C'mon Kev. Dont keep us in suspenders :-)

BOfL

Brian Fletcher wrote:

Its not funny being an agnostic Brian, its a serious affliction, so I
took that smile off your face.

MG

Brian Fletcher wrote:

Kev watched with a keen eye towards enlightenment!!!!!

The bad science Chris forewarned Kev about didn't actually materialize
to Kev, because Kev has a weak scientific background (30 semesters of
math, however, 3 calculus classes!!!) and only noticed some vague
assumptions in physics and references to bio-chemical actions of the
mind and body. The only physics reference Kev had issue with was:
**objects appearing in more than one place at the same time**. Kev
remembers from high school physics that: **2 objects can not occupy
the same space at the same time**, so the implied corollary would
preclude the assertion in the movie. Besides, the idea of say, multiple
Mikeys, popping up all over the place is just too scary to be
entertained!!!

Kev will now stop referring to himself in the third person, ala George
Hammond!!

mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:

It would be serious in your delusional world where agnostics have
"fence posts stuck up their asses". So, in your fantasy world, which is
**worse**, the theist or the agnostic??

Kev

kevirwin wrote:

There's nothing delusional about the truth.

Agnostic means to evade a position, the agnostic sits on the fence of
uncertainty, not accepting the very simple premise that, it is not
possible to prove a negative and its irrational to demand it and it is
even more irrational, in fact its fucking idiotic stupidity, waitng for
someone to do so (that's the agnostic BTW)

The burdon of proof ALWAYS remains with those who assert the claim,
something's gotta be keeping the dumb agnostic cunts stuck on the fence
of stupidity kev, what the fuck is it kev, if its not a fence pale
stuck up your date?

Quoting you kev
**2 objects can not occupy
the same space at the same time** quote unquote

kevirwin wrote:

Chris H. Fleming wrote:

mikegordge@xtra.co.nz wrote:

kevirwin wrote:

dictionary.com
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God,
and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that
human knowledge is limited to experience.

Now tell me kev, how the fuck does one claim to able to *know* that
something they cant claim to be able to *know* is unknowable?

In other words kev, your agnostic fence sitting evasion of any position
on the god crap is simply not tenable, its bizarre, its stupid and
fails dismally any test of reason.

And bingo what did I just say?

Obviously kev you have no idea on the meaning and purpose of reason.

kevirwin wrote: