₦airaland Forum

vdestro:
Everybody don know say na you be king Lie!

You wey get PhD for lying, you get second? LoLz!

You already started lying in this thread and you had to be cautioned by your cohort. Bwahahahahaha!

KnownUnknown:
….. whose description is totally dependent on your prior religious indoctrination and your vocabulary.”

You are spot on.
these deists wants the characteristics and attributes of yahweh, allah and other deities but they don’t want to worship the deity.

LordReed:
You wey get PhD for lying, you get second? LoLz!

You already started lying in this thread and you had to be cautioned by your cohort. Bwahahahahaha!

Everybody don know say you be king Lie, i no need talk am again! King Lie carry your lie forever hahahahahaha

MayntheeMayn:
You are spot on.
these deists wants the characteristics and attributes of yahweh, allah and other deities but they don’t want to worship the deity.

What else can create as elaborately and in great variety than a Person?

vdestro:
What else can create as elaborately and in great variety than a Person?

Bees 🐝

MayntheeMayn:
Bees 🐝

That is not true.

The only thing they create is to make their own version of mud house, thats all. They could not even make their own clothes to cover their unclothedness, not to talk of creating equipments for work So, no goal. A Person still Wins! Try again.

vdestro:
That is not true.

The only thing they create is to make their own version of mud house, thats all. They could not even make their own clothes to cover their unclothedness, not to talk of creating equipments for work So, no goal. A Person still Wins! Try again.

A bee will also look at you and say this person can’t even fly, can’t create honey. 😂

vdestro:
Everybody don know say you be king Lie, i no need talk am again! King Lie carry your lie forever hahahahahaha

Liar General! Wehdon sir! LoLz.

KnownUnknown:
Yes, I do. It’s the same amount of information that I have that the monster under your bed does not exist.

does this information also apply to aliens and warmholes?

Workch:
does this information also apply to aliens and warmholes?

Why do you need to believe aliens or warmholes exist?
If you can know something, why believe it?
The people that called it “hypothesis” are not stupid.

KnownUnknown:
I did say a deistic god has to take a human form
I said “ I also know that your deistic god will be defined as some vague superhuman character whose description is totally dependent on your prior religious indoctrination and your vocabulary.”

deism is not a religion. You have to understand deism before you argue against it.

it doesn’t matter whether you call it deistic god or theistic god, it all depends on your imagination.

atheism also is an imagination because it doesn't have evidence either for its claims that a creator cannot exist. It depends on lack of evidence which is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

A lack of evidence for something is not absense of evidence, that's why atheism is flawed.
A lack of evidence for a creator is not absence of evidence for it. Just like warmholes and aliens

MayntheeMayn:
Why do you need to believe aliens or warmholes exist?
If you can know something, why believe it?
The people that called it “hypothesis” are not stupid.

I don't want to engage you dude. You like unending and uneducative arguments

Workch:
A lack of evidence is not absesne of evidence

The philosopher and mathematician Betrand Russell waded in on the argument. He used the example of a ‘cosmic teapot’ to illustrate his point. He said that, even though it could not be refuted, no one should believe him if he claimed, without proof, that a tiny teapot was orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (Boncheck, 2016).

In similar vein, Martin Burton, Director of Cochrane UK, wrote that an invisible unicorn had been grazing in his office and invited readers to prove him wrong

MayntheeMayn:
The philosopher and mathematician Betrand Russell waded in on the argument. He used the example of a ‘cosmic teapot’ to illustrate his point. He said that, even though it could not be refuted, no one should believe him if he claimed, without proof, that a tiny teapot was orbiting the sun between Earth and Mars (Boncheck, 2016).

In similar vein, Martin Burton, Director of Cochrane UK, wrote that an invisible unicorn had been grazing in his office and invited readers to prove him wrong

I agree with whatever you say, leave me alone

Workch:
I don't want to engage you dude. You like unending and uneducative arguments

You are not making sense bro.

I want you to know that the “A lack of evidence is not absesne of evidence” coined by carl sagan doesn’t mean the jargons you are saying.

The actual quote by Carl Sagan appears in his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark and is part of a discussion of various logical fallacies (in this case, the “appeal to ignorance” fallacy):

Appeal to ignorance—the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist—and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Using Sagan’s examples as a guide, the closest statement one could make with regard to the existence of God is that it’s fallacious to claim that a lack of any evidence that God doesn’t exist is evidence that God actually does exist.

MayntheeMayn:
You are not making sense bro.

I want you to know that the “A lack of evidence is not absesne of evidence” coined by carl sagan doesn’t mean the jargons you are saying.

The actual quote by Carl Sagan appears in his book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark and is part of a discussion of various logical fallacies (in this case, the “appeal to ignorance” fallacy):

Appeal to ignorance—the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., There is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist—and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: There may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Using Sagan’s examples as a guide, the closest statement one could make with regard to the existence of God is that it’s fallacious to claim that a lack of any evidence that God doesn’t exist is evidence that God actually does exist.

okay, I agree with you

Workch:
I agree with whatever you say, leave me alone

Stop making ignorant statements.

Your quote is a carl sagan statement, And if Carl Sagan said it, it must be true, right?

Workch:
okay, I agree with you

if Carl Sagan said it, it must be true, right?

Carl sagan is an atheist oo

MayntheeMayn:
A bee will also look at you and say this person can’t even fly, can’t create honey. 😂

I made things to fly and i even made a thing to help me fly. So i beat it over and over again

The bee did not even make itself fly, that is the making of its Maker. so, no goal, A Person still Wins!

You can try again!

vdestro:
I made things to fly and i even made a thing to help me fly. So i beat it

The bee did not even make itself fly, that is the making of its Maker. so, no goal, A Person still Wins!

You can try again!

The bee is making itself fly with no help, poor humans 😂

Workch:
does this information also apply to aliens and warmholes?

No, because aliens are beings that probably exist in the universe. To them we would be the “aliens”. Given the vastness of the universe, there is nothing extraordinary about the probable existence of aliens.

Wormholes are hypothetical ways to travel in the universe based on current theories of the “fabric” of spacetime.

Workch:
does this information also apply to aliens and warmholes?

The difference being these are things that can have a clear path to procuring evidence for them, not so for a deistic god.

MayntheeMayn:
The bee is making itself fly with no help, poor humans 😂

Like a man walking with no help. Still the same thing.

Cut its wings and the bee cant fly but man with no wings is already flying. So, no goal. A Person still Wins.

vdestro:
Like a man walking with no help. Still the same thing.

Cut its wings and the bee cant fly but man with no wings is already flying. So, no goal. A Person still Wins.

😂

Workch:
deism is not a religion. You have to understand deism before you argue against it.

What is deism if not theism without the dogma and doctrines of religion. It’s the same old nonsensical claims that can be summarily dismissed.

Workch:
atheism also is an imagination because it doesn't have evidence either for its claims that a creator cannot exist. It depends on lack of evidence which is a fallacy of appealing to ignorance.

A lack of evidence for something is not absense of evidence, that's why atheism is flawed.
A lack of evidence for a creator is not absence of evidence for it. Just like warmholes and aliens

If you say so. Atheists are those who can’t quite dismiss the concept of gods altogether. An atheist usually holds on to the concept of god from whichever tradition he was indoctrinated into.

Are there any atheists because of the god Serapis or the god Amun? I doubt it.
Does anyone actually think the god Serapis or Amun exists? I doubt it. But some believe they were “past beings”

I’m pretty sure you’re not “agnostic” about the god Baal Ammon.

But you want to claim “agnosticism”‘about the god called………….God. Lol

KnownUnknown:
What is deism if not theism without the dogma and doctrines of religion. It’s the same old nonsensical claims that can be summarily dismissed.

deism is theism but not religion. Hope you dig that.
All theistic beliefs are not religious in nature.
Religion is an organized sect that performs repetitive rituals to a diety, in deism, no one, necessarily need to worship or revere any deity.

If you say so. Atheists are those who can’t quite dismiss the concept of gods. An atheist usually holds on to the concept of god from whatever tradition he was indoctrinated into.

No, an atheist is someone who doesn't see an evidence for the existence of a god/creator hence he rejects it utterly without even making attempt to find evidence against it to wait for an evidence against it.

An atheist can be likened to someone who says aliens do not exist because there's no evidence that they do. Of course this person is a stupiddd person, he should have just waited for us to explore further, knowing fully well that we do not even understand anything yet.

An atheist is like someone who takes a cup of water from the ocean and then concludes that fishes don't exist. An atheist does not really know how everything started, but he's concluding that nothing started it because we have no evidence for or against yet. It does not make sense.

Atheist are straightforward and flawed thinkers, they cannot recognized the fact that what we don't know is way more than what we currently know. They are close minded already when we can just agree that we don't know, it's why I think it's a silly way of reasoning.

LordReed:
The difference being these are things that can have a clear path to procuring evidence for them, not so for a deistic god.

There's also no clear path to procuring evidence that the everything started on its own.

The chances that universe started on its own and it didn't is still 50:50. So why in a haste to reach a conclusion that something which could be what deist refer as a creator started it?

It chance that aliens exist is still also 50:50. Only evidence can sway this balance.

Workch:
No, an atheist is someone who doesn't see an evidence for the existence of a god/creator hence he rejects it utterly without even making attempt to find evidence against it to wait for an evidence against it.

This is actually dumb, before making a statement and claims should you not have evidence to it?

Workch:
No, an atheist is someone who doesn't see an evidence for the existence of a god/creator hence he rejects it utterly without even making attempt to find evidence against it to wait for an evidence against it.

An atheist can be likened to someone who says aliens do not exist because there's no evidence that they do. Of course this person is a stupiddd person, he should have just waited for us to explore further, knowing fully well that we do no even understand anything yet.

An atheist is like someone who takes a cup of water from ocean and then concludes that a fishes don't exist. An atheist does not really know how everything started, but he's concluding that nothing started it because we have no evidence for or against yet. It does not make sense.

Atheist are straightforward and flawed thinkers, they cannot recognized the fact that why we don't know if way more than what we currently know. They are close minded already when we can just agree that we don't know, it's why I think it's a silly way of reasoning.

I’ll let an atheist answer this barrage of nonsense.

KnownUnknown:
No, because aliens are beings that probably exist in the universe. To them we would be the “aliens”. Given the vastness of the universe, there is nothing extraordinary about the probable existence of aliens.

Wormholes are hypothetical ways to travel in the universe based on current theories of the “fabric” of spacetime.

The probability that aliens exist is 50:50 currently.

The probability that something started everything is also 50:50.

Only evidence can sway the balance, of you are on the other side of this balanace, you are making a conclusion out of ignorance. Atheism is as flawed as theism

Workch:
An atheist is like someone who takes a cup of water from the ocean and then concludes that fishes don't exist.

This is why i call deist, theist sympathizers.

Why are you using examples of what we already know?
Why don’t an atheist think a fish can fly?
Why did an atheist conclude that a fish can not fly, even though he hasn’t done research 😂

KnownUnknown:
I’ll let an atheist answer this barrage of nonsense.

lol
It's fact, atheists cannot substantiate their conclusions using demonstrable evidence for or against.

They are as flawed as theists. Smart people don't jump into conclusions when knowledge is insufficient.