Consider: Personally, maybe you don't see, and maybe you aren't convinced according to your personal standard. And that is what it is, James. In and of itself, yeah, sure, whatever.
However, compared to your focus↑ on mental illness, your judgment of what value you see in other behvior is its own separate discussion.
Maybe it's not your reading comprehension, James. Maybe it's just you.
That's a bit melodramatic. Moreover, the underlying pretense of cluelessness, as if we hadn't recently discussed the subject and you didn't know what that something I mentioned referred to, is unbelievable, James. Like I said, if I wonder how precisely we wish to define a scholar. You, to the other, would declare them unwelcome.
Well, James, it's too bad you just couldn't be bothered to pay attention over the years. After all, there was a time when being an Administrator actually meant something; you know, like when you would undermine your staff for mysterious reasons you could never explain, but, sure, we got the message that you would change what we do if you didn't like it. So, what did expect your staff would do, James, while you made excuses for bullshit and lamented the tyranny of rational discourse? Were we supposed to just do whatever the fuck we wanted, because that's not really how it went. So maybe you should have skipped that part.
Anyway, remember that the reason for considering the atheistic purview of site moderation and administration has to do with your suggestion that it is strange that atheists get so much attention; atheism and atheists are not irrelevant to the general tenor of discussion.
No, James, we don't. It's not useful.
Beside the point.
Yes, but the phrase "skeptical, atheistic lean" is utterly meaningless. Consider your two cents on scholarship, above: That skeptical, atheistic lean has absolutely no useful meaning, James. You can't have it both ways. Maybe there's some other context in some range that might exist between blithering solipsism and "an academy … in the business of conducting original research or 'scholarship'". Like I said, how precisely we wish to define a scholar.
James, your threads asking religious people to tell you this or that are you asking for their attention, not them bringing their crusades to us. An atheist making up religions or religious people to wag at is not religious people bringing their crusades to us. Of seventeen threads on the first page of the Religion subforum, dating back to the middle of last year, over two-thirds are skeptical or critical of religion. The three members bringing more religious threads are not necessarily what we might consider average believers, either. Compared to the caricaturizations and criticism, the question of ramming is matter of context, but the evidence does not support the idea that "generally, they bring their crusades to us". It's one thing if, on some level, I get what you're saying, but what you're saying does not necessarily correspond to actual circumstances.
Toward atheistic purview, I guess the question is to wonder what's the point if all you really want is to be just like them.
That's kind of a useless answer, compared to the discussion at hand, but, sure, whatever; we come back to something you already passed over, so never mind.
That trying to make God happy is a futile endeavor.
Maybe; it's all in how you say it.
[3/5]
