The spirit world

ColeTrain

Just watching a replay of the Late Late show. They have a 'spiritual healer' on now.

Not surprised they have given her the stage to spout her nonsense. She reckons John Lennon visits her. FFS If she had any fuc*ing heart at all she'd be out stealing for a living.

I remember when Dawkin's was on the Late Late, you would swear he was the lunatic with the reception they gave him.

RichieC

Crazy isnt it... it takes a real psychopath to lie to the bereaved in such an awful manner for monitory gain..

Kadongy

Pander to idiots and chancers. Take clever people down a peg or two. Irish culture.

Dotrel

ColeTrain wrote: »

I remember when Dawkin's was on the Late Late, you would swear he was the lunatic with the reception they gave him.

It's the clever editing and camera angles. A lot of perfectly reasonable people with entirely sensible pov's come on the LLS end up looking like nutters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3cECMFJUSo

ColeTrain

Kadongy wrote: »

Pander to idiots and chancers. Take clever people down a peg or two. Irish culture.

I wouldn't say it's an Irish thing. Sure isn't the biggest douche in the universe American!

OutlawPete

When they lay me to rest, I'm gonna go to the place that's the best.

AlmightyCushion

I'll have a double vodka please.

Kojak

I thought this was going to be about alcohol, not about having an auld pray....

MrJoeSoap

Money, Love, Happiness... The secret is in the tarot.

Chuck Stone

Kadongy wrote: »

Pander to idiots and chancers. Take clever people down a peg or two. Irish culture.

What a gloomy outlook to have.

ColeTrain

Shazzo99 wrote: »

Ara Ireland the only country in the world were a 15year old can buy a pint and have the crack in a pub where in America every 15year old is fat and stuck on ps3 or an xbox

Yeah 'fo sure.

MrStuffins

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What a gloomy outlook to have.

Well there's a lot of truth in it.

If you saw the edition of The Late Late Show where they were talking about secular teachings in schools you'd know what it's like.

I never understood the hate for Ryan Tubirdy (i'd avoided him beforehand) until then. What an idiot. Every chance he had he was interrupting to get his own personal views in.

"If you join the club you have to play by the rules"

The little rat!

kowloon

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well there's a lot of truth in it.

If you saw the edition of The Late Late Show where they were talking about secular teachings in schools you'd know what it's like.

I never understood the hate for Ryan Tubirdy (i'd avoided him beforehand) until then. What an idiot. Every chance he had he was interrupting to get his own personal views in.

"If you join the club you have to play by the rules"

The little rat!

Wouldn't mind a look at that, any idea when it was aired or who the guests were? Or a link even better.

Chuck Stone

MrStuffins wrote: »

Well there's a lot of truth in it.

If you saw the edition of The Late Late Show where they were talking about secular teachings in schools you'd know what it's like.

I never understood the hate for Ryan Tubirdy (i'd avoided him beforehand) until then. What an idiot. Every chance he had he was interrupting to get his own personal views in.

"If you join the club you have to play by the rules"

The little rat!

TLLS and what happens on it aren't the sum total of Irish culture though.

MrStuffins

kowloon wrote: »

Wouldn't mind a look at that, any idea when it was aired or who the guests were? Or a link even better.

I watched it on the RTE Player a few days after it aired. Doubt it's still there but it might be up on You Tube.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

TLLS and what happens on it aren't the sum total of Irish culture though.

I never said they were. But it's a decent sample.

ColeTrain

kowloon wrote: »

Wouldn't mind a look at that, any idea when it was aired or who the guests were? Or a link even better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvlt_atCZ3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_H_BTHPvUo

There's also another one with Pat Kenny, who didn't make such an arse out of himself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBDUPAgy5zk

EDIT: Just realised you wanted the secular school one. Don't have the link for that..

MrStuffins

ColeTrain wrote: »

You Tube Links............

There's also another one with Pat Kenny, who didn't make such an arse out of himself

Not the ones I was talking about but i'llw atch these as I missed Dawkins when he was on.

Although maybe I shouldn't. I suspect he was dealt with the same way as a witch would've been had one been on the show.

Whereas Joe Coleman goes on the show and gets treated like he's a sane human being.......... never mind one telling the truth!

ColeTrain

MrStuffins wrote: »

Not the ones I was talking about but i'llw atch these as I missed Dawkins when he was on.

Although maybe I shouldn't. I suspect he was dealt with the same way as a witch would've been had one been on the show.

Whereas Joe Coleman goes on the show and gets treated like he's a sane human being.......... never mind one telling the truth!

Look at the one with Pat Kenny. Some of the comments from the audience and the messages scrolling across the screen are mind boggling.

I never knew Joe Coleman was on the LL, just shows you the standard of guest they have on.

MrStuffins

ColeTrain wrote: »

Look at the one with Pat Kenny. Some of the comments from the audience and the messages scrolling across the screen are mind boggling.

I never knew Joe Coleman was on the LL, just shows you the standard of guest they have on.

I was in the missus' house one night and couldnt sleep, So i switched the TV on and there was old Joe. he was treated like he was telling the truth, like what he was saying was believable. I felt sorry for him because when you see him it's very clear he has mental issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvN43mOpTg

kowloon

ColeTrain wrote: »

EDIT: Just realised you wanted the secular school one. Don't have the link for that..

That one was an education in itself.

ColeTrain

kowloon wrote: »

That one was an education in itself.

Definitely. Poor Richard was pretty much arguing against the whole studio.

MrStuffins wrote: »

I was in the missus' house one night and couldnt sleep, So i switched the TV on and there was old Joe. he was treated like he was telling the truth, like what he was saying was believable. I felt sorry for him because when you see him it's very clear he has mental issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOvN43mOpTg

Just watching now.

Either he's a con artist like the majority or indeed he does have mental health issues. Either way he shouldn't be anywhere near RTE, I saw his documentary too, another nice earner for him.

MrStuffins

kowloon wrote: »

That one was an education in itself.

Indeed. it was about a couple who didn't want their child being taught Christianity as truth alongside Science and Maths etc.

they found it hard to find a school to accomodate them but once they did the school went back on their word.

kowloon

MrStuffins wrote: »

Indeed. it was about a couple who didn't want their child being taught Christianity as truth alongside Science and Maths etc.

they found it hard to find a school to accomodate them but once they did the school went back on their word.

I remember a girl in my primary school whose parents asked if she could be opted out of religion; she was made sit at the back facing the wall.
The teacher went out of her way to make the girl feel different. One of the few things I actually remember from primary school.

I wonder if that would be allowed fly now.

MrStuffins

kowloon wrote: »

I remember a girl in my primary school whose parents asked if she could be opted out of religion; she was made sit at the back facing the wall.
The teacher went out of her way to make the girl feel different. One of the few things I actually remember from primary school.

I wonder if that would be allowed fly now.

Crazy!! It just shows the attitude doesn't it?

My brother went to special schools as a young kid. When he finally went to mainstream schools (at the begining of secondary school) the teachers were more than able to see his "Learning Difficulties" (for want of a better term) without prejudice. But once it became apparent that as part of this special school he was not taught Christianity he was seen as an unusual kid.

It wasn't that my parents kept him away from it, it was just a consequence of the school he was in (he didn't learn irish either).

ColeTrain wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvlt_atCZ3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_H_BTHPvUo

There's also another one with Pat Kenny, who didn't make such an arse out of himself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBDUPAgy5zk

EDIT: Just realised you wanted the secular school one. Don't have the link for that..

Thanks for the videos man, just finished watching the Tubirdy interview. Tubirty is a rat, putting words into Dawkin's mouth at every corner. But I though Dawkins came across well and the priest they had speaking to him was an articulate and educated individual, exactly what you need for this kind of "debate".

Tubirdy really shows himself to be a really bad mediator. He's shocking!

ColeTrain

MrStuffins wrote: »

Thanks for the videos man, just finished watching the Tubirdy interview. Tubirty is a rat, putting words into Dawkin's mouth at every corner. But I though Dawkins came across well and the priest they had speaking to him was an articulate and educated individual, exactly what you need for this kind of "debate".

Tubirdy really shows himself to be a really bad mediator. He's shocking!

Yeah he was terrible.

I had no problem with the priest either, came across very well. Much better than the philosopher that Kenny had on debating Dawkins - A former atheist

KeithAFC

Her spirit guide is called Sam. He must be doing the double, he works for Derek Acorah too!

MrStuffins

ColeTrain wrote: »

Yeah he was terrible.

I had no problem with the priest either, came across very well. Much better than the philosopher that Kenny had on debating Dawkins - A former atheist

I've just started watching it. I'm 5 mins in.

Dawkins spends ages saying "Normal Christians are great. No problem with them. But the fanatics are bad. Normal religious people good, but there are fanatics out there. Normal good, fanatics bad............."

then yer man starts off with

"Well there are fanatics but for Richard to take them as the norm is wrong............"

Holy mother!

vampire of kilmainham

TLL sh1t i hate it with a vengence and that little skinny neard tubbers why doesent he go off and live on some seclueded island somewhere he fcuking does my head in:eek:

pragmatic1

That episode with Dawkins on it made me ashamed to be Irish.

parrai

Just watched the Dawkins interviews...
Thought it was really interesting when it was put to him about a part of his book that he seemes excited about, where he was speculating about 'super human' aliens, which require a leap of faith, thought the look on his face was priceless when he was pulled up on it!

HLecter

Staying away from the whole religious/philosophical/science thing.

According to Joe he didn't leave the house for a year, hasn't worked for 31 years and lost a child at one point. Not proof in itself of him being unstable but to be considered.

Add to this Joe's possibility of being chosen by a divine deity/entity which is surely 1 in billions, not only billions but likely billions of more deserving people.

Was there a divine visit for the innocent child who starved or the drafted uneducated young soldier who died choking on nerve gas in ww1, or the executed activist standing up the the tyrant for basic human rights. Surely they deserve it more.

No, visits from a deity which happens to be identical to a main religious symbol of his culture are reserved to people from ballyfermot (perhaps a burden worthy of a divine visit) who offer no kind of proof.

The divine being also saw fit to offer no great knowledge or wisdom or philosophical insight.

Whoever brought the guy onto the show has some explaining to do.

parrai

I think Joe is a chancer

MrStuffins

parrai wrote: »

Just watched the Dawkins interviews...
Thought it was really interesting when it was put to him about a part of his book that he seemes excited about, where he was speculating about 'super human' aliens, which require a leap of faith, thought the look on his face was priceless when he was pulled up on it!

Then you either haven't read the book or you didn't understand what was being talked about.

There's a massive difference between saying "There is a God. I believe this to be fact. I can't prove it, but i'll take a leap of faith" and "I can't prove that there is life on other planets, but there are 100 Billion stars in our galaxy alone, there are 10 Billion Trillion stars known to us and possibly an infinite amount as the universe is possibly infinite. We don't know if it's infinite but what we DO know is it's rapidly expanding.......... so it's a mathimatical probability that there is aliens on other planets."

It's about probability. Imagine I start singing American Pie by Don McClean. What are the chances someone somewhere in the world is singing that song at the same time as me? 1 in a million? Imagine the chances were 1 in a Billion!

Well, right now there are almost 7 billion people in the world so if it WAS 1 in a billion than 7 people are singing the song right now. I can't prove it, but it's probable that i'm not the only one singing this song. It's a popular song afterall.

The guy who pulled him up on it made a complete idiot out of himself by trying to catch Dawkins out like he did because he had either failed to understand what Dawkins was trying to say or he was deliberately pandering to those who would use a straw like that to clutch at! Of course its a statistical probability that there is life on other planets!

But at no point did Dawkins EVER say it was a fact that there were!

parrai

MrStuffins wrote: »

parrai wrote: »

Just watched the Dawkins interviews...
Thought it was really interesting when it was put to him about a part of his book that he seemes excited about, where he was speculating about 'super human' aliens, which require a leap of faith, thought the look on his face was priceless when he was pulled up on it!

Then you either haven't read the book or you didn't understand what was being talked about.

There's a massive difference between saying "There is a God. I believe this to be fact. I can't prove it, but i'll take a leap of faith" and "I can't prove that there is life on other planets, but there are 100 Billion stars in our galaxy alone, there are ten Billion Trillion stars known to us and the universe is believed to be infinite.......... so it's a mathimatical probability that there is aliens on other planets."

The guy who pulled him up on it made a complete idiot out of himself by trying to catch Dawkins out like he did because he had either failed to understand what Dawkins was trying to say or he was deliberately pandering to those who would use a straw like that to clutch at!

Clutching is exactly what it was, there is no proof of super human intelligence, none, like there is no factual proof of a god, his face was priceless!

MrStuffins

parrai wrote: »

Clutching is exactly what it was, there is no proof of super human intelligence, none, like there is no factual proof of a god, his face was priceless!

Exactly. There is no proof.

But his face was priceless not because he'd been caught out, his face was priceless because this guy who was supposedly a scholar and the best example RTE could come up with of someone capable of debating Dawkins' point in his books had COMPLETELY misunderstood what was being said.

Again, there is a massive difference. Dawkins NEVER SAID that there was life on other planets. So why would he need proof?

He said it's probable. And the lad ridiculously embarrassed himself. No wonder Dawkins was astonished!

parrai

MrStuffins wrote: »

parrai wrote: »

Clutching is exactly what it was, there is no proof of super human intelligence, none, like there is no factual proof of a god, his face was priceless!

Exactly. There is no proof.

But his face was priceless not because he'd been caught out, his face was priceless because this guy who was supposedly a scholar and the best example RTE could come up with of someone capable of debating Dawkins' point in his books had COMPLETELY misunderstood what was being said.

Again, there is a massive difference. Dawkins NEVER SAID that there was life on other planets. So why would he need proof?

He said it's probable. And the lad ridiculously embarrassed himself. No wonder Dawkins was astonished!

No, he was suiting himself... That's all. It requires a leap of faith to believe in aliens, it is a deluded concept at this point in time. Just as it is a deluded concept that there is a god judging everyone for not going to mass on sunday or eating meat on a friday. It is plain and simple. He has no proof to back up his concept. Simples.

Proof is not probability, proof is hard fast demonstrable evidence in the shape of an alien, super human intelligence, superior to ours in at least some way that can be tested and proved beyond doubt to be superior to the greatest intelligence we have ( at the very least) he doesn't have it, no one does. Hence, his theory requires me to take a leap of faith even to allow for the possibility of the probability. Simples.

KeithAFC

Dawkins completely got it wrong with the whole probable in that video. Dawkins was basing his argument on faith, even if it has some intelligence behind it. It is still a leap of faith.

MrStuffins

parrai wrote: »

No, he was suiting himself... That's all. It requires a leap of faith to believe in aliens, it is a deluded concept at this point in time.

I don't think you're quite understanding here. He didn't say he believed in aliens. He said it was a statistical probability than life on other planets exists. WHich I fully agree with. it would be absolutely foolish to think we are the only life in the universe. It requires no proof because it is a hypotesis. He doesn't ask that you believe him, it was a rhetorical device.

Just as it is a deluded concept that there is a god judging everyone for not going to mass on sunday or eating meat on a friday. It is plain and simple. He has no proof to back up his concept. Simples.

Again, you haven't understood what was being said. I highly suggest you go back and watch the video or you pick upi the book and read what was said. he NEVER said there was aliens on other planets. NEVER!

He said it was probable. A pure hypotesis. people who believe in God don't do so in a hypothetical way. Their faith flies in the face of proof. You're not understanding what is going on here my friend.

Proof is not probability

Good, i'm glad you know this. Which is why when you go back and watch the video you will hear them talk about how it's not fact, but probable.

proof is hard fast demonstrable evidence in the shape of an alien, super human intelligence, superior to ours in at least some way that can be tested and proved beyond doubt to be superior to the greatest intelligence we have ( at the very least) he doesn't have it, no one does.

Yup. and he never asked for proof. He never said it was fact.

Just like if I said right now that it was PROBABLE that someone, somewhere is singing American Pie by Don McClean. It's very probable as it's a popular song and there are so many people who know it. But i'm not saying I can prove it. I'm saying it's probable. It's very possible nobody is singing it.

Hence, his theory requires me to take a leap of faith even to allow for the possibility of the probability. Simples.

