Is atheism a religion?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Confusing at best.

You say that God leaves no verifiable evidence.

If true, then this means that anything that would serve as verifiable evidence for God must not be genuine:

- should we accept this scripture as genuine? If we did, it would be verifiable evidence of God. Therefore, the scripture must be false.

- should we accept this person as a prophet or messenger from God? Any evidence that could establish that he's the real thing would also serve as verifiable evidence of God, and we've decided this evidence doesn't exist.

- can we logically infer God's existence from the natural world? If we can, then the whole universe is verifiable evidence of God, so no - we can't.

Your position, applied consistently, is more anti-theistic and more anti-religious than that of most atheists.

Personally, my position is just that I see no reason to believe in a god and that I ought not to believe in it without a reason. You go a step further: no only do you say that you haven't seen any evidence for God; it definitely does not exist.

And yet you're a theist; why?

 

[shunyadragon]

You say that God leaves no verifiable evidence.

If true, then this means that anything that would serve as verifiable evidence for God must not be genuine:

Atheist assumption with no verifiable evidence either way.

- should we accept this scripture as genuine? If we did, it would be verifiable evidence of God. Therefore, the scripture must be false.

Acceptance of scripture is NOT based on verifiable objective evidence of science.

- should we accept this person as a prophet or messenger from God? Any evidence that could establish that he's the real thing would also serve as verifiable evidence of God, and we've decided this evidence doesn't exist.

Again, based on your atheist assumptions, which cannot make the objective determination either way.

- can we logically infer God's existence from the natural world? If we can, then the whole universe is verifiable evidence of God, so no - we can't.

The verifiable objective evidence of science does not say yes nor no.

Your position, applied consistently, is more anti-theistic and more anti-religious than that of most atheists.

No.

Personally, my position is just that I see no reason to believe in a god and that I ought not to believe in it without a reason. You go a step further: no only do you say that you haven't seen any evidence for God; it definitely does not exist.

And yet you're a theist; why?

Again, again, again, again and again . . . NOT the subject of the thread. You take a strong biased atheist position and you have demonstrated absolutely no knowledge of the Baha'i Faith.

I have in previous threads given my position as a believer in God and the Baha'i Faith and as in this thread hit a stone wall of an absolute extreme atheist position.

What happened to the thread topic?

 

[`mud]

One look at the fires in California, proves the lack of evidence of `God` to my eyes !
The people living there can not be all wrong, maybe we can blame mother nature !
But......isn't `God` the creator of mother nature, where's the rain `He` promised ?
Yeahhh...there's a `God`....really !...... Maybe in that `other` universe over there !

 

[shunyadragon]

One look at the fires in California, proves the lack of evidence of `God` to my eyes !
The people living there can not be all wrong, maybe we can blame mother nature !
But......isn't `God` the creator of mother nature, where's the rain `He` promised ?
Yeahhh...there's a `God`....really !...... Maybe in that `other` universe over there !

The thread is wandering all over the place OFF TOPIC, nonetheless . . .

There is a problem of people naively building in a region where they should not build and the collective responsibility of the failure to manage the environment and natural resources, and not facing up to the consequences and reality of global warming, The result is Paradise becomes a living Hell. A similar problem with building and living in flood plains and coastal areas that are subject to catastrophic flooding and storm disasters, and wandering what happened when they were wiped out

This is not a new argument on this site and a multitude of others, except you focus on only one incident in a vast history of human suffering, I do not believe your going to get anywhere with the perpetual motion of argument after argument after argument.

The ancient mythological view of suffering in Judaism and Christianity. does have a multitude of issues dealing with physical suffering in the natural world beginning with the hands on ancient anthropomorphic view of God. The result is variations of the Fall and original sin blaming human failings on the suffering. Christianity does carry the anchor of guilt around its neck of the Genesis mythology to explain suffering in the Fall and Original Sin,

Put simply the Baha'i Faith believes in a natural Creation with yes with natural physical suffering and death, but the spiritual journey and destiny of the soul is separate from the natural physical suffering and death.

It would be nice if you start one of the infinite number of threads on this topic to deal with this subject.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheist assumption with no verifiable evidence either way.

Come again?

"There is no verifiable evidence for God" implies "all purported verifiable evidence for God is necessarily not actually verifiable evidence for God." This isn't an "atheist assumption." It flows logicall from what you said.

Acceptance of scripture is NOT based on verifiable objective evidence of science.

