Sorry guys, I usually don’t get much free time to sit down at my computer; and engage in forum discussions. I’ve actually enjoyed the ass kicking, it helped me grow. Your comments, although sometimes juvenile, caused me to evolve. So, keep it coming. I’ve been working on 15 new courses for my “free” library to answer most of your common questions. Let’s for a moment assume I’m correct, would I really have the time to answer people individually? If I am even correct about 20% of what I claim, this would impact the entire globe. As far as my secrecy goes, it has been for good reason. People have died for less than what I’m attempting. Slowly reaching out to a group of atheist is safer for me.

When I suggested that religion could be ended, I was surprised to find out few of you agreed. It is shocking to think a collection of atheist have concluded religion is here to stay. History is full of religions that lost all support, then simply died. When was the last time we heard of breaking news at the temple of Zeus? If that can be replicated it is very possible to end religion worldwide. Theology is only a collection of bad ideas, and it is well within reason to work towards ending bad ideas; otherwise why be in this forum?

As far as us being at war, that is not for atheist to decide. When attacked, flight or fight is generally the rule. There are people working to dominate the world in the name of religion, this includes dominating free thinkers and atheist. War has been declared, whether you would accept that or not. A flat planet, racism, gender discrimination and a host of other ideas need to be destroyed; but these are only fruit of the religious tree. Not all war involves guns, and everyone here has already chosen the “side” of reason.

As far as the terms “theist” and “atheist” goes, I don’t put much stock into either of them. We either know and understand something or we don’t. Calling me a “puppet”, “theist”, or anything else is disturbingly similar to religious cries of “hieratic”. Who cares what you believe or don’t. I’m more concerned with people’s behaviors. I recognized words as only variables, that are easily exchanged for other words. What matters more is the definitions we supply for the terminology use.

I use the word "god" to represent the supreme source of math and logic. When I say "god is perfect" it shuts down 100% of religious attempts to convert me. Try it and you'll see what I mean. The moment a theist claims god is perfect; he loses the ability to campaign for his doctrine. Religions actually depend on imperfect divinity. I'm not welcome in most religious congregations. If that makes me an atheist, so be it; but I don't like to be defined by what I am "not". To me It just seems silly for me to be defined by my rejection of fantasy.

To address the question of my math skills, you are correct, I’m not very strong there; but neither were many other great thinkers. I claim to be a world class thinker…nothing more. I understand mathematical concepts very well, but I have a few disabilities which makes it harder for me. We all have strengths and weaknesses; and I feel no shame in recognizing my own. However, my original point still remains to be addressed. Why not use math in the war of ideas against religious inaccuracy?

I would prefer to gain friends instead of new enemies; because I have enough of those already. Can we at least agree, that if religions were forced to compete with a science explaining the same natural changes of life, it would lose? At the moment, they actually don’t compete with anyone; and they make up the rules as they go. Math would force them to commit to something that could not be altered out of convenience. Each faith has “created” its own world with exclusives rules; and they can always use “blind faith” to counteract any logical argument we may propose. That is, until you define faith as [the process of moving from point (a) to point (b); when (b) > (a)].

My work is centered around the idea there are “real” common denominators within all religions. Things like choice making, pains, problems, and of course morality. This may sound harmless to the people in this forum; but this is poison to theological doctrines. If I walked into a room of clergy and said, “Your God and beliefs suck!”, they’d only laugh and then use me as a recruiting tool. To the vast majority of religious people view atheist as neither competition nor customers.

However, if I were to address that same crowd with, “I figured out how to mathematically measure morality”, you could hear a pin drop in the back of the room. Religious people are very well prepared to hear, “you guys are wrong”; but none of them are ready for, “you guys were correct on these points, but here is something more accurate”. Atheism is as old as religion. Both the Bible and Koran mention this class of people multiple times. I've spent three decades being taught by both theist and atheist, and I'm uniquely qualified to recognize the similarities and differences between them.

I actually chose this forum as a crude form of peer review; and one can’t be expected to describe an entire field of science in a forum post. You’ll get your chances to critique and sample my work later this month. I only hope there’s at least one of you that gets it, and is also willing to help me on the math portions. I’ve learned skeptics tend to have a “subtraction” mentality; and they miss out on chances to add new things to the discussion. I hope this is not the case here.

Here in my country over the weekend, 50 people were massacred; and all around the world millions of women and children suffer under governments that are fueled by theological thinking. I would stop this type of senseless violence if I could, and I don’t apologize for it. You may think we are not at war, but I must disagree. The only way to kill an idea is with a better idea. Accurate "spiritual" math and science would force theology to compete; and improve the world at the same time. I honestly thought, more of you would welcome that.