Ybe an atheist

[The Grand Nudger]

You seem like the kind of guy who would demand that someone define the word "rock" as it flew toward your head..as though that would stop it from hitting you.

Aren't you the guy who said While I can provide reason,"it wasn;t by reason that my atheism exists, nor did I ever make any choice in the matter".

Yup.  Next.

[Jackalope]

I hear vertical crushers are making a comeback.

I think I prefer horizontal.

As always, you are welcome to be wrong. Viva la vertical!

[Joods]

Oops, I didn’t mean to close the thread, sorry about that

I was hopeful for a millisecond.

---

Logical or not logical, I am an atheist and there isn't one ??? thing you can do to change that.

Your view is as you have said it is, if you wish to hold to a view that is not based on rationality, G forbid that I should try to change it.

I prefer to have someone honestly admit they hold an unreasonable view, rather than to pretend otherwise.

Lots of people hold views that are unreasonable

..

You must have been looking. In the mirror when you said that last sentence.

[robvalue]

Yes, I gave you my reasons. You can challenge any of them if you want. You can produce a reason I should care, or produce a definition of God that doesn't fall into my three categories. So far, every theist I have talked to has failed on all these counts. I'm not saying with certainty that a theist will never succeed. But until such time, I'm an atheist and an apatheist. I'm quite comfortable with that, and I'm comfortable with other people being theists, whether they have good reasons or not.

If you don't think my reasons are rational, I'm also comfortable with that. You're welcome to say why.

With regard to a generic creator, I'm completely undecided. This is still being an atheist, if you call such thing a god, since I lack belief that it's real as of yet.

So, you believe your view to be rational. And your logical, rational, reasonable reason for being an A is every definition of G you've heard is one or more of the following  1) Incoherent 2) Untestable 3) Relabelling".

Perhaps  you can clarify by giving your definitions  of 1) Incoherent 2) Untestable 3) Relabelling. Oh yeah,  be sure that they are  1) Coherent 2) Testable 3)  and never Relabeled.

No offense, but your reason appears to be incoherent. Aren't you saying your reasonable reason for being an A is justified because you have reasonably reasoned about G definitions?

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote. ~Losty

Okay, I'll go one layer deeper. You're really putting the microscope on the wrong side here, though. We're talking about things people have failed to demonstrate being anything more than imaginary for over 2,000 years and you have a problem with the guy who reserves judgement. A simple example from your side could destroy my entire case.

Anyhow:

1) Incoherent: lacking any useful meaning, or so vague as to provide no substance.

This is, of course, subjective. I'm not claiming to be perfect. I'm responding to reality on its own terms, and the claims I'm given to the best of my ability. I'd be very interested in something actually real here, so it's in my interest to try and fish out anything that could lead to something. If I can't understand something, I can't evaluate it. That's a fact I just can't get around. I always encourage people to explain (as you're doing) and allow them to get around my barriers if they wish.

2) Untestable: lacking a clear criteria by which we could reasonably determine the falsity of the statement, making it true by assumption only. It also makes it an unecessary assumption, since if it affects nothing else we are concerned with in any detectable way, we can ignore it for all practical terms.

3) Not relabeled: a definition which doesn't refer to something else which we already know to exist (trying to infer existence by proxy).

If you're going to start getting me to explain all of these words, then I'm not going to do that. It's up to you to change my mind, and if theism had anything more to it than imagination, then that should be very easy. My evidence that my positional is rational is the continued failure of anyone to provide something for which there can even be evidence (testable), let alone actually providing the evidence too.

Also, since I don't even care even if I'm completely wrong, then I'm really not fussed if I've somehow screwed everything up. I wouldn't act any differently, anyway. I'm not trying to convince anyone else to believe as I believe (or rather lack belief). I don't actually need any assumptions whatsoever, even that "objective reality" is anything more than a mirage. For every "what if..." scenario, there is the coupled "what if it isn't..." and you can't live your life by both rules at once. Since picking one would be arbitrary without any actual reason behind it, I just don't pick at all. I ignore.

I've expanded as much as I'm going to unless you have a genuine further question, so why not throw a definition at me or give me a reason to care? If you can't (or won't even try), then I continue to be confident that I'm doing just fine. I'm 41 now, and nothing that persuades me has ever been presented to me. Maybe I'm totally delusional; if so, I'm doing pretty well against this figment I think. And I still don't care about some being outside my delusion pulling the strings.

[notimportant1234]

I'll tell you how I became an atheist wich happened a fewe weeks ago. I was a deist before this and I decided that it isn't necesary to assum a superior entity so I'm not assuming it anymore, that is what atheism is, nothing more.
The part of reason comes in when a theist for example claims that sexual orientation is a choice or attraction for the same sex is a dissease(this is the best example that comes to my mind, anyone on this forum can present more fallacies about religion), a thing that has been demonstrated by many experts in the field to be wrong, that is the point when I would say that I'm rational and you are not.

[Abaddon_ire]

Logical or not logical, I am an atheist and there isn't one ???  thing you can do to change that.

Your view is as you have said it is, if you wish to hold to a view that is not based on rationality, G forbid that I should try to change it.

I prefer to have someone honestly admit they hold an unreasonable view, rather than to pretend otherwise.

Lots of people hold views that are unreasonable

..

Like you. 

Everyone is born an atheist. As were you.

You remain an atheist.

[FatAndFaithless]

Has this thread become coherent yet or is it still presuppositionalist bait bullshit?

[brewer]

Has this thread become coherent yet or is it still presuppositionalist bait bullshit?

Waiting for the "not logical rational reasonable" crap. If Ybe's delusional to begin with, does he have the ability to discern logical, rational or reasonable in any meaningful way?

[FatAndFaithless]

I'm just waiting for the obvious next shoe to drop - that we're all actually believers, just faking being atheists. Since he doesn't believe that we are unconvinced by arguments/evidence for God.

[robvalue]

More shameless self promotion. Here's a vid I made which describes what's happened so far and how I expect it to continue:





I should also note that simple scepticism is an immunization against all forms of woo bullshit. It all seems to evaporate around me. Maybe I'm just special and I have an anti-magic aura.