PROOF that GOD Exists......

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

Yup, goddidit...

Haha, I felt like posting this in the math thread that Pad did.

 

[lordjin]

It could also be that we're all being dreamed by a moth.

 

[Chief Walkin Eagle]

We could very well be someones dream.

 

[mindphuk]

Athiesm is not yet an organized religion. Call it a cult. And we can certainly sense the superiority and sometimes, outright violence of thought, that's common in cult formation, when the intellectuals succed in motivating the minions. A certain type of second class viewpoint is already forming from the "First Class." of Truth. A true intolerance brewing if you ask me. A blame and guilt game to make Religion as the culprit for our moderm ills. The ignorance of some the basic fact of history, show me the dumbed dowm mob is getting ahold of the idea.

It's something to be feared as any religion, to me. So, the little a-theist, like Mr. H and mPhk, beware the mob secular anti-globalists. For me any label beyond Self is a power game.

If I'm to be accused of violent thoughts then report me to the Ministry of Love. I seriously question people that are disturbed by and accuse 'others' of such crimethink. In fact, I find it terribly troubling that some people are similarly outraged and in fear of such thoughtcrime making its way into speech. Such labels and attacks against ideas are typically only made by those that wish to silence 'others.' The idea that intolerance for intolerance is itself intolerant is laughable on its face yet disturbingly ubiquitous among bigots themselves.

 

[Doer]

No one accused you of violence of thought or venom of words. Besides it's nothing more than impolite. Now I know some young folks think they can be as stupid as they like in forum, name calling, personal insults, etc and it's true they are beyond the immediate bitch slap. So, they feel free. Doesn't make it polite. We have to be somewhat polite in face to face, but not forum, sad fact.

But, you see, I excluded you and Mr. H specifically from what I was mentioning as potentially violent, not yet completely organized, effort against religion. I also likened it to some of the other secular cults in recent history. The ones that tried to wipe out entire peoples.

So, show thin skin if you must. I meant no offense. Mr. H did not seem to take it that way, he said he too would be against such a cult. I expected right minded people to agree about that.

 

[Zaehet Strife]

I only know one thing.

You can only really know one thing, that you really know nothing.

BUT! You CAN think you know what you know, that is possible too, but that still doesn't change the fact that you know nothing.

I am speaking here in terms of spirituality, metaphysics, theology and the like.

 

[Doer]

You can only really know one thing, that you really know nothing.

BUT! You CAN think you know what you know, that is possible too, but that still doesn't change the fact that you know nothing.

I am speaking here in terms of spirituality, metaphysics, theology and the like.

Dude, if the experience if beyond my thinking, by definition, how can I only think I know? Do we only *think* we know the feel of velvet because we cannot describe it scientifically. If I handed you a piece of velvet and your eyes were closed. You'd have an experience, unless you hands were full, missing or had gloves. In other words you were not prepped to feel it. If prepared you will feel the velvet regardless. You may not know what the name of it is, or have never felt it, but it will feel unique.

You suppose my description of the feel of velvet and the value it brings to me must withstand the rigor of debate? That I must prove or at least postulate that my description must match yours, within the puny cauldron of words? About a wordless experience? One that only begins after mind words are ignored?

That's religion and why I don't describe. You can say that I don't know, what I know.

 

[afrawfraw]

This personal attack stance is just showig what a punk you are. I'm proud of what I said.
Lowly sarcasm, how base we stoop.

I'm a punk for quoting you in context. I guess I'm a punk then. And I never attacked you. Just in awe that you believe we're not born Atheists and that Atheism is a religion. And yet you stamp your feet and refuse to accept facts, even after being presented by other posters. I don't blame you. Faith ignores all evidence.

 

[afrawfraw]

That's the usual wiggle and it's pretel logic, attibutabe to cults. You say you aren't rejecting the concept of diety, but you are.
You claim the concept is false.

Where do you get these straw man attacks from? I don't reject any deity's. You have no idea how an Atheist feels. It's so obvious. Keep screaming, I'm sure that will help.

 

[afrawfraw]

Why would I greve about that? I have postualted many times we are in a Subjective Illusion due to quantum effects. That is, we know nothing. And every new fact we nail down makes us wonder why it is so pat. So, Goldilocks. We are, quite possilby changing the very nature of reality. So, is it a wonder we find us in a perfect place for Knowledge of Self?

We may be making it so, as we go, and there is no way to know. A self-fulling Self. So, I don't think we are in any postion in Science or any other striving to reject the notions that got us here.

