How I was murdered in my own home and lived to pay for it.

Atheism Vs Theism Is Over

Overall the problem for the Atheism vs Theism debate is that this is a waste of time.

The problems for all faith and lack of it reduces simply.

In my mind the problem is solved.

Atheists have no support for the fact they'd claim they have no proof of God since there is no proof that God does not exist or that they have any facts at all.

Ignorance is not support either way for or against.

Atheists and Theists can not agree on what those mean. More doubt.

Lack of proof does not prove lack of object, in this case object being or meaning God.

We generally agree God is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and created the cosmos.

This is what faith is about. And with that you will never know.

Atheists typically take task with bad religion. That problem is solved in two ways:

1) Accept offers of bad faith and cite their failings and their lack of proof to support God. Vatican and Jesuit frauds prove themselves as frauds on their face.

2) Accept that knowing or proving the creator of the universe is present in all time and for all space is not possible. That proves ALL religions wrong. Adding or painting it with Science or shoving that foundation underneath does not help either. Hoping to cite some dogma to placate or control or influence such God is impossible also. Dogma proves fraud.

For instance God could exist, and just decide not to make himself known to those on this and this planet only.

Or God would do or did so to just one person and you won't know.

You have no proof here and this does not disprove or prove God in ALL other places in the Universe even assuming cosmos was static and bounded or increasing etc in dimension.

Your logics are wrong and are not thorough or honest.

The God task has no merit and is not solvable.

The merit comes in removal of bogus religions and to prosecute harms and crimes they do to others.

Religions end up being abusive dialogs and blame the victim scenarios with ways for others to control and harm you. Offers to discuss are in bad faith overall.

Ei qui affirmat non ei qui negat incumbit probatio. Finito.

"The burden of proof lies on him who affirms a fact, not on him who denies it"

You affirm no evidence. Assuming atheist.

You can not prove that since task is too large.

Classic law enforcement trap.

Lack of evidence does not prove event did not take place.

You offer atheism as another flavor of Jesuit proxy problems being shift onus for your faith onto someone else.

Own your act.


Beware shill groups etc and offers to fluff up state in debates and wars they make on themselves.

This is all laudable but the hidden proxy with evidence bothers me, shills like Ernest and the behaviors bother me such as lies and name calling etc ....

"Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now, here on earth for all men together to enjoy. An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it. An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment. He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man. He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter. He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now."

Address and charge bad faith as being bad faith.

All you need is State do to that.

Lack of evidence does not prove lack of God.

Should be Atheist's Commandment #1.

Show good faith and truth up front.... why bury the proxy?

Odd twist and vanity repeat on Jesus eh?

So now you are agnostics....

They are dividing you and going to use the back door proxy against you later.

The definition is specious..... atheist.


Some want to invent their God around holes in their knowledge or belief instead of defining that God based on evidence and witness.

God is not definable as such as this other person hoped to argue the other day on my comment thread.

He defined God as creator of universe only.

And I said even this is not possible. And with that it would be science and maybe bad science in total since something does not exist outside ALL other things.

Assuming even "God" is some unknown relation between photons and space you can not discern. You won't prove or witness effect in all space and all time.

What you do know here and now falls apart based on your quantum and other models.

Since you can not define God or prove him and for that case of his this is devoid of religion now, which motivates much of this discourse, there can be no God. Ever.

Definition is impossible.

As is task and there is no need for it.

There is nothing to support the unity as you want to invent in the flesh now.

If not careful atheism can seem a religion. It has a proxy on burden of proof and a logical trap on that notion.

It matters how a person decides to do this.

It should be a person's want to ask the question is there God and prove to themself that the answer is no.