Originally posted by @fmfHow can I know “agnostic atheist” is dishonest when I don’t know your definition?
If you think the term 'agnostic atheism' is "dishonest", just come out and say rather than bury it in a meally-mouthed way in a post to someone else when you haven't had the integrity to make the point properly.
Why are you putting words in my mouth? So you can falsely claim three days from now that I said it was dishonest?
Originally posted by @fmfHow could I know if the topic was suited to my interest when I didn’t know the meaning of the phrase as you defined it? That’s why I asked for your definition to begin with, to see if it tickled my armpits
You didn't see the point of it. And yet here is the thread about it and it's on its 10th page already. Maybe not every topic is suited to your interests.
Originally posted by @romans1009I was talking to Philokalia. He used the word "dishonest". You are replying to a post that wasn't addressing you.
How can I know “agnostic atheist” is dishonest when I don’t know your definition?
Why are you putting words in my mouth? So you can falsely claim three days from now that I said it was dishonest?
Originally posted by @romans1009I suggested you look it up. You couldn't be bothered. But now there's a thread about it, so it scarcely matters.
How could I know if the topic was suited to my interest when I didn’t know the meaning of the phrase as you defined it? That’s why I asked for your definition to begin with, to see if it tickled my armpits
Originally posted by @fmfYou suggested I both look it up and start a thread on it. I didn’t feel like it so I didn’t. Let’s not make a mountain out of a molehill. Surely there are better targets you can aim your whizz at.
I suggested you look it up. You couldn't be bothered. But now there's a thread about it, so it scarcely matters.
Originally posted by @romans1009Why are you still going on about this 150+ posts into a thread about the topic?
I appreciate what you’re saying, but all I did was ask him to define agnostic atheist because it sounded contradictory to me (the definitions I’m used to are an agnostic doesn’t know if God exists and an atheist doesn’t believe God exists.)
He declined to answer and suggested I start a thread, but I didn’t see the point in doing that when all I was looking for was his definition.
Originally posted by @romans1009This is post #159 on a thread about a term you couldn't be bothered to look up and you are still wittering on about how you couldn't be bothered to look it up.
I was responding to a post. I didn’t just post that out of the clear blue sky.
Originally posted by @fmfOh man, I was maybe not so charitable and kind in the thread and... you know what, I was trying a bit to get a rise out of you, and you were not flustered by it, which shows you to be a well composed person, and that is good. it reflects well on you.
Compare this condescending hypocritical advice to another poster, on one hand, to, on the other, your ridiculously scornful response to my attempt to describe my take on the actual source and nature of what people refer to as "spirituality" on that thread you ran away from.
But I would say this... I would prefer a bold approach where you just do away with the term spirit.
But maybe there is some side to you that is naturally more cooperative.
For instance, you do charitable work with churches and mosques over there, and that is certainly a great thing, and I do imagine that when you are in real life and on good terms, you are very pleasant and agreeable with everyone, and you appreicate using 'spirit' in a loose way to not alienate yourself or others from yoruself.
Originally posted by @philokaliaYou made a fool of yourself. And then ran away.
Oh man, I was maybe not so charitable and kind in the thread and... you know what, I was trying a bit to get a rise out of you, and you were not flustered by it, which shows you to be a well composed person, and that is good. it reflects well on you.