Since: Mar 11

United States

#632 Jan 13, 2013
Oh and just one last thing Nuggin, since I have shown how your argument has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and was at best clumsily worded I believe you owe skeptic an apology :)
And he scores the extra 2 for using the dude's own words to further slash Nuggin's throat!
It's a blowout folks!

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#633 Jan 13, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm congratulating you on your accomplishment of stating four really really obvious points which nobody has argues against because they are so f*cking obvious.

What's next? Are you going to make out that we don't believe in Oxygen? is that your next angle on not looking like a complete douche?

I hate to say it but that ship has already sailed young troll..

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#634 Jan 13, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Skippy, you can deny it all you want
I certainly could...but I haven't, this is your rather weak attempt to hide the fact that you lost the previous argument:

1. Things don't become things just people people believe them. <----YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT

2. The burden of proof lies on the idiot who invents god, to prove him <-----LOST THIS ONE TOO

3. When you lose an argument, you try to accuse the other person of claiming something ridiculous (eg denying moon landings, egypt, lizards, etc.) in other to hide the fact that you lost the argument <---YEP, ANOTHER ARGUMENT NUGGIN LOST.

What a shame, keep trying troll, maybe you can talk your walk out of this one (or spam the forum again with your trademark long rambling bullsh*t to cover up this embarassment of yours!)

Good luck troll, I await your worthless response.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#635 Jan 13, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
For the sake of reason ...
So many words, so little sense. I'll be skipping ahead because you are wasting everyone's time with the extraneous junk.
1: Being or object. Hold the phone right there without this being or object your definition automatically falls apart
Thor is a "being". He does not ACTUALLY exist. Yet, the Vikings worshiped Thor as the god of thunder.

Do you agree? If so, then "without this being" is a meaningless argument.

If you disagree, then explain to me the Viking religion.
Hence we already have an issue with your pharaoh example. Which pharaohs?
Asked and answered. On no less than 50 posts I've used a specific name of a specific Pharaoh. If you've read the posts, you know.

If you haven't, then you haven't done your research. Go back and read.
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.
See, you CAN go back and do the research.

Re-read your above paragraph and realize the mistake you are making.

I'll give you a hint:
"BELIEVED to have more...." vs "doesn't necessarily mean pharaoh had..."

You've answered your own question.
you would need to show some kind of documentation of his supposed supernatural abilities otherwise
There is plenty of documentation that the Pharaohs were supposed to have these abilities.

You are trying to argue that they didn't ACTUALLY have the abilities. They don't need to. Thor doesn't ACTUALLY have the ability to create thunder.
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.
Nobody sane today believes that Thor is the god of thunder. It doesn't matter. The Vikings did, that's what made him the god of thunder.

The fact that no one is currently a member of a religion does not retroactively mean the religion didn't exist.
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.
If a Pharaoh were alive today and no one believed in him, then he would not be a god.

However, that does not change the fact that in the past some other Pharaoh was a god.

You need to get a better handle on how history works.
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.
The existence of one god in a religion does not preclude the existence of another god in that same religion.

Belief in Ra does not preclude a later belief in Ramses.

If this is your "best" argument, you have been wasting your time.
There is no way for you to salvage this failed argument without radically changing the definition.
Actually, haven't changed a word of it. Just demonstrated that your assumptions were invalid.
How myass taste Nuggin? Wipe your chin now.
Here's a tip, kid. Don't go claiming victory after throwing your first punch, especially when you miss entirely.

None of this argument works on any level.

Are you honestly going to tell me that you retroactively negate the existence of all religions based on your current belief?

LOL.

Seriously. I'll give you a do over.

Try again and get a friend to help.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#636 Jan 13, 2013
Givemeliberty wrote:
Oh and just one last thing Nuggin, since I have shown how your argument has more holes in it than Swiss cheese and was at best clumsily worded I believe you owe skeptic an apology :)
And he scores the extra 2 for using the dude's own words to further slash Nuggin's throat!
It's a blowout folks!
Yeah, you better go back and re-read your post there Timmy.

You didn't find a single hole. You attempted to make them, but even that failed.

Try again.

Oh, and for the sake of the readers. Pick one point. Address it in depth. Then I will beat you on that point. Then you can move on to the next point.

Otherwise they have to pick through you giant block of nonsense. It's a waste of their time.

So, go on.

Which point did you want to argue?

Was it that Thor didn't exist? Or that religions retroactively disappear? Or that there were multiple Pharaohs?

Or something else?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#637 Jan 13, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm congratulating you on your accomplishment of stating four really really obvious points which nobody has argues against because they are so f*cking obvious.
No one accept you Skip.

You clearly stated that you believed I made up the moon landing.
You clearly stated that my point about C-14 dating being accurate was "bullshit".
You clearly stated that I invented "lizards".
You clearly stated that the Pharaohs (who were gods) never actually existed.

It's great that you've since come around to my side on all these issues. I would just advise that you stop being wrong so often to avoid having to change your position.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#638 Jan 13, 2013
lol Freudian *expect you.
Though, in reality, no one "accepts you" either Skip

Since: Mar 10

Location hidden

#639 Jan 13, 2013
I tried to be an atheist once but I couldn't muster the level of faith it takes to believe the universe was an accident.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#641 Jan 13, 2013
Wrathbone wrote:
I tried to be an atheist once but I couldn't muster the level of faith it takes to believe the universe was an accident.
Yeah, of course everything you own works on the same physics that you are rejecting.

Funny how you have that level of faith in your computer, your microwave, your car, etc.

But I get it. You want to feel like you're special. That a "god" with a penis (?!?!) created you in his image. Makes perfect sense that an almighty eternal being would have genitalia.

“The Intrepid”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#642 Jan 14, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
lol Freudian *expect you.
Though, in reality, no one "accepts you" either Skip
I except him, mostly.
NorthbyNW

Denver, CO

#643 Jan 14, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, of course everything you own works on the same physics that you are rejecting.
Funny how you have that level of faith in your computer, your microwave, your car, etc.
But I get it. You want to feel like you're special. That a "god" with a penis (?!?!) created you in his image. Makes perfect sense that an almighty eternal being would have genitalia.
What does any of this have to do with the silly scientific notion that the origin of the universe was purely accidental?

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#645 Jan 14, 2013
NorthbyNW wrote:
<quoted text>
What does any of this have to do with the silly scientific notion that the origin of the universe was purely accidental?
First, no one is claiming that it was accidental except for ignorant religious folk who don't understand physics.

Second, even if they were, then to determine whether or not that was a silly notion you would have to assess MULTIPLE versions of different universes with different sorts of causes to determine where in the spectrum ours fell.

Third, the notion that in addition to this universe there is ANOTHER location which holds an entity who comes from nothing and has no equal and that that entity created everything in this Universe by generating 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000x more material than was needed, so that he could place some poorly designed creations on one tiny planet out in the middle of nowhere, then spend ALL his time complaining that they weren't worshiping him right...

You want to talk silly?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#647 Jan 15, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No one accept you Skip.
You clearly stated that you believed I made up the moon landing.
You clearly stated that my point about C-14 dating being accurate was "bullshit".
You clearly stated that I invented "lizards".
You clearly stated that the Pharaohs (who were gods) never actually existed.
It's great that you've since come around to my side on all these issues. I would just advise that you stop being wrong so often to avoid having to change your position.
I'll repeat the facts to you and everybody for the twenty thousandth time:

1. Things don't become things just people people believe them. <----YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT

2. The burden of proof lies on the idiot who invents god, to prove him <-----LOST THIS ONE TOO

3. When you lose an argument, you try to accuse the other person of claiming something ridiculous (eg denying moon landings, egypt, lizards, etc.) in other to hide the fact that you lost the argument <---YEP, ANOTHER ARGUMENT NUGGIN LOST.

What a shame, keep trying troll, maybe you can talk your walk out of this one (or spam the forum again with your trademark long rambling bullsh*t to cover up this embarassment of yours!)

Now commence with your bullsh*t response troll...

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#648 Jan 15, 2013
NorthbyNW wrote:
<quoted text>
What does any of this have to do with the silly scientific notion that the origin of the universe was purely accidental?
silly and scientific don't go together in the same sentence.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#650 Jan 15, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll repeat the facts to you and everybody for the twenty thousandth time:
1. Things don't become things just people people believe them. <----YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT
Except that no one ever made this argument but you.

I've said consistently from the beginning that words have meanings and that if a word accurately describes something, then you can say that that thing is that word.

For example: A tree is a "tree" because the word "tree" describes the object which you think of when you see the word "tree".

You can deny that words have meanings, but the fact that you are using words to try and deny that makes you look like an absolute idiot.

Not only didn't you win this argument, you CAN'T win this argument if you use words to fight it.
2. The burden of proof lies on the idiot who invents god, to prove him <-----LOST THIS ONE TOO
No, the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim.

YOU made a claim that you could _scientifically disprove_ the existence of any god.

So, where is your proof?
3. When you lose an argument, you try to accuse the other person of claiming something ridiculous (eg denying moon landings, egypt, lizards, etc.) in other to hide the fact that you lost the argument <---YEP, ANOTHER ARGUMENT NUGGIN LOST.
You've been given specific pages and post numbers for the times in which you've made all these claims.

Continuing to pretend you didn't doesn't negate the fact that they are still there for all to see.

You can't change what you said just because you realize now how stupid you sound when you say the things you say.

Lizards are real, Skippy. I didn't make them up.
NASA really went to the moon. I didn't make that up either.
Egypt was a real place. Still is. Not made up.
C-14 is an accurate dating method. Also not made up by me.

You should get out more.

The fact of the matter remains that since you couldn't win the argument, you started an entire thread dedicated to a strawman argument that you can't find a single reference for.

Funny how you bitch and bitch about us making up stuff about you when we can point to SPECIFIC posts where you said the things we reference. Yet, when I ask you to point to a single thread where I made the claims you think I made, you scream "F*CK!" at the top of your lungs and run away to hide.

Groww up, Skippy. You lost this the second you turned on your computer.

Now, log onto you puppet accounts and judge your own posts. THAT is really convincing the rest of us

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#651 Jan 15, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that no one ever made this argument but you.
I've said consistently from the beginning that words have meanings and that if a word accurately describes something, then you can say that that thing is that word.
For example: A tree is a "tree" because the word "tree" describes the object which you think of when you see the word "tree".
You can deny that words have meanings, but the fact that you are using words to try and deny that makes you look like an absolute idiot.
Not only didn't you win this argument, you CAN'T win this argument if you use words to fight it.
<quoted text>
No, the burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim.
YOU made a claim that you could _scientifically disprove_ the existence of any god.
So, where is your proof?
<quoted text>
You've been given specific pages and post numbers for the times in which you've made all these claims.
Continuing to pretend you didn't doesn't negate the fact that they are still there for all to see.
You can't change what you said just because you realize now how stupid you sound when you say the things you say.
Lizards are real, Skippy. I didn't make them up.
NASA really went to the moon. I didn't make that up either.
Egypt was a real place. Still is. Not made up.
C-14 is an accurate dating method. Also not made up by me.
You should get out more.
The fact of the matter remains that since you couldn't win the argument, you started an entire thread dedicated to a strawman argument that you can't find a single reference for.
Funny how you bitch and bitch about us making up stuff about you when we can point to SPECIFIC posts where you said the things we reference. Yet, when I ask you to point to a single thread where I made the claims you think I made, you scream "F*CK!" at the top of your lungs and run away to hide.
Groww up, Skippy. You lost this the second you turned on your computer.
Now, log onto you puppet accounts and judge your own posts. THAT is really convincing the rest of us
I'll repeat the facts to you once again you rambling piece of sh*t troll:

1. Things don't become things just people people believe them. <----YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT

2. The burden of proof lies on the idiot who invents god, to prove him <-----LOST THIS ONE TOO

3. When you lose an argument, you try to accuse the other person of claiming something ridiculous (eg denying moon landings, egypt, lizards, etc.) in other to hide the fact that you lost the argument <---YEP, ANOTHER ARGUMENT NUGGIN LOST.

What a shame, keep trying troll, maybe you can talk your walk out of this one (or spam the forum again with your trademark long rambling bullsh*t to cover up this embarassment of yours!)

