Ybe an atheist

[Ybe]

I tried to edit the post #346
with the wierd quote thing as after I posted it didnt fix.

---

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.

I declare that the lack of evidence for  a god is my evidence for gods non-existence.


Let me put it like this.

If I told you there was an elephant in my kitchen you would want to have evidence of said pachyderms unlikely position in my kitchen which, lets face it, has quite small doors.


If I then go and check and there is not elephant, not trace of said elephant and no way that the floor could have stood the weight of an elephant then it is reasonable to assume that the person telling you there was an elephant was either:
A: Mistaken.
B: Lying.
C: Mad.
So that lack of evidence FOR the elephant in the kitchen leads to my conclusion that there never was an elephant there. If the person then says "no REALLY ther WAS an elephant" then they'd better have something pretty convincing in the way of evidence.

This is where we are with god.

To put it another way.


Do you have evidence that there are no underpant gnomes?
If you have no evidence for there not being no underpant gnomes then you must believe in underpant gnomes. That's how you seem to think evidence works.

The other post is not how I wanted it so to clear it up I will make this short and sweet. Sorry, it will be a question, but hopefully it will make my point.

So, are you also going to join the A(elephants in the kitchen forum) and the  A(gnomes) forums and tell people I just don't see enough evidence for those and make spout more illogical reasons for being one of those?