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, <turquoiseb@...> wrote :

 From: "curtisdeltablues@... [FairfieldLife]" <>
 Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2014 11:13 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Belief in God is a form of mental illness
   ---In, <jr_esq@...> wrote :

 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 

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. 




 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. 


Reply via email to