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).


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Optionsgeek wrote: Thank you

Optionsgeek wrote:

Thank you for your thoughts and your candour - what a super response, you are a laugh!

In answer to your question:

Quote:

why should ignorance make emotions more meaningful?

of course it doesn't! 

A couple of more questions as a rejoinder:

What about the impulse behind art or behind the artist? Is there any difference between the impulses that set off great faith leaders, and men like beethoven? What are they trying to express?

What about the impulses behind those who respond to art? Is there any difference between the impulses that drive the followers of a religion, or the followers of a composer / author?

Peace

 

Since I majored in music for 3 years, hanging out with people who were dedicated musicians, I will answer from that perspective.

Those who are performers are striving for that perfected performance - the ultimate in technical expertise and emotional expression.  The better with which to garner thunderous applause and standing ovations.  The hours spent in serene meditative contemplation as you rehearse are few.  Hours of exasperation, frustration, anger, pain, and fear during rehearsal are more common.  Yes, music can hurt.  Blisters, bruises, sore throat, aching back, arms, legs, wrists, fingers, lips, headaches, who would have thought? 

Composers have it no better.  They must be proficient in a number of instruments - maybe not solo quality, but well enough to play most of the music they conduct.  And they must have a smattering of almost every instrument in the orchestra.  Then, they create.  They create because they can not not create.  It isn't always about expressing beauty - some composers produce music truly painful to most people's ears on purpose.  They can not take a break - their brain composes music rather like a water faucet turned on.  Without an off switch.

Have you read any biographies of the great artists/composers/writers?  Van Gogh, Beethoven, Bach, any of them.  Bach would start playing on the organ in church - he was church organist for his living - and he would begin to start improvising.  And he would play on and on and on - until the people of the church would say he was possessed by the devil - and he would be asked to move on to a different parish.  Bach and his family moved a lot. 

From what I have read and have discussed with music composers, it is not about trying to express a specific something.  Rather, they are just trying to get the music in their head onto paper.  Like that faucet - it just flows. 

I don't know - if you think it is some sort of "divine will" then I have to ask just why the hell god/s/dess tortures the most talented people?  Why do dancers dance until their feet are bloody?  Why do writers finish their novels at the cost of their health?  Why do musicians and composers play and write music 16 (or more) hours a day?  Why do artists work frantically to catch just the right light and then immediately start a new work to the new light?  Why do photographers literally put themselves out on a limb to get that perfect shot of a rogue elephant?  They are driven and can not stop.  Seems to me if you think god/s/dess is pushing them into this kind of self abuse, then god/s/dess is pretty selfish and cruel.

People respond to art (or authors or dancers or composers or reality TV stars) for many different reasons.  Some pick a person/subject because they feel it puts them with an "in" crowd.  For the rest of us, it is just what we like.  I personally am most fond of the Classical and Romantic composers and the French Impressionists.  I like ballet and opera as composed by the Romantics.  I like Gilbert and Sullivan and Hollywood musicals from the 30s and 40s.  I also like Metallica, Def Leopard, and Led Zeppelin.  None of which is significant or an expression of my inner beauty or rational in any sense of the word.

The difference between art and religion is the intent.  Art is for enjoyment and triggering those feel good hormones.  But it is never intended as a statement of reality.  Art is always an interpretation of reality, a symbol, never real.  (There may be some delusional artists who think their stuff is real, but we usually recognize them as delusional.) 

Religion may trigger feel good hormones in some people.  What is insidious is the intent.  Religion claims to be reality - not entertainment.  And therefore, many people take what was and is a book written by a bunch of goat herders a few thousands years ago and try to make it an expression of reality.  When it is only fairy tales.

The harm comes when we - as a society - attempt to apply fairy tales to the reality of our universe.  Evolution happened.  The universe is 13+ billion years old and god/s/dess had nothing to do with it.  Religious people are not more moral than less the religious.  And so on.  That is the problem with religious beliefs.

 

-- 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
Brian37 wrote:I love you

Brian37 wrote:

I love you CJ.

 

That still doesn't make us friends. 

But thanks. 


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

cj wrote:

Optionsgeek wrote:

Thank you for your thoughts and your candour - what a super response, you are a laugh!

In answer to your question:

Quote:

why should ignorance make emotions more meaningful?

of course it doesn't! 

A couple of more questions as a rejoinder:

What about the impulse behind art or behind the artist? Is there any difference between the impulses that set off great faith leaders, and men like beethoven? What are they trying to express?

What about the impulses behind those who respond to art? Is there any difference between the impulses that drive the followers of a religion, or the followers of a composer / author?

Peace

 

Since I majored in music for 3 years, hanging out with people who were dedicated musicians, I will answer from that perspective.

Those who are performers are striving for that perfected performance - the ultimate in technical expertise and emotional expression.  The better with which to garner thunderous applause and standing ovations.  The hours spent in serene meditative contemplation as you rehearse are few.  Hours of exasperation, frustration, anger, pain, and fear during rehearsal are more common.  Yes, music can hurt.  Blisters, bruises, sore throat, aching back, arms, legs, wrists, fingers, lips, headaches, who would have thought? 

Composers have it no better.  They must be proficient in a number of instruments - maybe not solo quality, but well enough to play most of the music they conduct.  And they must have a smattering of almost every instrument in the orchestra.  Then, they create.  They create because they can not not create.  It isn't always about expressing beauty - some composers produce music truly painful to most people's ears on purpose.  They can not take a break - their brain composes music rather like a water faucet turned on.  Without an off switch.

Have you read any biographies of the great artists/composers/writers?  Van Gogh, Beethoven, Bach, any of them.  Bach would start playing on the organ in church - he was church organist for his living - and he would begin to start improvising.  And he would play on and on and on - until the people of the church would say he was possessed by the devil - and he would be asked to move on to a different parish.  Bach and his family moved a lot. 

From what I have read and have discussed with music composers, it is not about trying to express a specific something.  Rather, they are just trying to get the music in their head onto paper.  Like that faucet - it just flows. 

I don't know - if you think it is some sort of "divine will" then I have to ask just why the hell god/s/dess tortures the most talented people?  Why do dancers dance until their feet are bloody?  Why do writers finish their novels at the cost of their health?  Why do musicians and composers play and write music 16 (or more) hours a day?  Why do artists work frantically to catch just the right light and then immediately start a new work to the new light?  Why do photographers literally put themselves out on a limb to get that perfect shot of a rogue elephant?  They are driven and can not stop.  Seems to me if you think god/s/dess is pushing them into this kind of self abuse, then god/s/dess is pretty selfish and cruel.

People respond to art (or authors or dancers or composers or reality TV stars) for many different reasons.  Some pick a person/subject because they feel it puts them with an "in" crowd.  For the rest of us, it is just what we like.  I personally am most fond of the Classical and Romantic composers and the French Impressionists.  I like ballet and opera as composed by the Romantics.  I like Gilbert and Sullivan and Hollywood musicals from the 30s and 40s.  I also like Metallica, Def Leopard, and Led Zeppelin.  None of which is significant or an expression of my inner beauty or rational in any sense of the word.

The difference between art and religion is the intent.  Art is for enjoyment and triggering those feel good hormones.  But it is never intended as a statement of reality.  Art is always an interpretation of reality, a symbol, never real.  (There may be some delusional artists who think their stuff is real, but we usually recognize them as delusional.) 

Religion may trigger feel good hormones in some people.  What is insidious is the intent.  Religion claims to be reality - not entertainment.  And therefore, many people take what was and is a book written by a bunch of goat herders a few thousands years ago and try to make it an expression of reality.  When it is only fairy tales.

The harm comes when we - as a society - attempt to apply fairy tales to the reality of our universe.  Evolution happened.  The universe is 13+ billion years old and god/s/dess had nothing to do with it.  Religious people are not more moral than less the religious.  And so on.  That is the problem with religious beliefs.

 

QFT.

Similar from a theatrical perspective. You bust your hump in rehearsal and performance for that little piece of euphoria that is a good show. You can't get that consistently as every performance is different. Directors (at least good ones) know how to act and can understand the technical and design aspects to transmit their ideas.

Whoever tells you to "Just act naturally" has no idea how much of a skill that is.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Religious feeling is

Religious feeling is arguably an aesthetic, indeed. An aesthetic describing how we react emotionally to life, just as other aesthetics describe how we react to Art objects and performances.

Of course there other aesthetics which also work at that level, not based on God or other related beliefs, as most of us here can attest.

Explicitly religious inspired aesthetics are not the only ones around.

I conceive of an 'aesthetic', as the word seems to be being used here, as a personal response to our experiences, and a framework within which we try to make sense of those experiences, or at least those experiences which invoke in us those responses which encompass the range from the purely aesthetic, what we perceive as beauty, elegance, form, etc, to the 'spiritual', the more 'fuzzy' feelings of awe and admiration, the sense of the numinous.

A religious point of view will no doubt color your aesthetic response, but it in no way is required. 'Religious' feelings, the feeling that there is some sentience 'behind' everything, is just one of the ways our conscious minds can react to certain mental events or experiences. It seems to be as much genetic, ie determined by the way our brain is structured, as acquired from our family and friends and life experience. Chemicals have been found that trigger such feelings in individuals disposed to such beliefs.

So the ultimate 'validity' of any particular religion, as an aesthetic, is no more or less tied to reality than any other 'aesthetic'.

