Ybe an atheist

[Ybe]

Anyway, enough of  that. Let's try to focus on the Q and see if we can get some A's some help. OK

No help is needed.  We did not ask for your disrespect, condescension and contempt.  Preaching is offensive.  I couldn't give a crap what you think your imaginary god-boy did or didn't do.  You really need to accept the FSM into your life.  You would be a lot less of an asshole.

I find that A type of preaching disrespectful, condescending, and contemptuous and offensive to let's do what I suggest and focus on seeing if answer to the Q can be given.

We all find some things offensive that others do or say. Like responding to something they don't care about in a negative in-tolerating provacotive type of comment.

When someone posts, "I wonder what so and so is like" and then gets blasted by an offensive response it is no wonder that so and so only asks Qs and responds to reasonable replies. Wow!

---

Is that something you made? Good work"

[Angrboda]

You are asserting that they are faulty assertions (So what).  

You asserted that they were faulty because they were unsupported. As a matter of logic, that's a non sequitur. Plus, if you're saying that we should not accept atheist assertions if they are not accompanied by support, but that we should accept your assertion without support, then you are engaging in a double standard and so your conclusions also don't follow. That's "so what."

When you were asked to show this by providing evidence for God, you presented a faulty argument for God's existence. (It was only an overkill example of what a logical etc. is ).

I see. Well since it wasn't actually logical, it wasn't a very good example, was it?

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.(Hey, if any assertion does not include support (as As are doing here), then it should be obvious that all one need do is make assertions like As do). 

Straw man.

you're just making an equally unsupported assertion. (I just supported it with logic)

No, you did not. If you think you did, then make an argument for it.

 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. (all right a try)
Then> (If not believing As have sufficient E/Reason for being an A because there does not exist sufficient evidence for their not believing is reasonable, then  No believing  your above  consequent is pri·ma fa·ci·e reasonable)

Nobody has claimed that their assertions here should compel one to adopt the atheist position, so this is yet another straw man. You asked a simple question as to why one should be an A. You received an answer. Now you want to complain that the answer is insufficient because it doesn't include the entire Western canon of scientific and philosophical literature as support. If its your opinion that atheists are incorrect and that there is sufficient evidence for belief, then hooray for you. However, that is not the topic of this thread. The topic of this thread is why be an atheist. One can accept that this is a valid answer to the question without necessarily agreeing with it on factual grounds. If you want to dispute it on factual grounds, fine. If you just want to complain that it doesn't contain a complete defense of the reasons, then fuck off. As noted, you're just being a hypocrite.

 If you're saying it's not reasonable, then you need to show why that is. (See above) If you think it is reasonable, then you need to show why. Let's illustrate, it  seems to be:
If X (G) is true, then the explanation of X (G) is true
X (G) is true
So, explanation of X (G) is true (reasonable)
But  If a claim is justified because one just claims it so, then  G is true right? Or?

Another straw man. I asserted that the reason given you by atheists was prima facie reasonable. That's a separate question from whether it is true or not. Is not believing something because of insufficient evidence a reasonable stance to take if there is indeed insufficient evidence? I think it is, but you appear to want to argue the opposite. Either you're attacking the statement on logical grounds, which you've so far failed to successfully do, or you're attacking it on factual grounds, in which case you need to show that it is factually incorrect, and that there does exist sufficient evidence to compel belief. If your complaint is that you actually wanted a thorough and exhaustive demonstration of the inadequacy of the evidence for theism, then perhaps you should have asked for that in the first place. If you had, I think you can predict what the response would be. So this is all a grand bait and switch designed to show what exactly?

  It doesn't follow from the fact that someone has not presented evidence for their assertion that their assertion is therefore faulty.
(Like- if someone Asserts  G is true)

No, as a matter of logic it is not true that if someone asserts that God exists without support that they are necessarily wrong. What's your point?
 

So your claim that the atheist assertion is faulty because it is an unsupported assertion is, on the face of it, simply wrong. (So, if A claims above G Assertion is faulty, because it is an unsupported assertion, then the A assertion is  simply wrong.)
 

That's correct. I would hope that no one has made such an assertion here, but I cannot vouch for everyone. This is yet another straw man. The atheists in this thread have been saying that they base there lack of belief on a lack of evidence, which if factually correct, makes their lack of belief reasonable. That's all. I don't recall anybody making the claim that God does not exist, so I don't see the relevance here.

And it will remain wrong until you demonstrate that sufficient evidence for belief in God exists
(So, the assertion stands until sufficeint evidence for a lack of belief in G exists.)

Again, more straw men. The atheists in this thread have asserted that they don't believe because there is insufficient evidence. Nobody here has claimed that their merely asserting that they don't believe is because of insufficient evidence is itself sufficient evidence to guarantee that there is indeed a lack of evidence. You keep making these straw men arguments because you want to show that the atheist's reasons are irrational, but you don't really want to do any heavy lifting. As long as you simply want to assert that atheist's reasons are irrational to you, well knock yourself out. If instead, you actually want to demonstrate that their reason is irrational, well then get to work and do so.

 Yet that is something you've said you will not do.  So you're left making irrational statements like the above.
(Correct even the above is not to present evidence, the above is just to point out evidence that A assertions lack in sufficiency)

Again, the OP was ostensibly to get an answer to his question. If you wanted a complete and thorough refutation of the arguments and evidence for theism, maybe that's what you should have asked for. Most people here I think would have told you to fuck off, as your request would have been rather unreasonable. I don't see where you expect an atheist to go here. As a practical matter, the atheist is not making an existential claim, and the claim that they have made seems modest and not really needing support. Your complaint seems to be that if one doesn't have every potential fact relevant to their position available and at hand that they are unreasonable for that reason. That's simply ridiculous. Additionally, you're asking us to prove a negative. There is a reason why the burden of proof is assigned the way it is, and that is that people making positive existential claims have that burden. If you're instead trying to argue that any failure to prove any related negative, such as that God does not exist, makes the person irrational, then we're back to the question of whether lack of belief based upon a lack of evidence is reasonable, or whether this higher standard should apply. Lest you want to proceed by demonstrating that all the Gods ever imagined don't exist, I suggest you back off this rather absurd notion that you appear to have.

And finally, there is a difference between a claim lacking sufficiency because in the context of a discussion, a claim has been made, and insufficient evidence has been presented to justify that claim, and the notion that the claim lacks sufficiency because there does not in fact exist an insufficiency of evidence. Since the scope of this thread has been limited, by you, to the reasons why people lack belief, your concluding the latter based on the former is simply unreasonable and another non sequitur.

[b]See #261
> Arguments should be relevant to what is being asked (see first post) and the relevance should be shown.
> Justify your statements (arguments, so far were assertions) . So justify them ask yourself, and then say why your assertion true?
> Validity should also be included, any logical reason should have premises that logically produce the conclusion as the only possible conclusion.

From #261 post.

The first post was "Ybe an A" -- which was duly answered. If you want to make a new topic about whether there indeed is insufficient evidence for belief in God, that's a separate topic, and you should start a new thread devoted to answering you. As noted, this is just a bait and switch on your part. If you had been honest about what you wanted, namely a thorough take down of all the evidence for God, most people would have told you to fuck off. Additionally, it is a non sequitur to conclude that failing to provide such demonstrates that the atheist is being irrational. All it demonstrates is that you're an unreasonable twat.

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.

Thus the Q. (see 1st post)

So, reasonable, unbiased individuals are looking for the sufficient evidence that exists to justify the A's belief, that As are reasonable and unbiased , so that we reasonable unbiased types can know if they can should say, "we haven't seen sufficient evidence for G" is reasonable....

If all that is needed is to assert, then G has been asserted. : )

Again, this is a straw man.

If not, then your next post will be some justifiable reasonable E that As have a justifiable, logical, reasonable-reason, for being an A

Justifiable and justified are two very different things. If you are claiming that the atheist position is unjustifiable, then I suggest you get to work and show that. Otherwise, as noted, your only relevant argument is that the position that a lack of belief based on a lack of evidence is an unreasonable position to hold, an argument that you haven't really addressed. If what you are saying is that an atheist is being unreasonable in holding their position if they don't personally provide you with everything you demand then that is just another non sequitur on your part.

If you want to show that atheists are being illogical or unreasonable, then do so. If your only goal is to assert that in your opinion, they are wrong, well, so be it. I guess we're done here then.

[Mystic]

Ybe, you will get testimonies. All my time on here, I've never seen one Atheist justify Atheism to a Theist. True story bro.

[brewer]

[edit]

In fact, giving up ones life for someone else is a loving kind sweet thing to do also, especially when they are acting in a way that is unreasonably unkind.

[edit]

Ya talking about this personally? Who is the lovely recipient you've selected?

[The Valkyrie]

Ybe, you will get testimonies. All my time on here, I've never seen one Atheist justify Atheism to a Theist. True story bro.

Justification of atheism.

I don't believe in deities. This is not an assertion and atheism is not an assertion that there are no gods.

It is a simple fact that I don't believe in any deities. Whether it is your deity or one claimed by anyone else. This is agnostic atheism.

I do not believe in any deities because the evidence for any is lacking, and the "evidence" that I have been presented with, which runs the gamut from"look at the trees!" and "it says so in my holy book", to personal "experiences" or feelings and claims from incredulity, do not pass my criteria for evidence.

I hope THIS is clear.

[Mystic]

It is clear that you are testifying no evidence that should prove God has been presented. I simply take it as a testimony, and not a justification of that claim. That is until you go through all the evidence you have been presented or have access to, and show how it's wrong, and not conclusive, then it's not really convincing to me that evidence has not been shown to you.

[The Grand Nudger]

............................................

[The Valkyrie]

It is clear that you are testifying no evidence that should prove God has been presented. I simply take it as a testimony, and not a justification of that claim. That is until you go through all the evidence you have been presented or have access to, and show how it's wrong, and not conclusive, then it's not really convincing to me that evidence has not been shown to you.

Well, MK, this works both ways.

I will provide you with a comprehensive list of "evidence" and claims that I have encountered or been presented with if you do the same for all the gods you don't believe in.

I won't accept claims, quotes, or sayings from a holy book because, as we all know, those have no meaning for me whatsoever.

This is an example of moving the goalposts or trying to stretch reasoning to try yo make the person work hard to justify their opinions in an attempt to reinforce your own position, which is EXACTLY what you are trying to do to us.

[Mystic]

Not really, I have provided evidence for my particular beliefs. I have shown evidence why Deism is irrational for one.

I can't prove a particular particular to the extent of it's minute details God, but I have shown evidence for a Helping Master God that is the True King and the Guiding Lord of humanity.

Right now, I truthfully doubt some laws in Islam, like being allowed to marry a second wife without permission of the first wife.  I find this problematic and I find Quran only allows it in context of when the task of helping orphans becomes too much and there is a need of marrying another wife to help take care of them.

So I don't know how to say this, but I can't point to the Islamic God, because Islam is undefined right now. What I think of it or what you think of it, may have little to do with actually what Mohammad and the enlightened followers of his, really knew and believed of it.

The family of Mohammad did their best, but at the end, when they were no longer here, things became volatile as in the past.

I can't point to the details... Stories like the animals on the arc or what not, can all be misunderstood parables of a higher truth or may not be.  I can't make you see what I see.

However, I have provided evidence for a general framework over the years. I have provide over 14 proofs for one God, and have brought at least three different proofs on the need of guidance from God in form of a religion.

I have provided particular proof for the family of the reminder in Quran as well if Islam is true, and by that method, argued one reason I believe it's true, and that is because there is something sinister on the hearts and minds of people keeping them from seeing them, despite the norms of language indicating they are clearly in there. That to me is a sufficient one stone hit all birds (proves magic, God, Islam, the family of the reminder, and the path forward).

I can iterate through those if you like.

[The Grand Nudger]

You understand that theism is a form of deism...right? If believing in a god is irrational, what is believing in an intervening god supposed to be?