Ybe an atheist

[Ybe]

Ybe's own statements:   

If no G, then no reason 4 responding.      #326

We see no reason to believe that a "G" exists.  
You apparently think that a "G" exists.  
If you cannot provide the evidence that you claim exists in abundance, then there is NO REASON 4 THIS THREAD.

Good 4.  Wow how long is it you have not read the first post.

B OR NOT 2B...   Y B an A.  Can U tell me Y B an A? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G = ... G found in the B"
B= Bible (My G's book)
A = Atheism, belief in the absence of any belief in G; "One who does not believe in G" is an A.
Belief= an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.   "his belief in the value of the absence of a belief"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 I mean, is there any  logical. reasonable. rational reason to be an A
 (One that  differs from, " I flipped a coin,  so tails I am an atheist".)
 Bad ex. reasons;  I'm an A because there is no G  or .

This thread is not about giving evidence for G or for the Bible. It is about As giving a logical. reasonable. rational reason for being an Atheist

---

There are many proofs and evidences given for G.  Example of just one. Proof.

 
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel%27s_...ical_proof)

From the wikipedia article:

First, Gödel axiomatizes the notion of a "positive property":[note 2] for each property φ, either φ or its negation ¬φ must be positive, but not both (axiom 2). If a positive property φ implies a property ψ in each possible world, then ψ is positive, too (axiom 1). Gödel then argues that each positive property is "possibly exemplified", i.e. applies at least to some object in some world (theorem 1). Defining an object to be Godlike if it has all positive properties (definition 1), and requiring that property to be positive itself (axiom 3),[note 3] Gödel shows that in some possible world a Godlike object exists (theorem 2), called "God" in the following.[note 4] Gödel proceeds to prove that a Godlike object exists in every possible world.

There is no such thing as an objectively "positive" property.  Godel has erred.  And his proof fails because his premising the existence of "positive" properties is unsound.

I wouldn't know that. Just posted it to say Ts give lots of reasons and not just a definition as their reason(s).

I have pointed out the error in saying:
 If an A definition, then A definition is true,
 A definition
 so A definition is true

If you wish to point out errors point out the ones As are making in their so called proof or even better yet post your own.

---

YB: The quote thing seems weird.


The basics non proofs that atheists have given for the Q. (see first post of this thread) are pretty much like:
 " because I don't believe in g(s) and it fits my definition of an A.
 "oh, *?&9@* stupid troll"
  "I don't believe those many proofs for G"

Or answering the Q  with a Q:
 " Did G write the B?
 " Do you believe in S Us or Ds?"

I gave you one of my many reasons not believing, a god that directs/commands child killing I can't/won't believe in. 
Valid logical reason.

I didn't ask for a valid reason for not believing in G, I asked for valid reason for believing one should be an A.

But perhaps we need to clarify your reason(s):

 P1 If I would be other than an A, then the G in the B would be liked by me,
 P2 The G in the B is not liked by me. (I think we agree to this premise being true)
 C. So, not true that  I would be other than an A, or (I am an A)

But if you hold to this your argument, then you are only proving there is a G (that you do not like).
Now, one can like or not like G that is a choice one makes, but I do not recommend not liking G.

I have sincerely tried to represent your argument. If I misunderstood, my apologies.

I would be glad for your own clarification this is how your argument appears to me.