• 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
Jerry said:
I don't know I ever denied such, but I certainly didn't admit to anything in the post you quoted :confused:
Click to expand...
you don't deny but you don't admit.. Hmmmm. I suppose being agnostic to a claim is acceptable.

Do you want reason and evidence to no longer be agnostic?

I guess if you wanted to argue that Jesus and Christmas are heavily commercialized I the modern day, I would agree,
Click to expand...
that isn't what I said at all.

I said Jesus and santa both contain mythical elements.

but I don't see what such an argument would have to do with discovering life on other planets.
Click to expand...
I was simply commenting on the tangent between you and Paris. The conversation about it is 3 posts long. You can look back at the train of thought quite easily if you must
 
Goobieman said:
Not at all. Belief can exist without proof, and faith depends on lack of same.
Click to expand...

really makes you wonder why you bothered to create this thread...

You shouldn't ask about proof, when you don't think proof matters. :shrug:
 
Lightdemon said:
really makes you wonder why you bothered to create this thread...
You shouldn't ask about proof, when you don't think proof matters. :shrug:
Click to expand...
I didnt say proof doesn't matter.
 
scourge99 said:
you don't deny but you don't admit.. Hmmmm. I suppose being agnostic to a claim is acceptable.

Do you want reason and evidence to no longer be agnostic?


that isn't what I said at all.

I said Jesus and santa both contain mythical elements.


I was simply commenting on the tangent between you and Paris. The conversation about it is 3 posts long. You can look back at the train of thought quite easily if you must
Click to expand...

I guess I'm just not in touch with people who don't accept that there are mythical elements in the epic of Jesus to understand why you think this is a big deal.

Perhaps you're only exposed to literalism? That's just a guess, I have no idea, but if you don't actually attend church activities yourself it makes sense you wouldn't know that real people attend. If all you have are headlines and the extreme examples brought to this forum, then suddenly your posting history makes sense.

Garbage in, garbage out.
 
Last edited:
Lightdemon said:
Wasn't that what Scourge was saying?
What is the difference between what you said and what he said?
Click to expand...
Establishing beliefs or truth is the only purpose of proof.

You can have beliefs w/o proof.
Proof might force others to believe something, but that belief can exist w/o that proof.
 
Jerry said:
While I respect your choice to make that your own personal default position, please do not attempt to force that philosophical belief onto others
Click to expand...
I can't force any belief onto anyone. Much like I can't force anyone to believe in gravitation.

I can only present reason and evidence as to why someone should believe these things.

Jerry said:
IMO, assuming an unproven belief is perfectly reasonable when doing so enables positive results
Click to expand...
If the unproven belief has proven results then its not unproven!

Jerry said:
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.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make sense. If you have results that you know are caused by the belief then their isn't an absence of evidence.

So which is it?
1) You believe something because you know the desired results are caused by the belief.
2) You believe something because you don't know the desired results are caused by the belief.
 
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...

That is the point I was making, sir.

Absence of the proof that God exist does not prove that God does or does not exist.

It's called faith look it up sometime.

As far as "no they don't at least not any that have credibility".

Define the word theory then define the word fact.
 
presluc said:
That is the point I was making, sir.

Absence of the proof that God exist does not prove that God does or does not exist.
Click to expand...
Then I am not sure why there is an issue here.
 
Goobieman said:
Establishing beliefs or truth is the only purpose of proof.

You can have beliefs w/o proof.
Proof might force others to believe something, but that belief can exist w/o that proof.
Click to expand...

The "purpose" of proof. I don't think he meant to say that belief needed proof. Or have I misread?
 
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.

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...

If that were true a lot of theories would be nonbeleiveable.

A lot of people working on theories would just throw up thier hands and walk away.
 
Jerry said:
I guess I'm just not in touch with people who don't accept that there are mythical elements in the epic of Jesus to understand why you think this is a big deal.
Click to expand...
its not a big deal if Jesus' miracles are perhaps mythical and didn't really happen?

Perhaps you're only exposed to literalism?
Click to expand...
I am not narrowly arguing against literalism.

but if you don't actually attend church activities yourself it makes sense you wouldn't know that real people attend. If all you have are headlines and the extreme examples brought to this forum, then suddenly your posting history makes sense.
Click to expand...
My wife's mother is a pastor. I have plenty of discussions with her and the other leaders of their church. I attend church activities regularly as part of the family. Not to mention that I attended church weekly during my teens. I also belong to several other boards where a diverse set of Christian beliefs are debated. I am also an avid reader of philsophical and theological literature. I even attend university lectures and debates, most recently the lecture by apologists Ravi Zacharias, John Lennox and michael ramsden on "is faith delusional?"
I am continually learning and don't claim to have perfect or infallible knowledge. But I probably have more knwoledge and a deeper understanding of the Christian religion than you do. :wink:

So when you care to address my post rather than making personal attacks on me then please

The story of Jesus and santa both contain mythical elements. Agree or disagree?

Which parts of the story are mythical? Which are real? How do we know? Can we know?

Or we can abandon this tangent until another time.
 
factorial said:
1. Jesus said he came to fulfill the law, not that "old testament law must be fulfilled." Subtle difference.
Click to expand...

lol here it is again in plain English:



"Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven."


It could be easily argued that "fulfillment" of the law merely meant summarizing it as he did: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.'
Click to expand...

B.S., he clearly states that no one can break even the least of the old laws.

This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." That's not being a dick.
Click to expand...

Sorry but he clearly says don't break one tittle of the least of the old laws.

2. The rest of the gospel you quoted can easily be understood to mean that Christ's coming and teachings would divide people--as it so plainly has, even in this thread. Also not dick-ish.
Click to expand...

Well in plain English he said that he comes not to bring peace but to bring war.

3. There's an awful lot of scripture attributed to Jesus that is pacifist and centered on loving others. In general, an un-dick teaching.
Click to expand...

So you admit that the bible is completely contradictory. The damn thing can't even agree with itself. It's not even good fiction.

Not that "the" Jesus was likely to have actually said most of the stuff in the Gospels anyway. Nevertheless, as someone who's read all of it many times, I just in general have to disagree that they are all the teachings of a dick.
Click to expand...

The central point of "believe in me or burn in a lake of hell fire for all eternity," sounds like a pretty dickish move to me.
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
its not a big deal if Jesus' miracles are perhaps mythical and didn't really happen?
Click to expand...

No one was ever claiming it didn't happen.

Only that certain parts may be mythical.

I invite you to grow a thicker skin and discern between insulting your argument and insulting you personally.
 
Blackdog said:
Oh really?



The Bible's different books were written from the perspective of the person writing it. It is many different books with many different authors.
Click to expand...

But Christians teach that it is from Gods mouth to the authors ears.

Just because you don't understand the perspective of a story does not mean the rest of us don't. ;)
Click to expand...

Well atleast you admit that it's a story as in fiction.
 
Goobieman said:
I just gotta ask...
How do these things disprove the bible?
Click to expand...

Um the bible teaches that the earth is flat and that we live in a geocentric universe. In reality the earth is spherical and we don't live in a geocentric universe we are the third rock from the sun at the edge of the milkyway galaxy thus the bible is wrong thus it is disproven thus it isn't worth the paper its printed on.

Pretty simple stuff really.
 
Blackdog said:
Please point out where in the Bible it says the "earth is flat?"
Click to expand...

In Daniel 4:10-11:"the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

Matthew 4:8 says: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”

Now I will show you how the Bible long before anyone knew pointed out earths true position in the universe...

Job 26:7 "He it is Who spreads out the northern skies over emptiness and hangs the earth upon or over nothing."

How could Job, more than 3000 years ago, possibly have known that God “hangs the earth upon nothing."
Click to expand...

The earth doesn't hang upon nothing it rotates around the sun due to a bend in space caused by gravity. Furthermore the bible does not depict the true place of the earth within the solar system let alone within the galaxy or the universe, it actually teaches that we live in a geocentric universe:

The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. -- Ecclesiastes 1:5

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. -- Joshua 10:13

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. -- Psalm 104:5

When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars. -- Psalm 75:3

I know! It was a good guess. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

How in your mind that saying the earth hangs upon nothing (which it doesn't) equate to depicting the earth's "true position in the universe..."?
 
presluc said:
If that were true a lot of theories would be nonbeleiveable.

A lot of people working on theories would just throw up thier hands and walk away.
Click to expand...

:confused:
Why is that? I am not following?

Are you saying that someone must believe a theory is true or false? For example, they can't be agnostic about it until it is supported to a degree they find reasonable for belief?

All possibilties have to be believed as true?
 
Jerry said:
He's going to point out passages regarding corners and foundations, watch.....
Click to expand...

No actually I pointed to the verse in which it is said that one would be able to see the entirety of the earth from a high enough vantage point and the one where it says that there is a tree at the center of the earth, the first is impossible on a spherical earth, and as to the second, the center of the earth is a ball is the median distance between 3160 and 3954 miles under ground.
 
Goobieman said:
It does? Cite the verse(s).
Click to expand...

Flat earth:

In Daniel 4:10-11:"the king “saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth...reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds.”

Matthew 4:8 says: “Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world [cosmos] in their glory.”

Geocentric universe:


The sun rises, and the sun goes down, and hastens to the place where it rises. -- Ecclesiastes 1:5

And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stopped in the midst of heaven and did not hurry to set for about a whole day. -- Joshua 10:13

He set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be moved. -- Psalm 104:5

When the earth totters, and all its inhabitants, it is I who keep steady its pillars. -- Psalm 75:3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom