The Arts in General Can Only Have Meaning Via A Christian Worldview

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
The Arts in General Can Only Have Meaning Via A Christian Worldview

Non-Christian Cannot Understand Beauty, Meaning, Purpose, In Anything.

Since non-Christians lack an epistemology, they cannot give meaning, purpose, beauty, or truth to anything. They must be within the realm of "opinion" all the time. They are even taught this in Universities that:

"ALL IS RELATIVE."

The funny thing is, they even admit this. The Universities have helped me in my work. So if no meaning or truth or beauty is possible period, then art and beauty are a zero and you are a zero and you are worthless.

Now of course, you can be subjective and  pour subjective meaning into yourself. But this is non-meaning since it is a particular tied into nothing. You are a grain of sand full of nothing. You are empty.

And thus, via objectivity, you have no objective beauty, justice, truth, knowledge, purpose, meaning, goodness, right or wrong, etc. You are a no thing.

Now of course, you are not going to admit this (unless you're honest). You are going to try to put a pretty wrapper on it. Or maybe say you are going to "borrow" from the Christian form of ethics and morals (this is what Dan Barker says from Freedom of Religion).

And if this is the case, art, poetry,music, comedy cannot "exist." In order to do these things, especially comedy, you have to ignore your "religion" of atheism, and step into Christian thinking to enjoy or even understand this. So you are inconsistent in your own faith.

Oh, lack of faith. That's right. I don't want to forget the so called "Soft Atheists" on here (George Smith - a case against God).

So, pull out that little atheist handbook of arguments (I have one too), and try again.

But in reality, you can't. Because this is the logical consistent line of thinking. You have no soul. You are worth less then the dust and the poop that gives food to nothing humans.

This is why Sarte and others believed death was the ultra Existential Experience. And this is why Sarte had to warn his class (advance class) not to kill themselves before he began the course.

So to my meaningless zeros, how can you post anything about art. How can you even understand what I am saying Since all is relative. It is as Heraclitus said, "you cannot step in the same river twice,"

And why his disciple took a vow of silence, since what you spoke was something else by the time it reached his ears. There is no meaning.

Start living consistently. Since anybody who responds to this refutes their relativity of nothing by claiming to understand my language via universalities.

Think as Duchamp thought. A Canvas is a dusty rear and you must paint to hurt. There is no meaning like Jackson Pullock believed and John Cage in music. BE CONSISTENT!!!

Be consistent as a nothing. And stop borrowing Christian thinking in your non Christian worldview. You are a zero, a no thing. That is your reality as an atheist. Enjoy it or become a Christian.

Those are your only two options in the reality of truth. A skeptic is the most consistent you can be.

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).


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
 I'm an atheist, since I do

 I'm an atheist, since I do not believe in Christianity I don't believe Non-Christian Cannot Understand Beauty, Meaning, Purpose, In Anything, the burden or proof is on you to show me that this is true. 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.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
First off, why should I take

First off, why should I take your straw man of atheism seriously?

Next, why pin your art to such a limiting (and limited) worldview?

Oh, btw, agnostic atheist stage actor here. Hi.

"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


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

Hi Rat Dog,

An assertion is not an argument. Come on, you should know this.

The difference here, is that Christianity claims an epistemology. They claim one. All knowledge and wisdom is in Christ (Colossians 2:3). You, within your own system of atheism admit there is no epistemology. All is relative. There is no absolute truth.

So you cannot say this in a desperate attempt to try to swiggle out of it. If your position claims no knowledge, then how can you claim knowledge? I believe in math we have:

No Knowledge + No Knowledge = No Knowledge (all the time).

I claim:

Knowledge + Knowledge = Knowledge (all the time).

We are just talking about claims right now, (assertions).  We have yet to justify those assertions.

You are making this to easy for me. Come on, try a little harder.

Are you saying that all the Universities are wrong, and that all is NOT relativity. I agree with you. If you would like to step over on my side and claim that, I welcome you. Come on over, it's not as hot over here.

But, if you stay on your side, you can't claim anything. If you would like to know the arguments for my epistemology, that's one thing. But at least I claim to have one, you don't even claim to have one.

If you don't claim to have one, then how can you claim to have one? Are we smoking pot over there? Smiling I thought this was a rational response squad???

__________________

Regarding the other post that I did straw man. Where did I do a straw man? Shall I quote Dan Barker from Freedom of Religion Foundation. Shall I quote George Smith a Case against God for you regarding soft atheism. Why should I have to do your own homework.

There are so many different kinds of atheists and agnostics and free thinkers now, I could write a book. I use to hang out at an atheist "Church" in Portland Oregon (Center for Rational Thought). I was undercover as a Christian. They passed the plate around for money. I saw so many different atheists come in I could not keep track.

So perhaps you are a new homegrown atheist. You must define your terms. But I did not straw man since atheists themselves admit this (educated ones).

I'm afraid that I know more about atheism then you do. If you wish to be honest, then you must be consistent.

Let's do it this way. How about you give me an atheistic epistemology. If you can do this, then you win and all the Universities are wrong. Let me help you. How about make a valid claim for empiricism. You must choose one since there are more then one.

Your epistemology must claim absolute knowledge and it must be valid and sound. If you fail to do this, then the Universities are right and I am right and you lose.

Ready, Go!

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi Rat

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rat Dog,

An assertion is not an argument. Come on, you should know this.

The difference here, is that Christianity claims an epistemology. They claim one. All knowledge and wisdom is in Christ (Colossians 2:3). You, within your own system of atheism admit there is no epistemology. All is relative. There is no absolute truth.

So you cannot say this in a desperate attempt to try to swiggle out of it. If your position claims no knowledge, then how can you claim knowledge? I believe in math we have:

No Knowledge + No Knowledge = No Knowledge (all the time).

I claim:

Knowledge + Knowledge = Knowledge (all the time).

We are just talking about claims right now, (assertions).  We have yet to justify those assertions.

You are making this to easy for me. Come on, try a little harder.

Are you saying that all the Universities are wrong, and that all is NOT relativity. I agree with you. If you would like to step over on my side and claim that, I welcome you. Come on over, it's not as hot over here.

But, if you stay on your side, you can't claim anything. If you would like to know the arguments for my epistemology, that's one thing. But at least I claim to have one, you don't even claim to have one.

If you don't claim to have one, then how can you claim to have one? Are we smoking pot over there? Smiling I thought this was a rational response squad???

__________________

Regarding the other post that I did straw man. Where did I do a straw man? Shall I quote Dan Barker from Freedom of Religion Foundation. Shall I quote George Smith a Case against God for you regarding soft atheism. Why should I have to do your own homework.

There are so many different kinds of atheists and agnostics and free thinkers now, I could write a book. I use to hang out at an atheist "Church" in Portland Oregon (Center for Rational Thought). I was undercover as a Christian. They passed the plate around for money. I saw so many different atheists come in I could not keep track.

So perhaps you are a new homegrown atheist. You must define your terms. But I did not straw man since atheists themselves admit this (educated ones).

I'm afraid that I know more about atheism then you do. If you wish to be honest, then you must be consistent.

Let's do it this way. How about you give me an atheistic epistemology. If you can do this, then you win and all the Universities are wrong. Let me help you. How about make a valid claim for empiricism. You must choose one since there are more then one.

Your epistemology must claim absolute knowledge and it must be valid and sound. If you fail to do this, then the Universities are right and I am right and you lose.

Ready, Go!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Since you don't know the name of Barker's organization, I question the veracity of your quote. Now to the rest...

How does bringing one's purpose with you equate to "no purpose"? Are you really that intellectually lazy that you can't think up a reason for your own existence and you have to borrow one from eons ago?

Oh, and in case you were wondering, that's where your straw man is at. It is quite possible to have a purpose for your existence and be able to appreciate the arts without having to kiss up to an ancient Canaanite deity whose chosen people really had no art to speak of. 

Or are you just here to lie for Jesus? If so, take a number - there are a lot of folk in front of you.

"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


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

Hi JCG,

What, freedom from religion foundation. I don't think I got that wrong did I? I've called them and talked to Dan several times. Oh, you did that so you could feel better about your atheism being a no thing didn't you. I'm pretty sure it's called "Freedom from Religion Foundation." Located in Wisconsin. No? Onto your response.

Why question the veracity of the rest. You mean if a person makes a mistake, their whole argument is a mistake? This is also a logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (because of this then that). If you want your position to be credible, stop making logical fallacies. 

Your Question:

"How does bringing one's purpose with you equate to "no purpose"?

The rest of the question is argumentum ad hominem abusive, which in logic does not deserve an answer since it is again, a logical fallacy. But I'm very glad you asked that question, it is a very good question.

Because a subjective anything is always a particular. And a particular cannot have meaning unless it is connective to a universal. This is why Plato and Aristotle disagreed. Plato believed in Universals forms, and Aristotle believes in particulars. But in order to have knowledge, you must have both. You must have meaning to the particulars via universals.

As an atheist, you can't do this. You are stuck with Aristotle's view of only particulars. And in math when you only have particulars:

particulars + particulars = particulars (all the time).

And a particular without a universal (you with art), has no meaning since no knowledge or truth can come to it objectively via universals. You are alone and you are worthless. If you are worthless since you are  an isolated nothing, then all the subjective brainwashing isn't going to matter in the realm of objective reality.

If you pour a particular into a particular, you always get a particular. If you pour subjective thinking into a particular, then you still have nothing. And thus art, beauty, justice, truth, knowledge is unattainable.

Remember, this is suppose to be about logic. Logic is objective to reality. You can't even reason with me as a particular since logic is a universal. You are a lonely isolated particular, you are nothing (no thing) in the realm of objective reality.

This is why my Skeptic friends say, that you would not even know what truth was if it hit you in the face since you are a particular connected to nothing. So if you want to be more consistent in paganism, stop being an atheist and become a Skeptic. Then we can talk more intellectually.

You Say:

"Oh, and in case you were wondering, that's where your straw man is at. It is quite possible to have a purpose for your existence and be able to appreciate the arts without having to kiss up to an ancient Canaanite deity whose chosen people really had no art to speak of. "

Okay. Well, you did another logical ad hominem fallacy. But there's what you would expect from isolated particulars with no universals and no knowledge or truth. This is all consistent.  But you don't know what a straw man is.

A straw man is making up your opponents argument that isn't there and then knocking it down. I did not do this since you agree with me that you are subjective in your thinking. Remember, the first question. So I represented that correctly. You are just upset that I called you on it. That's not a straw man.

I would recommend an Introduction to Logic Course by Cohen. It's pretty cheap on Amazon.

You Said:

"Or are you just here to lie for Jesus? If so, take a number - there are a lot of folk in front of you."
 

This is yet again, another logical fallacy. I thought this was about reason response or something. What's with all the logical fallacies. I am giving logical arguments. You have met a Christian of intelligence for your first time and you are upset? Let's put the logical fallacies. away and try, just try to reason with me. Again, you will have to step over on my side to do this, but that's okay. It's not as hot over here.

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi JCG,

What, freedom from religion foundation. I don't think I got that wrong did I? I've called them and talked to Dan several times. Oh, you did that so you could feel better about your atheism being a no thing didn't you. I'm pretty sure it's called "Freedom from Religion Foundation." Located in Wisconsin. No? Onto your response.

Why question the veracity of the rest. You mean if a person makes a mistake, their whole argument is a mistake? This is also a logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc (because of this then that). If you want your position to be credible, stop making logical fallacies. 

Your Question:

"How does bringing one's purpose with you equate to "no purpose"?

The rest of the question is argumentum ad hominem abusive, which in logic does not deserve an answer since it is again, a logical fallacy. But I'm very glad you asked that question, it is a very good question.

Because a subjective anything is always a particular. And a particular cannot have meaning unless it is connective to a universal. This is why Plato and Aristotle disagreed. Plato believed in Universals forms, and Aristotle believes in particulars. But in order to have knowledge, you must have both. You must have meaning to the particulars via universals.

As an atheist, you can't do this. You are stuck with Aristotle's view of only particulars. And in math when you only have particulars:

particulars + particulars = particulars (all the time).

And a particular without a universal (you with art), has no meaning since no knowledge or truth can come to it objectively via universals. You are alone and you are worthless. If you are worthless since you are  an isolated nothing, then all the subjective brainwashing isn't going to matter in the realm of objective reality.

If you pour a particular into a particular, you always get a particular. If you pour subjective thinking into a particular, then you still have nothing. And thus art, beauty, justice, truth, knowledge is unattainable.

Remember, this is suppose to be about logic. Logic is objective to reality. You can't even reason with me as a particular since logic is a universal. You are a lonely isolated particular, you are nothing (no thing) in the realm of objective reality.

This is why my Skeptic friends say, that you would not even know what truth was if it hit you in the face since you are a particular connected to nothing. So if you want to be more consistent in paganism, stop being an atheist and become a Skeptic. Then we can talk more intellectually.

You Say:

"Oh, and in case you were wondering, that's where your straw man is at. It is quite possible to have a purpose for your existence and be able to appreciate the arts without having to kiss up to an ancient Canaanite deity whose chosen people really had no art to speak of. "

Okay. Well, you did another logical ad hominem fallacy. But there's what you would expect from isolated particulars with no universals and no knowledge or truth. This is all consistent.  But you don't know what a straw man is.

A straw man is making up your opponents argument that isn't there and then knocking it down. I did not do this since you agree with me that you are subjective in your thinking. Remember, the first question. So I represented that correctly. You are just upset that I called you on it. That's not a straw man.

I would recommend an Introduction to Logic Course by Cohen. It's pretty cheap on Amazon.

You Said:

"Or are you just here to lie for Jesus? If so, take a number - there are a lot of folk in front of you."
 

This is yet again, another logical fallacy. I thought this was about reason response or something. What's with all the logical fallacies. I am giving logical arguments. You have met a Christian of intelligence for your first time and you are upset? Let's put the logical fallacies. away and try, just try to reason with me. Again, you will have to step over on my side to do this, but that's okay. It's not as hot over here.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You called it the "freedom of religion foundation" - that's where the question came from.

I see, you are arguing from a strictly academic view. Reality rarely falls into academic pigeonholes.

No ad hominem attacks at all unless you are equating attacking your argument (which I did) with attacking you. Oh, and you haven't represented atheism correctly yet - that's why you're building straw men. You are attacking a position that no one holds.

As for the last, it's only an insult if it's not true. So, are you lying for Jesus or not? I don't think you can really call yourself a skeptic if you swallow Christianity hook, line and sinker (as it appears from your posts you have).

You haven't met an agnostic atheist actor until now. I am a living, breathing counterexample to your argument and the best you can do is insist that I can't exist. sorry to disappoint you pal but I'm still here - in fact, I plan to direct in the near future.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13599
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Non-Christian Cannot

Quote:
Non-Christian Cannot Understand Beauty, Meaning, Purpose, In Anything.

Ok, so you have crawled into the brains of 6 billion people and decided for them that they are not capable of being happy unless they belong to your particular sky daddy gang club?

Go look up "naked assertion" before you spew such garbage.

I find lots of meaning and beauty in life. I simply do not assign life to comic book super heros vs comic book villains.

I find beauty in my mother, in my pets, and my friends and even those who believe things I find absurd.

What I don't do is mistake something being pretty as being magical. I find an ocean view pretty on a calm day, but I find no evil in a hurricane. I wouldn't assign that hurricane to Possiden anymore than you would assign it to Allah or Thor or Lex Luthor.

The sunset and sunrise on a calm day doesn't change the fact that in the future that STAR will expand and fry the entire planet and all life on it.

Meaning in life is what one makes it. If you want to base your morality and meaning on an ancient book of superstition, I cannot stop you. But you are dead wrong in thinking that because I don't buy into your invisible Santa in the sky that I cant see good in life.

When you go to a sporting event or movie, you know those things will end and do not last forever. Does the fact that they don't last stop you from going?

There is no magic to life and there is no super parent watching us. Good things and bad things happen to every human and the ultimate bad thing happens to all of us. What matters to me, is not myth, but doing my best here and now and none of it is based on fictional utopias.

I do not need you to tell me what I find meaning in, or what happiness is. I am fine without your superstition. I am sorry that bothers you. but that is your problem, not mine.

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


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

HI JCG,

I am arguing technically since this forum is about reason. I agree, I have yet to see a Christian on here do this sadly. The Liberals have attacked our culture with full force, and this has dumbed down Christians. This is simple history. 200 years ago, most Christians would be logical like me. Disagree with me find, but I present logical valid arguments. 

An argument can be false, and yet valid, and an argument can be invalid and true. I make valid arguments though you disagree with the soundness. The debate on here is regarding the soundness of my arguments. I would hope we an do this respectfully.

You Said:

"You called it the "freedom of religion foundation" - that's where the question came from."

Oh, a typing error. My Mistake.

 

You Said:

"I see, you are arguing from a strictly academic view. Reality rarely falls into academic pigeonholes."

Not sure what you mean by academic. If that means intelligible, then yes. I am using logical reason. Not emotional argument like most. This is the "Reason Response Squad, so you are telling me that reason falls into pigeonholes? I would agree with you when it comes to atheism. That's my whole point. Perhaps this is not what you mean by academic?

You Said:

"No ad hominem attacks at all unless you are equating attacking your argument (which I did) with attacking you. Oh, and you haven't represented atheism correctly yet - that's why you're building straw men. You are attacking a position that no one holds."

An argumentum ad hominem abusive, according to Cohen's definition is:

"The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself." I also represented various kinds of atheism. There is more then one flavor. There are many atheistic denominations. Did you not know this?  I did not write upon a complete list of atheist denominations, but gave a few examples. I can refer you to a book if you wish to read of a full list.

