Losing my atheism (my new spiritual journey)

[thau]

Globdangit!!! April 1. You got me! LOL!

Actually, it is not very funny at all.

Even though a soldier may laugh on occasion, he still realizes war is hell.

The world rarely laughs amidst its constant struggles and doubts. Even less at funerals.

 

[viole]

I also find it lame that people liked this post; its really super overrated. Faith and belief aren't good things, its the worst of the virtues because its the most unreasonable. None of the points you made are any good any have all been defeated numerous times. Hopefully you aren't basing a worthless spiritual journey on arguments which have already been defeated for over 50 years.

Well, of course it was super overrated, for it was my April's joke 2015, and my close encounter with the divine was just made up (it was not so difficult to make it believable, apparently)

Ciao

- viole

 

[Windwalker]

First of all, I apologize for not being able to make myself clear. Now, to me, the example of that woman had everything to do with music and nothing to do with God. I think that part of the problem might be my view of what God is. I do not see God as a 'being' but rather something very like energy. If you wish to see music as God or the energy and that helps to make it make more sense, awesome. But for me, it is not the same kind of mysticism as St. Teresa of Avila or Hildegard of Bingen, etc. I have had my own set of mystical experiences that I don't equate as being about God but rather were more 'natural'. For example, as a child, my parents sent me to Europe for a solitary vacation to learn self sufficiency. I was 17 and I got lost in the Pyrenees. I thought I was going to die...I was a kid!....and sat down to wallow in my self pity. I had an experience that day that led me completely away from Christianity and all organized religion and to what I follow now, which has no name and an understanding of God that is difficult to explain. The pastor stating that this woman;s experience was heretical kind of reinforces my view of mysticism being intensely personal and not necessarily related to a "God" concept. It is about a communion with the universe on a soul level. I see how you are seeing this and I don't think we are that far off from each other but rather that I am merely not being as clear as I should perhaps. I hope this helps.

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, you're right, I don't think we are that far from each other. I think what may help to clarify what I was saying about Deity Mysticism, which I'll add here is quite different than mere God-belief or concepts or theologies, is that it too is a valid form of mystical experience. It really falls under the category of Subtle Level mystical state experiences. Those that have these sort of experiences of "God" quite often run the risk of doing exactly what you said about being heretical. The experience of Light at this level tends to shatter theologies, and when the mystic speaks of them they are often branded as heretics and or burned at the stake. The concept of the God "up there", is threatened by mystical experiences often times, when the Subtle level moves beyond God into the Causal and Nondual domains. "God beyond God", as Meister Eckhart called it.

Here's a really wonderful quote from Eckhart that shows how the language in the hands of an experienced mystic who has moved into the nondual expresses it. Listen to why the Catholic church branded his teachings heresy,

To deny one’s self is to be the only begotten Son of God and one who does so has for himself all the properties of that Son. All God’s acts are performed and his teachings conveyed through the Son, to the point that we should be his only begotten Son. And when this is accomplished in God’s sight, he is so fond of us and so fervent that he acts as if his divine Being might be shattered and he himself annihilated if the whole foundations of his Godhead were not revealed to us, together with his nature and being. God makes haste to do this, so that it may be ours as it is his. It is here that God finds joy and rapture in fulfillment and the person who is thus within God’s knowing and love becomes just what God himself is.
​

Deity mysticism takes the symbols and language of a theistic tradition and explodes them into an actual realization, and actual firsthand experience. You can hear how the words above would get a traditional Christian into big trouble. I'll add here as well, that Tibetan Buddhism, though technically non-theistic, have a plethora of deities in the form of Bodhisattvas. The experience of the Subtle level in Tibetan Buddhism will often evoke visions of these beings. It's really no different than any vision of the Christ, for instance. Here is an example of what Deity mysticism does,

But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype.

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85
​

As for the woman in your example music was definitely part of the mystical experience for here, but I wouldn't exclude the sense of deity in it. They go together. Music, dance, chant, drumming, and so forth are simply vehicles that help move one out of ordinary states into mystical states, and those can be as I said, Nature mysticism, deity, causal, and nondual.

Does that help clarify what I mean?

 

[Windwalker]

Well, of course it was super overrated, for it was my April's joke 2015, and my close encounter with the divine was just made up (it was not so difficult to make it believable, apparently)

Ciao

- viole

Maybe the joke was that we responded sincerely.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

This is what I hear when I hear one describe a close encounter with the divine. To not have this, is tragic, says Einstein.

 

[JoStories]

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, you're right, I don't think we are that far from each other. I think what may help to clarify what I was saying about Deity Mysticism, which I'll add here is quite different than mere God-belief or concepts or theologies, is that it too is a valid form of mystical experience. It really falls under the category of Subtle Level mystical state experiences. Those that have these sort of experiences of "God" quite often run the risk of doing exactly what you said about being heretical. The experience of Light at this level tends to shatter theologies, and when the mystic speaks of them they are often branded as heretics and or burned at the stake. The concept of the God "up there", is threatened by mystical experiences often times, when the Subtle level moves beyond God into the Causal and Nondual domains. "God beyond God", as Meister Eckhart called it.

Here's a really wonderful quote from Eckhart that shows how the language in the hands of an experienced mystic who has moved into the nondual expresses it. Listen to why the Catholic church branded his teachings heresy,

To deny one’s self is to be the only begotten Son of God and one who does so has for himself all the properties of that Son. All God’s acts are performed and his teachings conveyed through the Son, to the point that we should be his only begotten Son. And when this is accomplished in God’s sight, he is so fond of us and so fervent that he acts as if his divine Being might be shattered and he himself annihilated if the whole foundations of his Godhead were not revealed to us, together with his nature and being. God makes haste to do this, so that it may be ours as it is his. It is here that God finds joy and rapture in fulfillment and the person who is thus within God’s knowing and love becomes just what God himself is.
​

Deity mysticism takes the symbols and language of a theistic tradition and explodes them into an actual realization, and actual firsthand experience. You can hear how the words above would get a traditional Christian into big trouble. I'll add here as well, that Tibetan Buddhism, though technically non-theistic, have a plethora of deities in the form of Bodhisattvas. The experience of the Subtle level in Tibetan Buddhism will often evoke visions of these beings. It's really no different than any vision of the Christ, for instance. Here is an example of what Deity mysticism does,

But this is not God as an ontological other, set apart from the cosmos, from humans, and from creation at large. Rather, it is God as an archetypal summit of one's own Consciousness. ... By visualizing that identification 'we actually do become the deity. The subject is identified with the object of faith. The worship, the worshiper, and the worshiped, those three are not separate'. At its peak, the soul becomes one, literally one, with the deity-form, with the dhyani-buddha, with (choose whatever term one prefers) God. One dissolves into Deity, as Deity - that Deity which, from the beginning, has been one's own Self or highest Archetype.

~Ken Wilber, Eye to Eye, pg. 85
​

As for the woman in your example music was definitely part of the mystical experience for here, but I wouldn't exclude the sense of deity in it. They go together. Music, dance, chant, drumming, and so forth are simply vehicles that help move one out of ordinary states into mystical states, and those can be as I said, Nature mysticism, deity, causal, and nondual.

Does that help clarify what I mean?

Yes and we are on the same page I think. I reference Eckhart among many others in the ongoing dissertation I am writing on this topic. IMO, the experience of that woman I explained was not about an ontological experience but rather one outside that concept and the woman, btw, agreed. I don't really agree that deity is involved however, as I have had more than my share of these types of experiences and they are more of what I term natural. I think its merely dancing around semantics here really. IE: A church I on occasion attend is outside of religion and is more a spiritual type of place. They have a Zen garden where I often go to find these experiences which again are not ontologically driven.

 

[viole]

How does this experience relate to giving up your atheism?

It appears, I recovered my atheism at 00:01 - April 2, for some reason

Ciao

- viole

 

[Windwalker]

Yes and we are on the same page I think. I reference Eckhart among many others in the ongoing dissertation I am writing on this topic. IMO, the experience of that woman I explained was not about an ontological experience but rather one outside that concept and the woman, btw, agreed. I don't really agree that deity is involved however, as I have had more than my share of these types of experiences and they are more of what I term natural. I think its merely dancing around semantics here really. IE: A church I on occasion attend is outside of religion and is more a spiritual type of place. They have a Zen garden where I often go to find these experiences which again are not ontologically driven.

Sure, yes, I very much think you and I would enjoy a good walk through that Garden. There is a Conservatory near where I live that I go to each weekend to photograph the plants and flowers, communing with beauty and such. It's a very meditative experience for me. They have a Japanese Garden attached that is quite serene, but I joked with one of the employee who watch over the visitors with all their young children running around and making a lot of noise, "Have they considered putting up signs explaining they should practice silence while here?" He laughed and said, "I wish!".