Within all this, it really is irrelevant whether there actually is a 'divine' sentience 'out there'. There is certainly no need whatever to invoke 'God' to explain our responses.

How do you fit atheist/agnostic artists into your approach, such as Brahms, Berlioz, and Verdi? And how do you understand the fact that such composers also wrote well-regarded Requiems, ie religious works? It seems to me more evidence that 'religiosity' is just another parameter of our aesthetic life, no more, no less, neither necessary to it, nor in conflict with it, an aspect of our personal tastes/preferences.

IMHO, our world would be vastly different if there actually was a sentient, interventionist God, unless that God was determined to make the world appear exactly as if he did not exist.

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:I wonder

Optionsgeek wrote:
I wonder about the practicality of a 'reverse engineered' system - my sense is that it is passionate leaders driven by very subjective factors that create new movements / heuristics / social aesthetics

 

I don't believe there's anything to that which would prohibit impassioned delivery and proselytism.

 

Optionsgeek wrote:

 

For example, if my partner asks me, 'Do you love me?' and I say, 'well[...]

 

These are one in the same; just different ways of saying this.  I don't disagree with Bob's analysis.  Ultimately, the words we use are shorthands to describe the feelings we feel, *if* we understand them, and while we can analyze them piece by piece, the overwhelming whole is that sense of 'spiritual' awe.

 

There aren't any limits to rational analysis of these things- that is, all of these things can be rationally analyzed and understood- but the greatness of experience when it all comes together is what defines that sense of amazement; that is, a bulk that overcomes the working memory and can only be taken in as a general impression of greatness.  Within any comprehensible context the meaning is no less significant, because taken as a whole, it is still profound.  That's not to say we have to say any of that- a simple "I love you" would be more than enough to convey all of it, but the important point is that the feeling itself isn't lessened for an understanding of what it is.

 

Saying "no, I don't love you, I just have a hormonal sensation" would be dishonest, because in truth that's what love is and "means"- though we should not confuse semantic meaning with the meaning of emotion.  In physics, there are often multiple simple ways of expressing something that are equally valid- take the  lift of an airplane wing; is it the angular momentum of the wind coming off it?  Is it different pressure on the top and bottom of the wing?  Is it simply a matter of equal and opposite forces?  Well, all of them are valid descriptions, and a more rigorous description unifies and contains them all.  Likewise, a more simple expression of love is just as valid, and for lack of understanding of all the details, is all the more useful, and even given the understanding is more useful in its mere brevity.

 

I don't think any of that is really getting at the issue, though.

 

Optionsgeek wrote:
But maybe we understand and accept the importance of ceremony [...] Do death and sorrow have any meaning beyond being linguistic representations of feelings that result from hormonal responses to certain events?


 

This is difficult to explain, but I have a sense that you're seeing the wrong kind of difference here with regards to meaning- or perhaps are precisely backwards.

 

There are two things going on here; the nature of the experience (which I addressed above as being unchanging regardless of how it is understood), and the source of that experience.

 

The experience itself, and how we deal with it (following from its nature), is in effect the large part of the meaning we feel (lets call this subjective meaning), no matter its cause- that hormones are the mediator there is irrelevant.  We could be minds in computers, with processes that run on these events instead of having hormones triggered, and it would be all the same.  The hormones aren't the meaning, but the means to the end- which is the experience, the conscious interaction with that experience being what provides the subjective meaning.

 

There are evolutionary reasons for why experiences feel as they do, which could be called an illusion of objective meaning (given the illusion of intentionality of evolution) but that does not depart the experience from what it is.  That is speaking to the source of the experience as we feel it, and getting more to the point- an illusion of the objective meaning composes the nature and nurture; guided in part by natural selection, but still also to a great extent arbitrary (chaos being inherently meaningless)- so what is a more genuine objective meaning?

 

Now, I've said rationally understanding the emotion doesn't change it at all- and that is true- but there is one thing that it can change; an that is the root of the experiences- call it a refactoring of that source in generating the experiences themselves.  That is, reprogramming the core functions that mediate these experiences.  Following this, given that the root of one's experiences is deliberate (a true intentionality, rather than the illusion of intention provided by evolution), that can be called meaning in an objective sense (because to the extent that anything can be intended, one intends it).

 

It is true that a crudely rational approach to channeling one's emotions, reprogramming one's core functions of experience, using a poor understanding of what's going on would certainly fall short- this is where we find "Spock"; an ill fated attempt at forming rational behavior that fails at understanding the depth of experience and the intricacies of life and emotion.  A more rigorous understanding, however, comes full circle for the most part and provides many of the same conclusions as would have otherwise been the default, but crucially minus the happenstance- that is to say, our experiences become more deliberate rather than based on mere circumstance and chaos.

 

The extent to which evolution tailored our experiences to practical ends is largly revised for a modern setting in which we aren't fighting for survival, and the extent to which genetic drift and experimental happenstance shape us is rehashed to our own wills (as deliberate as it could be).

 

In such a case, rationally refactoring the roots of our experience and channeling our emotions results in largely similar conclusions to the default emotional state with regards to them both yielding that subjective experiential meaning, but it also provides something else in an intentional existence.  It is where the origins take root that is different- intentionless and outdated largely arbitrary sources, or deliberate ones?

 

How is a deliberate experience less meaningful than an essentially accidental one?  To the extent that chaos is purely meaningless, it couldn't be.  From the point of the sense of experience on through subjective meaning, they may be the same, but with regards to significance of the source, deliberate experience has something the default never did- a more objective and intended meaning- it grants a kind of existential feedback which allows us not only to experience the resultant subjective meaning, but to refine it to make it more profound by way of personal intent. Being intentional in any way over happenstance is a greater expression of will and self over the background noise; it's a greater ownership over the experience, and a more intimate relationship with the meaning one caused.

 

So, I wouldn't draw the difference in saying "I love you" vs. "I have certain hormones"- no, the experience there is the same, as is the origin and cause of the experience.  All that comes down to is the way one is expressing that experience.

 

Instead, I would draw the difference in saying "I didn't really think about or intend this, but it turns out I love you now" v.s. "I fully understand the root of my emotions, and have exercised my will over happenstance, and because of this I choose to love you- not a puppy love come about by chance, but an existential choice that defines who I want to be as a person who is by his very nature in love with you"

 

The former, random and meaningless.  The latter, intentional, deliberate, full of meaning and purpose.

 

While the feeling may be the same in either case, deliberate experience must by its nature have more meaning than something out of happenstance, which can have no meaning at all.

 

 

I exercise the choice of reason and intent over my emotions and experiences, which I believe makes them more meaningful in an ultimate sense, as well as a narrative sense than for those who do not and instead rely on meaningless chance.

 

The average Christian instead follows the coarse of happenstance- pretending that it is guided by his or her deity and as such has meaning- but this is a delusion, not real meaning.  In a real sense, that happenstance is perfectly meaningless, and the person is only confused.  I can understand why he or she protests so the death of this deity; because his or her life *is* meaningless from the perspective of intentionality, and removing this delusion would reveal that.  

 

There, of course, is an alternative in accepting reality and simultaneously eschewing happenstance, carrying one's experience and emotion into the sphere of the intentional.


 

Optionsgeek wrote:
I remember being told once, that the ability to enjoy art, involves 'a willing suspension of disbelief'. What do you think?

 

That doesn't have much to do with the topic at hand; I'm very familiar with it, but it has to do with immersion.  It is not necessary to suspend disbelief of reality, because reality is real.  It is often necessary to suspend disbelief in fiction, because try though an author might, there may be elements of the unreal in it.

 

If we're trying to get at real meaning, then following a reality which is unreal (such as that described by most religions) is not the way to get at it.  That's a path only to delusion and false meaning, struggling to force itself over reality rather than allow the person the vision to live an intentional life and get at the root of the issue.  If we're just trying to get at imagined and subjective meaning, then there's no need- we're already there by default.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
More interesting posts from you folks

 

I agree with cj that knowing the mechanics of a feeling has zero impact on the feeling itself.

Options, suggesting that mystery is needed to amplify or embody feelings like love or art appreciation seems like an argument from adverse consequences to me. 

Everything about life astonishes and thrills me when I focus on it. Every damn detail of it. Our cells are aquatic creatures and we are walking bags of primordial ocean. Life is the only thing we know of in the universe that actively fights entropy. We and all living things are a magnificent revolt against all that should be and yet we are made of physical stuff - inanimate carbon, hydrogen and oxygen atoms (along with 60 other elements in smaller amounts) that were formed inside exploding stars. I mean, for fuck's sake. What part of those boring facts doesn't blow your head off?

Moving on, I've been in strife with ex-girl friends before for describing fuzzy feeling as pulses of vasopressin in magnocellular neurons in my frontal cortex but the feelings remain as powerful as ever and if you're a person who covets the truth, the existence of these feelings in this place has all the wow factor I need. Why is being a descendent of the first living cells on the planet, formed of matter that's 14 billion years old, not the most amazing concept you've ever considered? As for being capable of bonding with another organism through contact. Bacteria do it - why wouldn't we?

On that other matter, I think it's fair to say that in the moment of creation or experience you give yourself up to a particular moment but that's because your inner voice is creating/speaking and you only have one inner voice - there's no additional observer in your brain chatting away while you are being engaged by an activity or an experience. Comprehension is linear, not lateral. That does not mean you are suspending disbelief. It means you are concentrating. Try thinking of something else as you type a reply to some one here and see what happens. You'll either fail to think of anything or stop typing.

