Ybe an atheist

[The Grand Nudger]

You or the op could just describe whatever double standard you're imagining, maybe we could get another 39 pages to crack jokes at.

[Ybe]

---

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 [b]

---

[/b]

---

---

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.

---

---

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.

P1 If I would be other than an A, then the G in the B would be liked by me,    (No, I would probably choose a more logical deity AFTER proof of its existence and benevolence has been successfully presented.)
 P2 The G in the B is not liked by me. (I think we agree to this premise being true)    (I cannot dislike a fictitious character but I can dislike the stories made up about it.)
 C. So, not true that  I would be other than an A, or (I am an A)  (This is true but it applies to ALL religions.) 

"But if you hold to this your argument, then you are only proving there is a G (that you do not like)."  
How in the ever-loving ____ could any rational human being create such an enormous non-sequitur?  What drugs are you on, troll?
How does asserting that after years of comparative religion studies, I have never seen acceptable evidence of the existence of a deity means I just proved that a deity exists because I have never seen evidence of its existence?

HERE, LET ME FIX YOUR APPARENT INABILITY TO BELIEVE THAT WE CANNOT POSSIBLY NOT BELIEVE ANY DEITIES EXIST:
P1 If I would be other than an A, then the Glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster would be liked by me,

However, I have no proof other than some fun stories that the Glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
Therefore, I cannot be other than an atheist, because I cannot like something that does not exist.  Like Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Osiris, KwanYin, Brahma, Spiderman, Vampires, Werewolves, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

[Ybe]

---

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 [b]

---

[/b]

---

---

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.

---

---

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.

P1 If I would be other than an A, then the G in the B would be liked by me,    (No, I would probably choose a more logical deity AFTER proof of its existence and benevolence has been successfully presented.)
 P2 The G in the B is not liked by me. (I think we agree to this premise being true)    (I cannot dislike a fictitious character but I can dislike the stories made up about it.)
 C. So, not true that  I would be other than an A, or (I am an A)  (This is true but it applies to ALL religions.) 

"But if you hold to this your argument, then you are only proving there is a G (that you do not like)."  
How in the ever-loving ____ could any rational human being create such an enormous non-sequitur?  What drugs are you on, troll?
How does asserting that after years of comparative religion studies, I have never seen acceptable evidence of the existence of a deity means I just proved that a deity exists because I have never seen evidence of its existence?

HERE, LET ME FIX YOUR APPARENT INABILITY TO BELIEVE THAT WE CANNOT POSSIBLY NOT BELIEVE ANY DEITIES EXIST:
P1 If I would be other than an A, then the Glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster would be liked by me,

However, I have no proof other than some fun stories that the Glorious Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
Therefore, I cannot be other than an atheist, because I cannot like something that does not exist.  Like Yahweh, Jesus, Allah, Zeus, Thor, Osiris, KwanYin, Brahma, Spiderman, Vampires, Werewolves, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.

 You only extend your problem no  x no y no z so no G.
 Not asking what you lack belief, we get that you say an A lacks belief in blah blah blah.

Ex.
I lack belief that n As have a logical reasonable reason for being an A.
For what reason. Because that is what a person has when he hasn't been given any not even some sufficient evidence of As having a logical reason for being an A.

Guess that is good enough then, I have no proof that  Osiris, KwanYin, Brahma, Spiderman, Vampires, Werewolves, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, have seen A's with logical reasoning either. So it is obviously been proved they don't.

[Angrboda]

No, you claimed theists had evidence for God, not just "reasons."  Faulty arguments are not evidence of anything.

 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. When you were asked to show this by providing evidence for God, you presented a faulty argument for God's existence. 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. Otherwise you're just making an equally unsupported assertion. 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. If you're saying it's not reasonable, then you need to show why that is. On the other hand, if you are asserting that it is factually incorrect, you need to demonstrate that or be hoist on your own petard. It doesn't follow from the fact that someone has not presented evidence for their assertion that their assertion is therefore faulty. So your claim that the atheist assertion is faulty because it is an unsupported assertion is, on the face of it, simply wrong. And it will remain wrong until you demonstrate that sufficient evidence for belief in God exists. Yet that is something you've said you will not do. So you're left making irrational statements like the above.

My point is that Ts give lots of arguments/evidence, but the only As here have nothing but assertions.

Having an argument or evidence if that argument or evidence doesn't rationally justify belief in God is immaterial. If you have a counter-example of evidence/arguments that you feel should rationally compell belief, then present it. Until then, all you have is a counter-claim that is equally unsupported. I can have all the arguments/evidence in the world for why I believe that chocolate is the best flavor of ice cream, that doesn't mean that someone is compelled to hold the same opinion as me if those arguments/evidence do not rationally justify the conclusion. By saying that the atheist claim that "the arguments/evidence presented are faulty" is itself faulty, then you are making a claim, specifically that there do exist arguments/evidence which should compel one to believe in God. Until you present such arguments and show that they rationally justify belief, we're perfectly justified in our skepticism.

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. If you are getting hung up on that, get over it. If you have evidence that should compel a Hindu or a Buddhist or any non-believing person to belief in your God, then where is it? Simply claiming that such exists, is, quite simply hypocrisy on your part. If theists had such evidence, then they have to explain why atheists don't find the evidence compelling. Mystic Knight for his part explains it by continuously making appeal to dark forces and Iblis, which, beyond being a blatant example of poisoning the well, is patently circular. If you are claiming that the atheist stance is unreasonable, then prove it.

[purplepurpose]

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.

[Brian37]

Every person of every religion worldwide thinks they picked the correct sect of the one true religion. So what, that is not evidence of anything but that people fall for old mythology.

Just as Iblis and his forces have a voice and control way of influencing our souls, so does the light of God in this world have a way to communicate and be with you.

Pick up the sword of God with you and let it teach you wonders.

Boy you don't even see you sound EXACTLY like any fundy Christian I've run into.

"Sword" is a weapon, weapons are used to commit acts of violence. I hate violence, I have no desire to buy any claim of any religion that thinks peace is obtained through forced submission at the point of a weapon. That is not diplomacy, that is what bullies do.

No, I do not worship bullies nor would I "pick up a sword" to defend a bully.

The three religions of Abraham were written in an age of tribal kingships, written in an age of authoritarian rule. Those books HAVE ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with our modern world and were written by the people back then FOR the people  BACK THEN.  Real peace isn't about setting up social pecking orders under the authoritarian rule of one being, but through the KNOWLEDGE that all humans are the same species deserving of equality, not based on common holy books, but on the dignity of equality and common law.

No MK, I will not submit to old mythology, just like you don't buy claims of Apollo or Vishnu. I won't do that for Christians or Jews either.

[Ybe]

Here is the latest logical reason for being an A
Definitions T = talking; S = Snake
TS or (-TS)
 (one or the other)
One is rational I choose the rational.

Prove you are rational >  I chose the rational > Prove it was a rational choice > Because I'm rational >
Prove you are rational >  (See line above)

[Whateverist]

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?

[Losty]

Cheese train

[robvalue]

So after all that he was talking about a character from a story book being real? We need to explain why not believing that is rational?