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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

1…104105107109110…201

Comments

  • #5302
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    dead one wrote: »
    So, why do you believe in magic of camera....

    WITCHCRAFT :eek:


  • #5303
    papu
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,357 ✭✭✭papu


    3650.jpg :rolleyes:


  • #5304
    Doc_Savage
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 677 ✭✭✭Doc_Savage


    dead one wrote: »
    When you say no to God or when you say there is no creator--- You indirectly claim to have absolute knowledge.... it means you have seen and searched every portion / part of this universe before making this huge knowledgeable claim....

    "When you say yes to God or when you say there is A creator--- You indirectly claim to have absolute knowledge.... it means you have seen and searched every portion / part of this universe before making this huge knowledgeable claim...."

    see what i did when i rewrote your statement... if you want to claim the existence of a creator then you must also have absolute knowledge!

    And you seriously can't see the problem with this argument?:confused:


  • #5305
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    Too much?

    9647561.jpg


  • #5306
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I have never made such a claim. I stated that there is no evidence to suggest that a God exists, and as such - the probability for one existing is very low. Combined with the fact that we perfectly understanding of many things in 2011 through science, which dispels any notion of a 'creator'.
    Do you know how huge this universe is??? and what do you mean by "evidence".... Are you saying that God should show himself... You want to see live God.... That is impossible...See, for this purpose God has sent his revelations, why people can't see God in this world.... Here are some point if you leave your arrogance behind

    1) No man can see the maker in the life of this world ( http://quran.com/6/103)
    2) On the Day of Judgment, your sight will be acute, very sharp and piercing. (Verse http://quran.com/50/22 )
    3) Only the Believers will see their LORD in the Hereafter ( http://quran.com/75/22-23 ).
    Now when you say no to God and when you say there is no evidence which support existence of God..... You are making a claim to have absolute knowledge... because you are speaking on behalf of yourself.... I ain't speaking on behalf of myself but a book which claim to be from the Lord of all universe.... you have any doubt here is exact verse
    And it was not [possible] for this Qur'an to be produced by other than Allah , but [it is] a confirmation of what was before it and a detailed explanation of the [former] Scripture, about which there is no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds.
    http://quran.com/10/37
    again when you say there is no evidence for God, you are talking on base of your bias..... You claim to have absolute knowledge --- As you have seen and searched every part of this universe...
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Not one of those is scientific. You're going to have to try harder.
    then believe what you prefer to believe...
    I'm going to ask you a question - let's see if you can answer it.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Does Zeus, the God of Sky and Thunder exist?
    You believe in non intelligent evolution which is greater myth than of zeus, If i were you i would prefer to believe in zeus than believing in non intelligent materialistic god... I make no difference between you and those who believe in zeus....


  • #5307
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    I never said magic was involved in photography. That's something you came up with all by yourself.
    koth, you have problem with understanding, i ain't sayingthat you believe voodo or blah blah----
    You said
    Originally Posted by koth viewpost.gif
    It definitely is not scientific to believe in something with no evidence to support it.

    and then i said, why do believe in camera (leave the magic) ---
    Originally Posted by dead one viewpost.gif
    So, why do you believe in magic of camera....
    WITCHCRAFT eek.gif
    There has come a new game "limbo"-- play it i hope i the puzzles of this game would build your mind and understanding....:)


  • #5308
    POINTBREAK
    Registered Users Posts: 2,135 ✭✭✭POINTBREAK


    It must all be true. It was written in a book!


  • #5309
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,859 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    koth, you have problem with understanding, i ain't sayingthat you believe voodo or blah blah----
    You're the one who said magic, obviously you don't understand what the word magic means
    and then i said, why do believe in camera (leave the magic) ---

    It's nothing to do with belief as I own a camera. I can hold it in my hands, use it to take photos. I have physical evidence for the existence of cameras. It's really quite simple when you think about it.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #5310
    POINTBREAK
    Registered Users Posts: 2,135 ✭✭✭POINTBREAK


    dlofnep wrote: »

    So what do you suggest - I replace common sense and rationality that goes with science, and believe the word of goat-herders from 2000 years ago?

    LOL.


  • Advertisement
  • #5311
    POINTBREAK
    Registered Users Posts: 2,135 ✭✭✭POINTBREAK


    koth wrote: »
    You're the one who said magic, obviously you don't understand what the word magic means


    It's nothing to do with belief as I own a camera. I can hold it in my hands, use it to take photos. I have physical evidence for the existence of cameras. It's really quite simple when you think about it.
    -
    But if you read in a book that you owned a camera, surely that would be all the evidence you need? Obviously, it would be a special invisible camera that will burn you in hell forever, if you don't worship it.


