>If you wish not to defend your opinion on arguments without your character, be my guest. I was not aware I was under attack, so I felt no need to defend mysel

>If you wish not to defend your opinion on arguments without your character, be my guest. I was not aware I was under attack, so I felt no need to defend myself. If you are attacking - let me know. > How does the purpose of the argument assist the conversation with someone who does not wish to share arguments? If you tell me what it is that you are trying to achieve by arguing it helps me help you get what you want. There may be a better way for you to get what you want. A way that doesn't require arguing. If all you want to do is argue - then I am not interested. >When Christianity left as the guiding belief structure, the modern 'self' has been left as a ground-up built belief that an internal describable entity exists. It remains elusive and it is possible to break people's internal representation of their 'self', their belief it exists or their belief in it's structure. If that is true and the "self" does not exist, then why do you keep using this meaningless word "I" ? > Who can say that I am or not? You can! >So you take no responsibility for spamming this thread with your proselytizing? I take responsibility for expressing myself using my words. I take no responsibility for changing your mind - that responsibility is yours entirely. If my words haven't changed your mind then I am not proselytizing. So...Do you think am I proselytizing or not?