FYI cj, it's the amygdala you're thinking of. Little amygdala (2.5cm) gives you about 15 acquaintances, big amygdala (5cm) means you average about 50 acquaintances. As long as you are happy and your friendships are meaningful that's all there is for me. Some people can just juggle more serious relationships. I can do about 8-10 serious friends outside of family but have many second and third layer friends. This works fine for me. I'm social but need lots of time alone to maunder.

 

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
"Suspension of disbelief" is

"Suspension of disbelief" is a very common thing, describing what a reader or viewer has to do when following a story, especially a Sci-Fi or fantasy, where the 'reality' painted in the narrative stretches plausibility to any degree. If the strain is too great, it can take you out of the narrative.

This occurs for many of us here when reading many of the bible narratives.

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: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oceanic origins

 

Having read a bit more in my big red book of the cell, I'm going to hold fire on the surefire oceanic nature of cells I claimed in that last post. There's no doubt the human body is comprised of elements that are common in the earth's crust and that blood contains all the elements that are in seawater but the latter in different quantities - significantly lower in most cases.

Then there's the cytosol, which I would have thought would have been most likely to mirror the body fluids of marine vertabrates (whose blood does mirror the ocean very closely) but no joy there, either. Next I tried pH and there's a variation - the pH of cytosol is 7.4, the ocean is a little under 8.2. You could argue we mirror an ancient sea but there's no way to prove this empirically - you'd need to use induction.

Another challenge is the fact the nature of the cytosol is poorly understood, in part because the nature of water (with its frisky hydrogen bonds) is poorly understood. Macromolecules impact on viscosity in odd ways, the chemical processes of cells are mysterious and ion concentrations are different from those in extracellular fluids.

Our cells are 70 per cent water, however, and as our cells desiccate we die, so it's fair to say we are an aquatic beast - we wear a sort of reverse wet suit that allows our water dependent cellular colonies to survive on dry land. This suggests to me we came from early oceans - when salinity was lower. This is possible given life is 3.5 billion years old and our gallertoid ancestors 550 million at least.

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Suspension of disbelief" is a very common thing, describing what a reader or viewer has to do when following a story, especially a Sci-Fi or fantasy, where the 'reality' painted in the narrative stretches plausibility to any degree. If the strain is too great, it can take you out of the narrative.

This occurs for many of us here when reading many of the bible narratives.

 

Yah - well. Hard to argue with that last point. Still. I struggle to suspend reality and it makes me a pain in the arse to watch movies with. Those floating mountains in Avatar? Give me a break, Mr Cameron.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Suspension of disbelief" is a very common thing, describing what a reader or viewer has to do when following a story, especially a Sci-Fi or fantasy, where the 'reality' painted in the narrative stretches plausibility to any degree. If the strain is too great, it can take you out of the narrative.

This occurs for many of us here when reading many of the bible narratives.

 

Yah - well. Hard to argue with that last point. Still. I struggle to suspend reality and it makes me a pain in the arse to watch movies with. Those floating mountains in Avatar? Give me a break, Mr Cameron.

I find it most irritating when reading an SF author who is pretty careful to get the technology right, then makes some basic science 'howler'.

If the 'science' makes no really strong claims to being accurate, but is vaguely plausible, I have less of a problem.

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


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

Atheistextremist wrote:

FYI cj, it's the amygdala you're thinking of. Little amygdala (2.5cm) gives you about 15 acquaintances, big amygdala (5cm) means you average about 50 acquaintances. As long as you are happy and your friendships are meaningful that's all there is for me. Some people can just juggle more serious relationships. I can do about 8-10 serious friends outside of family but have many second and third layer friends. This works fine for me. I'm social but need lots of time alone to maunder.

 

I confess - I only read the headlines, not the entire article.  Life has been a little stressful around here.

My amygdala must be about 1mm.

-- 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
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

"Suspension of disbelief" is a very common thing, describing what a reader or viewer has to do when following a story, especially a Sci-Fi or fantasy, where the 'reality' painted in the narrative stretches plausibility to any degree. If the strain is too great, it can take you out of the narrative.

This occurs for many of us here when reading many of the bible narratives.

 

Yah - well. Hard to argue with that last point. Still. I struggle to suspend reality and it makes me a pain in the arse to watch movies with. Those floating mountains in Avatar? Give me a break, Mr Cameron.

I find it most irritating when reading an SF author who is pretty careful to get the technology right, then makes some basic science 'howler'.

If the 'science' makes no really strong claims to being accurate, but is vaguely plausible, I have less of a problem.

 

Hah!  I refused and still refuse to watch "Independence Day".  Giving a virus to an alien computer?  Via a MAC?  Just how do you know the alien computer is a Von Neumann machine and runs on binary - let alone all the potential operating system differences.

"Avatar" was fantasy - the entire movie was gussied up in sci-fi to draw in the teenage boys.  The floating mountains were only there for the potential special effects.

Yeah, I've had my movie companion tell me "hush - it's only a movie, it's supposed to be fantasy".

 

-- 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.


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

Harley,

Really good to hear your wisdom on relationships and suffering. You sound like you've experienced a lot. I can really see what you are saying about how a sense of our own mortality can bring people closer together. And the biker saying about burying part of ourselves when someone dies, and carry part of them with us really struck a chord. On arranged marriages - I sometimes wonder if it might be a good idea! I don't know if you've ever read any of Tolstoy's short stories, but there is one, 'The Kreutzer Sonata' that is pretty funny on marriage - Tolstoy was a beast!

I was interested to read that you were deeply religious for much of your life. I wonder how many of the regular contributors on this forum would say the same about themselves? I imagine quite a few! I think anyone who has thought about their existence for long enough will have experienced the feeling of being a believer and being an atheist, probably all got the same genetic make up! Certainly very different from people who just don't care!

Nietzsche was interested in how we derive meaning in a Godless universe. He despised common christianity as an ethical system based on 'slave' morality, but he also regarded Christ as an übermensch - a 'superman' creating meaning, unshackled by the social mores of his time. I've only read two of his books, so I'm no expert, but there were several other ideas of his that intrigued me - he was a champion of the dionysian (read intense, emotional, passionate) in the face of the apollonian (rational, objective, structured) and believed that it was the tension between the two that created value in the aesthetic realm. Also VERY interesting was his ideas regarding decadence - he saw both socratic rationality and christianity as decadent, because they are both what he saw as moralities of improvement, and enemies of instinct. 

I still haven't really processed this entirely, but my sense is that if ones faith isn't totally liberating, and rather bent on control, then it is worse than useless...

CJ

hahaha, yes, I know what you mean about dancers - one of my ex's was a dancer and the doctor told her that if she didn't stop she would be in a wheelchair by the time she was 40 - but on she went. Totally obsessed! 

You misunderstood my question regarding the origin of these artistic impulses. I was just trying to draw out the similarities between the religious leader with the artist - and your decriptions here: 

Quote:

 

Bach would start playing on the organ in church - he was church organist for his living - and he would begin to start improvising.  And he would play on and on and on - until the people of the church would say he was possessed by the devil - and he would be asked to move on to a different parish.  Bach and his family moved a lot...

 

Why do dancers dance until their feet are bloody?  Why do writers finish their novels at the cost of their health?  Why do musicians and composers play and write music 16 (or more) hours a day?  Why do artists work frantically to catch just the right light and then immediately start a new work to the new light?  Why do photographers literally put themselves out on a limb to get that perfect shot of a rogue elephant?  They are driven and can not stop. 

 

could have described any number of men of faith - (maybe you can fill in the gap here!) ... In short, I hypothesise that the religious man's urge to create / invoke the transcendant, is the same as the composer's urge to create music, dancer's to dance, painters to paint etc... As to your thoughts on religion imposing on society - I completely concur - it has no right to do so intentionally - but that it does so is as inevitable as the Rolling Stones pulling in a million + crowds on copacabana beach! The subjective has a habit of spilling out into the objective, for better or for worse... Of course, the way the subjective experience is framed makes a big difference in how it plays out in objective reality - beware the law of unintended consequence! Thats why I am hot on correct doctrine for christians - the christianity you guys are reacting is IMHO the product of very wonky doctrine...

Bob

Totally agree with everything here. To answer your question on atheist requiems - hopefully you'll see now that it fits in with my inclination to view the religious and artistic impulses as being very very closely linked, if not one and the same... 

Blake

Absolutely LOVED this. Your thoughts on intentionality were brilliant. Should be printed out and framed...

Atheistextremist

Love your enthusiasm for life - it IS absolutely amazing! 

Quote:

 

Options, suggesting that mystery is needed to amplify or embody feelings like love or art appreciation seems like an argument from adverse consequences to me. 

 

Yes, I think you are right. It is not NEEDED at all, in the same way that music, literature, poetry, art are not needed. But the creative impulse will out! I am interested in the concept of the 3 letter word GOD. What is that word representing? Clearly it represents different things to different people, different emotions, different hormonal squirts etc. Would love to hear your thoughts...

I loved your avatar comment - I bonded with my girlfriend over a shared sense of incredulity at avatar! I remember a critic wrote that it was a movie designed to be enjoyed by 18 yr old yoga teachers hahahahahahaha. Sort of like mainstream christianity??!!

 

Loving the chat team, keep 'em coming...

 

 

 

 


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:I find it

BobSpence1 wrote:

I find it most irritating when reading an SF author who is pretty careful to get the technology right, then makes some basic science 'howler'.

