The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

Define matter.

Physical substance

1. Age, 'physical substance' is a synonym not a definition.

2. Matter is all one substance.

Obviously.

It is evolved central nervous systems that differentiate matter into separate things and events.

If you say so.

Now, you claim the words, 'physical substance' is a synonym, but what are those words a synonym of 'what', exactly, to you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

My book series will end this vicious cycle of religious slavery, racism, misogyny, homophobia, hate, and violence by removing the foundation of their belief. When the majority of Earthlings will understand and accept valid evidence that god does not exist, the religious minority will present them in their true light: irrational, fanatical, and delusional maniacs. It will take time, but that is the way. The future is the world without religion.

The first enlightenment moved people from superstition to reason. The second enlightenment presents evolution from reason to awareness. This is the way out of the Matrix of oblivion and into the aware world of truth, reason, and logic.

First, I doubt very much that your books, or anyone’s books, will have or even could have the result you predict. For this reason most who read your posts or sales presentations will notice the “grandiosity” in your claims. However, you can certainly influence some people who are, let’s say, primed and prepared to take advantage of the intellectual strategy you offer to get out of a circular trap of proposing god, then believing one must succumb to this or that, in a non-productive loop.

Let’s face it: we all desire to progress and, again referring to Nietzsche, there is a glorious, expansive feeling when obstacles fall away and doors open before us.

I do not accept what surely looks like a paragraph of convenient reductions with which you outline your mission. I do accept that “religious slavery” is a real spiritual and social-political condition. But I also have noted that men, deeply grounded in spiritualized metaphysics which seem to transcend their specific religious vehicle, achieve veritable mental and spiritual freedom. Harsh and simplified reductions are, one can say, part of a negative methodology quite common in brutal theologies. So, in my view, subtle thinking modes are necessary. (This is why I light a candle every so often before my mental icon of Wilbur Boneman who, gloriously, and Englishly, sees through the intellectual vapors and carves wisdom-phrases in these fields of electrons) (excuse me, I sometimes get carried away when my Muse grabs hold!)

Racial notions, race-preference, the social structure of a society, even racial prejudice: these are real things and real concerns for human communities. This must be faced squarely. It is a ‘religious-influenced thinking’ that has so vilified someone, anyone, or any community or people, that incorporates self-selection or self-favoritism. I luv guacamole but that does not mean it is my moral obligation to welcome 3/4ths of Mexico to my dinner table.

So actually the entire issue, the entire topic, can only be broached carefully, realistically, and fairly. One additional fact is that when Big Capital is involved in importing foreign populations and masses of people from different cultural and racial backgrounds, they do so in accord with non-sensitive and non-thought-through executive decisiveness. They are never culture preservers they are just businessmen out for a buck.

I am uncertain why you introduce this hot-term “misogyny”. It is really a term of the Hard Left (and one used by Marxist operators, no?). Once the term has been tossed, the one being labeled is forced into defensive positions. It is a trick rhetorical term like “racist” “sexist” and so many others. These terms are infused with black & white pseudo-moralistic conclusiveness.

The actual issue about women, fambly, reproduction, child-rearing and Tic-Toc compulsions, not to mention that of teaching our bitches to cook decently and fuck our brains out with regularity and abandon — all of this is part of extensive conversation and expositions that take time and must be handled carefully. You are aware of course that “we” are no longer reproducing enough people to maintain civilization? (Speaking principally of the Occident). These are not minor issues.

Obviously the other topics you refer to glossingly also have to be looked at carefully.

When the majority of Earthlings will understand and accept valid evidence that god does not exist, the religious minority will present them in their true light: irrational, fanatical, and delusional maniacs.

There is a play by Sartre: Huis Clos (No Exit) that has that great line L’infer c’est les autres. (Hell is other people). Though Sartre ended as a Maoist, the play is really apropos and of course deliciously hilarious.

For this reason I intend to create a modern version, set the a cafeteria during an interminable pandemic lockdown where no one can escape in an American Walmart, and I will have my cast of four as: Acellafine, Age, Immanuel Can, Iambiguous. Locked down together, and with perspectives that cannot ever be reconciled, but needing human companionship and even ‘love’, there they’ll be for eternity having to face each other, and face those ‘mirrors’ that so horrify and distress us all …

I might have to include Lucid Dreaming as a means of escape from such a hell, except that the adjacent planet has Lacewing, Promethean, Fairy and Walker ….

Anyone of us — you too possibly — would call out to the non-existent God for deliverance! Talk about a fate worse than death …

Every planetary “ascent” just another descent and a confrontation with the fact that : here we all are, there is no escape.

The first enlightenment moved people from superstition to reason. The second enlightenment presents evolution from reason to awareness. This is the way out of the Matrix of oblivion and into the aware world of truth, reason, and logic.

Fact: I am working on The Third Enlightenment (with franchise options) which, of course, I reveal with every shimmering utterance.

(I’m modifying a Trumpism; “Since I fucked everything up I am the only one who can fix it!”)

(Seeds at least will appreciate this …)

[Alexis Jacobi]

Many have asked, many will continue to ask: What in heaven’s name happened to Alexis Jacobi?! How did he end up like this?! Can he even be helped?!

Well, here is a musical description. Take it away, Mose …

[Alexis Jacobi]

I have my own goal in all this, one that has less to do with getting obdurate opponents to cave, and nothing at all to do with humiliating them. I'm trying to inform myself about whether or not they have anything to say that I haven't already heard. So it's more about what the process does for me, than about any impulse to "one up" somebody else. With that goal in mind, there's not a lot one can't endure.

So no noble attempt to save their damned souls anymore? Not long ago you went on about being forced, by truth, to point out the hellish train wrecked coming for those who did not bow the knee before the Cosmic Hebrew.

(I tried to interest Gary in my top-notch recipe for Matzo Ball Soup and I have the birthright to recommend it. Gary proved un-influenceable sadly … he totally shut his door)

But in regard to your paragraph, you must recognize that you have concluded that the position you hold is absolutely, thoroughly the right one. But more: the only right one. So in fact there is no argument that could ever be presented that could or would influence you to see or think differently.

In reduced form, and strictly in my own case and to put my own cards on the table, what I have come to reject in you and through you is just exactly that: the false-front of certainty. Your entire presentation revolves around a man who has resolved not ever to be influenced by the views and experiences of any other person.

Thus your position is the ultimate pre-established a priori ever devised. That is your game. To present yourself in situations where you seek opposition, but to remain forever unassailable.

How delicious!

Also you may be somewhat dishonest. You can indeed “one up” everyone. There is no one with an idea or view that is contrary to your defined dogmatic position that could one up you.

Also delicious!

[Immanuel Can]

I have my own goal in all this, one that has less to do with getting obdurate opponents to cave, and nothing at all to do with humiliating them. I'm trying to inform myself about whether or not they have anything to say that I haven't already heard. So it's more about what the process does for me, than about any impulse to "one up" somebody else. With that goal in mind, there's not a lot one can't endure.

So no noble attempt to save their damned souls anymore?

Oh no. Don't assume that. I'd save your soul if I could...and in a red-hot second. Forgive me for caring about your eternal destiny, I guess.

But I cannot. And I know I cannot. Your relationship with God will be established by you and by Him, speaking with each other. I cannot even touch that, and never would try. All I can do it point out the truth and leave it with you; if you don't act on it, I can't make you. And if I tried to make you -- say, using force or political means of some kind -- I would subverty the entire process, and make your salvation impossible. For a relationship cannot be forced into happening. The two participants must freely choose the relationship for themselves. I'd never put my hand on your freedom, even if I could.

But in regard to your paragraph, you must recognize that you have concluded that the position you hold is absolutely, thoroughly the right one.

Not at all. I know full well that no humans are perfect, and no human beliefs are completely informed, or completely rightly directed, of themselves. Rather, the goal is movement in the direction of truth.

And what else can it be? Movement in the direction of falsehood? Some prefer that, of course, because falsehood is very consoling: it says, "You can make up your own gods, to suit your personal tastes, and need not do the work of disciplining yourself to the truth. And that's alluring to human nature, which always wants its own way first.

Unless God comes most of the way, you and I would never get there. Fortunately, God has done just that, and will come yet further in your direction if you are prepared to receive it from Him. But at the end of the day, you and I are still responsible to choose truth over falsehood, humility over arrogance, openness to God over self-worship, and to place a mustard-seed sized bit of faith in God. If you're not open to Him, don't expect ever to encounter Him. Expect, instead, to encounter only "religious" experiences of your own, which you then are likely to mistake for the real thing, or for the sum-and-total of what's possible. You'll fancy yourself to have "analyzed" the whole situation, when all you've really done is assume identity between things that -- you may one day find -- are not at all identical, and generalized from your own initial prefences to what you've taken for truth.

In reduced form, and strictly in my own case and to put my own cards on the table, what I have come to reject in you and through you is just exactly that: the false-front of certainty.

Well, you can relax, then. I don't pretend to absolute certainty or absolute truth. If you think I ever do, you're simply mistaken. Like you, I'm just a person on a road. The way God has put me on is narrow, and I admit, few people are on it; and yours, the one you have chosen to be on, is broad, and there you'll have lots and lots of company.

But I wish you'd choose mine, instead. See Matthew 7:13:14. Like I said, I don't stop having your eternal interests at heart. I just can't force you to see them.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But I wish you'd choose mine, instead. See Matthew 7:13:14. Like I said, I don't stop having your eternal interests at heart. I just can't force you to see them.

Simply put, you lack sufficient information and understanding to be able to have my ‘eternal interests’ as your concern. I would like to believe that you are sincere in your desire or wish to have concern for any person or peoples eternal state, but this is precisely the point where I note that for all your sincerity, be it real or feigned, you cannot guide me (though perhaps some others — Walker perhaps believe that you can?) and, going further, your belief-system represents an obstacle to be overcome.

Master will explain, as the Pupil is notoriously difficult …

Let me put to you this way. Though I do not “choose yours” I do not in any sense at all reject the essential notion, and sets of principles that flow from the idea, that our soul exists, that we must cultivate our soul on spiritual levels, and also that we exist in a ‘world’ (cosmos) with many different aware influences that we can seek — I mean of course on inner planes.

The world is the world. It is a raging ball of energy, nutriments, struggles & violent processes. It is our matrix but not necessarily ‘our friend’, and the world does not provide advancement on the level of the soul, which is only something internal. That is why spiritual experience and the sense of “god” is now and will forever be subjective.

What I reject about you (i.e. the matrix of belief and insistence that you have wedded yourself to) is essentially because of its deeply rooted Hebrew arrogance. What I have needed to do, if I am to speak honestly, is to have overcome my own Jewish matrix. I do not reject “metaphysics” however, and in fact I come back, or wish to come back, more strongly committed to metaphysical principles than to those images projected on and flickering on a wall of limited perception.

You are entitled, by the same right you extend to others, to have full freedom to bow before a Hebrew demiurge-concept (this is one of the principle ‘demands’ of such constructs) and you can also work those apologetic angles of “fire and brimstone” if you so choose. It is a mad world of competing assertions and one of much noise.

… have at it Little Father …

But your authority-based apologetic techniques, always deeply psychologically manipulating — the content of your preaching and the wielding of an Absolutist theology (with many defects) — is simply put insufficient because far too much is left out.

But, this is not to say that imperatives do not exist in our world.

You will say (and have said many times) “Well there you have it. You heard The Good News and you rejected it. That’s free choice for you. And God above would have it any other way …”

Etc etc.

So, the entire notion of what I reject (and by extension why a great deal in the arrogance of Hebrew-Christianity in all its forms has been rejected in our cultures, both for sound and unsound reasons) is a conversation that requires very careful, considered, nuanced and also thorough explanation (conversation) about what is rejected, what held onto, and why.

Oh God. The Course has just reached 40 weeks of emails! I think I am going to have to go on the road like Jordan Peterson!

[Immanuel Can]

But I wish you'd choose mine, instead. See Matthew 7:13:14. Like I said, I don't stop having your eternal interests at heart. I just can't force you to see them.

Simply put, you lack sufficient information and understanding to be able to have my ‘eternal interests’ as your concern.

Well, you wouldn't know what those interests are, if you don't know God, would you?

[Alexis Jacobi]

That is a prime example of sheer Hebraic-Christian arrogance.

You disregarded everything that I said right down the line. You will do this now and forever, Immanuel …

“For obstinacy makes it impossible to hear for all that we have ears”.

[Immanuel Can]

You disregarded everything that I said right down the line.

Well, you need to say something that isn't just a bunch of empty blather. For a minute, you were honest and on-point: then you went right back to the absurdity and self-congratulation, and it wasn't worth anybody's time anymore.

