vaxx:
then let put the four noble truth into test and see if those whom you claim are wise are indeed wise....

Go on then, start a thread.

budaatum:

Go on then, start a thread.

Game

hopefulLandlord:


I'm an atheist and I insult gods and religions

Hmmm good for you. Your mates are out there making positive impact and you're fighting for no cause.

eMmyGREAT1:
Thanks for that man. Did you say INSULT AND MOCK him. HEY ATHEISTS DO YOU INSULT AND MOCK OTHER PEOPLE gods?

Do you sing this song

"Jesus na u be oga every other god na so so yeye,every other god na so so yeye "

eMmyGREAT1:
What AIR visible i havent seen air b4 o

Put a canned drink in a refrigerator and allow it to freeze for like 48 hours bring it out and observe the droplets you would see around the can,where did the droplets come from have you ever wondered ?

darkchild64:


Put a canned drink in a refrigerator and allow it to freeze for like 48 hours bring it out and observe the droplets you would see around the can,where did the droplets come from have you ever wondered ?

Hey man but those are liquids dont argue that with me. And does are test for air why should i put a canned drink into the refrigerator before knowing it exists.

darkchild64:

Do you sing this song

"Jesus na u be oga every other god na so so yeye,every other god na so so yeye "

YES. The reason is because ATHEISTS,SATANISTS,BUDDHISTS and all other RELIGIONS will always talk ill about christains and their GOD. Am yet to see any atheist on NL comment on satanist , islamic thread. But if there is then send me the link. But you saying that atheists will mock and insult OUR GOD and not the other way round. So dont confuse yourself here. PEACE

eMmyGREAT1:
Hmmm good for you. Your mates are out there making positive impact and you're fighting for no cause.

is making positive impacts out there and insulting imaginary friends on the internet mutually exclusive?

eMmyGREAT1:
YES. The reason is because ATHEISTS,SATANISTS,BUDDHISTS and all other RELIGIONS will always talk ill about christains and their GOD. Am yet to see any atheist on NL comment on satanist , islamic thread. But if there is then send me the link. But you saying that atheists will mock and insult OUR GOD and not the other way round. So dont confuse yourself here. PEACE

Tintingz is active in Islamic section calling out the Arabic mythological god out for what it is. You can checkout his topics here https://www.nairaland.com/tintingz/topics

and his posts here https://www.nairaland.com/tintingz/posts

PrecisionFx:


The word Christian is a word created by the Roman empire who created the religion Christianity.

False and only evidenced on atheist websites.

PrecisionFx:

Christians today (which are mostly intelligent people) try to sell the rhetoric that the word Christianity came into being after the death of Jesus Christ wen Israelites addressed to followers of Jesus as people living a "christ-like" life.

True and supported by available evidence.

PrecisionFx:


So what gas this topic achieved?

You see how atheists are running helter skelter on this thread? There's a reason behind it, and that reason is what this thread achieved.

hopefulLandlord:


encouraged by telling them to lie about their condition? okay

encouraged to be hopeful about their condition. You're moniker is hopeful landlord yet you don't see the irony.

darkchild64:


That is not my business,whether the whole world believes in god I don't care,you know its very funny u are trying to use that against me,you very well know that Christianity makes up less that half of the world population that means that majority of people on earth do not recognize Yahweh as the true god so trying to comfort yourself by playing my enemy's enemy is my friend would not work in this case because even christians do not agree amongst themselves on very sensitive issues including Jesus divinity.

Lol, more inhabitants of this world are christians and this is more than any worldview. Plus I didn't realize we were talking about Christianity and atheism, I thought we were talking about theism and atheism.

darkchild64:

I can only speak for myself,the evidence that would make me believe in god is if I have a clear revelation of who he is(assuming he exists) and he makes it clear what he wants from me,if that happens and I refuse to acknowledge and worship him then that is when I can properly be called a fool,look there are a lot of challenges we as atheists pass through in life,you think we don't want to close our eyes and say a few words and everything becones fine,

if this is the case, you should approach such discussions with humility, not pride. You'll learn more that way.
If you're truly searching for God, then I wish you grace and mercy. But when you come to a religion section to tell religious people that there is no God, you should expect to be called a fool.
I hope you find what you're looking for.

darkchild64:


