(May 31, 2018 at 3:37 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 30, 2018 at 11:54 pm)Ybe Wrote:  Yeah ok, All the ASSERTIONS presented  aren't even arguments so all I can say is they are faulty assertions.

You are asserting that they are faulty assertions (So what).  

When you were asked to show this by providing evidence for God, you presented a faulty argument for God's existence. (It was only an overkill example of what a logical etc. is ).

I don't see how you are going to demonstrate the claim that there is no evidence for God is faulty except by presenting alleged evidence for God and seeing if it withstands scrutiny.(Hey, if any assertion does not include support (as As are doing here), then it should be obvious that all one need do is make assertions like As do). 

you're just making an equally unsupported assertion. (I just supported it with logic)

 If not believing something because there does not exist sufficient evidence for the thing is reasonable, then the atheist's explanation is prima facie reasonable. (all right a try)
Then> (If not believing As have sufficient E/Reason for being an A because there does not exist sufficient evidence for their not believing is reasonable, then  No believing  your above  consequent is pri·ma fa·ci·e reasonable)

 If you're saying it's not reasonable, then you need to show why that is. (See above) If you think it is reasonable, then you need to show why. Let's illustrate, it  seems to be:
If X (G) is true, then the explanation of X (G) is true
X (G) is true
So, explanation of X (G) is true (reasonable)
But  If a claim is justified because one just claims it so, then  G is true right? Or?

  It doesn't follow from the fact that someone has not presented evidence for their assertion that their assertion is therefore faulty.
(Like- if someone Asserts  G is true)
 
So your claim that the atheist assertion is faulty because it is an unsupported assertion is, on the face of it, simply wrong. (So, if A claims above G Assertion is faulty, because it is an unsupported assertion, then the A assertion is  simply wrong.)
 
And it will remain wrong until you demonstrate that sufficient evidence for belief in God exists
(So, the assertion stands until sufficeint evidence for a lack of belief in G exists.)

 Yet that is something you've said you will not do.  So you're left making irrational statements like the above.
(Correct even the above is not to present evidence, the above is just to point out evidence that A assertions lack in sufficiency)

above red me

Not presenting E for G in this thread.  As (if they want) are supposed to present Y B an A? (with a  logical reasonable rational reason).
 logical:
  : of, relating to, involving, or being in accordance with logic
  reasonable:
  : being in accordance with reason
   rational:

  :  having reason or understanding
     relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason : reasonable
  reason
  : a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense; especially : something (such as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or 
    explains a fact
logic https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/

[b]See #261
 >  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.

From #261 post.
[/b]

---

(May 31, 2018 at 3:37 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(May 30, 2018 at 11:54 pm)Ybe Wrote: My point is that Ts give lots of arguments/evidence, but the only As here have nothing but assertions.

As a matter of precision, when atheists say that there is no evidence for God, they typically mean that the evidence that exists is not sufficient to justify belief in a reasonable, unbiased individual.

Thus the Q.  (see 1st post)

So, reasonable, unbiased individuals are looking for the  sufficient evidence that exists to justify the A's belief, that As are reasonable and unbiased ,  so that  we reasonable unbiased types can  know if they can should say, "we haven't seen sufficient  evidence for G"  is reasonable....

If all that is needed is to assert, then  G has been asserted.  : )

If not, then your next post will be some justifiable reasonable E that As have a justifiable, logical, reasonable-reason, for being an A

---

(May 31, 2018 at 7:08 am)purplepurpose Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/user/SansDeity/v...rid&sort=p

Matt Dillahaunty is a veteran among atheists. Check him out. Ybe, if anyone has logic you are looking for it's him.

How about you ask him the Q and see if you get one and then post it here. For posterity.

If Ybe were talking about any other fantasy existing within reality, outside the mind, they'd put him away.

I long for the days when all delusions are seen for what they are, a delusion.

(May 31, 2018 at 11:47 am)Whateverist Wrote: Ybe's Religious Views: God Is

Me: God is what?

I'm fine with your god belief.  But what do you think this God you believe in consists of and what makes you think that?

What makes you think you would be able to understand my understanding of G?

Not trying to dodge as I have already given definitions in post 1.
  G = (What many A's say they have no belief in). Etc.
BUT the Q is  what logical reason do As have for what they assert...

In other words, if you were told, what makes one think what G consists of what makes "you" think you would understand.

For a moment I thought PGJ had gone christian. Not him.

When the days come that all delusions are seen for what they are, As,will no longer be As and will long to be back to this day.

That's nice dear. At least you managed to talk like a human for that whole post.

(May 31, 2018 at 2:43 pm)Ybe Wrote: When the days come that all delusions are seen for what they are, As,will no longer be As and will long to be back to this day.

If you can't convince them with bullshit, respond with the same tired old threats; "Just you wait until my invisible friend gets you!"

A will always be A. You can't have the alphabet without them.

(May 31, 2018 at 2:44 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: That's nice dear.  At least you managed to talk like a human for that whole post.

An asshole troll, spewing threats now, - but yeah, he actually spelled out whole words!!!  Ybe reminds me of Russell's Teapot:

(May 31, 2018 at 2:24 pm)Ybe Wrote: BUT the Q is  what logical reason do As have for what they assert...

What assertion?