Nice...I appreciate you responding to the points of my argument and not just making a dumb joke.

Well you are right that some parts of the Bible are more than 2,000 years old, but the new testament is actually younger than that by about 100 years. When I said bible, I meant the current compilation of the old and new testament. Anyways, you are just arguing semantics with most of your argument, and the whole the Bible thought the earth is round thing is missing the point of my argument, but if you want other scientific matters where it was wrong, look no further than geocentrism.

My point was that we have advanced as a species a lot in the past 2,000 years, and at least some of that advancement has to do with morals. Slavery would be one good example, since it is condoned in the Bible and not in our current society.

EVERYONE thought the earth was flat 2000 years ago!

I know, so that's a pretty good reason not to listen to them. I promise I'm not picking on the Bible, I also don't base medical advice on people from that time, nor do I sacrifice goats to ensure a good harvest (well to be fair, this one is because I don't farm).

Also most of the new testament was written over 100 years after the events were supposed to have taken place. It's likely that they are just a writing down of some stories that were verbally passed down. I'm not going to argue here whether Christianity is "true" or not here, however, because I think it's safe to say that it would get us nowhere. Honestly, I can't say whether a guy named Jesus existed or not, and I don't really care because I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter. What does matter is that we shouldn't base our morality on what is in an archaic book without at least thinking about whether it makes sense. So instead I'm going to argue about the morality presented in the Bible.

I'm not saying that everything is the bible is terrible, because that's not true. One could do a lot worse than: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. [Matthew 7:12], and much of what is said about loving thy neighbor and "'turning the other cheek" is really admirable. However, there are also parts that make no sense whatsoever, and are clearly no moral. For example, I don't think it's okay to beat your slave to death so long as it takes longer than a day: "When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property" (Exodus 21:20-21) and I also disagree with many of the other things the Bible says about slavery. In the context of "this is a book from God" these passages don't make sense, however, if we see that these are just codes that these desert people made in order to keep their people in line, then it makes a lot more sense since slavery was common back then.

Now you're not going to hear these passages at church for obvious reasons, and what this means is that the priests/ministers are making judgement calls based on their own sense of morality about what is and isn't "good" in the Bible. This is a good thing, because it means people are using their own judgement and not taking every word of the Bible as an unquestionable command.

Also, you still failed to answer my question about why atheism is foolish.

What makes atheism foolish? Couldn't basing your entire life off of a 2,000 year old book written by desert people who didn't even know the earth was round be considered foolish?

At the same time, however, wouldn't it be confusing to children who are not christian to have something on the wall that says "I am the lord your god, you shall have no other gods before me"?

And if your going to stick to your statement of 60% is close enough, you should realize that in school, that's a D.

Then why are you still disputing me...this makes no sense.

Haha...some atheist get scared in scary movies therefore they aren't really atheists. Wow, that's a stretch. If someone made a scary movie about aliens, and you were afraid does that mean you believe in aliens? The answer of course is no, but while watching the movie you have willingly suspended your disbelief.

1st: Evolution does not require dramatic mutation. Most evolution occurs through small incremental mutations over many many generations. (If it helps, imagine how people age. From day to day there are no obvious differences, but over long periods of time, people can look completely different then they did when they were younger.)

2nd: We have seen significant mutations occur that do not affect the viability of the organisms offspring.

3rd: We have actually seen evolution occur, even to the point of speciation.

4th: You're dumb to think that you know more than every biologist on earth.

In short, you're wrong because you are distinguishing between micro and macro evolution. Macro evolution is the same thing as micro evolution, just on a larger time scale.

I think you misunderstood the list. It is a list of animals in which portions of the population exhibit homosexual behavior. The percentages vary widely, and usually there are sections of the population that are also bisexual, in addition to those sections who appear to be exclusively homosexual.

In all of these populations, there are obviously significant sections (usually the majority) of the population which are heterosexual, because, as you said, they couldn't survive as a species otherwise.

1. You shouldn't presume that what your family does it typical.

2. And yet you still downvote me. Did you ever consider that it might be because you're wrong? It's a shocking thought, I know.

3. W/e, I believe you.