Ybe an atheist

[Brian37]

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?

That was a waste of server space and my brain hurts just reading this nonsense.

[Ybe]

The discussion is about the Q is there any logical, reasonable, rational reason to be an A.
And I'm trying to fill in blanks __________________
YOU WROTE:
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.

YB: Sorry 1 me lots of U.
To make it short. I can use your above logic then to prove G. If that's what you accept as a logical reason.

[Silver]

The  discussion is about  the Q is there any logical, reasonable, rational reason to be an A.
       And  I'm trying to fill in blanks __________________
YOU WROTE:      
   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.

YB: Sorry 1 me lots of U.
To make it short. I can use  your above logic then to prove G. If that's what you accept as a logical reason.

Bolded: incorrect.

[Ybe]

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

I have only regurgitated  A(s) circular reasons.
 
You need to start a thread that asks for evidence,  if that is what you wish.

But first would you explain with a logical reasonable reason (that won't end up being circular,as you said) that will evidence to me that you reallly have a good logcial reason for being an A?

---

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?

That was a waste of server space and my brain hurts just reading this nonsense.

Really? I just refined what A's have been giving me so far. Great to know you know how I feel.

[SaStrike]

Ok you're still asking the same question from last week in the same thread. You mother fucking troll.

On a serious note, has no one been able to answer?

[Silver]

But first would you explain with a logical reasonable reason (that won't end up being circular,as you said) that will evidence to me that you reallly have a good logcial reason for being an A?

By all accounts of reason, it is most illogical to believe in a G. Therefore, by process of elimination, it is more logical to be an A.

[Ybe]

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.

Thanks for being a Donator.

Do you have a logical reasonable reason (other than whats been given already) for being an A? (as my first post)

---

The  discussion is about  the Q is there any logical, reasonable, rational reason to be an A.
       And  I'm trying to fill in blanks __________________
YOU WROTE:      
   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.

YB: Sorry 1 me lots of U.
To make it short. I can use  your above logic then to prove G. If that's what you accept as a logical reason.

Bolded: incorrect.

Underlined not supported by a logical reason

[Silver]

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.

Thanks for being a Donator.

Do you have a logical reasonable reason (other than whats been given already) for being an A? (as my first post)

---

Bolded: incorrect.

Underlined not supported by a logical reason

Italicized can kiss my ass.

[Ybe]

Answers have been given, but turn out to be circular or unsupported assertions...

[Silver]

Answers have been given, but turn out to be circular or unsupported assertions...

Your repeated asserted claims are just that.