Ontological Disproof of God

[emjay]

I don't believe he's a troll or poe, and whatever WIFOM I had about that originally, I no longer have. But I know my opinion is in the minority; first impressions are hard to change, and unfortunately his first impressions were mostly bad. And now he's paying the price for those bad first impressions even though I believe they were simply the result of him being a complete newbie to the world of online forums, both in terms of technical understanding, and etiquette. But he's improving on the technical side, and fighting an uphill struggle against the general perception of troll. So from that POV it's understandable that he feels angry and paranoid, including about the staff and the nature of punishment here. Basically he feels overwhelmed; he jumped in at the deep end of a new experience... and unfortunately floundered. That's how I see it.

One cannot viably employ any other language than language particularly efficient for description of the peculiar state of affairs under consideration.

Here I  employ the language of philosophical anthropology:

In the instance at hand, the state of affairs being described is the structure of the relationship between the Atheist/Agnostic Forum, and, Newbies, thus:

A PHENOMENOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC FORUM FROM THE PERSPECTIVAL VIEW OF A RECENT NEWBIE. Written and

presented in serial form, thus:

When a newbie unknowingly and unintentionally posts a ''text wall'', he has thereby, immediately poisoned the wells against himself by exhibiting a key

cardinal "troll" characteristic, as a troll is conceived by certain biases of pre-conception held by both staff and members of the forum, who, together, from

a point of departure that is the OP, proceed, with relish, to intently apply a methodology of insult, whereby a newbie, via goading, is made to appear to

be a troll, or, in the language of the outside world, a "criminal".

The Forum is a perfect microcosm of the actual world of law/jurisprudence transpiring outside of the forum.

Otherwise known as confirmation bias. It sucks... especially to be on the wrong end of it... but unfortunately it is a part of human nature. Going forward you can either continue to lash out, whether justified or not, and continue to reinforce that perception, or you can aim to break the cycle, for instance, as Losty suggested, by introducing yourself in the Introductions forum.

[The Grand Nudger]

When a newbie unknowingly and unintentionally posts a ''text wall'', he has thereby, immediately poisoned the wells against himself by exhibiting a key

cardinal "troll" characteristic, as a troll is conceived by certain biases of pre-conception held by both staff and members of the forum, who, together, from

a point of departure that is the OP, proceed, with relish, to intently apply a methodology of insult, whereby a newbie, via goading, is made to appear to

be a troll, or, in the language of the outside world, a "criminal".

The Forum is a perfect microcosm of the actual world of law/jurisprudence transpiring outside of the forum.

Or..outside possibility, it was what happened -after- the textwall that cemented your identity as the newest troll in a long line of trolls.  Though..sure, the textwall is a bad opening gambit.

Let's try to move past that..again, shall we?  Your contention as regards the nature of human determination and laws interaction with it...is, at the very least, not uniformly true (and, at least potentially, wholly and entirely false).  In addition to this your stated grasp of the ontology and theology of the christian god is plainly mistaken. I'm telling you this as an out and out anti-theist and gnostic atheist.

Because of both of these things, your argument is unconvincing (and I'm telling you -this- as a person who..ultimately, agrees with your conclusion).  The assertions are flawed, and their truth would be incapable of leading to the stated end.  No amount of reassertion will repair the first defect, and no amount of repair would be able to overcome the second defect.  

The key turn of your argument is a failure regardless of whether or not your assertions could be made true, and regardless of your certainty in their truth as-is, and regardless of whether or not you managed to happen upon an accurate conclusion by accident. None of your thoughts on double nihilation will matter unless there is a demonstrable unfamiliarity with their thrust on the part of Great Fairy. The trouble, is that magic book explicitly contends otherwise.

Ultimately, we're left wondering -why- a god would do what he knew wasn't going to work, but it's the second part of that more accurate objection that completely diffuses your argument.

[negatio]

Otherwise known as confirmation bias. It sucks... especially to be on the wrong end of it... but unfortunately it is a part of human nature. Going forward you can either continue to lash out, whether justified or not, and continue to reinforce that perception, or you can aim to break the cycle, for instance, as Losty suggested, by introducing yourself in the Introductions forum.

Have I been radically intently insulted for the past three weeks ?  Yes or No.  Yes.  So, you will not disallow me writing a description of a methodology of insult employed by staff and members in the name of a myyside ascription.

I am simply going to describe staff and members as they have constantly addressed me via insult THE INSULT THAT IS AGAINST STAFF's very OWN LAW, to which staff and members have exhibited a complete indifference and, then prroceed to  accuse me of breaking their law, while they break their own law, big time. ; an unethically duplicitous conduct.  A totally radically ugly state of affairs wherein forum law is being ignored/broken, i.e., the forum law against insulting newbies.  Do not attempt to worm out of me positing a description of the horrid state of affairs transpiring within the forume, by members breaking, with relish, their own fucking law !  I have taken my licks here, even up to the point of a Kafkaesque punishment of having my life span here reduced, absent a hearing, by 25%, while being denied the possibility for talking back to the horrid, destructive, inauthoritative authorities of the forum, without exhibiting confirmation of my being a criminal in your midst.  Remember the Sean Connery film "Zardoff"', where punishment was to be artificially  aged a certain number of years ?  Yea, sure, now it is "confirmation bias" which plagues me, no, it is the pure criminal conduct of staff/members in a total indifference to their own law, which underpins my apparent maladaptation here.  The conduct of staff/and members is so radically ignoble and unethical and, unlawful, and has so very alienated me, that I am no longer interested in attempting a noble and civil interaction with staff/members .Emjay, you are one of the few who has been decent, not inhuman.
Law is the grandest, most successful ongoing, most radically destructive con which man has ever devised, and, I see right through ''law'' as not being an honest means to attaining human  civilization, law is a dishonesty; an ignobility; a CON. The forum is employing atheism as an excuse for conducting themselves as absolute barbarians.  Forum wants to continually deny me the language which I have seen to be requisite to describing the law con, which denial is unfathomably fucking stupid; always demanding some other language; some other simplicity; some other Duane, all properly make over in their criminally ill image.

I thought if staff/members might allow me to describe them, so that they might gain some realization of how fucking twisted and cruel they are to others, we might, subsequently, kiss and make up, and then, return to other considerations...So, if you are not interested in an auteur writing a free portrait of your Forum, just say so; however, I may just continue to get it all out of my system...Negatio

[Abaddon_ire]

Well, if you're not even going to bother with the fresh start I offered (which I think everyone on here would be open to), then you can fuck right off.

Kevin, I recently wrote a very extensive account/explanation of what I am doing here; I think it was to Abaddon_ire, I'll look back in the thread for it. However, as an existentialist thinker I know that I am not obligated to give excuse or justification for any civil, decent social acts which I do.

Wow, Kevin, you must be Deity, you were going to give me a fresh start, and, now you wash your hands of me !  Too bad, I was just beginning to fathom your personality, and enjoy interaction with you !  I have had emjay, Abaddon-ire; and, Vulvanlogician, wash their hands of me, and two out of three of those  members and I are getting along famously, Abaddon_ire is publicly enacting some kind of role as a foil, and is buddy buddy in private.  I know the good spirit of your offer, and, I did not understand, I thought you were asking my why, when I first got on the forum, I did not posit introduction, so, I answered you accordingly.  Catch you later, I hope. Negatio.

And now you are being intentionally dishonest. We have exchanged no private messages since the point at which I washed my hands of you. This will continue to be the case. You not only burned the bridges, you drained the river afterwards just out of obtuseness.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Neg
Yet more irony......I agree with you on the subject of law, ish...in much more specific examples, not in some grand general case.

This agreement, however, is incapable of overcoming the inadequacies noted and explained in your argument against a god.

[Losty]

while they break their own law, big time.

Yea...you have no proof that staff or any other member has broken any rules. That’s because it didn’t happen.

[brewer]

while they break their own law, big time.

Yea...you have no proof that staff or any other member has broken any rules. That’s because it didn’t happen.

In narcissistic victim land it did.

[Whateverist]

Oh my fucking God. This thread is still lives? Can we just give the dude a lollipop for disproving God's existence with such narcissistic aplomb and disperse? Maybe someone on staff could negotiate the terms of a cease and desist motion.

[negatio]

while they break their own law, big time.

Yea...you have no proof that staff or any other member has broken any rules. That’s because it didn’t happen.

Negatio's thread is a living record of all that was said; the thread is alike a blockchain, it is an indubitable record of what happened in the past.

When Staff ignored, and was indifferent to the fact of my being intently insulted, the fact that they did nothing about it, constitutes what is known as a negative act, whereby one is considered guilty precisely by doing nothing about a given situation.

Staff, including yourself, broke the forum rule against insulting newbies by being indifferent to the fact that big-time insult was transpiring, wherein you, yourself, participated by calling me a troll, and by saying that you were now sure that I am a troll ! I really don't give a damn what you did; I forgive you. I merely want you attain to a realization that Staff/You were doing insult to a Newbie. Proof !  Hell, total proof is looking you directly in the face on the thread whereupon the newbie insulting transpired !  Negatio.

[Losty]

There is no forum rule against insulting newbies. There’s a rule against using insulting language in the introduction forum, which you have never created a thread in. So, yea, your proof doesn’t exist and I haven’t broken any rules.