Aliens and evolution

Jun 19, 2012 Full story: Washington Times 6,103

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.

Full Story

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1455 Aug 19, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Credentials? That's funny.
See, even when I'm not writing jokes, I'm cracking you up. I'm that good.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1456 Aug 19, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> So you have a PHD in forum chatting?
Chatting? No.
I do have an Honorary Doctorate in Trolling, though. I'd show you but people of your race/gender are known for not being able to read.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#1457 Aug 19, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Sigh. I will walk you through this. I'll try and use small words.
If you want to blame the Pharaohs for "ruining" Egypt (despite the fact that they formed and sustained the first real civilization for thousands of years), then you should really look at the various stories surrounding Egypt.
Straw man. I never said that or anything like it. In fact, I've never addressed your discussion about the pharaohs in any way.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
...You are rejecting Pharaohs as gods because they don't hold up to the standards set in your precious Bible.
I'm an atheist. Not my Bible.

I could care less what ancient people thought about gods. This is the 21 Century.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
However, your Bible shows that it was the Jews and your "God" that ruined Egypt, not the Pharaohs.
Can't have it both ways. Can't reject Pharaohs as gods because they don't measure up to the "real God" and not own up to the claimed actions of the "real God" you are using to reject the Pharaohs.
Either other religions are valid and you can't use your Bible as evidence, or other religions are invalid and you are stuck with your entire Bible. Not both.
I have no idea how or why you've gone off on this tangent. You've totally lost it here.

As I have said repeatedly, you apparently have a major reading comprehension problem.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#1458 Aug 19, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
"Nuggin" is spelled N-u-g-g-i-n
"Websters" is spelled W-e-b-s-t-e-r-s
I didn't invent the dictionary.
No, but as you said, you did add your own inferences.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, your whole conversation on this thread was to try and impress people with how mature and rational you thought you were.
And then you started flinging mud, misquoting and lying with the rest of us.
Basically, your presence here utterly destroys your self image. Good luck living with that the rest of your life.
And right back to the ad hominem.("I always think it's a sign of victory when they move on to the ad hominem." ~ Christopher Hitchens)

I have been and continue to be consistent all the way back to post #681 in asking for a cogent definition of the properties of an entity that one could rightly label a "god".
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
HAHA You lose.
Pigeon chess.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1459 Aug 19, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
Straw man....
<click>

Take your excuses somewhere else Bible Thumper

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1460 Aug 19, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
No, but...
<click>

I don't know if your blah blah goes over well in Bible Study, but here on the forums you need to bring some actual facts when you want to post something.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1461 Aug 19, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
"Nuggin" is spelled N-u-g-g-i-n
"Websters" is spelled W-e-b-s-t-e-r-s
I didn't invent the dictionary.
<quoted text>
Nah, your whole conversation on this thread was to try and impress people with how mature and rational you thought you were.
And then you started flinging mud, misquoting and lying with the rest of us.
Basically, your presence here utterly destroys your self image. Good luck living with that the rest of your life.
HAHA You lose.
Actually, when used in his dictionaries' titles, it's in the possessive form and spelled "Webster's." It's not the only one, just the best known and most used in the U.S.. The first comprehensive one, published in 1828, was an amazing accomplishment that required about twenty years during which Webster studied twenty-six languages, and another three years to ready for publication. an earlier effort (1806) was less complete by that standard.

But even a cursory study of lexicography in general and dictionaries in particular shows them to be inherently flawed in two important ways despite all efforts to correct for the. Because of the time required to compile each new edition, every dictionary carries a degree of obsolescence when published, which grows in scope right up until the publication of the next edition. And in spite of all efforts to avoid it, each dictionary carries some of the biases of its compilers.

In most instances, those flaws are all but negligible, but Webster was a devout Christian with a genuine loathing for atheists that has been reflected in most of the dictionaries published under his name--but that's another topic. Another flaw lies not with the dictionaries themselves, but in the way that they are perceived and used. People forget that the living, growing, and ever-changing languages precede the dictionaries that describe them and, as they are not living, are incapable keeping pace with their respective languages. Aside from purely academic use, how useful would Cawdrey's 1604 dictionary be today?

