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

What's the most ridiculous argument you've ever heard??

Options
13567

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    Why does the onus of proof have to be on the religious people though?

    The onus is on the person making the claim - not on the people they are making the claim at.
    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    In the Scientific method the only way to prove something exists is if you can't disprove. So, the onus of proof in this case would be to disprove God exists in the first place, which you cannot do.

    Did I not just say that? That is what I meant by "negating an unfalsifiable assertion"
    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    So really, onus of proof has to come from both sides.

    No. It does not. Because only one "side" is actually making a claim.


  • Options
    #63
    Lapin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,184 ✭✭✭✭Lapin


    .

    "Because that's the why." :mad:

    I never knew what this meant but always knew it was some justification for whatever she* was saying,
    and there was no way I was going to win once she said it.



    She* = Mother, Sister, Girlfriend, Wife, Daughter and a whole assortment of other categories of the female species.


  • Options
    #64
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    So really, onus of proof has to come from both sides. And, unfortunately for us, while we can dispute a lot of claims made in most religious texts we can't disprove a God exists. Probably never will be able to either!


    'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
    "'But,' says Man, 'the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
    "'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    A lot of people are actually missing the point of the Thread Title -in a way- in that they are listing assertions. So for example the poster who listed "psychics are real" is listing a ridiculous and unfounded assertion - not a ridiculous argument.

    By far - and I mean FAR - the most ridiculous and most precipitated argument on the planet has got to be "Well you can not prove there is NOT a god can you?".

    Because that is something actually presented _as an actual positive argument for_ the existence of a god by the vast majority of subscribers to the particular fantasy.

    And one wonders if we installed a simple 101 course on "onus of proof" and "negating an unfalsifiable assertion" into schools around age 10 - would the world - - the religion forum on here - and after hours threads - not look like a totally different place.



    see there is a difference in psychics and religious beliefs.

    Its very hard if not impossible to prove as the above poster pointed out.

    However we can show that psychics are full of crap.

    Psychics fail scientific test


    Scientists put psychic's paranormal claims to the test

    Skeptics Issue $1 Million Psychic Challenge

    One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge


  • Options
    #65
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The onus is on the person making the claim - not on the people they are making the claim at.
    Eh sorry. If you are going to attack a person's personal beliefs when you can just ignore it (and if they bring up topics like creationism or homosexuality then prove them wrong) then the onus of proof is actually on you. They can go on believing whatever the hell they want but if you want to tell them that God doesn't exist then you have to prove it as you are trying to convince them. If you are both trying to convince each other than it's shared equally. Unless I'm arguing with someone over the existing of a deity I never hear the "but can you prove he isn't real?" argument.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Did I not just say that? That is what I meant by "negating an unfalsifiable assertion"
    Ah! Are you a scientist by any chance? With an unshakeable believe in atheism? Because that's the only place I ever hear this notion and it's only applicable to one or two discussions. So teaching it in schools isn't actually a wise thing to do because applying that to most arguments won't work as you can prove or disprove 99% of things (eventually)

    Deleted User wrote: »
    No. It does not. Because only one "side" is actually making a claim.
    Are you not making a claim that he doesn't exist? If you are then it's on you too. And I very rarely hear atheists say to a religious person "I don't believe in God. If you do that's awesome. Let's leave it there"


  • Options
    #66
    force eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,039 ✭✭✭force eleven


    Vote Yes for Jobs!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    Eh sorry. If you are going to attack a person's personal beliefs when you can just ignore it

    Who said anything about attacking anything? You are going off on one now. The thread is about ridiculous arguments and I simply pointed out one of them.

    Supporting an unfalsifiable assertion with nothing but "You can not prove I am wrong" is a ridiculous argument.
    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    Are you not making a claim that he doesn't exist?

    If you find me making such a claim, by all means quote it.


  • Options
    #68
    Kelly06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 509 ✭✭✭Kelly06


    Adyx wrote: »
    I thought this was going to be more of the "why do you like riding hippos?" type of argument. :(

    "Cos I ride anything I can get"

    My all time favourite greatest you tube video !!!


  • Options
    #69
    gugleguy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,959 ✭✭✭gugleguy


    The smartphone robbing fcuker physically assaulted the victim *just because they held on to their phone*


  • Options
    #70
    For Forks Sake
    Registered Users Posts: 11,472 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    pragmatic1 wrote: »
    Anything in the comments section of a youtube video.

    Anything in the comments section of thejournal.ie...where rational thought goes to die.


  • Options
    #71
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    For me, it has to be the Ontological argument for the existence of God
    (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument)

    Regardless of whether or not you believe in God, I've never understood why anyone would even entertain the argument. Maybe I'm just not smart enough, but all I do is slap my forehead and go, 'SERIOUSLY?!'

    What's worse, is that it's covered in philosophy classes as something worthy of serious thought and consideration.

    Anyway, here's the argument:
    Anselm defined God as "...that than which nothing greater can be conceived," and then argued that this being must exist in the mind; even in the mind of the fool who denies the existence of God. He suggested that, if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality. If it only exists in the mind, a greater being is possible—one which exists in the mind and in reality. Therefore, this greatest possible being must exist in reality.

    In all seriousness, I would expect this line of reasoning from a six year old. 'Well, I can imagine the best birthday cake in the world. And the BEST cake is the cake I'm eating NOW. So, you should give me my birthday cake now!'

    Beyond that, you can use the same argument to prove all sorts of ridiculous things.

    But yeah, I'm probably just too stupid to understand it. When I first heard it, I was all, 'That's stupid!' and now I'm still like 'That's stupid'. Either it's stupid, or I am, but either way, I don't like it.

    // To clarify - I'm not claiming God does or doesn't exist. Just that this argument for the existence of God (or applied to anything else) never made any sense to me. I'm fine with the existence of God, just not proven this way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,365 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    It the zeal with they believe their argument that's the most interesting/frightening.

    I was told recently that sugar feeds cancer and that human souls can be weighed after death.


  • Options
    #73
    Mr. CooL ICE
    Registered Users Posts: 17,498 ✭✭✭✭Mr. CooL ICE


    The banana - an atheist's nightmare


  • Options
    #74
    jamesbere
    Registered Users Posts: 5,022 ✭✭✭jamesbere


    Jessica fletcher is not a mass murderer. I mean come on of course she is.


  • Options
    #75
    Locomotion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 263 ✭✭Locomotion


    The plural of toothbrush is teethbrush


  • Options
    #76
    UCDVet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,894 ✭✭✭UCDVet


    LordChessington wrote: »
    The banana - an atheist's nightmare

    Look at it! It fits in my hand perfectly!


  • Options
    #77
    TheGlass
    Closed Accounts Posts: 54 ✭✭TheGlass


    danniemcq wrote: »
    I've had some classics recently,

    "psychics are real"
    "a full moon makes people go mad"
    "dogs eyes attract lightening"
    "consoles are better than pc's"
    "horoscopes are true"
    "Coldplay are a good band"

    Sigh
    Whatever about the others, how do people even dream up something like dogs eyes attracting let alone believe it
    I am pie wrote: »
    Homeopathy. Shams selling water to fools.

    Even worse, people looking for homeopathic vets.

    Idiotic.

    You can see how people would get taken in by that though, especially as some people will get cured via the placebo effect


  • Options
    #78
    PeteFalk78
    Closed Accounts Posts: 762 ✭✭✭PeteFalk78


    The One Doctor wrote: »
    ................ As is the 'All Dole Recipients are No-Good Scroungers' argument. .............

    That's not really an argument though....more so a generalisation.


  • Options
    #79
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Locomotion wrote: »
    The plural of toothbrush is teethbrush

    ………… what?


  • Options
    #80
    Donkey Oaty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,533 ✭✭✭Donkey Oaty


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    ………… what?

    As plural is by definition not singular, it should surely be:

    "The plurals of toothbrushes are teethbrushes."


  • Options
    #81
    danniemcq
    Registered Users Posts: 14,163 ✭✭✭✭danniemcq


    TheGlass wrote: »
    Whatever about the others, how do people even dream up something like dogs eyes attracting let alone believe it

    I have no idea, apparently it came from a story where lightening came down a chimney through the house and hit the dog under the bed...

    yeah.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Amazingfun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    Gay marriage will lead to paedophiles getting married so they can adopt kids.

    And yet.....:

    Gay couple used marriage as cover for adopting little boys and shipping them all over the world to service homosexual pedophiles:

    http://rt.com/news/australian-paedophile-us-jail-976/

    Longtime gay rights/gay marriage activist Larry Brinkin
    busted for child porn


    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/san-francisco-s-gay-icon-larry-brinkin-guilty-felony-child-porn


  • Options
    #83
    Hotale.com
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭Hotale.com


    Amazingfun wrote: »
    And yet.....:

    Gay couple used marriage as cover for adopting little boys and shipping them all over the world to service homosexual pedophiles:

    http://rt.com/news/australian-paedophile-us-jail-976/

    Longtime gay rights/gay marriage activist Larry Brinkin
    busted for child porn


    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/michael-w-chapman/san-francisco-s-gay-icon-larry-brinkin-guilty-felony-child-porn

    Two examples.

    I imagine the whole "pedophile adoption" thing happens with straight couples just as often.

    Think of all the anti-gay marriage priests who have been busted for child porn, maybe we should ban traditional marriage too?


  • Options
    #84
    Amazingfun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    Hotale.com wrote: »
    Two examples.

    There are more than two, believe me. These are just two recent cases that came to mind.


  • Options
    #85
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Amazingfun wrote: »
    There are more than two, believe me. These are just two recent cases that came to mind.


    It's still a ridiculous argument against gay marriage though. As Hotale.com says, straight couples could easily do the same and how many stories do we hear about biological parents abusing their own kids.

    I'm not saying it doesn't happen but to argue that we shouldn't allow gay people to marry because of it is ridiculous


  • Options
    #86
    Hotale.com
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,374 ✭✭✭Hotale.com


    Amazingfun wrote: »
    There are more than two, believe me. These are just two recent cases that came to mind.

    Do you disagree with gay marriage over it?


  • Options
    #87
    Amazingfun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    FunLover18 wrote: »
    It's still a ridiculous argument against gay marriage though. As Hotale.com says, straight couples could easily do the same and how many stories do we hear about biological parents abusing their own kids.

    I'm not saying it doesn't happen but to argue that we shouldn't allow gay people to marry because of it is ridiculous

    I didn't argue that, I am merely pointing out it's not as baseless a point some here might like to imagine ;)


  • Options
    #88
    Amazingfun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,161 ✭✭✭Amazingfun


    Hotale.com wrote: »
    Do you disagree with gay marriage over it?

    lol, does it matter what *I* agree with or not? As per above, my post was to illustrate that those who make the argument are not conjuring it out of nowhere.

    It's amazing how little international coverage the Larry Brinkin case received, something else that should raise an eyebrow or two.


  • Options
    #89
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    Most ridiculous one I have ever heard is "Men can't experience sexism"


  • Options
    #90
    Buzz Killington the third
    Closed Accounts Posts: 938 ✭✭✭Buzz Killington the third


    apparently women can't rape men either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Amazingfun wrote: »
    I didn't argue that, I am merely pointing out it's not as baseless a point some here might like to imagine ;)

    I didn't say it was baseless, just that it was ridiculous :D


Advertisement