View Poll Results: See OP

Voters
100. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, because...

    22 22.00%
  • No, because...

    64 64.00%
  • Other

    14 14.00%
Page 7 of 87 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 870

Thread: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

  1. #61
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Please, deomstrate.
    Already did.

    The Flood is bogus.

  2. #62
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Originally Posted by Goobieman
    What necessitates that something had to?
    Nothing.
    Then your question to that effect is meaingles.

    Yes
    "Because" is not an answer.
    I'm sorry -- I realized I had a typo.
    I meant to ask:
    For that matter, if there is an answer, what necessitates that it is an answer you can understand?

  3. #63
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Already did.
    The Flood is bogus.
    This is a claim, not a demonstration.

  4. #64
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Then your question to that effect is meaingles.
    Wrong.

    It means that there's no need to question "who" created the universe, since that presupposes that the origins of the universe are found in a deliberate act, which raises the question of the origions of the deliberative entity that did it.

    There's absolutely no need to go that route, since that route is infinitely regressive and only religious nuts think there's an answer or hidden meaning to be found in imaginary creators.

    The universe exhibits not one shred of evidence for any inteligently directed processes outside of what man himself has created. Inventing a god to explain what occurs is counter productive and inhibits learning.

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    For that matter, if there is an answer, what necessitates that it is an answer you can understand?
    Because "because" isn't an answer.

  5. #65
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Really? How so?
    Genesis 1 and Genesis 2. Animals came before man and man came before animals respectively. A literal interpretation is impossible.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  6. #66
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    This is a claim, not a demonstration.
    I ain't gonna bother explaining that the presence of brook trout in mountain streams is refutation of Noah's Myth.

    I expect you people to use those wrinkled things inside your skulls. If you're not willing to use them, just take it on faith that you can't take the bible on faith.

  7. #67
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    It means that there's no need to question "who" created the universe, since that presupposes that the origins of the universe are found in a deliberate act, which raises the question of the origions of the deliberative entity that did it.
    Non sequitur. Theres no necessary relationship between those two concepts.

    Because "because" isn't an answer.
    Ok... but an answer that you do not understand IS an answer, even though you do not understand it.

    For instance:
    You ask: What created God?
    Answer: Nothing. He has always been.

    You may not understand how that can be, but that you do not understand how that can be in no way precludes it being that.

  8. #68
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    I ain't gonna bother explaining that the presence of brook trout in mountain streams is refutation of Noah's Myth.
    So you're going to leave your claim unsupported, and therefore, meaningless.
    Good by me.

  9. #69
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Non sequitur. Theres no necessary relationship between those two concepts.


    Ok... but an answer that you do not understand IS an answer, even though you do not understand it.
    No.

    An answer not understood is the equivalent of "because", and not an answer to anyone mentally older than four.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    For instance:
    You ask: What created God?
    Answer: Nothing. He has always been.
    See?

    That's a "because" statement and means nothing. Not only that, it can't be proven, so again, it's merely some dickweed theologian thinking he's smart.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    You may not understand how that can be, but that you do not understand how that can be in no way precludes it being that.
    Got any substantiating evidence of this, or is it just meaningless words, and hence, not an answer?

  10. #70
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Does life on other planets disprove the BIble

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    An answer not understood is the equivalent of "because", and not an answer to anyone mentally older than four.
    This is, of course, completely ridiculous.
    The soundness of an answer is in no way dependent on the questioner's ability to understand that answer.

Page 7 of 87 FirstFirst ... 567891757 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •