A Rational Chrisitan of Intelligence (Rare)

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
A Rational Chrisitan of Intelligence (Rare)

Hello,

My name is Jean Chauvin and I am new on here. I saw this place when Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort gave some horrible arguments against two representatives on here.

I am a hardcore Christian trained in logic, philosophy and theology. I enjoy "sparing" if it is respectful and I do not wish to convert anybody to the truth since this is logically impossible.

Since I do not believe atheism (or agnosticism, free thinkingers, etc), then the burden or proof is on you to show me that it is. Since you cannot logically do this, you must find ways to switch the burden back to me so that you are not forced into absurdity.

So, you are stuck with picking on Christians not trained in logic and philosophy. This is sad and this is the state we are in right now. The Christian Church has dumbed down the Body of Christ so badly, they are using atheistic arguments to argue for Christian thinking. It's very bad.

I posted my arguments for God via the thread why do you believe your religion is true and not another (something like that). The question was poorly written since the term religion  cannot be defined anymore.

Anyway, I hope I am welcomed. I enjoy talking to all kinds of pagans and heretics. They can range from Mormons to Satanists such as the Osmonds and Michael W. Ford.

Thanks for having 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).


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for using quotes

Thanks for using quotes Jean.

 

You keep asking me to present my argument, but I was pretty clear on that point:  I'm not going to do that unless you put up some kind of guarantee to a mutually acceptable third party.

You don't seem to understand the difference between practical empiricism and philosophical empiricism.  I will not explain this in more detail for you until you prove that you are earnest.

At such time, I would be happy to explain my thoughts in detail for you, that you may make an attempt to refute them.

You're making quite a few mistaken assumptions- and this likely comes from your grouping different categories of knowledge and experience together where they do not mesh.

 

Let me know if you're interested in a debate and will submit a deposit to demonstrate your earnestness.  Otherwise, I'll leave you to the others.


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

Hi AtheistExtremist,

Quote:
You may not want to talk about this but do you believe scientific enquiry can explain anything at all? Where do you stand on electron theory, physics, chemistry and evolution for instance? What about medical science?

Excellent question. Regarding my epistemology of a variable with absolute zero error, that can only be found in the Bible. Because all knowledge and wisdom is in Christ (Colossians 2:3). All else would be in the realm of probability and would not be knowledge.

However, I do believe that one can deduce Calculus in the Bible (among other things). So I need to qualify that in the sense that there's more in there then you realize.

And science, which is a claim to epistemology, is today empirical. Which I have already dis-proven via David Hume. I can do it again if you want.

However, since we are all the Imago Dei, though distorted, we all have a sense of knowing via character. But this knowing is not strictly knowledge at all, unless the Bible speaks of it specifically. For example, the Bible says that you KNOW that there is a God, but you suppress, it, and cover your mouth and ears, and that you exchange the truth for a lie. (Romans 1:18-20).

So, this can be explained via the Imago Dei. But more could be said, this is brief.

So this is why the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) said that Christians are the one that "invented" science. Since we have an absolute, we can classify in light of Scripture, and via categories of knowledge and non-knowledge (probable) distinguish from what we can know, from what we can't (see I Corinthians 4:6).

Quote:
And on the god side, do you believe in Noah's Ark? Rising from the dead? Miracles in the carpark of Maccas when a single fillot-o-fish and an iced coffee moove fed five commodore-loads of stoned teenagers in 1983?

I'm not trying to lure you into a tu quoque or anything. I'm just curious about your broader position.

I don't care, you can lure me in. I'm open. But yes, Axiomatically God is and His Word is, and thus all instructions and such are implications of those axioms. So logically, since God does not lie via that axiom (Titus 1:2), then of course, the Bible is inerrant and infallible. So then, I would not word it like you did, but logically I would adhere to Noah, a worldwide flood. Grand Canyon has good empirical ad hominems in there against local floods. But yes. 

But I think it is stupid that they go up and look for it. I doubt it's even there, and even if it was there, you still  would not believe. Again, empiricism will not cause a pagan like yourself to believe. Only if God opens your mind can this be so (see John 20:25).

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).


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Thus in

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Thus in logic, emotions are antithetical to logic. They are opposites.

What about when some is emotionally bent on the fact that 2+2=4. It does not change it either. Logic is ambivalent towards emotional appeal, so to to say it is the antithesis of logic is a category mistake.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I have logical arguments that YOU have never heard of that are VALID, and I argue soundness according to the rules of logic. The area of epistemology have not been discussed which will go into the soundness of logical argument(s). But at this point, you are also speaking out of emotion. If you believe an emotion can be reason, then you are not playing by the objective game of argument.

Your "arguments" are fallacy laden, unsubstantiated claims. Like your initial grounding of universals-- using a universal to ground universals is question begging...a logical fallacy, but even more so a formal logical fallacy.

And AtheistExtremist labeled it an "assertion tommy gun".... Spray and pray that something hits. This may work in first person shooters, but not in debates.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I don't

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I don't care, you can lure me in. I'm open. But yes, Axiomatically God is and His Word is, and thus all instructions and such are implications of those axioms. So logically, since God does not lie via that axiom (Titus 1:2), then of course, the Bible is inerrant and infallible. So then, I would not word it like you did, but logically I would adhere to Noah, a worldwide flood. Grand Canyon has good empirical ad hominems in there against local floods. But yes.

I'm beginning to think you are using circular logic, so correct me if I'm wrong. You assert that God does not lie by citing the Bible. But how do you know the Bible is telling the truth? Because the Bible is the word of God?

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


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

Hi Blake,

Thanks again for the quotes idea.

Quote:
You keep asking me to present my argument, but I was pretty clear on that point:  I'm not going to do that unless you put up some kind of guarantee to a mutually acceptable third party.

Not sure what you mean by a third party. You mean a moderator?

Quote:
You don't seem to understand the difference between practical empiricism and philosophical empiricism.  I will not explain this in more detail for you until you prove that you are earnest.

Not sure what you mean by earnest. I'm here ready to discuss anytime. The general motif of Philosophy is the study of method. It goes through a worldview with a fine toothpick and picks everything apart. It is via the parts make up the whole and can only be done via unity. Post-Modernism is the death to unity. So essentially, practical empiricism is the process of empiricism, the philosophy is the study of its method. They must coincide with one another unless you have contradictions or absurdity.

So in no way does practical or philosophical empiricism contradict. If they did, you would have a bigger problem I will discuss if you then tell me that they do indeed contradict.

Quote:
At such time, I would be happy to explain my thoughts in detail for you, that you may make an attempt to refute them.

Actually, they've already been refuted. They've been refuted by the Empiricists themselves who invented them. Along with others. I can simply repeat the refutation. For fun, I have some new ones that I've discovered.

Quote:
You're making quite a few mistaken assumptions- and this likely comes from your grouping different categories of knowledge and experience together where they do not mesh.

When one argues, they must all have first principles. All first principles are assumed. This is perfectly fine in logic. Atheists make assumptions, mathematicians, etc.  My argument of my first principle via an assumption is rooted in the Imago Dei. The Atheists have nothing to root their assumption in. 

I am flowing. Sometimes people ask me different questions, so I answer them. If I were to speak on one topic, let's say first principles, then it would flow. But if 10 people ask me a question that's different, I will answer them.

Quote:
Let me know if you're interested in a debate and will submit a deposit to demonstrate your earnestness.  Otherwise, I'll leave you to the others.

A debate on what? Empiricism? I thought empiricists were idiots and you are not an empiricist. Are you now an empiricist? I've helped you haven't you. That's fantastic. And talking to me has helped you become a better atheist.

I'll debate you on anything. If you wish empiricism, so be it. It will be fun. Let's do it in the one on one debate area.

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
Hi Ubuntaanyone

Hi Ubunt,

I'll answer your 2nd post since you had a question.

I flow from my first principle to my arguments.

God IS via an Infinite Reference Point. And via the Imago Dei, we know this as a given or Axiom. God's Word is True also an axiom. The Titus 1:2 example is what you would expect to find in the implications of the axioms. Since God does not lie in Titus 1:2, this is consistent with the implications of the axioms we encounter in nature.

God says He made trees, and fish, and we encounter trees and fish. Thus this DEMONSTRATES the argument (not support the argument). This is from Kant's transcendental argument of deduction. What must be, in order for what is, to be what it is.

So as a given, the implication of Titus 1:2 and II Timothy 3: 16 apply. We would expect to find this since the argument of what we would expect to find corresponds to our encounter in reality.

So nothing supports anything, thus making it impossible to be circular. Titus 1:2 does not support the first principle, that would be circular reasoning, it demonstrated it via the transcendental argument.

And the first principle axiom being rooted in the Imago Dei roots it in something. So it is not an assumption out of thin air, but via Spiritual genetic make up.

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).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Spiritual genetic makeup

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So it is not an assumption out of thin air, but via Spiritual genetic make up.

 

An invisble double helix - cool...

 

 

 

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Thanks, Jean.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi AtheistExtremist,

Quote:
You may not want to talk about this but do you believe scientific enquiry can explain anything at all? Where do you stand on electron theory, physics, chemistry and evolution for instance? What about medical science?

Excellent question. Regarding my epistemology of a variable with absolute zero error, that can only be found in the Bible. Because all knowledge and wisdom is in Christ (Colossians 2:3). All else would be in the realm of probability and would not be knowledge.

However, I do believe that one can deduce Calculus in the Bible (among other things). So I need to qualify that in the sense that there's more in there then you realize.

And science, which is a claim to epistemology, is today empirical. Which I have already dis-proven via David Hume. I can do it again if you want.

However, since we are all the Imago Dei, though distorted, we all have a sense of knowing via character. But this knowing is not strictly knowledge at all, unless the Bible speaks of it specifically. For example, the Bible says that you KNOW that there is a God, but you suppress, it, and cover your mouth and ears, and that you exchange the truth for a lie. (Romans 1:18-20).

So, this can be explained via the Imago Dei. But more could be said, this is brief.

So this is why the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) said that Christians are the one that "invented" science. Since we have an absolute, we can classify in light of Scripture, and via categories of knowledge and non-knowledge (probable) distinguish from what we can know, from what we can't (see I Corinthians 4:6).

Quote:
And on the god side, do you believe in Noah's Ark? Rising from the dead? Miracles in the carpark of Maccas when a single fillot-o-fish and an iced coffee moove fed five commodore-loads of stoned teenagers in 1983?

I'm not trying to lure you into a tu quoque or anything. I'm just curious about your broader position.

I don't care, you can lure me in. I'm open. But yes, Axiomatically God is and His Word is, and thus all instructions and such are implications of those axioms. So logically, since God does not lie via that axiom (Titus 1:2), then of course, the Bible is inerrant and infallible. So then, I would not word it like you did, but logically I would adhere to Noah, a worldwide flood. Grand Canyon has good empirical ad hominems in there against local floods. But yes. 

But I think it is stupid that they go up and look for it. I doubt it's even there, and even if it was there, you still  would not believe. Again, empiricism will not cause a pagan like yourself to believe. Only if God opens your mind can this be so (see John 20:25).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

This clears a few things up.

 

 

 

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


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Not sure

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Not sure what you mean by a third party. You mean a moderator?

 

Something like a moderator- I have mentioned this several times.  I'm referring to an escrow of some kind.  Did you not read my prior comments regarding this, or SPCA?

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So in no way does practical or philosophical empiricism contradict.

 

Well, at risk of confusing you further, they do in a sense contradict by vice of strict philosophical empiricism being an offense against logic- which, once offended, remains broken leading to persistent incongruity with any associated matter.

 

For the sake of avoiding that confusion, though, we can say that no- they *apparently* don't contradict.  However, neither does practical empiricism contradict with many other philosophies.  One is a way of going about every day function, the other is a way of knowing the essential nature of the world.

Do you refer to your bible to cross the street?  I don't think you do.  In that sense we are *all* practical empiricists- we just aren't all philosophical empiricists.

One can be a practical empiricist and a philosophical rationalist, fideist, or any number of others.

 

I encourage you to go back and read my posts more carefully.  I have never espoused philosophical empiricism, but have fervently repudiated it at every turn; of course philosophical empiricism leads to skepticism and the inability to know anything with certainty (which in itself leads to more serious problems). 

I am not an empiricist.  You should pay more attention to what I am saying, rather than to your assumptions- they are blinding you.

I'm also not an anarchist, but sometimes I will jay-walk when there aren't any cars on the road.  There is a difference between the approximations we make in daily life and the philosophical basis we refer to for absolute knowledge.

My absolute knowledge does not derive from empiricism.

You are unfamiliar with my thoughts on this subject because I have no expressed them to you.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
A debate on what? Empiricism? I thought empiricists were idiots and you are not an empiricist. Are you now an empiricist? I've helped you haven't you. That's fantastic. And talking to me has helped you become a better atheist.

 

Jean, you're like an overly excitable lap dog.  Slow down and pay attention to what I am saying.  I have not expressed my views on the subject to you- I have expressed clearly that I have not expressed them.

That you don't know what my arguments are, and have probably not said anything relevant to them (I say probably, because I have not read all of your posts o this forum), it's hard to say I've gleaned any information from you at all.  It would be fantastic if debating with you could help me improve my arguments- however, from past experience in having discussions with people who seem to be espousing the same views you are, I have learned that I have nothing to gain from such discussions due to the behavior common to those espousing the views you seem to be espousing.

 

Carefully note:  I simply do not trust you to remain professional and logical in debate.  I do not trust you to follow the rules, and I expect (but do not know with absolute certainty) that you would not.

In remedy:  I am willing to debate with an escrow serving as moderation.

 

It's simple:

1. Deposit: You deposit $200 U.S.D. into an escrow account to ensure your behavior and adherence to logic

2. Debate:  We have a debate

3. Determine: The Escrow determines if you have upheld your end based on pre-agreed upon rules.  If so, your deposit is returned to you.  If not, your deposit is forfeit and goes to a charity- I have suggested SPCA (ASPCA would be fine, or another).  I suggest this because it is a non-controversial charity (i.e. neither a religious one nor an anti-religious one).  http://www.aspca.org/

 

Escrow agents usually charge a fee for administering funds, but I believe I might be able to find one to waive this fee because the money would be going to charity.

 

 


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I'll

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I'll answer your 2nd post since you had a question.

I flow from my first principle to my arguments.

God IS via an Infinite Reference Point. And via the Imago Dei, we know this as a given or Axiom. God's Word is True also an axiom. The Titus 1:2 example is what you would expect to find in the implications of the axioms. Since God does not lie in Titus 1:2, this is consistent with the implications of the axioms we encounter in nature.

God says He made trees, and fish, and we encounter trees and fish. Thus this DEMONSTRATES the argument (not support the argument). This is from Kant's transcendental argument of deduction. What must be, in order for what is, to be what it is.

So, you basically assert a god "is" and argue from there. Okay, so I was right--you are begging the question with your epistemology because in your attempt to ground universals you use universals.

Also, it sounds like you're going for some sort of cohesion, but I'm not more compelled to believe in this god than I am the god of the Koran, the gods of Hinduism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without some sort of means or rubric to discern between these things, your whole structure of argumentation may as well be a wild guess at best. How would I ascertain the truth of such things?

 

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


AtheistxNinja
Posts: 2
Joined: 2009-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Hmmm.

 Atheism- A disbelief in the existence of a deity. I do not believe in a deity, therefore atheism exists. That is pretty simple.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
AtheistxNinja

AtheistxNinja wrote:

 Atheism- A disbelief in the existence of a deity. I do not believe in a deity, therefore atheism exists. That is pretty simple.

Well since you don't believe in a god than you believe no-thing.  Because of your own world view without belief in a deity you can't mathematically believe that art is good, or have love, or have a friend that is a Christatain.  Also you should try not being so emotional in your response, emotions aren't rational, and you haven't been rational yet.

/impression

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
AtheistxNinja wrote:

AtheistxNinja wrote:

 Atheism- A disbelief in the existence of a deity. I do not believe in a deity, therefore atheism exists. That is pretty simple.

Well since you don't believe in a god than you believe no-thing.  Because of your own world view without belief in a deity you can't mathematically believe that art is good, or have love, or have a friend that is a Christatain.  Also you should try not being so emotional in your response, emotions aren't rational, and you haven't been rational yet.

Respectfully,

Sapient

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


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

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

This clears a few things up.

 

 

Sarcasm is wasted on .........

Well, not on me.  I rather enjoy it.

-- 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.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 I am confused.If atheists

 I am confused.

If atheists are such pigs in Jean's eyes (and according to his lovely bible), why does he talk to them???

I do not understand term "secular logic".  If Jean wants to re-invent logic and argue from his personal logic position, then he will likely talk to his own hand. 