,look I don't know the prejudice you have against atheists but for me I have no problems with christians or religious people at all all I demand is you give me the same respect I accord to you,I am a full grown human I know what I want in life,you don't love me more than I love myself,I was a raises as a christian and at a point in my life was a vibrant one whether u wish to believe it or not is not my business,I stopped believing in god because what I saw in the Bible didn't correspond to what I experienced maybe its different for you fine,be a Christian I'm not trying to convert you its life live it the way you want,but for me I can only believe in god if I get a clear revelation about him,no I would like u to show me how illogical my reason or demand is

I have no problem with atheists and atheists have my respect as humans. My uncle is atheist and a very good man, the first time I debated him, he knew he wasn't talking to just another Nigerian christian (who does not think apologetics is that important). I do have a problem with atheists mocking theists on a religion section and that is why I try to show people the other side of atheism.
I understand fully your point and I'll urge you to approach the topic of God with great humility in your heart. I'm convinced that you'll find answers.

budaatum:

I agree with "through his lifestyle", which I would rephrase as 'doing the will of God', so why bother with the the preaching to atheists at all then? Shouldn't the Christian be so busy doing the will of God with "forceful conviction" that they shouldn't really have time to be 'preaching' to some stupid hell bound atheist?

Some people would claim Christianity is a lifestyle, to which, I agree. If they wish to preach, they should perhaps live accordingly instead of bothering about what one believes, maybe.

You realize many Christians won't be bothered about your beliefs if atheists didn't mock or ridicule their beliefs?

budaatum:


Na, I'm not having that! The Lord Jesus Christ never did "humble attitude" when dealing with those who were atheistic to his position. "Meek and gentle" he did, but there was nothing humble about him, so I don't know where you get that from

Christians are not fighting against flesh and blood and are told to put on the full armour of God, war like things, with nothing "humble attitude" amongst them. Also springs to mind are the fruits of the Spirit, they mean way more than "humble attitude", in my opinion

Please consider "Christians should use 'wisdom' anytime they engage in these discussions". It is not only screaming from the rooftops begging people to have some please, but "for God so loved the world" as well, and not just believing, as some might think. After all, how can what even the devil does, become such a godly thing? There is a huge difference in "humbly turning the other cheek" and "turning the other cheek wisdomly."

Lol. You think Christ was not humble but just "gentle and meek", but humility is the same thing as meekness. There's no difference between those two words.

budaatum:

Ah go way! This may be a religious section, but that might be because we Nigerians do religion more than talk philosophy, which is actually what we do here, search for knowledge and wisdom.

Religion is what one does when they think they already know it when in actual fact they merely believe, and no one needs to come here to argue about their beliefs. I can bloody well believe whatever I want and not present it for scrutiny. And I'm sure no one can enter my head to see my beliefs and claim they are false or wrong! But as soon as I present my beliefs or opinion on here I should expect them to be scrutinised, and even mocked and ridiculed, and I should grow a thicker skin or I should shut the fuq up.

The truth is that, "Nobody can mock my Almighty God who art in my head, and besides, when they mock me on it's behalf, I should rejoice, for they simply mount more blessing upon me by their mockery".

But let's do the atheist's perspective . When I come here, I rejoice because if I were not here challenging the validity of your beliefs, you would remain as a child believing as a child and not have had to develop knowledge so that you become grown up and acquire wisdom and become better capable of living godly.

Also, by challenging you on the existence of your God you sow your seeds as words to counter whatever I might say. Then others come along and read what has been written, and if the seed were good and the soil good too, the seed would blossom into an abundantly fruit giving tree. Can you see the benefit therefore, of challenging one another? Not only is your iron sharpened, but mine becomes sharpened too, as well as that of the silent observers.

So are you saying in essence, that what atheists do here is to challenge religious beliefs right? I get the iron sharpens iron point, but I don't understand the reason for the hostility when I post about atheism for atheists. If there's anything I've noticed, its that atheists never talk about atheism. The also rage when theists begin to talk about atheism in their stead

Its good to challenge one another as you've written, but its even better to give reasons why ones position is better than the other, for you can't challenge my position without offering a better alternative.

budaatum:

Hmm. I don't think the above is more true than to claim the aggression is from both sides. Nor can I determine which side has the medicine that causes this aggression as there seems to be culprits on either side.

