Disprove God!

The call of the theist who does not understand logic or words is "disprove god" they insist, no matter how much we atheists tell them, that atheism means "There is no god" nah, we don't I did a small poll awhile back and everyone that responded pretty much all agreed that the word atheist means "I don't believe in god" this seems wide spread. This seems to align with things online now, as many webpages defining the word have slowly adopted the way we view the word. BUT, nah the theist wants, perhaps needs it to be this. "disprove god!" they say.

SIGH.

Problem 1: We don't even know what "God" means.

The word has a number of meanings, although of course the theist only cares about the version they think is real. They ignore all the other possible meanings of this word... but I don't. I have no idea what it is, only what people THINK it is.

Words can have more then one meaning, but this makes the word hard to respond to. Hey, do you think FLARGERALSAUSE is real?! NO?! WHAT WHY NOT?! Because, most likely, you've never encountered this wonky word until now. You don't know what it means, so you can't say its real, unreal or other. "I don't know." Do you believe in it" The only answer would be "No." I've told theists this many times. It feels like they just don't get it. They don't understand or don't want to. "God is DIFFERENT then that made up word!" they will say... I shake my head and sigh.

Problem 2: We don't have any empirical evidence of any "God".

Empirical evidence. I need to see it somehow. Visualize it in some way. Thermal devices, Ultraviolet cameras, Radio telescope, Microwave receiver/imager, X-ray machine, Gamma-ray telescope, Terahertz camera, Ultrasound imager... and the list goes on and on. Lots of ways to see things we can't see normally, but for "god" nope. Not a single thing.

"BUT! God is not a physical object!" They say.

How the bleep do you know!? I ask. "Because... that's what god is!" ... And I sigh.

Problem 3: We have no way to test for a god. We have no way to falsify a god claim, no predictions that matter can be made for god, nothing. Diddly squat. Theists just say ya can't test god... how do they know? Good question. Answer: They believe.

Problem 4: No sound argument as far as I know.

I've looked. I've heard and read a bunch of theist arguments, so far, not a single one has been SOUND.

Theists just shrug at that and claim the argument is sound as they never answer if they even know or understand or have studied informal logic. 

So it kinda looks like there isn't anything to disprove is there? Given there isn't anything there. No anything for it. Just faith. Just ideas. That's it.

So... uh. I guess I disproved it? 

But I'm sure theists will reject it anyway.

ITS HERE OH MY WORD!!!!!! JAPANESE MUSIC VIDEO FOUND!

Alone in my room <-----!!!!!!!11111

years ago I wanted to find this, posted on reddit, over and over and over year after year. Then I offered 1000 bucks for it.

IT WAS FOUND!!!!!

ClutchPick86 

May I suggest Suzuki Ami's Alone In My Room?

It seems to have a lot of the elements you mentioned, though not as specific (she's in a room, she occasionally on a rooftop, there's a lot of zooming of people, and there are bouncing balls near the middle). You can check it out at:

https://youtu.be/YT-A-RpOUk8?si=Ru-7YRjkJpiYbbv5

Edits for Time Stamps:

2:23 --> the bouncing balls

3:46 --> zoom in of a grandfather clock

4:21 --> falling back on bed

The video itself places her in a room a lot, rooftops, and a lot of flash forwarding cars/people

Everything under the sun...

Atheist is...

I did a survey on this, and although the numbers are small, everyone who did respond agreed the word atheist means "I do not believe in god". So, I submit that we should treat this word in this way. No burden upon us to prove there is "no god" since we are not making that claim. Many of us don't even know what a "god" is in the first place, it is the person that has the idea of god that brings that idea to us, and we say "I don't believe it" now, depending on what the clam of "god" IS, maybe you will say "no" to it, for example a god that requires 1+1=9001, that god must not and can not exist. But we can't say "no" to it until we know what "god" IS ... and since whatever it "is" is merely asserted by the believer then we just do not believe in it.

Your world view...

I don't know what my world view is, I've tried to lay it out but it gets pretty big pretty fast because I'm trying to explain what I think about everything, that is pretty hard. If I don't know what it is, you sure as bleep don't. So don't think you can say what my world view can or can not do, don't assume that atheism is a world view or say that it is, because it is not.

How do you account for...

Who says I have to? Even if I can't or will not, that doesn't prove you are correct.

How does (X) work...

Why should I know?! Again, me not knowing doesn't make you right.

Anti-science stuff...

This is creationist, intelligent design nonsense where the person denies such matters of science because they think that it will mean that god isn't real or something, they have been told or come to believe that the way they "have" to read there holy book is (Z) way that contradicts what science really says, and they just don't care they lie about science, they get it wrong, it doesn't matter how much you correct them, they don't want to learn about reality they have chosen to stay stuck in the muck of nonsense. This is very frustrating, more so when they think that my acceptance of science has anything to do with my non-belief of god. It doesn't... but it sure doesn't help that you make your god impossible by saying that it is aligned with nonsense beliefs of the world.

More will be added as I think of more to add...

Presup: You are stuck.

Imagine that you and only you have access to the true nature of reality, no one else does, no one else can just you and you alone, and you know it. You know it because you felt it one day. 

*POP*  

Oh I guess I just know now. So I tell everyone, hey look, unless you agree with me, you are wrong! Yah! You are wrong about EVERYTHING unless I'm right. Because I KNOW how reality REALLY works for real! 

Then they do the unexpected. They ask for proof. You laugh.

"Of course I know the true nature of reality, because I know it and you can't know with your view of reality because, in fact, your view of reality is wrong and always was wrong and will always be wrong and I will always be right!"

Okay enough of that, lets step into reality again, because you don't have to imagine it. People act that way. They are know as presuppositionalists and they think there world view is right, and yours is wrong.

They don't need to know your world view by the way, because they have the "right" one.

Do they need proof? Nope. Do they need evidence? No! Tests? Nah! Logic? Screw it! You can only be right if you have the thing that lets you be right... and that is the thing they have! Yay!

Utter nonsense. For whatever reason on top of all that rubbish, and this is just my observation based on limited data, but every single presup I've encountered is a total jerk once they start doing the presup, the behavior changes, they put on an annoying voice sometimes, they ask you the same question over and over. They act arrogant. They are bullies.

I'm done with them. I'm not going to talk to them. If and when I find out someone is a presup, I'm out. I'm not engaging with them. Someone else can deal with it. I'm done. 

Why? Because there is no logic there. There is nothing there. Its a blackhole. Its heads I win, tails you lose and by the way even if we don't play, I won. Its not about reality, its about feeling like you won.

Then they accuse you of doing everything they are doing. Its amazing. Its baffling. Its just not what I'm here for ya know?

Do they think it "works"? I ... don't know but its annoying for sure. Sure its circular. Yep its nonsense. It doesn't matter, its presup, you are stuck. Your script is your god. You can't do anything unique. Just say "your world view is wrong" all the time. That's it. Your not human anymore, your a bot. And not a very good one.

No thanks, I'll pass.

"Spread the hate"

 Oct 10, 2025, Charlie Kirk was assassinated at a talk he was giving. He was a rightwing advocate. He talked calmly, wanted free speech, loved his nation, and I thought debated well.

I disagreed with him on things, but saw he seemed to be trying to use logic and reaoson.

I've seen people writing that he "spread hate" by words he was using. Now, I do not know what the bleep this even means. Seriously. What does spreading hate look like?

Can anyone tell me? I would love to know. Examples. Citations. Show me a truth table that outlines when someone is in fact, "spreading hate" by what they say.

Oh asking people to do logic, right this is politics. There goes logic out the window I guess.

But honestly, lets take a big old step back and look at what people might be talking about, because guessing is all I can do at this point, no one says what he said that was hateful, just that he said hateful things. Like what? Oh you know. The things.

You mean the things you disagree with? Those things?

Or perhaps they mean the cherry picked quotes that people have tweeted/x'ed out about him, or what political pundits or others have said or written about him. Yes no research required, your thinking has been done for you, person (Z) said Charly BAD.

Okay, so the only things I can think that he said that people do not like are "What is a woman" and stuff about abortion I guess. Nether of these things seems hateful to me. But then again, I do not believe in "Hate speech" there is no such thing, it is just speech you don't like. 

IDK I guess if you say "I hate (X) people" then sure, that would be hate speech, but when I see or hear "hate speech" its a tool to shut down talk, not engage but to undermine. It is, an attack on the person:

Ad hominem.

So go on tell me what the bleep hate thing is. Because I don't bleeping know but I do know I'm tired of people saying it without any logical underpinning.

Use some logic for the love of humanity!

GAH!

Politics vs Logic, changing words changes narative.

I stumbled onto a short made by someone I have only briefly interacted with on YouTube. The short was named something that implied it was about events that showed fascism in action. The links the uploader provided made me feel compelled to do a live analysis: click.

I wasn't sure about what I had done after the fact, but it did make me think about political discourse that I'm aware of. Even though I dislike politics in general and do not talk about it much, there are still a LOT of things that do deserve the logical treatment.

One such event I've read about is that people who dislike what ICE and other agencies are doing engage in strange changes of words in order to change the narrative—or put another way, to make a story.

Rather than say ICE is arresting people, I've read they are "invading" cities, "capturing" people, or "disappearing" people. It's painted with dark, sinister overtones. Mostly you will see this language in posts or tweets and the like, but still—it's there.

Why? Well, I'm not sure why anyone does anything, of course, but clearly this isn't what the facts are. ICE is not, in fact, "invading" any city. They are not disappearing people. They are arresting them. Now, some people do not like this, think it's overzealous or overblown, etc. etc.… but why change the narrative in such a way?

As above, when I analyzed the video, it was only because the words suggested it was somehow linked to fascism—although not stated out loud, it was implied by the label of the video and the words on the screen.

Is the panic that some have over the events so high that they are willing to forgo reality in order to make a new narrative story, just so that story compels others to act out of emotion rather than facts?

I... do not know. But it is disturbing that we humans can and will fall into such mental traps. We read something that says "men in masks are harming women" and go into protective mode. BUT, you see, these are ICE agents. Yes, they have on masks (sometimes), and yes, most of them are men (perhaps all), and yes, in some cases, they are arresting women… and they might cause harm if those women resist.

But anyone who resists police can be harmed, as the police must contain you and apply force when you are resisting.

The way forward cannot be to use emotions and the changing of facts to forward your agenda. Otherwise, I will be skeptical of it, and I will point out the falsehood. Use facts and reason to try to compel change, not darkened tones. Poisoning the well might work, but beware—it's your own water supply.

Perhaps reason and logic will be used and prevail in the end… if only we insist upon it.

Will we?

I'm not sure.

Cancel culture.

Ah yes, “cancel culture” is still a thing. What is it? Broadly speaking, it’s when a group of people decides someone said or wrote something BAD and therefore must be canceled. That might mean getting them kicked off a platform (X/YouTube/Facebook/etc.), fired from their job, or disinvited from speaking somewhere: because, goodness forbid, they say something that might offend.

Take Dawkins. He was disinvited from speaking at a university. Why? Because of a tweet: he shared a Sye Ten Atheist video. That’s it. What was he going to speak about? Evolution. But nope, someone decided a video link was just too much, and boom: talk canceled. All the time, effort, and coordination gone.

Now, some people try to justify this by saying “there’s a time and place” to cancel someone. Because, you see, they said a bad thing about a thing, and that might hurt feelings! Or worse: they were racist. They were... fill in the blank. And so, the moral outrage machine kicks in: must. cancel. person. Send them to the shadow realm. That’ll fix everything, right?

Except: hate groups still exist. Racists still exist. People keep saying stuff you don’t like. The world keeps spinning as if none of your moral panic mattered. But hey: justice was served.

I’m against it. In full. Why? Because the ideas must be challenged, not the person. You don't win an argument by silencing someone. You win by beating their argument.

“OMG, you would platform (X) bad person?”
Yes: at least once. I’ll hear what they say.

“But they have bad ideas!”
Exactly why I want to confront them.

“But they’re evil!”
Okay: and?

“You won’t change their mind!”
Don't know if I don't try! and others are listening.

“You’re making their view look legitimate!”
Got any proof of that?

See, this all becomes about virtue signaling and feelings. It feels good to silence someone you disagree with. It feels like the right thing to do. You imagine the bigot won’t say anything ever again. But they still will. Just not here. Not in your realm.

Until, one day, you say something someone doesn’t like. Then it’s your turn. And once you’re canceled: can you ever come back? Nope. Can you be forgiven? No. Why? Because BAD THING. End of story.

Is there a valid, sound argument for canceling someone instead of engaging with their ideas? I honestly don’t know. I haven’t seen one. I’m not expecting one anytime soon.

Will I be canceled for this post? No idea. But if canceling someone is your go-to move: doesn’t that kind of suggest you don’t have a real counterargument?

The world is full of disagreement and drama. I’ll talk to whoever. Say whatever. This isn’t a safe space. You will be challenged. Your ideas will be attacked.

Because that’s reality. You might want to make the world better? Good for you, but this method? 

It doesn’t work. Censorship never does in the end.

People who embrace cancel culture probably believe they hold the moral high ground. Fine. 

They can believe that. My answer:
Block them. Ignore the cancel addicts. Don’t let them run your life. Simple.

Sadly, way too many people don’t have a backbone.

Well... I complained about it. No idea if it matters. But I’m not going to not complain.