Jean, if you was "trained in logic", then tell me if all purple cows with green tails have five legs?   And explain your logic when answering this question.

 


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

Answers,

So many kind and warm and fuzzy responses.

Hi Blake,

Now be nice. We're having fun here.
 

Quote:
  Well, at risk of confusing you further, they do in a sense contradict by vice of strict philosophical empiricism being an offense against logic- which, once offended, remains broken leading to persistent incongruity with any associated matter.

The problem with this, and I knew this is what you would say, is that Atheism by definition is the attempt to fragment, and break as much thought as possible. An example of this can be found in our current Post-Modern Culture of fragmentation. It started like this, via the atheistic mindset of fragmentation:

Philosophy

Art

Music

Cinema ("Blow Up," etc)

Culture

Theology

Church

This began as a hardcore agenda around the 1700s. The more you fragment things (via contradictions, and such), the more you make is extremely difficult, if not impossible to know. Since knowing my consistent of a connection of one subject to another ALL the time.

Now, both practical AND philosophical empiricism is against logic. By definition, empiricism cannot know via the definition of knowing via a variable with absolute zero error. But go ahead and try, it might be fun.

You are creating a false dichotomy between the practical and the philosophical. In Christian thinking, all subjects flow. The etymology of University, is Unity and Diversity. The particulars have meaning because of the Universals. If you break things all the time, knowledge continues to be harder, and harder, until one day you wake up in Post-Modernism, and you find DEATH to art, music, science, beauty, truth, justice, etc. And now you have judges trying to legislate from the bench, This happened because of fragmentation. So keep fragmenting, it's what you atheists do best.

Quote:
For the sake of avoiding that confusion, though, we can say that no- they *apparently* don't contradict.  However, neither does practical empiricism contradict with many other philosophies.  One is a way of going about every day function, the other is a way of knowing the essential nature of the world.

They are BOTH about knowledge. This is why pagan "scientists" USE practical empiricism to KNOW about red shifts. Both are in the area of knowing. Though one is more technical as to the aspects of that knowing. So now you've changed your mind, and they are not fragmented? Make up your mind.

Quote:

Do you refer to your bible to cross the street?  I don't think you do.  In that sense we are *all* practical empiricists- we just aren't all philosophical empiricists.

One can be a practical empiricist and a philosophical rationalist, fideist, or any number of others.

I've addressed fideist. I have evidence deductively that demonstrates my argument. Though fideist is a cuss word in philosophy. It has become that even though it just means faith. But I have evidence for my argument.

There are examples of safe ways to cross the street. Remember in the Gospel, the Samaritan on the Road. That's one. But yes, all things outside of the Bible would then be in the realm of probability, and non-knowledge.

Quote:
My absolute knowledge does not derive from empiricism.

You are unfamiliar with my thoughts on this subject because I have no expressed them to you.

Then where does it derive from? You have yet to tell me. Are you embarrassed or still thinking about it? There are only 3 of them that are pagan, and 1 Christian.

Quote:
Carefully note:  I simply do not trust you to remain professional and logical in debate.  I do not trust you to follow the rules, and I expect (but do not know with absolute certainty) that you would not.

In remedy:  I am willing to debate with an escrow serving as moderation.

You are an atheist? And you have absolute knowledge. Wow, you may have discovered something that atheists have been looking for for thousands of years. You could be rich.

Why are you so scared. You mean I may crack jokes during the debate. If you don't want me to crack jokes, I won't. Sometimes it makes a dry debate more colorful.

Let's just get it done. If you need to study more, okay, I'm patient.

I'm not going to fork up $200 bucks to debate you. This is funny. When I worked at a radio station, we tried to have the Portland Oregon Satanist, Rex Church come debate and to pay him. But he chickened out in the last minute. A Christian vs. a Satanist. It would have been fun.

Either debate me or not. Stop being so scared.

_______________________________________________________

Hi UBuntU,

Quote:
So, you basically assert a god "is" and argue from there. Okay, so I was right--you are begging the question with your epistemology because in your attempt to ground universals you use universals.

Also, it sounds like you're going for some sort of cohesion, but I'm not more compelled to believe in this god than I am the god of the Koran, the gods of Hinduism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without some sort of means or rubric to discern between these things, your whole structure of argumentation may as well be a wild guess at best. How would I ascertain the truth of such things?

UBunt, you should know this. It is perfectly acceptable to assume your first principle. You Atheists do it all the time. Euclid did it. Upon the "given," I then flow deductively down according to the consistency of the axioms and implications. I am starting with universals, and then arguing to the particulars.  My first principle is a universal just as Euclid argued. What grade did you get in High School Geometry?

I am not begging the question because I do not frame a question. I am arguing via a deductive flow.

The god of Islam and Hinduism don't use this argument. But even if they did, the evidence of the argument is the consistency of the reality we encounter in the argument. So if Islam says ABC, and we DON'T encounter that on one thing, the chain breaks and they are false. I have seen the chain break.

Not to mention that Islam succumbs to the paradox of the stone. So before they begin, they're already done. The same examples can be used for other false religions.

_____________________________________________

Hi AtheistNija,

The negation of a proposition is not knowledge. Assent is needed. Now if you assented to nothing, then you would be on the right track.

_____________________________________________

Hi Sapient,

Not sure where you're coming from. Did you have a question my good friend.

_______________________________________________

HI 100PercentAtheist,

I don't think atheists are pigs, that's a straw man. Via my normative of epistemology, that's the reality of it. Now, there is something you can do about it, but you wish not to. You hate the truth. You fragment everything.

Look at our economy, our culture, our Universities, etc, etc, etc. We are slowly as a country going down hill. Capitalism is a Christian concept, Communism is an Atheistic concept. Look around at the consequences of your Atheism. Evil prevails.

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).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Extremist,

Well, that's why I'm on here. If there is a way to know absolutely without God, tell me. That's the whole point. If not, stop complaining.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

That's your problem, assuming it is necessary to know something with absolutely certainty before it becomes useful knowledge . 

Apart from possibly "cogito ergo sum", or, arguably, the Law of Identiity and the Law of Non-Contradiction at the base of logic.

The whole point of science, empiricism, induction, is as tools to cope with a world of probability, likelihood, with most data and theories having less than 100% certainty.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


El-ahrairah
atheist
El-ahrairah's picture
Posts: 62
Joined: 2010-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Signing your posts with

Signing your posts with "respectfully" does not make you respectful.

That's like saying "I was yelling in the library quietly." Adding a qualifier to your speech does not necessarily make it true.

"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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Sapient,

Not sure where you're coming from. Did you have a question my good friend.

I didn't have one until now... in fact now I have two.

1.  Do you know that questions are supposed to end with a question mark?

2. Do you honestly believe I am your "good friend?"

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote: I

100percentAtheist wrote:

 I am confused.

If atheists are such pigs in Jean's eyes (and according to his lovely bible), why does he talk to them???

I do not understand term "secular logic".  If Jean wants to re-invent logic and argue from his personal logic position, then he will likely talk to his own hand. 

Jean, if you was "trained in logic", then tell me if all purple cows with green tails have five legs?   And explain your logic when answering this question.

 

As near as I can tell he is "self" trained.  Makes it confusing for all of us.  I'm hoping one of the better philosophers on forum can help him get his head out of his ass.

 

-- 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,

HI BobSpencer1,

Quote:
That's your problem, assuming it is necessary to know something with absolutely certainty before it becomes useful knowledge . 

Apart from possibly "cogito ergo sum", or, arguably, the Law of Identiity and the Law of Non-Contradiction at the base of logic.

The whole point of science, empiricism, induction, is as tools to cope with a world of probability, likelihood, with most data and theories having less than 100% certainty.

Knowledge by definition is a variable with absolute zero error. Euclid did not probably know a Triangle had three sides, he knew this absolutely (for the sake of argument). If you redefine knowledge as probable, then there is always a probable factor the the known is the non-known, thus putting doubt on the known, thus making it non-knowledge itself.

If you want to throw the towel in, and admit that you have no epistemology, good. I've already refuted Empiricism and induction. I can yet again, do it for you again if you'd like. David Hume Himself refuted it by accident.

You don't know what tools are. You are assuming these as tools regarding what you don't know. You must justify your tools within non-knowledge probability and then try to not know. This gets more comical the more you look at it.

Induction is a logical fallacy in reference to epistemology.

