Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#569 Jan 8, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying troll with no morals and no intellectual integrity whatsoever.
This from the guy who regularly changes people's wording in their quotes to make it seem like they are saying something else.

If you criticize my integrity, it means I'm doing the right thing.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#570 Jan 8, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Lil Ticked - another lying creationist. I bet Nuggin is also a creationist too also posing as an agnostic tw*t - same as the The Dude.
Lil Ticked works with the creationsit nanoanomaly to disrupt threads why Nuggin rants about some sh*t and The Dude stands by him cheerleading his illogical nonsense.
I give you clowns another 2 months before you f*ck off backto your trolls just like the long list of trolls that have f*cked off before over the past 5 years.
Remember Educated Wh*t? He was a stubborn f*ck wasn't here? Buck Crick? remember him?
Where the f*ck are they now?
Same place you four stupid f*cks will be too. Back in your caves hiding until the next opportunity to spam this forum with creationist nonsense.
Skippy, you are making some huge errors in your thinking.

The first of which is that by continuing to act like a child you've somehow "won" a debate.

If someone gets fed up with you screaming "F*ck you!" in _every post_ without raising any points or presenting any evidence, you haven't defeated them in debate. You've just made it obvious that you aren't intellectual enough to defend your position.

You're like a basketball team that refuses to leave the court after the game has ended. Doesn't matter that the other team out scored you ever minute of the game, you're just bragging that 6 hours after the game ended, they've all gone home and you're still there missing your lay ups.

You can make up all the claims you want, but Dude and I are here defending science from fundamentalists of all stripes. You are one such fundy.

It's been nearly a year since we asked you to prove your claim. In that time you've screamed that we don't know the "burden of proof" and said f*ck about a million times.

But you haven't provided ANY sort of evidence, or even a compelling argument, that you have accesses to scientific information that the rest of the world doesn't have.

You lost. You lost a year ago. You continue to lose with each post that contains nothing but "F*ck!".

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#571 Jan 8, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep asking for proof, when its you who has very little proof that you're not a creationist.
Almost all your viewpoints are taking from the creationist hymn book, you're pro gun and you try to disrupt atheist threads with meandering nonsense.
Wow, that's some logic for you.

You accuse him of being a Creationist, he asks you for proof. You demand that he provide proof that he's _not_.

Okay, by that standard, you are a Creationists, Skippy. Now _PROVE_ otherwise.

Your "evidence" for his Creationism is that he supports the second amendment?! So, NO scientists own guns? NO Atheists also enjoy hunting?

LOL. You're "thinking" (I'm being generous there) is so muddled you haven't got the first clue what you're talking about

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#572 Jan 8, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep asking for proof, when its you who has very little proof that you're not a creationist.
Almost all your viewpoints are taking from the creationist hymn book, you're pro gun and you try to disrupt atheist threads with meandering nonsense.
Giveme liberty has already smacked you down for lying. I suggest you give up this little game and go back to the discovery institute and ask for your money back.
And take that little rag nano with with you there's a good troll.
SO, what you are saying is that you do not understand the burden of proof?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#573 Jan 8, 2013
I hope you don't mind me deleting your low self esteem rambling. 1: Show what supernatural powers the people were forced to think pharaoh had. 2: And again what is your point about the people being forced into deifying pharaoh? What was your point about even wasting time on this?
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The dictionary definition of god (little "g") is any figure who people believe has supernatural powers. I pointed out that, by that definition, the Pharaohs of Egypt were gods as the people believed that had supernatural powers and required worship.
Did they actually have powers? Nope. But the definition doesn't require ACTUAL powers, it merely requires that the people BELIEVE it.
"Anything anyone believes becomes real."
Of course, that isn't the position.
The position is, has been and will remain:
Using the definition of "gods" which universally applies to all religions, Pharaohs fall into that category. And, unlike gods like Thor or Zeus, the Pharaohs were actually physically real people who really existed.
e.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#574 Jan 8, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I hope you don't mind me deleting your low self esteem rambling. 1: Show what supernatural powers the people were forced to think pharaoh had. 2: And again what is your point about the people being forced into deifying pharaoh? What was your point about even wasting time on this?
<quoted text>
#1) No one was "forced to believe" something. I fairly certain that it's impossible to force someone to believe something. You can force people to say that the believe something, but belief has to be internal.

#2) I explained this in great detail in a few posts ago. It's the LONG post directly before you complained that I hadn't answered you.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#575 Jan 8, 2013
1: semantics and you know it. You see Nuggin that is your first problem you are so focused on arguing that you go wild on semantics and then start obfuscating what people said. The people were forced by the sword to bow and/or accept the deification of pharaoh. Stop stalling. Oh and I will give you a mulligan on your it's impossible to force someone to believe something. Just out of the kindness of my heart.
2: You certainly rambled on but you avoided my question. Other than say playing gotcha with skeptic you had a reason for bringing up the pharaoh was made a deity. What was the reason you brought that up?

Btw you still haven't demonstrated what supernatural powers pharaoh was supposed to have.

Take a deep breath, calm down and answer the questions.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
#1) No one was "forced to believe" something. I fairly certain that it's impossible to force someone to believe something. You can force people to say that the believe something, but belief has to be internal.
#2) I explained this in great detail in a few posts ago. It's the LONG post directly before you complained that I hadn't answered you.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#576 Jan 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
1: semantics and you know it. You see Nuggin that is your first problem you are so focused on arguing that you go wild on semantics and then start obfuscating what people said.
The people were forced by the sword to bow and/or accept the deification of pharaoh. Stop stalling. Oh and I will give you a mulligan on your it's impossible to force someone to believe something. Just out of the kindness of my heart.
You are attacking what I wrote on the grounds that I should know what you think when you express yourself poorly.

That's not a valid criticism.

There is a difference between being told something and believing something.

Thousands of Jews were "converted" during the Inquisition. Did they actually change their beliefs? Or did they simple say whatever they needed to say to not get burned at the stake?

You are trying to argue that for HUNDREDS of years, NO ONE in Egypt actually believed the Pharaohs were gods. That's silly.

Were there some people who didn't believe? Sure. But there were also people who did believe.
2: You certainly rambled on but you avoided my question. Other than say playing gotcha with skeptic you had a reason for bringing up the pharaoh was made a deity. What was the reason you brought that up?
No. Go back and read the thread. I quite literally took Skeptic at his word when he said "Look it up in the dictionary". I gave him the definition and pointed out that Pharaohs fit the definition.

I'm sure there are quite a few other god-kings that fit, but Pharaohs are perhaps the best known and easiest to reference.

Skippy's claim is that no gods have ever existed in reality. Pharaohs were gods, they existed in reality. End of discussion.
Btw you still haven't demonstrated what supernatural powers pharaoh was supposed to have.
Again, your wording is so ambiguous as to be intentionally misleading.

Do you mean, I have to demonstrate a power supposedly held by the Pharaohs? How do you propose I do that?

Do you mean, I still haven't given an example of a power? We had that discussion MONTHS ago on the other thread. It's not my fault you didn't do your research.

Or do you mean that I'm supposed to demonstrate that the Pharaohs had powers but you don't believe that they do?

Or do you mean that I'm supposed to demonstrate that the Pharaohs supposedly had powers?

You intentionally pick ambiguous wording and then complain that I didn't meet all your definitions.

Write more goodly and I'll answer betterer.
Take a deep breath, calm down and answer the questions.
<quoted text>
I'm perfectly calm. You're the one who's been throwing a hissy fit for a week now.

Honestly, go back and read your posts and read my posts. You're the one ranting and raving

Since: Mar 11

United States

#577 Jan 9, 2013
I deleted your babbling ok? And I will give you a pass on the Jew contradiction.

Now this post is a wonderful example of how you employ logical fallacies when you are losing. You said I was trying to argue that in hundreds of years no one in Egypt yadda yadda whine complain fail. Thank you for falling so clumsily into that as I expected you would. So we can see how you obfuscate what I said and then attempt to build a strawman to beat up on and toss in your ad Homs. So now that I have proven that soundly let's move on.

Now people were forced to worship him by threat of death. It's still nothing but a delusion just one brought on by violent means.

Oh and again you said a god must have supernatural powers and I am still waiting for these so called supernatural powers you are claiming the pharaoh was believed to have. I do not need a block of excuses on hybyou can't, name the powers he was believed to have, stop stalling or submit that logic is flawed. Remember believing the being has supernatural powers is a key component to your argument, a component you have demonstrated to be ill equipped to provide. Perhaps you thought you could strawman and ad hom that away eh?

Actually the people then were much more likely to pray and worship Ra, Horus and a whole slew of their deities, pharaoh was really more like the Pope of the Egyptian religion who in death achieved sainthood so to speak. Yes the Catholics weren't original in this matter either lol!

Now are you claiming that pharaoh is proof of a so called real god? That pharaoh is real so god/s are real. Is this your claim? I don't want to twist your words now, unlike how you do to others.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Thousands of Jews were "converted" during the Inquisition. Did they actually change their beliefs? Or did they simple say whatever they needed to say to not get burned at the stake?
You are trying to argue that for HUNDREDS of years, NO ONE in Egypt actually believed the Pharaohs were gods. That's silly.
Were there some people who didn't believe? Sure. But there were also people who did believe.
Pharaohs were gods, they existed in reality. End of discussion.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#578 Jan 9, 2013
You know Nuggin believe it or not I went down to the evolution forum and dug up an old thread that you had been posting on. Immediately here is what I found and it was like deja vu.

You were having a back n forth with a goofball creationist and you had a beautiful chance to slit his throat with his own words but instead you did as you are doing here and in the process made a jackass out of yourself.

The creationist brought up how over time it's possible to breed out spots or fur color something along those lines. Now you could have agreed and used that as a Segway into evolution. The creationist would have been trapped by his own words, beautifully might I note.

Instead you went off on a temper tantrum purposely obfuscating what he said changing it to, oh so you are claiming chickens are T-Rex with the spots gone!

:sigh:

He was wrong and you were right and you had a golden opportunity to knock it out of the park. But instead of driving it home you had to disagree with him and obfuscate with a strawman.

And honestly that is sad, if you could just drop the logical fallacies and childish temper tantrums you would be a more well rounded poster.
socrowteez

Albuquerque, NM

#579 Jan 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You know Nuggin believe it or not I went down to the evolution forum and dug up an old thread that you had been posting on. Immediately here is what I found and it was like deja vu.
You were having a back n forth with a goofball creationist and you had a beautiful chance to slit his throat with his own words but instead you did as you are doing here and in the process made a jackass out of yourself.
The creationist brought up how over time it's possible to breed out spots or fur color something along those lines. Now you could have agreed and used that as a Segway into evolution. The creationist would have been trapped by his own words, beautifully might I note.
Instead you went off on a temper tantrum purposely obfuscating what he said changing it to, oh so you are claiming chickens are T-Rex with the spots gone!
:sigh:
He was wrong and you were right and you had a golden opportunity to knock it out of the park. But instead of driving it home you had to disagree with him and obfuscate with a strawman.
And honestly that is sad, if you could just drop the logical fallacies and childish temper tantrums you would be a more well rounded poster.
Why would you want to slit someone's throat for his beliefs? That makes you no better than a medieval Inquisitor! The whole point of debate is an exchange of ideas, not blood letting.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#580 Jan 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
I deleted your babbling ok? And I will give you a pass on the Jew contradiction.
That you delete what you don't understand tells me more about your ability to learn than any sort of point you claim to be making.
Now this post is a wonderful example of how you employ logical fallacies when you are losing. You said I was trying to argue that in hundreds of years no one in Egypt yadda yadda whine complain fail. Thank you for falling so clumsily into that as I expected you would. So we can see how you obfuscate what I said and then attempt to build a strawman to beat up on and toss in your ad Homs. So now that I have proven that soundly let's move on.
Actually, it's you who is whining. I've been answering you questions in an even and adult tone.

Additionally, you should familiarize yourself with terms like "strawman" before you use them incorrectly as you just did.

It is not a strawman to highlight what someone is arguing.

My position is that _some_ people in Egypt believed in the Pharaohs.

You claimed I was wrong and said that the people of Egypt were forced to worship the Pharaohs even though they didn't really believe it.

If you do NOT mean "ALL" the people in Egypt, then you aren't contradicting my point. Some people could be doing one things and some people could be doing another thing.

So, which is it? Are you saying ALL the people? Or SOME of the people?

And if it's "some" of the people, then how does that contradict what I am saying in anyway?
Now people were forced to worship him by threat of death.
ALL? Or Some?
And how is that different that Judaism or Christianity or countless other religions.
Oh and again you said a god must have supernatural powers and I am still waiting for these so called supernatural powers you are claiming the pharaoh was believed to have.
Actually, I never said that a god must have supernatural powers. I've been excessively clear on that, having provided that answer on no less than 40 posts in these two threads.

In fact, my position has been the same on that since this topic first came up.

Perhaps you need to go back six months and refresh yourself before criticizing what you can't seem to remember.
Remember believing the being has supernatural powers is a key component to your argument, a component you have demonstrated to be ill equipped to provide.
Again, you are being unclear in your request. Since you are a bit of a grammar nazi, clear it up.

Are you asking what powers were attributed to the Pharaohs? Aura gave that answer months ago.

Are you asking what powers the Pharaohs ACTUALLY possessed? I've given that answer many times.
Actually the people then were much more likely to pray and worship Ra, Horus and a whole slew of their deities, pharaoh was really more like the Pope of the Egyptian religion who in death achieved sainthood so to speak. Yes the Catholics weren't original in this matter either lol!
Who are you talking to? I never claimed this was a monotheism. Ra can be a god AND Ramses can be a god at the same time. Just like Zeus and Apollo were both gods in the same religion at the same time.
Now are you claiming that pharaoh is proof of a so called real god? That pharaoh is real so god/s are real. Is this your claim? I don't want to twist your words now, unlike how you do to others.
I find it amusing that after several posts in which I've asked you to clarify your writing, you are accusing me of twisting your words.

Ramses was a god. Ramses did really exist.

Skippy's claim that he could scientifically prove that there has never been a god which has really existed is thus wrong.

The way I see it, you can either try and prove that Ramses wasn't a god. Or that Ramses didn't exist. Your choice.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#581 Jan 9, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
You know Nuggin believe it or not I went down to the evolution forum and dug up an old thread that you had been posting on. Immediately here is what I found and it was like deja vu.
You were having a back n forth with a goofball creationist and you had a beautiful chance to slit his throat with his own words but instead you did as you are doing here and in the process made a jackass out of yourself.
The creationist brought up how over time it's possible to breed out spots or fur color something along those lines. Now you could have agreed and used that as a Segway into evolution. The creationist would have been trapped by his own words, beautifully might I note.
Instead you went off on a temper tantrum purposely obfuscating what he said changing it to, oh so you are claiming chickens are T-Rex with the spots gone!
:sigh:
He was wrong and you were right and you had a golden opportunity to knock it out of the park. But instead of driving it home you had to disagree with him and obfuscate with a strawman.
And honestly that is sad, if you could just drop the logical fallacies and childish temper tantrums you would be a more well rounded poster.
Care to provide a link to the entire conversation? Or are you taking one post out of context?

Here's what I find interesting about all this:

I am the most important thing in your life. You are actually going back and digging up old posts of mine. You are obsessed with me. You can't NOT reply to anything I write.

GetALife, when I hit "post comment" at the end of a message, you are completely gone from my mind. I couldn't care less if you read it or not, I couldn't care less if you get hit by a truck. You simply don't exist.

Meanwhile, you sit there in your sweatpants and Taco Bell t-shirt stewing over everything I've written going back YEARS.

