Chap wrote:We're not educators here, so don't expect us to keep on posting until you get it.
MrStakhanovite wrote: Sounds like you need this: ...
There may be room for discussion as to which person's reaction betrays the greater degree of upset - I am happy for others to judge.
But I think my post (parodying one of yours in another thread) was a reasonable reaction to your pseudo-incomprehension routine. If you don't, I'm not too worried.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Chap wrote:There may be room for discussion as to which person's reaction betrays the greater degree of upset - I am happy for others to judge.
You're right, because as everyone knows, I follow people around and cross post passive agressive comments that reference non-related threads.
Which is a how a thread that wasn’t related to me, mentioned me, or participated in by me, became about me. The only way that tends to happen is when someone can’t let go of something I said. Like you.
Chap wrote:There may be room for discussion as to which person's reaction betrays the greater degree of upset - I am happy for others to judge.
You're right, because as everyone knows, I follow people around and cross post passive agressive comments that reference non-related threads.
Which is a how a thread that wasn’t related to me, mentioned me, or participated in by me, became about me. The only way that tends to happen is when someone can’t let go of something I said. Like you.
And this is not a passive aggressive post, made by Mr S. in this thread?
MrStakhanovite wrote:???
Could've fooled me.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
MrStakhanovite wrote:Which is a how a thread that wasn’t related to me, mentioned me, or participated in by me, became about me. The only way that tends to happen is when someone can’t let go of something I said. Like you.
Yeah, I noticed that. I knew you had not even been here and I rolled through the thread to make sure. Thought it odd.
Chap wrote:There may be room for discussion as to which person's reaction betrays the greater degree of upset - I am happy for others to judge.
You're right, because as everyone knows, I follow people around and cross post passive agressive comments that reference non-related threads.
Which is a how a thread that wasn’t related to me, mentioned me, or participated in by me, became about me. The only way that tends to happen is when someone can’t let go of something I said. Like you.
Are you perturbed because I mentioned you and you aren't in this thread? You are related to it because it was due to your comments to Seth about how he shouldn't comment on ontological arguments for God, that this thread came about. You've argued there are good ontological arguments..well one would think they would have "floated to the top" and be recognized as such by now by atheist skeptics. I don't think this is a matter that atheists are simply closed minded or completely ignorant of arguments for God. I've not seen you present any ontological argument that should get respect which you claim it/they should.
marg wrote:And as an added note EA has encouraged his behavior, and Blixa is supportive of him, hence I now view them as the 3 amigos. EA and Blixa are his supportive board friends.
I was wondering what you were referring to, Blixa. Just saw this.
marg, I don't see EA supporting anyone, just certain points of view. As for Blixa... I think she just has a soft spot for students. Occupational hazard, and all that.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.