Recent content by Sayre

I don't agree - at all. He knows the damage he did with his thalidomide jokes, he knows that he trampled all over some information I gave him - and he was a total (self censored). That man gets no mercy from me until he apologises. He knows what for. He has been told. His silence reveals his...

OK that's a respectable position. I have a need to retain autonomy of body and mind. What bothers me most is threatening the autonomy of mind through emotional manipulation and false hope.

It's impossible to read the intent of others - I'd agree :). That makes communication very difficult. I guess it boils down to ourselves and our own rules for ourselves. Do you believe in moral imperatives?

You really don't get it do you 😖😉 Maybe if you were not so intolerable to be around you would have buddies too. But instead of engaging in meaningful conversation we get stupid PRATTs and Thalidomide. Let's test the degree to which you are committed to King Poe. Today is...

No way, papa ;)

Ahh you've boiled the fun out of this :p. My rules are, of course, subjective. I don't think we can make them prescriptive, but we can personally adopt an appropriate intent and go from there. Of course, if it is AV, then all bets are off..

Sure - you can still be respectful in how you talk without being insulting. Insults are never required when disagreeing with someone.

I'm an atheist... I don't believe in a personal God, so I can't help you determine why an invisible pink unicorn did anything...

AiG is answers in genesis. Are you trolling me? I am not saying that God had a need. I'm suggesting that you need to demonstrate that God create not of need but of want - you haven't done that yet.

Aww you poor victim. Strathos and I haven't negotiated my responses - and I responded first. I'm too independent to be told what to do anyway ;). Here's a thought - why don't you stop posting rubbish, and then you won't have people call you on your rubbish. Now there's a thought.

Answering your own question with "Gotquestions" is like answering your own creationist question with AiG. You'll get an answer - just not a very good one. The article presumes that it is part of the very nature of God to not need. So concluding, that therefore, God does not have a need, is...

Sure - it's a judgment call, just as much as suggesting that Christians abusing their position of privilege is a judgment call. But both happens.

I don't think you've demonstrated that God doesn't need.

No. People who are unnecessarily negative or antagonistic towards religious beliefs and/or practices.

Are you hinting at the logical problem of evil? If God is obliged to do good, and if the existence of moral free agents is a good thing, then perhaps God was obliged to bring about the existence of moral free agents. Is it better than not? Who knows.