Ybe an atheist

[Ybe]

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