Aliens and evolution

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
You're lies are getting more and more outrageous. I suppose that's keeping in line with your chosen method of communication.

And your reversals are getting more and more pathetic.

If you don't want to be held accountable for what you say, then stop posting.

-Skeptic- wrote:

<quoted text>
Lots of shouty capitals. It's frustrating calling me a fundie, when it's you who behaves exactly like one.

Actually, the CAPITALS are for emphasis to help you follow along with what's _IMPORTANT_.

It's not shouting, but I guess since your posts don't actually have points which are important it's hard for you to grasp that.

-Skeptic- wrote:

When you've managed to learn what the burden of proof is let me know.
I'm keen to see the evidence behind your claim that "god is possible".
Have a nice day.

Translation:
"I know I can't win, so I'm just going to pretend you didn't provide evidence."

that was to Skeptic. for what does he deserve to be behind bars? inquiring minds want to know, and also to be fair. what sort of bars? one does not have to be a fundy religionist to not be fond of Skeptic. it helps to be a civil and decent human being and to be allergic to arrogance and obscenity. maybe I will convince enough of the atheists on here that he is no asset to our side of any argument.

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>Nuggin may be a total ass but you deserve a time out, preferably behind bars.

Silly people. God is impossible, until you provide some evidence to the contrary.

Since the beginning of recorded human history there hasn't been even a morsel of evidence, instead proven lies from all the variations of immature beliefs.

If these judgmental people who see the world through their lens of madness were to even provide a single morsel of proof that their fantasies are possible, then I would contend that god is not impossible.

However there is no definition of god that refers to anything remoetely real and unfalsifiable at the same time.

So the burden of proof still remains upon those people who aren;t skilled in logic provide some evidence that their possible god claim is true.

While losing this argument in the meantime such people as Nuggin and The Dude will continue to lie, whine and cry and I keep repeating the logical error they have made.

havent forgotten wrote:

that was to Skeptic. for what does he deserve to be behind bars? inquiring minds want to know, and also to be fair. what sort of bars? one does not have to be a fundy religionist to not be fond of Skeptic. it helps to be a civil and decent human being and to be allergic to arrogance and obscenity. maybe I will convince enough of the atheists on here that he is no asset to our side of any argument.<quoted text>

Why don't you ask him what he did?

-Skeptic- wrote:

Silly people. God is impossible, until you provide some evidence to the contrary.
Since the beginning of recorded human history there hasn't been even a morsel of evidence, instead proven lies from all the variations of immature beliefs.

The beginnings of recorded human history can arguably be said to be in Egypt, where gods were present AT THE TIME and known to all Egyptians.

Once again, your precious Bible is NOT the sole determining factor. The Jews are not the ONLY people to ever have a religion.

You are claiming to be an "atheist". Not an "anti-Jew non-believer". Not an "agnostic".

An "atheist" is someone who believes that NO gods have ever existed.

Pharaohs were gods. Coyotes were gods. Trees were gods. The Sun was a god. The Moon was a god. Mars was a god.

Gods existed. Period.

It's not your duty to determine which religions are or are not valid. You can't be an "atheist" AND reject all those religions which have evidence.

However there is no definition of god that refers to anything remoetely real and unfalsifiable at the same time.

For someone who refers to definitions an awful lot, you really haven't ever checked the dictionary.

I gave you ALL THREE definitions of god and ALL THREE of them apply to Egyptian Pharaohs.

So, tell us how 3/3 is the same as "none" in your world.

havent forgotten wrote:

that was to Skeptic. for what does he deserve to be behind bars? inquiring minds want to know,

I don't think he deserves to be "behind bars", but he should be held accountable for the statements he's making.

At various points in this thread he's made the following arguments.

- that I invented the moon landing to sound cool.
- that Egyptians never actually existed.
- that I made up lizards.
- that it's up to someone else to provide evidence that anything Skeptic claims is untrue.
- that only Jews count when it comes to religion.
- that there is no definition of "god" in the dictionary.
- that no one in the world understands the meaning of "burden or proof".

At some point he's got to either own up to these, or explain how and why he made the mistakes he made when he took these positions.

He's had ample opportunity to explain and chooses not to.

His standard response to everything is: "I never said that! You are a liar!"

Of course when you point him to the EXACT post where he in fact said these things, he denies it exists (despite being there for all to see).

In short, he's either mentally ill or a child or both.

Your lack of evidence for "gods being possible" is getting boring now.

let me know when you discover honesty

*yawn*

Oh, and learn what the burden of proof means. It will help you in life.

-Skeptic- wrote:

Your lack of evidence for "gods being possible" is getting boring now.
let me know when you discover honesty
*yawn*
Oh, and learn what the burden of proof means. It will help you in life.

This is yet another claim on your part that it was impossible for Egyptian Pharaohs to exist despite not providing anything remotely close to an argument to back it up.

What more proof do you need that Egypt is a real place? That Pharaohs were real rulers?

Do you need more or less evidence for this than for lizards?

-Skeptic- wrote:

Your lack of evidence for "gods being possible" is getting boring now.
let me know when you discover honesty
*yawn*
Oh, and learn what the burden of proof means. It will help you in life.

So why don't you tell them what you did? Afraid I'll use it as evidence to prosecute your psychotic hide?

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Expect to be MASSIVELY disappointed on the evolution forums.
This is not a debate of ideas. This is a political sounding ground for uneducated Creationists.
NO amount of reasoning will ever make a lick of difference. You can't possibly understand their position because they themselves don't understand their position.
Personally, I've found that bringing the debate down to the level of your opponent, while fruitless, is at least fun.
Skippy selected the tone when he was insulting in his initial post about how I made up the moon landing. From there on, the tone was set.
Until he apologizes for his error and arrogance, there's really no need to address any of his "points" as they are meaningless.

Ah, but your initial post was one of those rhetorical traps I was referring to--you called the USA moon landing an alien event, knowing full well that some would interpret that as a non-human event while you were referring to any excursions by beings who were not from the moon. Moreover, you continued to deliberately interpret followup posts differently from the authors' original intents. Once your dishonest dissembling had thoroughly pissed off a few people, you maintained a hostile "Gotcha" stance.

Sorry, but I saw you as the bad guy throughout that exchange. I detest sneakiness.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
Skippy, you and I both know that I've ALREADY definitively proven that gods existed.
In fact, not only couldn't you contradict my evidence, you CONCEDED THE POINTS!
Then, of course, as is your standard practice, you also claimed that I completely invented the evidence of Egyptians.
And, if you'll recall, you went on to claim that the next thing I was going to fabricate was "lizards" (presumably because you don't think they exist either).
But since you've forgotten, let's go over it again.
Egypt is a country in the Northern part of Africa. It is one of the birthplaces of civilization. It STILL exists and is inhabited! It's been in the news QUITE A LOT lately.
There are STILL EGYPTIANS living there. They are real. I am not making them up.
In the past, the Egyptians had leaders called "Pharaohs". You'll recognize that word from your precious Bible in the book of Exodus.
The Pharaohs were REAL. Many of them were made into mummies after death. Some of those mummies are on display in various museums around the world.
REAL.
Pharaohs were gods. They fit ALL THREE definitions of the word "god".
Until you can show me that they, in fact, fit NONE of the definitions - this argument is settled. You have lost.
Pharaohs were gods, Pharaohs existed, therefore gods existed.
Period.

Again, your argument was loathsomely sneaky, using definitions that were clearly out of context. "Stealth" logic may make its proponents feel victorious, but it convinces no one.

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
The beginnings of recorded human history can arguably be said to be in Egypt, where gods were present AT THE TIME and known to all Egyptians.
Once again, your precious Bible is NOT the sole determining factor. The Jews are not the ONLY people to ever have a religion.
You are claiming to be an "atheist". Not an "anti-Jew non-believer". Not an "agnostic".
An "atheist" is someone who believes that NO gods have ever existed.
Pharaohs were gods. Coyotes were gods. Trees were gods. The Sun was a god. The Moon was a god. Mars was a god.
Gods existed. Period.
It's not your duty to determine which religions are or are not valid. You can't be an "atheist" AND reject all those religions which have evidence.
<quoted text>
For someone who refers to definitions an awful lot, you really haven't ever checked the dictionary.
I gave you ALL THREE definitions of god and ALL THREE of them apply to Egyptian Pharaohs.
So, tell us how 3/3 is the same as "none" in your world.

More accurately stated:

Pharaohs were perceived to be gods. Coyotes were perceived to be gods.. Trees were perceived to be gods.. The Sun was perceived to be a god. The Moon was perceived to be a god. Mars was perceived to be a god.

Gods were perceived to have existed.

No one denied at all sorts of real people and objects have been and are being perceived to be gods right along with the purely imaginary deities. But perception and reality don't always coincide. Belief is not the same thing as reality, but the fallacy that they are lies at the root of your argument.

No QED.

How's everything going in the Skeptic and Nightsurf vs Dude + Nuggin argument channel tonight?

LOL you guys need to do what you told Drew and I to do....chill out! Or lets start calling each other apes and monkeys lol

Nuggin wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't think he deserves to be "behind bars", but he should be held accountable for the statements he's making.
At various points in this thread he's made the following arguments.
- that I invented the moon landing to sound cool.
- that Egyptians never actually existed.
- that I made up lizards.
- that it's up to someone else to provide evidence that anything Skeptic claims is untrue.
- that only Jews count when it comes to religion.
- that there is no definition of "god" in the dictionary.
- that no one in the world understands the meaning of "burden or proof".
At some point he's got to either own up to these, or explain how and why he made the mistakes he made when he took these positions.
He's had ample opportunity to explain and chooses not to.
His standard response to everything is: "I never said that! You are a liar!"
Of course when you point him to the EXACT post where he in fact said these things, he denies it exists (despite being there for all to see).
In short, he's either mentally ill or a child or both.

Except that Skeptic never actually said any of those things. Rather, he made statements that you interpreted that way using the same sneaky stealth logic that I've been reprimanding you for.

Aura Mytha wrote:

How's everything going in the Skeptic and Nightsurf vs Dude + Nuggin argument channel tonight?
LOL you guys need to do what you told Drew and I to do....chill out! Or lets start calling each other apes and monkeys lol

I have nothing against Nuggin, but as I wrote, I really do detest sneakiness. I'm trying to get him to rethink its use as a debating tactic.

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
I have nothing against Nuggin, but as I wrote, I really do detest sneakiness. I'm trying to get him to rethink its use as a debating tactic.

n/p I was just kidding , this thing really happened and this time it isn't me but just as silly.

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah, but your initial post was one of those rhetorical traps I was referring to--you called the USA moon landing an alien event, knowing full well that some would interpret that as a non-human event while you were referring to any excursions by beings who were not from the moon.

Yes, and the 3-4 other posters involved in the conversation at that time got the joke right away.

And that would have been it.

However, then Skippy came along and got it wrong - which would have been _fine_ if his post was "What are you talking about?!"

But it wasn't, instead he decided to be insulting.

And when it was clear to him that he had made a mistake, he stuck to his guns.

Therefore, I have no choice but to continue to interpret his ongoing argument as what he started off with. Until he admits he was wrong and apologized for his behavior, then one can ONLY assume that he continues to deny the moon landing.

No trap. No trickery. Just Skuppy being a dickhead and refusing to admit he was wrong.

Moreover, you continued to deliberately interpret followup posts differently from the authors' original intents. Once your dishonest dissembling had thoroughly pissed off a few people, you maintained a hostile "Gotcha" stance.
Sorry, but I saw you as the bad guy throughout that exchange. I detest sneakiness.

There's nothing sneaky here at all.

Had Skippy simply said: "I misunderstood. I was wrong to use the tone I did. I should never have jumped in on a conversation until I understood what was being discussed, and I certainly shouldn't have accused someone more intelligent than myself of making stuff up when I didn't know what was being discussed in the first place", then it all would have gone away. ON PAGE 4.

But that's not what happened.

Skippy stuck to his guns.

And now he's followed up with REPEATED claims that I've failed to provide evidence that Egyptians were real people.

_AND_ in an even more mind boggling post, he claimed that I was "making up lizards".

Even by the internet's low low standards, Skippy has lost his damn mind.

NightSerf wrote:

<quoted text>
Except that Skeptic never actually said any of those things. Rather, he made statements that you interpreted that way using the same sneaky stealth logic that I've been reprimanding you for.

If you and I are having a debate and you say:

"Cars exist".

And I say, "You are making everything up and have no evidence."

It's PERFECTLY REASONABLE for you to infer that I am saying that you are making up the fact that cars exist. Further, it's perfectly reasonable to infer that I also deny the existence of car manufacturing companies etc.

I've been EXCEEDINGLY clear with my posts. I've given the ACTUAL dictionary definitions.

It's that's "tricky" or "sneaky" for you, then I suggest you get the F off the forums because guess what - The dictionary isn't going to change to fit your desires.