Actually, it's not the law of non-contradiction. Unless you're a Tomist. But rather, the law of contradiction. A small detail worth noting.

___________________________________

Hi EL,

Well have I not been respectful? I Joke sometimes. What? You need a swing set in your back yard and you need to go wee sometimes. relax.

____________________________________

Hi Sapient,

Quote:
 

1.  Do you know that questions are supposed to end with a question mark?

2. Do you honestly believe I am your "good friend?"

Well, I don't really know you, so not technically. You seem very quite. Just having you come and join the party. Have some punch. I type fast so I may miss a few question marks. As a friend, I"m sure you understand (again regarding punch, or apple cider).

_____________________________________

Hi CJ,

Now, was that nice? (There's a question mark for you Sapient). Now look, I know you are an atheist and you tend to be cruel and stuff, but borrow my ethics for a little while and be nice. We're all here having a good time. Well, at least I am.

______________________________________

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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi EL,

Well have I not been respectful? I Joke sometimes. What? You need a swing set in your back yard and you need to go wee sometimes. relax

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Case in point. I can't tell if you're joking or being disrespectful, and I'm assuming the latter.

"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
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:


Hi CJ,

Now, was that nice? (There's a question mark for you Sapient). Now look, I know you are an atheist and you tend to be cruel and stuff, but borrow my ethics for a little while and be nice. We're all here having a good time. Well, at least I am.

 

  No, not nice, but I'm an old lady and I don't have to be nice.  Get your head out of your ass, and we'll see if it is worth being nice to you.

BTW, a triangle has three sides by definition.  We do not call a 4 sided figure a triangle, because it would not lead to productive work.  Definitions are true because people have agreed upon them.  Nothing special there.  It is a universal truth only because it is a convenient concept for doing work.

As people have pointed out to you repeatedly, knowledge that is probable is just as useful as knowledge that is absolute.  Definitions are absolute by convention.  We all use them, it makes everyone's life easier - otherwise no one could converse with anyone else.  Knowledge that is probable gets you through your day.  You probably cook dinner by going with the probably close enough instructions printed on the side of the box you took the pizza out of.  You might find it isn't to your taste and cook a minute longer - an estimate that may or may not be true.  And so you add a minute until it is cooked to your preference or until too burnt to eat.  It all depends on the relative temperature of your oven or strength of your microwave oven.  No absolutes in the real world.  Deal with it.

 

-- 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.


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi UBuntU,

Quote:
So, you basically assert a god "is" and argue from there. Okay, so I was right--you are begging the question with your epistemology because in your attempt to ground universals you use universals.

Also, it sounds like you're going for some sort of cohesion, but I'm not more compelled to believe in this god than I am the god of the Koran, the gods of Hinduism, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Without some sort of means or rubric to discern between these things, your whole structure of argumentation may as well be a wild guess at best. How would I ascertain the truth of such things?

UBunt, you should know this. It is perfectly acceptable to assume your first principle. You Atheists do it all the time. Euclid did it. Upon the "given," I then flow deductively down according to the consistency of the axioms and implications. I am starting with universals, and then arguing to the particulars.  My first principle is a universal just as Euclid argued. What grade did you get in High School Geometry?

 I would point out that the difference between you and Euclid is that what Euclid's "universals" and yours is that his mapped onto something in the observed world rather than assuming the first principle as something necessarily true. The problem with assuming Christian theism is that it has no necessary bearing on the real world. Your claim that such things as art, science, etc could not exist without a god is not warranted. A Muslim or Hindu could very well assume the same thing.... At least Euclid's geometry mapped onto 2 and 3 dimensional space. And there is a method for testing the principles and ascertaining their truth. (If you must know, I never made below a 98 on a test on HS Geometry. In fact, I was solving problems the teacher couldn't solve and correcting his tests when he marked answers wrong....)

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I am not begging the question because I do not frame a question. I am arguing via a deductive flow.

Question begging is the name of a fallacy were the arguer concludes the initial point. In other words your logic is circular, which was my initial contention about your grounds for universals--a universal.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The god of Islam and Hinduism don't use this argument. But even if they did, the evidence of the argument is the consistency of the reality we encounter in the argument. So if Islam says ABC, and we DON'T encounter that on one thing, the chain breaks and they are false. I have seen the chain break.

Not to mention that Islam succumbs to the paradox of the stone. So before they begin, they're already done. The same examples can be used for other false religions.

First, so you are an empiricist of sort? You want verification via empirical methods? You want things to be consistent reality? But it seems that the problem is that the way you are presenting your theism is that you are assuming it is true and looking for particulars to support it. But particulars against your case you mitigate or ignore altogether. This is the problem that most people working in scientific enterprises have with YEC and its kin.

Second, why should I trust your evaluation of Islam as true over the Muslims evaluation of your faith? I have no reason to think that one or the other is true...

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:AtheistxNinja

Sapient wrote:

AtheistxNinja wrote:

 Atheism- A disbelief in the existence of a deity. I do not believe in a deity, therefore atheism exists. That is pretty simple.

Well since you don't believe in a god than you believe no-thing.  

 

This is true only if we assume that God is every-thing.


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

_______________________________________________

HI 100PercentAtheist,

I don't think atheists are pigs, that's a straw man. Via my normative of epistemology, that's the reality of it. Now, there is something you can do about it, but you wish not to. You hate the truth. You fragment everything.

Look at our economy, our culture, our Universities, etc, etc, etc. We are slowly as a country going down hill. Capitalism is a Christian concept, Communism is an Atheistic concept. Look around at the consequences of your Atheism. Evil prevails.

 

Do you mean american economy, etc.?  Just to clarify.  (I'm not american, btw.)

Ok, Japan is certainly has a Capitalism-based economy, but you will find very little related to Christianity there.  So your assumption is proven to be false.

Jean, I will send you a Hallmark card if you are able to prove that "Communism is an Atheistic concept".  I do see how it is possible to argue that "Atheism is a Communism concept", but the other way around ... hmm ... 

Your logic has yet to be revealed. 

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:However,

Jean Chauvin wrote:
However, if the topic switches, and we are discussing atheism, and I say atheism is false, and you say it is true, then it is you with the burden towards your claimed position. It's very simple.

The plantiff always has the burden of proof. I can discuss as to why if this is needed. The defendant does not initially have the burden. But in law, the burden can SWITCH in the debate. It CAN switch.

Yes, the burden of proof can switch if I make a positive claim. I have not made a positive claim.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Atheism is a logical worldview?

Atheism is not a worldview.

Scientific naturalism, on the other hand, is a logical worldview. Now, I have made a positive claim. Scientific naturalism is a logical worldview because supernatural claims cannot be evaluated by science. Ergo, they cannot be justified.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
This is virtually never staged against the atheist, but against the "Christian."

It is against the theist because the theist is making the positive claim.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3705
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
God axiomatically IS, Jean?

God axiomatically IS, Jean?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:There are

Jean Chauvin wrote:

There are examples of safe ways to cross the street. Remember in the Gospel, the Samaritan on the Road. That's one. But yes, all things outside of the Bible would then be in the realm of probability, and non-knowledge.

 

Everything you said before this was not a response to my comment.

This is important:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
But yes, all things outside of the Bible would then be in the realm of probability, and non-knowledge.

 

Now, lets translate that to something we both (supposedly) agree on:

 

Quote:
All things outside of the source of absolute knowledge would then be in the realm of probability, and 'non-knowledge'.

With "non-knowledge" being any guess, approximation, probability- but nothing certain.

 

This is all I have been saying.  Our sources of absolute knowledge are different.  This does not mean we are incapable of functioning in other areas.

Or do you mean your bible gives you precise instructions how to do everything, from tying your shoes to reformatting a computer?

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Why are you so scared. You mean I may crack jokes during the debate. If you don't want me to crack jokes, I won't. Sometimes it makes a dry debate more colorful.

 

You may crack jokes; this is not what I'm afraid of.  Jokes can be fun.

 

I'm afraid of wasting time; I'm afraid that you will violate the rules of debate.  I have this fear because I do not trust you.  Had we debated before, and had you in such a debate demosntrated your honesty, I might have more trust.  As it stands, I do not trust you- I have met many Christians who say the same things you are saying, and they have violated my trust.

Unless you can mitigate that concern by proving yourself- particularly by proving that you have something to lose if you break the rules- then I won't risk a waste of time and a frustrating debate.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I'm not going to fork up $200 bucks to debate you.

 

Perhaps you didn't understand the proposition.  I can only make it so clear.  You don't have to pay a single cent unless you renege on your word and violate the rules of debate.  Since you won't put up earnest money, I can only assume that you are a dishonest person, and plan to be dishonest in any debate.

Sorry, I will not debate somebody who plans to cheat and lie.  I neither cheat nor lie, so it would be an unfair debate for you to do so.

 

Many others here have no qualms with debating with liars and cheats- you will find that they will argue with you.  Most of them, however, are skeptics- as you put it- unlike myself.  The majority are "Agnostic atheists" and make no claims to absolute knowledge, and you will find that they will not make any assertions for you.

 

EDIT:  If you do not have any money, perhaps we can come up with another means of you demonstrating your honesty.  I can think of one, though it would be more dangerous.


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

ANSWERS,

Hi CJ,

So, being an old lady means you are getting closer to the grave. This would make me grouchy also as the days get hotter. Until eventually the heat will be eternal torment.

Knowledge by definition is absolute with zero errors. If you have a probable of any error, you have doubt. Doubt is the opposite of knowledge. Thus, just because you redefine it, doesn't make it so.

And what about the Universities. They say all is relative. They admit knowledge is impossible via the Christian worldview. Let's just do it this way, since we are at a bypass. Via the Christian worldview, since knowledge is absolute with zero errors, you don't know anything. This is specific in the area of philosophy, but applies to all subjects.

Quote:
No absolutes in the real world.  Deal with it.

Are you absolutely sure about that??? Funny.

_____________________________________

Hi UBunt,

Euclid did NOT map out his axioms via observation. This is especially true since he completely ignored Space and Time.

However, the implications of the Christian Axiom corresponds to the real world real reality. God says He made plants, and we encounter plants. That's correspondence. If God said He made stars, and there are no stars, that would be a contradiction.

Again, Muslims and Hindus argue via inconsistency. Their chain of thinking BREAK along the path of their argument. Islam for example is destroyed before it even gets started since it succumbs to the paradox of the stone because Allah can do EVERYTHING.

My logic is not circular because It starts with the Universals and ends, flows via the particulars. You do not know what a circular argument is. Begging the question is only allowing for certain choices that are forced into the question (or statement). If I ask you when did you stop beating your wife, that's begging the question since it assumes that you use to beat her. It does not leave a way out for the notion that you did not beat her. This is not a circular fallacy but a fallacy of a false dichotomy.

The geometry of empiricism is a modern type of geometry where they limit the infinite into the finite. I can expound on this if you wish, but that is not classical Euclidean Geometry. Euclid's geometry is 100% antithetical to empiricism, since we do not experience triangles as a means to know of them via Euclid.

I am not an empiricist at all. Kant solved this problem. While my senses are used via a way of process of knowledge, they do not denote knowledge at all, thus I am not an empiricist. See Kant's argument towards Hume on this very issue.

I am currently, as I do this going through Dr. Hugh Ross' arguments for Day Age Creationism. Hugh Ross is a heretic. My father wishes to write the book, and I'll probably do all the research for him like always.

___________

Hi 100% Atheist

This is not the case since we are talking on epistemology, not ontology. Classification fallacy my good friend.

Oh, and Communism is an epistemological concept. However, this indirectly affects aesthetics since by definition. the 4 categories of philosophy are interchangeable despite if one realizes it or not. Send me the card. I life teddy bears.

________________

Hi ButterBattle,

I know you have not made a different claim. I'm speaking on the theory of B/P. But the claim is dependent on the wording of the thesis, and this to can be a trick which often you guys do. Most Christians don't catch this. But it's talked about in the "Atheist Debaters Handbook." I think the first edition was dedicated to Lucifer. I have two copies, but not the first one.

"scientific" naturalist is atheistic. And if you admit that's a worldview, then by definition, atheism is a worldview. Your Humanism Atheists friends have no trouble admitting this. Take it up with them.

Usually, the theist makes the positive claim in reference to theism. But if the thesis is regarding the epistemology of Atheism, the either you would make the positive claim, (if you don't I win), and then you would have the B/P.

Yes, I take God ontologically speaking as an Axiom or a given. This is perfectly find in logic and atheists and other pagans do this every day. Empiricists assume empiricism via their "science" to justify their data. I'm assuming my means of knowledge just like they are, but I have more validity via universals.

_______________

Hi Blake,

You seem a little paranoid. I've answered questions. I have committed myself. If you wish to debate, you will have to take my word, or go somewhere else. I don't care to defeat you and make you look bad.

Either debate me or not. Your claims are ridiculous. I would only do something like that if you and I did this publically on stage with a camera, audience, and moderator. And we signed something on paper. This has happened before. If you wish to do this fine, but you need to have written some books, otherwise, you'll have to take it on here.

Non-knowledge is ignorance. Knowledge is only possible with the elimination of error and probability. If you would like to argue that you can have absolutes probably, that would be funny. Since you would probably have absolutes. Place your argument.

I don't care if you don't want to argue. You've presented no arguments.

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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

___________

Hi 100% Atheist

This is not the case since we are talking on epistemology, not ontology. Classification fallacy my good friend.

Oh, and Communism is an epistemological concept. However, this indirectly affects aesthetics since by definition. the 4 categories of philosophy are interchangeable despite if one realizes it or not. Send me the card. I life teddy bears.

 

Not so fast my good friend.

You claimed that Communism is Atheists concept.  Atheism is not a philosophy nor it is a world view, by the way.  I do not understand your argument that the notion that Communism is an epistemological concept (I never heard of this, so I am trained (not by myself) in Marxism and Leninism) indirectly affects aesthetics since by definition.   Can you please make any sense of the sentences by using appropriate words? 

 

Absolutely without any respect,

with my atheistic love,

100%

 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:You've

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You've presented no arguments.

At last you seem to realize that, and yet you enjoy contradicting yourself.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Your claims are ridiculous.

I have not presented my claims, or the arguments for them.  This statement only indicates that you are decided and uninterested in hearing others' arguments if you can dismiss them without hearing them.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I have committed myself. If you wish to debate, you will have to take my word, or go somewhere else.

I don't believe you have committed yourself.  I do not particularly wish to debate liars and cheaters for the sake of debating- even if one can achieve victory against such people, that victory is shallow when it is against intellectual scum (which you refuse to make any guarantees against)- it was just an offer.  If you're content to debate with empiricists and skeptics who are unlikely to make any claim to absolute knowledge- a claim I am offering to make but have not presented to you yet- then you apparently aren't interested.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Non-knowledge is ignorance. Knowledge is only possible with the elimination of error and probability.

The knowledge claim I would make is absolute and has no room for error or probability- it is 100%, certain, and infallible.

I would place my argument if you placed a guarantee- but as you are apparently too cowardly to do that (even without any money at all, as I have offered), I will not cast my pearls before swine, as a manner of speaking.


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Non-knowledge is ignorance. Knowledge is only possible with the elimination of error and probability. If you would like to argue that you can have absolutes probably, that would be funny. Since you would probably have absolutes. Place your argument.

 

Also, in many of your posts I see you are stating that anything less than knowing something without an error is not knowledge.  This is false because how do you know about errors then? Smiling

 

According to Webster dictionary, knowledge is defined as:

(1) : the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2) :acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique(1) : the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge>c : the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognitiond : the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>

I do not see where this definitions implies (implicitly or explicitly) that "Knowledge is only possible with the elimination of error and probability".  The only reasonable assumption that I can make about this is that you are making up definitions to help support your personal view points. 

Also, I am an Atheist and I possess an ABSOLUTE KNOWLEDGE that you will read this text.   You ask how?  Because you are reading this text NOW dumbass!
 

 


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

Hey Blake,

I'm not a psychologist. Maybe you were not hugged enough as a kid, I don't know. But either debate me or don't debate me. I really don't have all day to discuss your emotions about the debate. This is casual. If you wish not to debate, take the $200 bucks you wanted from me, and go see a shrink. Just be careful for the B.F. Skinner type psychologists, they're dangerous.

________________

Hey 100%Atheist,

Since you made me feeling all warm and fuzzy inside, I guess I will take the time to teach you philosophy. Then I must go to sleep.

In philosophy, there are 4 main categories.

Metaphysics..................Epistemology......................Ethics/Morals............................Aesthetics

(Reality/Ontology)..........................(Knowledge)......................(The Ought)...........................(Beauty).

In order for one to claim anything, they assume the know. And when this happens, they assume an epistemology connected to something all the time. When this happens, these categories MUST be interchangeable.

Communism is in the area of economics. For it claims to KNOW a means of economics, has indirect assertions of what is right and wrong. This makes the realigy of communism interchangeable with the 3. In reference to Beauty, since you they are all interchangeable, beauty is also affected by default.

So the Beauty of Communism is non-beauty. It is the death to beauty, and is ugly. It redefines what is beauty is accordance to the ontology and epistemology of its claims.

So in China, beauty is murdering Christians. It is running over protesters with tanks. It is making the Elite Rich, while the common is dirt poverty. China is for keeping their people.

Thus by definition, since communism as an economy, claims via epistemology, metaphysics, and by ethics within the ontology, then aesthetics is always affected all the time.

I change my mind about the Teddy Bears. I think I want puppies.

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
Hi 100%Atheist

Hello,

You know about errors via inconsistency of the argument of the implications from the axioms. If the chain of thought breaks, like Islam on the paradox of the stone, we see this is an error.

Or, since a implication would, "do not steal," then somebody says, stealing is good via situational ethics, then you know they are teaching error since it is inconsistent with the implications of the argument. It contradicts what is argued.

If you're in the mood for a discussion on situational ethics, fine. Just send me that card first. Surprise me. I like pictures of castles.

Goodnight my brother.

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).


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:If you

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If you wish not to debate, take the $200 bucks you wanted from me, and go see a shrink.

 

You apparently still don't understand my offer.  It has nothing to do with my wanting money- I never asked you to give me money.

 

However, are you offering me $200?  That's what that looks like.  "take the $200 bucks you wanted from me"

If you're offering me $200 to go see a shrink, I'll accept that.  As a supposed "Christian", can you refuse? 

Should I give you bank routing information?  Or can you give it to me by money order?


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Euclid

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Euclid did NOT map out his axioms via observation. This is especially true since he completely ignored Space and Time.

*See my other post on "No things vs. Christianity" thread

Jean Chauvin wrote:

However, the implications of the Christian Axiom corresponds to the real world real reality. God says He made plants, and we encounter plants. That's correspondence. If God said He made stars, and there are no stars, that would be a contradiction.

Again, Muslims and Hindus argue via inconsistency. Their chain of thinking BREAK along the path of their argument. Islam for example is destroyed before it even gets started since it succumbs to the paradox of the stone because Allah can do EVERYTHING.

So your god can't do everything?

But Muslims claim the same thing about Allah making plants and stars...so who's right there?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

My logic is not circular because It starts with the Universals and ends, flows via the particulars. You do not know what a circular argument is. Begging the question is only allowing for certain choices that are forced into the question (or statement). If I ask you when did you stop beating your wife, that's begging the question since it assumes that you use to beat her. It does not leave a way out for the notion that you did not beat her. This is not a circular fallacy but a fallacy of a false dichotomy.

The circularity is the justification for "universals", which you claim to be a universal.... That's circular...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The geometry of empiricism is a modern type of geometry where they limit the infinite into the finite. I can expound on this if you wish, but that is not classical Euclidean Geometry. Euclid's geometry is 100% antithetical to empiricism, since we do not experience triangles as a means to know of them via Euclid.

This sounds like you're getting hung up on Platonism. Since we don't experience triangles, squares, circles, and spheres or any other sort of form, we can't build bridges, cars, houses, etc. Rather we do experience these, and just because Euclid may have been Platonic in his thinking does not mean he was necessarily right. But rejecting Plantonism does not destroy Euclid work because it accurately describes 3-space.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I am not an empiricist at all. Kant solved this problem. While my senses are used via a way of process of knowledge, they do not denote knowledge at all, thus I am not an empiricist. See Kant's argument towards Hume on this very issue.

Kant no more solved it than Plato did... He still suffers from the same problem Platonic forms do, and Kant falls apart without the assumption of a god. In other words, it only works if you assume god. But I've said before and I will say it again, there's nothing about the world that necessitates a god as put forth by you.

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Crumbs, Jean.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

ANSWERS,

Hi CJ,

So, being an old lady means you are getting closer to the grave. This would make me grouchy also as the days get hotter. Until eventually the heat will be eternal torment.

 

Do you really mean this or are you just on holiday from your job as an usher at Landover Baptist Church?

 

 

cj wrote:

No absolutes in the real world.  Deal with it.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Are you absolutely sure about that??? Funny.

 

 

Some one as clever as you are Jean, knows perfectly well that this endless excluded-middle logic you keep serving up is fallacious. You're imprisoned in the subjective meaning of words coloured and defined by your brain's genetic design and your life experiences, just as all of us are painted into corners by fixed and limited understandings of concepts and the ambiguities of words. As soon as any of us starts typing we are walking a private path. 

Empiricism is the only thing that allows us to say fixed things about matter in this soup of confusion and all your vehemence will not alter it. I grant you rationalism is an important component of the assessment of empirical evidence but while these two are interdependent, I think that objects and their measurability by human sense data must have come first or brains and a capacity for knowledge would not have evolved (or been created) to sense and reason about them. 

Jean, all humans exist in a restricted tunnel of awareness, as if driving a car at night through unknown country unable to see the true shape of the land. Every corner is disconnected from the explanation of visible topography. You see a little of what is in front of you and get glimpses of woods and villages as you pass; a headlight flash on a wall, a whiff of damp, turned fields; and this allows you to speculate on what else is out there as you roar along, massaged by the buffet of your open windows.

But your momentary inputs are overwhelmed by new inputs in the next instant then again around the next corner and the next and reality is in multiple dimensions and every particle vibrating in every molecule and every molecule vibrating against the next in every object and life form in this and quantum dimensions and all existing together in a vast connected whole and your human senses operating in the first person, your cortex and liaison limbic system speaking with a single voice - one narrator and one mind's eye to know all.

The complexity is too great. The only way to manage knowledge is to test things one at a time and write down the results in huge books, then test again and again and store the data so it's there when we need it. Some devote their entire lifetimes to gleaning tiny pieces of knowledge about the role of sugar molecules in the biochemistry of living cells, others spend decades crawling around Northern Africa sifting the dust through a flour sieve looking for bone.

You will not understand this Jean, but there's a profound integrity to the human quest for the purest possible knowledge in the face of universal complexity, a purity that towers over the cognitive generalisation of religion.

It's just as CJ says - there are no absolutes in the real world. All we can do is try.

 

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


Tassman
atheist
Tassman's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2010-06-28
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello,My

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

My name is Jean Chauvin and I am new on here. I saw this place when Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort gave some horrible arguments against two representatives on here.

I am a hardcore Christian trained in logic, philosophy and theology. I enjoy "sparing" if it is respectful and I do not wish to convert anybody to the truth since this is logically impossible.

Logic has nothing to do with it. Evidence is what’s required and this is what you as a believer in the supernatural do not possess. There is no verified evidence of the supernatural.

Quote:
Since I do not believe atheism (or agnosticism, free thinkingers, etc), then the burden or proof is on you to show me that it is. Since you cannot logically do this, you must find ways to switch the burden back to me so that you are not forced into absurdity. 

No, the burden of proof is on you, since it is you who has asserted a belief in a non-verified, supernatural entity. Your “non-belief in atheism” is an absurdity because the non-belief in gods, which is atheism, is not an assertion of belief in anything - any more than the non-belief in leprechauns or Santa Clause is.

Quote:
So, you are stuck with picking on Christians not trained in logic and philosophy. This is sad and this is the state we are in right now. The Christian Church has dumbed down the Body of Christ so badly, they are using atheistic arguments to argue for Christian thinking. It's very bad.

Logic and philosophy are secondary in importance to verified evidence – and when it comes to supernaturalism there is no verified evidence.

Quote:
I posted my arguments for God via the thread why do you believe your religion is true and not another (something like that). The question was poorly written since the term religion  cannot be defined anymore.

No amount of philosophical arguing can compensate for the total lack of verified evidence of supernatural entities and “religion” can be and is defined as “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies ....” This is inapplicable to atheism.

Quote:
Anyway, I hope I am welcomed. I enjoy talking to all kinds of pagans and heretics. They can range from Mormons to Satanists such as the Osmonds and Michael W. Ford.

Your attributions as a Christian to non-Christians of words like “pagan and heretics” is just as meaningless outside of your own hot-house world view as “infidel” or “Gentiles” is outside the claustrophobic worldview of Muslims and Jews.

Quote:
Thanks for having me.

Respectfully,

 Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

But you’re a troll, though – come now, be honest.  Either that or a pretentious, self-obsessed moron. 

____________________________________________________________

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." – Christopher Hitchens


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi CJ,So,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi CJ,

So, being an old lady means you are getting closer to the grave. This would make me grouchy also as the days get hotter. Until eventually the heat will be eternal torment.

Knowledge by definition is absolute with zero errors. If you have a probable of any error, you have doubt. Doubt is the opposite of knowledge. Thus, just because you redefine it, doesn't make it so.

And what about the Universities. They say all is relative. They admit knowledge is impossible via the Christian worldview. Let's just do it this way, since we are at a bypass. Via the Christian worldview, since knowledge is absolute with zero errors, you don't know anything. This is specific in the area of philosophy, but applies to all subjects.

Quote:
No absolutes in the real world.  Deal with it.

Are you absolutely sure about that??? Funny.

 

<sarcasm>

Love you, too, sweety. 

</sarcasm>

What is it about "loving" people who are so happy you are going to roast forever?  I plan to live for another 40-50 years, dude.  And like the quote in my sig, death had better be sweet oblivion.

As for no absolutes being an absolute - yea, it is funny, and yea, it is true.

 

-- 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.


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

Tassman wrote:

But you’re a troll, though – come now, be honest.  Either that or a pretentious, self-obsessed moron. 

 

I'm voting for "pretentious, self-obsessed moron".

 

 

-- 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.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4435
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Tassman wrote:But

cj wrote:

Tassman wrote:

But you’re a troll, though – come now, be honest.  Either that or a pretentious, self-obsessed moron. 

 

I'm voting for "pretentious, self-obsessed moron".

 

 

Seconded

 

edit:

Respectfully,

Beyond Saving.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Third Respectfully, Rebecca:

Third

Respectfully,
Rebecca:D


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I'm voting for

cj wrote:
I'm voting for "pretentious, self-obsessed moron".

How about "pretentious, self-obsessed wannabe presupper"?

 

Respectfully,

KSMB


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

Hello UBuntU,

That is correct, God cannot do everything. God cannot lie. He cannot learn. He cannot grow. He cannot do anything against His ontological nature and His attributes. He cannot be non-sovereign. Muslims say God CAN do anything, thus before the argument begins, the die intellectually.

Muslims claims that their God CAN do everything. This would mean that it can grow, lie (they believe Allah can lie), etc. This is a inconsistent in argument. It makes their arguments invalid right from the start.

You just like to say circular for some reason. I do not assume anything in the premises. Just in the first principles. If you really have a problem with this, then ALL of logic is in error. Atheists do the exact some thing. All logicians do this. Euclid did it.  Etc. And just for the sake of argument, for fun, since my argument involves space and time, then the argument corresponds to the observed. The observed does not justify the argument, but corresponds to it. Thus making it that more of an ad hominem against the inconsistent atheist.

Simply discussing Euclid. I'm not exactly of Euclid, but I like his arguments, There are holes only in reference to space and time. Also, Plato only dealt with the universals, the particulars were "evil" or bad. Christianity brings meaning to the particulars, thus this would not be platonic at all if you understood the argument as a whole.

Kant did not solve it, he refuted it perfectly. So did Hume. Kant had a lot of problems. But Kant was a liberal, so to see two liberals fight, and Kant win, is just sweet all the way around.

_________________--

Hi Atheistextremist,

I really do mean this.

Middle logic? Define that. Do you mean the law of the excluded middle. I did not do that did I? Not sure what you mean. At this point you become a broken typewriter on cortisol. Argue, don't react.

Quote:
Empiricism is the only thing that allows us to say fixed things about matter in this soup of confusion and all your vehemence will not alter it. I grant you rationalism is an important component of the assessment of empirical evidence but while these two are interdependent, I think that objects and their measurability by human sense data must have come first or brains and a capacity for knowledge would not have evolved (or been created) to sense and reason about them.

You can't say fixed things about matter if the very means of knowing is not fixed. This would be a contradiction. Especially since consistent empiricism via the interpretation of the data is non-empirical. The method of interpretation is outside of experience. Thus, you are using non-empirical means to bring meaning to empirical means, thus cutting you intellectually in the throat, giving refuting empiricism at the pump. Remember, if you claim to be empirical, then you must be 100% pure filtered 100% Florida Grape Juice Empiricist. Language itself, via the combination and interpretation of the data is non-empirical. You must start with absolute zero, and then via fragments of data, that you can't read or understand (since that's non-empirical) work your way up to the now. You can't do that. Show me how from scratch.

Also, remember Tabula Rasa. You MUST be a blank tablet. You must start with nothing, and then via pure empiricism, come up with something. The Christian view is NOT Tabula Rasa via the Imago Dei. And in reality, that is why you know anything. But if you want consistency, give it your best shot and try to do it. It's impossible.

Quote:
Jean, all humans exist in a restricted tunnel of awareness, as if driving a car at night through unknown country unable to see the true shape of the land. Every corner is disconnected from the explanation of visible topography. You see a little of what is in front of you and get glimpses of woods and villages as you pass; a headlight flash on a wall, a whiff of damp, turned fields; and this allows you to speculate on what else is out there as you roar along, massaged by the buffet of your open windows.

But your speculation comes from somewhere. Tabula Rasa says it can only come from past experiences. So if you've never experienced a tunnel and trees after the tunnel, you cannot interpret anything since that is non-empirical. All you can do is observe with no meaning. The interpretation comes from some place that is outside of  your experiences.

For if this is the case, then right and wrong would also have to be Tabula Rasa. To massacre your family, is wrong. But as an empiricist, you don't know this. You are just looking at things, without knowing what on earth is going on. You see a gun, you don't have a clue what it is. You shoot, on accident. You are nothing. You have no clue.

But even if this scenario happened, you WOULD know that something is wrong. Again, via the Imago Dei which is antithetical to the Tabula Rasa.

Quote:
But your momentary inputs are overwhelmed by new inputs in the next instant then again around the next corner and the next and reality is in multiple dimensions and every particle vibrating in every molecule and every molecule vibrating against the next in every object and life form in this and quantum dimensions and all existing together in a vast connected whole and your human senses operating in the first person, your cortex and liaison limbic system speaking with a single voice - one narrator and one mind's eye to know all.

But all you have is inputs. No meaning to the inputs. However, you're going Eastern Mysticism on me there towards the end with the minds eye. You have to define what you mean by that. Because the mind if blank, and cannot understand what it sees and experiences if you want to be consistent.

Quote:
The complexity is too great. The only way to manage knowledge is to test things one at a time and write down the results in huge books, then test again and again and store the data so it's there when we need it. Some devote their entire lifetimes to gleaning tiny pieces of knowledge about the role of sugar molecules in the biochemistry of living cells, others spend decades crawling around Northern Africa sifting the dust through a flour sieve looking for bone. [/quote

One does not "manage knowledge." Not sure what exactly you mean by that. Knowledge by definition is a variable with absolute zero error. Since empiricism is always stuck in the particulars, it can't ever know, period. What about the color red. Locke says these are 2nd attributes. So the quality of their knowing is inferior to say Jello. So the quality of knowing is different, if one can even achieve the know through pure empirical means (they can't).

Data is not knowing. The interpretation of that data is. Why don't you tell me how one can interpret empirically.

Please interpret this for me:

2+2= 100% empirically. Now, if you go get two sets of apples, you must empirically interpret the number via the standard of mathematics. You must empirically know what a standard is, and jump from universals. You must do this all via the Tabula Rasa. Go.

Quote:
  You will not understand this Jean, but there's a profound integrity to the human quest for the purest possible knowledge in the face of universal complexity, a purity that towers over the cognitive generalisation of religion.

It's just as CJ says - there are no absolutes in the real world. All we can do is try.

Complexity is non-empirical. So you don't know what you are talking about, unless you step out of empiricism, thus refuting empiricism itself. I use to be an empiricist years ago, before I studied philosophy and logic. I remember being frustrated with the Theistic proof for the Existence of God. They did not make any sense to me. To argue via particulars and then JUMP, (oh no, I'm falling) to a universal, that being God. After studying these via Thomas Aquinas thinking himself, I found more logical fallacies. Then I found double truths, which are absurd.

Most Christians fall for the empirical trap because they are not trained in logic and philosophy and theology. This is sad, but the reality of the war. The goal of the liberal/atheist is to dumb down society. They have done this. 200 years ago, these type of thinkings would have been hit out of the part with intellectual argument. I am a rare Christian. I don't like this at all. It gets lonely where I'm at sometimes.

________________

Hi Tassman,

Logic has everything to do with it. The interpretation of the evidence in the realm of connecting the universals and the particulars, thus making a "University" and Unity of the Diversity, thus giving one meaning is at the core of knowing. Though I have given my argument on numerous occasions and have demonstrated the evidence of my argument. It's just not empirical evidence.

The Burden is dependent on the thesis of the argument. And the B/P can change throughout the argument. Your Atheist Handbook on argument is wrong.

Logic and philosophy gives one the tools of how to handle the evidence. If you simply have evidence, so what. You need to connect it to the knowing so that you can understand it. This is done via logic and philosophy.

You don't like logic, and I can see that in how you are relaying your thoughts. You also respond emotionally. Go back and look at my argument, and pick it apart specifically. Don't react because you are having a bad hair day or I hit your funny bone. Argue then. But you need to know some logic and philosophy to do this.  But you don't like logic and philosophy. You seem stuck. I'm not sure how to help you. You have a flat tire on I/5 and you hate tires and think tires have nothing to do with the car going down the road. It's not the tires, it's the engine. I'm telling you. No amount of tires will get you anywhere. If you keep thinking this, when you get an intellectual flat, your belief system will hit a brick wall. And you will have to intellectually walk all your life to nowhere.

So language is meaningless? You as an atheist essential and non-essential attributes. Can I be an atheist and believe the earth was created about 6000 years ago? Can I be an atheist and believe in Santa Clause? Can I be an atheist and say atheism is a religion? (Humanism).

I'm a troll. There's the flat tire I was talking about. Enjoy walking.

_______________________________

Shalom CJ,

Hey, no hard feelings. I love grandmas. They are "usually" sweet. Grandmas who hate God won't burn in hell with the same degree, as a Rebecca Willaimson or a Michael W. Ford. There's degrees of torment. So no hard feelings.  What's with the name calling? You give me sweet kisses in one post, and then call me a name. Are you bi-polar? Come on.

_______________________________-

I love you guys too. When you can't argue anymore, start doing name calling. See my 10 most common logical fallacies made by liberals. They typically always resort back to #1. argumentum ad hominem. And when they do this. You know you must be doing something right.

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: Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

Hey 100%Atheist,

Since you made me feeling all warm and fuzzy inside, I guess I will take the time to teach you philosophy. Then I must go to sleep.

In philosophy, there are 4 main categories.

Metaphysics..................Epistemology......................Ethics/Morals............................Aesthetics

(Reality/Ontology)..........................(Knowledge)......................(The Ought)...........................(Beauty).

In order for one to claim anything, they assume the know. And when this happens, they assume an epistemology connected to something all the time. When this happens, these categories MUST be interchangeable.

Communism is in the area of economics. For it claims to KNOW a means of economics, has indirect assertions of what is right and wrong. This makes the realigy of communism interchangeable with the 3. In reference to Beauty, since you they are all interchangeable, beauty is also affected by default.

So the Beauty of Communism is non-beauty. It is the death to beauty, and is ugly. It redefines what is beauty is accordance to the ontology and epistemology of its claims.

So in China, beauty is murdering Christians. It is running over protesters with tanks. It is making the Elite Rich, while the common is dirt poverty. China is for keeping their people.

Thus by definition, since communism as an economy, claims via epistemology, metaphysics, and by ethics within the ontology, then aesthetics is always affected all the time.

I change my mind about the Teddy Bears. I think I want puppies.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Ok, I understand that you are very busy typing in thousands of words.  This is perhaps the reason why there is no logic in what you are typing.  Please try again.  You claimed that "Communism is Atheistic concept".  I understand you want puppies, but sorry you did absolutely nothing to support your claim.  Communism, Capitalism, Feodalism, Socialism, etc. are not just about economy.  These are the models of the relationships between different societal classes.   Also, you re-definition of knowledge is your own, ???, or do you have a reference to the definition of "knowledge" that YOU use.  Going with common definitions, what you are typing in your posts is bullshit at best.

And I am missing the connection between Atheism and Communism still...

Also, the most comprehensive modern philosophy is ... dialectic materialism .. try to prove me wrong if you like....

 


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Shalom CJ,

Hey, no hard feelings. I love grandmas. They are "usually" sweet. Grandmas who hate God won't burn in hell with the same degree, as a Rebecca Willaimson or a Michael W. Ford. There's degrees of torment. So no hard feelings.  What's with the name calling? You give me sweet kisses in one post, and then call me a name. Are you bi-polar? Come on.

_______________________________-

I love you guys too. When you can't argue anymore, start doing name calling. See my 10 most common logical fallacies made by liberals. They typically always resort back to #1. argumentum ad hominem. And when they do this. You know you must be doing something right.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Did you notice <sarcasm> and </sarcasm>?  That means everything between the two tags is intended to be sarcastic.  Including the kiss, sweetie.

You started with the name calling.  If you can't handle it don't start.

 

-- 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
Hey CJ

Hey CJ,

I know you don't believe me, but I really love you guys. I'm having a blast here. To bad the rational response squad didn't debate a Christian like me.

After refuting empiricism, I see you guys (not just CJ) are becoming desperate. Um,um, um, we, um we wouldn't have computers and electricity, and batteries. We  wouldn't have technology.

Lol, you are not crossing from knowledge to technology. You don't know that a computer will turn on every time. You assume many things. Not to mention, that since empiricism is fragmented, and CANNOT KNOW ANYTHING, then logically the placement and unity of parts used in the creation of technology could not have been from empiricism, since knowing is impossible via fragmentation.

So, you have to step outside of empiricism, to make anything, since this requires one to know of things. I argue that nothing can be known via empiricism, thus atheism like Spencer 1 says has no means of knowing.

So, try again.

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).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5095
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But Jean

 

Knowledge is a product of the human brain's interaction with the environment, not a separate entity. It's obvious the brain, like the rest of the body, has been shaped by the universe in order to survive in the universe. Rationality is a mental tool that helps facilitate this interaction. Is the cortex 'knowledge' now?

Further, our body of knowledge is entwined with language, writing and our ability to store knowledge. Sure there are specific characteristics of the universe but they wear our labels of them and we measure them using our 5 terrestrial senses and this hardly proves a transcendental infinite reference point. It just proves stuff has attributes pattern-conscious universe-compatible human brains can label. So what?

Your excluded middle logic is your either/or insistence (there's nothing, or there's god) further evidenced by the fact you relentlessly fail to match your theories to the real world. This sort of black and white reasoning lies at the heart of the failure of Aristotelian logic. One of the problems with excluded middle logic is that the false conclusions it draws accumulate. 

Look, the mind's eye is not eastern religious. I'm trying to illustrate the weakness of human perception without repetitious testing as a reliable witness. Shut your eyes and imagine the front of your house. Not a very good likeness, is it? Now while you're reading these words, try to get your inner voice to say something simultaneously. Can't do it? No one can. Do you really trust your untestable mental suppositions?

And no one but you is talking about fixed things being known. We can know some things with lessor or greater degrees of certainty within the limits of the human brain's capacity to reason about the sense data our physical inputs supply. With testing we can see that a plane's wing generates lift. But it's only testing that provides this knowledge and it does not apply equally to all wings, in all conditions. The variables are endless. 

The fact knowledge has massively increased since the scientific method allowed the development of data storage technology supports our side. This body of knowledge is part of the human brain's empirical interaction with the environment. The specifics we discern, the chemical and natural processes of the universe, do not prove anything beyond themselves, nor do they prove anything beyond the universe.

As for your imago dei morality argument. Yes. If a 3 year old shoots his sister there is no moral consideration. The child does not know what is right and wrong. The child learns as it grows through interaction with the environment, through laying up an empirical store of knowledge, through life lessons. Every generation makes its own mistakes. This is perfectly obvious.

 

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


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Wtf? When was it exactly

Wtf? When was it exactly that I became the one you're gonna pick on? What? You don't like my avatar cuz she's tatted and wearing a thong? Eh, idc, I'd rather burn in hell than be surrounded by people like you in the sky lol. Just something I've noticed: it seems every christian that comes here resorts to being rude and finding a couple of atheists to pick on. That's not very nice or christian like. Btw dude, I'm not going to hell, when I'm dead,I will no longer exsist. Anyway, who are you to judge me? I've done plenty of good things in my time in this world.

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