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?

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.

LordReed:


Huh? How is lacking a belief a conclusion? Yourself are saying there is insufficient evidence for a god so where is the conclusion?

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?

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?

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

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!

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 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!

Maynman:

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!

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

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?

You have it backwards. One doesn't look for evidence of non-existence, you look for evidence of existence. Without sufficient evidence for existence of a god you cannot reach the conclusion or form the belief that a god exists. So there is no flaw like you are saying.

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.

LordReed:


You have it backwards. One doesn't look for evidence of non-existence, you look for evidence of existence. Without sufficient evidence for existence of a god you cannot reach the conclusion or form the belief that a god exists. So there is no flaw like you are saying.

So why do scientists look for evidence for non-existence?

Can i give you examples?

Trollronaldo:


So why do scientists look for evidence for non-existence?

Can i give you examples?

Yeah go ahead.

LordReed:


Yeah go ahead.

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

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

LordReed:


Yeah go ahead.

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.

If a deists says that God must exist based on his observations which are clear. While it has the burden of proof in philosophy, he doesn't not necessarily have it in science. In science, we don't wait for you to bring evidence when we can disprove it. If cannot disprove it, we cannot reject it.
The fact that no one can disprove deism with evidence even in science means that we cannot totally overrule the idea.

You cannot say that deist must provide evidence, it's not necessary in science.
So insisting that deists must provide evidence for their ideas is not scientific, if you can't accept it then you have to provide a counter-evidence or just remain neutral.

LordReed:


Yeah go ahead.

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.

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:
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:
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”?

LordReed:


Yeah go ahead.

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 to support it. 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.

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

LordReed:


Yeah go ahead.

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.

Avogadro didn't provide a single evidence.
it was not generally accepted until after 1858, when an Italian chemist, Stanislao Cannizzaro, constructed a logical system of chemistry based on it that proved it

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:
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.

How is this an example of seeking for evidence of non existence?

LordReed:


Yeah go ahead.

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.

LordReed:


How is this an example of seeking for evidence of non existence?

The Avogadro’s idea never existed before it was proven by another person.

The point remains again, it wasnt even avagadro that proved it.

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 to support it. 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.

None of these are examples of seeking for evidence of non existence.

Standard scientific practice is to attempt falsification to show that the phenomena being explained couldn't have occurred some other way.

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.

LordReed:


None of these are examples of seeking for evidence of non existence.

Standard scientific practice is to attempt falsification to show that the phenomena being explained couldn't have occurred some other way.

The point I am making is that, deist under standard scientific practice do not have to be the people to disprove their ideas.

Do you agree?

Trollronaldo:
The Avogadro’s idea never existed before it was proven by another person.

The point remains again, it wasnt even avagadro that proved it.

So? It is not an example of seeking for evidence of non existence. I don't think you understand what you are saying. Look up falsification in science practice.

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.

That was not what my discussion with you is about, you have jumped to something else entirely. You said the flaw in atheism was reaching a conclusion without sufficient evidence of non existence. You then attempted to show me examples of people searching for evidence on non existence. I dunno where you got deist or agnostic matter inside what we are discussing.

LordReed:


So? It is not an example of seeking for evidence of non existence. I don't think you understand what you are saying. Look up falsification in science practice.

I don't think you understand as well, what I mean.

The argument is simple, In science, is it must that the person who the person who created an idea under falsification practice should be the person to disprove or prove it?