Aggression is the medicine of fools and the unwise, and ought not be found in those who have been baptised with the Blood of Christ. But if a person creates a thread or post that provokes one (for example my 'silly' post to rekinomtla above), that is the medicine that makes the other respond aggressively. I wonder if you'd agree if I were to say "Blessed are the peacemaker" might not apply to buda in that case. I assure you, buda burned in hell for being so silly to dish out aggression medicine and had to confess her sin and ask forgiveness to relieve the burning her silliness caused her. She even has to continously repent to make up for it, which would have been needless if she hadn't sinned to begin with!

Are you a Buddhist?

budaatum:

You like this "humble" word, I see. And I do see where you are coming from. It is true that if I don't hear you out I might call stuff "crap" without properly comprehending it, or use the word 'silly' without considering or caring about the impact I may provoke by it. I'd say that is a lesson I hope I learn and never make again, so help me God.

But we'd have to find another word for it. I hate the word, humble, because it's generally accepted meaning is that I should allow others to ride all over me, which I, buda, know that I shall never do because I was brought up on it and found it gave every Chukwudi, Mohammed and Adebola the perceived right to talk down to one thinking one were weak!

I rather confound ignorance with intelligence and wisdom than with aggression and stupidity, and know to leave the latters to......., well, let me attempt to be holy on this Sabbath and not name him today please Lord!

Humble does not necessarily mean you allow people to talk down on you. You can be humble and resolute. You can be humble and reject certain assertions.

hopefulLandlord:


I'm an atheist and I insult gods and religions

See your life

winner01:
You see how atheists are running helter skelter on this thread? There's a reason behind it, and that reason is what this thread achieved.

What exactly is your definition of helter skelter here

winner01:
encouraged to be hopeful about their condition. You're moniker is hopeful landlord yet you don't see the irony.

There's a difference between being hopeful and lying but you wouldn't know...

This is Seun's response to johnydon22's question: What would serve as evidence for God?

Seun:

If, within five minutes after a specific prayer by a theist, the stars in the sky were rearranged to spell I AM GOD: I EXIST, and it could be seen by everybody, and it could be scientifically confirmed by every astronomer that that the stars had indeed been moved around and it wasn't just an optical illusion, then I might be convinced that there exists a great mind out there which is capable of moving stars around in response to prayer.

Can any theist make this happen? (cc: winner01)

So let's quickly break this down.

Seun:

If, within five minutes after a specific prayer by a theist, the stars in the sky were rearranged to spell I AM GOD: I EXIST

This would bring us back to the same question most atheists ask today: "Which God".

Any theist can claim ownership of the miracle and that their God did it and we will still arrive at a stalemate. You'll still remind me that there are 5000+ gods and that I'll go to Shinto's hell if I believe in Confucius.

It won't solve any problem.

Seun:

and it could be seen by everybody,

I addressed this part in my thread. Can a miracle be seen by everybody? Well, maybe when you finally agree that earth is flat.

Such rearrangement of stars cannot be seen by everybody and if it can, definately not at the same time.
This will bring up new arguments about a God not omnipresent and omnipotent, a god confined to the laws of nature. If such god is confined to the laws of nature, could it not mean that you and such god are similar prisoners of the cosmos?

Also, such request is selfish if you do not consider the unborn generation? I imagine them eventually asking; " which God would prove himself to my fathers and not myself? Definately their God, not mine.
Even if such an event is well documented and published, it still would prove nothing to those who didn't experience the event firsthand. In history, such publications have been dismissed by people who did not witness such event. Remember that skepticism is a vital element of science.

How do you solve that problem?

Seun:

and it could be scientifically confirmed by every astronomer that that the stars had indeed been moved around and it wasn't just an optical illusion

Scientific confirmation may not necessarily rule out collective error which could inturn lead to collective psychosis, especially if occurrences can't be testable and replicated. There are times in history when science got it wrong due to collective error. As a matter of fact, such unrepeated feat would at best negate the entire point of science and open people up to more pseudoscience.

Definately, as earlier explained, we should expect the coming generation to question our level of illusion and probably device ways to measure it. Collective psychosis is not unlikely, afterall majority of people in the world today already believe in the supernatural and are thought to be wrong. The majority is not always infallible though.

Seun:

then I might be convinced that there exists a great mind out there which is capable of moving stars around in response to prayer.

