Workch:
Trust me, you don't usually shy away from an argument you know that you can win.

You know that you cannot win the deistic argument and you have realized that. With time, you Wil accept Agnosticism. It's a matter of time before you know.

Agnosticism is the best approach for someone who's considering all possibilities.

LoLz. I already told you I am an agnostic atheist did you forget?

LoLz @ cannot win the deistic argument. What exactly is there to win or loose? You make me laugh. Bwahahahahaha!

LordReed:


LoLz. I already told you I am an agnostic atheist did you forget?

LoLz @ cannot win the deistic argument. What exactly is there to win or loose? You make me laugh. Bwahahahahaha!

the atheist in it is wrong.
It means that you are rejecting it without first disproving it.

Just leave it at agnostic else, na fallacy my guy.

Workch:
the atheist in it is wrong.
It means that you are rejecting it without first disproving it.

Just leave it at agnostic else, na fallacy my guy.

We can also use this same logic for marvel characters?

Workch:
the atheist in it is wrong.
It means that you are rejecting it without first disproving it.

Just leave it at agnostic else, na fallacy my guy.

LoLz! You do you bro but you don't get to decide how I identify myself capise?

Maynman:

We can also use this same logic for marvel characters?

LordReed, you guys should tell your militant to stop harrasing me with unintelligent replies 😂😂😂

LordReed:


LoLz! You do you bro but you don't get to decide how I identify myself capise?

I know, you are now sounding a like theist who says "how I give my tithe is not your business"

Workch:
LordReed, you guys should tell your militant to stop harrasing me with unintelligent replies 😂😂😂

You are the only unintelligent one here.
How did you arrive at a deistic god and his attributes?
Something is unknowable yet you know it doesn’t interfere bwahahahah

Maynman:


You are the only unintelligent one here.
How did you arrive at a deistic god and his attributes?
Something is unknowable yet you know it doesn’t interfere bwahahahah

you are correct naw 😂😂

Workch:
you are correct naw 😂😂

Something is unknowable yet you KNOW it doesn’t interfere bwahahahah

it’s superior indeed

Maynman:

Your idea of a thing that is a creator, that has all this power is gotten from monotheism.
Monotheist claim that their variou god can do this and that and give it ridiculous qualities and attributes.

You as a deist, accept that a thing called god is also a creator, you also give it ridiculous qualities and attributes.
How do you know any god is powerful?

mtcheew

LordReed:


This is the 3rd time you asked this question go look at my previous answer it hasn't changed.

So you reason like a typical theist after all, just from another angle

Trollronaldo:
mtcheew

God is not a person, it’s a TITLE!

Workch:
I know, you are now sounding a like theist who says "how I give my tithe is not your business"

LoLz! Dude, I don't give a shit what you feel about me. I don't interfere with how people want to identify themselves and I expect same from others with how I choose to identify myself. It's not your business to police people's identity.

Trollronaldo:
So you reason like a typical theist after all, just from another angle

LoLz! Right. Go on then our conversation is done.

LordReed:


LoLz! Dude, I don't give a shit what you feel about me. I don't interfere with how people want to identify themselves and I expect same from others with how I choose to identify myself. It's not your business to police people's identity.

lol 😂

Workch:
LordReed, you guys should tell your militant to stop harrasing me with unintelligent replies 😂😂😂

I thought you like to win arguments? LMFAO!

LordReed:


I thought you like to win arguments? LMFAO!

nope, I don't. It's why I left atheism. I lost

I Just want to know the truth

Workch:
nope, I don't. It's why I left atheism. I lost

I Just want to know the truth

You never understood the definition of atheism.

LordReed:


LoLz! Right. Go on then our conversation is done.

we are not fighting.

Workch:
nope, I don't. It's why I left atheism. I lost

I Just want to know the truth

Like I said good for you. Do that and stop trying to make people identify the way you like.

Trollronaldo:
we are not fighting.

WIth your previous response one would think we were.

LordReed:


WIth your previous response one would think we were.

Seriously, you can't tell if you don't know the exact tone.

I jusy want you to see that you are seriously portraying those attributes a typical theist will portray if an argument is straining him so much

Trollronaldo:
The logic behind deism is that, the absence of evidence is not evidence for absence. Deists argue based on law of casualty.
Their idea is that a cause caused the universe but this Casue doesn't intervene in the proceedings of the universe. Two claims:

1. Casualty: they can argue from statistic here that no one can provide a scenario where something didn't come from another thing. As a matter of fact, with the evidence available, you cannot create something from nothing. If you try this 100 times, you will fail 100times, which means they this deistic claim has 100% level of significance. Although I still insist that their claim is logical but not scientific.
People may argue about infinitive regress, it's true that this resosning will lead to infinite regress but there's evidence for now that you cannot create something from nothing hence the universe cannot be created from nothing.

2. The Cause of the universe doesn't interfere with the universe: this is also true with the evidence available.

I am not a deist, I am an Agnostic because I see some level of sense in both deism and atheism in the same vein I can identify their flaws which is why I have to wait for an evidence.

Atheism has so many flaws as well.

What are the flaws in atheism

Trollronaldo:
Seriously, you can't tell if you don't know the exact tone.

I jusy want you to see that you are seriously portraying those attributes a typical theist will portray if an argument is straining him so much

You are free to think so. LoLz.

jaephoenix:

What are the flaws in atheism

Get ready for a rollercoaster rigmarole. LoLz.

jaephoenix:

What are the flaws in atheism

1. Fallacy of appealing to ignorance: Atheism suggests that something can be outrightly rejected on the ground that we do not have sufficient knowledge about it. This is an inference reached from ignorance.

2. Fallacy of Affirming the consequent
Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true, Q is true. Or if P is false, Q is also false.

If The religious gods have been proven false, it doesn't mean that a non-religious God is also false, one has to also independently disprove the latter.


3. False dilemma
Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth considering in the context.
Atheism assumes that it is either you believe in a god or not, it's no possible to be neutral like we see in agnostic. They make this mistake a lot.
They conjure several terms like agnostic atheism, gnostic theist etc to show that pure agnostic is impracticable while in the real sense, it's very possible to be in-between.

LordReed:


Get ready for a rollercoaster rigmarole. LoLz.

you have been the person rigmaroling and running away from the point

LordReed:


Like I said good for you. Do that and stop trying to make people identify the way you like.

lol 😂

The only time I see atheist runway from debates it's when an agnostic is there.

Trollronaldo:


1. Fallacy of appealing to ignorance: Atheism suggests that something can be outrightly rejected on the ground that we do not have sufficient knowledge about it. This is an inference reached from ignorance.

So Nothing can come from Something even though we have no evidence of it right now?

Workch:
lol 😂

The only time I see atheist runway from debates it's when an agnostic is there.

LoLz! Good for you!

Trollronaldo:
you have been the person rigmaroling and running away from the point

My conversation with you is done. LoLz.

Trollronaldo:


1. Fallacy of appealing to ignorance: Atheism suggests that something can be outrightly rejected on the ground that we do not have sufficient knowledge about it. This is an inference reached from ignorance.

2. Fallacy of Affirming the consequent
Inferring that P is true solely because Q is true and it is also true that if P is true, Q is true. Or if P is false, Q is also false.

If The religious gods have been proven false, it doesn't mean that a non-religious God is also false, one has to also independently disprove the latter.


3. False dilemma
Presenting a limited set of alternatives when there are others that are worth considering in the context.
Atheism assumes that it is either you believe in a god or not, it's no possible to be neutral like we see in agnostic. They make this mistake a lot.
They conjure several terms like agnostic atheism, gnostic theist etc to show that pure agnostic is impracticable while in the real sense, it's very possible to be in-between.

1. Theists have not provided any counter-arguments or data to back up the claim of a god. So, we reject that claim. Same as myself claiming hdktlei exists, without evidence to its qualities and properties. The burden of proof lies with the claimant
2. This is risible. Can the non-theist gods be proven?
3. To be honest, all those qualifications are not my concern.
I'm an atheist but I have a soft spot for agnostic. Just like I'm straight but have a soft spot for lesbianism