Ybe an atheist

[Abaddon_ire]

You are incoherent, but I shall endeavour to lend a machete to your intellectual thicket.

Wrong. Absent any evidence, why, logically speaking, would you accept any damn fool idea? There is no evidence for unicorns, dragons or talking donkeys either. Is it reasonable to assume those exist too? Simply by having no evidence?

_________________________________________________________________________________________
|   YB: 1. If As had  logically supported reasonable reasons, then they would give them

We did. Your obvious illiteracy prevented you from reading those responses.

Abaddon_ire: We do, we gave them, you promptly ignored them.2. they admit they are opinions or have trouble seeing that they are
     Define "E". Then explain which orifice you pulled the term "supreme logic" out of. Nobody used any such term until you invented it out of whole 
    cloth.

Learn to use the quote function. You have mashed up my words in order to do....something. It is hard to discern what you intended because of the incoherent nonsense.

YB: [/b]Re. "Absent any evidence"   Before we get your logical reasonable proof that "there is no evidence for Unicorns" etc. Could you prove that you can logically discern any evidence given for G  or (U,D or TD), with reasonable logical proof?

LOLWUT?
 
You have evidence for unicorns? Feel free to share.

(What ever type of  E is given to you for whatever?)  

Incoherent sentence fragment.

Re ire: We do, we gave them, you promptly ignored them.
YB: Can you prove how (explaining that an assertion isn't logical something considered logical  proof) means what you gave was ignored?
Re ire: which ???? you pulled the term "supreme logic" out of. Nobody used any such...   #314

Who do you think you are talking to?

Gotta go again.  There is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence for G by the way.

G? G-force? G-spot? G what?

But the A's Ive heard around here so far have  been  disappointing,
they won't or can't prove  they have the ability to reason logically about evidence.

Oh I can happily reason about evidence for anything. The problem is that you have none.

Yet, they keep asking for E for G as if they have some standard or ability to reason logically about it.
Wow! If you can't prove you can reason logically about E.

Why would anyone go forward and even try to give E for G?

Keep trying. Eventually you will have an EGG.

Oh well, try to give it to Friday or Saturday and see if any logical reasoning is around.

Don't bother. You clearly know nothing about logic or reason, hell even basic spelling is a mythological far distant country to you.

I

You what?

[brewer]

---

Gotta go again.  There is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence for G by the way.

I've noticed that you have failed to respond to me. Can you supply a rational logical reason for doing so?

Maybe taking time out to worship a child killer?

[The Valkyrie]

---

Gotta go again.  There is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence for G by the way.

I've noticed that you have failed to respond to me. Can you supply a rational logical reason for doing so?

Maybe taking time out to worship a child killer?

There's plenty of evidence for G, you heathen!

It follows "f" in the alphabet and just try saying "giraffes" or "girls" without it!

[Mystic]

I've noticed that you have failed to respond to me. Can you supply a rational logical reason for doing so?

Maybe taking time out to worship a child killer?

There's plenty of evidence for G, you heathen!

It follows "f" in the alphabet and just try saying "giraffes" or "girls" without it!

O man that cracked me up so bad.

[Ybe]

[quote pid='1766095' dateline='1527631705']

Oh well, try to give it to Friday or Saturday and see if any logical reasoning is around.

Don't bother. You clearly know nothing about logic or reason, hell even basic spelling is a mythological far distant country to you.

I

You what?
[/quote]
Looks like you need to review the first Post...

You what, what?

I am

---

---

Gotta go again.  There is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence for G by the way.

I've noticed that you have failed to respond to me. Can you supply a rational logical reason for doing so?

Maybe taking time out to worship a child killer?

 Sorry, here is a response for you.
If no G, then no reason 4 responding.

[The Valkyrie]

[quote pid='1766095' dateline='1527631705']

Oh well, try to give it to Friday or Saturday and see if any logical reasoning is around.

Don't bother. You clearly know nothing about logic or reason, hell even basic spelling is a mythological far distant country to you.

I

You what?

Looks like you need to review the first Post...

You what, what?

I am

---

I've noticed that you have failed to respond to me. Can you supply a rational logical reason for doing so?

Maybe taking time out to worship a child killer?

 Sorry, here is a response for you.
If no G, then no reason 4 responding.
[/quote]

And there are people who say this clown isn't trolling...

[Ybe]

Sorry, here is a response for you.
If no G, then no reason 4 responding.
[/quote]

[/quote] And there are people who say this clown isn't trolling... [/quote]

That is a better response than yours, and exemplifies how As respond to me.

---

[brewer]

Sorry, here is a response for you.
If no G, then no reason 4 responding.

And there are people who say this clown isn't trolling... [/quote]

That is a better response than yours, and exemplifies how As respond to me.

---

[/quote]

This caller was an idiot that just keeps talking in circles about a question that is not valid. Proof or evidence if not necessary to be an atheist. Some butt holes with their head up a child killers ass will never ever get this. Sound familiar?

[drfuzzy]

Ybe's own statements:   

"There is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence for G by the way."   #319
-- Despite claiming, multiple times, that he is not here to prove the existence of god.  The moment evidence is claimed, evidence needs to be presented.  And the claim of "there is lots of sufficient/convincing evidence" is an unsupported claim that your god exists.   Poster is a liar with a "hidden" agenda by his own statements.

"Proof:
P1. If A's can"t give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason), then As have no ability to judge E for G. 
P2. I agree that As can't give convincing/sufficient E (that As are able to logically reason). 
C. So, it is true they have no ability to judge (any E for G presented"
Completely ABSURD P1, since the repeated claim is that we have seen no evidence for the existence of god.  We also have clearly stipulated our evidence requirements.  No evidence has been presented, so there is nothing to judge.  Which, of course, makes this snobbish disrespect of others absolutely hilarious.  

[Assertion No G]   (We can assume that "G" means "god" - although with gibberish text-speak, it could mean goblins, who knows?)
P1 If there is no G it would be illogical to believe in G         ABSOLUTELY TRUE!  BRAVO!     
P2 No G                 Woopsie, here is where you slide for a lot of folks.  The first premise started with IF, junior.   
C. it is illogical        What is illogical? "It" can be anything. Your claim just dropped into la-la-land right there.  Grade:   started good but ended up "F"

If no G, then no reason 4 responding.      #326

We see no reason to believe that a "G" exists.  
You apparently think that a "G" exists.  
If you cannot provide the evidence that you claim exists in abundance, then there is NO REASON 4 THIS THREAD.

[LastPoet]

Lol @ Shockofgod.