No-thing vs Christianity

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
No-thing vs Christianity

CHRISTIANITY VS. NO-THING

Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything. To claim they know anything is inconsistent with their starting points of nothing.

So the question is not about theists vs. atheists. The question has to be Atheists vs. Christians, since a general theists worldview will not do. It has to be one that is within reason, and only Christianity fits this.

I've already made my arguments why elsewhere. So I will not repeat my deductive logic. However, Since I do not believe in Atheism,  then the atheist must provide their type of proof for their position.

etymologically speaking, an atheist is one that claims an epistemology in no God or gods. So then, they must, via an infinite epistemology, provide such evidence within their means of knowing, to claim this is so.

Of course they cannot do this. So then, by definition they cannot be atheist. So then, these past 50 years, they've come up with a solution to the problem. Let's redefine our terms so that way they fit into what we are trying to say.

And you came up with George Smith type atheists (soft atheists) that say, oh no, we believe in a lack of faith. This is fun.

However, they do this without defining faith. Nobody knows what they are talking about. (You on here who are educated in this can help define what they mean via documentation).

Biblical Faith is interchangeable with belief and knowledge. Thus Biblical faith is knowledge. It believe what I know and I know what I believe. Unlike the liberal Kant who made a logical fallacy of a dichotomy this area. Thus faith is knowledge.

You cannot redefine the Christian Bible's understanding of faith. You do this among the uneducated Christians and they are fooled very easily. Perhaps the atheists are doing this out of ignorance. Kirkegaard is not the definition of Biblical faith, the Bible is where the definition comes from.

So if Faith is knowledge (Biblical understanding), and soft atheists are lack of faith, then logically they are lack of knowledge. They have defined their lack of according to the Biblical understanding of faith. Thus they admit the logical consequence that they lack knowledge.

This is logic consistency folks. Pretty simple stuff.

So since atheists lack an epistemology, they must borrow others and cover it up.

At this point we must refute empiricism, since this is their new mode of "thinking." Empiricism has been refuted already. I will do this in another article perhaps.

And this is why the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) credits the very beginnings of science to Christians, (NOT ATHEISTS). Funny stuff. They did this because atheism has nothing to give. They admit ignorance and they admit science at the same time. Completely funny due to absurdity.

I argue that atheists CANNOT know science or anything. They have a non-science, a fake science. Only Christians can have a proper science in anything. Since all is relative, then this would include science.

They are hypocrites. They claim knowledge is impossible to brainwash our kids, and then claim to know everything about science. Which is it pal. Do we have multiple personalities in atheism or something.

Thus it is no-thing vs. Christianity. Atheism vs. Christianity. To simply argue anything of intelligence is a refutation of the no-thing since it claims nothing.

The absurdity is extremely hilarious. Good luck getting out of that one. 

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
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Are you going to respond to

Are you going to respond to any of your threads or are you just going to keep spamming?


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

ANSWER,

I takes time to answer. The problem is that you don't have patience. This is what you would expect to find since patience is a Christian virtue. Atheists tend not to have any patience since they are empty no things.

So relax, I have answered all of  them so far.  Have you given me an atheistic epistemology yet? How could you if atheists claim that there is no such thing as absolute knowledge. I know, how about you redefine knowledge. That's good. Liberals are good at that.

The Christian definition of knowledge and truth is thus:

A variable with absolute zero error.

An atheists definition of knowledge is, " uh, all is relative i think, i mean yeah, but, um I believe in science."  (There's more comedy with this then on all of Conan O'Brian's shows put together).

I like Skeptics. They are more consistent then atheists. Though still inconsistent, they are the most consistent pagan out there. This is why David Hume, the great British Empiricist became a Skeptic.

Science means to know. So if all knowledge is relative, then how can science (to know) not be relative? Help me out here. This in logic is known as a contradiction. This is a logical fallacy.

So which is it? Is all relative or not? It can't both be the case at the same time unless you like contradictions. Then I must be on witchcraft.net or something?

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
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
I understand it takes time

I understand it takes time to answer. Perhaps you could use the time you take to create new threads to respond to the others.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Since

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything.

Atheists don't believe in God. Anything else they believe or not believe is not relevant to whether or not they are atheist.

 

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


Alexicov
Alexicov's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-11-04
User is offlineOffline
Skitzos also "know things too"

A Paranoid Schizophreniac also "knows" that the government is spying on him and every single observation that he makes supports that "knowledge". He is, however, unable to convince other people about his "knowledge". You may play around with definitions of faith and knowledge, however if it is insufficient to convince someone by providing concrete proof, then the more likely scenario is that your "knowledge" is strikingly similar to the schizophreniac mentioned before. You both have faith in an unchanging fact of life and no amount of reasoning will change your view of life.

 

So have fun with that.
adieu


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Excuse me for playing the sub editor

Jean Chauvin wrote:

CHRISTIANITY VS. NO-THING

Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything. To claim they know anything is inconsistent with their starting points of nothing.

Thus it is no-thing vs. Christianity. Atheism vs. Christianity. To simply argue anything of intelligence is a refutation of the no-thing since it claims nothing.

The absurdity is extremely hilarious. Good luck getting out of that one. 

 

Jean, but I think this is what you were trying to say with that odious outpouring.

Simply, atheists/agnostic atheists believe there's no/insufficient proof of god. That's pretty much all there is to it. Where does this silly idea atheists believe nothing come from? Is it because atheists believe they evolved by natural processes you have decided they are inherently saying they are nothing? You understand that complex systems can evolve from simple laws and processes don't you?

The idea of a christian claiming to own science is really fucking funny. Given theism and science are one, Jean, perhaps you could take your brain off it's cognitive clothes hook and explain the process of creation for us. We'd love to know more about it.

 

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

CHRISTIANITY VS. NO-THING

Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything. To claim they know anything is inconsistent with their starting points of nothing.

Atheists may have knowledge of such things, but do not necessarily believe such things in much the same way one can have knowledge about Santa Claus but believe that Santa Claus does not exist. I think your evaluation of atheism is false, so any conclusion on the matter is certainly faulty.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So the question is not about theists vs. atheists. The question has to be Atheists vs. Christians, since a general theists worldview will not do. It has to be one that is within reason, and only Christianity fits this.

I've already made my arguments why elsewhere. So I will not repeat my deductive logic. However, Since I do not believe in Atheism,  then the atheist must provide their type of proof for their position.

One does not "believe in atheism" as if it were something to believe in. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god. Anyways, how can one believe in atheism if one is lacking knowledge as you asserted earlier. Your initial point is contradictory to this statement....

Jean Chauvin wrote:

etymologically speaking, an atheist is one that claims an epistemology in no God or gods. So then, they must, via an infinite epistemology, provide such evidence within their means of knowing, to claim this is so.

I think you're generalizing again. Atheism can be many thing, of which one can be a lack of epistemic assertions about a god, or disbelief in given assertions about god. There's nothing about any of this that necessitates an "infinite epistemology". But even if such a thing did exist, how could you as a being with a finite mind and finite understanding possible grasp such a thing?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Of course they cannot do this. So then, by definition they cannot be atheist. So then, these past 50 years, they've come up with a solution to the problem. Let's redefine our terms so that way they fit into what we are trying to say.

And you came up with George Smith type atheists (soft atheists) that say, oh no, we believe in a lack of faith. This is fun.

However, they do this without defining faith. Nobody knows what they are talking about. (You on here who are educated in this can help define what they mean via documentation).

I think you'd do well to attempt to understand atheism before you go attacking it. It seems to me you have no idea what atheism encompasses. And besides, you seem to be defining atheism to suit your purposes too. How's that any different?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Biblical Faith is interchangeable with belief and knowledge. Thus Biblical faith is knowledge. It believe what I know and I know what I believe. Unlike the liberal Kant who made a logical fallacy of a dichotomy this area. Thus faith is knowledge.

You cannot redefine the Christian Bible's understanding of faith. You do this among the uneducated Christians and they are fooled very easily. Perhaps the atheists are doing this out of ignorance. Kirkegaard is not the definition of Biblical faith, the Bible is where the definition comes from.

I think your committing the No True Scotsman fallacy here by (1) ignoring the faith of Muslims, Hindus, and other theists, and (2) labeling the faith of other Christians as something else other than what you would consider faith and (3) suggesting that uneducated Christians are fooled easily. It seems to me that the only biblical faith is biblical faith as seen my Jean Chauvin. Another Christian very well may have what they think is "Biblical Faith" and it be radically different from your own. I'd be happy to discuss this matter more in depth is there is a consensus among theist or even Christians, but there's not, and for this reason don't generally delve in the particulars of doctrine.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So if Faith is knowledge (Biblical understanding), and soft atheists are lack of faith, then logically they are lack of knowledge. They have defined their lack of according to the Biblical understanding of faith. Thus they admit the logical consequence that they lack knowledge.

This is logic consistency folks. Pretty simple stuff.

So since atheists lack an epistemology, they must borrow others and cover it up.

Um no. The Bibile is a book. You approach with a hermeneutical philosophy as determined by epistemic presuppositions about the book, do you not? If you say you get it from the book, then I think you'll end up question begging here too.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

At this point we must refute empiricism, since this is their new mode of "thinking." Empiricism has been refuted already. I will do this in another article perhaps.

And this is why the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) credits the very beginnings of science to Christians, (NOT ATHEISTS). Funny stuff. They did this because atheism has nothing to give. They admit ignorance and they admit science at the same time. Completely funny due to absurdity.

I argue that atheists CANNOT know science or anything. They have a non-science, a fake science. Only Christians can have a proper science in anything. Since all is relative, then this would include science.

And what is this quote  "proper science" look like? I mean, are you a YEC in the line of Kent Hovind? Are you an ID'er or somthing like that? I really don't know what you mean by Christians having "proper science" and atheists having "fake science".

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


Ms Anonyme (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Maladie?

Jean, Il me semble que vous êtes malade. Vos arguments ne sont pas cohérents. En gros, c'est tout a fait évident que vous portez un haine énorme vers ce qui PENSE et que vous avez peur des choses qui,à vous, ne sont pas claires ou explicables. Il faut comprendre que, comme disait Shakespeare, on peut donner n'importe quelle nom aux roses, ils sont quand même des roses. Vous pouvez bien dire que les atheists ne croient à rien - c'est vrais en plus. Ce que vous ne comprenez pas du tout et ce qui vous fait le plus peur est qui un manque de croissance en ce qui est complètement ridicule ne nous compromise pas. Vous avez surement besoin de l'aide d'un psychiatre. C'est claire, claire, claire que vous n'êtes pas stable.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
D'tabernaque!!!!!!!!

Ms Anonyme wrote:

Jean, Il me semble que vous êtes malade. Vos arguments ne sont pas cohérents. En gros, c'est tout a fait évident que vous portez un haine énorme vers ce qui PENSE et que vous avez peur des choses qui,à vous, ne sont pas claires ou explicables. Il faut comprendre que, comme disait Shakespeare, on peut donner n'importe quelle nom aux roses, ils sont quand même des roses. Vous pouvez bien dire que les atheists ne croient à rien - c'est vrais en plus. Ce que vous ne comprenez pas du tout et ce qui vous fait le plus peur est qui un manque de croissance en ce qui est complètement ridicule ne nous compromise pas. Vous avez surement besoin de l'aide d'un psychiatre. C'est claire, claire, claire que vous n'êtes pas stable.

