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).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
"consistency" is the only

"consistency" is the only term that I haven't seen your definition for.

The others I cited were just incorrect.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Nigel,

I know we disagree, but let me ask you a question, and be honest. Since you are a logical positivist, wouldn't you agree that logical positivism is consistent empiricism. a lot more consistent then those who claim to be empiricists and at the same time claim not to be logical positivists.

Don't you agree that those who claim to be empiricists (naturalism or humanism) on here and deny logical positivism are inconsistent. help me out here. Be honest.

I would perhaps agree if I understood what you were saying. You are using words that mean things independently, but the way you string them together leaves me baffled.

First, did you leave out some words in the second sentence? I'm not sure what "logical positivism is consistent empiricism" means. What's "consistent empiricism?"

There are probably few pure logical positivists out there anymore. The movement, however, provided the basis for epistemological advances -- it paved the way for Popper and Ayer. What Popper presented was essentially a modified logical positivism, replacing the concept of "proof" with the concept of "falsifiability." The role of empiricism remains the same across both philosophies.

More interesting is the way that Kuhn changed the understanding of ontology. But that is outside the meaning of "empiricism," which is essentially, "Knowing through sensory perception." All Kuhn did was formalize the framework in which knowledge could be considered an accurate representation of reality.

Quote:

I really thought all the logical positivists died out. I cannot believe you claim to be. Is there a logical positivist club somewhere where I can meet these people? It would be very fun.

Logical positivists insist that a piece of language cannot meaningfully state an empirical fact (either truly or falsely) unless it is empirically verifiable by methods akin to those of natural science. But many observed that this “verification principle” itself could not be empirically verified in that way. That argument led to the demise of logical positivism as an influential philosophical movement.

I understand the history. The essentials of the logical positivist movement led directly to our modern understanding of the epistemology of science, via Popper and Kuhn. The role of empiricism remains intact.

Quote:

And this is why I can't believe you or anybody else is still a logical positivist.

You see, as a logical positivist, you wouldn't say that my theology is wrong as much as it is nothing or non-sense. The others would say it is bigoted. There is a difference.

You also believe that a sentence is meaningless without sensation. So how is it that you are writing me? Are you licking the typewriter?

Your theology is nonsense. The Bible is a bundle of contradictions (both logical and moral), outdated concepts (logical and moral), and mythology presented as allegory but interpreted as fact. There is no referent for this "God" which keeps popping up in the text like a case of herpes. So in that, I would agree with the logical positivist. And for the same reasons.

My reading of your words is all the sensory input I need. It's all that would be required of a logical positivist. Are you sure you understand what "empiricism" is?

Quote:

Nigel, Nigel.  I can't be rational via you because I am non empirical. so unless I am empirical I remain irrational. So my math teacher and English teacher are irrational.

Again, I don't have a single clue what you are trying to say here. You can't be rational via me because I am not a logical tool for you to use. And again, you haven't proven you are non-empirical. You have only proven that you deny empiricism, though you use it every day. Every time you check for traffic before crossing the street, or even use the pedestrian light, you are employing empiricism.

Is it really that hard to grasp?

Quote:

Logic is non logical positivism. I thought you were a well educated logical positivist. Now you are bringing in logic. I am very disappointed. The early logical positivists never did this.

Uhm, no. Logic is not "non logical positivism." Logic is a useful tool, nothing more. It is employed by pretty much everyone, with varying degrees of success. And the early logical positivists used logic. The movement was a synthesis of pure empiricism and pure rationality and mathematics. It basically took the empiricism of Bacon and Hume and attempted to update it in a modern setting.

You should know this. You are such an expert in philosophy, I figured you'd understand something as basic as this.

I am very disappointed.

Quote:

Anyway, when you want to be a real logical positivist look me up, and we'll talk.

You've not given me a reason to talk. I enjoy good discussions, but you don't provide a good discussion. You try to preach. You've proven you don't even understand basic logical fallacies. What kind of discussion can you present when talking about science?

Speaking of which: you haven't given me your take on science yet. You have yet to show you even understand what science is, let alone your ability to discuss the finer points of philosophy.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean,Empiricism is not

Jean,

Empiricism is not incompatible with deductive logic - it is based on logic, with additional terms and techniques to extend the range of useful knowledge.

We employ BOTH empiricism and logic, because logic alone is inadequate for knowledge.

I have spelled this out several times, but you continue to misrepresent our arguments.

Another fallacy, the 'straw-man'.

You employ sense data to read your dumb Book, you nitwit. Just as Science reads instruments to gain data about stuff beyond the range of our senses. You use empirical information, in the same way we do, throughout your life, every day.

You are now committing the logical fallacy of a "false dichotomy" - deduction vs. empricism.

Your continuing naked assertion of the Imago Dei is beyond tiresome.

And the fact that the expression "cogito ergo sum" was coined by a Theist philosopher is not relevant to my argument. Even Theist philosophers can occasionally get things right. I refer to it as it has become so well known. Beyond that proposition, his erroneous beliefs in the God crap took him off into la-la land.

There is another fallacy, the argument from authority - the accuracy or otherwise of a proposition has no necessary connection with the social or intellectual reputation of the person who makes it. You commit that fallacy often. I do not justify my assertions by the degree to which they are consistent with much of Hume's writings, but I refer to him to remind you that at least some respected thinkers have come to similar conclusions as I have, and because you seem to be persistently misrepresenting him in attempt to bolster your conclusions.

You keep emphasising 'empiricism' with reference to Hume, but his big thing was addressing the 'problem of induction'.

Still not impressed with either the substance of your 'arguments' or the 'logic' you employ, or the depth of your understanding.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
NigelTheBold wrote:There is

NigelTheBold wrote:
There is no referent for this "God" which keeps popping up in the text like a case of herpes.

You son of a bitch. I thought I was cleaver with my "Cheese It" and "Norman Bates" remark and you come along with this. DAMN! You just, in one felt swoop, reduced my fangs to a butter knife!

You are on my shit list bud.

Translation, I wish I had thought of that. DAMN YOU. Someone is always one upping me.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:You seem like a very

Quote:
You seem like a very angry person. Are you doing okay in life? Perhaps you would like to have a seat and talk for a while.

No, I don't want to "talk" to you. I debate. You preach. I don't need a preacher. I find my anger very justified towards a self centered prick.

Stop acting like a prick and I won't treat you like one. And yes, I am doing ok in life. I don't measure my life on labels like you.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:NigelTheBold

Brian37 wrote:

NigelTheBold wrote:
There is no referent for this "God" which keeps popping up in the text like a case of herpes.

You son of a bitch. I thought I was cleaver with my "Cheese It" and "Norman Bates" remark and you come along with this. DAMN! You just, in one felt swoop, reduced my fangs to a butter knife!

You are on my shit list bud.

Translation, I wish I had thought of that. DAMN YOU. Someone is always one upping me.

No way. Your "Cheese It" was inspirational. I laughed my mother-fucking ass off.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Brian37

nigelTheBold wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

NigelTheBold wrote:
There is no referent for this "God" which keeps popping up in the text like a case of herpes.

You son of a bitch. I thought I was cleaver with my "Cheese It" and "Norman Bates" remark and you come along with this. DAMN! You just, in one felt swoop, reduced my fangs to a butter knife!

You are on my shit list bud.

Translation, I wish I had thought of that. DAMN YOU. Someone is always one upping me.

No way. Your "Cheese It" was inspirational. I laughed my mother-fucking ass off.

No way dude, you are the first, and quite aptly the first to equate god belief to an STD. I am just pissed that you beat me to the patent office. I FUCKING HATE YOU!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Hi Tess,

Not Tess, moron. Get it right.

Quote:
You do not know what philosophy is. Atheistic philosophy is just another guys guess, you're right, that's why they can't do science. But that is not Biblical philosophy.
 

Biblical philosophy!!! Is there such an animal? Examples of this please! As for atheistic philosophy - the only thing that could pass for such a beast is Metaphysical Naturalism, which provides the philosophical underpinning for Methodological Naturalism, i.e. SCIENCE. So your bluster is just theist crap.

Quote:
I do not have a circular argument because my first principle is never used via my premises, but rather it works downward via deduction.

But it does not, because you do not have a verified premise – i.e. it works downward via deduction from an assumed premise, namely god and is thus a circular argument.

Quote:
It is my evidence that ABC corresponds to reality. You don't like it because it works, and blows your egocentric selfishness out of there. 

Have you actually said something meaningful here? Please explain. Oh and where does “egocentric selfishness” come from in relation to me? Mere bluster. me thinks!

____________________________________________________________

"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
Tassman wrote:Jean Chauvin

Tassman wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Hi Tess,

Not Tess, moron. Get it right.

 

From something he said earlier, I think Jean thinks it is funny - amusing - to get our names wrong.  We are "no-thing" and our identity is unimportant.  And he says this attitude is "respectful".  Leaves me with a very unflattering view of how he was raised and of his social skills.

 

-- 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.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Tassman wrote:Jean

cj wrote:

Tassman wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Hi Tess,

Not Tess, moron. Get it right.

 

From something he said earlier, I think Jean thinks it is funny - amusing - to get our names wrong.  We are "no-thing" and our identity is unimportant.  And he says this attitude is "respectful".  Leaves me with a very unflattering view of how he was raised and of his social skills.

 

He's just being a good Christian acting as the Bible teaches.

God's an arrogant, sociopathic prick - he's just following daddy.

I fail to be surprised.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Tassman wrote:Jean

cj wrote:

Tassman wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Hi Tess,

Not Tess, moron. Get it right.

 

From something he said earlier, I think Jean thinks it is funny - amusing - to get our names wrong.  We are "no-thing" and our identity is unimportant.  And he says this attitude is "respectful".  Leaves me with a very unflattering view of how he was raised and of his social skills.

 

Come on JC, we are picking on his fictional Santa for adults. This is merely his childish way of "getting even" instead of debating.

Respectfully,

Brian86

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:cj

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

Tassman wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Hi Tess,

Not Tess, moron. Get it right.

 

From something he said earlier, I think Jean thinks it is funny - amusing - to get our names wrong.  We are "no-thing" and our identity is unimportant.  And he says this attitude is "respectful".  Leaves me with a very unflattering view of how he was raised and of his social skills.

 

Come on JC, we are picking on his fictional Santa for adults. This is merely his childish way of "getting even" instead of debating.

Respectfully,

Brian86

I'm aware of that, Brian512.

I just wonder why we at RRS act surprised when the theists who post here pull this crap.

Respectfully,

jcgadfly88.2

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Ha y'all are

Ha y'all are funny!

Respectfully, Rianna


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Brian37

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

Tassman wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Hi Tess,

Not Tess, moron. Get it right.

 

From something he said earlier, I think Jean thinks it is funny - amusing - to get our names wrong.  We are "no-thing" and our identity is unimportant.  And he says this attitude is "respectful".  Leaves me with a very unflattering view of how he was raised and of his social skills.

 

Come on JC, we are picking on his fictional Santa for adults. This is merely his childish way of "getting even" instead of debating.

Respectfully,

Brian86

I'm aware of that, Brian512.

I just wonder why we at RRS act surprised when the theists who post here pull this crap.

Respectfully,

jcgadfly88.2

Listen Jagnat3.0 you are merely a grasshopper, or is that a cricket, maybe a praying mantis?

You just need to reject empiricism and let your brains fall out.

Respectfully,

Byron286

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Listen

Brian37 wrote:

Listen Jagnat3.0 you are merely a grasshopper, or is that a cricket, maybe a praying mantis?

You just need to reject empiricism and let your brains fall out.

Respectfully,

Byron286

BaronPentium,

Please do not encourage insects to let their brains fall out. It gets messy for all of us who are saved (from having to think).

Respectfully,

nigelTheBored

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:jcgadfly

Brian37 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

cj wrote:

Tassman wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Hi Tess,

Not Tess, moron. Get it right.

 

From something he said earlier, I think Jean thinks it is funny - amusing - to get our names wrong.  We are "no-thing" and our identity is unimportant.  And he says this attitude is "respectful".  Leaves me with a very unflattering view of how he was raised and of his social skills.

 

Come on JC, we are picking on his fictional Santa for adults. This is merely his childish way of "getting even" instead of debating.

Respectfully,

Brian86

I'm aware of that, Brian512.

I just wonder why we at RRS act surprised when the theists who post here pull this crap.

Respectfully,

jcgadfly88.2

Listen Jagnat3.0 you are merely a grasshopper, or is that a cricket, maybe a praying mantis?

You just need to reject empiricism and let your brains fall out.

Respectfully,

Byron286

Hi Briney2112,

Why should I do what you say? You're just an incontinent person who can't know anything.

You can't have knowledge, an appreciation for art, morals or bodily functions.

