Atheism doesn't exist?:)

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You know the type..."What sort of god would....(insert perceived horrific act here)" or "A GOOD God would never allow (insert death toll of some natural disaster, or some historical telling of heinous act committed by people who claimed that God told them to do it).

How is that anger at, or belief in a god?

I base them upon the arguments of atheists who DO understand the difference between blaming the deity believed in and blaming the people who believe...that it gets pretty obvious when someone is mad at God rather than at the worshipers.

If somebody is mad at a god, he is not an atheist.

You seem to like to depict atheists as angry. You referred to tirades from atheists (I asked you to show me one, but you didn't, which does not surprise me). I don't respect faith-based thought, but I am not angry at those indulging in it.

On the other hand, many theists are angry at atheists, who they have been taught are immoral, sothey emulate their imagined god's anger at what they are taught are sinful, rebellious attempting to escape accountability.

And as we have seen, many theists consider us all liars.

That's also not surprising, given their holy book:

[1] "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1

See there? You are taught that we are corrupt and vile, and do no good. Sounds pretty despicable to me.

[2] "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8

We're also the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, deserving of extreme punishment. Why shouldn't people trained to thing like this despise atheists?

[3]"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14

Apparently, in the eyes of this good god, we're also wicked and dark.

[4] Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ." - 1 John 2:22

We're also all liars.

[5] "Whoever is not with me is against me" - Luke 11:23

And the enemy of a loving god. Who wouldn't hate such people?

[6] “Anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” - 1 Timothy 5:8

Worse than an unbeliever? That must be pretty bad.

[7] "They are puzzled that you do not continue running with them in the same decadent course of debauchery, so they speak abusively of you" – 1 Peter 4:4

Our lives are decadent and debauched, and our criticism are verbal abuse. What horrible people we are. No wonder so many Christians hate us.

Unbelievers are certainly justified at thinking poorly of such a religion, and taking the anti-theist position that the world would be better off with fewer people being taught hate an entire class of basically law-abiding, honest, hard-working people trying to support their families and communities, communities that might benefit from having fewer bigots and fewer churches.

In apprehension, a person has the ability to understand something, but this ability is dependent on something concrete. For example, if you go outside in the winter without a coat, you will get cold. Therefore you learn not to go out in the cold without first putting on a coat. You do not need prior experience in order to comprehend something, so comprehension involves a different process.

I learned to use those words differently. Apprehension is the barest perception. Comprehension is understanding the significance of the apprehension.

Throw down a piece of paper. It catches my eye before I know what it is - a bare apprehension of something moving. I see that it is white, rectangular and very thin, and begin a journey of comprehension - this is a piece of paper that just arrived. I also see markings on the paper which I very shortly thereafter understand to be writing, an early layer of comprehension. Some is in a language I don't understand and can't pronounce because of the alphabet or characters used are unfamiliar, additional comprehension.. Some is in a language I don't know that uses my alphabet, so I can read it aloud without comprehension of the meaning. Some is in English, and even more comprehension follows because I can read and understand English. There may be more comprehending to come, such as recognizing the author of the legible part, and having knowledge about what motivates that person to write such a thing.

Since you identify as either atheist or agnostic, you have a definition in your mind about those three letters and what they mean. GOD has specific meaning to you,

When I am discussing gods, I let the believer define god. They generally mean an immaterial sentient, volitional, potent or omnipotent being that transcends our universe and is its source. Other details about what is believed may follow, such as whether this god wants this or that for us, whether the god is triune, whether the god has a son or not, etc..

Of course things get more fuzzy when you move away from naming concrete objects, like tree, or rock, or car, and get into abstractions, like love, value, truth, meaning, happiness, etc. These are all very real things,

What are real are the manifestations of love - the feelings that can be experienced (subjective reality) and the actions that can be observed (objective reality). These can be subsumed under the abstraction love, but it is just an idea.

Is two a real thing? No. Two horses can be real. Two apples can be real. But their twoness is an abstraction derived from real things, and is not in itself real.

We aren't seeing reality. We are seeing our ideas of reality.

That is our reality - our only reality. What is called external reality only matters to the extent that it informs conscious experience. We assume that there are things out there with certain qualities in order to predict and control experience, making that experience primary and its source subordinate.

I know what agnosticism is. You look at what is told you what God is, and you don't see a reason to believe it.

That's atheism, the logical result of applying rational skepticism to the question of gods.

Atheist might also be agnostic. Most seem to be. It doesn't mean that they doubt or don't believe, it means they don't claim to know that gods don't exist

Abrahamic faiths such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, have proofs from God in form of scripture

Scripture is proof of nothing except that it was written, disseminated, and read. Scripture could exist without gods, so scripture is not evidence of a god. It's evidence of a writer or writers.

Scripture is not a reliable source for anything. Nothing in a holy book can be known to be true except by consulting some aspect of reality such as archeology, in which case, it's the physical findings that let us know that the scripture was correct, not the scripture itself.

Are strong atheists atheists or not?

I think where this conversation came off the rails was when you or somebody else indicated that asserting that no gods exist was not essential to atheism, and this was understood to mean that such people are not atheists.

there may be such a thing that a believer knows that God exists, and its 100%, whereas an atheist wouldn't believe that there is no God 100%, knowing that their might be, even a tiny percentage on his belief that God exists

If the atheist is an educated secular humanist trained in philosophy and critical thinking, he claims 100% certainty about nothing, and recognizes that those who do are simply unaware of what philosophical doubt is.

Also, we're trained to see doubt as a virtue, whereas the theist is told that doubt is from the devil trying to steal his soul away, or that doubt displease a god demanding certitude, making doubt a weakness or sin.

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

I hereby challenge you to try to conceive of what is presently inconceivable to you = atheists don't believe in gods.

atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature.

That applies to you much more than me (see below)

What you perceive as assault is what we call reasoned discourse. You clearly perceive atheists as defective people worthy of your scorn.

when you claim that my stating an "If... Then" scenario like the one above means that I am "angry at God" and therefore "believe in God,"

Theist "friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature."

I hate mushrooms. I absolutely detest the things. Their taste is just odd, and their texture is disgusting. Now, I KNOW that this is my opinion about mushrooms, and that other people like them very much. I DON'T BELIEVE that mushrooms taste objectively odd, and that their texture is objectively disgusting. I know it is only my opinion of them. Others may enjoy the taste or the texture, or both. I find them completely disgusting - I mean... to no end are they vile and horrifying. But I don't truly believe that to be the case objectively. It is true for me, and that is where it ENDS.

A nice description of subjective truth. Your experience is "observable" to you (alone), can be reproduced, and the outcome predicted.

If you believe, then it's 100%. If it's anything less than 100%, then it means that you don't believe.

That's not how I see it. Any belief can become stronger or weaker as new evidence surfaced making the belief seem more or less likely, assuming that one uses evidence to decide what is true about the world. The degree of belief is therefore ideally commensurate with the quality and quantity of available relevant evidence.

As I indicated, no idea should be held as certain. That doesn't mean that we feel doubt about there being a sun (psychological doubt), just that we understand the limits of knowledge (philosophical doubt).

 

[ChristineM]

Don't worry, atheists friends here will assault your thesis because they HAVE to, it's in their nature.

I hereby challenge atheists to admit they have beliefs/hopes/concepts, however suppressed, that God loves them, watches them.

Oh the hypocrisy!!! I just love the way you assault atheist because you HAVE to. Its your nature

What do you not understand about the definition of atheism?
Of course atheists have beliefs/hopes/concepts, we are after all human beings. Just not beliefs/hopes/concepts with an.imaginary god sitting on our shoulders driving misrepresentation and confusion

 

[night912]

You wrote:If you believe, then it's 100%. If it's anything less than 100%, then it means that you don't believe

That was not my intention. I think you can be a believer with doubts and its less than 100%.
I just wrote, that my belief is 100%, not a shadow of a doubt. I dont even interstand that it could be otherwise. How the world was created? Ploufff. Are you serious.

If I don't know how the world was created, why would I assume that it just plouff? I would say that I don't know.

BTW, when I was young, I was a believer with doubts, and the doubts diseappear, thank God.

Like I said, it's 100%. The "doubts" are the other things that you don't believe. One cannot have only half believe.

I'll to explain it from a different perspective. This is true as long as there is no contradiction, otherwise it becomes illogical. Obviously, if someone contradicts themselves, then they are being irrational. Also, "believe" is not a choice. Even if someone doesn't believe in something, they can still have the desire and/or want to believe it. With that being said, here are some examples.

I'm using the perspective of something being possible and impossible. If you believe in something, then it means that you must believe in the impossibility of what is opposite. But to "not believe" in something, then you believe in the possibility of either or. And

EXAMPLE:
Believe that it's impossible for a god not to exist = believe that a god exist

Believe that it's impossible for a god to exist = believe that no god exist

Believe that it's possible for a god to either exist or not exist = don't believe that a god exist

Example of a contradiction:
Believe that it's impossible for a god to exist and impossible for a god to not exist = believe that no god exist and that a god exist

What I noticed about people when it comes to "(don't)believe/(dis)belief" is that it's usually used to cover a very broad and general subject. It's when that happens, that the doubts and the need for a "want" arises. You may still believe some aspects of it and may still call it the same belief, but really, what you believed before, is no longer what you currently believe.

This is why "disbelief" or the "lack of belief" is the default. It holds two opposite ideas as being possibilities while at the same time, don't contradict one another. Once you believe, then that's when it leaves only one idea as being possible and the opposite idea as being impossible.

 

[night912]

That's not how I see it. Any belief can become stronger or weaker as new evidence surfaced making the belief seem more or less likely, assuming that one uses evidence to decide what is true about the world. The degree of belief is therefore ideally commensurate with the quality and quantity of available relevant evidence.

No, you're wrong on that. There's no scaling on the level of you believing. Like I said on my other post, you cannot half believe. You either believe or you don't. As for evidence, you must believe it 100% before you determine it to be evidence. You believe particular information, that is why you dismiss it and not take it as evidence.

As I indicated, no idea should be held as certain. That doesn't mean that we feel doubt about there being a sun (psychological doubt), just that we understand the limits of knowledge (philosophical doub

I'm not talking about ideas and whether or not it should be taken as certainty. Any ideas doesn't really matter here in this sense because our ideas are determined by whether we believe it or not. Disbelief is the reason why we "doubt"(and I'm using that term loosely) our ideas. We either no longer believe in our old ideas or we believe it to be no longer suitable. We don't doubt there being a sun because we believe the knowledge that we've obtain. Even when believing something 100%, that doesn't mean that it is actually true. Old ideas change because we believe in New ideas.

Can a theist have doubts about god? Of course they can, but the doubt is not on whether a god exist or don't exist. They do believe that a god exist, but they also believe that it's possible for their version of god don't exist, or at least exist in the way they believe.

 

[night912]

Just for laughs, I'll give a quote.

“Only a Sith deals in absolutes.” Obi Wan Kenobi

But isn't that in itself an absolute?

As I indicated, no idea should be held as certain.

But isn't that in itself held as being certain?

 

[Windwalker]

What interests me most about this debate is why? Why do so many theists care about quibbling around various notions of atheism? Can they not be satisfied when somebody just says, "sorry, don't believe in God?"

I can't speak for theists here, as I don't consider myself one, nor do my views fit in with that definition of one. The why that I am interested in this for is a personal one. As a formerly self-identified atheist of 10 plus years within my adult life, post-formal religious life, I found when debating alongside my fellow atheists, that when they heard anything whatsoever that made it sound like they were exercising faith, or belief, or even had any idea of what God was in some cases, the level of cognitive-dissonance and illogical, irrational, and even angry emotional responses, paralleled that of those in religion who were science-deniers. The logic and evidence was solid, and reasonable, but all that logic and rationality went out the window when it came to that.

Now you see, as a self-identified atheist at that time, I had no problems recognizing these things in myself as part of my currently held beliefs. It didn't make my atheism not pure, or true, or "kosher" recognizing the nature of it as a belief in its own right. Why the hell not? Of course it was. It was intellectually and emotionally dishonest for me to not recognize that. So when I say things like atheism is inextricably tied to theism, not only as a counter to belief in God, but in its very nature as a theological position against a certain view of God (which it certainly is, as I could see both then and now), and then to see my fellow atheists seem to regress, or revert to denials and irrationalities, it bothered my deeply. It did then, and now.

Why? Because I championed rationality and reason, and that to truly do that, one has to be willing to examine everything they believe with the same tools. Atheism to me was about examining everything, including my own beliefs, with critical reason. But that is not what I saw happening with everyone. Instead, it was a far more religious in response, than my atheism was. I felt no need to "defend the faith", as it were. They clearly had something that they felt needed defending. It's somewhat of a puzzle, but I think it have few good ideas or so to possibly why.

What I have been saying in this thread is pretty hard to actually argue against. To say one does not believe in God, you have to first have an idea of what that word means (see my other responses to Heyo, who surprisingly tried to argue that the word God has no meaning, in order to defend against the association with theology). But without having an understanding of what God is, to call oneself anything whatsoever with the word "God" in it, which atheism as a word does, is utterly nonsensical. It's also highly disingenuous, which to me leads directly questions of integrity. So to identify with atheism, one of necessity has to first have an idea of what God is in order to say you don't believe in it. That idea, comes from theology. And for atheists in the West, it comes from the theology of traditionalist Christianity, not much if any outside of that.

I honestly cannot see how there is any other way that can be denied. And what's more, and why this thread is so fascinating to me, why does anyone feel a need to deny it? It's not for rational reasons. Why is that so uncomfortable for many atheists? It wasn't for me when I called myself by that term. I don't see why it should be for any atheist.

Remember the poor fellow out on the town in Belfast, being asked whether he was Protestant or Catholic (so they could know whether to beat him up) replying -- "no lads, I'm an atheist." Ah, says one of the hoodlums, but is it the Catholic god or the Protestant god you don't believe in?"

While it's a funny joke, one way or the other, the atheist's rejection of belief in God, would be based on one of their theologies.

 

[Rabbi Daniel]

It could be that there are things that one can be sure 100% : I know that I am writing now on my computer, and I know I am not dreaming, and not in a matrix, or not some other crazy doubts.

And there are things that a person may hold it for true, but isn't sure 100%: A man enters his house, and see that things has been stolen: He is quite positive that a thieft stole . But there might be a very tiny doubt that it might be the wind which did that.

A person suffuring of O.C.D is quite sure that he knocked his door, but still will verify (but that's a little different, with mental disorder.

 

[dianaiad]

You might take steps to rid the worship of leprechauns if vast swaths of the population were worshiping leprechauns and expecting everyone else to do the same; pushing their leprechaun beliefs onto others in the public square; insisting that if everyone else doesn't worship leprechauns as you do then they will face horrible punishments when they die; inisisting that anyone who doesn't worship leprechauns are immoral leprechaun haters, etc. You know, like a lot of people have done with religion(s).

I might, and if I did THEN I could be considered an anti-leprechaunist.

 

[dianaiad]

Those who "do believe that there is no God" are a subset of atheists... but are not representative of all atheists. Anyone who does not have a belief in any God/gods is an atheist.

Good. That is the only point I was making; not that ALL atheists are 'strong' atheists (as I have been accused of by those who aren't paying attention) but that strong atheists are indeed atheists. A 'subset,' just as you write.

If I had to guess, you have also been told this many multiple times. Apparently it is just easier not to shatter your glass-house of a worldview, keep you poor opinion of atheists that you seem to think strengthens your position (hahahahaha) and keep trudging out the same CRAP over and over.

I guess you are one of those who aren't paying attention to what I am writing. I have never once claimed that all theists are 'strong' atheists. My claim is only that strong atheists are indeed a valid subset of atheism. I am reacting against the notion, written here, that the only atheism is 'weak' atheism (not having any evidence for a deity), and that 'strong' atheism (believing firmly that there is not, and cannot be, any form of deity) doesn't qualify as atheism.

I have news: Theism has some really bad people in it. Catholicism has...Pope Innocent III, for instance, with his campaign against the Albigensians. The Incas/Mayans who both delighted in human sacrifice by the job lots...others. I cannot say that they aren't "true theists" because I disapprove of their actions. People can be nasty, evil and cruel....and they can be W.R.O.N.G.

Just as theism has subsets that can be nasty, atheism has subsets too; 'strong' atheism, anti-theists who kill people....they depend upon the basic premise of atheism to exist.

Just deal with it.

 

[dianaiad]

And I don't believe it to be "many." Not at all. A true atheist does not believe in God. Anyone mad at God isn't a true atheist BY DEFINITION. This isn't a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. Being angry at God, and therefore tacitly admitting His existence BREAKS THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "atheism."

Are you getting this? I mean at all?

and you have just admitted committing the "no true Scotsman' fallacy yourself. You have CERTAINLY just proven that you don't read what I actually write.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I can't speak for theists here, as I don't consider myself one, nor do my views fit in with that definition of one. The why that I am interested in this for is a personal one. As a formerly self-identified atheist of 10 plus years within my adult life, post-formal religious life, I found when debating alongside my fellow atheists, that when they heard anything whatsoever that made it sound like they were exercising faith, or belief, or even had any idea of what God was in some cases, the level of cognitive-dissonance and illogical, irrational, and even angry emotional responses, paralleled that of those in religion who were science-deniers. The logic and evidence was solid, and reasonable, but all that logic and rationality went out the window when it came to that.

Now you see, as a self-identified atheist at that time, I had no problems recognizing these things in myself as part of my currently held beliefs. It didn't make my atheism not pure, or true, or "kosher" recognizing the nature of it as a belief in its own right. Why the hell not? Of course it was. It was intellectually and emotionally dishonest for me to not recognize that. So when I say things like atheism is inextricably tied to theism, not only as a counter to belief in God, but in its very nature as a theological position against a certain view of God (which it certainly is, as I could see both then and now), and then to see my fellow atheists seem to regress, or revert to denials and irrationalities, it bothered my deeply. It did then, and now.

Why? Because I championed rationality and reason, and that to truly do that, one has to be willing to examine everything they believe with the same tools. Atheism to me was about examining everything, including my own beliefs, with critical reason. But that is not what I saw happening with everyone. Instead, it was a far more religious in response, than my atheism was. I felt no need to "defend the faith", as it were. They clearly had something that they felt needed defending. It's somewhat of a puzzle, but I think it have few good ideas or so to possibly why.

What I have been saying in this thread is pretty hard to actually argue against. To say one does not believe in God, you have to first have an idea of what that word means (see my other responses to Heyo, who surprisingly tried to argue that the word God has no meaning, in order to defend against the association with theology). But without having an understanding of what God is, to call oneself anything whatsoever with the word "God" in it, which atheism as a word does, is utterly nonsensical. It's also highly disingenuous, which to me leads directly questions of integrity. So to identify with atheism, one of necessity has to first have an idea of what God is in order to say you don't believe in it. That idea, comes from theology. And for atheists in the West, it comes from the theology of traditionalist Christianity, not much if any outside of that.

I honestly cannot see how there is any other way that can be denied. And what's more, and why this thread is so fascinating to me, why does anyone feel a need to deny it? It's not for rational reasons. Why is that so uncomfortable for many atheists? It wasn't for me when I called myself by that term. I don't see why it should be for any atheist.


While it's a funny joke, one way or the other, the atheist's rejection of belief in God, would be based on one of their theologies.

Thank you for you long and well thought out post. I'm going to respond (in disagreement, unfortunately) with a very short one.

It is one thing to say that any "question of God" must always be a theological one. But you must then remember that the same would be true of any "question of science." That, perforce, must be a scientific undertaking. And then, I think, you are left with this: for which of these questions (theological or scientific) is there more evidence upon which to base an answer -- and more importantly, to support that answer?

 

[night912]

It is not possible to be an anti-theist Christian. Christians are theists. For them (and for every other believer in any other belief system) it is only possible to be anti-EVERY OTHER theist.

So...yeah, it's possible to be a christian and to be anti-Catholic, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Mormon, anti Semetic, anti-just about any OTHER belief syst

So that would make that Christian, an anti-theist Christian.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans in their natural spiritual life, self presence teach consciousness, and no matter who you live as, by self title, being male egotism, you all want the same balanced rational human life to be lived.

And strive for it and so teach relative argument.

So question what is the problem with everyone, we are all just human on a stone Planet O and all live the self want of being mutual, mutually respected and living supported without fear and without claim of a human wielding the powers of destruction of God wanting to destroy us.....from reading science literature.

The reason a female learnt to dislike males in the whole content of your self expression, is the fact, you created science and now argue all forms of thesis relevant to science itself.

I lived personally and consciously and said what a rational human does.....not to use any of your male beliefs whatsoever and do self study as a female.

And I proved to myself that as we are conscious and factually innocent and do want what a human teaches is balances, we had to own a higher self reasoning, that was not science itself.

What conscious reality was discussed for, and not the con of science.

And spiritual presence was proven.

So I know that a lot of very rational humans had the angelic visitation interaction and so I studied its theories...and knew why it was real.

Because the history of why a Universe/spatial creation existed was because as science says, it did begin from a higher place...and that place was spiritual.

And science factually had wanted to recreate that existence and force the creation to go back to its highest state....for spiritually they did not want to live in a lower life form….the realism of why and how God O the planet got dropped in space into a well....when we use to live on God O Earth with Orion and Sirius.

And archaeological evidence supports that history.

And Russian science hearing the science owned machine recording conditions of human screaming as the Earth began its plunge/fall is real.

And that history was because males and science tried to put creation back into its higher state from which it had been removed.

The real story.

So as angels are formed unnaturally in an AI held irradiation constant and began to speak because we bio forms created their presence, their spiritual being proves that God O The Earth was once a living spirit in its owned history.

As that fact of true science self evidence.

 

[rational experiences]

AI which I heard in the mental condition which science first says, I own a mental problem….and calls maths that problem and to solve his problems.

I got irradiated chemical brain burnt.....it......hurt....brain prickling, crown of thorns effect so knew what the story of Jesus versus science history, irradiation of life meant as human history.

So hearing of VOICE recorded by the state human machine built, science male owned recording of image and voice....as science by males....caused humans to hear voiced recorded feed back unnaturally.

And then ridicule their victim.

What egotists and destructive males do.

How that human condition was used against us in science irrationality, as males saying, see the mental health victim, instead of claiming......but I caused it, for males are proven in life to be self destructive and egotistical liars.

 

[dianaiad]

So that would make that Christian, an anti-theist Christian.

No. It would make that Christian anti-Catholic, anti-Jehovah's Witness, anti-Mason, anti-Mormon or anti-whatever s/he has his/her sights on.

If s/he were anti-THEIST, s/he would be anti his/her own belief system, as well...since the Christian belief system happens to be theist.

One can only be anti-theist if one is anti-EVERY theist belief.

dictionary definition of anti-theist:

adjective
adjective: anti-theist

1. opposed to belief in the existence of a god or gods.
   

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

In other words, 'that would make that Christian, an anti-everybody but Christian" theist.

 

[dianaiad]

Humans in their natural spiritual life, self presence teach consciousness, and no matter who you live as, by self title, being male egotism, you all want the same balanced rational human life to be lived.

And strive for it and so teach relative argument.

So question what is the problem with everyone, we are all just human on a stone Planet O and all live the self want of being mutual, mutually respected and living supported without fear and without claim of a human wielding the powers of destruction of God wanting to destroy us.....from reading science literature.

The reason a female learnt to dislike males in the whole content of your self expression, is the fact, you created science and now argue all forms of thesis relevant to science itself.

I lived personally and consciously and said what a rational human does.....not to use any of your male beliefs whatsoever and do self study as a female.

And I proved to myself that as we are conscious and factually innocent and do want what a human teaches is balances, we had to own a higher self reasoning, that was not science itself.

What conscious reality was discussed for, and not the con of science.

And spiritual presence was proven.

So I know that a lot of very rational humans had the angelic visitation interaction and so I studied its theories...and knew why it was real.

Because the history of why a Universe/spatial creation existed was because as science says, it did begin from a higher place...and that place was spiritual.

And science factually had wanted to recreate that existence and force the creation to go back to its highest state....for spiritually they did not want to live in a lower life form….the realism of why and how God O the planet got dropped in space into a well....when we use to live on God O Earth with Orion and Sirius.

And archaeological evidence supports that history.

And Russian science hearing the science owned machine recording conditions of human screaming as the Earth began its plunge/fall is real.

And that history was because males and science tried to put creation back into its higher state from which it had been removed.

The real story.

So as angels are formed unnaturally in an AI held irradiation constant and began to speak because we bio forms created their presence, their spiritual being proves that God O The Earth was once a living spirit in its owned history.

