Atheists vs. Theists -- Why Debate is Impossible

[muhammad_isa]

How can unfounded belief confer knowledge?

..but it isn't unfounded..

So you have a degree in the study of Abrahamic religion?
..or maybe you have learnt a lot about it in these forums..

Why is belief "unfounded" ?
Can you prove that the Bible and Qur'an are totally fraudulent?
A rhetorical question, because I know you can't.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, that exactly. Any nutcase can claim anything they damn well pelase, that God talks to them and tells them the "truth", and are we supposed to accept it? If someone is going to claim they have some truth, or that God talks to them, rational minds require that fantastic claim to be evidenced. That means their fantastic claims needs fantastic evidence. As we know believers fail miserably to offer evidence for their fantastic religious claims. They have no resvect for facts, for reason, for the rules of logic, and have contempt for the rules of debate. Believers are flagrant in their disregard for proper debate and the rules that govern this civil discourse.

What we are seeing is believers state claim after claim without any sort of justification or evidence, and often cite misleading words or phrases, and this forces critical thinkers to spend a lot of time correcting these errors, and asking for evidence. This is ofetn followed by denials, and no evidence, and even more claims. The Gish tactics in creatiosm debates is an example of this, and the believers just flood their time with lists of wrong assertions and the well-educated have to spend what little time they have correcting the misleading and deceptive claims. It often takes more time to correct one false claim, so believers have learned to do similar things: just flood their posts with many false and misleading claims and statements.

The debate is impossible because theists come to debate without adequate knowledge, and often loaded with religious dogma they believe is knowledge. So these debates aren't about determining truth from a set of facts and data, but in correcting the errors of people who are not interested in learning.

The mindset here is, sadly, a good example of why even discussion (let alone debate) sometimes isn't possible. Think for a moment about the language you use here. Step back and then read this as if it is being used to describe yourself. Then ask yourself if you would be at all interested in engaging in conversation with someone who has already written you off as a poorly-educated, lying, irrational nutcase.

 

[F1fan]

The mindset here is, sadly, a good example of why even discussion (let alone debate) sometimes isn't possible. Think for a moment about the language you use here. Step back and then read this as if it is being used to describe yourself. Then ask yourself if you would be at all interested in engaging in conversation with someone who has already written you off as a poorly-educated, lying, irrational nutcase.

I understand the emotional circumstances you are referring to. If I admitted I like pineapple on pizza I would get all sorts of criticisms about my choice. I might regret admitting this, and I might feel stress having tod efend my choice that just comes down to a particular taste, not a reasoned decision. I could wonder, "Boy, is something wrong with me for liking fruit on pizza?"

But this isn't related to theists making truth claims in debate. Theists who engage in debate want thier claims accvepted by critical thinkers, and many don't want to engage by honoring the rules to logic and debate. Believers tyically assume certain things that are not warranted or accepted, even by other theists. For example a Muslim will assume certain things about the Bible, but not in a way that Christians assume. They will reject the Gita and Mormon Bible and the Urantia book, and Baha'i texts as being credible, just as critical thinkers do. So we see a lot of overlapping rejection of certain religious assumptions, and with a select assumption of ideas and texts that validate their personal beliefs. This is inconsistent, and critical thinkers point out this massive subjectivity.

Generally it is the Abrahamics who are the most guilty of making truth assertions, but not being able to demonstrate their beliefs are true, or evn likely true. They keep engaging, critical thinkers keep asking questions and expoing flaws in thinking. What I pointed out in the bit you quoted is an observed pattern. You are critical of my language use, but is my language incorrect? Did I say anything that is incorrect? Facts and brutal truth can sting the believer, and that is the risk they take when they decide to engage in debates that examines what they claim is truth. As we know religious truth is not objectively true, and is used for personal meaning and significance. When these beliefs are challeneged it can sting the ego of the believer, and that is their lesson to learn. Open debate can be an efferctive tool for believers to realize lessons they need to learn. For some they retreat into denial and deeper "faith". That is a fear response, and offers even more opportunity to learn something about themselves.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The mindset here is, sadly, a good example of why even discussion (let alone debate) sometimes isn't possible. Think for a moment about the language you use here. Step back and then read this as if it is being used to describe yourself. Then ask yourself if you would be at all interested in engaging in conversation with someone who has already written you off as a poorly-educated, lying, irrational nutcase.

@F1fan isn't exactly opening with this approach, though. @F1fan and @muhammad_isa have both been here for a long time and have had plenty of interactions before.

What you're complaining about here only came after a fair bit of (IIRC) opening politeness and niceties in other threads.

Personally, I try to open with giving the other person the benefit of the doubt and not with comments that the other person might find insulting.

Even if a new member is bringing up an argument that been beaten to death in a dozen threads already, they aren't going to know that, and I have no idea what sorts of opportunities - if any - they've had to challenge whatever belief they're here proclaiming.

... but all that aside, I've heard stories from more than one person that the shock of getting their beliefs ridiculed or responded to aggressively was the first step toward them re-evaluating them and eventually abandoning them. As long as everyone treated the belief as worthy of respect, they kinda took it for granted that it was reasonable; it was only when they encountered people telling them something different that they started self-exploration.

We have no idea how often this happens here. People hate to lose face, so it's not like they'll admit being wrong, but I do expect that there are plenty of people who come to one forum as a fundamentalist believer, get laughed at, leave, reflect, and then go to the next forum as a moderate believer with a new username.

 

[F1fan]

Come off it..
Most believers do not accept the claims of any old Tom, Dick or Harry. Why would they? We are not all stupid, you know.

No, they assume specific claims of Toms, Dicks, or Muhammads. You reject the Baha'i texts and the Mormon Bible, yet many do assume these texts are valid and true. You have used this same justification yourself (the logical fallacy of argument by popularity) so you should aply it to things you don't believe in. If the Quran is true, then so is the Gita, the Urantia book, the Mormon Bible, and how Christians interpret the Bible. If one is true because it is believed in, then all ae true because they are believed in. The Mormons are as correct as Muslims, right? Just because Mormons think they are right donesn't mean Muslims are wrong. And just because you think Islam is correct, and the Quran a divine source doesn't mean the Mormon Bible isn't divine and Mormons wrong, right? Your personal belief doesn't imply other theists are wrong.

Many "fundamentalists" do not have a good formal education.

Stats show that the less educated are more likely to believe in irrational concepts, like religion. Fundamentalism is just a more extreme form of religion, with more commitment to the same ideas that mainstream believers believe. Believers are not one tribe, there are theists who aren't very committed to their beliefs, to moderates who are committed to ritual and belief, and then the fundamentalist believer who is quite adamant their beliefs are true like creationists, and then extremists who will act on their irrational beliefs in anti-social ways. We see more extremism in nations that have less secularism. Secular government helps maintain religious freedom but also limits extremism. It has to be this way since there are so many religions, and so many people who use their religious beliefs to impose their personal religious values onto society as a whole. We need to have debates that sort out irrational religious assumptions and beliefs aside. It's OK that people believe in religion, but they need to understand the subjectivity of their belief, and that theists share a world with other disagreeing believers, and also critical thinkers who subject all theists to criticism about religion. We are all in the same boat that we disagree with theists. Ateists just disagree with one more religion than any given theist.

If you enjoy these types of debate, then fine.
I personally lose interest quite quickly.

When? You have been defiant against many critics, and you will make claims over and over again and avoid the requests by critics for evidence and exlpanations. It must take you many months to lose interest in debates where you post comments every few hours a day.

I thank God that I had a good, broad education, and enjoy conversing with most people .. but Bible literalism, without academic knowledge often crosses a line .. a line that denies well established scientific fact. It's not for me !

My sense is you are having inner conflicts about who you think you are. Your behavior doesn't match your claims. You claim to lose interest quickly when clearly that isn't the case.

You are guilty of presuming that all believers are alike .. we are not. We are all unique human beings, with a story to tell.

I didn't claim "all believers are the same". But there are patterns that fits religious belief in a braod sense. And then there are patterns that fir certain types of believers. As I noted elsewhere there is a behavioral pattern of Abrahamic believers that Eastern theists don't do. Abrahamic believers treat their concepts as if factual and true, while Eastern theists treat their ideas as more representative of real phenomenon.

