RE: could you provide us with a list of these 22 angles
RE: Those links don't seem to provide the information I asked for.

RE: Worse; that looks like a pseudoscience/new-age website.

I think you are misunderstanding something.

The 22 Hebrew letters are 22 different perspectives of a single form, that form being the First Hand model. This model can be seen here:

https://www.meru.org/letteressays/letterindex.html

If you notice, when the form itself is rotated, it produces the 22 Hebrew letters. The First Hand model itself is held/fit in the hand, and 22 different gestures produce the 22 letters.

You can watch a video of how this works here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXsiSWYKs1Q

I already linked the chart:

https://www.meru.org/Gestures/Atbashgest.html

Genesis 1:1 has an auto-correlation which defines the model whence the First Hand is derived:

https://www.meru.org/Lettermaps/wovngeni.html

Excerpt:

"These patterns strongly imply that the Hebrew Bible has significant meaning encoded in the sequence of letters that make up the texts. Kabbalists have always claimed that this was so, but it has been hard to prove. Even statistical evidence of letter patterns does not really help because statistics do NOT provide meaning."

And it is true: there is significant meaning encoded in the sequence of letters. And the best part is: no "belief" in a god is necessary (or even called for).

Because I don't understand what you are actually asking for. Are you asking for what each hand position means and/or implies? Are you asking for a picture of the different angles? Do you even understand the concept? It's one form, viewed from 22 different perspectives. You know how you can look at a shape from different perspectives? If you do that with the First Hand model, you get the 22 Hebrew letters which correlate to the hand positions as if holding the form in the hand. You have to either imagine the form itself in your hand, or physically make one and rotate it yourself to see the 22 letters. I linked a chart which does this for you already, but you're asking be to tell you the angles? I don't know what you are asking for.

There is no organization or oath. Whatever is true is true whether it comes from me or anyone else. Therefor I don't want or expect anyone to "believe" anything, I'd like for them to use their own conscience and understand that "belief" is a (the) problem, not a solution, and the so-called Abrahamic religions don't actually have a clue what is written in the book of Genesis - if they did, they would understand what the word translated as 'GOD' is - that is, a thing understood, not "believed" in.

No, there might be an alternative motive here: you might be trying your best to make me appear full of shit, because that might be the reality you want to be true, because there might be enmity that you are trying to hide. If so, it is the same mob mentality as guilty before proven innocent.

Will make it simple so others understand what is going on.

There is one form. Only one. It is the First Hand model that can be held in the hand - it begins at the tip of the thumb and drops down and around while extending out to the four fingers. When you hold this object (you will have to either find a copy, or buy the book for the paper cut-out, mine is made from coat-hanger wire) you can perform 22 different gestures (ie. arm/hand positions) each having have a correlating perspective relative to the observer. These 22 correlating perspectives are exactly what I provided as requested:

https://www.meru.org/Gestures/Atbashgest.html#title

If you do not understand this, I am afraid there is no point going further as there is certainly a barrier. Maybe read about it some more, or watch a Youtube video? Viewing a shape from 22 different perspectives does not beg for mathematical "angles" - if you hold a model against a light and rotate it, you too will see the letters.

So if you want to verify that when you perform a rotation (the information for which is provided already) you get a resulting letter of the Hebrew alphabet, physically do it yourself? Like hell, do you ask people to hold it for you while you go? Build a replica and do it yourself, I already did it for myself and learned the gestures well enough to just imagine the form spinning as read. I still rotate my hand slightly as if holding a model even when not, because it helps me keep the shape(s) correct.

RE: Someone tells me there are these 22 angles, and so I asked for a list of those angles. Does that make me an unreasonable person? Maybe you could provide just a couple of them? Why does it seem I have to practically beg you for this?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

No, someone advanced the notion that a particular form can be viewed from 22 different perspectives and derive the Hebrew alphabet. You took/take this to mean "angles" (ie. mathematical numerical angles) which has 0 application/meaning to the advanced notion, despite what you may "believe". The reason you are trying to stick to this is because you, like others in this thread, are trying to pile on me (ie. undermine) and/or what is being imparted at all costs because of something inside of yourselves that doesn't like the implications, thus others must "believe" that I am somehow being dishonest, instead of it actually being yourselves. It is scapegoating - your problems as my problem. The only motivation such people have is to attack others, and this is the same as the Mark of Cain - attack others esp. for what they are themselves guilty of. In this particular case, you are the one being unreasonable while attempting to pin it on me.

So, I do not know if you are an unreasonable person, but you are certainly being "unreasonable" here in attempting to undermine an assertion by yourself imposing a requirement that is not actually a requirement (it only serves as as weapon for you to further attack me), and attempting to undermine on that erroneous basis (straw man). Take the form, take a light, move it yourself and you will see the letters via the shadow. If you want mathematical measurements, do it yourself as it otherwise has 0 practical meaning/importance to anyone or anything besides yourself and your crusade of attacking me. Should I expect you to do it again? Such people can not help themselves - attack, attack, attack.

The only point that it all boils down to is "belief" is required to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil such that a person "believes" to know it, thus becomes internally polarized and attempts to project/blame their own polarization problems onto others and/or as being due to others. This pathology of blaming/attacking is the Biblical equivalent to the mark of Cain and is the defining factor of ideological houses (such as Islam) which advances an "us vs. them" framework. It is also the pathology that explains what those like Cognistic / Old man shouts do: attack others due to ones own internal polarization(s), and it is pathetic (ie. a pathology). What you might not understand is projection is an axiom such that it can be seen by anyone/everyone who knows the axiom "accuser is the accused" and are themselves not polarized; at least, to the same degree. Subjecting things to the conscience and rendering true/false statements need not involve emotions unless one has an emotional attachment for/against something. This is where the desire to attack/undermine comes from.

There is thus a difference between "believing" and "knowing" - it takes a "believer" to "believe" whatever is evil, is good. Actually, it takes a "believer" to "believe" anything that suits themselves, even at the cost of others (ie. attacking them). Muhammad's Islam is this: "believe" anything/everything that suits ones own motivations such that they justify attacking others. You, Cognistic, Old man etc. all doing this: attack others on the basis of your own "belief"-based justifications.

I can already guess that there are people who reported this post in attempt to censor it - censorship is indicative of fascism, and justifying censorship is the same thing as evil justifying itself as good based on "belief", which is the principle problem on the planet that I am working to solve. Why are there people on an atheist forum, attacking another atheist who is trying to take down religious "belief"-based ways of thinking? Maybe the mods can look at those attacking me and try to understand this, because although I already do, I'd be called a "conspiracy theorist" which is a term used to demote critical thinking in lieu of slander and making others feel bad/stupid for thinking something different. It's pathetic (ie. pathology) and those who succumb are likewise.

RE: Okay, I believe I've got it now. I'm pretty sure I know what the problem of belief might be, but I am having trouble believing it.

If you "believe" you got it, you don't "know" you got it. I can say I believe you don't got it, or I know you don't got it. In the former, it is not actually known, in the latter, it is certainly known regardless of what anyone "believes". I know which I'd choose, but I will abstain.

RE: Because how can I know it is true if I believe the knowledge of my belief might not be true? In other words, I KNOW I believe I know what the problem is with belief, but do I BELIEVE I know that is truly the problem causing me to believe I do not know for certain?

If you "believe" the "knowledge" of your "belief" might not be true? If that is the case, it is not real "knowledge", it is still belief. In other words, if you "know" you merely "believe" you know, this is ackknowledging that something is still merely a "belief" (ie. limited) and not certainly true. What is certainly true or untrue is so whether or not one is aware of it or not. The problem is consciously being aware (ie. knowing) of what is untrue (ie. what not to "believe" in) and this is where real truth is: how to tell what is not true.

RE: How am I to believe I know something I doubt? How do I know I believe something I believe I don't know? You know what, I believe I'm just gonna finish my cup of coffee while continuing to ponder what I believe I think I know about the problems of belief.

You can "know" you doubt a particular "belief". The second question is nonsensical: how to know "I believe something I believe I don't know". If you work backwards "I believe I don't know" there is an absence of knowledge either way beyond this. Once "belief" has entered the equation, it is necessarily not "knowledge" because "knowledge" is its antithesis: knowing what not to "believe" (ie. absence of "belief").

For example, I know the "kingdom of heaven" was a "family friendly" reference to the between-the-legs-of-a-woman. I know and understand this is not "common knowledge" now, but the Church has done a lot to confuse people about this "kingdom of heaven" such that they are "believing" it is a place one goes to after they die.

Come on now, there are entire religions now "believing" the kingdom of heaven is full of virgin women. What the hell else do you expect sexually degenerated men to imagine as the greatest source of pleasure?

@A Gnostic Agnostic
You are the one who told us these things are angles!

Which you selectively focus on and reference despite the more numerously supplemented "perspectives" that would otherwise render your entire inquiry for numerical mathematical angles as stupid and/or meaningless, given you would (and do) otherwise understand what is already true: a single form, viewed from 22 different angles and/or perspectives yield the 22 letters and mathematical angles is irrelevant. Perhaps it is even stupid to ask about them. Perhaps that is why you are relentlessly trying to pin your own conflation on me. Stupid is, as stupid does, no? Would you like to move on, now, that all is clarified? Or will you dwell and continue in an ongoing state?

Ps: sweeping labels of "new age" is meaningless: if something is sound, including the work of Meru, it is sound. The derivation of the form and its correspondence to first gestures then the letters themselves is sound. The 30+ years of work bears this out, and one who has not cared to read even methodology (ie. how it was found to be so) are wholly dishonest in accusations of it being "new age". That is not to say it is all sound: I find some of it problematic, such as assumptions introduced that possibly draw a desired conclusion (in the case of the Judaism/Christianity/Islam flower integrating principles of living) but is otherwise exceptional and sound. People are known to reject things they don't like and/or don't fit their own "worldview" as this research might, given it demands a more careful scrutiny/consideration of the book of Genesis outside of "belief"-based theology.