Rover finds evidence of ancient freshwater lake on mars

[Forever_frost]

The aliens took all the evidence likea weapon used in a murder. the dinosaurar were brought here from another planet. the other planet are all dried up and we are next.

Eh, explains Venus. I'll buy it.

[91CoupeMike]

From my understanding, the Creator has always been. No one created Him, he's a fixed point that is and was and will be.

How the hell do you refer to it as a he then?

[crapstang]

Uranus! Teehee! It's funny, because it sounds like I'm sayin....nevermind.

[lowthreeohz]

Trying to pigeonhole Creation into human-devised explanations will always fall short.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahs

[YALE]

Trying to pigeonhole Creation into human-devised explanations will always fall short.

Like the bible?

[The King]

The Bible doesn't pigeonhole Creation into human-devised explanations. Rather, it reveals that God was the Creator and does not offer up myriad theories about the mechanics thereof, nor does it need to. That effort is something for mankind to do, and is doing.

[Snatch Napkin]

Uranus! Teehee! It's funny, because it sounds like I'm sayin....nevermind.

I LOL'd!!!!

[racrguy]

Funny because I tend to think of yours as the same

Only to people incapable of critical thinking, skepticism, and rational thought. I don't hold it against you. The king, however, has no excuse.

The Bible doesn't pigeonhole Creation into human-devised explanations. Rather, it reveals that God was the Creator and does not offer up myriad theories about the mechanics thereof, nor does it need to. That effort is something for mankind to do, and is doing.

Prove it.

[CJ]

Only to people incapable of critical thinking, skepticism, and rational thought. I don't hold it against you. The king, however, has no excuse.

Prove it.

Coming from a purely analytic view, doesn't the fact that no life has ever been found anywhere in the universe so far strengthen the theist view more than the atheist? It seems atheists use failure to prove their own view as evidence they are correct, which I find pretty entertaining.

[91CoupeMike]

Coming from a purely analytic view, doesn't the fact that no life has ever been found anywhere in the universe so far strengthen the theist view more than the atheist? It seems atheists use failure to prove their own view as evidence they are correct, which I find pretty entertaining.

Atheist true claim is to not know, and just because we haven't doesn't mean there isn't. The chance is high that there is life elsewhere, there's a lot of stuff we don't know about yet and may never know.

What proof does religion have other then a man made book that's been translated more then a few times with xxx amounts of versions and variations ect.. If it were the truth the first time, why change it at all?

It's easy and profitable way to control the populations behavior. Lol

[CJ]

Atheist true claim is to not know, and just because we haven't doesn't mean there isn't. The chance is high that there is life elsewhere, there's a lot of stuff we don't know about yet and may never know.

What proof does religion have other then a book?

It's easy and profitable way to control the populations behavior. Lol

So an Atheists claim is to not know? No, that is definitely not true. Their claim is that they do know there is no god, which in my opinion is the pinnacle of ignorance and hypocrisy. What you are describing is Agnosticism.

Certainly there is a chance there is life elsewhere. The answer to your question is what proof does religion have other than a book? The same proof that Atheists have that there isn't a god. The claim that either side, be it theism, or atheism that they conclusively know the truth is, in my opinion, absurd - because we both know for certain that no one knows.

You're trying to rationalize organized religion, which is a product of a theist view. The discussion here seems to revolve around the existence of a god, which is different. Your explanation for why religion exists is to control a population is just as easily reversed. You could say the reason atheism exists is so people can be amoral without the guilt of repercussions. See how easily that's turned around? Just because you've found some way to rationalize your opinion doesn't mean you're right.

I'm simply pointing on that as vehement as aheists are in regards to life on other worlds (which is the holy grail of atheism, to prove something wrong with the bible and therefore proclaim it has been invalidated) for the last 50+ years they time and time again fail to prove this. Now, removing the fact that their very well may be life on other planets, it would seem, at least so far, to further strengthen the theist view as there isn't a shred of evidence to support the atheists view point.

Many people believe there is life on other planets, some people even adopt that theory as a religion in itself. But as analytic and practical as atheists proclaim themselves to be, I find sometimes they tend to forget or at the very least consider the possibility of the other side of the argument which is why I spent the time to dip into it, as simply an exercise in variety which seems to be so infrequently visited.

[The King]

I notice poor little racrguy still getting frustrated and befuddled when he doesn't copy out of Google searches.

[Snatch Napkin]

Atheist true claim is to not know, and just because we haven't doesn't mean there isn't. The chance is high that there is life elsewhere, there's a lot of stuff we don't know about yet and may never know.

What proof does religion have other then a man made book that's been translated more then a few times with xxx amounts of versions and variations ect.. If it were the truth the first time, why change it at all?

It's easy and profitable way to control the populations behavior. Lol

OUCH!! My fucking head hurts after reading the part in bold.

[YALE]

So an Atheists claim is to not know? No, that is definitely not true. Their claim is that they do know there is no god, which in my opinion is the pinnacle of ignorance and hypocrisy. What you are describing is Agnosticism.

Certainly there is a chance there is life elsewhere. The answer to your question is what proof does religion have other than a book? The same proof that Atheists have that there isn't a god. The claim that either side, be it theism, or atheism that they conclusively know the truth is, in my opinion, absurd - because we both know for certain that no one knows.

You're trying to rationalize organized religion, which is a product of a theist view. The discussion here seems to revolve around the existence of a god, which is different. Your explanation for why religion exists is to control a population is just as easily reversed. You could say the reason atheism exists is so people can be amoral without the guilt of repercussions. See how easily that's turned around? Just because you've found some way to rationalize your opinion doesn't mean you're right.

I'm simply pointing on that as vehement as aheists are in regards to life on other worlds (which is the holy grail of atheism, to prove something wrong with the bible and therefore proclaim it has been invalidated) for the last 50+ years they time and time again fail to prove this. Now, removing the fact that their very well may be life on other planets, it would seem, at least so far, to further strengthen the theist view as there isn't a shred of evidence to support the atheists view point.

Many people believe there is life on other planets, some people even adopt that theory as a religion in itself. But as analytic and practical as atheists proclaim themselves to be, I find sometimes they tend to forget or at the very least consider the possibility of the other side of the argument which is why I spent the time to dip into it, as simply an exercise in variety which seems to be so infrequently visited.

The primary position of rational atheists is that they have no position on the existence of a higher power. It isn't necessary to generate a thesis in order to refute one. With regard to moral behavior, their position is that no god need exist for someone to be good. You can be good for no good reason.

[91CoupeMike]

The primary position of rational atheists is that they have no position on the existence of a higher power. It isn't necessary to generate a thesis in order to refute one. With regard to moral behavior, their position is that no god need exist for someone to be good. You can be good for no good reason.

That's a good way to put it.