Of course atheism and theism are untenable since their 'truths' can't be shown, and it gets worse, though, than indefensible, in that it is the height of intellectual dishonesty to proclaim them. — PoeticUniverse

I think theism means a BELIEF in god, and atheism, a BELIEF in no god. Belief requires no proof. No atheist is showing you or attempting to show you the truth about god's existence or inexistence. It is not intellectual dishonesty to believe in something that is possible.

@PoeticUniverse, I think your fallacy lies in your expectation or presumption that atheists try to prove the non-existence of god, and theists, the existence. A learned, smart, philosophical person will never attempt either. Because theism and atheism are matters of faith, of, as you precisely said, an untenable truth. So neither side (as long as one has a minimum required amount of brains) will claim their belief to be the truth.

It is a question of belief. No truth is needed, no truth is to be shown, and nobody will try to show a proof therefore.

I don't know if it will sink in. But I hope it will.

"What is there to exploit in people who are not working?" Are you kidding? Reagan's vast expansion of the prison system that revved up in the 1980s and has continued ever since, has made billions upon billions for all companies involved in constructing and administrating prison systems. The projects also "make" billions of dollars for other people. — uncanni

That's very sad and deplorable. I outright condemn this. But it's not exploitation of the working classes. I used the word "exploit" in the Marxian sense.

Can you clarify what you mean by a system growing, you seem to be saying, sui generis? That's not sounding very Marxian to me. — uncanni

Damn right it's not Marxian.

It's the system of the new aristocrat class in the USA. The fact that your birth and lineage determines your class in society.

Here's the mechanism or how it works:

Persons A, B, C, and D are each the CEOs of multinational big conglomerates. They need people to vote them in. They recommend (where A is the CEO) to elect B, C, D into the board of directors. So A gets a cushy job, no matter how he performs. Because B, C, and D will vote him in. Then A also sits on the board of directors of the companies where B, C and D are respective CEOs. etc. They secured the place of CEO and board members niftily for life. Of course if one blunders, and his position is untenable, he gets transferred to a different company's CEO position, switching with the other guy.

This is now the modus operandi of the oligarchs. The board of directors vote huge salaries to the CEOs, and each CEO votes on different company's boards where they sit.

This is not Marxian. This is brand new.

You're right about that. I just can't think of any other filter that has so much more effect in distorting the observation of nature as religions. In my estimate, it is at least ten, maybe hundred times more potent a filter than the next closest one.

The next closest effective filter is natural ignorance, I would guess, with a hard-to-decide tie with low intelligence. But religion makes really, but really intelligent people misread the clues nature presents. I have only seen politicians do "adjust the facts when they speak against theory" and of course fraudulent scientists; but both are motivated by money, whereas when a religious person "alters the facts to justify theory", then he does it from the heart, with his entire conviction thrown behind it, and he will defend his stance tooth-and-nail. If you show a scientist how he is fraudulent, he will eventually break down, and admit to it. A religious person would never sacrifice any of the tenets and dogmas of his faith in a similar manner when presented by irrefutable facts. Or if not irrefutable, then more than reasonable facts.

No. I stopped drafting it after probably half an hour or so, and then left it like that. — alcontali

Thanks.

Alcontali, did you reword the opening post? I am not accusing you of that, because it was late last night that I last looked at it, but some parts that I see now I could not remember now seeing them last night.

There are for instance imbedded links to pages... were they there yesterday? Or late last night? (Eastern Daylight Savings Time.)

Even this part and the parts preceding it in the opening quote seem brand new to me:

They express their (utter) dislike for this lemma. — alcontali

Again, maybe my memory is playing tricks on me. So I ask you, instead of accusing you: did you reword the opening post?

Okay. It's easier to admit that I am a fucking goddamned idiot, who is stupider than a typical and normal 12-year-old, than to make sense of any of the foregoing.

I am satisfied with this conclusion.

Obviously people don't like to hear the China part.

No truth is ever welcome. Anywhere.

Even on a website for philosophical enquiry.

You guys prefer instead to pontificate over what constitutes populism, leftism, rightism, Trumpism and impeachmentism. But to look at the kernel, the real root of the problem? God forbid!

Sh'ma, o Yisroel!

You're right, Alcontali.

The fact that there is one god, is negated not only by the claim that there are zero gods, but also by the different claim, that there are 4 gods. Or that there are 6094 gods.

In fact, there could be one number of god or gods; it could be 0, or 1, or 2, or 3... and they all have infinite number of negations.

In fact, if one god has a certain probability of existing, and x number of gods have a certain probability of existing; and if you consider the likely fact, that each distinct number of god has the same probability as the existence of a different distinct number of gods... then the probability of having X number of gods is 1 out of the total number of different number of gods that can exist.

Please consider that any distinct integer will be a valid number of gods in existence to believe. Each distinct number of gods will have the same probability as any one of a different distinct number of gods.

If you consider that there are an infinite number of integers, then the believer must conisder that the probability of his belief in X number of gods is the probability of 1/(the sum of all distinct possibilies of numbers of gods in existence to believe), or 1/(the sum of 1 count for all different integer numbers), or 1/(1+1+1+1+ infinite times) which is 1/(infinity) which is not defined, but its limit approaches zero,

Therefore the only valid conclusion you can have is that it is impossible to determine which number of gods to beleive in, as in believing in any ONE given number of gods (for instance, in 1 god) is a near-impossible to impossible proposition.

Of course this can be negated in one fell swoop, by saying that the bible is the absolute authority on god count, or the Koran, or the Kama Sutra, etc.

What is the difference between "having 0 gods" and "not having {1,2,3,4,5} gods"? Isn't that the same possibility? — alcontali

There is a difference. Maybe I used the wrong shorthand for the set. There is not a denying by an atheist of multiple sets of different numbers of gods. The theist has to decide first how many gods there are, and the set must include one specific number, for instance, 4565 in case of Greco-Roman worship.

Then the equal probability is that there are zero gods.

But if you say (there are either 324 gods, or 32 gods, or 7 gods), then negating this will not always yield zero; but zero will always negate this. In other words, if multiple sets of gods can exist at the same time, then the probability of their existing is meaningless, as gods are not a thing that can exist and not exist at the same time and in the same respect by any religion.

I am not sure that it can work like that. For the number of gods, you assume a set that looks like this: {0,1}. You do not assume, for example, {0,1,2,3,4,5}. Therefore, you implicitly use information that you do not mention, something like, "There is only one God". — alcontali

I addressed this already. Assuming {1,2,3,4,5} gods, has the counter assumption of not having {1,2,3,4,5} gods. Together they form the probability of 1, that is, the union of the two mutually exclusive sets has the probability of 1.

You can go from here. Everything else falls into place if you look at this this way.

"They have failed these people either through bureaucracy or through being tone deaf." "They" being the liberal left who "owned" politics, and "these people" being the working class Americans who had lost their jobs, their towns, their pride.

THIS is the main problem. Not seeing the forest from the trees. IF and ONLY IF you are looking for culprits to see what made "these people" miserable, then you have to look not in the direction of right, not in the direction of left, but to the direction of the East.

China. Everything costs ten to hundred times less if you order it from China. It does not matter if you want as simple and low-volume an item as one order of a USB drive, for yourself, or billions of dollars worth of merchandise annually, like WalMart.

There is shit-throwing contests: demonizing the deplorables, criticizing the liberal left, ridiculing or hating Trump, etc etc. These are not tectonic plate movements; these are the effects on the social superstructures of the tectonic movements; the tectonic movement was the discovery of China, along with its economic savings on costs, which the American public as well as the American Ruling Class (whoever they are) have capitalized overnight, and keep on capitalizing.

There is no "bringing jobs back" to America. If you want Americans again to forge steel, to build cars and hydroelectric dams, to build industry and work hard, you have to convince them to do it for seven cents an hour. Their Chinese counterparts think seven cents an hour is a god-given fortune. And what stupid idea is it, to spend $200 for a cubic foot of steel, when you can get the same for $10 on Amazon, including shipping?

There was no proletarian class in America roughly between 1950 and 2010. There was a huge middle class. The left left the working class because there was no proletariat. Now the working class is emerging again, but it's not really a proletarian class, only a bunch of unemployed, poor people. The system as it's shaping up in America these days, does not fit the Marxian pattern of classes in a bourgeois system.

The left has assumed for its platform a pattern of humanitarian considerations, while the right has assumed for its pattern a pattern of nationalism, religionism, and covert racism.

I deny that the left or the right actively helps the rich to get richer and the poor to get poorer. That economic transformation is not partisan-directed, or helped. It is a system growing on a natural basis by itself.

I think the system which everyone likes to deplore: the rich who is getting richer, and the poor getting poorer is not part of a Marxian class system, as described by Marx; it is, instead, a phantom oligarchy. Marx's basic tenet in capitalism was, or one of them, that the ruling class exploits the ruled class. But what is there to exploit in people who are not even working? Or in the golden era of middle class (1950-2010) who wanted to fight against oppression and exploitation? There was no oppression, and exploitation was not an issue, because nobody felt exploited: everyone was fat and earned lots of money. If anything, people were happy to work, and to earn money; if someone came up to them and told them they are being exploited as workers (which was true in the Marxian sense), then these people would have grinned and declared, "If this is exploitation, gimme more."

The left has left the working class for these reasons. The working class did not need the help of the left; and the needs have shifted to ease the plight of the poor.

----------------

What I find funny -- and this is not my original idea, or an idea born in me independently of others, but I read it in the New York Times some decades ago -- is that part of the Christian ideal is to help the poor, and heal the sick, and give dignity to all humans. Yet the left assumed it is their responsibility to endeavour these aims, while it is also the Left that harbours most atheists, and it is the right that harbours most extreme fundamentals and practically all strong religionists. (I bow to the exceptions in both cases.)

I find it funny, because my father was a devout Christian, all his life (although he put it in "dormant" status during his career), yet he was the first one or one of the few first who joined the Communist Party of Hungary in 1945 or 46. He was an idealist, he wanted to help the poor, the sick, the downtrodden. That's what he thought the main secular goals of a Christian ought to be, and he saw it clearly that the communist party had the very same ideals in view.

Shake your head and walk away...

Some who call themselves "atheists" are just as fundy as religious ones. — creativesoul

I admit you are right in this instance. I blundered.

Language. It is not interpreted; it is understood.
— god must be atheist

Language is not "understood"
— god must be atheist — creativesoul

Touche. Allow me to correct myself. (If that is permissible in the normal course of debates. By whatever rules.)

Corrected version:

Expressions of language are understood, using proper words, syntax, grammar.

Language is not understood, or communicated. Communication uses language. Language is the system of words, syntax, grammar. It can be likened to a telephone wire, inasmuch as it is essential for a landline telephone system to carry instances of communication, but the wire itself does not form part of a communicated message.

According to the paperwork factory, his setup must either satisfy Kolmogorov's axioms or Cox' theorem. — alcontali

Cox wanted his system to satisfy the following conditions:

Divisibility and comparability – The plausibility of a proposition is a real number and is dependent on information we have related to the proposition.
Common sense – Plausibilities should vary sensibly with the assessment of plausibilities in the model.
Consistency – If the plausibility of a proposition can be derived in many ways, all the results must be equal. — Arnborg and Sjödin

According to this, your demand has been satisfied. There are two states, or two subsets:
- god exists
- god does not exist
And they are mutually exclusive
it is plausible that they have equal probability to be true while they are mutually exclusive
Consistency: If there are more gods, or the possibility of more than one god, then the probabilities get divided into more subsets. That is, (There are no 5 gods), (there are no 5938 gods), their opposite (non-existence of gods) grew to be an equal number of subsets (Five gods don't exist,) (5938 gods don't exist).

I am sorry, @alcontali, but this is not a dissatisfactory application of Cox's theorem.

Equally, I could prove that the system also satisfies Kolmogorov's Axioms, if i were only better equipped to use math symbols on the keyboard. Let this suffice for the time being:

The axioms of Kolmogorov. Let S denote a sample space with a probability
measure P defined over it, such that probability of any event A ⊂ S is given by
P(A). Then, the probability measure obeys the following axioms:
(1) P(A) ≥ 0,
(2) P(S)=1,
(3) If {A1, A2,...Aj ,...} is a sequence of mutually exclusive events such that
Ai ∩Aj = ∅ for all i, j, then P(A1 ∪A2 ∪···∪Aj ∪···) = P(A1)+P(A2)+
··· + P(Aj ) + ···.
The axioms are supplemented by two definitions:
(4) The conditional probability of A given B is defined by
P(A|B) = P(A ∩ B)
P(B) ,
(5) The events A, B are said to be statistically independent if
P(A ∩ B) = P(A)P(B).
This set of axioms was provided by Kolmogorov in 1936. — undetermined

Here, A is "god exists" and B is "god does not exist".

Also, if you talk about more gods, then
A is "X number of gods exist" and B is "X number of gods do not exist."

:smile: I'm just groping in the dark. — TheMadFool

Let me know when you come to my town. I'll have all lights on all the time.

So, no, you cannot just say, "you do not understand it". — alcontali

I don't think you can prove that. But I can disprove this claim by you.

"You do not understand it", "you do not understand it", "you do not understand it", "you do not understand it", "you do not understand it".

There. Four instances of empirical observations of real occurences that deny the truth of your statement.

It is just a game and you must hit the diagonal.

[(false,false)(false,true)(true,false)(true,true)][(false,false)(true,false)(false,true)(true,true)]

The first example predicate, "isEven", will return true if a number is even and false if it is odd.

In this game, you can use whatever logic sentence you want, but if it is true, its number must be even. If it is false, then its number must be odd. You must stay on the diagonal! — alcontali

Hm. A fine explanation you gave me, huh?

1. How do you hit a diagonal? What is the meaning of "hitting a diagonal"? There must be some meaning other than punching my computer screen with my fist.
2.use whatever logic sentence you want, but if it is true, its number must be even. You haven't told us how to determine the number of a sentence. And once you give us the rule to determine the number of a sentence (I imagine it's ordinal numbers, not cardinals), then...
3. What's a "logic sentence"? I imagine "Badly written, explained or described logic puzzles must be sentenced to spend a minimum of two years, maximum of five years, term in prison, and/or fined ten thousand dollars."
4. I searched the opening topic, and there are no examples. I looked at more posts down the page, and they were incomprehensible. Certainly not on the level of a 12-year-old. (I can certify this. I asked my 12-year-old granddaughter to please tell me in English what you said and she revealed her wisdom to me: "Grampa, it's gibberish.")
6. What are you using as predicate? "isEven" is not an expression I understand.
7. If I am too stupid to understand this, please tell me now, outright, so I shall cease and desist, and not bother you with questions.

The commandment is a Christian one and should be interpreted as such — Janus

I admit that that's true. But the bible was not written for Christians only. When it was written, hardly any of the entire population was Christian. It is a document for Christians, while it is also a document for would-be Christians. And anyone who is not a Christian can become a Christian.

So my NOT interpreting the quote, or the command, but taking it at face value will turn me away -- hypothetically -- from Christianity. Not that it had any chance of my following it.

The fact remains that Christians don't follow the word of the Bible but a version which is altered from the original document. Altered by interpretation.

If that's how much Christians respect their god, that they decide, "this is what god said, but we don't believe it, we believe an altered version", then so be it. I have no argument against how the Christians decide to alter the word of their own god.

Language is understood. — Janus

No. Statements in the language are understood.

Language, in and by itself, only exists in terms of its manifestations by utterances of words. Language is not "understood"; it is manifested by words and grammar, and when manifested properly, the statements made up are understood. Language itself alone without actual words and actual grammatical applications would not exist, hence, there would be nothing to understand.

the correct interpretation is clear in the context of the Christian faith — Janus

But if you insists that it's an interpretation of the Christians, then you don't prove that it's the only correct interpretation, to ANYONE, but only to Christians. That is what I am telling you: it is not an absolute correct interpretation, because you have added a qualifier to it.

Sure, if you are Christian, you'll accept the interpretation you gave. I fully beleive that.

In fact, there are nearly 2000 instances in the Bible that needs altering the language or altering the wording in order to interpret the words of the Bible to make sense to a reasonable human being. This is just one such instance.

You cannot use probability theory for this problem. — alcontali

Actulally, he can.

There are two subsets: "God exists" and "God does not exist". Together they form the superset, "Making statements at god's actual existence".

Please note that both subsets at the same time and at the same respect are proper subsets of the superset, and together they do not negate the superset, although one is the negation of the other. This only means that the subsets are obviously not overlapping, but that's just a side-issue.

The probability of "God exists" is the event that god exists/(god exists + god does not exist) and the probability of "god does not exist" is the event that god does not exist/(god exists + god does not exist).

In the lack of any other information, the two events are therefore equiprobable.

Consider this with the experiment of tossing a flat coin which has a head and tail. the probability that the coin will show a head, or a tail, is
shows a tail / (shows a tail + shows a head) and
shows a head / (shows a tail + shows a head).

Although my operational symbols and conceptual descriptions of the sets are far from the symbols of standard set theory, I hope you see the parallel and agree that the probability of god existing, without any other consideration, is the same as the probability of god not existing.

And more importantly, I hope you agree that the problem or question or whatever CAN be expressed in terms of probability relying on set theory etc.

It just depends how you word it.

Some interpretations are better informed than others; that should be obvious. — Janus

All interpretations are the best to those who believe it is the best. So for Person A it may be the best to believe one interpretation, and for Person B it may be the best to believe another interpratation.

Should the commandment not say something nonsensical, it would NOT need any interpretation.

In effect, not every statement in language needs to be interpreted. If a statement is inambiguous and clear, and everyone understands it, and everyone understands it the same way, then it has no room for a need for interpretations to be made on it.

How can you understand "Love thy neighbour" without interpreting it? — Janus

Language. It is not interpreted; it is understood.

You need to understand the commandment in light of Christian thought and teaching. It is an ethical injunction; it tells you how to live in the world with others. It simply tells you to act towards others with kindness and fellow feeling. And that is obviously not "a stupid imperative", unless you happen to be a sociopath. — Janus

I am saddened that you think so little of my intellect.

I am, however, on the opinion, that it is not correctly worded. And it ought to have been, if it was worded or insinuated or suggested by an all-knowing god.

So let's see which you don't agree with.

1. God knows everything.
2. Language is knowable.
3. Language in this commandment is not ambiguous.
4. You can't follow this commandment verbatim.
5. God gave a commandment that can't be followed verbatim.
6. Interpretation is needed to beat sense into this commandment.
7. Interpretation is not reliable; it is a subjective endeavour.
8. Any interpretation can be argued at any time to be false, as much as it can be argued ot be true.
9. Therefore any interpretation can be declared invalid and worthless. Any, not just nonsensical ones.
9. Therefore you'd trust that god could give commandments that need no interpretations.
10. But this commandment needs interpretation.

Please give me the numbered statement you think is false, and please explain why it's false.

If you are thinking that statements numbered 7, 8, or 9 are false, you have already disproved it for yourself. Please consider, that you gave your interpretation; I gave mine; they are incongruent. Persons A, B, C... Z may give interpretations that are different from yours or from mine and from each others'. There is no valid judging which interpretation is true, as they are all not the word of god.

The question is; if truth is a native of our ideology and not an accurate representation of REALITY, why do we rely on people for the truth, when their truth is based on observation? — True Point

1. To not duplicate work.
2. Save time and expenses.
3. To disseminate knowledge to large, and I mean huge, amounts of people cheaply, quickly, and efficiently.

I beg to differ on your stance on reality not being represented accurately.

This we don't know for sure. Reality could be presented as it is, or wrongly. However, we are not the judges to decide which way. In other words, from our point of view, we are unable to decide or determine with any degree of accuracy that what we see and sense and understand is reality. 1. It could be, or else 2. it is only our perception which is distorted, or else 3. our perception has nothing to do with reality. We have no clue which of the three is true.

Progressive reality is what all aspects of nature presents to us.
— True Point

No idea why you're calling that "progressive," but okay. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps because it's not tainted by backward religious digma? I don't know.

You actually did not describe the lemma.

Then you gave a SKETCH of a proof, which is probably meaningless in its shortened form.

So we don't know what the problem is, and we don't know its solution.

Yet you guys (and perhaps gals) talk about it as if it was as commonplace as the inner tube on a bicycle wheel.

I really, but really would like to know the point you guys (and perhaps gals) are making. Why are we talking abou this? What is the meaningfulness of talking about two somethings none of us understands, and none of us has any comprehension or concept of?

The sense of the commandment is to act towards your neighbour in a loving way. It doesn't matter what you feel; the commandment is telling you to act a certain way despite whatever feelings you may or may not have. — Janus

This is your interpretation, @Janus. The commandment says "Love thy neighbour". If you alter the wording of the commandment to make it meaningful, you are a heretic.

I won't budge from this. If you can't believe what it says, directly, unerringly and unambiguously, and you have to alter its wording to make it meaningful, then the whole thing is garbage. Plus you are a heretic from the point of view of your brethren.

---------------

I mean, god in your religion is all-knowing. He knows English. He knows what love is. He knows what he says. He can't be accused with stupidity. So in all aspects, you'd trust god to say what he means. And he would not say something he does not mean. He is the ultimate communicator.

He says, "Love thy neighbour". Why do you have to put interpretations on it? Because, frankly, it is a stupid imperative.

Hence, I don't believe it came from god, because God, if he exists, which I believe he does not, would not say something so stuppid.

Anyway, the topic is "deficiencies in atheism." It is a deficiency of atheism that the commandment is worded stupidly? I beg your pardon.

So what is your belief or opinion based upon? — 3017amen

Same as god worshippers' belief in god. Go away already, nincompoopsie. You are so stupid in my opinion, that it is of no use to tell you anything enlightening. You are incapable of understanding logic, reason, and connected reasoning. You have shown it in many, many posts. You have also shown that you don't read responses to the questions you ask, and you don't apply them to your thinking. People who respond to you can get a better (and certainly less irritating) response from a brick wall than from you. You are stupoid and you are malevolent. I don't want to talk to you. You are way below the level of the minimum acceptable standard of intelligent discourse, in my opinion, of this forum. Furthermore, because of your stupidoity and ignorance and bad manners you behave like a troll. I don't talk to trolls. Sorry.

I WILL NEVER AGAIN RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS, INQUIRIES, CLAIMS AND STATEMENTS, AS IF I HAVE PUT YOU IN IGNORE, @3017amen. YOU ARE NOT WORTHY OF RESPONDING TO IN MY OPINION, AND IF THIS SITE HAD AN "IGNORE" FUNCTION, YOU'D BE THE FIRST ONE I WOULD PUT ON IT FOR MYSELF.

Yeah, I agree with that. I'd say that part of what that particular emotion entails is that you perform certain sorts of actions towards the object of the emotion, otherwise you don't really have that emotion. — Terrapin Station

But you can act and I do act all the acts that point to an uninformed observer that I love my neighbour, while I do not love my neighbour.

The commandment is wrongly worded. In fact, the entire Roman Catholic cathecism (sp?) is replete with imperatives to have this emotion or that emotion. Or that just thinking about a sin is a sin. They don't say "thinking about a sin with the intention of sinning"... no, that would make too much sense, they realize their own stupidity, whoever wrote it, and the stupidity of their readers, so they use the simplified version, and omit the "intention" part.

The whole thing makes me puke. They, the religious, when presented with a fact, rather alter the fact than adjust their theory. I think that's sick.

---------------------------------

A typical conversation between a Christian police man and a Christian man, both of whom obey the ten commandments to the letter and to the spirit:

"Love thy neighbour."

"I'm loving him already! I am just gouging his eyes out because I do love him."

"Oh, it's okay then, I guess."

In context, I suggest to you that the commandment "Love thy neighbour" is not a command to have an emotion, but a command to act. — unenlightened

You mean, fuck my neighbour. That directly bang head-on contradicts another commandment, "Do not fornicate".

I concur. Forum rules ought not to be like the scriptures or like the ten commandments: immovable, carved in stone, forever true. Instead, it should be like the constitution of the United States: amendments are possible, when necessary and warranted.

It's about time we separated Church and State on the Forums.

that's because you don't recognise a valid argument when you see one. — Bartricks

@Swan, you've seen the oldest bar trick in the trick bag of @Bartrick. The trick involves denying any and all necessities to adhere to logic or reason. Drinking buddies' argument.

You did well in pulling out. If your brick wall does not accept your argument, you leave it there, the argument, and the brick wall, and you go on to do other things.

Jesus. @Bartricks has entered the stage. I am out of here. If you think @3017amen is unreasonable, and unable to understand a simple statement, then beware, because you ain't seen nothing yet, @Swan. @Bartricks is a formidable idiot in my opinion, who will not let go. Best is to not feed him.

"None of these have to do with theism or atheism."

Yes they do. They are Existential analogies to highlight your flawed logic.

They are important questions that have puzzled philosophers throughout the years. And no one has yet answered those.

So it begs the question, if Atheism can't answer those deep, pragmatic questions of existence, how can it prove that God doesn't exist?

A pretty simple point, no? — 3017amen

A. The one question "What is love?" has been answered satisfactorily. So has the question by your, "how do the conscious and the subconscious exist together?" The third is not a question. You have to be able to tell what a quesion is. You are unable to do so.
B. The lack or presence of an answer has no bearing on the deniability of atheism. Remember, atheism says, no more, no less, "I don't believe in god."
C. You have to tie "They are Existential analogies to highlight your flawed logic." to "I don't believe a god exists". That's a pretty tall order. I doubt you can do it.
D. There is no logic to "I don't believe in god" any more or less than to "I believe in god."
E. "if Atheism can't answer those deep, pragmatic questions of existence, how can it prove that God doesn't exist" Again, the umpteenth time for your edification: Atheists can't prove that God does not exist. Theists can't prove that god exists. Atheists are simply on the opinion, or belief, that there is no god or gods.
F. "A pretty simple point, no?" You are so far away from logical thinking and philosophical insight, that you can't even see your nose, in my opinion. If you ask for philosophical insight, and you ignore it, because you can't understand it, then please don't claim victory. If you can' t understand my point in E., then what can you? Probably as much as buttered bread is good, getting hit on the head by a fly ball is bad. I wouldn't venture any further into understanding life's deep, long, unanswerable questions if I were you. And I would definitely not draw conclusions from incongruent analogies.

Thanks, @Artemis. It's about time someone reported this extreme troll-like behavour by @3017amen to a MOD.

I noticed the most vocal and prominently evocative deniers of the validity of atheism in this debate are either living in their own little worlds, where their language is different from the commonly spoken English usage, or else they are completely reasonless.

This I find more in support of atheism than any strong argument made for it by a true atheist.

In other news: Atheists are not denying the possibility of the existence of god. We just don't believe it exists. We can't prove god's non-existence with any more validity than theists can prove its existence.

I'm asking you direct questions. And you are politically deflecting them. — 3017amen

There is a HUGE difference between "Artemis is politically deflecting them" and "@3017amen keeps ignoring her answers. " Time to learn the difference.

It is very frustrating for a debating opponent when the opposite party keeps ignoring the points. The opposite party in this scenario is either stupid, or malicious, or both. And stupidity + malice is what defines a troll.

IN my opinion, you are perfect natural specimen of what constitutes a troll, @3017amen. You ask irrelevant questions; you demand, nay, command an answer of those who are not obliged to; and when they answer you, you ignore their answers.

You are a humongously malicious, enormously reasonless, multi-story high troll, in my opinion. You are impervious to logic, to responses, to anything said to you.

How else would YOU describe your own behaviour, @3017amen?

And obviously, it (love) is not an emotion. — unenlightened

Then you don't speak English. Or have misconnected ideals of concepts.

1. I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying(?).
2. What is Love?
3. This statement is a lie. (True or False.) — 3017amen

None of these have to do with theism or atheism.

You might as well ask what is gravity, who invented the cursor and why do stars shine.

You stick to these three questions as if they were meaningful or a way to prove a point.

You can ask meaningless questions, questions that don't have any relevance, questions that are completely incongruent with the topic, but don't expect any replies.

For instance: the topic at hand is, "deficiencies of atheism". What is Love? Why would it support a deficiency of atheism? or refute the deficiency of atheism? It's not even a claim, but a question. It has no truth value. It is not an argument or a point.

This statement is a lie. If it's true, it's false, and if it's false, then it's true. This in support of your point of denying the deficiency in atheism, or your argument in support of deficiencies of atheism? "This statement is a lie" has nothing to do with anything. You are sticking to these utterances because you can, but you have given no reason why they support or reject the claim expressed in the topic.

Why do you do this, @3017amen? You are -- I am sorry to say so, but it is true -- becoming and acting like a troll. You carried these pointless three utterances for a number of pages now, for no reason, no consideration, and you yourself don't know why.

Putting meaningless posts and riling others, as well as giving others tasks, as well as being cockey about the whole thing, is a typical troll behaviour. I think it's time to call in the judges.