It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm

As long as a bit of insight remains, no one would think to hide under (ignorance).When what is exposed in the day of light as an appeal to opinion of the multitude, of whose applause the Philosopher is ashamed, but the popular charlatan glories and boast in it. Immanuel Kant in the prolegomena to the critique of pure Reason I have recognized a very different approach to philosophy then others, for this is the PHILOSOPHY category. And with that in mind The Fool admits, he is not here to agree with the majority, for if that was the case, it would serve no intellectual purpose. For I am not ready to sink to the level and assume the audience completely stupid, by abandoning, all intellectual truth value of the argument in place of an appeal to an Ideology of the masses. Which includes oversimplifies everything, INCREASING the size of my letters, assuming that the philosophy I display is to confusing, to be captured by other, thus, depending on the mere repetitive utterings of clichés as though people are to be conditioned like parrots or some other animal locked in SKINNER BOX, for that maybe the nature of the political debate. And in such a category is where they should stay. I admit, I do expect intellectual effort on the side of opponents and the voters, in this section. What is a Skinner Box? http://en.wikipedia.org... The Method of this argument on: ‘It is irrational to think BOP is on atheism’ For I need not even appeal to anything of religious or atheism of Theism, for all I have to do is show the limits of where the BOP can be applied to or not. The only function of adding Atheism to the title is giving it more controversial interest! For the Fool is for the Form of the GOOD. This may be interpreted by many as God. So I don’t consider myself either or. In the simplicity of Wiploc’s appeals to a Moral ideology of “shouldness”. He has forgotten to mention one of the simplest rules of them all. That is A SHOULD IMPLIES A COULD! Now let’s go over the core of my argument, in all its simplicity. Part 1 We think in terms of non-existence because of the irrational use of language. The language can only describe reality, not create it, manipulate it, or destroy it. The language has been used irrationally to define things in or out of existence. Language can and has failed to represent reality, via mislabelling. Reality cannot fail to be itself. 1=1 We have adopted the language. ‘Language games’ like theory have caused us to confuse the difference between the language and reality. C1 We think in terms of non-existence because of the irrational use of language. QED, (what was to be proven had been demonstrated.) Part 2 There is only existence. Aka absolute universe. BOP is burden of proof. (the shouldness of Proof) A SHOULD implies a COULD! BOP cannot apply to that which is not there to apply too. Thus BOP could only be on something. It is irrational to expect a should without the possibility of a COULD. Non existence is not something. C2 therefore, It is irrational to think BOP and the non-existence of something. (Resolution) P1 this includes, no God. C3 Resolution: It is irrational to think BOP is on athiesm QED .. is demonstrated. VOTE FOOL!