Now get the f*ck out of this forum and take your ridiculous bullsh*t with you, sh*t for brains troll...

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#652 Jan 15, 2013
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll repeat the facts to you once again you rambling piece of sh*t troll:
Repeating a lie doesn't make it come true, Skippy.

Neither does screaming f*ck and sh*t every time someone disagrees with you.

I put forth a challenge.

I have given you the page # and post # of your ridiculous claims about NASA, C-14, Lizards, etc.

You've claimed that I've stated things about belief and reality.

Go on, find the post.

Find a post where I said, as you claimed, that believing that something is a chair turns it into a chair.

Or were you lying when you said that? Just like you've been lying about your statements about NASA, C-14, Lizards, etc?

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#653 Jan 16, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeating a lie doesn't make it come true, Skippy.
Neither does screaming f*ck and sh*t every time someone disagrees with you.
I put forth a challenge.
I have given you the page # and post # of your ridiculous claims about NASA, C-14, Lizards, etc.
You've claimed that I've stated things about belief and reality.
Go on, find the post.
Find a post where I said, as you claimed, that believing that something is a chair turns it into a chair.
Or were you lying when you said that? Just like you've been lying about your statements about NASA, C-14, Lizards, etc?
I'll repeat the facts to you once again you rambling piece of sh*t troll:

1. Things don't become things just people people believe them. <----YOU LOST THIS ARGUMENT

2. The burden of proof lies on the idiot who invents god, to prove him <-----LOST THIS ONE TOO

3. When you lose an argument, you try to accuse the other person of claiming something ridiculous (eg denying moon landings, egypt, lizards, etc.) in other to hide the fact that you lost the argument <---YEP, ANOTHER ARGUMENT NUGGIN LOST.

What a shame, keep trying troll, I'm not going to waste another thought on you.

I'll keep posting this truth to your face until you f*ck right off again.
Jimmy

Northwich, UK

#654 Jan 16, 2013
way to whoop his arse skeptic!!!
tagit

UK

#655 Jan 16, 2013
tagit
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
First, no one is claiming that it was accidental except for ignorant religious folk who don't understand physics.
Not too mention ignorant physicists who don't seem to understand that you can't get something from nothing. The information in this post is not the product of the pixels on your PC screen but the product of my mind. If the simple act of posting information requires a mind , how could the extraordinary complexity of DNA coding happen without Intelligent Design? Science doesn't know. In fact, science doesn't have a clue how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Second, even if they were, then to determine whether or not that was a silly notion you would have to assess MULTIPLE versions of different universes with different sorts of causes to determine where in the spectrum ours fell.
Leading scientists like Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku and Neil Turok have all suggested the existence of multiple universes. Physicists trying to pinpoint the exact location of an atomic particle found it was virtually impossible. It had no single location. In other words, atomic particles have the ability to simultaneously exist in more than one place at a time which means that our physical reality is a very elaborate mirage, an illusion. A super-hologram of information and energy.

Before anything is - it is FIRST THOUGHT. German physicist and one of the founding fathers of Quantum Theory, Max Planck, said that “all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“

All physical matter is the result of particles vibrating at a certain frequency. The substance of the universe, of our reality, is nothing more than consciousness or thought, which forms the building blocks of all that is.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>Third, the notion that in addition to this universe there is ANOTHER location which holds an entity who comes from nothing and has no equal and that that entity created everything in this Universe by generating 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000x more material than was needed, so that he could place some poorly designed creations on one tiny planet out in the middle of nowhere, then spend ALL his time complaining that they weren't worshiping him right...
Unless of course, that "entity" is not an entity at all but a "primary" gestalt of consciousness that has always existed.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>You want to talk silly?
I think you're doing a pretty good job of it all by yourself.

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) 1 hr Joe fortuna 232,895
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 2 hr woodtick57 2,270
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 4 hr Yiago 148
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 10 hr _Bad Company 141
Islam is the Enemy (Sep '12) 10 hr thetruth 34
God' existence 10 hr thetruth 67
Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038 (Apr '12) Fri _Bad Company 23,198
More from around the web