If the 'science' makes no really strong claims to being accurate, but is vaguely plausible, I have less of a problem.

I am actually willing to forgive some stretching of reality if it is internally consistent, even in a nominally hard-SF story. For instance, Greg Bear's Darwin's Radio was terrible biology, but it was a good story, with consistent and well-written characters. Suspension of disbelief for a good story? Check.

Me, I get pulled out of a story when a character acts in opposition to the prior characterization. I will gladly and vigorously throw an half-read book across the room if a character suddenly behaves out-of-character.

I was OK with Titan AE, for instance, until one of the good guys became a cackling maniacal bad guy. I mean, how hard would it've been to make him betray the hero without completely and inexplicably changing his character? It was stupid, and worse yet, it was unbelievable.

Now I have to go back to coding. Sigh. Not enough time to hang with the good discussion here.

 

As an aside:

Optionsgeek: your discussion is good and worthwhile. This is the kind of thing I like to see, and in which I enjoy participating. If Jean comes back and derails this perfectly decent discussion, just create a new topic. This is worth having its own topic anyway.

"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


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

Optionsgeek wrote:

CJ

hahaha, yes, I know what you mean about dancers - one of my ex's was a dancer and the doctor told her that if she didn't stop she would be in a wheelchair by the time she was 40 - but on she went. Totally obsessed! 

You misunderstood my question regarding the origin of these artistic impulses. I was just trying to draw out the similarities between the religious leader with the artist - and your decriptions here: 

Quote:

Bach would start playing on the organ in church - he was church organist for his living - and he would begin to start improvising.  And he would play on and on and on - until the people of the church would say he was possessed by the devil - and he would be asked to move on to a different parish.  Bach and his family moved a lot...

 

Why do dancers dance until their feet are bloody?  Why do writers finish their novels at the cost of their health?  Why do musicians and composers play and write music 16 (or more) hours a day?  Why do artists work frantically to catch just the right light and then immediately start a new work to the new light?  Why do photographers literally put themselves out on a limb to get that perfect shot of a rogue elephant?  They are driven and can not stop. 

could have described any number of men of faith - (maybe you can fill in the gap here!) ... In short, I hypothesise that the religious man's urge to create / invoke the transcendant, is the same as the composer's urge to create music, dancer's to dance, painters to paint etc... As to your thoughts on religion imposing on society - I completely concur - it has no right to do so intentionally - but that it does so is as inevitable as the Rolling Stones pulling in a million + crowds on copacabana beach! The subjective has a habit of spilling out into the objective, for better or for worse... Of course, the way the subjective experience is framed makes a big difference in how it plays out in objective reality - beware the law of unintended consequence! Thats why I am hot on correct doctrine for christians - the christianity you guys are reacting is IMHO the product of very wonky doctrine...

 

I don't think the religious man's urge to create/invoke the transcendent is at all the same as an artist's.  Which is what I was trying to show with my examples.

Most religious people I have run into - including some members of my family and fellow church goers when I was a member of a church - have no driving force behind their belief.  With the possible exception of maintaining the illusion of being on the "right" side. 

It is the difference between singing along with the radio and wanting to sing lead at the Met.  One requires no discipline, no training, no talent, and no creativity.  It can be very enjoyable for the singer if not for their audience, but not on the scale of being the lead soprano/mezzo/tenor in an exceptional production of "Der Rosenkavalier".

Granted, there are a few, a very few in my experience, theists searching for the ultimate whosis.  I feel very sorry for these people.  There is no ultimate whosis, no transcendental meaning or entity.  All that effort wasted on something that doesn't exist except in their own mind.  You want meaning and purpose?  Think one up that you like and go for it.  You want knowledge?  Get a PhD and research it.  It is already there for you - no god/s/dess required.

Mistakes were made (but not by me) by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_32?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=mistakes+were+made+but+not+by+me&sprefix=...

Available in book or on Kindle.  I found a copy at my local library.  You can possibly get a copy through interlibrary loan for free.  There is an entire chapter on self-justifying your religious beliefs.

 

-- 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.


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

 I understand your frustration - the SEARCH for whosis is futile! Frankly CJ, I am getting all excited by your (edit) distaste for churchgoers* - you have the blood of a reformer Laughing out loud

Quote:

You want meaning and purpose?  Think one up that you like and go for it.

Maybe that is what it boils down to!! The aesthete does just that! "Throw it down! On THIS I shall not be moved!! For this I will sacrifice ALL." We are defined by what we do, not by what we think...

 

 

 


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

Optionsgeek wrote:

 I understand your frustration - the SEARCH for whosis is futile! Frankly CJ, I am getting all excited by your (edit) distaste for churchgoers* - you have the blood of a reformer Laughing out loud

Quote:

You want meaning and purpose?  Think one up that you like and go for it.

Maybe that is what it boils down to!! The aesthete does just that! "Throw it down! On THIS I shall not be moved!! For this I will sacrifice ALL." We are defined by what we do, not by what we think...

 

If that is your definition, then I am definitely not an aesthete.  That is why I am not singing lead soprano at the Met.  I do not have the single minded drive to be a true artiste.  And I'm not about to sacrifice all for anything.  I'll sacrifice some thing - maybe.

I'm a generalist.  I like and am interested in lots of subjects - music is only one of them.  I got real tired of it when I studied it for 3 years.  By then, I had come to realize I didn't even want to see another concert or performance for a long time.   And I still have no desire to perform, though I once again enjoy attending concerts, plays and operas and watching other people perform.

Those who claim to have a purpose from god/s/dess are just fooling around.  Since god/s/dess doesn't text them with instructions for the day, they are making up their own purpose and path to completion.  Just like me and all the other non-believers.

 

-- 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.


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

Optionsgeek wrote:

Blake

Absolutely LOVED this. Your thoughts on intentionality were brilliant. Should be printed out and framed...

 

Thanks.  I'm working on a web site where I discuss this all in a more organized fashion.  Hopefully I'll finish this century Eye-wink

 

cj wrote:

Hah!  I refused and still refuse to watch "Independence Day".  Giving a virus to an alien computer?  Via a MAC?  Just how do you know the alien computer is a Von Neumann machine and runs on binary - let alone all the potential operating system differences.

 

Well, they had one of the ships (a scout from many years before- area 51 or something), and they had long since integrated with its computer systems.  They knew how the alien computer systems worked from that, I garner, well enough to write a virus.  That it was done on a mac emulating their systems on some virtual machine or some such seems irrelevant.

 

What's a little unbelievable is that the entire civilization didn't have any jack-asses like we do on earth (in all its history) who write computer viruses for shits and giggles.  Any realistic civilization would have had defenses from viruses for the same reason we do.

That said, they're hive minds or something, blah blah, so maybe they don't get off causing discord for their own people.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Thanks.  I'm

Blake wrote:

Thanks.  I'm working on a web site where I discuss this all in a more organized fashion.  Hopefully I'll finish this century Eye-wink

 

Whew!  Keep us updated Blake, let us know if you need proof-readers or anything like that.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Blake wrote:Thanks.  I'm

Blake wrote:

Thanks.  I'm working on a web site where I discuss this all in a more organized fashion.  Hopefully I'll finish this century Eye-wink

 

I would love to see that website.

“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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I don't see this at all

AE}

Options, suggesting that mystery is needed to amplify or embody feelings like love or art appreciation seems like an argument from adverse consequences to me.

[/quote wrote:

 

Optionsgeek wrote:

Yes, I think you are right. It is not NEEDED at all, in the same way that music, literature, poetry, art are not needed. But the creative impulse will out! I am interested in the concept of the 3 letter word GOD. What is that word representing? Clearly it represents different things to different people, different emotions, different hormonal squirts etc. Would love to hear your thoughts...

 

Are you suggesting the creative impulse is divine, Options? Music, art, poetry etc, can't be shown to relate to the supernatural or the inexplicable. They relate to the way human brains react to their environment. The three letter word GOD is an abstract noun, a reification of our inner father figure rolled into the tribal hero with a thousand faces and combined with a sense of awe as we look at a universe that tests our comprehension. Whatever the subjective elements of god's character might be, they are all imaginary.

 

 

 

 

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


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

Not at all! The creative impulse is the creative impulse - I don't think it is useful, for our purposes here, to label it divine. However, I do believe religious leaders are, at their best, like artists, using language, action and ritual to frame certain experiences and emotions, in the same way that a musician uses music, etc etc... And as with musicians, if they are good at it, and they strike the right chord, they can have a pretty devoted following.

Out of interest, and from the perspective of art, how do you respond to this iconic image (to the art of the act itself rather than to the art of the photographer)?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Quảng_Đức

Would love to hear your thoughts...

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
You are a walking piece of Confusion with Legs

Hey BobSpencer1

As I argued with you, you became full of contradictions and are confused. You mixed epistemologies of Rationalism capital R with empiricism by quoting I think therefor I am which is different from the epistemology of empiricism.

Then you asked me to justify my axioms. Evidently you fluckened Geometry since axioms are not to be justified.

Then you tried to argue a-priori via logic while claiming to be empirical which is 100% aposterori which is opposite from a priori.

Due to your frustration, you give up since your mind has short circuited and you brain is saying, "cannot compute, cannot compute."

You kind of suck at being an atheist. While claiming a fallacious attempt at logic via the Scotsman fallacy, you committ the fallacy via definition of atheism itself.

It's funny.

And now that you are out of ammunition, you are more confused now when you started. So what are you, empiricists or Rationalists capital R via the Romantic Period.

