Ontological Disproof of God

[negatio]

If you don't think that we can understand your ideas, then why go to the trouble of expounding them at all?  

When I originally thought that perhaps an Atheist/Agnostic Forum seemed viably a place to post my OP, I was not at all thinking about who might be there, to me, it was just generically the world to which I was posting; I did not stop to think about the particular individual persons who constituted the forum, and, then, I found myself crowned with thorns, being thrown into motion moved by member hatred of perceived trolls, on my way to crucifixion, when, fortunately Mathilda stepped-in to educate me about perceived trolling...I am going to the trouble of attempting to expound my ideas because I, like everyone else, seek the approbation of others...Negatio.

---

Astreja No, only just when our entire American/World legal system is predicated upon the model of an exhalted [sic] high placed jurist passing judgement upon others via an ontologically nonsensical language of law. 

What are you on about?  One does not need a god, or even a god-myth, to have a functional legal code.

---

Of course, I can't help appreciate the irony of someone who claims they're too intelligent to clarify and condense what they mean in the same breath as patting themselves for how much studying they've done themselves.

Why tart up one's language to make it smugly incomprehensible, unless the underlying ideas are pure bollocks and the author wants it to be incomprehensible to hide that fatal flaw?

What I am "on about'' is examining the unexamined presupposition presumed, historically, by ''god-myth", that deems thexmeans to obviating man's bent to kill; steal; give false testimony against one's neighbor; etc., to be to authoritatively publish a language of law, which language of law is set-forth, unreflectively, absent regard-for the actual way in which men, actually upsurge their acts, for the sake of, by law, obviating killing; stealing; lying; etc.; while, nonetheless, men do not, and, cannot quit doing killing; stealing; lying; etc.; etc.; simply because some Deity; some Legislature; some magistrate posits "law" against doing killing; stealing; lying; etc.; etc., i.e., that men do not, cannot, originate their acts via "law", and, I am on about describing how human persons actually do originate their acts/actions, knowing, that, perhaps, if, and, when, we human persons, interacting within our sociosphere, actually obtain knowledge of how human action actually, ontologically, originates, we will not be able to realize that we do have, all along, the means to obviate killing; stealing; lying; etc., and, that that means is already woven into the structure of our human ontological freedom, but, not yet being reflectively ontologically free, we are unable to employ the ontological means of obviating killing; stealing; lying; enslaving others...Sincerely, Negatio.

Well, good luck with that.  Carry on.

Thank you so much Astreja, you come-off-as-so-radically skeptical that it is frightening; nonetheless, it is the sort of antithetical response to my putative malarkey, that elicitsxxxxclear-thinking, soaring responses, from me, as a resultant of the dialectic which thinkers like you, are able to bring, to pose.
 
 Thank You, Princess. Negatio.