RetiredGySgt
Diamond Member
I have no idea on earth how you came to that conclusion.
Hey, but if it makes you happy, run with it.
The entire premise and purpose of this thread is so he can attack anyone that professes a belief in God.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have no idea on earth how you came to that conclusion.
Hey, but if it makes you happy, run with it.
I have no idea on earth how you came to that conclusion.
Hey, but if it makes you happy, run with it.
The entire premise and purpose of this thread is so he can attack anyone that professes a belief in God.
Why are Buddhism and Taoism considered interchangeable by the OP?
Because the OP knows next to nothing about the religions he has universally declared false. In fact, he pretty much proclaims that very fact as some sort of virtue as to why he is correct.
The entire premise and purpose of this thread is so he can attack anyone that professes a belief in God.
I disagree.
Why are Buddhism and Taoism considered interchangeable by the OP?
Because the OP knows next to nothing about the religions he has universally declared false. In fact, he pretty much proclaims that very fact as some sort of virtue as to why he is correct.
OK, so ignorance is a virtue?
The entire premise and purpose of this thread is so he can attack anyone that professes a belief in God.
I disagree.
Seems to me that it was an accurate view. Is here anyone who professes a belief in God in this thread he hasnt attacked?
Name one person I've attacked. I have asked questions, yes. I have attacked noone.
This victim-game you people like to play is really old
I disagree.
Seems to me that it was an accurate view. Is here anyone who professes a belief in God in this thread he hasnt attacked?
It's a point of view that presupposes the inner motivation of the OP.
I conclude that the OP is frustrated.Seems to me that it was an accurate view. Is here anyone who professes a belief in God in this thread he hasnt attacked?
It's a point of view that presupposes the inner motivation of the OP.
I dont see how it can possibly be presupposed when we have countless examples in this same thread of his reaction. No one is presupposing anything. We are basing our conclusions on direct evidence.
Be honest, if someone asked a question of non-believers and attacked every single response they gave, mocking them, etc. what would you conclude was the purpose of the original post?
It's a point of view that presupposes the inner motivation of the OP.
I dont see how it can possibly be presupposed when we have countless examples in this same thread of his reaction. No one is presupposing anything. We are basing our conclusions on direct evidence.
Be honest, if someone asked a question of non-believers and attacked every single response they gave, mocking them, etc. what would you conclude was the purpose of the original post?
I would conclude that the OP is frustrated trying to discuss the topic.
I dont see how it can possibly be presupposed when we have countless examples in this same thread of his reaction. No one is presupposing anything. We are basing our conclusions on direct evidence.
Be honest, if someone asked a question of non-believers and attacked every single response they gave, mocking them, etc. what would you conclude was the purpose of the original post?
I would conclude that the OP is frustrated trying to discuss the topic.
and as usual, you'd be wrong.
and as usual, you'd be wrong.
It would not matter what I say. You'd call it wrong, Mr PERMANENT GRUMP.
no, if you said you were an airhead, i'd be in complete agreement.
so you're wrong yet again.
and as usual, you'd be wrong.
It would not matter what I say. You'd call it wrong, Mr PERMANENT GRUMP.
no, if you said you were an airhead, i'd be in complete agreement.
so you're wrong yet again.
So, Avvie tries to rally support for his campaign against reason and aby who dare question avvie