You don't even know  what you are. You are arguing like a parrot in a mechanic shop.

So, you have a lot to work out. While you attack me via frustration since your rebuttals have been utterly foolish, you react and show your bitter evil self. You cannot argue since you are lost in thought in the area of thinking about anything.

God has made you a fool for entertainment and for His glory.

And that is extremely funny. I told you that before we started, now you demonstrated to all who have witnessed your attempts to discuss.

Try to fix your holes if you wish to continue.

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:You kind

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You kind of suck at being an atheist. 

 

F*ck you god, it's christmas.

 


Blake
atheistScience Freak
Posts: 991
Joined: 2010-02-19
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Whew!  Keep

mellestad wrote:

Whew!  Keep us updated Blake, let us know if you need proof-readers or anything like that.


harleysportster wrote:

I would love to see that website.


Thanks.  Right now I'm a little bogged down on the site layout and aesthetic of it (presentation is crucial), but I'm hoping to have it live by the end of summer.


Optionsgeek wrote:

Out of interest, and from the perspective of art, how do you respond to this iconic image (to the art of the act itself rather than to the art of the photographer)?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Th%C3%ADch_Quảng_Đức

Would love to hear your thoughts...


That's not art, that's bad-assery.  Political suicide: Pissing of Buddhist monks.

They knew that, and they were willing to burn themselves to death for the media to destroy their oppressors (and it worked):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Diem_dead.jpg

Seriously, that guy was a grade-A Catholic fascist asshole (thanks to Kennedy for giving him political backing on account of his religion).

Where the Buddhists were brilliant, and where Muslim Jihadists are idiots, is where they used the power of the press and public support.  By hurting other people with their suicides, the Muslims lost it at the word go.  The differences in their theologies might account for this, although more likely the Buddhist monks were just more intelligent, better educated, and more bad-ass in general (I mean, seriously, how many Muslims could sit there and burn themselves alive?  Not many, I'd bet.  Pushing a button is easy.)  Palestine would be free by now if just a few Muslims had half of the intelligence and stones those monks had.

Anyway, that's pretty much all I have to say on that matter.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Evidently you fluckened Geometry since axioms are not to be justified. [...] "cannot compute, cannot compute." [...] You kind of suck at being an atheist.  It's funny.  [...] You are arguing like a parrot in a mechanic shop.  [...] God has made you a fool for entertainment and for His glory.  And that is extremely funny.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Speaking objectively here, I think Jean just earned a troll badge. 

He's no longer making any arguments at all (which he was doing initially), nor attempting discussion or addressing the points raised or questions asked of him, and he's still making inflammatory posts.  That is, his posts are now devoid of substance, and rife with attempts at intimidation.  This is the mark of a troll (not that he's an asshole- that should be fine- but that he's not posting any content or arguments in the process).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey BobSpencer1

As I argued with you, you became full of contradictions and are confused. You mixed epistemologies of Rationalism capital R with empiricism by quoting I think therefor I am which is different from the epistemology of empiricism.

Forget your f**king labels.

We have to rationally analyse empirically gathered data to gain real knowledge.

Axioms do not need justification within the system for which they are assumed.

The Euclidean axiom of there being one, and only one, line thru a given point parallel to another line, ONLY applies in 'flat', Euclidean space, within the system of Euclid's geometry.

"I think therefore I am" is about as close to a general axiom, one that applies to our whole perceived reality, as we can get - if we are not thinking, that is the end of it.

I don't f**king care what else Descartes may have said, I just used that particular expression because it has become iconic.

Quote:

Then you asked me to justify my axioms. Evidently you fluckened Geometry since axioms are not to be justified.

As I said above, axioms only apply within a specific formal system which they form the foundation of.

You clearly missed my point entirely.

Quote:

Then you tried to argue a-priori via logic while claiming to be empirical which is 100% aposterori which is opposite from a priori.

Logic is also based on two other axioms, LoI and LoNC, which have to be empirically accepted, since without them, no coherent discourse can take place.

We have to have initial assumptions, but we should keep them to the absolute minimum, and as simple as possible, to avoid constraining our argument unnecessarily.

As we develop our arguments, other "axioms" may be required, more accurately described as necessary assumptions with insufficient justification, at this stage, to be classified as established principles, may be required. But we should always be prepared to revise such assumptions as more empirical data is gathered, and our rational analysis progresses, so we should avoid labelling them as axioms. That label only strictly applies to formal deductive systems, not inductive, empirical, statistical systems, where 'facts' and principles have a degree of conditionality and tentativeness attached.

I see those three, CES, LoI, and LNC, as close to that ideal as I can currently imagine.

I am not for "a priori"or "a posteriori" as principles in themselves.

Quote:

Due to your frustration, you give up since your mind has short circuited and you brain is saying, "cannot compute, cannot compute."

You kind of suck at being an atheist. While claiming a fallacious attempt at logic via the Scotsman fallacy, you committ the fallacy via definition of atheism itself.

It's funny.

And now that you are out of ammunition, you are more confused now when you started. So what are you, empiricists or Rationalists capital R via the Romantic Period.

You don't even know  what you are. You are arguing like a parrot in a mechanic shop.

So, you have a lot to work out. While you attack me via frustration since your rebuttals have been utterly foolish, you react and show your bitter evil self. You cannot argue since you are lost in thought in the area of thinking about anything.

God has made you a fool for entertainment and for His glory.

And that is extremely funny. I told you that before we started, now you demonstrated to all who have witnessed your attempts to discuss.

Try to fix your holes if you wish to continue.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The rest of that projective rant is right up to your incoherent medieval standard, Jean.

I am not frustrated, that rant suggests that you may be, though. Certainly confused.

I just tried to patiently spell out, as simply as possible, so that even someone as blinded by dogma as you appear to be, might grasp how the contemporary, scientific, rational/empirical approach works. If I have to repeat some points, when you clearly seem to have not 'got' them, then I may sound like a parrot, but actually I am attempting to teach a parrot some new words, which requires repetition.

You start from a different direction, clearly.

Your frustration and denial of simple facts about atheism, etc, suggest that your world-view is dysfunctional.

It does not really have holes, so much as a few naked assertions surrounded by a void.

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


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

 I'm going to start a new thread in general interests...

Happy New Year to you all!!


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpencer1

Bob,

You have yet to be trained in things since you are making categorical fallacies left and right.

Empiricism is a claim towards a TYPE of reasoning. It's reasoning is ALWAYS inductive. It must start from the ground always. It cannot assume universals such as logic since that would be against the notion of induction or starting from the ground.

Thus, empiricism must crawl up a long ladder of particulars and try to get a universal. You cannot simply assume logic since you are stepping out of empiricism into another mode or theory of thought.

Since definition is somewhat universal, you cannot define or pretend to even know what anything is. If I say boat, you cannot assume what I am meaning is a craft on water. You must start with nothing. So think Bob, what are you. You are lost and you don't know anything. You are a fool.

And LABLES is a rational mode of thinking. Logic is discussed with labels. Now you are an empiricist if you are against labels. But you label I think therefore I am.

You are a walking contradiction with legs. What are you Bob. Do you even know?

Quote:
Axioms do not need justification within the system for which they are assumed.

Very good Bob. You have listened to my instruction. Axioms do not need to be justified. Then why did you ask me to justify my axioms?

All first principles in all arguments in logic are always assumed Bob. I just assume it axiomatically via the transcendental argument from Kant. Thus validity is admitted from you about my argument. Thank you.

Yes Bob, I told you that Euclid neglects space and time. I allow for it since it was part of the creation. Euclid argued a certain way which I argue to an extent for God with some qualifications.

I have discussed this on numerous occasions. Put the Green Bud down and you may remember in a few days.

I think therefore I am is from Descartes, who is by definition NOT NOT NOT NOT an empiricist. This is simple history. He was a capital R rationalist which is 100% opposite then empiricism. Do you enjoy contradictions? Do you simply embrace the absurd?

Quote:
  I don't f**king care what else Descartes may have said, I just used that particular expression because it has become iconic.

If you don't care what he says, then why do you quote him? Again with your contradictions. Why would you quote somebody and not care about the context of that persons worldview? This is odd but normal since Atheism is the death of everything including all thought.

You are absurd since you are not reasoning.

BUT empiricism is NOT AXIOMATIC. What on earth is going on here. Are you that guy from the Twilight Zone? Logic is deductive and a priori and empiricism is deductive and a posterori. You cannot be both at the same time.

If you like axioms, then you are not empiricist. You are absurd and are clueless.

So what are you? Deductive or Inductive? You can't be both. lol.

Empiricism by definition assume NOTHING. It starts with zero and attempt from a zero to get a 1. And then from a 1 to 2. The question is, how can a zero ever get a 1. You don't know what you are talking about.

Quote:
 I am not for "a priori"or "a posteriori" as principles in themselves.

Um, you are that Twilight Zone guy aren't you?

Logic Rationalism Capital R is a priori, and empiricism is a posteriori all the time. So if you are neither of these, then you just admitted that you are neither an empiricist nor a Capital R Rationalist. So then stop quoting Descartes.

This only leaves you into one other area. Mysticism. And since I doubt you subscribe to the mytics, then the only other logical option for you is absurdity by your own admission.

Bob, you're confused. If you are antithetical in your thinking regarding every since mode of epistemology, then you are an enemy to reason yourself.

Like a typical atheist, you are absurd.

And THIS THIS THIS is why the Universities brainwash their students and tell them that all is relative and there is no absolute truth. Because their so called truth which is a lie cannot hold water.

They are like cisterns that can't hold water (Jeremiah 2:13).

BobSpencer1 = Exhibit A.

Happy New Year Bob!!! If you know the meaning of that, then you are adopting Christian thinking while denying it at the same time. That is the very definition of insane.

And that is why atheists are extremely mentally insane when you get right down to it. They are nuts literally.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Friendly Enemy of the Absurd (i.e. Atheists).

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).


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:BUT

Jean Chauvin wrote:
BUT empiricism is NOT AXIOMATIC.

Only pragmatic.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So what are you? Deductive or Inductive? You can't be both. lol.

Well, if you insist that it can't be both, then I guess you're not committing a false dichotomy incoherent non sequitur category error. Oh noes!

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The question is, how can a zero ever get a 1.

+1?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And THIS THIS THIS is why the Universities brainwash their students and tell them that all is relative and there is no absolute truth.

Yep, that's what the international conspiracy of university professors teaches me. How did you know that? You're like a psychic or something.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Happy New Year Bob!!! If you know the meaning of that, then you are adopting Christian thinking while denying it at the same time. That is the very definition of insane.

Lol. Happy new year Jean. You're funny.

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It seems, Jean, that you are

It seems, Jean, that you are stuck, as usual, with some obsolete concepts, making a false dichotomy between two important aspects of the search for knowledge.

By clinging to some old philosophical definitions of 'Empiricism' and 'Rationalism', you seem unable to grasp that we have gone way past the hang-ups of Plato, and even Aristotle.

In the same way, you repeat the same inability to grasp that Deduction and Induction are not in conflict, rather that Induction applies Deduction to find the logical implications of Empirical observations.

I have tried to teach you to understand this, it would appear with little success. Apart perhaps from a slight concession on "axioms", where you appear to have conceded that an axiom is not a Truth - it is a base assumption which holds throughout some formal deductive system, such as Logic , or Math.

To repeat, as currently used, Empiricism is the application of Rational analysis to accumulating evidence gained through observation, rather than the illusion of 'a priori' 'knowledge'.

The illusions which Galileo, most famously, challenged and showed to be such.

If you want to accuse me of using those terms in the 'wrong' sense, you seem to be displaying a fixation on your particular interpretation of those and many other terms, all of which appear to be ancient and long past their 'use-by' date.

And what is your problem with grasping that by quoting Descartes' famous expression, 'cogito ergo sum', I am not implying any general endorsement of the rest of his pronouncements?

To hear someone with the primitive, long falsified, world-view you display, lashing out in your ignorance and frustration at our 'absurdities' is just sad.

 

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


racorfield
racorfield's picture
Posts: 15
Joined: 2010-12-30
User is offlineOffline
Burden of Proof

Hello Jean

 

I am new here also.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

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.

If I decided not to try and convince you of agnosticism and I continued to believe myself in agnosticism because as far as I know there is no good argument for the existence of God then it seems to me neither of us need bother trying to show the other that our position is correct.  Do you have any objections to or criticisms of that? 

 

Another question:  If you can take the existence of God as axiomatic, why should n't atheists not take the principles of reason as axiomatic?

 

Robert


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

Harley flagged up an excellent thread which encapsulates the JC vs Rational response squad:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/ontological_and_epistemological_blunders_tag

I have pursued my inquiries here:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/28377

 


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

Hi ButterBall,

Empiricism is not pragmatic since it has not frame of reference to be pragmatic about. Especially since the concept of pragmatic and the understanding thereof is non-empirical. lol.

Quote:
Well, if you insist that it can't be both, then I guess you're not committing a false dichotomy incoherent non sequitur category error. Oh noes!

If I'm committing a false dichotomy, then it is your job to show me a 3rd alternative. Since you have failed to do this, I made a true dichotomy and I win, you lose.

Butterball, you need to learn how to reason.

Quote:
+1?

It can't be +1 since empiricism it antithetical to mathematics since mathematics assumes universals and is a priori. You must have do it empirically and not mathematically. You have failed again.

Hi Butter Ball. I like you. But just try harder and reason. Name 5 Public Universities that are non secular.

What about Bob?

Hi Bob, I did not make a false dichotomy. Truth makes it a true dichotomy. If it is false, you must show me a 3rd alternative in logic. The only 3rd alternative is OUTSIDE of logic, that being absurdity. Thus my argument stands.

Old Philosophical definitions. After I have refuted you beyond the dust which you came from, you raise your hands in defeat and say I'm using false labels? This is what I have been saying the whole time.

Atheism is the death of philosophy. Bob has finally shown this. The death of science, art, beauty, morals, biology, astronomy, etc, etc, etc.

I have brought you to consistency Bob. Your absurdity is shown like a naked cowboy at a Greatful Dead concert.

BOB, an axiom IS A TRUTH. It is a self evident truth. That self evident truth is via the Imago Dei. It needs no justification. You again don't know what an axiom is.

actually Bob, perspective is the inference of that which is observed via evidence. But you MUST START SOMEWHERE. So it's pretty on paper, but practically impossible since you start with 0 and must get to 1 empirically.

Galileo used a priori precepts for his understanding. This is not empirical. He also had Christian understanding that the world was round since that is what the Scripture says.

You are not only using terms in the wrong sense, you have yet to show me how you can know anything. You have yet to refute my position.

So if you want to be honest, you CANNOT say that all arguments for God is false since you have yet to refute mine. But as an atheist, you won't be honest.

Descartes view of knowing was 100% the opposite as Locke or Hume or Berkeley's or Aristotle's (etc) empiricism. So if you are an empiricist, you don't quote the opposite of empiricism to prove empiricism.

It's like me claiming that I have a clean creek even though a polluted river flows into it. It's absurd. You really can't see what I'm saying? Come on. I know you are blind as a pagan (I Corinthians 1:14) but come on.

Quote:
To hear someone with the primitive, long falsified, world-view you display, lashing out in your ignorance and frustration at our 'absurdities' is just sad.

And after complete defeat and victory on my part, after you are shown your absurdity, you still embrace the absurd, and end your post with an ad hominem abusive.

That is what's sad.

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
Let me see if I can boil all

Let me see if I can boil all this down.

Jean claims that no atheist can know anything because his definition of knowledge (and his alone) is the only correct one.

What a terrible burden you have placed on yourself, Jean, to be the sole arbiter of knowledge.

"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
BobSpence1 wrote:If you want

BobSpence1 wrote:

If you want to accuse me of using those terms in the 'wrong' sense, you seem to be displaying a fixation on your particular interpretation of those and many other terms, all of which appear to be ancient and long past their 'use-by' date.

*ahem*

 

Lewis Carroll wrote:

 

  “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.

    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”

    “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”

    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master -- that’s all.”

    Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. “They’ve a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they’re the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That’s what I say!”

 

"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


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

Hi JCG,

Empiricism has no merit to define anything. The fact that you understand my sentence is a refutation to empiricism. Since my worldview allows for definition validly and soundly, the definition in defined from my normative of knowing itself.

Knowledge is interchangable with Faith and Belief. The blind faith thing crept it when liberals and atheists created Existialism and has nothing to do with historical Chrisitanity.

Before I came on this site, you guys had absolutely no idea what ontology or epistemology meant. You probably thought they were specific foods on a French Menu.

Now after I educate you, you then know everything about it to write a post. Is this comedy central. Pride is exhibited here. I refute atheism so badly, you must desperately try to drop the shovel that makes your hole deaper.

How true it is when Scripture says that only a fool declares in his heart there is no God (Ps. 14:1). For the heart is so wicked, you can't even know it (Jer 17:3). You evil prevents you from knowing (I Corinthians 1:14 vs. 1:16).

And again, this has yet to be addressed. Why are you so incredibly knowledable out of the classroom but in the Universities, knowledge is taught to be nil. This is an embarrassment for as an atheist. So who's wrong, you or the dozens of Universities in the country. Are Ph.d professors wrong when they say all is relative and there is no absolute truth, or are you wrong.

How do you even know?

In Christ is found all knowledge and wisdom. And that is found in Scripture. So it is a universal thing that you even know. You actually agree with me, but supress it due to your hate towards God (Romans 1:18).

And the sound of my victory, is silence from Bob.

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).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Empiricism has no merit to define anything.

Patently false, and intellectually dishonest.

Get effin' real...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The fact that you understand my sentence is a refutation to empiricism.

Only in the world of fuzzy logic and circular reasoning...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Knowledge is interchangable with Faith and Belief.

Patently false.

If you take 2 apples, and add another 2 apples, you have a total of 4 apples. That is empirical and rational evidence of there being 4 apples. Speaking in rhetorical terms, once could say that one 'believes' or has 'faith' that there are 4 apples, and they would be correct in saying so, however, it would be 'denial' to state that there are not 4 apples, when 'empirically' there are.

'Faith' and 'Belief' are not mutually inclusive with empiricism, or rationalism, and therefore NOT interchangeable.

Nice try though. B******t only baffles small brains...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Is this comedy central.

Hey, I was about to use that line....

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Pride is exhibited here.

I think you've been demonstrating an example of a deluded ego...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I refute atheism so badly, you must desperately try to drop the shovel that makes your hole deaper.

You've made a fatal flaw, in argument. And such an elementary one, that only illustrates a lack of simple comprehension, circular reasoning, and conflation.

 

An 'atheist' is not someone with anything. It's not inclusive of 'anything'. It's a rhetorical term used to eliminate any ambiguity that one who does not have a religion, is not someone who has a 'void' and is replacing it with a substitution.

Being multilingual is being someone who can speak more one language.

NOT being multilingual, is simply NOT being multilingual. It's NOT being nonmultilingual, or amultilingual.

Being 'dead' is not 'inclusive' of non life, it's the abscence of life.

Being one who 'is' religious, is analogous to having cancer, as compared to someone who doesn't have cancer. A healthy person is NOT someone with something 'other' than having cancer.

Healthy people, are just 'without' cancer.

Atheists, are just 'without' religion.

 

Class dismissed...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Why are you so incredibly knowledable out of the classroom but in the Universities, knowledge is taught to be nil.

WTF are you babbling about?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
This is an embarrassment for as an atheist.

It's completely non sequitur to claim ANYTHING is an embarrassment for an atheist.

Completely illogical.

It's like saying it's an embarrassment to be 'healthy'. Non sequitur.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So who's wrong, you or the dozens of Universities in the country. Are Ph.d professors wrong when they say all is relative and there is no absolute truth, or are you wrong.

Neither is 'wrong', just as neither is 'french', or neither is 'purple'.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
How do you even know?

Because it's demonstrable, and without fail.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And the sound of my victory, is silence from Bob.

I don't know who Bob is, but your if illustrating your ignorance constitutes a victory in your mind, you have a talent for deluding yourself that I'm thankful I'm incapable of...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I like the passive aggressive touch at the end of your posts. It demonstrates your insecurity and weakness.

 

Bite me.

Sincerely,

redneF

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


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

Hi RedNef,

If empiricism can define universals from a inductive a-posterori, then demonstrate this EMPIRICALLY, meaning with no universals.

I have some words try these: Patently, false, dishonest, the, whom, etc.

To assert is not to argue. You use ad hominems because you have been refuted and I have prevailed in the area of ideas and intellectually thinking. Be a man and accept your defeat. I accepted my victory.

Quote:
If you take 2 apples, and add another 2 apples, you have a total of 4 apples. That is empirical and rational evidence of there being 4 apples. Speaking in rhetorical terms, once could say that one 'believes' or has 'faith' that there are 4 apples, and they would be correct in saying so, however, it would be 'denial' to state that there are not 4 apples, when 'empirically' there are.

'Faith' and 'Belief' are not mutually inclusive with empiricism, or rationalism, and therefore NOT interchangeable.

Nice try though. B******t only baffles small brains...

Wow. Mathematics is NOT EMPIRICAL since it assumes universals. Empiricism assumes NOTHING. This is historical analysis of empiricism. After I educate you and show you your ignorance, you will do what Bob did. You will then say you don't care about labels and say I'm Meideval in my thinking.

lol. Would you like to be educated? GO read my other posts on empiricism. Good luck.

To simply say I'm circular does not make it so. Show me where or I shall continue to enjoy the sweet nectar of victory.

Justify your definition of atheism EMPIRICIALLY. No Universals. No assumptions. Start with nothing. Be consistent. No Logic (since logic is a universal).

Ready Go!!!.

I suppose for some absurd atheists, contradiction is okay then? Professors say knowledge no, and you have all this knowledge. These are what I call things that make you go hmmm?

One is french or purple? But french and purple are in different categories. These are in the exact same category and contradict in the same manner means and way with each other.

It's like say 2+2=4 and 2+2 = Nothing. Do you need me to teach you logic?

Demonstration is required to be looked at in a pattern of interpretation. How is this empirical? Where do you start? What does interpretation taste like? I like spicy food. Is it spicy or is it sweet? Does it talk to you, can you hear it?

At least you were consistent in the end.

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).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:If

Jean Chauvin wrote:

If empiricism can define universals from a inductive a-posterori, then demonstrate this EMPIRICALLY, meaning with no universals.

I never made that claim, otherwise, I'd defend it.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I have some words try these: Patently, false, dishonest, the, whom, etc.

To assert is not to argue.

No one alleged any differently.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You use ad hominems because you have been refuted

By whom have I been refuted, when I responded to you first?

You're mistaken if you think you could have refuted me in the future...and somewhat delusional to think that you can refute someone who hasn't even spoken yet.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
and I have prevailed in the area of ideas and intellectually thinking. Be a man and accept your defeat.

Non sequitur.

It's impossible to accept something that has yet to happen.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I accepted my victory.

Probably like you would accept a blowjob from yourself...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Wow. Mathematics is NOT EMPIRICAL since it assumes universals.

I never mentioned mathematics at all. I simply gave a demonstration of simple addition, that illustrates emprical evidence, and how rational it is to have 4 apples, when you sum 2 pairs of apples.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Empiricism assumes NOTHING. This is historical analysis of empiricism.

Who alleged to the contrary?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
After I educate you and show you your ignorance

1- You're putting the cart before the horse. You haven't found anything about my statements that was ignorant.

2- You've got things bass akwards. I've demonstrated your ignorance.

3- Now I've just 'learned' you 2 new things you didn't have a clue on...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...you will do what Bob did. You will then say you don't care about labels and say I'm Meideval in my thinking.

Paranoid delusions too, huh?

Tsk, tsk...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
GO read my other posts on empiricism. Good luck.

I've got better things to do, than go read what you've probably mangled to pieces...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
To simply say I'm circular does not make it so.

Well, no.

Of course not. I'm not a 'preacher'.

That's why I demonstrated it with numerous examples, that even a child could comprehend.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Show me where ...

The only thing I can think of, is that you didn't read my previous post to you, or that you have ADD, and it didn't sink in.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...or I shall continue to enjoy the sweet nectar of victory.

How you structure your fantasies is personal, and I'm not particulalrly impressed, or interested in knowing.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Justify your definition of atheism EMPIRICIALLY.

I defined very clearly that NOT being a theist, is what is labelled an atheist.

 

It's difficult to get much more succinct than that.

 

Occam's razor.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
No Universals. No assumptions. Start with nothing. Be consistent. No Logic (since logic is a universal).

Ready Go!!!.

Wow, are you adept at denial...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I suppose for some absurd atheists, contradiction is okay then?

Who alleged that?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Professors say knowledge no, and you have all this knowledge.

That statement is non sequitur. And also syntax error.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
These are what I call things that make you go hmmm?

That's because your statement is nonsensical.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
One is french or purple? But french and purple are in different categories. 

Well that's the point, Captain Obvious.

You are the one making improper 'right/wrong' categorizations.

 

Like if one were to say 'french is wrong, purple is right'.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
These are in the exact same category and contradict in the same manner means and way with each other.

It's like say 2+2=4 and 2+2 = Nothing. Do you need me to teach you logic?

Your syntax is atrocious.

I'm not sure if your english is poor, or if you're sober. You write in the most convoluted gobbledygook I think I've ever read on the internet.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Demonstration is required to be looked at in a pattern of interpretation.

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate your theory.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
How is this empirical?

How is WHAT empirical?

What YOU are babbling about?

What YOU are babbling about is not even proper english, so, in essence, you're speaking in code.

It appears you are confusing 'interpretation' with 'interpolation'.

 

BTW, you're much like your 'god'. A lot of hype and self aggrandizing, but in reality, a big letdown...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi JCG,

Empiricism has no merit to define anything. The fact that you understand my sentence is a refutation to empiricism. Since my worldview allows for definition validly and soundly, the definition in defined from my normative of knowing itself.

Knowledge is interchangable with Faith and Belief. The blind faith thing crept it when liberals and atheists created Existialism and has nothing to do with historical Chrisitanity.

Before I came on this site, you guys had absolutely no idea what ontology or epistemology meant. You probably thought they were specific foods on a French Menu.

Now after I educate you, you then know everything about it to write a post. Is this comedy central. Pride is exhibited here. I refute atheism so badly, you must desperately try to drop the shovel that makes your hole deaper.

How true it is when Scripture says that only a fool declares in his heart there is no God (Ps. 14:1). For the heart is so wicked, you can't even know it (Jer 17:3). You evil prevents you from knowing (I Corinthians 1:14 vs. 1:16).

And again, this has yet to be addressed. Why are you so incredibly knowledable out of the classroom but in the Universities, knowledge is taught to be nil. This is an embarrassment for as an atheist. So who's wrong, you or the dozens of Universities in the country. Are Ph.d professors wrong when they say all is relative and there is no absolute truth, or are you wrong.

How do you even know?

In Christ is found all knowledge and wisdom. And that is found in Scripture. So it is a universal thing that you even know. You actually agree with me, but supress it due to your hate towards God (Romans 1:18).

And the sound of my victory, is silence from Bob.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

And now you think you are Christ as (from your posts) you equate yourself with him as the source of knowledge.

Isn't claiming godhead a sin?

 

"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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Wow, you actually responded

Wow, you actually responded to my post. Jean, you're awesome.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If I'm committing a false dichotomy, then it is your job to show me a 3rd alternative. Since you have failed to do this, I made a true dichotomy and I win, you lose.

Butterball, you need to learn how to reason.

Lmao.

Here's some Philosophy 101 for you Jean; introducing a 3rd alternative is not the only way to defeat a dichotomy, specifically an exclusive dichotomy. You asserted that a person had to believe in either induction or deduction, which is false, since these are complementary logical tools of gaining knowledge. In fact, imo, they are fundamentally the same in most ways; the only difference is that induction makes probabilistic arguments. So, your dichotomy is false in that a person can utilize deduction and induction.