 

 

                He shows signs of Aspergers syndrome or Bi-polar disorder. Eather way it is sad.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

CHRISTIANITY VS. NO-THING

Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything. To claim they know anything is inconsistent with their starting points of nothing.

So the question is not about theists vs. atheists. The question has to be Atheists vs. Christians, since a general theists worldview will not do. It has to be one that is within reason, and only Christianity fits this.

 

Jean, 

 

of course if what you believe you know about other people is correct then you are absolutely right.... in anything... whatever conclusion you wish to make will be true if you base it on a false statement.

 

You are certainly limited in your either willingness or ability to learn, or both... sorry.

 

BTW, did you read Qur'an?

 


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
This guy is either an idiot,

This guy is either an idiot, a troll, or both.  He's not worthy of engaging in conversation.  He can't even understand the theist portion of the word aTHEIST.  Lack of belief in a deity.  If he can't understand that then we can't even really communicate with him.

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


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

Hey,

I enjoyed talking with you yesterday. I am still learning how to use the controls, and skimming through my recent posts helps me respond quicker.

Not sure if the Alex guy had a question. He may have just been ranting? I don't know. Did you have a question Alex?

__________________________

UBuntUanyone

You have the long book questions. Good for your. Go I was going to sleep but I'll take it tonight.

Quote:
Atheists may have knowledge of such things, but do not necessarily believe such things in much the same way one can have knowledge about Santa Claus but believe that Santa Claus does not exist. I think your evaluation of atheism is false, so any conclusion on the matter is certainly faulty.

Of course you do. Then tell me where I'm wrong and give me a proper evaluation. You complained about me being general, now I am being specific in reference to consistency. I am making a valid argument. No?

I don't know of your specific disagreements, so tell me and we will go from there.

Quote:
One does not "believe in atheism" as if it were something to believe in. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god. Anyways, how can one believe in atheism if one is lacking knowledge as you asserted earlier. Your initial point is contradictory to this statement....

Well, that depends. O'Hair thought so. There is a new type of Atheism going around. It started in the 80's with George Smith. Soft Atheism. But in reality, soft atheism is technically in the class of agnosticism. Lack of belief, yeah I know. But since this is not technically atheism, but a new fad that redefines things, and is actually an agnostic, I'm not talking about you per sa. Agnosticism would be another subject. If you don't think you are an agnostic, then how can you have lack of faith and not by absolute as the etymological meaning of the word suggests in Atheist?

Quote:
I think you're generalizing again. Atheism can be many thing, of which one can be a lack of epistemic assertions about a god, or disbelief in given assertions about god. There's nothing about any of this that necessitates an "infinite epistemology". But even if such a thing did exist, how could you as a being with a finite mind and finite understanding possible grasp such a thing?

So what you're telling me is Atheism is the lack of...? I kind of agree. Atheism is not a system and cannot stand on it's own. It has not epistemology, reality, ethics, aesthetics, etc. So if you murder somebody, and there's no law against it, no fowl done? Right?  Is this not consistent to what you are admitting? If you say yes, you are the most honest atheist, scratch that, agnostic I've ever met.

Quote:
I think you'd do well to attempt to understand atheism before you go attacking it. It seems to me you have no idea what atheism encompasses. And besides, you seem to be defining atheism to suit your purposes too. How's that any different?

oh, the patronizing. How fun. Well, you are not an atheist. You are an agnostic. And in the words of O'Hair, and agnostic is nothing more then an atheist with no guts.

Quote:
I think your committing the No True Scotsman fallacy here by (1) ignoring the faith of Muslims, Hindus, and other theists, and (2) labeling the faith of other Christians as something else other than what you would consider faith and (3) suggesting that uneducated Christians are fooled easily. It seems to me that the only biblical faith is biblical faith as seen my Jean Chauvin. Another Christian very well may have what they think is "Biblical Faith" and it be radically different from your own. I'd be happy to discuss this matter more in depth is there is a consensus among theist or even Christians, but there's not, and for this reason don't generally delve in the particulars of doctrine.

How am I being ambiguous? The other "faiths" you mentioned are all false. Via my logical system of argument, Christianity is the only means for epistemological knowledge and truth. All others are false since they contradict that which is true. Period. I thought you would have know that.

Quote:
Um no. The Bibile is a book. You approach with a hermeneutical philosophy as determined by epistemic presuppositions about the book, do you not? If you say you get it from the book, then I think you'll end up question begging here too.

Actually, the Bible is an encyclopedia of 66 books. Close, but no cigar. If you mean that philosophy or logic is ontologically speaking because God is, that is correct. If there is no God, there is no logic. So in that sense, life, beauty, arts, knowledge, truth, are ALL dependent of God and His Word, if that's what you mean, correct.

Quote:
And what is this quote  "proper science" look like? I mean, are you a YEC in the line of Kent Hovind? Are you an ID'er or somthing like that? I really don't know what you mean by Christians having "proper science" and atheists having "fake science".

I am a YEC in line with Kent Hovind. Very good. Though Kent is in prison for tax evasion. Kind of a strange personality. I am absolutely not I.D. due to the hilarious absurdity (among others) of transpermia.

Though we must define science, which is knowledge itself. I have done this. At that point, I will leave this question for later since it is somewhat involved. But i will give you a piece of the pie for now.

Since Christianity gives man the mere possibility to know anything, this is a must for man to know something. Since Atheism can't know anything, science is impossible and is dead. With that, I will expound on this at  a later time.

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,

Hello,

Regarding other posts, no questions, just name calling. One person even spoke in tongues. I think I just saw Sarah Palin.

Goodnight, will return with entertaining refutations in the morning.

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
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Goodnight Jean.

 

Sleep tight.

 

 


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:
One person even spoke in tongues.

It was French. How are you going to refute it if you don't understand it ?

Btw, if French isn't your first language, then what is ? It obviously isn't english. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Goodnight, will return with entertaining refutations in the morning.

I have to admit, the spectacle of you trying to talk down to Ubuntu , Blake ,AE,... is quite entertaining, but not in the way you're hoping for.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Not sure

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Not sure if the Alex guy had a question. He may have just been ranting? I don't know. Did you have a question Alex?

No, that was a diagnosis.


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Quote:
Atheists may have knowledge of such things, but do not necessarily believe such things in much the same way one can have knowledge about Santa Claus but believe that Santa Claus does not exist. I think your evaluation of atheism is false, so any conclusion on the matter is certainly faulty.

Of course you do. Then tell me where I'm wrong and give me a proper evaluation. You complained about me being general, now I am being specific in reference to consistency. I am making a valid argument. No?

Your initial assertion regarding atheists not having knowledge is what I was referencing. My contentions was that your evaluation of atheism is wrong. I think you will find that atheists, generally speaking, are more knowledgeable about religion that theists are. Atheist obtain knowledge and reject it as contradictory, inconclusive, or some something else such they they don't believe it to me true.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Quote:
One does not "believe in atheism" as if it were something to believe in. Atheism is by definition the lack of belief in a god. Anyways, how can one believe in atheism if one is lacking knowledge as you asserted earlier. Your initial point is contradictory to this statement....

Well, that depends. O'Hair thought so. There is a new type of Atheism going around. It started in the 80's with George Smith. Soft Atheism. But in reality, soft atheism is technically in the class of agnosticism. Lack of belief, yeah I know. But since this is not technically atheism, but a new fad that redefines things, and is actually an agnostic, I'm not talking about you per sa. Agnosticism would be another subject. If you don't think you are an agnostic, then how can you have lack of faith and not by absolute as the etymological meaning of the word suggests in Atheist?

Agnosticism, for the most part, is a type of atheism. O'Hair may of thought so, but I don't think that represents O'Hair's brand of atheism. Many atheist have a distaste for O'Hair because she was rather dogmatic....a sort of cult without a god.

Actually it was Huxley that started what has come to be known as "agnosticism", but anyways, on matters of  belief, one can be agnostic about many things until presented with some sort of reason to believe. Suppose one conjected that there was liquid water on Pluto. If this was the case, we do not have a means to detect it. I may doubt strongly considering the distance Pluto is from the sun etc, But that when the New Horizon probed passes it, it does indeed discover liquid water. This would show give me reason to believe there is liquid water on Pluto. Concerning gods one can have reason to doubt too for whatever reason he or she may have. But agnosticism does not eliminate the possibility of a god or gods entirely.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So what you're telling me is Atheism is the lack of...? I kind of agree. Atheism is not a system and cannot stand on it's own. It has not epistemology, reality, ethics, aesthetics, etc. So if you murder somebody, and there's no law against it, no fowl done? Right?  Is this not consistent to what you are admitting? If you say yes, you are the most honest atheist, scratch that, agnostic I've ever met.

Atheism is not the lack of belief in general...it is the lack of belief in a deity of any kind....you're over extending the definition such that I think you are equivocating non-belief in a deity to no beliefs at all. But based on what you've said already, you may indeed believe this to be true considering that for you it's all or nothing concerning god. But as I've said on some other threads, I think your epistemology collapses uncertainty and guessing because it is not grounded in anything other than itself.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

oh, the patronizing. How fun. Well, you are not an atheist. You are an agnostic. And in the words of O'Hair, and agnostic is nothing more then an atheist with no guts.

An atheist without guts...ha ha. Not really. Just someone who is trying to be honest with oneself. Agnosticism is a sort of epistemic atheism, while O'Hairs (strong atheism) is a sort of ontological atheism. It's the difference between the statements, "There is no god" and "I have a reason to believe a god exists". The former is an ontological statement, the latter is an epistemological statement.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

How am I being ambiguous? The other "faiths" you mentioned are all false. Via my logical system of argument, Christianity is the only means for epistemological knowledge and truth. All others are false since they contradict that which is true. Period. I thought you would have know that.

Even the Christians that claim to uphold the same book you do and come to some radically different understandings than you do?

Futhermore, based on what you've said about your epistemology, I have no way of knowing that these are false other than you telling me they are false. Insofar as I can tell, that would be no different than a Muslim telling me that your religion is false or an atheist saying they are all false. At the end of the day, no winner can be determined if all we have to go on are unwarranted, unsubstantiated claims. In this case, I think the intellectually honest position would be agnosticism concerning all the available religions until one can demonstrably be shown to be true.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Actually, the Bible is an encyclopedia of 66 books. Close, but no cigar. If you mean that philosophy or logic is ontologically speaking because God is, that is correct. If there is no God, there is no logic. So in that sense, life, beauty, arts, knowledge, truth, are ALL dependent of God and His Word, if that's what you mean, correct.

Why is that necessarily true? Because you said it was?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Quote:
And what is this quote  "proper science" look like? I mean, are you a YEC in the line of Kent Hovind? Are you an ID'er or somthing like that? I really don't know what you mean by Christians having "proper science" and atheists having "fake science".

I am a YEC in line with Kent Hovind. Very good. Though Kent is in prison for tax evasion. Kind of a strange personality. I am absolutely not I.D. due to the hilarious absurdity (among others) of transpermia.

Though we must define science, which is knowledge itself. I have done this. At that point, I will leave this question for later since it is somewhat involved. But i will give you a piece of the pie for now.

Of the two, I find ID to be more compelling honestly. And not all ID'er hold to transpermia...so hold to ex nihilo creation. That aside, you should define science for us as being more than "knowledge itself". That's rather ambiguous. Science as it is traditionally understood is the application of empirical process to created predictable outcomes about systems...This is done through experimentation and repeated observations about certain phenomenon. Is this the "fake science" to which you are referring?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Since Christianity gives man the mere possibility to know anything, this is a must for man to know something. Since Atheism can't know anything, science is impossible and is dead. With that, I will expound on this at  a later time.

Insofar as I can tell, your science is completely containted in the holy book of Prostestant Christianity. I think you need more than this.....

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

CHRISTIANITY VS. NO-THING

Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything. To claim they know anything is inconsistent with their starting points of nothing.

So the question is not about theists vs. atheists. The question has to be Atheists vs. Christians, since a general theists worldview will not do. It has to be one that is within reason, and only Christianity fits this.

I've already made my arguments why elsewhere. So I will not repeat my deductive logic. However, Since I do not believe in Atheism,  then the atheist must provide their type of proof for their position.

etymologically speaking, an atheist is one that claims an epistemology in no God or gods. So then, they must, via an infinite epistemology, provide such evidence within their means of knowing, to claim this is so.

Of course they cannot do this. So then, by definition they cannot be atheist. So then, these past 50 years, they've come up with a solution to the problem. Let's redefine our terms so that way they fit into what we are trying to say.

And you came up with George Smith type atheists (soft atheists) that say, oh no, we believe in a lack of faith. This is fun.

However, they do this without defining faith. Nobody knows what they are talking about. (You on here who are educated in this can help define what they mean via documentation).

Biblical Faith is interchangeable with belief and knowledge. Thus Biblical faith is knowledge. It believe what I know and I know what I believe. Unlike the liberal Kant who made a logical fallacy of a dichotomy this area. Thus faith is knowledge.

You cannot redefine the Christian Bible's understanding of faith. You do this among the uneducated Christians and they are fooled very easily. Perhaps the atheists are doing this out of ignorance. Kirkegaard is not the definition of Biblical faith, the Bible is where the definition comes from.

So if Faith is knowledge (Biblical understanding), and soft atheists are lack of faith, then logically they are lack of knowledge. They have defined their lack of according to the Biblical understanding of faith. Thus they admit the logical consequence that they lack knowledge.

This is logic consistency folks. Pretty simple stuff.

So since atheists lack an epistemology, they must borrow others and cover it up.

At this point we must refute empiricism, since this is their new mode of "thinking." Empiricism has been refuted already. I will do this in another article perhaps.

And this is why the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) credits the very beginnings of science to Christians, (NOT ATHEISTS). Funny stuff. They did this because atheism has nothing to give. They admit ignorance and they admit science at the same time. Completely funny due to absurdity.

I argue that atheists CANNOT know science or anything. They have a non-science, a fake science. Only Christians can have a proper science in anything. Since all is relative, then this would include science.

They are hypocrites. They claim knowledge is impossible to brainwash our kids, and then claim to know everything about science. Which is it pal. Do we have multiple personalities in atheism or something.

Thus it is no-thing vs. Christianity. Atheism vs. Christianity. To simply argue anything of intelligence is a refutation of the no-thing since it claims nothing.

The absurdity is extremely hilarious. Good luck getting out of that one. 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Wow, how many assumptions can you put in one post, now I am curious are you a Calvanist?  I am seeing in what I have read where you have made references to that, just curious.  I am curious about your view of free will also in how you seem to have it all figured out and haven't a single doubt whatsoever?  Or do you? Is your faith that strong that it has become knowledge, no doubt at all?  Please take your time in answering me because I see it gets piled on pretty quickly around here by the athiests they tend to gang up on you, they did me Smiling, I finally got tired of people telling me what they know and not what their viewpoint is.  I see just by some of your threads and I could be wrong here but just an impression like many of the fundamentalist athiests here your cup is full and you refuse to empty it because you KNOW it all already.  In my opinion once you do that you quit learning and you stagnate.  Let me know what you think.

 

Hope your having fun cause it looks like it Smiling

 

Reverend Willie G.

 

Respectfully

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


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

Answers,

Hi Ubunt,

Another long one. Okay, let's go.

The reason why atheists are so knowledgeable, is because they borrow the Christian epistemology without telling anybody. And because of the Imago Dei. BUT, if they were to be consistent within their worldview, they are forced into ignorance.

Heraclitus would agree with me. That's why one of his students to a vow of silence since knowledge was not attainable. If atheists can know, as you say, show me via argument how they can know and define the know for me.

Agnosticism is a type of atheism. Wow, we agree. But technically, via the system of classification, has differences. So don't hide under the atheist cape, just come out and don't be ashamed of being an agnostic. Come out with that first, then the discussion would be tailored to your worldview. Instead, these cowards like Dan Barker hide so his wife can keep paying him the big bucks.

Huxley was an Existentialist. And I believe I can demonstrate that some Greek Philosophers were agnostics before him.

You are putting your own spin on atheism. George Smith, O'Hair, my College Professor, and some guy named Joy at Pizza Hut all have different definitions. This is what you would expect to find since Atheism by default fragments everything. Their own system is fragmented.

You do have a reason to believe God exists. I gave a valid argument, you doubt my soundness. The Bible says that this belief is impossible unless God opens your mind (John 20:25). More could be said about the technicals of this, but belief is a gift from God. And those who don't believe, have not been given the gift.

Christians who claim my book, and are radically different are known in logic as heretics. They tend to either smoke the Green Bud often, or simply deceived. This is what we would expect to find since The Bible says in the last days, this would happen.

You like ID? So you think aliens from other planets sprouted life? Transpermia. I had some evolution buddies out of highschool. After refuting their position so badly, they said the Aliens did it. I could not stop laughing for days. Then ID came alone, not to be confused with E.D.

Science in reference to knowledge must be absolute to be knowledge. I have SOME knowledge, you have zero knowledge consistently. I think I'm holding the

better end of the stick.

_________________________

Hi Rev. Willie,

I just have two assumptions. The rest are inferences of those assumptions via a deductive form of argument. Next question.

I am indeed a Calvinist.

Freewill according to the encyclopedia of philosophy, under freedom is the negation of the freedom. Meaning it is cause and effect relationship. So logically, the question is?

Whom is your will free from?

Since God is Sovereign, then for God to not be sovereign over will would by definition not make Him Sovereign, thus destroying the Bible as a logical argument and system of thought. Free Will is a logical fallacy.

Faith IS knowledge according to Scripture. Along with belief. So I am absolute about the normative of my argument. And this knowledge is a gift. Since faith is knowledge, and if faith is a gift, then logically knowledge is a gift (see Eph 2:8-10).

I like atheists ganging up on me. It's a good time. Though I would drink a beer but it may slow me down. I made the mistake of opening up ten thousand threads, now I'm just trying to keep up.

But again, tell me an atheistic argument for epistemology via knowledge which by definition is a variable with absolute zero error. Nobody has yet to do this. I have refuted empiricism. Shall I continue to refute the same old things?

Now you are talking about open mindedness? Okay, then be open minded about Christianity. I goes both ways. I have arguments you have not heard, so accept them as let's move on. They can't both be right unless we enjoy absurdity of LaVey and Aquino.

Nice talking to you Reverend. Though, you are a reverend of what exactly? Atheism? That's funny.

__

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).


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
How precisely have you

How precisely have you refuted empiricism, I am seriously curious about this. As to being open minded, I am willing to change my view with evidence, that is being open minded. However, not all views are equal, views based in evidence and testing are more valid than those based on faith if we're looking at the value of them. As for free will, well an obvious question is how we are to define free will. I've been studying the concept of determinism and also some behaviorist stuff and that does make me question if free will is a slightly more complex version of stimulus response.


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Another long one. Okay, let's go.

The reason why atheists are so knowledgeable, is because they borrow the Christian epistemology without telling anybody. And because of the Imago Dei. BUT, if they were to be consistent within their worldview, they are forced into ignorance.

This is only true if and only if your epistemology is the only epistemology available. You have yet to give me a reason as to why this is the case and why I should trust yours over some other theistic reason. But atheists do have reason to invoke agnosticism concerning theism as presented by you because there is no grounding for it...insofar as we know it is at best a wild guess.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Heraclitus would agree with me. That's why one of his students to a vow of silence since knowledge was not attainable. If atheists can know, as you say, show me via argument how they can know and define the know for me.

Atheists generally speaking adopt empirical methods for ascertaining true knowledge. Theism according to you assumes knowledge that may or may not be grounded in reality. But there is not way to determine whether or not it is fact or fiction other than taking your word for it. Atheists use of empirical means can demonstrably show another how one obtained his or her knowledge....

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Agnosticism is a type of atheism. Wow, we agree. But technically, via the system of classification, has differences. So don't hide under the atheist cape, just come out and don't be ashamed of being an agnostic. Come out with that first, then the discussion would be tailored to your worldview. Instead, these cowards like Dan Barker hide so his wife can keep paying him the big bucks.

Rather than lambasting atheism as a whole, you might do better to deal with the particulars. You don't...you make generalizations without warrant and without substantiation. For this reason, I think many have written you off as having nothing new to add or substantial to say.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Huxley was an Existentialist. And I believe I can demonstrate that some Greek Philosophers were agnostics before him.

The Huxley reference was talking about the term "agnosticism", not the idea.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You are putting your own spin on atheism. George Smith, O'Hair, my College Professor, and some guy named Joy at Pizza Hut all have different definitions. This is what you would expect to find since Atheism by default fragments everything. Their own system is fragmented.

Of course atheists do this  Atheist label themselves "free thinkers" for a reason, in that they feel free to borrow, modify, and create ideas without the restrictions of dogma. The fragmentation is not a problem for atheism, it is the hallmark of atheism. It shows that atheism is full of people trying to be honest with themselves rather than adhere to some sort of doctrine. But that aside, when theist do this they are labeled as heretics or they start a new denomination or something like that. Fragmentation in theism is a bane rather than a blessing.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You do have a reason to believe God exists. I gave a valid argument, you doubt my soundness. The Bible says that this belief is impossible unless God opens your mind (John 20:25). More could be said about the technicals of this, but belief is a gift from God. And those who don't believe, have not been given the gift.

If belief is a gift from your god, why do you bother debating. Nothing you can do can change my mind if this is the case....only your god can.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Christians who claim my book, and are radically different are known in logic as heretics. They tend to either smoke the Green Bud often, or simply deceived. This is what we would expect to find since The Bible says in the last days, this would happen.

So what denomination are you? Does everyone in your denomination think exactly the same way you do? Who started it, and why?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You like ID? So you think aliens from other planets sprouted life? Transpermia. I had some evolution buddies out of highschool. After refuting their position so badly, they said the Aliens did it. I could not stop laughing for days. Then ID came alone, not to be confused with E.D.

Never said I liked it...just that it was more compelling than YEC.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Science in reference to knowledge must be absolute to be knowledge. I have SOME knowledge, you have zero knowledge consistently. I think I'm holding the better end of the stick.

What you are calling science is not science at all...even that which is claimed by Christians. Science as a discipline, at least to my knowledge, does not claims infallibility. Rather, it claims more certainty upon reproducible tests and repeated observation and accept correction and better understandings via new and/or more precise discoveries.

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


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

Answers,

Hi Joker.,

The great empiricist, David Hume became a Skeptic. He did not know how to discern empirically at what point in time and space to infer the perspective on the knowledge in order to discern the correct notion of the table itself in reference to knowing.

If you are right next to the table, the table is big. If you are 500 ft. away from the table the table is smaller. If you are a block away, the table is getting smaller. If you are 100 miles away, the table is invisible. So then, empirically speaking only, is the table really even there? Is the 100ft perspective right, or the two inches right? Hume could not answer this, became depressed, and then turned to Skepticism, which is consistent Atheism.

This is 1 example.

Not to mention the very notion of Time and Space are non empirical themselves, thus the non-empirical problem cannot even be known empirically, since it is outside of empiricism.

_____________________

Hi UBuntU,

I have given you a reason, you don't like it. Look, even if God were to come down from the sky and punch you in the face, you still would not believe in God. God has to open your mind for this to happen. God may be purposely deceiving (II Thess 2:11).

To say that my argument is not grounded in reality is argumentum ad hominem abusive. I've explained to you how it does. It takes time to answer, so read my posts careful and respond to my specific points. They don't correspond to your reality of sin because if there is no God, there is nobody accountable for your terrible sins.

Atheism as a whole has tenets. Otherwise, if you admit that there are no universals in Atheism, then by definition Atheism as a term dies, and does not "exist." And you must use another word to describe yourself. In order to use a term, there must be a concept. In order for there to be a concept, there mus be 1 universal tenet to tie it together. If not, you are not an Atheist. Let's say, you are a I don't know, a Ruby Red Squirt.

Huxley did not come up with Agnosticism. Unless you are talking about the term only. But to call him an agnostic is over simplifying his worldview.

I appreciate that you admit that atheists are thieves. They must steal other worldviews, because they don't have one of their own with substance. The Humanists say they do, perhaps they can help you become a better atheist.

Belief is a gift, I'm talking to you to see if an Atheist can come up with a means of knowing universally without God. They can't. It's kind of fun to see them sweat. God Mocks the Wicked, and I mock the Atheists (Psalms 2).

In a system, there are essentials and non-essentials. All Christians believe in the essentials, non-essentials are negotiable. So denominations are allowed to a certain extent. But when you cross over to the essentials, like Church of Christ, then you are in the realm of non-Christian "cult" or heresy. This goes for any system of thought.

ID is more ambiguous. So, to say it is more compelling is odd. But okay. But I can see why you would like it. The designer is undefined, so you can define a god after yourself, like the Greeks and Romans did. Amplified Humanity for gods.

What I am calling science is not secular science, since secular science is non-science, since it admits probability. And if you have probable, you have non-knowledge since there is a probable factor of error. Euclid did not have a probable factor of error, nor do I.

You liberals have redefined it and call it knowledge, but it is not knowledge. Historically, you play a semantic game. It's what you guys are good at. Deception and the ends justify the means.

The Secular Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) credits Christianity as the means to the birth of Science. Liberal atheists got upset, and went to war. Redefined things, and won the day. This is what the Bible talks about in the end days, so this is what we would expect. No surprises 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).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I have given you a reason, you don't like it. Look, even if God were to come down from the sky and punch you in the face, you still would not believe in God. God has to open your mind for this to happen. God may be purposely deceiving (II Thess 2:11).

Seriously, why bother answering me if this is the case? Have you been appointed as your god's prophet to do his face punching for him?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

To say that my argument is not grounded in reality is argumentum ad hominem abusive. I've explained to you how it does. It takes time to answer, so read my posts careful and respond to my specific points. They don't correspond to your reality of sin because if there is no God, there is nobody accountable for your terrible sins.

An ad hominem is to attack your character. I attacked the argument, saying nothing about about your character. I'm sorry if you took it personally, but was not intended to be a personal attack.

But I do not relinquish the assertion that your argument is not grounded in reality... If you can show me how you get your god as necessary truth axiomatically, then I would be willing to withdraw the statement. But insofar as I can tell, you've failed to do this, other than asserting that your god "is" ad nauseum. I've raised multiple objections, all which have been answered, so it seems by you saying asserting the truth of your view over and over without showing how the objection are false.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Atheism as a whole has tenets. Otherwise, if you admit that there are no universals in Atheism, then by definition Atheism as a term dies, and does not "exist." And you must use another word to describe yourself. In order to use a term, there must be a concept. In order for there to be a concept, there mus be 1 universal tenet to tie it together. If not, you are not an Atheist. Let's say, you are a I don't know, a Ruby Red Squirt.

If I were to use the word "Christian" to describe all those who call themselves Christian, based on what you've said already, I presume you would object saying the only "true" Christians are those who believe like you do. But this is simply the No true Scotsman fallacy. I have said it before, and I will say it again, the only thing that all atheist necessarily have in common is that they don't believe in a god. This may the only "tenet" (if you can call it that) that atheist  have.  The extent and reason for disbelief vary, but that's does not change the fact that all atheists don't believe in god.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Huxley did not come up with Agnosticism. Unless you are talking about the term only. But to call him an agnostic is over simplifying his worldview.

I was referring to the word...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I appreciate that you admit that atheists are thieves. They must steal other worldviews, because they don't have one of their own with substance. The Humanists say they do, perhaps they can help you become a better atheist.

Thieves? Since when are public ideas something to be stolen? Heck, one could say the same for Christian theism too by suggesting that Christians stole stories about about life-death-rebirth deities such as Osiris or Dionysus or that Muslims stole ideas from Judaism, local moon worship, and Christianity.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Belief is a gift, I'm talking to you to see if an Atheist can come up with a means of knowing universally without God. They can't. It's kind of fun to see them sweat. God Mocks the Wicked, and I mock the Atheists (Psalms 2).

You're free to mock atheists, but don't get mad when they mock you either....

Jean Chauvin wrote:

In a system, there are essentials and non-essentials. All Christians believe in the essentials, non-essentials are negotiable. So denominations are allowed to a certain extent. But when you cross over to the essentials, like Church of Christ, then you are in the realm of non-Christian "cult" or heresy. This goes for any system of thought.

This isn't true for atheism because in atheism there is no heresy. (except for being a theist of some kind, I suppose. )

Jean Chauvin wrote:

What I am calling science is not secular science, since secular science is non-science, since it admits probability. And if you have probable, you have non-knowledge since there is a probable factor of error. Euclid did not have a probable factor of error, nor do I.

I don't know where you're getting your ideas about Euclid from....but it isn't Euclid. Which of his axioms did not map onto the observed world? And where did he reject space and time? Euclid was describing space.....

And science...wow...you way off here too. I'm not sure were you're getting your ideas about science from, but I don't think it has ever been defined as you are defining, even by other Christians.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You liberals have redefined it and call it knowledge, but it is not knowledge. Historically, you play a semantic game. It's what you guys are good at. Deception and the ends justify the means.

The Secular Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) credits Christianity as the means to the birth of Science. Liberal atheists got upset, and went to war. Redefined things, and won the day. This is what the Bible talks about in the end days, so this is what we would expect. No surprises here.

Funny how some Christians label anyone who does not agree with them a "liberal"... Insofar as I can tell, the only one doing and sort of redefining here is you: you're attempting to redefine atheism for your purposes  and science for your purposes.

But if you want to credit Christians as inventing Science, I think you will have to call Catholics "Christians" too...are you willing to do that?

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

CHRISTIANITY VS. NO-THING

Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything. To claim they know anything is inconsistent with their starting points of nothing.

So the question is not about theists vs. atheists. The question has to be Atheists vs. Christians, since a general theists worldview will not do. It has to be one that is within reason, and only Christianity fits this.

I've already made my arguments why elsewhere. So I will not repeat my deductive logic. However, Since I do not believe in Atheism,  then the atheist must provide their type of proof for their position.

etymologically speaking, an atheist is one that claims an epistemology in no God or gods. So then, they must, via an infinite epistemology, provide such evidence within their means of knowing, to claim this is so.

Of course they cannot do this. So then, by definition they cannot be atheist. So then, these past 50 years, they've come up with a solution to the problem. Let's redefine our terms so that way they fit into what we are trying to say.

And you came up with George Smith type atheists (soft atheists) that say, oh no, we believe in a lack of faith. This is fun.

However, they do this without defining faith. Nobody knows what they are talking about. (You on here who are educated in this can help define what they mean via documentation).

Biblical Faith is interchangeable with belief and knowledge. Thus Biblical faith is knowledge. It believe what I know and I know what I believe. Unlike the liberal Kant who made a logical fallacy of a dichotomy this area. Thus faith is knowledge.

You cannot redefine the Christian Bible's understanding of faith. You do this among the uneducated Christians and they are fooled very easily. Perhaps the atheists are doing this out of ignorance. Kirkegaard is not the definition of Biblical faith, the Bible is where the definition comes from.

So if Faith is knowledge (Biblical understanding), and soft atheists are lack of faith, then logically they are lack of knowledge. They have defined their lack of according to the Biblical understanding of faith. Thus they admit the logical consequence that they lack knowledge.

This is logic consistency folks. Pretty simple stuff.

So since atheists lack an epistemology, they must borrow others and cover it up.

At this point we must refute empiricism, since this is their new mode of "thinking." Empiricism has been refuted already. I will do this in another article perhaps.

And this is why the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) credits the very beginnings of science to Christians, (NOT ATHEISTS). Funny stuff. They did this because atheism has nothing to give. They admit ignorance and they admit science at the same time. Completely funny due to absurdity.

I argue that atheists CANNOT know science or anything. They have a non-science, a fake science. Only Christians can have a proper science in anything. Since all is relative, then this would include science.

They are hypocrites. They claim knowledge is impossible to brainwash our kids, and then claim to know everything about science. Which is it pal. Do we have multiple personalities in atheism or something.

Thus it is no-thing vs. Christianity. Atheism vs. Christianity. To simply argue anything of intelligence is a refutation of the no-thing since it claims nothing.

The absurdity is extremely hilarious. Good luck getting out of that one. 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

This is all self-serving nonsense crafted to make your nonsensical beliefs look somehow sensible and noble .  It doesn't.   An atheist is merely a person who does not think there are any gods, i.e.the same as you with the various other gods of history plus Jesus.   It has nothing to say about knowledge or lack thereof. And, BTW, science did NOT start with the Christians, it started with the pagans in classical Greece.   In fact it lay dormant during the first 1000 years of Christianity.

 

____________________________________________________________

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


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, so are you asserting

OK, so are you asserting that atheists can't ever know anything because they are atheists?

 

Then I shall have to ask you what is up with these people (all atheists):

 

 

Julius Axelrod (1912–2004): American Nobel Prize winning biochemist, noted for his work on the release and reuptake of catecholamine neurotransmitters and major contributions to the understanding of the pineal gland and how it is regulated during the sleep-wake cycle.

Patrick Blackett OM, CH, FRS (1897–1974): Nobel Prize winning English experimental physicist known for his work on cloud chambers, cosmic rays, and paleomagnetism.

Sir Hermann Bondi KCB, FRS (1919–2005): Anglo-Austrian mathematician and cosmologist, best known for co-developing the steady-state theory of the universe and important contributions to the theory of general relativity.

Paul D. Boyer (1918&ndashEye-wink: American biochemist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1997.

Sean M. Carroll (1966&ndashEye-wink: American cosmologist specializing in dark energy and general relativity.

Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (1910–1995): Indian American astrophysicist known for his theoretical work on the structure and evolution of stars. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1983.

Frank Close OBE (1945&ndashEye-wink: British particle physicist, Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford and a Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford, known for his lectures and writings making science intelligible to a wider audience, for which he was awarded the Institute of Physics's Kelvin Medal and Prize.

Francis Crick (1916–2004): English molecular biologist, physicist, and neuroscientist; noted for being one of the co-discoverers of the structure of the DNA molecule in 1953. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1962.

Paul Dirac (1902–1984): British theoretical physicist, one of the founders of quantum mechanics, predicted the existence of antimatter, and won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1933.

Thomas Edison: American inventor.

Sandra Faber (1944&ndashEye-wink: American University Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of California, Santa Cruz, also working at the Lick Observatory, who headed the team that discovered 'The Great Attractor.

Richard Feynman (1918–1988): American theoretical physicist, best known for his work in renormalizing Quantum electrodynamics (QED) and his path integral formulation of quantum mechanics . He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965.

Christer Fuglesang (1957&ndashEye-wink, Swedish astronaut and physicist.

Vitaly Ginzburg (1916–2009): Russian theoretical physicist and astrophysicist who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2003. He was also awarded the Wolf Prize in Physics in 1994/95.

Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002): American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, one of the most influential and widely read writers of popular science of his generation.

E. T. 'Teddy' Hall (1924–2001): English archaeological scientist, famous for exposing the Piltdown Man fraud and dating the Turin Shroud as a medieval fake.

Sir James Hall (1761–1832): Scottish geologist and chemist, President of the Royal Society of Edinburgh and leading figure in the Scottish Enlightenment.

Beverly Halstead (1933–1991): British paleontologist and populariser of science.

Stephen Hawking: arguably the world's pre-eminent scientist advocates atheism in The Grand Design

Peter Higgs (1929&ndashEye-wink: British theoretical physicist, recipient of the Dirac Medal and Prize, known for his prediction of the existence of a new particle, the Higgs boson, nicknamed the "God particle".

Sir Julian Huxley FRS (1887–1975): English evolutionary biologist, a leading figure in the mid-twentieth century evolutionary synthesis, Secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, and a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund.

Frédéric Joliot-Curie (1900–1958): French physicist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1935.

Steve Jones (1944&ndashEye-wink: British geneticist, Professor of genetics and head of the biology department at University College London, and television presenter and a prize-winning author on biology, especially evolution; one of the best known contemporary popular writers on evolution.

Lawrence Krauss (1954-): Professor of physics at Arizona State University and popularizer of science. Krauss speaks regularly at atheist conferences, like Beyond Belief and Atheist Alliance International.

Harold Kroto (1939&ndashEye-wink: 1996 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry.

Pierre-Simon Laplace (1749 –1827): French mathematician and astronomer whose work was pivotal to the development of mathematical astronomy and statistics, and anticipated the discovery of galaxies other than the Milky Way and the existence of black holes.

Richard Leakey (1944&ndashEye-wink: Kenyan paleontologist, archaeologist and conservationist.

Ernst Mayr (1904–2005): a renowned taxonomist, tropical explorer, ornithologist, historian of science, and naturalist. He was one of the 20th century's leading evolutionary biologists.

Jeff Medkeff (1968–2008): American astronomer, prominent science writer and educator, and designer of robotic telescopes.

Peter D. Mitchell (1920–1992): 1978-Nobel-laureate British biochemist. Atheist mother, and himself atheist from age 15.

Jacques Monod (1910–1976): French biologist who won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1965 for discoveries concerning genetic control of enzyme and virus synthesis.

Hermann Joseph Muller (1890–1967): American geneticist and educator, best known for his work on the physiological and genetic effects of radiation (X-ray mutagenesis). He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1946.

PZ Myers (1957&ndashEye-wink: American biology professor at the University of Minnesota and a blogger via his blog, Pharyngula.

Paul Nurse (1949&ndashEye-wink: 2001 Nobel Laureate in Physiology or Medicine.

Linus Pauling (1901–1994): American chemist, Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1954) and Peace (1962)

Francis Perrin (1901–1992): French physicist, co-establisher the possibility of nuclear chain reactions and nuclear energy production.

Norman Pirie FRS (1954&ndashEye-wink: British biochemist and virologist co-discoverer in 1936 of viral crystallization, an important milestone in understanding DNA and RNA.

Richard J. Roberts (1943&ndashEye-wink: British biochemist and molecular biologist. He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1993 for the discovery of introns in eukaryotic DNA and the mechanism of gene-splicing.

Marshall Rosenbluth (1927–2003) American physicist, nicknamed "the Pope of Plasma Physics". He created the Metropolis algorithm in statistical mechanics, derived the Rosenbluth formula in high-energy physics, and laid the foundations for instability theory in plasma physics.

Carl Sagan (1934–1996): American astronomer and astrochemist, a highly successful popularizer of astronomy, astrophysics, and other natural sciences, and pioneer of exobiology and promoter of the SETI. Although Sagan has been identified as an atheist according to some definitions, he rejected the label, stating "An atheist has to know a lot more than I know." He was an agnostic who, while maintaining that the idea of a creator of the universe was difficult to disprove, nevertheless disbelieved in God's existence, pending sufficient evidence.

Claude Shannon (1916–2001): American electrical engineer and mathematician, has been called "the father of information theory", and was the founder of practical digital circuit design theory.

Michael Smith (1932–2000): British-born Canadian biochemist and Nobel Laureate in Chemistry in 1993.

Richard Stallman (1953&ndashEye-wink: American software freedom activist, hacker, and software developer.

Victor J. Stenger (1935&ndashEye-wink: American physicist, emeritus professor of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of Philosophy at the University of Colorado. Author of the book God: The Failed Hypothesis.

Leonard Susskind (1940&ndashEye-wink: American theoretical physicist; a founding father of superstring theory and professor of theoretical physics at Stanford University.

Gherman Titov (1935–2000): Soviet cosmonaut and the second human to orbit the Earth.

Linus Torvalds (1969&ndashEye-wink: Finnish software engineer, creator of the Linux kernel.

Alan Turing (1912–1954): English mathematician, logician, and cryptographer; often considered to be the father of modern computer science. The Turing Award, often recognized as the "Nobel Prize of computing", is named after him.

J. Craig Venter (1946&ndashEye-wink: American biologist and entrepreneur, one of the first researchers to sequence the human genome, and in 2010 the first to create a cell with a synthetic genome.

James D. Watson (1928&ndashEye-wink: 1962-Nobel-laureate co-discover of the structure of DNA.

Joseph Weber (1919–2000): American physicist, who gave the earliest public lecture on the principles behind the laser and the maser, and developed the first gravitational wave detectors (Weber bars).

Steven Weinberg (1933&ndashEye-wink: American theoretical physicist. He won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979 for the unification of electromagnetism and the weak force into the electroweak force.

Victor Weisskopf (1908–2002): Austrian-American theoretical physicist, co-founder and board member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

 

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Expecting the "Those

Expecting the "Those scientists really believe in God but they deny it because they hate him" argument any time now...

"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
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Answers,

Hi Joker.,

The great empiricist, David Hume became a Skeptic. He did not know how to discern empirically at what point in time and space to infer the perspective on the knowledge in order to discern the correct notion of the table itself in reference to knowing.

If you are right next to the table, the table is big. If you are 500 ft. away from the table the table is smaller. If you are a block away, the table is getting smaller. If you are 100 miles away, the table is invisible. So then, empirically speaking only, is the table really even there? Is the 100ft perspective right, or the two inches right? Hume could not answer this, became depressed, and then turned to Skepticism, which is consistent Atheism.

This is 1 example.

Not to mention the very notion of Time and Space are non empirical themselves, thus the non-empirical problem cannot even be known empirically, since it is outside of empiricism.

 

Joker may respond for him/herself, but I have to throw in my 2 cents here.  This is called perspective.  A common term and how artists can make a painted scene look real.  The optical illusion that causes the table to look smaller is because humans - like many other animals including primates and some dogs - have binocular vision.  If you were a horse or a fly, your perception of the table would be markedly different.  The reason the table appears to disappear is because of its relative size and the curvature of the earth.  No different than traveling across the midwestern US and watching the Rocky Mountains apparently rising up from the plains.  They aren't actually rising, it is an optical illusion.

That Hume had a problem with perspective and the earth's curvature is no one's problem but Hume's.  His problems don't disprove empiricism nor do they prove something about reality.  The really amusing part is that you claim god/s/dess gives you all kinds of insight about art, but you have demonstrated you don't have a clue about the mechanics of the craftsmanship that underlies the artistic expression.

 

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

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

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


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

Hi UBuntU,

Come on. Of course not. However, you admit that as an atheist, you have nothing to justify, since it is the negation of everything. You positively assert the negation. Your Humanists friends disagree with you, along with many classical atheists. Your new definition is of a modern motif. So, if I quote classical atheists with a different definition, would they be wrong and you'd be right?

The only true Christians, are those who believe via consistency to the normative of their epistemology. That would be the Bible. Since I logically am consistent with the Bible, then logically yes, they would have to believe like as an example. But I am not the normative, the Bible is. Good try thou.

I have not committed a logical fallacy, for my argument is universal. But the other false "religions" don't use logic. A Muslim would not use argument, but emotion.

The reason why you are a thief, is because you are empty, and have no purpose or meaning in life (via your system). Since this is the case, for PR, you must steal from the Christians which despise for your system, though you don't like their system. This is known in logic as hypocrisy. If you want to be honest, a consistent atheist has no sense of right and wrong. So murder, theft, adultery, human sacrifice, would all be non-wrong, or non-right. After you bring up empirical ethics, I will refute it, and you will see that this is the case.

You can try to mock me. Not doing a good job. It is almost impossible for me to be offended.

There is no heresy in atheism? hmmm. So one can believe in a young earth. One can deny Darwinian Evolution. One can believe in the ethics of the ought. One can believe in pro-life. Okay, I guess atheists are more Christians then I thought.

To say a triangle can be observe, and to say Euclid ARGUED that way are two opposite things. Within the consistency of Euclid, since Space and Time were utterly dismissed, he was arguing outside of observation. You cannot observe without space and time.

It's pretty black and white in life regarding ethics, ontology, and epistemology. Either you're pregnant, or you're not. There's no middle ground with this.

__________________________

Hi Tassman,

How could it be self-serving if it argues via the passive voice. For it to be self serving, it would have to be argued from the middle voice, like atheism. Perhaps you are reacting emotionally.

Quote:
An atheist is merely a person who does not think

I agree. Wait, you mean think there are any gods. Is that all, or universally, an atheist is someone who does not think? To assert is not to argue, and to justify is to think, which would refute your assertion. If this is the case, then no atheist, can refute a theist logically. They can only point, jump and an do, and negate. Since you do not do this, then you refute yourself. 

Classical Greece dealt with philosophy. If you would like to take it up with the Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and about 150 world famous scholars, go a head. I can supply you names if you wish.

It did not lay flat for 1000 years. The atheists said this in order to push their agenda. This is what is known in logic as a made up lie.

___________________________

Hi Answers in Genesis,

The reason why those guys you mentioned "knew" something, is because they were inconsistent. They stepped out of their atheism, and borrowed Christian epistemology when nobody was looking. Also, the Imago Dei is a factor of their "knowing." But at the end of the day, people were noticing their thiefery, so they were essentially speaking probabilities, which equals non-knowledge.

Why did you leave the occult? LaVeyian Satanism are still atheists. They simply believe they are satan via consistency in being animals. So you can still be in the occult, and yet still be an atheist.

I'm here to help. I really am.

_______________________

Hi JCG,

Einstein did not believe in God. He believed in a false god. But there are "Scientists" Christians out there. I know about maybe 5 ph.d. geologists. I know some personally. Also some biologists. The Answers in Genesis LaVeyian Satanist above here could help answer some these specifics.

Do you not have any arguments as to why you are an atheists. Or do you simply negate mindlessly. You have to justify your method of refutation as viable since you and others rarely refute empirically.

_____________________________

Hello CJ, the Atheist Jew,

You ought to really get back into reading the TaNaK. Perhaps put aside the Talmud and the Midrash. And the Zohan is garbage, we all know this. Many Jews are now Christians. I have studied many Jews within the last 1000 years, and boy, is there a story to tell. And watch the oi vays, will you.

Onto your question/statement.

The problem with empiricism is that the fact that there is round, cannot be comprehended. You have to step outside of empiricism to answer non-empirical questions Space and Time are not observed. So the very problem is thus a problem since empiricism consistently, really has no clue what's going on.

You see, an empiricist can only start with nothing. No language, no knowledge, nothing. Then, via fragmented "STUFF," he is then to go from A, then B, then C and pick this stuff up. However, he must then be able to place this stuff in a pattern of thought. The pattern is non-empirical, since he is starting with zero, there's no way for him to do this.

I do agree with empiricism to an extent. However, you would have to be infinitely empirical, and eternally empirical, all at the exact same time in space instantly forever. Only then, since you have the whole picture, could you interpret the data correctly. Since empiricists are particulars always dealing with particulars, they are really nothing more then apes jumping up and down and ostensively pointing at things.

Perspective is the inference of experience. You must answer the question empirically, but since the question is non-empirical, you can't do anything. You're stuck. You've fallen and you can't get up. Push the medical device necklace. Help is on the way. Sorry, to many flat tires in their consistency.

Shalom.

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).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I do agree with empiricism to an extent. However, you would have to be infinitely empirical, and eternally empirical, all at the exact same time in space instantly forever. Only then, since you have the whole picture, could you interpret the data correctly. Since empiricists are particulars always dealing with particulars, they are really nothing more then apes jumping up and down and ostensively pointing at things. 

And inventing computers, and going to the moon, and taking pictures of light that has travelled for 13 billion years, and prising open the secrets of reality via quantum theory and relativity.

The problem with your argument is that empirical rationalism has given us most everything we have today, from longer lives and less pain and suffering (at least in the developed nations) to global communication to knowledge that is simply not present in the Bible.

If we were to rely solely on the Bible for knowledge, we'd still be bronze-age sheepherders. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible that was not known to the people who wrote it down. This indicates the Bible is the work of man, and not divine revelation.

Meanwhile, this "empiricism" at which you scoff gives you the real miracles. Well, empiricism tempered by rationality.

The proof is, as they say, in the pudding.

What exactly has your divine revelation given us that we haven't given ourselves?

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean, Please name these

Jean,

Please name these "scientists" who are Christians according to your narrow definition.

I've a feeling I'll be seeing names like Ham, Hovind and Gish but maybe you can surprise me...

"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
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello CJ,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello CJ, the Atheist Jew,

You ought to really get back into reading the TaNaK. Perhaps put aside the Talmud and the Midrash. And the Zohan is garbage, we all know this. Many Jews are now Christians. I have studied many Jews within the last 1000 years, and boy, is there a story to tell. And watch the oi vays, will you.

 

Sigh, I am not jewish, not ethnically, not philosophically, not religiously.  Not. at. all.  Einstein was ethnic jew, but by his own writings, did not believe in the religion or in god.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Onto your question/statement.

The problem with empiricism is that the fact that there is round, cannot be comprehended. You have to step outside of empiricism to answer non-empirical questions Space and Time are not observed. So the very problem is thus a problem since empiricism consistently, really has no clue what's going on.

You see, an empiricist can only start with nothing. No language, no knowledge, nothing. Then, via fragmented "STUFF," he is then to go from A, then B, then C and pick this stuff up. However, he must then be able to place this stuff in a pattern of thought. The pattern is non-empirical, since he is starting with zero, there's no way for him to do this.

I do agree with empiricism to an extent. However, you would have to be infinitely empirical, and eternally empirical, all at the exact same time in space instantly forever. Only then, since you have the whole picture, could you interpret the data correctly. Since empiricists are particulars always dealing with particulars, they are really nothing more then apes jumping up and down and ostensively pointing at things.

Perspective is the inference of experience. You must answer the question empirically, but since the question is non-empirical, you can't do anything. You're stuck. You've fallen and you can't get up. Push the medical device necklace. Help is on the way. Sorry, to many flat tires in their consistency.

Shalom.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Empirical science brought you the electricity, the batteries, the computer, and the internet.  Light bulbs, monitors and flat screens, TVs, frozen food, canned food, larger and tastier veggies and fruits (just by breeding for better, no genetic manipulation needed), machine looms for clothing, coal tar dyes for coloring clothing - yes even black, indoor plumbing, houses, buildings, streets, sidewalks, concrete, asphalt, and on and on and on....

Your opinion of empiricism matters not to me or to any of the modern technology you are so obviously using. 

 

-- 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
Hello

Hello,

Where to start. Nigel, if the liberals have taken over the country's media and Universities. I am in a middle of a move, so my 10,000 volume is boxed up.When I bring the books out in the coming weeks, then I shall via ad hominem. show you.

The attack on the family is in the writings of Alister Crowley. Since Crowley was one of the most consistent liberals in American history, and the attack of the family has happened, so be it.

Patience grasshopper, patience

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).


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
 Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Hi Answers in Genesis,

 

OK, thr forum owner already told you but let me clue you in again anyway. The forum software truncates long user names. Mine is Answers In Gene Simmons.

 

I am going to guess that you don't really know much past the obvious slam on the fundie web site with a similar name but Gene Simmons is (in no particular order):

 

The bass player for KISS

A rock solid loyal American

A total moral degenerate

An ethnic Jew

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The reason why those guys you mentioned "knew" something, is because they were inconsistent. They stepped out of their atheism, and borrowed Christian epistemology when nobody was looking.

 

OK, as far as that reads, you are making a vague assertion. Did you have specifics in mind for any of them?

 

Heck, pick a few names from that list and say why you think that each of them is a crypto-chirstian. You pick the names but be specific in laying your charge.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Why did you leave the occult? LaVeyian Satanism are still atheists. They simply believe they are satan via consistency in being animals. So you can still be in the occult, and yet still be an atheist.

 

I'm here to help. I really am.

 

Well, I suppose that it may not even be an accurate statement that I ever left the occult. At least not in the sense that I left believing in fake gods behind me. What would be more accurate might be that it was something I did in the process of getting the woo and pussy stuff out of my life. Certainly the occult has plenty of that going on. I don't have that in my life any longer.

 

In one of your threads, I noticed that you mentioned Michael Aquino. That is mildly impressive as most people have probably never heard the name. Actually, I have personally corresponded with the Lt. Col. He claims to have personally met the Egyptian gods. I say that he is full of shit on that one. However, one of the Setian deals is to spend time intentionally believing wrong things.

 

Is he full of shit because it pleases him to be full of shit or is it because he really thinks that he has done that? I don't fucking know and I don't really care.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Where to start.

No kidding.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Nigel, if the liberals have taken over the country's media and Universities. I am in a middle of a move, so my 10,000 volume is boxed up.When I bring the books out in the coming weeks, then I shall via ad hominem. show you.

You need 10.000 books to throw adhoms at people ? You say what now ?

With all due respect, but I hope one of those books deals with english grammar.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The attack on the family is in the writings of Alister Crowley. Since Crowley was one of the most consistent liberals in American history, and the attack of the family has happened, so be it.

Right. So "one of the most consistent liberals in american history" was a dude from Warwickshire ? You mentioned him a couple of times now. No offense meant, but are you a 12 year old goth ? Cause those are the only people I know who still read his stuff.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Patience grasshopper, patience

Nah, I'm all out. You guys have fun.

 


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Come on. Of course not. However, you admit that as an atheist, you have nothing to justify, since it is the negation of everything. You positively assert the negation. Your Humanists friends disagree with you, along with many classical atheists. Your new definition is of a modern motif. So, if I quote classical atheists with a different definition, would they be wrong and you'd be right?

You think atheism is the negation of everything....that is simply not the case. It is disbelief in a god.... Why do you unnecessarily heap on other qualifiers. If you have the liberty to do this, why can I not do the same for Christians on your behalf? You'd probably certainly object to me calling Mormons, Modalists, and JW's "Christain" would you not?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The only true Christians, are those who believe via consistency to the normative of their epistemology. That would be the Bible. Since I logically am consistent with the Bible, then logically yes, they would have to believe like as an example. But I am not the normative, the Bible is. Good try thou.

So to be a Christian you have to believe the Bible is a "normative epistemolgy". Wouldn't that be adding to what most protestant Christians believe about salvation--simply belief in Jesus. And what about those who believe in Jesus before the Bible was Canonized circa AD 300? And on top of that, what about those who affirm the Bible as you do, but don't think it teaches YEC or a world wide flood. Are all these people Christian?

My problem with what you are saying is that you are calling "true Christians" only those who believe like you do and more or less the same thing about atheist such that the only true atheist are those that fit your definition of atheism. Either case is fallacious.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I have not committed a logical fallacy, for my argument is universal. But the other false "religions" don't use logic. A Muslim would not use argument, but emotion.

But you are begging the question...you assert that universals are justified using a universal.... That's like defining "dog", using the word "dog". It does not add any new meaning or warrant the definition...

But that aside, you justified your universal using particulars...(i.e. your god created trees and we observe trees). Perhaps the best and only way to know the difference between fact and fiction accordingly is to infer the universals from the particulars by means of induction. BobSpence1 noted, and I've said it before there may be a few universals, but they are internal and can be validated via observation. What to prevent me from saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster created trees, we observe trees, therefore we know what the Flying Spaghetti Monster does is real. Insofar as I can tell, there's no way to know per your epistemology, which means it is not a successful at producing knowledge...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The reason why you are a thief, is because you are empty, and have no purpose or meaning in life (via your system). Since this is the case, for PR, you must steal from the Christians which despise for your system, though you don't like their system. This is known in logic as hypocrisy. If you want to be honest, a consistent atheist has no sense of right and wrong. So murder, theft, adultery, human sacrifice, would all be non-wrong, or non-right. After you bring up empirical ethics, I will refute it, and you will see that this is the case.

This is a complete red herring....You are shifting the discussion away from theft of ideas to teleology... Why can't I call you a thief too? birth-life-rebirth deities existed before Jesus, and Christians stole the idea from these mythologies.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

There is no heresy in atheism? hmmm. So one can believe in a young earth. One can deny Darwinian Evolution. One can believe in the ethics of the ought. One can believe in pro-life. Okay, I guess atheists are more Christians then I thought.

One could not believe in a god but believe in a young earth at the same time. One can be pro-life or pro-choice and be an atheist too.... Nothing about atheism prevents one from believing these things per se.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

To say a triangle can be observe, and to say Euclid ARGUED that way are two opposite things. Within the consistency of Euclid, since Space and Time were utterly dismissed, he was arguing outside of observation. You cannot observe without space and time.

I think you've got Euclid wrong....I think Euclid was attempting to describe geometry in terms of Plantonism. Right, wrong, or indifferent, his ideas map onto reality. His arguments "outside of observation" sound a whole lot like Plato. Classic Greek thought is hung up on this pretty heavily.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

It's pretty black and white in life regarding ethics, ontology, and epistemology. Either you're pregnant, or you're not. There's no middle ground with this.

Situational ethics are a challenge for normative ethics... I think you should know this even from within the pages of your own holy book.

Ontology and epistemology aren't clean either. Ontologically I think you're platonic which has problems.... Epistemologically, I think you're bankrupt because your project fails to get off the ground...

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


jabwocky
Posts: 30
Joined: 2007-05-12
User is offlineOffline
It's Mathematics..

I think he is trying to get a point across, but by complicating it, a lot of you have missed its simplicity..

For the sake of argument let’s put this into a couple of  mathematics equations..

Equation  =  atheism (God does not exist)

Equation = God exists

Although there are variations, one of these would seem to be correct.

Most people have the equation given to them in some sort, or way, and come up with the existence of God. (Or some at least would say, I want to know if God exists and then try to prove or disprove that)

Atheists tend to say, God does not exist (starts with the answer, and then works the equation to fit…

So, let’s say you have an equation, (3+4)x(10/x)=35 and you solve the problem, you say x=2,

But what if you had the wrong answer to start with? If the actual equation is (3+4)x(10/5)=14?

Then yes, you do know things, you know 3+4=7, and that is true in all cases, but because you started with the wrong answer, 35, you will not really know anything, you will always be wrong.. x is ever 5, without having the correct answer (knowledge), you do not have the truth, and therefore you will never be correct.

I think that is the point he is trying to get across..


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
jabwocky wrote:Equation  =

jabwocky wrote:

Equation  =  atheism (God does not exist)

Equation = God exists

If these were math equations, we would now conclude that atheism = God exists.

jabwocky wrote:
Atheists tend to say, God does not exist (starts with the answer, and then works the equation to fit…

That is the wrong way to approach any problem. We should not assume an answer. We should start with non-belief and conform our position to reality as best as we can.

Your math analogy makes no sense at all.

jabwocky wrote:
So, let’s say you have an equation, (3+4)x(10/x)=35 and you solve the problem, you say x=2,

This equation has no solution. The x's cancel out, and you get 70=35. 

jabwocky wrote:
Then yes, you do know things, you know 3+4=7, and that is true in all cases, but because you started with the wrong answer, 35, you will not really know anything, you will always be wrong.. x is ever 5,

x is not 5.

35 is not "right" or "wrong." It is given in the equation.

Just because it's on the right side of the equation doesn't mean it's "the answer." You have a grade school level understanding of mathematics.

jabwocky wrote:
you do not have the truth, and therefore you will never be correct.

I think that is the point he is trying to get across..

Okay, then his point is a strawman. We do not assume that there is no God and organize our worldview around it.

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
This assumption is flawed

 

jabwocky wrote:

Atheists tend to say, God does not exist (starts with the answer, and then works the equation to fit…

 

Any time I see proof for god that's not an assertion, or special pleading based on the illogical presumption we can say anything about what exists outside the universe, I will look at it.

I started out a fully brain-washed christian and realised I was talking to myself, looked for proof and found nothing but reification of concepts and arguments from gaps.

 

 

 

 

 

"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

Hello Jab,

Your two examples of equations are not equations. The mathematical definition is:

Quote:
An algebraic expression asserting the equality of two quantities. Example: God + Word = Knowledge + Truth

You simply asserted things. 

The issue is not in the area of seem, but absolute. Since the worldview of Christianity is valid, and sound, and empirical atheism is not, then they must abandon empiricism, and find one that works. Logically, since Christianity is the only means that works for one to know, if they wish to know, then logically they wish to be a Christian. However, if they hate the truth, and despise the truth, then they will hate Christianity, and despise Christianity.

And what do you know, that is exactly what the Bible says. They HATE the truth.

Quote:
ROMANS 1:18-25

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

 19because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.

 20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

 22Professing to be wise, they became fools,

 23and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

 24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

 25For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

So the means of knowledge, which I am arguing, is evident within them. This is partly do to two things:

1) Imago Dei

2) General Revelation

God made it evident to them. Within them is not in the Greek Text. But keep reading, this is where it gets really good.

GOD GAVE THEM OVER IN THE LUSTS OF THEIR HEARTS (caps for emphasis).

So the fact that you are an atheists, is because God designed you that way. You are atheists via God's glory. You have no choice NOT to be an atheist, because God gave your hearts to lusts and impurity, and ignorance (I Corinthians 2:14, 16).

This is beautiful. So in the same way, God changed my nature to choose life, God purposely has your nature locked into death for your to choose death. And there's nothing you can do about it, and you like it that way. You like being dark and dead.

The Greek word for "Heart" (Kardia), in the Bible is not talking about the 21st century warm and fuzzy heart like most ignorant Christians think. The Greek concept for heart is "Whole Being." So logically, via the Greek.

vs. 24. God gave them over in the lusts of their WHOLE BEING to impurity. Your whole being, God gave over to impurity. That's so neat. In your wickedness, God is still Sovereign, and is in control, despite your wickedness.

Also we read:

Quote:
II Thessalonians 2:11

11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,

So in terms of logic now, if God has sent upon you a delusion. If he is allowing you to believe what is false, that would mean, remember we are speaking logically here, that for you to believe what is true, God MUST allow you to believe what is true.

Isn't that awesome. So the God you hate, the Got that you despite. Oh, excuse me, say isn't there (shhh), is designed by HIM for you to not believe in Him.

So on that judgment day, you will have NO EXCUSE. Period.

It's so beautiful. So remember, the more you argue against God, the more God is glorified since he allowed you to disbelieve the easy logic of God that I am presenting to you. This is why you guys are so frustrated. I am 100% Christian in my argument, and you can't stand it.

Your wickedness is the Mona Lisa of God's Sovereignty.

Praise God, the Almighty, Creator of the Heavens, and the wicked. All glory and honor is to the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. For in Him, we can know, and will continue to know, for eternity (Deut 29:29).

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
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

But keep reading, this is where it gets really good.

GOD GAVE THEM OVER IN THE LUSTS OF THEIR HEARTS (caps for emphasis).

So the fact that you are an atheists, is because God designed you that way. You are atheists via God's glory. You have no choice NOT to be an atheist, because God gave your hearts to lusts and impurity, and ignorance (I Corinthians 2:14, 16).

This is beautiful. So in the same way, God changed my nature to choose life, God purposely has your nature locked into death for your to choose death. And there's nothing you can do about it, and you like it that way. You like being dark and dead.

The Greek word for "Heart" (Kardia), in the Bible is not talking about the 21st century warm and fuzzy heart like most ignorant Christians think. The Greek concept for heart is "Whole Being." So logically, via the Greek.

vs. 24. God gave them over in the lusts of their WHOLE BEING to impurity. Your whole being, God gave over to impurity. That's so neat. In your wickedness, God is still Sovereign, and is in control, despite your wickedness.

Also we read:

Quote:
II Thessalonians 2:11

11For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false,

So in terms of logic now, if God has sent upon you a delusion. If he is allowing you to believe what is false, that would mean, remember we are speaking logically here, that for you to believe what is true, God MUST allow you to believe what is true.

Isn't that awesome. So the God you hate, the Got that you despite. Oh, excuse me, say isn't there (shhh), is designed by HIM for you to not believe in Him.

So on that judgment day, you will have NO EXCUSE. Period.

 

This is balls. We can convert any time we like. In fact I can morph into a christian whenever I want and live the hologram. Christianity is a mindset. There's no additional morality to it, none save moral condescension.

In the course of your time here Jean, there's been nothing uplifting, no sign of the life of Jesus in you. In fact you seem to be reveling in the thought of the suffering of others. On judgment day you will be found wanting.

Your name is not in the book.

 

 

 

 

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Isn't

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Isn't that awesome. So the God you hate, the Got that you despite. Oh, excuse me, say isn't there (shhh), is designed by HIM for you to not believe in Him.

So on that judgment day, you will have NO EXCUSE. Period.

No excuse implies that it is our fault.

If we are designed and forced to act this way, then it is God's responsibility. 

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


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

Hi AtheistExtremeist,

Woe, I thought as an atheist, especially an extreme atheist, that you are not to know anything absolute. And then you suddenly are a theological expert. And now i'm not in the book.

What about the secular atheistic bible verses that I can now take out of context. Hmm. I know, thou shall not judge (Matthew 7:1). Or, cast the first stone (Matthew Cool, yeah, that's a good one.

You are an extremeatheist, and you say nothing I've said is uplifting. Wow, that's a duh.

Look, you seem like a nice guy. The mask freaks me out, but that's a side note (I've had nightmares). You think that you can "switch" to being a Christian if you want, like a switch?

What about this?

Quote:
Romans 9:21-22

 21Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?

 22What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?

Um, that's probably you. If God makes a Vessel of Wrath, then how can one unmake their own self into another vessel. God purposely makes vessels of wrath to make His power known. So Brian Sapient's wickedness and atheism, God made Brian that way to demonstrate God's wrath.

The only way to be a Vessel of Righteousness, is for God to make you a Vessel of Righteousness. It's pretty simply. Does the Potter have a right over the clay? Or shall you the clay, say, HEY POTTER, Knock it off. LOL. 

This is Bible 101. I'm quoting the Bible. It's in there, look it up. If you think you can be a Christian and an Atheist via a light switch, then this is odd and logically fallacious since the Bible says, you CAN'T DO THAT. So if the Bible says that, you ought to adhere to it. lol

We are at war here. You are my enemy via respect. You may be an elect person (I have no idea) and perhaps confused right now in your life. I kind of understand where you are coming from if your family are a bunch of pentacostals. . If you have concern for things of this manner, you are probably an elect person. If your heart is seared and hell doesn't bother you, then you are probably a Vessel of Wrath, made by God.

I am not going to be uplifting to an enemy. It's like an America being uplifting to the enemy by shooting him in the head. Just before the American shoots, the enemy says

" um, chicos, you won't be in the book of life." BANG. lol

And in the same way via intellectual arguments, BANG.

That's not exactly uplifting.

I got myself covered by God's grace, you ought to worry about your relationship with God. Period. For Jesus would have argued tougher then I am arguing now.

____________________________

Hi ButterBattle,

God is not responsible, since God is infinite and eternal, He has nobody to respond to. Thus, He is just. And since you still CHOOSE, your choices will be accounted for.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

No one likes you.  No one believes you.  You are not accomplishing anything here. 

 

-- 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.


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Yeah jean, are you related

Yeah jean, are you related to Fonzie? You insult people and list scriptures. You oddly resemble Fonzie. And since you like to insult people like AE and me by telling me about the blood on me, why don't you do something about that goofy haircut you got going on? Are you a monk?

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Where to start. Nigel, if the liberals have taken over the country's media and Universities. I am in a middle of a move, so my 10,000 volume is boxed up.When I bring the books out in the coming weeks, then I shall via ad hominem. show you.

The only thing I got out of this is that you're moving, and you have 10k books. I'm not sure how a logical fallacy is going to show me anything -- however, it seems to be all you have. (For instance, your insistence that the media and universities have been taken over by liberals, and therefore you can disregard what they have to say, is an ad hominem fallacy.)

Quote:

The attack on the family is in the writings of Alister Crowley. Since Crowley was one of the most consistent liberals in American history, and the attack of the family has happened, so be it.

As I said in another thread, atheists have a significantly lower divorce rate than most religious groups. Conservative Christians have one of the highest divorce rates of all groups. It seems atheists (which you incorrectly equate with liberals) are far more family-friendly than most religious groups. In fact, it seems Conservative Christians are attacking the family rather than atheists, if the divorce rate numbers are any indication.

And does anyone take Allister Crowley seriously? Really?

Oh, and it would be nice to get a real definition of what you think "liberal" means. Because you certainly don't use the word like it is usually used. It seems you use it to conflate religion and politics. This is muddy thinking.

Just as a hint: the Jesus Christ portrayed in the Bible was a liberal.

Quote:

Patience grasshopper, patience

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I don't think you can be both condescending and respectful. Just food for thought.

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean doesn't have to worry

Jean doesn't have to worry about such things. He's a Christian, right?

That pretty much means he's an ethical chameleon.

Hr considers Fox News liberal - that seems to indicate that he defines the "liberal" spectrum as beginning with anyone slightly to the left of Musolini.

"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
What?

What, What?

Everybody is mad at me and doesn't like me anymore? What happen. Look, I never said I was perfect. Sometimes I make jokes, but I'm not meaning to insult people. Perhaps a few get away, but it's all light hearted.

And JCG, look at the Fox Network of shows. "Family Guy" (atheist), Married with Children (Family attacked), Bill O'Reilly, (a liberal). There are some conservatives on there. But very inconsistent.

So look, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. You guys are way to sensitive. My daughter isn't this sensitive and she's 5.

There's absolutely absolutely absolutely nothing, at all whatsoever I can do that can possibly cause you guys to ever ever ever want to become a Christian. The Potter made the clay. Can the clay say to the potter, hey chump, make me this way.

Romans 9:21-22 talks about this. (Romans 9 the whole chapter is a good one). God makes some as vessels of wrath, and some as vessels of righteousness. Period. So there is absolutely no way, for a vessel of wrath to EVER BECOME a vessel of righteousness. It's 100% impossible never going to happen. However, the ELECT, they may be confused, but they will be rescued.

I don't know who are the Vessels of Wrath, or Vessels of Righteousness ultimately. The Bible does say that you shall know them by their fruits. And there are rotten fruits of the flesh. And logically, by that means you can know.

So specifically to the Vessels of Wrath, made by the Potter you claim isn't there (I'm clay, there's no potter, hey look, i'm a machine, I can do the 80's robot dance), has really set you up to NOT believe Him, so that He may demonstrate His wrath. So you don't fear Him now, but you will. I Fear Him, and I'm His child.

There will be a day that EVERY KNEE WILL BOW (Philippians 2:10-15), and every tongue WILL confess, that the Lord Jesus Christ is Lord.

So let's be friends. I truly want you to be consistent in your liberal atheism. If you can be 100% consistent, I will be happy. And that ought to be welcomed I would think.

And when's the last time you've had a Christian wanting you to be a "good" atheist? I would probably say never.

Quote:
consistency, consistency, i love to be consistency, i get to be my very own boss, make up my rules - and - say- God get lost. Consistency, Consistency, I am au-to-no-mous.

Sing to  the old Christmas tree song.

And don't forget, you Atheists have your very own holiday. April 1st. (Psalm 14:1).

We are enemies spiritually, but we can still be nice. Let's try to do that.

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
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:What,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

What, What?

Everybody is mad at me and doesn't like me anymore? What happen. Look, I never said I was perfect. Sometimes I make jokes, but I'm not meaning to insult people. Perhaps a few get away, but it's all light hearted.

And JCG, look at the Fox Network of shows. "Family Guy" (atheist), Married with Children (Family attacked), Bill O'Reilly, (a liberal). There are some conservatives on there. But very inconsistent.

So look, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. You guys are way to sensitive. My daughter isn't this sensitive and she's 5.

There's absolutely absolutely absolutely nothing, at all whatsoever I can do that can possibly cause you guys to ever ever ever want to become a Christian. The Potter made the clay. Can the clay say to the potter, hey chump, make me this way.

Romans 9:21-22 talks about this. (Romans 9 the whole chapter is a good one). God makes some as vessels of wrath, and some as vessels of righteousness. Period. So there is absolutely no way, for a vessel of wrath to EVER BECOME a vessel of righteousness. It's 100% impossible never going to happen. However, the ELECT, they may be confused, but they will be rescued.

I don't know who are the Vessels of Wrath, or Vessels of Righteousness ultimately. The Bible does say that you shall know them by their fruits. And there are rotten fruits of the flesh. And logically, by that means you can know.

So specifically to the Vessels of Wrath, made by the Potter you claim isn't there (I'm clay, there's no potter, hey look, i'm a machine, I can do the 80's robot dance), has really set you up to NOT believe Him, so that He may demonstrate His wrath. So you don't fear Him now, but you will. I Fear Him, and I'm His child.

There will be a day that EVERY KNEE WILL BOW (Philippians 2:10-15), and every tongue WILL confess, that the Lord Jesus Christ is Lord.

So let's be friends. I truly want you to be consistent in your liberal atheism. If you can be 100% consistent, I will be happy. And that ought to be welcomed I would think.

And when's the last time you've had a Christian wanting you to be a "good" atheist? I would probably say never.

Quote:
consistency, consistency, i love to be consistency, i get to be my very own boss, make up my rules - and - say- God get lost. Consistency, Consistency, I am au-to-no-mous.

Sing to  the old Christmas tree song.

And don't forget, you Atheists have your very own holiday. April 1st. (Psalm 14:1).

We are enemies spiritually, but we can still be nice. Let's try to do that.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

It's not a question of sensitivity (at least not for me).

I just have a low tolerance for liars and hypocrites. You've proven to be both in this post.

Now, chameleon, the chances are good you don't see what you've done - let me see if I can help you.

You say you don't mean to insult people. You carefully choose your words to insult people. Then you want us to play nice.

You first.

P.S. If we "vessels of wrath" have no choice to be as God intended, shouldn't that complete obedience get us into heaven? We certainly do a better job than you lot who choose to follow only the scriptures you like and use forgiveness as a tool to cover your butt each time you decide to break the rules.

"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: 15742
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:What,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

What, What?

Everybody is mad at me and doesn't like me anymore? What happen. Look, I never said I was perfect. Sometimes I make jokes, but I'm not meaning to insult people. Perhaps a few get away, but it's all light hearted.

And JCG, look at the Fox Network of shows. "Family Guy" (atheist), Married with Children (Family attacked), Bill O'Reilly, (a liberal). There are some conservatives on there. But very inconsistent.

So look, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. You guys are way to sensitive. My daughter isn't this sensitive and she's 5.

There's absolutely absolutely absolutely nothing, at all whatsoever I can do that can possibly cause you guys to ever ever ever want to become a Christian. The Potter made the clay. Can the clay say to the potter, hey chump, make me this way.

Romans 9:21-22 talks about this. (Romans 9 the whole chapter is a good one). God makes some as vessels of wrath, and some as vessels of righteousness. Period. So there is absolutely no way, for a vessel of wrath to EVER BECOME a vessel of righteousness. It's 100% impossible never going to happen. However, the ELECT, they may be confused, but they will be rescued.

I don't know who are the Vessels of Wrath, or Vessels of Righteousness ultimately. The Bible does say that you shall know them by their fruits. And there are rotten fruits of the flesh. And logically, by that means you can know.

So specifically to the Vessels of Wrath, made by the Potter you claim isn't there (I'm clay, there's no potter, hey look, i'm a machine, I can do the 80's robot dance), has really set you up to NOT believe Him, so that He may demonstrate His wrath. So you don't fear Him now, but you will. I Fear Him, and I'm His child.

There will be a day that EVERY KNEE WILL BOW (Philippians 2:10-15), and every tongue WILL confess, that the Lord Jesus Christ is Lord.

So let's be friends. I truly want you to be consistent in your liberal atheism. If you can be 100% consistent, I will be happy. And that ought to be welcomed I would think.

And when's the last time you've had a Christian wanting you to be a "good" atheist? I would probably say never.

Quote:
consistency, consistency, i love to be consistency, i get to be my very own boss, make up my rules - and - say- God get lost. Consistency, Consistency, I am au-to-no-mous.

Sing to  the old Christmas tree song.

And don't forget, you Atheists have your very own holiday. April 1st. (Psalm 14:1).

We are enemies spiritually, but we can still be nice. Let's try to do that.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You really are self centered.

No one hates you. But if you want us to hate you you certainly are doing a good job of falsely accusing us of hating you. We will hate you if you continue this bullshit.

There is a difference between a person and what a person claims.

NO, we are not enimies "spiritually". We are not even "enimies". The only "enemy" here is to humanity and it is your bad use of logic you inflict yourself with and sell to others.

There is no such thing as a god, not yours, not any. The sun was not a god and Thor doesn't make lighting and your god is no different. The "enemy" is human credulity in all of human history. You are merely one in a history of people who fall for a delusion because it sounds nice.

We are not "lost" in any way. We do not worship a fictional devil. We do not buy your superstition.

We don't believe in any gods, not just yours. Nor do we think humans are gods themselves. There  is no such thing.

We don't worship dictators nor do we desire anarchy. You merely don't like the competition to your claims or the challenge to your claims. Your stereotypes of atheists are nothing but bullshit you buy to make yourself feel superior to atheists.

I'm sorry it bothers you that atheists can be good and do good without believing in fictional super heros like you. That is your problem, not ours.

 

"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


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
You haven't been an enemy in

You haven't been an enemy in only the spiritual aspect. You just compared everyone here to your 5 year old daughter. You have actually sat here and told us we were stupid. You've stated we know nothing. Everything from asking the question of how we know it's wrong to kill our families to telling us we will in fact burn in hell because we are atheists so therefor we are evil. Words feom an enemy in my book.

If you weren't so condesending and could sincerely appologize meaning you're truly sorry and it doesn't happen again....ever, then that would be different. Instead you've repeatedly come back to read more rebuddles to what you've said and them have the audacity to ask why. Then apologize to put down and condesend some more people.

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