It has been a while since I read "Surprised by Joy" by C.S. Lewis, but as I recall, he argues that one may rationalize which religion to choose by looking at what each religion offers in philosophical value. And he concludes that Christianity is superior in this regard, Hinduism being a close second. That is likely the answer a Christian apologist would give you. Speaking personally, I think it is irrelevant which god a person believes in – or even that he/she even believe in a god at all – so long as the beliefs entailed by said god – or lack thereof – are not blatantly antisocial.

If I may play devil's advocate:
According to God, Lucifer is a liar.
According to Lucifer, God is a liar.
Assuming that one does not take into account the myriads of other religions and philosophies, how does one determine which to trust?

But why would God even put the Tree of Knowledge in the garden in the first place? It's like a parent leaving a child in a room full of toys, yet failing to put plastic covers over the electrical plug-ins.

Satanism is a legitimate religion full of its own constructive philosophies and morals. And to go a step further, it is my opinion that a proponent of this religion is no more inherently destructive (or constructive, for that matter) to the human race than any other religion – or lack of religion for that matter. And I don't think anyone has the right to say any other philosophical thought process is wrong and should not be followed merely because he/she adheres to a set of rules that says so.
P.S. I love how pertinent the poster's name is to this post.

First . . . to be dropped into a giant toaster . . . ?

That is the exact opposite of what I want. Imagine GTA V set to "One jump ahead of the slowpokes. One skip ahead of my doom. Next time gonna use a nom de plume. One jump ahead of the hitmen. One hit ahead of the flock. I think I'll take a stroll around the block."
(If we could get a series of these comments going, I would be ecstatic.)

But then we have no guarantee that this seahorse is the father. What if the female seahorse was impregnated by a smooth-talking stud at that party a while back? But rather than notifying anyone, she simply laid her eggs – fertilized by the extra-marital affair – in her spouse and told him they were his offspring.

3) This is what I feel is the gist of your argument, guest: "The universe is too complex to not have a creator." Well the creator must be itself a complex thing, therefore, by this logic, it must also have a creator. (Following this trend, an infinite number of creators must exist.) Now the standard counter to this point is to state that the creator always existed. But if that is plausible, then why can we not save a step and conclude that the universe also always existed? (Yeah, I'm borrowing words from Carl Sagan.)

1) Science does not have all the answers of the universe, nor does it claims to, hence why we are constantly making and discarding theories. (Personally, I can think of a certain institution which does claim to have all the answers, or at least all the answers one may grasp with his/her limited, corporeal brain.)
2) The process of evolution which led to the human civilization is not comparable to an explosion creating a car; the former is a process of millions of years of natural selection and genetic diversity, whereas the later is rapid and chaotic. (This point also has nothing to do with the big bang.)

Much philosophy cognition. Very existential ponderings. Wow.

@sorrynotsorry, you just did.

34 I believe.

If you want to get technical, the bible does not explicitly forbid masturbation. But many argue that to perform such an act is to commit lust, which is sinful.
Therefore, men (and women, for that matter) are not "socially allowed" to fuck themselves. And yeah, I knew this beforehand, so I was being sarcastic.

*Insert piece 7-A here and piece 12-B here*
Stupid Ikea instructions.

*Insert ostensibly vague allusion to that horrible thing that you did, but desperately want to keep a secret.*

"Mr. Owl ate my metal worm" backwards is still "Mr. Owl ate my metal worm."

And HIV.

@kissmysass, you make a good point, and I think that is one of the factors. But there are additional causes; and I argue that if there were not, women would masturbate just as much as men. (According to a 2007 British study cited in Wikipedia, "it was found that, in individuals aged sixteen to forty-four, 95% of men and 71% of women masturbated at some point in their lives.")