You Said:

"As for the last, it's only an insult if it's not true. So, are you lying for Jesus or not? I don't think you can really call yourself a skeptic if you swallow Christianity hook, line and sinker (as it appears from your posts you have)."

Insult? I did not speak of insults, but of logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is a distraction from reason. This is what you did. I have not give you specifics about Christian logic, and I am not trying to hook anybody. I am simply showing the absurdity and the epistemological contradictions of atheists themselves. Would you like me to give you a Christian argument of epistemology. Simply ask, and I will. 

You Said:

"You haven't met an agnostic atheist actor until now. I am a living, breathing counterexample to your argument and the best you can do is insist that I can't exist. sorry to disappoint you pal but I'm still here - in fact, I plan to direct in the near future."

I've met several (hundreds) of agnostics. Perhaps not actors. That's because actors tend to justify their poor behavior by denying the Christian God. Usually the bad behavior goes first, then the bad theology. I''m not saying this happened to you, because I don't know you. But this is usually the case.

If you are an agnostic, then why do you care about the various definitions of atheists. Odd?

You know what Madalyn Murray O'Hair said about agnostics? You do know who she is don't you? anyway, here is her quote:

"An Agnostic is an Atheist, with No Guts!!!"

I tend to agree.

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).


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3706
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Non-Christian Cannot Understand Beauty, Meaning, Purpose, In Anything.

Since non-Christians lack an epistemology, they cannot give meaning, purpose, beauty, or truth to anything.

They must be within the realm of "opinion" all the time.

Correct.

Although, it's not just Christians with the "epistemology," of course. You've merely nakedly asserted a source of absolute morality. Anyone else who makes the assertion is on the same footing.

Edit: Ooohh, except for truth. We can refer to the external world for that one.

Edit: And maybe purpose. I mean, I don't "give" myself purpose. I simply have purpose; I have reasons for doing things.

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


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I am

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I am arguing technically since this forum is about reason. I agree, I have yet to see a Christian on here do this sadly. The Liberals have attacked our culture with full force, and this has dumbed down Christians. This is simple history. 200 years ago, most Christians would be logical like me.

Nope. 200 years ago Christians were as superstitious as they are now. The main difference is that now a much larger fraction of them are literate and are thus able to pollute our information highways with their drivel. Back then, only the very elite were educated enough to write down what they thought.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5099
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
You really are full of shit, Jean. Or are you MoM?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Non-Christian Cannot Understand Beauty, Meaning, Purpose, In Anything.

Since non-Christians lack an epistemology, they cannot give meaning, purpose, beauty, or truth to anything. They must be within the realm of "opinion" all the time. They are even taught this in Universities that:

"ALL IS RELATIVE."

The funny thing is, they even admit this. The Universities have helped me in my work. So if no meaning or truth or beauty is possible period, then art and beauty are a zero and you are a zero and you are worthless.

Now of course, you can be subjective and  pour subjective meaning into yourself. But this is non-meaning since it is a particular tied into nothing. You are a grain of sand full of nothing. You are empty.

And thus, via objectivity, you have no objective beauty, justice, truth, knowledge, purpose, meaning, goodness, right or wrong, etc. You are a no thing.

Now of course, you are not going to admit this (unless you're honest). You are going to try to put a pretty wrapper on it. Or maybe say you are going to "borrow" from the Christian form of ethics and morals (this is what Dan Barker says from Freedom of Religion).

And if this is the case, art, poetry,music, comedy cannot "exist." In order to do these things, especially comedy, you have to ignore your "religion" of atheism, and step into Christian thinking to enjoy or even understand this. So you are inconsistent in your own faith.

Oh, lack of faith. That's right. I don't want to forget the so called "Soft Atheists" on here (George Smith - a case against God).

So, pull out that little atheist handbook of arguments (I have one too), and try again.

But in reality, you can't. Because this is the logical consistent line of thinking. You have no soul. You are worth less then the dust and the poop that gives food to nothing humans.

This is why Sarte and others believed death was the ultra Existential Experience. And this is why Sarte had to warn his class (advance class) not to kill themselves before he began the course.

So to my meaningless zeros, how can you post anything about art. How can you even understand what I am saying Since all is relative. It is as Heraclitus said, "you cannot step in the same river twice,"

And why his disciple took a vow of silence, since what you spoke was something else by the time it reached his ears. There is no meaning.

Start living consistently. Since anybody who responds to this refutes their relativity of nothing by claiming to understand my language via universalities.

Think as Duchamp thought. A Canvas is a dusty rear and you must paint to hurt. There is no meaning like Jackson Pullock believed and John Cage in music. BE CONSISTENT!!!

Be consistent as a nothing. And stop borrowing Christian thinking in your non Christian worldview. You are a zero, a no thing. That is your reality as an atheist. Enjoy it or become a Christian.

Those are your only two options in the reality of truth. A skeptic is the most consistent you can be.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

The christian attempt to trademark human morality gives you no ownership of it. And try explaining to me how things like music, art, literature and subjective appreciation of beauty have any connection to morality or to christian thinking in the smallest way. None of the limbic elevation of these things relates to god or morality. And there's no need to use god to appreciate them with the higher mind. All that's required is knowledge and experience.

Feel free to give us some sort of coherent proof of the soul you imply must exist to give access to all these wonders so's we're hauled from the mire of being empty grains of sand and delivered into the light of meaning. In fact why not try to define soul so we can revel in the profundity of your thinking.

Given the total lack of positive evidence for your case, it's more than fair to say that this nothingness of humanism you're spouting is what drove the creation of religion and it's your pathetic human need for hugs from daddy that keeps you insisting there somehow exists some fundamental difference in the objective realities experienced by christians and non christians. Obviously it's your personal religious experience that is completely subjective. 

I'm forced to assume for all your claimed rationality you are just another noisy theist who believes the concept of abiogenesis suggests we came from rocks.

 

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Hi againRead this

Hi again

Read this http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist

It might clear up your confusion.

"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


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

Reality is measurable.  Height, width, depth, radiation (of all kinds), chemical changes, velocity, acceleration, etc. 

Emotions are measurable, including love, hate, indifference, awe, wonder, etc.  We can measure hormone levels in the bloodstream and the electromagnetic responses in the brain.  We know this is true, otherwise the manufacturing companies that make serotonin uptake inhibitors (aka anti-depressants) would all go broke.  Emotions are chemistry and are therefore measurable.

We can measure our response to beauty.  See Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention by Stanislas Dehaene.   Dr. Dehaene recounts a patient's response to Jennifer Aniston - if the patient saw a picture of her, in any pose, or if he saw the words "Jenifer Aniston" this one neuron in his brain would fire.  They found it accidentally as the patient was in for surgery for epilepsy and they just happened to plant an electrode in this particular neuron.  Mind you, since I am almost 60 years old, female, and very heterosexual, I guess she is okay looking. 

Beauty is also measurable.  See "The Human Face" starring John Cleese and Elizabeth Hurley.  Ms. Hurley is used as a model as her face is in almost perfect proportions.  The magic number?  The golden mean.  Studies gave people a number of pictures and asked them to arrange the pictures from prettiest to ugliest.  And they used pictures in different ethnic groups.  Everyone arranged the pictures in almost identical order - everyone agreed on the prettiest and the ugliest.  There was some variation in the middle.  The mean is also associated with increased athletic ability.  So it is perhaps not surprising that we have a fixed idea of what human beauty is.

If you ever take a photography or art class, you will learn about composition.  What proportions are most pleasing to the viewer.  So you can make a pleasing artwork or deliberately not pleasing.  You will notice that god/s/dess need not be mentioned at any time.  That cultural differences have no affect in the general principles of pleasing proportions and composition.  Beauty can be measured.

Therefore, god/s/dess is not necessary or required nor is an "epistemology".  Everyone in every culture of any or no religion agrees on what beauty, harmony, and pleasant vistas look like.

Does god/s/dess tweet you daily?  Then you are just like me, stumbling around, putting one foot in front of the other, and making up your purpose in life as you go about your day.  Truth?  Who needs it?  We have a good enough idea of what is true to manage to live and reproduce and occasionally have a good time.  What more do we need and how is a theist all that different from the atheist?

 

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

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

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Non-Christian Cannot Understand Beauty, Meaning, Purpose, In Anything.

Since non-Christians lack an epistemology, they cannot give meaning, purpose, beauty, or truth to anything. They must be within the realm of "opinion" all the time. They are even taught this in Universities that:

"ALL IS RELATIVE."

 

 

What do you smoke?

Epistemology has been introduced less than 200 years ago.  Are you saying that between the introduction of Jesus in contemporary popular literature in the first 5 centuries AC and the middle of 19th century Christians had no meaning, purpose, beauty, or truth to anything?  

 

And you know what, I would agree with you!

 


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian 47

Hi Brian 47.

The RedSkins are going to lose this year. I'm sorry. Unto your hostile.

You Said:

"Ok, so you have crawled into the brains of 6 billion people and decided for them that they are not capable of being happy unless they belong to your particular sky daddy gang club?"

Well, you have to define what you mean by happy. Happiness is possible for those who hate God and those whom God hates. The Bible talks about a worldly peace. So yes. But happiness is an temporary emotion. So yes, you can be happy for a while. This is known in logic as "begging the question." This logical fallacy says that the way you set up the question, forces one into isolated choices. Not only is your question wrong, it is a logical fallacy. Not a good way to start out. Hopefully you get better.

You Said:

"I find lots of meaning and beauty in life. I simply do not assign life to comic book super heros vs comic book villains."

Okay. What does it look like? Is a cross in a jar of piss beautiful? How about Duchamp's descending staircase.  Please justify this beauty you see via universal definitions of connotative state and an epistemology of such. If you cannot do this, then how do you know you find beauty? What if you are deceived and what you think is beauty is really ugly?

My satanic friends say what is bad is good, what is ugly is beautiful, what is sour is sweet. How do you refute them? Do you just say to each their own? If you do this, then logically, you have NOT found beauty. So try again.

You Said:

"What I don't do is mistake something being pretty as being magical. I find an ocean view pretty on a calm day, but I find no evil in a hurricane. I wouldn't assign that hurricane to Possiden anymore than you would assign it to Allah or Thor or Lex Luthor."

Oh, is that another logical fallacy? a logical fallacy is a distraction and is within absurdity. This is happens when somebody panics. Relax, and put the logical fallacies away and argue with me. Next.

You Said:

"The sunset and sunrise on a calm day doesn't change the fact that in the future that STAR will expand and fry the entire planet and all life on it."

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Please be more clear.

You Said:

"Meaning in life is what one makes it. If you want to base your morality and meaning on an ancient book of superstition, I cannot stop you. But you are dead wrong in thinking that because I don't buy into your invisible Santa in the sky that I cant see good in life."

Oh, so then knowledge is not possible? We agree? It is subjective feelings and there are no universals? right? So then if you agree, then logically via consistency, an atheist cannot know, cannot do science, cannot know what is right and wrong, and cannot know if a sunset is beautiful. You are kind of agreeing with me. No? Try again, because it is sounding more like my argument.

You Said:

"When you go to a sporting event or movie, you know those things will end and do not last forever. Does the fact that they don't last stop you from going?"

You KNOW those things will end? Define Knowing. Because Biblical Knowledge is a variable with absolute zero error. Since you are trapped in time and space, and bound by time and space, you do not know if it's going to end since you have not experienced it that time. You must experience the same moment infinite amount of times for you to know. This would require that you are eternal (immutable). Since you are not, you do not know.

I know, maybe you can redefine knowledge into not knowledge, and call it knowledge anyway. Liberals are good at that. Just make one up. After all, all is subjective. Pour in your own thinking. Why argue with me if you are subjective? You are attempting to argue with me objectivity thus refuting your subjective thesis of beauty. Funny stuff.

You Said:

"There is no magic to life and there is no super parent watching us. Good things and bad things happen to every human and the ultimate bad thing happens to all of us. What matters to me, is not myth, but doing my best here and now and none of it is based on fictional utopias."

Not sure what you mean by magic? You mean magick of Alister Crowley (Golden Dawn, OTO etc). Or do you mean magic in Cinderella? I agree with you. In fact, the Bible says those who practice magic are false prophets and bad buys (Deut 18:18).

Parents? You man a husband and a wife? I'm not a Mormon. You've reached the wrong phone number on that one. And fictional Utopias, you mean the fictional

atheistic Utopian theory of Karl Marx and Engel regarding the Utopia of Socialism. I believe Socialism has evolved into an atheistic mode of economics. Oh, you are not trying to do double talk are you?

I am really not impressed. Full of logical fallacies and distractions. I was looking forward to the whoopass, and I got everything accept the whoop part.

A Joke!!!

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5099
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But beauty is completely subjective

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Okay. What does it look like? Is a cross in a jar of piss beautiful? How about Duchamp's descending staircase.  Please justify this beauty you see via universal definitions of connotative state and an epistemology of such. If you cannot do this, then how do you know you find beauty? What if you are deceived and what you think is beauty is really ugly?

My satanic friends say what is bad is good, what is ugly is beautiful, what is sour is sweet. How do you refute them? Do you just say to each their own? If you do this, then logically, you have NOT found beauty. So try again.

 

Why don't we start with you defining beauty, Jean? A definition capable of encompassing every beautiful thing from a cluster of musical notes, to a flow of words, from a stretch of beach to a kiss on the back of the neck. Beauty. It's a label, not a specification.

The problem you have is a vast capacity for the relentless reification of ambiguous human concepts. Language is your enemy.

 

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


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

Hi ExtermeAtheist and Others,

You Said:

"The christian attempt to trademark human morality gives you no ownership of it. And try explaining to me how things like music, art, literature and subjective appreciation of beauty have any connection to morality or to christian thinking in the smallest way. None of the limbic elevation of these things relates to god or morality. And there's no need to"

Well, you have yet to give me an objective justification for any of these things. This is because you cannot. If you can show me. The Christian position is the only position via logic that can justify meaning and purpose in these categories. It is not a trademark, it's reality which you as an atheist don't even know what reality is since all is subjective.

And since God axiomatically created all, then logically these categories have meaning and purpose via the Cause and Effect relationship of the designer. The more you are aware of this, the more you can appreciate the attributes of these categories and actually being to conduct yourself in true Science.

You Said:

"Feel free to give us some sort of coherent proof of the soul you imply must exist to give access to all these wonders so's we're hauled from the mire of being empty grains of sand and delivered into the light of meaning. In fact why not try to define soul so we can revel in the profundity of your thinking."

Since you asked, why not.

I argue FROM God's Being, not FOR God's Being. Thus God is and His Word Is Axiomatically. Thus all of God's Instructions or implications are theorums of those axioms. Thus if God says ABC, then logically we would expect to find ABC. And this is the evidence of the consistency of the axiom.

So if God says He made the stars and the Universe, and then we encounter the stars and the universe, and the fish and the trees, then logically this DEMONSTRATES (not supports) the consistency of the argument and is the evidence thereof.

Therefore, your question regarding souls are found in the Bible via the implications of God's Axiom being God's Word. Now, if you would like to do a Bible study regarding the Hebrew word nephessh or the Greek Word psyche, we can do this. I happen to know Greek so this may be fun. It's always fun doing Bible studies with Atheists.

You Said:

"Given the total lack of positive evidence for your case, it's more than fair to say that this nothingness of humanism you're spouting is what drove the creation of religion and it's your pathetic human need for hugs from daddy that keeps you insisting there somehow exists some fundamental difference in the objective realities experienced by christians and non christians. Obviously it's your personal religious experience that is completely subjective. "

These are again, logical fallacies. Your brain's transmission feel right out of the car and you have a cracked block. When you are done with the name calling, look me up.

You Said:

"I'm forced to assume for all your claimed rationality you are just another noisy theist who believes the concept of abiogenesis suggests we came from rocks."

Oh goody. If you have no answers to my basic logically claims, and you have no answers, for atheism, then you have no answers. Period.

________________________________________

Hi CJ,

You Said:

"Reality is measurable.  Height, width, depth, radiation (of all kinds), chemical changes, velocity, acceleration, etc."

You've asserted without justification. This is not an argument.

You Said:

"Emotions are measurable, including love, hate, indifference, awe, wonder, etc.  We can measure hormone levels in the bloodstream and the electromagnetic responses in the brain.  We know this is true, otherwise the manufacturing companies that make serotonin uptake inhibitors (aka anti-depressants) would all go broke.  Emotions are chemistry and are therefore measurable."

God does not have emotions. You are speaking of operational science. The measurements made are man made measurements. They are within the particular, and thus cannot jump into a universal, thus giving knowledge regarding the data.

You Said:

"We can measure our response to beauty.  See Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention by Stanislas Dehaene.   Dr. Dehaene recounts a patient's response to Jennifer Aniston - if the patient saw a picture of her, in any pose, or if he saw the words "Jenifer Aniston" this one neuron in his brain would fire.  They found it accidentally as the patient was in for surgery for epilepsy and they just happened to plant an electrode in this particular neuron.  Mind you, since I am almost 60 years old, female, and very heterosexual, I guess she is okay looking. "

Psychology is not a science in the realm of secular understanding. Since the atheists who claim to do science do this empirically, and since psychology cannot do this, it is known as a "soft science." Regarding what they do observe in the brain is interpreted data from again, operational science within finite particulars and thus have no meaning beyond the universals since it cannot escape such. I could speak on this more since it is more complex of an argument that I have. I did a paper on this years back.

You Said:

"Beauty is also measurable.  See "The Human Face" starring John Cleese and Elizabeth Hurley.  Ms. Hurley is used as a model as her face is in almost perfect proportions.  The magic number?  The golden mean.  Studies gave people a number of pictures and asked them to arrange the pictures from prettiest to ugliest.  And they used pictures in different ethnic groups.  Everyone arranged the pictures in almost identical order - everyone agreed on the prettiest and the ugliest.  There was some variation in the middle.  The mean is also associated with increased athletic ability.  So it is perhaps not surprising that we have a fixed idea of what human beauty is."

See ibid. What is the stick to measure this. The stick again was created subjectivity to attempt to know objectivity. This is circular reasoning and cannot escape the universals.

The rest of your article is a defense of operational science. I will address this in the future since it will be a little at length via my refutation. Thanks for bringing it up.

_______________________________________________________________

Hi 100percentatheist,

You Said:

"What do you smoke?"

This is a logical fallacy known as begging the question. It forces me to say what I smoke but indeed I don't smoke. Not a good way to start out.

You Said:

"Epistemology has been introduced less than 200 years ago.  Are you saying that between the introduction of Jesus in contemporary popular literature in the first 5 centuries AC and the middle of 19th century Christians had no meaning, purpose, beauty, or truth to anything?" 

Do you mean the term or the concept. I am talking about the concept. Plato and Aristotle fought over epistemology. Aristotle believed in the particulars and Plato believed in the forms. Then we have Plotinus, Augustine, etc. Then Aquinas found Aristotle and synchronized it into Roman Catholicism. And the Rene Descartes and Da Vinci tried to find an epistemology outside of God via mathematics. This is the majority of his drawings. He failed. Then we have the 3 British Empiricists. Kant, Sarte, Popper, etc.

Epistemology has been the core of philosophical debate since before Socrates. So you are wrong historically. Absolutely wrong.

However, Christian epistemology has stood still through the test of time. While one guys refuted another guy who refuted another guy, we are left with apathetic post -modernism. The death of philosophy, beauty, and thought.

But Christianity has stood still in time. The true remains as an ad hominem towards those whom God hates.

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).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13599
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The Liberals have

Quote:
The Liberals have attacked our culture with full force,

Do yourself a favor, stop watching Glen Beck and stop listening to Rush. Stop watching FAUX News.

Do you know who said the following? I'll let you look the quotes up, what you find may surprise you.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

 

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

 

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must approve the homage of reason rather than of blind-folded fear. Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences.... If it end in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others it will procure for you."

 

This person was not an atheist, but most certainly would value questioning. Oh yea, and atheist Christopher Hitchens considers this guy his hero and wrote a book about this guy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:But

Jean Chauvin wrote:
But Christianity has stood still in time.

??

Oh...okay.

So is english not your first language by any chance ? Cause that would explain some of your confusion up to a point.

Respectfully.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:HI JCG,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

HI JCG,

I am arguing technically since this forum is about reason. I agree, I have yet to see a Christian on here do this sadly. The Liberals have attacked our culture with full force, and this has dumbed down Christians. This is simple history. 200 years ago, most Christians would be logical like me. Disagree with me find, but I present logical valid arguments. 

An argument can be false, and yet valid, and an argument can be invalid and true. I make valid arguments though you disagree with the soundness. The debate on here is regarding the soundness of my arguments. I would hope we an do this respectfully.

You Said:

"You called it the "freedom of religion foundation" - that's where the question came from."

Oh, a typing error. My Mistake.

 

You Said:

"I see, you are arguing from a strictly academic view. Reality rarely falls into academic pigeonholes."

Not sure what you mean by academic. If that means intelligible, then yes. I am using logical reason. Not emotional argument like most. This is the "Reason Response Squad, so you are telling me that reason falls into pigeonholes? I would agree with you when it comes to atheism. That's my whole point. Perhaps this is not what you mean by academic?

You Said:

"No ad hominem attacks at all unless you are equating attacking your argument (which I did) with attacking you. Oh, and you haven't represented atheism correctly yet - that's why you're building straw men. You are attacking a position that no one holds."

An argumentum ad hominem abusive, according to Cohen's definition is:

"The person presenting an argument is attacked instead of the argument itself." I also represented various kinds of atheism. There is more then one flavor. There are many atheistic denominations. Did you not know this?  I did not write upon a complete list of atheist denominations, but gave a few examples. I can refer you to a book if you wish to read of a full list.

You Said:

"As for the last, it's only an insult if it's not true. So, are you lying for Jesus or not? I don't think you can really call yourself a skeptic if you swallow Christianity hook, line and sinker (as it appears from your posts you have)."

Insult? I did not speak of insults, but of logical fallacies. A logical fallacy is a distraction from reason. This is what you did. I have not give you specifics about Christian logic, and I am not trying to hook anybody. I am simply showing the absurdity and the epistemological contradictions of atheists themselves. Would you like me to give you a Christian argument of epistemology. Simply ask, and I will. 

You Said:

"You haven't met an agnostic atheist actor until now. I am a living, breathing counterexample to your argument and the best you can do is insist that I can't exist. sorry to disappoint you pal but I'm still here - in fact, I plan to direct in the near future."

I've met several (hundreds) of agnostics. Perhaps not actors. That's because actors tend to justify their poor behavior by denying the Christian God. Usually the bad behavior goes first, then the bad theology. I''m not saying this happened to you, because I don't know you. But this is usually the case.

If you are an agnostic, then why do you care about the various definitions of atheists. Odd?

You know what Madalyn Murray O'Hair said about agnostics? You do know who she is don't you? anyway, here is her quote:

"An Agnostic is an Atheist, with No Guts!!!"

I tend to agree.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Briefly - "I mean academic" in the sense that you are taking terms from texts that have definitions you agree with and arguing as though they exist across the board in reality. Let's face it - the only thing philosophers really agree on is that the philosophers before them were wrong.

Again, I attacked your argument, not you (unless you identify too closely with your argument).

I use agnostic as a modifier to atheist - I don't have enough information to say whether there are gods or not. Because I lack that information, I don't believe any gods exist. Read the article I linked to in an earlier post. Agnosticism is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. they deal with two different things.

I figured you would agree with O'Hair - she worked from an imprecise definition also. Doesn't lessen her achievements - just means I think she was wrong-headed on this point. See, we don't depend on arguments from authority - that's a fallacy. for a person who loves to point them out in others, you don't look at your own arguments that often.

Poor behavior? Really? I am easily more moral than the God you profess to believe in. Please ask me how.

"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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Non-Christian Cannot Understand Beauty, Meaning, Purpose, In Anything.

Since non-Christians lack an epistemology, they cannot give meaning, purpose, beauty, or truth to anything. They must be within the realm of "opinion" all the time. They are even taught this in Universities that:

"ALL IS RELATIVE."

The funny thing is, they even admit this. The Universities have helped me in my work. So if no meaning or truth or beauty is possible period, then art and beauty are a zero and you are a zero and you are worthless.

Now of course, you can be subjective and  pour subjective meaning into yourself. But this is non-meaning since it is a particular tied into nothing. You are a grain of sand full of nothing. You are empty.

Yes, we are all insignificant except in our own minds and perhaps the minds of those that love us. So what? What kind of arrogance must you have to believe the world revolves around you and will miss you when you are gone?

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

And if this is the case, art, poetry,music, comedy cannot "exist." In order to do these things, especially comedy, you have to ignore your "religion" of atheism, and step into Christian thinking to enjoy or even understand this. So you are inconsistent in your own faith.

WTF? There is no "objective" standard to measure art. It is personal preference. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. That is why I enjoy certain types of music and other people enjoy different types. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I don't have to believe in some fairy tale to enjoy beautiful art and I don't see how my enjoyment of art is inconsistent with my beliefs. For someone who proclaims how well trained you are in logic you are remarkably incompetent at creating a logical argument. 

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

But in reality, you can't. Because this is the logical consistent line of thinking. You have no soul. You are worth less then the dust and the poop that gives food to nothing humans.

Worth less? How can we be worth LESS? Less implies that you have some kind of value to measure against. I have no problems with assigning values to things. I have a problem when you claim that value comes from some imaginary being. At least when I am arbitrary I admit it. I am worth more than dust and poop because I enjoy existing and desire to continue to exist. I have nothing else to do anyway. If you choose to cease existing I support your right to do so. Really, you Christians need to get over yourselves.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

Be consistent as a nothing. And stop borrowing Christian thinking in your non Christian worldview. You are a zero, a no thing. That is your reality as an atheist. Enjoy it or become a Christian.

Those are your only two options in the reality of truth. A skeptic is the most consistent you can be.

I'm still waiting for your great display of logic. I enjoy reality and completely fail to see what I am borrowing from Christian thinking. All I got from your argument is that you are conceited and feel threatened by the idea that you are only a tiny and unimportant piece of the universe. 

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi ExtermeAtheist and Others,

________________________________________

Hi CJ,

You Said:

"Reality is measurable.  Height, width, depth, radiation (of all kinds), chemical changes, velocity, acceleration, etc."

