The most important reason anyone is an atheist

[Little Rik]

Wisdom tends to come with age and from one's personal life experience.

Not necessary.
If in the previous life you build up wisdom then you carry it with you in this life.

What may be wisdom for one may not be wisdom that universally applies to everyone.

Not necessary.
Suppose that all roads lead to Rome as the old saying.
In the beginning the different roads give you a different vision but as you get close to Rome then the vision is more and more similar until it become the same as you and everybody else enter Rome.
Considering that the divine seed is the same for everybody is easy to understand that the core of the seed exclude any differences.

Knowledge comes from studying associated with collective experimentation. What can be categorized as knowledge will always be recognized as a universal truth.

I am afraid that you are making a hell of a confusion.
Knowledge can come from an understanding in physical science but this science is limited and change continuously like a panorama seen while you travel in your car so can not possibly be regarded as universal truth.

Religion claims to have knowledge, but what it really has is false wisdom.

I agree that religion have nothing to do with wisdom but what this has got to do with the issue.

---

Everytime you refuse to justify your claims you make yourself look like more of a liar, which of course, you are.

Show me where enrico ever claimed that he can see inside a box!
You see how cretin you are!!!
I never claimed such a thing yet you say that i claimed.
It would be like if i keep on asking you why you are not give me evidence that you have been on the moon when in reality you never said that you went there.
Just look yourself in the mirror and see how idiotic you are.

---

I don't think you understand what the phrase "cherry picking" means. Your comment is actually accusing "you guys" of having a double standard. In any event, those statements do not contradict. If physical science is the method by which claims are evaluated, then the claims of a scientist would be evaluated by those methods. If he cannot produce a compelling case, then there is no reason to believe his claims. That is not a double standard. The case you have presented so far is not compelling, and I have yet to see you present anything other than a "science" defined in such a way to make clear that it isn't science. Based on your posting history, I would agree that whatever case you present will likely fall flat, and I am unlikely to believe it. That's what happens with bad arguments.

There has been enough evidence.
People who had NDE once they leave their bodies saw through walls and once back into their bodies describe what was inside those rooms which they never been while physical alive.