Get a life, man. Learn a skill. Get a job. Talk to a girl. Move out of your mom's basement. Seriously. Anything.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#582 Jan 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
This from the guy who regularly changes people's wording in their quotes to make it seem like they are saying something else.
If you criticize my integrity, it means I'm doing the right thing.
Haha. You don't have any integrity - the moment you start losing a fact based argument, you accuse the opponent of denying the moon landings or some equally ridiculous straw an.

People have been telling you for months that you and your illogical arguments are probably the by product of some creationist mental illness of some sort.

I'm sorry that you think you're right 100% of the time and that everyone who challenges your stupidity is somehow "wrong".

As we can all see here, you're an arrogant f*ck who couldn't win an argument with a 5 year old.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#583 Jan 9, 2013
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>SO, what you are saying is that you do not understand the burden of proof?
F*ck off you creationist waste of space with no proof of god.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#585 Jan 9, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a life, man. Learn a skill. Get a job. Talk to a girl. Move out of your mom's basement. Seriously. Anything.
Freudian.
demomode

UK

#586 Jan 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
F*ck off you creationist waste of space with no proof of god.
You aren't a sceptic. A true sceptic keeps an open mind. You're an unregenerate bigot.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#587 Jan 9, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha. You don't have any integrity - the moment you start losing a fact based argument, you accuse the opponent of denying the moon landings or some equally ridiculous straw an.
Skippy, name one fact you've presented in either of the two threads?

Also, Page 4 of the other thread. that's where you deny the moon landings.
People have been telling you for months that you and your illogical arguments are probably the by product of some creationist mental illness of some sort.
You switching between various accounts and writing the same thing over and over again does not constitute "people", it barely constitutes "person".
As we can all see here, you're an arrogant f*ck who couldn't win an argument with a 5 year old.
That makes you the 5 year old?

Since: Mar 11

United States

#588 Jan 9, 2013
This is another great example of what I am pointing out. You do it so much junior that you are unable to see yourself doing it. When did I claim you were even remotely important in my life? As usual you obfuscate, create a straw man argument and then Ad Hom away true to formula.

Sorry son but you need to pull mommy's titty out of your mouth and drop the narcissistic temper tantrums.

Actually it was you who are always braying about people should read your previous posts to see what you are about. Ok I glanced over a page of an old thread you were on as you beg people to do. Yet when I do as you constantly beg people to do it's a bad thing?

You really need to think about what you want to say before you post.

Now again what were the supposed supernatural powers that pharaoh was believed to have had.

Enough stalling what supernatural powers was he supposed to have had? Waiting waiting waiting zzzzzz waiting waiting any year now Nuggin.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I am the most important thing in your life. You are actually going back and digging up old posts of mine. You are obsessed with me. You can't NOT reply to anything I write.
GetALife, when I hit "post comment" at the end of a message, you are completely gone from my mind. I couldn't care less if you read it or not, I couldn't care less if you get hit by a truck. You simply don't exist.
Meanwhile, you sit there in your sweatpants and Taco Bell t-shirt stewing over everything I've written going back YEARS.
Get a life, man. Learn a skill. Get a job. Talk to a girl. Move out of your mom's basement. Seriously. Anything.

Since: Mar 11

United States

#589 Jan 9, 2013
You know Nuggin your criteria for a god keeps radically changing. It has to be believed to have supernatural powers until it doesn't. It has to be thought to kill those to who don't in it until it doesn't and the contradictions keep coming.

Here do this. Make your definitive criteria for a god, no more adding and subtracting as you go along like a freak with ADHD. Make your definition and stuck with it.

Ready. Set. Go!

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 requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 15 min Morse 233,154
Why Do Atheists Ridicule Christianity? (May '11) 16 min Morse 5,951
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 19 min RayOne 2,621
Christians More Supportive of Torture Than Non-... 1 hr SnuffAGlobalisst 23
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 2 hr Mikko 23,266
Atheism: On the Rise? (Jan '13) 6 hr Dee 41
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 6 hr _Bad Company 1,458
More from around the web