  • #5312
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    dead one wrote: »
    koth, you have problem with understanding, i ain't sayingthat you believe voodo or blah blah----
    You said


    and then i said, why do believe in camera (leave the magic) ---

    There has come a new game "limbo"-- play it i hope i the puzzles of this game would build your mind and understanding....:)

    It's very simple.

    I think that a camera took those photos because I've seen hundreds of similar photos, I can go out right now with my phone and create similar photos. It's just like a peer review. Mr. A says he can do something by using a defined method, I try to replicate his result by using his method, I can therefore I accept his method is a way of achieving said result.

    It could be that something else made that picture but since a person holding a camera is the most likely cause of such an image and I can replicate it, I think that is the reasonable conclusion to come to.


  • #5313
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    POINTBREAK wrote: »
    It must all be true. It was written in a book!

    davincicode.jpg&sa=X&ei=w89cTpnkK4eV8QOQ7YTUAw&ved=0CAcQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHUcI3d9xwf7DgwYtXhMY2OA5FnTg


  • #5314
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    9659837.jpg


  • #5315
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    9659904.jpg


  • #5316
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    dead one wrote: »
    Do you know how huge this universe is???

    The size of the universe is not validation for a celestial onlooker.
    dead one wrote: »
    and what do you mean by "evidence"....

    You know, something that proves the truth of an assertion. Something you severely lack.
    dead one wrote: »
    Are you saying that God should show himself...

    No, I'm saying that it's very unlikely that such a figure exists to actually show themselves.


    dead one wrote: »
    Here are some point if you leave your arrogance behind

    1) No man can see the maker in the life of this world ( http://quran.com/6/103)
    2) On the Day of Judgment, your sight will be acute, very sharp and piercing. (Verse http://quran.com/50/22 )
    3) Only the Believers will see their LORD in the Hereafter ( http://quran.com/75/22-23 ).

    The Qur'an is not a scientific text. It is no more credible or valid than the hundreds of other religious texts seen throughout documented history, up to and including all of the new religious cults like Mormonism and Scientology. I really don't care what the book states - it does not make the assertions true, nor does it give merit to it's teachings.
    dead one wrote: »
    Now when you say no to God and when you say there is no evidence which support existence of God..... You are making a claim to have absolute knowledge...

    No, I am not making an absolute claim. I have stated that all of the definitions of God than have ever been presented have not fulfilled the burden of proof required to make me believe that such a being exists. I have never once stated that it is impossible for such a being to exist, but rather that the probability of such a being existing is very low based on current science.

    That is not 'absolute knowledge'. You're cluttering the issue.
    dead one wrote: »
    because you are speaking on behalf of yourself.... I ain't speaking on behalf of myself but a book which claim to be from the Lord of all universe.... you have any doubt here is exact verse

    So, you're reading a book that's over a millennium old - and proclaim it to be the truth, based on what exactly? What is it that you a privy to, that the rest of us just haven't seen?
    dead one wrote: »
    again when you say there is no evidence for God, you are talking on base of your bias..... You claim to have absolute knowledge --- As you have seen and searched every part of this universe...

    No, I don't claim to have absolute knowledge. I have already clarified this. But it's irrelevant. I don't have absolute knowledge on whether fairies exist or not, but I'm pretty sure that they don't.

    You come across as someone who simply hasn't debated these issues before, because they have all been addressed in detail.
    dead one wrote: »
    You believe in non intelligent evolution which is greater myth than of zeus, If i were you i would prefer to believe in zeus than believing in non intelligent materialistic god... I make no difference between you and those who believe in zeus....

    You're deflecting from the question. I will ask it again.

    Do you believe that Zeus, the God of Sky and Thunder exists? I want you to reply with a yes, or a no. If yes - explain why - if no, explain why. It's a simple question.


  • Advertisement
  • #5317
    Galvasean
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,746 ✭✭✭✭Galvasean


    9660093.jpg


  • #5318
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    9660163.jpg


    9660172.jpg


  • #5319
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    I like where this thread is headed :D


  • #5320
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    9660238.jpg

    9660279.jpg

    9660313.jpg


  • #5321
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    9660253.jpg

    9660291.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • #5322
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    I like where this thread is headed :D

    It was your excellent idea.:D


  • #5323
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Malty_T wrote: »
    It was your excellent idea.:D

    Well I am amazing in every way...


  • #5324
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Look at all you materialist evolutionists trying to derail the discussion becuase you can't answer how CFSI can spontaneously produce pondkind to mankind without an intelligent creator


  • #5325
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    liamw wrote: »
    Look at all you materialist evolutionists trying to derail the discussion becuase you can't answer how CFSI can spontaneously produce pondkind to mankind without an intelligent creator

    Poor, very poor. Where is the colour man? C'mon show us a little of that sparkle.


  • #5326
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    liamw wrote: »
    Look at all you materialist evolutionists trying to derail the discussion becuase you can't answer how CFSI can spontaneously produce pondkind to mankind without an intelligent creator

    Who created this said intelligent creator? Or does he get a free pass?

    When you say from pondkind to mankind - You'll have to clarify if you're referring to abiogensis (the origins of life), or the evolution of species from primitive species to advanced species such as homo sapien.

    I'll be more than happy to entertain a debate with you.


  • #5327
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Who created this said intelligent creator? Or does he get a free pass?

    When you say from pondkind to mankind - You'll have to clarify if you're referring to abiogensis (the origins of life), or the evolution of species from primitive species to advanced species such as homo sapien.

    I'll be more than happy to entertain a debate with you.

    The creator is a timeless changeless, mutable entity that exists beyond the realm of this present universe.

    Pondslime to mankind.


  • #5328
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Malty_T wrote: »
    The creator is a timeless changeless, mutable entity that exists beyond the realm of this present universe.

    How convenient for him. ;)


  • #5329
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    dlofnep wrote: »
    How convenient for him. ;)

    Convenience has no bearing on whether or not something is true.;)


  • #5330
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Convenience has no bearing on whether or not something is true.;)

    Indeed it doesn't.


  • #5331
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Indeed it doesn't.

    Yet again the evolutionist must admit defeat.:D


  • Advertisement
  • #5332
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    9661962.jpg


  • #5333
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    liamw wrote: »
    http://images.memegenerator.net/instances/500x/9661962.jpg

    It's CSFI ya loon.:pac:


  • #5334
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,226 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Malty_T wrote: »
    It's CSFI ya loon.:pac:

    That's why you can't explain it :P


  • #5335
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Barrington wrote: »
    That's why you can't explain it :P

    Actually I did explain it.:pac:


  • #5336
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    dlofnep wrote: »

    I'll be more than happy to entertain a debate with you.

    I'd be happy to continue the troll but I just can't bring myself to even pretend to be a creationist.


  • #5337
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    ^^^ I knew this thread would finally come good :)


  • #5338
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    liamw wrote: »
    I'd be happy to continue the troll but I just can't bring myself to even pretend to be a creationist.

    You're scared of the truth! You're so hooked to your demonic atheistic ways that you fear losing them. All you need to do is believe in O Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved. Open your heart up a little. :D


  • #5339
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    liamw wrote: »
    I'd be happy to continue the troll but I just can't bring myself to even pretend to be a creationist.

    Won't you at least play devil's advocate for a bit?


  • #5340
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Malty_T wrote: »
    The creator is a timeless changeless, mutable entity
    Changeless and timeless, but still mutable? Weird...!
    Malty_T wrote: »
    All you need to do is believe in O Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.
    Malty, Malty!

    "Believe in"? You're only "saved" if you "believe on" -- check the last line here!


  • Advertisement
  • #5341
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Won't you at least play devil's advocate for a bit?

    That would require being rational, the debate would be over very quickly!


  • #5342
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    robindch wrote: »
    Changeless and timeless, but still mutable? Weird...!

    Yes! I knew someone would point this out. 15 points for Robin.
    Now for 5 bonus points, can anyone tell me who's argument I paraphrased there?


  • #5343
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    Malty_T wrote: »
    That would require being rational, the debate would be over very quickly!

    True - Atheists could construct a better basis for argument for theists, than theists themselves could.


  • #5344
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Yes! I knew someone would point this out. 15 points for Robin.
    Now for 5 bonus points, can anyone tell me who's argument I paraphrased there?

    Ken Ham?


  • #5345
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Genghiz Cohen wrote: »
    Ken Ham?

    Nope try again.


  • #5346
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Nope try again.

    William Lane Craig?


  • Advertisement
  • #5347
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    liamw wrote: »
    William Lane Craig?

    5 bonus points for you.:)


  • #5348
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    9669839.jpg


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71461356&postcount=3845



    9669876.jpg


  • #5349
    liamw
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,780 ✭✭✭liamw


    9670170.jpg


  • #5350
    The Mad Hatter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,718 ✭✭✭The Mad Hatter


    liamw wrote: »
    9670170.jpg

    "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind"

    -Actual quote from Kent Hovind's doctoral thesis.


  • #5351
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    The Mad Hatter wrote: »
    "Hello, my name is Kent Hovind"
    Probably not his real name then.

    Still, at least his whereabouts are known.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement