• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

See OP


  • Total voters
    67
No, life on other planets does not disprove the bible, it might disprove certain sects of christianity, but I'm not certain of that.

Now, what would be interesting would be finding extra-terrestrial life that also held similar religious tenets.

There are also people that interpret the bible as evidence of extra-terrestrial life.
 
No, because ...

The Bible has been disproven several times, no need to attempt another.
 
No, because ...

The Bible has been disproven several times, no need to attempt another.

Curious, in what way has the bible been disproven?
 
Curious, in what way has the bible been disproven?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkZx8vW5_6s"]YouTube- A Lesson for All Christians 13 Hitchens Breaks the Bible Down[/ame]
 

Maybe I heard that wrong, but it sounded to me like he was saying that : There was a level of fabrication in the story, but not that the individual was not real.

To that I would just say that it's somewhat excessive to believe the bible stories litterally, but more to take in the messages contained within those stories.

Kinda like the story of 'the boy who cried wolf'... it's probably never really happened, but that doesn't take away the importance of the message.

Don't take me wrong, that vid seems to show someone that's studied the issue deeply, and I'm not disputing his research... but rather just pointing out that he's not fully disputing the bible.
 
Maybe I heard that wrong, but it sounded to me like he was saying that : There was a level of fabrication in the story, but not that the individual was not real.

To that I would just say that it's somewhat excessive to believe the bible stories litterally, but more to take in the messages contained within those stories.

Kinda like the story of 'the boy who cried wolf'... it's probably never really happened, but that doesn't take away the importance of the message.

Don't take me wrong, that vid seems to show someone that's studied the issue deeply, and I'm not disputing his research... but rather just pointing out that he's not fully disputing the bible.
Indeed he doesn't, he's disputing faith.
I don't believe Hitchens would contest the value of some of the stories in the bible. Like the confuscian message of not doing unto others , who would want to do without. Not me, these stories have value.
 
There's no evidence of the Exodus, The city of Jericho didn't exist at the time it supposedly crumbled, etc.

I thought they had found that 'Jericho' did exist just by another name, and they just named Pre-Jericho as Jericho. Seems to me that if that's true it'd be an honest mistake or foul-up of ancient authors.

Now I'm going to have to go google this....
 
I thought they had found that 'Jericho' did exist just by another name, and they just named Pre-Jericho as Jericho. Seems to me that if that's true it'd be an honest mistake or foul-up of ancient authors.

Now I'm going to have to go google this....
It existed, just not at the time the trumpets were supposedly blown to knock down the walls.
 
It existed, just not at the time the trumpets were supposedly blown to knock down the walls.

This does assume that the timeline of the bible is the sequence of the bible. In my reading, it seems quite difficult to determine dates...

It's possible that the biblical stories are not in any real sequence chronologically, except where chronologies depend on the sequence.
 
This does assume that the timeline of the bible is the sequence of the bible. In my reading, it seems quite difficult to determine dates...

It's possible that the biblical stories are not in any real sequence chronologically, except where chronologies depend on the sequence.

So in Genesis when it says "day one" through "day seven" then that isn't chronological, its arbitrary?

When the lineage of people starting from noah is given that isn't chronological?

There are more clues beyond lineages and explicit chronology. You seem to wish to dismiss any attempt out of hand.
 
So in Genesis when it says "day one" through "day seven" then that isn't chronological, its arbitrary?

When the lineage of people starting from noah is given that isn't chronological?

There are more clues beyond lineages and explicit chronology. You seem to wish to dismiss any attempt out of hand.

It's always convenient to take the Bible in or out of context, especially ignoring differences in terminology and things that may have been lost in translation when trying to disprove parts of it. Not that I'm defending the 7-day theory or the chronology or family trees in the Bible, but you really ought to find something more concrete to swing at before you go charging around in your mystery machine looking to unmask a phantom.
 
So in Genesis when it says "day one" through "day seven" then that isn't chronological, its arbitrary?

No, I don't mean in a retarded sense... I mean in the sense that the story of Lot comes after the story of Noah, but not necessarily that the flood story happened first

When the lineage of people starting from noah is given that isn't chronological?

I'm saying that the bible is a composition of several 'books', and that the 'order' of these events may be somewhat scrambled over the last several thousand years.

There are more clues beyond lineages and explicit chronology. You seem to wish to dismiss any attempt out of hand.

I'm not 'dismissing' anything... I'm simply stating that except in cases where a certain biblical event MUST have preceded a different one, that the overal 'history' may have been somewhat scrambled... it's just an 'assumed' sequence...
 
It's always convenient to take the Bible in or out of context, especially ignoring differences in terminology and things that may have been lost in translation when trying to disprove parts of it.
Then show where I did such. Merely presenting an accusation does not make it true.

Not that I'm defending the 7-day theory or the chronology or family trees in the Bible, but you really ought to find something more concrete to swing at before you go charging around in your mystery machine looking to unmask a phantom.
A claim or accusation presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I am dismissing your accusation.
 
Then show where I did such. Merely presenting an accusation does not make it true.


A claim or accusation presented without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

I am dismissing your accusation.

The manner of your questions led me to believe you were pursuing some specific answer offensively. :) My bad.
 
god never said he never maid another planet inhabited











___________
please click
 
god never said he never maid another planet inhabited

1. Capitalize 'God' if it's a proper noun, that IS His name after all.
2. punctuation please?
3. Maid? Try made
4. "another planet inhabited" perhaps "another planet that sustains life" or even similar "another inhabited planet"

:lol:
Sorry I had to be the grammar Nazi but...
 
No, I don't mean in a retarded sense... I mean in the sense that the story of Lot comes after the story of Noah, but not necessarily that the flood story happened first
I don't remember claiming anything about Lot coming before or after Noah.

Strawman?


I'm saying that the bible is a composition of several 'books', and that the 'order' of these events may be somewhat scrambled over the last several thousand years.
well luckily we have people know as scholars, archeologists, and historians who figure these things out using VERFIABLE EVIDENCE.

You should be agnostic towards the dates until presented with evidence otherwise. Instead you are rejecting claims out of hand. Being uninquisitive and dismissive. You appear to have an irrational bias, based on the reasoning you have presented thus far.

I'm not 'dismissing' anything... I'm simply stating that except in cases where a certain biblical event MUST have preceded a different one, that the overal 'history' may have been somewhat scrambled... it's just an 'assumed' sequence...

Are you sure about that? Have you looked into why people believe the sequence is as they say?
No! You are being dismissive out of hand!
 
I don't remember claiming anything about Lot coming before or after Noah.

Strawman?

I never had said anything about gensis before that... why are you so angry?


well luckily we have people know as scholars, archeologists, and historians who figure these things out using VERFIABLE EVIDENCE.

You should be agnostic towards the dates until presented with evidence otherwise. Instead you are rejecting claims out of hand. Being uninquisitive and dismissive. You appear to have an irrational bias, based on the reasoning you have presented thus far.

Listen, I'm sorry my 'random thought' threatens your thesis or whatever called for this level of attacks.

The dates are hardly specific... unless you litterally believe that Adam the individual lived to be 988 years old. It's not always clear reading the bible of whether the 'individuals' are defacto individuals, groups, clans, countries. Does that mean that I'm saying this is the case for EVERY story in the bible, no...

I mean, even the line 'though shalt not kill' could mean 'any kind of killing is wrong' or 'though shalt not murder' meaning you are allowed to defend youself... How are you going to tell me that your opinion of that is fact?? how are you going to prove a flood that might very well have been some 11-12000 years ago...

Are you sure about that? Have you looked into why people believe the sequence is as they say?
No! You are being dismissive out of hand!

No, I'm quite UNcertain of ANYTHING in the bible... however, just because I know the bible is representative of truth doesn't mean that every aspect of the books, or the progressions of the overall story/history.

Not as much as I've looked into the reasons why other books had been 'left out' of the canon of text.

I'm not being dismissive.... not anymore then you're being arrogant. I mean, the fact of the matter is there is almost more evidence AGAINST there being a 'Jesus Christ' then of him existing... that is where the 'faith' comes in, and where you must draw the true message out of it.

Also, over the centuries, how many interpretations on interpretations of the bible have their been? You don't think in that time there COULD HAVE BEEN someone wanting to make a 'self-interested' change??
That pages might seem to match up but are switched around... in that stretch of time, it's impossible to say unless you're able to read the original texts for yourself...
 
Back
Top Bottom