F***ing Scientologists

NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
F***ing Scientologists

  I spent some time on the official scientology website today www.scientology.org,  interesting, and creepy.  By interesting I mean it is interesting  that it says absolutely nothing about what the core dogma of the church is.  Apparently this knowledge is only available to OT level VII or something members who have paid thousands for courses  and auditing sessions and years of time that leave you, well "a little off."  Apparently for most, at this point when they hit you with the insanity that is Scientology, you are so mind fucked, and you have spent so much money, you just stick with it.  If you type in any words that have anything to do with their dogma in the search portion of their site, nothing comes up.   Words like "Xenu" or "aliens" or "hydrogen bombs" render no results.   

  I'm sure many of you know the basic dogma behind scientology, but for those who don't I'll give you a quick overview:

   There was an alien named Xenu (or Xemu, no one really knows because L Ron Hubbard hand wrote this crap down on a small piece of paper and it is difficult to determine if it is a N or M in the name) who was part of the galactic confederacy 75 million years ago.  This confederacy was made up of 75 or so planets, and 25 or so stars.  Some of the planets were getting to overpopulated, and so Xenu kidnapped billions of aliens from various planets and brought them to earth in a bunch of spaceships that very closely resembled  our DC-8 aircrafts on earth today (this is very specific).  Xenu froze the aliens and placed them in or around volcanos in Hawaii.  Xenu then blew up all the aliens with hydrogen bombs.  But, the aliens did not die, they  turned into "spirits" or "souls" called thetans.  Xenu then mind fucked the thetans by forcing them to watch videos that filled their heads with a bunch of bat shit crazy pohilosophies (which is considered by scientologists the reason for all bad religion, the bad in people, basically thetans = "the bad in us&quotEye-wink.

   The thetans then lerked around the planet for a while before finding humans to be their hosts.  The thetans attached themselves to the humans and that is the reason for our shortcummings.  Dianetics is the process of getting rid of the thetans in which an E-meter (some device that reads stress waves?) is used in sessions called "auditing" to slowly get rid of the thetans.  This is blantant mind munipulation. 

There is much more specifics, I coudn't be bothered to learned any more,  but this is the gist of it.  Not a single word of this is on their official website, and many newcomers don't hear about this for years (untill you are considered "clear" by the church, as in free of thetans), what a bunch of creeps.      

 

   To any Christians (and I'm sure many did) who were reading this and thought to themselves "wow, what a crock, that just sounds like a stupid story, so obviously made up, it's just silly, Xenu and thetans and e-meters, what a joke."  What you are thinking/fealing about the rediculous dogma of Scientology is exactly what every rational thinking person thinks/feels about you and your silly little story, and how unimaginably rediculous it is that you just picked a silly story, and said "yyyup, I believe this one."   Is the existence of Xenu any less possible than the god of abraham, or allah.  Is the existence of thetans any less possible than demons.  Is it really any less possible that some guy named L Ron Hubbard had a special connection with space aliens in the 20th century and brought forth truths of it, than some guy named Jesus from 2000 years ago had some special connection to some god named Yahweh and brought forth truths of it.  No, they are equally silly stories.  No evidence exists that either are truth.  What do you think, that was a pretty silly story wasn't it?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
FUCKING SCIENTOLOGY HOW DOES

FUCKING SCIENTOLOGY HOW DOES IT WORK?!!?!

 

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Human brains are some

 

seriously dumb shit.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm curious about one thing.

I'm curious about one thing. When scientologists have children, do they keep Scientology a secret from them, or do they tell everything for free?

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1149
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
It gets worse.  The Nation

It gets worse.  The Nation of Islam -- a wacky invention in its own right, which teaches that white people were created by an evil scientist -- has recently teamed up with Scientology.  A curious development, considering there is both written and audio documentation of L. Ron Hubbard making derogatory comments about black people; not to mention that one learns at the upper levels that religions like christianity and islam are the result of Xenu's brainwashing.

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Whatch this funny video of 2

Whatch this funny video of 2 scientologist cooks sent by the church to revenge picket at the property of this guy who made a few tapes about scientology.  This is their move of intimidation, send a couple homeless looking guys to stand with signs in front of your house.  CREEPS 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO5fZrfaY6g&feature=related


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3123
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:  I

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

  I spent some time on the official scientology website today www.scientology.org,  interesting, and creepy.  By interesting I mean it is interesting  that it says absolutely nothing about what the core dogma of the church is.  Apparently this knowledge is only available to OT level VII or something members who have paid thousands for courses  and auditing sessions and years of time that leave you, well "a little off." 

Here's the core dogma:

Making $$$ by any means.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Luminon wrote:I'm curious

Luminon wrote:

I'm curious about one thing. When scientologists have children, do they keep Scientology a secret from them, or do they tell everything for free?

 

Bwahahahaha... ^5


Dmasterman
atheist
Posts: 54
Joined: 2010-01-01
User is offlineOffline
I read somewhere that RRS

I read somewhere that RRS and Anon didn't get along and Sapient sided with CoS over Anons.

 

or so said the email.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Lisa McPherson - why

Lisa McPherson - why Scientology won't ever be truly harmless until it is a distant memory...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

I know a lot about Scientology. I was raised by two "foster parents' who were very high in Scientology and Martial Arts. The man was rated #10 in he world of all time Martial Artists in the history of Martial Arts of all time.

He would apply the "tech" all the time in his classes. When I began to study logic intensely at the age of 15, I began to see the logical fallacies of Scientology. This angered them extremely and they hate me to this day. They view me as a SP (Suppressive Person) and a PTS. (potential trouble source). Thus, if they are around me, they may go bankrupt, since they may need more money for auditing to rid the body thetans off of them.

I have a large Scientology library and study it via an expose and to help Scientologists get out of that cult. They believe men are basically good, which is paganism. Oh wait, atheists believe that too? Smiling

Scientology is nothing more then a different flavor (a copy of a different flavor) of Existialism. Existience precedes Essence. One must do all they can to amplify the dynamic of their existence. Of course, for a great fee.

My Foster Mom joined the Sea Organization and divorced my Foster Dad after I left. She signed a contract to devote herself to that organization for the next 1 billion years. I have an original copy of the contract. They will not let anybody contact her and she is trapped in Clearwater Florida for the next billion years. Wait, 99,990,910,199. Oh that's better. She's on her way.

More could be said. They will soon go through their own "wall of fire" when they die and burn in hell. Wait, that goes for atheists too. Smiling.

Good Stuff.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2354
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean

 

 

 

                        You have quite the imagination equating atheists with paranoid scientologists.  Your the only one who has tried to pull that rabbit out of the hat, is that what your logic classes taught you?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:


                        You have quite the imagination equating atheists with paranoid scientologists.  Your the only one who has tried to pull that rabbit out of the hat, is that what your logic classes taught you?

 

It's pretty obvious to me he hasn't had any philosophy classes.  

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:More

Jean Chauvin wrote:

More could be said. They will soon go through their own "wall of fire" when they die and burn in hell. Wait, that goes for atheists too. Smiling.

Are you an X-Scientologist now Christian?


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I have a

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I have a large Scientology library and study it via an expose and to help Scientologists get out of that cult. They believe men are basically good, which is paganism. Oh wait, atheists believe that too? Smiling

So you believe people are not basically good? (Although many atheists do NOT believe that men are basically good)

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

More could be said. They will soon go through their own "wall of fire" when they die and burn in hell. Wait, that goes for atheists too. Smiling.

Ah I can't get enough of that Xtian "love". I guess I just don't love you enough since I would never throw you into a fire for eternity. Although, as messed up as your foster parents were it helps explain why you find an abusive god appealing. You basically left one abusive religion for another. People often do the same thing with abusive relationships. You don't have to live in fear you know. You can cast aside those crazy beliefs and live your life free of the oppressive threats of Christianity. Apply the logic you used to reject Scientology and you can reject the oppression of Christianity. Maybe we need the equivalent of the YWCA to help people escape abusive religions. 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
   So the genocidal maniac

   So the genocidal maniac Xenu, the hydrogen bombs, the body thetans, the auditing, and the overall bat shit crazyzess of scientology didn't sit well with you?  But the genocidal maniac Yahweh, fireballs, plagues, eternal torture, forbidden apples and talking snakes and overall bat shit crazyness of Christianity clucked your chicken.  Odd, they are both flamboyantly rediculous, equally I would say. 


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5064
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
We've had all Jean's assertions

Jean Chauvin wrote:

More could be said. They will soon go through their own "wall of fire" when they die and burn in hell. Wait, that goes for atheists too. Smiling.

Good Stuff.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

And his logic gap and now we get his big , fat fallacy from force. Compelling stuff.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Nomorecrazypeople

Hi NoMoreCrazyPeople

Quote:
So the genocidal maniac Xenu, the hydrogen bombs, the body thetans, the auditing, and the overall bat shit crazyzess of scientology didn't sit well with you?  But the genocidal maniac Yahweh, fireballs, plagues, eternal torture, forbidden apples and talking snakes and overall bat shit crazyness of Christianity clucked your chicken.  Odd, they are both flamboyantly rediculous, equally I would say.

hmmm, where to start. I do believe in the God of the universe. That bumper sticker that says, "What Would Jesus Bomb?". I really like that one. Because the term Yahweh is referred to both the second and first person of the Trinity. Thus God the Father gave the fire to God the Son, and God the son bombed Sodom. Cool huh? So Jesus bombed that wicked city. This is in Genesis 19:24 and is known as a theophany.

Genocidal though was logical fallacy number 1

maniac was logical fallacy number 2

We don't know if it was apples. The Latin word for apple and evil are the EXACT same term. So in Church History, the apple arose out of legend. Though the Biblical account real. So who knows what the fruit was.

Talking snakes? That's nothing. You should read about Balaam's Ass.

overall bat shit crazyness is Logical fallacy #3

Of course you would say they are equal. But Scientology does not claim a god. Though some have said via OT 8 that Hubbard is a god, but no proof.

You made 3 logical fallacies. 6 of them if you account for Scientology. The logical fallacy was:

argumentum ad hominem abusive.

This is suppose to be a forum of reason. Where is your reason? Were you mugged? Did somebody steal your reason? Perhaps you lost it with your car keys. And what's with the language. Consistent Atheism, but have a little class. After all, you do believe in empirical Utilitarianism don't you? Perhaps you should calculate the risk factor of the greater good with foul language and logical fallacies.

Other then that, it was nice meeting you. Your Atheism gives glory to God (II Thessalonians 2:11). You were probably made as a vessel of wrath, and God may hate you (e.g. Romans 9:13).

When you find logic and reason again, look me up, we'll talk then.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:We don't

Jean Chauvin wrote:

We don't know if it was apples. The Latin word for apple and evil are the EXACT same term. So in Church History, the apple arose out of legend. Though the Biblical account real. So who knows what the fruit was.

 

Apple = pomum

Evil = malum, pravus, malus, malus peior pessimus, nocens, maleficus

http://www.translation-guide.com/free_online_translators.php?from=English&to=Latin

What is the logical fallacy called when you are flat out wrong?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:hmmm,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

hmmm, where to start. I do believe in the God of the universe. That bumper sticker that says, "What Would Jesus Bomb?". I really like that one. Because the term Yahweh is referred to both the second and first person of the Trinity. Thus God the Father gave the fire to God the Son, and God the son bombed Sodom. Cool huh?

No, not cool, horrible. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So Jesus bombed that wicked city. This is in Genesis 19:24 and is known as a theophany.

Great so we agree, your god/s is/are violent.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Genocidal though was logical fallacy number 1

Why?  Genocidal:  The systematic and widespread extermination or attempted extermination of an entire national, racial, religious, or ethnic group.    

  Is that not what he does when he whipes out people who aren't "his people?"  Isn't this hole game according to Christianity just one long extermination of people who aren't "his people?"  Except death isn't the end, he continues to torture those who aren't in his group long after death.  Is that not what Xenu did to all the aliens when he systimatically gathered them up and blew them to pieces in Hawaii?  I would say the word fit's both imaginary characters. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

maniac was logical fallacy number 2

Why?   Maniac:  An excessively intense enthusiasm, interest, or desire; a craze; A manifestation of bipolar disorder, characterized by profuse and rapidly changing ideas, gaiety, or irritability, and decreased sleep.  Violent abnormal behavior. 

  Is that not exactly what Yahweh is like?  Excessive intensity, bi-polar, rapid changing ideas, easily irritated, violant, etc...  This seems to perfectly describe the god of abraham.  Way over the top, easily looses his cool and lashes out, isn't consistant from day to day.  I'm not to sure about Xenu however I would assume anyone who can round up billions and blow them up would harbour such characteristics.  The word surely fits the character of the god of abraham.   

Jean Chauvin wrote:

We don't know if it was apples. The Latin word for apple and evil are the EXACT same term. So in Church History, the apple arose out of legend. Though the Biblical account real. So who knows what the fruit was.

As if the kind of fruit has any bearing on the stories absurdity.  As if small details like this have any effect on the overall absurdity of the bible

Jean Chauvin wrote:

overall bat shit crazyness is Logical fallacy #3

Of course you would say they are equal. But Scientology does not claim a god. Though some have said via OT 8 that Hubbard is a god, but no proof.

 I'm not comparing their claims and saying they are the same.  I am weighing in the claims and saying they are equally absurd in their own right, and they are. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You made 3 logical fallacies. 6 of them if you account for Scientology. The logical fallacy was:

argumentum ad hominem abusive.

No I have not, I am in no way attacking you, I am directly attacking the character of the diety you represent, and the overall absurdity of the stories that go along with the diety you represent.  So no  argumentum ad hominem here. 

 

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Other then that, it was nice meeting you. Your Atheism gives glory to God (II Thessalonians 2:11). You were probably made as a vessel of wrath, and God may hate you (e.g. Romans 9:13).

Now that's an argumentum ad hominem.   

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Jean Chauvin wrote:I have

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I have a large Scientology library and study it via an expose and to help Scientologists get out of that cult.

 

Well, if your goal is to help as many people as possible, then share the material as much as possible.

 

I don't know how many people will get out from our efforts but possibly we can keep people from going in.

 

Send the whole lot of what you can email to aigs@atheist.com

 

 

Also, shoot me PM when you do. I will take care to make sure that the information gets out in a way that they can't cock block.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Helo NoMoreCrazyPeople, and Others

Hello,

First off the Latin word for apple is Malum, Malum is from the root word Malus, which means evil.

As to Crazynomore, allow me to teach you some logic.

In logic, if you distract from the argument via attacking the person via their position that is an ad hominem abusive. Now a informal logical fallacy can occur more then once at the same time.

In this case, you made an argumentum ad hominem abusive, and a Straw man. However, in argument there is a valid use of ad hominem via truth. And in that sense my proposition was not invalid.

You seem angry. Instead of making emotional reactions, give me logical reasons as to why God is not ontologically a Being. I'm on here looking for Atheistic arguments, and I get people like you acting like my Mother-in-Law. What gives.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:First off

Jean Chauvin wrote:

First off the Latin word for apple is Malum, Malum is from the root word Malus, which means evil.

That's right, I still remember the saying ab ovo usque ad mala. It means from egg to apples (a Roman feast) and it is equivalent to our saying "from A to Z".

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:In logic,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

In logic, if you distract from the argument via attacking the person via their position that is an ad hominem abusive

What argument?  That Scientology and Christianity have equally absurd teachings?  How is this an attack on you?  It is an observation, a conclusion I have come to by reading the teachings of both Christianity and Scientology.  Why do you see this as an attack on you?  How exaclty am I distracting from anything, this was the first statement I made to you?  Can you now show me why I am  wrong in thinking the teachings of Christianity are equally as absurd as the teachings of Scientology, let's diggin.     

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 give me logical reasons as to why God is not ontologically a Being.

  I don't bother much with the "philosophical reasons for why god is necessary or impossible, etc..." conversations although many here do and are much better at that, I'm no philosopher.   It doesn't interest me as much, I'm far more interested in the individual, you and your choice of Christianity, why go from  A=you believe in god  to B=you believe in the Christian god.  Now can you awnser why you choose to represent Christianity, and how you distinguish what you believe to be myth or made up in other religions from what you believe to be true in Chrisianity.  Can you breakdown how you would defend the god of Abrahams obvious character flaws in the stories.   

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I'm on here looking for Atheistic arguments, and I get people like you acting like my Mother-in-Law. What gives.

 

Oh don't worry, many here will fill your need for pages and pages of arguments of all forms for/against "god."  I'm more interested in what the heck you find appealling about the particular god you have chosen.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 OK, the above having been

 

OK, the above having been said, let me tell you that on my way out of theism, I spent several years in the world of the occult.

 

The basic fact is that L. Ron Hubbard did not discover anything new. He ripped off earlier sources. How does this sound:

 

aigs wrote:
Well you are going to do what you want to do. However some things are going to make your life better. So you want to do the things that you should do. If you stick with us, we will teach you what you should already know on that score.

 

Apart from not telling people about hell, that is fairly standard religion. Even so, does it have the flavor of dianetics?

 

Pretty much it is a rip from Alistair Crowley.

 

Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law.

 

Love is the law.

 

Love under will.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

First off the Latin word for apple is Malum, Malum is from the root word Malus, which means evil.

Let me clear this up. Malus is an adjective that means "evil." Mālus is also a noun that means "apple." An ancient Latin speaker would have been able to tell the difference, despite the fact that adjectives take their endings from the first and second declensions of nouns, and especially because "apple" is a feminine noun despite the fact that it takes masculine endings. For instance, mālī malae would mean "bad apples." Interestingly enough, mālus also means " the mast of a ship." If Eve had stolen the Forbidden Mast from the Ship of Knowledge of Good and Evil, do you think you would be making the same argument?

It's amazing what one year of Latin classes can teach you.

 

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
El-ahrairah wrote: Jean

El-ahrairah wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

First off the Latin word for apple is Malum, Malum is from the root word Malus, which means evil.

Let me clear this up. Malus is an adjective that means "evil." Mālus is also a noun that means "apple." An ancient Latin speaker would have been able to tell the difference, despite the fact that adjectives take their endings from the first and second declensions of nouns, and especially because "apple" is a feminine noun despite the fact that it takes masculine endings. For instance, mālī malae would mean "bad apples." Interestingly enough, mālus also means " the mast of a ship." If Eve had stolen the Forbidden Mast from the Ship of Knowledge of Good and Evil, do you think you would be making the same argument?

It's amazing what one year of Latin classes can teach you.

