₦airaland Forum

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.

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?

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

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

So why do you disbelieve the existence of a god?

Trustedpronet:
How many building come dey for the abia

you think say Abia na small place?

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. No evidence to justify anything, just like theism

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?

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 😂

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

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 😂😂

LordReed:
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. ”

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:
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?

I don't disbelieve or believe it.

Why is it hard to understand?

triplechoice:
I don't blame you.

This forum is faceless . So you can insult. But I tell you, it's not what you think. You might be surprised.

I have strong reasons to believe my house was burgled by a thief, but not certain who exactly is the thief, and that's because no evidence to confirm.

If I have no evidence it's wrong to accuse and arrest anyone as being responsible, but people do that all the time.

This is the main thing I want go get across ,and not the fact of it being burgled.

You didn't read very well before barking.

I told you already, stop with this nonsense to score cheap points in order to give yourself airs.

You are have been the only one trying to misinrepresent me here, but you will continue to fail .

Stop replying tk him.
You won't regret it.

He has psychological problems. Respond to saner people

LordReed:
According to you, you need to give evidence against the deistic god before you can say you don't believe it. Where is this evidence?

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

jaephoenix:
But you and your agnostic gang were quick to dismiss my claims of existence of the dragon. You didn't do any research whatsoever. Not even a question about its properties or attributes. You dumped all of it into the trash can. I feel hurt

Where did i dismiss it?

Where? Show me?

Why should I dismiss it?

If you like make plenty shit up, why should I bother about dismissing it?

LordReed:
According to your own standard here where is your evidence against a deistic god for you not to believe it?

I don't know.

Where's your evidence to dismiss it?

LordReed:
Why can't you be gracious about a simple spelling correction? Would it kill you to acknowledge you spelt it wrong?

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

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

jaephoenix:
Lemme rephrase….
Someone makes a claim that a warmhole Dragon exist, it's a claim. Nobody is saying "no I don't believe it" in science. Every astrophysicist human is either working to find evidence for it or against it. Until either of it surfaces, it will be stupid to say that you don't believe in warmholes Dragon(s).

Does this sound familiar?

NB: This your warmhole thingy is getting me all hornyyy. I wonder why

So they are saying that they know right that warmholes exist?

Evidence is knowledge, if there's no evidence then no knowledge.
They don't have to say it that they don't know, whether or not they say it l, if evidence for or against warmholes don't exist, they don't know it.

Atheism is odd, it's like theism

jaephoenix:
But your fellow agnostics say my precious Dragon is bullshit and a 'non-starter'. But I'm dead sure its swirling on your head right now

Well, I don't know.

D

KnownUnknown:
I’ll be your editor to improve your reasoning.

I love messing with atheists, same way I mess with theists.

Same vibe, same results 🤣😔😔