Some honesty right there...
FIRSTLY "You might be convinced" indicates a probability of disagreeing even if the evidence you requested is provided.
"I will agree" is a lot different from "I might agree".

But I still don't get it. If you are provided with the evidence that YOU CLAIM can change your beliefs, you still will be open to the probability that its all a hoax?
Do you really want to be convinced? I don't think so.

In fact, this is a wrong answer to Johnydon22s question. His question is "what will serve as evidence", not "what might serve as evidence".


SECONDLY, in your words, you might be convinced that there "exists a great mind out there which is capable of moving stars around in response to prayer". This is an absolute statement and does not answer Johnydon22s question.

A great mind out there....... does not imply God, you'll simply be using the "God of the gaps argument". A greater mind is simply a greater mind and nothing else.


Your evidence is inconsistent with the question and even if it wasn't, there'd still be too many loop holes to deal with.

frank317:


What exactly is your definition of helter skelter here

You of all people, wey dey do temple run on many of my threads, deyask me this kain question

hopefulLandlord:


There's a difference between being hopeful and lying but you wouldn't know...

I hope you've never told your son (if you have one) that he has a bright future?

winner01:
I hope you've never told your son (if you have one) that he has a bright future?

What has that got to do with this?

winner01:
False and only evidenced on atheist websites.


True and supported by available evidence.

""True and supported by available evidence""




Israelites can't start calling the followers of Jesus "Christ like" because they never at any point in history accept Jesus as "Christ/Saviour".

In Israel Jesus was no Christ, no saviour and no God. From his birth, death, resurrection n Ascension, Israelites never accepted or called him God or Christ. They all knew him as the carpenter son of Joseph the carpenter.

winner01:
This is Seun's response to johnydon22's question: What would serve as evidence for God?




So let's quickly break this down.

This would bring us back to the same question most atheists ask today: "Which God".

Any theist can claim ownership of the miracle and that their God did it and we will still arrive at a stalemate. You'll still remind me that there are 5000+ gods and that I'll go to Shinto's hell if I believe in Confucius.

It won't solve any problem.


I addressed this part in my thread. Can a miracle be seen by everybody? Well, maybe when you finally agree that earth is flat.

Such rearrangement of stars cannot be seen by everybody and if it can, definately not at the same time.
This will bring up new arguments about a God not omnipresent and omnipotent, a god confined to the laws of nature. If such god is confined to the laws of nature, could it not mean that you and such god are similar prisoners of the cosmos?

Also, such request is selfish if you do not consider the unborn generation? I imagine them eventually asking; " which God would prove himself to my fathers and not myself? Definately their God, not mine.
Even if such an event is well documented and published, it still would prove nothing to those who didn't experience the event firsthand. In history, such publications have been dismissed by people who did not witness such event. Remember that skepticism is a vital element of science.

How do you solve that problem?


Scientific confirmation may not necessarily rule out collective error which could inturn lead to collective psychosis, especially if occurrences can't be testable and replicated. There are times in history when science got it wrong due to collective error. As a matter of fact, such unrepeated feat would at best negate the entire point of science and open people up to more pseudoscience.

Definately, as earlier explained, we should expect the coming generation to question our level of illusion and probably device ways to measure it. Collective psychosis is not unlikely, afterall majority of people in the world today already believe in the supernatural. The majority is not always infallible.


Some honesty right there...
FIRSTLY "You might be convinced" indicates a probability of disagreeing even if the evidence you requested is provided.
"I will agree" is a lot different from "I might agree".

But I still don't get it. If you are provided with the evidence that YOU CLAIM can change your beliefs, you still will be open to the probability that its all a hoax?
Do you really want to be convinced? I don't think so.

In fact, this is a wrong answer to Johnydon22s question. His question is "what will serve as evidence", not "what might serve as evidence".


SECONDLY, in your words, you might be convinced that there "exists a great mind out there which is capable of moving stars around in response to prayer". This is an absolute statement and does not answer Johnydon22s question.

A great mind out there....... does not imply God, you'll simply be using the "God of the gaps argument". A greater mind is simply a greater mind and nothing else.


Your evidence is inconsistent with the question and even if it wasn't, there'd still be too many loop holes to deal with.

What exactly do you want?

winner01:
You see how atheists are running helter skelter on this thread? There's a reason behind it, and that reason is what this thread achieved.