And.......you're going to completely ignore this particular response and just insult me. That's why you're awesome. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
It can't be +1 since empiricism it antithetical to mathematics since mathematics assumes universals and is a priori. You must have do it empirically and not mathematically. You have failed again.

Haha, I'm sorry. I really wasn't reading your post closely. I just read "how do you get from 0 to 1" or something like that, so I figured....+1!

You could also take the factorial of zero. Any number to the zeroeth power (other than zero?).

Jean Chauvin wrote:
But just try harder and reason. Name 5 Public Universities that are non secular.

Que?

I believe public universities in the U.S. cannot explicitly have a religious agenda. That would violate our current interpretation of the first amendment.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Your absurdity is shown like a naked cowboy at a Greatful Dead concert.

Lol.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
BOB, an axiom IS A TRUTH. It is a self evident truth. That self evident truth is via the Imago Dei. It needs no justification. You again don't know what an axiom is.

Well then, I assert that Jean Chauvin is axiomatically an atheist. Now, it is now self evident truth.

You can't argue with me on that. It is self evident.

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:You can't

butterbattle wrote:

You can't argue with me on that. 

Oh, ye of little faith...

 

.


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

Given your vigorous application of scholastic methodology in your apologetic technique, you do a serious injustice to Martin Luther with your profile picture.

Maybe this would be more appropriate: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Calvin_2.jpg

 

 

 


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

Hello Red Nefk,

Addition is mathematics. Do you pass the 2nd grade?

And I have demonstrated my argument, not my theory, on more then one occasion. Go back and read it.

The rest of your comments are like the Brady Bunch Kids having Ozzy Ozborne as a daddy.

_____________________________________________________

Hi JCG,

I'm not sure if you're confused regarding my argument, or if you are trying to put me down. I don't equate myself with the source, but rather have the source speak for itself.

It's like taking a mirror and letting the light bend towards your direction. The light or knowledge is only found in Scripture alone. All honor and glory to Christ alone.

Christ Alone

Faith Alone

Grace Alone

Scripture Alone

Glory to God Alone.

______________________________________________________

Hi Butter Ball,

Of course, I've responsed to many of your posts.

While you are technically correct that demonstration a 3rd alternative is NOT the only way, but it is ONE way. People on here view epistemology as an dish on a French Menu. So the specifics are not always attempted since unless an exhaustive means is neccessary.

While inductive and deductive thinking can both be applied to a category of thought towards a task, such as replacing the alternator. Most use are either inductive or deductive towards that. However, to put this simply so all can understand, then way one approachs a project begs the question regarding epistemology since the project is not justified in reference to it being finished. It is probably finished.

I am very deductive both in my tasks, and my philosophy. That's how I'm wired. My textual critic instructor in very inductive. Which is fine regarding a task. But in the area of epistemology, the KNOWN, the issue must be raised, how can you crawl up to anything.

And even when you are inductive with a task, I argue that you really are not. Because you have past presuppositions that form your inductive thinking. Like my textual critic friend, He has some understanding before he approaches the text. But this is another issue.

However, regarding empiricism being purely 100% from experience for one to know, this is separate. I believe your charge is then somewhat of a categorical fallacy.

But, nevertheless, you have yet to show a 3rd alternative. So my first charge remains. Regarding KNOWING, not task orientation.

*******

Empricism doesn't know what a zero is. Can you experience a zero? What does a zero sound like? Is it pretty? Does a cuddle with a zero at night to helpyou fall asleep.

***

Regarding the Universities, so you agree? Before you called it a conspiracy. Funny stuff. Universities are suppose to educate regarding the particulars and the universals. They only discuss particulars since their is no logic for universals. Thus, they are not universities, but rather simply Brainwashing camps similar to the ones Hitler had for the attempt and soon successful means of the liberal take over of the world. If this is conspiracy, then Gordon Brown is a conspiracy theorist along with Time Magazine among others.

****

To simply assert an axiom is not an argument made. There must be implications that logically flow from the axioms and postulates. And these things must be argued consistency. Which mine does. To say I'm an atheist is inconsistent to the implication or particulars of my arguments, thus the assertion is refuted.

I like talking to you Butter Ball. But if you know philosophy, then you ought to know better. I will be harder with you then others.

_______________________________

Hi Optiongeek,

Very good. However, I argue more in line as Calvin. Calvin argued deductive via first principles. This can be found in his refutation to Roman Catholicism in "Tracts and Letters," Volume 1. It was first translated into English last year for the first time from the Latin.

However, Luther's RAA is something that is very fun and take and use often.

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: 5863
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I have had more important

I have had more important and urgent things to do recently, Jean, than read yet another example of your circular reasoning, naked assertions, non-sequiters, and general ignorance on the progress of understanding since your favorite authorities pontificated on these things.

Admittedly, just sitting around staring into space would be more productive than reading the crap you spew and trying to respond with something which might finally break thru the the wall of misunderstanding of just about everything you have surrounded yourself with.

Lets try one last(?) time:

Axioms are not universals.

They are assumptions of 'truth' within some specified formal system such as Math or Logic.

ALL coherent systems of thought, empirical, deductive, inductive, even the nonsensical quasi-discipline known as theology, assume the axioms of logic (LoI and LoNC) since without them no discussion can lead anywhere, or perhaps it can lead everywhere, if every proposition is allowed to possibly both true and false, and any entity can be conflated with any other..

Mathematics is NOT 'a priori', it FOLLOWS by deduction from the axioms of logic, plus a set of definitions of things like number, addition, subtraction, etc.

'2+2=4' directly follows from the DEFINITIONS of '2', '4', 'equality' and the process represented by '+'. It is ultimately, like all deductive propositions, a tautology, something ultimately implied by, effectively contained within, the axioms and definitions of the subject area. To deny it would be to deny the definitions which in turn define the discipline of Math.

Math itself is only conditionally true, in a more universal sense, to the degree to which its axioms and definitions can be successfully and closely mapped to empirical observations of reality.

Empiricism, or what I mean when I use the term, is the process of discovering what is most likely, most probable, to be true, based on observation and measurement of what presents itself to us as apparent reality, via our senses, including the observation of the output of measuring instruments to augment our very imperfect sensory equipment. This is reinforced by cross-correlation wherever possible, with any proposition that is supported by, is consistent with,  more diverse observations than alternatives, justifies us regarding with increased confidence, assuming of course that there are potential, possible observations that would falsify it. This correlation, this self-reference, is the 'reference' behind it.

The 'knowledge' acquired by this process does have a caveat that it has not been established 100%, but as long as a complete statement of each item includes a statement of the estimated degree of uncertainty attached, then that complete statement itself is 100% true.

This is the category of knowledge used to design and construct the whole system we are employing to communicate with each other here. The accuracy with which your words are conveyed to us, which you can confirm in our quoted responses, constitute direct confirmation of the utility of the empirical/inductive enterprise, which is all we can ultimately hope for.

OTOH the existence and nature of God or Christ are about as far from certainty as one can get, therefore cannot be employed to justify anything.

 

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello Red

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello Red Nefk,

Addition is mathematics. Do you pass the 2nd grade?

Of course not. That's why I was able to form an aerospace based company, of which I am the sole proprietor and lead engineer.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And I have demonstrated my argument, not my theory, on more then one occasion. Go back and read it.

I've already commented quite a lot on how atrocious your 'arguments' are, in my previous post. Which is why you've not attempted to argue my appraisals of them, and instead, gone on to behave in an oblivious and oppositional, yet vacuous manner.

The bottom line is, I shut you down, so you go looking for somewhere to engage in circular arguments, because you like an outlet to make noise...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The rest of your comments are like the Brady Bunch Kids having Ozzy Ozborne as a daddy.

Ouch...

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3718
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:While you

Jean Chauvin wrote:
While you are technically correct that demonstration a 3rd alternative is NOT the only way, but it is ONE way.

That's peachy keen Jean. I don't care; I used a different way.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Can you experience a zero?

Can you experience an abstraction? Can you experience a sinusoidal function?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Regarding the Universities, so you agree?

Only to the extent that I agree that you're well trained in logic. Which is, not at all.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Thus, they are not universities, but rather simply Brainwashing camps similar to the ones Hitler had for the attempt and soon successful means of the liberal take over of the world.

Lol.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
To simply assert an axiom is not an argument made.

Oh? Well, I'm glad you actually understand that. Now you just need to apply it to your worldview.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
There must be implications that logically flow from the axioms and postulates. And these things must be argued consistency. Which mine does.

Sure it does.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
To say I'm an atheist is inconsistent to the implication or particulars of my arguments, thus the assertion is refuted.

That assumes that you're actually serious about what you're arguing. It's possible that you're an atheist pretending to be a theist. Ever heard of Poe's Law?

 

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


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

What does 'Luther's RAA' mean? Also, out of interest, where are you from and what is your church background?

Peace

Options

 


Bufferkiller
Bufferkiller's picture
Posts: 11
Joined: 2011-02-05
User is offlineOffline
The title of this thread is

The title of this thread is misleading...


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Not at all

 

Bufferkiller wrote:

The title of this thread is misleading...

 

The contents of the thread prove Jean was absolutely right. Intelligent theists are rare. Of course Jean may well be a Poe and if not he's got a fine sense of humour to go with his godly delusions. Glad this thread was reborn. Thanks for the chuckles Butter, Red, Jean. 

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