Nearly all English words have multiple meanings, but only one of those meanings apply in any given context. Applying multiple meanings to a single context is confusing and, in most instances, incorrect, the exceptions being when wordplay, playful or otherwise, is the object. Moreover, in some discussions, everyday meanings simply don't apply or are too vague to be of use. In those cases, serious discussions begin by defining key terms, and in those contexts, those meanings are the only ones to apply to the discussions for which they have been defined, Those definitions never come about with one participant insisting on one and forcing the rest of the participants to accept it.

When it is obvious that an impasse is the result of terms that lack a meaning common to all, discussions about those terms must ensue.

The question before us all, then, is, for the purpose of this discussion, what is a deity? More specifically, what gods are believers trying to persuade atheists to believe in and worship? Before that is settled, our discussions can never rise about the level of the mundane and will mostly be comprised of petty and inconsequential squabbles.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1462 Aug 19, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
Nearly all English words have multiple meanings, but only one of those meanings apply in any given context. Applying multiple meanings to a single context is confusing and, in most instances, incorrect, the exceptions being when wordplay, playful or otherwise, is the object.
I disagree.
Let's look at an example:
"Tower"
1 : a building or structure typically higher than its diameter and high relative to its surroundings that may stand apart (as a campanile) or be attached (as a church belfry) to a larger structure and that may be fully walled in or of skeleton framework (as an observation or transmission tower)
2: a towering citadel : fortress
3: one that provides support or protection : bulwark <a tower of strength>
4: a personal computer case that stands in an upright position
Now obviously #4 is not like the others, but in describing a particular part of a particular castle, all three of the top definitions can apply to the same building.
The same goes with the dictionary definition for gods.
Something can be both a ruler AND believed to have supernatural powers at the same time. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
The question before us all, then, is, for the purpose of this discussion, what is a deity?
See, that's where you are completely misunderstanding the purpose of the thread.

The question is now "what is a deity".
It's "can you prove that anything which fits the dictionary definition of (lower case g) god actually ever existed?"

The answer is yes. Pharaohs are an example.

Skippy rejects that Pharaohs were real, just like he rejects the moon landing and reptiles.

Changing the question will just give Skippy more things to deny. That won't advance the discussion.

Until Skippy owns up to his errors and stops denying OBVIOUS things, there's no point dancing around any further definitions.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#1463 Aug 19, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Chatting? No.
I do have an Honorary Doctorate in Trolling, though. I'd show you but people of your race/gender are known for not being able to read.
Um ....Okay Dr. Nuggin the honorary Troll at least we know what to call you from now on ...heheheh

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1464 Aug 19, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
Let's look at an example:
"Tower"
1 : a building or structure typically higher than its diameter and high relative to its surroundings that may stand apart (as a campanile) or be attached (as a church belfry) to a larger structure and that may be fully walled in or of skeleton framework (as an observation or transmission tower)
2: a towering citadel : fortress
3: one that provides support or protection : bulwark <a tower of strength>
4: a personal computer case that stands in an upright position
Now obviously #4 is not like the others, but in describing a particular part of a particular castle, all three of the top definitions can apply to the same building.
The same goes with the dictionary definition for gods.
Something can be both a ruler AND believed to have supernatural powers at the same time. Those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
<quoted text>
See, that's where you are completely misunderstanding the purpose of the thread.
The question is now "what is a deity".
It's "can you prove that anything which fits the dictionary definition of (lower case g) god actually ever existed?"
The answer is yes. Pharaohs are an example.
Skippy rejects that Pharaohs were real, just like he rejects the moon landing and reptiles.
Changing the question will just give Skippy more things to deny. That won't advance the discussion.
Until Skippy owns up to his errors and stops denying OBVIOUS things, there's no point dancing around any further definitions.
So, then. Tell me all about the personal computer case of Babel or concede that that meaning has no bearing on the Biblical context.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1465 Aug 19, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
So, then. Tell me all about the personal computer case of Babel or concede that that meaning has no bearing on the Biblical context.
Apparently your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

Your claim was that for each word, there is one and only one definition which is viable at any given time in any given sentence.

Setting aside the fact that this completely ignores the entire premise of puns, I disproved that claim by demonstrating that 3 of the 4 definitions for tower were all viable when describing the same building.

Not coincidentally, 3 of the 4 definitions of "god" also accurately describe Pharaohs.