Respectfully,

Artichokes@$2.25

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Well, guys and girls, if I

 Well, guys and girls, if I am not mistaken this looks as the longest-living introduction thread in the history of this forum.

If Jean is to get a troll badge, it ought to be special, like the King of Trolls:

http://friendlyatheist.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/creepy-big-jesus.jpg

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Brian37

nigelTheBold wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Listen Jagnat3.0 you are merely a grasshopper, or is that a cricket, maybe a praying mantis?

You just need to reject empiricism and let your brains fall out.

Respectfully,

Byron286

BaronPentium,

Please do not encourage insects to let their brains fall out. It gets messy for all of us who are saved (from having to think).

Respectfully,

nigelTheBored

Dear NevertheBorg,

Insects must be sheep and bow blindly to superstition and invisible friends. It is the "Dia primortium". Never mind that I made that shit up, just buy it like the cheap date you know you are. That, and women are just property for men to use. M-kay?

Respectfully,

BrianVista(aka, Brianbluescreen"o"death)

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


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

Hi JCG,

Consistency is being coherent within the your system of thought. More specifically, staying within the essential tenets of that system and not contradicting that system by violating any of the essential tenets of that system.

So if somebody says that empiricism is about "I think therefore I am." They are inconsistent since that is a non-empirical system and contradicts the system claimed.

Or if I said I was a Christian, but committed adultery or embrace Satanism, those are some examples.

So if you are an empiricist and you claim the laws of logic out of thin air, you are stepping out of empiricism, into Capital R Rationalism thus being extremely inconsistent.

Thinking is like walking down a very straight line. You start with A down through L, and then to XYZ. Very few empiricists today can be consistent as to their empiricism and/or atheism.

____________________________________

Hi Nigel,

Consistency via JCG.

Karl Popper was the last philosopher of our age. With atheism, we now have the death of philosophy. But Popper was wrong regarding falsification since falsification is non-empirical.

With the historical refutation i cited, how do you deal with that and what is your response. Not just I know the history of the movement.

How does interpretation play into empiricism. The connection or relationship of subjects to form coherency, how can this be done empirically since those concepts are non empirically. How can you comprehend love since love is non-empirical, but rather a guess from the populace.

You quoted a non-empiricist (Rene Descartes) for empiricism. I think therefor I am is Rationalism (Capital R) which is logically not empirical. You are confusing subjects and you are not trained in philosophy then.

What does logic taste like Nigel? Can you experience logic? If you can't see or experience logic, then how is it empirical. Please explain.

_____________________________

Hi Bob,

You don't know what empiricism is. It is NOT based on logic. Empiricism by definition is based on your senses via your experiences to determine knowledge. That's it!!!

Logic cannot be experienced, thus it is non-empirical. Again, these are the 3 secular theories of knowing. There are only 3.

1) Empiricism (Knowledge via senses/experience alone).

2) Rationalism Capital R (Knowledge via logic alone).

3) Mysticism (Knowledge via feelings alone).

All these theories are false. But you are not being a consistent empiricist since you are jumping out of empiricism into another category thus you are very confused.

Now that you know this, perhaps you might want to think which one you want to be. Empiricism was chosen via a flip of a coin. Not literally, but it's that ridiculous. I know we disagree about God, but this is the History of Philosophy.

Go to the library and look for the Encyclopedia of Philosophy and look these things up for yourself.

And if you still think empiricist have assume the laws of logic, then can you see or experience logic? If you can't (which you can't), then by definition, it is non-empirical.

The sense data is just mumbled scibble. You must interpret it. Interpretation is non-empirical, it is logical. A consistent empiricist just looks at something, not knowing what it is since he's not experiencing anything.

It's not as much as an assertion as a proposition via the implication of the axiom found in Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 2:15

I don't care that "cogito ergo sum" was coined by a theist. That's not my point. George Berkley was also a theist. Purely via philosophy alone, you are mixing categories thus making categorical fallacies thus being an inconsistent empiricist.

The fallacy of authority is an inductive fallacy. I am arguing deductively not inductively. Remember?

I don't really care if you're impressed since I'm not trying to impress you, just help you be a better atheist.

_______________________________________

Hi Tessman,

Philosophy is not a name of an animal. Unless you named our cat that. Again, you are making a classification fallacy.

Examples for Biblical philosophy? Not sure what you mean?

Philosophy of Education

Philosophy of Man and Things

Philosophy of Language

Philosophy of Historiography

Christian epistemology

Christian Ethics

Christian aesthetics

I could keep going and going and going.

lol. Metaphysics is not aesthetics. Again, you make a classificational fallacy. Metaphysics deal with reality and via ontology via being.

But I agree with you, atheism has no aesthetics. They don't logically know what is beautiful. That's why they say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Atheism brings death to art and beauty.

Verified premise? You mean my axiom? Axioms be definition are not verified or justified. Go back and study Euclidean Geometry.

Since Atheism is only about the self. (e.g. Humanist Manifesto), then be definition it is selfish.

_____________________________

Hi CJ,

You are no thing via atheism and empiricism. Via Christianity, you are something and valuable. That's why the Bible speaks about how foolish and dumb you are for pretending that you don't believe in God (Psalms 14:1).

Shalom

_______________________________

Hi JCG,

Why are you upset? I thought you and I were friend? I even had a Christmas present wrapped and everything.

______________________________

Hi Rebecca,

I assume that includes me? I think I'm pretty funny. Funnier then that atheist Letterman.

______________________________

To the rest down,

I'm glad you are agreeing with me. Brian has been converted. Hot Banana Soup.

____________________________-

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).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Tessman,

Grow up. What are you, 10?

 

Quote:
Philosophy is not a name of an animal. Unless you named our cat that. Again, you are making a classification fallacy.

Oh, really child? Are you sure about that? (sarcasm)

Quote:
Examples for Biblical philosophy? Not sure what you mean?

Aren’t you now? Just shows how much attention you pay to your own infantile crap. In your last post you said: You do not know what philosophy is. Atheistic philosophy is just another guys guess, you're right, that's why they can't do science. But that is not BIBLICAL PHILOSOPHY. (My caps!) Your response is the irrelevant list below.

Philosophy of Education

Philosophy of Man and Things

Philosophy of Language

Philosophy of Historiography

Christian epistemology

Christian Ethics

Christian aesthetics

Quote:
I could keep going and going and going.lol.

Pathetic child! Bet you are the star wit of the play-ground at Sunday-school!

