DiscussMormonism.com

Over at MADB, I've been on the evolution thread debating whether evolution and LDS doctrine are compatible. I've been getting pretty nasty with Log, but I only get as nasty as the person who I'm responding to. That said, I think I may be a bit too harsh. I don't think Log can help himself. I think he has asperger's or something like that and that his rudeness and condescending behavior isn't something he can change.

Generally the reason I respond in kind is so that people can be aware of how they are comming across to me. However, I don't think that working there. Maybe I actually do it out of pride though--pride in my own ability to stick up for myself when I want to. Maybe all I'm doing is coming across as a Selek or a Pahoran.

Log is BACK?!!!

Oh no!!!!

I don't think I want to look......

He's on the pro-LDS side, and yet he had MAD mods considering the use of Godwin's law in relation to HIS arguments against atheists.
He's - ermm - 'unique'.

It is very hard to be nice to Log. I failed. Lots.

RenegadeOfPhunk wrote:Log is BACK?!!!

Oh no!!!!

I don't think I want to look......

He's on the pro-LDS side, and yet he had MAD mods considering the use of Godwin's law in relation to HIS arguments against atheists.
He's - ermm - 'unique'.

It is very hard to be nice to Log. I failed. Lots.

I had forgotten about that thread. That was the one where Structurecop made his statement about atheist philosophy isn't it?

---
Log doesn't like my pantheistic deism... :-(

Doctor Steuss wrote:Log doesn't like my pantheistic deism... :-(

That's too bad. The LDS church is fairly unique among Christians in believing that people aren't the only ones with spirits.

I still wonder if viruses have spirits though.

Doc wrote:I had forgotten about that thread. That was the one where Structurecop made his statement about atheist philosophy isn't it?

Don't think so. That was a different thread...
That was a thread in terrible taste actually - started days after the VA shootings, where the idea was to make up 'funny speeches' from a theoretical atheist President that could console those who were grieving. I'm pretty sure Structurecop made that comment in there. The one I have encased in my sig on MAD cos the guy is such a f***** dude:

"I wonder what the Anti-Defamation League would have to say about some of the gross misrepresentations of atheist philosophy on this thread." - structurecop.
Log was involved in that one, but was just annoying more than downright insulting as I remember. (He had a big back and forth with Tarski in that one).


I think where he got REALLY bad was a thread about 'How is religion useful' or something like that. Log was just being ridiculously insulting in that one - basically insisting that all atheists - to be consistent - must beleive that mass murder is absolutely fine and that kind of junk. And he managed to get some mod attention with that...
I got pretty 'involved' with him on that one...

Log doesn't like my pantheistic deism... :-(

...oh no! You think you're gonna be able to sleep tonight?

asbestosman wrote:

Doctor Steuss wrote:Log doesn't like my pantheistic deism... :-(

That's too bad. The LDS church is fairly unique among Christians in believing that people aren't the only ones with spirits.

I still wonder if viruses have spirits though.

Viruses are indwelled with the spirit of Sarakiel... or such is my understanding.

Log: "Use a dictionary."

The Dude: "No."


I heart The Dude.

Doctor Steuss wrote:Log: "Use a dictionary."

The Dude: "No."


I heart The Dude.

I haven't even read the thread and laughed out loud at this! LOL

Great stuff!

asbestosman wrote:Over at MADB, I've been on the evolution thread debating whether evolution and LDS doctrine are compatible. I've been getting pretty nasty with Log, but I only get as nasty as the person who I'm responding to. That said, I think I may be a bit too harsh. I don't think Log can help himself. I think he has asperger's or something like that and that his rudeness and condescending behavior isn't something he can change.

Generally the reason I respond in kind is so that people can be aware of how they are comming across to me. However, I don't think that working there. Maybe I actually do it out of pride though--pride in my own ability to stick up for myself when I want to. Maybe all I'm doing is coming across as a Selek or a Pahoran.

OMG! I relate sooo much to this. Sometimes I think it's best to bow out of those discussions. I'm doing that now with someone here.........

I'm going to go check out that thread. :)

asbestosman wrote: Generally the reason I respond in kind is so that people can be aware of how they are comming across to me. However, I don't think that working there. Maybe I actually do it out of pride though--pride in my own ability to stick up for myself when I want to. Maybe all I'm doing is coming across as a Selek or a Pahoran.

The trouble is that Pahoran probably started out in an innocent way too and for whatever reason grew more abusive. Perhaps nastiness can be a snare for some people. Stay sweet and you will have less 'splaining to in the hereafter.