Now, this may come as a surprise to you, but so far you are the only person on the forum who thinks that the _worse_ definition is the one which should be selected for any given discussion.

Let me guess, next you are going to suggest that alternate spellings which result in completely different words should be used.

"An atheist believes there's no such thing as good"?
Skeptic

Newtownards, UK

#1466 Aug 20, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
<click>
Take your excuses somewhere else Bible Thumper
You put the phone down when cornered for your bulsh*t. Hedonist clearly stated he is an atheist, so calling him "bible thumper" is dishonest.

Didn't I warn you about bringing it Nuggin? You get called out for bullsh*t here and you have.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#1467 Aug 20, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, toots. My input is the only thing that has any value in your world. Why else would you still be here, reading every word I write and getting all hysterical about it?
Hysterical? Geez ..... get a dictionary, and while you are at it, add a clue to your little list of necessities.

“ecrasez l'infame”

Since: May 08

Atlanta, Georgia

#1468 Aug 20, 2012
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
You put the phone down when cornered for your bulsh*t. Hedonist clearly stated he is an atheist, so calling him "bible thumper" is dishonest.
Didn't I warn you about bringing it Nuggin? You get called out for bullsh*t here and you have.
As he clearly stated in post #1456, he is not here for any kind of reasoned discussion.

His purpose here is to be a troll.

Which means he will lie and twist people's posts anyway he wants to try and create an emotional response and disrupt any real conversation.

He's no different than StumpJohn or any of the other hateful Christians who troll these threads.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#1469 Aug 20, 2012
Hedonist wrote:
<quoted text>
As he clearly stated in post #1456, he is not here for any kind of reasoned discussion.
His purpose here is to be a troll.
Which means he will lie and twist people's posts anyway he wants to try and create an emotional response and disrupt any real conversation.
He's no different than StumpJohn or any of the other hateful Christians who troll these threads.
Dr. Nuggin the Honorary Troll lmao

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#1470 Aug 20, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently your reading comprehension skills are lacking.
Your claim was that for each word, there is one and only one definition which is viable at any given time in any given sentence.
Setting aside the fact that this completely ignores the entire premise of puns, I disproved that claim by demonstrating that 3 of the 4 definitions for tower were all viable when describing the same building.
Not coincidentally, 3 of the 4 definitions of "god" also accurately describe Pharaohs.
Now, this may come as a surprise to you, but so far you are the only person on the forum who thinks that the _worse_ definition is the one which should be selected for any given discussion.
Let me guess, next you are going to suggest that alternate spellings which result in completely different words should be used.
"An atheist believes there's no such thing as good"?
No, what you've actually done is to use the fallacy of equivocation to create a straw man argument, demonstrating a tenuous grasp of the principles of logic. It's an argument worthy of neither serious consideration nor continuation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#1471 Aug 20, 2012
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
You put the phone down when cornered for your bulsh*t. Hedonist clearly stated he is an atheist, so calling him "bible thumper" is dishonest.
Didn't I warn you about bringing it Nuggin? You get called out for bullsh*t here and you have.
Skip, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?

Still waiting for that apology Skips.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1472 Aug 20, 2012
Reason Personified wrote:
add a clue to your little list of necessities.
Im more of a monopoly man myself

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1473 Aug 20, 2012
Skeptic wrote:
<quoted text>
You put the phone down
<click>

Yawn. These telemarketers with their "Lizards aren't real" calls always seem to come in at dinner.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#1474 Aug 20, 2012
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
No, what you've actually done is to use the fallacy of equivocation to create a straw man argument, demonstrating a tenuous grasp of the principles of logic. It's an argument worthy of neither serious consideration nor continuation.
Go back and re-read.

I SPECIFICALLY state that definition #4 doesn't apply, but that definitions 1-3 do.

Your response was that so long as ONE definition doesn't apply at any given time, then it is impossible to use ANY word in a way in which more than one definition could possibly apply at the same time.

That's simply childish.

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
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 5 min Friend of all 14,436
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 10 min ChristineM 231,836
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 14 min Liam R 884
A New Kinder, Gentler Atheism 3 hr Morse 16
Siro is writing a new book 9 hr thetruth 5
Can Atheists Know God Does Not Exist When They ... 11 hr P_Smith 1
Why the Internet is slowly strangling religion 11 hr P_Smith 1

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE