(May 29, 2018 at 2:32 am)Ybe Wrote:

(May 29, 2018 at 1:40 am)drfuzzy Wrote: I can quote the whole damn stupid tome, and I can guarantee that this is a valid reason for the need of life-long therapy.

So "If the B says ___" means absolutely less than nothing. 

You know, if you actually READ the Bible from start to finish, YOU would probably be an A before you even got to the new "testament".

Really not interested in all the rants. But some people seem to really enjoy that  over logic.

You seem blissfully unaware of any logic.

(May 29, 2018 at 1:57 am)Ybe Wrote: Finally, is the convincing evidence, only enough to convince yourself, or would I be convinced also ? As only rational logical (non- opinion) type of reasons are what I have found convincing.

Do you believe in and worship Lolth? If not, why not? What evidence would it take for me to convince you that Lolth is real?

---

(May 29, 2018 at 5:54 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(May 29, 2018 at 2:32 am)Ybe Wrote: Really not interested in all the rants. But some people seem to really enjoy that  over logic.

You seem blissfully unaware of any logic.

Yeah. I figured it's come down to just a few possibilities....
He doesn't know what logic is.
He does but he's being willfully obtuse about the answers given because he doesn't like them.
He's a troll.
He's an extreme idiot.

I'm not sure which yet, but if it's number 3 I suspect he doesn't have long for this board.

(May 28, 2018 at 6:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: He's right. You guys never proven there isn't evidence or that you haven't perceived some evidence, but just don't either grasp them or are not willing to accept them.

Yes we have multiple times. You just fail to understand our answers.

(May 28, 2018 at 6:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I said it before if it's upon Theists to present proofs, than onus on you is to show you listened well to the proofs, understood them, and then refute them and do so with proper reasoning.

What evidence have you submitted?
None.

You have tried to argue your god into existence and failed.


Badly.

(May 28, 2018 at 6:00 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: To claim you would believe if proofs are present can be a honest stance you have or it could be a dishonest stance just as you think Theists are dishonest or misguided regarding their belief of God or proofs for God.

 


We would believe verified EVIDENCE. But it would have to be mighty good evidence to convince me, because I think the idea of god is stupid.

I could of course be wrong, but it would take some good verified, evidence not just some wittering by someone about morality or uncaused cause or some such nonsense to make me think that god is even a distant possibility.

Got any?

I know you don't.

Ybe  keeps yelling that our answers for "being an atheist" are not logical and that he is not trying to prove god.
Our answers are that there is no evidence for belief in a deity, which is supremely logical.  No evidence = no belief.
The only way to alter our Atheism is to provide acceptable evidence.
Which, of course, is not possible.
I see nothing else to discuss here.

(May 29, 2018 at 5:54 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote:

(May 29, 2018 at 2:32 am)Ybe Wrote: Really not interested in all the rants. But some people seem to really enjoy that  over logic.

You seem blissfully unaware of any logic.

---

An opinion is something that someone believes to be true:
" there is no evidence for belief in a deity,"
" which is supremely logical".
" No evidence = no belief"

A fact is something that is true:
1. If As had logically supported reasonable reasons, then they would give them
2. they admit they are opinions or have trouble seeing that they are
C. As have no logically supported reasonable reasons

Def. No E = Unbelief
If there is no E then U (nice premise could be the start of a "supremely logical" argument or not)

Low energy, only 32 pages?

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote:

(May 29, 2018 at 5:54 am)Abaddon_ire Wrote: You seem blissfully unaware of any logic.

---

An opinion is something that someone believes to be true:
" there is no evidence for belief in a deity,"
" which is supremely logical".
"  No evidence = no belief"

A fact is something that is true:
1. If As had  logically supported reasonable reasons, then they would give them
2. they admit they are opinions or have trouble seeing that they are
C. As have no logically supported reasonable reasons

Def. No E = Unbelief
If there is no E then U  (nice premise could be the start of a "supremely logical" argument or not)

You are wrong.

It has been explained to you why you are wrong.

You then just reiterate your incorrect position as though you have made a point when you haven't.

What is wrong with you. 

But here I go again.

There isn't a god.
(prove me wrong, I am always willing to view new evidence)

So it would be illogical to believe in a god.

Or to put it in moron.

There is no G so I am an A.

That sounded too clear, there must be a way I can think down to your level.

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote: An opinion is something that someone believes to be true:

Sure. What of it?

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote: " there is no evidence for belief in a deity,"

Wrong. There is no evidence for any deity at all. This is not a matter of opinion. It is a matter of fact.

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote: " which is supremely logical".

Wrong. Absent any evidence, why, logically speaking, would you accept any damn fool idea? There is no evidence for unicorns, dragons or talking donkeys either. Is it reasonable to assume those exist too? Simply by having no evidence?

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote: "  No evidence = no belief"

Bingo, you eventually got something right.

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote: A fact is something that is true:

Sure.

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote: 1. If As had  logically supported reasonable reasons, then they would give them

We do, we gave them, you promptly ignored them.

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote: 2. they admit they are opinions or have trouble seeing that they are

Lie. Why must you lie?

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote: C. As have no logically supported reasonable reasons

Oh. You are innumerate on top of anything else. Frankly, anyone who counts 1...2...C needs their head examined. Seriously, you find it a challenge to count to three? Really?

(May 29, 2018 at 11:38 am)Ybe Wrote: Def. No E = Unbelief
If there is no E then U  (nice premise could be the start of a "supremely logical" argument or not)

Define "E". Then explain which orifice you pulled the term "supreme logic" out of. Nobody used any such term until you invented it out of whole cloth.

downbeatplumb:
There isn't a god. (prove me wrong, I am always willing to view new evidence)
So it would be illogical to believe in a god.
There is no G so I am an A.

Trying to put what you said into a logical reason:
[Assertion No G]
P1 If there is no G it would be illogical to believe in G
P2 No G
C. it is illogical

If that is not what you meant to say, then the following would not apply:
Denying the antecedent, sometimes also called inverse error or fallacy of the inverse, is a formal fallacy of inferring the inverse from the original
statement. It is committed by reasoning in the form: If P, then Q. Therefore, if not P, then not Q.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent)

To prove you meant to say otherwise give a logical proof.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Sounds like you think you have the ability to judge E for G.

But (using A way of thinking)
Assertion - there is no convincing/sufficient E for As being able to logically reason that.
Proof:
P1. If A's can"t give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason), then As have no ability to judge E for G.
P2. I agree that As can't give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason).
C. So, it is true they have no ability to judge (any E for G presented)

(by modus ponens) - rule of logic stating that if a conditional statement (“if p then q ”) is accepted, and the antecedent ( p ) holds,
then the consequent ( q ) may be inferred. (ref google search)

To prove the premises false As would have to Give me convincing/sufficient E. So far not done.

(May 29, 2018 at 1:04 pm)Abaddon_ir Wrote: Wrong. Absent any evidence, why, logically speaking, would you accept any damn fool idea? There is no evidence for unicorns, dragons or talking donkeys either. Is it reasonable to assume those exist too? Simply by having no evidence?

_________________________________________________________________________________________
|   YB: 1. If As had  logically supported reasonable reasons, then they would give them
|______________________________________________________________________________

Abaddon_ire: We do, we gave them, you promptly ignored them.2. they admit they are opinions or have trouble seeing that they are
     Define "E". Then explain which orifice you pulled the term "supreme logic" out of. Nobody used any such term until you invented it out of whole 
    cloth.

YB: Re. "Absent any evidence"   Before we get your logical reasonable proof that "there is no evidence for Unicorns" etc. Could you prove that you can logically discern any evidence given for G  or (U,D or TD), with reasonable logical proof?
 (What ever type of  E is given to you for whatever?)  

Re ire: We do, we gave them, you promptly ignored them.
YB: Can you prove how (explaining that an assertion isn't logical something considered logical proof) means what you gave was ignored?

Re ire: which ???? you pulled the term "supreme logic" out of. Nobody used any such...   #314

---

Gotta go again. There is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence for G by the way.

But the A's Ive heard around here so far have been disappointing,
they won't or can't prove they have the ability to reason logically about evidence.

Yet, they keep asking for E for G as if they have some standard or ability to reason logically about it.
Wow! If you can't prove you can reason logically about E.

Why would anyone go forward and even try to give E for G?

Oh well, try to give it to Friday or Saturday and see if any logical reasoning is around.






I