Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

Options
1…910111214

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    scientific1982 wrote: »
    Pitty he didnt create the vagina to be equally user friendly.

    You're doing it wrong.


  • Options
    #393
    Tigger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,705 ✭✭✭✭Tigger


    god, lol


  • Options
    #394
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    scientific1982 wrote: »
    Pitty he didnt create the vagina to be equally user friendly.

    O its fine.








    The problem is with the power source its attached to....


  • Options
    #395
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    Nodin wrote: »
    O its fine.








    The problem is with the power source its attached to....
    You sure. There seems to be more than one on button.


  • Options
    #396
    Snakeblood
    Registered Users Posts: 4,466 ✭✭✭Snakeblood


    scientific1982 wrote: »
    You sure. There seems to be more than one on button.

    I don't think there's a button. I've never seen one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    scientific1982
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,562 ✭✭✭scientific1982


    Snakeblood wrote: »
    I don't think there's a button. I've never seen one.
    Ah maybe thats were im goin wrong. Oh well, back to the porn stash for some tips.


  • Options
    #398
    Superlativeman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 61 ✭✭Superlativeman


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    Why has he no business being in this country?

    I'm not a nationalist, but he's for rejoining the Commonwealth. To anyone who has any patriotism(which I don't), that is treason, is it not?


  • Options
    #399
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    The Bible/Christianity believes that God clicked his fingers and the Earth was created 10000 years ago.

    Science has produced theories on the Big Bang and Evolution and uses scientific data to support their claims. Science has found that space is billions of years old.

    The Bible doesn't say that the world is 10,000 years old in any of its pages.


  • Options
    #400
    meglome
    Registered Users Posts: 7,980 ✭✭✭meglome


    k_mac wrote: »
    I thought gravity had been proven?

    Well in experiments it's repeatedly verifiable, you still can't see it or touch it.


  • Options
    #401
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The Bible doesn't say that the world is 10,000 years old in any of its pages.

    No, but some religious people believe it. It all stems from when Adam was created on the sixth day and someone interpreted from the Bible that he was created about 4000 BC.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    No, but some religious people believe it. It all stems from when Adam was created on the sixth day and someone interpreted from the Bible that he was created about 4000 BC.

    You said this:
    The Bible/Christianity believes that God clicked his fingers and the Earth was created 10000 years ago.

    What probably would have been more accurate would be to say "Some Christians", surely?


  • Options
    #403
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    No, but some religious people believe it. It all stems from when Adam was created on the sixth day and someone interpreted from the Bible that he was created about 4000 BC.

    What's it like in 6000 AD? :pac:


  • Options
    #404
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    Stop ruining my posts with your logic and sense :mad:


  • Options
    #405
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    Stop ruining my posts with your logic and sense :mad:

    Sure it's Friday... and Hallowe'en. Trick or treat! :D


  • Options
    #406
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    Jakkass wrote: »
    dfolnep: I'm not even arguing such. All I'm asking Killer Pigeon to do is back up what he said he can do! He said he could disprove the concept of Abrahamic God. I'm quite interested to hear this, unless he should be so honest as to say, he can't.

    I think I may have to reiterate some of the comments I made in a different way as you seem not to understand.

    One cannot yet prove that a supreme being does or does not exist. To express certainty over whether God does or does not exist is just a dogmatic assumption. However, one can show valid theories that could potentially disprove the existence of a Supreme Being or that show the validity of having an argument against its existence. One argument would be that if a Supreme Being created the universe, then who created the SB and who planted the seed that created the SB and so on for eternity. In the end, the speculation over whether or not a SB exists will never be fully resolved, as the suggestion about its existence is just as farfetched as saying the universe was created from nothing. However, if we apply Occam's razor to the above conundrum we are left with a very complex reality, it light of this a SB is likely not to exist but can never be proved to not exist.

    One could however disprove with certainty the existence of an Abrahamic God that directly created humans and the Earth and actually interfered directly in human affairs. To an extent, the belief that a SB had direct involvement in the structuring of the universe after it allegedly created the universe has been disproved. One philosophical argument by the Greek philosopher Epicurus raises doubts over the direct involvement of a God in the affairs of mankind; "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he able but not willing? Then why call him God".

    In light of the above certainties and uncertainties, I see myself as an agnostic atheist. Someone who is a gnostic atheist or a gnostic theist would have quite dogmatic beliefs about the existence or non-existence of a SB, which cannot be proven true or false.
    JonJoeDali wrote: »
    Scientific understanding of the world is not the only aspect of understanding (*). Focusing on the man-made scientific method and excluding all other dimensions of rationality (**) (i.e. fingers in one's ears/head in the sand)(***) does not give one much credibility. It is true to say that there is much emphasis on science in this technological age that we currently live in so I can understand how someone can put all their faith in the endeavours of the scientific community. However, I suspect you aren't familiar with basic Christian theology -- or the philosophy of any other religion for that matter -- hence your ignorant commentary.(****)

    (*) ... And what exactly do you mean by the word 'understanding'? According to wikipedia:
    Understanding (also called intellection) is a psychologicalprocess related to an abstract or physical object, such as a person, situation, or message whereby one is able to think about it and use concepts to deal adequately with that object.
    An understanding is the limit of a conceptualization. To understand something is to have conceptualized it to a given measure.

    Therefore human understanding is the only known understanding as understanding is related to the mind and the only known species that can develop such understanding about the universe are humans. Scientific understanding is the pinnacle of human understand as it relates directly to human interpretation of pure knowledge.

    (**) "Other dimensions of rationality", again human rationality is related to understanding therefore the only known dimension of rationality is human rationality.

    (***) "Fingers in one's ears/head in the sand", oh dear, the scientific community aren't turning into old fashioned religious zealots are they? Discuss.

    (****) Please analyse the ignorance in your own post before calling others ignorant, it's quite embarassing.


  • Options
    #407
    Ghost Estate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Ghost Estate


    Chuck Norris should indeed be president. I'd vote for him. For what he lacks in political power over here he'd make up for with a roundhouse kick


  • Options
    #408
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    One could however disprove with certainty the existence of an Abrahamic God that directly created humans and the Earth and actually interfered directly in human affairs. To an extent, the belief that a SB had direct involvement in the structuring of the universe after it allegedly created the universe has been disproved..

    Any link to these certain 'disproofs'?


  • Options
    #409
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    prinz wrote: »
    Any link to these certain 'disproofs'?

    I can provide links if you understand the broader scope of what I am saying. My statement was that a Supreme being did not have direct imvolvement in the structuring and developement of the universe (this can be proven*), this does not disprove the Sumpreme being but disproves the concept of a God as understood by nearly all world religions.

    *A supreme being did not have direct involvement in the structuring of our galaxy, the milky way, or any other of the billions and billions of galaxies in the universe. Look into gravitation and cosmology and you will understand this.
    Under very similar principles which explain the formation of our galaxy we can explain the formation of our solar system and the formation of the sun. We now know that the earth and the rest of the planets are by-products of the sun's evolution and gravitation.
    If we go back to the very beginning of the universe (let's say a fraction of a second after the big bang) the only thing that existed was pure energy. The energy evolved into matter (with accordance to the energy-mass equivalence - also a very well proven theory). In theory, the only time that one could assume that a supreme being (which also is quite unlikely) existed was at big bang < 0 or big bang = 0, not big bang > 0. The laws of physics (first quantum then to classical in that order) @ big bang => 0 dictate EVERYTHING that happened afterward; i.e., formation of matter >> the clustering of matter under gravity >> the formation of light >> the formation of galaxies >> and eventually the formation of earth and the formation of us.
    You may logically ask however, who fine tuned the constants of the universe? Well there could well be many universes - a spectrum of universes - a multiverse where physical constants are different, thus the laws of physics being slightly different. There is really no space here in this grand picture to assume a deity physically manuvered everything to where it is today.

    If you say that the chances of life developing on its own are very unlikely and therefore a God must have created it than you are being lazy because statistically life will occur somewhere in the vastness of the universe even if it is 1trillion to 1. Life is a statistically phenomena and therefore must have happened somewhere. In a sense this makes your very existence a lot more special than you could have ever imagined or will ever imagine if you believe that you were created by a God.

    And by the way, why should I bother to provide a link to any specific piece of evidence when all you have to do is open a physics or chemistry book. The knowledge is everywhere, just do a google search, and take the inititive to look into this stuff yourself instead of denying it without investigating it. If you see any flaws in my statements by all means speak out.


  • Options
    #410
    Jazzy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 6,315 ✭✭✭Jazzy


    im more inclined to believe stephen hawking then a paedophile


  • Options
    #411
    Ghost Estate
    Closed Accounts Posts: 559 ✭✭✭Ghost Estate


    Jazzy wrote: »
    im more inclined to believe stephen hawking then a paedophile

    Even when describing what it's like to ride a 7 year old?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    I can provide links if you understand the broader scope of what I am saying. My statement was that a Supreme being did not have direct imvolvement in the structuring and developement of the universe (this can be proven*), this does not disprove the Sumpreme being but disproves the concept of a God as understood by nearly all world religions..

    *everything that came after this is not proof, rather drawing a conclusion. We are still left wondering where the universally constant laws of physics came from which enabled everything else to exist as it does.


  • Options
    #413
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Jazzy wrote: »
    im more inclined to believe stephen hawking then a paedophile

    Funny you should mention Stevo...
    "I believe the universe is governed by the laws of science," he said. "The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." - S. Hawking.

    Personally any type of supreme being who could lay down the laws that govern the universe and everything in it, could easily interfere in human affairs... and there has been no proof to conclusively find that it didn't occur.


  • Options
    #414
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    prinz wrote: »
    *everything that came after this is not proof, rather drawing a conclusion. We are still left wondering where the universally constant laws of physics came from which enabled everything else to exist as it does.
    CAN YOU READ??
    This is where the question over a SB still has a small (very small, only a fractions, has some losely justifable credence!!). My assertion is not where the lOP came from but the disprove of a PERSONAL GOD as apposed to a feckin' SB!!!!!!!!!
    UNDERSTAND YET????


  • Options
    #415
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    prinz wrote: »
    Funny you should mention Stevo...

    BA-DUM TISH!!

    Isn't Hawking a very smart man. You just gave a quote where one of the world's leading scientists disproved the idea of a personal God.

    WELL DONE!!


  • Options
    #416
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    Isn't Hawking a very smart man. You just gave a quote where one of the world's leading scientists disproved the idea of a personal God.

    Er no, Hawking gave an opinion, not a proof. You are welcome to share his opinion, still doesn't make it a proof though.


  • Options
    #417
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    prinz wrote: »
    Er no, Hawking gave an opinion, not a proof. You are welcome to share his opinion, still doesn't make it a proof though.

    I'm not going to write another essay on this thread. Please look into the FORMATION of the universe. And then you'll understand.


  • Options
    #418
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    I'm not going to write another essay on this thread. Please look into the FORMATION of the universe. And then you'll understand.

    You didn't have to. All you have to do was back up what you claimed. Fair enough if it's based on opinion.


  • Options
    #419
    Killer Pigeon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,132 ✭✭✭Killer Pigeon


    prinz wrote: »
    You didn't have to. All you have to do was back up what you claimed. Fair enough if it's based on opinion.

    No, I gave many facts that are freely available on the internet or in a secondary school physics book.


  • Options
    #420
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    No, I gave many facts that are freely available on the internet or in a secondary school physics book.

    Clap clap clap :pac: Perhaps you should try one for English.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    Killer Pigeon wrote: »
    No, I gave many facts that are freely available on the internet or in a secondary school physics book.

    You seem to be looking past the fact that scientific facts change every day. For all we know the big bang could be proven to be scientifically impossible tomorrow.


Advertisement