Scientific proof that God exists?

[Buffer Overflow]

There are thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers from census data:

...

And here are a couple of the weakest ones, so weak that they aren't usually even understood to be religions:
science (in the broader sense)
atheism

As you know full well, we all established months ago neither of these are religions. Why do keep lying all the time?
I can only concluded that somehow you've picked up the fanciful idea that wrongly placing them in the religious category somehow makes them easier for you to attack.

[1714656283]

1714656283

[1714656283]

1714656283

[1714656283]

1714656283

[HasherHub]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.

Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.

Believing in god and believing in religion are completely different things.

I think they're wholly linked. Religion is based on the worship of a god. In the Christian religion for example, if we can delink the creation story from any direct intelligent creation, would that not essentially deflate the entire structure of the religion? At least the parts that maintain any divine intervention. What did god do other than create man and the world? Essentially nothing.

Merriam-Webster expressly defines religion as believing in and worshiping a god.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion


Buddhist and the like are technically atheist; nor is it a religion. Misguided individual may think it is, but by definition it is not.  

[Buffer Overflow]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.

Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.

Believing in god and believing in religion are completely different things.

I think they're wholly linked. Religion is based on the worship of a god. In the Christian religion for example, if we can delink the creation story from any direct intelligent creation, would that not essentially deflate the entire structure of the religion? At least the parts that maintain any divine intervention. What did god do other than create man and the world? Essentially nothing.

Merriam-Webster expressly defines religion as believing in and worshiping a god.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion


Buddhist and the like are technically atheist; nor is it a religion. Misguided individual may think it is, but by definition it is not.  

Well it is possible to believe god, but not believe in a religion.

[BADecker]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.

Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.

Believing in god and believing in religion are completely different things.

I think they're wholly linked. Religion is based on the worship of a god. In the Christian religion for example, if we can delink the creation story from any direct intelligent creation, would that not essentially deflate the entire structure of the religion? At least the parts that maintain any divine intervention. What did god do other than create man and the world? Essentially nothing.

Merriam-Webster expressly defines religion as believing in and worshiping a god.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion


Buddhist and the like are technically atheist; nor is it a religion. Misguided individual may think it is, but by definition it is not.  

Well it is possible to believe god, but not believe in a religion.

As usual, Fluffer Overblow is kinda backwards in his thinking.

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]


noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

"6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Are you really dank in disguise? After all, dank did a lot of his posting from his phone just like you.

[BADecker]

There are thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers from census data:

...

And here are a couple of the weakest ones, so weak that they aren't usually even understood to be religions:
science (in the broader sense)
atheism

The god of both of these religions is man. What an ignorant god man is, especially when he practices these two religions while not understanding that they are religions, and that he is the god of these religions.

Let's see... to make this post you had to use some sort of electronic device... which was made by man and developed through electronic science, materials science, computer science, and physics. If you are using something so clearly made possible by science and directly made by man, then you are practically worshiping an idol of this scientific "religion",

"Thou shalt not put false gods before me"

Looks like you're going to hell, mate! 

God made it all available by putting the basics of it into the universe, and then giving mankind the ability to use it all. God could have made mankind like the animals. But He didn't, even though there are a bunch of people trying to eliminate themselves by attempting to remove God from their lives.

I use the things of God, even the things of the idiots who don't recognize the Guy Who made them and the basics of their wonderful, idiot inventions. Heavenward bound. Oh joy.

[BADecker]

There are thousands of religions being practiced today. Here are 20 of the most popular, along with an estimate of the number of followers from census data:

...

And here are a couple of the weakest ones, so weak that they aren't usually even understood to be religions:
science (in the broader sense)
atheism

The god of both of these religions is man. What an ignorant god man is, especially when he practices these two religions while not understanding that they are religions, and that he is the god of these religions.

Neither atheism nor science are religions because they do not meet the definitional criteria of a religon.  You're going off into fantasy-land again.

Atheism literally means "lack of belief in God," so it's just stupid to say that "the god of these religions is man."  You're even further off-base with regards to science, which isn't even a belief system whatsoever; it's a method.

Atheism certainly meets the qualification of religion as shown here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11176835#msg11176835.

Atheism is one of the weakest religions. It is weak because it doesn't even recognize that the people who are adhering to atheism are setting themselves up as God. The evidence I have shown here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, which is enough proof for many people, is almost infinitely stronger than any evidence against the existence of God.

Thank you for giving me the push to post this.

[Buffer Overflow]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.

Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.

Believing in god and believing in religion are completely different things.

I think they're wholly linked. Religion is based on the worship of a god. In the Christian religion for example, if we can delink the creation story from any direct intelligent creation, would that not essentially deflate the entire structure of the religion? At least the parts that maintain any divine intervention. What did god do other than create man and the world? Essentially nothing.

