So I'm debating this guy in the Richard Dawkins forum...
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16697&start=180
...This guy, samurai.

I reply

If we were intelligently designed, why do we have toes?

Think about it for a bit.

Have you ever read this book?
It's a nifty little book. It's supposed to be a collection of stuff that you never learned, but you should have.
One section of the book deals with philosophy. And within that section is a little bit about the big brain busters (Zeno's Arrow paradox)

One of them is Pascal's wager, the book , IMHO, took a little dip.
But then I thought, "A lot of people who use Pascal's wager don't even know it exists, so letting them know this idea isn't original and has been refuted is a good deterrent against future abusers of the wager".

I read the whole article, not one point raised against it.

I notice there are whole some theists that lie about atheists, what it means to be an atheist, what atheists believe in, etc...

And of course they will jump through hoops to justify their lies (Bodhiharta comes to mind. Bodhiharta will lie about about anything, so it's not surprising), Or just ignore any retort (Nonbobblehead).

It always bugged me as to why would these people be so dishonest to others.
Then (The afformentioned) bodhiharta (Hence known as "bod") said:

Guilt is not good for survival.

That's it! They don't want to feel guilty.
"aww gee, it would be horrible for this guy to burn in hell forever, but he's an atheist, and atheists are god-hating-baby-raping-idiots"

Let's take a person (We'll call him A).
Now A is a good person, he's lived his life well, he's also done well with his life.

He's never heard about the bible, god, jesus etc.

Is he going to hell?

Just need to know what you guys think.

If we were to take the Old Testament literally, that is a 6000 year old earth and the like.
When would the flood have happened?
I found this (http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html) that said:
Total - from creation to flood 1656 Years
2344 BC.
I would like to hear other people on this matter though.

Of course this would mean that the human race never really learned about the cultivation of race, beer wasn't a human invention.
The early history of Egypt was probably an illusion.
The Bristlecone pine tree known as Methuselah was probably either really sturdy, or not as old as we think it was (I wish I could talk to trees now). The Văn Lang kingdom of what is now Veitnam probably had to reform itself after the flood.

I have this irk with creationism. This very specific problem.

While creationism itself is laughable.
One part always got me. It's never a creation debate, it's an anti-evolution debate.

I have never seen a debate about creationism that ignores evolution. Someone always has to drag it in.
This is where evolution gets points in my book, you can have a discussion of evolution and creationism can never be brought up.
But when you talk about creationism's flaws.

"Well, evolution can't explain..."
"Evolution doesn't make since either because..."

That's what sad about creationism. Outside of the (Other) logically flawed arguments, they only have a negative argument working for them.

Youth is wasted on the young.

Intelligence is wasted on the old.

The argument "I can't see it, so it isn't there" is a rather silly argument. and is usually met with the response "You haven't seen (Name of thing) so, is that not real too."

It's usually a theist who has the second sentence here (A logical response too), usually that sentence is met with another response.

Unless it's a creationist.
The very same argument that probably annoys some theists, tends to be (ab)used by creationists.

"You've never seen evolution, so how can you know it's true?"

Of course they never seen the creation, so how can they know it's true?

I have an idea.
When arguing a creationist, and evolution gets brought up.
There is a chance the creationist will throw in a strawmanned version of evolution. Instead of using the old "That's not evolution" or, "Evolution doesn't work that way."

Just reply "I thought we were talking about evolution, but apparently you decided to change the subject."