Its a fact that god does not exist

Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#1
NB : For the purposes of this thread, god refers to the christian delusion.

A god-addict, is claiming that "god exists". Note that they even go as far as saying he DOES exist, not that "I think he might, for no reason", which is far more accurate assessment of his position.

Any True atheist rejects this belief, and uses reason instead. The True atheist states there is no god. Thats just a fact. An atheist does not "believe" there is no god. You cannot believe in and be asked to prove the negative. He simply does not believe in god. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

Any atheist who suggests there even might be a god creature is not a Truth-based atheist.

Atheism is the Truth. The Forbidden Truth dictates clearly that there is no god creature.

1. There has never been a shred of legitimate evidence that there might be a god creature, let alone there is a god creature.

2. The claim made that god exists tries to sneak in-between a claim of concept and a claim of an actual being, in order to attempt to avoid pitfalls. Atheists must watch for this trick.

3. If we take a statement like "What existed before time"? The Q is irrational, because "before" is a function OF time. The same with cause-and-effect, as this is reliant on time also. Again, this is a re-curring error on their part.

4. Prove to Me the definition of god to be real. If we cannot legitimately define god, then we have no proof to worry about either way. One must prove the definition/existence of a claim first. On this thread, I am using the general christian god creature claim.

5. If the definition of "god" becomes empty, or meaningless, then we also have nothing to prove or disprove, and thus they fail.

6. The idea of "endless" or "infinate" proof. We must also realise that "proof", always refers to a limited proof.

Example : When we say that DNA test proved that 2 samples match, we cite that as ID proof. It is not infinite proof, because nothing is infinite. It is ONE form of proof. We can then get another form of conformation (a witness or ID card) that makes 2 proofs. Same as how evolution has been proven without infinate proof. No proof need be absolute. Proof has a limitation, and that is inherant in the word "proof".

Their tactic is to ignore arguments by always asking for more proof. Then, when it is not forthcoming, we can say that "AHA! You cannot answer!" The same goes for the word fact.

7. Backhanded negation is another tactic used by god-addicts. You could not prove the non-existence of *what-have-you*." See My website at www.truthmedia.8k.com and look under the Negative proof and other irrationalities section link.

8. Surely some things are knowable, and yet to ask for proof of the non-existant endlessly is to regulate everything to belief. That is false. We can have knowledge.

9. It has been proven that god does not exist. They just wont accept that proof.

10. Common sense
If I was to claim My nose caused the big bang, and just asked for negative proof...well you know. And yet My good sense KNOWS that My nose did not create the big-bang.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
21
0
#2
NB : For the purposes of this thread, god refers to the christian delusion.

A god-addict, is claiming that "god exists". Note that they even go as far as saying he DOES exist, not that "I think he might, for no reason", which is far more accurate assessment of his position.

Any True atheist rejects this belief, and uses reason instead. The True atheist states there is no god. Thats just a fact. An atheist does not "believe" there is no god. You cannot believe in and be asked to prove the negative. He simply does not believe in god. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief.

Any atheist who suggests there even might be a god creature is not a Truth-based atheist.

Atheism is the Truth. The Forbidden Truth dictates clearly that there is no god creature.

1. There has never been a shred of legitimate evidence that there might be a god creature, let alone there is a god creature.

2. The claim made that god exists tries to sneak in-between a claim of concept and a claim of an actual being, in order to attempt to avoid pitfalls. Atheists must watch for this trick.

3. If we take a statement like "What existed before time"? The Q is irrational, because "before" is a function OF time. The same with cause-and-effect, as this is reliant on time also. Again, this is a re-curring error on their part.

4. Prove to Me the definition of god to be real. If we cannot legitimately define god, then we have no proof to worry about either way. One must prove the definition/existence of a claim first. On this thread, I am using the general christian god creature claim.

5. If the definition of "god" becomes empty, or meaningless, then we also have nothing to prove or disprove, and thus they fail.

6. The idea of "endless" or "infinate" proof. We must also realise that "proof", always refers to a limited proof.

Example : When we say that DNA test proved that 2 samples match, we cite that as ID proof. It is not infinite proof, because nothing is infinite. It is ONE form of proof. We can then get another form of conformation (a witness or ID card) that makes 2 proofs. Same as how evolution has been proven without infinate proof. No proof need be absolute. Proof has a limitation, and that is inherant in the word "proof".

Their tactic is to ignore arguments by always asking for more proof. Then, when it is not forthcoming, we can say that "AHA! You cannot answer!" The same goes for the word fact.

7. Backhanded negation is another tactic used by god-addicts. You could not prove the non-existence of *what-have-you*." See My website at www.truthmedia.8k.com and look under the Negative proof and other irrationalities section link.

8. Surely some things are knowable, and yet to ask for proof of the non-existant endlessly is to regulate everything to belief. That is false. We can have knowledge.

9. It has been proven that god does not exist. They just wont accept that proof.

10. Common sense
If I was to claim My nose caused the big bang, and just asked for negative proof...well you know. And yet My good sense KNOWS that My nose did not create the big-bang.
We have no absolute proof that God exists, and we have no absolute objective proof God does not exist. This is where faith comes in.

Personally, I'm not sure about that whole venue. But, in my experienced view, claiming absolute authority over fact, in any position in the matter, is a position taken based off ignorance.

I think this is a debate that will get us nowhere, has always gotten us nowhere and always will get us nowhere.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#3
We have no absolute proof that God exists, and we have no absolute objective proof God does not exist.
Incorrect. There is absolutely no evidence or proofs whatsoever that a god exists, or even might exist.

Also, proof is an affirmative state. There is no such thing as proof of what is not.

This is where faith comes in.
Wrong. Faith is nothing more than blind devotion to a delusions and rejection of Forbidden Truth.

Personally, I'm not sure about that whole venue. But, in my experienced view, claiming absolute authority over fact, in any position in the matter, is a position taken based off ignorance.
I claim no 'authority', I reveal Truth.

I think this is a debate that will get us nowhere, has always gotten us nowhere and always will get us nowhere.
It gets nowhere if you try and convince god-addicts otherwise. I have already won this debate.

It's no different if we debated who is happy. If I was happy, and you were sad, and we both argued we were happy, the happy person would win. No arguments would change that.
 
Feb 2010
21
0
#4
Incorrect. There is absolutely no evidence or proofs whatsoever that a god exists, or even might exist.

Also, proof is an affirmative state. There is no such thing as proof of what is not.
I confirm that there is no evidence that he does exist, indeed, however I can not say as an absolute that God does not exist. I do not have that ability.

Wrong. Faith is nothing more than blind devotion to a delusions and rejection of Forbidden Truth.
Please explain. I perceive faith as a blanket of comfort, designed to stun the masses and lead them into a false sense of permanence and security without absolute assurance.

I claim no 'authority', I reveal Truth.
Well, that's nice to hear, but what "Truth" do you exactly reveal? This is my first time conversing with you. What truth, exactly, do you reveal?

It gets nowhere if you try and convince god-addicts otherwise. I have already won this debate.

It's no different if we debated who is happy. If I was happy, and you were sad, and we both argued we were happy, the happy person would win. No arguments would change that.
Best to leave God-addicts be, I say. Faith is the bastion of ignorance, and arrogance, and people soaked in religious delusion cannot be convinced otherwise through internet debates. To them, they are most likely the enlightened ones while you are the poor lone wolf, the lost soul led astray by the forces of negativity.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#5
I am with Ice Age here, that God is the creation of faith. No one can prove that God does not exist either- proof requires evidence or support of some kind, which no one can show against the existence of God.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#6
I confirm that there is no evidence that he does exist, indeed,
This is correct. It is just earlier you referred to evidence that god exists, meaning claimed, but false, evidence I take it.

however I can not say as an absolute that God does not exist. I do not have that ability.
I do. I have the ability to recognise, analyse and embrace Truth. There is no such thing as the god creature.

Please explain. I perceive faith as a blanket of comfort, designed to stun the masses and lead them into a false sense of permanence and security without absolute assurance.
This is a rather watered-down version of the Truth. You are correct, it is like a blanket of comfort, but this comfort is an addiction, just like a drug addiction.

All god-addicts are in Truth-denial. The two primary Truths they deny are - The Forbidden Truth of death, and the Truth that god does not exist.

Well, that's nice to hear, but what "Truth" do you exactly reveal? This is my first time conversing with you. What truth, exactly, do you reveal?
Forbidden Truth and personal Truth, at times. There is only one Truth. Forbidden Truth and True Reality (personal Truth) are defined on My website on the main page.

Best to leave God-addicts be, I say. Faith is the bastion of ignorance, and arrogance, and people soaked in religious delusion cannot be convinced otherwise through internet debates.
You are correct. They are so terrified of Truth that they cannot leave the comfort of the god myth.

To them, they are most likely the enlightened ones while you are the poor lone wolf, the lost soul led astray by the forces of negativity.
They are ultra-deranged. What they think is of no Truth-based value.
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#7
I am with Ice Age here, that God is the creation of faith.
Incorrect. God is the invention of ultra-diseased human brains, that was seized upon by power-mad societal leaders. Faith is IN god, so cannot be the cause.

No one can prove that God does not exist either-
All the christian claims are insane, baseless and all disprovable.

proof requires evidence or support of some kind, which no one can show against the existence of God.
Proof does require support of some kind - which the god myth lacks. Proof does not work backwards. This is a backhanded negation. Proof is a affirmative claim.

It is the CLAIMEE's job to show proof. You simply cannot collect proof that god does not exist in the form you suggest simply because you cannot argue/collect non-existence.

That said, there is a mountain of evidence that god does not exist.

You may not have not read the OP's links.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#8
Incorrect. God is the invention of ultra-diseased human brains, that was seized upon by power-mad societal leaders. Faith is IN god, so cannot be the cause.

All the christian claims are insane, baseless and all disprovable.
First off, there is no need to call people who believe in god "diseased" because that is simply not true and could come off as offensive. And while you believe it is the religious people that need to prove something to you, they might see it as the non-believers job to prove such. You claim no God exists, religious people claim a God does exist. Even if you do not believe in a traditional God, you might believe in an order of the universe, which again you can't prove, but you might just believe in.

Proof does require support of some kind - which the god myth lacks. Proof does not work backwards. This is a backhanded negation. Proof is a affirmative claim.

It is the CLAIMEE's job to show proof. You simply cannot collect proof that god does not exist in the form you suggest simply because you cannot argue/collect non-existence.

That said, there is a mountain of evidence that god does not exist.

You may not have not read the OP's links.
But again, while you may see belief in God as an outlying argument, believers may see the lack of belief in a God or a universal law to be an outlying argument. Most matters tend to not have this ambiguity as one side usually does have a strong, rational, and clearly provable idea that can disprove conflicting theories. This is not the case with an issue as massive and universal as the existence of God as this delves on issues such as the meaning of life, what the purpose of the universe is, and other such issues which we may just never be able to solve. Maybe one day we will get closer, but as of now, it is just a far-off idea and one which does allow such differing ideas to coexist, regardless of what is correct (which in reality no human knows right now.)
 
Feb 2010
21
0
#9
This is correct. It is just earlier you referred to evidence that god exists, meaning claimed, but false, evidence I take it.


I do. I have the ability to recognise, analyse and embrace Truth. There is no such thing as the god creature.
But what is Truth? You claiming to have the exact truth is just the same as the god-addicts claiming to have truth. You still didn't answer, what is Truth?

All god-addicts are in Truth-denial. The two primary Truths they deny are - The Forbidden Truth of death, and the Truth that god does not exist.
I would like to know where you get this Truth from, what absolute evidence you have to have been able to come to this conclusion, and exactly how you are different from religionists in this regard.

Forbidden Truth and personal Truth, at times. There is only one Truth. Forbidden Truth and True Reality (personal Truth) are defined on My website on the main page.
I do think there is one Truth. But you claiming your truth is correct? I'm not going to take what some stranger on an internet forum says is "Truth" hook line and sinker.
 
