(May 27, 2018 at 6:55 pm)Kit Wrote:

(May 27, 2018 at 6:53 pm)Ybe Wrote: To prove the Bolded would take G power.... to process eliminations.
Also, the above A account would most definitely be eliminated as a fallacious assertion.

But could be accepted as dry humor.

And you've officially given me access to your burden of proof despite your goddamn idiotic OP response.

Prove to me first that your G has any power or that the G even exists.

The problem here is you think I'm trying to prove G.  I am not.
But I am trying to get a rational logical reason for being an A.

I've decided y'all need some clarification. If you would like to participate great:
 >  Arguments should be relevant to what is being asked (see first post) and the relevance should be shown.
 >  Justify your  statements    (arguments, so far were assertions) . So justify them ask yourself,  and then say why your assertion true?
 >  Validity should also be included, any logical reason should have premises that logically produce the conclusion as the only possible   
      conclusion.

Hope you are able to participate.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 12:09 am)Whateverist Wrote:

(May 27, 2018 at 6:40 pm)Ybe Wrote: Answers have been given, but turn out to be circular or unsupported assertions...

So just like your own, in other words?

Possibly, but really I am only asking a Q uestion which I am sincere about, as I keep hoping for a good answer(s).

If I assert something, without support, you are welcome to consider if you think there is or isn't support or else take it as opinion.

(May 28, 2018 at 12:43 am)Ybe Wrote: Possibly, but really I am only asking a Q uestion which I am sincere about, as I keep hoping for a good answer(s).

If you won't accept any of our answers as "good," all you're doing is wasting our time and yours.

(May 28, 2018 at 1:11 am)Astreja Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 12:43 am)Ybe Wrote: Possibly, but really I am only asking a Q uestion which I am sincere about, as I keep hoping for a good answer(s).

If you won't accept any of our answers as "good," all you're doing is wasting our time and yours.

See post for #261  for what is considered good.

I understand not everyone will be willing to participate.

I keep hearing a lot of hype sometimes provocative from As that Ts  are irrational. so I'm here to see if they really no what is rational.

The logical conclusion here is that he either doesn't know what a God is, or he's too embarrassed to say because he knows how stupid it will sound.

Either way, this fits comfortably into my "don't care" category. This is truly pathetic, trying to show there's something wrong with someone's thinking regarding a topic that hasn't even been given yet. Examining scepticism in general is one thing, but pretending this has anything to do with atheism is laughable.

---

PS: at least start off with a sensible, well-defined question to discuss, such as:

"Was our environment designed by an intelligence?"

God=Magic. God's follower=almost slave. I'm not interested in slavery and Magic.

(May 28, 2018 at 12:43 am)Ybe Wrote:

(May 27, 2018 at 6:55 pm)Kit Wrote: And you've officially given me access to your burden of proof despite your goddamn idiotic OP response.

Prove to me first that your G has any power or that the G even exists.

The problem here is you think I'm trying to prove G.  I am not.
But I am trying to get a rational logical reason for being an A.

I've decided y'all need some clarification. If you would like to participate great:
 >  Arguments should be relevant to what is being asked (see first post) and the relevance should be shown.
 >  Justify your  statements    (arguments, so far were assertions) . So justify them ask yourself,  and then say why your assertion true?
 >  Validity should also be included, any logical reason should have premises that logically produce the conclusion as the only possible   
      conclusion.

Hope you are able to  participate.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 12:09 am)Whateverist Wrote: So just like your own, in other words?

Possibly, but really I am only asking a Q uestion which I am sincere about, as I keep hoping for a good answer(s).

If I assert something, without support, you are welcome to consider if you think there is or isn't support or else take it as opinion.

people claim a god a god exists, I don't see any evidence that a god exists therefore I don't believe the claim. It the same logical position that you would take with any extraordinary claim at face value. If I asked you to provide a logical reason for not believing in leprechauns what would you say?

(May 28, 2018 at 12:07 am)Ybe Wrote:

(May 27, 2018 at 6:43 pm)mh.brewer Wrote: Not believing because of supporting child killing sounds logical, rational and reasonable enough to me. But I'm confident you will tell me it's not. Which would indicate that you support it.

Ambiguous.

Merciful G must exist  as there are multiple G(s) around sounds like a logical reason to me. Your not going to tell me G isn't merciful.  
(this is just for example, only ).

Not ambiguous. It states it specifically in the bible, more than once. How do you find this merciful? 

And did you say multiple gods? Demonstrated in the bible? 

Your turn to demonstrate your logical reason regarding child killing and now multiple biblical gods.

(May 28, 2018 at 1:24 am)Ybe Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 1:11 am)Astreja Wrote: If you won't accept any of our answers as "good," all you're doing is wasting our time and yours.

See post for #261  for what is considered good.

I understand not everyone will be willing to participate.

I keep hearing a lot of hype sometimes provocative from As that Ts  are irrational. so I'm here to see if they really no what is rational.

Those criteria have been fully met to *our* satisfaction but not to yours.  I see no way to resolve this dilemma, so I recuse myself from this thread.

(May 28, 2018 at 1:24 am)Ybe Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 1:11 am)Astreja Wrote: If you won't accept any of our answers as "good," all you're doing is wasting our time and yours.

See post for #261  for what is considered good.

I understand not everyone will be willing to participate.

I keep hearing a lot of hype sometimes provocative from As that Ts  are irrational. so I'm here to see if they really no what is rational.

And I provided you with my answer. An answer that you applauded and promised faithfully to address.

But you failed miserably to do so.

Was that another "lie for jebus"?

Or are you fundamentally a liar regardless?

(May 28, 2018 at 12:43 am)Ybe Wrote: The problem here is you think I'm trying to prove G.  I am not.

Yeah, actually you are. Even if you don't realize it, you are trying to prove a god.

(May 28, 2018 at 12:43 am)Ybe Wrote: But I am trying to get a rational logical reason for being an A.

For me, there hasn't been sufficient reason or evidence that a god exists, so it is logical for me to be an atheist.
What would be illogical is if there is insufficient reason or evidence for a god but I was a theist anyway. And that sounds exactly like what you are saying to us. "I know you don't see any evidence for a god, but you should believe in one anyway."