Stop fooooooling ur self. Christians are the ones running from pillar to post here.

winner01:
You of all people, wey dey do temple run on many of my threads, deyask me this kain question

In order words, u don't even know the meaning of helter skelter here. People are responding to each other and u say one party is running helter skelter.
This is what I call butterflylion syndrome.
U speak and someone responds and u go about shouting the person is running helter skelter, meanwhile ur own restlessness brought about the opening of this thread.

Back to op (even though ur delusioned religious mind will see it as running helter skelter): I think I agree with u here. If God exist we wouldn't have atheists in the first place. Here we have a Christian who believes God can only exist by faith and if atheists don't have faith then he cannot exist to them.
So if I decide that I do not want any prove that God exits, I just want to believe without thinking it through, he will definitely exist "in my mind" as usual.
However if I need prove, his existence wouldnt be possible to me.

Summary of this thread... God cannot be proven.

winner01:
This is Seun's response to johnydon22's question: What would serve as evidence for God?




So let's quickly break this down.

This would bring us back to the same question most atheists ask today: "Which God".

Any theist can claim ownership of the miracle and that their God did it and we will still arrive at a stalemate. You'll still remind me that there are 5000+ gods and that I'll go to Shinto's hell if I believe in Confucius.

It won't solve any problem.


I addressed this part in my thread. Can a miracle be seen by everybody? Well, maybe when you finally agree that earth is flat.

Such rearrangement of stars cannot be seen by everybody and if it can, definately not at the same time.
This will bring up new arguments about a God not omnipresent and omnipotent, a god confined to the laws of nature. If such god is confined to the laws of nature, could it not mean that you and such god are similar prisoners of the cosmos?

Also, such request is selfish if you do not consider the unborn generation? I imagine them eventually asking; " which God would prove himself to my fathers and not myself? Definately their God, not mine.
Even if such an event is well documented and published, it still would prove nothing to those who didn't experience the event firsthand. In history, such publications have been dismissed by people who did not witness such event. Remember that skepticism is a vital element of science.

How do you solve that problem?


Scientific confirmation may not necessarily rule out collective error which could inturn lead to collective psychosis, especially if occurrences can't be testable and replicated. There are times in history when science got it wrong due to collective error. As a matter of fact, such unrepeated feat would at best negate the entire point of science and open people up to more pseudoscience.

Definately, as earlier explained, we should expect the coming generation to question our level of illusion and probably device ways to measure it. Collective psychosis is not unlikely, afterall majority of people in the world today already believe in the supernatural. The majority is not always infallible.


Some honesty right there...
FIRSTLY "You might be convinced" indicates a probability of disagreeing even if the evidence you requested is provided.
"I will agree" is a lot different from "I might agree".

But I still don't get it. If you are provided with the evidence that YOU CLAIM can change your beliefs, you still will be open to the probability that its all a hoax?
Do you really want to be convinced? I don't think so.

In fact, this is a wrong answer to Johnydon22s question. His question is "what will serve as evidence", not "what might serve as evidence".


SECONDLY, in your words, you might be convinced that there "exists a great mind out there which is capable of moving stars around in response to prayer". This is an absolute statement and does not answer Johnydon22s question.

A great mind out there....... does not imply God, you'll simply be using the "God of the gaps argument". A greater mind is simply a greater mind and nothing else.


Your evidence is inconsistent with the question and even if it wasn't, there'd still be too many loop holes to deal with.

Yet we are talking about a God that has infinite knowledge, someone who created the world in seven days with just words, someone whose ways are beyond our ways, yet he loves us so much that he wants us to know him... Sadly u are here telling us how impossible it is for him to prove himself to ordinary humans like us despite him wanting us to know him.

winner01:
You realize many Christians won't be bothered about your beliefs if atheists didn't mock or ridicule their beliefs?

It really does not matter whether Christians bother about the beliefs of atheist, though they do! The first question many Christians ask on meeting one is, "Are you born again?" Then they judge one by making out one is no good unless one 'accepts Jesus Christ into one's life!' But it matters not to an atheist that they do. Beliefs must be scrutinised regardless, by oneself or by others, as that is how society learns moves forward and evolves.

winner01:
Lol. You think Christ was not humble but just "gentle and meek", but humility is the same thing as meekness. There's no difference between those two words.

Ok. Then let those who can, or wish to, be humble. It would be a suitable chanda to replace the tanhā of arrogance.

I myself would keep wiping a mirror on this one.

winner01:
So are you saying in essence, that what atheists do here is to challenge religious beliefs right? I get the iron sharpens iron point, but I don't understand the reason for the hostility when I post about atheism for atheists. If there's anything I've noticed, its that atheists never talk about atheism. The also rage when theists begin to talk about atheism in their stead

Then there must be a fault in your ability to notice!

Atheists are not the only ones who are hostile and rage, winner01. Your first response to me on this thread was hostile, and I said so. But atheists also start threads to ridicule Christians who are hostile and rage in return. Some even threaten others with their imaginary hell and damnation.

We taunt one another, winner01. We both open threads to mock and ridicule one another. I accused you of that in this thread, and you have proved me right in numerous posts of yours! There's even an ape amongst you who's sole purpose is to be apish, and not one of you tells it to evolve!

A serious fault in noticing, if that's not noticed, I'd say.

winner01:
Its good to challenge one another as you've written, but its even better to give reasons why ones position is better than the other, for you can't challenge my position without offering a better alternative.

The alternative to "believing" is to skeptically check for evidence with a critical mind, and not just accept what one is told.

Atheist give examples of this but as I said in my initial post on this thread, we would hardly accept the evidence of the other as conclusive proof of the their position. Whatever either of us says sounds like crap to the other person. Observe an example of the stubbornness involved where vaxx argues that Buddhism is self contradictory or self defeating despite it being pointed out to him that it is not contradictory to replace tanhā desires with chanda desires.

Besides, atheism with is skeptical rationalism, stands directly opposed to "believing by faith in the unseen", so you can hardly not expect a war. They are distinct points on the evolutionary scale and observable in the history of more advanced nations. We are fortunate however, in that our weapons are words - be they full of rage and hostility - and not, imprisonment, torture to recant and burnings at stakes if we don't, that pepper the history of nations that went through the same arguments before us.

I guess we cracking eggs to build powerful people!

winner01:

Are you a Buddhist?

Lol! Are you looking for another label to pin on buda? How about "Atheist Pagan Christian Buddhist Muslim" - as I also do the Quran, and if one is to be defined by one's studies. And Atum, being the first in the Egyptian pantheon, does denote my pagan element. And maybe Philosophical Scientists too, if we could call it a religion. But that would be like defining an elephant by it's trunk.

My studies influence me and my thinking, but I wouldn't claim I am more one or the other or limited to those mentioned, for even if one were to take all the trees and the water in the oceans, multiply them by seven then bake them into bread, one still should vary one's diet.

I am a human being who has spent quite a lot of time studying the text of many religions in search of the "Kingdom of God" (and do have to be mindful of mixing my metaphors so it don't sound like meaningless crap, to some). I have found that once one finds, some do not just go off to heaven and sit on the right hand of God. They descend into hell and try to figure why the world is so fuqed up, despite all the baking of bread, and try to be the change they want to see.

winner01:
I hope you've never told your son (if you have one) that he has a bright future?

hopefulLandlord:

What has that got to do with this?

That's the difference between hope and lies.

You can't tell your kid he has a bright future when you haven't seen the future else you'll be lying.

Read to understand not respond.

PrecisionFx:


""True and supported by available evidence""




Israelites can't start calling the followers of Jesus "Christ like" because they never at any point in history accept Jesus as "Christ/Saviour".

In Israel Jesus was no Christ, no saviour and no God. From his birth, death, resurrection n Ascension, Israelites never accepted or called him God or Christ. They all knew him as the carpenter son of Joseph the carpenter.

Acts chapter 11.

tintingz:
What exactly do you want?

To show you that evidence can never be absolute but can only be enough.

winner01:
That's the difference between hope and lies.

You can't tell your kid he has a bright future when you haven't seen the future else you'll be lying.

Read to understand not respond.

I haven't seen the future so I tell her she has a bright future based on his/her actions of today. of course I'm only making a prediction and that's obvious to anyone with a brain.

However saying that's the same a weak person being told to say "he's strong" commits fallacy of False Equivalence if he says "I'll be strong" then it wouldn't have necessarily been lying but a weak person saying he's strong despite knowing he's weak is flat out lying, I know you won't understand, as always due to wilful ignorance

NB: "Read to understand not respond" This is something you should be doing, stop projecting