[Skurai] High's "Rush Limbaugh" club!

that isn't credited to some geocities type-website from a religious fundamentalist author?

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.

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:

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?

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.