Ybe an atheist

[The Grand Nudger]

Most responses seem to be along the lines of assertions; I'm an A because I'm an A

That;s called a tautology.  I am a married man because I am a man..who is married.  Similarly, I am an atheist because I do not believe in gods.  It would be irrational for me to be theist, as a person who doesn;t believe in gods.  So when you ask the silly ass question of whether or not a person has a rational justification to be an atheist...you;ve set the bar so low that a simple tautology suffices.

Do you understand?

[Ybe]

Sorry if you believe that it is a lie. I thought that was your claim in #155 

If it is not your claim: "I don't have a rational excuse for my belief, and you don't either!" then consider it retracted.

I don't see away to edit the post you considered  a lie any more , but I would agree for moderators to tag  #179  a  retraction.

My phrasing was ambiguous, and I accept your retraction.  This is how I intended it to be read:

"I (generic religious person) don't have a rational excuse for my belief, and you (generic atheist) don't either!"

It's a spin on a very common apologetic trope, "It takes more faith to be an atheist."

OK IC  I completely took it the opposite way. Sorry.

---

Most responses seem to be along the lines of assertions; I'm an A because I'm an A

That;s called a tautology.  I am a married man because I am a man..who is married.  Similarly, I am an atheist because I do not believe in gods.  It would be irrational for me to be theist, as a person who doesn;t believe in gods.  So when you ask the silly ass question of whether or not a person has a rational justification to be an atheist...you;ve set the bar so low that a simple tautology suffices.

Do you understand?

I understand a tautology.  But  do you have any reason to be an atheist that makes logical sense.
For example I am an atheist, because the sun evidences to me
 that atheism is the best position to take
supported by the because the sun shines in the morning on everyone.

[Losty]

That’s what you consider a logical reason? LOL

I don’t believe in any gods because I’ve never been presented with a logical reason to believe in any gods.

[The Grand Nudger]

That;s called a tautology.  I am a married man because I am a man..who is married.  Similarly, I am an atheist because I do not believe in gods.  It would be irrational for me to be theist, as a person who doesn;t believe in gods.  So when you ask the silly ass question of whether or not a person has a rational justification to be an atheist...you;ve set the bar so low that a simple tautology suffices.

Do you understand?

I understand a tautology.  But  do you have any reason to be an atheist that makes logical sense.

The reason that I am an atheist, which makes logical sense, is that I don;t believe in gods.  You -just- said you understood a tautology..............

[robvalue]

More rational reasons to be an atheist:

1) This guy is self-aware enough to know that if he supplies a definition for what he thinks a "God" is, it'll be ripped to shreds instantly, so he constantly deflects.

2) This kind of inane, flawed semantic trickery he's involved in (it's called the "Roadrunner" among other things) has absolutely nothing to do with atheism (it doesn't even figure into what he's saying). It has everything to do with the desperate levels apologetics has reached. This is beyond trying to reason God into existence; it's trying to reason non-God out of existence.

Now, this guy may be aware he's partaking in trolling nonsense, or he may actually think this is all a very clever way of actually establishing something. I don't know which is sadder, really.

Tell God to look me up when he's relevant to anything.

[Abaddon_ire]

My phrasing was ambiguous, and I accept your retraction.  This is how I intended it to be read:

"I (generic religious person) don't have a rational excuse for my belief, and you (generic atheist) don't either!"

It's a spin on a very common apologetic trope, "It takes more faith to be an atheist."

OK IC  I completely took it the opposite way. Sorry.

---

That;s called a tautology.  I am a married man because I am a man..who is married.  Similarly, I am an atheist because I do not believe in gods.  It would be irrational for me to be theist, as a person who doesn;t believe in gods.  So when you ask the silly ass question of whether or not a person has a rational justification to be an atheist...you;ve set the bar so low that a simple tautology suffices.

Do you understand?

I understand a tautology. 

No, you clearly do not.

But  do you have any reason to be an atheist that makes logical sense.

Lots of people here gave you those reasons. You faithfully promised me that you would respond to me personally. You did not. I leave it to your imagination what corner you have painted yourself into.

For example I am an atheist, because the sun evidences to me
 that atheism is the best position to take
supported by the because the sun shines in the morning on everyone.

That is flat out bizarre. Atheists and theists of every colour acknowledge that the sun shines. We can measure it regardless of what position one might take.

Can we measure your particular god? Nope. Because you have yet to identify whatever bovine deity you happen to believe.

And that fact simply exposes your own lack of faith. You had to pretend to a sufficiently vague deity to hide your doubt.

So let's just wheel out the questions...

What god do you believe in?
Why are you dissembling?
Why have you no confidence in your deity of choice?

Now, I know you will decline to answer such question aforehand, But I post such questions simply to expose the vapid lack of thought you exhibit.
[/quote]

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote

[downbeatplumb]

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.

Can someone please explain that sentence to me, it appears to be complete gibberish.

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.

What can I say that I already haven't, my logical reason for being an atheist is that I do not believe there is a god that is based on.


A: God is apparently supernatural and nothing supernatural has ever been proven to exist.
B: God attributes are ill defined often contradictory.
C: All the things attributed to god when investigated properly have all turned out to have natural causes or at the very least possible natural causes.
D: The idea of god belongs to a time when people thought that what they kinda reckoned was fact and needed no investigation, so can be lumped into the same category as pixies, fairies and unicorns.
E: Belief is not a choice. I did not choose to not believe in god, I just never have and I have never seen a reason to start.


Is that enough or should I go on?

Moderator Notice
Edited to fix quote

[Losty]

Is the quote button broken? Seems like maybe there’s some sort of glitch

[Abaddon_ire]

Is the quote button broken? Seems like maybe there’s some sort of glitch

Nope. It amuses Ybe to bork it in some weird belief that it convinces somebody of something.

[Whateverist]

Deciding 2 B or not 2 B a xtian isn't anything I give much thought about.  Rather, I'm just not that and when I consider the possibility of alternative realities going by the description of 'supernatural' my only response is "you've got to be kidding?"

If God could be something natural then I could give it more consideration.  But since no one seems to have that in mind, I'll pass.

But I haven't read any other responses in this thread yet.  How you doing, noob?  Still having trouble imagining how anyone could choose to be different from yourself?  Hope you're having a good time anyhow.

Sure I'm enjoying to see how people are here.

Most responses seem to be along the lines of assertions; I'm an A because I'm an A or I'm an A because there is not Evidence for E.
 But without any logical support for them.

It would be like if a Theist came and said I'm a Theist because I'm a Theist or I m a Theist because I have only seen the totaly persuasive evidence for the existence of G.

What logical reason can you give for not being a philatelist?  

Maybe you just don't care that much about stamps?  Since I don't care about gods as things in themselves I would be sympathetic.  However I do care why god belief has been so rampant for so long.  That question I find interesting.  But why would an infinitely powerful creator do X, or an ultimately benevolent creator do Y?  Those questions are just boring resting as they do on a premise which looks absurd on the face of it.