₦airaland Forum

Maynman:
Is the wall not part of the house?
Is the wall outside the house?
Cc lordreed
😂😂

No mind am, make e dey dribble e own shadow for there. Bwahahahahaha!

Workch:
I won't because I don't want to dance to your tone.

I won't do the job of providing your disbelieve evidence for you. You do it or stop crying 😂

LoLz! Who came to open thread about atheists? Bwahahahahaha!

Workch:
What is a false dichotomy fallacy?
It's a logical fallacy in which a spectrum of possible options is misrepresented as an either-or choice between two mutually exclusive things.

If the rat is not in the house, it does not mean that the rat in outside of the house. There are some other options, it could be inside the wall or the roof.

The rat in the roof can not tell you what's inside of the house.

Keep calm with your numerous fallacies.

There is no dichotomy false or otherwise, you simply playing a nonsensical semantic game.

Maynman:
I’m glad this is what you have been reduced to 😂

As in. Very laughable. Bwahahahahaha!

Workch:
I won't, I swear. Just stop asking me to do your atheist job for you 😂

If you disbelieve, then be ready to bring evidence 🤣 simple.

Agnosticism doesn't work with beliefs and disbeliefs

LoLz! You won't because then you will have to admit that you had no real point. Enjoy your label my guy, nothing do you. Bwahahahahaha!

Workch:
So you are going to ignore that the rat is not also out side of the house.

Is that not cherrypicking fallacy? 😅

Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence, is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related and similar cases or data that may contradict that position


How come when you meet a superior argument, you succumb to fallacies? 😂

Is the rat outside the house? No, it is not outside the house. It's so simple, you are just playing a pointless semantic game. Bwahahahahaha!

Workch:
Bros, it's not my problem if you have short memories.

You can go back to our conversation. Stop asking me to prove my disbelieve, I'm not an atheist.

Bwahahahahaha! You can't because I didn't but you can't admit it. This is turning sad, really.

Who gives a flying rat's arse if you are not an atheist? Are they giving prizes for what you choose to call yourself? Bwahahahahaha!

Workch:
Let me help you get it again. I am ready for it.

It's like you have 3 rats, one is inside the house, one is outiside and the other is in the wall. You ignore the aspect that the one in the wall is neither inside or outside the house and then you want him to tell you what's inside the house?

Does that make any sense? 😂

I am the rat inside the wall, I don't know anything about what's inside or outside the house.

Weak Agnosticism composes of 2 parts: it doesn't make conclusion from believes or disbelieve. It relies solely on evidence.

So when you tell me to talk about disbelieve, it's ridiculous and surprising that some of your calibre can reason in that manner 😂😂

LoLz! You are the one not making sense with your semantic gymnastics. Is the rat the rat inside the house? No it is not inside the house. Simple. The response is not stating the exact location of the rat, simply saying where it isn't.

Keep dribbling your own shadow. Bwahahahahaha! Chai!

Workch:
It's you that is showing it.
You have met someone who won't fall for your cherrypicking gimmicks.

You think you are having conversation with a theist? 😂

I don't believe or disbelieve god. Stop cherrypicking the disbelieve part of it only

Quote where I mentioned disbelieve. This is like the 3rd time now I have asked this question you are yet to provide an answer, when will you own up to your mistakes? You are so ungracious to being corrected it's laughable.

Workch:
no asked if blue is same as purple and I said no.

Let us assume I neither believe = blue
nor disbelieve = red
I don't believe = purple
According to you blue+red is not purple.
LMFAO!

Another analogy since you like them. You are like someone saying I neither have sugar nor salt is not the same as I don't have sugar or salt.

Your semantic gymnastics is highly amusing. Bwahahahahaha!

Workch:
So if something is yellow and not blue or red, the thing is red or blue in your own book?

How do you reason like this? 😂😂

LoLz! You are just showing your own lack of reasoning.

Workch:
I will give you another analogy, blue plus red gives purple. Purple is neither blue or red, it's purple.

You can't says it's either blue or red

Rather it is as if I asked you if blue+red is the same as purple and you said no.

Workch:
yes.

Bwahahahahaha! OMFD!

ReacherSaidNoth:
Yet another person wearing a label he cannot differentiate from other labels. Agnosticism is not fence to sit on between theism and atheism. By saying you believe in some intelligent designer, you are a theist sympathizer like someone rightly said.

LoLz. As in, seriously. They are just dancing around in some semantic gymnastics. Imagine someone saying "I don't believe" is not the same as "I neither believe nor disbelieve". I am just LMFAO.

Maynman:
Agnostics are even more stupid, agnostics believe that the question of whether “God” exists does have an answer, even though they suspend judgment on what it is.
Cc lordreed

More than anything else these discussions on agnosticism has pushed me more towards Ignosticism. What is a god? Does that word have a coherent, non ambiguous answer or is it just another word for bullshìt.

Workch:
Yes, you are wrong.

You are right if you say that I'm neutral. Like I nether believe or disbelief it
Stop cherrypicking the one that suits your argument

LoLz. So you are saying I neither believe or disbelieve is not the same as I don't believe?

Like I say no one is insulated from the vagaries of life. It behoves us as humans to commiserate with anyone going through trying times; have some empathy for people and their suffering not minding their faith or lack thereof. Some day you will also experience pain and you will find how much the love and comfort of people means.

Workch:
So why do you disbelieve the existence of a god?

Show me where I said I disbelieve.

Workch:
So why are then questioning me if you are an agnostic?

I am questioning what you wrote and why you think it applies to me and not to you if we have the exact same stance.

Workch:
it's whataboutism because you are using his inability to provide an evidence as an argument for your own inability to also provide evidence.

It's red herring because, you are distraction him from the main point of in science, evidence for or against must be provided to substantiate phenomenon. Dude is an agnostic, he needs either of it to take a position, he's in the middle, you cannot be telling him to provide evidence for one of the positions, he has not taken any yet. That's off point.

LoLz. Why does this seem like this was written by someone using this as moniker as a sock puppet?

Answer this am I wrong in saying you do not believe in a god?

gohf:
it gives me an option but it doesn't govern nor decide for me. Govern and guide are not the same, it may be similar when you consider it in a human way in leading.

It may be necessary to offend a people when it is unavoidable and not when offending a person is the purpose or intent of the action. Should one now sa they have the freedom to offend others, there are liberties we think we have or exercise that ain't liberty at all but a way to dominate or enslave others. Freedom to offend is no true freedom, it's like a supremacy mentality

Yes I guess it depends on the meaning of govern you are using. This is the meaning I am using: to have a controlling influence on something. If you use this meaning you will see so many things that have a controlling influence on you including electricity.

How can it be an attempt to enslave or dominate when they are saying everyone has that freedom?

Workch:
But I don't disbelieve as well.
I don't know anything. It is you that claim to know. I not claiming to have any knowledge, you re the one claiming to have knowledge.

If you say god does not exist, how did you know?

Point out where I said I know that a god does not exist.

Workch:
I'm confused, I don't know anything. I have not taken a position yet.

That's why I'm asking atheists who have taken a position to substantiate it but they are on the defensive 😂.

I am not claiming to know anything. I don't know if a god exist or not. There's nothing lkk evidence for "I don't know"

I'm proving to you that atheists also can not substitiate their position with evidence. Thru position is based on ignorance, just like theists 😂

You asked me my stance on god and I told you it is exactly the same as yours so what am I supposed to be proving or bringing evidence for?

Workch:
Do you know that you re committing a whataboutism fallacy.
Atheist are equally as illogical as theists, in the face of superior argument, you resort to fallacies 😂😂

Whether or not he doesn't provide evidence, it still doesn't mean that a god doesn't exist. Stop the red herring.
If you don't believe in God, then you have to bring evidence for it else your disbelief is an ad ignoratiam.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't know anything 😂😂

What whataboutism or fallacy am I committing by quoting you directly? Even here you are repeating it again and triplechoice was even trying to defend you that it was some type of error. This statement: "If you don't believe in God, then you have to bring evidence for it" is the exact same statement I am asking you about or are you claiming that I am wrong in saying you don't believe in a god?

triplechoice:
How ?

I Judge should side with you over something that doesn't concern him?

I don't think I understand you yet.

Let him answer for himself.

Valar Morghulis. Rest in peace.

triplechoice:
I think he didn't put it well.

Both you and the theist are the ones to present your case for judgement by the agnostic who is acting like a Judge now.
Judges are expected to be neutral .Is that not so?

The matter doesn't concern the agnostic. It's between you and those you are opposed to.

So defend or prove your case beyond reasonable doubt. That's all.

That's why the question is for him to answer.

triplechoice:
You can only provide that when you have taken a position.

I neither believe nor disbelieve you means neutrality, zero. Nothing to give until I can be sure

Well Workch says you need to bring evidence against what you don't believe.

OndoRaph:
Whenever I eat pasta based products like spaghetti and macroni, my entire body seems to swell the next morning when I wake, especially my face, hands and legs. For the face, I even feel the weight of sudden chunky skin even without a reflection in the mirror. What could possibly be the explanation to this. Am I alone or any other person feels same?

You are obviously allergic to one or more of the ingredients.

Workch:
I don't disbelieve or believe it.

Why is it hard to understand?

Did I say differently? If you don't believe what evidence do have against it with respect to what you said: “if you don't believe it bring an evidence against it. ”

Workch:
According to me, I ask atheists for evidence against a deistic god, but I ask deists evidence for it. Because I don't know.

It's both of you guys who make up your mind without actual knowledge. At the end if the day, both deists and atheists always do not provide evidence

This what you said: if you don't believe it bring an evidence against it. So what evidence do you have against deism to not believe it?

Workch:
Don't mind me jare, I ways type fast hence numerous typos.

How does that change the fact that you cannot dismissa deistic god?

Answer my previous post to further that discussion.