Login

**theVOID** · October 2, 2010 at 6:23 am

Nope, i'll have a look.

HeyItsZeus · October 2, 2010 at 7:48 am

So...is this thread about the planet or an argument with fr0do?

downbeatplumb · October 2, 2010 at 8:02 am

(October 2, 2010 at 7:48 am)HeyItsZeus Wrote: So...is this thread about the planet or an argument with fr0do?

Is it me or does Frodo seem more bitter than usual?

He always was a bit touchy but now.......

~~Edwardo Piet~~ · October 2, 2010 at 8:03 am

Fun ain't it? Big Grin

**theVOID** · October 2, 2010 at 8:52 am

(October 2, 2010 at 7:48 am)HeyItsZeus Wrote: So...is this thread about the planet or an argument with fr0do?

I'm not sure anymore.

Anyway, there should be a fair bit more data about this planet by the end of next year. It's looking like this one will get a fair bit of attention. Hopefully we can establish the basic composition of the planet and see if there is any liquid water.

The Omnissiunt One · October 2, 2010 at 10:54 am

Of course, it could be a totally different form of life that doesn't need water to live. But I suppose scientists have got to start somewhere...

~~fr0d0~~ · (This post was last modified: October 2, 2010 at 1:54 pm by fr0d0.)

(October 2, 2010 at 12:41 am)theVOID Wrote:

And again you insist that you are faultless...

You were the one who refused to acknowledge the problems with the history of the bible, the way the texts were mangled and politicised, the forged sections and entire books, the inconsistencies with the gospel accounts etc, even insisting after all of that "The gospels are four different accounts of the same story" which even chronologically can't be true, it was a story that was continually retold and over time gained features that weren't originally there.

I also pointed out the differences between the earliest manuscripts and and the contents of the bible as it is now, especially regarding the doctrine of the trinity, which was added to in attempt to substantiate rather vague passages into the doctrine that was commonly preached.

You dismissed all of it with hardly any (in most cases no) argument at all, it was your usual barrage of assertions and avoiding points of contention all together.

You're thinking of leaving? Shame, i was looking forward to hearing your definition and defence of theism.

And this is your derailment of the subject into one of your own interest. I explained that historicity was of very little interest to me yet you try to force me into discussing it with you. As I briefly demonstrated, all of your supposed inconsistencies are no more than wild fabrication and exaggeration of fact. I'm not interested in examining that to the n'th degree, and I told you this clearly.

You're demonstrating clearly what I said above was your issue here.

Ashendant · October 2, 2010 at 4:16 pm

(October 1, 2010 at 4:27 am)Ace Wrote: Where's AngelTheMan? I wonder how he will take this new discovery?

Would be lovely to find sentient beings wouldn't it. If they happen to be behind us in advancement then we could just observe how they develop as we have. If they happen to be more advanced, they'll have something to teach us.

Would be interesting to see what religious beliefs they have or use to have.

I think the correct term you tried to say was Sapient, most animals on earth are sentient already, we are too but sentience does not define intelligence

**Ace Otana** · (This post was last modified: October 2, 2010 at 6:04 pm by Ace Otana.)

After checking, it appears that you are right. I stand corrected.
I'm still waiting to see what AngelThMan has to say about this. If I recall, he has some very serious doubts over life on other worlds. To find life forms on another world (potentially sapient) I wonder how that would affect religion as a whole here?

**theVOID** · October 2, 2010 at 8:39 pm

(October 2, 2010 at 1:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: And this is your derailment of the subject into one of your own interest. I explained that historicity was of very little interest to me yet you try to force me into discussing it with you. As I briefly demonstrated, all of your supposed inconsistencies are no more than wild fabrication and exaggeration of fact. I'm not interested in examining that to the n'th degree, and I told you this clearly.

You're demonstrating clearly what I said above was your issue here.

Historicity is of little interest to you because you don't actually care whether or not what you believe is true, or even representative of the actual beliefs of the early Christians. You don't see a problem what believing a whole bunch of shit that Jesus never said?

Exaggeration is it? Congratulations on yet another bare assertion.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me