the Lord is equated with following God's commandments. A reverent fear of God and obedience to His commandments is something we must teach our children. We are to raise them in the "nurture and admonition of the Lord" (Eph 6:4). Don't presume to tell us what the Bible means when you are so unstudied in it. I think that the verse I quoted was an adequate response to your statement that we "got brainwashed by our parents." Apart from evangelism, this is one the main ways the church grows. Many of us have been raised in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Our parents taught us to fear God and follow His commandments, and now that we are grown up, we will not depart from it.

Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

I think the purpose of religion is to bring people the peace of mind and pretty much to make them feel better. It certainly isn't about following an old book or promoting close-minded bigotry.

That's funny, considering most religions follow an old book and are not open-minded to everything science has to teach. Islam, for example, has the Koran, and many conservative Muslims reject evolution. Islamic extremists are extremely closed-minded and bigoted. Are they not religious? How much peace of mind does it give them and how much better does it make them and their families feel when one of them blows themselves up in a bomb vest? If we Christians threw away the Bible and "opened our minds up," what kind of a religion would we have left? What would we benefit from calling ourselves Christians? Why not look for peace of mind in philosophy or psychology or family or friends or wherever else one might find it?

Religion can be defined as

1 a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

5 the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

That is what a religion is. It has to meet these criteria. If it meets these criteria, it is a religion, regardless of whether it brings peace of mind or makes people feel better or adheres to an old book or promotes close-minded bigotry. So who are you to decide what the purpose of religion is? Sounds to me like something you just made up.

[Alkalai]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Creation scientists have discovered mountains of evidence against evolution and in favor of a young earth and a worldwide Flood, but mainstream science just ignores it. They're not willing to listen or change. They only look for evidence that fits their worldview, that is, that God doesn't exist and that man evolved.



Men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. It isn't made up.

2 Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Science is a wishy-washy belief system. It keeps changing. The theory of evolution has changed many times over the last 150 years. Science is a man-made religion. Men in white coats in a lab somewhere make it all up as they go along. Wouldn't you rather believe in God's infallible, unchanging Word?



God doesn't want us to think for ourselves.

Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

You might also find this thread useful.

The Bible encourages parents to raise their children in the fear of the Lord.

Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.



And what is the point of religion, exactly? To be open-minded?

There's so many things wrong with this that it's hard to figure out where to start.
First of all, creation scientists? You can't call yourselves scientists when you spend half your time bitching about science.
Second, please link me to this mound of evidence supporting a young earth. Meanwhile, look up the even larger mountain of evidence supporting evolution and a 4 billion year old Earth.
Next up, bible- any evidence that any holy spirit ever existed to contact anyone? No. And no, you can't use the bible as evidence for the creation of the bible.

Science is pretty damn solid compared to religion. The men in white coats find some rock hard evidence and base their conclusions off it. Your religion is based off an outdated book that some people made up. You have no evidence that God actually exists or that the bible was written by 'men inspired by the Holy Spirit'. He might exist, and when there's solid proof of that, I'll gladly believe it.

Rational thinking is just the better way to do things, simple as that. God MIGHT exist and to be honest, the bible MIGHT be true, even though there's a pile of contradicting evidence. We MIGHT all be living inside someone's furry fingernail right now and he's tampering with all the evidence. But since it is far more likely that the evidence is correct, there's a load more of it supporting science than your version of Christianity. And that's what I'll choose to believe, because I can think rationally, while all of you are apparently being restricted from doing that.

I've never read the Bible and don't intend to so don't bother with the quotes. But your analysis of that quote is a little off, doesn't really say anything about fearing God.

I think the purpose of religion is to bring people the peace of mind and pretty much to make them feel better. It certainly isn't about following an old book or promoting close-minded bigotry.

[Redeemed Papist]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Listen, pal; If anyone is inferior it's you. The sister is a True Christian™, which means she is Saved® and sin-free. Your status as unsaved scum means that you are the one who needs to mind their place and never sass back to your betters.

Indeed, Pastor. Why is it that the god mockers and atheist and know it all false Christians have to resort to ad Hominem nonsense to hide the fact they are coming to the table with nothing to offer? Maybe there's something wrong with their brains that the obvious reality of Jesus within the wondrous pages of the Bible doesn't override their failed years of patiently trying to make sense of the world by reason and deduction and looking at creation and measuring it. And are they a single step closer to understanding everything? No!

If they would only listen to God who tells us its pointless trying to figure it all out so we might*as well not bother and just get on with the more serious business of obeying Him and worshipping Him... But they won't. The only way forward is to get them early and beat them as children until they are rightly afraid of Hell and truly appreciative of God's boundless love for them so they can resist false dogma. We need Jesus in schools more now than ever before. It's science that shoots little children in classrooms!

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

She is clearly trying to consider herself an "equal" by continually involving herself in conversations with her superior counterparts, which as we all know is blasphemous. But if she wants to be a devil worshiping whore, the least she could do is educate herself before speaking out of turn and degrading the image of all women alike. The underlying theme her is that she shouldn't be speaking out of turn in the first place, but if she is going to go against the word of God, the least she could do is attempt to speak on the same intellectual level of a man, or as close to it since we all know that women could never reach that level of intelligence. It really sickens me when I have to witness such blasphemous actions by an inferior sentient.

Listen, pal; If anyone is inferior it's you. The sister is a True Christian(tm), which means she is Saved(r) and sin-free. Your status as unsaved scum means that you are the one who needs to mind their place and never sass back to your betters.

[Dustin Ashley]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

You're in favour of women getting education?

I thought you were claiming to be a Christian or something.

I am most certainty not in favor of a woman getting an education, and you clearly misunderstood the point I was trying get across. Explaining myself seems to me to be that of a null nature, but for your obvious inability to understand "rudimentary" concepts, I will take the time to put forth an explanation.

She is clearly trying to consider herself an "equal" by continually involving herself in conversations with her superior counterparts, which as we all know is blasphemous. But if she wants to be a devil worshiping whore, the least she could do is educate herself before speaking out of turn and degrading the image of all women alike. The underlying theme her is that she shouldn't be speaking out of turn in the first place, but if she is going to go against the word of God, the least she could do is attempt to speak on the same intellectual level of a man, or as close to it since we all know that women could never reach that level of intelligence. It really sickens me when I have to witness such blasphemous actions by an inferior sentient.

[Didymus Much]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

...Next time you decide to talk, I'd suggest you: A. Educate yourself...

You're in favour of women getting education?

I thought you were claiming to be a Christian or something.

[Dustin Ashley]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Redeemed Papist, your original post was too complicated and required too much rudimentary knowledge for me to comprehend, but I trust you and I know what the Bible says. I'm glad you have found a way to prove the atheist delusion wrong. I pray someone takes this to heart and another soul is won for Christ.

Rudimentary..? That complete misuse of the word not only makes you look silly and unintelligent (as does just about everything else you say throughout this forum), but completely contradicts the point you're trying to get across. Next time you decide to talk, I'd suggest you: A. Educate yourself B. Understand your place in the world as a woman C. Don't speak unless spoken to.

[Pim Pendergast]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

Scientists actually review their theories when new facts are discovered. They're willing to change and listen to other people.

Creation scientists have discovered mountains of evidence against evolution and in favor of a young earth and a worldwide Flood, but mainstream science just ignores it. They're not willing to listen or change. They only look for evidence that fits their worldview, that is, that God doesn't exist and that man evolved.

The type of Christians here are exactly like the flow chart's description. Some guy decided to write a bible, thousands of years later a bunch of idiots are still following it to the letter.

Men inspired by the Holy Spirit wrote the Bible. It isn't made up.

2 Pet 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Science is a wishy-washy belief system. It keeps changing. The theory of evolution has changed many times over the last 150 years. Science is a man-made religion. Men in white coats in a lab somewhere make it all up as they go along. Wouldn't you rather believe in God's infallible, unchanging Word?

Use the brain that God supposedly gave you and think about things before making stuff up. Actually, you didn't even make anything up, some other guy did it for you. You're a horde of followers who can't think for yourselves because you probably got brainwashed by your parents or some preacher somewhere.

God doesn't want us to think for ourselves.

Prov 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

You might also find this thread useful.

The Bible encourages parents to raise their children in the fear of the Lord.

Prov 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.

Nothing against Christians here but the hostility against everyone else's beliefs shows some hardcore close-mindedness. I just don't think any of you get the point of religion.

And what is the point of religion, exactly? To be open-minded?

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

The flow chart's right but there's one thing missing.

Scientists actually review their theories when new facts are discovered. They're willing to change and listen to other people.

That's an urban myth. Scientists are payed to find whatever results in their research that the pharmacy company wants them to find.

[Didymus Much]

Re: The fatal flaw in atheistic thinking exposed in one simple diagram!

...And now, let the illogical senseless argument commence.

What commence? It's been going on for thousands of years already, but I suppose it's somehow our fault that you've missed most of it.

If you'd like to catch up, start with some Greek philosophers (the first recorded atheists), then move on through the early Christian theologians (with Eastern and Chinese schools of thought for counterpoints). Then you can pretty much skip the next 1000 years or so until the Enlightenment makes things interesting again.

I have a reading list that covers most of the basics you'll need to partake in the discussions. With diligence, it should only take you 12-15 years to work through.