Quote:
Metaphysics is not aesthetics. Again, you make a classificational fallacy. Metaphysics deal with reality and via ontology via being.

I didn’t say philosophy WAS aesthetics. Are you on drugs?

Quote:
But I agree with you, atheism has no aesthetics. They don't logically know what is beautiful. That's why they say "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." Atheism brings death to art and beauty.

Why don't you educate us about the "logic of beauty" LOL

 

Quote:
Verified premise? You mean my axiom? Axioms be definition are not verified or justified. Go back and study Euclidean Geometry.

An axiom is a self-evident or universally recognized truth best applied to logic and Mathematics – not gods, which are NOT self-evident.

Quote:
Since Atheism is only about the self. (e.g. Humanist Manifesto), then be definition it is selfish.

Nope! “Atheism” is about the view that there are no gods, nothing more than that. What’s more, I can’t be bothered further with you, you demented troll – with your self-serving attempts to demean atheism. Ask yourself why you need to do that. I can tell you: It’s because deep down you know what you believe is unadulterated nonsense and thus you attempt to justify it by projecting onto atheists.

Bye-bye, sad fool.

____________________________________________________________

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You really think you have

You really think you have buddied up with us? You know the saying :"We're not laughing at you, we're laughing with you"? No, we are laughing at you, not with you.

We have theists here all the time and the ones that act like you run away like crying babies or they get banned for being trolls. You do deserve credit for being the most notable prick we have had in a while.

We have also have now and have had in the past theists  here who are not pricks whom we merely have disagreements with. You are a prick and you have earned it and it has nothing to do with your theism.

I don't know what the mods plans for you are or the owner of this website's plan is, but you are on shaky ground right now and I would highly suggest you change your tune if you wish to stay at this site.

We are not your buddy. We could care less if you like us or not and we don't care what god you believe in. This site is for atheists and if believers want to make claims we expect them to debate.

Do not waste your time or our time preaching. Lose the patronizing attitude. We are not lost puppies and you are not our teacher. Lose the ___________in your posts, learn how to use the quote function, and lose your signature "Respectfully".

Otherwise don't be surprised if your stay here is short.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Congratulations, Jean!By

Congratulations, Jean!

By your own definition of consistency, you are inconsistent.

You claim to know scripture but do not follow its tenets. You claim to know the laws of logic but use fallacy after fallacy (all the while pointing out fallacies you think you see in others' work).

You claim to have knowledge and can appreciate the arts while denying the means that knowledge and the beautiful qualities of art are conveyed. Are you an Occasionalist or something? You "know" because God bypasses your senses and drops stuff directly in your head?

Welcome to humanity - where the absolute consistency you describe is impossible and should not be tried for.

In case you haven't noticed, the linear thinking you apparently practice is the best way out there for things not to get done. the great things in the world are achieved when people think out of the box and break the linear pattern. It's called insight and inspiration. Those poor folk who believe that only God can give them ideas are doomed to the dark ages no matter when they live.

If what you've shown people is friendship, Jean, I demand that you hate me forthwith.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Nigel,

Consistency via JCG.

Karl Popper was the last philosopher of our age. With atheism, we now have the death of philosophy. But Popper was wrong regarding falsification since falsification is non-empirical.

With the historical refutation i cited, how do you deal with that and what is your response. Not just I know the history of the movement.

Falsification is partially non-empirical, correct. Falsification is the use of deductive logic to test the non-validity of a proposition. As I explain below, induction is used to match data to a known mathematical model (or to create a new logically-consistent and coherent mathematical model). Deduction is used to predict what new empirical evidence would not contradict the proposition. Empirical data is gathered, and if it matches that which was deductively predicted, the proposition is not falsified, and we begin to accept that proposition as possibly accurate.

However, you cannot test the non-validity of a proposition without empiricism -- the gathering of more data. Logic merely sets out the boundary conditions of expected empirical results. Without empirical data, the deductive logic merely states what one might expect given a specific proposition.

Unless you know of a way to vet an arbitrary proposition using only logic?

Quote:

How does interpretation play into empiricism. The connection or relationship of subjects to form coherency, how can this be done empirically since those concepts are non empirically. How can you comprehend love since love is non-empirical, but rather a guess from the populace.

Empiricism does not operate in a vacuum. Observations are not random. If the underlying system is coherent, observations of that system will also be coherent. The example I used before (that of your monitor forming words on your screen, though the screen itself is made up of discreet pixels) is similar to a pointalist painting: each point is unique, and taken alone means nothing. Taken together as a whole, they form a picture.

The same is true of empiricism. If you are gathering data of a coherent system, the data you get will form a coherent picture.

Now, the interpretation bit: we have another thing called "math." Mathematics is nothing more and nothing less than the exploration of all possible symbolic relationships in abstract systems. As mathematics explores all possible systems of relationships, it is a fairly sure bet that mathematics is applicable to any natural system that consists of relationships. Interpretation is reduced to either fitting the data to a known system (such as nuclear decay fitting within statistical distributions), or attempting to discern the system of relationships described by the data (such as Newton and calculus).

Empiricism is how we gather data about the real world. Period. There is no other way to gather data. I have challenged you to give an example of a way of gathering verifiable data, and you have failed that challenge. What we do with that data after it is gathered is another matter, involving inductive logic and intuition to fit the data to an existing mathematical model, or to create a new mathematical model that is logically coherent in which the data fits. After one or more propositions (formally called an hypothesis) have been constructed, they are then subjected to deductive logic. The proposition is considered as an axiom, and deduction provides necessary corollaries. These corollaries point the way to further empirical investigation.

Quote:

You quoted a non-empiricist (Rene Descartes) for empiricism. I think therefor I am is Rationalism (Capital R) which is logically not empirical. You are confusing subjects and you are not trained in philosophy then.

You're confusing me with someone else. (I believe you think I'm BobSpence1.)

And you seem to think that rationalism and empiricism are mutually exclusive. Considering the vast number of philosophical disciplines that combine empiricism and rationality, going all the way back to Aristotle at least, they are complementary domains, not exclusionary. Your insistence one cannot be both empirical and rational shows you are confused, and you are not trained in philosophy then.

Just out of curiosity, where did you get your philosophy training? Are you an autodidact?

Quote:

What does logic taste like Nigel? Can you experience logic? If you can't see or experience logic, then how is it empirical. Please explain.

Empiricism and logic are two different domains, just like matter and concepts are two different domains. I'm not sure how many times it has to be explained to you before you get it, but empiricism is the method we use to gather data about reality, and logic is the tool we use to create conceptual models of that data. The two things are complementary, not exclusionary. An empiricist is merely one who believes the only way to gather data about reality is to observe reality. A rationalist is merely someone who believes the only way to gain conceptual knowledge is through the application of logic. These are two orthogonal axes. An empirical rationalist (or rational empiricist) is merely one who believes the only way to discern what is real is through observation, and the only way to turn that data into knowledge is through the application of logic.

All the rest of philosophy is just window dressing, or quibbling about the finer points.

However, I think I owe you an honest apology, as your reply here was actually fairly good (though your exclusionary view of empiricism, and your strawman of philosophical labels, is still a bit frustrating).

I hope your next response actually addresses some of my points, rather than your usual tactic of ignoring those that directly address your assertions.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Nope Jean, it didn't include

Nope Jean, it didn't include you. You're not funny. You're an ass!


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Funnier

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Funnier then that atheist Letterman.

He's an atheist too?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I'm glad you are agreeing with me. Brian has been converted. Hot Banana Soup.

Where did "Hot Banana Soup" come from?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Since I start from the ultimate universal that created all subjects, then logically it is not fragmented. But again, I asked you to show me how atheism is NOT fragmented and you ask me. I don't mind this, but this is typical of atheists who don't have answers.

"not Fragmented" in what manner? This says nothing about what you mean by "consistent" or "fragmented"define it...I keep getting a rambling manifesto from you concerning this...can you at least tell me what you mean my fragmented, because so far you haven't....

Jean Chauvin wrote:

lol, no, no, no. cogito, ergo sum is via Rene Descartes and as I've said before, Descartes was not an empiricists. He was a Rationalists (Capital R). Rationalism capital R is a 100% separate epistemology from empiricism. Thus you have self refuted yourself and given all here the best example of the inconsistency of empiricism. lol. Grab a shovel out back and start digging.

This is a red herring and perhaps a genetic fallacy too. Who cares if Decartes was not an empiricist...that has nothing to do with the assertion, nor does it stop one from asserting it as an empiricist.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Thank you. It took a while to break you, but finally the shoe fits. So then you would have to admit that language is ALSO meaningless without empirical experience. How are you able to comprehend grammatical order (since order is non-empirical) to construct thought (which is also non-empirical).

Actually, language is meaningless without empirical experience. The word "dog" is contingent upon the idea corresponding to that word, which is contingent upon empirical observation of the referent. So yes, language is meaningless without empiricism. Are you going to offer another way of knowing about dogs?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

What about truth. Truth is also non-empirical. So is knowledge. So is love. Ready, set, go. lol

What??????? How do you the earth orbits around the sun or that the flow of electrons what causes electrical phanomenon....Without empirical observation, these truths (and thereby knowledge) would not be possible. Also, if love is not empirical, how would you know what it is? Unless you loved yourself perhaps, but even then you'd be experiencing your own love...so you got it backwards, son.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Since logic is non-empirical, and since the scotsman fallacy was created by an atheist, the the so called fallacy is a refutation of the inconsistency of atheism itself. 

A genetic fallacy...gee whiz You're getting good at these

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Definition is difficult outside of Scripture. Scripture defines the essentials of the faith. And since I am arguing via an axiom of Scripture, I am valid and sound. However, via probable means, simply via Webster's dictionary. I will get into the difficulty of definition later via an empirical, Rational, or mystical means.

However, via my definition within my argument via God's Word which is one of my axioms, my argument itself allows for such thus keeping my argument as a whole in tact.

Where do your scriptures define chimpanzees?

But arguing from scriptures as an axiom is circular.... Either your god is your axiom or the scriptures are...but both cannot be axioms, otherwise they are circular.... (i.e. How do you know god is truth? The bible says so. How do you know the bible is true? Because it is the word of God....)

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


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

Hi Jean,

Fuck you.

Respectfully,

El-ahrairah.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4397
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Blake wrote:Beyond Saving

Blake wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Well at least it said (rare) although it should read (impossible)

 

I don't think it's impossible, it would just require near absolute ignorance of all philosophy and science for last... let's say, ever.

I bet there are some rational Christians of intelligence, just not of education, in some isolated villages in second and third world countries.  There aren't likely any on the internet, though.  Being on the internet implies some exposure to these ideas, and so it becomes an either or proposition- either rational or intelligent, possibly neither, but certainly not both to any great measure.

Hmmmm.... Good point. But tauntauns are not impossible either and I'm not going to add them to my list of animals I want to hunt just yet. I'll add rational Christians of intelligence to my list of "I'll believe it when I see it". 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

Hmmmm.... Good point. But tauntauns are not impossible either and I'm not going to add them to my list of animals I want to hunt just yet. I'll add rational Christians of intelligence to my list[...]

 

Mmm... long pig.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FYI, I discovered where

FYI, I discovered where Jean's "Infinite Reference Point" meme came from. It's apparently a famous quote of Jean-Paul Sartre:

Quote:

No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point.

Still seems like pretty meaningless philosophical crap to me. WTF does it 'mean' to assign 'meaning' to any 'point'?? And WTF is an 'infinite point' anyway?

I suspect an error in translation - JPS was French, after all. Easy to lose the meaning in such abstract ideas.

 

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:FYI, I

BobSpence1 wrote:

FYI, I discovered where Jean's "Infinite Reference Point" meme came from. It's apparently a famous quote of Jean-Paul Sartre:

Quote:

No finite point has meaning without an infinite reference point.

Still seems like pretty meaningless philosophical crap to me. WTF does it 'mean' to assign 'meaning' to any 'point'?? And WTF is an 'infinite point' anyway?

I suspect an error in translation - JPS was French, after all. Easy to lose the meaning in such abstract ideas.

 

 

I think our posts are falling on deaf ears. If you guys didn't ban him he has run off. Not a surprise. The most fundy of believers get all out of joint when you don't follow their script. To any believer reading this, please lear a lesson on how NOT to behave while on an atheist website.

We don't mind that you believe. But demonizing us will not work. Make your case but expect your claims to be kicked around. Don't come in here trying to "teach" us like lost puppies. Jean's behavior is the perfect example of what not to do while here.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I think our

Brian37 wrote:

I think our posts are falling on deaf ears. If you guys didn't ban him he has run off. Not a surprise.  

 

It's Sunday and Jinn forgot to turn his computer into shabbat mode.

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
"A Rational Chrisitan of

"A Rational Chrisitan of Intelligence (Rare)"

I usually order by Rational Christian of Intelligence medium rare or medium. I'm not one of those folks who like it still mooing when you stick it with your fork.

 

Respectfully,

nigelTheBold

 

/me wishes I woulda though of this the first time through. Oh, well. Better late than never, as my gram always said.

Of course, she was habitually late.

 

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
That "rare Rational

That "rare Rational Christian of Intelligence" never did show up, dammit!

Now I've lost my chew-toy, and it looks like we haven't had any identified, full-blooded Theists on for over two full days, and Jean hasn't been active for over three days.

Can we all have a go at Luminon? Altho he has actually been pretty rational in his responses , so long as the topic doesn't touch on any of his woo beliefs. I've pretty much given up tackling him on those, pretty futile, and he doesn't even throw any ad-homs.

Hey Jean, come back, we miss yah! Let's talk about Sartre, the guy you got your "Infinite Reference Point" thingy from! Any relation?

 

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3248
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Gotta admit

BobSpence1 wrote:

That "rare Rational Christian of Intelligence" never did show up, dammit!

Now I've lost my chew-toy, and it looks like we haven't had any identified, full-blooded Theists on for over two full days, and Jean hasn't been active for over three days.

Can we all have a go at Luminon? Altho he has actually been pretty rational in his responses , so long as the topic doesn't touch on any of his woo beliefs. I've pretty much given up tackling him on those, pretty futile, and he doesn't even throw any ad-homs.

Hey Jean, come back, we miss yah! Let's talk about Sartre, the guy you got your "Infinite Reference Point" thingy from! Any relation?

 

LOL.

I gotta admit. Even though he has managed to rub everyone the wrong way at one point or the other. Even though I don't agree with one single thing that he has said. Even though I haven't really seen a whole lot of rationality apparent. Jean is a source of quite a bit of amusement on my end. I have found some of his replies and word play to be extremely funny at some points.

To be perfectly honest, at times there is nothing worse than some of these fundamental theists that have taken seminary classes and philosophy classes and thereby feel that they now have all of this education to debunk atheism at every turn.

But at other times, like this one, it is almost hysterically funny to watch the drama unfold. Like he reminded us though, It takes TIME to ANSWER. So in another day or so, I will anxiously be awaiting the ANSWERS to everyone. Unless he has just decided to quit.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey, he is running a bit

Hey, he is running a bit late for 'the third day', but maybe he will 'rise from the dead' on the fourth day?

 

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


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Hey, he is

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hey, he is running a bit late for 'the third day', but maybe he will 'rise from the dead' on the fourth day?

 

 

I think we are witnessing his second coming as "askathiestsimplequestions".

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

Hey, he is running a bit late for 'the third day', but maybe he will 'rise from the dead' on the fourth day?

 

I think we are witnessing his second coming as "askathiestsimplequestions". 

When you first posted that, I wasn't very convinced.

But "askathiest..." came on within a day of the last access by Jean, and seems to have that same arrogance about rubbishing atheists, not answering our arguments, even his persistent misspelling of atheist could be another version of Jean's misspelling of our names to annoy us.

Could be...

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5089
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yeah

 

we often have one annoying theist appear after a time of quiet who then disappears with the birth of another, the last disappearing like smoke, the newcomer, with strangely odd spelling and syntax seeming to try too hard to be unique. The doctrine predictably literalistic.

If this is a single person, it's a commendable effort. I thought Jean, tho' a major pain in the arse, was having a great time juggling atheists. He seemed to get the most satisfaction out of the most inane and silly things, trotting out banal christian arguments with poe-like satisfaction.

Full credit to him for effort. Imagine arguing with all of us at once - he must be on holiday or something.

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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4397
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Atheistextremist wrote: we

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

we often have one annoying theist appear after a time of quiet who then disappears with the birth of another, the last disappearing like smoke, the newcomer, with strangely odd spelling and syntax seeming to try too hard to be unique. The doctrine predictably literalistic.

If this is a single person, it's a commendable effort. I thought Jean, tho' a major pain in the arse, was having a great time juggling atheists. He seemed to get the most satisfaction out of the most inane and silly things, trotting out banal christian arguments with poe-like satisfaction.

Full credit to him for effort. Imagine arguing with all of us at once - he must be on holiday or something.

 

His meth supply ran out. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Or since we have no freakin

Or since we have no freakin morals he figured out he was in fact a chew toy


Optionsgeek
Theist
Posts: 67
Joined: 2010-12-14
User is offlineOffline
Hey

Guys I'm new on this site. I'm a free thinker and enjoy a good discussion and loved the debate you guys have been having with Jean Chauvin.

From an impartial view, he is simply asking atheists to give a strong, logically coherent argument, showing that God does not exist. It would have been amazing if you could have answered him, but it seems none of you were able to. 

I am not trained in philosophy, logic or rhetoric, but my understanding from this discourse is that without the acceptance of an eternal, fixed, unchanging reference (JC calls such a thing God), then positing something as a fact is impossible, since a fact can't exist in such a vacuum - and as such we are left instead with only the ability to attempt to deduce probabilities.

Am I to conclude from this that the only logically coherent view that a skeptic can have is agnosticism? JC - would love to hear your opinion on that, is that what you are trying to get the atheists to see? 

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3248
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Optionsgeek wrote: From an

Optionsgeek wrote:

 

From an impartial view, he is simply asking atheists to give a strong, logically coherent argument, showing that God does not exist. It would have been amazing if you could have answered him, but it seems none of you were able to. 

I am not trained in philosophy, logic or rhetoric, but my understanding from this discourse is that without the acceptance of an eternal, fixed, unchanging reference (JC calls such a thing God), then positing something as a fact is impossible, since a fact can't exist in such a vacuum - and as such we are left instead with only the ability to attempt to deduce probabilities.

 

 

Give me a strong cohesive argument that the existence of God somehow establishes a fact.

How does an "eternal, unchanging, reference" that is not proven to exist, corner the market on what can be a fact ?

Did a god invent the law of gravity or was god restricted by the law of gravity, in your opinion  ?

None of us were able to answer him ? Hmm, are you sure you read the whole thread ?  

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Optionsgeek wrote:Guys I'm

Optionsgeek wrote:

Guys I'm new on this site. I'm a free thinker and enjoy a good discussion and loved the debate you guys have been having with Jean Chauvin.

From an impartial view, he is simply asking atheists to give a strong, logically coherent argument, showing that God does not exist. It would have been amazing if you could have answered him, but it seems none of you were able to. 

I am not trained in philosophy, logic or rhetoric, but my understanding from this discourse is that without the acceptance of an eternal, fixed, unchanging reference (JC calls such a thing God), then positing something as a fact is impossible, since a fact can't exist in such a vacuum - and as such we are left instead with only the ability to attempt to deduce probabilities.

Am I to conclude from this that the only logically coherent view that a skeptic can have is agnosticism? JC - would love to hear your opinion on that, is that what you are trying to get the atheists to see? 

David Hume held the position with regard to what he called 'facts', which included statements of existence of things, that we could never logically know such things with absolute certainty, which I agree with.

This does not mean we cannot 'know' anything, unless you subscribe to the logically nonsensical but 'traditional' definition of 'knowledge' as "justified true belief". Using "true" in there doesn't work, since "true" implies we 'know' something with absolute certainty....

As Daniel Dennett has written, we need to classify in broad terms those things about which we currently have extremely high degrees of confidence, ie a 'vanishingly' small probability of not being actually true, at one end of a spectrum, and those things which are pure speculation or fantasy at the other. It would cripple and confuse most discussion if we were obliged to continually qualify things like the 'fact' that there is really an astronomical object out there shining light and warmth down on us during the day. Or even keep in the front of our mind the possibility, however slight, that we might be mistaken there.

If we insist on treating every 'fact' or observation about which we are less than 100% certain as something to be approached with strict 'agnosticism' we render the word meaningless.

"I think, therefore I am" is about as close to a 100% certainty as we are likely to get, IMHO.

This position gets confused with the other category Hume defined as about 'relations', which are statements such "If A then B", where the conclusion is explicitly conditional on the truth or validity of another proposition. The most basic sub-category of such statements comprises basic Logic, and, built on that, Mathematics, which explicitly declare a set of 'axioms'  that the assume to be true.

Properly constructed statements of logic can be reasonably treated as "true", since the primary 'laws of logic', its 'axioms' are about as basic as we can get, and without which we could not really even start to make coherent statements about anything.

Jean's insistence that only things about which we have 100% certainty count as knowledge is a definitional, semantic problem, but his conclusion that without such certainty at the root of our understanding we cannot 'know' anything, in any reasonable, useful sense, is flat out wrong.

Such statements as "The Sun will rise tomorrow with an estimated probability of 99.9999%" can be 'perfectly' true. We then simply base our understanding that in common usage of language, that an unqualified 'is' statements are understood by everyone to imply that the possibility that we might be wrong is way small enough, within the context of the discussion, that we don't need to keep it continually in the front of our mind.

The absolutist position of JC is simply unworkable, and ignores the highly developed and nuanced incorporation of the math of 'probability' into science, which is missing from the understanding of earlier, and even some not so early, philosophers and epistemologists. That is what JC is blind to, and his position doesn't just represent a problem for atheists, but for all of science and most of the everyday activities of everyone, himself included.

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


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
Optionsgeek wrote:From an

Optionsgeek wrote:
From an impartial view, he is simply asking atheists to give a strong, logically coherent argument, showing that God does not exist. It would have been amazing if you could have answered him, but it seems none of you were able to.

I was able to do it- simply not willing because I did not trust him to obey the rules in his responses.

Generally speaking, I only debate with other atheists.  I did give him the generous offer to prove his earnestness by depositing a guarantee in an escrow- to be donated to charity if he violated the rules of debate.

My problem with presenting an argument for him is that it wouldn't serve any purpose, because he would proceed to cheat in the debate, and would not learn anything from it.  If, at astronomical odds, he participated fairly, then a purpose would be served- one more atheist in the world- or if he deposited to an escrow and cheated, the purpose of charity would be served.

Without purpose, I have no motivation to waste my time.

 

 

Optionsgeek wrote:

I am not trained in philosophy, logic or rhetoric, but my understanding from this discourse is that without the acceptance of an eternal, fixed, unchanging reference (JC calls such a thing God), then positing something as a fact is impossible, since a fact can't exist in such a vacuum - and as such we are left instead with only the ability to attempt to deduce probabilities.

Am I to conclude from this that the only logically coherent view that a skeptic can have is agnosticism?

 

No, the only logically coherent view is atheism- certain, positive, atheism.  Agnosticism is giving up, rather than reasoning to its ends- generally, copping out.

You should study older religions like Jainism, which though they were probably wrong on more empirical matters, at least understood that this supposed 'ultimate god' was logically impossible thousands of years before the first Christian was an idiot.

That the deistic/theistic world view is patently wrong is the oldest and most fundamental philosophy on Earth- it is, genuinely, the root of all knowledge, where theism is precisely the opposite of knowledge, with its presentation of a belief system predicated on an impossible and inherently false foundation of faith that denies any further relationship with reality.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

David Hume held the position with regard to what he called 'facts', which included statements of existence of things, that we could never logically know such things with absolute certainty, which I agree with.

 

I disagree, and I think it's very important to qualify; those things which are logically impossible can be known not to exist with absolute certainty-- things such as this "god" creature.  We not only can, but *must* know those things with logical certainty unless we are to completely reject logic, in which case...

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

"I think, therefore I am" is about as close to a 100% certainty as we are likely to get, IMHO.

...things like this, even, would not only be uncertain, but would be incoherent.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Properly constructed statements of logic can be reasonably treated as "true", since the primary 'laws of logic', its 'axioms' are about as basic as we can get, and without which we could not really even start to make coherent statements about anything.

Not only 'reasonably', but absolutely and with certainty.  This is a crucial distinction.

Pascal's wager may be a steaming pile of bullshit, but a wager of dialetheism isn't.  Thanks to logical explosion, it's the only probability wager with an absolute answer.

 

Logic is true    ||  Logic is not true

Logic is true  ---  Logic is false

Illogic is false ---  Logic is true

                      ---  Illogic is true

                      ---  Illogic is false

                      ---  0 = 1

                      ---  monkey + square = apple

                     

Note that in either situation, logic is still true (though the latter is, additionally, completely incoherent).  You can't go wrong with the proposition "Logic is true".

 

I do not consider the 'possibility' that logic is false, because there is no such possibility.  The impossible is not possible by definition.  To even consider the 'possibility' to be 'possible' is to assertively reject logic, which is to reject all falsification (as all falsification is predicated on logic), and thus reject all knowledge in totality-- it is the ultimate in close mindedness.

Yes, being willing to consider it a possibility that logic is wrong is closed minded.  Funny how that works- but it's the one and only nefarious little meme that, by being open to it, you completely demolish the very foundation of open mindedness.  It's the termite that you invite into your house, only to find you no longer have a house to invite anything else into.

 

By granting the impossible 'possibility' out of some misguided attempt to appear open minded, you not only give the theist leeway he or she has not ever earned (nor will he or she ever earn it), but you also vastly weaken your own position in the process.

 

There are absolutes in the world, and they aren't just idiotic assumptions of beings with magical powers which arbitrarily exist pulling objective information out of the void while simultaneously violating that very essential nature which is required for reality with a rusty corkscrew.  Reality is logical because reality could not exist to provide a coherent experience without being itself coherent.  "I think therefore I am", and  "reality therefore logic" are just as certain, and with equal certainty, this "god" does not, can not, and could not ever exist in any context.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Optionsgeek wrote:Guys I'm

Optionsgeek wrote:

Guys I'm new on this site. I'm a free thinker and enjoy a good discussion and loved the debate you guys have been having with Jean Chauvin.

From an impartial view, he is simply asking atheists to give a strong, logically coherent argument, showing that God does not exist. It would have been amazing if you could have answered him, but it seems none of you were able to. 

I am not trained in philosophy, logic or rhetoric, but my understanding from this discourse is that without the acceptance of an eternal, fixed, unchanging reference (JC calls such a thing God), then positing something as a fact is impossible, since a fact can't exist in such a vacuum - and as such we are left instead with only the ability to attempt to deduce probabilities.

Am I to conclude from this that the only logically coherent view that a skeptic can have is agnosticism? JC - would love to hear your opinion on that, is that what you are trying to get the atheists to see? 

 

 

 

As we tell you theists all the time, you claim he exist so the burdon of proof is on you.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Blake, my statement about

Blake, my statement about logic, or more properly, the justification for accepting the primary Laws of Logic, ie the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction, is, arguably, more basic than your argument. Unless you accept those, you can say nothing coherent about anything, let alone construct something remotely like a logical disproof of whatever 'alternative assumptions' you go for.

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3248
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Optionsgeek wrote: but my

Optionsgeek wrote:

 but my understanding from this discourse is that without the acceptance of an eternal, fixed, unchanging reference (JC calls such a thing God), then positing something as a fact is impossible, since a fact can't exist in such a vacuum - and as such we are left instead with only the ability to attempt to deduce probabilities.

Am I to conclude from this that the only logically coherent view that a skeptic can have is agnosticism? JC - would love to hear your opinion on that, is that what you are trying to get the atheists to see? 

 

 

Optionsgeek, there is no way that Jean or anyone that postulates from his position would even consider agnosticism as logically coherent. I do not know if it was on this thread or another one, but he made it very plain that he was a Calvinist. In effect, God has already selected who was going to hell and who was going to heaven before they were even born. In his view, everything is already set in stone. Just the fact that you considered agnosticism as a logical view, would have been an indicator that you were already pre-determined for hell, before you were even born.

A common question that gets argued about on here, over and over and over again, is  without God are all bets off. But when you really think about it like Bobspence has accurately pointed out many times, the existence of God would throw all possibilities of what we know out of the window because we would have absolutely no way of determining what the motives of such a being would be, if it could exist.

Jean kept using the term "infinite reference point" which I found rather odd, since he rejected all other variations of Christianity and any other forms of religion as false and his version as being the only version that is true. If that were the case, the reference point, for lack of a better term, would be limited to only a select few and the rest of the world would be damned.Does that sound like a sane, rational and sound basis for determining what is a fact and what is not ? 

 How do religious people conceive of something infinite as being involved in matters of our lives ? Take these axioms :

God is a mystery but God is love. (What basis do they form certain aspects of the unknown as having human attributes ?)

God wants for us ---- ( How could something  infinite want something from me ?)

Morals come from God (How do they determine that morals are just innately handed to us by a being that does not play by the same rules that he has imposed upon us ? Is god bound by so-called morals or did god invent the morals ? If he invented the morals, why did he impose limitations and temptations upon humans ? If he had to obey the morals, then he would not be god because he would be bound by some sort of unwritten universal code )

God is good. (Does this mean that the believers have judged God ? That they have found him to be a "good" deity  ? If so, where do they arrive at this conclusion ? Are they sure that they are not saying that God is good only because they feel that he is in charge ? The god of Jean's Bible allows slavery, slaughters innocent people, encourages rape and incest, drowns the earth, proclaims himself to be utterly jealous, always worries about being worshipped but never is concerned for his creations, is that the picture of a moral being to you ? )

Inevitably, when I bring up the atrocities of the god of the bible, people try the "Well, that is in the old testament" tact. To which they have just refuted themselves. They are either saying that the old testament is no longer  valid therefore useless, they are saying that god changes with the times and is therefore subject to any whim, or that it was ok for god to do all of those cruel things to those people until Jesus arrived on the scene. Funny thing though, Jesus said he wished to UPHOLD all of the evils of the old testament).

My point to all of this is really simple:

How do you arrive at the notion  humanity needs an insane creator that ceaselessly demands worship from subjects that are at the mercy of his whims, in order to formulate facts ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Blake, my

BobSpence1 wrote:

Blake, my statement about logic, or more properly, the justification for accepting the primary Laws of Logic, ie the Law of Identity and the Law of Non-Contradiction, is, arguably, more basic than your argument. Unless you accept those, you can say nothing coherent about anything, let alone construct something remotely like a logical disproof of whatever 'alternative assumptions' you go for.

 

In one sense we're making the same argument, but I'm a little critical of your presentation.  I'm not sure how many of these logic-denying nuts you've met, but they actually consider it a perfectly acceptable option- or the preferable one- that nothing coherent can be said about anything.  That everything is equally valid and invalid, so they believe what they believe.

It's problematic to present that as an option without outlining precisely why it *isn't* an option, because many people will simply select it when you present it for them.

It's just not coherent to refer to these things as possibilities, and not necessary to give the theists the benefit of granting them impossible options- even if only an accident of semantics.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster, FYI, I did

harleysportster, FYI, I did a Google search, and it seems that the "infinite reference point" thing is straight from a famous quote of Jean-Paul Sartre. I still don't think it makes any sense, I think Sartre was pretty wacko, but maybe JC is a fan.
 

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