There is no "I" in "You"

[Little Rik]

The moon is one but if you see the moon reflected on a lake you may and will see a myriad of moons
according to the position in which you are.
Every different positions around the lake offer the vision of the moon so we may have millions of moon but as we know the moon is only one.
Similarly there are a myriads of lives in the universe but the one who produce a reflection on this universe is only one and that is .......guess who?
I am NOT saying who he-she is because people here would ask me for evidence.
Capisci?  

The ease with which yoga answers questions seems directly proportional to the idiocy of the answers.

In the past the one who said that the earth was not flat was called an idiot by the ignorant masses.
Nothing new Ritmo.
Now we know who the idiots are but of course it takes time to understand that.
Right?  

[LadyForCamus]

Sounds dirty.  [emoji13]

... go on ....

Maybe Quip can imagine something for us!  

[The Grand Nudger]

In the past the one who said that the earth was not flat was called an idiot by the ignorant masses.
Nothing new Ritmo.
Now we know who the idiots are but of course it takes time to understand that.
Right?  

They laughed at Bozo the Clown, too.

[Aoi Magi]

No Rik, it's not just about time. No claim can be validated without evidence. We accepted that earth is not flat, not because time had passed but because it has evidence behind it which are being tested and validated even to this day.

[quip]

No it doesn't. I'm not attempting to ascertain or refute the existence of the self.

 I could not have been born in another time because my brain only exists in the temporal 'now' and not at any other point in existence.

This does not necessarily follow.  

Prior to the established "I" what (mundane factors) determines the particular "I" to which you refer?  Is it contingent upon specific factors or simply chance?  If the latter, under what conditions (milieu) make possible the calculation of said "chances"?

Or alternatively, Can the atheist rationally avoid the inquiry by simply asserting that there was nothing "prior to the established "I""?

[The Grand Nudger]

I think you need to brush up on your logic....and you've simply shifted the goalposts. Sure, you can exhaust a persons patience until they no longer desire to respond...but it would be silly to pretend to be having a rational conversation in that case, or to imagine that you've demonstrated something in having done so.

[quip]

I think you need to brush up on your logic....and you've simply shifted the goalposts.  Sure, you can exhaust a persons patience until they no longer desire to respond...but it would be silly to pretend to be having a rational conversation.

so, you've no rational answer?

I'll reiterate: Can the atheist rationally avoid the inquiry by simply asserting that there was nothing "prior to the established "I""?

[The Grand Nudger]

Notifying you of a logical fallacy -is- a rational answer to your statements, numbskull. Here, I'll do it again, just so you can see it in action..and maybe, just maybe, notice it next time. You are now repeating the claim that others have not answered your statements rationally...which is both a bare assertion, and an argument ad nuas.

[quip]

Notifying you of a logical fallacy -is- a rational answer to your statements, numbskull.

Or rather a specious dodge.

I'm simply asking atheists a question. No fallacy required.

[The Grand Nudger]

That, would be an ad hom.  See how easy this is if you just try?

Now, if no fallacies are required, why do they keep cropping up in your comments?