Aliens and evolution

[MikeF]

dr of theology wrote:

<quoted text>UFO's are sumerians from the tenth planet in our solar system.Their writings predate the bible by thousands of years.the bible coppied 99% of its stories from the sumerian writings.FYI.

Erich von Däniken? Is that you?

[Johnny45]

dr of theology wrote:

<quoted text>UFO's are sumerians from the tenth planet in our solar system.Their writings predate the bible by thousands of years.the bible coppied 99% of its stories from the sumerian writings.FYI.

I think Stephmar knew this .

[Aura Mytha]

dr of theology wrote:

<quoted text>UFO's are sumerians from the tenth planet in our solar system.Their writings predate the bible by thousands of years.the bible coppied 99% of its stories from the sumerian writings.FYI.

Yes if you believe in them and worship them, they are gods and all your dreams come true.
WHY? Because Nuggin said so. Do you pray to them or just sit and wait on them? BTW Sumerians are ancient Iraqis people.
There's never a Nebuchadnezzar around when you need one.
Oh and UFO just means you saw something in the sky....
But don't have a clue what it was.
Not having a clue....is your strong point!

[Nuggin]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Yes if you believe in them and worship them, they are gods and all your dreams come true.
WHY? Because Nuggin said so.

Actually, EVERYONE says so.
If he is a part of a religion which worships Xenu (an alien) and believes Xenu has supernatural powers and requires worship, then Xenu is a god.

Why? Because there are people who worship him and believe he has supernatural powers. Those are the only two requirements.

Actually existence? NOT a requirement for godhood.

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
35th time.
Skippy, please enlighten us. Tell us what you think "burden of proof" means and how it relates to your various assertions for which you've provided no proof.
Let me guess, not gonna happen. It's been nearly a year and still you've got not one shred of evidence to support any of your claims.

For the 40,000th time, look it up your dishonest lying troll pr*ck who doesn't understand atheism or science.

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, EVERYONE says so.
If he is a part of a religion which worships Xenu (an alien) and believes Xenu has supernatural powers and requires worship, then Xenu is a god.
Why? Because there are people who worship him and believe he has supernatural powers. Those are the only two requirements.
Actually existence? NOT a requirement for godhood.

No such thing as god because nobody can define it.

Anyone who claims god it real is a liar full stop. It's really simple to disprove when somebody starts claiming that god is real.

The problem is that most people are idiots like the Nuggin / Dude / Agnostics in general.

When stupid people like Nuggin manage to finally do the world a favour and shut the f*ck up, we start to get a little clarity about this *debate*

Hint: there's no debate, god isn't real, go home and enjoy your lives.

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
For the 40,000th time, look it up your dishonest lying troll pr*ck who doesn't understand atheism or science.

We did look it up. We pointed out to you that since you were making the claims, that it was your responsibility to provide evidence to support those claims.

You disagreed and claimed that your (secret) definition of burden or proof is the only accurate one.

Then you went off the rails with your various conspiracies and whatnot.

Remember the latest? That C-14 dating is fake.

Face it, Skippy. You didn't have any credibility to begin with and you've gone down hill

[Nuggin]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
No such thing as god because nobody can define it.

I can define it. Websters can define it. Oxford English can define it. Dictionary.com can define it.

Perhaps you should look up "nobody" because that seems to be the word you are having the problem with.

Anyone who claims god it real is a liar full stop. It's really simple to disprove when somebody starts claiming that god is real.

Okay, I'll bite. Go ahead. Disprove the existence of God. We'll go with the Christian "God" so as to not confuse you into another rant about how Egypt never really existed.

You have the stage, Skippy. Disprove God. Go for it. You said it was simple. Here's your shot.

When stupid people like Nuggin manage to finally do the world a favour and shut the f*ck up, we start to get a little clarity about this *debate*
Hint: there's no debate, god isn't real, go home and enjoy your lives.

You've had MONTHS to post ANYTHING you want and you've yet to provide us with a single shred of evidence to support ANY of your claims.

You want us to shut up, then show us you have something to say.

You JUST made a claim, that you could disprove God and that it would be simple.

Go ahead. Prove how smart you are.

[The Dude]

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
For the 40,000th time, look it up your dishonest lying troll pr*ck who doesn't understand atheism or science.

Really? You claimed to have falsified the non-falsifiable. So much for you understanding science.(shrug)

So why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?

[Hedonist]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
...
Okay, I'll bite. Go ahead. Disprove the existence of God. We'll go with the Christian "God" ... Disprove God.....

The Christian God (Jehovah) is premised on:
1. God is infallible
2. The Bible is the true word of God

As these 2 statements are easily shown to be in error is itself enough to prove that this deity is false.

However, for those who might want more consideration, this particular deity is also claimed to possess the property of omnipotence. Any deity that claims to possess this property can be immediately dismissed as this property is paradoxically impossible, both in the material reality and in any dream-like fantasy world. It simply cannot exist. A deity cannot be imagined that is so powerful that it could make an object so big even s/he could not move it.

If you consider these points insufficient to satisfy your question, then I would ask that you better define the properties you consider to be necessary for any existent entity to be rightly labeled a deity.

Without such a clear definition, any further consideration of such existence would be absurd.

[Hedonist]

Note that in my previous post I am NOT presenting any position on you on-going feud with Skeptic, just answering your direct question.

Scientifically I would tend to agree with Dude in that the concept is "non-falsifiable".

But, as Dude and I have discussed, I think even this assumes too much.

And, NO, I really don't want to go back through the philosophical discussions.

But whenever you present enough properties for an entity which could be labeled "deity", then some determination can be made of potential existence.

[Nuggin]

Hedonist wrote:

<quoted text>
The Christian God (Jehovah) is premised on:
1. God is infallible
2. The Bible is the true word of God

This argument would disprove one of the premises (#2), thus probing that the doctrine of Christianity was flawed. That, however, does not disprove that God exists.

A second argument against this position would be: "He is infailable and what you see as failures are actually deliberately done by him to trick you." Also makes disproving him a really problem

That's the whole thing about "disproving" something for which we can apply any rules at any time

[Nuggin]

Hedonist wrote:

But whenever you present enough properties for an entity which could be labeled "deity", then some determination can be made of potential existence.

One of the few criteria I've listed is: "Supernatural powers", this renders any scientific testing irrelevant, as the "supernatural powers" could prevent any such testing from being done accurately.

Can't "disprove" something which has infinite power to avoid detection.

Rational? Nope. But then, I'm dealing with Skippy. Rational was never on the table.

[Reason Personified]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
One of the few criteria I've listed is: "Supernatural powers", this renders any scientific testing irrelevant, as the "supernatural powers" could prevent any such testing from being done accurately.
Can't "disprove" something which has infinite power to avoid detection.
Rational? Nope. But then, I'm dealing with Skippy. Rational was never on the table.

That would be the same supernatural something that was all over the place, in buybull times, a smiting everybody, making sure everybody knew it t'was him doing the smiting? Right, but let man make a camera and crawl out of the desert and the god evaporates into nothingness. He goes all supernatural, when the book gets published, now didn't he? LOL! No wonder the god-kid tells you loons to take your gimme whining to the closet. Prove your silly god, move me a mountain!

BTW, did I miss that godly ability to avoid being detected in the buybull? Hell I don't even remember a scripture that claimed he was in hiding. It's because of the iron chariots isn't it? He has to hide, they are everywhere now.

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
We did look it up. We pointed out to you that since you were making the claims, that it was your responsibility to provide evidence to support those claims.

Bullsh*t, there's an entire forum thread dedicated to your stupidity here:, called the Nuggin Logic Thread:

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

It outlines your stupidity and lies in great detail, along with the dude.

Neither of you uneducated morons knew what the burden of proof was.

Neither of you could even provide a meaningful definition of god.

Yet here you idiots are, talking and talking as though sheer quantity of rambling unscientific bullsh*t is going to overshadow the poor quality of your "arguments"..

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
I can define it. Websters can define it. Oxford English can define it. Dictionary.com can define it.
Perhaps you should look up "nobody" because that seems to be the word you are having the problem with.
<quoted text>
Okay, I'll bite. Go ahead. Disprove the existence of God. We'll go with the Christian "God" so as to not confuse you into another rant about how Egypt never really existed.
You have the stage, Skippy. Disprove God. Go for it. You said it was simple. Here's your shot.
<quoted text>
You've had MONTHS to post ANYTHING you want and you've yet to provide us with a single shred of evidence to support ANY of your claims.
You want us to shut up, then show us you have something to say.
You JUST made a claim, that you could disprove God and that it would be simple.
Go ahead. Prove how smart you are.

Please refer to this thread: http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

And subsequently shut the f*ck up your lying troll pr*ck.

Thanks.

[-Skeptic-]

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? You claimed to have falsified the non-falsifiable. So much for you understanding science.(shrug)
So why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?

F*ck off dude, you don't know what the burden of proof is and all the evidence of your and Nuggin's stupidity is here for all to see.

You can try and hide your stupidity but it will pop up again and again...

[-Skeptic-]

The Nuggin Logic Thread:(proves what lying a$$hats The Dude & Nuggin are)

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

[-Skeptic-]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
This argument would disprove one of the premises (#2), thus probing that the doctrine of Christianity was flawed. That, however, does not disprove that God exists.
A second argument against this position would be: "He is infailable and what you see as failures are actually deliberately done by him to trick you." Also makes disproving him a really problem
That's the whole thing about "disproving" something for which we can apply any rules at any time

This is coming from the retard who accused me of denying the moon landings and called several atheist posters here YECs when he lost his arguments against science.

If you can't beat them, label them...

[Richardfs]

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
.... That C-14 dating is fake.
....

Another uneducated know it all godbot who thinks they know about science.