Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

First, Jormungander, you said, given our facticity, we are not, cannot be, radical freedom; i.e., given our physiological being in the world, we cannot be totally and absolutely free, for we are inhibited and circumscribed by our very flesh; therefore, you maintain, Sartre is wrong, and, there can be no radical freedom.  Then, it appears, through the fog of some unclear "this"-writing", that you proceed to describe a certain absolute freedom practiced by divers theologicians/libertarians, whereby they adapt themselves to a world of law, etc..  Do you see the self-inconsistent/contradictory form of flux here,whereby you both posit against, and, then, for, an absolute freedom, and, thereby, ultimately support the position, i.e., Sartre's, which was originally asserted to be mistaken.  Negatio.

Bloody hell.

I am an atheist. I believe in no god/gods.

Most here are also atheists, believing in no god/gods.

For some reason you think that presenting a broken ontological argument for atheism will convince us all to somehow be more atheist than we already are.

It wont.

No, I did not post on this site for the reason you put forth.  I had some thinking I wanted to cast into the world.  After long long reasoning about how to most pertinently place it on the internet I realized, since it is questioning Deity, an Atheist site seemed a viable and pertinent site to employ.  I had no thought of convincing atheists of anything, I was merely attempting to cast my writing into the world. (Atheists may not need be convinced against God, but they may well appreciate a viable theory which sets out a radically new and viable philosophical stance against Deity, with which they can say, finally, this is why....).  Which of you atheists has constructed a theory for the sake of once and for all enunciating precisely why there can be no Deity as Deity is currently thought to be !! I am merely attempting, now, since I am here, and am, thus far, surviving a gauntlet, to possibly avail myself of this cite as a possible means of dialectically running the OP through a gauntlet too, but the members have only just begun to engage my position, not my person, on the theoretical plane.