171d
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThanks for your advice, but I am fine with the way I currently deal with the topics and the way he behaves.
Reply to his points then in open posts. Don't direct questions at him that you know he won't respond to.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt seems that FMF is bitter about having left Christianity, and is picking on KellyJay, in the hope of finding a good reason to masquerade his unconscious wanting to return to Christianity, once more.
If you continually direct posts at somebody who clearly doesn't want to engage with you, how is that not trolling?
I'm filling in for KellyJay, by giving FMF so much attention....I'm a natural martyr. But I need some extra pain killer, in the process.
171d
@pettytalk saidYou have called this incorrectly.
It seems that FMF is bitter about having left Christianity, and is picking on KellyJay, in the hope of finding a good reason to masquerade his unconscious wanting to return to Christianity, once more.
@pettytalk saidYou remind me of Rupert Pupkin.
I'm filling in for KellyJay, by giving FMF so much attention....I'm a natural martyr. But I need some extra pain killer, in the process.
171d
@pettytalk saidWell, it would be strange if someone spent time discussing topics like these while feeling that what they were posting was not a worthwhile contribution.
I see that you don't have any difficulties with patting yourself in the back.
@pettytalk said🥳😍🤗🎉
It seems that FMF is bitter about having left Christianity, and is picking on KellyJay, in the hope of finding a good reason to masquerade his unconscious wanting to return to Christianity, once more.
I'm filling in for KellyJay, by giving FMF so much attention....I'm a natural martyr. But I need some extra pain killer, in the process.
@kellyjay saidIt's ok not to have all the answers Kelly. It doesn't mean we should abandon science and embrace the made up.
I beg to differ if the natural world can’t explain with certainty what is in it, then what is required is something outside of it.
171d
@kellyjay saidWell, that is where you and I disagree. I think the phenomena of nature are explained by natural laws which apply within nature, and that wherever we come across some specific phenomenon which we don't understand, we should keep looking for naturalistic explanations before jumping to transcendental pseudo-explanations. My reason for believing this is that mankind were once puzzled by all manner of natural phenomena, including diseases, earthquakes, eclipses, lightning, thunder storms, birth defects, and literally millions of other phenomena, and in every case, by careful reasoning and gathering of evidence, we have discovered only naturalistic causes and no transcendental causality at work.
I beg to differ if the natural world can’t explain with certainty what is in it, then what is required is something outside of it.
171d
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIt was suggested that I was incorrect in saying KJ was being dishonest. I feel that gives me the right to reply and prove otherwise. Your childish snide remarks about trolling notwithstanding.
To troll him with? He doesn't even reply to your posts.
171d
@pettytalk saidHow do you know this?
The god gravity! Oh, you actually believe I took it literally? It takes more than a god of gravity to shape a planet, and make life possible on it. It takes a real God, one who can make gravity, which in turn will do all his work for him, so he can rest at least one day a week.
5th time of asking.
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/your-tooth-fairy-not-mine.198383/page-36
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThere is no abandoning science, it is like if you are looking for your keys in the living room because the lights are better at some point you look elsewhere. Restricting your search to only the material leaves out the immaterial.
It's ok not to have all the answers Kelly. It doesn't mean we should abandon science and embrace the made up.
@kellyjay saidYes, of course, but if you know you lost your keys somewhere on planet Earth, you don't go looking for them in Never-never-land.
There is no abandoning science, it is like if you are looking for your keys in the living room because the lights are better at some point you look elsewhere. Restricting your search to only the material leaves out the immaterial.
I don't deny the immaterial. But that still leaves us with a large field of investigation of completely naturalistic explanations, without jumping to transcendental pseudo-explanations.