You cite being educated, well so are critical thinkers. I am personally educated in various discilines of psychology, including the pyschology of religion. I have learned why people become religious, and there is a biological and social component. Many individual believers who are committed to a tradition of belief will want to shape their belief to fit their own story and their own meaning. It's fine to have traditional and cultural meaning. Versonal meanin g is versonal, not objecdtive. When believers engage in religious debates, and try to argue for why their personal beliefs are objective, and imly their versonal beliefs are universal and absolute (even if these are not directly claimed, only implied) these will be opposed by asking for evidence. There is none. The believer who engages is caught in a trap between their personal meaning assignment and belief (of an absolute truth) to critical thinking that recognizes religions are not absolute, and critical thinkers asking for evidence.

Your behavior in these debates exposes your dilemma as a trapped believer, a person who thinks they have absolute knowledge but can't explain that it is true. You either don't want to acknowledge this, or are lost in denial about this. The freedom lies in accepting you have beliefs that are NOT absolute, not factual, and not rational, but you can't still feel they are true and significant to you personally. That critical thinkers are not convinced shouldn't be a problem for your personal belief.

 

[Valjean]

There was a post where I quoted you. Can you respond with more than just saying its gobbledygook?

I thought it was quite simple.

Here:



Tell me. What exactly are you having trouble understanding about that?

You're seeing some sort of cryptic, secret message code in various writings. I don't buy it.
Bible code - Wikipedia

 

[muhammad_isa]

You reject the Baha'i texts and the Mormon Bible..

Ah, another attempt at "divide and rule" .. spotted it

If the Quran is true, then so is the Gita, the Urantia book, the Mormon Bible..

I am surprised to see you claim this .. I thought that your powers of reason were better than this.

..You have been defiant against many critics, and you will make claims over and over again and avoid the requests by critics for evidence and exlpanations. It must take you many months to lose interest in debates where you post comments every few hours a day..

I wasn't referring to my debates in general .. I don't cross paths so often with "fundamentalists" .. perhaps neither of us want to pursue "evolution/creationist" type discussion, who knows.
..well, God knows, naturally.

My sense is you are having inner conflicts about who you think you are..

Is that right? I think that I "know who I am", but that does not necessarily make life any easier.

I didn't claim "all believers are the same". But there are patterns that fits religious belief in a braod sense. And then there are patterns that fir certain types of believers..

..and do you find me to be the classic "Muslim type"?

You cite being educated, well so are critical thinkers. I am personally educated in various discilines of psychology, including the pyschology of religion..

That's good .. education is of great benefit to the individual and community.

The believer who engages is caught in a trap between their personal meaning assignment and belief (of an absolute truth) to critical thinking that recognizes religions are not absolute, and critical thinkers asking for evidence..

Asking for evidence is fine, but expecting to "see God", which many atheists often end up doing, is pointless.
Believers and disbelievers alike know that God does not appear on TV and such like.

Your behavior in these debates exposes your dilemma as a trapped believer..

We are ALL "trapped" in this life .. a wealthy person who is enjoying their life might think otherwise, but fate promises little.
We might end up with serious disability, and have to cope with that .. and so on..

..a person who thinks they have absolute knowledge but can't explain that it is true..

It is not that I can't explain why I think it's true .. it is that you prefer to dismiss arguments, and resort to "no empirical evidence for any gods", meaning "show us God".

I see that the only loser is the person who insists on such..
There is nothing to learn there, only inflating of ego in "winning".

The freedom lies in accepting you have beliefs that are NOT absolute, not factual, and not rational..

..but they are rational ..
You cannot prove that the Bible or Qur'an are all fraudulent.
All you can say is that you think that they are one gigantic conspiracy .. but you avoid that, preferring an attack about believing "woo"

 

[Valjean]

..but it isn't unfounded..

So you have a degree in the study of Abrahamic religion?
..or maybe you have learnt a lot about it in these forums..

Why is belief "unfounded" ?
Can you prove that the Bible and Qur'an are totally fraudulent?
A rhetorical question, because I know you can't.

Unfounded inasmuch as their claims aren't empirically testable or based on reliable evidence. In the case of the Bible, it's authorship is largely unknown, it's full of factual errors, and it's been cherry-picked and heavily edited. The Qur'an, at least, is a more unified work, albeit still full of unsupported claims.

Totally fraudulent, no. Just unevidenced, full of fantastical claims, and outright falsehoods.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Unfounded inasmuch as their claims aren't empirically testable..

That, in itself, does not tell us anything about whether God exists or not.
We have all been given a conscience and intellect.
Some conclude that the Bible and Qur'an are basically true .. and some do not. It has nothing to do with splitting a persons head open to find out why, or what makes them tick.

In the case of the Bible, it's authorship is largely unknown, it's full of factual errors, and it's been cherry-picked and heavily edited.

I would agree, but that does not mean that its contents is based on lies and conspiracy.

The Qur'an, at least, is a more unified work, albeit still full of unsupported claims.

Totally fraudulent, no. Just unevidenced, full of fantastical claims, and outright falsehoods.

It does not contain "outright falsehoods" .. perhaps give us an example?

 

[F1fan]

I am surprised to see you claim this ..

It's not a claim. It is a statement that illustrates that any religious text is as valid as any otehr, and that is because believers value them. None can be shown to be divine or flawless. Notice you offer no disagreement, nor that the Quran is special and superior to any other holy books.

I wasn't referring to my debates in general .. I don't cross paths so often with "fundamentalists" .. perhaps neither of us want to pursue "evolution/creationist" type discussion, who knows.
..well, God knows, naturally.

Assuming any sort of god exists, naturally.

Asking for evidence is fine, but expecting to "see God", which many atheists often end up doing, is pointless.

Theists claiming to "see God" is the claim. That you can't explain how you ordinary mortals believe this is the problem. Why can't you explain how you "see God"? How do you expect us to accept your outlandish claim and not offer a valid explanation, and valid evidence.

Believers and disbelievers alike know that God does not appear on TV and such like.

And you avoid explaining how a God does appear to ordinary, average people. So why should we take you seriously?

We are ALL "trapped" in this life .. a wealthy person who is enjoying their life might think otherwise, but fate promises little.
We might end up with serious disability, and have to cope with that .. and so on..

Why are you avoiding my statements and going on this irrelevant deflection? I take it you agree with all I said, that theists are trapped in their beliefs, and lack freedom from their belief.

It is not that I can't explain why I think it's true .. it is that you prefer to dismiss arguments, and resort to "no empirical evidence for any gods", meaning "show us God".

This is a child's excuse. You make outlandish claims, of course you will be asked to back them up in a debate forum. How do ordinary, average people, like yourself, come to think a God exists? If it is real, then you can explain the process. If you refuse, then there's a problem with what you claim.

..but they are rational ..

No religious belief is rational. Anyone who decides an idea is true when there is no evidence that compels such a judgment is not rational.

You cannot prove that the Bible or Qur'an are all fraudulent.

You have repeated this several times. No one is claiming fraud.

All you can say is that you think that they are one gigantic conspiracy .. but you avoid that, preferring an attack about believing "woo"

No one is claiming conspiracy. Stop deflecting. It suggests you know you can't back up what you claim. `It also suggests you understand your beliefs are dubious.

 

[WonderingWorrier]

You're seeing some sort of cryptic, secret message code in various writings. I don't buy it.
Bible code - Wikipedia

Seems like a shrugging off response from you.
You could have questioned what I'm saying (I could go into more detail).
Do you just assume that I'm wrong and connect what I'm saying with an unrelated bible code?


I'm not a man of faith. I did not read the bible because I believed in God, I did it out of interest. But I do now believe words of prophecy are true because I know what they are saying makes logical sense.

Like I know why the stars are as figs in this prohecy:

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind". Revelation.

Because they share the same position:

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Brass - Silver - Gold
Pomegranate - Fig - Apple
Moon - Star - Sun

When I quote a verse I dont position a symbol because of that one verse.
I require multiple verifications for me to classify a symbol to a position. That is why I can go into more detail about any symbol and its positioning.

Perhaps people think the bible mentions magic because they cant explain how else the words could be true.
And since they think the prophecies seem to havent happened yet it must mean some day in the future.

You say bible prophecies havent materialised and I disagree. I say they were fulfilled the moment they were spoken.

If you would like to see a demonstation of this fact then ask me about some of the prophecies and I will see if I can show them to you.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I take it you agree with all I said, that theists are trapped in their beliefs, and lack freedom from their belief..

Of course I don't.
We might "trap ourselves", or we might be oppressed by others .. but we are all capable of believing whatever we like, barring serious mental disability.

How do ordinary, average people, like yourself, come to think a God exists? If it is real, then you can explain the process. If you refuse, then there's a problem with what you claim..

Tiresome .. if I "refused", then what are my 6,000 posts about?
..perhaps they just whoosh past you, as you are so intent on proving me wrong.

