Ybe an atheist

[brewer]

Look, if MK and Ybe want to believe, it's no skin off my teeth. 

The offense comes when the finger pointing superiority starts. That includes preaching.

[The Grand Nudger]

Now look, Brewer, if they can;t be better than your be-sorcerered ass..then whats the point of believing anyway?

[Ybe]

You are asserting that they are faulty assertions (So what).  

You asserted that they were faulty because they were unsupported.  As a matter of logic, that's a non sequitur.  Plus, if you're saying that we should not accept atheist assertions if they are not accompanied by support, but that we should accept your assertion without support, then you are engaging in a double standard and so your conclusions also don't follow.   NOT SAYING THAT That's "so what."

  A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous statement or argument
Their statements are exactly that, they don't  logically follow any previous statements or arguments, that's why I can call them unsupported.
  No I would expect support for any assertion that one wants it to be taken as more than an opinion ie as a logical ration reasonable reason.

[Abaddon_ire]

Ybe's Religious Views: God Is

Me: God is what?

I'm fine with your god belief.  But what do you think this God you believe in consists of and what makes you think that?

What makes you think you would be able to understand my understanding of G?

Not trying to dodge as I have already given definitions in post 1.
  G = (What many A's say they have no belief in). Etc.
BUT the Q is  what logical reason do As have for what they assert...

In other words, if you were told, what makes one think what G consists of what makes "you" think you would understand.

And I keep telling you that I believe in no god because no convincing evidence for ANY god has ever been presented by anyone.

You have yet to do so, should how would it be rational in any way to believe in a magic bloke from a magic book absent any evidence?

[Ybe]

When you were asked to show this by providing evidence for God, you presented a faulty argument for God's existence. (It was only an overkill example of what a logical etc. is ).

I see.  Well since it wasn't actually logical, it wasn't a very good example, was it?

OH WOW you think your note quote was powerful enough to say that? I think you need to re-think.

---

I don't see how you are going to demonstrate the claim that there is no evidence for God is faulty except by presenting alleged evidence for God and seeing if it withstands scrutiny.(Hey, if any assertion does not need to include support (as As are doing here), then it should be obvious that all one needs do is make assertions like As do). 

Straw man.  Sarcasm, sorry added the need to   (see underlined). You can see it should have been there as in the consequent.
not a strawman I have no intention of knocking that down.

you're just making an equally unsupported assertion. (I just supported it with logic, my apologies that it was missed)

No, you did not.  If you think you did, then make an argument for it. (Sarcasm continued )

[Ybe]

Running out of time.
 I have heard argument that my Q has been answered.

Sorry, but not sufficiently as y'all  well know.

I was hoping to get a good reason, but it is prima facie that As have no logical reason for being an A.

I wish  I could spend more time, but from the current answers I don't forsee a sufficient reason for an being A coming.

Thanks I have enjoyed the discussion.

Here is a proof for G.

If no G, then no R
there is  R
So not no G or G

R = reasoning the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
G you know G.
G is the support for R and everything:
- thinking the future will be like it was in the past
-  why we call something good or evil
- Love
- logic
Bye for now tommorrow is Friday and I have to work early and so time is up.... its 12 am here Friday

[Angrboda]

You asserted that they were faulty because they were unsupported.  As a matter of logic, that's a non sequitur.  Plus, if you're saying that we should not accept atheist assertions if they are not accompanied by support, but that we should accept your assertion without support, then you are engaging in a double standard and so your conclusions also don't follow.   NOT SAYING THAT That's "so what."

  A non sequitur is a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous statement or argument
Their statements are exactly that, they don't  logically follow any previous statements or arguments, that's why I can call them unsupported.
  No I would expect support for any assertion that one wants it to be taken as more than an opinion ie as a logical ration reasonable reason.

You haven't demonstrated that the atheists explanation is a non sequitur, and that's the entire problem.

[purplepurpose]

Running out of time.
 I have heard argument that my Q has been answered.

Sorry, but not sufficiently as y'all  well know.

I was hoping to get a good reason, but it is prima facie that As have no logical reason for being an A.

I wish  I could spend more time, but from the current answers I don't forsee a sufficient reason for an being A coming.

Thanks I have enjoyed the discussion.

Here is a proof for G.

If no G, then no R
there is  R
So not no G or G

R = reasoning the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
G you know G.
G is the support for R and everything:
- thinking the future will be like it was in the past
-  why we call something good or evil
- Love
- logic
Bye for now tommorrow is Friday and I have to work early and so time is up.... its 12 am here Friday

If quality of answers here doesn't satisfy you I suggest to watch lectures of top atheists like Christopher Hitchens and Matt Dillahaunty. Many people here quote those famous atheists.

Question your asking about atheism along with many others have been asked numerous times already and answered. Don't be lazy and look up your question.

[Angrboda]

I see.  Well since it wasn't actually logical, it wasn't a very good example, was it?

OH WOW you think your note quote was powerful enough to say that? I think you need to re-think.

If you want to debate the question, have at it. Otherwise this just appears to be another opinion without any real support.

Straw man.  Sarcasm, sorry added the need to   (see underlined). You can see it should have been there as in the consequent.
not a strawman I have no intention of knocking that down.

Still a straw man. Do you even know what a straw man is?

---

Here is a proof for G.

If no G, then no R
there is  R
So not no G or G

R = reasoning the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
G you know G.
G is the support for R and everything:
- thinking the future will be like it was in the past
-  why we call something good or evil
- Love
- logic
Bye for now tommorrow is Friday and I have to work early and so time is up.... its 12 am here Friday

I don't find your TAG argument at all persuasive, and it has been addressed in the literature (for example, Does Induction Presume the Existence of the Christian God?).

As regards induction, we evolved in an environment in which induction was a profitable strategy, for whatever reason. Our believing it may not be rationally justifiable, but that's not the question that is being asked, is it? Our faith in induction isn't a consequence of either God or rational justification, but rather is a reflection of our past. The argument you are making is asking why we believe that induction is reliable, and Martin's comments about validation are relevant here. Moreover, positing a God doesn't in and of itself overcome the objections to the justification for induction as that problem is related to the fact of having incomplete information, not from assuming uniformity. You can assume uniformity and the problems with induction remain.

[drfuzzy]

Running out of time.
 I have heard argument that my Q has been answered.

Sorry, but not sufficiently as y'all  well know.

I was hoping to get a good reason, but it is prima facie that As have no logical reason for being an A.

I wish  I could spend more time, but from the current answers I don't forsee a sufficient reason for an being A coming.

Thanks I have enjoyed the discussion.

Here is a proof for G.

If no G, then no R
there is  R
So not no G or G

R = reasoning the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.
G you know G.
G is the support for R and everything:
- thinking the future will be like it was in the past
-  why we call something good or evil
- Love
- logic
Bye for now tommorrow is Friday and I have to work early and so time is up.... its 12 am here Friday

"Sorry, but not sufficiently as y'all  well know."   Your question was answered perfectly and honestly in the first few pages.

"If no G, then no R"      If no God then there is no Reasoning   --  well, if you start with a fallacy, it's no wonder you fail.
"G is the support for R and everything:"      --  another fallacy.

Until concrete scientific proof that a deity is presented, you cannot start an argument with "God Is" of any sort.  
I can say "God ISN'T"  - - you didn't provide proof that it exists, I cannot provide proof that it doesn't, so any argument is a waste of time.

Have fun wasting your life talking to something that isn't there.