Humans are subject to mass dilusion. All this self this and self that. Perhaps you should focus on what ALL people see, not just you. I rely on the common observations of all humans. And as for contempt or disdain, I will let you know my position. It is not deity's nor religion I despise. It is the useless logic one must use in order to participate in religion. People are taught from birth, that there are two ways to think, one for the rest of the world, and a completely opposite for the religion. PROBLEM: People, especially in America, use the religion logic for real life scenarios. So even semi-educated people, act very ignorantly when making decisions on who to vote for or what car to buy. Once you stop knowing WHY you believe something or did something, you're a pawn. I see people all the time making assumptions and decisions based on here say and rumors. Sad, really. It's the Blind Faith that ultimately kills the minds of the religious, not the religion, or the deity.

 

[Zaehet Strife]

Dude, if the experience if beyond my thinking, by definition, how can I only think I know? Do we only *think* we know the feel of velvet because we cannot describe it scientifically. If I handed you a piece of velvet and your eyes were closed. You'd have an experience, unless you hands were full, missing or had gloves. In other words you were not prepped to feel it. If prepared you will feel the velvet regardless. You may not know what the name of it is, or have never felt it, but it will feel unique.

You suppose my description of the feel of velvet and the value it brings to me must withstand the rigor of debate? That I must prove or at least postulate that my description must match yours, within the puny cauldron of words? About a wordless experience? One that only begins after mind words are ignored?

That's religion and why I don't describe. You can say that I don't know, what I know.

The funny thing is, everyone does this, this does not exclude anyone else. Everyone merely THINKS they know what they know, no one can really know what they know, you can only accept that you really know nothing. Or you can pretend you know the things you dont really know, which is the same thing as lying to yourself.

Here are some examples of things that you do not know, and if you tell yourself you do you are lying to yourself.

1)There is a god/there isn't a god.
2)Aliens are real.
3)You continue to exist when you die.
4)The world is going to end on 2012.
5)Humans are telepathic.
6)Reincarnation is real


If you think you know any of those 5, you are deluded, and you ARE lying to yourself. These are things no one has the tools to carry the burdens of proof. I am not saying science won't come out with the tools needed to figure these things out, but it hasn't yet.

If you want to get an inside look of experiences, and how our minds have this uncanny ability to change our experiences from what they actually are, into what we want them to be (which is exactly what they are not) check out my "Experiences Defined" thread.

 

[Doer]

The funny thing is, everyone does this, this does not exclude anyone else. Everyone merely THINKS they know what they know, no one can really know what they know, you can only accept that you really know nothing. Or you can pretend you know the things you dont really know, which is the same thing as lying to yourself.

Here are some examples of things that you do not know, and if you tell yourself you do you are lying to yourself.

1)There is a god/there isn't a god.
2)Aliens are real.
3)You continue to exist when you die.
4)The world is going to end on 2012.
5)Humans are telepathic.
6)Reincarnation is real


If you think you know any of those 5, you are deluded, and you ARE lying to yourself. These are things no one has the tools to carry the burdens of proof. I am not saying science won't come out with the tools needed to figure these things out, but it hasn't yet.

If you want to get an inside look of experiences, and how our minds have this uncanny ability to change our experiences from what they actually are, into what we want them to be (which is exactly what they are not) check out my "Experiences Defined" thread.

All these red-herring non-proposals were not from me and I assure you I am not proposing anything but this. The velvet has two sides. If I try to describe further, then I would be the describing the experience and perhaps suggesting it's for you, which I am not. So why swerve the conversation? Let's stick to the feel of velvet analogy, very subjective, but very real, right? I'm not proposing anything else. I'll not even propose my definition of Experience matches what you Defined.

 

[Doer]

Humans are subject to mass dilusion. All this self this and self that. Perhaps you should focus on what ALL people see, not just you. I rely on the common observations of all humans. And as for contempt or disdain, I will let you know my position. It is not deity's nor religion I despise. It is the useless logic one must use in order to participate in religion. People are taught from birth, that there are two ways to think, one for the rest of the world, and a completely opposite for the religion. PROBLEM: People, especially in America, use the religion logic for real life scenarios. So even semi-educated people, act very ignorantly when making decisions on who to vote for or what car to buy. Once you stop knowing WHY you believe something or did something, you're a pawn. I see people all the time making assumptions and decisions based on here say and rumors. Sad, really. It's the Blind Faith that ultimately kills the minds of the religious, not the religion, or the deity.

