Elliquian Atheists

[Sabby]

That's exactly why no good Atheist will say "God doesn't exist". They say "I reject YOUR God", and I at least try to follow up with "When you can satisfy my standards of evidence, I will have absolutely no reason not to believe in your God" Sadly, most of these compromises are doomed from the start, since the various 'Gods' today either don't have a stable definition to work on (to the point where it's like several difference Gods of entirely different minds) or they are described as not conceivable by mortal minds and not of the physical realm. That ones a doozy, since right there it renders serious discussion absolutely pointless (both from a scientific and philosophical approach) yet STILL the very people who describe God as unapproachable with the scientific process will insist they have scientific evidence. Evidence that is impossible to gain by their own admission.

And they wonder why a fuss gets kicked up when they want to make this cobbled mess of contradictions a science class. I'm not one to use the 'think of the children', but seriously, think of them! This isn't even a religious problem to me, it's just pure poisonous thinking.

[MercyfulFate]

That's exactly why no good Atheist will say "God doesn't exist". They say "I reject YOUR God", and I at least try to follow up with "When you can satisfy my standards of evidence, I will have absolutely no reason not to believe in your God" Sadly, most of these compromises are doomed from the start, since the various 'Gods' today either don't have a stable definition to work on (to the point where it's like several difference Gods of entirely different minds) or they are described as not conceivable by mortal minds and not of the physical realm. That ones a doozy, since right there it renders serious discussion absolutely pointless (both from a scientific and philosophical approach) yet STILL the very people who describe God as unapproachable with the scientific process will insist they have scientific evidence. Evidence that is impossible to gain by their own admission.

And they wonder why a fuss gets kicked up when they want to make this cobbled mess of contradictions a science class. I'm not one to use the 'think of the children', but seriously, think of them! This isn't even a religious problem to me, it's just pure poisonous thinking.

That's perfectly fine, asking for evidence of something someone says exists is reasonable. A lot of "atheists" say no god/deity/whatever can exist no matter what, and they're the only ones smart enough to know that. That line of thinking is what bothers me.

[Sabby]

Those are what we call Militant Atheists. I hope majority of them have the same worries as the rational Atheists have, just a severe lack of tact and a bit too much passion. Though I'd be lying if I said there weren't those motivated purely by hate for Religion. These are intolerant people who sadly make it harder for Atheism to gain a foothold in modern culture.

There are two reasons I'm an Atheist. The first is the formerly mentioned 'burden of proof', as in society is having this incredibly heavy ultimatum forced into every pocket of our lives it can get away with, schools, government, our homes, and when we try to enforce the same standards on them as the rest of us, they can wave a magic Freedom of Religion flag and continue on as is. This is not fair, it should not be allowed in any just and rational society, and we should push to make sure it doesn't remain a part of our society.

The second reason is religious teachings being 'special' or 'different' from the rest of the system is SEVERELY damaging to society. With that pesky flag, its very hard to stand up and say "Hey! Condoms and sex ed are important for our children, who are you to insist to standard of education is changed? Why aren't you held responsible for the damage you cause through negligence knowingly lying to push an agenda?" Here's the hint. They aren't being held responsible as much as they should, and this creeps into every facet of life, and resisting this is made so much harder by political correctness and that bloody Freedom of Religion flag -.- Have a good long listen to, for example, the top reasons why Gay Marriage shouldn't be legalized. Most are circular logic or pure falsehoods that have proven as such time and time again for decades, and yet they still carry weight when a non-religious argument that embarrassingly inept wouldn't stand up half as long to critical review.

Notice neither of my reasons for being an Atheist have anything to do with God? Hell, I could be a devout Evangelican and still think this way.

[MasterMischief]

That's exactly why no good Atheist will say "God doesn't exist".

I would not say I have absolute, definitive proof that no god whatsoever exists, however, mankind has a long history of creating gods.  Combined with the lack of evidence of a god, it seems probable god doesn't exists.  When I am not in a formal debate, I have been known to state god doesn't exists.  I guess I am just not a very good Atheist.

And I would label militant Atheists the ones that feel the need to convince others there is no god (or probably no god).  I do not feel that particular need.

[Sabby]

I would not say I have absolute, definitive proof that no god whatsoever exists, however, mankind has a long history of creating gods.  Combined with the lack of evidence of a god, it seems probable god doesn't exists.  When I am not in a formal debate, I have been known to state god doesn't exists.  I guess I am just not a very good Atheist.

And I would label militant Atheists the ones that feel the need to convince others there is no god (or probably no god).  I do not feel that particular need.

You've still applied the logical train of thought that leads you to conclude a God likely doesn't exist and clarified that that is the source of your scepticism. Good Llama :3

And yes, I'd agreed with that definition of Militant... it's completely contradictory -.- how do you enlist people to DOUBT?

[MasterMischief]

...how do you enlist people to DOUBT?

Usually by telling them how stupid they are.

What?!  I never said they were very good at it.   ::)

[Oniya]

I would not say I have absolute, definitive proof that no god whatsoever exists, however, mankind has a long history of creating gods.  Combined with the lack of evidence of a god, it seems probable god doesn't exists.  When I am not in a formal debate, I have been known to state god doesn't exists.  I guess I am just not a very good Atheist.

And I would label militant Atheists the ones that feel the need to convince others there is no god (or probably no god).  I do not feel that particular need.

As Voltaire said - 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.' 

In researching that quote, I discovered another 'reason' that society tends to desire a Divine force:  The concept that bad deeds have inescapable consequences tends to serve as a deterrent for the average person.  It's not going to affect the truly determined, but it's enough to make the average person think before acting, and provides some comfort if a crime remains unsolved.  'He'll meet his Maker someday, and when he does...'

This isn't saying that religion is necessary to prevent crime, just that it is one method of doing so.

[Sabby]

Ah, now that argument doesn't have a catchy quotable name like 'Pascals Wager' but it's equally as annoying. For every time someone's told me 'if your wrong you'll burn in hell', someone else has told me 'if there's no Heaven and Hell, then I can just go do whatever I want and never get punished'.

Uhm... yes. You will. You will get punished. If you rape a bunch of people and stab some kids and eat them, you'll find punishment, hopefully. In this life. By humans. Or maybe you won't. Maybe you'll shoot yourself after, and be dead. Maybe you'll get away with it and run off to kill again and again and eventually choke on a toddlers rib and never face persecution. Is that just? That you MAY get away without your due punishment? Is it fair? Nope. Got news for ya buddy, world ain't fair, and the burden of making it as just as we can is on US.

[Hemingway]

As Voltaire said - 'If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.' 

In researching that quote, I discovered another 'reason' that society tends to desire a Divine force:  The concept that bad deeds have inescapable consequences tends to serve as a deterrent for the average person.  It's not going to affect the truly determined, but it's enough to make the average person think before acting, and provides some comfort if a crime remains unsolved.  'He'll meet his Maker someday, and when he does...'

This isn't saying that religion is necessary to prevent crime, just that it is one method of doing so.

I would have to ask anyone who actually held that view to give me an answer as to whether they actually believe utility is more important than truth. Because, as Sam Harris has pointed out, he could invent a religion in five minutes which has all the potential utility of our existing religions, but none of the negative sides. If we could, somehow, make people believe it, it could prove to be a huge benefit. But that wouldn't make it true. And that, in the end, is what I think is most important. I, like Richard Dawkins, care passionately about what's true. If we start disregarding what's true, then anything is possible, and we no longer inhabit reality.

Now, at that point, someone might point out, as is being discussed here, that I don't know for a fact that there is no god. Which, in the case of the generic deistic god, is true. But I'd rather base my views on what I know to be true ( which is that we know a great deal, and there's a great deal we still don't know, which doesn't necessitate a supernatural explanation ), than what may, but is unlikely to be true.

[Oniya]

It's not quite that 'without Heaven and Hell, you won't get punished', more like 'even if you get away from justice on Earth, you've got one more judge to go through.'  As I said, it's a comfort factor, and not even necessary for society to function.  (I think someone got into it over in the 'What if we're all evil' thread, so I'm not going to rehash the ways that it can be done without invoking the Divine.)

[Darius]

I was raised a Quaker. Probably not a very good one because I've probably violated most of the their core beliefs long ago.

For much of my life after leaving home I considered myself an atheist. Things happened in my military service that only firmed my belief that the more religious people are the more hypocritical they are. But I did read. Three or four different bibles, the Gnostic Gospels, The Koran, the Talmud and a lot of buddist books. (you have a lot of time working the midwatch on a ship in the middle of nowhere for weeks at a time).

