• 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
EpicDude86 said:
For starters there were cities named Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nineveh, Damascus, and many others (of which have been archeologically proven to have existed or still exist), there was Egypt (which did have enslaved Jews in exile from Israel), the Babylonian, Egyptian, and Roman Empires (I know, I couldn't believe it either!), there was a Governor named Pontious Pilate, The Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 A.D...the list goes on...My point is, your argument at best should be that it's a historical fiction, not "false from the get-go". It's ignorant statements like that which will chip away at your credibility. I'm doing this for you <3
Click to expand...

:lol:You're doing it for me, you could be a good Christian ya know?^^

My first post means that there is no need for life on other planets to disprove the bible since the bible has never been proven true at first.

Im not sure, but it seems your argument here is akin to saying well look, old men grow white hairs, that's a fact, Santa Claus is old and has white hairs, those are facts, so Santa Claus is real, or partly real as you like to put it now.

Oh and please don't worry about my credibility, worry about yourself and we'll be fine:)
 
paris said:
My first post means that there is no need for life on other planets to disprove the bible since the bible has never been proven true at first.
Click to expand...
Which is a logical fallacy in that not being proven does not equate to being disproven.

Further, The Bible need not be proven to be disproven; if the Bible were proven, then it could -not- be disproven.

Im not sure, but it seems your argument here is akin to saying well look, old men grow white hairs, that's a fact, Santa Claus is old and has white hairs, those are facts, so Santa Claus is real, or partly real as you like to put it now.
Click to expand...
Nothing he has said is remotely close to this.
 
Last edited:
paris said:
So which parts have been proven true?

:nails
Click to expand...

Most of the parts of the Bible have been proven true. The thing that most folks, believers and non-believers alike, miss is that the Bible is nothing more than an historical record. I've noticed that both sides of the argument interpret the Bible way too literally.
 
paris said:
:lol:You're doing it for me, you could be a good Christian ya know?^^
Click to expand...

Well, sometimes I am.

paris said:
My first post means that there is no need for life on other planets to disprove the bible since the bible has never been proven true at first.
Click to expand...

Well you should elaborate then. You said "false from the get-go". All that does is show that you like blanketing things and speaking before you think about what you're typing. :D

paris said:
Im not sure, but it seems your argument here is akin to saying well look, old men grow white hairs, that's a fact, Santa Claus is old and has white hairs, those are facts, so Santa Claus is real, or partly real as you like to put it now.
Click to expand...

My argument here is that you used a blanket term, I'm just proving that your blanket statement was incorrect. Had you said "A portion of the Bible is false from the get-go" I wouldn't have been able to make this claim. :D

paris said:
Oh and please don't worry about my credibility, worry about yourself and we'll be fine:)
Click to expand...

Just looking out for a fellow forum member. :D
 
Goobieman said:
Which is a logical fallacy in that not being proven does not equate to being disproven.

Further, The Bible need not be proven to be disproven; if the Bible were proven, then it could -not- be disproven.


Nothing he has said is remotely close to this.
Click to expand...

"In that not being proven does not equate to be disproven".

Doesn't some scientific "theories" work on the same princibal?
 
presluc said:
"In that not being proven does not equate to be disproven".
Doesn't some scientific "theories" work on the same princibal?
Click to expand...
Its pretty clear that this conversation strains your abilities.
 
Goobieman said:
Its pretty clear that this conversation strains your abilities.
Click to expand...

So that's the answer to my yes they do or no they don't question?

Umm , I don't follow.
 
Last edited:
presluc said:
So that's the answer to my yes they do or no they don't question?
Umm , I don't follow.
Click to expand...
:roll:
No. They do not, at least not any that have any credibility.

That you have not proven something in no way means it has been disproven -- absence of proof is not proof of absence.
 
Goobieman said:
Which is a logical fallacy in that not being proven does not equate to being disproven.

Further, The Bible need not be proven to be disproven; if the Bible were proven, then it could -not- be disproven.

Nothing he has said is remotely close to this.
Click to expand...

Epic has said, since the bible mentions real cities, etc. it must be at least partly true. So following such logic, if I write a completely bogus story taking place in NYC, LA, etc. then it will be partly true:spin:

As to your own logical system, I noticed it does not allow any human artifact... Absolute proofs only exist in the minds of absolute morons:rofl
 
Goobieman said:
:roll:
No. They do not, at least not any that have any credibility.

That you have not proven something in no way means it has been disproven -- absence of proof is not proof of absence.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the other side of that coin. The one that theists are so quick to gloss over.

Absence of proof is not evidence of truth.

Considering that the default position is disbelief or non-belief then absence of proof is reason for disbelief/non-belief. Its not proof of truth or falsehood. But it is reason for not believing.
 
paris said:
Epic has said, since the bible mentions real cities, etc. it must be at least partly true. So following such logic, if I write a completely bogus story taking place in NYC, LA, etc. then it will be partly true:spin:

As to your own logical system, I noticed it does not allow any human artifact... Absolute proofs only exist in the minds of absolute morons:rofl
Click to expand...

Yes. The part of your story about the two cities is true.
 
paris said:
:lol:You're doing it for me, you could be a good Christian ya know?^^

My first post means that there is no need for life on other planets to disprove the bible since the bible has never been proven true at first.

Im not sure, but it seems your argument here is akin to saying well look, old men grow white hairs, that's a fact, Santa Claus is old and has white hairs, those are facts, so Santa Claus is real, or partly real as you like to put it now.

Oh and please don't worry about my credibility, worry about yourself and we'll be fine:)
Click to expand...

:prof Santa Claus was a real person.

Would you like me to link to the Wiki of the very real historical person we celebrate with the Santa tradition or do you want to Google it now, pretend you knew all along and back-peddle your argument?
 
paris said:
Epic has said, since the bible mentions real cities, etc. it must be at least partly true. So following such logic, if I write a completely bogus story taking place in NYC, LA, etc. then it will be partly true:spin:

As to your own logical system, I noticed it does not allow any human artifact... Absolute proofs only exist in the minds of absolute morons:rofl
Click to expand...

Take Law and Order: real places, realistic cases, the institutions portrayed such as police precincts and DAs do actually exist, etc.

Sure, writers take liberties with the script, but that in now way renders Criminal Intent or Special Victims Unit completely fiction "from the get-go".
 
Jerry said:
Paris said:
Im not sure, but it seems your argument here is akin to saying well look, old men grow white hairs, that's a fact, Santa Claus is old and has white hairs, those are facts, so Santa Claus is real, or partly real as you like to put it now.
Click to expand...
:prof Santa Claus was a real person.

Would you like me to link to the Wiki of the very real historical person we celebrate with the Santa tradition or do you want to Google it now, pretend you knew all along and back-peddle your argument?
Click to expand...

:2razz: You admit Jesus and Santa probably involve mythical elements!!!!

:2party:

There is hope for you yet! :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
:2razz: You admit Jesus and Santa probably involve mythical elements!!!!

:2party:

There is hope for you yet! :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

I don't know I ever denied such, but I certainly didn't admit to anything in the post you quoted :confused:

Must be a troll tactic I guess, idk.

I guess if you wanted to argue that Jesus and Christmas are heavily commercialized I the modern day, I would agree, but I don't see what such an argument would have to do with discovering life on other planets.
 
Last edited:
Who ****ing cares.... GOD....
 
Jerry said:
:prof Santa Claus was a real person.

Would you like me to link to the Wiki of the very real historical person we celebrate with the Santa tradition or do you want to Google it now, pretend you knew all along and back-peddle your argument?
Click to expand...

No, I would rather you direct me to the real tooth-fairy! She owes me a few.
 
paris said:
No, I would rather you direct me to the real tooth-fairy! She owes me a few.
Click to expand...

Since you weren't using the tooth fairy as your example in your post 326, which is what I was responding to in the post you just quoted, attempting to now redirect and change your argument is equivocation.

Please adjust your argument to account for the real history of Santa and re-dress post 325 accordingly.
 
paris said:
Epic has said, since the bible mentions real cities, etc. it must be at least partly true. So following such logic, if I write completely bogus story taking place in NYC, LA, etc. then it will be partly true
Click to expand...
the claim was that the Bible is -completely false-.
That portions of it are factual, that statement is false.
Its really that simple.

Absolute proofs only exist in the minds of absolute morons
Click to expand...
This is, of course, not true -- but if you feel the need to inslute poeple that you do not agree with, be my guest. Speaks volumes.
 
scourge99 said:
Don't forget the other side of that coin. The one that theists are so quick to gloss over.Absence of proof is not evidence of truth.
Click to expand...
Who espouses this position? How does it invalidate mine?

Considering that the default position is disbelief or non-belief then absence of proof is reason for disbelief/non-belief. Its not proof of truth or falsehood. But it is reason for not believing.
Click to expand...
The issue here is proof, not belief.
 
scourge99 said:
Considering that the default position is disbelief or non-belief then absence of proof is reason for disbelief/non-belief. Its not proof of truth or falsehood. But it is reason for not believing.
Click to expand...

While I respect your choice to make that your own personal default position, please do not attempt to force that philosophical belief onto others.

IMO, assuming an unproven belief is perfectly reasonable when doing so enables positive results. Even when those results do not even attempt let alone succeed in proving the assumed belief, assuming the belief in total absence of evidence is still perfectly rational.
 
scourge99 said:
Establishing beliefs or truth is the only purpose of proof.
Click to expand...
Not at all. Belief can exist without proof, and faith depends on lack of same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom