Barry, Everybody here knows you're the FFL troll. Your act is getting old. You can't reason on your own. So, you resort to adolescent behaviour.
We'd like to know who is your guru these days? If none, I think you should find one to, at least, avoid becoming an internet troll. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:13 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Barry, Have you ever thought that atheism is also a belief-- and an unreasonable one at that? M: Couldn't help overhearing... Atheism is not a belief because it is not a positive assertion that there is no God. It is the assertion that there is no compelling evidence to support the belief. And John is such a feeble-minded idiot that he doesn't get this distinction. We don't need to have a belief that there are no unicorns. Maybe there are. We just don't have any evidence to support our belief in one. (Probably people made the story up, they tend to enjoy that being such creative creatures.) We are certainly able to say that no one can claim there are unicorns without showing us evidence of them. Yet idiots like John try this all the time with their belief in a "god." Jr: The Kalam Cosmological Argument should dispel any of your doubts. M: It does not for two reasons that come to mind. Here is a formulation (feel free to substitute your own if this is not the right one in your eyes..) Everything that begins to exist has a cause; Unwarranted assumption. Exactly, but he won't be able to understand this. We don't know if this is true at the scales of time and space involved in creation. It is a typical imposition of our limited view of the sensory world to scales that are completely unplugged from our ability to intuit about it. It is unnecessary and merely contrived as if to say : There must be a God so there must be a God. Logic is not a proof. It can preserve truth through proper syllogistic form, but it is only as good as the assumptions which must be proven another way. This is not a good start. 2. The universe began to exist M: There are a lot a problems with this assumptions since it imposes sequential time assumptions on an event which by nature is beyond time and space. This is the realm of "you probably don't really understand it" physics. (Me either, the subject requires math waaaaay beyond my pay grade.) The words "Prove it" spring to mind. Yet another unwarranted assumption from the god-idiot. therefore: 3The universe has a cause. Yeah, surprise surprise. This is no proof, it is an an assumption disguised as something logical as if that makes it less assumptive-y. It doesn't. Exactly. John is *demonstrating* the "Checkmate, Atheists!" mentality I mentioned earlier -- declaring a bunch of assumptions as true and then defying anyone to disprove them. Sorry, but that's not how it works. If you claim that there are unicorns, produce unicorns. If you claim that there are gods, produce gods. If you can't, shut the fuck up.