(May 26, 2018 at 1:06 am)Ybe Wrote: If atheist Astreja's belief is logical, then that her belief will be supported by L

My lack of belief is supported by the ludicrous unbelievability of all religious claims from all religions, including Christianity. Therefore, my belief is logical because it conforms to reality as I know and experience it, and believing in a god would be highly illogical for me.

Quote:Astreja claims she has no L (rational excuse for her belief) 

That is an outright lie.  I have not made such a claim, nor do I intend to make such a claim.  I feel that my lack of belief is sufficiently rational that it does not need to be adjusted in any way, and does not need to be explained or justified to anyone but myself.

Kindly retract your statement immediately.

(May 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm)Ybe Wrote:

(May 25, 2018 at 12:42 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: As far as I can tell there is no god, therefore I do not believe in the existence of god.
The irrational thing would be to have no reason to believe in something and believe it anyway.
Why are you finding this so hard to understand?

Let's be sure we understand.

 "As far as you can tell"  is your logical, reasonable, rational, reason to be an A.

That's right. If as far as I can tell there are no underpants gnomes stealing my tightie whities in the night then I would not believe in them.

(May 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm)Ybe Wrote: So, If someone says, "as far as I can tell  no logical rational reasonable reason to be an A exists."
Do you agree that is a rational logical reason to not be an A?

Well no because that is someone telling me what I believe and that would be stupid.

The idea of god has not met my standard for things that I will believe in so I don't believe in god and I am an atheist.
God has apparently met the level for what you will believe in so you believe in one and are a theist.
I think you are wrong.  

(May 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm)Ybe Wrote: ( Reason to be an A) So far, no G   vs  (Reason to not be an A) So far,  no logical reason to be an A

It seems that "so far as I can tell" reasoning is an irrational reason for being an A yet  it is believed anyway....

As I've said before, your position is just wrong.

(May 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm)Ybe Wrote: Either (A) vs (not A). If you hold to one or the other what is the rational reason behind that view.


As far as some people can tel; the earth is flat...

And they are wrong and go against the scientific consensus.


Fortunately the science supports my stance.


But science is not WHY I am an atheist.


I find the idea of god stupid a kids answer to hard questions.

I prefer the truth to easy lies.

Is this about atheists or about grammar? I dunno anymoar.

(May 26, 2018 at 8:11 am)LastPoet Wrote: Is this about atheists or about grammar? I dunno anymoar.

Ybe seems to be an A hole.

(May 25, 2018 at 2:22 pm)Ybe Wrote:

(May 25, 2018 at 6:00 am)To robvalue Wrote: RV: ...putting the microscope on the wrong side...

 YB:  Agreed, there are 2 sides. Either (A) or (not A).  Inspection is about if A side is reasonable or not.

 RV: We're talking about...
 YB: A or not A

 RV: A simple example from your side could destroy my entire case.
 Ybe: Your case being, A side is reasonable? (Just focusing here).
 
RV: 1) Incoherent: lacking any useful meaning, or so vague as to provide no substance.

This is, of course, subjective. I'm not claiming to be perfect. I'm responding to reality on its own terms, and the claims I'm given to the best of my ability. I'd be very interested in something actually real here, so it's in my interest to try and fish out anything that could lead to something. If I can't understand something, I can't evaluate it. That's a fact I just can't get around. I always encourage people to explain (as you're doing) and allow them to get around my barriers if they wish.

YB: I will have to take this  a little at a time. Re your above. Sorry, a few terms I need defined to understand and evaluate.
 vague -
 substance -
 subjective -
 perfect -
 reality/real -
 fact -
(You can just type or past them to the above, if you like). Short and simple hopefully.

I told you I'm not going to define all the words I use. You won't even define one word, "God", the point of the whole discussion. I don't think you really need all those words explained.

(May 26, 2018 at 1:21 am)Astreja Wrote:

Quote:Astreja claims she has no L (rational excuse for her belief) 

That is an outright lie.  I have not made such a claim, nor do I intend to make such a claim.  I feel that my lack of belief is sufficiently rational that it does not need to be adjusted in any way, and does not need to be explained or justified to anyone but myself.

Kindly retract your statement immediately.

Sorry if you believe that it is a lie. I thought that was your claim in #155

If it is not your claim: "I don't have a rational excuse for my belief, and you don't either!" then consider it retracted.

I don't see away to edit the post you considered  a lie any more , but I would agree for moderators to tag  #179  a retraction.

(May 26, 2018 at 8:52 am)robvalue Wrote:

(May 25, 2018 at 2:22 pm)Ybe Wrote:  YB:  Agreed, there are 2 sides. Either (A) or (not A).  Inspection is about if A side is reasonable or not.
 RV: We're talking about...
 YB: A or not A

 RV: A simple example from your side could destroy my entire case.
 Ybe: Your case being, A side is reasonable? (Just focusing here).
 
RV: 1) Incoherent: lacking any useful meaning, or so vague as to provide no substance.

This is, of course, subjective. I'm not claiming to be perfect. I'm responding to reality on its own terms, and the claims I'm given to the best of my ability. I'd be very interested in something actually real here, so it's in my interest to try and fish out anything that could lead to something. If I can't understand something, I can't evaluate it. That's a fact I just can't get around. I always encourage people to explain (as you're doing) and allow them to get around my barriers if they wish.

YB: I will have to take this  a little at a time. Re your above. Sorry, a few terms I need defined to understand and evaluate.
 vague -
 substance -
 subjective -
 perfect -
 reality/real -
 fact -
(You can just type or past them to the above, if you like). Short and simple hopefully.

I told you I'm not going to define all the words I use. You won't even define one word, "God", the point of the whole discussion. I don't think you really need all those words explained.

The  discussion is about I mean is about the Q is there any  logical. reasonable. rational reason to be an A.

And  I'm trying to fill in blanks
A: My logical rational reason for being an A is_____________________________.
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of ________________________.

From:
I'm nominally an atheist because every definition of God I've heard of consists of one or more of the following:
1) Incoherent RV: - lacking any useful meaning, or so vague as to provide no substance.
2) Untestable
3) Relabelling
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of "When confirmed and verified proof is presented,".

I want to make sure your of your logical reason for being a n A  and according to you in the above; definitions being vague or incoherent somehow have something to do with your logical reason for being an A. It is confusing. I don't like confusion. Perhaps you could make a succinct statement that fills in the blanks above and I will go from there.
For example:
 My logical reason for being an A is,
           I am certain about my belief
 and that is supported by,
       I know no I have no  incoherent non vague definitions are
       thoroughly tested my being an A by __________
        Keep things labeled as they are.

(May 26, 2018 at 11:21 am)Ybe Wrote:

(May 26, 2018 at 8:52 am)robvalue Wrote: I told you I'm not going to define all the words I use. You won't even define one word, "God", the point of the whole discussion. I don't think you really need all those words explained.

The  discussion is about I mean is about the Q is there any  logical. reasonable. rational reason to be an A.

And  I'm trying to fill in blanks
A: My logical rational reason for being an A is_____________________________.
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of ________________________.

From:
I'm nominally an atheist because every definition of God I've heard of consists of one or more of the following:
1) Incoherent RV: - lacking any useful meaning, or so vague as to provide no substance.
2) Untestable
3) Relabelling
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of "When confirmed and verified proof is presented,".

I want to make sure your of your logical reason for being a n A  and according to you in the above; definitions being vague or incoherent somehow have something to do with your logical reason for being an A. It is confusing. I don't like confusion. Perhaps you could make a succinct statement that fills in the blanks above and I will go from there.
For example:
 My logical reason for being an A is,
           I am certain about my belief
 and that is supported by,
       I know no I have no  incoherent non vague definitions are
       thoroughly tested my being an A by __________
        Keep things labeled as they are.

And  I'm trying to fill in blanks 
A: My logical rational reason for being an A is there is no evidence for ANY of the thousands of claimed "gods". Not one.
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of there is no evidence for ANY of the thousands of claimed "gods". Not one.

(May 26, 2018 at 7:55 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(May 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm)Ybe Wrote:

(May 25, 2018 at 12:42 pm)downbeatplumb Wrote: As far as I can tell there is no god, therefore I do not believe in the existence of god.
The irrational thing would be to have no reason to believe in something and believe it anyway.

(May 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm)Ybe Wrote: "As far as you can tell"  is your logical, reasonable, rational, reason to be an A.

... right....

(May 25, 2018 at 3:04 pm)Ybe Wrote: ... "as far as I can tell  no logical rational reasonable reason to be an A exists."
... agree... rational logical reason to not be an A?

... no...YbeI edit out  the verbiage to help me to filter to your answers.

    
(Just to be clear in the Q Is there any  logical. reasonable. rational reason to be an A your answer is):
A: My logical rational reason for being an A is_____________________________.
                                                                  " As far as I can tell there is no god",

And that is supported by the logical rational reason of ________________________.
                                                                                 therefore I do not believe in the existence of god.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DPB: "The irrational thing would be to have no reason to believe in something and believe it anyway".
YB: This is my Q. in the belief of being an A, what is the reason to hold on to that belief?

If I said, "as far as I can tell" you are a theist (that being my reason)
and then said, "therefore  I do not believe" you are an atheist".   
Should that allow me to say I find the idea reason for being an (A) a stupid a kids answer to hard questions. 
(Not trying to be harsh, just critiquing the logical reason you seem to have given ).

(May 25, 2018 at 8:46 pm)LostLocke Wrote: This guy is starting to sound like a sock of that, "Let's agree, first and foremost, that god is the creator of the universe and everything in it." guy.
Keeps repeating the same thing over and over even when asked and answered.

Who was that guy? I don't remember him? Username?

And did that guy use the 1337 73X7 5P34K too?

---

(May 25, 2018 at 11:59 pm)Ybe Wrote:

(May 25, 2018 at 6:20 pm)Edwardo Piet Wrote:    The second one makes zero sense. It's like:
    Four sides is the default number of sides for a square.
    vs
Four sides is NOT the default number of sides for a square.

More like:
 A-squarism is the default for anyone that doesn't believe in any Squares.
  vs
 A-squarism is not the default for anyone that doesn't believe in any Squares.

Same problem... that's the point of my analogy.

It's like you're saying that not collecting stamps might not be the default position for not collecting stamps. Or saying that bachelors might not be unmarried or squares might not have four sides.

The point is that atheism has to be the default position for atheists.