The Nuggin Logic Thread

Posted in the Atheism Forum

Comments (Page 31)

Showing posts 601 - 620 of648
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#610
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Givemeliberty wrote:
Now this is your definition of a god? You are sure? Absolutely sure? Take a minute and chew it over because at other times you also threw in other qualifiers like they think the god will kill them all if they don't worship or that a religion must be created around said god.
Well, you are once again either deliberately misunderstanding posts or simply unable to grasp how words work.

The definition I gave is the same definition I gave six months ago and a hundred times in between.

It contains the word "require". Certainly, at some point in the last half a year, the discussion on one of the two threads has addressed that word.

What does it mean to "require" worship?
In the case of the Old Testament is apparently means: "Do it or my followers will murder you and everyone you know."

Alternately, in some other religion, it could mean: "This god will shrivel and die if they don't get enough worship."

I don't know of any examples of the second one, but the first one is, unfortunately, quite common.

As for a religion centering around a god, that's a discussion of a definition of a religion more than a discussion of a definition for a god.

Saying that a wheel surrounds an axle isn't redefining axle. It's describing "wheel".
So before I go any further I am giving you another chance to change add or subtract something from your hand picked definition.
My definition has not changed.

Do you have an alternate definition that you would like to suggest?

Or are you so obsessed with me that you can't think for yourself and must rely on the thousands of posts you've apparently printed out and pored over during the months you were off linking your wounds.
See I want to be sure this is the one solid definition you will stand by and not falter or change it up again as you go along like you did before with the killing and religion started around the so called god.
As I said before: Find me an example of your claim.

Show me where I've changed the definition.

You're the expert in going back and re-reading my posts. Do it. Spend the next six weeks going back over both threads and find it.

Otherwise, you're just making this stuff up.
Up there, are you totally sure this is what you want to stand on? Last chance before the fun starts :)
For the record, "My" definition is not _mine_. It's the definition from the dictionary. The technical wording is:

: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship

Now, I admit, I shortened "more than natural attributes and powers" to "supernatural powers" and I've been leaving off "human" in my repetitions because I feel that's sort of a given.

Again, do you have an alternate definition?

Didn't think so.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#611
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Givemeliberty wrote:
Who else is laughing themselves silly at Nuggin first time and again beg people to read his posts in other threads but then go off when you do as he asked? Lmfao!
What a mommy's boy! How dare you do what I begged you to do?!! Oh and then after you mention you did it once he blow that up into 20 plus posts. I see numbers aren't his friend :))
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahah a!
Again, using strawman tactics while accusing others of doing so undercuts your already limited credibility.

If you _honestly_ believe that you haven't made at least 20 posts on this thread relating to me, you have a serious issue with your ability to count.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#612
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact I'm saying I understand the burden of proof so well, that I recognise it is not my place to prove a negative.
Finally! You finally admit you were wrong!

Mark the calendar, everyone.

A YEAR later and Skippy has finally admitted that he was wrong when he claimed that he had "scientific proof that no gods exist"

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#613
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignosticism -- can something for which there is no definition be considered to even possibly exist?
(Whether it exists or not does not change the idea that consideration without definition is absurd.)
in this case I was not referring to deities.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#614
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally! You finally admit you were wrong!
Mark the calendar, everyone.
A YEAR later and Skippy has finally admitted that he was wrong when he claimed that he had "scientific proof that no gods exist"
I sorry that you're illiterate, but please don't take it out on us atheists.

The burden of proof states that the idiot who invents god must prove him.

Since you haven't done that and are intellectually dishonest, do you have anything to say in your defence.

Thought not. Though let me guess, you're gonna accuse us of denying the moon landings again?

It must give you comfort to dishonestly argue a strawman that nobody can contradict (because its so ridiculous)

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#615
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I sorry that you're illiterate, but please don't take it out on us atheists.
The burden of proof states that the idiot who invents god must prove him.
Actually, no it doesn't.

If a religious person has a god and makes no scientific claim about said god, then there is no need for them to prove anything. It is what they believe. Evidence is irrelevant to that.

On the other hand, you made a VERY CLEAR and VERY PRECISE scientific claim. You stated that you could _scientifically prove_ the non-existence of god/gods.

Setting aside Dude's entire side of the argument which is: Science can not prove or disprove anything outside of the natural world.(that's an accurate statement, by the way. And you owe Dude an apology).

That leaves you facing my argument which is: While there are countless gods which existed only in the imagination of their worshipers, there are those gods which were physically real entities. Pharaohs being one such example.

Since the rank of god is based entirely on the belief of the worshipers, any one god is just as valid or invalid as any other.

The fact that you use the word god in your statement means you acknowledge that the word has meaning.

I'm choosing to use the meaning set down in the dictionary which accurately describes the countless gods we've recorded from various cultures around the world.

You have not presented an alternative definition.

So, back to your statement --

Where is your "scientific proof" that the Pharaohs didn't exist? Or are you willing to concede that, in the case of the Pharaohs, there were individuals who were ranked as gods and they were physically real.
Since you haven't done that and are intellectually dishonest, do you have anything to say in your defence.
You continue to claim that I haven't present proof that the Pharaohs existed, yet both you and I know that I have.

In fact, there are numerous mummies you can go see with your own eyes.

The Pharaohs were real Skippy. Continuing to claim otherwise is dishonest.
Though let me guess, you're gonna accuse us of denying the moon landings again?
"Us"? Are you referring to all your different puppet accounts?

Page 4 Skippy. The posts are still there. You can go back and read them yourself.
tagit

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#617
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I sorry that you're illiterate, but please don't take it out on us atheists.
The burden of proof states that the idiot who invents god must prove him.
Since you haven't done that and are intellectually dishonest, do you have anything to say in your defence.
Thought not. Though let me guess, you're gonna accuse us of denying the moon landings again?
It must give you comfort to dishonestly argue a strawman that nobody can contradict (because its so ridiculous)
You're comprehension of the burdon of proof is rather primitive.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#618
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no it doesn't.
If a religious person has a god and makes no scientific claim about said god, then there is no need for them to prove anything.
Hello you f*cking idiot, the statement "If a religious person has a god" has an assumption built-in you ridiculous individual. It's a claim already you f*cking moron.

What the f*ck school did you go to? Your teachers need to be sued.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#619
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

tagit wrote:
<quoted text>
You're comprehension of the burdon of proof is rather primitive.
Who the f*ck are you?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620
Jan 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello you f*cking idiot, the statement "If a religious person has a god" has an assumption built-in you ridiculous individual. It's a claim already you f*cking moron.
What the f*ck school did you go to? Your teachers need to be sued.
Stop cumming in your pants. Go back and read the post.

It's not a scientific statement. A person does not _need_ to provide you with scientific evidence for a personal statement they are making about themselves.

If someone says "I enjoy cheese", they do not need to meet your personal version of "burden of proof" for that statement.

If someone says "I believe in bigfoot" they do not need to meet your personal version of burden of proof.

They only need to provide evidence if they are trying to convince YOU that they are right.

YOU are trying to convince the Christians that you are right, therefore YOU need to provide evidence to back up your claim.

They are perfectly happy stating what they believe and leaving it at that.

So, either pony up the evidence or leave them alone.

Meanwhile, you never did explain why you think C-14 dating is fake.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#621
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop cumming in your pants. Go back and read the post.
It's not a scientific statement. A person does not _need_ to provide you with scientific evidence for a personal statement they are making about themselves.
If someone says "I enjoy cheese", they do not need to meet your personal version of "burden of proof" for that statement.
If someone says "I believe in bigfoot" they do not need to meet your personal version of burden of proof.
They only need to provide evidence if they are trying to convince YOU that they are right.
YOU are trying to convince the Christians that you are right, therefore YOU need to provide evidence to back up your claim.
They are perfectly happy stating what they believe and leaving it at that.
So, either pony up the evidence or leave them alone.
Meanwhile, you never did explain why you think C-14 dating is fake.
Hello you f*cking idiot, the statement "If a religious person has a god" has an assumption built-in you ridiculous individual. It's a claim already you f*cking moron.

Why do I need to repeat sh*t to you illogical moron? Are you braindead as well?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#622
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
If someone says "I enjoy cheese", they do not need to meet your personal version of "burden of proof" for that statement.
Cheese is real and god is not, you fail again ignorant illogical troll.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#623
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Meanwhile, you never did explain why you think C-14 dating is fake.
Did you eat that mouldy toast again?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#624
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Hello you f*cking idiot, the statement "If a religious person has a god" has an assumption built-in you ridiculous individual. It's a claim already you f*cking moron.
Why do I need to repeat sh*t to you illogical moron? Are you braindead as well?
Skippy, we've been repeating stuff for you for more than a year now and you still haven't been able to grasp the concepts.

For example:
NASA did put someone on the moon.
I did not "invent" lizards. They are real animals.
C-14 dating is not fake.
Egypt was a real place.

None of this has sunk in for you.

So, the fact that you keep insisting that a persons religious beliefs requires that they convince you that your ignorance of science is larger than theirs is beyond fixing.

There is no _scientific assumption_ to the statement: "If a religious person has a god". It's not a scientific statement. It's a statement about someone's religious beliefs.

That person does not need to present to you or anyone else any evidence in support of their religion unless they are trying to convince you to join their religion.

You running around like a chicken with its head cut off proclaiming that you can "scientifically disprove" an inherently NON-scientific philosophy is just ignorant on your part.

You are making the claim about YOUR ability to do something. YOu need to meet the burden of proof for that claim.

Some random Christian's burden of proof for why THEY BELIEVE what they BELIEVE is that they BELIEVE it.

It's a PHILOSOPHY.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#625
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you eat that mouldy toast again?
That's not really evidence.

You made a very clear statement that my post detailing the ways C-14 dating can be cross referenced to prove its accuracy was wrong.

So, let's see the evidence.

How exactly is it that C-14 dating (the most comprehensively used radiometric dating method for its time frame) is inaccurate?

Go on. You made the statement. You meet the "burden of proof".

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#627
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not really evidence.
You made a very clear statement that my post detailing the ways C-14 dating can be cross referenced to prove its accuracy was wrong.
So, let's see the evidence.
How exactly is it that C-14 dating (the most comprehensively used radiometric dating method for its time frame) is inaccurate?
Go on. You made the statement. You meet the "burden of proof".
The moral of is story is: kids, don't do drugs.

Or alternatively don't lie and accuse the person that slaughters you consistnelty in debate of claiming c14 dating is fake.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#628
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
NASA did put someone on the moon.
I did not "invent" lizards. They are real animals.
C-14 dating is not fake.
Egypt was a real place.
Congratulations you are slowly making it to the real world. Now if you can stop hallucinating that anyone is disagreeing with you on see four points....that is your next challenge troll.

Good luck you ridiculous fool!

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#629
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
The moral of is story is: kids, don't do drugs.
Or alternatively don't lie and accuse the person that slaughters you consistnelty in debate of claiming c14 dating is fake.
Skippy, you can deny it all you want, but it's all there on the other thread for all to see.

So, are you now admitting you were wrong? Are you conceding that I was right about C-14 dating?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#630
Jan 12, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
Congratulations you are slowly making it to the real world. Now if you can stop hallucinating that anyone is disagreeing with you on see four points....that is your next challenge troll.
Good luck you ridiculous fool!
So, you are conceding that you lost all four of these debates.

Excellent.

I'm glad that after a year of non-stop arguing, you've finally realized that you were 100% wrong in your claims.

Unfortunately for you, these are the only four things you've actually chosen to argue about.

0 for 4. Not a great record.

I'll be sure to keep reminding you that you conceded the debate in case you forget.

Since: Mar 11

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#631
Jan 13, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

For the sake of reason I erased your ADHD babbling, ad Homs, strawman and obfuscation, being especially kind to remove your saying I was linking my wounds lol! I must admit before I slit your throat that I really got a laugh at you first crying that people never read your previous posts yet when I finally for laughs read a few you went berserk over it. Just that ADHD of your's shining through!

Ok enough chuckle time or throat slitting time :)

1: Being or object. Hold the phone right there without this being or object your definition automatically falls apart, say someone says their god is the corvette in their garage and everyone worships it an they even built a church and religion around it. They even show you snapshots of this beautiful red corvette. Fair enough, but when you go to the garage instead of a corvette all you see is piles of turd nuggets! Well turd nuggets are not red corvettes right?

Hence we already have an issue with your pharaoh example. Which pharaohs? Not all of them were deified in fact some even ventured into monotheism with gusts of wanting to go secular. So you would firstly have to show which pharaoh/s were deified, something you fail to do by just using the generic blanket term pharaoh. By just using pharaoh you have already shown logical failure because skeptic could rightfully say he had in mind a non deified pharaoh, so you are claiming there is a corvette in the garage when in reality there is only piles of turd nuggets. I could stop there but let's go ahead deeper into the jugular shall we?

That being/object believed to have more than natural abilities.

Again what pharoah and what supernatural abilities? As AM said the Egyptian priests and priestess' were said to control the flow of the Nile and rising and setting of the sun by some writings but that doesn't necessarily mean pharaoh had said abilities. You can suppose he had this power but you would need to show some kind of documentation of his supposed supernatural abilities otherwise he isn't a god but instead a tyrant, by your OWN hand picked definition. Let's go ahead and make a full throat slit ear to ear smile we?

Hmm I said suppose and suppose is a great word for it. Yes indeed suppose will do nicely. Why do we have to suppose what some of the pharaoh's powers were and did people freely believe in him or just cited like it by threat of death? Why is that? Hmm hmmm hmmm. Oh that's right because nobody sane today believes that certain pharaohs had supernatural powers and you clearly state that believing is a key factor. Worse before you wail that people in the past may have believed you have already said once people stop believing in the supernatural abilities of a god it ceases to be a god. Why? In Nuggin's own words people believing is the key factor.

So now all you are left with are piles of turd nuggets that nobody believes is a god left in our figurative garage example.

And just for bonus points or overkill...

You stated the person or object had to be believed to have supernatural abilities and a religion built around them yet the Egyptian god religion was full underway before the first pharaoh was deified. There goes your wrists slashed.

There is no way for you to salvage this failed argument without radically changing the definition.

Bottom line your argument fails on all fronts using your own words. It seems as if you have a beef with skeptic that started from you wanting to troll him. But as I have just shown if you want to troll at least troll well.

How myass taste Nuggin? Wipe your chin now.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
For the record, My is:
: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 601 - 620 of648
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

13 Users are viewing the Atheism Forum right now

Search the Atheism Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Our world came from nothing? 2 min NightSerf 150
The numbers are in: America still distrusts ath... 3 min Richardfs 2
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 12 min Aura Mytha 223,969
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) 14 min Richardfs 830
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) 3 hr Mikko 21,376
20+ Questions for Theists (Apr '13) 6 hr religionisillness 349
Talking some sense into you people... 7 hr Patrick 23
•••
•••