19 Jul 20
@fmf saidThe reason I quote Ghost's post is to make it quite clear that I could be understood by somebody who chose to seek my meaning. He did, you did not.
Here you are, blaming others. Oh, so I failed to elicit an "understanding" from you. You didn't fail to make yourself understood. No. Not that. Instead, I... er... "dismally failed" to get you to make yourself understood. Priceless!
19 Jul 20
@petewxyz saidWhat you said in your previous post is absolutely priceless, nevertheless. The imperative you seem to feel to shift blame comes across as pretty narcissistic [in the vernacular conversational sense, not in the clinical psychology sense].
The reason I quote Ghost's post is to make it quite clear that I could be understood by somebody who chose to seek my meaning. He did, you did not.
@FMF
Earlier on in that thread when asked to give a definition of "true atheist" he answered:
"I think that admittedly badly worded sentence is being taken out of context of the post it was in. - In that context I am using it to mean somebody who truly believes there is nothing more to come after death. Somebody who truly believes that all there is now is to cope with their final moments."
I think that was a perfectly reasonable explanation that I was willing to accept. Why wasn't that the end of that particular line of questioning?
@ghost-of-a-duke saidAnd yet, despite that, complete with the utterly disingenuous 'I have been taken out of context' old chestnut, he basically stuck to his guns page after page, obfuscating and blaming others.
@FMF
Earlier on in that thread when asked to give a definition of "true atheist" he answered:
"I think that admittedly badly worded sentence is being taken out of context of the post it was in. - In that context I am using it to mean somebody who truly believes there is nothing more to come after death. Somebody who truly believes that all there is now is to cope with their final moments."
The takeaways were he didn't seem to understand atheism and he didn't seem to understand religious belief. All that left was a rather pretentious kind of turgid self-righteousness.
Didn't he even lament that the forum mods weren't coming to his aid at one point? I could be misremembering it.
Look, if you like mewling self pitying OPs like this, knock yourself out. Go for it. Different strokes for different folks.
@petewxyz saidI have another “reasonable suggestion” for you Petewxyz, stop being a crybaby and own your posting mistakes instead of doubling down on them like a Trumpist.
I think you'll find this thread was started in response to @divegeester suggesting that what I was saying in a different thread should have a thread of it's own. I listened to his reasonable suggestion and followed it.
19 Jul 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidBecause he doubled down for 6-8 pages and made a complete fool out of himself. You tried to correct him twice but you backed off when his vanity-vortex looked like it was going to drag you down too.
@FMF
Earlier on in that thread when asked to give a definition of "true atheist" he answered:
"I think that admittedly badly worded sentence is being taken out of context of the post it was in. - In that context I am using it to mean somebody who truly believes there is nothing more to come after death. Somebody who truly believes that all there is now is to cop ...[text shortened]... ation that I was willing to accept. Why wasn't that the end of that particular line of questioning?
19 Jul 20
@fmf saidThe 'takeaways' were that when somebody acknowledges they have badly worded something and then takes the time to clarify what they actually meant it is probably best to accept that and move on. It is hardly surprising Pete doubted your genuine intent to understand his position.
And yet, despite that, complete with the utterly disingenuous 'I have been taken out of context' old chestnut, he basically stuck to his guns page after page, obfuscating and blaming others.
The takeaways were he didn't seem to understand atheism and he didn't seem to understand religious belief. All that left was a rather pretentious kind of turgid self-righteousness.
Di ...[text shortened]... ng self pitying OPs like this, knock yourself out. Go for it. Different strokes for different folks.
I disagreed with Pete's proposition, yet accepted his explanation of a badly worded sentence and ascertained his true meaning. If you don't want to do that in your interactions, knock yourself out. Go for it. Different strokes for different folks.
@divegeester saidTo clarify. In the other thread, you scolded me for 'answering for Suzianne' and yet here you are answering for FMF?!
Because he doubled down for 6-8 pages and made a complete fool out of himself. You tried to correct him twice but you backed off when his vanity-vortex looked like it was going to drag you down too.
19 Jul 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI am sure petewxyz is happy to have your support for now as a fair weather friend. I thought he displayed less integrity than KellyJay on that thread, a similar seemingly willful lack of coherence, a similar pridefulness and resort to blaming others for his fumbling, and he seemed to have a similar dose of victimhood going on. And we all know what you thought of KellyJay and how you interacted with him. I am at least consistent.
I disagreed with Pete's proposition, yet accepted his explanation of a badly worded sentence and ascertained his true meaning. If you don't want to do that in your interactions, knock yourself out. Go for it. Different strokes for different folks.
19 Jul 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidTo clarify, this mewling self-pitying hit job thread, the kind up until recently you had a principled distaste for, is taking aim at divegeester as well.
To clarify. In the other thread, you scolded me for 'answering for Suzianne' and yet here you are answering for FMF?!
19 Jul 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI didn’t scolded you, don’t be so sensitive.
To clarify. In the other thread, you scolded me for 'answering for Suzianne' and yet here you are answering for FMF?!
I asked you why you, an atheist, were answering a personal faith based question which was directed at another Christian.
Suzianne predictably didn’t come back to answer, just as she didn’t when you last jumped in to (let’s call it what it is) defend her. I thought your behaviour, and her’s was interesting in this forum and where it happened before.
But I think you already know all this, don’t you.
19 Jul 20
@fmf saidPete is a splendid fellow. Happy to have him as a friend.
I am sure petewxyz is happy to have your support for now as a fair weather friend. I thought he displayed less integrity than KellyJay on that thread, a similar seemingly willful lack of coherence, a similar pridefulness and resort to blaming others for his fumbling, and he seemed to have a similar dose of victimhood going on. And we all know what you thought of KellyJay and how you interacted with him. I am at least consistent.
19 Jul 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidBut what does that mean, if anything?
Pete is a splendid fellow. Happy to have him as a friend.
19 Jul 20
@divegeester saidWhat I know, is that I provided a perfectly splendid answer to your question (not about Suzianne specifically, but any Christian who accepts evolutionary thinking). Here it is again. Perhaps you'll absorb it more on a second reading:
I didn’t scolded you, don’t be so sensitive.
I asked you why you, an atheist, were answering a personal faith based question which was directed at another Christian.
Suzianne predictably didn’t come back to answer, just as she didn’t when you last jumped in to (let’s call it what it is) defend her. I thought your behaviour, and her’s was interesting in this forum and where it happened before.
But I think you already know all this, don’t you.
'I'm assuming that Christians who have incorporated evolution into 'God's work' believe we have evolved into God's image.'