So much like Atheisim. Blind faith.

 

[Doer]

Where do you get these straw man attacks from? I don't reject any deity's. You have no idea how an Atheist feels. It's so obvious. Keep screaming, I'm sure that will help.

Well, you do keep using the word screaming.

 

[afrawfraw]

So much like Atheisim. Blind faith.

WHAT!? How is scientific method blind faith. I claim to know nothing about magics. It is you who blindly believes how an Atheist thinks, lives, feels, Etc. You would argue that religious logic is infallible!?

 

[Doer]

WHAT!? How is scientific method blind faith. I claim to know nothing about magics. It ids you who blindly believes how an Atheist thinks, lives, feels, Etc. You would argue that religious logic is infallible!?

Would you argue the Atheist logic is infallible? Is science logic infallible? Is logic infallible?

 

[kpmarine]

So much like Atheisim. Blind faith.

Atheism, as we established, is a default. So it is not a position needing faith. A bit of reason and logic helps too.

 

[chongsbuddy]

science is the opposite of faith

 

[afrawfraw]

I'm quite sure you were proposing, just very recently that, a-the-ism is a natural born condition of humans. Are you starting to realize how impossible that is? Any -theism is a result of cognition. "Don't know anything" is how we are born. Not an -ism it's a condition of ignorance. A -tic. Ag-nos-tic.

Yes, I did. And "Don't know anything", is Atheist by definition!

I believe atheism is the natural state in the sense that we are born atheist, sort of a default. If you haven't heard the theist's argument, then you are an 'innocent' atheist. But I believe this is a problem of semantics, as atheism is a confusing word that shouldn't exist as a title.

Others start informing you you have an incomplete understanding of Atheism.

How one perceives the universe is dependent on so many things. One huge one is emotions. I want an Objective understanding of the Universe. Objective means without influence of personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. I want a greater understanding. This is how I learn. By having everyone look at the universe. Then I can start to figure out what is uniform, and what my projections are, which makes me understand me more. Sigh.

Scientific Method.

^and even so, these concepts you hold without facing up to the burdens of proof, are not true... they are only true through your own individual subjective perceptions, nothing more, nothing less.

these experiences or concepts are what we make of them, and are all dependent on the environment we grew up in, how we were raised, and the culture that was instilled in us as we grew from babyhood to adulthood.

as you experience "self" these experiences will be different depending on all of the factors stated above.

Without proof, your claims are worthless to everyone but you.

Ive been trying, but i cant find a good source, would you be so kind as to provide me with a link please?

Or, if you could explain simply the point you are trying to get across. Im thinking that your point is that "truth" has the same validity if it comes from science and experimentation than whats within our own minds and our imagination.

If this is so, i have to disagree.

Without carrying the burden of proof for all the thoughts you have within your mind, you have no basis for knowledge, just basis for imagination.

Religion/spirituality/metaphysics/theology, these subjects all require belief in order for them to be true. Science does not, gravity does not, math does not.

Selfish motivation is clear.

As science continues to unravel the fabric of the cosmos, i am sure many more, if not all of our deepest desired questions will be answered, and most likely they will be answers that we probably wont like very much lol.

Imaginations give us the subjective truths we want,
Theology gives us the subjective truths of others,
Science gives us the closest approximation to the objective truths in this reality.

Your understanding of spiritualism is self serving.

There is nothing inherently wrong with belief. It's what you believe in, that can be good or bad. Beliefs can be built on fact, feelings, or fiction. The important thing is to evaluate them to make sure they are valid. Most importantly, one must make sure to constantly question unproven beliefs. Otherwise, you risk ending up with beliefs that are at best, incorrect, and at worst, hazardous to you and others around you. That's how I look at it.

Evaluating beliefs requires questioning. Impossible after being indoctrinated.

Well, you define your world as if your parents were not involved in your pre-verbal upbringing. And these statements that you make with such weight of conviction are not facts. Emphasis alone IS!!!! not enough. That's the beef with religion, fancy night gowns for emphasis. And you know very little of the religions and beliefs of other animals as you seem to know very little about this topic. Religion seems quite the natural order of things for humans.

To just deny that fact is somewhat thoughtless, in spite of your secular upbringing, as wonderful as it may have been. Obviously secular humans are made, not born. Yet, Religion has been here "forever." And you don't know what is a religion to humpback whales , do you?

So, you have opinions, only. So what?

