I can't tell what this is in response to. You quoted several paragraphs of text, none of which I can connect to this comment. My comment to you was about my belief that you would insert a god belief into any unbeliever including me if you had the power, since you would consider that a gift of inestimable value, but that I wouldn't do the same to you and make a humanist out of you, since I recognize that that would harmful to you, and it's something that needs to be done earlier in life to be of significant benefit, like quitting smoking.
But let's address what you wrote. Are you asking me if I believe the Wright brothers had knowledge of how to build and fly an airplane, or whether they could prove they had such knowledge hundreds of years in the future? Are you thinking that this is analogous to your claim of knowledge of gods, that if I believe that the Wright brothers knew how to fly that I should believe that you have knowledge of gods?
If so, yes, I believe that the Wright brothers flew an airplane because of the good evidence for it, and no, I don't believe that you are experiencing a deity, because of the poor evidence for deities and the good evidence for people misinterpreting spiritual mental states as evidence of a deity. I guess you object. You want your understanding of such experiences respected, but your claim is unconvincing.
You are not merely reporting it, you are also interpreting your experience. I have had the same experience and understood it the same way once. Now I understand it differently. Same experience, different interpretations.
You interpret what I believe exists only in your mind as representing something that exists elsewhere as well. That's projecting, as when a liar sees other people as liars. If a person claims that people are lying too much, and without evidence, you're talking to a liar projecting his own mendacious mental state onto others.
Personal attacks? No. A personal attack is when I call you a liar. I said that I thought you were mistaken. If you're offended by being disagreed with, that's on you.
And it's a common motif with the faith-based thinker on a mixed forum like this. This complain is one way - believer to unbeliever. Who complains of being attacked, theists or humanists? Who resents being disagreed with, theists or humanists? Look at this discussion between us now. We disagree with one another, but just you is miffed. The believer is quick to have an emotional response - to take offense, call his collocutor militant, or play the persecution card.
I reject your interpretation of your experience, and you are too literal regarding "your preacher." I'm not literally referring to any single person including your pastor. Change it to a pastor if you prefer, or a priest or minister.
You had written, "Science is supposed to be about evidence questions and learning, but over and over I hear “shut up believe what we tell you," to which I responded, "That's your preacher, not empiricists. That's the very embodiment of faith - shut up and believe." It represents every preacher and every Sunday school teacher and every parent who teaches Abrahamic doctrine and tells others that they need to accept the doctrine on faith, and to those who ask questions skeptically to stop listening to the devil and just believe.
That doesn't happen in science, but it is typical of teaching Christian doctrine. And you're offended again and responding emotionally. I found your comment about science derogatory, but not of me, so I didn't take it personally, nor respond emotionally to you about it, because why would I?
I suspect that you're used to a different culture for these types of discussions, one where there is little dissent, and where challenging ideas is framed as impertinence if not rebellion against God.