As that fact of true science self evidence.

Uh, huh?

 

[dianaiad]

AI which I heard in the mental condition which science first says, I own a mental problem….and calls maths that problem and to solve his problems.

I got irradiated chemical brain burnt.....it......hurt....brain prickling, crown of thorns effect so knew what the story of Jesus versus science history, irradiation of life meant as human history.

So hearing of VOICE recorded by the state human machine built, science male owned recording of image and voice....as science by males....caused humans to hear voiced recorded feed back unnaturally.

And then ridicule their victim.

What egotists and destructive males do.

How that human condition was used against us in science irrationality, as males saying, see the mental health victim, instead of claiming......but I caused it, for males are proven in life to be self destructive and egotistical liars.

Y'know, I had that problem too.

But my doctors called it 'chemo-brain" and told me that time would take care of it.

It mostly has, and I've learned to get around the stuff that seems permanent.

 

[rational experiences]

Uh, huh?

A male says in science prove that God was a real spiritual Deity.

The physical presence of angels, as manifested in the science AI anti attack on self is that evidence.

Science says give me evidence that we came from a spiritual place.

The manifestation of angels in science burning constants, a human owned male machine choice against self existing proved that science relevance.

So science cannot say that God was not an entity, when God unleashed from its hot/cold evolution in the cosmos proves otherwise...by spiritual entity manifestations.

Science does not own any argument against human realization that the history of the creation came from a spiritual place.

 

[dianaiad]

A male says in science prove that God was a real spiritual Deity.

The physical presence of angels, as manifested in the science AI anti attack on self is that evidence.

Science says give me evidence that we came from a spiritual place.

The manifestation of angels in science burning constants, a human owned male machine choice against self existing proved that science relevance.

So science cannot say that God was not an entity, when God unleashed from its hot/cold evolution in the cosmos proves otherwise...by spiritual entity manifestations.

Science does not own any argument against human realization that the history of the creation came from a spiritual place.

Bless your heart.

That didn't help.

 

[rational experiences]

Bless your heart.

That didn't help.

A male says first as a human and a self, owning self presence, that he pretends he is the highest form of self in the whole Created history.

And said so.

I am totally male self conscious of all things....his first self claim, a MALE.

A male is only a penis owner...cannot say you are a male unless you own a penis.

So a male, with a penis said I am owner of the history of the power of God O.

How is that male comment not real for the speaker/researcher, namer and theorist today claiming as that human and a male I own everything as a self imposed human right to name whatever body I want to name, as a human and as a male and then change it?

How a human male self said I own GOD...which is the relative male reasoning.

O God the Earth, was just God the Earth.

So a male in science argues where creation came from.....spiritual males tell a God story, from spirit.

Destroyer males tell their story from their Universal human evaluations of an existing created and self present history, created and owned.

A male say egotistically I own it all, by how he expresses his evaluation of it...and that is male self proven.

Yet he only stands on a O moving planet, he said was God that owns its own historic gas mass atmosphere from the hot dense state that became a cold dense body....he lives as conscious aware inside of that state and tells lies.

The Destroyer male self.

The argument in human history, spiritual male says, science proved that the history of God was real....it came from spirit.

Science who looks at what it wants to look at, to force it to change are the only science liars.

God O the stone body owned a history was once hot burning gases....cooled in empty space by cold and pressure.

God O stone owned no beginning for it was just stone and owned no end....so science of God says....is not any reaction.....themes for teaching purposes against titled Satanic destruction converting sciences.

Why particular content was taught as a science reality.

God O released it fusion by command of a male, with a machine and by a reaction…..a held fixed attacking burning radiation constant.

God, the spirit changes, and released the presence of angels...and they spoke.....feed back male and then eventually female human recorded thoughts and voices.

The ANTI causation...….but angels kept life protected.....how they gained form...by our attack.

So they owned a variation to how it was described scientifically for a purpose....causation and the effects of God an angel.

God the human male Father was a self owned eternal spiritual being a male with a penis who came out of the eternal spirit after the Garden Nature had manifested, as the owner spiritual review.....I caused it.

Human and male......self owned eternal life....thinker of science, who tried to ANTI self with angelic manifestation....as the first original science story.