Atheists: What would be evidence of God’s existence?

[Trailblazer]

More circular.
You cannot seek god until you believe he exists, you can only look for evidence of his existence. If evidence for his existence is only apparent to those who already believe he exists, then that evidence is meaningless.

There is nothing circular about it.
Why would you seek God if you already knew He existed?
You can look for evidence of His existence and that is what God wants you to do.
That evidence is not only apparent to people who already know that God exists.

I did not believe that God existed before I found the evidence in the Baha'i Faith. I knew nothing about God because I was not raised in any religion. I found out about God by reading the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

 

[Trailblazer]

Excellent! We are finally getting somewhere.
So, what are these "facts" that show your version of god exists? (Fact: A thing that is known or proved to be true. - OED)

There are facts that surround the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. I believe that Baha'u'llah is proof that God exists so a first step is to investigate the facts about Baha'u'llah and His Revelation.

The following can be examined and evaluated. Let me know if you want the source material.

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

 

[Trailblazer]

And yet you cannot show what this "evidence" is, other than "some people have claimed to be messengers of god" afaics.

The evidence that God exists are the Manifestations of God (Messengers). You can take it or leave it, that's your choice.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then maybe you can find another way.

Why would I want to do that? I'm not invested enough in your god to want to set aside reason just to believe in it.

I know a couple of people who were once atheists and they are now believers and they don't believe in Messengers at all. They came to belief in God as a result of crying out to God and getting an answer.

Well, being an atheist isn't a guarantee of rationality.

 

[Trailblazer]

And you still do not understand how you failed. Did you watch that video that I provided for you? It is both humorous and instructive.

I watched the silly video but it does not prove that I failed because it presupposes that what the man said in video is right and he is dead wrong becaue:

1. There are other kinds of knowledge that he does not mention, and
2. He says there has not been an advance in religious knowledge since the Bible.

Nothing could be funnier or further from the truth. It is so sad when atheist rely upon the Bible to rank on religion. They are so ignorant that they don't even know that the Bible is not the only holy book. There have been three more revelations from God since that Bible was written.



No, knowledge is not what some man who has an agenda against religion says it is, it is what is defined in a dictionary.

Definition of knowledge

1 a (1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association

(2) : acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique

b (1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something

(2) : the range of one's information or understanding

c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition

d : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned

2 a : the sum of what is known : the body of truth, information, and principles acquired by humankind

b archaic : a branch of learning

Definition of KNOWLEDGE

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are facts that surround the Revelation of Baha'u'llah. I believe that Baha'u'llah is proof that God exists so a first step is to investigate the facts about Baha'u'llah and His Revelation.

The following can be examined and evaluated. Let me know if you want the source material.

1. The character of Baha'u'llah
2. The life of Baha'u'llah
3. The mission of Baha'u'llah (the history)
4. The Writings of Baha'u'llah

Let's examine them in comparison to, say, Mary Baker Eddy.

Instead of talking about how wonderful the founder of the Baha'i faith is, how about you demonstrate that he's more compelling than the founder of a religious group you don't follow?

 

[Trailblazer]

You didn't answer the second part of my question though.

"Do you agree that God could, if he wanted, grant me spiritual eyes that would allow me to see him in a similar manner that I can see the moon with my physical eyes? And that doing so would not violate my free will since granting me physical eyes doesn't?"

Yes, God could do that without violating your free will.

 

[Trailblazer]

Let's examine them in comparison to, say, Mary Baker Eddy.

Instead of talking about how wonderful the founder of the Baha'i faith is, how about you demonstrate that he's more compelling than the founder of a religious group you don't follow?

I don't have time to do that but go ahead and do that. If you actually did that you might discover the difference.

You cannot compare a religious leader with someone who claimed to be a Messenger of God. There is a minimum criteria for a Messenger of God.

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

 

[Trailblazer]

What messenger?
The messenger is only validated through other messengers.
I have yet to encounter a real messenger of god.

Why do you think that a messenger is only validated through other messengers?
No, you won't encounter a real Messenger of God because there are none living right now.

Where in the scriptures does it say god expects you to do something?

It is all throughout scriptures. They are called injunctions.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just yesterday your claim was "I believe God exists and it can't be proven". So you are changing your mind all of a sudden?

I never changed my mind. One can prove that God exists to oneself, but not to others.

Again this suggests your standards are lower than the average critical thinker. What convinced you isn't good enough for anyone else.

It does not suggest that at all. It only suggests that ALL PEOPLE ARE DIFFERENT IN HOW THEY THINK AND PROCESS INFORMATION so what convinces one person will not convince another person. There is no magic kind of evidence that will convince everyone. If God appeared on earth that would not even convince everyone. Some people would say “that’s not God.” This is basic logic and psychology.

