₦airaland Forum

Trollronaldo:
So Mr. LordReed, I hope I have been able to convince you that deists do not necessarily need to be the one to provide evidence for their ideas, if you think it's not true, you can go ahead and bring a counter-evidence before rejecting it, else the most logical stance remains Agnosticism.

This is weak. No wonder Agnosticism isn’t like that popular, it’s a failed attempt from a monotheist that doesn’t want anything to do with religion.

Trollronaldo:
Amedo Avogadro

He proposed that equal volumes of different gases contain an equal number of molecules, provided they are at the same temperature and pressure.

Although his hypothesis was rejected by other scientists during his lifetime, by 1870 it was generally recognized to be correct. Avogadro’s hypothesis in now known as Avogadro’s law.

Who taught Avogadro the definition of gases, temperature and pressure and how they work, didn’t he use pre existing facts to get to his theory?

What’s “god” how did you arrive at his attributes and qualities?

Trollronaldo:
Yes another example is continental drift.

Alfred Wegener proposed that Earth’s continents move very slowly. Over millions of years they can move a long way. Between 1912 and 1929 he published a stream of fossil and rock evidence to support his theory. He died on an expedition to Greenland in 1930.

Wegener’s theory of continental drift was rejected by most other scientists during his lifetime. It was only in the 1960s that continental drift finally became part of mainstream science. Guess what, does scientist who rejected it commuted fallacy.

Alfred didn't have to prove his ideas, other people did.

“he published a stream of fossil and rock evidence to support his theory.“
Is he not using pre existing facts to support his THEORY? Bwhaahahah

Trollronaldo:
The idea of blackhole was first conceived in 1783 by John Mitchell, since then no one had any evidence for the existence of blackholes. Several scientists had tried to either provide evidence for or against it, including Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Stephen hawking etc. But they couldn't, not until 1974 when Robert Brown and Bruce Balick discover the first blackhole called Cygnus X-1.

Remeber, between 1783 and 1974, no sane person would have outrightly said blackholes don't exist on the basis of unavailability of evidence, John Mitchell does not have to necessarily provide evidence for the idea.

I will give you another example

All the people you’ve mentioned used pre existing facts to observe their ideas.
He proposed that black hole is in space, is it not a fact that there’s “space”?
What’s space made up? What’s the definition of a blackhole

Which pre existing facts are you using for a god?
What’s the definition of “god”?

Trollronaldo:
another one


Einstein propose the Friedmann–Einstein universe and the Einstein–de Sitter universe, which suggests that the universe is static. He didn't provide evidence, he jusy wortr mathematical proofs.

Many scientists started testing the idea, Edwin Hubble disproved it in 1926 about 10years later when he experimented redshift.

Until it has been disproven, you cannot say it's not a thing.
Deists do not have to provide evidence if you can just look for counter-evidence like science always does.

If you don't agree with an Idea, you have to disagree on the basis that you have counter-evidence for it. You cannot reject an idea that has no evidence for or against, that's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.
It's the reason I disagree with Christianity, I have counter-evidence against almost all of their claims.

The best thing to do is to remain neutral.

“He didn't provide evidence, he jusy wortr mathematical proofs.”

Show us where scientists are looking for “evidence of non existence”

Bwahahahaha.

Trollronaldo:
In 1809, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck conceived the idea that led to the lamarckian theory of evolution.
Since then, scientist have been trying to disprove it, Lamarck was very religious about his ideas, majority of his ideas came for mere observation of specimens, it sounded very true but it had to be tested.
No one alluded that Lamarck was right on wrong until his ideas failed a falsifiable test.

Lamarckism was disproved by most geneticists after the 1930s when we started understanding genetic and inheritance.
Again, lamarck didn't to prove any evidence, he only needed to provide his ideas observations for others to test and disprove.

I’m still waiting for when you will post how scientists are looking for evidence of “non existence”, is disproving a THEORY the same as looking for evidence of “non existence” bwahahaha

Trollronaldo:
The idea of blackhole was first conceived in 1783 by John Mitchell, since then no one had any evidence for the existence of blackholes. Several scientists had tried to either provide evidence for or against it, including Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Stephen hawking etc. But they couldn't, not until 1974 when Robert Brown and Bruce Balick discover the first blackhole called Cygnus X-1.

Remeber, between 1783 and 1974, no sane person would have outrightly said blackholes don't exist on the basis of unavailability of evidence, John Mitchell does not have to necessarily provide evidence for the idea.

I will give you another example

So scientists are looking for “non existence of blackhole?”
Who is looking for the evidence of existence of blackhole then? Bwahahaha

Patriotsleague:
Think of yourself, how much do you have in the house?

Most Nigerians have no money at home, stop deceiving yourself. Some operate bank account, some have no money to keep. You are talking like 200milluon Nigerians have lots of money in the house, population of Nigerians with money in the house is less than 10%. The rest only have spending change, and save with the banks, it's the criminal politicians, drug dealers and kidnappers that keeps large money in the house.

Even if they are depositing 1000 each, how long do you think it will take 200 million people?

Patriotsleague:
We have POS merchants and banks everywhere, most poor people don't have money in the house, it's normally hand to mouth. You are not carrying everyone's money, it should not be a big deal for you to return your own paltry sum via pos, spending or taking it to bank.

What’s the number of POS merchants and banks compared to 200 millions?
And won’t those POS merchants also go inside the banks to change money along with the over 200 million population.
Even if they are depositing 1000 each, how long do you think it will take 200 million people?

Patriotsleague:
Of course, how much poor man get?

30 days is enough to return old notes or disburse them. Most Nigerians always talk like idiots, they don't know their problems, keep supporting the criminals to keep stealing from them.

30 days is enough for over 200 million people?

Bacteriologist:
Yeah I could barely make sense of whatever he wrote there.

TrollRonaldo thinks “god” is a person. A stone can be a god, and its worshipper will attribute many claims to it, the same way he is forming up claims and attributes for his deistic gods.
He should substitute god for deity in his statement, and let’s see how he sounds lol

He is a confused monotheist.

Trollronaldo:
Atheist do not believe in the "existence" of a god.

Existence is the key word,
1. An atheist does not accept the existence of a god on the basis of insufficient evidence.
2. A deist accept the existence of a god on the basis of insufficient evidence.

3. Other forms of theism accept the existence of their gods on the basis of not accepting evidence against them.

Deism is a distinct version of theism that is a direct opposite of atheism but on the same rationale of reaching a conclusion in the absence of evidence

Existence is the key word,
1. An atheist does not accept the existence of ANY god on the basis of insufficient evidence.
2. A deist accept the existence of ANY god on the basis of insufficient evidence.

you are confused!

Trollronaldo:
Let me ask you this question, does an average atheist reach the conclusion that a God or creator does not exist on the basis of insufficient evidence?

Which particular monotheist god are you saying exist? Yahweh? Allah?
If you prove yahweh exist that doesn’t mean allah exist, so which god?

You are confused.

Trollronaldo:
Atheist do not believe in the "existence" of a god.

Existence is the key word,
1. An atheist does not accept the existence of a god on the basis of insufficient evidence.
2. A deist accept the existence of a god on the basis of insufficient evidence.

3. Other forms of theism accept the existence of their gods on the basis of not accepting evidence against them.

Deism is a distinct version of theism that is a direct opposite of atheism but on the rationale

The moment you mentioned god you are already a theist. Under theism we have different concept.
Some theists accept the existence of other gods but they worship one god that’s called monolatrism.
Some theists accept only their god exist and reject all other gods that’s monotheism.
We have henotheism, polytheism, pantheism, panentheism.
Deism accept the concept of a monotheistic god with all is attributes and features but won’t tell us the name of the god.
You are confused!

Bacteriologist:
Theism
Pronunciation
IPA: /ˈθiɪzəm/
Noun


Belief in the existence of at least one deity.
(narrowly) Belief in the existence of a personal creator god, goddess, gods and/or goddesses present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. The God may be known by or through revelation. ▼ show



Atheism

Pronunciation
IPA: /ˈeɪθiɪzəm/
Noun
atheism (uncountable)


(broadly) Rejection of belief that any deities exist (with or without a belief that no deities exist).
(very broadly) Absence of belief that any deities exist (including absence of the concept of deities).
(historical) Absence of belief in a particular deity, pantheon, or religious doctrine (notwithstanding belief in other deities).

Deists are by definition theists. Atheists do not believe in a god at all.
How can any reasonable person conclude that these two beliefs are even remotely similar?

That’s because they lack knowledge on the definition of the terms they use.

Trollronaldo:
ok, thanks for schooling me

You are welcome, deus worshipper.
You are using the qualities and attributes of deus( In MONOTHEISTIC thought, God is usually viewed as the supreme being, CREATOR, God is typically conceived as being omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, as well as having an eternal existence), but you refuse to tell us the name of your deus?
Funny monotheist.

Trollronaldo:
your ideas are already flawed. Let's try another atheist

You’ve been schooled, monotheist and deist(deus)

Trollronaldo:
The meaning of ATHEISM is a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods.

I think there's no sufficient knowledge for someone to reach that conclusion

The origin of the word “god” has always been rooted in mythology and epic poems.

It’s just like i say cartoon characters doesn’t exist and you saying we don’t have sufficient knowledge to reach that conclusion.

Trollronaldo:
lol

Lordreed said something about “Igtheist” yesterday, and that makes the perfect sense. I’ve been reading about it.
What’s the origin of this word “god”?, what are the qualities and attributes a thing should have to be called a “god”, how did they arrive at this qualities?

Trollronaldo:
are you trying to sa that only a Christian god doesn't exist?

I said exist in a story.
We can also read about zeus and odin in their story.

What do you mean “exist”?

Trollronaldo:
do does a Creator exist?

why do you think a creator should exist?

Trollronaldo:
Why are scared of telling me same?

Are you a yahweh worshipper?

Trollronaldo:
this is you saying that all deities don't exist

Why are you scared of saying same to me?

I was talking to a Christian, the name of his gods are yahweh, el and asheera, all the gods he knows only exist in a story, jewish stories.

Trollronaldo:
So it exist but you don't just believe it?

Which one exist? Yahweh?

Trollronaldo:
So it exist but you don't just believe it?

Which of the gods exist, if you can prove yahweh does, that doesn’t mean baal or allah exist

Trollronaldo:
Does it exist or not?

Leave long story

You don’t understand what “god” means.
if you think god means creator, you are a monotheist.

Trollronaldo:
You know the one I am asking but you don't have the answer.

You can change your mind if you cannot answer something. There's no shame in that

The attributes of a deistic god is gotten from monotheism.

Do you reject polytheism but accept deism?

Trollronaldo:
I know, that's why I said atheism is wrong.

So when are you going to answer if a deistic god exist or not?

Atheism means not believing in all gods including a deistic god.
Do you believe Marduk exist or just a deistic god? That’s monotheism

Workch:
I was an atheist, everyone knows that. After encountering deism, I had no option that to turn to Agnosticism because I change my ideas when I see new development.

I don't argue for argument sake. Until someone proves or disproves a deisric God, atheism remains a flaw

lol, atheism means not believing in god or gods.
Monotheist gods, polytheist gods, monolatrits gods are all under theism.
you claim a deistic god exist, do you also believe the other 100000 gods exist or just the deistic god?

Trollronaldo:
I think both atheism and deism are wrong.

Both of you are wrong. You have proven that and it's why you cannot say a god cannot possibly exist

Atheists rejects all gods.
Monotheist also reject gods apart from their favourite ones.

Trollronaldo:
But does it exist?

Why are you asking me? I reject all gods.
Ask those who say that Ogun exist.

Trollronaldo:
I like how you have been reduced to no confidence that a God cannot exist.

I can't believe an atheist can be so humble

Which of the gods?
I also hope you judge the probability of any gods’ existence to be 50.00000%. Any evidence you receive should tip your belief in one direction or the other.