Ybe an atheist

[LastPoet]

I do not need a why. I am.

/thread

I do see our lazy theists just cowarding out of these threads. If they are advocating for god they are OK, amirite?

[LostLocke]

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

 Right now you sorta sound like a theist?

That's not my problem.

[brewer]

Ybe, I just can't buy into the whole killing children thing that the bible seems to love. 

I'd quote your book but I'm sure that you have it memorized.

[Ybe]

Ybe wrote:
"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." 
-------------------
"logical rational reason that G is".   Ah, but that's precisely the problem.  It's neither logical nor rational to believe in something when 
there has been no evidence found for thousands of years that this thing actually exists.  
Present clear scientific evidence that your imaginary friend actually exists, and yes, A's will accept the evidence presented.
The burden of proof is upon the person who is making the claims that this creature exists.  
Chop chop troll.  Get to it.  Provide the evidence.  (Obviously, do so without any personal anecdotes or quotes from literature.)

The burden of proof for this thread is for As to give a logical rational reason for being what they claim to be.
I remain unconvinced by the E given as logical rational reason to be what they claim to be.
Also, applying the logic given by an A (italics):

I am an A because   No E       Vs      I am a  T because G is
supported by No E                          supported by G is

                                                       If G is then A is False
                                                       G Is (as shown)
                                                       So Aism false

Now I am not saying the A logic is sound but if it is their logic then applying it G is and now they do have E


I cant accept  the bellow A type  reasoning:

If one has a lack of belief in G, then he is an A
I  lack belief in G
I am an A
Oops  Not very convincing  1. No proof of belief being lacked .

If I'm an A, then no E for G
no E for G
I'm an A
Oops  how do you know you are able to know E or no E. What do you depend on to know you've analyzed E properly?

[Angrboda]

[drfuzzy]

---

Ybe wrote:
"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." 
-------------------
"logical rational reason that G is".   Ah, but that's precisely the problem.  It's neither logical nor rational to believe in something when 
there has been no evidence found for thousands of years that this thing actually exists.  
Present clear scientific evidence that your imaginary friend actually exists, and yes, A's will accept the evidence presented.
The burden of proof is upon the person who is making the claims that this creature exists.  
Chop chop troll.  Get to it.  Provide the evidence.  (Obviously, do so without any personal anecdotes or quotes from literature.)

---

The burden of proof for this thread is for As to give a logical rational reason for being what they claim to be.
I remain unconvinced by the E given as logical rational reason to be what they claim to be.
Also, applying the logic given by an A (italics):

I am an A because   No E       Vs      I am a  T because G is
supported by No E                          supported by G is

                                                       If G is then A is False
                                                         G Is (as shown)
                                                        So Aism false

Now I am not saying the A logic is sound but if it is their logic then applying it G is and now they do have E


I cant accept  the bellow A type  reasoning:

If one has a lack of belief in G, then he is an A
I  lack belief in G
I am an A
Oops  Not very convincing  1. No proof of belief being lacked .

If I'm an A, then no E for G
no E for G
I'm an A
Oops  how do you know you are able to know E or no E. What do you depend on to know you've analyzed E properly?

You can't ask that question until after evidence has been provided.  No evidence has been provided.  As far as i can tell, none exists in human history.
When a person states that they do not believe in ____  that is the end of the discussion UNTIL clear proof of ___  is presented.
No logical reason for "not believing" is required when there is no evidence.  The lack of evidence is MORE than a sufficient logical reason, 
and has been stated repeatedly ad nauseum in this thread.  

You can say "G is" as much as you want.  You can worship a gold teapot that circles the earth and sends out telepathic tea-waves
as much as you want.   If you don't need proof, you can believe anything.  The minute you imply that a non-believer in the teapot
should share in your fantasy, and that they are somehow illogical for not "believing", proof of its existence needs to be presented.

Chop chop troll.  Scientific proof.  You have presented nothing but your whiny idiotic circular non-logical idiocy so far.

[LastPoet]

Jorm, answer this to me, have you finally broke LR? His absence is noticeable.

[Ybe]

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

This is a reply test

[Losty]

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

This is a reply test

Seems to only happen with multiple replies

[Ybe]

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

This is a reply test

TRYING MULTIPLE