Marshall Brain's Blog

This video explains how to help bring atheists to Christ:

The Way of The Master
 

This book explains why your video doesn't work on rational thinkers:
Why Won't God Heal Amputees?
 

Bruce, how could you possibly doubt the very wise Kirk Cameron? If Kirk Cameron says say teh jesus is legit, it must be "The Truth."
 

Tsk, tsk, Marshall - still can't get past the 'turning over every rock you see' phase! - blzbob
 

It is obvious to any person with intelligence that God is imaginary. See this site for details.
 

The Interview with God
 

You want to see what a real interview with God is like?
Here you go:

Interviewer: "God, I'd like to ask you some questions."
God: ""

Interviewer: "God, ummm, are you there?"
God: ""

Interviewer: "God, please respond."
God: ""

Interviewer: "God, hello? Can you hear us? It says in the Bible you are the all powerful omniscient loving creator of everything in the Universe. Seems like you could say something. Would you?"
God: ""

[Repeat the above questions as many times as you want]

Interviewer: "Well, everyone, I guess that about sums up what God has to say to us. God do you have any closing comments?"
God: ""

Think about it people:
What has God ever had to say that didn't come thru a human mouth by way of human delusion?
 

My favorite article in the whole world is Understanding Delusion.
 

Braxton:

You may find this link helpful: Understand evolution and abiogenesis
 

Here comes the sarcasm (and to break the flame chain here, hopefully):

Although the Da Vinci code was a good 'airplane' book, I am not quite sure it is inspiring enough to start the Apocolypse...

Dan Brown is an OK writer, but I think he was lucky (or incredibly smart) to write the Da Vinci code at this point in time to get the market share it has. His first few books were a bit far-fetched to the point of me rolling my eyes at them.

I couldn't tell if 'Angels and Demons' was supposed to be sci-fi, thriller, military drama or crap. It boiled down to "I don't know what to write about so I will write about everything and I know someone will buy the damned book!".
 

braxton,

You insist on saying there is a creator because anything with order has to have a designer. OK, then who create the creator? I mean, God has order right? If he exists, and he creates, then he must be made of something and have a design himself. Who created his order?

If you say he always was, then why can't I say the Universe just always was? Why can't I say the Universe itself is my creator, not a God.

There are many things which look like they have order which have no creator involved: the formation of crystals (diamonds, snowflakes, etc.), the stratification of layers of sedimentary rock, the formation of puslars and neutron stars and black holes. These things just happened. Why then can't a few simple organic molecules combine to make a simple system that just happens to be able to make copies of itself? It doesn't violate any natural laws (as opposed to say walking on water does).

There are only a few forces at work in our Universe: gravity, the strong and weak nuclear forces. Everything else (even all the elements) are by-products of these forces and the matter in the universe.

Every atom on our planet was formed in the cores of stars billions of years ago. And every atom that makes up every human being got there thru a set of processes tha are governed by simple laws of our Universe which just are.

Scientists don't profess to know all the answers. But science is a self-correcting discipline that updates itself when it has new information. Science has a very strong set of evidence which says God does not exist and belief in him is a human delusion. If God presented himself tomorrow with some evidence to the contrary, we could correct that.

Religion already claims to have the answer, though, and rarely makes any correction in light of evidence: witness all the crazy religious stuff people do (circumcisions, praying, tithing, etc.) which serves no productive purpose.

But there is hope: science tells us that in the near future, the intelligent people amoung us will create artificial intelligences that will be trillions of times more intelligent than any human being. Information will flow freely between AI enhanced humans, and hopefully religions, and those who hold on to it, will die out as a new breed of intelligence goes about exploring the Universe.

The evidence tells that no God created you, and no God is waiting for you when you die. When you're dead, you're dead.

Your only hope for eternal life is to have faith in science and hope that you live long enough to have the patterns of mind scanned for safe keeping.

But, if you're as delusional as you seem to be, you probably would rather just die and get to go to heaven, right?

It is my strong opinion that religion is a sick and delusional system that has held scientists back for far too long and had it not been for some very shallow-minded religious decisions in the past we would probably have a 2000 year jump on medicine today: a cure for cancer, aging, AIDS and we wouldn't have so much pollution.

Your belief system is largely a luxury afforded you by the advances of science. You put food in your mouth today and you probably thanked God for it. But several generations of scientists who've been working on new strands of corn and new pesticides and new fuel efficient farm equipment put that food in your grocery store which is conveniently cooled by machines made by engineers with distribution, payments, and shipping controlled by computers created by even more scientists. God had NOTHING to do with the meal you ate today, the meals you ate yesterday, or the meals you'll eat tomorrow.

Yet you'll spend all that energy you consumed trying to convince the rest of us that some mystical all-knowing creator is responsible for everything and when asked to produce one shred of tangible evidence you'll give me nothing but a bunch of words. Which, really, just underscores the points I made earlier.

There is not point in debating though. There is nothing I could say or do to convince you to at least consider the possibility that your belief in God is just a delusion. So what's the point in arguing.

I can respect that you have decided to hold fast to what you 'believe' is true if you can respect that I have decided to look for evidence and update my findings as new, concrete, information becomes available.