Feb 2010
6
0
#10
You try to quantify things to make your argument yet you scream of God in every sentence. You reason where you have none. You define what is not definable. You think with your given thoughts.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#11
First off, there is no need to call people who believe in god "diseased" because that is simply not true and could come off as offensive.
You are incorrect. All god-addicts are mentally ill and suffering from a delusional complex. Their brains are actually physically diseased both in the first place and further so due to god-myth infection.

I make it clear in My DNA lecture on My website just how the god-myth comes about.

And while you believe it is the religious people that need to prove something to you, they might see it as the non-believers job to prove such. You claim no God exists, religious people claim a God does exist.
Wrong.
Does not matter. The rules of logic, more importantly Forbidden Truth, dictate that only the affirmative claim needs to be proven.

Something that attacks a affirmative, or positive, claim that something exists says it does not exist. This is NOT a affirmative or positive claim.

Even if you do not believe in a traditional God, you might believe in an order of the universe, which again you can't prove, but you might just believe in.
Does not matter. One unfounded belief cannot support another.

But again, while you may see belief in God as an outlying argument, believers may see the lack of belief in a God or a universal law to be an outlying argument.
They may well do so, but they are simply wrong, Truth-rejecting deranged for having done so. The words "does not" is total proof that I make no affirmative claim.

Most matters tend to not have this ambiguity as one side usually does have a strong, rational, and clearly provable idea that can disprove conflicting theories.
That is because all other ideas of this nature are based on evidence. Every single one of them. Although Neptune was not known to exist :
1. We knew planets existed.
2. We knew there was a large empty space where a large body seemed to be
3. We used telescopes to locate the planet.
4. We never claimed Neptune existed until we had evidence for it.

This is not the case with an issue as massive and universal as the existence of God as this delves on issues such as the meaning of life,
Incorrect. The meaning of life is simple and based on Truth. God-myth nonsense has nothing to do with the meaning of life. There is no such thing as the god creature.

what the purpose of the universe is,
The universe can have no purpose because the universe cannot think. It just does what it does.

and other such issues which we may just never be able to solve. Maybe one day we will get closer, but as of now, it is just a far-off idea and one which does allow such differing ideas to coexist, regardless of what is correct (which in reality no human knows right now.)
Incorrect. In reality I know as a fact that there is no god creature.
 
Feb 2010
360
0
United Kingdom
#12
This is a brutal generalization of a group of people. How exactly do you know that people who believe in god are physically diseased? And I'd like something more concrete than the "Truth".
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#13
But what is Truth?
This is typical of human mental dysfunction. The human brain is genetically diseased an faulty. Society then attacks the psychological weakness that this creates with lies, myths, delusions etc in order to render your mind broken.

The two forms of Truth are clearly defined on My website, as I already informed you.

You claiming to have the exact truth is just the same as the god-addicts claiming to have truth.
No it is not. God addicts make specific claims about a god creature that does not exist. There is no legitimate evidence whatsoever that a god exists, or even that there might be a god creature.

I reveal Truth. What they do is invent delusions.

You still didn't answer, what is Truth?
Because this is the same thread. You should know, anyway.

I would like to know where you get this Truth from, what absolute evidence you have to have been able to come to this conclusion, and exactly how you are different from religionists in this regard.
Truth is Truth. It exists outside of human minds, just waiting to be discovered. It is not a case of how to get Truth. Its a matter of how to defeat the lies, myths, dogmas etc that society imposes on you that destroy your ability to recognise, desire and embrace Truth.

All living things are born with the desire and ability to live a life based on Truth. Society malevolently attacks and destroys this natural right and ability, because it is all based on lies and is malevolent.

The Forbidden Truth itself (which is what I think you mean) comes from life experiance, personal Superiority, analysis of the facts, and natural ability and so on.

This is revealed on My website.

I do think there is one Truth. But you claiming your truth is correct? I'm not going to take what some stranger on an internet forum says is "Truth" hook line and sinker.
You do that, then. If you are not broken by society, you will see that what I say is the Truth.
 
Jan 2009
5,841
50
#14
There is no link between DNA and believing in God- no experiment or scientist has proven such. As for unfounded beliefs, you are missing the point. What if it is you that has the unfounded belief by not believing a god exists? These topics are so far-off from what can be proven, that you can not prove that your belief is the starting point and that God must be proven- perhaps it is the lack of order that must be proven.

And do not call religious people diseased, it simply does not make sense and it could come off as an attack. We do not allow attacks here as it is a place for intelligent debate. If you want to say they are misguided, then fine, but there really is no DNA or biological difference between atheists and religious people.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#15
This is a brutal generalization of a group of people. How exactly do you know that people who believe in god are physically diseased? And I'd like something more concrete than the "Truth".
Its a matter of causation and analysis, from a Truth-based perspective. Psycho-analysis and method-analysis is what cuts it in seeing through the god myth. Here is the Forbidden Truth :

Reason cannot be selective. We are all born with a reasoning system for survival and an ability to desire, recognise and embrace Truth.

This system works in all other living creatures by collecting facts, evidence, experience etc and then processing them to achieve a goal etc.

1. In humans, however, there is an important difference. Animals don't know and dont think about the fact they they will one day die.

Humans developed cognitive and conscious thinking ability. Humans realized and began thinking about that fact they would die, just as they saw other human die. This itself is not the problem.

The problem was that this development was not matched by an emotional and psychological ability to handle this Truth. The human mind then began to devise delusions in order to cope with the unbearable Truth of what death entailed. When we think or delude, the brain changes. It even changes when we smell a flower, for example. These brain changes eventually got caught up in evolution and caused the psychological fault that underlies all others.

Human beings now had a trait to reject Truth. We see this today when a little girl's pet dies. Often she has to reject and go through a stage of denial. Often this denial is accompanied by the thought that maybe somehow that the pet is still alive, somewhere, even though there is no evidence of such. The catalyst for this thought is simply to try and skew the Truth of what death entails and how the pet is lost for all eternity.

You will notice that death is fundamentally wrapped-up in the god myth. Briefly, all societal leaders use this psychological fault to control and programme all the masses. Its HOW they are able to do so.

2. Special Pleading logical fallacy.
This point is important. Look up SPLF. Since there is no evidence that a god creature exists, there is no legitimate and natural-functioning catalyst to ever think of a god creature.

Why is it then that god addicts do invent it? Why do they not reject the god idea? Why do you think that they never invent other non-god/death related ideas and become obsessed with defending totally irrational and contradictory fantasies?

The spaghetti monster comes to mind. What about a toilet-go-maker who has six arms? Why not?

Because none of these other non-existant creatures have anything to do with denying what death entails, afterlife delusions, personal delusions of righteousness etc. That is why.

It is difficult to go into detail in this limited space, as these are points of psychoanalysis.

No other non-diseased mind could ever fool for or invent a god creature delusion.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#16
There is no link between DNA and believing in God-
Not technically as you state. Its a link between genetics and denial. There is in that there is a human-only psychological weakness that causes god-myth delusion creation.

no experiment or scientist has proven such.
Its not a claim of science. DNA itself is, not the human inability to recognize Truth. No test could ever prove this. Here is why :

The testers themselves are effected by the fault, so they are unable to see and recognise the fault even if they can isolate the genetic fault. An analogy would be if you claimed that black people were faulty (of course they are not faulty - its an example).

Even if you proved that black people are due to certain genes, the test themselves would tell you nothing else. It would still be arguable if the black genes were faulty or not, because the results are to be interpreted. Technically, the DNA tests are irreleveant to the discussion of if blackness itself is faulty.

As for unfounded beliefs, you are missing the point. What if it is you that has the unfounded belief by not believing a god exists?
I told you - it is a backhanded negation. I have no belief to answer to. Not believing the claims of other is NOT a belief, they have the belief. I have made no positive assertion. They did.

These topics are so far-off from what can be proven, that you can not prove that your belief is the starting point and that God must be proven- perhaps it is the lack of order that must be proven.
Wrong. You just cannot reason properly. I have no belief. I refused to believe their belief. I made no positive claim. That is why its "your claim X does not exist".

