the real conspiracy theory is atheism.

[bigthinker]

You obviously got what you wanted.

You seem to think far too highly of yourself.
I'm not here to win arguments.

That's good. Because you don't have the evidence on your side. All you have is the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the universe on your side which, as it turns out, is not enough to win a simple argument.

 

[SteveB]

Maybe it's a mistake to see it as winning or losing rather than an open exchange of views. That way it's possible to at least find out what atheists think and why, and why they disagree with you. And they to understand you. As it is, you're coming off very poorly.

I agree that it's wrong to see it as winning or losing. I'd like to believe that you want an open exchange of views, but since you refused to answer the even one of the thousands of the entire collection of questions I'd asked in the former edition of this forum, I find this to be quite disingenuous of you to state this. I wish I could believe you, but you lost that right. And yes. I did in fact once think it a right to have questions answered. So, you screwed yourself big here.

Now if you want me to believe you, you're going to have to take a completely different tact than you did in the past. I've been asking atheists questions on the previous forum since 2013, and since it's long been obvious that any questions they don't like, they dismiss, call strawmen, meaningless, and a few other popular terms they like. This has made it clear to me that atheists here only like to play games, and answer questions they deem deserving. So, this has definitively demonstrated to me that for them it is a win-lose agenda. If they cannot control, and manipulate the discussion, they refuse to engage on "open exchange of views" formats.
So, kudos WiF. You've achieved what you're now saying wasn't your goal.
And in doing so, you've lost all credibility. Quite frankly, I find this statement by you amusingly sad.
I gave you exactly what you wanted, and you didn't like it. I.e., the opportunity to explain what you think, why you think it, how you developed your thinking, and why it works for you.
I then castigated you for complaining about it, and you still didn't like it.
This I pointed out, and stated how it reminded me of what Jesus told his hearers regarding John the Baptist.

16 “But to what shall I liken this generation? It is like children sitting in the marketplaces and calling to their companions, 17 and saying:​

​

‘We played the flute for you,​

​

And you did not dance;​

​

We mourned to you,​

​

And you did not lament.’​

See, this is typical of your way of responding to points put.

Ah, so it's ok for you and your fellows to do it, but God forbid when anyone else does what you claim?
How does this work?

You go off on a tangent rather than directly responding to the point you're replying to, with an unnecessary insult at the end.

And yet you complain instead of focusing on actual conversation.
How do you see this playing out here? Do you think I'll see you as you claim to want to be seen, instead of how I've seen you based on your practices?

This is why people say you misrepresent them, because it has little to do with what they're trying to say, as is the case here. So to answer your question, no, that never occurred to me. I meant what I said which was....

It's rather curious how this plays out.
First, you think that I'm supposed to take you seriously here. Next, that you assume I'm concerned by your dislike/dis0greements with how I see things.
Which tells me that this is entirely about you, and has absolutely nothing to do with me.

You answer doesn't shed any light why on the one hand you dodge and insult people, and on the other you pray for them. It's two opposite attitudes.

Why should I have to, after almost 8 years of being dismissed, disregarded, disrespected, maligning, called a liar, fraud, etc.... You said that highly tgrained medical professionals, who saw to my medical care couldn't have known what they were talking about with regards to my cancer, so they must be deficit, or somehow insignificant. Yet you have no medical training, no professional medical experience. I even invited you, at least a couple of dozen times to come talk to them for yourself, and you repeated refused. Further demonstrating that you weren't actually interested in knowing, learning, or understanding.
You have the mistaken idea I owe you anything.
It's ironic, considering this is a forum where people come of their own accord, discuss ideas on their own terms, and either engage or don't.
You didn't, so you've been dismissed, and excused.
Do I like that?
Nope!
I actually enjoyed telling people about who Jesus is, and what he has done for the human race. Not just for the ENTIRE human race, but for us as individuals. You included. You however decided that you were unworthy of eternal life, so refused to engage on mutual terms.

Just incredible. You said..


....to which i replied....

It's a pity you don't remember the thousands of things you said that maligned, and disrespected me. This would have gone a long way to have at least opened up the door to genuine conversation.
Even further had you actually owned up to them, and apologized for them.

