Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Washington Times

DENTON, Texas, June 19, 2012 - Aliens are ingrained in our cultural psyche. They abound in books, movies, radio, and a thousand theories about the extra-terrestrial, little green men, UFO sightings, abductions, Area 51, and Roswell.

Comments (Page 217)

Showing posts 4,321 - 4,340 of6,103
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4381
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Belief is irrelevant the CLAIM is fallacious , genius.
The claim is:
"There exists a religion which is based around this deity."

Show me where that claim is fallacious.

It's NOT. Religions DO exist. They've existed in the past. They exist in the present. They will likely exist well into the future.

The fact that you personally disagree with a current or past religion has NO BEARING on whether or not that religion exists.

In fact, you CAN'T disagree with it if it DIDN'T exist.

Your entire complain demonstrates that these religions do in fact exist.

Your argument is moot

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4382
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim is:
"There exists a religion which is based around this deity."
Show me where that claim is fallacious.
It's NOT. Religions DO exist. They've existed in the past. They exist in the present. They will likely exist well into the future.
The fact that you personally disagree with a current or past religion has NO BEARING on whether or not that religion exists.
In fact, you CAN'T disagree with it if it DIDN'T exist.
Your entire complain demonstrates that these religions do in fact exist.
Your argument is moot
Yes Nuggin your argument is exactly the circular argument the cristards use .

You are in fact saying god exists because the dictionary said so.
As opposed to god exists because the bible says so.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4383
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yes Nuggin your argument is exactly the circular argument the cristards use .
You are in fact saying god exists because the dictionary said so.
As opposed to god exists because the bible says so.
You need to be more careful with your spelling.

I am not saying that "God" exists.
I'm saying that "gods" exist in the same way that any other title or rank exists.

Do "presidents" exist? Do "priests" exist? Do "umpires" exist?

These are titles which ONLY exist within cultural context. You can not present me a "biological umpire". An umpire exists because a set of characteristics has been ascribed to that title and an individual fits that set of characteristics.

That's HOW WORDS WORK.

Would you deny that someone is an umpire because you personally don't believe that they have the ability to call someone "out"?

It doesn't matter if the person is a good ump or a bad ump or a failed ump. If they fit the criteria, then the label applies.

In this case, the criteria is for the label "god".

Some examples are: Thor, Loki, Vishnu, Ramses, etc.

In ALL these examples, the same criteria are present:
- People BELIEVE that they have supernatural powers.
- People BELIEVE that they require worship.

It doesn't matter that Thor is not a physically real entity.
It doesn't matter that Ramses does not ACTUALLY have magical powers.

It ONLY matters that the two criteria are met.

And the KEY WORD in both criteria is "BELIEVE".

So long as people BELIEVE it, then there is a religion around this central figure and this figure can be labeled "god".

It doesn't matter that YOU are not a member of that religion. I am not a member of the Norse religion, however I can evaluate it as an educated outsider and determine that Thor is one of the gods of the Norse Pantheon.

Why is it that you, an allegedly educated person, are INCAPABLE of making that assessment?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4384
Dec 10, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to be more careful with your spelling.
I am not saying that "God" exists.
I'm saying that "gods" exist in the same way that any other title or rank exists.
Do "presidents" exist? Do "priests" exist? Do "umpires" exist?
These are titles which ONLY exist within cultural context. You can not present me a "biological umpire". An umpire exists because a set of characteristics has been ascribed to that title and an individual fits that set of characteristics.
That's HOW WORDS WORK.
Would you deny that someone is an umpire because you personally don't believe that they have the ability to call someone "out"?
It doesn't matter if the person is a good ump or a bad ump or a failed ump. If they fit the criteria, then the label applies.
In this case, the criteria is for the label "god".
Some examples are: Thor, Loki, Vishnu, Ramses, etc.
In ALL these examples, the same criteria are present:
- People BELIEVE that they have supernatural powers.
- People BELIEVE that they require worship.
It doesn't matter that Thor is not a physically real entity.
It doesn't matter that Ramses does not ACTUALLY have magical powers.
It ONLY matters that the two criteria are met.
And the KEY WORD in both criteria is "BELIEVE".
So long as people BELIEVE it, then there is a religion around this central figure and this figure can be labeled "god".
It doesn't matter that YOU are not a member of that religion. I am not a member of the Norse religion, however I can evaluate it as an educated outsider and determine that Thor is one of the gods of the Norse Pantheon.
Why is it that you, an allegedly educated person, are INCAPABLE of making that assessment?

The problem is you are calling a baseball a Umpire.

Maybe I just like to argue with you.

Other than that, I rejected all gods including the label.

Pharaoh was a tyrant , not a god.

Let's label him correctly.

People believed Saddam was a god , do you agree he was?
You have to say Saddam was a god now.
Or reject the label.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4385
Dec 11, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to be more careful with your spelling.
I am not saying that "God" exists.
I'm saying that "gods" exist in the same way that any other title or rank exists.
Do "presidents" exist? Do "priests" exist? Do "umpires" exist?
These are titles which ONLY exist within cultural context. You can not present me a "biological umpire". An umpire exists because a set of characteristics has been ascribed to that title and an individual fits that set of characteristics.
That's HOW WORDS WORK.
Would you deny that someone is an umpire because you personally don't believe that they have the ability to call someone "out"?
It doesn't matter if the person is a good ump or a bad ump or a failed ump. If they fit the criteria, then the label applies.
In this case, the criteria is for the label "god".
Some examples are: Thor, Loki, Vishnu, Ramses, etc.
In ALL these examples, the same criteria are present:
- People BELIEVE that they have supernatural powers.
- People BELIEVE that they require worship.
It doesn't matter that Thor is not a physically real entity.
It doesn't matter that Ramses does not ACTUALLY have magical powers.
It ONLY matters that the two criteria are met.
And the KEY WORD in both criteria is "BELIEVE".
So long as people BELIEVE it, then there is a religion around this central figure and this figure can be labeled "god".
It doesn't matter that YOU are not a member of that religion. I am not a member of the Norse religion, however I can evaluate it as an educated outsider and determine that Thor is one of the gods of the Norse Pantheon.
Why is it that you, an allegedly educated person, are INCAPABLE of making that assessment?
What a load of certified bullsh*t from a lying troll.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4386
Dec 11, 2012
 
-Skeptic- wrote:
<quoted text>
What a load of certified bullsh*t from a lying troll.
Hey Skippy. Ya seemed to have skipped a bit. You gonna repent for your lies yet?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4387
Dec 11, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
...
- People BELIEVE that they have supernatural powers.
- People BELIEVE that they require worship.
It doesn't matter that Thor is not a physically real entity.
It doesn't matter that Ramses does not ACTUALLY have magical powers.
It ONLY matters that the two criteria are met.
And the KEY WORD in both criteria is "BELIEVE".
...
Okay, people BELIEVED these pharaohs were gods.

People also BELIEVED the world was FLAT.

BFD.

In neither case did the belief create reality.

And none of this has anything to do with "gods/deities" in any sense that is (or should be) of consideration in the Topix "Atheism Forum".

Nor does it have anything to do with the Washington Times article that this thread was originally supposed to be discussing. Which is a shame because that might have been an interesting conversation.

But a few people can act like trolls and destroy any meaningful discussion. over 4k posts later and still nothing but you, Dude, and Skeptic continuing to embarrass yourselves. There was a time when I appreciated reading your posts but all 3 of you are doing your best to destroy any credibility you might have had.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4388
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, people BELIEVED these pharaohs were gods.
People also BELIEVED the world was FLAT.
BFD.
In neither case did the belief create reality.
And none of this has anything to do with "gods/deities" in any sense that is (or should be) of consideration in the Topix "Atheism Forum".
Nor does it have anything to do with the Washington Times article that this thread was originally supposed to be discussing. Which is a shame because that might have been an interesting conversation.
But a few people can act like trolls and destroy any meaningful discussion. over 4k posts later and still nothing but you, Dude, and Skeptic continuing to embarrass yourselves. There was a time when I appreciated reading your posts but all 3 of you are doing your best to destroy any credibility you might have had.
So Skip acts like a fundie, gets slammed for it, gets a free pass by some of you guys and *we're* trolls.

I'm not worried about what anonymous people thousands of miles away think of me. I come here, I take down fundies. Skippy is no different just because he's an atheist. I'll still be the same old Dude. Your problem is that you guys are mistakenly thinking that we're somehow trying to validate creationism. As that's the way you appear to be arguing from. Your misunderstandings are not our problem.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4389
Dec 11, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
The problem is you are calling a baseball a Umpire.
No. The criteria for a baseball would be something like:
A spherical object, usually with stitches, roughly the size of a fist, used in the game of the same name.

The criteria for an Ump would be something like:
An official who oversees the rules of the game of baseball and makes calls based on those rules.

The fact that you can't distinguish between the PROFESSION of umpire and an object like a baseball explains A LOT about your argument.
Pharaoh was a tyrant , not a god.
Let's label him correctly.
Things can have more than one label.
And "Pharaoh" is a label, not a person.
You can't say that "Pharaoh" was a tyrant any more than you can say that "Umpire" was bald.

AN umpire might be bald. A Pharaoh might have been a tyrant.

AND, whether or not one or more of them were tyrants does not prevent them from being gods. They are not mutually exclusive terms.

The PROBLEM here is that you are still stuck in your Christianity mindset that "God is good".

There are PLENTY of gods from numerous religions who are very mean. POinting out that a given Pharaoh is LIKE some god from Norway doesn't prove he's not a god.
People believed Saddam was a god , do you agree he was?
You have to say Saddam was a god now.
Or reject the label.
Actually, you keep making this claim but I don't recall you presenting ANY information that supports your assertion.

Is there a religion based around Saddam? Can you point me to any of the members of that religion?

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4390
Dec 11, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So Skip acts like a fundie, gets slammed for it, gets a free pass by some of you guys and *we're* trolls.
I called out all 3 of you. Which words didn't you understand?

And "troll" has nothing to do with religion. A "troll" is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in a forum with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.

Now, read what I said again and tell me where I'm off base.

Can you honestly say that all 3 of you haven't been acting like trolls? Really?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
... you guys are mistakenly thinking that we're somehow trying to validate creationism. As that's the way you appear to be arguing from.
Wow, you really got that from my post. That's just crazy paranoia.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4391
Dec 11, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I called out all 3 of you. Which words didn't you understand?
My mistake.
Hedonist wrote:
And "troll" has nothing to do with religion. A "troll" is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in a forum with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Now, read what I said again and tell me where I'm off base.
Can you honestly say that all 3 of you haven't been acting like trolls? Really?
Well if you like we COULD always go back to the original topic of the thread, which was aliens aren't real because evolution isn't real because Goddidit with magic. But for some reason there were relatively few who took that notion or the notion of UFO's seriously, so it ended up with Skip being sent off the emotional deep end by the other fundies and attacking everyone in sight, and losing all rational coherence in the process. Hence as with on many threads the topic at hand underwent the inevitable reality of evolution. As this thread was obviously never likely to discuss any great scientific insight I will admit to poking the grumpy old dog with a stick, kinda like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

So sure, there's a little guilty pleasure in making fundies look stupid (or rather making fundies make themselves look stupid), however at the core of our original beef (which stemmed from well over a year ago on a different thread) there was a rational point. So if I'm a troll then I guess many of us are trolls while the fundies aren't. After all, I've been badgering Cowboy on his thread for two years with a bunch of questions that make him look stupid, but again there is a rational core of my argument being evolution is valid science as opposed to his Goddidit with magic.
Hedonist wrote:
Wow, you really got that from my post. That's just crazy paranoia.
Then you are not taking the side of Aura Mytha, Reason Personified and Richardfs? Because recently they have made a couple of mistakes and arguing a little more from an emotional standpoint rather than the usual rational one seen when arguing against fundies. Nuggin has obviously rattled them. But if you are not then I concede another mistake.

Either way the facts are that the Dude's honour has been tarnished by the GHASTLY untruths spoketh by Skippy's vile tongue, and righteousness shall not standeth idly by and let this go unchallenged forthwith!

>:-(

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4392
Dec 11, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
I called out all 3 of you. Which words didn't you understand?
And "troll" has nothing to do with religion. A "troll" is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in a forum with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
Now, read what I said again and tell me where I'm off base.
Can you honestly say that all 3 of you haven't been acting like trolls? Really?
<quoted text>
Wow, you really got that from my post. That's just crazy paranoia.
How have my messages been "off topic".

This forum has had 3 topics:
"Aliens on the moon"
"Pharaohs are gods"
"Skippy is a lunatic"

ALL of my posts have been well within those three topics.

In fact, YOUR post about "trolls" is the one which is inflammatory and off-topic.

Irony meter. Boom.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4393
Dec 11, 2012
 
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, people BELIEVED these pharaohs were gods.
People also BELIEVED the world was FLAT.
BFD.
In neither case did the belief create reality.
And none of this has anything to do with "gods/deities" in any sense that is (or should be) of consideration in the Topix "Atheism Forum".
Nor does it have anything to do with the Washington Times article that this thread was originally supposed to be discussing. Which is a shame because that might have been an interesting conversation.
But a few people can act like trolls and destroy any meaningful discussion. over 4k posts later and still nothing but you, Dude, and Skeptic continuing to embarrass yourselves. There was a time when I appreciated reading your posts but all 3 of you are doing your best to destroy any credibility you might have had.
Absolute strength resides in your words.
I salute you.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4394
Dec 11, 2012
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
How have my messages been "off topic".
This forum has had 3 topics:
"Aliens on the moon"
"Pharaohs are gods"
"Skippy is a lunatic"
ALL of my posts have been well within those three topics.
In fact, YOUR post about "trolls" is the one which is inflammatory and off-topic.
Irony meter. Boom.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Better believe it.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4395
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The criteria for a baseball would be something like:
A spherical object, usually with stitches, roughly the size of a fist, used in the game of the same name.
The criteria for an Ump would be something like:
An official who oversees the rules of the game of baseball and makes calls based on those rules.
The fact that you can't distinguish between the PROFESSION of umpire and an object like a baseball explains A LOT about your argument.
<quoted text>
Things can have more than one label.
And "Pharaoh" is a label, not a person.
You can't say that "Pharaoh" was a tyrant any more than you can say that "Umpire" was bald.
AN umpire might be bald. A Pharaoh might have been a tyrant.
AND, whether or not one or more of them were tyrants does not prevent them from being gods. They are not mutually exclusive terms.
The PROBLEM here is that you are still stuck in your Christianity mindset that "God is good".
There are PLENTY of gods from numerous religions who are very mean. POinting out that a given Pharaoh is LIKE some god from Norway doesn't prove he's not a god.
<quoted text>
Actually, you keep making this claim but I don't recall you presenting ANY information that supports your assertion.
Is there a religion based around Saddam? Can you point me to any of the members of that religion?
God fell, I saw It with monocular vision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4396
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, people BELIEVED these pharaohs were gods.
People also BELIEVED the world was FLAT.
BFD.
In neither case did the belief create reality.
Except that there are things that are flat and things that are round. I can demonstrate for you something that is flat by presenting you with something that is flat.

Those are objective descriptors of objects.

Religion is NOT objective. It's SUBJECTIVE.

You can not present me with a "fake version of a god" and a "real version of a god" to compare and contrast.

Religions exist. You can disagree with them, but that won't make them retroactively never have existed.
And none of this has anything to do with "gods/deities" in any sense that is (or should be) of consideration in the Topix "Atheism Forum".
Nor does it have anything to do with the Washington Times article that this thread was originally supposed to be discussing.
Well, why don't you use your power as moderator to delete all posts which are off topic?

Oh wait, that's right. You aren't a moderator.

And now YOU are engaging in the conversation meaning either your complaint is invalid or the discussion is valid.

Either way, you've lost the argument.
But a few people can act like trolls and destroy any meaningful discussion. over 4k posts later and still nothing but you, Dude, and Skeptic continuing to embarrass yourselves. There was a time when I appreciated reading your posts but all 3 of you are doing your best to destroy any credibility you might have had.
Show me where the argument is anything but credible.

The dictionary defines the word "god". True or false?
I GAVE the dictionary definition of "god". True or false?
I have continued to defend the EXACT SAME definition for THOUSANDS of posts. True or false?

There's nothing there that lacks credibility.

You're just frustrated because you can't come up with a counter argument so you've turned to attacking me rather than my point.

You owe me another irony meter.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4397
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Better believe it.
Just an FYI, I don't ever click on your links.

If YOU have an argument, present it.
Don't rely on some OTHER person to make an argument for you.

If you want to sum up the link, go ahead and do so so that EVERYONE can read it.

Otherwise, don't bother.

By the way, STILL waiting for you to give an articulate response to the same EXTREMELY simple argument you've failed to defeat for months now.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4398
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So Skip acts like a fundie, gets slammed for it, gets a free pass by some of you guys and *we're* trolls.
I'm not worried about what anonymous people thousands of miles away think of me. I come here, I take down fundies. Skippy is no different just because he's an atheist. I'll still be the same old Dude. Your problem is that you guys are mistakenly thinking that we're somehow trying to validate creationism. As that's the way you appear to be arguing from. Your misunderstandings are not our problem.
exactly

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4399
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Just an FYI, I don't ever click on your links.
If YOU have an argument, present it.
Don't rely on some OTHER person to make an argument for you.
If you want to sum up the link, go ahead and do so so that EVERYONE can read it.
Otherwise, don't bother.
By the way, STILL waiting for you to give an articulate response to the same EXTREMELY simple argument you've failed to defeat for months now.
Just an FYI, if you ever develop a second brain cell perhaps then you could present a better argument than.

God is real because the dictionary said so.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4400
Dec 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Just an FYI, if you ever develop a second brain cell perhaps then you could present a better argument than.
God is real because the dictionary said so.
What is so hard to understand? He is saying that the BELIEF in god(s) is real not that there is an actual god(s).

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 4,321 - 4,340 of6,103
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••