Fool: God is dead!
Priest: Our bishops disagree.
Zarathustra You and your bishops don’t know much.
Priest: True, but we know the truth!
Zarathustra: You only know the lie.
Fool: (interjecting) I know!
Priest: You know too much!
Fool: I know better than you!
Zarathustra: We all do – except for him.
(points at Luther)
Luther: Don’t know!
Fool: Unless you know everything!
Last Man: I know that.
Zarathustra: Figures. 
Gee, I thought at least a few of you would have had ears for that…
I have a question for all of you atheists; WHICH GOD DON’T YOU BELIEVE IN?
Do the religious not believe in plain matter?
Do the athiests not believe in created matter?
Made matter or plain matter , do you want Mayo on that?
If you can find someone who can merely define that term without commiting even the simplest logical fallacies, perhaps an atheist could answer. But in turn, arguing against a negative, empty concept bearing the burden of proof is almost as useless as wasting your time waiting around for the definition.
The world today consists of a few “philosophical” classes. There are the ones who are not intelligent enough to understand the likelyhood that god does not exist, there are the ones who know the likelyhood that god doesn’t exist, but still lie about it because they are in a position where such a lie is beneficial for their prosperity (the despots, religious clergy, evangelists, etc), or they are in a lower class (what Marx called the “backward masses”) where the idea is used like an opiate to compensate for struggle…indeed, the very reason why god was invented…to fool and pacify the working classes with promises of rewards after life. Then, there are the nihilists, such as the Nietzscheans, who, because they believe god does not exist, do not believe politics are possible; they are a kind of pest between the communist movement and the religious democratic indoctrination of capitalist values running rampant across the globe.
It is easy to see how the idea of god was entirely invented for economic reasons, once you have an adequate understand of the development of history. The idea was a kind of hermeneutic catalyst, and it has lasted up to today simply because of religious literature.
Despite all this, history has yet to produce one shred of evidence that any idea used in an attempted definition of “God” did not exist before the term “god” was invented. We add nothing to nature by calling it god.
Religious people have a deep set psychological and emotional obsession, or condition rather, of anthropological fixation and fetishism- they are, as Freud and Feuerbach mentioned “experiencing a Father complex”, so to speak.
They fail to interpret intellectually what they experience emotionally.
The burden of the religious is something that must be dealt with decisively and with force, or such mystical nonsense will, and it is already, jeopardizing life on this planet.
It is difficult to talk with religious people, as I have learned. One has to literally step over them and waste no time on them. It is sad, very much so, that some people can have such good intentions but be so confused that their efforts backfire and result in the exact opposite- making things worse.
Take this opening statement from the “Theism as a grounding for rationality”, for example:
Immediately you will see how it is inadvertently suggested that because “logic” cannot determine “truth”, it is therefore possible that “god” exists.
He didn’t say that, but that is where he is headed. That is where Uccisore is always headed. He’s like the energizer bunny. Unfortunately, he just won’t stop.
First of all, logic has nothing to do with “truth” in the ontological sense, or “what has being”.
Logic is a tool used in epistemology for regulating facts and propositions in language and mathematics.
Logic determines what is clear, valid, and coherent…not what is “true”.
“True”, in logic, means “conclusion X is the correct conclusion for premise Y”.
The “truth” of logic exists no more than that.
I believe in no gods, but I do instinctually affirm Dionysian ideals in my thought and actions (ie I’m not merely an ape of Dionysus). To that extent, I am Dionysus, at least some of the time.
When I fail to affirm those ideals instinctually, I become an ape. I’d rather be an ape of Dionysus (ie, of my own ideals) than an incarnation of God or other such nonsense.
That’s directed to dattaswami and his kind in particular.
All the ones that don’t exist?
nice posts dh and zeus,
For being Clarity, you prove that god is indeed subjective in your question and in fact answered your own question relatively clearly.
If every man has a different version of god(perhaps slightly) and there are many gods in the existence of human subjectivity, how can i know all the god’s in the first place to deny all of the many various god’s their existence?
Is there some type of technology im unaware of that allows free streaming consciousness into every living human being to check their god status?