Later in life I was introduced to the mother of all religions. Physics. At one time, the universe is both nothing and everything and every point in between. I've come to believe that Heaven and Hell are metaphorical allusions to inertia. If you do good things in life and help other people, good things will continue to occur. That's not to say that shitty things don't occur, but you'll have good friends to help you through those times. If you're a mean nasty asswipe who surrounds themselves with mean nasty asswhipes, that sounds remarkably like a definition of hell.

All in all it works for me, most of my belief system jibes with what the major tenets of religion are at least ff you look at what all the religious texts teach- at least by their main figures. Those tertiary figures who come up with some of the real nutty ideas are in my opinion some of the asswipes I mentioned earlier who are trying to use something good to promote their agenda.

All in all I'm good with athiests and spiritual people, the only problems I seem to have are with religious people who are bound and determined that I need to think exactly like them. (In physics we describe them as black holes- once you're past their event horizon you'll never get out)

[Teo Torriatte]

I was raised Jewish, but I don't think I ever really believed in God. I went through the motions because I was expected to, and then as soon as I had a hint of personal freedom I dropped it like a hot potato. I consider myself "agnostic" as opposed to "atheist", but I put those both in quotes because they are, after all, just labels. I am the type who would need to see proof before I would be ready to believe in any god or religious system, and since they are all based on faith, which could be defined as belief without the need for proof... well you can see my dilemma regarding religion right there.

The only thing that trips me up a little bit in my steadfast non-belief is that every time I think about my mortality... well to be honest it scares the hell out of me. I hate to think that we just die and everything goes black. I know that is why some people cling to their religion, because it gives them that kind of comfort that something... else... is going to happen to them when they die, and I would love to be right there believing with them but good old scientific rationality gets in the way every time I think about it.

[Hemingway]

I was raised Jewish, but I don't think I ever really believed in God. I went through the motions because I was expected to, and then as soon as I had a hint of personal freedom I dropped it like a hot potato. I consider myself "agnostic" as opposed to "atheist", but I put those both in quotes because they are, after all, just labels. I am the type who would need to see proof before I would be ready to believe in any god or religious system, and since they are all based on faith, which could be defined as belief without the need for proof... well you can see my dilemma regarding religion right there.

I have to run, and so I'll keep this short. But I would like to point out that the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" are not, in the strictest sense, mutually exclusive, no more than agnostic and "theist". I consider myself an agnostic atheist: I don't know that there isn't a god - and I don't really think we can know, but I still don't believe.

[Sabby]

Ray Comfort Interview - The Atheist Experience #702 (full episode)

Thought I'd drop this wonderful little video in in the absence of a personal contribution. Yes, Ray Comfort called in. Guy was like a lamb striding assuredly into a slughterhouse.

[Oniya]

I am the type who would need to see proof before I would be ready to believe in any god or religious system, and since they are all based on faith, which could be defined as belief without the need for proof... well you can see my dilemma regarding religion right there.

Ah, the old Babelfish conundrum.

Man then goes on to prove black is white and promptly gets run over at the next zebra crossing.  :-) 

(Mere h2g2 levity here)

[MercyfulFate]

Are there any atheists out there that believe in the paranormal or ghosts?

I ask, because I wonder if one day science will provide a definitive answer to the events. As someone who's experienced some weird stuff, I always get to thinking about it, and how it could be explained.

One off the wall explanation I've heard is parallel universes as a theory for why people see things that aren't there. Perhaps it's almost as wacky as believing they're just disembodied spirits, but who knows?

[Hemingway]

Are there any atheists out there that believe in the paranormal or ghosts?

I ask, because I wonder if one day science will provide a definitive answer to the events. As someone who's experienced some weird stuff, I always get to thinking about it, and how it could be explained.

One off the wall explanation I've heard is parallel universes as a theory for why people see things that aren't there. Perhaps it's almost as wacky as believing they're just disembodied spirits, but who knows?

Science has probably given us the answer to a lot of weird stuff already. I think that because these are often quite personal experiences, people are reluctant to accept that they're just hallucinations or something else that fooled them. I actually got a pretty good lesson in how easily we're misled a few years ago. It wasn't a supernatural experience, but it may as well have been, and I think you'll see why.

