Oh, ok.

Idk why we're arguing about this.

poor zelaron.

You know, alcohol is mentioned plenty in the bible. Getting drunk is a sin, drinking is not. As far as marijuana goes, both sides of the debate spout a lot of BS, but at the end of the day the legalization side is more right; marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol and should be treated the same way.

Statistics show that if a woman is going to get an abortion, she's going to do so regardless of the legality. Statistics also show that the chances of dying from an illegal abortion are significantly higher. Especially self-inflicted abortion has staggering risk of hemorage or sepsis. You might say that the murderer is worthy of death, but so is everyone else for various other sins. Where's the compassion? Abortion is gruesome and morally wrong, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

Too many blind followers following blind guides in today's "Christianity". Blindly following anyone is foolish. Study the bible yourself, do your own research, pray, and make your own decisions as the Spirit leads.

...Did that just happen?

WetWired does exist.

I actually feel like I've legit'ly been "School'd, sucka". I like WetWired.

WetWired is an anomaly.

He is the only person on this forum that I don't mind being religious. Simply because He is intelligent enough to make His own decisions.

The bible says a lot of crazy shit like how women were made out of a rib, stories of a single man having 400 children, and the ark nonsense. The bible is meant to guide people's lives in the right direction, and those who make it into a literal interpretation need to holy-roll bitch smack themselves.

No, that's a Dr. Phil book. The Torah, Bible, Koran are all ment to be literal. Genesis kind of makes this... one could say, "obvious"?

Skurai, are you saying you take everything in the bible to be fact as written, literally? I'm really curious about this.

Not sure. Depends what comes to mind, when I read the story at the time. I guess not word-for-word-literal, but it should all be taken as seriousness, not just "some story, to make people act nice". Honestly, idk. You've got me.

So you believe that humans at one time lived for hundreds of years? You believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old, and humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, even though science tells us that is completely incorrect? You believe a human was swallowed by a large fish and survived for days inside of the fish?

I can see arguments for reading between the lines and taking things from the bible, but unless you completely throw logic and facts out of the window I don't see how you can think the bible is a true story.

Aging is related to telomeres. It's entirely possible that in the distant past they were longer or better preserved. As for the age of the Earth, if God created Adam as a man (rather than an infant), why is it a stretch to assume that God also created the Earth with age? Alternately, the creation story is a poem shown to be full of alternate meaning; perhaps it is better to take it not-so-literally. Even so, I believe that Adam was the first man and the geneology is accurate. You find it hard to believe that a God capable of creating both time and space is capable of sustaining a single man's life for 3 days in a fish?

I find it hard to believe that such a God exists in the first place, the extension of that fact is not the issue.

Sounds like a check mate. K_A's only reaction being "But it's not, so ha!", more-or-less.

Yes, I do believe that. I also believe the story of "giant beasts" being "slain by angels". Also known as Dinosaurs going extinct.

Call it what you want, kid.

I've never actually heard of, or thought about this analogy before and it's quite interesting. It's kind of like the holy trinity being referred to as water given that is has three states: gas, liquid and a solid. Clever, but accurate? Who knows.

What genealogy could you find to trace Adam throughout time to I suppose, Jesus that isn't credited to some geocities type-website from a religious fundamentalist author? I mean, if you want to read the bible it gives no actual chronological times to specifically pinpoint what has taken place. You honestly can't say the genealogy is correct, when stating your source is as credible as Wikipedia.

Unless you claim that God created all of the different races 6000 years ago, the ideas that Adam and Eve are the "first generation" and that the Earth is only 6000 years old are mutually exclusive. It is not possible for all of the different races to have developed over the course of 6000 years, and we've got fossil proof of humans having existed more than 6000 years ago, before Adam and Eve were supposedly manifested. It isn't as if the only human fossils we find are 6000 or less years old. Hell, the word "fossil" generally refers to things older than 10,000 years, which according to the Bible is before God created mankind.

It's a ridiculous argument, which is why I'm not really bothering to argue against it. There's no "check mate" here, it's more like "if you accept these absurd things to be true then no rational argument will persuade you anyway so whatever." Science and the Bible conflict severely when it comes to the age of the Earth. The only way you can claim that the Bible is correct (by literal interpretation) is if you claim that Science is wrong, and vice versa. The only way people have been able to reconcile the two in any rational way is by not taking the Bible literally as fact.

Well, a few thousand years of incest will likely make people look different (different "races" per-say), and the Tower of Babel could have easily separated people by looks. Thus, races were created.

Also, I believe there was a man in the bible who had four children, all a different color, all from the same mother.

Words

Do you read Harry Potter and litearlly intrepret it as fact Skurai?

No, it takes place in a modern day. Why?

Oh, also, if you believe the Bible to be literal fact, you believe the constant Pi=3 rather than 3.14159...

http://www.abarim-publications.com/B...The_Bible.html

gg

Hell, while we are at it, http://biblebabble.curbjaw.com/errors.htm

Y u mad, sceptic?

It's spelled "skeptic"

illogical!

Buses, trains, postal service, museums, foster care.
U mad?

I wish all of my arguments with creationists ended in them giving up the argument and repeating "u mad" over and over again. It would be a lot less frustrating to walk away from the debate.