 

Here you go, more information than you ever wanted:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/malus

Please note that the word Mālus is originally from the Greek μηλέα, while Malus is perhaps from the Greek μέλας.  Note that they are two different words in Greek. 

My apologies, my previous source was incorrect in that pomum means a fruit of any sort.  But it made sense to me as I have had some Italian - and in Italian, pomodoro means tomato, which is derived from pomo d'oro - "apple of gold".  Though in Italian, mele is apple.  Ain't language fun?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Answers

Answers,

You see, I taught you something about apples via the Latin. Kind of a cool piece to put under your hat. See, what would you do with Christians? They are funny, attractive, and very smart. The world is a much better place as a result. You have to kind of agree with me. No?

Hi NoMoreCrazyPeople,

Quote:
What argument?  That Scientology and Christianity have equally absurd teachings?  How is this an attack on you?  It is an observation, a conclusion I have come to by reading the teachings of both Christianity and Scientology.  Why do you see this as an attack on you?  How exaclty am I distracting from anything, this was the first statement I made to you?  Can you now show me why I am  wrong in thinking the teachings of Christianity are equally as absurd as the teachings of Scientology, let's diggin.
  

Of course, how convenient. Simply to assert does not an argument make. Come one now. Syllogism, premises, conclusions. Put the puppies down and argue with me won't you.

Quote:
  I don't bother much with the "philosophical reasons for why god is necessary or impossible, etc..." conversations although many here do and are much better at that, I'm no philosopher.   It doesn't interest me as much, I'm far more interested in the individual, you and your choice of Christianity, why go from  A=you believe in god  to B=you believe in the Christian god.  Now can you awnser why you choose to represent Christianity, and how you distinguish what you believe to be myth or made up in other religions from what you believe to be true in Chrisianity.  Can you breakdown how you would defend the god of Abrahams obvious character flaws in the stories.  

Again, how convenient. Of course you don't bother with the philosophical reasons. I've discussed my arguments before and have written them on several occasions. But because you are holding puppies, I will do it again.

I being as a first principle of God IS and His Word IS true. Via this first principle or these axioms, I then argue deductively that via the instructions of the Bible, they are implications of the axioms. The evidence is of the consistency of the argument itself. So if the Bible says ABC, and we encounter ABC in the world, this is evidence of the consistency of the argument.

So, since God says He made stars, fish, and ribs, and we go and encounter stars, fish, and ribs, this is the proof of consistency of the argument via the axioms. Pretty simple. Though I also connect the first principles with the Imago Dei, giving it more merit then say Euclid had.

Now, before you put the puppies down, tell me your argument to KNOW anything? If you can't, then you can't read my notes. The fact that you can read is an ad hominem against atheism, since knowledge is consistently impossible in atheism itself.

Quote:
Oh don't worry, many here will fill your need for pages and pages of arguments of all forms for/against "god."  I'm more interested in what the heck you find appealling about the particular god you have chosen.

The truth appeals to me. The truth that you may be a vessel of wrath (Romans 9:21-22), and that God probably is deceiving you (II Thess 2:11), and that you may someday be thrown in the pit of hell (Revelation 20). But who knows, you may be rescued someday. You and I really have no decision since we are both bound by our nature. Only my nature is good, and your nature is, well, not so good.

__________________________

Hi AnswersinGenesis,

You were in the Occult? shocker there with your avatar picture. I've studied the occult myself. Not for practice, but to help people. Alister Crowley was insane and very fat. Though, i'm not sure being fat has anything to do with what we are discussing.

You've heard of the Parsons things with Hubbard and Crowley. So there is some connection I would agree. But Crowley was not really an Existentialist, Hubbard was. Crowley was trying to appease his "animal" like nature so as to be as consistent to an animal as possible. He did a good job. His first wife went insane and she killed herself.

Most Satanists today copy Crowley. They are not original. Before Crowley, you had Roman Catholicism. Rome was more Occultic in some way then Alister could ever dream of.

I think the OTO is dying or dead. But that's an Occultic debate, and I've never been in the Occult.

_________________________

Fun Stuff.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
ANSWERS

ANSWERS,

Hi Rev.Willie,

So you don't like organized religion. So you prefer disorganized religion? Get a filing cabinet and clean yourself up.

You sound like a heretic. Not sure what kind. Why don't you tell me, unless you are ashamed. Christianity via a system is found via the normative in Scripture. Are you a gnostic or something? Who knows. So you logically follow the mandate of Scripture via consistency. If you do not do this, you are not a Christian by definition.

Defend Free Will. Whom is your will free from? So then do you believe God is Sovereign. You have no arguments for God, so this should be fun.

I'm like a mirror, reflecting the light of Scripture onto these pages. Thus I speak objectivity.

______________________

Hi EL,

Capitalism was actually formed via a system by John Calvin. He was a Protestant Reformer. If it wasn't for him, we probably would not know of Capitalism of today.

The RCC is actually a protestant "church" from the Eastern Orthodox folks. According to Jude 3, the church sustains despite of heresy and paganism. RCC is extremely pagan, and a consistent RCC by definition is hell bound. I am willing to tell you why if you wish.

The Latin Vulgate is garbage. I prefer the SL, prior to Jerome. That was not Roman and is used well in textual criticism. If you have RCC family, they are still in the same boat you are, hell bound.

_____________________________

Hello Sapient,

Quote:
  Once again you have illustrated...

One must act ignorant, dishonest, or both when defending belief in a god. 

Answers in Gene Simmons is a conservative, we've had this discussion before.  Whether you choose to portray reality honestly is up to you. 

Tell me via logic and argument where I'm wrong. If an atheist is a conservative, it's because he is an inconsistent conservative. He has one foot in Christianity, and the other foot in Atheism. He thus has fence prints on his bottom.

I'm speaking of consistency. A consistent atheist, can never be a consistent conservative.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Jean, is this your

Hey Jean, is this your argument?


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi EL,

Capitalism was actually formed via a system by John Calvin. He was a Protestant Reformer. If it wasn't for him, we probably would not know of Capitalism of today.

Can you please provide some evidence for your assertion?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The RCC is actually a protestant "church" from the Eastern Orthodox folks.

Or the Eastern Orthodox Church was a Protestant church from the RCC, depending on how you look at it. In any case, it was the RCC that became popular in Europe, and it was the RCC from which the Protestant Reformation split.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

According to Jude 3, the church sustains despite of heresy and paganism. RCC is extremely pagan, and a consistent RCC by definition is hell bound. I am willing to tell you why if you wish.

Or rather, anybody who isn't a Roman Catholic thinks that the RCC is hellbound. It's only by how you define the RCC that makes it hellbound (of course, the same can be said for the RCC, or other religions for that matter.) Go ahead and tell me why.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Latin Vulgate is garbage.

It's where the Protestants picked their particular New Testament books from, so that would make the Protestant version of the Bible garbage too. Or are you saying that only the Apocrypha is garbage?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I prefer the SL, prior to Jerome. That was not Roman and is used well in textual criticism.

What is the SL? I can't find what Bible translation that is.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

If you have RCC family, they are still in the same boat you are, hell bound.

Lol, most of my family is Roman Catholic, and I go to a Jesuit school. I don't think they're hellbound, I don't think you're hellbound, and I don't think anybody in the world is hellbound.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi EL

Hi EL,

Quote:
Can you please provide some evidence for your assertion?

Sure. Calvin's Institutes, 2 volumes, is where he discusses the Usury and the interest of the shekel. I'm in the middle of a move and my huge 10,000 volume library is in boxes. When I unpack, I'll find specifics. But the Institutes are fun reading.

Quote:
Or the Eastern Orthodox Church was a Protestant church from the RCC, depending on how you look at it. In any case, it was the RCC that became popular in Europe, and it was the RCC from which the Protestant Reformation split.

Actually, Rome was not in "existence" until Constantine. They say they were via a phony list in the 4th century. But the list has been refuted as a fraud. At that time, there were many popes according to the region you were in. So if you were in Alexander, you would be Pope there. Rome did not become a one world religion until 1074 via Pope Gregory the VII.

Quote:
Or rather, anybody who isn't a Roman Catholic thinks that the RCC is hellbound. It's only by how you define the RCC that makes it hellbound (of course, the same can be said for the RCC, or other religions for that matter.) Go ahead and tell me why.

I define Rome according to the CCC of 1994 and Vatican II, Flanery edition. I also have other books with the imprimatur. I also have older works such as Vatican I and Council of Trent.

You are saved via infusion of the 7 sacraments. Christianity is saved via the imputation of Christ's Righteousness. You have to go to hell to purge for your sins, Jesus did not die for all of your sins. Purgatory is a temporary hell. Unless you are a saint, and then the Vatican can vote you into heaven. The host is the literal body and blood of Jesus. They take John 6 out of context. So when you receive the host, (hoc est enim corpus), you are eating Jesus for real, His hands, feet, head, and human heart. And then your Jesus turns into poop. That is a different Jesus then the Bible. For Jesus never turns into poop.

Quote:
t's where the Protestants picked their particular New Testament books from, so that would make the Protestant version of the Bible garbage too. Or are you saying that only the Apocrypha is garbage?

No, the Latin Vulgate came after the Regional Conference of Carthage. But they did not DECIDE. Gnostics and heretics were putting pagan books in the Bible, so they made a statement regarding what was already known to stop the heresy. This was around 457-458.

Quote:
What is the SL? I can't find what Bible translation that is.

Syrio-Latin. Very old. Augustine used this. This was before Jerome, way before. There are some Coptic (Egyptian) copies that have been found. Jerome's Latin Vulgate was a perversion from the SL. 

Quote:
Lol, most of my family is Roman Catholic, and I go to a Jesuit school. I don't think they're hellbound, I don't think you're hellbound, and I don't think anybody in the world is hellbound.

Let me put it in a way you will understand, Roman Catholic style. Unless your family believes in the Biblical Jesus, and not the eat me Jesus into poop, they will be bound in fire via purgatory, FOREVER. Smiling

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Sure.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Sure. Calvin's Institutes, 2 volumes, is where he discusses the Usury and the interest of the shekel. I'm in the middle of a move and my huge 10,000 volume library is in boxes. When I unpack, I'll find specifics. But the Institutes are fun reading.

The nonsense that capitalism originated from the Puritan work ethic was created by Max Weber in the early 1900's.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Capitalism.html

"'Capitalism,' a term of disparagement coined by socialists in the mid-nineteenth century, is a misnomer for 'economic individualism,' which Adam Smith earlier called 'the obvious and simple system of natural liberty' (Wealth of Nations). Economic individualism’s basic premise is that the pursuit of self-interest and the right to own private property are morally defensible and legally legitimate. Its major corollary is that the state exists to protect individual rights. Subject to certain restrictions, individuals (alone or with others) are free to decide where to invest, what to produce or sell, and what prices to charge. There is no natural limit to the range of their efforts in terms of assets, sales, and profits; or the number of customers, employees, and investors; or whether they operate in local, regional, national, or international markets.

The emergence of capitalism is often mistakenly linked to a Puritan work ethic. German sociologist Max Weber, writing in 1903, stated that the catalyst for capitalism was in seventeenth-century England, where members of a religious sect, the Puritans, under the sway of John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, channeled their energies into hard work, reinvestment, and modest living, and then carried these attitudes to New England. Weber’s thesis breaks down, however. The same attitudes toward work and savings are exhibited by Jews and Japanese, whose value systems contain no Calvinist component. Moreover, Scotland in the seventeenth century was simultaneously orthodox Calvinist and economically stagnant.

A better explanation of the Puritans’ diligence is that by refusing to swear allegiance to the established Church of England, they were barred from activities and professions to which they otherwise might have been drawn—landownership, law, the military, civil service, universities— and so they focused on trade and commerce. A similar pattern of exclusion or ostracism explains why Jews and other racial and religious minorities in other countries and later centuries tended to concentrate on retail businesses and money lending."

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Actually, Rome was not in "existence" until Constantine. They say they were via a phony list in the 4th century. But the list has been refuted as a fraud. At that time, there were many popes according to the region you were in. So if you were in Alexander, you would be Pope there. Rome did not become a one world religion until 1074 via Pope Gregory the VII.

M'kay. Still doesn't refute the fact that Protestant religions wouldn't have a Bible without the RCC, even if it was formed in 1074, or 616, or 1215, or whatever.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I define Rome according to the CCC of 1994 and Vatican II, Flanery edition. I also have other books with the imprimatur. I also have older works such as Vatican I and Council of Trent.

You are saved via infusion of the 7 sacraments. Christianity is saved via the imputation of Christ's Righteousness. You have to go to hell to purge for your sins, Jesus did not die for all of your sins. Purgatory is a temporary hell. Unless you are a saint, and then the Vatican can vote you into heaven. The host is the literal body and blood of Jesus. They take John 6 out of context. So when you receive the host, (hoc est enim corpus), you are eating Jesus for real, His hands, feet, head, and human heart. And then your Jesus turns into poop. That is a different Jesus then the Bible. For Jesus never turns into poop.

I agree that the RCC is bullshit; I just wanted to see your definition.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

No, the Latin Vulgate came after the Regional Conference of Carthage. But they did not DECIDE. Gnostics and heretics were putting pagan books in the Bible, so they made a statement regarding what was already known to stop the heresy. This was around 457-458.

So what does that have to do with the Protestant version of the Bible? If that was the officially recognized version of the Bible (regardless of whether or not it was the "correct" version), then what did the Protestants take from? How else can you explain that the books that are in the Protestant Bible are exactly the same as the books in the RCC bible? Both versions are the same, it's just that the Protestants took out a few books.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Syrio-Latin. Very old. Augustine used this. This was before Jerome, way before. There are some Coptic (Egyptian) copies that have been found. Jerome's Latin Vulgate was a perversion from the SL.

Did the Protestant version of the Bible come from the Syrio-Latin translation, then?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Let me put it in a way you will understand, Roman Catholic style. Unless your family believes in the Biblical Jesus, and not the eat me Jesus into poop, they will be bound in fire via purgatory, FOREVER. Smiling

That's your interpretation. They think they're right, and you think you're right. The whole thing is silly. There is no hell.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi EL

Hi EL,

I am not interpreting the RCC, I am reporting it according to their own writings. The "Protestant Bible" as you call it was around at all time. This is the area of textual Criticism. P46 is around 110 Ad, about 10 years after John the Apostle died.

Codex Vaticanus was around before that. As well as Codex Siniaticus. They usually call the "books" in accordance to who 'owns" them. Siniaticus was of the Eastern Orthodox in Sinai. It was discovered in the 19th century and somebody stole it. It's not in England. There are tons of fragment papyrus really early. What about the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls? Is that Rome?

You've been brainwashed by your school. They are teaching you false history. This is what the bad guys do all the time.

If you would like me to discuss the process of textual criticism, since I've done that before. I can. The USB Greek New Testament is a pretty good text. If you would like to know how they do this. let me know. It's interesting to me, but boring to some.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi EL,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi EL,

I am not interpreting the RCC, I am reporting it according to their own writings. The "Protestant Bible" as you call it was around at all time. This is the area of textual Criticism. P46 is around 110 Ad, about 10 years after John the Apostle died.

Codex Vaticanus was around before that. As well as Codex Siniaticus. They usually call the "books" in accordance to who 'owns" them. Siniaticus was of the Eastern Orthodox in Sinai. It was discovered in the 19th century and somebody stole it. It's not in England. There are tons of fragment papyrus really early. What about the LXX and the Dead Sea Scrolls? Is that Rome?

You still haven't told me where the Protestant Bible came from. If it was "around all the time," you're saying that yours is the correct version and that the RCC simply added books to it. Is that what you're trying to say?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You've been brainwashed by your school. They are teaching you false history. This is what the bad guys do all the time.

...The irony here is astounding.

"The Aim of an Argument...should not be victory, but progress."
-Joseph Joubert (1754-1824)

"All the world will be your enemy, Prince with a Thousand Enemies, and whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with the swift warning. Be cunning and full of tricks and your people shall never be destroyed."
-Richard Adams, Watership Down, 1972


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Wow, so you want to do the

 

Wow, so you want to do the textual criticism deal.

 

OK, let's talk about Secret Mark. The document has been photographed twice by different scholars with different agendas. It is as real as my left nut.

 

The reason why Jesus was not into dudes getting busy with chicks was not because he was godly.

 

IT WAS BECAUSE JESUS WAS A FAG!!!

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi El

Hi EL,

The Bible is the 66 books written by about 40 authors. When they were written, they were passed around and were Canon, Scripture (Colossians 4:16). They were instructed not to beyond what was written.

The apocrypha was added as "Scripture" via the council of Trent. It was added to justify the decree of Purgatory of the 13th century. After the last Apostle died (John, the canon was closed (I Corinthians 8-10).

The Church knew this. However, there were gnostics (later to become Roman Catholic) who tried to add books to merit their paganism. Though for hundreds of years, the church knew.

The 497-86 small Regional conference was simply to stop the bad guys from adding pagan books to the already know Bible of the Old TaNaK. The TaNaK was canonized in terms of completion around 90 AD. The New Testament 497-98. All that means is that they made a universal claim, so pagans would not corrupt the Text as they continue to do to this very day.

Regarding my occult friend. Why did you leave the occult? LaVey himself claimed to be an atheist. His "church" still claims that. They wish to be consistent to the animal instincts of a wild animal, and indulge in all their desires. Luciferian thinking is more spiritual, so if you would stick with the satanic, you can still serve your atheism, and your wickedness at the same time.

I'm here to help.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
CrazyPeopleGuy

CrazyPeopleGuy?

What happen to the CrazyPeopleGuy. We were talking, and he was doing his logical fallacies. Where'd you go? You were comical.

Look, the CrazyPeopleGuy just vanished. Kind of like how evolution came via biochemical reproduction, Vanished, and Duh Duh. But the basic blocks of building life, also was vanished. However, David Cooper was sent back in a time machine, and poured some kryptinite into the a pool, and then via a SmallVille Episode, Biochemical reproduction  took place.

Come back and spar. Of course, unless you are ashamed of your worldview. I sure am ashamed of your worldview, so I understand. I'm trying to relate.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4160
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi NoMoreCrazyPeople,

Quote:
What argument?  That Scientology and Christianity have equally absurd teachings?  How is this an attack on you?  It is an observation, a conclusion I have come to by reading the teachings of both Christianity and Scientology.  Why do you see this as an attack on you?  How exaclty am I distracting from anything, this was the first statement I made to you?  Can you now show me why I am  wrong in thinking the teachings of Christianity are equally as absurd as the teachings of Scientology, let's diggin.
  

Of course, how convenient. Simply to assert does not an argument make. Come one now. Syllogism, premises, conclusions. Put the puppies down and argue with me won't you.

ROFL, you really should take your own advice Jean. On this site you have criticized us for using ad hominems, logical fallacies, and now simply asserting without making a logical argument. While you have been routinely slinging ad hominems, making logical fallacies left and right (equivocation seems to be your favorite), and you have done nothing but make baseless assertions and choose to ignore everyone who directly asks you to back up your assertions with evidence. Are you just fucking with us, or are you truly unable to view yourself through the same critical eyes you use to view others?

 

I know you have chosen to ignore me because I asked some questions and then mocked you. Perhaps if you put together a coherent argument I will apologize for my mocking. As long as you remain rude and hypocritical I shall continue.

 

Respectfully,

Beyond Saving

 


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

CrazyPeopleGuy?

What happen to the CrazyPeopleGuy. We were talking, and he was doing his logical fallacies. Where'd you go? You were comical.

Look, the CrazyPeopleGuy just vanished. Kind of like how evolution came via biochemical reproduction, Vanished, and Duh Duh. But the basic blocks of building life, also was vanished. However, David Cooper was sent back in a time machine, and poured some kryptinite into the a pool, and then via a SmallVille Episode, Biochemical reproduction  took place.

Come back and spar. Of course, unless you are ashamed of your worldview. I sure am ashamed of your worldview, so I understand. I'm trying to relate.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

  Well I find you quite boring, and annoying, (Ahhh argumentum ad hominem abusive, haha).  You are looking to formally debate the philosophical reasons for/against "god" so go find someone who is interested, this bores me to death, do you think you are the first person to come on here and do that.  No, we have thousands of pages of that for review, some people dig it so enjoy it with them, personally it's a snooze factory.  I'm more interested in informal conversation, it doesn't even bother me to assume a "god" exists just for conversation because I am more interested in how you went from "a god exists" to "this particular god exists," what it is you find appealling about this god, and how you find the stories in the bible reasonable, or the character of the deity "super"-wise.  I've asked you these simple questions, with no response, many are happy to do the "ontology this" "emperisicsm that" formal debate with you, I don't have enough coffee to keep me up for that one, but enjoy.      


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

First off the Latin word for apple is Malum, Malum is from the root word Malus, which means evil.

As to Crazynomore, allow me to teach you some logic.

In logic, if you distract from the argument via attacking the person via their position that is an ad hominem abusive. Now a informal logical fallacy can occur more then once at the same time.

In this case, you made an argumentum ad hominem abusive, and a Straw man. However, in argument there is a valid use of ad hominem via truth. And in that sense my proposition was not invalid.

You seem angry. Instead of making emotional reactions, give me logical reasons as to why God is not ontologically a Being. I'm on here looking for Atheistic arguments, and I get people like you acting like my Mother-in-Law. What gives.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Oh so you hate you mother in law? Not the first reference in negativity towards her we've seen. You like bombing people or at least agreeing with god having it done or would you be sad to hear some kid did it at his school becausd he thought they were all evil? You are verifying my thoughts on christianity every time you log on. It's evil!

If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
CrazyPeopleGuy?

CrazyPeopleGuy?

Now look, if somebody asks me a technical question, I'm going to give them a technical answer. If somebody asks me a question about puppies, I'm going to give them a puppy answer. It's all in the question.

Most likely, Virtually ALL Christians who've been on here, argue according to an atheist. They think like an atheist. And they even have puppies like an atheist. The only difference, is that they shake some Christian salt n pepper on top of the rotten garbage of their arguments, and call it a day.

All you have to do as an atheist, is wipe the salt n pepper off the rotten garbage, and boom boom boom, we have lift off. "Hey, that's the same way I argue."

At that point, since your argument is antithetical to reason, it would follow that the Christian argument is antithetical to reason. So you take them apart since you play the Burden of Proof game found nicely in your little black atheist debaters handbook. (1st edition, dedicated to Lucifer).

You didn't give me any argument. I've explained my argument before. The particulars are the result of the FLOW DOWN from the first principles. The question is, how does one like yourself, climb a ladder into the universals, while holding only particulars via the empirical means of knowing. (oh sorry, too boring. Perhaps you would like your MTV)> - look, this is an example of comedy. No insults. 

And by the way, your puppies are NOT atheist.

So if you can't argue, or perhaps don't know how, that's fine. I'm patient. Perhaps this would be a good learning experience for you, since you atheists love experience so much (sounds like a teleevangelists). And I can actually help you become the very best atheist you can be. I truly mean this.  I really hope that Atheists can be 100% consistent in all that they do.

________________

And on a side note. Nobody likes me? Why not. I crack jokes and I don't put people down. Comedy my dear Watson. It seems that the majority of atheists probably never had a good dad or mom in their life. Had a crummy childhood. And probably went hungry. So, when they get older, they react.

Or, they grew up as a preachers kid. Their dad was to busy with others. They felt isolated and not loved, so when they become a big boy, they rebel, and say, take that daddy.

The point of this whole thing is that atheism is an emotional reaction when you get right down to it. It's non-logical. Our Post-Modern Era is really due to atheism. It's an era of the atheistic liberalism. Congratulations.

America use to be among the worlds top academic countries. They use to be healthy and so fourth. Now, with liberalism and atheism on the assault like my mother-in law with her rolling pin, our country is among the worse. And a consistent atheist would take glee with this, since that red head girl said defended a New World Order. oh goody.

And with that, via post-modernism, we have the death of philosophy (Popper 1994, last one), the death of music (i.e. John Cage), the death of art (Polluck/Duchamp), the death of cinema (go see any movie). etc. etc. etc. Virtually all subjects are dead. Look at the Universities. America is one of the lowest now in reading, writing, math, "science," etc, etc, etc. WHY? It's because of atheistic liberalism that has crept into this country.

And we have gone from the best generation, to the worse generation.

The Christian church is on its last leg. The Bible says it will prevail (Jude 3). The Bible also says that this would happen.

But come on, lets get along. I have arguments, you have arguments, but at the end of the day, don't get so offended. A comedy skit is an insult not made.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: America

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 America is one of the lowest now in reading, writing, math, "science," etc, etc, etc. 

 

First of all, it is a LIE.  Second, the U.S. has one of the highest percentage of church-goers amongst industrialized countries.  It is a mystery for me how many dumb asses blame "Universities" for lower than wanted math/reading/writing ratings, and not churches and religion.

 

Here are two possibilities:  

1) Jean is a mentally challenged person.

2) Jean is not serious at all in all of his posts.

3) both of these

 

It is really difficult for me to truly believe that here we deal with a full-grown mentally retarded maniac.  So, I will for now assume that Jean is just playing a fundamental religious idiot.  Nice play Jean, I believe you!

 

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
100%atheist?

100%atheist?

We are not among the lowest (well, in the 30s and/or 40s) of the world in education? Do you have stats that show we are in the top 10 say, in science?

Church today is not the church of 1850. MOST churches today are liberal. Most churches today are non-Biblical. And what does church have to do with the attack on liberalism? If liberals take over most of the churches and people go to church, then logically liberalism prevails.

And what's with the name calling? Come on. I see your cute little picture there with mickey mouse, and you go after me. I really would like to get back to discussing arguments.

Be nice. Oh, I'm sorry, a consistent atheist is not nice by definition. Okay, keep doing what you're doing 100% atheist. But if you were really 100%, you'd be a criminal and a murder, and  so on. So I'm assuming you have a ways to go, unless you are in prison talking to me.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Whats the obsession with

Whats the obsession with puppies? I have a puppy so how can I be so evil?


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

100%atheist?

We are not among the lowest (well, in the 30s and/or 40s) of the world in education? Do you have stats that show we are in the top 10 say, in science?

Church today is not the church of 1850. MOST churches today are liberal. Most churches today are non-Biblical. And what does church have to do with the attack on liberalism? If liberals take over most of the churches and people go to church, then logically liberalism prevails.

And what's with the name calling? Come on. I see your cute little picture there with mickey mouse, and you go after me. I really would like to get back to discussing arguments.

Be nice. Oh, I'm sorry, a consistent atheist is not nice by definition. Okay, keep doing what you're doing 100% atheist. But if you were really 100%, you'd be a criminal and a murder, and  so on. So I'm assuming you have a ways to go, unless you are in prison talking to me.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

A logical connection between atheism and being a criminal AND a murderer is yet to be demonstrated.

As to the U.S. science and its place in the world look at page 5-31 in this document:
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind10/pdf/c05.pdf

Also, I never even mentioned that somebody attacks liberalism.  Where did you get it from and how did you connect such attacks to churches?  It's certainly your idea, not mine.  So please explain. 

 

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheism = Criminal Worse Then Hitler

Hello,

I have indeed demonstrated this via logic. Again, nothing will change your mind. It's a big fat ad hominem on atheism.

Since Atheism has absolutely zero none, means of ethics, for they cannot know, and they cannot know what is right and wrong, then evil is nothing. Of course they use Society as an argument and the laws and going to jail. But that doesn't answer the question.

If they have no morals, there's nothing wrong or right with going to jail, rape, murder, stealing. Breaking the 10 commandments. As an atheist, there is nothing wrong or right about the massacre of my own family and children. So an atheist can murder his whole family, and while he may go to prison, theres really nothing wrong or right about it since there no such thing as wrong or right.

If you get right down to it, wrong vs. right is really a Christian issue. And by Christian of course I mean Judeo-Christian. And not the Jews of today, for they pagan Jews, compared to the Old Testament Jews.

So you see, while the LAW has a problem with these things via a presupposition of Christianity, a consistent 100% pure atheist country would NOT have any problem. So Atheism is (consistent Atheism) is chaos. It is anarchy. It is complete nihilism. There is no knowledge, nor morals, no aesthetics (beauty) and no reality that is known, so atheists are like, well, crazy nut jobs.

Hitler is a good example. He was a Roman Catholic for PR purposes, but really Hitler was an Occultist (which is similar to ATheism). God held his evil back,or he could have done way worse.

So Hitler or Mao is a good example of a consistent atheist. They can do what they want, and nobody can judge them, or say they are doing anything wrong. atheists like to say we are to tolerate everybody and not to judge. (This is an absolute no).

So the only reason why you are NOT mass murderers, is BECAUSE you are borrowing principles in Christianity in your life. You are practically a Christian (only via influence) but you are theoretically an atheist.

Funny and creepy stuff.

And that's why I want you to be the best atheist you can be. The best atheist you can be would be to give into your indulgences and desire. Give into EVERYTHING of your animal instinct (Atheists say We Are Animals, right).

Be a wild animal with rabies. Who cares.

Thus, atheism is by definition non-civil and wild and selfish and egocentric. But Christianity is by definition civil and has self control and is theocentric.

Be the best atheists you can be, and go be a criminal.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: It's a

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 It's a big fat ad hominem on atheism.

Indeed it is.

If you're going to admit that right away, why bother to type the rest of that drivel ?


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:If they

Jean Chauvin wrote:

If they have no morals, there's nothing wrong or right with going to jail, rape, murder, stealing. Breaking the 10 commandments. As an atheist, there is nothing wrong or right about the massacre of my own family and children. So an atheist can murder his whole family, and while he may go to prison, theres really nothing wrong or right about it since there no such thing as wrong or right.

Two can play this game.

You mean exactly the same things that God told Jews to do and they joyfully obeyed? Massacre of people's own families or families of other nations, both of that. Yes, God told his people to break some of the 10 commandments - specially, thou shalt not kill.
God-obeying Christian can murder his own family, children for not obeying his commands, wife for working on sabbat and everyone remaining for wearing a cloth of two materials, or other such stupid rules.
For a Christian there is no right or wrong, there is only what God says. And he says a lot, in Leviticus, Deuteronomy, and so on. If it's good enough for God (just remember how he treated his own son) then it's good enough for Christians!

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:A

100percentAtheist wrote:
A logical connection between atheism and being a criminal AND a murderer is yet to be demonstrated.

There is, however, quite a few recorded incidents of leaders of organized religions engaging in criminal behavior, particularly with regards to exploiting the poor fools who follow such leaders.

 

Apparently one of the "no morality without religion" tools found their way to RRS.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)