Not to belabor the point I was making about deity mysticism, but to be clear I am certainly not speaking about some mystical experience that is ontologically driven. I am saying that form of mystical experience is the subtle experience, and the subtle will often manifest itself to the mind symbolically in deity form. It's not like it's pondering an idea. It's the sudden or abrupt manifestation, a vision as it were. The woman may not have had that as part of her experience, but the very nature of mystical experience is really all touching the same thing. I'll add for clarification that I am speaking from a place of a great deal of my own experiences. I meditate an hour each morning, minimally, as well as walking meditations during the day, as well as mindfulness throughout. I have subtle level experiences each morning in meditation, as well as causal, as well as the nondual. So though I will used other's models to categorize these, the texture and flavor and ideas I have of them are all from my own direct experiences.

I think you may find this useful for your own research, as well as helping understand the language I like to use. It comes out of the research done in the field of transpersonal psychology and speaks of these stages of meditation I keep referring to. I'm enjoying our conversation. Stages of Meditation | Integral Life

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well I think by definition, that "Atheist" means to have faith that there are no higher deities. Agnostics just kind of like shrug and say "We really don't know"

As to the math working out and the universe 'just happened' to be right for us, there are a couple specific points.
1) Most of our universe is not hospitable to us at all. Even a small portion of he surface of our world is hospitable without taking some rather extreme measures to protect our fragile bodies.
2) It is theorized that universes come and go all the time. Most of them are unstable and quickly melt back into the quantum foam (a poor analogy, but it sort of works).Those universes don't exist long enough for anything to form. Some last longer. But we happen to live in one that has lasted long enough, it has been stable enough, for reasoning life forms to develop to the point thy can ask 'why?' and 'how?' and ultimately, 'is there a point to it all?' So the universe we are in would have to have "fine tuned" properties or we wouldn't be here to ask about it. That is not to say that the 'tuning' of this universe is the only possible set which is stable, or even that it is infinitely stable. In fact, our math is pointing to an ultimately unstable universe. We only have a few times longer than the universe has existed before it won't anymore, at the most, and it will be unlivable (as we know it) long before then.
3) The math 'fitting' is sort of like filling in a Killer Sudoku. The math all works for the parameters given, a fact you rely upon to complete it. If it didn't, then the Sudoku wouldn't work, it would be inherently flawed, unworkable, and useless. Similarly, since the universe is stable enough for us to be here (see above) the math is all going to work out, eventually, to support a universe in which we can be here now.

I understand the point 'given enough random universes, this one would bound to appear eventually' is Hawking's own explicit rationale.

Though I'd agree with Krauss 'If your theory requires an infinite probability machine, it's not entirely clear you even have a theory'

Besides being entirely speculative, there is a gaping hole in the plot;

To have a multiverse consisting entirely of purposeless universes, this incredibly powerful random generator of realties, must be somehow equipped with a safety mechanism.. To prevent ever creating 'God', a being capable of intelligently, purposefully creating it's own universes- gatecrashing the atheist party.

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory, considers it feasible that we might one day be able to manufacture our own universe, and that we can't rule out that this is where ours came from, an intentional creation by 'alien scientists'

i.e. even in our one example of a functional life supporting universe, the potential exists to design another.. once creative intelligence is in the mix, it's tough to stop it creating things.

what then are the odds, that our universe would be the original immaculate conception, the pure creation of chance, untouched by any motives of creative intelligence- rather than simply one of an inevitably infinite number of intentional iterations thereafter? The former is tempting, it appeals to a comforting sense of being special, unique, simply 'lucky', as opposed to any implied obligations of being purposely given life as a gift.

 

[JoStories]

Sure, yes, I very much think you and I would enjoy a good walk through that Garden. There is a Conservatory near where I live that I go to each weekend to photograph the plants and flowers, communing with beauty and such. It's a very meditative experience for me. They have a Japanese Garden attached that is quite serene, but I joked with one of the employee who watch over the visitors with all their young children running around and making a lot of noise, "Have they considered putting up signs explaining they should practice silence while here?" He laughed and said, "I wish!".

Not to belabor the point I was making about deity mysticism, but to be clear I am certainly not speaking about some mystical experience that is ontologically driven. I am saying that form of mystical experience is the subtle experience, and the subtle will often manifest itself to the mind symbolically in deity form. It's not like it's pondering an idea. It's the sudden or abrupt manifestation, a vision as it were. The woman may not have had that as part of her experience, but the very nature of mystical experience is really all touching the same thing. I'll add for clarification that I am speaking from a place of a great deal of my own experiences. I meditate an hour each morning, minimally, as well as walking meditations during the day, as well as mindfulness throughout. I have subtle level experiences each morning in meditation, as well as causal, as well as the nondual. So though I will used other's models to categorize these, the texture and flavor and ideas I have of them are all from my own direct experiences.

I think you may find this useful for your own research, as well as helping understand the language I like to use. It comes out of the research done in the field of transpersonal psychology and speaks of these stages of meditation I keep referring to. I'm enjoying our conversation. Stages of Meditation | Integral Life

Thank you for the link. I have it bookmarked for later. It looks amazing.
And I agree more than disagree with you. I think a lot of people credit a mystical experience up to a deity because of preconceived symbolism that they have learned. That woman thought is was God driven but manifested as music. That is where her pastor found her thoughts heretical. And why she left that faith entirely and adopted a pagan/spiritual path. I am so glad we got this straightened out because I get the feeling you and I see faith in a very way. Again, thanks for the link.

 

[Edwin]

>>But all of them could give us some cumulative pieces of evidence all pointing to a possible trascendent reality.<<

My take on "transcendent reality". We can't possibly imagine anything to label "a transcendent reality", for if there were, it would have to transcend our ability to imagine it or think of it. So "transcendent reality" can't refer to anything that we can think of or imagine. If we are talking (or writing) without being able to imagine anything we could be talking (writing) about, then how can we believe that we're talking (writing) about anything at all? We can't close our eyes and imagine ourselves experiencing anything that the sound "God" could be referring to, so why should we believe the sound "God" is any more coherent than the sound "Bliffle"?

Many people think that lack of religion leads to immorality. That is very false. It is common sense that highway rules are necessary for happy motoring. Similarly, it is common sense that morality is necessary for a happy life,

Religious faith is the faith that some meaningless words that are worded to sound as though they are talking about something, but they aren't. Such words trick people into believing they really say something. "Transcendent reality" is a case of such meaningless words.

Religion is because people are scared of dying, and we all know that we must die. No sane healthy person wants to die, but then -- how could death be bad? If you aren't there to know you're dead or to know that you're missing out on anything, then you simply aren't there to be missing out on anything. So enjoy the rest of the only life you'll ever have. Don't waste the time you have left in the anticipation of the meaningless "transcendent reality". You can't really believe in anything labeled that. You can only trick yourself into believing 'that you believe' "transcendent reality" is coherent. It isn't.


Edwin

I do not "deny God", because that word conveys to me no idea, and I cannot deny that which presents to me no distinct affirmation, and of which the would-be affirmer has no conception. I cannot war with a nonentity.
-- Charles Bradlaugh, in the National Reformer, quoted from Jim Herrick, "Bradlaugh and Secularism: 'The Province of the Real'"

 

[Serenity7855]

Well, of course it was super overrated, for it was my April's joke 2015, and my close encounter with the divine was just made up (it was not so difficult to make it believable, apparently)

Ciao

- viole

You said it, why shouldn't I believe it? It does not make me gullible, it just makes you a liar.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The exact opposite of the assumptions I have.

"God didn't do it" is a good example.

Atheists don't necessarily have that assumption. I do not assume no God is responsible, I just don't assume a God is. There is a subtle, but important distinction.

 

[Debateable]

I know that this might sound surprising to whom knows my worldview, but I am seriously reconsidering my atheism (and naturalism).

I have been thinking a lot recently about the Universe and the place we occupy in it. And I asked myself the question: is that really all so pointless? Do we really evolve, live, die and that's it? Isn't maybe possible that humanity occupies a special place in the great scheme of things?

If we collect all the arguments that hint at the possibility of God, we cannot really see one that sets the issue. But all of them could give us some cumulative pieces of evidence all pointing to a possible trascendent reality. This is also the process we use to provide evidence in science.

For instance, the amazing effectivity of mathematics to describe the Universe is something I could not really explain as a naturalist. How is that possible that mathematics applies so perfectly to the fabric of reality if there is not a mind behind all this?

I also considered the fine tuning argument as one of the strongest ones in support of a non natural origin of conscious beings. The chances of life are so negligible that it seems really a stretch to believe that consciousness can arise out of unconscious processes. We should expect a Universe just filled with dead things and not one with life. Especially not one with introspective life, or life that goes beyond the immediate survival instincts: i.e life that can give the Universe itself a meaning.

But the key moment was this morning. And it was not a mere rational analysis. I just had a look out of my window. When I saw the mountains, the lake, the majesty and the beauty surrounding me, I experienced a moment in which I felt one with everything. All the long term pointlessness of my naturalistic view vanished. That was stunning and something I never felt before. I don't know if that can be considered a mystic experience, but it felt like one.

At the moment, I am a bit confused and still thinking about it. My Christian friend thinks that God is claiming me back, and, for the first time since a long time, I cannot definetely rule that out.


Ciao

- viole

I got owned on this April fools joke! Good one!

 

[serp777]

Well, of course it was super overrated, for it was my April's joke 2015, and my close encounter with the divine was just made up (it was not so difficult to make it believable, apparently)

Ciao

- viole

Lol wow you owned me.

 

[serp777]

I don't know why you're disturbed for what she feels and for what she wants, it's her own life after all.

Well fortunately it was only an april fools joke! Thank God. And disturbed is an extreme word

 

[goodhunter819]

Viole
I am not raining on your Christian friend’s parade however since you mention your place in the universe consider this? even though the beauty of the lakes, mountains, seas and skies are bread taking you should also remember that there is ugliness in the world too and if embarking on a spiritual journey one should see the whole picture of belief as a very realistic matter, so that way when you’re faced with the ugliness and disappointing heart braking moments of life your faith will remain intact, though I was never an atheist I was a nonconformist and the issues I had to face was the ever increasing contradictory hypocritical practise when dealing with believers of conventional religion, I over came this by reverting to an unconventional religious spirituality which preceded the modern interpretations, it is hard to not be hypocritical in a ever morally decreasing and life sucking world, so rather than be a hypocrite I went back to the trail that allows me to understand the physical world and have spiritual strength without being seen as one who cannot practise what he preaches, your possibility of embarking on the spiritual journey and setting aside your atheist views is for us called talking your place in the great circle, I am not even attempting to tell you Christianity is not the answer because I know many good Christians, I am simply sharing my experience in the whole equations of human life of the opinion on faith and belief.

 

[JoStories]

Eagerlearner, I readily agree with all of your comments here, however, you really need to segregate your target audience. Rarely, in the real world, will you find the atheist being as intolerably odious and aggressive as they are on religious forums. It is only on religious forums that you we encounter the aggressive anti-theist who are condescending, sanctimonious and vicious in their attitudes and writings, to, usually unsuspecting, Christians. However, not all of the atheists on these forums are WUMS and agitators though, but those who are not are far and few between. It is probably down to the small man syndrome that many suffer with. In the real world they do not have the bottle to talk to people as they do on here. They are protected by anonymity here making it easy for them to spew forth their bilge. Secondly, these people love to taunt us. As soon as they have you hooked they start to real you in, hook, line and sinker, enjoying every post you make in defence of your beliefs. I genuinely believe that most are narcissistic psychopaths who really believe that they, and only they, hold the real truth of our reality. You know, as do I, that they are wrong and that the joke is really on them. My advice to you, if I may so boldly express it, is to pick your battles wisely. There are some on here who are not even worth the effort in responding to as their bigotry has consumed them and their minds are closed. To tackle them is to flog a dead horse. You will get nowhere. There is nothing to be gained by entering into any kind of debate with them. If you need a list of these individual I can give you quite a few to put on your ignore list, or just avoid them. Debating on here is great, unless the poster with whom you debate is a brick wall, whose beliefs are unchangeable and rigid, which is fine, but they refuse to mind their own business by letting others believe in whatever they choose. I post this to you now because I can see that you are a new poster here. When I first joined nobody warned me as to who I should pick my fights with.

Interesting. I have been here a short while,and no one really did that for me either, with one or two exceptions. But I do disagree with you here as well about the atheists. I am a theist but I have only seen a couple of atheists I would fit your description. And I think it's rather off putting to label them as having 'short man syndromes'. I can honestly say I have seen more snarky women here than men. And that bothers me because as a woman p, I feel we should leave the stereotypic female snarky behavior behind, where it belongs. I've aLao seen quite a number of Christians, Muslims and so on who act as you say atheists do. Rather than fall into the trap of labeling people, why not just think of them as human and unique.

 

[Serenity7855]

Interesting. I have been here a short while,and no one really did that for me either, with one or two exceptions. But I do disagree with you here as well about the atheists. I am a theist but I have only seen a couple of atheists I would fit your description. And I think it's rather off putting to label them as having 'short man syndromes'. I can honestly say I have seen more snarky women here than men. And that bothers me because as a woman p, I feel we should leave the stereotypic female snarky behavior behind, where it belongs. I've aLao seen quite a number of Christians, Muslims and so on who act as you say atheists do. Rather than fall into the trap of labeling people, why not just think of them as human and unique.

I am very careful not to label people. I actually said "It is probably down to the small man syndrome that many suffer with."

It all depends on how fervently you defend your beliefs. If you roll over on your back, in submission, to get your tummy tickled, then you will not encounter the obnoxious side of the forum bullies, however, if, like me, you stand by your beliefs, regardless of consequences, you will see them come out of their holes, form a pack, and attack with the fervency of a pack of wolf, being organised and experts in the hunt. I have had as many as 10 of them attacking me, personally, from spelling mistakes to personal abuse and ad hominem, and my personal religious beliefs, but you have been here for but a short time. Maybe in time your views will alter.

I do not think that there should be any distinction on these forums between man and women. I don't think that gender is relevant to debating. We all have our own opinions regardless as to whether we use the ladies or the men's. Do you even know if I am male or female?

I do treat them as though they are human, however, they are not unique. They are like a flock of sheep, following each other around, all bleating at the same time. They form clicks and will even lie to back up a fellow fraternity member in order to win a shallow point. I have been on these forums for years. My appraisal on the anti-atheists is based on thousands of posts and numerous debates with them. I am seasoned in their MO and tactics and have fallen into their cunningly laid traps. The anti-atheists is always, without exception, best avoided and ignored. There is absolutely nothing, but nothing, that you can tell them, and don't be taken in by the duplicitous charade that they are interested in why you believe what you believe. It is not true. It is a ploy to disarm you so as to make the kill easier by getting you to commit harry carry when you shot yourself in the foot.

You do not have to take anything I say as being true. There is not even a need to debate it. You should do and act in a manner that best suits you. I am just putting word on a forum. You either take heed or you don't.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, of course it was super overrated, for it was my April's joke 2015, and my close encounter with the divine was just made up (it was not so difficult to make it believable, apparently)

You should have confessed in post #2 as everyone would have read #1 first and you would have provoked intrigue for only a short time. You wasted too many people's energy with serious responses the way you did it. A good April Fools joke is self-limiting.

 

[JoStories]

I am very careful not to label people. I actually said "It is probably down to the small man syndrome that many suffer with."

It all depends on how fervently you defend your beliefs. If you roll over on your back, in submission, to get your tummy tickled, then you will not encounter the obnoxious side of the forum bullies, however, if, like me, you stand by your beliefs, regardless of consequences, you will see them come out of their holes, form a pack, and attack with the fervency of a pack of wolf, being organised and experts in the hunt. I have had as many as 10 of them attacking me, personally, from spelling mistakes to personal abuse and ad hominem, and my personal religious beliefs, but you have been here for but a short time. Maybe in time your views will alter.

I do not think that there should be any distinction on these forums between man and women. I don't think that gender is relevant to debating. We all have our own opinions regardless as to whether we use the ladies or the men's. Do you even know if I am male or female?

I do treat them as though they are human, however, they are not unique. They are like a flock of sheep, following each other around, all bleating at the same time. They form clicks and will even lie to back up a fellow fraternity member in order to win a shallow point. I have been on these forums for years. My appraisal on the anti-atheists is based on thousands of posts and numerous debates with them. I am seasoned in their MO and tactics and have fallen into their cunningly laid traps. The anti-atheists is always, without exception, best avoided and ignored. There is absolutely nothing, but nothing, that you can tell them, and don't be taken in by the duplicitous charade that they are interested in why you believe what you believe. It is not true. It is a ploy to disarm you so as to make the kill easier by getting you to commit harry carry when you shot yourself in the foot.

You do not have to take anything I say as being true. There is not even a need to debate it. You should do and act in a manner that best suits you. I am just putting word on a forum. You either take heed or you don't.

I've no clue if you are male or female and frankly, it doesn't matter to me. I, too, have been a part,or places like this since the early 90's. Chat rooms, message boards and forums alike. I, too, have been attacked for many things. One woman connived my phone number out of me...I was an idiot Schmuck".... And she called ten times a day to 'convert' me. I do act in the manner I always have...me. I am no different IRL than I am here. Now, I may very well be reading something into this that is not intended but I am reading that you have walls up the size of those in China. I don't. I don't need them as not a soul on this board CNA harm me unless I let them. So please carry on. Debate me if you wish or ignore me if that suits you.