[Guille]

In continuity to my "proofs": When I try to discuss about god (although they don't like to do it because they say that is: "TEMPTING GOD") with my most-commonly-theist friends, they just get too tired of having to "defend" my "accusations".

They always end up telling me that I will never be capable of "understanding" and "comprehending" god and the philosophy they are defending. This is, they say, because I'm way too logical-rational-smart to have this "capability". I don't know what to answer. Do the theists here think that's true?

I don't beleive in god because I don't "understand" why to believe in him? In actual fact, I think it is true. Because I don't understand it. I just can't live believing in something which I know will never be proven and has no logical-empirical background. They (my friends) tell me that I am looking for demonstrations and proofs that He exists, not necesarily empirical, but at least philosophical. Maybe it is true.

They tell me they can't give me proofs because that is exactly what makes them "believe" and have "hope" in god. The lack of proof is what makes them have faith, they say. I will never understand that way of looking at things, I think. Maybe I was just not born to believe in god. Also, some, when we get more personally speaking, they tell me that, for example, "well, in real depth, I don't believe, believe in "god"" which indicates their lack of position strength, which is needed in philosophy. Some, even worst, tell me that "Why not believing in god? what do you care? Just to be sure that you are going to go to heaven? that you will not have an eternal pain?" That quote is my major impulse in my "fight against religions and god". Because it is the exact ending of its creation: having people controlled, having people to be "good" with a fear.

An avarage person can't think or react when having fear, so just tries to get rid of the fear (psychologic neglection) and looking somewhere else. Not being able to fight back the "eternal pain fear". So, they also tell me that religion isn't so bad......"that morals and ethics have been created by religions"........"that laws are based on religions"..........This is part of my own arguments.

I am a disestablishmentarian: person who is a follower of the separation of church and state. This is one of the most important things to do still. Of course laws are morally/ethically/logically correct! So then, is religion correct?

No, because these laws aren't from religions, but religions were the mixture of this dogmatization of correct things added to the fear of the lord (god) to create a perfect world for the strong, the power, and the rich. For the "order".

So, if they tell me they can't give proofs of god because they don't need them, and that I am looking for them, I have the correct part! Because proofs are the importance in philosophy. And, they say, I DO NEED to give proofs that god does not exist, because I'm one of the logical-rational-smart people that has to give them, but they don't because they are some of the believing-hoping-faithful-avarage people. What I think of this last point, is that they are too lazy to fight back, and they know that I AM correct: this is meaning correct on-top of their points and arguments, not of god in general (relative).