The Atheists Paradox

[descarte]

I am neither Atheist nor theist. I am an Agnostic

 

[Descartes]

I am neither atheist nor theist. I am an Agnostic

Now I know...

But you sometimes, it appears, despite your being an agnostic, you do support atheism and, never atheism. Could you

rather identify yourself with either of the two, I mean being atheist or theist...? Just wondering.

 

[descarte]

Now I know...

But you sometimes, it appears, despite your being an agnostic, you do support atheism and, never atheism. Could you

rather identify yourself with either of the two, I mean being atheist or theist...? Just wondering.

I think, I have answered ur question. If you wanna hear what you wanna hear,its okay.

 

[Descartes]

I think, I have answered ur question. If you wanna hear what you wanna hear,its okay.

Yes, you did.

With due respect, no offense was intended much as you are entitled to your opinion and, obviously on your stand....

 

[descarte]

Yes, you did.

With due respect, no offense was intended much as you are entitled to your opinion and, obviously on your stand....

It is okay!!!!!!

 

[Descartes]

It is okay!!!!!!

Cool...

 

[Ishmael]

Boy you are too fallacious,it is a sign of defeat

Another sign of low self esteem.

 

[descarte]

Another sign of low self esteem.

What? Do you understand self esteem?

 

[Ishmael]

What? Do you understand self esteem?

I know you do have a low-self esteem

 

[vijujako]

It is philosophically impracticable to be a non theist; since to be a non theist you must have adequate lowdown in order to know that there is no God and or no deity exist, inter-alia, to be sure about saying "God does not exist", you have to have infinite knowledge. Saying so, to have infinite erudition knowledge, a non theist would have to be God him/her/-self. It’s a paradox to be God yourself and a non theist at the same time!

Wherefore, I would extend this by saying non theists rather than know God doesn't exist they in fact BELIEVE God doesn't exist, although they do not have evidence of their belief. Accordingly, this produces a problem since non theists defend their beliefs and condemn those of religion and or faith in God by saying religion is just a belief where as non theism is....???

Non theist Paradox

Siamini kuwa kwa uwepo wa Santa Claus. Lakini sina maarifa usio, hata hiyo siwezi kusema kuwa hakuwa na uwepo. Labda ungependa kuthibitisha kuwa ana uwepo, au sio?

 

[Ishmael]

Siamini kuwa kwa uwepo wa Santa Claus. Lakini sina maarifa usio, hata hiyo siwezi kusema kuwa hakuwa na uwepo. Labda ungependa kuthibitisha kuwa ana uwepo, au sio?

Kusema siamini is out of date, wewe niletee unacho amini kwa ushahidi. Usizungumze vitu ambavyo huamini, wewe unaamini kuwa hakuna Mungu, sasa lete ushahid wa unacho amini?

 

[vijujako]

Kusema siamini is out of date, wewe niletee unacho amini kwa ushahidi. Usizungumze vitu ambavyo huamini, wewe unaamini kuwa hakuna Mungu, sasa lete ushahid wa unacho amini?

Kama kuna hoja moja ambayo ni over-exhausted zaidi kuliko any other, it is the "burden of proof". Nimekupa mfano moja tu.

 

[Ishmael]

Kama kuna hoja moja ambayo ni over-exhausted zaidi kuliko any other, it is the "burden of proof". Nimekupa mfano moja tu.

If you say something, support it with evidence. Speak what you believe and support it with evidence.

 

[vijujako]

If you say something, support it with evidence. Speak what you believe and support it with evidence.

Sijawahi kusikia maneno hayo kutoka kwa mtu ambaye anaamini katika Mungu. Why don't you prove it exists first? Lakini hivyo sivyo what I'm interested in. Sisi wote hujua haiwezikani to prove either stance. Just wanted to drop a rethorical question.

 

[Ishmael]

Sijawahi kusikia maneno hayo kutoka kwa mtu ambaye anaamini katika Mungu. Why don't you prove it exists first? Lakini hivyo sivyo what I'm interested in. Sisi wote hujua haiwezikani to prove either stance. Just wanted to drop a rethorical question.

Don't speak for me young man. Speak for yourself and support your own belief or fallacies or notions. If you say something, then support it, stop asking me what I believe or follow and stop dodging the issue here.

1. Do you believe there is no God? If your answer is Yes, then Support your notions. Don't tell me it is not your obligation to support your notions and belief of No God AND SIMULTANEOUSLY YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS NO GOD. Only Dumb people say things without evidence.

Remember you are talking to a person who is informed.

2. Do your believe God does not exist? If you are sure He does not exist, then you should be ready to support your malarkey.

3. If you are not sure or certain of His existence, then why are you saying there is no God?

ALL YOU NEED IS TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. PERIOD.

 

[vijujako]

Don't speak for me young man. Speak for yourself and support your own belief or fallacies or notions. If you say something, then support it, stop asking me what I believe or follow and stop dodging the issue here.

1. Do you believe there is no God? If your answer is Yes, then Support your notions. Don't tell me it is not your obligation to support your notions and belief of No God AND SIMULTANEOUSLY YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS NO GOD. Only Dumb people say things without evidence.

Remember you are talking to a person who is informed.

2. Do your believe God does not exist? If you are sure He does not exist, then you should be ready to support your malarkey.

3. If you are not sure or certain of His existence, then why are you saying there is no God?

ALL YOU NEED IS TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. PERIOD.

This discussion is always ultimately pointless because it is impossible without major fallacies including:


Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;sometimes confused with proof by assertion (I choose to explicitly commit this one now, though on a practical ground.)

Shifting the Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. (Yep, sorry!)

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.



And above all this, you are already comminting a couple of the lowest rank fallacies here:

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. (Your implicitly condescending remarks)

Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument ("Remember you are talking to a person who is informed.")

Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.

 

[Ishmael]

This discussion is always ultimately pointless because it is impossible without major fallacies including:


Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

Argument from silence (argumentum e silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore;sometimes confused with proof by assertion (I choose to explicitly commit this one now, though on a practical ground.)

Shifting the Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false. (Yep, sorry!)

Onus probandi – from Latin "onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat" the burden of proof is on the person who makes the claim, not on the person who denies (or questions the claim). It is a particular case of the "argumentum ad ignorantiam" fallacy, here the burden is shifted on the person defending against the assertion.



And above all this, you are already comminting a couple of the lowest rank fallacies here:

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent. (Your implicitly condescending remarks)

Moral high ground fallacy – in which one assumes a "holier-than-thou" attitude in an attempt to make oneself look good to win an argument ("Remember you are talking to a person who is informed.")

Appeal to accomplishment – where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer.

I know all of those argumentum 101.

Support your belief. Simple as that.

 

[descarte]

Don't speak for me young man. Speak for yourself and support your own belief or fallacies or notions. If you say something, then support it, stop asking me what I believe or follow and stop dodging the issue here.

1. Do you believe there is no God? If your answer is Yes, then Support your notions. Don't tell me it is not your obligation to support your notions and belief of No God AND SIMULTANEOUSLY YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS NO GOD. Only Dumb people say things without evidence.

Remember you are talking to a person who is informed.

2. Do your believe God does not exist? If you are sure He does not exist, then you should be ready to support your malarkey.

3. If you are not sure or certain of His existence, then why are you saying there is no God?

ALL YOU NEED IS TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. PERIOD.

Do you have any evidence to support the existence of God. In fact the qns asked above are yours.
For that man is very clear that there is no evidence of the existence of god. So if you got one, let us know it.you will be the first man in this world,to show that evidence

 

[Ishmael]

Do you have any evidence to support the existence of God. In fact the qns asked above are yours.
For that man is very clear that there is no evidence of the existence of god. So if you got one, let us know it.you will be the first man in this world,to show that evidence

Same malarkey from a God Hater.

Speak for yourself and support your own belief or fallacies or notions. If you say something, then support it, stop asking me what I believe or follow and stop dodging the issue here.


1. Do you believe there is no God? If your answer is Yes, then Support your notions. Don't tell me it is not your obligation to support your notions and belief of No God AND SIMULTANEOUSLY YOU ARE SAYING THERE IS NO GOD. Only Dumb people say things without evidence.


Remember you are talking to a person who is informed.


2. Do your believe God does not exist? If you are sure He does not exist, then you should be ready to support your malarkey.


3. If you are not sure or certain of His existence, then why are you saying there is no God?


ALL YOU NEED IS TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. PERIOD.

 

[Ishmael]

What? Do you understand self esteem?

Why most of non theists have low self esteem?