Barry, Calm down. You're hallucinating or maybe you're delusional. I never said anything that you think I may have said. I merely said that you review the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
You never responded to me about what you think about it. It was Curtis who responded about his thoughts on the KCA. But he declined to provide any evidence for disagreeing with any of the statements on the KCA. It appears to me that he's avoiding the issues by not providing the evidence. That shows me that he's unwilling to debate the statements on the KCA. If that's the case, I'm not going to pursue the point. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <awoelflebater@...> wrote : ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote : John is *finally* starting to get it. I'm treating him (and other idiots that believe as he does) the way *they* (believers in the invisible man in the sky) have been treating "non-believers" for thousands of years. Back in the Middle Ages, these thugs who believed in an invisible man actually ganged up and burned those who *didn't* believe in the invisible man at the stake. John wants things to be that way again. Unfortunately, they're not, and they'll never be again. Now, it's fairly obvious in any discussion between a believer in the invisible man and someone who doesn't believe which claim is rational and sane, and which is not. All that the non-believers have to say is, "SHOW US this invisible man you claim exists." They can't. End of story. But that makes them pissed off, because their act of being "better" because they believe in an invisible man goes "poof!" and disappears. They're revealed to be Just Another Crazy person raving about this invisible guy who watches everything they do and controls the world. It's all pretense, and just as meaningless as someone claiming to be "enlightened." For which the same response applies -- "SHOW US something 'enlightened' -- if you can't then we reserve the right to think of you as just another arrogant crazy person, and write you off as the idiot you are. On a practical level, both John (jr_esq) and Jim (whoever he is this week) are simply Not Very Bright. They've both got IQs that never broke the 100 level, and they're lucky to be able to get through the day in terms of practical intelligence. The *only* thing that either of them seems to be any good at is standing there yelling, "I'm BETTER than you are, because of the (select one: A. things I believe, or B. things I claim about my 'enlightenment'). I don't buy it. You're both just loudmouthed, weak-minded louts, and it's about time someone treated you as what you are. There IS a bottom line in all of this, and you guys are doing everything you possibly can to try to distract from it. That bottom line is: You claiming to *know* that 1) there is a God, or 2) that they are 'enlightened.' Fine. You can believe whatever they want. All we are saying is, "PROVE IT." Oh, and "STFU until you can." As Curtis has patiently been trying to point out to these two idiots, we really *don't* claim to "know" anything for certain about whether there is a god or not. We are saying that we don't see ANY reason to either believe in one, or even to conceive of the need for one. The onus is on those who claim these things to PROVE that what they believe is true, or SHUT THE FUCK UP. Did you shove a burr up your ass and not realize it? Bend over and have a look before you do anything else, I promise you might feel better if you do. Then we might all be spared the excrement you think of as either a valuable contribution to this forum or a way of showing off to your imaginary characters in your head called "reporters".
