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

Darwin's theory

1…6869717374…78

Comments

  • #2102
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    But the hand of the LORD was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods, even Ashdod and the coasts thereof.
     (1 Samuel Chapter 5, vs. 6)

    He's a nasty god. Hemorrhoids? In the days before Preparation H was begat?
    In fairness...
    He has certainly had some nasty people claiming to follow Him ... and claiming that He was responsible for their nastiness ... all very Human actually.


  • #2103
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    J C wrote: »
    I encounter people all the time claiming this insight or that revelation.
    I listen respectfully to them and I weigh up the evidence and decide whether they have a valid point or not.

    There is only One God who says that He will Save us ... so Paschal's Wager can only logically apply to Him.:)

    thats what i like about you JC, you're not a bit biased.


  • #2104
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    thats what i like about you JC, you're not a bit biased.
    Facts are facts and logic is logic ... they help me to avoid bias.:)
    The fact that I love my fellow man and I respect their right to hold an alternative opinion, also helps.


  • #2105
    Saganist
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,335 ✭✭✭Saganist


    J C wrote: »
    Facts are facts and logic is logic ... they help me to avoid bias.:)

    Or reality.. :P


  • #2106
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    J C wrote: »
    Facts are facts and logic is logic ... they help me to avoid bias.:)
    The fact that I love my fellow man and respect them all also helps.

    you're sure you know what those words mean?
    ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #2107
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    If you encountered a person today, claiming some divine revelation and they're a messenger from some god, would you not view them as either insane/deluded or some form of a scam artist, or would you be asking for seconds at the kool-aid bar? Why are these any different? There is no evidence, other then faith, that these men received orders/revelation from some god. Claiming its logical only demonstrates either you don't know what logic means, or you're deluded.

    I would ask him for a miracle to prove his claim, since all prophet of god had some sort of a supernatural miracle to support that in in fact god spoken to them.
    However I do not understand how do you compare such an individual to the likes of Jesus,Moses or Solomon and countless other individuals that claimed to have received revelation from god, and to this day people speak of their excellent character,honesty and sincerity.
    If one person claimed he's a prophet we might say he's insane but there was 48 prophets mentioned in the Bible alone 24 in the Quran, their life and stories have been described in detail, and it does not make sense for somebody to sit down and write a book in which he invents 48 people giving them each a distinctive personality and trait and talk in detail about their origin and the events in their life.
    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    if you're basing your faith on Pascal's wager, why not apply it to any and every god. Why not spread your bets, and believe in the lot of them, you've nothing to lose... hedging on the Abrahamic one could seriously piss Odin off, and he isn't to be f**ked with. Also throw a few bob to the Scientologists and Church of All Worlds...we know they're loons, but just in case like...
    My comments on Pascal's wager was directed toward Grayson as having studied philosophy I was interested in his thoughts regarding it.


  • #2108
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Saganist wrote: »
    Or reality.. :P
    I have found that facts and logic help me to accept realities ... like the existence of a Creator God ... who can Save you and has Saved me.:)


  • #2109
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    you're sure you know what those words mean?
    ;)
    Are you sure you know ... yourself?!!:)


  • #2110
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,169 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    and it does not make sense for somebody to sit down and write a book in which he invents 48 people giving them each a distinctive personality and trait and talk in detail about their origin and the events in their life.
    Ummm, yeah it does, ever heard of money? Influence over others because you speak for a God that only you can hear? The odds are slightly higher that those were the basis for religion than an actual God that created billions upon billions of galaxies then hangs around one planet in one of them disapproving of homosexuals and divorce and making sure that one guys camel cavalry beats another?


  • #2111
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    My oh my, where the hell are all these crazies coming from?

    Those making a claim that there is a god, need to provide some form of evidence, its that simple. Atheists do not say that there is no god, the doctrine is that there is no reason to believe that there is such a thing as a god.

    How do we get to this position? The evidence that there is now for the fact of evolution, the still lack of evidence for any type of god, divine intervention, miracles, or any fairytale crap that these holy books are filled with.

    We are on page 158 now of this thread, and JC hasn't supplied one single shred of evidence to any of his arguments, so that says a lot (expect him to say he has), I am also calling him a fraud along with that, as he is very clearly not a scientist in any form, and I would severely doubt he even has a degree related to any science.

    As for the position taken up by others who would be somewhat on the side if JC, I say this, very clearly. We would be far better off without religion, or any type of belief in some celestial power that has control over us. The blood that has been shed throughout society because of peoples beliefs is easily the blackest mark on our species, and it is all self-inflicted or brought about by religious bigots who think they can tell us how to live according to a primitive and evil text.

