Reply #95: Option 1/ had already been repeatedly performed…..

[ironbark]

and rejected by those who know better than I what I actually believe.

From previous post-
................
I have repeatedly preformed that clearing up

I am an agnostic, some times prone to believe god is probable, sometimes not, interested in religion/history, grateful for the fruits thereof, aware of and opposed to the abuses. All of which I have stated here, none of which is good enough…others know better, cannot tolerate such “fence sitting”, insist I am a closet theist and anti atheist and steadfastly refuse to put forward a single substantiating example.
See #33, #54, #41, #58 and onwards from each.

“Even very briefly, just a few basics. But you won't do that.”

Patently false. I have done so on several occasions including protracted discussions with respondents in posts listed above. It makes no difference, they know better than my stated pov and they know which “side” I am obliged to be on…even if I reject their notion of sides.
.....................

Being "misrepresented" is when someone takes something you have said and gets it wrong.

Being lied about is when someone reports, suggests, accuses eventents that never transpired-

Your accusation fits the latter catagory-
"...particular atheists who dare speak out, as "evil vile atheists!"), you'll make a game of claiming YOU in particular have never said that, and/or insisting on a quote showing the same exact wording."

You can not and will not present anything to support the claim that I have said anything like "evil vile atheists!").