₦airaland Forum

Workch:
Funny atheists, 15 pages on back and forth.

Even theists that are reading this thread will be laughing at you guys. 😂

After all said and done, their school of thought is still based on crass ignorance

LordReed:
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?

Image123:
Two confused children of a more confused devil.

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 😂😂

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 😂

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?

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

Workch:
Science involves disciplines that use the scientific method to determine the most probable explanation for what we observe in the physical universe, and this method involves observation of the available evidence, experimentation, presenting results, peer review, further observation and experimentation, etc. Scientists examine the evidence before arriving at a conclusion. If new evidence is presented, scientists consider it and revise their views if warranted.

Thomas H. Huxley, who coined the term agnostic, was a scientist. He found it puzzling that many people spoke with certainty about things which could not be verified by any known methodology (this is what atheists and theists do) . Huxley believed that to claim to have "knowledge" (in Greek, gnosis) that a belief or claim is true or lie, one must have verifiable evidence to support to disprove the claim. To Huxley, to present a claim as certain without evidence was ethically wrong and intellectually dishonest. He stated that claims of certainty in any matter, whether science or religion, should be backed by evidence, and proposed the agnostic method to examine claims based on evidence. If there was no justifiable evidence, one was "without knowledge" of the certainty of the claim or belief, or agnostic. He called practice of using such a method agnosticism

Agnosticism is not about belief, it is about using a method to verify the probability that a claim is true or factual by examining the evidence. A person is free to believe or not believe the claim, and may choose to believe a claim without evidence, based on philosophical reasons or personal preference.

So, according to Huxley's definition of agnostic and agnosticism, those who practice the scientific method are indeed agnostic in the sense that they use a method to examine the evidence for a claim before determining the probability that the claim is true or factual.

In Huxley's words:
“Agnosticism is not a… creed of any kind, but the validity of a principle, which is as much ethical as intellectual. This principle may be stated in various ways, but they all amount to this: it is wrong for a man to say that he is certain of the objective truth of any proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty.”
T. H. Huxley. Essays, Volume V, IX

LordReed KnownUnknown

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

LordReed:
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?

LordReed:
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?

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.

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

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

LordReed:
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.

LordReed:
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?

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

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

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

Workch:
yes.

Workch:
yes.

LordReed:
Bwahahahahaha! OMFD!

Workch:
How do you reason like this? 😂😂

LordReed:
Bwahahahahaha! OMFD!

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 with either blue or red

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

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

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? 😂😂

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

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

Workch:
I don't believe or disbelieve. Put them together and that's purple.

Don't ask for one, it's called cherrypicking fallacy

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