Top Ten (Failed) Proofs For God's Existence

based on what information/sources?

 

single entry mark 6:3

Although it doesn't state positively that he is a carpenter but asks the question, isn't he. Obviously this is not definitive and many speculate about who jesus was even to this day.

 

I thought that you were saying that 80 percent of the world subscribes to one specific religion, that being Christianity.

Anyway, it really shouldn't matter for you if you're so sure of yourself that there's no deity. Your cause is meaningless, and you sound like an Atheistic Missionary. Good for you.

Not to mention, you subscribe to Buddhist and Taoist ideas, but nevermind that...they don't incorporate a deity, so it's different Give me a break man.

Mr.Writer, on 22 Jul 2015 - 4:43 PM, said:

 

Don't make the same mistake you accuse him of. Obviously writer finds meaning and shares it. Why shouldn't it matter to him? The similarity in all our positions is simply that we invoke some kind of authority.

 

Because he's being hypocritical. He still has yet to answer my question on why he is in to the idea of the Tao, which is nonscientific, un-measurable, metaphorical, and phenomenological, but meanwhile is bashing other religions and then saying that ALL religions are flawed even though he follows certain ideas from religions. And when i point out his flaws he simply ignores it and jumps to the next religion/god thread.

 

He said religion was influential and that ascribing to a deity is delusional, he didn't say religion was flawed. He also said he has a healthy skepticism as regards metaphysical subjects. There no technical violation in saying tao doesn't ascribe to a deity. There is plenty to complain about or point out without making patently untrue generalizations or characterizations. Really the way to communicate in a way that cleaves fact from fiction is to honor other minds. If not you spend time defending yourself and attacking others personally instead of coming to communal understanding.For example you jumping the gun on the 80% figure, you didn't regard carefully what he said. I remember him dropping out for the reason that he found that it could be deleterious to his health to continue. In many ways the personal tension you each express has no redeeming value. Instead of saying someone is being hypocritical point out inconsistencies by way of specific example. I see that you attempt this but the way you describe tao as being not like this and like that is not a hard definition so you aren't making a direct comparison. Why is tao unscientific or unmeasurable? Phenomenology is the study of the structures and appearances of consciousness.

 

instead of trying to change someone, why not just let them be who they are, and if that is not compatible with who you are, then it is simply not compatible with who you are.

 

There is nothing flawed in nature but there is relative ignorance of what is.

 

Isn't this a suggestion that someone change?

 

No, it is not a suggestion..it is an observation.

 

"Instead of..."

 

instead of what?

 

An observation on the subject would be every one decides for themselves regardless.

 

You said instead of this do this.

 

oh

No, I meant if you like someone then it is rather simple.....and there is nothing you set out to change about them.....their inner being....I mean...but if you don't like someone's inner being, then don't bother trying to change them into someone you can tolerate. just let it be or not be in that case.

 

It's a sound observation to say the effort is futile by the comparison you mentioned.

 

but there is no comparison......I hate lima beans...youlove them...what of it....it is what it is and isn't.

 

The comparison was between what happens and what we can expect. What happens is everybody decides for themselves regardless. The expectation that you can change someone is likely to be met with disappointment. However that is not so of the expectation that we might come to understand and appreciate each other.

 

Letting someone do something is still influencing them.

I mean just observing an event is influencing it.

The fact that you exist at your current location is influencing me.

I don't think you have a choice whether or not to influence things, because you are included in the category of all things that exist anywhere.

You can choose an intentional stance, though. You can try to do something because it makes others happy. Even though what makes people happy is subject to whim.

Or you can do what I do and express yourself unapologetically. The shame from being incorrect and defending an incorrect idea is an illusion.

It is advantageous to be compassionately incorrect. Proof: Religion.

 

I was going to post a comment for all 10 videos but it quickly became apparent to me that Dutko's further "proofs" were too redundant and idiotic to even bother with.