I mirrored your reply to me, and you call me arrogant and the thought police. Did you so quickly forget what you had said that I replied to? Do you think you are being fair?

Ironic. I've been mirroring your practices for years, and yet you never once actually got that it was you who'd been "off the reservation" and acted poorly, and completely rude on more levels than I could count.

Fine. But if you are going to pray on my behalf, pray for God to stop all disease.

lol..... You don't get to demand how, and what I pray about. God will stop all disease. But if he did it on your timing, you'd wind up in hell, because you've refused to deal with your sin before him. As He's made it crystal clear he's not willing that any should perish, and that all should come to repentance--- you don't get to demand that. Unless you really want to be in hell, and spend your eternity in the lake of fire.

Just like you having no idea what atheists think. Now you know what it's like.

IF this was true, you'd have answered all the questions I'd asked, WHEN I asked them.
Your failure to answer them demonstrated to me that you didn't actually want to be understood.
So, Your refusal to answer, is itself evidence of what you think.

Yep. I've got under your skin alright.

Only in so far as I now pray for you more than you realize.

Just like you here, telling me what to think and do? There is a perception in England that Americans don't understand irony. Of course it's a broad generalisation, but you are living up to it.

You're the one who said you wanted to engage in open-conversation (open-exchange of views).
That's ok. We here in America have our own ideas of irony, and I've been describing it here on this forum for years because you demonstrated it so well, and do so in your post too. Apparently you don't understand it.

 

[Nouveau]

I've been asking atheists questions on the previous forum since 2013, and since it's long been obvious that any questions they don't like, they dismiss, call strawmen, meaningless, and a few other popular terms they like.

You're lying again.

 

[Whatsisface]

I agree that it's wrong to see it as winning or losing. I'd like to believe that you want an open exchange of views, but since you refused to answer the even one of the thousands of the entire collection of questions I'd asked in the former edition of this forum, I find this to be quite disingenuous of you to state this. I wish I could believe you, but you lost that right. And yes. I did in fact once think it a right to have questions answered. So, you screwed yourself big here.

This is so disingenuous. From the first you arrived here you've always behaved the same. For the act of disagreeing with you, you insult very quickly. You've always done this.

Now if you want me to believe you, you're going to have to take a completely different tact than you did in the past.

It's tack, not tact. Honestly, the educational standards in America.

I've been asking atheists questions on the previous forum since 2013, and since it's long been obvious that any questions they don't like, they dismiss, call strawmen, meaningless, and a few other popular terms they like. This has made it clear to me that atheists here only like to play games, and answer questions they deem deserving. So, this has definitively demonstrated to me that for them it is a win-lose agenda. If they cannot control, and manipulate the discussion, they refuse to engage on "open exchange of views" formats.

Bit of a snowflake aren't you. You dish out the insults, but you can't take criticism back in return. Your questions go off at next to irrelevant tangents. That's one reason why so many people have said you misrepresent them.

So, kudos WiF. You've achieved what you're now saying wasn't your goal.
And in doing so, you've lost all credibility. Quite frankly, I find this statement by you amusingly sad.
I gave you exactly what you wanted, and you didn't like it. I.e., the opportunity to explain what you think, why you think it, how you developed your thinking, and why it works for you.
I then castigated you for complaining about it, and you still didn't like it.
This I pointed out, and stated how it reminded me of what Jesus told his hearers regarding John the Baptist.

Just, what are you going on about? Are you sure this was meant for me?

Ah, so it's ok for you and your fellows to do it, but God forbid when anyone else does what you claim?
How does this work?


And yet you complain instead of focusing on actual conversation.
How do you see this playing out here? Do you think I'll see you as you claim to want to be seen, instead of how I've seen you based on your practices?

Blah, Blah, Blah.

It's rather curious how this plays out.
First, you think that I'm supposed to take you seriously here. Next, that you assume I'm concerned by your dislike/dis0greements with how I see things.
Which tells me that this is entirely about you, and has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Blah.

Why should I have to, after almost 8 years of being dismissed, disregarded, disrespected, maligning, called a liar, fraud, etc....

You really can't take disagreement, can you. All the above you've done to others.

You said that highly tgrained medical professionals, who saw to my medical care couldn't have known what they were talking about with regards to my cancer, so they must be deficit, or somehow insignificant. Yet you have no medical training, no professional medical experience.

You have been given every opportunity to get your doctors to say how they know a miracle occurred. You haven't done it.

I even invited you, at least a couple of dozen times to come talk to them for yourself, and you repeated refused. Further demonstrating that you weren't actually interested in knowing, learning, or understanding.

Why can't they just tell you how they know a miracle occurred, then you can tell us. Simple. But you need an excuse not to do this, right?

You have the mistaken idea I owe you anything.

No.

It's ironic, considering this is a forum where people come of their own accord, discuss ideas on their own terms, and either engage or don't.
You didn't, so you've been dismissed, and excused.
Do I like that?
Nope!
I actually enjoyed telling people about who Jesus is, and what he has done for the human race. Not just for the ENTIRE human race, but for us as individuals. You included. You however decided that you were unworthy of eternal life, so refused to engage on mutual terms.

This is pathetic. You're lying.

It's a pity you don't remember the thousands of things you said that maligned, and disrespected me. This would have gone a long way to have at least opened up the door to genuine conversation.
Even further had you actually owned up to them, and apologized for them.

It's a pity you don't remember the insults you dish out just because people disagree with you.

Ironic. I've been mirroring your practices for years, and yet you never once actually got that it was you who'd been "off the reservation" and acted poorly, and completely rude on more levels than I could count.

Sorry. It's obvious you're lying deliberately because people here have got under your skin, which is your fault.

lol..... You don't get to demand how, and what I pray about. God will stop all disease. But if he did it on your timing, you'd wind up in hell, because you've refused to deal with your sin before him. As He's made it crystal clear he's not willing that any should perish, and that all should come to repentance--- you don't get to demand that. Unless you really want to be in hell, and spend your eternity in the lake of fire.


IF this was true, you'd have answered all the questions I'd asked, WHEN I asked them.
Your failure to answer them demonstrated to me that you didn't actually want to be understood.
So, Your refusal to answer, is itself evidence of what you think.


Only in so far as I now pray for you more than you realize.



You're the one who said you wanted to engage in open-conversation (open-exchange of views).
That's ok. We here in America have our own ideas of irony, and I've been describing it here on this forum for years because you demonstrated it so well, and do so in your post too. Apparently you don't understand it.

Really? This is just tiresome.

 

[SteveB]

Actual conversation requires you to actually answer questions. Asking you questions is not manipulation.

Indeed. Yet you think asking questions which you constantly claim the answers are wrong, winds of getting you to the point where you're the only one who is ever right, yet you do nothing to actually demonstrate that you're right.
I.e., your "rightness" is only in your own mind.

Can you produce a quote to back up this 'observation' or are you just jumping to an erroneous conclusion again?

Why should I provide someone else's quotes to support my own observations?

And that's why you never manage to engage in conversation.

And yet here you are, claiming to be engaged in conversation.

Of course I learn. But this doesn't tell me what change of tactics might get you to be honest and responsive to questions.

What does learning look like to you?
Why are your questions the only ones who are allowed to have honest, and responsive answers to?

 

[Nouveau]

Indeed. Yet you think asking questions which you constantly claim the answers are wrong, winds of getting you to the point where you're the only one who is ever right, yet you do nothing to actually demonstrate that you're right.
I.e., your "rightness" is only in your own mind.

Can you quote anywhere where I've made this claim you think I am constantly making?

Why should I provide someone else's quotes to support my own observations?

To show that your 'observations' are anything more than made-up delusional trash.

And yet here you are, claiming to be engaged in conversation.

Where have I claimed that? There are no conversations to be had with you. The actual conversations I've had here have been with other, more rational posters.

What does learning look like to you?

A change of behaviour in the face of repeated failure. Something you've never demonstrated in your entire time here.

Why are your questions the only ones who are allowed to have honest, and responsive answers to?

This doesn't even parse, so I have no idea what you are asking.

 

[SteveB]

You're lying again.

nope.
The truth is far too fun to lie about.
But it's clear that you only want to have the appearance of justification to your peers, so I'll leave you with your shame.

 

[SteveB]

This is so disingenuous. From the first you arrived here you've always behaved the same. For the act of disagreeing with you, you insult very quickly. You've always done this.

You're more than welcome to walk away.
No one ever tied you to a chair, and forced you to engage.

It's tack, not tact. Honestly, the educational standards in America.

Loading…

www.merriam-webster.com

Loading…

www.merriam-webster.com

no. It's tact. A tack is a small pin to attach something.
I'll let you read for yourself. Perhaps your need to vilify me while shaming yourself will help you learn something beneficial.

Bit of a snowflake aren't you. You dish out the insults, but you can't take criticism back in return. Your questions go off at next to irrelevant tangents. That's one reason why so many people have said you misrepresent them.

Actually, here in the US we call people snowflakes who need to ridicule others for not fitting into the status quo.
So..... you enjoy that.

Just, what are you going on about? Are you sure this was meant for me?

Blah, Blah, Blah.

Blah.

hmm..... uhuh.... ok..... and?

You really can't take disagreement, can you. All the above you've done to others.

I'm not bothered by disagreement at all.
I can disagree with the best of them. You however, I wonder..... all your comments, they seem to be pretty clear that you have to silence all disagreement.

You have been given every opportunity to get your doctors to say how they know a miracle occurred. You haven't done it.

Actually, I have. The only one who cared enough to respond said that your ignorance is your problem, and she didn't care what you thought.
I had to work really hard to stifle a laugh. A really good belly laugh.
This is why I invited you, several times. You were too lazy to follow through. So, you've now lost the opportunity to learn truth.

Why can't they just tell you how they know a miracle occurred, then you can tell us. Simple. But you need an excuse not to do this, right?

Why do you think I invited you?

No.

This is pathetic. You're lying.

See.... perfect example of your inability to handle disagreement. Regardless of what the truth is, I MUST be lying.
That my dear fellow human being is what I like to call--- playing whack-a-mole.

It's a pity you don't remember the insults you dish out just because people disagree with you.

Oh, you mean like--- unless you repent, believe the gospel, and follow Jesus, you'll spend your eternity in the lake of fire?

Sorry. It's obvious you're lying deliberately because people here have got under your skin, which is your fault.

And another perfect example of your acting like a snowflake, and seeking to silence disagreement, because it doesn't fit in your biases, and presuppositions.

Really? This is just tiresome.

And yet you continue....
If it's as tiresome as you claim-- you've been doing this since you arrived on this forum---- then why do you continue?
Remember, you're the one who reminded me the other day of Metacrock, saying I was doing the same things as he did. The only way I could do the same as he did, would be to be him. And I am not. So, it seems to me that it's you who are doing the same things, and you just blame others for your own failures.

 

[Whatsisface]

You're more than welcome to walk away.
No one ever tied you to a chair, and forced you to engage.

I think i'll stick around thanks, and point out where you're going wrong.

Loading…

www.merriam-webster.com

Loading…

www.merriam-webster.com

no. It's tact. A tack is a small pin to attach something.
I'll let you read for yourself. Perhaps your need to vilify me while shaming yourself will help you learn something beneficial.

I read for myself. Did you? Because this is 4th on the list of the definition you supplied for tack...

4: to change the direction of (a sailing ship) when sailing close-hauled by turning the bow to the wind and shifting the sails so as to fall off on the other side at about the same angle as before

The expression "to change tack" is used to denote a change of direction. Double, honestly, the educational standards in America.

Actually, here in the US we call people snowflakes who need to ridicule others for not fitting into the status quo.
So..... you enjoy that.

Still fits.

hmm..... uhuh.... ok..... and?

I'm not bothered by disagreement at all.
I can disagree with the best of them. You however, I wonder..... all your comments, they seem to be pretty clear that you have to silence all disagreement.

Yes you are. You get angry when people challenge you.

Actually, I have. The only one who cared enough to respond said that your ignorance is your problem, and she didn't care what you thought.
I had to work really hard to stifle a laugh. A really good belly laugh.

I don't believe you, because you lie so much.

This is why I invited you, several times. You were too lazy to follow through. So, you've now lost the opportunity to learn truth.

Another lie.

Why do you think I invited you?

Because you know no one would visit a rather strange, irrational bloke from the internet.

 

[SteveB]

I think i'll stick around thanks, and point out where you're going wrong.

Except you never actually demonstrate it. You only ever make empty claims, unsupported by any evidence. So, if that's all you ever do, why am I supposed to believe you?

I read for myself. Did you? Because this is 4th on the list of the definition you supplied for tack...

I wouldn't have responded with such detail if I hadn't read.

4 : to change the direction of (a sailing ship) when sailing close-hauled by turning the bow to the wind and shifting the sails so as to fall off on the other side at about the same angle as before

This is the fourth.

The expression "to change tack" is used to denote a change of direction. Double, honestly, the educational standards in America.

Still fits.

No. Actually, it doesn't.
Tact is more accurate.
The means by which you communicate your ideas.

1 : a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense

You failed to achieve this.

Yes you are. You get angry when people challenge you.

Really? then why am I laughing when it happens?
Why are your rants so completely hilarious that I find myself picking myself up off the floor as I recover from reading your posts, and comments?

I don't believe you, because you lie so much.

Another curiosity.... a claim, but no evidence.

that's a you thing. You've made the mistake a long, long, long time ago that I bear responsibility for your trust quotient. What you believe is nobody else's fault but yours.

Another lie.

Wup.... another claim without any evidence.

Because you know no one would visit a rather strange, irrational bloke from the internet.

Again, not my fault.
You requested evidence for my claim that my doctors claimed that I'm a walking miracle.
I offered, figuring that if you were genuinely serious about wanting to be reasonable, and know the truth, you would've made the trip.
But, since you didn't, you made it clear to me that you're neither genuine, nor serious, nor reasonable, and have no interest in knowing the truth.

So.... kudos.
You've killed any chance of taking you seriously, considering you reasonable, or as serious, all in a single post, and you did it over the course of several years, by repeating the same old cowardly rant, numerous times.

I have to say--- you've made yourself quite adept at it too.

So, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to talk to others who've not yet demonstrated what you have over the past 8 years.

 

[Nouveau]

nope.
The truth is far too fun to lie about.
But it's clear that you only want to have the appearance of justification to your peers, so I'll leave you with your shame.

No, you were just lying. You lied by claiming that atheists dismiss or evade your questions. You know full well you are describing your own behaviour there, and not that of anyone else. The proof of this is that you are never able to come up with examples of these so-called evaded questions of yours, while examples are rife of you ignoring the questions of others.

 

[Whatsisface]

Except you never actually demonstrate it. You only ever make empty claims, unsupported by any evidence. So, if that's all you ever do, why am I supposed to believe you?

Bit like you with following Jesus.

I wouldn't have responded with such detail if I hadn't read.

4 : to change the direction of (a sailing ship) when sailing close-hauled by turning the bow to the wind and shifting the sails so as to fall off on the other side at about the same angle as before

This is the fourth.



No. Actually, it doesn't.
Tact is more accurate.
The means by which you communicate your ideas.

1 : a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense

You failed to achieve this.

You got it wrong, and can't admit it.

Really? then why am I laughing when it happens?
Why are your rants so completely hilarious that I find myself picking myself up off the floor as I recover from reading your posts, and comments?

Because you're in an institution?

Another curiosity.... a claim, but no evidence.

that's a you thing. You've made the mistake a long, long, long time ago that I bear responsibility for your trust quotient. What you believe is nobody else's fault but yours.

Wup.... another claim without any evidence.

it's good you can admit that about your posts.

Again, not my fault.
You requested evidence for my claim that my doctors claimed that I'm a walking miracle.

You know this is a lie.

I offered, figuring that if you were genuinely serious about wanting to be reasonable, and know the truth, you would've made the trip.
But, since you didn't, you made it clear to me that you're neither genuine, nor serious, nor reasonable, and have no interest in knowing the truth.

You seem a little, disturbed, no thanks.

So.... kudos.
You've killed any chance of taking you seriously, considering you reasonable, or as serious, all in a single post, and you did it over the course of several years, by repeating the same old cowardly rant, numerous times.

Another lie.

I have to say--- you've made yourself quite adept at it too.

So, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to talk to others who've not yet demonstrated what you have over the past 8 years.

Everyone you encounter, it ends up the same way. No one takes you seriously.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Tact is more accurate.
The means by which you communicate your ideas.

1 : a keen sense of what to do or say in order to maintain good relations with others or avoid offense

You failed to achieve this.

You're wrong. The expression is to 'change tack', not to 'change tact' (which doesn't even make sense).

When referring to a change in direction, position, or course of action, the correct phrase is to change tack. This is in reference to the nautical use of tack which refers to the direction of a boat with respect to sail position. This phrase has long been confused as "change tact" but this is technically incorrect.

Change tack​

To employ a different method or approach in addressing a particular situation.They have not been receptive to our offers thus far, so we need to change tack.If diplomacy doesn't resolve this conflict, we will need to change tack and try a more aggressive approach.

change (your) tack
to try a different method to deal with the same problem:
I've written twice and received no reply, so I might change tack and call her.

And you've done not the slightest thing in this thread to show that atheism is any kind of conspiracy.

 

[SteveB]

You're wrong. The expression is to 'change tack', not to 'change tact' (which doesn't even make sense).

When referring to a change in direction, position, or course of action, the correct phrase is to change tack. This is in reference to the nautical use of tack which refers to the direction of a boat with respect to sail position. This phrase has long been confused as "change tact" but this is technically incorrect.

Change tack​

To employ a different method or approach in addressing a particular situation.They have not been receptive to our offers thus far, so we need to change tack.If diplomacy doesn't resolve this conflict, we will need to change tack and try a more aggressive approach.

change (your) tack
to try a different method to deal with the same problem:
I've written twice and received no reply, so I might change tack and call her.

And you've done not the slightest thing in this thread to show that atheism is any kind of conspiracy.

I still think that atheism is the greatest conspiracy ever.

But if you can prove it isn't, I've been listening for the past 20 years.

So, keep going.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I still think that atheism is the greatest conspiracy ever.

You've not shown the slightest thing to indicate its any kind of conspiracy.

But if you can prove it isn't, I've been listening for the past 20 years.

I don't need to prove it isn't. You need to show that it is. You've not done so.

So, keep going.

I'll keep pointing out your lack of support for your claims, yes.

 

[SteveB]

You've not shown the slightest thing to indicate its any kind of conspiracy.

I don't need to prove it isn't. You need to show that it is. You've not done so.

I'll keep pointing out your lack of support for your claims, yes.

No, I don't.

It's quite obvious to anyone who actually thinks.

Atheists claim that they don't believe that God exists, and then spend numerous years arguing with complete and total strangers with whom you have absolutely no knowledge of, telling them how wrong they are.

If that's not conspiratorial, then by all means.....

Prove it.

 

[Nouveau]

No, I don't.

It's quite obvious to anyone who actually thinks.

Atheists claim that they don't believe that God exists, and then spend numerous years arguing with complete and total strangers with whom you have absolutely no knowledge of, telling them how wrong they are.

If that's not conspiratorial, then by all means.....

Prove it.

Do you have even the faintest idea what a conspiracy is?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

No, I don't.

Yes, you do. You made the claim; you need to support it.

It's quite obvious to anyone who actually thinks.

No, it's not.

Atheists claim that they don't believe that God exists, and then spend numerous years arguing with complete and total strangers with whom you have absolutely no knowledge of, telling them how wrong they are.

Do you even know what 'conspiratorial' means?

If that's not conspiratorial, then by all means.....

Prove it.

The onus is on you to show it, not me to disprove it. You haven't.

 

[SteveB]

Do you have even the faintest idea what a conspiracy is?

You're engaged in one. That you don't see it, and then ask me if I know what it is I find hilarious.
Why don't you define it, and then explain it.

 

[Nouveau]

You're engaged in one. That you don't see it, and then ask me if I know what it is I find hilarious.
Why don't you define it, and then explain it.

You obviously have no idea what a conspiracy is.

Go on. Tell us all what you think I've done that qualifies as engaging in a conspiracy.