The Existence of God - A Positivist Approach part 1

[wbarquez]

The contingency of material reality makes it reasonable to believe in the existence of a necessary entity from which the whole of material reality initially came.

[baltimark]

Really boring. And really shallow.

It's like you haven't advanced from stacking blocks.

[AtheistJon]

Oh, give me a break, it was my first video on youtube ever...

[baltimark]

A child stacks blocks in the same way that an atheist stacks lie on top of lie. The game that you play is that shallow and idle. Are you ready to grow up?

[AtheistJon]

Well that's an entirely different objection to my video, I thought you said it was boring? Well, I wonder... A lot of believers have called this video shallow, lying and the such like, but not one of them has ever presented any real counterargument. Am I to understand that my claims in this video cannot be refuted? After all calling something a lie, without explaining why it's a lie, is without merit. I hope you might be able to give me a counterargument. Are you?

[baltimark]

My friend, the argument that we are going to have will result in your conversion, unless you run away.

Make some brief definitive statement in support of your position, and I will show you how it is a lie. Eventually we will hash out some real terms in which we can have a grown-up discussion.

[AtheistJon]

I won't run away, remeber the positivist definition? Knowledge must pursuit regardless of morals, politics and the such like.

"Make some brief definitiev statement" ??

^^Consider the videos my statement.

I am still waiting for that counterargument.

[baltimark]

There are too many statements in your video. Just give me some favorite block from your stack.

I'm already running out of time tonight. So this discussion might take some days.

And I want for you to know that although I will be taking a hardline stance, I feel a lot of compassion for you in my heart. I want for you to become who you truly are. And I know that, for some people, undergoing a transformation in Christ is initially terrifying. And that's why these people are atheists.

[AtheistJon]

@baltimark

Well okay, the problem of evil. I'm sure you are familiar with it. But before you state a refutation, please go through the video and make sure that it isn't already in there, and if it is in there, and you aren't happy with it, refute it.

[baltimark]

O God. You want me to watch that again?

It's funny how we're struggling to start this discussion. We come from different worlds. You come from the world of self-service. I come from the world of service to God. And I know about your world, as I used to be an atheist. But my world will be a tremendous discovery for you.

I have a problem with your very first statement: "God exists." What exactly do you mean by "exist"? In the simplest possible terms, what do you mean?

[AtheistJon]

Okay, I know that this video is a little slow, but it was my first video ever, so cut me some slack... :D

Existence is difficult to to define, when you get down to it. Just ask Descartes, and all he'll tell you is "I think there for I "exist".

I did take the perspective from the Abrahamic God, and this God would exist in the way that he can through some undescribed process influence energy.

[baltimark]

Not agreed. But I can work with it.

My eventual point is going to be that you're defining God's existence on your own terms. And such philosophical self-service is immediately problematic. And as a matter of intellectual integrity, you should be keenly more aware of this fact. The purest thing to say is that God exists on His own terms. Is He then unknowable on our terms? Yes. But now think to ask: Is He knowable on His terms?

My friend, how much integrity do you really want to have?

[AtheistJon]

Well if that's your point, then discussion is impossible.

You state that God exists on his own terms, so is it wrong of me to conclude that he exists? When God according to the Bible influences events in the world, is it the problematic to conclude that he influences energy?

But okay, if I go get my Bible and use it to describe certain features to God, will you consider that acceptable?

[baltimark]

Discussion is impossible if you run away from my point.

It's wrong for us to conclude that God exists on our own terms. Defining everything on our own self-serving terms is the problem of both the secular and religious worlds. The God of the Bible is a god that's defined on someone's self-serving terms. - I hate to break that to you. ... Once we seek to define things in our own terms, we close our minds. Then if we define an open mind in our own terms, we are walled-off in our childish game.

[AtheistJon]

So what you are saying is that we cannot define God at all? Well, that would mean that we cannot make a definition of God at all, and that would in turn mean that considering the existence of God is impossible.

I don't know how to move on from this point. You want to convince me that God exists, right? Well, if you cannot describe what God is, how do you then imagine that you can convince me about it?

[baltimark]

Escaping from our private mind-game of self-serving definitions is a difficult process.

That said, you're having a remarkably difficult time just grasping the basic idea. God exists and He is knowable, but only on His terms. And in many cultures this is common knowledge. For instance, if Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama were overlooking our conversation, they'd be shaking their heads at you.

A big discussion follows after this point. It's crucial you get it. So maybe take a day or two.

[AtheistJon]

Okay, you are right that I have a difficult time understanding you, but this is what I understand from your comments: You want me to just accept that God exists without any more than a leap of faith? But how is that different than thinking about an imaginary friend?

[resonantdave]

Did you just say "back down or be converted"?

[AtheistJon]

I don't know. I'm confused now :( As a positivist I cannot deal with something which is to me undefinable. Nothing in the natural world is undefinable. Somethings in nature are very difficult to define and comprehend, such Quantum physics, but it is not impossible to define and understand them.

[baltimark]

No. I want you to CONCEIVE of Him on His terms and EXPERIENCE Him on His terms. And one will do so if he wants to achieve a higher mindset and personal liberation. One won't do so if he wants to continue in a childish mindset, walled-off from reality, engrossed in the mind-game of stacking up lies.

[AtheistJon]

OK, I will concede that English is not my native language, but what as far as I understand English, your last message means the same as "take in blind faith and use the endorphins associated with it to convince yourself that it's true."

As for lies, point to one lie in my video.

And this "walled-off from reality" mindset to which you object? It's this mindset that has built the Western world. If it was up to believers we would still be in the dark ages.

[baltimark]

Blind faith is a political attitude, not spiritual. It's a spiteful mindset, adopted by people who are defining God on their own terms. What I am talking about is EXPERIENCING God on HIS terms. Those who adhere to blind faith have little or no experience of God. I pity them, as I do you.

You make an ironically brilliant point about the Western world. I don't think that this point is to the West's credit, but its discredit and the world's endangerment. And you're contributing to this problem.

[AtheistJon]

What do you suggest I do, if I were to become less evil?

And dude, everything that's aweesome in the Western world comes from Positivism and science. Modern medicine, modern agriculture, aviation, space exploration, computer science and much more all comes from the mindset that you slam. If it were up to believers we would still be burning witches and having slavery. We would still be living in the Dark Ages.

[baltimark]

Step outside of your private game and see that you define the basic-most aspects of reality in your own self-serving way. Then see how you elaborate on this mistake in self-serving ways. And so everyone is doing the same foolish thing in his own way. And the result is a world that's raging forever with pointless arguments that have no basis in ABSOLUTE reality. You're entirely a part of this problem. And I'm part of it too. I'm not absolutely perfect yet in surrendering my sense of self to God.

[AtheistJon]

That makes absolutely no sense...

[baltimark]

You're stubbornly locked into viewing reality on your own self-serving terms. And you want to continue in this private mind-game.

No one wants to hear that reality exists on its own terms, well apart from our childish personal takes on it. Do you see now what I mean about growing up?

And do you see that my criticism of your video was made in general terms? ALL atheists are the WORST offenders in this private mind-game nonsense.

Tell me now what the word "evidence" means to you.

[AtheistJon]

How could I ever observe reality on somebody elses term? Regardless of what I see, you can always state that argument.

Evidence and absolute proof are not the same thign. I cannot present absolute proof that God doesn't exist, but I cannot present absolute proof that Santa Claus doesn't exist. Evidence in science are observations of phenomena in the natural world and observation hereof.

Private mind-game??? You want me to take drugs or what to end this?

[AtheistJon]

I think that your comments are nonsense. In not one of your comments do present any tangible point whatever, it is all some absurd assertation that I'm evil because I view reality, uhm, at my own terms. If I did imagine some allpowerfull space daddy and decided to view reality on his terms, I would be making up the terms, and they would thusly still be my own terms.

Please present something that's tangible, because this is getting tiresome...

[baltimark]

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. You're evil, in a sense, along with all of us, to the degree that we look at reality in a way that serves ourselves. Self is evil. Self is not God.

Tangible is a good word to analyze. Tangible on whose terms? And are those terms absolute? Or are they limited and self-serving.

Your fatigue, irritation, frustration are part of this process of transformation. If you can endure them, and not run away, then you will experience a wonderful holistic change.

[baltimark]

You won't be observing reality from another person's limited viewpoint. You'll be observing reality from an objective viewpoint that transcends all other viewpoints and negates them. This is to achieve liberation from self. And part of the work of the Dalai Lama is to explain to fearful atheists that they can still do their precious science with this new spiritual mindset.

I'm glad that you distinguish evidence from proof. Many YouTube atheists don't. In this way they are ... self-righteous.

[AtheistJon]

So, if I accept your premise, sorry, God's premise, I will "achieve libertation from self"? Dude, at least name what your whole philosophy of science is, so that I can go have a look at it myself...

[baltimark]

It's a universal common wisdom, now generally lost. And it comes in many forms, due to the admixture of politics. There are as many forms of meditation as there are meditators. But the general idea is to practice profound honesty and deep relaxation. As you relax your body and shut off your mind, something extraordinary happens. To accomplish this just to a small degree produces extraordinary results. An atheist who is willing to try this soon learns how much he needs to be rescued from himself.

[AtheistJon]

uhm, now where does God fit into this picture? I understand this the concept of allowing oneself to be at one with nature. Think about, all of the elementary particles, which constitutes my body are just as much part of the universe as a star or a supernova.

I think you will find this video interesting:

/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

[baltimark]

Link doesn't work. ...

Nature is a concept by which we can fool ourselves. If you get really honest with yourself about Nature, then you'll find that your concept of it is mixed up with personal biases and political notions.

God is Absolute Reality. We can't think about Him, except on His terms. We can't experience Him, except on His terms. We must abandon the self to find Him. Until then we are playing a lying game with ourselves and everyone else. How much integrity do we dare to have?

[AtheistJon]

I'm sending you the video in a pm...

So we can't think about nature either? Uhm okay, can we think about our own bodies then? Not by your opinnion. By that we can't even think about thinking, so your position is actually contesting Descartes statement: "I think, therefore I am."

^^That doesn't work for me at all... :(

[baltimark]

Descartes is the enemy of holistic approaches to understanding reality. He gives atheists an excuse to behave like disembodied minds. This is an artificial and therefore dishonest mindset. How can one speak of reality when one's approach to analyzing it is artificial? One can't hope to understand Absolute Reality while trapped in his limited self. Liberation from self is holistic in the extreme, involving the body and emotions. Descartes gives justification to those who wish to avoid liberation.

[AtheistJon]

I understand the concept of holism, but when it comes to reality and how we perceive it, I like to agree with AHughman's video. We know that we are part of something which is at least the observable universe, and perhaps some superstrings not you observable. We also know that we are insignificant in the hole of the universe, but when we combine the two we find that being part of the universe is awesome! I think that what you describe as "God", I describe as the universe, am I wrong?

[baltimark]

I can say that I understand the concept of breaking a leg. But I don't really KNOW about breaking a leg until I have done so.

Holism is not something just to understand. It's something to experience. And so with God. When atheists speak of God, they sound like virgins talking about sex. To an experiencer of God, the talk of atheists sounds comically frigid. No one can think his way to God. One can know God only by experiencing His Power. And this experience is physical and emotional.

[AtheistJon]

Oh back up dude! Aren't you now beginning to write up a definition of God? Didn't you say that was impossible?

If God's power extend to the physical, and we are capable of defining the physical, why oh why can't we define God? I'm not talking about doing so on my own terms, just in any term really.

If we can't think our way to God, what other way is there? Through emotion? Then what choise do we have in the matter?

[baltimark]

I can say that God is a Power for us to experience. But don't try to understand what I mean without experiencing Him. He needs to be experienced in order to be understood. Just like sex. Just like breaking a leg.

Your mind is a part of reality, trying to comprehend reality. So the result will always be circular nonsense. God's operation on reality is to transform it, along with our minds. The physical and emotional aspects of this experience are eventually transcended by way of breakthrough.

[AtheistJon]

But what choise do we have, if our thoughts aren't the way?

[baltimark]

Your most recent questions have been downright inspired.

Believe me, my friend, you don't want a choice. Existence is much better in God than in Self. We tend to fight God's takeover all the way. Resistance to God is what in fact defines this reality in which we are lost. I am toying with the notion that ultimately we disappear into God, along with reality. Yes, I still toy with notions too, instead of just surrendering myself. All of us need always more growing up to accomplish in God.

[baltimark]

I'm understanding your question now in another way.

When we stop thinking and PROFOUNDLY relax our bodies, we experience God. And the experience is overwhelmingly physical and emotional.

Is this experience just a psychological phenomenon? Anyone who's inclined to dismiss it hasn't experienced it. And no one who experiences it will tolerate any dismissal. It's so real as to make ordinary reality seem unreal.

Atheists demand PROOF that an apple tastes like an apple - without tasting it!

[baltimark]

Before this night ends, I want publicly to apologize to you. I started off this discussion with insults. I took a rudely challenging stance. This is my exorcist training, and it works to shake up a target and put him on the defensive, for his own good. When someone is in imminent danger, his rescuer must take drastic action. And so this approach has been appropriate for every other atheist I've encountered. But not for you. So I humbly apologize. You're special. And you're going to be all right.

[AtheistJon]

Did you get my pm? What did you think about the video? Pretty cool huh?

Staying in the spirit of Descartes, if I read your comment, it states that one of your comments was wrong. I can't actually know if the wrong statement wasn't your last statement. You see what I'm getting at? :D

Anyway, I have been a believer all my life, and I'm all right now, at least in the aspect, but there's a lot of stuff still ahead of me. I'm glad you think it will be allright :D

[baltimark]

I just watched the video. And it's interesting. It reminds me of how I thought when I was an atheist. This sort of spirituality is a good start. It's a better start in fact than ordinary Christian doctrine. But it's still self-serving and self-deceiving. You're still operarting in self. So under extreme conditions, your spirituality will break down, just as that of religious fundamentalists breaks down. Such spiritualities are political stances. They serve the self, instead of transforming it.

[AtheistJon]

It seems to me that we repeatedly returns to talking about "self". Now, I will accept your premise that we can't define God on our own terms for the sake of argument, but can we define "self" by our own terms? And if so, how will you define "self"? Give me something to work with in my, uhm, positivist mind.

[baltimark]

We define all things in self, even the concept of self. And to do so is to lie, because to be in self is to know nothing of ultimate reality.

What matters is how God defines things. And as one comes to experience Him more deeply, one discovers that God defines things in a radically simple way. I don't wish to influence your own future experience of God. But I'll tell you this much: God defines everything apart from Him as simply not-God. And as such, He sees it as being in need of His rescue.

[AtheistJon]

So if I were to "relax" to the point that I'm almost "not there" (in my body), then the resulting feeling would be God? Well, I like to think that I have achieved this, and it's awesome, and if you want to call that feeling God, then fine by me :D

[baltimark]

It must have been only a very light experience. Otherwise, to promote atheism would trouble your good conscience. You would be promoting God instead. Also, you would dedicate your life to achieving a greater surrender experience. You would no longer want to live in Self at all.

[AtheistJon]

Aren't you know assuming that you and I appreciate the same things and think the same thoughts?

What you described, finally, is not God, it's feeling good, and I'm all for feeling good, infact good is spelled almost the same as God, it's not just a typo which has confused you, is it? :D

[baltimark]

Feeling good is a subjective matter. Some people are made happy by what makes other people sad. To know God on His terms is beyond subjective feeling. And it's better than good.

I don't expect anyone to like what I like when he is in self and I am in self. But everyone in the world has in common a POTENTIAL to appreciate the experience of God. This is our integrity. And no atheist regime can legislate a better basis for UNITY than what we could have in a universal sense of Communion w/ God.

[AtheistJon]

Your statement is infallible of course, I cannot prove that it's false, but we have come a long way in our comment exchange. What I will take away from it is to be more careful to allow myself to feel good or what you call God. And if your statement regarding God actually is true, what else can I do?

Anyway, I will soon post a part 3 to this video series, and I promiss to make it less boring. I have been researching and taking advice on how to make better videos.

[baltimark]

As a technical matter, your video is better than any that I could make. But what I said about the CONTENT of it applies to the content of ALL atheist videos. Atheists are oblivious to the fact that what they say is untrue. They need a stern rebuke, for their own good. To promote atheism is to do a disservice to Humanity. The imperfect nature of our religions is already a tragic enough disaster for Humanity to be suffering. Atheists make the work of spiritual reform unnecessarily more difficult.

[AtheistJon]

In all of the comments you have made, all you have said is the following: "Atheist observe reality on their own terms, therefore they cannot no, that what they say are false." As a positivist I must reject that proposition, because things that are true must be true for all times and all places.

Religions have done disservice to humanity, that's why I think so many atheists are opposed to religion.

If you have a real alternative, you should start posting videos. It's not that difficult.

[baltimark]

Atheists observe reality on their own terms, and therefore every significant conclusion they reach is false. A positivist can offer no significant statement that is true at all. In perfect honesty you must admit that your political agenda is your primary issue of concern. And you serve your agenda by looking at the world in such a way that only bolsters your agenda. Surely you can see that you're playing private game. Atheists have no intellectual integrity. They just willfully serve themselves.

[AtheistJon]

Are you saying that no positivist have ever served mandkind through observing reality on his own terms? Bullshit. Louis Pasteur invented modern Hygiene. Fritz Haber invented the Haber process, which is now feeding one third of the world's population. Or Alexander Flemming who discovered penicillin, which saves millions of lives each year.

Positivism built the western world, so don't come here and say, that the people who follow this system of thought are doing a disservice to humanity!

[baltimark]

That is exactly what I am saying.

Religionists DISTORT the real God. And atheists DENY God outright. Both are liars. Both serve only themselves. And both comprise the problem of the world.

These scientists could have done even better work if they had been experiencers of God. This is a point that the Dalai Lama makes as well. In fact Science is in a shambles now. It is a corrupt joke. No one believes scientists any longer. They lie. Their integrity is zero. And this demise was inevitable.

[AtheistJon]

But in another comment to one of my videos, I was given to understand that you're christian?

It is true that many people have stopped believing scientists, but this is not because of science, but because of politicis. Politicians exploit the uneducated minds to scare people, even though science says "don't worry". It's the same with both global warming and Swine Flu.

The appropriate course of action is to educate people, and trying to convince people of God is not a good course of action.

[baltimark]

Here's where we disagree. But we wouldn't disagree if you were to think in more objective terms. And remember that such men as Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama would rebuke your thinking as well. Atheism is a willfully wrong and unnecessary choice. You are basically a good-hearted person. Develop your integrity now within the context of experiential spiritual knowledge! Otherwise, your integrity will not develop. As for my Christianity, it's esoteric, experiential, not ordinary, not doctrinal.

[AtheistJon]

Dude, I'm not "willfully wrong"! I made a video to show why belief in God is logically iconsistent, and yet you are determined to SAY that I'm wrong without showing it, and the only argument at your disposal is: "You are lying"; "You are not in reality"; "Some guys would disagree with you".

That's not very compelling. I suggest you try to debunk my video on my terms. I will not apologize or accept the idea, that if only I would suspend my ability to think, I would agree with you.

[baltimark]

Does God exist? You say no, per some frigid self-serving logic. I say yes, per a physical experience.

Now the convenient thing for you is to AVOID this experience. But if you RESPECTED yourself, then you would SEEK this experience. If you wished to have intellectual INTEGRITY, then you would put your abstract logic to a physical test.