No it doesn't. You haven't understood the "theory" properly. Simples.

MrStuffins

KeithAFC wrote: »

Dawkins completely got it wrong with the whole probable in that video. Dawkins was basing his argument on faith, even if it has some intelligence behind it. It is still a leap of faith.

If you believe this then you don't know what faith and probability are!

To have faith in God is to say that no matter what people tell you and no matter what proof you might have AGAINST there being a God, you should believe it anyway because it is fact.

To say something is probable is to say that it may or may not be true, but the option most likely is that it IS true. But only that it's LIKELY to be true, not that it is sure to be true.

I'm seriously not sure why people are finding it hard to understand this. It's very straight forward.

parrai

MrStuffins wrote: »

parrai wrote: »

No, he was suiting himself... That's all. It requires a leap of faith to believe in aliens, it is a deluded concept at this point in time.

I don't think you're quite understanding here. He didn't say he believed in aliens. He said it was a statistical probability than life on other planets exists. WHich I fully agree with. it would be absolutely foolish to think we are the only life in the universe. It requires no proof because it is a hypotesis. He doesn't ask that you believe him, it was a rhetorical device.

Just as it is a deluded concept that there is a god judging everyone for not going to mass on sunday or eating meat on a friday. It is plain and simple. He has no proof to back up his concept. Simples.

Again, you haven't understood what was being said. I highly suggest you go back and watch the video or you pick upi the book and read what was said. he NEVER said there was aliens on other planets. NEVER!

He said it was probable. A pure hypotesis. people who believe in God don't do so in a hypothetical way. Their faith flies in the face of proof. You're not understanding what is going on here my friend.

Proof is not probability

Good, i'm glad you know this. Which is why when you go back and watch the video you will hear them talk about how it's not fact, but probable.

proof is hard fast demonstrable evidence in the shape of an alien, super human intelligence, superior to ours in at least some way that can be tested and proved beyond doubt to be superior to the greatest intelligence we have ( at the very least) he doesn't have it, no one does.

Yup. and he never asked for proof. He never said it was fact.

Just like if I said right now that it was PROBABLE that someone, somewhere is singing American Pie by Don McClean. It's very probable as it's a popular song and there are so many people who know it. But i'm not saying I can prove it. I'm saying it's probable. It's very possible nobody is singing it.

Hence, his theory requires me to take a leap of faith even to allow for the possibility of the probability. Simples.

No it doesn't. You haven't understood the "theory" properly. Simples.

I understood it perfectly. Statistics don't cut it for this one. Nothing does. There is no proof. It is as plain and simple as that. He can paint whatever picture he likes. I have spent decades reading this kind of stuff. The man at this stage in his career is deluded on this point. At least Christians have proof Jesus Christ walked this earth. The is no proof that aliens exist, probably just doesn't cut. He can argue the point, but at the end of the day, just like his counterparts he cannot provide actual proof. Hence liathroidi.

MrStuffins

parrai wrote: »

I understood it perfectly. Statistics don't cut it for this one. Nothing does. There is no proof. It is as plain and simple as that. He can paint whatever picture he likes. I have spent decades reading this kind of stuff. The man at this stage in his career is deluded on this point. At least Christians have proof Jesus Christ walked this earth. The is no proof that aliens exist, probably just doesn't cut. He can argue the point, but at the end of the day, just like his counterparts he cannot provide actual proof. Hence liathroidi.

Hahaha, dude, he never asked that you believe aliens exist. Just like I never said I could prove someone was singing American Pie. He never presented it as fact. Why would he need to show you proof if he never said it was fact?

He said it was a statistical probability. Which is 100% true. it's very probable that there is life on other planets.

parrai

MrStuffins wrote: »

parrai wrote: »

I understood it perfectly. Statistics don't cut it for this one. Nothing does. There is no proof. It is as plain and simple as that. He can paint whatever picture he likes. I have spent decades reading this kind of stuff. The man at this stage in his career is deluded on this point. At least Christians have proof Jesus Christ walked this earth. The is no proof that aliens exist, probably just doesn't cut. He can argue the point, but at the end of the day, just like his counterparts he cannot provide actual proof. Hence liathroidi.

Hahaha, dude, he never asked that you believe aliens exist. Just like I never said I could prove someone was singing American Pie. He never presented it as fact. Why would he need to show you proof if he never said it was fact?

He said it was a statistical probability. Which is 100% true. it's very probable that there is life on other planets.

The problem is this, to acknowledge the possibility, statistical probability, notion, concept, idea of aliens at this point in time, requires a leap of faith, suspension of disbelief in reality. This man laughs in the faces of people, who for their own reasons, choose to believe in something that cannot be proven.

He is the very person that requires proof for their foolishness.

Now, he comes along with a concept which requires the same criteria to be fulfilled, and suggests something as ridiculous as what they are suggesting and expects not to be pulled up on it, by rationally thinking people. This is the point. And his face showed it.

He may be a hero of yours, and I enjoyed watching several videos from him. But he got caught in his own web on this point. People can believe, and should be allowed to believe whatever they want. Equality across all spectrums, whatever they are. Live and let live without ridicule.

Pompey Magnus

MrStuffins wrote: »

To have faith in God is to say that no matter what people tell you and no matter what proof you might have AGAINST there being a God, you should believe it anyway because it is fact.

Exactly, I would bet a penny to a pound that if a scientific discovery was made and verified by respected scientists which showed that conditions neccessary to support life are actually much harder to achieve than is currently thought, so much so that it would be improbable for any other planet in the entire Universe to meet the required criteria, then Dawkins would be one of the first to hold up his hands and admit his assumption for the existence of extraterrestrial life seems to have been wrong given the new understanding.

That is not faith.

MrStuffins

Parrai: I'm going to ask you a simple question. Apart from here on this earth, do you believe that it is at all possible that life could exist somewhere else in the universe?

If not, why not?

Snakeblood

kowloon wrote: »

I remember a girl in my primary school whose parents asked if she could be opted out of religion; she was made sit at the back facing the wall.
The teacher went out of her way to make the girl feel different. One of the few things I actually remember from primary school.

I wonder if that would be allowed fly now.

I went to a catholic primary school in the 80s, had to sit outside the class reading. It was a bunch of ****ing bull****. They gave me a bible to read.

Snakeblood

parrai wrote: »

I understood it perfectly. Statistics don't cut it for this one. Nothing does. There is no proof. It is as plain and simple as that. He can paint whatever picture he likes. I have spent decades reading this kind of stuff. The man at this stage in his career is deluded on this point. At least Christians have proof Jesus Christ walked this earth. The is no proof that aliens exist, probably just doesn't cut. He can argue the point, but at the end of the day, just like his counterparts he cannot provide actual proof. Hence liathroidi.

Why don't statistics cut it?

MrStuffins

Snakeblood wrote: »

I went to a catholic primary school in the 80s, had to sit outside the class reading. It was a bunch of ****ing bull****. They gave me a bible to read.

HAHAHA!!!

Sorry, I know it's terrible but that's hilarious. That they gave you a bible to read. The arrogance! Amazing!

MrStuffins

Snakeblood wrote: »

Why don't statistics cut it?

Apparently when talking about probability, numbers are no use. You have to have proof of something before you can say it's probable :rolleyes:

Snakeblood

MrStuffins wrote: »

HAHAHA!!!

Sorry, I know it's terrible but that's hilarious. That they gave you a bible to read. The arrogance! Amazing!

Yeah, I believe things are better in that school now, but at the time I hated every second of it. They probably thought they were helping me. ****.

MrStuffins

Snakeblood wrote: »

Yeah, I believe things are better in that school now, but at the time I hated every second of it. They probably thought they were helping me. ****.

I started to wake up to the idea that all this Christianity malarcy wasn't true in secondary school. One of our teachers was a bible bashing Christian who used to make us pray at the begining of class. There came a point where I didn't want to do that anymore so refused.

She had me excluded from irish class until I called discrimination on her ass. It caused a major hub-bub in the school at the time because this was pre-immigration times so she wasn't used to having non-Christians in her class.

I wonder what she's like now?

parrai

My point has been made. If you cannot understand it, you need to read my posts again. The question you have asked was answered in my previous posts also. I am open to changing my mind when proof is provided. At the moment there is no proof.