Comments
381 - 400 of 648 Comments Last updated Jan 17, 2013

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#388
Oct 1, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
This is interesting, but does nothing to define the properties of "deity" beyond location.
And can you please leave Skeptic out of this, just once. It's like an obsession and you are much, much better than that.
This is an entire thread created by Skeptic for the sole purpose of misrepresenting my argument.

If you want Skeptic left out, I suggest you leave the thread.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#389
Oct 1, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The *potential* is always ruled in if something can't rule it out. Falsification can rule something out, making it a lot harder to be taken out of the falsified box later on. Bacteria were once non-falsifiable, but later evidence was discovered that took it out of that box and into the scientifically valid box. That could never happen with Skip since he keeps his non-falsifiable box in the falsified box - and locks it.
Again, leave "Skip" out of it. I am NOT carrying his baggage, do not know the details of his argument, and could care even less.

Now ...

You say, the potential is always rules in if it can't be ruled out. Okay, who's to say it can't be ruled out, you? I'm not trying to be obtuse here as I see this as a valid question.

We can rule out absurd concepts like a 'four-sided triangle' right? We can also rule out properties like 'all powerful' as being an oxymoron.

So, whose to say that there is a coherent set of properties for an entity which could be labeled a god and which could at all possibly exist.

That is why, without a set of properties, both potential existence and potential non-existence are meaningless considerations.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#390
Oct 1, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
This is interesting, but does nothing to define the properties of "deity" beyond location.
Yup, pretty much. If location even makes sense in the multiverse sense.
Hedonist wrote:
And can you please leave Skeptic out of this, just once. It's like an obsession and you are much, much better than that.
This whole thread is Skeptic. So were the other two. I come here to show fundies wrong to pass the time (the pub's too far where I work now). That's what skeptic is - another one of them. Sorry, they're here for our fun.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#391
Oct 1, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Chatting? No.
I do have an Honorary Doctorate in Trolling, though. I'd show you but people of your race/gender are known for not being able to read.
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that "god" is not a definable term in any real way.....
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#392
Oct 1, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, pretty much. If location even makes sense in the multiverse sense.
<quoted text>
This whole thread is Skeptic. So were the other two. I come here to show fundies wrong to pass the time (the pub's too far where I work now). That's what skeptic is - another one of them. Sorry, they're here for our fun.
The other 2 ???

Would those be "Aliens & Evolution" and "Repudiating Skeptic"?

Now that's obsessive!

If you want to be more productive, what do you know of a troll called Derek4 ?

" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#393
Oct 1, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
We can rule out absurd concepts like a 'four-sided triangle' right?
Again, triangle has a SPECIFIC definition which precludes 4 sides.

You have not presented a definition for deity which is better than the one already accepted.

Therefore, the one (and only one) presented is the working definition.

We know that we can't rule out this definition because there are obvious real world examples of the very thing that is being described.

If you want to now, after 20 requests, try and present a definition which better describes all instances of deities, go for it.
So, whose to say that there is a coherent set of properties for an entity which could be labeled a god and which could at all possibly exist.
That is why, without a set of properties, both potential existence and potential non-existence are meaningless considerations.
There are a set of properties.

They are:
People believe that this entity has supernatural powers.
People believe that this entity requires worship.

If that sounds familiar, it's because that position hasn't changed AT ALL in months despite your whining and crying about how unfair it is to use the dictionary to define a term.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#394
Oct 1, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, triangle has a SPECIFIC definition which precludes 4 sides.
You have not presented a definition for deity which is better than the one already accepted.
Therefore, the one (and only one) presented is the working definition.
We know that we can't rule out this definition because there are obvious real world examples of the very thing that is being described.
If you want to now, after 20 requests, try and present a definition which better describes all instances of deities, go for it.
<quoted text>
There are a set of properties.
They are:
People believe that this entity has supernatural powers.
People believe that this entity requires worship.
If that sounds familiar, it's because that position hasn't changed AT ALL in months despite your whining and crying about how unfair it is to use the dictionary to define a term.
Since we are in a thread in the Atheism Forum, I would think that any definition we would consider would be appropriate to the forum. At least on that addresses itself to modern day consideration of atheism, theism, ignosticism, agnosticism, and the like.

Your particular subset of a definition is not.

I have repeatedly asked for one which might be appropriate for this forum. Dude gets it and has responded appropriately. Why is this too hard for you?

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#395
Oct 1, 2012
 
My posts were clearly about race? If you only knew how ignorant you sound. Sit down before you hurt yourself. Whoever said I was white? In fact growing up I experienced racism, you know what I did? I worked hard to get an education, invested wisely and retired at 31. It feels great having an old classmate who screamed racial slurs at me now begging me to let them have anYour lack of IQ demonstrated by jumping to wild conclusions is staggering.

I clearly said ancient tribal people would with the proper tools and instruction would do just as well.

Another thing how is saying ancient tribal people racist? Are you implying ancient tribal people were all people of color? Are you saying there were no white tribal people? White people just popped into existence and lived in castles? Of course not and one would expect a reasonably intelligent person to know this.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Go back and re-read your posts about ancient tribes. The implications are very clear. Your arrogance towards native peoples is clearly racially motivated.
By the way, you don't have to be white to be racist. Many Japanese people are racist towards Koreans and vice-versa

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#396
Oct 1, 2012
 
Damn iPhone! I guess it has a straw man limit :))

Tried to salvage this.
Givemeliberty wrote:
My posts were clearly about race? If you only knew how ignorant you sound. Sit down before you hurt yourself. Whoever said I was white? In fact growing up I experienced racism, you know what I did? I worked hard to get an education, invested wisely and retired at 31. It feels great having an old classmate who screamed racial slurs at me now begging me to let them have another few days to pay their rent. Your lack of IQ demonstrated by jumping to wild conclusions is staggering.
I clearly said ancient tribal people would with the proper tools and instruction would do just as well.
Another thing how is saying ancient tribal people racist? Are you implying ancient tribal people were all people of color? Are you saying there were no white tribal people? White people just popped into existence and lived in castles? Of course not and one would expect a reasonably intelligent person to know this.
Not to mention why does a so called non believer like you spend so much time defending God? I mean you put a lot of effort defending a myth. Hmmmm.
<quoted text>

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#397
Oct 1, 2012
 
Wow so h is a racist bigot after all! Why am I not surprised? This tells volumes about him.
Hedonist wrote:

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#398
Oct 1, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

This sh!t is funny.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#399
Oct 1, 2012
 
Oh calling me G now racist? I don't bother wasting my time reading apologetic's websites.

Bottom line take a break from the straw man factory. I have shown several scientists who have stated various propositions are impossible. You are free to disagree with science as you so often do.

You see your argument my racist troll is a philosophical argument not a scientific one.

Oh and just to spike the football. Again.

The floating god head at the end of the flat earth that blows creating the weather is impossible. Fact. The only way you can argue it is not impossible is to say that in 500 years scientists will say, hmm the earth really is totally flat and there is a giant head that blows and creates the weather!

Do you really want to take that position bigot? It's a fine position for a flat earther to take, be my guest.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Except for the fact that Lil' Ticked pointed to a linky where other scientists disagreed. Don't tell me after all this time you've been posting on science threads you are surprised by this?
No G, the game's not over.
How long do you wanna cover for Skip's dishonesty?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#400
Oct 1, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Since we are in a thread in the Atheism Forum, I would think that any definition we would consider would be appropriate to the forum. At least on that addresses itself to modern day consideration of atheism, theism, ignosticism, agnosticism, and the like.
Your particular subset of a definition is not.
I have repeatedly asked for one which might be appropriate for this forum. Dude gets it and has responded appropriately. Why is this too hard for you?
As I have pointed out, my definition is the only working definition. You can whine all you want about how unfair it is that I have a definition and you don't, but until you actually PRESENT one you don't have a leg to stand on.

It doesn't matter what forum we are on. An atheist is no less capable of understanding the inner workings of someone else's religion.

Are you saying that because you are an atheist/agnostic, you literally have NO IDEA what the Jews are talking about when they say Yahweh is a god.

Really?

It does not matter if you believe or not. Your lack of belief is not a factor in determining if OTHER PEOPLE have belief.

In this case, the OTHER PEOPLE are the ancient Egyptians, and their belief is that their Pharaohs were gods.

Your rejection of their belief does NOTHING to negate their belief. You can't retroactively proclaim that they didn't believe something because it's inconvient for you to be losing this argument.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#401
Oct 1, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
I clearly said ancient tribal people would with the proper tools and instruction would do just as well.
And MY POINT was that ancient Mayan astronomers had a BETTER understanding of Astronomy with the tools they had available at that time than you.

Like I said, I'll give you two sticks and a piece of string. You tell me to the day when the next eclipse is going to occur.

You can't do it. They could.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#402
Oct 1, 2012
 
Givemeliberty wrote:
I have shown several scientists who have stated various propositions are impossible.
Actually, you didn't. The links you provided where to articles which CONTRADICTED your claim.
Which means, either you can't read or you can't comprehend. Either way, doesn't look good for you.
Further, posting a "Discover Magazine" article as evidence for what science believes is like referencing a show on the History channel for Historical accuracy.
These are ENTERTAINMENT venues who have only a passing relationship with the facts.
your argument is a philosophical argument not a scientific one.
Actually, you have that quite backwards. you are arguing that religion trumps science. We are arguing the opposite.
The sad thing is, you think you are on our side.
Here's a clue: You DO NOT possess infinite knowledge.
Repeat that about 1000X. Let it sink in.
The floating god head at the end of the flat earth that blows creating the weather is impossible. Fact.
So, you are claiming to be able to prove a negative.
Go on. Demonstrate how you would go about PROVING this.
Tip: Searching for and not finding evidence of something does not mean the thing doesn't exist.
Good luck! LOL. Chump.
The only way you can argue it is not impossible is to say that in 500 years scientists will say, hmm the earth really is totally flat and there is a giant head that blows and creates the weather!
Nah, we can just say this:
You can't prove a negative. Science doesn't deal with definitive answers, especially those in the negative. You are talking religion not science.
That makes you a fundie.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#403
Oct 2, 2012
 
You are a clueless and a self admitted racist troll. The only thing left to say to you as I have repeatedly factually crushed you is, Pwned now go eat sht and die. You as a racist bigot are a waste of air.

Nuff said
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
And MY POINT was that ancient Mayan astronomers had a BETTER understanding of Astronomy with the tools they had available at that time than you.
Like I said, I'll give you two sticks and a piece of string. You tell me to the day when the next eclipse is going to occur.
You can't do it. They could.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#404
Oct 2, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you saying that because you are an atheist/agnostic, you literally have NO IDEA what the Jews are talking about when they say Yahweh is a god.
Yahwah is the Christian name for their god. Adonai is the Jewish name.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It does not matter if you believe or not. Your lack of belief is not a factor in determining if OTHER PEOPLE have belief.

In this case, the OTHER PEOPLE are the ancient Egyptians, and their belief is that their Pharaohs were gods.

Your rejection of their belief does NOTHING to negate their belief. You can't retroactively proclaim that they didn't believe something because it's inconvient for you to be losing this argument.
I have never claimed nor insinuated in any way that these ancient people did not believe this. You false accusations notwithstanding.

Ancient people also used to believe that lightning was the purview of the gods. Does this then mean that we must still believe this is so?

I don't care if ancient people believe that pharaohs were gods. But if you believe that these ancient pharaohs were in fact real gods, you should seek help, immediately.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
As I have pointed out, my definition is the only working definition. You can whine all you want about how unfair it is that I have a definition and you don't, but until you actually PRESENT one you don't have a leg to stand on.

It doesn't matter what forum we are on. An atheist is no less capable of understanding the inner workings of someone else's religion.
And I could care even less about your stupidly childish definition of "god" as it does nothing to inform any modern philosophical conversation on theology. You are apparently not capable of being a productive contributor to such conversation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#405
Oct 2, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, leave "Skip" out of it. I am NOT carrying his baggage, do not know the details of his argument, and could care even less.
Now ...
You say, the potential is always rules in if it can't be ruled out. Okay, who's to say it can't be ruled out, you? I'm not trying to be obtuse here as I see this as a valid question.
It's a simple either-or situation. If it can't be falsified, it can't be ruled out. But we don't consider it valid unless we have evidence.
Hedonist wrote:
We can rule out absurd concepts like a 'four-sided triangle' right? We can also rule out properties like 'all powerful' as being an oxymoron.
Guess so.
Hedonist wrote:
So, whose to say that there is a coherent set of properties for an entity which could be labeled a god and which could at all possibly exist.
That is why, without a set of properties, both potential existence and potential non-existence are meaningless considerations.
But that doesn't mean there won't be at a later stage should further evidence be discovered enabling us to come up with a coherent model. The creation of the universe itself currently has this problem due to the singularity apparently destroying all previous info of causation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#406
Oct 2, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
The other 2 ???
Would those be "Aliens & Evolution" and "Repudiating Skeptic"?
Now that's obsessive!
If you want to be more productive, what do you know of a troll called Derek4 ?
" http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... ;
Dunno about the 'repudiating skeptic' thread. But there was an unrelated thread about 8 months ago or more (maybe even last year by now) where just me and him sparred for weeks on the same argument, this was back on the evolution thread. There's plenty of fundies there too but they've all been debunked long ago too, so I get bored playing with the same fundies. So I play with Skip 'till I get bored too.

At the moment it's too funny, even GimmeLiberty thinks I'm a closet creo playing sockpuppet. Priceless.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#407
Oct 2, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh calling me G now racist? I don't bother wasting my time reading apologetic's websites.
Bottom line take a break from the straw man factory. I have shown several scientists who have stated various propositions are impossible. You are free to disagree with science as you so often do.
You see your argument my racist troll is a philosophical argument not a scientific one.
Oh and just to spike the football. Again.
The floating god head at the end of the flat earth that blows creating the weather is impossible. Fact. The only way you can argue it is not impossible is to say that in 500 years scientists will say, hmm the earth really is totally flat and there is a giant head that blows and creates the weather!
Do you really want to take that position bigot? It's a fine position for a flat earther to take, be my guest.
<quoted text>
Dunno what you're on about with the race thing, but whatever. Bub, I've been VERY explicit explaining everything to you but you seem to be having a problem not just grasping the scientific method, but basic reading comprehension. Seriously bub, I expect this from fundies. No straw-man on my part, my arguments have been quite clear.

I already explained to you that your head thing can be investigated, and therefore basically falsified. That's why it does not compare to non-falsifiable concepts such as (a) God creating the universe. And now you're going on another emotional rant again. You've already seen what that's done to Skip so don't say you weren't warned.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

11 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 3 min waaasssuuup 225,559
Hollywood Actor Reveals What He Thinks Is 'Weir... 18 min Lawrence Wolf 99
If Christianity were true... 21 min Patrick 123
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 53 min Pahu 882
Introducing The Universal Religion (Feb '14) 3 hr religionisillness 753
Our world came from nothing? 3 hr religionisillness 354
Adam Atheoi - the god of 'humanity' 3 hr religionisillness 78
•••
•••