Ybe an atheist

[LastPoet]

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding>
  So, the default position is simple to see.

Belief in No X-rays vs  belief in X-rays  What is the default postion?

You can't be this dumb.

[Angrboda]

[Ybe]

Oh, and atheism isn't a BELIEF.  It is a lack of belief.

That is that something you believe though, right?   You do believe atheism to be a lack of belief in G?

If that's not what you believe, then that would turn in to:
 I don't believe that atheism is a lack of belief in G?

[drfuzzy]

Oh, and atheism isn't a BELIEF.  It is a lack of belief.

That is that something you believe though, right?   You do believe atheism to be a lack of belief in G?

If that's not what you believe, then that would turn in to:
 I don't believe that atheism is a lack of belief in G?

You have a REAL problem with logic.  Do you "believe" that Superman does not exist, or do you just accept that this is a work of fiction and that the story is flawed in many ways?  I interpret "belief" only to apply to concepts that are not based in scientific fact.  I do not "believe" that deities exist because the evidence for such is absent.  When acceptable scientific evidence of deities is presented, I will concede that such entities exist.  That would not be "belief", it would simply be acceptance of fact.  My lack of "belief" is an assertion that the evidence is lacking.  

As has been pointed out, there are some atheists who assert that they are certain that no gods exist.  This could be called belief.  I do not claim certainty but I'm not going to waste time and effort on something that has never been proved to exist.

And you've beaten your ridiculous illogical ignorant circular trolling into the ground now.  You are not worth any more time.

[Abaddon_ire]

Oh, and atheism isn't a BELIEF.  It is a lack of belief.

That is that something you believe though, right?   You do believe atheism to be a lack of belief in G?

If that's not what you believe, then that would turn in to:
 I don't believe that atheism is a lack of belief in G?

No, atheism is a lack of a belief in any deity by DEFINITION. That is what the word means, no more no less.

You can't simply show up and arbitrarily redefine common words to suit whatever crank agenda you might have.

If that were to be the case, we could redefine "theist" to mean "deluded crackpot" and "christian" to mean "moronic liar".

Surely you can understand that such stupid ad-hoc redefinitions would be utterly bovine and meaningless.

In actual fact, simply being an atheist tells you one thing and one thing only. That the person does not believe in any deity. That is all.

It tells you exactly nothing at all about any other beliefs they may or may not hold. 

I realise that your desperately and fervently wish that there were some "atheist dogma" or "atheist priesthood" or "atheist belief". However, you feverishly making such things up out of whole cloth does not  somehow magically make them real.

Facts are stubborn things.

[LostLocke]

Oh, and atheism isn't a BELIEF.  It is a lack of belief.

That is that something you believe though, right?   You do believe atheism to be a lack of belief in G?

It's not what we believe, it's what is IS. Period.

[Ybe]

    
 logical rational reason for being an A is_____________________________.
                                                                  " As far as I can tell there is no god",

And that is supported by the logical rational reason of ________________________.
                                                                                 therefore I do not believe in the existence of god.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I find no arguments for evidence presented so far sufficient to sway me from my belief that the idea of god does not meet my standard of evidence for being a real thing and sway me from my opinion

But you say that  not being convinced of somethings existence is not a good enough reason to NOT believe in it.

That position means that you must believe any premise no matter how silly or contradictory to any other belief you may hold or be a total hypocrite.

I am not saying that it could be a logical reason in. But I'm taking an A view and trying to get what logical supports it . Think OK here is a fellow A. Hes trying to give logical reasonable reason to support under-gird the statement.

"I find no arguments for evidence presented so far sufficient to sway  me from my belief that the idea of god does not meet my standard of evidence for being a real thing and sway me from my opinion"

To show that it is something more than just an assertion.  And when I ask for help  how to support that  reason they repeat what the assertion varying the words. Except for Mr. A.
----------------------------------------------

Abaddon_ire
A: My logical rational reason for being an A is there is no evidence for ANY of the thousands of claimed "gods". Not one.
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of there is no evidence for ANY of the thousands of claimed "gods". Not one.
----------------------------------------------------
So, if the logical support for being an A is    No E
supported by the logical rational reason of No E

It would allow theists to claim logical support for believing G is
as long as they support it with the logical rational reason that G is .

But if that is all it take to support a reason by As, then A's  have sufficient  E to become a theist.

---

drfuzzy Wrote: You have a REAL problem with logic.

YB: This is so Ironic.
IRONIC happening in the opposite way to what is expected, and typically causing wry amusement because of this.

---

The  discussion is about I mean is about the Q is there any  logical. reasonable. rational reason to be an A.

And  I'm trying to fill in blanks
A: My logical rational reason for being an A is_____________________________.
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of ________________________.

From:
I'm nominally an atheist because every definition of God I've heard of consists of one or more of the following:
1) Incoherent RV: - lacking any useful meaning, or so vague as to provide no substance.
2) Untestable
3) Relabelling
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of "When confirmed and verified proof is presented,".

I want to make sure your of your logical reason for being a n A  and according to you in the above; definitions being vague or incoherent somehow have something to do with your logical reason for being an A. It is confusing. I don't like confusion. Perhaps you could make a succinct statement that fills in the blanks above and I will go from there.
For example:
 My logical reason for being an A is,
           I am certain about my belief
 and that is supported by,
       I know no I have no  incoherent non vague definitions are
       thoroughly tested my being an A by __________
        Keep things labeled as they are.

And  I'm trying to fill in blanks 
A: My logical rational reason for being an A is there is no evidence for ANY of the thousands of claimed "gods". Not one.
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of there is no evidence for ANY of the thousands of claimed "gods". Not one.

That is that something you believe though, right?   You do believe atheism to be a lack of belief in G?

If that's not what you believe, then that would turn in to:
 I don't believe that atheism is a lack of belief in G?

No, atheism is a lack of a belief in any deity by DEFINITION. That is what the word means, no more no less.

You can't simply show up and arbitrarily redefine common words to suit whatever crank agenda you might have.

If that were to be the case, we could redefine "theist" to mean "deluded crackpot" and "christian" to mean "moronic liar".

Surely you can understand that such stupid ad-hoc redefinitions would be utterly bovine and meaningless.

In actual fact, simply being an atheist tells you one thing and one thing only. That the person does not believe in any deity. That is all.

It tells you exactly nothing at all about any other beliefs they may or may not hold. 

I realise that your desperately and fervently wish that there were some "atheist dogma" or "atheist priesthood" or "atheist belief". However, you feverishly making such things up out of whole cloth does not  somehow magically make them real.

Facts are stubborn things.

[Ravenshire]

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding>
  So, the default position is simple to see.

Belief in No X-rays vs  belief in X-rays  What is the default postion?

You can't be this dumb.

He's offered no evidence to the contrary.

[Ybe]

begging the question assumes something requires explanation (and therefore begging the hearer to question it). Since I'am an atheist, I cant be a theist

If someone is being an atheist , then that someone must by definition not be being a theist that part is undeniably logical.

But the premise that I am being an atheist is an assumption and has merely been asserted or stated; no logical proof has been given

So what is the logical reasonable reason to support the statement I am an atheist or is there no logical. reasonable. rational reason to be an A.

[Abaddon_ire]

Abaddon_ire[/b]
A: My logical rational reason for being an A is there is no evidence for ANY of the thousands of claimed "gods". Not one.
And that is supported by the logical rational reason of there is no evidence for ANY of the thousands of claimed "gods". Not one.

So, if the logical support for being an A is    No E
supported by the logical rational reason of  No E

It would allow theists to claim logical support for believing G is
as long as they support it with the logical rational reason that G is .

But if that is all it take to support a reason by As, then A's  have sufficient  E to become a theist.

OK, you seem to labour under the misunderstanding that if you sufficiently bork quotes that nobody can work it out. Guess again.

As a programmer, it is trivial to unpick you attempt to bork tags. It is simply another example of your fundamental dishonesty. As is your use of 4337 5p33k. It is a lie, and as one steeped in actual 4337 5p33k, you are what we refer to as a pretender.


In any event if you have evidence for your particular deity of choice, then you should present it. You would be the first in thousands of years to do so. Nobody else ever has.

Perhaps you are that special.

As things stand, no evidence for any god has been seen. There things rest.