Essentially all of these statements are fundamentally wrong. How do I know? We can be surprised. In fact, there have been many times in the history of science qwhere the prevailing view was that an experiment would go one way and it, in fact, went the other. In fact, this is exactly how science is done: we actually look at the real world and let that determine what we regard as true or false. And often the real world simply doesn't agree with our intuitions.<quoted text>
Reality is what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is what we believe.
What we believe is based upon our perceptions.
What we perceive depends upon what we look for.
What we look for depends upon what we think.
What we think depends upon what we perceive.
What we perceive determines what we believe.
What we believe determines what we take to be true.
What we take to be true is our reality.
I am interested in the truth. If that means I should 'expand my version of reality, then I will'. But that is done when the *evidence* says so, not when I get warm fuzzies from an idea.Be an atheist - that's your choice. Legitimize your decision with science - that's also your choice. But if you are truly interested in expanding your version of reality, the only way to start is by considering other points of view - other perceptions.
It may surprise you that at one time I had 6 different 'systems of reality' that I looked at everything through. They ranged from solipsism to an intricate one where there were seven layers of spiritual reality. Eventually I realized that without basing my system on evidence, it was all essentiually mental masturbation. Maybe, eventually, you will realize that also.