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

(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.

Well we all have our favorite sincerely held questions. Good luck with yours but it doesn't happen to overlap with mine.

(May 28, 2018 at 5:29 am)robvalue Wrote: 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?"

The reason I focus on this Q. (What is your logical rational reason for being an A) is:
If an A (or -A) base their position on a obscured view, then why discuss what they see.

By way of analogy:
Hill dweller yells down to a valley dweller, "the damn broke get up to higher ground".
The valley guy says, "need some evidence first .
Hill guy says, "You can't see clearly from there. Come on up and we will discuss  evidence".

Not exact, but close enough for now.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 6:29 am)purplepurpose Wrote: God=Magic. God's follower=almost slave. I'm not interested in slavery and Magic.

A=Faulty logic.  A Assertions =  un justified reasons.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 7:17 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:

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

---

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?People claim a lot of things like they are atheists.

If G exists, then A claims are extraordinary.
and I would need to have a rational reason for why they are an A.

Then I would know they are capable to reason about believing or not believing  leprechauns.
 (Assuming you mean =  leprechaun -  Irish folklore of an imaginary creature that looks like a little old man.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 8:23 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

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

 ambiguous

1. (of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
   "the question is rather ambiguous"
   
   • unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
     "this whole society is morally ambiguous"
     synonyms:
     equivocal, ambivalent, open to debate/argument, arguable, debatable; More
     obscure, unclear, imprecise, vague, abstruse, doubtful, dubious, uncertain
     "an ambiguous explanation
     Ref. https://www.google.com/search?q=ambiguou...=firefox-a

You need to show how your
 >  argument is relevant
 >  Justify your  statements  ask yourself why your assertion is true?
 >  Validity should also be included, logical reasons should have premises  that produce the conclusion to bethe only possible conclusion.  (so it isn't ambiguous)...

---

(May 28, 2018 at 9:07 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 1:24 am)Ybe Wrote: 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 2:58 pm)Ybe Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 5:29 am)robvalue Wrote: 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?"

The reason I focus on this Q. (What is your logical rational reason for being an A) is:
If an A (or -A) base their position on a obscured view, then why discuss what they see.

By way of analogy:
Hill dweller yells down to a valley dweller, "the damn broke get up to higher ground".
The valley guy says, "need some evidence first .
Hill guy says, "You can't see clearly from there. Come on up and we will discuss  evidence".

Not exact, but close enough for now.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 6:29 am)purplepurpose Wrote: God=Magic. God's follower=almost slave. I'm not interested in slavery and Magic.

A=Faulty logic.  A Assertions =  un justified reasons.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 7:17 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: 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?People claim a lot of things like they are atheists.

If G exists, then A claims are extraordinary.
and I would need to have a rational reason for why they are an A.

Then I would know they are capable to reason about believing or not believing  leprechauns.
 (Assuming you mean =  leprechaun -  Irish folklore of an imaginary creature that looks like a little old man.

Dunno. So far you appear to be an abject liar. I can only go by what I observe. 

Want to convince me otherwise? Have at it. 


So far you appear to be a dishonest religious scumbag. You could prove me wrong, of course,  but I suspect you will not.

(May 28, 2018 at 9:07 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

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

I tried to make a post last night. I pressed enter and poof it was gone. I spent some time so I was a little frustrated. This will be a test and I will try again next post.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 3:34 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Ybe Wrote: Something didn't seem right, but I will try this one. 

Want to convince me otherwise? Have at it.

you said:
Abaddon_ire
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.
----------------------------------------------------
I have since posted:

.. 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.
If you would like to rephrase your reason according to the above clarification it would be better.

I will put your hypothesis into an argument for you (as clarification was given after your post):
 If is no E then no G
 No E
 So No G

Argument to refute  the above:

If A knows (no E for G), then A knows (all E)
A doesn't know all E
So, A doesn't know (no E for G)

If you think my formulation for your argument is inaccurate please post your own with my apologies.


If A can't present a logical reason (as in above clarification), then his assertion will be considered an opinion.
without logical support.

---

(May 28, 2018 at 9:18 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(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.

Proving that an A has no logical rational reason for being an A only proves an A needs to examine his rationality. How do you think that proves G.

(May 28, 2018 at 3:35 pm)Ybe Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 9:07 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: 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?

I tried to make a post last night. I pressed enter and poof it was gone. I spent some time so I was a little frustrated. This will be a test and I will try again next post.

This forum has a spam filter to catch spammers in the act. If your post was deleted by the spam filter, it's still available to the moderators and they can restore it. Simply PM one of the moderators, or start a thread in the Ask staff questions section (which will only be accessible to you and staff), here.

(May 28, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Ybe Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 8:23 am)mh.brewer Wrote: 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.

 ambiguous

1. (of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
   "the question is rather ambiguous"
   
   • unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
     "this whole society is morally ambiguous"
     synonyms:
     equivocal, ambivalent, open to debate/argument, arguable, debatable; More
     obscure, unclear, imprecise, vague, abstruse, doubtful, dubious, uncertain
     "an ambiguous explanation
     Ref. https://www.google.com/search?q=ambiguou...=firefox-a
     

You need to show how your
 >  argument is relevant
 >  Justify your  statements  ask yourself  why your assertion is true?
 >  Validity should also be included, logical reasons should have premises  that produce the conclusion to bethe only possible conclusion.  (so it isn't ambiguous)...

How exactly is the bible unclear or ambiguous? It straight from the bible that you profess to believe.

Exodus 21:17: Whoever curses his father or his mother must be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9: If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or mother; his death is his own fault.

Can you tell me how you find ambiguity in these verses? It sounds abundantly clear and my position is relevant, justified and valid rational logical reasoning. Lets face it, appears that you support a god that directs child killing. 

And you dodged the multiple gods of the bible thing. Still your turn, stop dodging.

(May 28, 2018 at 4:07 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 2:58 pm)Ybe Wrote:  ambiguous

1. (of language) open to more than one interpretation; having a double meaning.
   "the question is rather ambiguous"
   
   • unclear or inexact because a choice between alternatives has not been made.
     "this whole society is morally ambiguous"
     synonyms:
     equivocal, ambivalent, open to debate/argument, arguable, debatable; More
     obscure, unclear, imprecise, vague, abstruse, doubtful, dubious, uncertain
     "an ambiguous explanation
     Ref. https://www.google.com/search?q=ambiguou...=firefox-a
     

You need to show how your
 >  argument is relevant
 >  Justify your  statements  ask yourself  why your assertion is true?
 >  Validity should also be included, logical reasons should have premises  that produce the conclusion to bethe only possible conclusion.  (so it isn't ambiguous)...

How exactly is the bible unclear or ambiguous? It straight from the bible that you profess to believe.

Exodus 21:17: Whoever curses his father or his mother must be put to death.
Leviticus 20:9: If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or mother; his death is his own fault.

Can you tell me how you find ambiguity in these verses? It sounds abundantly clear and my position is relevant, justified and valid rational logical reasons. Lets face it, appears that you support a god that directs child killing. 

And you dodged the multiple gods of the bible thing. Still your turn, stop dodging.

"Raark. You're taking it out of context! You're taking it out of context! Polly wanna cracker!"

(May 28, 2018 at 9:18 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(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."

LL: there hasn't been sufficient reason or evidence that a god exists,
 so it is logical for me to be an atheist.
YB: Problem - you would need to show  (see clarification criteria) that  you can  know that:
 1. Sufficient reason or E  for G hasn't been supplied (thus the 1st post)
 2. and that you have logical reason that would bring one to that conclusion from true premises.

1 If it rains the ground will get wet
2 Rains
c.Gets wet

1; If no S or E, then logical to be an A
No S or E (Cant universally confirm this premise)
C. Logical to Be an A
 So logically the conclusion can be rejected

LL:What would be illogical is if there is insufficient reason or evidence for a god but I was a theist anyway.

YB: Worse problem how would YOU know that insufficient reason or E for G was.

 LL: 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."

That is a  misconception. I haven't said that.
I only asked if you had logical reason to be an A. If you suppose that to be one means you haven't any seen E for G.
then why can't I suppose  you have faulty reasoning or evidence perceiving ability?

Dentist  don't use stethoscopes to find cavities. if they did  you allow themto pull all your teeth after diagnosis?

---

(May 28, 2018 at 4:04 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 3:35 pm)Ybe Wrote: I tried to make a post last night. I pressed enter and poof it was gone. I spent some time so I was a little frustrated. This will be a test and I will try again next post.

This forum has a spam filter to catch spammers in the act.  If your post was deleted by the spam filter, it's still available to the moderators and they can restore it.  Simply PM one of the moderators, or start a thread in the Ask staff questions section (which will only be accessible to you and staff), here.

I dont know how it was deleted, it happened so quickly. But it is OK i just made a new post.

Thank you for the info

Since we have already given this troll clear and succinct answers, it might be time to bring out the rock-crushers.

You didn't like the "I have never seen evidence that a deity exists" (and I was raised Pentecostal, btw, I have the wholly babble memorized) -- too bad.
You have been given your answer.  It was never your business to ask in the first place, and it's certainly not your place to judge.


Go find somebody else to disrespect, troll.

(May 28, 2018 at 3:35 pm)Ybe Wrote:

(May 28, 2018 at 9:07 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: And I provided you with my answer. An answer that you applauded and promised faithfully to address.

I am in no way responsible for your abject ineptitude. that is your exposure, not mine or anyone else's.

(May 28, 2018 at 3:35 pm)Ybe Wrote: But you failed miserably to do so.
Was that another "lie for jebus"?
Or are you fundamentally a liar regardless?

(May 28, 2018 at 3:35 pm)Ybe Wrote: I tried to make a post last night. I pressed enter and poof it was gone. I spent some time so I was a little frustrated. This will be a test and I will try again next post.

Not my problem. If your are so utterly shit at presenting any argument , there is little anyone can do to help.
nonsense. Perhaps you might want to rethink. Maybe on planet sausage or wherever it is you dwell.

Your literate incompetence is solely your issue and you can imagine what the educated think of it.