Ybe an atheist

[robvalue]

Oh is he going? I don't know what he expected. Does he want us to change him into an atheist, or something?

[brewer]

That's not a "necessary" conclusion, only a conclusion. It's the believers that use it's "necessary" when not necessary to prop up arguments for their god. So ya blew that one. Definition fail. 

When the premises are true and the conclusion  is the only possible conclusion that can be concluded given the premises, then you have my definition of
a "necessary" conclusion...

---

IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP THESE GUYS?

I AM LEAVING AND WHEN I COME BACK I HOPE SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL CAN BE MUSTERED.

You shuck and jive with all your bullshit for all these pages and at the end this is the best you can do to represent yourself?

Come on boy (little man), you started this, time to step up and finish the game you started. I'll repeat.

You admit that bible verses define your god then, great. Then by definition your god provides direction for the killing of children and that is my logical rational reason for not believing in your god. Does this satisfy your criteria for rational logical reason for my atheism?

Don't change the goal post. Yes people die all of the time. Does god give directions for people to kill others in all of these deaths?

Post #258, you stated that:"Merciful G must exist as there are multiple G(s) around sounds like a logical reason to me. Your not going to tell me G isn't merciful." What are your biblical "multiple gods"?

Man up and admit you were wrong.

[Ravenshire]

Possibly, but really I am only asking a Q uestion which I am sincere about, as I keep hoping for a good answer(s).

If you won't accept any of our answers as "good," all you're doing is wasting our time and yours.

So, a typical troll thread then?

[Abaddon_ire]

So I have seen sufficient evidence to believe in a god?
Which evidence is that?

I think you said you haven't seen sufficient evidence so you have seen evidence.
It is an opinion unless you can prove all evidence you have seen is not sufficient.
And that you are able to reason about evidence logically and properly.
And that you are not denying the evidence for whatever reason.

So back to the Q.

No, it isn't that there is insufficient evidence, it is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL

That god definitely does not exist.

Yet, another reason to ask what logical reason do you have for being an A?

IF you spent 30 years giving reasons for your above statement, if they are illogical,l So what?

You fail. What you are attempting is to claim that no evidence for a deity is a reason to believe in that imaginary being. That is simply stupidly illogical.

That's not a "necessary" conclusion, only a conclusion. It's the believers that use it's "necessary" when not necessary to prop up arguments for their god. So ya blew that one. Definition fail. 

When the premises are true and the conclusion  is the only possible conclusion that can be concluded given the premises, then you have my definition of
a "necessary" conclusion...

Your premises are not true.

IS THERE ANYONE OUT THERE THAT CAN HELP THESE GUYS?

I AM LEAVING AND WHEN I COME BACK I HOPE SOMETHING MORE SUBSTANTIAL CAN BE MUSTERED.

You have yet to present anything of substance. If you return, hopefully you will have learned basic logic. And spelling. And grammar.

[drfuzzy]

If you quote the whole B great, but support your assertions logically,

Ex.
If the B says I m an A then I m an A
I'm A because vs Heingidc 2:6 says so,
C See I am an A

I don't give a flying fuck at a rolling doughnut what what the wholly babble says, because it is clearly the work of warmongering ignorant bronze-age goat-herders.
Any assertion that a deity exists must be done without referencing a moronic evil book of fairy tales.
I can quote the whole damn stupid tome, and I can guarantee that this is a valid reason for the need of life-long therapy.

So "If the B says ___" means absolutely less than nothing. 

You know, if you actually READ the Bible from start to finish, YOU would probably be an A before you even got to the new "testament".

[Ybe]

Ybe
It is an opinion unless you can prove all evidence you have seen is not sufficient.
And that you are able to reason about evidence logically and properly.
And that you are not denying the evidence for whatever reason.

Magilla
The crux is that as an atheist, I have not seen any convincing evidence. Whatever evidence I have seen does not convince me; and yes that's an opinion.
In my set of beliefs, it is only my opinion that counts, and for everyone else, so too theirs.
If the existence of a god could be proved, and was proven, I'd believe. If there is convincing evidence, (for me) then tautologically I'd be convinced.
Until then I'm unconvinced, and I won't believe that of which I have not been convinced. That is the only rational, logical position for me.
Magilla.

1. Just to be clear you realize this thread is not about proving or disproving G , right? (see 1st Post)

MG: Whatever evidence I have seen does not convince [i]me;[/i] and yes that's an opinion.
YB: Thanks for an opinion.

MG: In my set of beliefs, it is only my opinion that counts, and for everyone else, so too theirs
YB: Sounds like a contradiction. perhaps this didn't come out right?

MG: If the existence of a god could be proved, and was proven, I'd believe.  If there is convincing evidence, (for me) then tautologically I'd be convinced.
Until then I'm unconvinced, and I won't believe that of which I have not been convinced. That is the only rational, logical position for me.

YB: Until a rational logical reason (not opinion) is given as to why one who says, I lack belief in G, would hold such a view, then my Q has not been logically answered.

 And as to your opinion that  your position is the only rational, logical position for you.

I would ask you to ask yourself how do you know or come to know that?
Were you always convinced that your position is the rational logical position for you, or were you at one point unconvinced and finally got the convincing evidence you needed to be convinced?
How do you know if you are really convinced now and aren't just fooling yourself that you're convinced, that your position is the rational logical position for you.
Finally, is the convincing evidence, only enough to convince yourself, or would I be convinced also ? As only rational logical (non- opinion) type of reasons are what I have found convincing.

Thanks again for your opinions. Get back to me when you have some rational support for being an A

[Abaddon_ire]

The flounce, she is hard to steeek.

[Ybe]

They can't prove their position is rational except to themselves
... "concerning your Lord, is it not sufficient for them that your Lord is a witness on all things."

thanks for your post I would need to know what some things mean, but in this thread I am asking A's for their logical reasonable reason for being a A.

---

If you won't accept any of our answers as "good," all you're doing is wasting our time and yours.

Sounds like, if you won't accept any of the evidence as convincing then your wasting our time and yours.

[purplepurpose]

They can't prove their position is rational except to themselves
... "concerning your Lord, is it not sufficient for them that your Lord is a witness on all things."

thanks for your post I would need to know what some things mean, but in this thread I am asking A's for their logical reasonable reason for being a A.

---

If you won't accept any of our answers as "good," all you're doing is wasting our time and yours.

Sounds like, if you won't accept any of the evidence as convincing then your wasting our time and yours.

Listen to Matt Dillahaunty on youtube. That guy is really an exceptional atheist.

[Ybe]

If you quote the whole B great, but support your assertions logically,

Ex.
If the B says I m an A then I m an A
I'm A because vs Heingidc 2:6 says so,
C See I am an A

I can quote the whole damn stupid tome, and I can guarantee that this is a valid reason for the need of life-long therapy.

So "If the B says ___" means absolutely less than nothing. 

You know, if you actually READ the Bible from start to finish, YOU would probably be an A before you even got to the new "testament".

Really not interested in all the rants. But some people seem to really enjoy that over logic.