No religious belief is rational. Anyone who decides an idea is true when there is no evidence..

..and round and round we go.

You: materialism is the correct belief
Me: I know there is more than this physical universe
You: there is no [empirical] evidence of it
Me: congratulations, you have stated the obvious
You: if one religion is true, then they all are
Me: illogical, Jim

You have repeated this several times. No one is claiming fraud..

It is implied that Abrahamic scripture is all fraudulent or deluded, if one claims that the probability that God exists is close to zero.

No one is claiming conspiracy. Stop deflecting. It suggests you know you can't back up what you claim. `It also suggests you understand your beliefs are dubious.

Don't be absurd. There is nothing dubious about the existence of "a self-aware force" that is responsible for all we observe.

For me, I find that the Torah, Psalms, NT and Qur'an are coherent, and cannot believe that they are "just stories" that are based on delusion or fraud.

 

[Valjean]

That, in itself, does not tell us anything about whether God exists or not.
We have all been given a conscience and intellect.
Some conclude that the Bible and Qur'an are basically true .. and some do not. It has nothing to do with splitting a persons head open to find out why, or what makes them tick.

Some conclude that the Tao is basically true, or the Gita, the Chronicles of Narnia, the Popol Vuh, or Legends of Arthur. They can't all be true, and according them equal veridical status is an intellectual cop-out.

I'd say that Conscience is of little use in determining the truth value of the various legends.
The intellect, on the other hand, works through assessment, critical analysis, and testing of evidence.
The truth-value of religious scripture leaves a lot to be desired.

I would agree, but that does not mean that its contents is based on lies and conspiracy.

A lie is a verbal attempt to deceive. The authors of scripture may have believed their claims to be true, or that their stories were instructive, if not factual. So: erroneous, at least, if not mendacious.

Conspiracy? It can be hard to infer intent, especially in unknown persons from the far past, but in the case of the Bible, for example, the scriptures cherry picked for the official version, the edits, and the historical suppression of alternative viewpoints, do point to deliberate propaganda.

It does not contain "outright falsehoods" .. perhaps give us an example?

Exodus from Egypt. Worldwide flood. Al Isra. The creation myths, &al.
I could also point to the numerous miracles reported, that noöne would believe today, even with witnesses who could be interrogated first hand.

 

[Valjean]

Seems like a shrugging off response from you.
You could have questioned what I'm saying (I could go into more detail).
Do you just assume that I'm wrong and connect what I'm saying with an unrelated bible code?


I'm not a man of faith. I did not read the bible because I believed in God, I did it out of interest. But I do now believe words of prophecy are true because I know what they are saying makes logical sense.

Like I know why the stars are as figs in this prohecy:

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind". Revelation.

Because they share the same position:

Position1 - Position2 - Position3
Brass - Silver - Gold
Pomegranate - Fig - Apple
Moon - Star - Sun

The quotation is not a clear, declarative or explanatory sentence. It' cryptic; it needs interpretation. Even granting poetic license, it's gobbledygook.
Positions? Metals? Fruits? Astronomic bodies? What's that all about? What's a reasonable person to make of it?

When I quote a verse I dont position a symbol because of that one verse.
I require multiple verifications for me to classify a symbol to a position. That is why I can go into more detail about any symbol and its positioning.

Verifications? Positions? Please explain. Your literary analysis is as abstruse as the scripture you quote.

Perhaps people think the bible mentions magic because they cant explain how else the words could be true.
And since they think the prophecies seem to havent happened yet it must mean some day in the future.

You say bible prophecies havent materialised and I disagree. I say they were fulfilled the moment they were spoken.

If you would like to see a demonstation of this fact then ask me about some of the prophecies and I will see if I can show them to you.

Yes, I would. Thanks. This is all very confusing.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I'd say that Conscience is of little use in determining the truth value of the various legends..

You can say it, but most would not agree.

Exodus from Egypt. Worldwide flood. Al Isra. The creation myths..

I don't think you are that aware, that these narrations are not identical to those in the Torah.

What about the exodus from Egypt is outright falsehood?

..the flood is not mentioned to be global, in the Qur'an.
What creation myth? What exactly is the falsehood?
The Qur'an points out that God is the "Evolver from Nought".

The fact that mankind is created from clay / water / physical material, does not fully explain whether Adam was made by "poof" or some other way.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That, in itself, does not tell us anything about whether God exists or not.

Don't you think this take is a bit disingenuous?

Evidence certainly tells us whether belief in God is justified. Yes, it doesn't tell us whether the claim is true despite being unjustified, but are you really open to that possibility?

I mean, that would imply that the core of your religion is based on nothing - or at least nothing true - but just serendipitously stumbled onto a lucky answer to this one question.

This would also mean that many of the religion's secondary claims (e.g. every "prophet's" claim to prophethood) and meta-claims (e.g. that Muslim belief is reasonable) are false.

This is the "escape clause" you're trying to carve out for yourself. Would you actually agree with its implications?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Don't you think this take is a bit disingenuous?

No.

@Valjean said "Unfounded inasmuch as their claims aren't empirically testable."

..to which I replied "That, in itself, does not tell us anything about whether God exists or not."

Well, it doesn't. We all know that the existence of God cannot be empirically proved. God is not a physical entity.

Evidence certainly tells us whether belief in God is justified.

True .. but it doesn't have to be empirical, as in "show me God".

I mean, that would imply that the core of your religion is based on nothing - or at least nothing true..

Twaddle.

 

[F1fan]

Of course I don't.
We might "trap ourselves", or we might be oppressed by others .. but we are all capable of believing whatever we like, barring serious mental disability.

Explain why you reject facts and explaations that reveal religions are evolveing myths through time, and not independent revelations as claimed by believers like yourself? Are you free to change your mind about your belief in Islam? If so, what would change your mind? If not, then how are you free from Islam?

Tiresome .. if I "refused", then what are my 6,000 posts about?

They are about avoiding questions, and accountability for your claims. I asked you how ordinary people can realize a God exists and you have no explanation.

..and round and round we go.

You: materialism is the correct belief
Me: I know there is more than this physical universe
You: there is no [empirical] evidence of it
Me: congratulations, you have stated the obvious
You: if one religion is true, then they all are
Me: illogical, Jim

This isn't evidence that your religious beliefs are true. We reject them at face value, and you offer no reason for a rational mind to believe.

It is implied that Abrahamic scripture is all fraudulent or deluded, if one claims that the probability that God exists is close to zero.

Offer us how you evaluate the probability your God existing. It begins at zero, and that is where we are.

Don't be absurd. There is nothing dubious about the existence of "a self-aware force" that is responsible for all we observe.

What self-aware force?

Notice there is no objective fact of any such thing.

For me, I find that the Torah, Psalms, NT and Qur'an are coherent, and cannot believe that they are "just stories" that are based on delusion or fraud.

Your belief is irrelevant. We don't care. We care about evidence and a coherent explanation, and you offer neither. This indicates you did not arrive at your beliefs via evidence and reason, so we throw it out.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True .. but it doesn't have to be empirical, as in "show me God".

That isn't the extent of what empirical evidence for God could be.

... but feel free to point out something that:

- isn't empirical evidence,
- is evidence for God, and
- is demonstrably true.

Twaddle.

That's right: if your religion were unjustified, it would be twaddle.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Explain why you reject facts and explaations that reveal religions are evolveing myths through time, and not independent revelations as claimed by believers like yourself?

..because I see that the Torah, Psalms, NT and Qur'an knit together in a coherent fashion and cannot believe that it is all conspired fantasy.

Are you free to change your mind about your belief in Islam?

Why wouldn't I be?

If so, what would change your mind?

Clear evidence that proves that the Bible and Qur'an are NOT coherent, and that turning my back on God would be to my advantage .. in this life and a [possible] next.
Honesty is the best policy .. even if it appears that it works against you.
War, naturally, is a separate issue, but in the breaking of treaties it is not.

Your belief is irrelevant. We don't care. We care about evidence and a coherent explanation, and you offer neither..

You are rude and inpatient.
Why would you expect to find any cosmic truth in this manner?
You have already decided, and your arrogant position is
"materialism is the default belief .. prove it"
You only serve to deceive yourself.
It is not possible that God can show you anything like this, other than striking you down. I wouldn't push it, if I were you..
..but then, you are not me.

I reply to your posts and specific questions..
I cannot and will not continue to respond to pointless rhetoric.

This indicates you did not arrive at your beliefs via evidence and reason, so we throw it out.

Yeah, yeah .. and I throw out a materialist ideology.
It doesn't "taste good" to me.
..and I've got pretty good taste buds, I would say.