Personal Experiences with the Divine

[Iceweasel]

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

You have an extremely limited idea on what theists believe and lump them all into your little box based on pre-packaged arguments. Most theists I know believe god created the universe and it functions as it was designed to. They differ on how involved or uninvolved god is but don't use it to "fill in gaps". Contrary to your myopic world view, many scientists are theists, almost half last I checked. They don't study a phenomenon and say science works here and here and god does the rest with his magic.

 

[Iceweasel]

Number 24 says you are wrong and here is why

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

I don't share your faith so quoting from your bible does no good. Words mean things, bald is bald. You're the one trying to present baldness as a hair color, not me. If you believe god exists you are a theist. If you don't you are an atheist, don't know is agnostic. You don't get to reinvent words to feel better about your chosen identity.

Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

 

[Lipush]

My personal experience with the devine...

It was about three years ago. Me and my friends took this trip to the United States, and on our way to Michigan we stopped at this tiny Indian motel, payed for a room, and outside in this parking-lot, we faced with a breath-taking view of the sunset. It was a splatter of blue and orange and such an amazing sight, It was truly outwordly. I could just stare at it and stutter- "Ma Rabu Ma'aseicha, HaShem..." "How wonderful are your deeds, My God".

I know it's not "I was almost run-over by a truck" but it was nontheless amazing

 

[Delta4Embassy]

My personal experience with the devine...

It was about three years ago. Me and my friends took this trip to the United States, and on our way to Michigan we stopped at this tiny Indian motel, payed for a room, and outside in this parking-lot, we faced with a breath-taking view of the sunset. It was a splatter of blue and orange and such an amazing sight, It was truly outwordly. I could just stare at it and stutter- "Ma Rabu Ma'aseicha, HaShem..." "How wonderful are your deeds, My God".

I know it's not "I was almost run-over by a truck" but it was nontheless amazing

I've had two similar experiences in my life. First was on walkabout waiting for dawn's light by a coastal lake in California. Fog was rolling in and down the coastal hills like a slow motion waterfall. Second was up in the redwoods where the sun was coming in through the canopy of green leaves just right that it case everything in a etheral green hue.

 

[Lipush]

It's those tiny moments that truly make the difference.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Religion was early primitive man's ATTEMPT at understanding.

Yes... Religion is a function of man's quest to understand himself, his purpose and how both relate to the world around them. It's the origin of education, science and every other organized intellectual pursuit beyond the effort to sustain ourselves.

Everything they believed turned out to be wrong.

Happens every day on this board... Have you read the laundry list of your beliefs? LOL! Given the choice, I'd go with early man over modern relativist, every time.

It was our best guess and they didn't use scientific evidence to come up with any of it. Science is actually the way we truly understand what's going on.

Yet science has been wrong about just about everything... and still is on many, if not most things. I mean given that the highest level, summed for their total collective knowledge, our best science is thoroughly ignorant of 99.9999999~% of the universe. Yet here you; before the end of your first paragraph on the issue, are already touting the omniscience of that which is near thoroughly ignorant. LOL! Funny stuff.

... Old priests who could no longer read their bibles came up with it. They discovered that bent glass magnified the letters on the page. They literally thought it was magic.

In terms of what it did for them, it was 'magic'. Much as the everyday miracles provided throughout nature, are 'magic', or blessings... to us. When we can rest assured that there are very specific bio-mechanical actions/reactions that occurred in manifesting these miracles. Of course, knowing how they occurred doesn't explain the 'why' and pretending that 'how' IS 'why' never fails to tickle me... Neil deGrasse Tyson is infamous for this... I LOVE that guy! He's such a pompous ass... and appears to be a genuinely nice guy. But his reasoning is for shit.

Anywho... good stuff.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Number 24 says you are wrong and here is why

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

I don't share your faith so quoting from your bible does no good. Words mean things, bald is bald. You're the one trying to present baldness as a hair color, not me. If you believe god exists you are a theist. If you don't you are an atheist, don't know is agnostic. You don't get to reinvent words to feel better about your chosen identity.

Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

A-theism is the disinterest in the issue of theism. Just as the a-political have no interest in politics and the a-sexual have no interest in sex.

Consider this: The apolitical do not claim that politicians don't exist..., right? And if they did... would we argue that they 'have a right to their opinion'? Seems unlikely... but let's move on.

A-theism has been around since the idea of a deity came to light. They rarely enter these discussions, because... they have no interest in them.