Merriam-Webster expressly defines religion as believing in and worshiping a god.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion


Buddhist and the like are technically atheist; nor is it a religion. Misguided individual may think it is, but by definition it is not.  

Well it is possible to believe god, but not believe in a religion.

As usual, Fluffer Overblow is kinda backwards in his thinking.

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]


noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

"6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Are you really dank in disguise? After all, dank did a lot of his posting from his phone just like you.

Oh just listen to Mr Strict Definition today.
LOL, you do make me chuckle.

[the joint]

Scientific proof that god doesn't exist:

An essentially conjoined esophagus and trachea. How in the world is it INTELLIGENT or LOGICAL to combine to pipes that are vital to survival essentially into one input? The very thing we need to do to survive (eat) can cause us not to be able to do the essentially only other thing we need to do to survive (breathe).

Seems like a major design flaw if we were intelligently created. Which then infer that our creator maybe isn't so perfect. Nature and evolution on the other hand would take the simplest path it can to form our systems; which would result in reusing what it can.

That doesn't disprove god. God could of started evolution and then stood back and watched what happened.

Well it would completely dispel the creation story as known in nearly all religions.

Believing in god and believing in religion are completely different things.

I think they're wholly linked. Religion is based on the worship of a god. In the Christian religion for example, if we can delink the creation story from any direct intelligent creation, would that not essentially deflate the entire structure of the religion? At least the parts that maintain any divine intervention. What did god do other than create man and the world? Essentially nothing.

Merriam-Webster expressly defines religion as believing in and worshiping a god.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion


Buddhist and the like are technically atheist; nor is it a religion. Misguided individual may think it is, but by definition it is not.  

Well it is possible to believe god, but not believe in a religion.

As usual, Fluffer Overblow is kinda backwards in his thinking.

religion
[ri-lij-uh n]


noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7. religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

"6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice."

Are you really dank in disguise? After all, dank did a lot of his posting from his phone just like you.

You have two problems, here.

First, neither science nor atheism meet your selected definition.  Science is not a belief system, it's a methodology.  Ethics and moral conscience are not in any way directly linked to either science or atheism.  Atheism isn't a belief system, either.  It's the lack of any theistic belief system.  A lack of a certain kind of belief is not necessarily a belief itself.

You would be better off trying to argue that Empiricism, not science, is a religion according to definition #6.  Empiricism is a belief system -- specifically, it is the belief/theory that a certain type of knowledge can be gained through sound empirical exploration.  Science is an empirical method of exploration, not a belief system itself.  So, you're still wrong.

Second, by selecting definition #6, you make a false analogy because you most often treat Christianity according to religious definition #1.  This means that you aren't talking about science or atheism in the same way that you're talking about Christianity.  This is a logical fallacy: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/falsean.htm

[SlickMoTwoToe]

Machine-like nature of the universe.
     All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers.
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMn319zkZ2s
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9cVhwPg84


Machine usage is in progression.
     Animals use simple machines. Some primates (apes, chimps, monkeys) use rocks and sticks to work their food. The leverage they provide with the rocks and sticks is machine use.
     People use simple machines. People make and use complex machines. All machines that people and animals make and use come from examples of machine operations in the universe.
     The progression is that, as the machines that people make and use are far more advanced than the ones that animals make and use, so are the machines that exist in nature far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.

So you consider life and cells to be machines. And you consider that these machines can make other machines. What made the machine you call God?

Using this logic, everything is made by something else, and it would go on forever. Where does it stop? Are we to accept that God is exempt from the logic you use in this argument? You may respond with something along the lines of "God is the beginning of this progression, the thing that created the universe, and he existed for all time." Well, if there IS in fact an beginning to the progression of machines creating machines creating machines, why can't it be the Universe itself? What if it does not need an intelligent creator and it has existed forever - since time is only extant in the universe it effectively could have existed forever even considering the Big Bang theory. What's even better, is that we know the universe exists and it can be proven by conventional science (so far as proving that anything effectively exists could do). Making things with a specific design in mind is more on the human/advanced animal level, but the universe can certainly create, through the extant and provable laws of physics and semi-random processes. Keep in mind that in the current scientific view, the world is at least 4 billion years old, and the universe much older yet. Just considering the fact that matter and the laws of physics exist, you would expect SOMETHING to happen in all that time. For all we know, there could be a set of "machines" somewhere else in the universe that is far more advanced than what we call "life".

If I were to have a God to account for the universe, it would be the universe itself - matter, energy, and the laws of physics and other fundamental scientific/mathematical laws (maybe even some we haven't discovered yet) - not a sun god, not a lightning god, not a judgemental god that focuses on abstract ideals like good and evil, or even a loving god that watches over each and every one of "His children" and listens to their prayers (of course choosing which ones to answer according to His will alone).

[Vod]

[the joint]

Atheism certainly meets the qualification of religion as shown here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11176835#msg11176835.