You claim to have knowledge of animal religions. No proof. Sorry. Useless.

So you really believe what you just wrote!? That religion is natural? You obviously have no idea...And you point the finger and call me ignorant. Classic.

I just have to ask. Since your claiming My "opinion" that religion would not occur unless taught and children raised without any religion never suddenly "find god", surely you could site some sources? Like, a controlled experiment? Perhaps a theory of "Animal Spirituality"? Or "Universal Spirituality Theory"? Without indoctrination, every one would be an Atheist. Period. Again, sources please.

Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[SUP][1][/SUP] It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[SUP][2][/SUP] As such the term may be used pejoratively, often in the context of education, political opinions, theology or religious dogma. The term is closely linked to socialization; in common discourse, indoctrination is often associated with negative connotations, while socialization refers to cultural or educational learning.

"Expected not to question."

Am I debating using wiki? Oh, ya. I forgot. Your trying to prove something you can't. So I don't care.

Here I reiterate your point, that religion just comes to us.

It's classic in that I never called you any names and never pointed any fingers. Since religion has been part of the human experience always and there has never been a time when it has not, just stamping your foot and claiming it's unnatural is a joke.

It's like the joke of claiming whales have no religion. You don't know. And now your speech is becoming riled. So, it's a rhetorical device to lash back like this. There is no right fight here.

Just submit your proof that religion is unnatural, if you can. Just restating it is.....not useful?

As for the rest, let us calmly approach it this way. Are you actually saying that indoctrination is not necessary to reject the entire notion of a spirit world? You must have had secular upbring to suggest that, right? How can a baby survive without indoctrination? You don't know that either, do you?

You're beliefs are being challenged, so what? We do that for all non-denominations alike.

You inject weird points, like indoctrination is required for human survival! What name did I call you?

You stated I knew very little about animal behavior. But with your next breath you state religion is natural. OK then. Plastic is natural. Global warming is natural. When I say natural, I mean it does not occur in the wild.

And to state just because religion is almost as old as our species as grounds to define it as natural. I guess ignorance is our nature too? Why do we question everything? It's in our nature. But indoctrination by definition can not be questioned. Which is it. We are curious by nature, or we're not. I don't hate religion, just the logic required to obtain it.

If everything is natural, so is religion. I introduce my views on "Natural".

It was claimed to be unnatural, we are discussing that. I certainly am not makng a point about it or saying it makes a difference.

It is a typical claim that I took the trouble to refute for myself. And it has to do with the nature vs nurture question. And if there can be a natural, yet, un-indoctrinated state of man. Obviously, no, there cannot be.

If it doesn't make a difference, why do humans need it to survive?

Atheism is not a religion. It is merely an act; the act of deciding that there is no proof of a "god". Atheism would not exist without religion, it is completely counter to the concept. It makes no sense to call it a religion. A religion requires belief in a god. A belief that an adult had to force upon me as a child. I never conceived the idea of god on my own. I would still not beleive in a god, even if the idea was not brought up. I believe in a higher power just as little, regardless of my awareness of the concept of it. Atheists care, because religion has, and continues to, perpetuate ignorance and atrocities throughout history. I don't see atheists claiming a divine power says that "god hates fags".

How an Atheist feels.

As for proof that god exists, what's your position again?

You acknowledged you had no proof.

oops, missed this one. Please don't mod me for my money shot all over this thread...

I still contend. Atheism is no belief. Do you believe in ghgxdfhjkohgo;dfh;ouidhsdio;ufighriodjg'spgrji[serouty890seriogjaio'j[0uhehbvgo[isdrsdrsdrsdremh9gth 9seh????? Huh? Do ya? Are you rejecting ghgxdfhjkohgo;dfh;ouidhsdio;ufighriodjg'spgrji[serouty890seriogjaio'j[0uhehbvgo[isdrsdrsdrsdremh9gth 9seh?????

No. You have no knowledge of what that is. So it doesn't concern you. This is the "Innocent Atheist". I was raised secular with every religion trying to recruit me. You have no idea how CRAZY people seem when they all "KNOW" that XXXX is real, and that without doing XXXX that XXXX will happen, but if you XXXX, then you'll get XXXX. It illustrated the entire situation in about 9 months, at age 12. and 13,14,15,16,etc.

I try to explain to you how an Atheist really feels. (2nd Atheist experience first hand.)

Doer, Atheism is not a religion.