You should consider you might be mistaken in your decision that a God exists.

Why should I? Why would it matter to you what I believe?

I don't believe you. Your evidence is very weak and subjective. You offer no step by step thinking process with evidence to demonstrate how to come to an objective and rational conclusion a God truly exists outside of imagination. None of what you present is adequate for skilled, critical thinkers. This has been explained.

The first and necessary step would be to consider the possibility that Messengers of God are the evidence that God. As long as you cannot get past this step I see no possibility that you will ever know.

This is what adequate skilled, critical thinkers do, they look at the only evidence there is for God, if they want to know if God exists.

I'm curious how far you will take this. You're at the disadvantage since it is you posting claims that are dubious and show signs of distress. You seem to want critics to leave you alone, but you keep poking the bear. This is entertaining.

I just answer posts. I do not care if people criticize because I know the truth from God so nothing can hurt me. It is just entertainment for me.

Because in debate if you want to convince others you are correct you have to meet a certain standard of evidence.

What you are wrong about is that I am in a debate trying to convince others. Nothing could be further from my mind. I just respond to posts.

So as an ordinary mortal what makes your beliefs reliable enough for us to just accept them at face value, and require no evidence?

I have posted the evidence for Baha’u’llah numerous times and that is evidence for God because Baha’u’llah was God’s Representative on earth.

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

You don't go into court telling a jury what you believe and they should convict a person just because you think the person is guilty. You need to present evidence that meets an objective standard that can withstand scrutiny and tests.

That is the fallacy of false equivalence because evidence for religious beliefs can never be the same as evidence presented in a court of law. For one thing there is no forensic evidence and for another thing there are no contemporary eyewitnesses.

Because every time you refresh your claim it demands a response. That's debate. You seem to think if you keep repeating false claims that it will become true at some point. THAT is propaganda.

Why does it demand a response? I am not in a debate with you or with anyone. You are not going to prove my religion is false by saying it over and over again.

This IS a game. We aren't on here solving the world's problems or curing cancer. This isn't important, nor life or death. We waste time here dabbling over ideas for the entertainment and challenge (occasionally).

It might be a game for you but it is not a game for me. I have better things to do than play games. There are a few sincere seekers here, people who really want to know the truth, and new people join all the time who are seeking the truth, so that is mainly why I am here. But I am NOT going to try to convince anyone, I just answer their questions and tell them where they can do their own research if they want to.

Now that I have confirmed that this just a game for you and that you are not serious, I might not answer any more posts of this nature.

 

[Trailblazer]

The very first line of your OP started; "Whenever I say that Messengers of God are the evidence of God’s existence...". If you agree they're not evidence for the existence of God, why would you have been saying that it was in the first place?

I do not agree on that. I believe that the Messengers of God are evidence for God’s existence.

You said back in post #287; "I have a belief which is based upon the evidence.". That is literally saying I believe God exists because of x, y or z.

That is correct. I believe that God exists because of what the Messengers reveal about God.

I respectfully suggest you have faith (which is fine in itself IMO) but no evidence by any conventional definition. Believing things on faith alone is generally looked down upon so you feel pushed in to claiming you have evidence and then getting in to this mess trying to present evidence that doesn't really exist, leading to frustration on all sides. I suggest it'd be better to accept that all you have is faith and deal with that fact as best you can.

The conventional definitions of evidence are as follows and according to these definitions I have evidence:

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true: EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid: https://www.google.com/search

Evidence is anything that you see, experience, read, or are told that causes you to believe that something is true or has really happened. ‘

Objective evidence definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

That definition is a little fuzzy and non-specific to work as anything formal or scientific. I would suggest that the "unknowable and inaccessible" pretty much explicitly excludes the possibility of their being evidence for this Gods existence (a monotheistic trope I'd already mentioned), with the "indirect reflection" not really helping (it's either knowable or not, regardless of whether that is directly or indirectly).

God is knowable only by His Manifestations (what I normally refer to as Messengers of God).

The Baháʼí teachings state that there is only one God and that his essence is absolutely inaccessible from the physical realm of existence and that, therefore, his reality is completely unknowable. Thus, all of humanity's conceptions of God which have been derived throughout history are mere manifestations of the human mind and not at all reflective of the nature of God's essence. While God's essence is inaccessible, a subordinate form of knowledge is available by way of mediation by divine messengers, known as Manifestations of God.

God in the Baháʼí Faith

“He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

Slightly on a tangent, but I've always thought there is a fundamental logical conflict when a God is defined as omniscient and omnipresent but also as having very human emotions and characteristics (like reason and love mentioned here). I'd suggest that any kind of emotion like this requires an imperfection and incomplete knowledge or understanding.

Only if God were human and had human emotions would that imply imperfection. God has a mind and emotions but they are not like a human mind and emotions, as the definition says:

While the Baháʼí writings teach of a personal god who is a being with a personality (including the capacity to reason and to feel love), they clearly state that this does not imply a human or physical form.[2] Shoghi Effendi writes:

What is meant by personal God is a God Who is conscious of His creation, Who has a Mind, a Will, a Purpose, and not, as many scientists and materialists believe, an unconscious and determined force operating in the universe. Such conception of the Divine Being, as the Supreme and ever present Reality in the world, is not anthropomorphic, for it transcends all human limitations and forms, and does by no means attempt to define the essence of Divinity which is obviously beyond any human comprehension. To say that God is a personal Reality does not mean that He has a physical form, or does in any way resemble a human being. To entertain such belief would be sheer blasphemy.[15][16]

God in the Baháʼí Faith

Ultimately, I think true omniscience would render any such being entirely beyond our ability to study or understand in any way. It'd be like trying to look at the back of your own eyes! That would mean there is no evidence that could be presented to support (or indeed deny) this Gods existence, hence why the only real basis for believing it does can be faith. #614 F1fan, Today at 7:08 AM .

That is absolutely correct. The Essence of God, God’s intrinsic nature, how God thinks or feels or operates, is completely beyond any human understanding. All we can know about God are some of the attributes if God, through what the Messengers reveal and reflect in their Person, but God is far above His attributes. The only other thing we can know about God is His Will, which is revealed to the Messengers who relay that information to us in scriptures.

The basis for believing involves faith and belief in the Messenger, that He was truly a Messenger from God, but since the Messengers present evidence to back up their claims, it can be an evidence-based faith if we look at the evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer said: Do you realize how arrogant this sounds: "Some people become adept at recognizing what evidence is relevant and what it implies using valid reasoning to arrive at sound conclusions."

Really? That sounds arrogant to you? I say again - there are people who are very skilled at critical thinking. And they recognize one another by their comments.

I would have to say that if you identify yourself as “very skilled at critical thinking” that is arrogant, especially when you contrast yourself with the “less rational thinkers.” It means that you think very highly of your abilities that is arrogance. Why you cannot understand that is beyond my comprehension.

Arrogant: having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities. https://www.google.com/search

I would like to say another thing about arrogance and this is not directed at you. People who can never admit were wrong even when it was proven they were wrong are arrogant. It is as if they can never be mistaken, they have to be right all the time and they cannot even meet anyone halfway. What a horrible way to live. I am often wrong and when I am wrong I admit I am wrong but I will not admit I am wrong when I am not wrong because that is unjust.

I also mentioned that there are people a little less knowing who can't do that well, but recognize that some others can. And then there is the group that is unaware that such a thing can be done, and actually don't know what it is that these other people claim to be doing.

Right out of the door I consider it arrogant for you to think you KNOW about other people and what their abilities are. It is also judgmental. Just because a person is not as educated as you are that does not mean they are not intelligent. I have two Masters degrees and other college degrees but I do not consider myself smarter than other people who never went to college.

We each make that judgment for ourselves. I'm telling you that it is possible to look at somebodies train of thought and determine if and where it was derailed. How does the math teacher know that little Johnny's thinking was flawed?

Someone’s thinking is only flawed according to YOU and that is what flies right over your head. Who are you to judge what constitutes flawed thinking? You can have a personal opinion but it is based upon your own biased thinking. As an atheist you have a certain bias, that any faith-based thinking is necessarily flawed. There is nowhere to go with that. I make an effort to understand how atheists think and I do not call their thinking flawed, it is just different from how believers think. There is no need for me to knock anyone down because I don’t need to raise myself up. This is what I see some (but not all) atheists do. As a Baha’i I believe we are all one people no matter what we believe or disbelieve and I do not believe we should judge other people as inferior to ourselves. All humans are different and I believe we should respect the differences of other people.

“As difference in degree of capacity exists among human souls, as difference in capability is found, therefore, individualities will differ one from another. But in reality this is a reason for unity and not for discord and enmity. If the flowers of a garden were all of one color, the effect would be monotonous to the eye; but if the colors are variegated, it is most pleasing and wonderful. The difference in adornment of color and capacity of reflection among the flowers gives the garden its beauty and charm. Therefore, although we are of different individualities, different in ideas and of various fragrances, let us strive like flowers of the same divine garden to live together in harmony. Even though each soul has its own individual perfume and color, all are reflecting the same light, all contributing fragrance to the same breeze which blows through the garden, all continuing to grow in complete harmony and accord. Become as waves of one sea, trees of one forest, growing in the utmost love, agreement and unity.”
– Abdu’l-Baha, The Promulgation of Universal Peace

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't have time to do that but go ahead and do that. If you actually did that you might discover the difference.

You cannot compare a religious leader with someone who claimed to be a Messenger of God. There is a minimum criteria for a Messenger of God.

1. He had good character as exemplified by his qualities such as love, mercy, kindness, truth, justice, benevolence, gracious, merciful, righteous, forgiving, patient.

2. He believed he had been given a mission by God and did everything he could to see that it was carried out. He was completely successful before his death, and he accomplished everything that he set out to do.

3. He wrote much about God and God's purpose for humans both individually and collectively, or scriptures were written by others who spoke for him. He firmly believed that the work he was doing was for the Cause of God.

4. He had many followers while he was alive, and there are still millions who follow his teachings and gather in groups based on the religion he founded.

5. His followers have grown more numerous in recent times.

At first glance, Mary Baker Eddy seems to meet every one of those criteria.

 

[samtonga43]

I have posted the evidence for Baha’u’llah numerous times and that is evidence for God because Baha’u’llah was God’s Representative on earth.

There is a false assumption in there. Look for it and learn.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well, being an atheist isn't a guarantee of rationality.

That's right. I wish some of the atheists on this thread understood that.

 

[Trailblazer]

At first glance, Mary Baker Eddy seems to meet every one of those criteria.

Can you explain how she met them?

 

[Trailblazer]

There is a false assumption in there. Look for it and learn.

There is no false assumption because there is no assumption. There is only a belief.

I believe that Baha''u'llah was evidence for God because Baha’u’llah was God’s Representative on earth.

Sorry you don't like my belief. I don't like a lot of Christian beliefs but I don't continually pick at them.

P.S. If you are asserting that my belief is false and you cannot prove that my belief is false that is a bald assertion.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up. Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you explain how she met them?

Are you familiar with Christian Science? If not, Google is your friend.

I think you misunderstand what we're doing here. I'm not making a case that Mary Baker Eddy is a "Messenger of God;" I'm asking you to make the case that only the people you consider to be "Messengers" meet your criteria.

I think that Mary Baker Eddy is a useful test case, because at least at face value, she ticks all the boxes.

If you aren't game, then we could explore something else... such as why you think that your criteria imply that a person must be a "Messenger of God."

 

[Trailblazer]

I think what confuses people, is that you seem to argue both for and against yourself at the same time, meaning you present some arguments that seem contradictive and will try to elaborate on that based on what you have answered, so will jump a bit around in your reply.

So from this we should be able to agree on the following, that absolutely no amount of evidence will ever result in him being able to proof that his claim is correct about God. Which means that it will natural follow that it is also impossible to establish that he is a messenger of God. And therefore we won't be able to prove it, so it has to be based on faith.

We both agree to this statement being logically correct, based on the claim "That no one can ever prove God".

That is not what I have been saying. Listen carefully. I have been saying that we cannot prove that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God as a fact that will be accepted as true by everyone. However, we can prove to ourselves that He was a Messenger of God which proves that God exists since a ‘Messenger of God’ cannot exist if there is no God.

This is a circular and contradictive statement, based on what we agreed on above.

If no one can prove God, then the Messengers can't provide that proof through any means. Therefore it is contradictory when you then say that we need the messenger to demonstrate God.

Nobody can prove that God exists as a fact that everyone will accept because God can never be located and observed. All we can do is prove to ourselves that God sent a Messenger, which is proof to us that God exists since a Messenger of God is proof that God exists. Obviously the Messenger is only proof to those who believe he was a Messenger of God.

This will become circular reasoning, because in order to establish the validity of the Messengers claim, we have to demonstrate God first, because this rely on God being real, if God is not real then obviously they can't be Messengers of God, because he wouldn't exist, but in order to demonstrate God, we need the Messengers, and again to do that we need to demonstrate God and we can keep going like this... This is what circular reasoning is.

Even if it is circular reasoning that does not mean it is not logically valid.

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[1] The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Are all circular arguments invalid?

No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound. It should be more clear now that this line of reasoning is perfectly valid.

If the bible is true God exists, and, if God exists the bible is true.

While both claims still have the same very low probability, it is now a more coherent – albeit circular – line of reasoning. Is there anything wrong with these arguments because they are circular? No. The circularity does not reduce the validity of these arguments in any way. That is, there is nothing inherently wrong with circular argument, although this does not mean that all circular arguments are valid and/or sound.
Circular arguments are perfectly valid - THE SKEPTICAL SCIENTIST Why is circular reasoning bad?

Following the same line of reasoning, as the one above about the bible, here is my perfectly valid circular argument:

If what Baha'u'llah wrote is true, God exists.

If the premise what Baha'u'llah wrote is true, then the conclusion God exists must be true.

Conversely, the conclusion God exists must be true if the premise Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God is true.

I cannot prove that my premises are true, so I am not presenting an argument. I was never trying to prove anything to anyone; I just present what “I believe is true.”

So to break this circle, we have to figure out which claim we need to establish first in order to do this. And it makes sense to break it at God, because the messenger rely on him being true.

Therefore we can solve this circular issue, but approaching the claims in the following order:

1. Demonstrate God
2. Demonstrate the claim that these are Messengers of said God.

But we then run into the problem of the statement we agreed on. "That no one can ever prove God". So we can't demonstrate (1.) which means that we won't be able to demonstrate (2.) either.

The problem you immediately run into is that you cannot demonstrate that God exists without the Messenger. However, we can demonstrate that the claims of the Messenger are true.

It is not the atheists fault or us being unreasonable, it is a logical trap or what to say, that all religious claims make use of and why they are based on faith. Or said in another way, why they require people to accept certain things without proof, if they do, then this whole setup will make sense.

I am not saying that atheists are at fault or are unreasonable, why does someone have to be at fault or be unreasonable? Yes, there is some faith involved in accepting that a Messenger is from God because such a claim can never be proven as a fact, but we can prove it to ourselves by looking at the evidence that supports the claim of the Messenger.

Yes, but the keyword in what you write is "The way I see it if He was a Messenger of God..." and that is what we want to verify. But we can't, as I explained above. So its irrelevant of whether everything he said is true or not, IF he was in fact a messenger of God or not, because we can't establish that to begin with, because again, we are going to end up in circular reasoning.

It is not irrelevant because each person can verify for themselves that He was a Messenger of God and then they know that everything He said was true. It will never be established as a fact that anyone was a Messenger of God and that is unnecessary and illogical to think that would ever be possible. So all we gave is the evidence that indicates that a Messenger was telling the truth and His claim is valid. We can never have anything else.

Trailblazer said: In the sense that nobody can “know” that God exists as a fact some faith is required to believe in God, but it can be an evidence-based faith.

But these evidence are weak ones at best and again requires you to start out by accepting something without proof. And that is basically from what I can see, exactly how you "break" the circular reasoning as I pointed out above, you accept that God exist based on faith.

There can be no universally accepted proof that God exists, we can only prove that to ourselves. I never started out accepting that Baha’u’llah was a Messenger of God without evidence. What is weak evidence to you is strong evidence to me and other Baha’is. As I said above some faith is needed to believe in what cannot be proven as a fact, because God can never be seen in this contingent world. If atheists cannot accept what is so logical then they will just going on being atheists. What is circular is these endless conversations between atheists and believers.

Trailblazer said: Hebrews 11:6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who approaches Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

This is what faith is, that is what this verse calls for, blind faith in God. Of course you are going to believe in my aliens, if you approach it having faith in it being true. The moment you don't have faith in my claim, you won't find the aliens.

All faith is not blind faith. Only faith devoid of evidence is blind faith.

Its perfectly fine to believe in God and find value in the teachings of Baha'u'llah, but it shouldn't come at the cost of logical reasoning.

Belief in God does not have to come at the cost of logical reasoning, as I pointed out above.

What is illogical is for atheists to ever expect God to be demonstrated without some link between that God and humanity. The Messengers of God provide that link.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you familiar with Christian Science? If not, Google is your friend.

I think you misunderstand what we're doing here. I'm not making a case that Mary Baker Eddy is a "Messenger of God;" I'm asking you to make the case that only the people you consider to be "Messengers" meet your criteria.

I think that Mary Baker Eddy is a useful test case, because at least at face value, she ticks all the boxes.

If you aren't game, then we could explore something else... such as why you think that your criteria imply that a person must be a "Messenger of God."

@Trailblazer - you know what? I've had a change of heart. Instead, let's explore why you keep on making these threads.

Why do you:

- create a thread about atheists and their beliefs,

- steer the conversation so that the thread becomes all about you and your beliefs,

- weirdly insist that you haven't steered the thread to make it all about you,

- repeat the whole process a few months later as if you didn't learn a single thing from all the times you did this before?

What do you get out of it?