Now ANTI-Theists... that's a-whole-nother evil, right there. They 'believe' that there is no deity... such is the level of their 'belief' that they are incensed by anyone who does believe in a deity and any semblance of such.

Their beliefs are akin to the rare anti-trucker, who believe that trucks do not exist and who reject, dismiss and obtusely deflect from all evidence of trucks. Ya don't hear much from these cranks, because people tend to head for the exits, the minute one opens their mouth. Which makes sense because they're unreasonable people, pushing unsustainable, irrational, fatally flawed reasoning.

The Gnostics were devout 'believers' in theism, particularly Christ... militantly so... they considered the average believers to be heretics, because the average believer accepted this world as their world and the Gnostics rejected this world and all material comforts related to it.

Therefore the notion "A-Gnostic" conveyed the idea that one believes in a Deity but did not experience it to the degree common to Gnosticism.

Evil being what it is an all, requires deceit and a fraudulent means to pass it on, to exist. So the true manifestation of evil; the Anti-theists, slowing hijacked the word "A-Theism", which in the logical sequence moved A-Gnostic up to fill the slot formerly held by A-theism and that's how we got to the train of misnomers which APPEAR to provide an acceptable place in the lexicon, due to the reasonable history common to A-theism, thus serves as an effective deceit, as well as a fraudulent facade for the otherwise wholly unacceptable Anti-Theist.

Anti-theists are heretics, and as such didn't have much of a shelf life for all but the most recent sliver of human history. And it's easy to see why... they're a mouthy, throughly obnoxious cult, whose purpose is to spread misery and perversion. These traits aren't exactly viable, thus are not conducive to societies whose goal is 'survival'.

So... of the barely discernible track record that Anti-theism DOES have, its sole product is catastrophe. Therefore, it's easier to sell when it doesn't convey its true intentions and masks itself as something akin to 'reasonable'.

At the end of the day, where one finds themselves in the presence of the anti-theist, one can rest assured that they're not too far from a pentagram... . The practitioners will rarely admit to their overt practice of evil or of their worship for the lord of such. Again such admissions are rather hard on sales... .

But it helps if one recognizes the natural law that requires the fruit of one's nature to identify one's genus. And NO GOOD has ever been produced by those whose purpose is to promote anti-good.

Simple stuff really... . Don't yo agree?

 

[Taz]

The closest I ever got to god was smoking crack. No shit.

 

[sealybobo]

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

You have an extremely limited idea on what theists believe and lump them all into your little box based on pre-packaged arguments. Most theists I know believe god created the universe and it functions as it was designed to. They differ on how involved or uninvolved god is but don't use it to "fill in gaps". Contrary to your myopic world view, many scientists are theists, almost half last I checked. They don't study a phenomenon and say science works here and here and god does the rest with his magic.

On the contrary. Haven't you heard me say before that god is like a snowflake? No two gods seem to be the exact same. Everyone has their own concepts so its impossible to put you all in the same box.

Of course most theists believe god created the universe.

And you should wonder why 95% of society are theists but only half the scientists are.

Also the fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

You have an extremely limited idea on what theists believe and lump them all into your little box based on pre-packaged arguments. Most theists I know believe god created the universe and it functions as it was designed to. They differ on how involved or uninvolved god is but don't use it to "fill in gaps". Contrary to your myopic world view, many scientists are theists, almost half last I checked. They don't study a phenomenon and say science works here and here and god does the rest with his magic.

On the contrary. Haven't you heard me say before that god is like a snowflake? No two gods seem to be the exact same. Everyone has their own concepts so its impossible to put you all in the same box.

Of course most theists believe god created the universe.

And you should wonder why 95% of society are theists but only half the scientists are.

Also the fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

People's perspective will differ, therefore their observations will differ. Doesn't change what God is.

You're using people's understanding of God, and the would-be inconsistencies within that pool of observations to conclude that because God is described differently, God doesn't really exist.

Such is a disjointed syllogism of the invalid variety.

No one here; or anywhere else for that matter would argue that people aren't flawed, thus their reasoning can't be flawed. Your beef is with humanity... not God. If it helps, humanity is a hot mess... and that is the reason that God offered his grace, through Christ. Grab a clue... it's right there waiting on YOU and your screwed up, hot mess of reasoning to get over.

 

[sealybobo]

Number 24 says you are wrong and here is why

Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.

I don't share your faith so quoting from your bible does no good. Words mean things, bald is bald. You're the one trying to present baldness as a hair color, not me. If you believe god exists you are a theist. If you don't you are an atheist, don't know is agnostic. You don't get to reinvent words to feel better about your chosen identity.

Atheist - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Full Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

But I don't believe and I don't know. No one knows. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist. The only way you could KNOW is either you met god or you are a god yourself.

You guys are trying to suggest that agnostics don't know and atheists say they don't believe? Who does?

Agnostic is just a cop out from a pussy who doesn't want to hurt your feelings. Trust me, they heard your story about Jesus and they didn't get baptized. I can only take that as they don't believe.

Or are we now talking about a generic god again? I can't keep you all straight.

So unless you have met god or are a god yourself, no one "knows". So we are all agnostics. I just happen to be an agnostic atheist and you an agnostic theist. You believe but don't know.

So if theist is the opposite of atheist, and no one can be an atheist because that means KNOWING, then you can't be a theist either. And if you can then we can consider ourselves atheists, even though our real position is agnostic atheist.

Even my site called why there is no god says the most rational position is agnostic atheist. Number 21

Why there is no god

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

 

[sealybobo]

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

You have an extremely limited idea on what theists believe and lump them all into your little box based on pre-packaged arguments. Most theists I know believe god created the universe and it functions as it was designed to. They differ on how involved or uninvolved god is but don't use it to "fill in gaps". Contrary to your myopic world view, many scientists are theists, almost half last I checked. They don't study a phenomenon and say science works here and here and god does the rest with his magic.

On the contrary. Haven't you heard me say before that god is like a snowflake? No two gods seem to be the exact same. Everyone has their own concepts so its impossible to put you all in the same box.

Of course most theists believe god created the universe.

And you should wonder why 95% of society are theists but only half the scientists are.

Also the fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

People's perspective will differ, therefore their observations will differ. Doesn't change what God is.

You're using people's understanding of God, and the would-be inconsistencies within that pool of observations to conclude that because God is described differently, God doesn't really exist.

Such is a disjointed syllogism of the invalid variety.

No one here; or anywhere else for that matter would argue that people aren't flawed, thus their reasoning can't be flawed. Your beef is with humanity... not God. If it helps, humanity is a hot mess... and that is the reason that God offered his grace, through Christ. Grab a clue... it's right there waiting on YOU and your screwed up, hot mess of reasoning to get over.

You are right my beef is with humanity because god doesn't exist. I'm not mad at god. He doesn't exist. No offense.

Oh, and I'm not a hot mess. Are you? Seems like that's a big reason people become super religious. Guilt. I don't have guilt. I'm a good person. In fact probably better than most Christians.

And yes, I can only judge this god character by the humans he produced. Since he has never introduced himself to me, all I can go by is based on my opinion of the preacher or person telling me stories. If a Cleric Islam Muslim guy told me about his god, I would have no choice but to judge his imaginary friend based on the person telling me the story.

And based on man and society, I call BULLSHIT! God's going to have to come back because I just can't believe George Bush or the Iatola Komeni or a Rabbi. I'm too smart for that.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

You have an extremely limited idea on what theists believe and lump them all into your little box based on pre-packaged arguments. Most theists I know believe god created the universe and it functions as it was designed to. They differ on how involved or uninvolved god is but don't use it to "fill in gaps". Contrary to your myopic world view, many scientists are theists, almost half last I checked. They don't study a phenomenon and say science works here and here and god does the rest with his magic.

On the contrary. Haven't you heard me say before that god is like a snowflake? No two gods seem to be the exact same. Everyone has their own concepts so its impossible to put you all in the same box.

Of course most theists believe god created the universe.

And you should wonder why 95% of society are theists but only half the scientists are.

Also the fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

People's perspective will differ, therefore their observations will differ. Doesn't change what God is.

You're using people's understanding of God, and the would-be inconsistencies within that pool of observations to conclude that because God is described differently, God doesn't really exist.

Such is a disjointed syllogism of the invalid variety.

No one here; or anywhere else for that matter would argue that people aren't flawed, thus their reasoning can't be flawed. Your beef is with humanity... not God. If it helps, humanity is a hot mess... and that is the reason that God offered his grace, through Christ. Grab a clue... it's right there waiting on YOU and your screwed up, hot mess of reasoning to get over.

You are right my beef is with humanity because god doesn't exist. I'm not mad at god. He doesn't exist. No offense.

Oh, and I'm not a hot mess. Are you? Seems like that's a big reason people become super religious. Guilt. I don't have guilt. I'm a good person. In fact probably better than most Christians.

And yes, I can only judge this god character by the humans he produced. Since he has never introduced himself to me, all I can go by is based on my opinion of the preacher or person telling me stories. If a Cleric Islam Muslim guy told me about his god, I would have no choice but to judge his imaginary friend based on the person telling me the story.

And based on man and society, I call BULLSHIT! God's going to have to come back because I just can't believe George Bush or the Iatola Komeni or a Rabbi. I'm too smart for that.

You don't have guilt because you're a sociopath. Look it up... that's the first clue, OKA: Symptom.

God doesn't exist, in your mind. And that's fine with me... I dont' care whats in your mind. Except where whats in your mind undermines my means to exercise my rights.

Where we have a problem, is where your policy advocacies are forming law around your religious beliefs, forcing me and others into servitude, demanding that we participate in your celebration of your debauched, sexual perversion and the pretense that marriage is the joining of anything except one man and one woman.

At this point, we're one degree separated from you forcing me to destroy you, because what's in your head is injuring me and all because you lack sufficient intellectual means to reason objectively. (That's the second symptom... BTW. Sociopaths are limited to subjective reasoning. That's sort of the crux establishing the abnormal mind)

We can all get along as long as we can all recognize that your rights end at you, just as my rights begin and end at me.

 

[Meriweather]

But I don't believe and I don't know. No one knows. That's why I'm an agnostic atheist. The only way you could KNOW is either you met god or you are a god yourself.

I know, and I am not God.

Let's take a different approach from the ones you offer, that of faith. Do you know the story of Moses whose eyes had to be shielded when God passed directly in front of him? Some read this story as a revelation about God--that God is seen best in hindsight; His presence, when directly in front of us, "blinds" us, as God is too bright to be seen. Sometimes we see in hindsight; perhaps because He is the expert in, "Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing," sometimes it seems all He leaves behind are His fingerprints.

What we know is that it is extremely difficult to prove God's existence in the physical dimension--the dimension that science can help explain. But is the physical dimension the only dimension? Some think there are indications that their are more dimensions than the one in which we exist.

It is also my understanding that the physical never ceases to exist--it may change form and substance, but it does not blink out of existence. If this is so, than all the matter we see now may have always been in existence. Let's switch from physical objects to the spiritual. Note, that we can classify the physical as 'matter'. Is it possible we can do the same for the spiritual? If we can, I would say for the physical, we have matter. For the spiritual, we have life, but perhaps more precisely, love. Is matter and love such an unbelievable/unknowable combination?

Just some more or less random thoughts...not provable in the physical world, of course, but perhaps knowable all the same?

 

[Taz]

My personal experience with the devine...

It was about three years ago. Me and my friends took this trip to the United States, and on our way to Michigan we stopped at this tiny Indian motel, payed for a room, and outside in this parking-lot, we faced with a breath-taking view of the sunset. It was a splatter of blue and orange and such an amazing sight, It was truly outwordly. I could just stare at it and stutter- "Ma Rabu Ma'aseicha, HaShem..." "How wonderful are your deeds, My God".

I know it's not "I was almost run-over by a truck" but it was nontheless amazing

Were you smoking crack?

 

[September]

Using ‘god’ to explain something explains nothing. God’s supposed powers and how they work are a mystery. An explanation is intended to clarify and extend knowledge. Attributing a phenomenon to the magical powers of a supernatural being does neither. Worse still, this presumption acts to prevent any deeper investigation, being little more than a form of blissful ignorance.

Note: By using ‘god’ to fill gaps in their knowledge theists inadvertently provide a shrinking role for their god as science advances. They also predicate god’s existence on a lack of knowledge, not on any positive argument or evidence.

You have an extremely limited idea on what theists believe and lump them all into your little box based on pre-packaged arguments. Most theists I know believe god created the universe and it functions as it was designed to. They differ on how involved or uninvolved god is but don't use it to "fill in gaps". Contrary to your myopic world view, many scientists are theists, almost half last I checked. They don't study a phenomenon and say science works here and here and god does the rest with his magic.

On the contrary. Haven't you heard me say before that god is like a snowflake? No two gods seem to be the exact same. Everyone has their own concepts so its impossible to put you all in the same box.

Of course most theists believe god created the universe.

And you should wonder why 95% of society are theists but only half the scientists are.

Also the fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalize world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

People's perspective will differ, therefore their observations will differ. Doesn't change what God is.

You're using people's understanding of God, and the would-be inconsistencies within that pool of observations to conclude that because God is described differently, God doesn't really exist.

Such is a disjointed syllogism of the invalid variety.

No one here; or anywhere else for that matter would argue that people aren't flawed, thus their reasoning can't be flawed. Your beef is with humanity... not God. If it helps, humanity is a hot mess... and that is the reason that God offered his grace, through Christ. Grab a clue... it's right there waiting on YOU and your screwed up, hot mess of reasoning to get over.

You are right my beef is with humanity because god doesn't exist. I'm not mad at god. He doesn't exist. No offense.

Oh, and I'm not a hot mess. Are you? Seems like that's a big reason people become super religious. Guilt. I don't have guilt. I'm a good person. In fact probably better than most Christians.

And yes, I can only judge this god character by the humans he produced. Since he has never introduced himself to me, all I can go by is based on my opinion of the preacher or person telling me stories. If a Cleric Islam Muslim guy told me about his god, I would have no choice but to judge his imaginary friend based on the person telling me the story.

And based on man and society, I call BULLSHIT! God's going to have to come back because I just can't believe George Bush or the Iatola Komeni or a Rabbi. I'm too smart for that.

You don't have guilt because you're a sociopath. Look it up... that's the first clue, OKA: Symptom.

God doesn't exist, in your mind. And that's fine with me... I dont' care whats in your mind. Except where whats in your mind undermines my means to exercise my rights.

Where we have a problem, is where your policy advocacies are forming law around your religious beliefs, forcing me and others into servitude, demanding that we participate in your celebration of your debauched, sexual perversion and the pretense that marriage is the joining of anything except one man and one woman.

At this point, we're one degree separated from you forcing me to destroy you, because what's in your head is injuring me and all because you lack sufficient intellectual means to reason objectively. (That's the second symptom... BTW. Sociopaths are limited to subjective reasoning. That's sort of the crux establishing the abnormal mind)

We can all get along as long as we can all recognize that your rights end at you, just as my rights begin and end at me.

Bobo is not a sociopath.

He/ she is just angry at religion for whatever reasons, and feels compelled to constantly attack it and complain about on USMB, and likely outside of USMB as well.

Bobo sure spends a lot of time dwelling on religion.

Why not focus on other things in life, I wonder?

Beautiful things.

Exciting things.

Why not let go of this pitiful hate directed towards religion, and go enjoy Life while it lasts?

If you are attempting to twist people against religion, or draw them away from God(s), than you have a great deal to learn about the Ways of Manipulation. You aren't very good at it.

​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Bobo is
not
a sociopath.​

She lacks the means to experience guilt. That's classic sociopathy... It's also a foundational tenet of relativism, due to its axiomatic rejection of objectivity. Again... sociopathy is the result of obsessive subjectivity.

He/ she is just angry at religion for whatever reasons, and feels compelled to constantly attack it and complain about on USMB, and likely outside of USMB as well.

Being angry at a set of ideas centered upon personal responsibility and fulfillment, solidarity with the laws of nature?

Subjectivity run amok.

Bobo sure spends a lot of time dwelling on religion.

Obsession...

Why not focus on other things in life, I wonder?

Beautiful things.

Exciting things.

Right?

Why not let go of this pitiful hate directed towards religion, and go enjoy Life while it lasts?

Yeah... that would be reasonable. And in keeping with normal human psychology...

If you are attempting to twist people against religion, or draw them away from God(s), than you have a great deal to learn about the Ways of Manipulation. You aren't very good at it.

I'm looking at the spade and recognizing it for it's demonstrated traits. It's called honest, open dialogue. And it is the only thing that is called for where the issue at hand is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder... OKA: Delusion as a component of demonstrated sociopathy.

As a man, I'm not all that up to speed on the ways of manipulation.
Forgive me, I'm only a man.​

 

[September]

People can choose not to feel guilty about something...​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

People can choose not to feel guilty about something...​

Guilt is a choice?

LOL! That's adorable...

 

[September]

People can choose not to feel guilty about something...​

Guilt is a choice?

LOL! That's adorable...

It takes Willpower.

You can choose not to feel guilt, just as you can choose not to feel anger or sadness.

Don't underestimate the Power of Thought. Or choice. Or belief.
​