When you are born, you are classified as an Atheist. For you hold no belief in a supernatural power or god/gods. If you have no belief... you are an Atheist. If you have no belief, it cannot be religious.

Religion- The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Details of belief as taught or discussed.

Atheism- Disbelief in the existence of God or gods.

This is elementary thinking in philosophy, and is extremely simple to understand if you take the time to.

If you do anything BUT believe, you are an Atheist. If you have the capacity to choose, and choose neither, you take an agnostic position about the subject... but this agnostic position falls short as to be classified as philosophical suicide.

Another person reiterates Atheism is indeed, not a religion.

Fervent support of a position in no way makes that position a religion. Just because the majority believes it, doesn't make it right; so that's a flawed argument. I wasn't aware that the pope was the leader in intellectual affairs, thanks for the heads up. I'm sure his deep and fascinating insight on condoms, AIDS, abortion, and women's rights shall be informative.

And again.

In order to reject something, I would have to believe it exists. I don't, and can't, reject things that are not real.

And again.

Athiesm is not yet an organized religion. Call it a cult. And we can certainly sense the superiority and sometimes, outright violence of thought, that's common in cult formation, when the intellectuals succed in motivating the minions. A certain type of second class viewpoint is already forming from the "First Class." of Truth. A true intolerance brewing if you ask me. A blame and guilt game to make Religion as the culprit for our moderm ills. The ignorance of some the basic fact of history, show me the dumbed dowm mob is getting ahold of the idea.

It's something to be feared as any religion, to me. So, the little a-theist, like Mr. H and mPhk, beware the mob secular anti-globalists. For me any label beyond Self is a power game.

You change to "Cult." EVEN AFTER being informed of how Atheists think and act, you maintain your beliefs...

That's the usual wiggle and it's pretel logic, attibutabe to cults. You say you aren't rejecting the concept of diety, but you are.
You claim the concept is false.

You inform me how Atheists think and feel.

A cult is, by definiton, a religion. So now you're just trying to poison the well further against atheist individuals by branding us a "cult". Could you provide me with some examples of what you call "outright violence of thought"? I'm not sure I follow you.

Someone else points out your fallible logic.

I am not understanding how a cult can be formed around the lack of believing a proposition, especially when that proposition has a number of reasons, some at odds with each other, for being rejected. Not all atheists, by far, play the blame game. This cult would also have to include those who have never even heard of theism. This is what you choose to indicate when you choose the word atheist. Perhaps skeptics would be a better title, as it at least indicates the the rejection came about for similar and agreeable reasons, and that all participants are aware of the arguments. Even then, skepticism is simply a method for judging truth value. I think you are speaking of anti-religious groups.

And again.

You are rejecting the concept of diety and have a bit of contempt perhaps?

Still you stamp your feet, scream, and tell other Atheists how we see the world.

In the same way I reject the concept of santa, yes, I reject the concept of a diety. Contempt? Where do you get that idea? You didn't show me any of this violence of thought that you allege, by the way.

Another person tries to explain how Atheism feels.

All thinking men are atheists. Earnest Hemingway

Everyone is born atheist. Religion is learned. As a learned behavior, peoples' religion
can be accurately predicted by the religion of their parents and the place where they
live. Therefore it is no surprise that 77% of Americans are Christian, 97% of Saudis are
Muslim, 95% of Thais are Buddhist, 80% of Indians are Hindu and 85% of Swedes
have no religion.

Religionists do not want to admit that everyone is born atheist. The statement infuriates
them. Religionists want to deny the facts. They call this faith--persisting in believing
something despite contrary facts. They act as if faith is a good thing. But it does not
change the fact that everyone is born atheist, religion is learned. Perhaps religionists
fear that if they admit religion is learned, people will realize that it can be unlearned.

Atheists have no belief in god. Some atheists never learned religion. Others have
unlearned religion. Literally, atheism means "without deities." In this book, I use it
slightly more broadly to mean "without religion."

Religion is generally characterized by 1.) believing in a supernatural god or gods, 2.)
believing in life after death; and, 3.) following a "holy" book or "scripture" that is
allegedly attributable to their god or gods.

Religion is man-made. Religion is not a divinely inspired truth, it is a product of family
and society. If you were born in Saudi Arabia, you would most likely be Muslim. If you
were born in Thailand, you would most likely be Buddhist. There is no one great
religious truth. Today, there are many religions and over the history of man, there have
been many more. If you follow a religion it is almost always the result of the time, place
and family into which you were born.

