₦airaland Forum

LordReed:
To show you how simple it is and how you keep fucking up something so simple. Even now you cannot show where I said I disbelieve not even in that simple picture but you keep saying I disbelieve. You are so obstinately wrong it is sad. LoLz.

the picture is a false dichotomy. It's no that straight forward

LordReed:
Point out in the picture where it says disbelieve.

I put to you that you are confused, LordReed.

You really do not know that you think. The last time we had this conversation, you agreed that you were an igtheist and not I'm seeing agnostic atheist.

What's actually your position? 🤣

LordReed:
Point out in the picture where it says disbelieve.

lol 🤣

So why are you talking about pictures that you showed me?

LordReed:
Yes very easy, I even showed you a picture but you kept getting it wrong.

You showed me a picture to disbelieve just like theists show me the bible to believe 😅😅

LordReed:
And if you think anything I said is equivalent to Pascal's wager then you definitely need tweaks to your reasoning.

It's equivalent.

The is a house, inside of this house is the believe, outside of it is disbelieve, there are places that cannot be regard as inside of the house like within the wall, in the roof (technically), an ant some within the spaces of the roof is roofing sheet is neithet inside or outside.

Lumping all parts of the house as inside of the house is a false dichotomy and it's flawed

It's 18 pages, atheists still cannot demonstrate anything 🤣🤣🤣

LordReed:
I sure can, I just don't think you are willing to figure it out.

I have dude, there's no point going back and forth.
You are an agnostic atheist, it's easy to understand what that means and to know that it's different from pure agnosticism.

LordReed:
If you think Pascal's wager is valid then you have crippled yourself intellectually.

Really, you think I think that Pascal's wager is valid?

Is that what you could comprehend from that?

Damn 😂😂

LordReed:
This is the same you who cannot quote where I said I disbelieve. Bwahahahahaha!

And just like I predicted banging his head on atheist. LMFAO!

I don't need to quote, you an agnostic atheist.

You can figure it out yourself 😂

LordReed:
Now put it together, is the rat outside or inside the house? The rat is not outside or inside the house. It's just a nonsensical semantic dribble.

This is a Pascal's wager, if we follow your logic.

Pascal's wager lumps all religion together. He argued that it's better to believe in God because you will have nothing to lose if God does not exist.

Pascal's argument is a typical example of a false dichotomy and its as flawed as your argument because he refused to see the other options. You cannot lump all the house together just the way pascal lumped all religions together.

You will be reaching a very illogical conclusion of you do that, you will never see the true picture.

LordReed:
Maybe because you can't understand English when I say I am an AGNOSTIC atheist who holds the exact same position as you. I know you are going to bang your head on the atheist part and ignore the agnostic part while accusing me of cherry picking. Bwahahahahaha!

Also maybe you can't understand simple English to know that an agnostic atheist is different from an agnostic.

The difference is that, both do not claim to know if a god exist or not, but agnostic atheists go further to take a position by disbelieving it. Agnostic do not disbelieve or believe it either.

I have tried explaining this to you and even a primary two student would have gotten it. 😂😂😂

LordReed:
LoLz! As superior as a rat running inside walls. Bwahahahahaha!

Yes, atleast we have evidence of rats living inside a wall, there's no evidence for atheism 🤣🤣🤣

Lol 😅😅😅😅

LordReed:
I asked you asimple question: what am I supposed to prove if my position and yours are exactly the same. You still can't answer it because that will also show you are on a pointless semantic ramble.

If you are an atheist, our position is not the same.

Why is that hard for you to grasp?

LordReed:
LoLz. You that can't admit simple glaring mistakes? Bwahahahahaha!

another whataboutism fallacy 😂

Atheists eat fallacies like food just like theists when they meet a superior argument.

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

Bros, atheism is not scientific.
Science works with evidence and not with disbelieve like atheism does.

It's simple, and I have proven that. No atheist has provided any evidence and we are in the 17th page of this thread 😂

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

It's false dichotomy.

You are only working with two option of either believe or disbelieve.
You are incapable of comprehending the fact that some people called agnostics don't fall into these two categories.

You have to reset your brain to admit it 😂

LordReed:
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!

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 😂

LordReed:
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!

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 room.

Keep calm with your numerous fallacies.

LordReed:
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!

So if the rat is not outside of the house, does that automatically means that the rat is inside the house?

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

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

LordReed:
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!

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? 😂

LordReed:
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.

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.

LordReed:
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 h8ghly amusing. Bwahahahahaha!

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 😂😂

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LordReed:
Bwahahahahaha! OMFD!

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:
Bwahahahahaha! OMFD!

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

yes.

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?

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

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.

ok, it's great if it doesn't apply to you.

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?

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.