You're not actually achieving anything with me with the "I am your master," or "let me analyze you," or "take my course" babble. It's very childish, and nobody's buying it. And you, of all people, know how little real substance it has. It's just a posture, a game. It's nothing serious. So all you're doing is self-soothing with empty gestures. It's not working for any external purpose.

But be serious, and I might take you seriously. Give it a try.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Wow. Your narcissism continues to amaze me. It is an odd species of it though. Radical fanaticism, unbreachable obstinacy, combined with that Hebraic-derived arrogance. I find it amazing to say the least.

Let me get you up to speed in a couple of areas. One, this is a public forum, and if I respond to you that is appearance. When we respond here, we respond to this group.

When I write something that sits under a paragraph of yours or anyone’s I have quoted, I am writing to the reading audience, as I hope we all are. I do not give a rat’s ass if you respond.

When I say that you avoid responding to points — this is one of your notable characteristics — what I mean is that in the context of a group conversation you are (one is) obligated to address as many points as possible, especially if the topic is important. If one has intellectual integrity.

Also note this: I am in no sense attempting to “achieve” anything with you. I only want to clarify my ideas and my position in relation to the one you hold.

[SpheresOfBalance]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

Currently there is no proof either way. The atheists can't 'Know' their isn't and the theists can't 'Know' there is. Both currently can only believe their views. Since I'm an agnostic, meaning that I'm standing on the fence, I can see farther than either of the two.

[Age]

I have my own goal in all this, one that has less to do with getting obdurate opponents to cave, and nothing at all to do with humiliating them. I'm trying to inform myself about whether or not they have anything to say that I haven't already heard. So it's more about what the process does for me, than about any impulse to "one up" somebody else. With that goal in mind, there's not a lot one can't endure.

So no noble attempt to save their damned souls anymore?

Oh no. Don't assume that. I'd save your soul if I could...and in a red-hot second. Forgive me for caring about your eternal destiny, I guess.

But I cannot. And I know I cannot. Your relationship with God will be established by you and by Him, speaking with each other. I cannot even touch that, and never would try. All I can do it point out the truth and leave it with you; if you don't act on it, I can't make you.

Imagine being so absolutely delusional that you believe that the whole Universe came from a Thing with a penis, and then believing that 'this' is 'the truth'.

[Age]

But I wish you'd choose mine, instead. See Matthew 7:13:14. Like I said, I don't stop having your eternal interests at heart. I just can't force you to see them.

Simply put, you lack sufficient information and understanding to be able to have my ‘eternal interests’ as your concern.

Well, you wouldn't know what those interests are, if you don't know God, would you?

LOL If you do not know God, the one with a penis, then you do not know what those interests are.

your logic, here, is as faulty as your beliefs, here, are.

[Age]

That is a prime example of sheer Hebraic-Christian arrogance.

You disregarded everything that I said right down the line. You will do this now and forever, Immanuel …

“For obstinacy makes it impossible to hear for all that we have ears”.

"immanuel can" disregarded every thing you said because if "immanuel can" 'looked at' and acknowledged what you said, then "immanuel can'" could not keep rejecting it's own discrepancies, inconsistencies, and contradictions, here.

[Age]

What would be the best book on Christianity for an atheist?

One with the valid proof that god does not exist.

Missing valid evidence for god's nonexistence is the atheist's Pain Point. For thousands of years, they have been arguing with theists about god's existence, but can't get past the word-against-word stalemate.

I have discovered the first valid evidence that god does NOT exist because that is not possible. In fact, in my new book series "It's Finally PROVEN! God Does NOT Exist The FIRST valid EVIDENCE in History", I present four pieces of evidence, scientific, logical, ontological, and experiential.

Read more about this breakthrough and game-changing book series on my webpage https://god-doesntexist.com/

P.S. I presented three objective pieces of evidence (the fourth one is subjective but fully supports and reinforces the first three) to multiple AIs - ChatGPT and Claude, and both acknowledged that they are logically irrefutable.

Currently there is no proof either way. The atheists can't 'Know' their isn't and the theists can't 'Know' there is. Both currently can only believe their views. Since I'm an agnostic, meaning that I'm standing on the fence, I can see farther than either of the two.

And, the one/s who have already seen and obtained the proof, and the facts, already do know, and thus do see even much further.