Each religion claims to know the one true path. But they cannot all be right. To accept
one religion means denying the others. For example, a Christian finds the religious
assertions of a Muslim silly or even dangerous. The Christian has no belief in the
Muslim god. The Christian has no belief in the Muslim scriptures. The Christian is an
atheist when it comes to Islam. Each religious person is effectively an atheist in the
remainder of the world's religions. This book asks the religious person, why not add
one more?

-Copy

And again.

When you realize that who you are, is merely everyone that you have ever met... the peices that you choose to take, the pieces that you choose to leave. You realize that you aren't who you really are, who you really are is the choices you make. You are choice, you are your own fate, any personality trait you have acquired over time is one that you have learned from another human.

If when you say, "true self" is the same feeling as the feeling of, infinite time, time stop, being born, being in the moment... is the definition of what you are trying to describe, i can understand. Meditation is the only form of mind therapy that can help you achieve "no thought" which is where we originated from. Understanding that when you achieve this "no thought" which from my experience can also be achieved with another human, there is a unique feeling that happens when this "no thinking" surfaces.

In some, they call this experience enlightenment, some call it god, some call it the spirit realm, some call it the dream break. Some are true to themselves about what they know, and what they do not know. They understand that as soon as they give definition to this type of experience, they change it from what it was (an unexplainable experience) into what you want it to be (enlightenment,god,spirit realm, dream break) -which is exactly what it is not.

If i have any advice to give, it would be to stop pretending you know things that you do not know... things you do not know, are ideas that you have which hold no basis for the burden of proof beyond our own fallible thought processes.

Without proof, there is nothing outside your imagination.

If I'm to be accused of violent thoughts then report me to the Ministry of Love. I seriously question people that are disturbed by and accuse 'others' of such crimethink. In fact, I find it terribly troubling that some people are similarly outraged and in fear of such thoughtcrime making its way into speech. Such labels and attacks against ideas are typically only made by those that wish to silence 'others.' The idea that intolerance for intolerance is itself intolerant is laughable on its face yet disturbingly ubiquitous among bigots themselves.

Uhh, pretty self explanatory.

You can only really know one thing, that you really know nothing.

BUT! You CAN think you know what you know, that is possible too, but that still doesn't change the fact that you know nothing.

I am speaking here in terms of spirituality, metaphysics, theology and the like.

My "?" position seems well founded using science.

I'm a punk for quoting you in context. I guess I'm a punk then. And I never attacked you. Just in awe that you believe we're not born Atheists and that Atheism is a religion. And yet you stamp your feet and refuse to accept facts, even after being presented by other posters. I don't blame you. Faith ignores all evidence.

You call me a punk for quoting you IN CONTEXT! Who's being violent-ish again?

The funny thing is, everyone does this, this does not exclude anyone else. Everyone merely THINKS they know what they know, no one can really know what they know, you can only accept that you really know nothing. Or you can pretend you know the things you dont really know, which is the same thing as lying to yourself.

Here are some examples of things that you do not know, and if you tell yourself you do you are lying to yourself.

1)There is a god/there isn't a god.
2)Aliens are real.
3)You continue to exist when you die.
4)The world is going to end on 2012.
5)Humans are telepathic.
6)Reincarnation is real


If you think you know any of those 5, you are deluded, and you ARE lying to yourself. These are things no one has the tools to carry the burdens of proof. I am not saying science won't come out with the tools needed to figure these things out, but it hasn't yet.

If you want to get an inside look of experiences, and how our minds have this uncanny ability to change our experiences from what they actually are, into what we want them to be (which is exactly what they are not) check out my "Experiences Defined" thread.

In summation, sir, you refuse to alter your understanding of how Atheists see the world. You refuse to accept that the default position, or "Natural" position of humans is Atheistic. You refuse to accept the fact that Atheists are NOT organized, and continue to propose that all atheists are antagonistic, religion haters. Your horse is dead, stop beating it.

 

[Doer]

But, it was you that said animals practice no religion, I pointed out that you can't know that. So, bullying and the rest is more simply more of the same. More bullying. And its a full flush attempt to silence me. Throwing your weight around doesn't work. A lot of effort, big guy, for nothing.

I never said anything about knowing how an atheist feels or lives their lives. I do see an anti-religious sentiment growing worldwide and I think it can become another jehad.

Is your logic so unassailable that you are fearless, or do you get riled at the discussion? It's obvious. I don't have to accept your specious FACTS.