1034 replies to this topic

[sthira]

It would be off topic to discuss limited determinism here. However your use of the term "mockers," shows there is more than one meaning. Shall I define it or can you figure it out from the context?

Mockers unite: official sound track for thread: your submissions kindly welcomed: submission one:
Mimus polyglottos vocalizations:

Edited by sthira, 18 June 2015 - 09:31 PM.

[sthira]

Mockers unite: official sound track for thread: your submissions kindly welcomed: submission two: David Bowie:

"...There's a starman waiting in the sky/
He'd like to come and meet us/
But he thinks he'd blow our minds..."

[shadowhawk]

Well I guess you think this is the context.  Given this response you demonstrate well what a mocker is.  So no use defining it. 

[Lewis Carroll]

 

 

 

 

Your claims are foundationless. They are meaningless nonsense. Remember, what is asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

 

"The above photograph is a human spirit"

"The above photograph is a human spirit riding in one of the many small orbital chariots of God"

"Spirits move smoothly"

"Spirits can jump in and out of chariots at any time"

"Spirits are immortal"

"Spirits live forever"

 

Can you prove a single one of these absurd claims? Can you provide any legitimate evidence whatsoever?

 

I am still petitioning for you to be banned from the forums. This is not a paranormal, conspiracist forum. Please go away. 

 

And where is your evidence?   don't think he has presented enough yet except his own testimony and photos and some other items which you have not bothered to examine.  Just calling names is all you have presented.

 

 

My evidence for what? I am not making any claims.

 

Stop trolling... you're only egging old_school on.

 

You made the clam that Old School views were foundationaless, meaningless, nonsense and you needed no evidence to dismiss them.  Quite a claim.  I mentioned a number of items which you have not bothered to examine such as the Shroud and Icon.  I also stated he has not, in my view, presented "enough" evidence to substantiate his claims for some of the evidence.  HOWEVER we do have the existence of pictures themselves which raise some theological and philosophical questions more profound than the subject of the pictures themselves which mockers  will never get to.  So troll on.

 

 

 

You mistake objective observations for subjective claims. 

I am simply making observations based on old-school's claims. The picture is foundationless. There is no evidence, whatsoever, pointing towards this picture depicting a flying chariot of God.

 

Your supporting this silly picture simply "because it exists" is childish and silly. We have provided various other pictures you quickly dismiss.

What about this picture... Does its "existence itself raise theological and philosophical questions" as well...?

 

[old_school]

We have provided various other pictures you quickly dismiss.

What about this picture... Does its "existence itself raise theological and philosophical questions" as well...?

 

 

 

To an idiot.
 

[shadowhawk]

Sorry, I am over your head.  I said the existence of the picture raises many questions.  I did not say Old School has made his point.  So I ask questions about it.  perhaps he will be able to make his case, perhaps not but this bears little on arguments for theism.

[The Brain]

We have provided various other pictures you quickly dismiss.
What about this picture... Does its "existence itself raise theological and philosophical questions" as well...?

To an idiot.

You're the fucking idiot...

[shadowhawk]

MajinBrian,

You mistake objective observations for subjective claims. 

I am simply making observations based on old-school's claims. The picture is foundationless. There is no evidence, whatsoever, pointing towards this picture depicting a flying chariot of God.

 

Your supporting this silly picture simply "because it exists" is childish and silly. We have provided various other pictures you quickly dismiss.

What about this picture... Does its "existence itself raise theological and philosophical questions" as well...?

 

  Well it seems it is still beyond you.  Yet you seem to know why things exist.  Tell us!  Amd why  are things being destroyed and entropy is obviously working on the Candy bar. And there is such mystery.  Who ate the bar?  Who made the bar?  Why is it the size and color it is?  There is a whole lot of mystery in this picture  and I could go on.  You already know all these things, don't you so tell us.  It raises no questions for you so tell us about about it and maybe some of these guys, the real smart ones, will help you out.

 

[Danail Bulgaria]

 

@old_school , you are giving absolutely no reasonable arguments for what you claim.

You are only showing photographs of an light orbs and you are prretending them to be something just like that. You need more evidences to claim whatever for each one of the pictures, that you showed. You are making the evidences to support your claim. The correct is the opposite - your claim to match the evidences.

I told you before - each representation of an orb would have a different expolanation, and it may be everything religeous and non - religeous. So far we excluded a photographic flare, and explained that the halo of the saints is only imaginary and are not a real orbs arrounf the heads of the saints. It seems you don't give up easy from wrong ideas Why are you so sure, that the above photograph is not a fraud for example?

We didn't define what an "ORB." was and we didn't explain halos except their depictions in some religious art but not all.  We were talking about a particular Icon which every mocker ignored,  Seems like the straw man you are putting down up does not have to do with many items that have been brought up. 

 

 

Orb is a ball - shaped object. Here you are a definition, if you som much want one: 

http://www.merriam-w.../dictionary/orb

 

old_school wrongly associated the light orbs with the halos in the previous posts, and claimed, that they are the chariots of God, and the spirit of God, which also appeared with no evidences.
 

The religeous art is being made under a certain rules, that are canonized, and thus all of the halos on all of the religeous art mean the same.

 

The main subject neither of the topic, nor in our postings was the icon. It was the claim, that certain photographs are the God's spirit and the chariots of God.

[old_school]

 

 

@old_school , you are giving absolutely no reasonable arguments for what you claim.

You are only showing photographs of an light orbs and you are prretending them to be something just like that. You need more evidences to claim whatever for each one of the pictures, that you showed. You are making the evidences to support your claim. The correct is the opposite - your claim to match the evidences.

I told you before - each representation of an orb would have a different expolanation, and it may be everything religeous and non - religeous. So far we excluded a photographic flare, and explained that the halo of the saints is only imaginary and are not a real orbs arrounf the heads of the saints. It seems you don't give up easy from wrong ideas Why are you so sure, that the above photograph is not a fraud for example?

We didn't define what an "ORB." was and we didn't explain halos except their depictions in some religious art but not all.  We were talking about a particular Icon which every mocker ignored,  Seems like the straw man you are putting down up does not have to do with many items that have been brought up. 

 

 

Orb is a ball - shaped object. Here you are a definition, if you som much want one: 

http://www.merriam-w.../dictionary/orb

 

old_school wrongly associated the light orbs with the halos in the previous posts, and claimed, that they are the chariots of God, and the spirit of God, which also appeared with no evidences.
 

The religeous art is being made under a certain rules, that are canonized, and thus all of the halos on all of the religeous art mean the same.

 

The main subject neither of the topic, nor in our postings was the icon. It was the claim, that certain photographs are the God's spirit and the chariots of God.

 

 

You lack spiritual discernment and do not know. On the other hand, I have spiritual discernment and know that what I say is true.
 

[Dakman]

I know what I say is true and I say you're an idiot troll, with a fake story you've made up 

 

Not one person believes you and all see through your story

 

So desperate to have a sign from your believed god you have to make it up 

 

True sadness

[old_school]

I know what I say is true and I say you're an idiot troll, with a fake story you've made up 

 

Not one person believes you and all see through your story

 

So desperate to have a sign from your believed god you have to make it up 

 

True sadness

 

You claim to know that my story is fake. This could not be further from the truth. You could not possibly know this. You are the one who is a troll and a fake.
 

[The Brain]

Oh no, you slammed me down with absolute proof of your nonsensical childlike claims again.


Lol

[shadowhawk]

 

 

@old_school , you are giving absolutely no reasonable arguments for what you claim.

You are only showing photographs of an light orbs and you are prretending them to be something just like that. You need more evidences to claim whatever for each one of the pictures, that you showed. You are making the evidences to support your claim. The correct is the opposite - your claim to match the evidences.

I told you before - each representation of an orb would have a different expolanation, and it may be everything religeous and non - religeous. So far we excluded a photographic flare, and explained that the halo of the saints is only imaginary and are not a real orbs arrounf the heads of the saints. It seems you don't give up easy from wrong ideas Why are you so sure, that the above photograph is not a fraud for example?

We didn't define what an "ORB." was and we didn't explain halos except their depictions in some religious art but not all.  We were talking about a particular Icon which every mocker ignored,  Seems like the straw man you are putting down up does not have to do with many items that have been brought up. 

 

 

Orb is a ball - shaped object. Here you are a definition, if you som much want one: 

http://www.merriam-w.../dictionary/orb

 

old_school wrongly associated the light orbs with the halos in the previous posts, and claimed, that they are the chariots of God, and the spirit of God, which also appeared with no evidences.
 

The religeous art is being made under a certain rules, that are canonized, and thus all of the halos on all of the religeous art mean the same.

 

The main subject neither of the topic, nor in our postings was the icon. It was the claim, that certain photographs are the God's spirit and the chariots of God.

 

 

So, we asked before what are we talking about?  What is ball lightning.  I suggest you find out before making a conclusion.  Not all pictures are the same.  We are talking about balls of light not just aberrations in a camera lens.  I discussed my own photography and photographs of aberrations.  I know what a flair is.  I also know many things fir the definition of an orb.  Old school has not convinced me but you can't get through the mockers to have a civil conversation.  
 

[Dakman]

Do you really know what lens FLARE is 

[shadowhawk]

Well mocker, you obviously have not read the discussion.  Thaanks I need a spell checker on these formal posts.

[Danail Bulgaria]

If you want so much to believe, that the light orb is the halo on the icons, or the chariots of God, or the spirit of God, alright, believe it then. Simply explain, that this is only your oppinion, based on your views ans visions and that you have no hard evidences to support it.

[platypus]

 

 

 

I saw these "chariots" yesterday with my own eyes, dozens and dozens of them and they looked identical to the one pictured above!! I was lying on my back sunbathing and placed a cotton t-shirt over my face. Lo and behold, sunlight coming through the small openings in the cotton generated dozens of these "chariots" that are essentially unfocused images of point-sources of light. Try it yourself!

[The Brain]

You're truly blessed, praise JEEBUS !

[old_school]

I extend my patience to the spiritually challenged.

[shadowhawk]

If you want so much to believe, that the light orb is the halo on the icons, or the chariots of God, or the spirit of God, alright, believe it then. Simply explain, that this is only your oppinion, based on your views ans visions and that you have no hard evidences to support it.

 

Obviously you have not read the thread..Tell me about the Icon of Our Lady of Guadalupe.  It is hanging in a church in Mexico City.  Not my vision or opinion.  But first tell me what an orb is and then we can discuss the Icon and what evidence we have. 
 

[shadowhawk]

 

 

 

 

I saw these "chariots" yesterday with my own eyes, dozens and dozens of them and they looked identical to the one pictured above!! I was lying on my back sunbathing and placed a cotton t-shirt over my face. Lo and behold, sunlight coming through the small openings in the cotton generated dozens of these "chariots" that are essentially unfocused images of point-sources of light. Try it yourself!

 

 

Did you take a picture?  Can we reproduce it?  Did they look exactly like this picture?  How do you know they are the same since this seems to be something different.
 

[The Brain]

Endless argument fuckwit !

[old_school]

Health and happiness can be found with God through His Son Jesus Christ in the afterlife.

[The Brain]

More brainwased propaganda


Sad little man


Buy a dog for company

[old_school]

It is no coincidence that you have a big-headed avatar. You believe that you are something and that the Creator of all things is nothing.

[shifter]

I'm sure there's a perfectly logical explanation for all of this. Remember


Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth

I propose that what we are, witnessing is nothing more than the images of things inside an alternate universe 'bleeding through'. It occupies the same dimensional space at the same time but exists in another universe. Something our human eyes can't capture but our cameras can.

The bleed through effect happens occasionally in the right conditions such as radiation from intense solar flares, cosmic rays or gamma and x-ray bursts from a supernova or supernovae.

I could be talking shit or be right on the money. Tell me I'm wrong people!

But to call out my made up on the spot theory as complete and utter BS you will need to provide proof that alternative universes bleeding through does not and can not happen (or happen the way I said). But how do you do that when alternative universes is a theory and not understood or known either way if they exist or not.

It's like looking at a grainy, highly compressed, low quality photo of a shadowy figure in the woods. Tell me that's not Big foot! You can't tell me what it is exactly so you can't tell me what it's NOT!

But those pictures from earlier on in the thread? My moneys on an alternate universe bleed through or (star treks answer to everything) subspace. Tell me it's not!

Edited by shifter, 22 June 2015 - 08:36 AM.

[shifter]

It is no coincidence that you have a big-headed avatar. You believe that you are something and that the Creator of all things is nothing.

Maybe he likes the cartoon 'pinky and the brain'? (hence the cartoon character of the character called' The Brain' How did you jump to your conclusion as if it were The fact?

[old_school]

 

It is no coincidence that you have a big-headed avatar. You believe that you are something and that the Creator of all things is nothing.

Maybe he likes the cartoon 'pinky and the brain'? (hence the cartoon character of the character called' The Brain' How did you jump to your conclusion as if it were The fact?

 

 

I was just messing with him. He does the same to me.
 

[old_school]

Beauty in God's creation.