I was lying in bed in a dark hallway in my family's vacation home. The only light was a narrow strip that came from the streetlight outside. My window was open just a crack. There's something weird about that particular hallway, in that sounds that come from the rooms further into the house sound like they're coming from the kitchen, which is the other way. Well, what happened was I heard whispering. It was really quiet, so I couldn't make out the words, or the voice. It sounded like it came from outside. A moment later, I heard soft footsteps, again from outside, and then I saw a shadow move across the far wall, as if someone had just walked past the window and blotted out the streetlight. I was, of course, terrified, thinking someone was breaking in. Turns out what I'd heard was my brother, and the "shadow" I saw wasn't a shadow at all. It was just my brother walking through the hallway, in the darkness. But the illusion was perfect.

So, while some sort interference from a parallel universe is probably a more likely explanation than seeing the immortal spirit of a lost loved one, it's even more likely that we're simply being deceived, be it by circumstances, hallucinations, or simply our tendency to "interpret" reality and see meaning and patterns where there aren't any.

[Serephino]

What's wrong in believing anything is possible?  I know, scary thought.  It's human nature to fear the unknown.  That is why people tend to cling to religion when they think about what happens after they die.  That is also why Atheists tend to cling to science.  It's a tool used to understand the world, and gives people a sense of security.  Science says demons, werewolves, and vampires could not possibly exist, and therefore, you are safe in your beds.  It's perfectly understandable.  I don't fault anyone for it.  The only thing that really grinds my gears is when people call me stupid, delusional, or gullible for having an open mind.

And yes, I have seen the video of a Christian telling an Atheist they are closed minded, and being a huge hypocrite himself.  We don't need to bring that into the conversation again.  Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I wasn't listening.  I believe it was Plato that said the mark of an educated mind is to be able to entertain thoughts without fully accepting them.  I completely agree. 

The existence of God is not something I believe, it is something I know; just like you know if you take a pen and drop it, it will fall to the ground.  I can't explain it, nor would I try to.  It's part of who I am.  I am made up of my experiences, as are the rest of you.  As for whether or not my beliefs are true, well, to me, they are.  Trying to tell me my truth is wrong because I can't cough up tangible proof is just asinine.  I mean, yes, I could be wrong, but look at it this way...  If I am wrong, and I die, there will be nothing.  I lived my life in a way that makes me happy, and that's that. 

However, if I am right, boy are you screwed.  I'm not trying to use fear to convert anyone, of course.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.  In my truth we all have our own unique experiences here on the Terrestrial Plane so we can learn and grow.  Of course, Buddhists could be right, and we'll all just go on to another existence.  If Christians are right, we're all screwed.  There really is no way to prove it except to drop dead and somehow come back with proof.  Since that will likely never happen, why can't we all just get along? 

I don't believe it will ever be possible for Science to prove the existence of God.  A few of you have said you hate it when people say it's because God isn't of this world because then you can't argue back with logic.  But what if it's true?  What if it isn't just a religious person trying to win the argument with something you can't refute?     

[Sabby]

However, if I am right, boy are you screwed.  I'm not trying to use fear to convert anyone, of course.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

You know, the way you spoke was exactly the way I wish Theists in general would speak. I mean it, you really came across as someone I wouldn't mind being the majority of the population. And then you used the 'lead a horse to water' analogy. That is incredibly arrogant :/ You just lost almost all the respect you so articulately earned just now.

[Hemingway]

What's wrong in believing anything is possible?  I know, scary thought.  It's human nature to fear the unknown.  That is why people tend to cling to religion when they think about what happens after they die.  That is also why Atheists tend to cling to science.  It's a tool used to understand the world, and gives people a sense of security.  Science says demons, werewolves, and vampires could not possibly exist, and therefore, you are safe in your beds.  It's perfectly understandable.  I don't fault anyone for it.  The only thing that really grinds my gears is when people call me stupid, delusional, or gullible for having an open mind.

No, it isn't, and no, it doesn't. That is, no, atheists do not "cling to" science because it's comforting. Science and atheism happen to overlap in a lot of cases, though not necessarily always. The reason it's often the case is because science is the only tool we have which time and time again has proven that it can accurately describe and predict how the natural world works. And, secondly, science does not say that demons, werewolves, vampires, or whatever else can't exist. Science is a tool, and it's a way of skeptically investigating reality. Science doesn't say demons can't exist, simply that until there's evidence to support the hypothesis, there's no reason to believe they exist.