    Nothing about religion is moral, I submit it is utterly immoral, and is clearly a manmade fallacy that needs to be eradicated from any type of influence from society, politics and day to day life.

    The sooner this happens, we might then begin to reach the higher status that mankind deservers to be at.


  • Advertisement
  • #2112
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    Thargor wrote: »
    Ummm, yeah it does, ever heard of money? Influence over others because you speak for a God that only you can hear? The odds are slightly higher that those were the basis for religion than an actual God that created billions upon billions of galaxies then hangs around one planet in one of them disapproving of homosexuals and divorce and making sure that one guys camel cavalry beats another?

    Thanks for your input, the bible may have been written by individuals however among these 48 prophets are the likes of Jesus who was know at this time for his honesty,truth and sincerity, Mohammed the prophet of Islam lived and died in poverty there are narrations by his companions that say that he would wrap a stone around his stomach from hunger in fact at the start of his massage his tribe came and offered him money until he become the richest and the most beautiful women in Quraish at that time yet he refused. I find it hard to believe that such people were after money fame and influence.
    Being a student of comparative religion the Quran speaks about those who did in fact attempt to use their influence for money and fame:

    "Indeed, they who conceal what Allah has sent down of the Book and exchange it for a small price - those consume not into their bellies except the Fire. And Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them. And they will have a painful punishment."{2/174}

    Now for someone to be seeking money and kingship why would he include this verse in his own book? and why would someone write a book and threaten him self in his own book by saying

    "And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,We would have seized him by the right hand;Then We would have cut from him the aorta.And there is no one of you who could prevent [Us] from him." {69/44-47}

    the similar massage can be said about both Jesus and Moses in the bible.


  • #2113
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    Joseph smith is another" prophet " you forgot to mention,and some of his teaching do not agree with the Bible,and the Bible teaching is not in agreement with the Koran.So who do we believe ?,Jesus was the son of God- NO- Jesus was not the son of God but was a prophet and Mohammed was the last ,NO- Joseph Smith was the last. Hell -maybe Tom Cruise is on the right path with his beliefs or the Dalai Lama.who knows ????


  • #2114
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,169 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Some people will forgo luxury for power, influence and ego massage, some do it for the money, some do it for access to underage children (Mohammed included in the latter by the way), some are just batsh1t insane. None of this amounts to even a grain of sands worth of the evidence towards anything supernatural which you claim it to be.


  • #2115
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    kingchess wrote: »
    Joseph smith is another" prophet " you forgot to mention,and some of his teaching do not agree with the Bible,and the Bible teaching is not in agreement with the Koran.So who do we believe ?,Jesus was the son of God- NO- Jesus was not the son of God but was a prophet and Mohammed was the last ,NO- Joseph Smith was the last. Hell -maybe Tom Cruise is on the right path with his beliefs or the Dalai Lama.who knows ????
    Thats what I spent that past 4 years trying to figure out and understand by studying and comparing the different religions to see which one really is the closest to being god true word.


  • #2116
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Thats what I spent that past 4 years trying to figure out and understand by studying and comparing the different religions to see which one really is the closest to being god true word.

    and which version of God are you leaning towards??


  • #2117
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    kingchess wrote: »
    and which version of God are you leaning towards??
    what the Abrahamic religions are saying in other words Monotheism.


  • #2118
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    Well two of those faiths deny that Jesus was the son of God,does that narrow it down a small bit more for you??


  • #2119
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Gintonious wrote: »
    My oh my, where the hell are all these crazies coming from?
    That's no way to talk about Atheists ... or indeed Theists either.
    Gintonious wrote: »
    Those making a claim that there is a god, need to provide some form of evidence, its that simple. Atheists do not say that there is no god, the doctrine is that there is no reason to believe that there is such a thing as a god.
    ... and I have given you some of the reasons to believe there is a God here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92762061&postcount=2346

    Gintonious wrote: »
    We are on page 158 now of this thread, and JC hasn't supplied one single shred of evidence to any of his arguments, so that says a lot (expect him to say he has),
    See above.
    Gintonious wrote: »
    I am also calling him a fraud along with that, as he is very clearly not a scientist in any form, and I would severely doubt he even has a degree related to any science.
    Of course I'm a scientist ... that is obvious from my posts ... and the fact that I have single-handedly invalidated M2M Evolution and provided the basis and argued the details of ID.:)
    Gintonious wrote: »
    As for the position taken up by others who would be somewhat on the side if JC, I say this, very clearly. We would be far better off without religion, or any type of belief in some celestial power that has control over us. The blood that has been shed throughout society because of peoples beliefs is easily the blackest mark on our species, and it is all self-inflicted or brought about by religious bigots who think they can tell us how to live according to a primitive and evil text.
    ... to say nothing about the blood spilled by the Atheistic Communists, Maoists, Stalinists, Marxists, Leninists ... and more other ...'ists' and 'isms' than I could shake a stick at!!:(
    We can all point to atrocities committed by Theists and Atheists ... and where does this get us?
    Gintonious wrote: »
    Nothing about religion is moral, I submit it is utterly immoral, and is clearly a manmade fallacy that needs to be eradicated from any type of influence from society, politics and day to day life.

    The sooner this happens, we might then begin to reach the higher status that mankind deservers to be at.
    That smacks of self-righteous intolerance of diversity of opinion and pluralism of belief!!!
    BTW, I agree with you that religion is a man-made construct ... but so too is science ... and Atheism, for that matter.


  • #2120
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    kingchess wrote: »
    Well two of those faiths deny that Jesus was the son of God,does that narrow it down a small bit more for you??
    This is becoming more of a personal discussion which I don't mind having via Pm & not in this thread as I dont want to veer the direction of this thread again having done so twice so far, but to answer this final question no it doesn't narrow it down for me while it might sound simple but it's much more complex then what you think.


  • #2121
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    This thread's gone off the rails altogether.
    To get it back on the rails, please have a go at pointing out any deficiencies in the basis for ID here

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836


  • Advertisement
  • #2122
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    So you can ignore it again? No thanks, I'm grand.
    What did I ignore?
    ... please give me the link


  • #2123
    kingchess
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 795 ✭✭✭kingchess


    J C wrote: »
    What did I ignore?
    ... please give me the link

    Did we not explain to you time and time again that Dembski is a grade A1 moron and his so called theory is a joke:confused: What branch of science are you involved in again??:rolleyes:


  • #2124
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    ah I think you missed when I said
    "Having more then one entity mean that he needed help and this contradict the very definition of a god"
    an all powerful being that require not the help of anyone. So it's not more logical to have one god then many otherwise it would contradict the very definition of a god which states
    "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe"
    such being is powerful enough to do everything himself without the help of other gods.

    Can you also explain to me what do you mean by saying:
    ""X is Y unless it applies to me, then it's God, DUH!"
    Since i cant understand how what I wrote below correspond with such an argument.
    "the principle of cause & effect and that from nothing comes nothing and hence who created the universe?
    a way to counter this argument would be to say then who created god? but God is the 1st cause and is the uncreated creator of everything else and asking what is the cause of the 1st cause is a flawed question because it's god.However you can choose to defy common logic and be irrational by believing that something does come from nothing."

    I also want to make it clear that am not looking for a debate or an argument but rather a discussion to see whether the belief in a god is rational or not, since the psychology of a debate is like a sports competition, and no one likes to lose. So even if you make a good point, the other person isn't going to congratulate you. They are thinking about revenge.

    Sweet jebus. You've picked the definition of a monotheistic God and tried to argue that excludes the possibility of other gods.

    If you'd bothered to read the whole Wikipedia article you pulled that from you'd see it separately refers to a separate definition for "gods" plural.

    Not all religious had or needed a single all powerful god. Other religions had gods with only limited domains or areas of responsibilities. So multiple gods is entirely compatible with their view or definition of a god.

    Yiu are talking out your arse.


  • #2125
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    floggg wrote: »
    Sweet jebus. You've picked the definition of a monotheistic God and tried to argue that excludes the possibility of other gods.

    If you'd bothered to read the whole Wikipedia article you pulled that from you'd see it separately refers to a separate definition for "gods" plural.

    Not all religious had or needed a single all powerful god. Other religions had gods with only limited domains or areas of responsibilities. So multiple gods is entirely compatible with their view or definition of a god.

    Yiu are talking out your arse.
    From an earlier post:
    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    The existence of multiple gods does not deny the existence of a single god, we first need to understand why multiple god exist? when people go to war they pray to a specific "god of war" when they want to get married to pray to the god of marriage and love.
    Zeus, Odin and so one are names given by human to define each of these gods and what they do, however am saying that these gods are a single god whom the people gave names to based on what they need from him.


  • #2126
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    I would ask him for a miracle to prove his claim, since all prophet of god had some sort of a supernatural miracle to support that in in fact god spoken to them.

    I'm asking the same, not some unverifiable bullshit written in the murky past. What kind of miracle would be acceptable? Do you accept christian faith healers' miracles, or dig a little deeper and see them as the huxters and charlatans they are?
    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    ...it does not make sense for somebody to sit down and write a book in which he invents 48 people giving them each a distinctive personality and trait and talk in detail about their origin and the events in their life.

    ever read Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion? People love good story and a legend...


