Of course, because I wouldn't ever respond to arguments, duh.

I only have time for the gaping holes right now...

Another strawman. I never stated the opinion of the first sentence, you knocked it down with the straw you built in the second sentence.

Again this is something I didn't say. I choose my words carefully, focus on them, not your perceived view of what they mean.

I know, so don't pretend I said otherwise.

As for the Kalam argument, I think it's only fair and proper I have Shaun respond. He holds a masters in philosophy, he wrote the paper, and he may be more willing to actually discuss it with you, as I already said, I am not. I'm simply posting to show how poor your comprehension and logic are... or maybe it's dishonesty.

On to more mischaracterizations, fallacies, and flaws....

Maybe you've forgotten what you wrote in your first email...

"I invite you cordially to attend several online discussions on the existence of God, the role of religion, and the issue of Islam. Be warned: we are not simple Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort types. If you accept our challenge..."

I didn't set any precedent that I can recall. Where exactly did I invite my friends to help me out here? I will be sending Shaun a note to visit this thread but that's now... now that you've said the precedent has been set.

Good because obviously I don't know everything and secondly I don't have time to deal with everyone. The only reason I am dealing with you is because you were so threatening you deserved to be outed as a dick who thinks he knows his shit. Basically I'm just here to show people you are an intellectually weak hypocrite.

I'll give you credit for looking less theist by the post. You're still a pawn of theism though.

I believe I may have actually reffered to you as a theist in my notes in brackets for brevity. Most of that was more to the humor end, in my opening statement you'll notice I present the notion of you being Christian followed by a question mark. Furthermore based on past experience the logical thing to do is to be extremely skeptical of people like you, including presenting the notion that you may possibly be a theist.

The question remains, why do you need RRS to refute Kalam when you yourself don't accept Kalam as valid? Your bitchy diatribe about not needing to hold a position to debate it is obvious. You can duck the argument all you wan the fact remains we choose to have these arguments with people that actually believe the shit they're saying. It's our personal preference not a philosophical concept.

If you think we're stomping our feet you are very far from reality on this. We're laughing at you, not stomping feet. You've been the butt of no less than 10 jokes in the RRS house already.

Funny how I've showed you at least two of yours yet you haven't shown me mine. Where is it?

No, I never claimed it in fact... I suspected it and joked at least once about it in a bracketed comment without clarifiying for the purposes of brevity and humor.

Your argument was a carbon copy of a creationist defending the bible seeking a way to make it impossible for people today to commit the unforgivable sin. The video shows those people why they are wrong. In this case it didn't matter whether you were a Christian or not, the video was made for people who use the argument you used. The video is not only relevant, it exposes the flaws in your knowledge of the bible.

No it's not hard for me to believe. It's also not hard for me to believe you would "know" something to be true, but actually it's bullshit.

Well you did have the threats of stalking included in your opening email. Only a very small percentage of people who contact us actually have the audacity to throw shit like that up in the air.

What are we five now? There are tons of logicians on this site, they're welcome to respond. I would suspect that before they respond they'll recognize that if you don't come out on top in the assesment you're gonna bitch about it, this might deter them from wasting the time. I can send it to a few people to, but to call in a favor for a pipsqueek like you will just make me look bad. They deserve better from me when I request favors.

I pointed out at least one more at the beginning of this post.

Quite a few times.

This is funny, the audience needs to read the previous sentence to see the flow here. You say you didn't misinterpret our position, then go on to state what you've always said our position one, then threaten me to read it again (read it twice now), then ask yourself if you've ever claimed differently. Then you answer your own question.

The problem here is that you are inferring (extremely moronically) that "you are atheists who deny the supernatural and are resigned to physics alone" is the entirety of your argument. It's not. You've mscharacterized and bastardized quite a bit of what I said... read above. Read it again, then read it again, I dare you, double dog dare you with cherries oin top to read it then submit it to a peer reviewed journal, then read it again, and if you don't I'm gonna send you this in an email every day for the rest of your life.

Disclaimer: I'm not actually insane, merely trying to do an impression.

I'm not sure, you haven't presented anything to me to prove I have, I'm gonna go with "no" for now, and wait for someone to show me where I did so.

OH NO! I speculated based on past experience that you might be a Christian! OH MY GODS!! FALLACY ALERT!~ not

C'mon that woulda been too easy. At least in your con game you pick lies that almost appear to be true.

So then why are you an atheist? Isn't it your philosophical duty to believe in a creator then?

Ahhh fuck it, I could go on, but that was enough time wasted.