I also quite resent your implication that atheists and skeptics do not have open minds. The idea that religious people are more open-minded than skeptics is, at least generally speaking, completely wrong. There's nothing open-minded about believing something with no evidence, against all evidence, and in the face of all doubt. Faith, by definition, is close-minded.

The existence of God is not something I believe, it is something I know; just like you know if you take a pen and drop it, it will fall to the ground.  I can't explain it, nor would I try to.  It's part of who I am.  I am made up of my experiences, as are the rest of you.  As for whether or not my beliefs are true, well, to me, they are.  Trying to tell me my truth is wrong because I can't cough up tangible proof is just asinine.  I mean, yes, I could be wrong, but look at it this way...  If I am wrong, and I die, there will be nothing.  I lived my life in a way that makes me happy, and that's that.

However, if I am right, boy are you screwed.  I'm not trying to use fear to convert anyone, of course.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.  In my truth we all have our own unique experiences here on the Terrestrial Plane so we can learn and grow.  Of course, Buddhists could be right, and we'll all just go on to another existence.  If Christians are right, we're all screwed.  There really is no way to prove it except to drop dead and somehow come back with proof.  Since that will likely never happen, why can't we all just get along?

This, frankly, is just insulting. Your three first sentences in the second paragraph here basically seem to say "I'm not saying you'll burn in hell, but you will, but that's your choice".

That said, I think you also show, perhaps unintentionally, the difference between the skeptical and the religious mind. Which is that the to the skeptic, it actually matters what's true. The name for what you've just described is Pascal's wager, as Sabby explained earlier. It's unsatisfying in many ways ( for instance, consider the number of true religions - all religions that ever were and ever will be and never will be, and your odds of picking the right one are basically zero ), but another unfortunate implication of it is that it basically suggests that you shouldn't troubling yourself with actually trying to figure out what's true.

Here's the thing, though: there's no reason we can't just live and let live. I don't pick fights over religion with strangers in the streets. It becomes a problem when someone tries to deny someone their civil liberties on religious grounds, or want to teach creationism as science. Because, contrary to what you invoked in passing by saying something is "true to me", reality does not conform to our beliefs. The trouble is, of course, that religious beliefs in many cases do touch upon those most important issues, and that, I think, is where this whole conflict comes from.

I don't believe it will ever be possible for Science to prove the existence of God.  A few of you have said you hate it when people say it's because God isn't of this world because then you can't argue back with logic.  But what if it's true?  What if it isn't just a religious person trying to win the argument with something you can't refute?     

I got into this briefly above, but it bears repeating, I think. It doesn't matter what you believe, as long as you don't try to change or force other to live according to something they don't believe in. It's only a problem if you tell someone they have to live a certain way, but they have to take it on faith.

[Samnell]

Somewhat inspired by Serephino's post:

I sometimes wonder what believers actually mean when they say that their religion is true. I generally take it to mean that their religion is a description of reality. They don't just believe in a god, or souls, or whatever. They insist these things actually exist like rocks and gravity and pornography exist.

But if that's true, wouldn't they behave differently? Let me take an unrelated example. Say a man beleives if he jumps off a cliff he will fly. No jetpacks. No parachute. He'll do it Superman-style. If the man really, truly believes this is the truth one would expect him to leap off any cliff presented. He's not in any danger, from his point of view. Furthermore his doing so would surely be persuasive to others.  Now suppose this man tells you that he believes all of this stuff, but absolutely refuses to leap off a cliff. He'll make up all kinds of excuses, but ultimately he's never ever doing it. A reasonable person would think he's lying about his beliefs, perhaps even to himself, and trying to put one over on us.

Don't the religious do the same thing, often enough? If you really believe in the healing power of prayer, why go to the doctor? Why would you take your kids to the doctor? If you really believe you're among the righteous and have a one-way ticket to paradise, why avoid danger? If you truly believe you have the ultimate secrets of the universe in your grasp, why wouldn't you want all the world's scientists bent over them to confirm it's the case? That would evangelize the world a whole lot faster and more effectively than mailing shipments of Bibles.

Rather in both cases, what we observe is a person who acts as if he expects experience to refute his beliefs and thus has put a lot of work into coming up with excuses for their failure. That is hardly the act of someone who actually believes a thing is so. While we may all be irrational or inconsistent from time to time, and I know I have been, this is a consistent pattern of behavior. That being the case, how can religious people say they believe their religions to be true?

