Non-existing objects

[Brian37]

[/hide]

---

Where do you get the stupid idea "atheist" is about threats of "or else"? 

Scientific method is not a club label, it is a universal tool. It is a neutral filter to weed out personal bias. It is a method of testing, falsification with control groups and peer review. 

No atheist I consider sane makes threats of "or else". We do however question bad claims and bad logic. Some of us are more blunt in doing that than  others. 

If you want to go around claiming every single day, "The New England Patriots beat the Chicago Cubs in the Stanley Cup" legally by law you are entitled to do so sure, but it would still be a bullshit claim and others would not be required to remain silent if you keep repeating that claim.

---

You raised an interesting point.
I became a professional designer (in electronics) by experimenting, not by imagining things. In fact, I seldom take for grant what I may read on books, said scientific or else.

It happens that, in my life, the most important Device Under Test is my being. So the various aspects (characteristics) that I have discovered gradually about my being are facts to me. Should they be facts to everyone else? Should I deny them just because they are not facts to many people on earth, if not to all of them?

Even as an engineer in electronics I had the chance to find out, as an MS thesis (about 40 years ago), a solution in signal communication which is claimed non-existing (impossible to exist) in all universities in the world, till these days. I personally used its technic to secure, in the 80's, my private short range RF link (between home and office). Should I deny its existence just because it is a fact that no one is interested to check it seriously?

Although you may not believe me; all what I know is based on reason (scientific reasoning)... not faith.
But I am afraid if someone insists that his being (his Device Under Test) has to have the same characteristics as mine, he would likely think I am just imagining things; the things he cannot perceive personally for example.

What does any of that elaborate tripe have to do with either "born of the flesh" or "will power"?

It sounds to me like you are trying to make an apology to argue that a God exists. Hate to burst your bubble but you are not the first and also not the only religion who tries this.

Nope sorry, you ARE basing it on "faith".

Neutral scientific method does not rely on faith. If a scientist has a hypothesis and solid method to plug their data into, it can be replicated by independent peers in the same field.