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).


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

Hi Bob,

Via my argument, the doctrines and the account in general are the implication of my axioms.

The miracles were for the Jews, Wisdom for the Greeks (I Cor 1:22).

But even with the Jews, it was not empiricism that did it. It was the fact that God opened their minds. Look at John 20:25. Thomas even after SEEING Jesus did not know until God opened his mind. That's why you are a pagan, God decided to not open your eyes.

I do have justification via my argument as a whole. If you just quote the Bible and call it a day via logic, you would be right, but in reference to my argument, it is valid and sound.

I gave you an argument before, not just an assertion. Do you know the difference. Even with that, I wouldn't call it an assertion but rather a proposition.

Via my argument, i am able to quote Scripture. Would you rather me repeat my entire argument each time? Is your memory that poor?

The theorems flow from the axioms. The Axioms are self evident via the imago dei. That is what I would call an elipsis to my argument.

As to the definition of the first axiom, that would be THE Infinite Reference Point. Otherwise, my argument would be non-sense if I argued via a finite reference point like you. Only God is  infinite.

In the areas of fornication, rape would also be applied. Along with the Greek word porneia which encompasses all sexual immoralities.

I don't know what you mean by torture. But we are to love one another. The Bible was not written to government officials where I'm sure a kind of torture took place among the wars of David.

You don't understand judgment. There are 4 judgments.

1) Hell (You)

2) Rewards (Me)

3) Nations

4) Judgment of Trumpets (during the reign of the antichrist and the beast and the false prophet and those who follow him. 

By the way, you ought to be thankful to the God you pretend to deny. He has given you sunshine, breath, food, warmth from the sun, you can see, etc.  But this "special grace" will not last for the wicked forever.

__________________________________

Hi Brian47

Since I have an epistemology, and you don't, I have a logical reason to refute this notion, while you remain confused and cannot refute the case. You must keep on borrowing Christian thinking to do this.

___________________________________

Hi Nigel,

Since you are finite, then you can't know everything since even fake scientists say some things are infinite. Especially via empiricism, this applies to you: finitum non paus infinitum.

You can't even speak of truth since this is non empirical. You are a poor logical positivist.

________________________________________

Hi Will,

Via pure empiricism, 100% senses, what is beauty? All you can do is point. How big is your finger?

The main goal of philosophy since Athens has been that of knowledge. It has been the core attempt in all of philosophy to gain universals via particulars with God. Nobody has done this. And finally via post-modernism, atheism as finally said, "I give up." Let's be absurd on Friday in class, and pretend to be rational on Saturday on a blog.

Plato believed that matter was evil. I do not believe this but rather think there is harmony via the universals and particulars via God since God created the particulars. If you leave particulars alone, they are worthless. The Creator gives all particulars purpose, and you ought to praise Him for that since you are a particular.

______________________________________________

Hi Anony,

That's touching that I was missed. I wasn't gone that long. So you must be a Christian now?

____________________________________________________

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).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Via pure empiricism, 100% senses, what is beauty? All you can do is point. How big is your finger?

What? You're being incoherent. Empiricism and beauty aren't related, is that what you're on about? Yeah, you're right.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The main goal of philosophy since Athens has been that of knowledge.

You mean other than theology, right?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

It has been the core attempt in all of philosophy to gain universals via particulars with God. Nobody has done this.

I'm struggling to see your point. When people try to find something that isn't there, and can't find it, is anyone surprised?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

And finally via post-modernism, atheism as finally said, "I give up." Let's be absurd on Friday in class, and pretend to be rational on Saturday on a blog.

I won't argue - you can make fun of pomo all you like, it's like a sad clown parade. But it's not representative of my personal atheism.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Plato believed that matter was evil.

Citation needed. Socrates may have devalued the material in favour of the nonsensical, but "evil" might be an overstatement.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I do not believe this but rather think there is harmony via the universals and particulars via God since God created the particulars. If you leave particulars alone, they are worthless. The Creator gives all particulars purpose, and you ought to praise Him for that since you are a particular.

You are the champion of non sequitur. Let's recap:

  • There is harmony via the universals
  • There are particulars via God
  • God created the particulars
  • Particulars alone are worthless
  • The Creator gives particulars purpose
  • I should praise him for that [presumably purpose]
  • I am a particular

...

Help me to understand how that sequence of thoughts is related.

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


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

Typo,

Philosophy has been the attempt to find universals via particulars without God.

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:But even

Jean Chauvin wrote:

But even with the Jews, it was not empiricism that did it. It was the fact that God opened their minds. Look at John 20:25. Thomas even after SEEING Jesus did not know until God opened his mind. That's why you are a pagan, God decided to not open your eyes.

Now you're just being silly.  If Christians came from Jews, why are there still Jews?  You obviously just don't understand logic. 

 

Respectfully 

the pink unicorn 


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Via my argument, the doctrines and the account in general are the implication of my axioms.

Hello Jean Chauvinist Fuckwit,

Your axioms need to be justified by reference to reality if your conclusions are to be applicable to reality.

Quote:

The miracles were for the Jews, Wisdom for the Greeks (I Cor 1:22).

But even with the Jews, it was not empiricism that did it. It was the fact that God opened their minds. Look at John 20:25. Thomas even after SEEING Jesus did not know until God opened his mind. That's why you are a pagan, God decided to not open your eyes.

Empiricism == objective evidence;

"God opened their minds" == naked assertion, unless based on validated evidence + argument - presumes God is a valid concept referring to an existent entity, which has never been established.

Quote:

I do have justification via my argument as a whole. If you just quote the Bible and call it a day via logic, you would be right, but in reference to my argument, it is valid and sound.

I gave you an argument before, not just an assertion. Do you know the difference. Even with that, I wouldn't call it an assertion but rather a proposition.

Via my argument, i am able to quote Scripture. Would you rather me repeat my entire argument each time? Is your memory that poor?

The theorems flow from the axioms. The Axioms are self evident via the imago dei. That is what I would call an elipsis to my argument.

As to the definition of the first axiom, that would be THE Infinite Reference Point. Otherwise, my argument would be non-sense if I argued via a finite reference point like you. Only God is  infinite.

In the areas of fornication, rape would also be applied. Along with the Greek word porneia which encompasses all sexual immoralities.

I don't know what you mean by torture. But we are to love one another. The Bible was not written to government officials where I'm sure a kind of torture took place among the wars of David.

You don't understand judgment. There are 4 judgments.

1) Hell (You)

2) Rewards (Me)

3) Nations

4) Judgment of Trumpets (during the reign of the antichrist and the beast and the false prophet and those who follow him. 

By the way, you ought to be thankful to the God you pretend to deny. He has given you sunshine, breath, food, warmth from the sun, you can see, etc.  But this "special grace" will not last for the wicked forever.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You do not have an argument.

All you have a series of loosely connected naked assertions.

God is an incoherent irrational concept, a figment of your imagination, along with the associated Imago Dei thing.

If all you have is an internal conviction of this Imago Dei, you have no way to justify it, to distinguish it from a purely random neuronal discharge, even in the unlikely event God actually had inserted it into your thoughts.

To repeat, even if 'true' internal experiences, feelings, convictions, attributed to an external supernatural entity, actually occur, you have no way to 'know' them, since even a feeling of absolute conviction is itself still a subjective mental phenomena, which can be, and has experimentally, been generated by misfirings of neurones, and with the 'help' of administered chemicals and/or electrical and/or magnetic stimulation.

Therefore it is pointless engaging any of your claims until, and unless, you can support this central claim by other than references to internal experience, 'God opening your mind', whatever, which are all purely subjective claims, amounting to no more than expressions of opinion.

Empirical appeal to whatever reality we can imperfectly perceive beyond our minds is the only way to escape the solipsism your position, your rigid rejection of empiricism, implies.

Disrespectfully, 

Bob.

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

finitum non paus infinitum.

Is "paus" a medieval Latin word? I've never seen it in Classical Latin, and neither has my dictionary. Were you quoting "finitum non capax infiniti"? That one has never made sense to me, since it's slightly ambiguous without a verb.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Jean

BobSpence1 wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You don't understand judgment. There are 4 judgments.

1) Hell (You)

2) Rewards (Me)

3) Nations

4) Judgment of Trumpets (during the reign of the antichrist and the beast and the false prophet and those who follow him. 

By the way, you ought to be thankful to the God you pretend to deny. He has given you sunshine, breath, food, warmth from the sun, you can see, etc.  But this "special grace" will not last for the wicked forever.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You do not have an argument.

Bob, how could you say that? His argument is so clear:

1) I am rubber

2) You are glue

3) ???

4) Trumpets

and special grace.

... which I think is an Italian dessert. And as we all know, Italian desserts are delicious. QED.

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Nigel,

Since you are finite, then you can't know everything since even fake scientists say some things are infinite. Especially via empiricism, this applies to you: finitum non paus infinitum.

You can't even speak of truth since this is non empirical. You are a poor logical positivist.

Do you read for comprehension, or do you just see words floating around on a page? Of course I am infinite. Dude, I'm fucking God. I have said so, and so you can believe me. Hell, that's exactly your excuse for believing that God exists in the first place (because someone said so, and claimed to be speaking for God). Logically, if it's good enough for you once, it's good enough for you twice.

But I don't think you really believe the Bible at all. You are too consistently insane, giving us exactly what someone might think an atheist would expect. Your list of logical fallacies practiced by liberals was too perfectly illogical. The entire thing was one long ad hominem against anything a liberal might say. Then to claim that liberals will always engage in ad hominems themselves: beautiful! The symmetry was perfect.

Too perfect.

You have given yourself away, my Poe-ish friend. However, this trolling is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you.* Nobody can be as dense and immune to logic as you present yourself. Your answers are too illogically pat, and border on the cliche of the dunderheaded believer. You are no Betty Bower (The World's Greatest Christian), but you have the role nailed.

I congratulate you on your ability to stay in character. You must be laughing your ass off.

However, it's gotten tiresome for me. You even brought HisWillness out of retirement (no small feat), and he's already fed up with your complete lack of logic.

So come. Join us with your real persona. Whether you are really a theist or not does not matter. This trolling just doesn't make for interesting conversation anymore.

 

 

* Thank you, Bill Hicks.

"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


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

HisWillness wrote:

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".

Good to see you back, HisWillness, even if only for a few posts.

"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


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Jean

HisWillness wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

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

This, right here, is why I can't visit this site anymore.

Awww don't say that Will, you're one of the best contributors here by far.

I'll cry..

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Eloise wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

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

This, right here, is why I can't visit this site anymore.

Awww don't say that Will, you're one of the best contributors here by far.

I'll cry..

Okay, I'll stay ... but only because I can't bear to see Eloise ... or ... her purple emoticon ... cry.

Besides, we have some category theory to discuss.

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


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Okay, I'll

HisWillness wrote:

Okay, I'll stay ... but only because I can't bear to see Eloise ... or ... her purple emoticon ... cry.

Woot! Chivalry lives!

Quote:

Besides, we have some category theory to discuss.

Excellent, sounds like a plan.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Eloise wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

Besides, we have some category theory to discuss.

Excellent, sounds like a plan.

Let's just do that now, because ... seriously, what possible good could come out of the other parts of this thread?

So I'm working with a mathematician to create a kind of database model using category sketches, instead of the regular relational model. It's pure awesome. Here's the talk he did at Galois:

http://tinyurl.com/2dmnp5v

If that's too much database for you, let me know. The math is pretty tight.

Thread jack!

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


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Let's just

HisWillness wrote:

Let's just do that now, because ... seriously, what possible good could come out of the other parts of this thread?

So I'm working with a mathematician to create a kind of database model using category sketches, instead of the regular relational model. It's pure awesome. Here's the talk he did at Galois:

http://tinyurl.com/2dmnp5v

If that's too much database for you, let me know. The math is pretty tight.

Thread jack!

Wow.. okay... this thread was pretty pointless anyhow.

Just had a browse through the slides, the "Olog" is quite a visionary idea, I like it.

My first intuitive impression is that your objective is to interface database values in the sense that a mind might and based on that I'm inclined to believe the kind of arrows that would work would be significantly less literal than one might imagine they will be.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Just had a

Eloise wrote:

Just had a browse through the slides, the "Olog" is quite a visionary idea, I like it.

My first intuitive impression is that your objective is to interface database values in the sense that a mind might and based on that I'm inclined to believe the kind of arrows that would work would be significantly less literal than one might imagine they will be.

Actually, ignore the olog stuff. That's pretty much covered by graph databases. The seriously cool thing is handling the arrows like they're columns in a table. That way, you can do transformations on data sets by functors.

Hmm ... I'm going to have to send you this stuff in an email.

...

This thread is still jacked, though. Maybe it should be about sharks.

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


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Eloise

HisWillness wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Just had a browse through the slides, the "Olog" is quite a visionary idea, I like it.

My first intuitive impression is that your objective is to interface database values in the sense that a mind might and based on that I'm inclined to believe the kind of arrows that would work would be significantly less literal than one might imagine they will be.

Actually, ignore the olog stuff. That's pretty much covered by graph databases. The seriously cool thing is handling the arrows like they're columns in a table. That way, you can do transformations on data sets by functors.

Hmm ... I'm going to have to send you this stuff in an email.

...

OK, I probably should take a little time to absorb it before I comment anyway..... however, accessing my inbox is another matter entirely. Maybe I should just nip over to general conversation and confess myself converted Sticking out tongue

Quote:

This thread is still jacked, though. Maybe it should be about sharks.

I would like to pet a shark. Evidently it is possible, as well, they will let you under certain circumstances.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


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

Hi Bob,

Did you flunk geometry in High School? An axiom need not be justified since it is self evident truth. This is amazing. Pretty basic stuff Bob.

And your cuss words are due to your evil nature. Christians tend not to do that (the consistent ones).

You are attempting to use the argument against you and then just repeat it back to me. That's sloppy. It's not loose ends since it starts via an infinite reference point to bring meaning to the particulars. You're Wrong!

Now you are making assertions about God. This is like Disneyland on LSD. You must define God when you speak. And how on earth can you make any claim via an infinite reference point since you are 100% particular and isolated from anything infinite via argument.

Feelings are antithetical to logic. Thus, if you know via how you feel, you're absurd (e.g Satanists, Witches, etc).

The claim is a self evident truth, thus it needs no supporting. And since it is a self evident truth, then my argument is coherent, and united and valid and sound.

Unless you have experienced death, you cannot even speak of death. Unless you experience evolution, you cannot claim evolution. Unless you experience homosexuality, you cannot say homo's are right or wrong.

Unless of course you are a homo. I don't think you are. So you can't say anything about anything.

_____________________________________

Hi Will,

Oh yea, confusing it with another language I know. "capax" is what I meant.

_______________________________________

Hi Nigel,

You only call me a troll because you are dumbfounded. I have attempted to answer all your questions. But since I am logical and and you can't find anything wrong with my argument, you get hissy like a little girl. lol.

__________________________________________

Hi Willie,

I thought you were an empiricist. If you enjoy math, then you are a Rationalist Capital R.

_________________________________________

Hi Eloise,

I knew you were a witch or some kind of One Hand Clapping New Ager Gnostic.

Quote:
My first intuitive impression...

got ya.

_____________________________________________

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Anony,

That's touching that I was missed. I wasn't gone that long. So you must be a Christian now?

You're that desperate for attention ? Wow..

Wasn't talking to you, actually, but sure, somebody somewhere probably misses you.

Your local christian bookstore clerk, maybe.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13541
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Jean

HisWillness wrote:

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.

You bring up a good point, sometimes I wonder how we attract the stalker nutcases. I can deal with vanilla delusions. My mom and co-workers are believers and I love them to no end. But this guy acts like he escaped from a loony bin.

I can handle people making absurd claims and merely believing those absurdities doesn't make them bad people, but when you go around thinking you are some sort of guru out to save the lost puppies, that really is annoying. And he plays off our jokes as if we are his buddy not realizing we are making fun of him in hopes he will snap out of it.

I feel sorry for this guy that he cant even see what he is doing to himself.

 

"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:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Nigel,

You only call me a troll because you are dumbfounded. I have attempted to answer all your questions. But since I am logical and and you can't find anything wrong with my argument, you get hissy like a little girl. lol.

I was actually being respectful, you moronic toad. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, as your stupidity seemed too well-oiled to be accidental. I called you a Poe, and a good one, which is harder to do than one might imagine. But, if you are a Poe and have degenerated into pure insults, you're a trollish asshat. If you are sincere in your insults and in your inability to grasp either logic or reality, you are not worth "debating," and are bordering on troll anyway.

Here is the extent of your "debate:"

1. Claim liberals are evil and illogical, and therefore anything you call "liberal" is automatically wrong. (Ad hominem fallacy)

2. Claim empiricists cannot employ logic, because the two are mutually exclusive. (Excluded middle fallacy)

3. Claim there is a God, because the Bible said so; and you believe the Bible because God said it was true, and so you have the only Truth. (Tautology)

4. Mangle philosophical categories, and apply the label to someone, and then claim they must behave in a particular way because of that label. (Strawman)

5. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

 

You round-robin each of these. If someone addresses your strawman of philosophy (#4) you move on to #2. If someone points out that you use empiricism and logic (though I'm starting to doubt the latter) every day, you move to #3. #1 you just throw out there because you can. In fact, I don't think I've seen a single response from you that wasn't exclusively one of those. If you can find an example that wasn't, please let me know, and I'll apologize, and add that response to the list (unless it was an actual response to an actual point, in which case the apology will be sincere).

This isn't debate, you half-witted nematode. You haven't flummoxed, stymied, or perplexed me in any way. You are completely incapable of engaging in actual debate. If you were capable, you would've actually, you know, addressed some of the points brought up against you. (You still haven't defined science, nor explained how you safely cross the street or navigate to the store without empiricism and inductive logic.) 

This isn't debate. This is you spouting off as if you actually understand what the fuck you are talking about. You are an extreme example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. The fact you think you've even presented a debate simply illustrates the depths of your ignorance.

If you really really desire debate, choose one of the following questions, and answer it (and only it) in another post. Don't include responses to everyone else. Stay focused on the topic at hand.

 

1. What is your understanding of science? Please include the epistemology and practice, with special note to empiricism and logic, both inductive and deductive.

2. What are the axioms you use to logically prove the existence of God? Don't worry yet about the proof itself. That will come later as the debate unfolds.

3. If you cannot gain knowledge from induction, how do you know the food you eat will sustain you? How do you know the sun will rise tomorrow? If you don't know these things, why aren't you surprised when they happen? Do you imagine you'd be surprised if the sun did not rise?

 

I said before I'm more than willing to debate you. But until you actually engage in a debate, rather than you just using a round-robin of your canned (and almost incoherent) responses, you're just another annoying imbecile with delusions of intellectual adequacy.

When you are ready to act like a decent grown-up and engage in debate, come on back here. We'll talk. Until then, claim victory all you want (which I know you will; for some reason, the less intelligent one is, the more often they claim victory in an intellectual debate, like a young child randomly moving chess pieces around on a board and raising their hands and exuberantly yelling, 'I win!'). Claim victory all you want. The longer you avoid addressing questions like those above, the more everyone else realizes how pathetic you really are.

Quote:

Hi Willie,

I thought you were an empiricist. If you enjoy math, then you are a Rationalist Capital R.

You are a fucking idiot. Math, empiricism, and logic are not exclusionary. You can be an empiricist and employ logic and math. That's the whole point of modern empiricism (which isn't so modern, since it was first employed in a more-or-less modern form by Sir Francis Bacon). I thought you studied this stuff, and were an expert? Or did you just read your daddy's Philosophy 101 text without really understanding what the fuck you were reading?

Your high school is letting you down.

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob,

Did you flunk geometry in High School? An axiom need not be justified since it is self evident truth. This is amazing. Pretty basic stuff Bob.

"Self-evident" does not actually guarantee truth.

Axioms are not required to be true beyond the context of the formal system they define.

Do you not understand what a "formal system" is??

Quote:

And your cuss words are due to your evil nature. Christians tend not to do that (the consistent ones).

You are attempting to use the argument against you and then just repeat it back to me. That's sloppy. It's not loose ends since it starts via an infinite reference point to bring meaning to the particulars. You're Wrong!

Now you are making assertions about God. This is like Disneyland on LSD. You must define God when you speak. And how on earth can you make any claim via an infinite reference point since you are 100% particular and isolated from anything infinite via argument.

Feelings are antithetical to logic. Thus, if you know via how you feel, you're absurd (e.g Satanists, Witches, etc).

The claim is a self evident truth, thus it needs no supporting. And since it is a self evident truth, then my argument is coherent, and united and valid and sound.

Unless you have experienced death, you cannot even speak of death. Unless you experience evolution, you cannot claim evolution. Unless you experience homosexuality, you cannot say homo's are right or wrong.

Unless of course you are a homo. I don't think you are. So you can't say anything about anything.

Strict "self-evident" claims should be restricted to propositions which logically follow from simple application of the basic Laws of Logic.

It is NOT valid to claim "self-evidence" for propositions that cannot be so justified.

Wikipedia wrote:

The following propositions are often said to be self-evident:

• A finite whole is greater than any of its parts

• It is impossible for something to be and not be at the same time in the same manner.

Certain forms of argument from self-evidence are considered fallacious or abusive in debate. For example, if a proposition is claimed to be self-evident, it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that disagreement with the proposition indicates misunderstanding of it.

Hey, you've scored another logical fallacy! Congrats.

God is an unjustified concept, which even if he existed, would be beyond anyone's ability to understand and know of any of its attributes. Such negative assertions are the only ones one can validly make about such an entity.

You certainly have not 'defined' God, except perhaps in terms of other undefined terms, so STFU.

Feelings are not antithetical to logic, they are just not admissible as evidence in a logical argument. One can still believe passionately in some proposition, such as God, or have a feeling of total conviction that it is a fact, a ground, of existence, but that doesn't make it true. But equally, that does not make it false.

Similarly, personal experience, in itself, also does not validate or invalidate a proposition, thus invalidating your next fallacy, regarding 'experiencing' propositions.

Only empirical evidence can do that, but you reject that because it demolishes your position.

I have understood the logic of evolution, therefore I am justified in accepting it.

Your final sentence pretty much confirms that you are a dishonest troll. Either that, or a deluded, narrow-minded, self-righteous asshole.

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

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

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

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Your high

nigelTheBold wrote:

Your high school is letting you down.

 

I'm guessing he was home schooled.  And when he tried to go to university, he was flunked out.  Hence all the bashing of public schools and total lack of rational thinking.

 

-- 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.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Oh, you're still here. We'll

Oh, you're still here. We'll have to make another for category theory discussions.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

And your cuss words are due to your evil nature. Christians tend not to do that (the consistent ones).

A consistent human being is something I'd like to see. Wait, no - that would be awful!

Jean Chauvin wrote:

This is like Disneyland on LSD. You must define God when you speak. And how on earth can you make any claim via an infinite reference point since you are 100% particular and isolated from anything infinite via argument.

I think you just defeated yourself. Was that or was that not an own-goal? Read that last sentence. Now define God. Any feeling of circularity? Dizziness, perhaps?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The claim is a self evident truth, thus it needs no supporting.

That sums up your argument pretty well. Also, Santa's elves make toys for children all over the world. Self-evident, ergo true.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I knew you were a witch or some kind of One Hand Clapping New Ager Gnostic.

Quote:
My first intuitive impression...

got ya.

Witch, Zen Buddhist, New Age, y'know, all pretty much the same thing: tools of Satan to corrupt the minds of the young. It's worse than you think: she's a ... mathematician! No, really. That's gotta be worth some fire and brimstone.

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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Dude, you

Anonymouse wrote:

Dude, you were missed.

I can't figure out if this is for nigel or for me, so I'm going with both. Thanks!

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13541
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Oh, you're

HisWillness wrote:

Oh, you're still here. We'll have to make another for category theory discussions.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

And your cuss words are due to your evil nature. Christians tend not to do that (the consistent ones).

A consistent human being is something I'd like to see. Wait, no - that would be awful!

Jean Chauvin wrote:

This is like Disneyland on LSD. You must define God when you speak. And how on earth can you make any claim via an infinite reference point since you are 100% particular and isolated from anything infinite via argument.

I think you just defeated yourself. Was that or was that not an own-goal? Read that last sentence. Now define God. Any feeling of circularity? Dizziness, perhaps?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The claim is a self evident truth, thus it needs no supporting.

That sums up your argument pretty well. Also, Santa's elves make toys for children all over the world. Self-evident, ergo true.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I knew you were a witch or some kind of One Hand Clapping New Ager Gnostic.

Quote:
My first intuitive impression...

got ya.

Witch, Zen Buddhist, New Age, y'know, all pretty much the same thing: tools of Satan to corrupt the minds of the young. It's worse than you think: she's a ... mathematician! No, really. That's gotta be worth some fire and brimstone.

He doesn't like us cussing. I wonder what should happen to us fucking evil people? Humn, maybe Jean can treat us like Muslim women whose ankles accidentally  get exposed or their veils fall off.

Or maybe he can go to a website whose owner doesn't allow cussing.

But what he really doesn't want to face is that he does not own us, or this website, and if he doesn't like us fucking cussing, he knows where the door is.

This one is for you Jean,  "FUCK YOU"

Now, what are you going to do about it? No one here is afraid of you or your fictional invisible friend. If you don't like cussing, then go to a website that does not allow cussing. Since you do not set the rules for this website, you hold no weight as to what can or cannot be done here. Or start your own website and ban cussing there.

FYI meathead, we are not at a formal dinner or award ceremony so get your prudish head out of your ass. We do understand the concept of TIME PLACE AND CONTEXT. Which you don't seem to understand.

"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


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:He doesn't

Brian37 wrote:

He doesn't like us cussing. I wonder what should happen to us fucking evil people? Humn, maybe Jean can treat us like Muslim women whose ankles accidentally  get exposed or their veils fall off.

Oh! Oh! I know this one! Is it hellfire? I'm pretty sure it's hellfire.

Brian37 wrote:

Or maybe he can go to a website whose owner doesn't allow cussing.

Those sites are so ominous, though. It's all this "You're going to heck" and "The Horn-ed One is going to have his way with you". Threats seem more earnestly serious when there's no swearing.

 

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


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Eloise,

I knew you were a witch or some kind of One Hand Clapping New Ager Gnostic.

Quote:
My first intuitive impression...

got ya.

_____________________________________________

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Wow, you guessed that broad and ambiguous description right off the bat did you? Well aren't you just a paragon of holy prophecy.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13541
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Jean Chauvin

Eloise wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Eloise,

I knew you were a witch or some kind of One Hand Clapping New Ager Gnostic.

Quote:
My first intuitive impression...

got ya.

_____________________________________________

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Wow, you guessed that broad and ambiguous description right off the bat did you? Well aren't you just a paragon of holy prophecy.

You never posted your beliefs on this site before so magic is real and he is a prophet. THERE IS A GOD(cough cough)

 

"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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3273
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
One hand clapping

Jean Chauvin wrote:

_________________________________________

Hi Eloise,

I knew you were a witch or some kind of One Hand Clapping New Ager Gnostic.

 My first intuitive impression...

Hmm, not really sure what the One Hand Clapping could be in reference to. Unless your referring to that old koan "What is the sound of one hand clapping?,". In which case, that is a Buddhist thing and not a Gnostic thing. It somewhat predates anything that would be classified as " New Age".

Now granted, the whole Buddhist "What is the sound of one hand clapping" and "Does the dog have buddha nature" stuff is pretty dumb if you ask me.

When I first renounced my Christian upbringing, I was gullible enough to try and waste time with Buddhism for awhile. I found it to be pretty much another useless religion and just as false  as Christianity.

Jean, if you think that the idea of sitting cross-legged and trying to concentrate on emptiness being form, all the while asking yourself what is the sound of one hand clapping as stupid, I hate to admit it, but I would actually agree with you. (D'OH, I CAN'T BELIEVE I SAID THAT).

HOWEVER, I find the notion of the Bible and Christianity to be equally as ignorant and useless and false.

Oh by the way, the sound of one hand clapping is nothing. Wow, who would have thought ? But there are plenty of gurus out there that will gladly lead you to this conclusion for a hefty price and tons of seminars, as well as some weekend retreats doing free labor in their monastery.

The Buddhists and the Christians all profess a hatred of materialism and love of personal things. The Buddhists and the Christians all profess a total hatred for money. Funny thing they carefully ignore, is that all the Christian and Buddhists leaders sure do seem to have alot of wealth and personal things. All for them, none for anyone else. Typical. Hehehehe.

“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


Tadgh
atheist
Tadgh's picture
Posts: 125
Joined: 2010-08-29
User is offlineOffline
~sigh~

Well, speaking as an atheist musician (who regularly plays and sings in churches,) I have to say that this post is fucking hilarious, especially coming from someone who would select such a picture as that as (his?) avatar.

I also think it is unworthy of further comment.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean may be partially right.

Jean may be partially right. Having an invisible friend is an example of the childlike sense of play that artists need to possess in order to have the freedom to work.

But as kids get older, they find new ways to express themselves. Is Jean a case of arrested development?

"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


daveyflavey
Posts: 2
Joined: 2011-01-11
User is offlineOffline
No one person can understand

No one person can understand beauty. Beauty is not something measurable, but rather is a concept. It is an idea. Although many a philosopher has been trying to discover the secret behind beauty the simple fact is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. An atheist and a theist will disagree on what beauty is not because of their religion but because they are two different people.

I firmly believe that God is just a substitute to fill in what we don't understand (I am completely excluding all life lessons and morals taught through religion)

And by this I think that when it is said that a Non-Christian will never understand beauty that it has no basis.

 

"What is Beauty?"

"I don't know"

"God must be beauty"

Beauty is an idea, each person has different ideas on beauty. There can never be one catch-all idea for beauty.

Ignorance = God