Where's "of science" suddenly coming from?

What happened to the thread topic?

We're on a tangent to see if you can defend the claims you made in your arguments on the thread topic. Right now, we're at "he hasn't defended them so far," heading for "nope - he can't."

 

[ecco]

I had no idea that capitalizing meant shouting. I always thought that excitement, emphasize, or surprise were indicated by using an exclamation mark. My generation was the pen to paper generation. I only capitalize to draw your attention to a word or an important phrase. I didn't know that capitalizing would cause this level of excitement, or arrogant sarcasm. But in the future, I will definitely exercise my syntactic due diligence regarding this writing nuance. Also, in the future when someone capitalizes a part of text, don't make the self-serving assumption that they are shouting or ranting, they simply may NOT know. So simply ask them.

I've really have to call BS on your self serving comments regarding shouting.
You've been in this forum for over two years. If you haven't been made aware that excessive use of caps and bolds is considered shouting, then you haven't been paying attention.

I made the comment that Atheism is the belief or claim that a God(s) does not exist, based on the available evidence from our reality. This claim is totally contingent on the evidence. No evidence, no God. The more evidence to support the claim, the more the claim becomes valid. The evidence we use is only from our reality, and is based on the physical laws of the Universe. Therefore, our beliefs or claims only apply to our Universe. Since our knowledge is limited to our own Universe(so far), I can't make a knowledge claim that no God(s) can exist anywhere outside my reality.

OK, then don't.

Hence, claiming I don't know if a God or anything supernatural exists outside of my reality, is an honest and accurate claim. "I don't know" is not the default position of "it can be". It means lacking the knowledge of knowing something for certain, similar to "I don't have a clue". So what I am saying again is, there may be or may not be, there can or cannot be, a God or anything else supernatural existing outside of our reality. I'm saying that I just don't know. Twist that to force-fit whatever narrative you want.

I have no need to force fit or twist your opinions. Just ask yourself why you really need to believe that somehow, somewhere, sometime Superman really exists. You probably don't.

Now ask yourself why you really need to believe that somehow, somewhere, sometime an omni-all entity really exists. The answer is that somehow you believe the concept of god is real whereas you don't believe the concept of Superman is real.

Since you keep making this claim that no God(s) exists anywhere, then how do you know? What evidence supports this knowledge claim? Isn't this just another argument from ignorance?

Since your claim is that no God(s) exists anywhere, including outside of our reality, what is your evidence to support that claim? What evidence can you point to outside of reality that is incompatible with the existence of God(s)? So, if you can find your way through your ego-serving posturing, maybe you can demonstrate how you know that your claim is true/certain? Again, the evidence please?

In a few words: The very concept of gods is nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings. You, somewhere, deep down, seem to believe that gods can be real. Why?

 

[MonkeyFire]

Atheism belongs with the rest of nihilism; no morals, and no religion.

 

[ecco]

Atheism belongs with the rest of nihilism; no morals, and no religion.

Maybe you should listen closely to the lyrics of Lennon's Imagine.
Maybe you should realize that morals were around thousands of years before "Moses" wrote anything.
Maybe you should acknowledge that owning and beating slaves is not very moral.

 

[shunyadragon]

Come again?

"There is no verifiable evidence for God" implies "all purported verifiable evidence for God is necessarily not actually verifiable evidence for God." This isn't an "atheist assumption." It flows logicall from what you said.

OK! Atheist assumption with no verifiable evidence either way. You make an unverifiable assumption that no Gods exist, and your belief is atheism.

Where's "of science" suddenly coming from?

Science, the realm of objective verifiable evidence.

We're on a tangent to see if you can defend the claims you made in your arguments on the thread topic. Right now, we're at "he hasn't defended them so far," heading for "nope - he can't."

Yep!!!! Your tangent aggressive one sided extreme atheist agenda.

One point worth making is if God did not mirror the attributes of the natural physical existence, God's Creation than there are unresolvable contradictions that ancient world views like Judaism and Christianity cannot resolve.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Maybe you should listen closely to the lyrics of Lennon's Imagine.
Maybe you should realize that morals were around thousands of years before "Moses" wrote anything.
Maybe you should acknowledge that owning and beating slaves is not very moral.

You can say yes if you believe.

 

[ecco]

Maybe you should listen closely to the lyrics of Lennon's Imagine.
Maybe you should realize that morals were around thousands of years before "Moses" wrote anything.
Maybe you should acknowledge that owning and beating slaves is not very moral.

You can say yes if you believe.

You guys are soooo good at evading. Why is that?

Do you deny that your Bible approves of owning slaves or are you just ignorant of the facts?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I've really have to call BS on your self serving comments regarding shouting.
You've been in this forum for over two years. If you haven't been made aware that excessive use of caps and bolds is considered shouting, then you haven't been paying attention.


OK, then don't.




I have no need to force fit or twist your opinions. Just ask yourself why you really need to believe that somehow, somewhere, sometime Superman really exists. You probably don't.

Now ask yourself why you really need to believe that somehow, somewhere, sometime an omni-all entity really exists. The answer is that somehow you believe the concept of god is real whereas you don't believe the concept of Superman is real.




In a few words: The very concept of gods is nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings. You, somewhere, deep down, seem to believe that gods can be real. Why?

I've been told many things, but being told that using Caps represents shouting or anger, is not one of them. I would say that accusing someone of lying without any evidence is arrogant, judgemental, disrespectful, and immature. But, I'm sure without these attributes you wouldn't have any character at all. How long I have been on the forum, or on the planet, is irrelevant. What is relevant is you calling my claim BS without evidence. Until it was pointed out by you and another poster, I had no idea. But I certainly do now. You must really have a high opinion of yourself, if you think that you're so important that people would need to lie to you about anything.

What makes you think that I need(emphasis on this word) to believe that a God, or a superman, exists outside of my reality? Are you now twisting "I don't know" if a God, superman, or anything supernatural exists outside of my reality, to fit "I must have a need to believe that God, and the rest, exists outside of my reality? Another fallacy and self-serving conclusion. My reality is more than enough for introspection and awareness.

What if someone from the 1 BC could magically appear in this century. How do you think he would characterize the people and technology of this century? Now think of someone who had the technology to travel between dimensions, or between Universes. How do you think many of us would characterize him? To the most primitive civilizations, advanced civilizations may seem like Gods. So the term God(s) is relative, hence why there are so many.

You seem to take pleasure in demanding that other making truth and knowledge claims, provide you with objective evidence. I'm simply asking you to be consistent. You are making a knowledge and truth claim, that No God(s) exists anywhere. So what is your evidence, and how can you demonstrate this? It doesn't matter if God is only a conception or perception, you have made the claim so back it up. I've also demonstrated that you can(emphasis) prove a negative, so you can't hide behind that. So please demonstrate your claim, and stop deflecting.

 

[Curious George]

You are making a knowledge and truth claim, that No God(s) exists anywhere.

This, [no gods exist], is not a knowledge claim.

 

[leibowde84]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

That said, I agree that it has bad effects on society when people reject provable knowledge about the physical universe obtained via the scientific method, especially when large groups do so.

Also, the kind of God you believe in matters. A God who commits genocide on innocents, and who commands angels and humans to do likewise; belief in this kind of God will obviously have bad consequences for society. Also, a God who judges small transgressions by torture and execution. Also, a God who promotes an infer role in society for women, for example. Or promotes slavery.

Also, merely claiming that there is intelligent design without demonstrating at least a possible mechanism that the intelligent designer could interact with the physical atoms and molecules to implement his/her design; this is not science, nor is it responsible. For example, you might suppose that the intelligent designer fiddles around with the motions of atoms. But would he/she violate the laws of physics in doing so? There is no known mechanism for this fiddling. And how could anyone, even a super-intellect, possibly know the consequences of doing such a thing? The biochemical systems of life are simply too complex for this kind of predictive power. And why would God even want to micromanage the universe at the atomic level anyway?

Also, claiming that God provides a moral basis for society is false. Especially when the holy books of the revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are fiction, and clearly and provably contradict science, archaeology, document analysis, and logic.

This world contains pain and suffering. Claiming that God is good but created bad is illogical. Claiming that God is good but he/she allowed for pain and suffering implies God is not so good after all. And claiming that people being tortured to death and animals eating each other alive is desirable for a higher good is an offensive idea. And claiming that God is both good and bad means God is not God.

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God. But note that such a God has no effect whatsoever on the physical world at all, and his/her influence can only enter into our minds to bring goodness and justice and beauty and joy and peace. Why should anyone object to a God like that?

I would prefer if atheists would limit their critiques of belief in God to critiques of the specific ideas such as I've outlined above. And that they would be calm and rational and polite in their demeanor. I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

Atheism is an extremely broad term. It includes those who merely "lack" or "are without" a belief in any deities. Therefore, those who are undecided (neither believe nor disbelieve in deities) can accurately be considered atheists (agnostics = "weak atheists"). Thus, it would be illogical to label atheism as a religion. "Strong atheism", or the belief that gods are an impossibility, could be a different story. Is that what you are arguing about here?

 

[MonkeyFire]

You guys are soooo good at evading. Why is that?

Do you deny that your Bible approves of owning slaves or are you just ignorant of the facts?

I believe in Jesus, not the ot.

 

[shunyadragon]

Atheism belongs with the rest of nihilism; no morals, and no religion.

Actually this is the extreme Theist biased view of atheism that is faulty logic of generalization and association, which I disagree with strongly even though I am a Theist..

 

[Truly Enlightened]

This, [no gods exist], is not a knowledge claim.

So if I make the claim that, "you have no wife and children", or that "you have no job or car", or that "you don't live anywhere", you don't think that these are truth or implicit knowledge claims? I suppose you also don't think there is a difference between the claims, "I don't believe you have a wife and kid, live anywhere, or have a job and car", and the above claims? The former are implicit knowledge or truth claims, which requires evidence(physical or logical). And the latter are belief claims, which requires no evidence. It is simply your opinion or belief, based on whatever subjective evidence you choose to deposit. His claim was, "YES! It is my claim that No God(s) Exist, or can exist anywhere. Clear enough?". Do you believe that the poster thinks that his claim is not true? Does the posters claim sound anything remotely like it is just his belief? Or, should we simply assume that he is right, and has some special knowledge known only to himself? It is not a knowledge claim per sé, only because the knowledge is implicit and implied, not explicit and known.

Your position is ironic and confusing, since you stated earlier that, "No god" is not merely not believing". Although you didn't elaborate, "no God(s) existing anywhere" would certainly go beyond merely not-believing? Given the choices of knowing, not-knowing, believing, and not believing, the poster's claim would be knowing(which requires knowledge). Maybe you can explain the difference between a belief and a knowledge claim? Even Atheists don't make the claim that "No God(s) exists anywhere", since it would require evidence to support that claim. I'm simply asking for any evidence that No Gods exists anywhere, even from outside of our reality to justify that claim. I will stipulate to any positive claims within our reality.

"The truth claims of atheism are divided between negative atheism, which does not accept the positive truth claims of religions, and positive atheism, which specifically claims the non-existence of deities (and other spiritual phenomena)".

Now for those that want to falsely equivocate the meaning of the word "non-existence" to mean "No God(s) exists anywhere", you would still be wrong, and must provide some evidence. It is only extending the lack of belief in God by Atheists to other Deities and other supernatural phenomena.

 

[Curious George]

So if I make the claim that, "you have no wife and children", or that "you have no job or car", or that "you don't live anywhere", you don't think that these are truth or implicit knowledge claims? I suppose you also don't think there is a difference between the claims, "I don't believe you have a wife and kid, live anywhere, or have a job and car", and the above claims? The former are implicit knowledge or truth claims, which requires evidence(physical or logical). And the latter are belief claims, which requires no evidence. It is simply your opinion or belief, based on whatever subjective evidence you choose to deposit. His claim was, "YES! It is my claim that No God(s) Exist, or can exist anywhere. Clear enough?". Do you believe that the poster thinks that his claim is not true? Does the posters claim sound anything remotely like it is just his belief? Or, should we simply assume that he is right, and has some special knowledge known only to himself? It is not a knowledge claim per sé, only because the knowledge is implicit and implied, not explicit and known.

That is correct there is no meaningful difference in stating you have no wife and kids vs. I believe you have no wife and kids. The latter is a weaker way of stating a belief. Knowledge is at least justified true belief. So, if you do have a wife and kids, then me stating you have no wife and kids cannot be knowledge. It can only be a different type of belief.

If the poster had said "i believe that no gods exist," wouldn't you think the poster thought the statement no god exist was true?

Your position is ironic and confusing, since you stated earlier that, "No god" is not merely not believing". Although you didn't elaborate, "no God(s) existing anywhere" would certainly go beyond merely not-believing?

Let me explain: The negation of god or exists yields a different meaning than the negation of belief.

That means it is possible to not believe in the existence of gods and not believe in the non-existence of gods.

It is not possible however to believe in the existence of gods and believe in the non existence of gods (without contradiction).

Given the choices of knowing, not-knowing, believing, and not believing, the poster's claim would be knowing(which requires knowledge).

this is simply not true.

Maybe you can explain the difference between a belief and a knowledge claim?

Sure. Knowledge is a specific type of belief. It is at least true and justified. Belief is a larger category of which knowledge is part. This explains why all knowledge is belief but not all belief is knowledge. If a claim is both true and justified then it is usually knowledge. There are some exceptions (but we needn't address those here).

Even Atheists don't make the claim that "No God(s) exists anywhere", since it would require evidence to support that claim.

That is very close to the claim I make.

I'm simply asking for any evidence that No Gods exists anywhere, even from outside of our reality to justify that claim. I will stipulate to any positive claims within our reality.

There is no reasonable evidence that an "outside our reality" exists. Unless you are talking about make-believe. Sure I will concede that gods exist in make-believe. I usually do not have to specify that the claim gods do not exist means that gods do not exist in our reality (as such a statement is redundant).

"The truth claims of atheism are divided between negative atheism, which does not accept the positive truth claims of religions, and positive atheism, which specifically claims the non-existence of deities (and other spiritual phenomena)".

Now for those that want to falsely equivocate the meaning of the word "non-existence" to mean "No God(s) exists anywhere", you would still be wrong, and must provide some evidence.

That is funny, i think that it is you whp is equivocating. You see exist means objectively within our reality. Allowing for subjective levels of existence when someone is making a claim abput objective existence is an equivocation.

It is only extending the lack of belief in God by Atheists to other Deities and other supernatural phenomena.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

That is correct there is no meaningful difference in stating you have no wife and kids vs. I believe you have no wife and kids. The latter is a weaker way of stating a belief. Knowledge is at least justified true belief. So, if you do have a wife and kids, then me stating you have no wife and kids cannot be knowledge. It can only be a different type of belief.

If the poster had said "i believe that no gods exist," wouldn't you think the poster thought the statement no god exist was true?

Let me explain: The negation of god or exists yields a different meaning than the negation of belief.

That means it is possible to not believe in the existence of gods and not believe in the non-existence of gods.

It is not possible however to believe in the existence of gods and believe in the non existence of gods (without contradiction).

this is simply not true.

Sure. Knowledge is a specific type of belief. It is at least true and justified. Belief is a larger category of which knowledge is part. This explains why all knowledge is belief but not all belief is knowledge. If a claim is both true and justified then it is usually knowledge. There are some exceptions (but we needn't address those here).


That is very close to the claim I make.


There is no reasonable evidence that an "outside our reality" exists. Unless you are talking about make-believe. Sure I will concede that gods exist in make-believe. I usually do not have to specify that the claim gods do not exist means that gods do not exist in our reality (as such a statement is redundant).

That is funny, i think that it is you whp is equivocating. You see exist means objectively within our reality. Allowing for subjective levels of existence when someone is making a claim abput objective existence is an equivocation.

The entire quote by Nonaka and Takeuchi was, "Justified true belief that increases an entity's capacity for effective action". John Locke describes knowledge as, "The perception of the agreement or disagreement of two ideas". In the organizational context, I like, "knowledge is the sum of what is known(facts and evidence) and resides in the intelligence(mind) and the competence of rational people". In other words, knowledge is an abstract concept that exists in the mind. It is not(emphasis) a thing. It is like the concept of Energy. It doesn't exist unless it is used. So a more accurate definition of knowledge is not justified true belief, simply justified belief. We can have a false belief that we only think is true. A tribesman finding a bottle of coke, may interpret this as a gift from the Gods. The truth must be demonstrated with sufficient evidence. I would strongly suggest that at a job interview for an auto-mechanic, that you don't say that you believe you can repair the engine. You will soon realize that there is a big difference in making a belief claim, and making a knowledge claim. The more knowledge you have, the less belief you need to depend on. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Hence saying that you know that No Gods exist anywhere requires one to ask, "how do you know this?".

Let me explain: The negation of god or exists yields a different meaning than the negation of belief.
That means it is possible to not believe in the existence of gods and not believe in the non-existence of gods.
It is not possible however to believe in the existence of gods and believe in the non existence of gods (without contradiction).

I have no problem with the logic here. However the issue is not belief, it is asserting certainty without evidence. Another, way to simplify knowledge is,

1. The person believes the something that is stated to be true
2. The statement is in fact true
3. The person is justified in believing the statement to be true

It is the no. 2 premise that deserves the attention. In the general sense, knowledge is all things that are perceived through our senses, our experiences, and the mental representation about a state of affairs that accurately corresponds to the actual state of affairs we perceive. In other words, knowledge needs to be legitimized by logical and empirical factors. All knowledge is apples, but not all apples is knowledge. You have not demonstrated the link between knowledge and belief. You've simply asserted it.

There is no reasonable evidence that an "outside our reality" exists. Unless you are talking about make-believe. Sure I will concede that gods exist in make-believe. I usually do not have to specify that the claim gods do not exist means that gods do not exist in our reality (as such a statement is redundant).

The fact that many physics formulae need a constant for the formulae to work, suggests that there is something more than just the four fundamental forces. NASA's discovery of the key signature(from the Planck Data) of comic inflation(Plateau Inflation), is more that reasonable evidence for the Multiverse. Cosmic "Cold Spots" and Black Holes, are reasonable evidence for the Multiverse. Physics and Math also have theories and models to justify the existence of Multi-dimensions. The fact that we exist prove at least four(4) of these dimensions.The discovery of the Higgs field and Boson, and the Gravity Field(hopefully the discovery of the Graviton), also strongly suggest a Multiverse. Even the strength of Gravity, reasonably suggest the existence of the Multiverse. If you have the time, take a look at this video. Maybe you can see that the life-long research by our immanent scientists, are not simply devoted towards make-believe.

That is funny, i think that it is you whp is equivocating. You see exist means objectively within our reality. Allowing for subjective levels of existence when someone is making a claim abput objective existence is an equivocation.

I have no idea what you are referring to. Maybe you just misread my comments. Where in my quote do I mention, subjective levels of existence? Looking for the objective existence of a God(s), is a given. The point is how do we achieve that certainty?

 

[ecco]

In a few words: The very concept of gods is nothing more than the creation of man's imaginings. You, somewhere, deep down, seem to believe that gods can be real. Why?

I've been told many things, but being told that using Caps represents shouting or anger, is not one of them. I would say that accusing someone of lying without any evidence is arrogant, judgemental, disrespectful, and immature. But, I'm sure without these attributes you wouldn't have any character at all. How long I have been on the forum, or on the planet, is irrelevant. What is relevant is you calling my claim BS without evidence. Until it was pointed out by you and another poster, I had no idea. But I certainly do now. You must really have a high opinion of yourself, if you think that you're so important that people would need to lie to you about anything.

Didja miss this part...

If you haven't been made aware that excessive use of caps and bolds is considered shouting, then you haven't been paying attention.​

My point is that even if no one specifically told you, over the past two years, you must have come across posters SHOUTING and others pointing out to them what constitutes SHOUTING.

What makes you think that I need(emphasis on this word) to believe that a God, or a superman, exists outside of my reality? Are you now twisting "I don't know" if a God, superman, or anything supernatural exists outside of my reality, to fit "I must have a need to believe that God, and the rest, exists outside of my reality? Another fallacy and self-serving conclusion. My reality is more than enough for introspection and awareness.

You go to extremes to try to have a god somehow, somewhere, somewhen. That indicates more than a want or a desire, that indicates a need.

What if someone from the 1 BC could magically appear in this century. How do you think he would characterize the people and technology of this century? Now think of someone who had the technology to travel between dimensions, or between Universes. How do you think many of us would characterize him? To the most primitive civilizations, advanced civilizations may seem like Gods. So the term God(s) is relative, hence why there are so many.

If the entity could travel between universes without violating the laws of physics, thrn he would not be a god. What does "So the term God(s) is relative," mean? Relative to what? Gods are supernatural entities that have supernatural powers.

You seem to take pleasure in demanding that other making truth and knowledge claims, provide you with objective evidence. I'm simply asking you to be consistent.

Where have I demanded anything? I have provided evidence that gods are the creation of man's imaginings. Have provided anything to the contrary? No. You just keep on insisting that somehow maybe a god really does exist. You don't think that somehow maybe Superman exists.

You are making a knowledge and truth claim, that No God(s) exists anywhere.
So what is your evidence, and how can you demonstrate this? It doesn't matter if God is only a conception or perception,

That god is "only a conception or perception" is the point. If something is "only a conception or perception" then it doesn't really exist, does it?

you have made the claim so back it up. I've also demonstrated that you can(emphasis) prove a negative, so you can't hide behind that. So please demonstrate your claim, and stop deflecting.

See above.