And I show you why it certainly doesn't, here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg11177435#msg11177435

Would you stop going about like you know what atheism and science are?  At 251 pages into this thread, you still don't know what they are.

Atheism is one of the weakest religions. It is weak because it doesn't even recognize that the people who are adhering to atheism are setting themselves up as God. The evidence I have shown here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395, which is enough proof for many people, is almost infinitely stronger than any evidence against the existence of God.

Thank you for giving me the push to post this.

If you're thanking me for posting what you do, please don't.  I don't want to be held responsible for your catastrophic misunderstanding and intellectual dishonesty.  And again, atheism isn't a religion.

From Wiki: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities...Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

And there you go -- atheism is not a belief system.  It's the lack of religious position entirely.  The "absence of belief that any deities exist" is not the same as "a belief that no deities exist."

Phrased another way, if theism is "a belief that a deity/deities exist,"  then it's inverse is "no belief that a deity/deities exist," and not "the belief that no deity/deities exist."

I think you should stop pushing.  It's coming out as diarrhea.

[Buffer Overflow]

Are you really dank in disguise? After all, dank did a lot of his posting from his phone just like you.

Well I've been here for years and not once asked to borrow money from anyone, so I'm unlikely to be Dank.

[the joint]

Machine-like nature of the universe.
     All around us, in nature and the universe we see machine-like operations. These operations are extremely complex inside life and the cells. Machines have makers.
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMn319zkZ2s
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2rZS59xSE
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao9cVhwPg84


Machine usage is in progression.
     Animals use simple machines. Some primates (apes, chimps, monkeys) use rocks and sticks to work their food. The leverage they provide with the rocks and sticks is machine use.
     People use simple machines. People make and use complex machines. All machines that people and animals make and use come from examples of machine operations in the universe.
     The progression is that, as the machines that people make and use are far more advanced than the ones that animals make and use, so are the machines that exist in nature far more advanced than the ones that people make and use. The advanced machines of the universe have an advanced Maker - God. Machines have makers.

So you consider life and cells to be machines. And you consider that these machines can make other machines. What made the machine you call God?

Using this logic, everything is made by something else, and it would go on forever. Where does it stop? Are we to accept that God is exempt from the logic you use in this argument? You may respond with something along the lines of "God is the beginning of this progression, the thing that created the universe, and he existed for all time." Well, if there IS in fact an beginning to the progression of machines creating machines creating machines, why can't it be the Universe itself? What if it does not need an intelligent creator and it has existed forever - since time is only extant in the universe it effectively could have existed forever even considering the Big Bang theory. What's even better, is that we know the universe exists and it can be proven by conventional science (so far as proving that anything effectively exists could do). Making things with a specific design in mind is more on the human/advanced animal level, but the universe can certainly create, through the extant and provable laws of physics and semi-random processes. Keep in mind that in the current scientific view, the world is at least 4 billion years old, and the universe much older yet. Just considering the fact that matter and the laws of physics exist, you would expect SOMETHING to happen in all that time. For all we know, there could be a set of "machines" somewhere else in the universe that is far more advanced than what we call "life".

If I were to have a God to account for the universe, it would be the universe itself - matter, energy, and the laws of physics and other fundamental scientific/mathematical laws (maybe even some we haven't discovered yet) - not a sun god, not a lightning god, not a judgemental god that focuses on abstract ideals like good and evil, or even a loving god that watches over each and every one of "His children" and listens to their prayers (of course choosing which ones to answer according to His will alone).

Referring to emboldened section:  Actually it doesn't need to lead to an infinite regression.  The problem with the machine analogy isn't that it leads to an infinite regression, but rather that it's simply an invalid analogy that results from an inductive fallacy.  The machine analogy is a suggested proof (albeit a bad one) for the existence of God, but the fact that it likens God to a machine-maker in the first place means that the argument assumes both the existence of God and how God is defined.  

In other words, the whole argument puts the cart before the horse by using knowledge of God's existence and definition to prove God's existence and definition.  This implies that knowledge of God's existence and definition was known prior to the machine argument in the first place, and therefore must have been derived from some line of reasoning other than the machine argument.

[Buffer Overflow]

Thank you for giving me the push to post this.

I think you should stop pushing.  It's coming out as diarrhea.

That genuinely just made me LOL. Literally. 

[Videlicet]

Like ants saying there's no humans.

[QuestionAuthority]

Sorry to steer the conversation to Bitcoin but, BADecker, do you believe Bitcoin could be the one world money Christians think is controlled by the antichrist? Supposedly, that marks the end of days and the coming rapture. Aren't you supporting the antichrist?

[BADecker]

Sorry to steer the conversation to Bitcoin but, BADecker, do you believe Bitcoin could be the one world money Christians think is controlled by the antichrist? Supposedly, that marks the end of days and the coming rapture. Aren't you supporting the antichrist?

Generally, no.

The Revelation talks about the 666 number. If you don't have the number, you won't be able to buy and sell, according to the Revelation.

I have one of those "fat" Webster dictionaries like you find in the library and the university, 1966 edition. Regarding the International Monetary Fund, it has listed about 150 of the top countries in the world as being part of the IMF. About 20 of the most poverty-stricken, war-torn countries of the day were the ones that would not accept IMF membership.

The point? With or without Bitcoin, the world has been in at least the beginnings of the 666 days for a long time.

Here's what Bitcoin is. The Revelation talks about the devil coming up from the Abyss (the place where Jesus sent him by overcoming him with His work on the cross, and His resurrection). When the devil comes up from the Abyss, he will burn the banking system (Babylon in the Revelation) with fire. He will have help. His help will be the people of the world, but especially those who do not truly accept Jesus as the Savior.

I believe Bitcoin is part of this Babylon destruction, the part done by people. Bitcoin might be a small part. You can see the people rising up against their governments because of government corruption. They think that they are doing it to free themselves. But they are really doing it because they are being directed by the devil up from the Abyss, the devil who is playing in the back of their minds. You can see this from the fact that the anti-government uprisings are not religion directed.

Regarding the 666 number, different people have had different understandings of it at different times. One of the old understandings is that 7 is the number of perfection, God's number. The devil and people try to be perfect, but they can't make it. All the farther they get is 6... they try again only getting to 6... they try again only getting to 6...

Find 666 in other places in the Bible. There are only about 4 places. The most important of these is the one that talks about Solomon bringing 666 talents of gold per year, out of Africa, for a period of, maybe, 18 to 20 years. Solomon's nation of Israel might have been the closest nation/national-time to the 7 of perfection for any nation ever... at least in the early years of his reign.

Put together the Solomon gold 666, the description of the Revelation Babylon (the banking system), and the way the 666 number is used in the Revelation, and you get >>> big-time GREED.

The 666 number has to do with greed. It doesn't have to do with money as a tool. It is greed that attaches any money tool to the 666 number.

If anyone is interested, an exceptionally good book for explaining the Revelation is Revelation, a Concordia Commentary by Louis Brighton - http://www.cph.org/p-688-revelation-concordia-commentary.aspx. Amazon sells it. It is a bit of a read.

One addition piece of information here is, this talk about the end of the world is not off-topic. The prophesies in the Revelation are happening. Study the Revelation, then stand back and watch. The prophesies of the Revelation are happening right now. This is part of the proof that God exists.

[cryptodevil]

One addition piece of information here is, this talk about the end of the world is not off-topic. The prophesies in the Revelation are happening. Study the Revelation, then stand back and watch. The prophesies of the Revelation are happening right now. This is part of the proof that God exists.

These, so-called, 'prophecies' are worded like astrological 'readings', they can be interpreted to suit any time and, one thing you and your ilk seem to forget, they have been heralding the impending 'end times' ever since they were written. Your death-cult is perpetually declaring the end of the world as being nigh.

Your failure to be able to critically examine the claimed 'facts' you wholeheartedly throw yourself into believing, is why you believe them, because you refuse to critically examine them.

It is a vicious cycle powered by . . .you.

[BADecker]

One addition piece of information here is, this talk about the end of the world is not off-topic. The prophesies in the Revelation are happening. Study the Revelation, then stand back and watch. The prophesies of the Revelation are happening right now. This is part of the proof that God exists.

These, so-called, 'prophecies' are worded like astrological 'readings', they can be interpreted to suit any time and, one thing you and your ilk seem to forget, they have been heralding the impending 'end times' ever since they were written. Your death-cult is perpetually declaring the end of the world as being nigh.

Your failure to be able to critically examine the claimed 'facts' you wholeheartedly throw yourself into believing, is why you believe them, because you refuse to critically examine them.

It is a vicious cycle powered by . . .you.

You are very mistaken. The end of the world is nigh. How do we know? We know it because nobody comes back from death. Oh sure, the doctors claim that they bring people back, but even if it is true, very few people have been resurrected by doctors after a long period of time. And finally, they DO die permanently.

What does this have to do with what you said? Just this. We are mentally/spiritually designed that if we remained in good health, we could enjoy living for hundreds or thousands of years. We could "take" living a lot longer than we do. Life is short. Your end is near, even if you live to 200.

The-end-is-near is a warning to you and others who don't accept God, that, like as you can't keep yourself from dying in a short 100 years, you can't thwart the fact that God exists, even though you try as hard as you do.

[cryptodevil]

HAHAHAHAAAA!!! I genuinely laughed out loud at the mental gymnastics you must be having to perform to be this willfully ignorant.

I wonder whether you even believe what you write when you have to be that blatantly dishonest about how you are replying.