Agnosticism is more honest than Atheism

[pokeegeorge]

Agnostics say "We cannot know if there is a God."

Atheists say "We know there is no God."

Their main line of defense of this premise so far to me here is that, "There is no evidence there IS a God, therefore there is no God."

Then the naysayers of the naysayers say "Prove there is no God."

Then the Atheists say, "YOU have to prove there IS a God; I don't have to prove there ISN'T a God." Why? Since we are making a claim of something, THEY only resided in Unbiased Land.

Not true. Atheism ASSERTS there is no God. It is in fact a stance of CERTAINTY.

Agnosticism says no one can be certain. My family was agnostic, and I grew up in this milieu. I don't understand Atheism and this is why. Please correct or inform.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 538 by instantc]

Nope. You have not.

You have not lived up to your burden of proof.

My questions are unanswered. You can find these yourself. Am not going to ask them again.
You pick one aspect on a liability and think that is proving a magical lifeline for your burden. I showed you why it does not, and you do not get it. I think you do, but slander is your game.

You called me dishonest. Slander is the resort one posts when the debate is lost.

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 537 by olavisjo]

He is suggesting the burden of proof in academic debate is wrong.
He is offering that there are a better ways like guilty till proven innocent (a joke as one can not be proven innocent). For the latter he offers strict liability. I explained why his burden fails. He keeps on harping that the defendant's liability is equal to guilt. He neglects that the claimant needs to show the prohibited act occured and that the defendant was involved. Another user (or two) also pointed this out to him. And he just ignored this. Actually, no one agrees with this illogical dogma he is proposing via drivel. In short he does not understand strict liability. He reverted to slander (calling me a liar) which shows to me he lost the debate. This slander was after I shouted how he contradicted himself.

He lost this one again. But he never admits defeat, only reverts to slander by confirmation that his written words can not be trusted.

[instantc]

[Replying to post 540 by JohnA]

My original proposition:

"German Road Traffic Accident Act, Strassenverkehrsgesetz, states that in case of an accident involving a pedestrian, the driver of a motor vehicle is deemed guilty, unless he can either show that he was not driving at least negligently"

You said:

Strict liability is not the Reversal of the burden of proof. I argued this conclusively so many times,

Dr. Prof. Cees van Dam (Cum Laude PHD) restates my exact proposition in his book here:

"According to Article 18 StVG, the driver is liable unless he proves that he did not cause the damage intentionally or negligently. This is a negligence liability with reversed burden of proof" (emphasis added)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GAKp ... aw&f=false

That's it Johnny, that's the only claim I have made regarding strict liability. I'll give you an extra lesson though, see, you said:

He is offering that there are a better ways like guilty till proven innocent (a joke as one can not be proven innocent).

First, needles to say that you misunderstood, my example was only meant to show that the burden of proof is not universal in the court of law, as I clearly stated and other seemed to understand.

Second, in the following French case the defendant managed to show that the accident was caused solely by the pedestrian running into the road unexpectedly, and consequently there was nothing he could have done. In other words, he proved himself innocent.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/cen ... hp?id=1315

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 541 by instantc]

You are getting more more desperate.

You claimed that accademic debate is wrong since the burden should be guilty till proven innocent.
1. That is flawed as strict liability does not support this. The claimant needs to show first that a prohibited act occured and that the defendant was involved before the liability (not guilt) is on the defendant. The burden is on the claimant, and the liability is on the defendant ONCE the claimant met its burden of proof.
2. No court can prove you innocent. That is just ridiculous. Courts find guilty or not guilty, NOT innocent. Lol.

Resort to slander instantc, that seems to be your game since you demonstrated that your written words can not be trusted, they contradict your actions.

[olavisjo]

.

[Replying to post 537 by olavisjo]

He is suggesting the burden of proof in academic debate is wrong.
He is offering that there are a better ways like guilty till proven innocent (a joke as one can not be proven innocent). For the latter he offers strict liability. I explained why his burden fails. He keeps on harping that the defendant's liability is equal to guilt. He neglects that the claimant needs to show the prohibited act occured and that the defendant was involved. Another user (or two) also pointed this out to him. And he just ignored this. Actually, no one agrees with this illogical dogma he is proposing via drivel. In short he does not understand strict liability. He reverted to slander (calling me a liar) which shows to me he lost the debate. This slander was after I shouted how he contradicted himself.

He lost this one again. But he never admits defeat, only reverts to slander by confirmation that his written words can not be trusted.

You did not answer the question, I will ask again...

can you show me the exact wording that he used to say that I am guilty as soon as I enter the country?

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 543 by olavisjo]

I am asking him that question, am I not? Or are you practising your straw man fallacious reasoning on me?

You can read his posts self and see where he made the claim of guilty till proved innocent. Actually he makes this in almost every post. That implies that I am guilty if I enter these countries, unless he can answer my question on that.

Stop being lazy or stop with the straw man.

[olavisjo]

.

[Replying to post 543 by olavisjo]

I am asking him that question, am I not? Or are you practising your straw man fallacious reasoning on me?

You can read his posts self and see where he made the claim of guilty till proved innocent. Actually he makes this in almost every post. That implies that I am guilty if I enter these countries, unless he can answer my question on that.

Stop being lazy or stop with the straw man.

Here is his last post, I don't see anything about entering a country. But I did notice that you moved the goal post. Now you are saying that he "implies" that I am guilty if I enter these countries.

[Replying to post 540 by JohnA]

My original proposition:

"German Road Traffic Accident Act, Strassenverkehrsgesetz, states that in case of an accident involving a pedestrian, the driver of a motor vehicle is deemed guilty, unless he can either show that he was not driving at least negligently"

You said:

Strict liability is not the Reversal of the burden of proof. I argued this conclusively so many times,

Dr. Prof. Cees van Dam (Cum Laude PHD) restates my exact proposition in his book here:

"According to Article 18 StVG, the driver is liable unless he proves that he did not cause the damage intentionally or negligently. This is a negligence liability with reversed burden of proof" (emphasis added)

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=GAKp ... aw&f=false

That's it Johnny, that's the only claim I have made regarding strict liability. I'll give you an extra lesson though, see, you said:

He is offering that there are a better ways like guilty till proven innocent (a joke as one can not be proven innocent).

First, needles to say that you misunderstood, my example was only meant to show that the burden of proof is not universal in the court of law, as I clearly stated and other seemed to understand.

Second, in the following French case the defendant managed to show that the accident was caused solely by the pedestrian running into the road unexpectedly, and consequently there was nothing he could have done. In other words, he proved himself innocent.

http://www.utexas.edu/law/academics/cen ... hp?id=1315

[JohnA]

[Replying to post 545 by olavisjo]

Do you actually have a point to make, a question to ask?
He is arguing that there are laws for guilty till proven innocent in 2 countries.
That implies, or suggests, or states that a person is guilty in these 2 countries if his claim is true.
Now, can you also link where I ask him this question?

Don't forget to make your point or state your argument. I am no batman, I can't read your mind.

[olavisjo]

.

Do you actually have a point to make, a question to ask?

The point is that you may be distorting what others have said. This is what I am trying to resolve.

He is arguing that there are laws for guilty till proven innocent in 2 countries.
That implies, or suggests, or states that a person is guilty in these 2 countries if his claim is true.
Now, can you also link where I ask him this question?

Don't forget to make your point or state your argument. I am no batman, I can't read your mind.

Can you answer this:
When I visit the Netherlands, am I guilty as soon as I enter the country? According to you I am even if no one showed that I committed a prohibited act under strict liability. Any reader would see how absurd your claim is. Shame on your for rejecting coherency.

A reader would only see how absurd his claim is if they actually see the claim.
So where did he claim that I am guilty as soon as I enter the country even if no one showed that I committed a prohibited act.

[JohnA]

.

Do you actually have a point to make, a question to ask?

The point is that you may be distorting what others have said. This is what I am trying to resolve.

He is arguing that there are laws for guilty till proven innocent in 2 countries.
That implies, or suggests, or states that a person is guilty in these 2 countries if his claim is true.
Now, can you also link where I ask him this question?

Don't forget to make your point or state your argument. I am no batman, I can't read your mind.

Can you answer this:
When I visit the Netherlands, am I guilty as soon as I enter the country? According to you I am even if no one showed that I committed a prohibited act under strict liability. Any reader would see how absurd your claim is. Shame on your for rejecting coherency.

A reader would only see how absurd his claim is if they actually see the claim.
So where did he claim that I am guilty as soon as I enter the country even if no one showed that I committed a prohibited act.

Surely he is big enough to point out himself if I am straw manning him. And I am not, as he is clearly arguing that guilty till proven innocent exists in 2 countries.

Now, again, I will again answer your last question:

He is arguing that there are laws for guilty till proven innocent in 2 countries.
That implies, or suggests, or states that a person is guilty in these 2 countries if his claim is true.

You found my question that he has not answered. He will not answer it as he knows it is ridiculous and it would render his argument redundant.


Why do you insist that I answer your questions, even after I did and you REFUSE to answer mine?
Remember these question to you that you REFUSE to answer.
I am asking him that question, am I not? Or are you practicing your straw man fallacious reasoning on me?


It will never cease to amaze me when laymen argue with expertise using nothing but their preconceived notions. Incidentally, it is not uncommon for people to deny logic when it goes against their beliefs. But this ought to give you pause for serious thought if you are serious about the foundations of your beliefs.
It seems to me that your unwillingness to accept the outcome of logic is to me a fatally flawed as this is the very method of reasoning you claim to use, except, it seems, when it does not agree with your belief or logic.

Consider answering my questions (you have them).
Here is another one:

If a person is guilty untill proven innocent in Germany, why would I not be guilty too as soon as I enter Germany?