the real conspiracy theory is atheism.

[SteveB]

This also is not at all true. Here's what you actually said, and there is no indication whatsoever that this is being put forward as a speculative hypothesis, still less that it is one of your own making:

I said more than that. But, it would appear that you don't know how to read those things which don't fit your bias.
As I recall, this is known as selective reading, and myopic blindness.

 

[bigthinker]

I believe what I do explicitly BECAUSE I think.
Granted, that'd require you to consider that as much as you think you know, you don't know the 10000th of it.

I agree when it comes to atheism.

Oh, that's nice.

They believe that their lack of believe excludes them from culpability for their lack of belief, in the truth, while blaming others for actually taking the time to have learned what the truth is, and engaging Truth, on Truth's terms.

Well, no.
Of course since we don't believe in God, we also don't believe in any consequences for not believing in God.

As for beliefs not having consequences, you must've smoked the whiskey.

lol. That's funny.
However, I think you don't understand.
They don't have consequences because they don't have to be correct.

I recall copious stories during my childhood of people who took hallucinogens, who believed they could fly, so they jumped off buildings, only to go splat on the ground, and died.

That sounds like their beliefs had consequences.

Ah yes. well the belief didn't kill them; their actions did.
Actions have consequences. beliefs don't.

 

[Nouveau]

I said more than that. But, it would appear that you don't know how to read those things which don't fit your bias.
As I recall, this is known as selective reading, and myopic blindness.

You've said a lot in your desperate attempts to defend your absurd initial claim. None of it changes the fact that it wasn't presented as a speculative hypothesis. As I recall, this is known as a lie.

 

[Nouveau]

You go right ahead and spin your tales of woe and grief. I'm confident you'll receive exactly what you want some day.

All I want is reasonable discussion, and it looks like I'll never get that from you.

I'm always direct and without evasiveness. It strikes me that the real problem here is that you simply don't know how to think, or reason, so you need to blame others for your own ineptitude.

A lie followed by a personal attack. This is what I mean when I say you can't be reasonable.

Ah. I see. So I'm not allowed to ask questions.

Of course you are. My point was that asking a question isn't the same as answering one.

Yet, you've not actually shown this to be the case. Just because you've jumped to an unsupported, and apparently unsupportable conclusion, based on your own presuppositions, and biases, does not make what you think you know accurate.

When you refuse to answer or clarify, I'm then forced to reach my own conclusions on less than perfect information. That's your fault, not mine. In what way was my conclusion not accurate? Please be specific.

 

[SteveB]

You've said a lot in your desperate attempts to defend your absurd initial claim. None of it changes the fact that it wasn't presented as a speculative hypothesis. As I recall, this is known as a lie.

Do you have a valid point to make, or are you really that desperate to win something valuable enough to actually be worth winning?

 

[Nouveau]

Do you have a valid point to make...

Yes. The one I just made. It's okay, I don't expect you to actually address it.

 

[SteveB]

All I want is reasonable discussion, and it looks like I'll never get that from you.

I'd love to believe this. But I've yet to see anything remotely akin to reasonable discussion.
Remember--- you're the one who keeps telling me I can't be right, because you failed.

A lie followed by a personal attack. This is what I mean when I say you can't be reasonable.

Then file a grievance.

Of course you are. My point was that asking a question isn't the same as answering one.

I suppose you should've thought that through before you decided the questions I'd previously asked could be dismissed without any consequence.

When you refuse to answer or clarify, I'm then forced to reach my own conclusions on less than perfect information. That's your fault, not mine. In what way was my conclusion not accurate? Please be specific.

 

[SteveB]

Yes. The one I just made. It's okay, I don't expect you to actually address it.

then you got what you wanted. Which was what I'd previously explained to you in earlier renditions of this forum.

So, let me restate if differently, so you can get this cleared up.....

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[Nouveau]

then you got what you wanted.

Ah, no. I did not.

 

[Nouveau]

I'd love to believe this. But I've yet to see anything remotely akin to reasonable discussion.

With you, no. But that's your fault. There are plenty of examples of reasonable discussions between me and other posters here.

Remember--- you're the one who keeps telling me I can't be right, because you failed.

I've never once said that. You're strawmanning again.

Then file a grievance.

Okay.

I suppose you should've thought that through before you decided the questions I'd previously asked could be dismissed without any consequence.

If that had ever happened then you might have a point. But of course it never did. Anything you ask, I'll answer. Just as anything I ask, you'll evade.

 

[SteveB]

Ah, no. I did not.

then I'd say you need to change your tactics.

 

[Nouveau]

then I'd say you need to change your tactics.

What tactics do you think might work in getting you to become honest and responsive to questions?

I would genuinely like to know.

 

[SteveB]

With you, no. But that's your fault. There are plenty of examples of reasonable discussions between me and other posters here.

Of course it's my fault. Because you can't control what you don't like, yet you continue practicing the same things over, and over again.
What was it that Einstein said--- something about doing the same things over and over again expecting different results, and that being the definition of insanity.

I've never once said that. You're strawmanning again.

and I'm supposed to believe you after years of observing it?

Okay.


If that had ever happened then you might have a point. But of course it never did. Anything you ask, I'll answer. Just as anything I ask, you'll evade.

Explain to me, in detail, what you did that was what Jesus said.

 

[SteveB]

What tactics do you think might work in getting you to become honest and responsive to questions?

I would genuinely like to know.

demonstrate to me what you did that actually is what Jesus said.

 

[Nouveau]

demonstrate to me what you did that actually is what Jesus said.

I've tried that. It hasn't had any effect in getting you to be honest or responsive to questions.

Any other ideas?

 

[SteveB]

Oh, that's nice.

I think so. I actually enjoy thinking as I do. It's clear that it irks the blazes out of people here.

Well, no.
Of course since we don't believe in God, we also don't believe in any consequences for not believing in God.

So, you have a belief that you believe has no consequences.

lol. That's funny.
However, I think you don't understand.
They don't have consequences because they don't have to be correct.

What do you think would be the result if I actually did understand, and am stating what I've stated with great accuracy?
Would you think that you're actually wrong, and take the time to find out why it is that I have a greater understanding on the topic?
Or would you do whatever you could do avoid it, because that'd require you to do what you're not actually interested in knowing/learning?

Ah yes. well the belief didn't kill them; their actions did.
Actions have consequences. beliefs don't.

Biblical belief is an actionary belief. Not reactionary, but actionary.
It's not merely an intellectual assent to ideas.

 

[Nouveau]

Of course it's my fault.

Correct. Thank you for finally taking responsibility. So what can you do to change this?

Because you can't control what you don't like, yet you continue practicing the same things over, and over again. What was it that Einstein said--- something about doing the same things over and over again expecting different results, and that being the definition of insanity.

You don't think this applies to you here as much as anyone else?

and I'm supposed to believe you after years of observing it?

If you'd observed me saying that then you'd be able to quote me saying that. But you can't, because it is a strawman.

Explain to me, in detail, what you did that was what Jesus said.

That's what I was doing in the other thread. You've stopped responding. If you need more detail, then ask specific questions. You also need to be specific about what you think Jesus said to do.

 

[SteveB]

I've tried that. It hasn't had any effect in getting you to be honest or responsive to questions.

Any other ideas?

so, you've chosen to ignore my question, and blow it off.
I've seen nothing that is demonstrative that you've done what Jesus said. I have however seen lots of this.

 

[Nouveau]

so, you've chosen to ignore my question, and blow it off.

You didn't ask a question, Steve.

 

[bigthinker]

I think so. I actually enjoy thinking as I do. It's clear that it irks the blazes out of people here.

Intelligent people cringe when others say ignorant or idiotic things.

So, you have a belief that you believe has no consequences.

So you believe in the Easter Bunny.

What do you think would be the result if I actually did understand, and am stating what I've stated with great accuracy?

That's the problem, you can't establish the accuracy of it so its a meaningless question.

Would you think that you're actually wrong, and take the time to find out why it is that I have a greater understanding on the topic?

I don't care what you understand, I care whether anything you believe can be independently, objectively, factually reliably, repeatably demonstrated as being true -regardless of anyone's belief.
So essentially yes. My position is tentative and based on facts. In situations where new evidence changes the conclusion, I alter my position in regards to the facts.

Or would you do whatever you could do avoid it, because that'd require you to do what you're not actually interested in knowing/learning?


Biblical belief is an actionary belief. Not reactionary, but actionary.

Actions have consequences, beliefs do not.

It's not merely an intellectual assent to ideas.

Right, because it requires belief.