“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#23 Sep 1, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
<quoted text>When you can't win by facts you get angry and that's what we see from him.
Of you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#24 Sep 1, 2012
Ah yes! Penn Jillette perhaps said that? So true and a common occurrence on this boar with the Theist posters.
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Of you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#25 Sep 1, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Ah yes! Penn Jillette perhaps said that? So true and a common occurrence on this boar with the Theist posters.
<quoted text>
The nugster's dissappeared - just like all illiterate trolls that can't string together a simple logical argument...

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#26 Sep 1, 2012
Most likely changed screen names.
The christholes change screen names more often than their underwear.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The nugster's dissappeared - just like all illiterate trolls that can't string together a simple logical argument...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#27 Sep 3, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
Most likely changed screen names.
The christholes change screen names more often than their underwear.
<quoted text>
This sheer arrogance of this Numbnut Nuggin is astonishing.

Since: Mar 11

Louisville, KY

#28 Sep 3, 2012
How ironic that often the most ignorant amongst us also tend to be the proudest and loudest.
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
This sheer arrogance of this Numbnut Nuggin is astonishing.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#29 Sep 4, 2012
Givemeliberty wrote:
How ironic that often the most ignorant amongst us also tend to be the proudest and loudest.
<quoted text>
Yeah. He misrepresents a lot of agnostics. I reckon he's a closet fundie.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#30 Sep 8, 2012
So Nuggins bakc again with more bullsh*t to share with us all...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#31 Sep 8, 2012
Hi, guys.

I only "met" Nuggin recently, and he's already p!ssing me off. And that's not easy.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#32 Sep 8, 2012
Skippy, this whole thread is a pretty sad attempt on your part to try and scrape together some sort of self respect after getting beat so bad on the other thread.

ALL you had to do was say, "I was wrong. NASA did go to the moon. I'm sorry I claimed otherwise" and it all would have been over months ago.

Instead you run and hide here? LOL.

Please. Start a million threads about how you lost arguments to me. I love it!

You won't see me starting any threads about you though, you know why? You aren't that important.

Guess we see who rules who's world here, huh

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#33 Sep 8, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
Skippy, this whole thread is..
Stand by your own words Nuggin. You're an idiot and it's all here in black and white..

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#34 Sep 8, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Stand by your own words Nuggin. You're an idiot and it's all here in black and white..
Oh, we get to do lab work with a real, live Nuggin?

KEWL!!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#35 Sep 8, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, we get to do lab work with a real, live Nuggin?
KEWL!!
Using Nuggin's logic, literally anything is possible.

And if you disagree, well...Nuggin will probably claim you think the moon is made of swiss cheese!!!

Haha what a numpty.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#36 Sep 8, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Using Nuggin's logic, literally anything is possible.
Actually, since you want to rehash this, let's be perfectly clear.
What I said was this:
All things must be considered possible unless specifically contradicted by their definition.

In other words, it is impossible for a normal sphere to be a normal cube because, by definition, a sphere is a shape in which all points are equally distant from a central power, where as a cube has six equal sides joined at right angles to one another.

Those two things, by definition, can not be the same thing.

Now, is it impossible for someone to find two identical snowflakes?

No. It's very improbable. Perhaps so improbable that in the history of the world is has never happened, nor will ever happen. But that doesn't make it _IMPOSSIBLE_.

In order for something to be deemed impossible, you would have to know ALL CURRENT evidence and ALL FUTURE evidence. If something is impossible, that means it is not now possible nor will it ever be possible under any circumstances in the future.

I don't claim to know all future evidence.

You do claim to know all future evidence.

That's the difference between our two positions.

My position is called "science". Your position is called "faith".
You should maybe read up on the differences.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#37 Sep 8, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Stand by your own words Nuggin. You're an idiot and it's all here in black and white..
I actually haven't bothered to read this thread from the start because it seems to me that it's just you failing to grasp the basic concepts being discussed in the other thread.

That's not a failure in logic on my part, that's simply a failure in vocabulary on yours.

For example -

I made the claim that Egyptian Pharaohs were worshiped as gods.

You disagreed.

There's really no logic involved there. I'm talking about reality. You are disagreeing with reality.

What more can be said about that discussion? I'm not going to convince you that reality is real.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#38 Sep 8, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
He is a strange old coot, indeed
Sometimes...he's funny. Not often, but sometimes.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#39 Sep 8, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I actually haven't bothered to read this thread from the start because it seems to me that it's just you failing to grasp the basic concepts being discussed in the other thread.
That's not a failure in logic on my part, that's simply a failure in vocabulary on yours.
For example -
I made the claim that Egyptian Pharaohs were worshiped as gods.
You disagreed.
There's really no logic involved there. I'm talking about reality. You are disagreeing with reality.
What more can be said about that discussion? I'm not going to convince you that reality is real.
Would you like a spade or a shovel liar?

You're quoted sentence for sentence in this thread. No amount of squirming about is going to get you out of this one Nuggin.

YOu should have thought about what you said before you typed it.

Now your logic is immortalized in this forum forever and everyone can see who and why you are completely wrong and a liar.

Have a good day and make better decisions in future.
Skeptic

Newtownards, UK

#40 Sep 8, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
My criteria is simple. Do other people think that this thing/person is a god? Yes. Then it is a god. Period.
These are you words. Face up to them. Man up to them.

Do anything but continue to be a lying coward...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#41 Sep 9, 2012
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
These are you words. Face up to them. Man up to them.
Do anything but continue to be a lying coward...
And what specifically is your argument against that?

Again, let's review.

Here is the DICTIONARY definition:

"a being or object BELIEVED to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;"

And who is doing the "believing" mentioned in the definition? People.

So, in order for something to be a god, people need to believe it has supernatural abilities and requires worship - AND THAT'S IT. That is ALL that is required.

So, if people believe it is a god and requires worship, then it IS a god.

Because THAT is the DEFINITION of "god".

Now that position of mine has not changed in 3 months. You keep saying there is a flaw in the logic.

Go on. Point it out.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#42 Sep 9, 2012
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Would you like a spade or a shovel liar?
You're quoted sentence for sentence in this thread. No amount of squirming about is going to get you out of this one Nuggin.
YOu should have thought about what you said before you typed it.
Now your logic is immortalized in this forum forever and everyone can see who and why you are completely wrong and a liar.
Have a good day and make better decisions in future.
See, Skippy, the problem here is that you are blinded by your own stupidity.

You keep trying to change my argument because you don't understand my argument.

The definition of god is simple: a being or object _believed_ to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;

So, if people BELIEVE that a being or object has more than natural attributes and requires worship, then it is a god.

Because that is the definition.

You want to apply the definition of god to things like sticks and cheese.

That's not going to work.

The definition of stick is not "an object people BELIEVE is made of wood..."

The definition of cheese is not "A food people BELIEVE to be a dairy product..."

The definition of a god IS: a being or object _believed_ to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship;

So, if people believe it, then the requirement is met.

Same argument for 3 months now.

What precisely is your counter argument?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 14 min MUQ2 23,170
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 34 min KiMare 232,697
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 2 hr Richardfs 2,183
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 3 hr _Bad Company 1,437
God' existence 8 hr polymath257 55
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 8 hr polymath257 112
Is 'naturalism' a bleak philosophical outlook? ... 8 hr Geezerjock 1
Evidence for God! 11 hr ChristineM 366
More from around the web