Is "Dublin" a real place?

Jim tully

Notavirus.exe wrote:

2. I have my proof of ghosts. You can find famous ghost photos that were taken before "photoshopping" existed on the internet. They will be more convincing than mine, as I could just photoshop a ghost into a photo and send it to you. I'm not trying to convince anyone. Whether you believe in them or not, I don't care. I only brought it up because I know that beings such as ghosts exist so why can't God? That's one of my reasons for believing. I'm not using this as an argument.

Massive claims require massive evidence. If you are going to make an incredible claim that ghosts exist then you damn well better produce significantly more evidence than some dubious photographs. It is far far more likely that the object that you are identifying as a ghost is something that is in fact not a ghost. I'm finding it hard to imagine how naive and lacking in rudimentary critical thinking a person must be to believe in ghosts based on photographs. I'm not trying to be insulting OP and I don't mean to be patronising when I say that you really should read some science books on the topic. You seem to be looking for answers which is a great start but you should really take on board everything people on this forum have said as they echo some of the great scientific writers.

I can recommend a lot of videos and books on the subject which are very interesting and challenging should you wish

Lord Riverside

Jim tully wrote: »

Massive claims require massive evidence.

Nope, that claim is not correct. Ordinary evidence is just fine.

Jim tully

Lord Riverside wrote:

Nope, that claim is not correct. Ordinary evidence is just fine.

I don't want to be pedantic but I think any evidence that can substantiate the existence of a ghost would be massive evidence. Yes, ordinary evidence is fine as long as we're not referring to photographic evidence which is not evidence at all.

Lord Riverside

Jim tully wrote: »

I don't want to be pedantic but I think any evidence that can substantiate the existence of a ghost would be massive evidence. Yes, ordinary evidence is fine as long as we're not referring to photographic evidence which is not evidence at all.

No your claim is incorrect and unscientific. Just plain old ordinary scientific evidence is quite sufficient to prove anything, but none had been presented to date.

endacl

Photographic proof of fairies. Pre-photoshop. There are fairies. Because there's a photo. Deffo.

Jim tully

Lord Riverside wrote:

No your claim is incorrect and unscientific. Just plain old ordinary scientific evidence is quite sufficient to prove anything, but none had been presented to date.

Ok. I think we are getting caught up on the meaning of words here. Massive, not describing the evidence itself but rather the implication of the evidence. You're pontificating about it being incorrect and unscientific when its actually a quote from Prof. Dicky Dawkins himself ;-)

Notavirus.exe

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I am reading them all...

1. Something to note, I haven't been saying "only God could have done it". I've been putting forward questions that I believe warrant it worthwhile to once in a while say "You know what, maybe something intelligent could have something to do with life existing".

Does the fact that you can't explain how God actually did all the things you think he did not make you question whether he exists?
Even when you think that such an inability to answer such questions should make us question our atheism?

Does the fact that all of your questions have actually been addressed pretty completely not make you wonder?

If not, you must be pretty confident in your belief without a whole bunch to support it. Arrogant you might say...

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

2. I have my proof of ghosts. You can find famous ghost photos that were taken before "photoshopping" existed on the internet. They will be more convincing than mine, as I could just photoshop a ghost into a photo and send it to you. I'm not trying to convince anyone. Whether you believe in them or not, I don't care. I only brought it up because I know that beings such as ghosts exist so why can't God? That's one of my reasons for believing. I'm not using this as an argument.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_exposure
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirit_photography

Spirit photography was first used by William H. Mumler in the 1860s. Mumler discovered the technique by accident, after he discovered a second person in a photograph he took of himself, which he found was actually a double exposure. Seeing there was a market for it, Mumler started working as a medium, taking people's pictures and doctoring the negatives to add lost loved ones into them (mostly using other photographs as basis). Mumler's fraud was discovered after he put identifiable living Boston residents in the photos as spirits.

You don't need photoshop.

You'd think that with cameras becoming more and more common as to be in everyone's pockets all the time, and the fact that they are all much higher resolution, better at focusing and eliminating artefacts in the image, we'd be seeing more and more, better and better ghost photographs...

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Has she or hasn't she?

It's not that hard a question, is it?

Any chance of an answer to this?

The OP did indicate that in his opinion his grandmother didn't live a full life, and then backpedalled to suggest that she might have - though not to state that she did.

Which is it? Did she? Or didn't she?

johnnyskeleton

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Something to note, I haven't been saying "only God could have done it". I've been putting forward questions that I believe warrant it worthwhile to once in a while say "You know what, maybe something intelligent could have something to do with life existing".

Ive only been dipping in to this thread but you started off asking basically how people lived without belief in the specific Abrahamic God, moral code and afterlife aspects of religion. If all you are really doing is suggesting that an unspecified God might exist and/or have created the universe (intentionally or otherwise / solely or in conjunction with others / etc) then you are finally in a position to answer the question you posed in the OP as you do not believe 100% in the specific God of the Christian bible and so are just as uncertain as to the origins and meaning of life as the rest of us.

Want a cup of tea?

pauldla

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I am reading them all...

Cool. This might be an opportune moment to recall the words of Master Kong: "He who studies but does not think is lost. He who thinks but does not study is in great danger".

1. Something to note, I haven't been saying "only God could have done it". I've been putting forward questions that I believe warrant it worthwhile to once in a while say "You know what, maybe something intelligent could have something to do with life existing".

Yes, you've been firing out questions to beat the band. Some of them are good questions, too. Master Kong again: "The man who asks a question is a fool for a minute, the man who does not ask is a fool for life".

However, and if I may be so bold, you don't seem to be terribly interested in engaging with the answers you've been receiving. Which is a pity, as some of the answers to your questions have been quite good. You should explore them further. Another one-liner from that old Chinese guy: “It is not the failure of others to appreciate your abilities that should trouble you, but rather your failure to appreciate theirs.”

2. I have my proof of ghosts. You can find famous ghost photos that were taken before "photoshopping" existed on the internet. They will be more convincing than mine, as I could just photoshop a ghost into a photo and send it to you. I'm not trying to convince anyone. Whether you believe in them or not, I don't care. I only brought it up because I know that beings such as ghosts exist so why can't God? That's one of my reasons for believing. I'm not using this as an argument.

Well, here's the thing. You ARE using it as an argument. You're proposing the existence of ghosts as a kind of implied argument for the existence of God. I find your views here puzzling: if you do indeed believe in ghosts, and you're satisfied with the evidence you have, that would certainly suggest an afterlife; so from where comes your angst?

kylith

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

3. For the last time, I'm not saying my grandmother hasn't lived her life to the fullest. In fact, I specifically said the opposite of that. I am not discussing my grandmother, I'm saying that I don't understand how she keeps going, despite being convinced that when she dies, that's that.

The person best placed to answer that would be the woman herself, don't you think?

nozzferrahhtoo

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I believe warrant it worthwhile to once in a while say "You know what, maybe something intelligent could have something to do with life existing".

Of course it COULD. But "could" gets you nowhere. I doubt you will find many people at all on this forum who doubt that it COULD be so. But the current Irish President COULD have killed OJ Simpsons wife. Despite this "could" it is clearly still a nonsense and entirely unsubstantiated proposition.

So I, along with most if not all of the posters here, realize it COULD be a god that explains all your questions. But acknowledging that "could" does not for one moment lend credence to the claim, or change the simple inconvenient for you fact that at this time the proposition is not just slightly, but entirely, devoid of even a modicum of substantiation of any type. Least of all from you.

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

2. I have my proof of ghosts. You can find famous ghost photos that were taken before "photoshopping" existed on the internet.

Ah the old "I have proof but I will not be showing you" canard. We get that a lot around here. The words differ but the narrative does not. It is always a claim to have loads of evidence, followed almost in the same breath with a declaration that, or an excuse for, the user not actually giving or showing it.

And no, photoshop is not required to produce such images. So the "These photos exist from before photoshop" says precisely and exactly _nothing_.

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I'm saying that I don't understand how she keeps going, despite being convinced that when she dies, that's that.

Because, as was said before in one of the posts you appear to have glossed over, for many people the Destination is all important.... that would be you..... but for many people they realize the journey IS the destination.... which is your grandmother.

It really is that simple, and not nearly as hard to understand as you are making it out to be.

robindch

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

"You know what, maybe something intelligent could have something to do with life existing".

It "could" also be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, so I wouldn't get your hope up too high using the "could" argument as evidence that your specific deity or deities exist.

Thargor

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057489875

:rolleyes:

robindch

Thargor wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057489875

Now, there's a surprise

endacl

robindch wrote: »

Now, there's a surprise

I dunno. I'm sensing sub-bridge dweller at this stage...

DublinWriter

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I respect that you don't believe in God but I don't understand how you can cope with life believing that when you die, that's it.

What I can't understand is how you'd be happy being yourself.

For all eternity.

On a cloud.

Now *that*, would drive me insane.

Zillah

Thargor wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057489875

:rolleyes:

"What's the hassle in making a change to world maps and the currency in NI and the police force there?"

lol

I think he's genuinely, just prone to simplistic thinking. And probably, like, 16.

endacl

Zillah wrote: »

"What's the hassle in making a change to world maps and the currency in NI and the police force there?"

lol

I think he's genuinely, just prone to simplistic thinking. And probably, like, 16.

Have you caught his 'can I get a firearms license to shoot burglars? No? OK. Well, can I just beat them up, so?" thread?

kylith

endacl wrote: »

Have you caught his 'can I get a firearms license to shoot burglars? No? OK. Well, can I just beat them up, so?" thread?

Well, he's just more full of questions than a martlebury is full of mizzensails, isn't he?

Username here

kylith wrote: »

Well, he's just more full of questions than a martlebury is full of mizzensails, isn't he?

.

I think he had one about people's finger/toenails there yesterday, too...

endacl

Username here wrote: »

.

I think he had one about people's finger/toenails there yesterday, too...

I'm kinda starting to like him. Every village needs one.

Notavirus.exe

Deleted User wrote: »

Any chance of an answer to this?

The OP did indicate that in his opinion his grandmother didn't live a full life, and then backpedalled to suggest that she might have - though not to state that she did.

Which is it? Did she? Or didn't she?

Are you trolling? I've specifically said that this has nothing to do with my grandmother being an atheist and not living her life to the full.

What I was saying was, she is both atheist, aware of her mortality and happy. She doesn't complain. I just don't get it.

Can we stop talking about my grandmother now? I was just using her as an example as to how atheists I know live.

endacl

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Are you trolling? I've specifically said that this has nothing to do with my grandmother being an atheist and not living her life to the full.

What I was saying was, she is both atheist, aware of her mortality and happy. She doesn't complain. I just don't get it.

Can we stop talking about my grandmother now? I was just using her as an example as to how atheists I know live.

And yet you opened this thread wondering how d'poor auld ateeists manage to get through the day at all! Make your mind up.

1. What is your position?
2. What is your question?

Notavirus.exe

endacl wrote: »

Have you caught his 'can I get a firearms license to shoot burglars? No? OK. Well, can I just beat them up, so?" thread?

I'm not just a religious psychopath. :P

And seriously, what's wrong with my thread in the Politics Cafe?

Notavirus.exe

endacl wrote: »

And yet you opened this thread wondering how d'poor auld ateeists manage to get through the day at all! Make your mind up.

1. What is your position?
2. What is your question?

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "position". I'm living a good life. I believe in God and I sometimes pray to God (INB4 anti-theist rant posts). I don't believe that once you're dead it's "bye bye" to you.

2. I don't look forward to death but I don't fear it either. I have hope for what happens after death. Atheists don't. In my opinion, living life, working, earning money, etc is worth it if you're just going to die and not be there to know it. How do you atheists find a purpose in life?

endacl

How does your esteemed granny find purpose in life?

Kev W

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "position". I'm living a good life. I believe in God and I sometimes pray to God (INB4 anti-theist rant posts). I don't believe that once you're dead it's "bye bye" to you.

2. I don't look forward to death but I don't fear it either. I have hope for what happens after death. Atheists don't. In my opinion, living life, working, earning money, etc is worth it if you're just going to die and not be there to know it. How do you atheists find a purpose in life?

This is my favourite summation of what it's like (from an episode of Angel, of all things. I'm not sure if that's ironic.) :

"If there's no great glorious end to this, if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today.

If there's no bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world."

Notavirus.exe

endacl wrote: »

How does your esteemed granny find purpose in life?

I don't know. All I know is, she's atheist and happy. I don't know what makes her happy if she thinks she's going to die soon and she won't exist at all afterwards.

Kev W

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I don't know. All I know is, she's atheist and happy. I don't know what makes her happy if she thinks she's going to die soon and she won't exist at all afterwards.

If she believes she's not going to exist past a certain point in the future what would be the good in being unhappy about it?