I really find this section of this site interesting. I really enjoy the back and forth dialogue between bibliologist and the atheist.

What I find most humorous though is when the atheist try to use scientific fact to discredit bible theory to someone who has quite obviously rejected any form of the scientific process.

Has it really not occurred to the atheist that the bibliologist investment in their beliefs is not based in any spiritual or realistic foundation what-so-ever?

The reason "Christians" choose to overlook reality as you see it, is due to the social implications that come with being accepted in a group that "accepts" them.

In summary, the majority of people on this planet, not just Christians but most faiths, are willing to fore go logic for an accepting social group designed to, as far as I can tell; give them an enormous ego boost.

Any thoughts on this?

Wow, you figured me out. Going to Mass on Sundays is all about my ego.

Of course the Bible has no basis in reality. The problem is there are folks out there who believe that it does, and they want it taught in schools as if it has some scientific merit. I don't care what people believe, but if someone comes to a debate forum to post their religious beliefs as fact, they should be ready to debate it.

actually. Atheists are the same as religious people.

Religious people believe in god and refuse to admit there is a chance he doesn't exist.

Atheists cannot proof there is no god, yet they refuse to admit there is a chance that there is a god.

Yeah, atheists are the same. Except for the whole not believing in God thing.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

Do you believe in leprechauns?

Can you prove they don't exist?

Do you believe in Santa Claus?

Can you prove he doesn't exist?

Do you even seriously entertain the idea of the existence of the above named mythical beings?

Does not being able to prove that leprechauns and Santa are non-existent mean you must believe in them?

Well, not quite. If you produce evidence of god, unicorns, or dragons, I will believe in them. I will say that it's possible that all of these exist, and the probability of them existing is equal for all three.

__________________
"The greatest epochs of our life come when we gain the courage to rechristen our evils as what is best in us." -Nietzsche

As an apatheistic, I sneer at both. I believe I don't know, you don't either, and I don't really care.

__________________
Catz Meow
Badly behaved.
Hedonistic Lemming.

************************************************** ***
JW Frogen, my new favorite noob poster:

If you are such a weak jellyfish you can be bullied on a forum where you can ignore any poster you do not want to read than I suggest you move to Tibet, convert to Buddhism, protest the Chinese occupation, be killed as you will by the Chinese and hope you come back with some form of backbone.

Maybe I should edit out "ego" out of the original post because of the negative connotation of the word. Which really isn't my point.

I only bring up the scientific process when someone tells me that God is scientifically supported, such as when Intelligent Design is brought up. I have no problem with other people believing in whatever they want but scientific evidence is scientific evidence and belief is belief. Deeming something science that clearly is not is what irks me, not the beliefs themselves.

__________________
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.
-Dr. Carl Sagan