You've asserted without justification. This is not an argument.

You Said:

"Emotions are measurable, including love, hate, indifference, awe, wonder, etc.  We can measure hormone levels in the bloodstream and the electromagnetic responses in the brain.  We know this is true, otherwise the manufacturing companies that make serotonin uptake inhibitors (aka anti-depressants) would all go broke.  Emotions are chemistry and are therefore measurable."

God does not have emotions. You are speaking of operational science. The measurements made are man made measurements. They are within the particular, and thus cannot jump into a universal, thus giving knowledge regarding the data.

You Said:

"We can measure our response to beauty.  See Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention by Stanislas Dehaene.   Dr. Dehaene recounts a patient's response to Jennifer Aniston - if the patient saw a picture of her, in any pose, or if he saw the words "Jenifer Aniston" this one neuron in his brain would fire.  They found it accidentally as the patient was in for surgery for epilepsy and they just happened to plant an electrode in this particular neuron.  Mind you, since I am almost 60 years old, female, and very heterosexual, I guess she is okay looking. "

Psychology is not a science in the realm of secular understanding. Since the atheists who claim to do science do this empirically, and since psychology cannot do this, it is known as a "soft science." Regarding what they do observe in the brain is interpreted data from again, operational science within finite particulars and thus have no meaning beyond the universals since it cannot escape such. I could speak on this more since it is more complex of an argument that I have. I did a paper on this years back.

You Said:

"Beauty is also measurable.  See "The Human Face" starring John Cleese and Elizabeth Hurley.  Ms. Hurley is used as a model as her face is in almost perfect proportions.  The magic number?  The golden mean.  Studies gave people a number of pictures and asked them to arrange the pictures from prettiest to ugliest.  And they used pictures in different ethnic groups.  Everyone arranged the pictures in almost identical order - everyone agreed on the prettiest and the ugliest.  There was some variation in the middle.  The mean is also associated with increased athletic ability.  So it is perhaps not surprising that we have a fixed idea of what human beauty is."

See ibid. What is the stick to measure this. The stick again was created subjectivity to attempt to know objectivity. This is circular reasoning and cannot escape the universals.

The rest of your article is a defense of operational science. I will address this in the future since it will be a little at length via my refutation. Thanks for bringing it up.

_______________________________________________________________

 

Yes, I assert that reality is measurable.  The proof is that this view of reality works.  I am not impressed with philosophical proofs since they are ultimately meaningless.  What works is what works.  If you must, call me a pragmatic realist - though I reserve the right to be a realistic pragmatist on alternate Tuesdays.

Unless you can demonstrate an alternate view of reality that will get that computer/smart phone you are using to power up and connect to the internet - you are just blowing smoke up your own ass.  Try getting your internet device to power up using prayer -------

Pardon me if I don't hang around waiting for that to work.

 

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

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

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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Jean Chauvin

cj wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi ExtermeAtheist and Others,

________________________________________

Hi CJ,

You Said:

"Reality is measurable.  Height, width, depth, radiation (of all kinds), chemical changes, velocity, acceleration, etc."

You've asserted without justification. This is not an argument.

You Said:

"Emotions are measurable, including love, hate, indifference, awe, wonder, etc.  We can measure hormone levels in the bloodstream and the electromagnetic responses in the brain.  We know this is true, otherwise the manufacturing companies that make serotonin uptake inhibitors (aka anti-depressants) would all go broke.  Emotions are chemistry and are therefore measurable."

God does not have emotions. You are speaking of operational science. The measurements made are man made measurements. They are within the particular, and thus cannot jump into a universal, thus giving knowledge regarding the data.

You Said:

"We can measure our response to beauty.  See Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention by Stanislas Dehaene.   Dr. Dehaene recounts a patient's response to Jennifer Aniston - if the patient saw a picture of her, in any pose, or if he saw the words "Jenifer Aniston" this one neuron in his brain would fire.  They found it accidentally as the patient was in for surgery for epilepsy and they just happened to plant an electrode in this particular neuron.  Mind you, since I am almost 60 years old, female, and very heterosexual, I guess she is okay looking. "

Psychology is not a science in the realm of secular understanding. Since the atheists who claim to do science do this empirically, and since psychology cannot do this, it is known as a "soft science." Regarding what they do observe in the brain is interpreted data from again, operational science within finite particulars and thus have no meaning beyond the universals since it cannot escape such. I could speak on this more since it is more complex of an argument that I have. I did a paper on this years back.

You Said:

"Beauty is also measurable.  See "The Human Face" starring John Cleese and Elizabeth Hurley.  Ms. Hurley is used as a model as her face is in almost perfect proportions.  The magic number?  The golden mean.  Studies gave people a number of pictures and asked them to arrange the pictures from prettiest to ugliest.  And they used pictures in different ethnic groups.  Everyone arranged the pictures in almost identical order - everyone agreed on the prettiest and the ugliest.  There was some variation in the middle.  The mean is also associated with increased athletic ability.  So it is perhaps not surprising that we have a fixed idea of what human beauty is."

See ibid. What is the stick to measure this. The stick again was created subjectivity to attempt to know objectivity. This is circular reasoning and cannot escape the universals.

The rest of your article is a defense of operational science. I will address this in the future since it will be a little at length via my refutation. Thanks for bringing it up.

_______________________________________________________________

 

Yes, I assert that reality is measurable.  The proof is that this view of reality works.  I am not impressed with philosophical proofs since they are ultimately meaningless.  What works is what works.  If you must, call me a pragmatic realist - though I reserve the right to be a realistic pragmatist on alternate Tuesdays.

Unless you can demonstrate an alternate view of reality that will get that computer/smart phone you are using to power up and connect to the internet - you are just blowing smoke up your own ass.  Try getting your internet device to power up using prayer -------

Pardon me if I don't hang around waiting for that to work.

 

 

Hmmmmmm..... Prayer powered phones, now there is a big money maker. Makes customer service easy, when people call in to bitch that their phone won't turn on I can simply inform them that they must be impure and to bring any issues up with god. 

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


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

cj wrote:

Yes, I assert that reality is measurable.  The proof is that this view of reality works.  I am not impressed with philosophical proofs since they are ultimately meaningless.  What works is what works.  If you must, call me a pragmatic realist - though I reserve the right to be a realistic pragmatist on alternate Tuesdays.

Unless you can demonstrate an alternate view of reality that will get that computer/smart phone you are using to power up and connect to the internet - you are just blowing smoke up your own ass.  Try getting your internet device to power up using prayer -------

Pardon me if I don't hang around waiting for that to work.

 

Hmmmmmm..... Prayer powered phones, now there is a big money maker. Makes customer service easy, when people call in to bitch that their phone won't turn on I can simply inform them that they must be impure and to bring any issues up with god. 

 

Religion - the lazy man's occupation.

 

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

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

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


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

Hi,

The 800-HEAVEN was a play on words. It's a free call via Ephesians 2:8-10. Have you not been introduced to satire? It is not a real number.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4492
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi,The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi,

The 800-HEAVEN was a play on words. It's a free call via Ephesians 2:8-10. Have you not been introduced to satire? It is not a real number.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

That's because the real number is 1-900-HEAVEN

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


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Assumption

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Now of course, you can be subjective and  pour subjective meaning into yourself. But this is non-meaning since it is a particular tied into nothing. You are a grain of sand full of nothing. You are empty.

And thus, via objectivity, you have no objective beauty, justice, truth, knowledge, purpose, meaning, goodness, right or wrong, etc. You are a no thing

This is an assumption, what is good or evil or right or wrong is purely subjective and dependent upon the perspective of the individual.  You seem to dictate to others what you assume to be beauty, truth, meaning or purpose.  What I see as good or truth you may not agree with and you are quite able to have your own opinion but how do you have the right to dicate to me what is right or wrong, you cannot.  

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Now of course, you are not going to admit this (unless you're honest). You are going to try to put a pretty wrapper on it. Or maybe say you are going to "borrow" from the Christian form of ethics and morals (this is what Dan Barker says from Freedom of Religion).

another assumption you are attempting to put words in my mouth, very presumptuous.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Be consistent as a nothing. And stop borrowing Christian thinking in your non Christian worldview. You are a zero, a no thing. That is your reality as an atheist. Enjoy it or become a Christian.

Those are your only two options in the reality of truth. A skeptic is the most consistent you can be.

I am taking affront to be called a nothing, you know nothing about me.  You keep saying to quit borrowing from the christian thinking well I do believe the christians borrowed it from somebody else so that is kind of hypocritical.  I believe God gave us free will and if I remember correctly you espouse that there is no such thing as free will our difference of viewpoint.  I also believe that in order for God to give us free will God removed all proof of his existence, because how can you have faith without doubt.  I do believe in God who as you have referred to as the infinite reference, interesting phrase.  I see God as the point where nothing and everything meet, I also believe that when God gave us free will God gave us the ability to have our own perception of what beauty, kindness, truth, good or evil is.  It would seem you are attempting to tell us what our viewpoint should be and in my opinion that is the worst case of using God's name in vain.