But atheists are intellectually shameless. They insist on saying that an apple has no taste, while they refuse to taste it. What a willfully childish game!

[AtheistJon]

Dude, logic is the same for all time and places.

I don't avoid feeling good, I just don't call it God. As for personal experience, then that's completely biased, there you have something that's self serving.

The difference between apples and God is that apples can be logically demonstrated to exist.

[baltimark]

1 + 1 = 2 ... assuming WHAT about reality? Logic is based on convenient assumptions. Abstract notions of existence do not translate to the real world. Even physical proof is only a matter of consensus. Pass an apple around. We can only say that there is a basis for us to reach some consensus in regard to its existence.

But PHYSICALLY to experience God is a very different matter. Now the ordinary limitations of knowledge are transcended. The ONLY knowledge we can trust is that of God!

[AtheistJon]

Sure, but your position is infallible and untestable. Nothing is more biased than personal experience. By your standards I could make up an imaginary friend or anything else for that matter, and you would be forced to accept it. I prefer to live in the real world, however, so I cannot accept your premise at all. How do you know that it's God you've been experiencing and not a demon, or because someone slipped something into your drink?

[baltimark]

Untestable - on what terms? Untestable on phony terms that are established by atheists only so to serve themselves in perpetuating their game. Evidence as defined by atheists is a childish joke.

Nothing is more biased than one's INTERPRETATION of his experience. But it's the experience of God that uniquely nullifies our personal interpretations.

You don't live in the real world. You live in a convenient fantasy, constructed entirely in self, and maintained with zero intellectual integrity.

[AtheistJon]

I think we are done now. All you keep doing is telling me that I'm incapable of everything, and that I do so willingly to disagree with your religion. That's stupid and arrogant.

You said my video was full of lies, yet you haven't pointed to one single instance. All you have done is to talk about whose terms it is.

You position is not possible to debate, and I don't doubt your sincerity, I jus thinkt that you are hallucinating.

[baltimark]

For atheists, a physical encounter with me leads within minutes to a conversion experience, unless he runs away. I'm on YouTube to see what an exorcist can do through mere written debate.

These emotions that you feel as I attack your position, they're the emotions on which your thinking is based. In exorcism, atheists drop all intellectual pretenses, and manifest raw anger and spite. This is why no atheist impresses me with his intellect. Under spiritual pressure, they transform into animals.

[AtheistJon]

Dude, you're like a magician, let me explain: You go to an atheist video and say "lies!". Then when challenged to describe the lies, the trick is that you never actually describe the lies, you just say something like "terms". Then the baffled rationel person will begin asking questions, and the very moment the atheist says "OK, later dude", you can just pull out the comment you just posted.

I use reason to affirm my position, you use a magicians trick, and I'm the bad guy... lol

[baltimark]

You sound like you're on the verge of tears. But that's good. New converts do a lot of crying. Tears of regret in regard to their former self. Tears of gratitude in regard to their new self.

: D

My friend, what if you woke up tomorrow, and everyone in the world were like me, except for you? I predict that you would be like me in time for lunch. You only IMAGINE that the basis of your atheism is objective and strong. It's not. It's subjective and weak. Moreover, it's dishonest. It's a lie.

[AtheistJon]

I'm not on the verge of tears. On the verge of laughter maybe.

I'm done feeding your delusion. You can continue to live in your fantasy world, I don't care. I am quite happy in my world.

If at some point you decide to engage in a rationel debate, I'll be more than happy to debate you.

In a way I admire you. You willfully admit what theism is, irrationel. With other theists one must show evidence, but you admit it right off the bat. :D Thanks for that.

[baltimark]

This conversation never even really started. I asked for you to examine just your very first statement, "God exists." That sentence is problematic. And you were incapable of honestly tearing that sentence apart. But I think you see now that your atheism is based on nothing but personal predilections. It is a willful childish game in that case. This was my first statement to you. And it will stay with you. It will haunt you. And as time goes by, it will convict you. Your conversion is inevitable.

[AtheistJon]

^^really? I didn't know you were a nihilist.

Anyway we are done, I see no purpose for pursuing this enquiry any further.

Come back when you have returned to my world.

[baltimark]

When you say "God exists", you have no idea on what terms He exists. You shouldn't be making that statement. You're not qualified. You haven't EXPERIENCED the terms on which He exists. Otherwise, you wouldn't be an atheist. So, immediately you are thinking in terms that are MEANINGLESS. This is a meaningless video, even from the very start. But somewhere in you is the POTENTIAL for intellectual integrity. And it's going to drive you to find ABSOLUTE meaning, to grow up and stop playing games.

[AtheistJon]

Read my latest comment again

[baltimark]

I don't take orders from atheists. If you want this to end, then stop replying.

I told you that you'd run away, or be converted. I can keep up this debate forever. It costs me nothing. I draw my strength from a Source that you're afraid to experience. You have only your own resources to rely on. And those are finite.

If I so much wear you out, then what is life going to do to you? In the future, you'll become exhausted. And then you'll wish that I had argued with you even more vehemently.

[AtheistJon]

It's not like fatigued from writing back to you, it's just that I can find much better things to do with my time.

[06hatter]

You are insane and have not "converted" a single individual.

[AtheistJon]

Aren't you judging me now? Can you point to something that's insane or wrong in the videos?

[baltimark]

AtheistJon:

Relax. - I think 06hatter is talking to me.

[06hatter]

I am talking to you. You are an unhinged conspiracy theorist and not a single person takes you seriously.

[baltimark]

06hatter:

Examining only your second sentence, I see that you needed now 14 words to state another 2 lies. Your percentage is going down.

[06hatter]

Did you read the post out loud, reverse your speech, and discern any arcane phrases about UFOs or the illuminati?

[baltimark]

06hatter:

Actually not. My immediate impression of you is that you're just powerless and ordinary.

[06hatter]

Did you find this out by spreading chicken entrails along the floor of your apartment?

[baltimark]

06hatter:

The only chicken entrails I know about are those inside of you.

P.S. - I own a home. : )

[baltimark]

06hatter:

Two lies in the space of ten words.

Actually, that's a little below the atheist average.

: D

[resonantdave]

That is assuming that ending suffering is in their actual best interest, but I like where you're going with this.

[AtheistJon]

@resonantdave

it certainly is. Ending the suffering of another sentient being is considered a morally good act, and if all of morality originates from God, and God is omniscient and omnipotent, then God must have chosen NOT to end their suffering. This gives us a logical contradiction.

[resonantdave]

Ah, here's where I slipped. The christian god isn't omnibenevolent. Kindness isn't holy, loyalty to god is. Sending people to hell is also considered morally good because "they deserve it". Making people suffer is considered good because it brings them closer to god. Basically for Christians if it makes someone more loyal to god it's a good thing. It's really a religion of loyalty not kindness.

But for your definition you were right. I'm an Idon'tcaretheist myself so it means little to me.

[AtheistJon]

hehe, "Idon'tcaretheist", that's funny and very original :D

As for the christian God, then if he's supposed to be the originator of morality, and he does something which we humans consider immoral, then we have another contradiction.

[resonantdave]

What do you think of the idea that religion was invented to make people loyal to the king/state?

[AtheistJon]

@resonantdave

The origin of religion is a very big subject, but to sum it up, I think that all sentient beings will realize how little they know. All sentient beings will not accept this, so they will replace the unknown with other unknowns that they have made up.

Have a look at thunderf00t's talk with Richard Dawkins for more info on the subject:

/watch?v=wzCI2yHNboI

^^It's a 4 part series with bad audio. The combined video with improved audio has been falsely DMCA'd by a creationist.

[AtheistJon]

You used to be an atheist? I was brought up as a believer, but when I got to age of reason, (to quote George Carlin) I no longer believed. So I know the world of blind faith, and I understand that it is possible to convince oneself of such faith. I just don't think it's productive.

As for God's existence, then I think we ought to take the perspective that he has influence over energy/matter in the observable universe, agreed?