I wish all my arguements ended in the other guy being a faggot about it.

You really suck at trolling.

Oh and:

What being a faggot might look like

1. God
2. Adam
3. Seth
4. Enosh
5. Cainain
6. Mahalalel
7. Jared
8. Enoch
9. Methuselah
10. Lamech
11. Noah
12. Shem
13. Arphaxad
14. Cainan
15. Shelah
16. Eber
17. Peleg
18. Reu
19. Serug
20. Nahor
21. Terah
22. Abraham
23. Isaac
24. Jacob
25. Judah
26. Pharez
27. Hezron
28. Ram
29. Amminadab
30. Nahshon
31. Salmon
32. Boaz
33. Obed
34. Jesse
35. David
36. Nathan
37. Mattatha
38. Menna
39. Melea
40. Eliakim
41. Jonam
42. Joseph
43. Judah
44. Simeon
45. Levi
46. Matthat
47. Jorim
48. Eliezer
49. Joshua
50. Er
51. Elmadam
52. Cosam
53. Addi
54. Melchi
55. Neri
56. Shealtiel
57. Zerubbabel
58. Rhesa
59. Joanan
60. Joda
61. Josech
62. Semein
63. Mattathias
64. Mahath
65. Naggai
66. Hesli
67. Nahum
68. Amos
69. Mattathias
70. Joseph
71. Jannai
72. Melchi
73. Levi
74. Matthat
75. Heli
76. Mary & Joseph
77. Jesus

EDIT: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...38&version=NIV

http://theframeproblem.files.wordpre...-the-cycle.jpg

And even if we assume that the Bible is correct, it is highly contradictory. In fact, here is a list of 456 specific things that the Bible contradicts itself on. The only "facts" used are passages straight from the Bible which you can check for yourself.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

.....

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...38&version=NIV

That website is using the Bible as its source. The Bible was written by religious fundamentalists. So was that website. My hair is a bird, your argument is invalid.

However, I found a source, thatisn't credited to some geocities type-website from a religious fundamentalist author. Point in case, it's from the Bible. Regardless of whether or not it's true, the Bible does give that genealogy.

And your "hair is a bird" argument is equivalent to South Parks "screw you guys, I'm going home." It's real mature, in a serious debate.

I honestly don't care whether I'm right or wrong. You can spend all the time in the world arguing against or for any sort of deity, it doesn't matter. But regardless, it seems that you're impassioned, or "wholly" devout, almost fanatically to the subject of a supreme being that you don't even believe exists. My neighbor could be a serial killer. But I've seen no evidence to support that claim, so I don't go to every single person I meet and fervently preach that he isn't. You could say the same to me, except opposite. But the only reason I even responded to this waste of human thought and reasoning is because you all jumped on Skurai, claiming his conservative opinions weren't his own and then trying to sway his opinions with your own. I'm sick of the pointless debate over God. God's neither provable or disputable. So why can't we just say, I believe, you do not and let it be the last we ever talk about God? Or religion. Or faith in any form. Not even a passing mention of anything remotely related to faith. Oh wait. Because we all have certain freedoms. Like freedom of speech, religion, right to assemble and petition the government.

So, I'm gonna exercise my right to believe what I want. If you don't believe, that's up to you. I'll let your choices and actions define my opinion of you, not whether or not you believe the same as me.

If you're right, great. Congratulations. We die and rot. There is no afterlife, no god. No reward or punishment.

I cannot be right. I am not taking a side, so by definition I am not correct. I am of the opinion that nobody can know the truth, and I respect your right to believe what you want. My problem is when people cannot simply say "I don't believe it because it is scientific/factual evidence, I believe it because I believe it and its as simple as that." I particularly have a problem with people who attempt to rationalize how what they believe might be true rather than simply admitting that what they believe has no proof but they believe it anyway. This doesn't necessarily apply to you, but you did kinda take a retard approach to the debate and didn't give much else other than your "facts" in your argument, so I could only judge based on those. Here's a better example of what I'm referring to:

See, instead of simply saying "I believe it because the Bible says so" he attempted to find "scientific" rationalizations for the belief. I can respect someone who is willing to say "I realize that science and the Bible conflict, and I choose to believe the Bible." I cannot respect someone who is going to try to say that there's no disparity between science and the Bible , when there clearly is.

As I've already stated in this thread, science and the Bible conflict severely. The Bible even conflicts with itself. I can still respect someone if they believe the Bible as long as they are willing to admit the two previous sentences in this paragraph are correct, because they are inarguably correct. Simple as that. I'm not saying "the Bible is wrong," I'm saying "there's no proof that the Bible is right." For all I know the Bible is entirely true (minus the conflicts it has with itself, as those breakdowns cannot be resolved within the boundaries of logic.)

And really, it's nothing personal.

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html

This is a great website; Hebrews 7:3
"Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God," was Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

Why do the religious types use such a harsh guilt system. They make it seem that if you don't go to church and preach their beliefs, then you're a bad person. That's what most non-knowing believe, we feel that people shouldn't be made to feel guilty over having a different opinion. That's at least why I fight so vehemently

You fail to see that contradictions in a story are a problem. Contradictions in real life are constant. If I asked, "Who was the president of the United States", there would be 43 contradicting answers - all of them correct.