I am the God of where I stand


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi,

The 800-HEAVEN was a play on words. It's a free call via Ephesians 2:8-10. Have you not been introduced to satire? It is not a real number.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Not interested in following man-made religions - thanks.

"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


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

Beyond Saving wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi,

The 800-HEAVEN was a play on words. It's a free call via Ephesians 2:8-10. Have you not been introduced to satire? It is not a real number.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

That's because the real number is 1-900-HEAVEN

 

 

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

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

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


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

Hi JCG,

I'm not interested in man made religions either. That's why I'm a Christian. Christianity is where the author of Scripture is God. God used man and He superintended their writings. (see I Peter 1:20-21, II Timothy 3:16-17).

A good man made religion is Atheism. It starts with man and ends with man. This is circular reasoning and is a walking logical fallacy.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

Hi Willie,

I do not argue via subjectivity. Since God is infinite and eternal, and thus immutable, then He is the normative of all truth. And thus objectivity prevails in His Word as a first principle.

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).


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Willie,

I do not argue via subjectivity. Since God is infinite and eternal, and thus immutable, then He is the normative of all truth. And thus objectivity prevails in His Word as a first principle.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Bull Puckies you do it constantly you just don't admit it.

 

Have a nice day Smiling

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi JCG,

I'm not interested in man made religions either. That's why I'm a Christian. Christianity is where the author of Scripture is God. God used man and He superintended their writings. (see I Peter 1:20-21, II Timothy 3:16-17).

A good man made religion is Atheism. It starts with man and ends with man. This is circular reasoning and is a walking logical fallacy.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Christianity started with Paul of Tarsus. It has nothing to do with God or Jesus and attempts to supplant those teachings.

Its goal seems to be political power, control and carnage.

I'm sure you've heard this before but it still holds true - Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

"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


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

Hi JCG,

The authors of Scriptures were used but God is the author. This was done via superintending. Again, I Peter 1:20-21.

The whole Bible as Christ as the archetype. So while Paul was to the Nations, the whole applies for us via the logical intent of the author being the Infinite Reference Point.

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).


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
This is among the dumbest

This is among the dumbest premises to start a thread with in the history of internet messageboards.


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

Hi Richwoods,

Welcome to the party. What's dumb about it. Argue. Perhaps we should start calling you the Fonze. You can tell me to go sit on it.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Richwoods,

Welcome to the party. What's dumb about it. Argue. Perhaps we should start calling you the Fonze. You can tell me to go sit on it.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

It's dumb because aesthetics deals with judgment, perception, criticism, opinion, value, beauty, and other subjective things. There's nothing objective about it except the objectivity of the object(s) being judged and the objectivity of the evidence being used to support the opinion (which gives ethos to the opinion, but doesn't change its status as an opinion).

Can you tell me what is objectively the best Beatles album?

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

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi JCG,

The authors of Scriptures were used but God is the author. This was done via superintending. Again, I Peter 1:20-21.

The whole Bible as Christ as the archetype. So while Paul was to the Nations, the whole applies for us via the logical intent of the author being the Infinite Reference Point.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Prove that there was a God involved.

Nothing in that post contains any coherent meaning. Could you rephrase it using properly defined words and phrases, please.

Remember, unlike you, most of us here have not had our brains scrambled by being subjected to a course in Theology.

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


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

Hi EL,

There are SOME things that are outside of logic. Such as your favorite kind of Ice Scream. So I the best song is not what I'm talking about, since best song or favorite ice scream can't deal with beauty since it is outside the category of logic, and is a particular.

However, I can tell you a philosophical analysis of the MUSIC of the Beatles. Since music is does have meaning and is a universal as understood via Christianity. Hopefully that helps.

The objective of the object made no sense. But there is objectivity

____________

Hey BobSpencer1

I have already proved that there was a God involved on numerous occasions. But a specific proof would be Hebrews 1:1-3, 1 Peter 1:20-21, II Timothy 3:16.  That is proof and is a valid proof according to my argument (and sound).

That was easy.

Not sure what you mean that nothing was coherent. And you want me to define the whole sentence word for word? The, Of, Via, As. But I will clarify.

God used men as a MEANS to write His Word. And thus He superintended their writings. This means that they were themselves. Their own personality, and vocabulary, and writing style were still present. But the specific concept relayed in the writing God "manged" and it was done accurately. And when I speak of the Bible being 100% inerrant with no contradictions, I obviously am talking about the original autographs.

Types were a means of figure of speech that "pointed" to a something. This is where we get the type, prototype, anti type, archetype. The archetype is the pinnacle or the main theme of all types. So Christ is the central focus of all of Scripture. This does not mean everything is talking about Christ, but is set either as an example, or direct or indirect mode of Christ.

The Greek word for Gentiles (Ethnos) is actually Nations. So while Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, the word has a "pregnant meaning" in the Greek. This means a word can mean more then one thing at the same time.

So Paul was the Apostle to the Nations outside of Israel.

And the Infinite Reference Point is the normative of God in which we are to live in accordance to. It is the means that is objective.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey BobSpencer1

I have already proved that there was a God involved on numerous occasions. But a specific proof would be Hebrews 1:1-3, 1 Peter 1:20-21, II Timothy 3:16.  That is proof and is a valid proof according to my argument (and sound).

That was easy.

did you mean this:

Quote:

1. God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2. Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3. Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

I see nothing resembling a proof of God there, just a series of assertions about God and what he had done and does. No source beyond the text for where this 'knowledge' of God came from.

or this:

Quote:

20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

21. Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God.

Nothing there, either, just a series of assertions.

Oh, and who, or what, 'foreordained' God(?) 'before the foundation of the world' ??

and finally:

Quote:

16. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

More assertions.

Now, how about justifying all those assertions...

I already knew the guys who wrote that stuff deeply and implicitly believed in God, and interpreted everything through the lens of that belief, so there is no proof there.

Now can you explain what justified that belief?

Referring to the writings of people whose belief you share does not by itself constitute 'proof' of the validity or accuracy of those beliefs. sorry.

Quote:

Not sure what you mean that nothing was coherent. And you want me to define the whole sentence word for word? The, Of, Via, As. But I will clarify.

God used men as a MEANS to write His Word. And thus He superintended their writings. This means that they were themselves. Their own personality, and vocabulary, and writing style were still present. But the specific concept relayed in the writing God "manged" and it was done accurately. And when I speak of the Bible being 100% inerrant with no contradictions, I obviously am talking about the original autographs.

Types were a means of figure of speech that "pointed" to a something. This is where we get the type, prototype, anti type, archetype. The archetype is the pinnacle or the main theme of all types. So Christ is the central focus of all of Scripture. This does not mean everything is talking about Christ, but is set either as an example, or direct or indirect mode of Christ.

The Greek word for Gentiles (Ethnos) is actually Nations. So while Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles, the word has a "pregnant meaning" in the Greek. This means a word can mean more then one thing at the same time.

So Paul was the Apostle to the Nations outside of Israel.

And the Infinite Reference Point is the normative of God in which we are to live in accordance to. It is the means that is objective.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

How do you know that God "managed"  the writing? By reference to some evidence beyond the Book itself, of course, to avoid the fallacy of circularity.

More storytelling.

In "Infinite Reference Point", do you mean by "infinite", 'absolute'? Or being a reference point for all things?

I would think "Ultimate Reference Point" would be a more intelligible claim, but such is still not necessary for us to have useful knowledge, as distinct from "true" knowledge, which we can never actually "know" we have.

What sort of thing did you have in mind that God is a 'Reference Point " for??

You appear to mean as a standard of 'moral' behaviour, and that is a very common use of the term 'normative'. But how could a being so utterly beyond us in scale, power, and comprehension serve as such for us in most areas of human interaction where morality' seems to be relevant? And how can we even determine what God's standards are? Which writings of which religion are we to go by, and how to determine that? And what about behaviours which make no sense in a God context. How does he treat his marital partner??

Does the Christian standard require that we don't punish or even say anything to our children when they do something wrong until they are about to die, and then punish or reward them based on their life history? Or is it "do what I say, not what I do", assuming that a particular collection of writing contains the standard? And that anything not in there is ok? So it is ok to rape, torture and enslave others?

I'm sorry, this is all absurdly unworkable.

Again, you are the one who actually has no knowledge, at least of anything relevant to humanity.

Disrespectfully,

Bob Spence.

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi EL,

However, I can tell you a philosophical analysis of the MUSIC of the Beatles. Since music is does have meaning and is a universal as understood via Christianity. Hopefully that helps.

I have already proved that there was a God involved on numerous occasions.

No you really haven't.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

But a specific proof would be Hebrews 1:1-3, 1 Peter 1:20-21, II Timothy 3:16.  That is proof and is a valid proof according to my argument (and sound).

 

Circular reasoning, god wrote the bible, the bible is true, therefor god exists.  No good, it's just words in some book man, that's all you got here.  

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

God used men as a MEANS to write His Word.

Naked assertion.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

And thus He superintended their writings.

Naked assertion.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

This means that they were themselves. Their own personality, and vocabulary, and writing style were still present. But the specific concept relayed in the writing God "manged" and it was done accurately.

Assertions, assertions assertions. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

And when I speak of the Bible being 100% inerrant with no contradictions, I obviously am talking about the original autographs.

Obviously...   Yawn, this guys getting boring.


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

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

<crap>

Obviously...   Yawn, this guys getting boring.

Agreed.

Except perhaps - getting boring ?

I think he reached "boring" a while back, now its more like tedious, monotonously repetitive...

And if this God requires us to follow the "original" script, knowing that with the best will in the world, that original will get lost over centuries, let alone millennia, why can't he drop us a fresh copy, in contemporary language, with sufficient fanfare to make it unmistakable to our flawed and finite minds that this is IT?

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

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

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

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3311
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
And maybe

BobSpence1 wrote:

And if this God requires us to follow the "original" script, knowing that with the best will in the world, that original will get lost over centuries, let alone millennia, why can't he drop us a fresh copy, in contemporary language, with sufficient fanfare to make it unmistakable to our flawed and finite minds that this is IT?

A good point. Also, he would need to get a better editor and perhaps a professional author to work with him this time around. That way, maybe someone would clarify all the contradictions and meaningless symbolism that is replete with the original. Maybe god could also give some clear answers as to where he stands on some of the more modern issues of our time. Of course, if he is anything like the original god of the Bible and has not matured nor changed over the past few centuries, he probably would not be worth listening to.

“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


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

harleysportster wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

And if this God requires us to follow the "original" script, knowing that with the best will in the world, that original will get lost over centuries, let alone millennia, why can't he drop us a fresh copy, in contemporary language, with sufficient fanfare to make it unmistakable to our flawed and finite minds that this is IT?

A good point. Also, he would need to get a better editor and perhaps a professional author to work with him this time around. That way, maybe someone would clarify all the contradictions and meaningless symbolism that is replete with the original. Maybe god could also give some clear answers as to where he stands on some of the more modern issues of our time. Of course, if he is anything like the original god of the Bible and has not matured nor changed over the past few centuries, he probably would not be worth listening to.

But then he wouldn't be so mysterious, you guys obviously don't know anything about being a mysterious diety.    


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

I almost forgot about this one.

Hello BoBSpencer1

Are you a Martial Artist? Just asking. unto your questions

You asked me about God's Word being written by men. It says God spoke unto the fathers via the prophets. Are you now switching the question?

My argument via God is my argument. You keep mixing things up.

lol, God is eternal and infinite. Augustine answers this very question. You should read Augustine. God has always been.

There not assertions, they're theorems from the first principles.

You know God manged the writings because Paul tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by God. God breathed. The same as when God breathed life into Adam. II Timothy 3:16

Are you saying that the Bible does not speak or rape and that the Bible says we are to punish the children when they are about to die? hmmm? That's weird. And I don't have knowledge. lol.

And by the way, you don't have to be king jamesical on me. There are other more current accurate texts.

________________

Hi Crazy Guy,

You are right. I have yet to give a philosophical account on the music of the Beatles. Would you like me to?

I have not used circular reasoning since I am deducing down from God.  I do not repeat the first principles in my argument for support since my argument is not supported, but demonstrated.

It is a theorem, not an assertion, from  my argument.

theorems, theorems, theorems, lol.

pretty funny stuff.

_____________

Hi BobSpencer1,

If you don't believe the prophets, you won't believe anything else (Luke 16:31).

____________

Hi Crazy Guy,

Mysterious not in the Roman Catholic since. Lol. That is not Biblical.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I almost forgot about this one.

Hello BoBSpencer1

Are you a Martial Artist? Just asking. unto your questions

You asked me about God's Word being written by men. It says God spoke unto the fathers via the prophets. Are you now switching the question?

No, younger brother was into that.

What was written in the Bible does not establish anything about the truth value of the content. That can only be established by reference to some independent reference.

The bible writers attempted to verify it by reference to miracles and prophecy. The prophecies are of little credibility, and are either simply unfulfilled, or so ambiguous as to allow retrofitting pretty much to a wide range of actual events by a modest amount of 'interpretation'. The miracles are pretty much standard stuff, and if accepted, would logically require you to accept a whole bunch of other religions and cults as well.

So you have no justification for treating the bible as source of  real knowledge, even less so your using your version of 'knowledge' requiring strict certainty.

Total fail there, throw that heap of crap out into the trash can where it should be.

Quote:

My argument via God is my argument. You keep mixing things up.

lol, God is eternal and infinite. Augustine answers this very question. You should read Augustine. God has always been.

So, you have no more than a circular 'argument' for God. Just a naked assertion. The fact that people like St Augustine accepted it is merely the fallacy of the Argument from Authority.

Too many of your responses are simply references to the Bible or prominent religious figures or philosophers. 

A valid response would be a detail of the actual arguments, not just pointers to such figures.

You are simply making assertions.

Quote:

There not assertions, they're theorems from the first principles.

You know God manged the writings because Paul tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by God. God breathed. The same as when God breathed life into Adam. II Timothy 3:16

Are you saying that the Bible does not speak or rape and that the Bible says we are to punish the children when they are about to die? hmmm? That's weird. And I don't have knowledge. lol.

And by the way, you don't have to be king jamesical on me. There are other more current accurate texts.

So show me the theorems and the axioms/principles on which they are based.

The Bible does speak of rape, as a form of individual and collective punishment. It does not present rape, or torture, or treating another as owned property (a slave), as sins.

You misread my account of proper discipline of children. The approach of God to punishment for 'sin' would be equivalent to a parent not punishing a child till the end of their life, and then applying a list of all the bad things they had done to determine the nature of their punishment. This would a totally unjust and ineffective practice. We are far better than the God portrayed in the bible.

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

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

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

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13599
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BobSpencer5,You are just a

BobSpencer5,

You are just a plain ol meanie. If Jean wants to believe in Santa for adults, who are you to question him? You know the earth is flat and the moon is made of cheese, so stop picking on the zombiegod fan.

Respectfully,

Brian86

 

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


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:There not

Jean Chauvin wrote:

There not assertions, they're theorems from the first principles.

You know God manged the writings because Paul tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by God. God breathed. The same as when God breathed life into Adam. II Timothy 3:16

You know the events from Fargo were true because it says so at the beginning of the film.

You know that everything I say is true, because I say so. This is a first principle. If you must know my infinite nature, the great and revered Brain86* has explained my incomprehensible vastyness. So when I prophecy that Jean will be caught masturbating in the theater while watching the next Disney cartoon (titled simply, 'Seven Dwarves'), you know this shall come to pass. I have said it, and so it shall be.

 

See how that works, Jean? Just because someone claims what they say is true, does not make it true. Truth can only be judged by evidence, not hearsay.

But, it explains why you are fighting so desperately to deny reality (that is, that which empiricism perceives). Your entire worldview is founded on an obvious fantasy. As soon as you start recognizing reality, the whole thing crumbles. That's kinda pathetic.

It'd be like learning Santa Claus didn't really exist (though there is far more evidence for Santa Claus then for God or even Jesus -- pity it's all fabricated). I bet you were really traumatized as a child when you found out Santa wasn't real, and are compensating for it now by defending the indefensible.

But that's okay. If you feel a circular argument isn't really a circular argument, continue in that delusion. Beg the question all you wish. Those who understand even the simplest of logical fallacies (in which you have demonstrated your incompetence in that ironic "Logical Fallacies" post) recognize circular arguments, so I don't worry that you'll convince anyone. You might even manage to convince someone that, if that's the best you can do, there really isn't anything to this whole God thing.

Was that your God there in the woodchipper?

 

* Hi, Brian37.

"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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Non-Christian Cannot Understand Beauty, Meaning, Purpose, In Anything.

This, right here, is why I can't visit this site anymore. It's like going to an asylum. Sure, the staff are all sane, but then you get the "I'm Napoleon" and "you guys can't understand beauty or meaning".

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Since non-Christians lack an epistemology, they cannot give meaning, purpose, beauty, or truth to anything. They must be within the realm of "opinion" all the time.

5th century Athens, when the old religions started to erode with the influence of the Sophists ... this is the argument the religious establishment used. The exact same argument, and there was still an intellectual revolution. Every time it happens, we get better informed about the universe, and every time it happens, there's someone like you to whine about it.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Be consistent as a nothing. And stop borrowing Christian thinking in your non Christian worldview. You are a zero, a no thing. That is your reality as an atheist. Enjoy it or become a Christian.

I'll drop Christian thinking if you drop Neoplatonist thinking. History. Read it.

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


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Dude, you were missed.

Dude, you were missed.