Religious crazies get the knives out for Norris' Presidency bid

Jazzy

who is more believable - stephen hawking or some dude that you dont even really know existed 2000 years ago who got caught up in a swindle ?

Degsy

Jazzy wrote: »

who is more believable - stephen hawking or some dude that you dont even really know existed 2000 years ago who got caught up in a swindle ?

Oh yeah coz GluaisTard is always right isnt he?.

Jazzy

Degsy wrote: »

Oh yeah coz GluaisTard is always right isnt he?.

who now ?

farna_boy

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.

*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.

1. At the start of this you said you would provide links, at the end you say you won't. Which is it? You are the one who has claimed you have proof. If you do, you might want to provide it. Saying: if physics is true, therefore God is not true, is not very convincing.

2. The "if you look at cosmology" paragraph. Again you will have to provide links, otherwise you are asking people to nor believe in God, just believe in you instead? Not very convincing.

3. You seem to be under the impression that religious people don't believe in science? In your "physics dictate everything" paragraph, you say that physics dictates everything and therefore God doesn't exist, or because the big bang happened, God does not exist (or maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say).

Overall there seems to be very little proof in your post (as it is). I'm sure it may be more logical in your head, but from what is written above I can't see it.

Jazzy

so like, why didnt god stop the paedophiles ?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Jazzy wrote: »

so like, why didnt god stop the paedophiles ?

Because God doesn't intervene. He's like the Starship Enterprise.

AnonoBoy

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Because God doesn't intervene. He's like the Starship Enterprise.

He's got a holodeck and warp drive too?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

AnonoBoy wrote: »

He's got a holodeck and warp drive too?

No. Well, technically, yes, but he doesn't use them because he's everywhere anyway.

MagicSean

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No. Well, technically, yes, but he doesn't use them because he's everywhere anyway.

Could be an awesome show.

-Gabriel set a course for purgatory, Warp 5.
-Captain, two Satan class vessels decloaking to the rear.
-Red alert. Raise halo. Arm the crucifix. Send a dove to Jesus and inform him of the situation. Angels prepare to be boarded.

Killer Pigeon

k_mac wrote: »

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.

I agree that many scientific theories can be proven false (certainly not every day). The Big Bang theory however is a pretty sound theory. It even has been more or less proven through observations (Look up "red shift" "doppler effect" "big bang theory" in google and how these are related to the expansion of the universe).

farna_boy wrote: »

1. At the start of this you said you would provide links, at the end you say you won't. Which is it? You are the one who has claimed you have proof. If you do, you might want to provide it. Saying: if physics is true, therefore God is not true, is not very convincing.

2. The "if you look at cosmology" paragraph. Again you will have to provide links, otherwise you are asking people to nor believe in God, just believe in you instead? Not very convincing.

3. You seem to be under the impression that religious people don't believe in science? In your "physics dictate everything" paragraph, you say that physics dictates everything and therefore God doesn't exist, or because the big bang happened, God does not exist (or maybe I just don't understand what you are trying to say).

Overall there seems to be very little proof in your post (as it is). I'm sure it may be more logical in your head, but from what is written above I can't see it.

For the millionth time, I'm saying that physics doesn't wholeheartedly prove the non-existence of a Supreme being (otherwise known as God, singular, who sparked the universe into existence but did not aid in its formation to how we know it today). I'm saying that physics can prove that whatever that God or Supreme being is or was it didn't aid in the development in the universe because physics already has a pretty sound explanation for that; an explanation that is more sound than Goddonit. You want links or sources?

http://www.cybercity-online.net/the_universe_beyond/the_origin_of_the_universe_and.html
http://rst.gsfc.nasa.gov/Sect20/preface.html
http://www.lindau-nobel.org/AbstractDetails.AxCMS?AbstractID=201
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/642041
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/642041/files/0309326.pdf
http://en.rian.ru/trend/collider/


I believe the idea of the 'God' particle is mention in some of these links. For the religious here, people don't get hyped up about the so-called 'God' particle. It has nothing to do with God and should rightly be called the Higgs-Boson Particle that gives all other matter mass.

@3. The laws of physics as we know them did not exist before the big bang.

proon4

I have no time for religous fanarics of any ilk. But I have just as less time for David Norris... He did make those remarks about phaedophilia ( " in some circumstances it should be allowed ")whether he denies it or not.. Also remember this is also the man who called the 1916 rebels " terriorists". Is this what we want as president of out Republic?..Those men fought a brave fight so that Ireland could be free and have its own president and government. Norris demeans them , but still wants the glory and all it entails as president of the same Republic that those brave men fought and died for.. Norris has done sweet all for Ireland. Apart from drawing an over generous salary and outrageous expenses as a senator. Religous fanatics out.. But Norris out too

dvpower

proon4 wrote: »

Norris has done sweet all for Ireland. Apart from drawing an over generous salary and outrageous expenses as a senator. Religous fanatics out.. But Norris out too

But then who should get the President gig (which includes an over generous salary and outrageous expenses)?

Ghost Estate

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

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????

seriously, calm the **** down mang

Snufflemunch

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Because God doesn't intervene. He's like the Starship Enterprise.

So he's science fiction, then?

dvpower

Snufflemunch wrote: »

So he's science fiction, then?

... or an entertaining distraction?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Snufflemunch wrote: »

So he's science fiction, then?

Kinda. Just like Arthur C Clarke's idea of "internet" is science fiction.

proon4

well not Norris. I think the Irish people are disgusted enough with the history of paedophilia here without someone who makes statements like that. And not a man who direspects people who laid their lives down for this country.

efb

proon4 wrote: »

well not Norris. I think the Irish people are disgusted enough with the history of paedophilia here without someone who makes statements like that. And not a man who direspects people who laid their lives down for this country.

Mmm trollicious

dvpower

PaddyPower have him at 9/2 (joint second favorite). Michael D is in the lead at 11/4

proon4

efb wrote: »

Mmm trollicious

Thats the kind of apathy and smart ass reactions that done so much damage to so many young children ....

lmaopml

I think Norris makes his best contributions to Irish society from exactly where he is at, I think he is colourful and very interesting. He is far too 'vocal' ( with that cool accent ) and opinionated ( even if I agree with him on many accounts ) to be our President though. The President is a 'figure head' really, Norris does his best work on talk shows and radio, and in the senate..

I could imagine myself getting embarrassed if he went all 'Wtf....Europe??...Wtf...America....blah blah blah...Yeats, Kavanagh...Irish are the bestest....fook them all...etc. etc. etc....' all over the place while representing us......

*Blushes*

I like you a lot Norris, but no thanks babe.

efb

proon4 wrote: »

Thats the kind of apathy and smart ass reactions that done so much damage to so many young children ....

I'm walking all over your bridge darling! Clip clop clip clop!

Demonique

Irish Westboro Baptist church

sligopark

He's a homo - whahoo

He is also a west brit dick- anyone wnat this speaking for us abroad?

I am a homo - whahoo - will anyone nominate me on the basis of where my dick goes?

scientific1982

sligopark wrote: »

He's a homo - whahoo

He is also a west brit dick- anyone wnat this speaking for us abroad?

I am a homo - whahoo - will anyone nominate me on the basis of where my dick goes?

Graham Norton for President. Whahoo.

dvpower

sligopark wrote: »

I am a homo - whahoo - will anyone nominate me on the basis of where my dick goes?

I always thought you were a girl.