And do not call religious people diseased, it simply does not make sense and it could come off as an attack. We do not allow attacks here as it is a place for intelligent debate. If you want to say they are misguided, then fine, but there really is no DNA or biological difference between atheists and religious people.
Does not matter if there is a difference between the two. As I said, the ultra-disease is in the human inability to handle Truth. My position IS that mental disorder is the cause of the god myth.

I am not calling any individual anything. I could argue that you call criminals names, as a group, or gays if you could argue against gayness. But its not leveled at a specific member. Therefore, it is not against the forum rules. You are already trying to make any excuse to get Me banned, because deep down your subconscious knows that I am revealing the Forbidden Truth, and it is spot on. You cannot handle the Truth.
 
Feb 2010
21
0
#17
This is typical of human mental dysfunction. The human brain is genetically diseased an faulty. Society then attacks the psychological weakness that this creates with lies, myths, delusions etc in order to render your mind broken.

The two forms of Truth are clearly defined on My website, as I already informed you.
Your "Truth", I cannot accept more than religious Truth. You need to provide solid proof to back up your claims. Thanks.

No it is not. God addicts make specific claims about a god creature that does not exist. There is no legitimate evidence whatsoever that a god exists, or even that there might be a god creature.
True, but you, with your diseased human brain, have limitations on yourself. You cannot completely disprove that God exists with long posts on a political internet forum.


Because this is the same thread. You should know, anyway.
Yepppp, I know this is the same thread. Thanks.

Truth is Truth. It exists outside of human minds, just waiting to be discovered. It is not a case of how to get Truth. Its a matter of how to defeat the lies, myths, dogmas etc that society imposes on you that destroy your ability to recognise, desire and embrace Truth.

All living things are born with the desire and ability to live a life based on Truth. Society malevolently attacks and destroys this natural right and ability, because it is all based on lies and is malevolent.

The Forbidden Truth itself (which is what I think you mean) comes from life experiance, personal Superiority, analysis of the facts, and natural ability and so on.

This is revealed on My website.


You do that, then. If you are not broken by society, you will see that what I say is the Truth.
Hah. How laughable. What you say is Truth? You may bring up some valid points here and there, but like I said before, I'm not going to take you as the guy with the ultimate Truth, the messiah. Your claims you make here are equally as valid as what people say in the Bible, Quran, etc. You ramble on about having this undeniable truth but you provide no facts to back it up.
 
Feb 2010
360
0
United Kingdom
#18
Its a matter of causation and analysis, from a Truth-based perspective. Psycho-analysis and method-analysis is what cuts it in seeing through the god myth.
So you think it's okay to make these generalizations even though they are cold and brutal? And what exactly gives you the knowledge to make that accusation?
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#19
Your "Truth", I cannot accept more than religious Truth.
There is no such things as "religious" Truth.

You need to provide solid proof to back up your claims. Thanks.
The proof is in human behaviour and psychological analysis. I demonstrate via argument. Thus far, I have outlined why humans selectively invent god creatures.

True, but you, with your diseased human brain, have limitations on yourself.
Firstly this does not relate to what I wrote before/
Yes, there are limitations. However, My Superiority allows Me to recognise, analyse, desire and embrace all Truth.

You cannot completely disprove that God exists with long posts on a political internet forum.
My point is that I don't need to disprove god, they need to prove. You can falsify the god creature, but failure to completely falsify the god creature does not matter, as long as there is evidence against the god creature claims.

Yepppp, I know this is the same thread. Thanks.
You asked a question, then you stated that I had not answered the question in the same post.

Hah. How laughable. What you say is Truth?
You are laughable. I told you already. If you cannot understand what Truth is, society has done a perfect job of breaking your mind.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#20
So you think it's okay to make these generalizations even though they are cold and brutal?
It applies to all god-addicts. They will not and cannot face up to a single Truth regarding their addiction. Some do break free, but usually only to a degree.

They are not cold nor brutal. You just make these descriptors up. Your arguments are all selective and irrational. They just suit you, and nothing more. The death penalty attitude you have is cold and brutal.

However, even if so it does not matter. Humans die. Even if that is cold and brutal, it is still the Truth, and thus it stands.

And what exactly gives you the knowledge to make that accusation?
What accusation?
 

Similar Discussions