They have been supported but feel free to express your unsupported opinion and to dismiss whatever is inconvenient to your unsupported opinionation in every and any post of yours. Amen.
No, differences ranging from morality to abortion to the existence of God.
No, it was not an insult. Or calling it an insult is an insult.
No, it was the agreement that gave rise to the dedicated thread and the OP, which was to be about our philosophical differences.
Do you want a discussion? all of you posts tell me you don't.
The key to the distinction I insist on making. What don't you understand about this? It's quite straightforward.
Come again? A word without meaning is a meaningless sign. I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. If you reply, please identify the word you have in your sights.
Yes it was
God need not be necessary thus claiming God is is dealing with ther nature of God and not the existence of God
It is you who refuse to engage (as always)
Dismissal is the name of your game. Have at it.
Thank you. Spacibo, brot.
No, you're trying to avoid discussion by any means possible. I don't blame you, mind you.
No, the interesting thing you said was that talk about God's being necessary is talk about God's nature. Maybe you didn't understand what you said. Or maybe I understood you better than you do. But this business quoted is a run-on sentence that is barely readable, but to the extent that it is readable strays from the interesting point I apparently read into your earlier post.
I didn't run away; I just gave up on a hopeless case. You refused to discuss belief, the very first order of business -- and this after others told you you were being unreasonable.
So what?
Defining one's terms is the mark of good discourse. You apparently don't know this. Stop posting to me for the sake of posting. If you have nothing to say, say it to someone else.