The best I can get from all of this is that believers do not, in fact, generally believe much of their religion. They say they do, but they do not actually think it's true in the sense that gravity, to use Serephino's example, is true. Rather they think of truth as a sort of term of art, the way we might use it to refer to a fictional work that reflects some kind of real world situation without being a depiction of one. Perhaps it reflects a situation they aspire to.

This is different from actually believing something. One can say that one aspires to be like a fictional character or wishes something from a work of fiction were the real state of reality without confusing the fiction with reality. I find Sherlock Holmes intensely admirable, but I don't think he's an actual historical figure. I'm sure the reader can supply a few additional examples. Call it belief in belief. The religious, for the most part, don't believe their religions. Rather they believe their religions are good things they ought to believe in and encourage others to do the same. They are saying religions are true in the sense we might say any fiction is true, but not in the sense we would say gravity is true. We know because they're not jumping off cliffs after saying they can fly.

[Oniya]

Don't the religious do the same thing, often enough? If you really believe in the healing power of prayer, why go to the doctor? Why would you take your kids to the doctor? If you really believe you're among the righteous and have a one-way ticket to paradise, why avoid danger? If you truly believe you have the ultimate secrets of the universe in your grasp, why wouldn't you want all the world's scientists bent over them to confirm it's the case? That would evangelize the world a whole lot faster and more effectively than mailing shipments of Bibles.

Actually, there are certain sects that do eschew medical care completely.  The results are not always convincing from the evangelical standpoint, and the excuse is usually 'They didn't believe strongly enough.'

[Sabby]

Oniya beat me to it. I usually don't take issue with that, since those sects tend to keep to themselves, so their backwards thinking doesn't hurt anyone other then themselves. Sadly, they're people, and people have families, and families have kids, and kids break their legs and get brain tumours. But really, what can ya do? :/ I hate to use the term so soon after being insulted with it, but the horses and water thing actually applies here.

[Teo Torriatte]

However, if I am right, boy are you screwed.  I'm not trying to use fear to convert anyone, of course.  You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.  In my truth we all have our own unique experiences here on the Terrestrial Plane so we can learn and grow.  Of course, Buddhists could be right, and we'll all just go on to another existence.  If Christians are right, we're all screwed.  There really is no way to prove it except to drop dead and somehow come back with proof.  Since that will likely never happen, why can't we all just get along? 

First of all, I didn't know we weren't all getting along.  ::)

Buuuut, since you mentioned it, doesn't it seem just a wee bit unlikely that of all the billions and trillions of people who have died, not one of them has figured out a way to come back and say something about it? Then again, there are people who believe they have, in the form of ghosts and such.

But I, too, have to take issue with the tone you set in the paragraph I quoted. It comes off as more than a little arrogant, which at least in my opinion, does little to add to the conversation and more just to stir things up, which I have to believe was not your intention.

[Serephino]

You know, the way you spoke was exactly the way I wish Theists in general would speak. I mean it, you really came across as someone I wouldn't mind being the majority of the population. And then you used the 'lead a horse to water' analogy. That is incredibly arrogant :/ You just lost almost all the respect you so articulately earned just now.

How exactly did I come across as arrogant?  Yes, the sentence is chiche, but you took it how you wanted to.  My simple meaning was that I could explain my beliefs to you, but I can't force them down your throat and make you believe.  It is a term Christians use, and it's true.  I wasn't referring to water as the truth, or the only way.  The problem is that you saw the phrase and immediately had a negative reaction.  I am sorry you had that reaction.  And as I've recently read, you just used it yourself.

This is why religious people don't tend to get into these kinds of conversations.  Or if they do, they stick to the logical and philosophical arguments.  They don't state their beliefs because they get ripped apart and criticized.  The first part you quoted really wasn't any kind of veiled threat.  It was a statement of what I do believe.  Also, that someone is right, because I do go on to say what would happen if Buddhists or Christians were right.  Perhaps it was not the best thing to say, but it is something that I think about.   

And that is all I'm going to say on the matter.  I've done my best to present another way to look at things.  But of course, I'm yet again being told I should not believe something because there is no evidence that can be seen under a microscope.  That's basically calling me ignorant; something that really does irritate me.