  • #2127
    Defender OF Faith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 545 ✭✭✭Defender OF Faith


    Roger Hassenforder wrote: »
    I'm asking the same, not some unverifiable bullshit written in the murky past. What kind of miracle would be acceptable? Do you accept christian faith healers' miracles, or dig a little deeper and see them as the huxters and charlatans they are?


    ever read Lord of the Rings and Silmarillion? People love good story and a legend...

    Except that non of these characters are celebrated by people and countries around the world for more then a thousand year such as those in the bible/quran


  • #2128
    Roger Hassenforder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,555 ✭✭✭Roger Hassenforder


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Largely because thanks to easier worldwide communication and improved educations, we're much more bull**** immune these days.

    surely god can overcome?
    no?


  • #2129
    Thargor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,169 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    Except that non of these characters are celebrated by people and countries around the world for more then a thousand year such as those in the bible/quran
    And what about Hercules, Theseus, Odysseus, Perseus and all the rest that were celebrated for thousands of years? Were all their magical adventures accurate accounts aswell?


  • #2130
    Squeedily Spooch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 264 ✭✭Squeedily Spooch


    Defender OF Faith wrote: »
    If he doesn't exist and there are logical and rational reasons as to why he doesn't exist then he doesn't exist and visa versa. Before penicillin was discovered little evidence was present to prove that bacteria could be killed however the lack of evidence did not mean that nothing can kill bacteria, Similarly god while you may say that no evidence supports god logic and rational though supports his existence.

    Rational thought and logic is exactly the reason I don't believe in a god, the same way I don't believe in unicorns and fairies.

    Here's the biggest reason I don't believe, aside from the obvious little niggle of there being no, none, zero, zlich, nada, non evidence for a god existing: if he/she/it did exist? He'd have done something by now to prove it. The Christian-Juedo god is a gigantic asshole.
    If he's omnipotent, and sees all, then he's seen the millions of lives ended in his name over the centuries, the level of arugment, doubt, war, all the nasty stuff that goes along with worshipping a tyrant and people not being sure if he exists.

    Any being worth their salt would have just shown up and proved it by now to stop all the arguing, but no, a book written by farmers in one localised area of the Middle East a few millennia ago part parable part "true" and a whole lot of parts utter crazyness yup that's all you humans get, see ya in the afterlife. So either God doesn't exist, he does but isn't omnipotent, or doesn't care enough, or is just simply a gigantic dickhead who likes tormenting people (his track record vouches for this one), either way I'm not a Christian so I'm good to go, yayy!
    Seems appearing to Mexicans on tortillas is the best he can muster, and this dude supposedly created the universe?


  • Advertisement
  • #2131
    Frank Bullitt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,921 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    That's no way to talk about Atheists ... or indeed Theists either.

    Take your head out of your arse on that one, you know well who I am referring to. Your beliefs are indeed crazy, in every way imagine able.
    ... and I have given you some of the reasons to believe there is a God here
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92692013&postcount=1836

    ... and here:-
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=92762061&postcount=2346

    None, I repeat none of this is evidence in anyway at all. No reference to evolution in the slightest, just some red herrings to avoid the actual discussion, a tactic that you have used for this entire thread.
    Of course I'm a scientist ... that is obvious from my posts ... and the fact that I have single-handedly invalidated M2M Evolution and provided the basis and argued the details of ID.:)

    The only thing from your posts is that you are delusional, you have single handily proved you are blinded by your faith, and for that fact I would call you idiotic. Simple as that.
    ... to say nothing about the blood spilled by the Atheistic Communists, Maoists, Stalinists, Marxists, Leninists ... and more other ...'ists' and 'isms' than I could shake a stick at!!:(
    We can all point to atrocities committed by Theists and Atheists ... and where does this get us?

    Another red herring, no wars have ever happened in the name of atheism, for instance no one has killed in the name of atheism, unlike the millions that have in the name of god, so don't try and play that game here.
    That smacks of self-righteous intolerance of diversity of opinion and pluralism of belief!!!
    BTW, I agree with you that religion is a man-made construct ... but so too is science ... and Atheism, for that matter.

    Belief does not constitute respect, so get that clear. The position of faith or belief is wide open to criticism, and why do you think that? Because it is ridiculous.

    Your last comment is incredibly stupid, god and religion is very clearly now, man made, in every way possible. Science isn't "made" in the same way as religion, because is contains truth and evidence for these truths. Science also doesn't have doctrine to adhere to because it only cares about the truth, it doesn't force and beliefs on society.

    The beliefs and comments you spew on here deserve to be called for what they are. You could well be a nice person, or an intelligent person, but religion is getting you to say incredibly stupid things and taking up a very stupid position, and there is no real issue with that, just keep it to yourself, keep calling it faith and not science or fact, and stop saying that things that are very clearly proven and true, are not.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement