An Intelligent Atheist Trained in Logic vs. An Intelligent Chrisitan Trained in Logic

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
An Intelligent Atheist Trained in Logic vs. An Intelligent Chrisitan Trained in Logic

Does Atheism or Skepticism have any logical means of consistency within their worldview? I would say absolutely not. They cannot say anything since the Universities tell them that all is relative, and there is nothing that is absolute.

This makes atheists hypocrites. They don't know anything at school, but then when they argue with a Christian, they know science, arts, and all kinds of things.

Which is it? Do you or don't you?

I say, logically, that a Consistent atheist CANNOT know anything since via inductive empiricism, he cannot escape the particulars into universals via knowing. Since he cannot do this, he cannot know science, beauty, truth, Justice, Right, Wrong, Honor, Purity, or Goodness.

Via the elements of philosophy, how does an atheist achieve this via knowledge?

Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Aesthetics.

Since Atheists love to fragment EVERYTHING (the family, music, arts, television, culture, the Church, philosophy, etc, and if knowing if only possible with unity, then how can the very core of atheism know if it is logically contradictory to the only possible way to know.

How can fragmentation lead to unity of knowing?

And thus, Atheism is a false "religion." It full of logical fallacies, and cannot know. It is a "religion" of ignorance, hypocrisy, and ego-centric selfishness. Thus all atheists, if they apply their worldview consistently, cannot ever do good and are the vast extreme criminals of our day. Only via inconsistency, can they hold back, the demise of their philosophical consequences.

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:Does

Jean Chauvin wrote:

.

.

.

And thus, Atheism is a false "religion." It full of logical fallacies, and cannot know. It is a "religion" of ignorance, hypocrisy, and ego-centric selfishness. Thus all atheists, if they apply their worldview consistently, cannot ever do good and are the vast extreme criminals of our day. Only via inconsistency, can they hold back, the demise of their philosophical consequences..

.

.

.

Where are you getting this universal claim about atheism from? I think this is a hasty generalization that leads you to bifurcate. And you seem to have asked the same question on 3 or 4 threads. I'd focus on one or you might be criticized for trolling.

Atheists don't all think alike, and for that reason you may have the impression that atheists have fragmentation etc. But this is not an indictment against atheism at all. Rather, it's simply stating the obvious. Calling it "hypocrisy" and "ego-centric selfishness" sounds to me like ad hominem attacks. Furthermore, you're not substantiating your claims here either....

And raising question about atheism and answering them for yourself by saying, "God" does not add solvency to your case. It only shows that you're question begging.

So, if I were you, I would focus on 1 thread, stop the ad hominem attacks, and clean up your own arguments before you start ridiculing atheism.

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


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2404
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean

 

 

 

            To equate atheists as a belief system shows you are in dire need of a dictionary, I use a Canadian Oxford myself, why not try one. The only things atheists have in common is no use for gods or religions. After the woo woo is gone atheists don't have much in common.

"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?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Does

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Does Atheism or Skepticism have any logical means of consistency within their worldview? I would say absolutely not. They cannot say anything since the Universities tell them that all is relative, and there is nothing that is absolute.

Truth is not relative.

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

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I say, logically, that a Consistent atheist CANNOT know anything since via inductive empiricism, he cannot escape the particulars into universals via knowing.

Correct.

Induction doesn't allow us to 'know' things with absolute certainty. We simply use methods that hold pragmatic value.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Since he cannot do this, he cannot know science, beauty, truth, Justice, Right, Wrong, Honor, Purity, or Goodness.

Beauty, truth, justice, right, wrong, honor, purity, and goodness are preferences. Everyone "knows" them in the sense that they have preferences.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And thus, Atheism is a false "religion." It full of logical fallacies, and cannot know. It is a "religion" of ignorance, hypocrisy, and ego-centric selfishness.

Atheism is denial or disbelief in any god or gods. It does not make any arguments, so it cannot commit any fallacies.

All religions are irrational, by definition.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Thus all atheists, if they apply their worldview consistently, cannot ever do good and are the vast extreme criminals of our day.

No matter how many times you assert that, it still contradicts the actual evidence. Sorry.

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
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I can't but see Jean's foray

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Thus all atheists, if they apply their worldview consistently, cannot ever do good and are the vast extreme criminals of our day.

onto these boards ending badly.

 

 

 

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Does Atheism or Skepticism have any logical means of consistency within their worldview? I would say absolutely not. They cannot say anything since the Universities tell them that all is relative, and there is nothing that is absolute.

This makes atheists hypocrites. They don't know anything at school, but then when they argue with a Christian, they know science, arts, and all kinds of things.

Which is it? Do you or don't you?

I say, logically, that a Consistent atheist CANNOT know anything since via inductive empiricism, he cannot escape the particulars into universals via knowing. Since he cannot do this, he cannot know science, beauty, truth, Justice, Right, Wrong, Honor, Purity, or Goodness.

Via the elements of philosophy, how does an atheist achieve this via knowledge?

Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Aesthetics.

Since Atheists love to fragment EVERYTHING (the family, music, arts, television, culture, the Church, philosophy, etc, and if knowing if only possible with unity, then how can the very core of atheism know if it is logically contradictory to the only possible way to know.

How can fragmentation lead to unity of knowing?

And thus, Atheism is a false "religion." It full of logical fallacies, and cannot know. It is a "religion" of ignorance, hypocrisy, and ego-centric selfishness. Thus all atheists, if they apply their worldview consistently, cannot ever do good and are the vast extreme criminals of our day. Only via inconsistency, can they hold back, the demise of their philosophical consequences.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Dear Jean,

 

Please take you christian cross made of good wood, push it deep into your ass, and turn twelve times. 

This will be art and beauty.

Have a great Sunday ... you ... masturbator.  And I know this. Smiling

 

Without any respect,

100%

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
i know things in

i know things in absolute

 

 

i know i  on internet i know internet exist in absolute

 

 

ha what you think of that? you fucking fail

 

 


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

Wow,

The responses I got were all what you would expect from an Atheist. Curse words, and everything. This is what you would expect since Atheists by definition have no morals/ethics, values, virtues. If God let them go via their consistency, they would indeed by criminals. I think maybe one person maybe two gave me nice answers, I'll answer them.

________________________

Hi Ubuntuanyone

Quote:
Where are you getting this universal claim about atheism from? I think this is a hasty generalization that leads you to bifurcate. And you seem to have asked the same question on 3 or 4 threads. I'd focus on one or you might be criticized for trolling.

Trolling? Not trying to do that. I can only answer when I can. I am not God. Smiling

In any worldview, there is the consistent outcome and the inconsistent outcome. For example, empiricism is consistently known as Logical Positivism. However, this consistency embarrassed the scientists so badly, they had to go back to inconsistently, thus so as not to be as noticed. This is intellectual dishonesty.

The same for me or anybody. I am a consistent Christian. Of course, I'm not perfect, but I live my life and belief consistently. What would an Atheist look like IF IF IF he/she was consistent. That is what I'm arguing. Via the chain of consistency, what is the end result.

And thus, I argue is what I stated above. If you disagree with the consistency of Atheism, tell me where I'm wrong. Show me what it means to be 100% consistent logically as an atheist.

Quote:
Atheists don't all think alike, and for that reason you may have the impression that atheists have fragmentation etc. But this is not an indictment against atheism at all. Rather, it's simply stating the obvious. Calling it "hypocrisy" and "ego-centric selfishness" sounds to me like ad hominem attacks. Furthermore, you're not substantiating your claims here either....

This makes the problem worse for you. If there are no universals in Atheism, then it is even fragmented more then I thought. Though, I believe there is at least 1 universal?

But the Atheists that are attacking Christianity. They have taken over the media, the Universities. In High School debate class, I was almost kicked out of school for debating Abortion. It took a big Washington DC Lawyer to keep me in. This is not an isolated case.

So the issue regarding atheism's epistemology is crucial for it to survive as a system of thought. Atheism has fallen, and it can't get up.

Quote:
And raising question about atheism and answering them for yourself by saying, "God" does not add solvency to your case. It only shows that you're question begging.

So, if I were you, I would focus on 1 thread, stop the ad hominem attacks, and clean up your own arguments before you start ridiculing atheism.

Look, atheism as a whole is attacking America. Atheism and Liberals are kissing cousins. If you disagree, tell me. That's why I opened this thread. I opened it, then it was deleted, I did not know it was here. Know I do, Now I can respond.

______________________________________________

Hi Jeffrick,

aww, I knew I would encouter a "soft atheist" soon. George Smith Style Atheist. Though the lack of faith is a lack of knowledge. Biblical faith is knowledge, thus to lack faith, is to admit you are ignorant, and check mate.

Unless you are of a different flavor? Please tell.

___________________________________

Hi Butterbattle,

Atheists believe in nothing. Thus their belief. Unless of course if you are a Humanist, then man is god. It depends what flavor.

I'm glad we agree on induction. That's nice, I finally agree with an atheist.

Beauty is not a preferences. This is relativistic subjective thinking made popular by the art show of of 1913, and poof, modern art was born. Beauty and goodness is objective in the Christian Worldview. So is Right and Wrong. The Christian philosophy of aesthetics I can discuss if you would like. It's a fascination study.

Atheist is disbelief in belief. Thus the believe in disbelief. They are reciprocal. Though again, there are dozens of flavors. O'Hair did NOT define Atheism that way? You win a prize if you can tell me how she defined Atheism.

______________________________

Hi 100%pureatheist,

Oh, nice one. You claim that are 100% pure atheist. So you are consistent? So again, this is what you would expect from a consistent atheist. I believe if I was an empiricist, I would now way, "exhibit A."

__________________________

Hi CPT,

to say something does not mean you know it. You must define the know, then justify it. They you will be reasoning.

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:Trolling?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Trolling? Not trying to do that. I can only answer when I can. I am not God. Smiling

I'm just saying this...be careful to to leave threads that you start unattended. Staring 6 or 7 threads with more or less the same content can be considered trolling too....

Jean Chauvin wrote:

In any worldview, there is the consistent outcome and the inconsistent outcome. For example, empiricism is consistently known as Logical Positivism. However, this consistency embarrassed the scientists so badly, they had to go back to inconsistently, thus so as not to be as noticed. This is intellectual dishonesty.

The same for me or anybody. I am a consistent Christian. Of course, I'm not perfect, but I live my life and belief consistently. What would an Atheist look like IF IF IF he/she was consistent. That is what I'm arguing. Via the chain of consistency, what is the end result.

And thus, I argue is what I stated above. If you disagree with the consistency of Atheism, tell me where I'm wrong. Show me what it means to be 100% consistent logically as an atheist.

You might want to stop generalizing as you seem to do often. Not all empiricists are positivists. I for one am not a positivist but I am an empiricist of sort. Be careful when you start labeling people as one thing or anther because you may be labeling them incorrectly.

And again, you seem to be making many unsubstantiated claims. You say atheists are "inconsistent" and that you are "consistent". In what manner of speaking? What is "inconsistent" about atheism? I have yet to see any illustration of this notion short of a naked assertion that is unsubstantiated and unwarranted.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Quote:
Atheists don't all think alike, and for that reason you may have the impression that atheists have fragmentation etc. But this is not an indictment against atheism at all. Rather, it's simply stating the obvious. Calling it "hypocrisy" and "ego-centric selfishness" sounds to me like ad hominem attacks. Furthermore, you're not substantiating your claims here either....

This makes the problem worse for you. If there are no universals in Atheism, then it is even fragmented more then I thought. Though, I believe there is at least 1 universal?

What?!? I think you're confusing disagreement between atheists as inconsistency. This is a category mistake. Just because two people don't agree does not mean that atheism per the individual is inconsistent.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

But the Atheists that are attacking Christianity. They have taken over the media, the Universities. In High School debate class, I was almost kicked out of school for debating Abortion. It took a big Washington DC Lawyer to keep me in. This is not an isolated case.

Debating abortion isn't something that is inherently evil either. And I think you will find that pro-choice is not synonymous with atheism as there are atheists who oppose abortion. I'd be curious to know the particulars of the case (i.e. the case number etc.) That's hardly an example of atheism taking over schools, as abortion is not an issue of theism vs atheism per se.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So the issue regarding atheism's epistemology is crucial for it to survive as a system of thought. Atheism has fallen, and it can't get up.

What epistemology are you referring to that has fallen?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Look, atheism as a whole is attacking America. Atheism and Liberals are kissing cousins. If you disagree, tell me. That's why I opened this thread. I opened it, then it was deleted, I did not know it was here. Know I do, Now I can respond.

Um, no...atheism and liberals are not kissing cousins. You're generalizing again. There is nothing inherent to disbelief in a god that forces one to become a "liberal" (by that, I think you mean politically liberal).

So I think you may want to re-evaluate your generalizations. You make lots of them with warranting them....

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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4626
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin wrote:And thus,

Jean Chauvin wrote:

And thus, I argue is what I stated above. If you disagree with the consistency of Atheism, tell me where I'm wrong. Show me what it means to be 100% consistent logically as an atheist.

It simply means that you consistently do not believe in fairy tale gods. Period. All other beliefs on politics, economics, morality etc. are completely separate. If you look back on some old threats you will see that we widely disagree on many of those subjects.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

This makes the problem worse for you. If there are no universals in Atheism, then it is even fragmented more then I thought. Though, I believe there is at least 1 universal?

Yes. The belief that there is no god.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

But the Atheists that are attacking Christianity. They have taken over the media, the Universities. In High School debate class, I was almost kicked out of school for debating Abortion. It took a big Washington DC Lawyer to keep me in. This is not an isolated case.

Yes, all 10% of us are going to take over the country....MWAHAHAHAHAHA. Seriously. We are an extreme minority. Just because there are some theists who agree that religion shouldn't be jammed down peoples throats in school it doesn't create some vast conspiracy where we are taking over the country. And people call me paranoid. You were probably kicked out of debate class because of your obvious lack of ability to make a coherent argument. I debated against abortion in my high-school debate and no one tried to kick me out. Of course, I did more than stand there and say "YOU ARE GOING TO BURN IN HELL FOR MURDERING BABIES, HITLER!"

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Look, atheism as a whole is attacking America. Atheism and Liberals are kissing cousins. If you disagree, tell me. That's why I opened this thread. I opened it, then it was deleted, I did not know it was here. Know I do, Now I can respond.

I disagree. I am hardly a traditional political liberal. Read some of the political threads on this site. We have some radical disagreements and you can find folks on all sides of any given political issue. In general, I would say you would find more people who prefer democrats among atheists than republicans but that is mostly because the Christian right wing is so fanatical. Would you politically support people who routinely call you evil and less than human even if your other political views were the same? So while there might be a correlation between atheism and political liberalism they are not the same. As someone who crows about his logical superiority I would expect you to understand the difference between correlation and causation.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


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

Hello,

I will answer you ubunt probably tomorrow. Getting tired. The other poster though, you just named called and did not reason with me  like Ubunt. I appreciate you actually reasoning with me. It's refreshing. I thought I would get more of this as a whole.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Religious beliefs, including

Religious beliefs, including those of Christianity, are totally without epistemological foundation, since it is based on wholly subjection intuitions and unverifiable 'revelations', and the self-deception known as religious 'faith'.

Even if there was some supreme intelligent awareness as envisaged by Christianity, it would be totally impossible, logically, to know anything with certainty about the nature or intentions of such a being, which would have unlimited capability to manipulate what we see and hear and feel, so could make us believe whatever it wanted to.

Secular morality is true morality, based on our evolved empathy, as required for a successful social animal which must be able to cooperate with others, and encourage their cooperation in turn. It is based on avoiding, as far as possible, actions which will cause others distress and harm, and so invoke retaliation, which can lead to collapse of the social group. It is based on moral urges, not conscious calculation, which is why it is in a separate category from 'reason'.

Religious 'morality' is really a crude 'legal' system, based on demanding obedience to whatever edicts an (imagined) authority figure announces, under threat of horrendous punishment, with the promise of some remote ultimate reward.

No knowledge of the truth value of any simple claim, such as the existence or not of some entity, is provable with 100%, assuming the claim does not involve a logical contradiction. However, the truth value of the sentence I just typed, is demonstrable by logic. So certain categories of statement are knowable with 100% certainty, others with only a confidence of less than 100% because of incomplete knowledge of aspects of reality, others have no assignable truth value because of circularity, self-reference, or other flaws, such as the classic "this sentence is false".

Science is founded on logic, math, empiricism, and inductive reasoning, based on the absolute minimum of initial assumptions, such as the laws of logic, accompanied by a rigorous system of testing of all claims and the encouragement of robust criticism of new theories, to minimize the chance of even temporary acceptance of faulty claims. All scientific theories are held tentatively, and are not claimed to be eternal truths, but the best current model of some aspect of what we perceive as 'reality'. There may be more than one theory held to be the 'best' by different groups, but they all are required to be consistent with current observations to a similar degree.

That is an inevitably incomplete summary of how I see things.

I see little point in directly attempting to address the many utterly absurd and ignorant claims of people such as Chauvin, who appear to hold such a diametrically opposite world-view. I just lay out my position as clearly as I can, to show that the alternative to their position has at least as coherent and firm a logical basis as theirs, and challenging them to show why their world-view is superior, in whatever sense they care to apply.

Over to you.

 

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

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

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

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


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

BobSpence1 wrote:

Science is founded on logic, math, empiricism, and inductive reasoning, based on the absolute minimum of initial assumptions, such as the laws of logic, accompanied by a rigorous system of testing of all claims and the encouragement of robust criticism of new theories, to minimize the chance of even temporary acceptance of faulty claims. All scientific theories are held tentatively, and are not claimed to be eternal truths, but the best current model of some aspect of what we perceive as 'reality'. There may be more than one theory held to be the 'best' by different groups, but they all are required to be consistent with current observations to a similar degree.

 

This is the scientific 'epistemology' that satisfies me.

 

 

 

 

 

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Does Atheism or Skepticism have any logical means of consistency within their worldview? I would say absolutely not. They cannot say anything since the Universities tell them that all is relative, and there is nothing that is absolute.

This makes atheists hypocrites. They don't know anything at school, but then when they argue with a Christian, they know science, arts, and all kinds of things.

Which is it? Do you or don't you?

I say, logically, that a Consistent atheist CANNOT know anything since via inductive empiricism, he cannot escape the particulars into universals via knowing. Since he cannot do this, he cannot know science, beauty, truth, Justice, Right, Wrong, Honor, Purity, or Goodness.

Via the elements of philosophy, how does an atheist achieve this via knowledge?

Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Aesthetics.

Since Atheists love to fragment EVERYTHING (the family, music, arts, television, culture, the Church, philosophy, etc, and if knowing if only possible with unity, then how can the very core of atheism know if it is logically contradictory to the only possible way to know.

How can fragmentation lead to unity of knowing?

And thus, Atheism is a false "religion." It full of logical fallacies, and cannot know. It is a "religion" of ignorance, hypocrisy, and ego-centric selfishness. Thus all atheists, if they apply their worldview consistently, cannot ever do good and are the vast extreme criminals of our day. Only via inconsistency, can they hold back, the demise of their philosophical consequences.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

I wholly beg to disagree with most of what you have espoused here, as it is purely assumption on your part.  Also aren't you just labeling atheism as a "religion" and I could swear you said that religion could not be defined so how can you judge what is a false religion.  I like the statement you made about God being the infinite reference point interesting speculation I would like to study on that some more it may concur with some of my views however I will have to say I disagree with some of your points that I have read here so far.  I am still reading doing some catch up have been off the forum for a bit Smiling.  Just wanted to say welcome aboard. 

 

Respectfully (and I actually mean this Sticking out tongue)

P.S. don't let these guys attack you too bad they are fundamentalists in their own way especially brian37 he gets kind of touchy if you disagree with him Sticking out tongue

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:P.S.

ReverendWillieg wrote:

P.S. don't let these guys attack you too bad they are fundamentalists in their own way especially brian37 he gets kind of touchy if you disagree with him Sticking out tongue

What did he do, the touchy rascal ? Call you a fundamentalist ?


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse

Anonymouse wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:

P.S. don't let these guys attack you too bad they are fundamentalists in their own way especially brian37 he gets kind of touchy if you disagree with him Sticking out tongue

What did he do, the touchy rascal ? Call you a fundamentalist ?

1. Reverend Willie admitted he has no proof for god but chooses to believe in one just because he wants to.

2. atheists on this website proposed many reasons why that isn't logical

3. we are therefore fundamentalists.

 

Willie, I'd rather be a logic fundamentalist than someone who believes things "just because."

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


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

Anonymouse wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:

P.S. don't let these guys attack you too bad they are fundamentalists in their own way especially brian37 he gets kind of touchy if you disagree with him Sticking out tongue

What did he do, the touchy rascal ? Call you a fundamentalist ?

HA!  that was good ya got me on that one Laughing out loud

 

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Anonymouse

Sapient wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:

P.S. don't let these guys attack you too bad they are fundamentalists in their own way especially brian37 he gets kind of touchy if you disagree with him Sticking out tongue

What did he do, the touchy rascal ? Call you a fundamentalist ?

1. Reverend Willie admitted he has no proof for god but chooses to believe in one just because he wants to.

2. atheists on this website proposed many reasons why that isn't logical

3. we are therefore fundamentalists.

 

Willie, I'd rather be a logic fundamentalist than someone who believes things "just because."

 

Well I feel sorry for you then, I would rather believe in something because I want to not because other people tell me so.  Circular arguement and you guys all seem to KNOW, how about emptying your cup once in awhile you might learn something.

 

Reverend Willie  G.

I am the God of where I stand


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:Well I

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Well I feel sorry for you then, I would rather believe in something because I want to not because other people tell me so.  Circular arguement and you guys all seem to KNOW, how about emptying your cup once in awhile you might learn something.

Willie, reading posts on a website often make it hard to understand where the feelings are of the person posting.  I just want you to know that I would suspect that most of us here like you, understand where you're coming from, and can relate to your position as many of us have been there.  All of us who have been trying to give you another perspective are not doing so out of contempt but are doing so because we feel it's the right thing to do.  Many of us can accept the notion that you would prefer to believe "just because" and still look forward to exploring the things we do happen to have in common.  A fundamentalist is someone who would not likely feel like this.  A fundamentalist would expect for you to believe like them or risk not being accepted by them.  There is a difference.  We only bring up arguments against your god because it was the topic at hand, not because we will not accept you unless you agree with us.  There is no reason to bring any animosity you feel about the thread in which we challenge your god into any other thread.  

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


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

ANSWERS,

Hi BobSpence1

I made an argument that was objective. Since God is infinite, and all knowledge is in Christ (Col 2:3), then objectivity is measured by God Himself. And without God, logic could not be.

Since God created the reality around us, I think He'd be the expert? No? Validity, remember.

Supreme intelligent awareness? Well, via logic and knowledge, one can only know again, if the particulars have meaning via Universals. Which begs the question regarding universals. Universals must be tied into a Infinite Reference Point in order for them to all be rooted into something.

And at this point, subjects, which are particulars, can connect to other subjects all the time, thus giving us knowledge. You cannot know, if you fragment all the subjects, which is what Atheism does by nature.

Secular Morality is true morality? You mean, atheistic ethics is based on absolute knowledge via a variable with absolute zero error? This would mean that Atheistic epistemology (whatever that is) would connect to it, along with metaphysics and aesthetics. But you guys say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, thus again, fragmenting the connection, making morals/ethics alone on an island worshiping "the fly." How can this be if Atheistic morals are true? You have to steal Christian morals, if you want to be consistent in your worldview, you are a particular. Skepticism is better for you because they are honest, and admit consistently that ethics can't exist logically within their system.

Many Religious Morals are cruel. Not sure what you mean by religion though since the term is dead. but Sharia law is evil. Along with Native American law, where they were forced to eat their dead for 3 days, and vomit to appease the "great spirit." But those are false, Christianity is true, that's the difference.

If knowledge is not possible 100%, then knowledge is not possible, period. We agree. I do not play by the same pagan games of empirical proofs like atheists do. Most Christians do play by the same game, but not me, I'm consistent. So my proof is totally of a different caliber since I'm not an empiricist.

Science (aka Knowledge) Is founded upon the Infinite Reference Point. Math and such are particulars. But they all interrelate with each other. So really math and science and biology and music and art are DEPENDENT on the Infinite Reference point, not the other way around.

I do hold a 100% opposite worldview. Fun isn't it. That's the way it ought to be. My propositions and my method of argument are 100% opposed to your paganism. We have nothing in common, except the Imago Dei.

_______________________

Hi Extremeist,

Satisfaction is when your full from eating your mommys oatmeal. You ought to be after truth, not satisfaction. Truth may or may not be satisfying. The fact that you are evil is not satisfying, but it's the truth.

_______________________

Rev. Willie,

It's not purely assumption. Just my first principles are which are perfectly acceptable according to the rules of logic. But they are givens rooted into the Imago Dei.

My Humanist friends admit that it's a religion. There seems to be a schism in Atheism. This is what you would expect since fragmentation is their nature.

Good point. Religion can't be defined. However, I am simply repeating what the Humanists say all the time. So according to the ones calling the shots in America, it's a religion within their system. Fun stuff. Though technically, it cannot be defined, you're right.

Thanks Rev. Willie for the welcome.

__________________________________

HI Sapient,

Quote:

1. Reverend Willie admitted he has no proof for god but chooses to believe in one just because he wants to.

2. atheists on this website proposed many reasons why that isn't logical

3. we are therefore fundamentalists.

Willie, I'd rather be a logic fundamentalist than someone who believes things "just because."

I'm not sure if he admitted that. But if he did, he would be absurd, I agree with you. I do not say such a thing.

Fundamentalists are different then the ones in the early 20th century. But yes, this is fundamental thinking. Logical Christians know what they believe and why they believe it via he use of reason and logical argument.

_____________________________________

Hi Rev. Willie,

I rarely do this, but I would have to agree with Sapient and my other atheist friends on here. If you abandon logic and reason and simply believe in God via an Existential Blind Faith, this is the opposite of reason and is absurd. The founder of Existentialism even admitted that passion is the key to knowing, not logic, and was thus admittedly absurd. Don't fall into that same trap. Otherwise you are no better off then the Skeptics.

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).


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Quote:1.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Quote:

1. Reverend Willie admitted he has no proof for god but chooses to believe in one just because he wants to.

I'm not sure if he admitted that. But if he did, he would be absurd, I agree with you. I do not say such a thing.

Read for yourself in this thread.

"Do I believe in a God it doesn't matter, I say yes because I want to." - Rev Willie

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


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

Sapient wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Well I feel sorry for you then, I would rather believe in something because I want to not because other people tell me so.  Circular arguement and you guys all seem to KNOW, how about emptying your cup once in awhile you might learn something.

Willie, reading posts on a website often make it hard to understand where the feelings are of the person posting.  I just want you to know that I would suspect that most of us here like you, understand where you're coming from, and can relate to your position as many of us have been there.  All of us who have been trying to give you another perspective are not doing so out of contempt but are doing so because we feel it's the right thing to do.  Many of us can accept the notion that you would prefer to believe "just because" and still look forward to exploring the things we do happen to have in common.  A fundamentalist is someone who would not likely feel like this.  A fundamentalist would expect for you to believe like them or risk not being accepted by them.  There is a difference.  We only bring up arguments against your god because it was the topic at hand, not because we will not accept you unless you agree with us.  There is no reason to bring any animosity you feel about the thread in which we challenge your god into any other thread.  

Just because you don't understand my view doesn't mean I'm wrong, since God cannot be proven to exist or not to exist all you have left is faith or doubt or some point inbetween.  This is only my opinion, now I want you to realize something, THIS IS MY OPINION.  Each one of you has been TELLING me how I should think, TELLING me how I am wrong, very few has mentioned in my opinion, in my view so that to me is condescending, brian37 has been rude and downright assinine now that's fine I'm good with that, that is his opinion and I will react accordingly, but as I stated I don't want to argue circular logic so I didn't respond and I quit dealing with you guys because you obviously weren't going to let up so I moved on to other posts.  I don't care about if you agree with me or not it matters not, what I wanted was some polite idea swapping and when we disagree, we agree to disagree and drop it.  You guys didn't do that kind of like a toothless pit bull on an old bone.  Athena was right about you guys.

 

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

ANSWERS,

Rev. Willie,

It's not purely assumption. Just my first principles are which are perfectly acceptable according to the rules of logic. But they are givens rooted into the Imago Dei.

My Humanist friends admit that it's a religion. There seems to be a schism in Atheism. This is what you would expect since fragmentation is their nature.

Good point. Religion can't be defined. However, I am simply repeating what the Humanists say all the time. So according to the ones calling the shots in America, it's a religion within their system. Fun stuff. Though technically, it cannot be defined, you're right.

Thanks Rev. Willie for the welcome.

__________________________________

HI Sapient,

Quote:

1. Reverend Willie admitted he has no proof for god but chooses to believe in one just because he wants to.

2. atheists on this website proposed many reasons why that isn't logical

3. we are therefore fundamentalists.

Willie, I'd rather be a logic fundamentalist than someone who believes things "just because."

I'm not sure if he admitted that. But if he did, he would be absurd, I agree with you. I do not say such a thing.

Fundamentalists are different then the ones in the early 20th century. But yes, this is fundamental thinking. Logical Christians know what they believe and why they believe it via he use of reason and logical argument.

_____________________________________

Hi Rev. Willie,

I rarely do this, but I would have to agree with Sapient and my other atheist friends on here. If you abandon logic and reason and simply believe in God via an Existential Blind Faith, this is the opposite of reason and is absurd. The founder of Existentialism even admitted that passion is the key to knowing, not logic, and was thus admittedly absurd. Don't fall into that same trap. Otherwise you are no better off then the Skeptics.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jean your just as bad as the athiests only on the other side of the coin, note same coin.  You are trying to use the finite to quantify the infinite, can't be done at this time.  Now Jean you assume to KNOW all kinds of things you TELL people all kinds of things, you are the one that sounds absurd to me.  You would probably would try and burn me at the stake if I told you I don't believe God is above me but equal to me, probably have me tarred and feathered if I told you that God has nothing to do with us we have done all of these evils and good deeds unto ourselves.  You presume much and truly know so little maybe you should learn about the parable of a cup that is full.  You have lots of knowledge of logic and theology you have your views rooted ina book which you so love to bring up, I don't believe in that book at all.  I do not hold a religion, I do not hold to your view of God because I won't put God in a box as you have and many other religions attempt to do.  Oh, and passion has nothing to do with it your assuming again that you know my standpoint.  You obviously dismiss some great nuggets of wisdom because you know better but sometimes from the mouth of babes comes the greatest wisdom and all you refuse to hear it because you know it all already.  Now this is all my opinion and if you disagree wonderful, I don't care, just be polite and give me your opinion don't TELL me how I am wrong or absurd.  Get off your high horse.

 

God is all, including that which we love and hate

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
First of all you should note

First of all you should note that I was just extending an olive branch and you took out a match and lit it on fire, yet you're bitching about how you're being treated.

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Just because you don't understand my view doesn't mean I'm wrong, since God cannot be proven to exist or not to exist all you have left is faith or doubt or some point inbetween.  This is only my opinion, now I want you to realize something, THIS IS MY OPINION.  Each one of you has been TELLING me how I should think, TELLING me how I am wrong, very few has mentioned in my opinion

People are telling you how you should think and why you are wrong because that is the idea behind this website.  This website is designed to respond to irrational claims with logic and reason, that is what happened.  You stated that you don't want to embrace logic and reason and choose to believe with no sound reasoning, I wanted you to know that I along with others here can still accept you for that.  That we are capable of finding the common ground between us instead of constantly bringing up what we don't agree on, I was asking if you were able to do the same.  If you are able to do the same than maybe you will refrain from calling people here fundamentalists in completely unrelated topics as you chose to do here.
 

 

Quote:
I don't care about if you agree with me or not it matters not, what I wanted was some polite idea swapping and when we disagree, we agree to disagree and drop it.  You guys didn't do that kind of like a toothless pit bull on an old bone.

Isn't it ironic that the whole reason were talking about this right now is because you called us fundamentalists and I was essentially asking if we could agree to disagree?  I kindly request you follow your own request.  We only covered the topic with you for two pages of a thread, and we all moved on after you left it, so don't lie to yourself and tell yourself we wouldn't let it go.  Two pages of a thread, that's extremely short.  

 

Quote:
Athena was right about you guys.

This comment is very crybabyish.  I don't know Athena, nor do I know what her opinion is of us.  What I do know is that many people who use faulty logic and reasoning skills leave this website hating us.  So if someone hates/dislikes us, I can reasonably expect that they aren't a very good thinker.  This facet of our website is there purposefully so logical thinkers know who is worth uniting with in our common cause.  If Athena left with a bad taste in her mouth or you do the same, we have a good idea why.  We wont lose sleep over it, in fact we will rest better as a result.  Got it?

 

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

______________________________

Hi 100%pureatheist,

Oh, nice one. You claim that are 100% pure atheist. So you are consistent? So again, this is what you would expect from a consistent atheist. I believe if I was an empiricist, I would now way, "exhibit A."

__________________________

 

My 100% purity in Atheism does NOTHING in common with empiricism.  So your assumption is wrong once again.  I am just trying to make a point that not everything that can be called art will likely be accepted as such by YOU.  So you have a pretty limited perception of art ... as Christian perhaps.

 

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
ReverendWillieg wrote:Well I

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Well I feel sorry for you then, I would rather believe in something because I want to not because other people tell me so.  Circular arguement and you guys all seem to KNOW, how about emptying your cup once in awhile you might learn something.

 

It's ok, it's ok.

I am totally fine with people who believe just because they believe.   Often, it is really good for them and everybody around.  Some of them become workaholics instead of alcoholics.  And this is good. 

The problem begins for me when some of believers claim that they are exceptional because of their believe. 

Anything else is certainly debatable with joy on this forum.

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Atheists

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Atheists believe in nothing. Thus their belief.

Atheists don't believe in God.

There's no "belief in nothing." Fundamentalists just made that up as a strawman of atheism.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Beauty is not a preferences. This is relativistic subjective thinking made popular by the art show of of 1913, and poof, modern art was born. Beauty and goodness is objective in the Christian Worldview. So is Right and Wrong.

Beauty, goodness, right, and wrong are all preferences. I am not a Christian.

 

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


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Well I feel sorry for you then, I would rather believe in something because I want to not because other people tell me so.  Circular arguement and you guys all seem to KNOW, how about emptying your cup once in awhile you might learn something.

 

It's ok, it's ok.

I am totally fine with people who believe just because they believe.   Often, it is really good for them and everybody around.  Some of them become workaholics instead of alcoholics.  And this is good. 

The problem begins for me when some of believers claim that they are exceptional because of their believe. 

Anything else is certainly debatable with joy on this forum.

 

 

Hear Hear well said!! I totally concur.  Hey wait a minute I'm supposed to be better'n you Laughing out loud

 

His Highness

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


ReverendWillieg
Posts: 48
Joined: 2010-11-07
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:First of all

Sapient wrote:

First of all you should note that I was just extending an olive branch and you took out a match and lit it on fire, yet you're bitching about how you're being treated.

ReverendWillieg wrote:

Just because you don't understand my view doesn't mean I'm wrong, since God cannot be proven to exist or not to exist all you have left is faith or doubt or some point inbetween.  This is only my opinion, now I want you to realize something, THIS IS MY OPINION.  Each one of you has been TELLING me how I should think, TELLING me how I am wrong, very few has mentioned in my opinion

People are telling you how you should think and why you are wrong because that is the idea behind this website.  This website is designed to respond to irrational claims with logic and reason, that is what happened.  You stated that you don't want to embrace logic and reason and choose to believe with no sound reasoning, I wanted you to know that I along with others here can still accept you for that.  That we are capable of finding the common ground between us instead of constantly bringing up what we don't agree on, I was asking if you were able to do the same.  If you are able to do the same than maybe you will refrain from calling people here fundamentalists in completely unrelated topics as you chose to do here.
 

 

Quote:
I don't care about if you agree with me or not it matters not, what I wanted was some polite idea swapping and when we disagree, we agree to disagree and drop it.  You guys didn't do that kind of like a toothless pit bull on an old bone.

Isn't it ironic that the whole reason were talking about this right now is because you called us fundamentalists and I was essentially asking if we could agree to disagree?  I kindly request you follow your own request.  We only covered the topic with you for two pages of a thread, and we all moved on after you left it, so don't lie to yourself and tell yourself we wouldn't let it go.  Two pages of a thread, that's extremely short.  

 

Quote:
Athena was right about you guys.

This comment is very crybabyish.  I don't know Athena, nor do I know what her opinion is of us.  What I do know is that many people who use faulty logic and reasoning skills leave this website hating us.  So if someone hates/dislikes us, I can reasonably expect that they aren't a very good thinker.  This facet of our website is there purposefully so logical thinkers know who is worth uniting with in our common cause.  If Athena left with a bad taste in her mouth or you do the same, we have a good idea why.  We wont lose sleep over it, in fact we will rest better as a result.  Got it?

 

 

 

Well I misspelled her name I think it is Athene and looking at her posts about you guys I think she feels the same, I could be wrong just my opinion.  But let me tell you this I guess you won't be getting sleep because you can't get rid of me, I just think you got all sore because I pointed out something you didn't like to hear, too bad.  Get over it and I won't lose any sleep over it.  So I will just not agree with your viewpoint and we will agree to disagree like I tried to do before and you kept on.  So have fun, happy honnika. 

 

Have a good 'un

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
Hi Willie

Hi Willie,

Within the realm of opinion, all you have are statements based on uncertainty. You are thus holding to no position.

If one cannot logically disprove God or prove God, when while are you asserting that as if that was reality. You must justify your assertion of non-assertion. Again to assert that you can't prove God requires proof. Unless you are again, just being absurd.

For one who is against logic and reason, you sure make a lot of assertions.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Willie,

Within the realm of opinion, all you have are statements based on uncertainty. You are thus holding to no position.

If one cannot logically disprove God or prove God, when while are you asserting that as if that was reality. You must justify your assertion of non-assertion. Again to assert that you can't prove God requires proof. Unless you are again, just being absurd.

For one who is against logic and reason, you sure make a lot of assertions.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

From someone who has done nothing but make assertions (you) - this post is damned hilarious.

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


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
You should probably take

You should probably take Jeffricks advise and find a dictionary so you can correctly define atheism. Here, I'll help. Atheism: lack of belief in god. Nowhere in the difinition dies it say lack of morals or values and nowhere dies it state we are automatically criminals.

I have morals and values. I'm no criminal either so I have to admit that I'm a little ass infected that you would make such a statement. Like most here have already told you about the end o f your post saying respectfully, you are not respectful. You are very rude and degrading.

Just because we don't have the same beliefs as you doesn't mean we are less human than you are. You don't even have the same beliefs as other theist on this site so how are we suppose to be able to tell which of you are correct?

I have heard lots of christians say that the devil is the master of confusion. So am I correct in claiming that you are the devil since now you have told us that god hates nonbelievers? Other christians say he still loves us. I'm confused.

I see no logic in anything you've said so far. It isn't logical to label people just because they believe in what you believe in. Check yourself at the door next time and stop making wild claims.

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


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

ReverendWillieg wrote:

So have fun, happy honnika. 

 

Did you misspell hanukkah on purpose?  If so, please don't.  I realize it is my problem and not yours, but bad spelling and grammar drive me crazy.  I know it may be a very short trip.  If you don't know how to spell something, you can go to Google or Yahoo, type the word, and even if misspelled, the web site will give you hints about what you might mean - which gives you the proper spelling.  Thanks for putting up with my foibles.

PS I'm not jewish nor of jewish descent.  I would have the same beef if you misspelled christmas.  Note also, I deliberately do not capitalize religious references.

 

-- 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.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

ANSWERS,

Hi BobSpence1

I made an argument that was objective. Since God is infinite, and all knowledge is in Christ (Col 2:3), then objectivity is measured by God Himself. And without God, logic could not be.

Since God created the reality around us, I think He'd be the expert? No? Validity, remember.

Objective arguments would have to be restricted to objectively determined propositions, which disqualifies anything concerning God. I assume the arguments you are using are logically consistent and valid - that would not be best described as 'objective'.

I actually don't recall seeing any actual logical arguments from you just a series or assertions, non-sequiters, naked claims that 'A therefore B' with no actual attempt to justify it. As exemplified by your statements beginning "Since God is..." above. Any attributes of God are pure supposition, and there is zero knowledge "in" Christ - we don't even know if Christ existed as an individual vaguely matching the descriptions in the Bible.

Since the existence and nature of a God is inherently pure conjecture, any argument or assertions regarding such an entity are simply speculation.

Quoting from the Bible is merely repeating the ideas of some person who live a couple of millennia ago, and has no intrinsic  worth, except as it can trigger a thought that may not otherwise have come to mind, but that applies to virtually any utterance ever made.

Any logic involving 'infinite' values is problematic as to validity.

Quote:

Supreme intelligent awareness? Well, via logic and knowledge, one can only know again, if the particulars have meaning via Universals. Which begs the question regarding universals. Universals must be tied into a Infinite Reference Point in order for them to all be rooted into something.

'Universals'  would be things like the Laws of Logic. There is no logical requirement for some separate 'reference point' - they would be their own 'reference point', if they were truly Universals, otherwise you have an infinite regression - a 'reference  point' would need another reference point itself, and so on.

'Meaning' can only be with reference to a particular consciousness or closely interacting social group. Absolute and/or Universal 'meaning' is meaningless.

Quote:

And at this point, subjects, which are particulars, can connect to other subjects all the time, thus giving us knowledge. You cannot know, if you fragment all the subjects, which is what Atheism does by nature.

Such connections only generate knowledge about the interactions, and may pass on knowledge separately gained.

Atheism simply does not believe in God, the rational default position. It is normally a consequence, not a driver, of a mindset which values the honest search for truth over comfortable but illogical, unjustified claims. At most, a position of atheism frees the mind from certain constraints and presuppositions, rather than inspiring new ideas itself.

Knowledge about external reality is won by gathering as much possibly relevant data about some subject, comparing and correlating it to find consistent patterns and associations within it the body of data. It involves a combination of analysis, which may, at a stretch, be described as 'fragmentation', but it is an essential part of the process, followed by synthesis, to see what new connections and patterns can be found or generated, and more data-gathering and analysis, in a endless cycle.

Quote:

Secular Morality is true morality? You mean, atheistic ethics is based on absolute knowledge via a variable with absolute zero error? This would mean that Atheistic epistemology (whatever that is) would connect to it, along with metaphysics and aesthetics. But you guys say beauty is in the eye of the beholder, thus again, fragmenting the connection, making morals/ethics alone on an island worshiping "the fly." How can this be if Atheistic morals are true? You have to steal Christian morals, if you want to be consistent in your worldview, you are a particular. Skepticism is better for you because they are honest, and admit consistently that ethics can't exist logically within their system.

Of course it is true morality - I explained it clearly enough. The alternatives are simply blind obedience or a 'might makes  right' scenario. Absolutes are simply not required.

There is no 'Atheist' epistemology, altho it is commonly associated with a rational, empirical, evidence-based approach to knowledge, with an acknowledgement of an inevitable degree of uncertainty about any 'real' knowledge, and the aim being to find the most workable and useful model of reality, not the absolute, ultimate Truth.

Quote:

Many Religious Morals are cruel. Not sure what you mean by religion though since the term is dead. but Sharia law is evil. Along with Native American law, where they were forced to eat their dead for 3 days, and vomit to appease the "great spirit." But those are false, Christianity is true, that's the difference.

If knowledge is not possible 100%, then knowledge is not possible, period. We agree. I do not play by the same pagan games of empirical proofs like atheists do. Most Christians do play by the same game, but not me, I'm consistent. So my proof is totally of a different caliber since I'm not an empiricist.

So you have no proof worthy of that description.

Quote:

Science (aka Knowledge) Is founded upon the Infinite Reference Point. Math and such are particulars. But they all interrelate with each other. So really math and science and biology and music and art are DEPENDENT on the Infinite Reference point, not the other way around.

I do hold a 100% opposite worldview. Fun isn't it. That's the way it ought to be. My propositions and my method of argument are 100% opposed to your paganism. We have nothing in common, except the Imago Dei.

Science involves no such thing. Math and Logic are tools for science.

This 'Infinite Reference point' is an empty phrase.

Empiricism as applied in Science is not capable of finding ultimate truth, but the alternatives have no claim to any epistemological status unless they can be to some extent checked empirically.

Hume claimed that knowledge "cannot be conclusively established by reason", and included ALL categories in that. Logic and Math he classified as "relations of ideas", a distinct category from "matters of fact". He was not skeptical about empiricism as such, but about all 'knowledge', as being unable to be determine Absolutely.

Whatever limitations there are on empiricism, at least it overall leads in the direction of greater accuracy, whereas intuition and revelation are in practice indistinguishable from fantasy, unless tested against reality, ie, empirically.

Rejection of empiricism leads toward solipsism.

Your talk of Absolutes and Reference Points is outdated thinking. Your "Absolutes and Reference Points" are subjective, realtive to you and others who share your viewpoint. They are unverifiable as realities without your set of presuppositions.

 

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

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

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

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


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi BobSpence1

Hi BobSpence1

Quote:
Objective arguments would have to be restricted to objectively determined propositions, which disqualifies anything concerning God. I assume the arguments you are using are logically consistent and valid - that would not be best described as 'objective'.

You then have to define for me what you mean by objective, and how you know what you claim is indeed objective itself. Objective must be fixed in time and space, and must be ultimately universal which logically always corresponds to reality. The laws of logic for example are non-personal, which does not object for example to human personality. So if the laws of logic for example are your means of objectivity, then how does that reflect human personality. And if it can't do that then it is not objective since it does not reflect or correspond with all of reality.

Quote:
I actually don't recall seeing any actual logical arguments from you just a series or assertions, non-sequiters, naked claims that 'A therefore B' with no actual attempt to justify it. As exemplified by your statements beginning "Since God is..." above. Any attributes of God are pure supposition, and there is zero knowledge "in" Christ - we don't even know if Christ existed as an individual vaguely matching the descriptions in the Bible.

The reason why you are having trouble with this, is because I am arguing 100% non-empirical. You've never seen anybody do this, let alone a Christian. Within my argument, is the justification of:

1) The consistency of the argument as it corresponds to reality

2) The Imago Dei which proports the first principle/assertion that begins the argument itself.

Just because I do not use empirical evidence, does not logically mean I don't use evidence. Since I argue that empirical evidence is in reality no evidence at all. Especially since empiricists themselves admit that the results are always within the probability. The risk factor of the probability is non-empirical, and thus the theory of knowing crumbles all over the place. It's like my mother-in-law during Christmas. She always has to top me with presents for my kids.

Quote:
Since the existence and nature of a God is inherently pure conjecture, any argument or assertions regarding such an entity are simply speculation.

I have a problem with the term "existence." But that's a side note. In argument, one always assumes their first principle. At this point, the argument is evaluated on two fronts.

1) Validity

2) Soundness

My argument is valid, you have a problem with the soundness. The reason why you do, is because you are using empiricism in an argument and that is non-empirical. So we are bumping heads big time. This is the first time I would imagine, so it's a little hard.

The Ontology of God is assumed in my first principle (along with His Word). Just as empiricism as a means of knowing is assumed when you argue. Only I'm starting with an Infinite Reference Point, and you are starting with finite reference points that are fragmented.

Quote:
Quoting from the Bible is merely repeating the ideas of some person who live a couple of millennia ago, and has no intrinsic  worth, except as it can trigger a thought that may not otherwise have come to mind, but that applies to virtually any utterance ever made.

quoting from the Bible is perfectly fine via my argument. Since what is in the Bible are the implications of the Axiom of the Infinite Reference point. They do not support the first principle, but it simply flows downward and is perfectly valid in my argument.

Quote:

Any logic involving 'infinite' values is problematic as to validity.

Quote:

Supreme intelligent awareness? Well, via logic and knowledge, one can only know again, if the particulars have meaning via Universals. Which begs the question regarding universals. Universals must be tied into a Infinite Reference Point in order for them to all be rooted into something.

'Universals'  would be things like the Laws of Logic. There is no logical requirement for some separate 'reference point' - they would be their own 'reference point', if they were truly Universals, otherwise you have an infinite regression - a 'reference  point' would need another reference point itself, and so on.

'Meaning' can only be with reference to a particular consciousness or closely interacting social group. Absolute and/or Universal 'meaning' is meaningless.

 

Okay, but either you have to being with universals (empiricism begins with particulars), or you have to begin with particulars. I begin with a universal because I argue that it is impossible for you to work your way like a ladder with no pegs from a particular to a universal using empiricism via the mode of Tabula Rasa. But please try.

The regression applies to the Theistic proofs for the existence of God. You are correct, if I were to use empiricism and do this. Thomas Aquinas starts with a finite reference point. However, since I start with an infinite reference point, it can't regress by definition of the reference point being infinite. It's like a game I use to play with my kids. I love you infinitely. I love you infinitely and 1. This is silly since nothing more can be added to infinite, since infinite is beyond all boundaries. So to regress to another infinite reference point is logically impossible with the understanding of the term infinite. AND. since I am not arguing via empiricism, (unlike Tomism), then this problem is really not a problem at all. Remember, you are trying to empirically refute a non-empirical argument. lol. This is a contradiction to empiricism in itself since it cannot even speak to my argument.

You have to try to step out of empiricism, and then refute it. Try Rationalism, with a capital R. A good example of this would be of the school of Rene Descartes.

Quote:

Such connections only generate knowledge about the interactions, and may pass on knowledge separately gained.

Atheism simply does not believe in God, the rational default position. It is normally a consequence, not a driver, of a mindset which values the honest search for truth over comfortable but illogical, unjustified claims. At most, a position of atheism frees the mind from certain constraints and presuppositions, rather than inspiring new ideas itself.

Knowledge about external reality is won by gathering as much possibly relevant data about some subject, comparing and correlating it to find consistent patterns and associations within it the body of data. It involves a combination of analysis, which may, at a stretch, be described as 'fragmentation', but it is an essential part of the process, followed by synthesis, to see what new connections and patterns can be found or generated, and more data-gathering and analysis, in a endless cycle.

No, since the subject matters themselves, in reference to the understanding of the subjects, are combined with the other subjects to cause one to know. This connection allows for interpretation, since we are dealing with the whole from the parts. Thus, these subjects (parts) bring meaning to the whole (Infinite Reference Point) since the subjects are united. Empiricism fragments these subjects, thus making it impossible for one to really do anything.

Also, the interpretation of the data, must be done via knowing via unity. Interpretation cannot be done via fragments. If you fragment my post, and you have a bunch of A's and I's and the's, you cannot interpret my post. It is the unity of the words and order that bring meaning to the data. Empiricism, since it is forced into fragments of the data, cannot logically understand the data, unless it steps out of empiricism into another mode of knowing.

Quote:
Of course it is true morality - I explained it clearly enough. The alternatives are simply blind obedience or a 'might makes  right' scenario. Absolutes are simply not required.

There is no 'Atheist' epistemology, altho it is commonly associated with a rational, empirical, evidence-based approach to knowledge, with an acknowledgement of an inevitable degree of uncertainty about any 'real' knowledge, and the aim being to find the most workable and useful model of reality, not the absolute, ultimate Truth.

rational empirical evidence is a contradiction. And you are telling me that the atheistic morality is blind obedience. I'm not getting this. If there is no atheistic epistemology (remember, you're fragmenting again), then how can there by an atheistic morality. How can you KNOW what is right or wrong, if no epistemology "exists" in atheism. This seems to be extremely fallacious.

How, as an atheist, do you know that it is wrong to massacre your family, if atheism has no means of knowing? In Christianity, the branches of philosophy, must connect, in order for knowing to be united, thus bringing meaning to the particulars. If morals is just a lonely particular on a deserted island, and a tree falls, does it know? If a Muslim rapes women, how is this wrong, with ethics being all by itself. How can you bring meaning to the particulars of ethics without uniting it with anything?

Quote:
So you have no proof worthy of that description.
I have no empirical proof that I use, but there is empirical "proof" I can use as an ad hominem, since you are an empiricist.

Quote:
 Science involves no such thing. Math and Logic are tools for science.

This 'Infinite Reference point' is an empty phrase.

Empiricism as applied in Science is not capable of finding ultimate truth, but the alternatives have no claim to any epistemological status unless they can be to some extent checked empirically.

Hume claimed that knowledge "cannot be conclusively established by reason", and included ALL categories in that. Logic and Math he classified as "relations of ideas", a distinct category from "matters of fact". He was not skeptical about empiricism as such, but about all 'knowledge', as being unable to be determine Absolutely.

Whatever limitations there are on empiricism, at least it overall leads in the direction of greater accuracy, whereas intuition and revelation are in practice indistinguishable from fantasy, unless tested against reality, ie, empirically.

Rejection of empiricism leads toward solipsism.

Your talk of Absolutes and Reference Points is outdated thinking. Your "Absolutes and Reference Points" are subjective, realtive to you and others who share your viewpoint. They are unverifiable as realities without your set of presuppositions.

You cannot have non-empirical tools for science. And how can you have a science since you said earlier that Atheism as no epistemology. This is odd and you are contradicting yourself.

The Infinite Reference Point is empty as an empiricist. But since Hume and others refuted empiricism, it fails in the area of science and ethics, and cannot be trusted. So you must invest in a different way of knowing (science) then evaluate it, then get back to me.

I know empiricism is not capable of finding ultimate truth. That's the whole point. And if you can't find ultimate truth, you can't find truth at all.

How can you say empiricism has any accuracy. You can't even speak of accuracy, since accuracy is non-empirical. You cannot experience accuracy. So again, you are using non-empirical means for empiricism, thus refuting empiricism. You are inconsistent.

You are reading a Hume as an Empiricist, not as a Skeptic.

I like your thinking. I enjoy these types of conversations. But you must answer me, how can you not have a means to know atheistically, but have science. How can you have a atheistically means of morals, and not know what is right and wrong. How can you have fragmented everything, and then know universals of the fragments empirically via non-empirical interpretation

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi BobSpence1

Quote:
Objective arguments would have to be restricted to objectively determined propositions, which disqualifies anything concerning God. I assume the arguments you are using are logically consistent and valid - that would not be best described as 'objective'.

You then have to define for me what you mean by objective, and how you know what you claim is indeed objective itself. Objective must be fixed in time and space, and must be ultimately universal which logically always corresponds to reality. The laws of logic for example are non-personal, which does not object for example to human personality. So if the laws of logic for example are your means of objectivity, then how does that reflect human personality. And if it can't do that then it is not objective since it does not reflect or correspond with all of reality.

Quote:
I actually don't recall seeing any actual logical arguments from you just a series or assertions, non-sequiters, naked claims that 'A therefore B' with no actual attempt to justify it. As exemplified by your statements beginning "Since God is..." above. Any attributes of God are pure supposition, and there is zero knowledge "in" Christ - we don't even know if Christ existed as an individual vaguely matching the descriptions in the Bible.

The reason why you are having trouble with this, is because I am arguing 100% non-empirical. You've never seen anybody do this, let alone a Christian. Within my argument, is the justification of:

1) The consistency of the argument as it corresponds to reality

2) The Imago Dei which proports the first principle/assertion that begins the argument itself.

Just because I do not use empirical evidence, does not logically mean I don't use evidence. Since I argue that empirical evidence is in reality no evidence at all. Especially since empiricists themselves admit that the results are always within the probability. The risk factor of the probability is non-empirical, and thus the theory of knowing crumbles all over the place. It's like my mother-in-law during Christmas. She always has to top me with presents for my kids.

Quote:
Since the existence and nature of a God is inherently pure conjecture, any argument or assertions regarding such an entity are simply speculation.

I have a problem with the term "existence." But that's a side note. In argument, one always assumes their first principle. At this point, the argument is evaluated on two fronts.

1) Validity

2) Soundness

My argument is valid, you have a problem with the soundness. The reason why you do, is because you are using empiricism in an argument and that is non-empirical. So we are bumping heads big time. This is the first time I would imagine, so it's a little hard.

The Ontology of God is assumed in my first principle (along with His Word). Just as empiricism as a means of knowing is assumed when you argue. Only I'm starting with an Infinite Reference Point, and you are starting with finite reference points that are fragmented.

Quote:
Quoting from the Bible is merely repeating the ideas of some person who live a couple of millennia ago, and has no intrinsic  worth, except as it can trigger a thought that may not otherwise have come to mind, but that applies to virtually any utterance ever made.

quoting from the Bible is perfectly fine via my argument. Since what is in the Bible are the implications of the Axiom of the Infinite Reference point. They do not support the first principle, but it simply flows downward and is perfectly valid in my argument.

Quote:

Any logic involving 'infinite' values is problematic as to validity.

Quote:

Supreme intelligent awareness? Well, via logic and knowledge, one can only know again, if the particulars have meaning via Universals. Which begs the question regarding universals. Universals must be tied into a Infinite Reference Point in order for them to all be rooted into something.

'Universals'  would be things like the Laws of Logic. There is no logical requirement for some separate 'reference point' - they would be their own 'reference point', if they were truly Universals, otherwise you have an infinite regression - a 'reference  point' would need another reference point itself, and so on.

'Meaning' can only be with reference to a particular consciousness or closely interacting social group. Absolute and/or Universal 'meaning' is meaningless.

 

Okay, but either you have to being with universals (empiricism begins with particulars), or you have to begin with particulars. I begin with a universal because I argue that it is impossible for you to work your way like a ladder with no pegs from a particular to a universal using empiricism via the mode of Tabula Rasa. But please try.

The regression applies to the Theistic proofs for the existence of God. You are correct, if I were to use empiricism and do this. Thomas Aquinas starts with a finite reference point. However, since I start with an infinite reference point, it can't regress by definition of the reference point being infinite. It's like a game I use to play with my kids. I love you infinitely. I love you infinitely and 1. This is silly since nothing more can be added to infinite, since infinite is beyond all boundaries. So to regress to another infinite reference point is logically impossible with the understanding of the term infinite. AND. since I am not arguing via empiricism, (unlike Tomism), then this problem is really not a problem at all. Remember, you are trying to empirically refute a non-empirical argument. lol. This is a contradiction to empiricism in itself since it cannot even speak to my argument.

You have to try to step out of empiricism, and then refute it. Try Rationalism, with a capital R. A good example of this would be of the school of Rene Descartes.

Quote:

Such connections only generate knowledge about the interactions, and may pass on knowledge separately gained.

Atheism simply does not believe in God, the rational default position. It is normally a consequence, not a driver, of a mindset which values the honest search for truth over comfortable but illogical, unjustified claims. At most, a position of atheism frees the mind from certain constraints and presuppositions, rather than inspiring new ideas itself.

Knowledge about external reality is won by gathering as much possibly relevant data about some subject, comparing and correlating it to find consistent patterns and associations within it the body of data. It involves a combination of analysis, which may, at a stretch, be described as 'fragmentation', but it is an essential part of the process, followed by synthesis, to see what new connections and patterns can be found or generated, and more data-gathering and analysis, in a endless cycle.

No, since the subject matters themselves, in reference to the understanding of the subjects, are combined with the other subjects to cause one to know. This connection allows for interpretation, since we are dealing with the whole from the parts. Thus, these subjects (parts) bring meaning to the whole (Infinite Reference Point) since the subjects are united. Empiricism fragments these subjects, thus making it impossible for one to really do anything.

Also, the interpretation of the data, must be done via knowing via unity. Interpretation cannot be done via fragments. If you fragment my post, and you have a bunch of A's and I's and the's, you cannot interpret my post. It is the unity of the words and order that bring meaning to the data. Empiricism, since it is forced into fragments of the data, cannot logically understand the data, unless it steps out of empiricism into another mode of knowing.

Quote:
Of course it is true morality - I explained it clearly enough. The alternatives are simply blind obedience or a 'might makes  right' scenario. Absolutes are simply not required.

There is no 'Atheist' epistemology, altho it is commonly associated with a rational, empirical, evidence-based approach to knowledge, with an acknowledgement of an inevitable degree of uncertainty about any 'real' knowledge, and the aim being to find the most workable and useful model of reality, not the absolute, ultimate Truth.

rational empirical evidence is a contradiction. And you are telling me that the atheistic morality is blind obedience. I'm not getting this. If there is no atheistic epistemology (remember, you're fragmenting again), then how can there by an atheistic morality. How can you KNOW what is right or wrong, if no epistemology "exists" in atheism. This seems to be extremely fallacious.

How, as an atheist, do you know that it is wrong to massacre your family, if atheism has no means of knowing? In Christianity, the branches of philosophy, must connect, in order for knowing to be united, thus bringing meaning to the particulars. If morals is just a lonely particular on a deserted island, and a tree falls, does it know? If a Muslim rapes women, how is this wrong, with ethics being all by itself. How can you bring meaning to the particulars of ethics without uniting it with anything?

Quote:
So you have no proof worthy of that description.
I have no empirical proof that I use, but there is empirical "proof" I can use as an ad hominem, since you are an empiricist.

Quote:
 Science involves no such thing. Math and Logic are tools for science.

This 'Infinite Reference point' is an empty phrase.

Empiricism as applied in Science is not capable of finding ultimate truth, but the alternatives have no claim to any epistemological status unless they can be to some extent checked empirically.

Hume claimed that knowledge "cannot be conclusively established by reason", and included ALL categories in that. Logic and Math he classified as "relations of ideas", a distinct category from "matters of fact". He was not skeptical about empiricism as such, but about all 'knowledge', as being unable to be determine Absolutely.

Whatever limitations there are on empiricism, at least it overall leads in the direction of greater accuracy, whereas intuition and revelation are in practice indistinguishable from fantasy, unless tested against reality, ie, empirically.

Rejection of empiricism leads toward solipsism.

Your talk of Absolutes and Reference Points is outdated thinking. Your "Absolutes and Reference Points" are subjective, realtive to you and others who share your viewpoint. They are unverifiable as realities without your set of presuppositions.

You cannot have non-empirical tools for science. And how can you have a science since you said earlier that Atheism as no epistemology. This is odd and you are contradicting yourself.

The Infinite Reference Point is empty as an empiricist. But since Hume and others refuted empiricism, it fails in the area of science and ethics, and cannot be trusted. So you must invest in a different way of knowing (science) then evaluate it, then get back to me.

I know empiricism is not capable of finding ultimate truth. That's the whole point. And if you can't find ultimate truth, you can't find truth at all.

How can you say empiricism has any accuracy. You can't even speak of accuracy, since accuracy is non-empirical. You cannot experience accuracy. So again, you are using non-empirical means for empiricism, thus refuting empiricism. You are inconsistent.

You are reading a Hume as an Empiricist, not as a Skeptic.

I like your thinking. I enjoy these types of conversations. But you must answer me, how can you not have a means to know atheistically, but have science. How can you have a atheistically means of morals, and not know what is right and wrong. How can you have fragmented everything, and then know universals of the fragments empirically via non-empirical interpretation

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

It's getting really boring. 

Jean, tell me are you going to church?

 


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

cj wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:

So have fun, happy honnika. 

 

Did you misspell hanukkah on purpose?  If so, please don't.  I realize it is my problem and not yours, but bad spelling and grammar drive me crazy.  I know it may be a very short trip.  If you don't know how to spell something, you can go to Google or Yahoo, type the word, and even if misspelled, the web site will give you hints about what you might mean - which gives you the proper spelling.  Thanks for putting up with my foibles.

PS I'm not jewish nor of jewish descent.  I would have the same beef if you misspelled christmas.  Note also, I deliberately do not capitalize religious references.

 

Yes I did it on purpose, I can't help it.  Sometimes I can't resist Sticking out tongue

so Mery Kristmas

sorry, just can't help it  

Please forgive me and don't throw anything at me Laughing out loud

Reverend Willie G.

I am the God of where I stand


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Willie,

Within the realm of opinion, all you have are statements based on uncertainty. You are thus holding to no position.

If one cannot logically disprove God or prove God, when while are you asserting that as if that was reality. You must justify your assertion of non-assertion. Again to assert that you can't prove God requires proof. Unless you are again, just being absurd.

For one who is against logic and reason, you sure make a lot of assertions.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

For one who sees so much you are certainly blind. 
 

Reverend Willie G.

 

I am the God of where I stand


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

ReverendWillieg wrote:

cj wrote:

ReverendWillieg wrote:

So have fun, happy honnika. 

 

Did you misspell hanukkah on purpose?  If so, please don't.  I realize it is my problem and not yours, but bad spelling and grammar drive me crazy.  I know it may be a very short trip.  If you don't know how to spell something, you can go to Google or Yahoo, type the word, and even if misspelled, the web site will give you hints about what you might mean - which gives you the proper spelling.  Thanks for putting up with my foibles.

PS I'm not jewish nor of jewish descent.  I would have the same beef if you misspelled christmas.  Note also, I deliberately do not capitalize religious references.

 

Yes I did it on purpose, I can't help it.  Sometimes I can't resist Sticking out tongue

so Mery Kristmas

sorry, just can't help it  

Please forgive me and don't throw anything at me Laughing out loud

Reverend Willie G.

 

Christ on a crutch --- fine. 

-- 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.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cut the convoluted crap

Cut the convoluted crap J,

Here is your core claim, "A magical super hero exists and will swoop me off the train tracks"

The bible's invisible super hero sky daddy with magical super powers, was not the first god claim in human history nor is it the only god claim in human history.

I gave up on Santa when I was a kid, you merely worship Santa for adults. But not even a good Santa. At least my childhood delusion Santa only gave you coal if you were bad. Your super hero claim involves a vendictive asshole who will torture you like an abusive husband whose wife tries to leave him.

There is no such thing as an invisible being. There never was and never will be. Vocanos were not gods like people falsely once believed. The ocean was not controled by Posiden and the god/s of Abraham are just as fictional.

You are merely a deluded person who is sooooo deeply intrenched and in love with the idea of a god you believe it.

 

 

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


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Damn. I checked out this

Damn. I checked out this thread hoping to find an intelligent Christian trained in logic. That's what I was kinda promised, from the topic title.

I feel cheated.

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Damn. I

nigelTheBold wrote:

Damn. I checked out this thread hoping to find an intelligent Christian trained in logic. That's what I was kinda promised, from the topic title.

I feel cheated.

Thats ok, I can sell you a snarfwidget at my immaginary myth lot. It is right down the street from Crazy Eddy's used myth chaple. I'll throw in a free brain rotation.

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Objective: "• not

Objective: "not dependent on the mind for existence; actual : a matter of objective fact."

That's it. In no way required to be "fixed in time and space". Many 'objective' facts are concepts, relationships, etc, to which applying that constraint makes no sense.

"must be ultimately universal which logically always corresponds to reality" is pretty much a tautology, and does not add anything to the argument.

It is totally unnecessary that any specific "objective" fact or observation specifically and clearly "reflect or correspond with all of reality". It obviously should not contradict any other established objective fact, or else there will be a problem. But typically, most such 'facts' only have implications within a narrow context.

The laws of logic simply provide a foundation for coherent discourse and analysis. They are used in all analysis, including that of the nature and origins of 'human personality'. A tool only has to 'reflect or correspond with" what it is used for in certain specific aspects, just as a hammer has to have attributes allowing it to be readily used to apply an impactive force to some other object, no more. Let alone reflect the infinite varieties of things it can used in the construction or destruction of.

Logic allows us to check that a chain of argument does not 'go of the rails' at any point, ie assert or imply some logical contradiction. It reflects the fact that a coherent reality has to have certain minimal properties, such as identifiably distinct entities (LoI), and that one entity A cannot overlap with that part of reality that is Not A. It tells us nothing, of itself, about any higher order structure or properties of some collection of connected or interacting entities, such as 'human personality.

They are not "my means for objectivity", they are an essential base component of any coherent analysis, whether concerned with objective or subjective topics.

Empirical evidence is uncertain to some degree, of course, as are all simple assertions of existence and attributes of reality. I have outlined how aggregation of accumulating uncertain evidence, studying correlations, can allow us to strengthen our confidence in particular results. Tools such as Bayesian analysis can allow us to check how different subjective assessments of confidence in various pieces of the raw input data affect the justifiable confidence in the conclusion, so we can directly check whether that uncertainty actually risks destroying the constructed model of reality it is part of.

Accuracy is measurable via physical tools accessed via our senses and the application of math to the observed readings of our tools and instruments, so it is empirically determined or estimated.

We can't find ultimate truth. The partial approximations to the 'truth' we do have allow us to design and construct the computers we are both using to interact here. That does not in any way  require 'ultimate truth'. All we need is a 'truth' which matches reality to a demonstrably useful degree.

If your only means of verifying your evidence is whether it matches an idea, ie, the concept you label the 'imago dei', which, like any other concept, is not self-verifying without violating logic, you are in the realm of the purely subjective.

I have uncertain but demonstrably useful 'knowledge', you have just guesses.

Of course you are compelled to deny empiricism, since it leads to the overwhelming likelihood that your 'dei' is a figment of the human imagination, a category of idea which can be shown to have strong evolutionary roots as part of coping with those aspects of reality our ancestors, and ourselves, do not currently understand in any useful way. Which was a far greater part of everyday experience in the distant past than it is for educated people today.

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

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

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5879
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin wrote:The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Ontology of God is assumed in my first principle (along with His Word). Just as empiricism as a means of knowing is assumed when you argue. Only I'm starting with an Infinite Reference Point, and you are starting with finite reference points that are fragmented.

An "Infinite Reference Point" is a pretty meaningless concept. A reference point, to be actually usable, has to have precisely defined, specific attributes that any real value can be compared to.

"Infinite" completely defeats this.

And of course can you justify your assumption of the validity and reality of "the Ontology of God"?

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

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

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

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


Rich Woods
Rational VIP!
Rich Woods's picture
Posts: 868
Joined: 2008-02-06
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Jean

BobSpence1 wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Ontology of God is assumed in my first principle (along with His Word). Just as empiricism as a means of knowing is assumed when you argue. Only I'm starting with an Infinite Reference Point, and you are starting with finite reference points that are fragmented.

An "Infinite Reference Point" is a pretty meaningless concept. A reference point, to be actually usable, has to have precisely defined, specific attributes that any real value can be compared to.

"Infinite" completely defeats this.

And of course can you justify your assumption of the validity and reality of "the Ontology of God"?

 

Bob... I realize that you are trying to be civil... But this fella doesn't even understand his own arguments... His dizzying rationalities make me wonder whether he's truly a "christian"...or if he's trying to "punk" this site...  


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

Hey Bob,

I really appreciate your thinking. We obviously disagree, but I came on here thinking everybody was going be like you. Though we disagree, I hope we can respect each other through this.

And Happy Thanksgiving.

I will respond to your arguments as soon as possible. I must sleep.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13759
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey Bob,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Bob,

I really appreciate your thinking. We obviously disagree, but I came on here thinking everybody was going be like you. Though we disagree, I hope we can respect each other through this.

And Happy Thanksgiving.

I will respond to your arguments as soon as possible. I must sleep.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I speak to Bob just about every day. You don't need to keep pleading to "get along with us". This is not about you as an individual, this is strictly about the claims that come out of your mouth. So please don't keep saying "I hope we can respect each other".

This is not about a personal one on one relationship or friendship. This is an open messageboard where any and all claims are put to scrutiny. If you want our respect, quit making assumptions about us. We are all individuals and we are just as diverse as any other label.

You jumpped into the boxing ring with us. Quit complaining about getting your claims being punched arround, that is what we do here.

If you don't like it, you don't have to stay, no one will force you to stay. But this is an atheist website and we don't pull punches here.

 

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


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Discussions

Jean, I am just curious about something. In many of your responses to others and myself, you have mentioned Atheist friends, Universalist Friends, Pagan Friends, etc. You have mentioned many debates and discussions with these friends of yours on a regular basis. I am just curious, how do you treat these people in person ? Do you tell these people that they are irrational, hellbound, and illogical ? If so, what sort of responses do you receive from these friends of yours ? Or are all of these discussions that you are referring to online discussions ? I noticed that you have expressed disappointment with the Atheist responses from the majority of us, have you interacted with other Atheists before as you alluded to ? If so, did you start off your discussions with them by referring to them as irrational, illogical and unable to formulate an argument ? How is that having a discussion ?

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


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian 0

Hi Brian 0,

I know respect is not of your system of a "knowing" but respect is a Christian concept. So via civility, I thought i would be possible. But I was wrong, so wrong on that one.

I"m not trying to make friends. Why are you lonely Brian?

My claims haven't been put to anything. But has been gleaming for when they were posted.

I did jump in the ring. And a few KO's in between. You've not been in the ring that often Are you afraid? Do you really not have any arguments for atheism?

I always enjoy talking to pagans.

____________________

Hi HarleySportster,

I treat these pagan friends like people. I respect them and either watch the game or have a beer. They know where I stand hardcore and they respect me. Some have even left paganism.

This started when I was very young a long time ago. There was a girl that was my friend, and she always wore the cross. But something wasn't right. So upon discussing things, I found out that she was into hardcore Satanism (I never found out the specific kind). Her mom had put satanic markings on her stomach. Her mom was the satanist. After the divorced dad found out, he quickly moved her to a secure location via the Police.

This was not my first experience with pagans, but one of my most memorable. I was able to tell her about the Power of the Lord Jesus Christ and how the first step out of Demon Possession, was through Jesus Christ since Christians cannot be demon possessed.

I have seen many many people with demon possession. One time I was sitting in a chair at a church like setting and some woman fell off the chair and started screaming and convulsing. My wife, (a hardcore Christian) grabbed her legs to keep her from hurting herself and she sat up and stared at her for a minute. I know you guys are all atheists and think this is a joke and have no clue what I'm talking about, but the demon witnessed a hardcore child of God. The demon thus did not go into her because the Holy Spirit dwells in her.

A long answer. I know some Christians say they care for the lost but they could care less for the loss. I know the game. I know the hypocrite out there. I truly do care for people I encounter usually. God has put it on my heart to pray for Rebecca and AtheistExtremists for some reason. Nobody else. I don't know why.

But back to your question. They know where I stand, and they are still friendly

Like I said before, I use to hang out atheist churches (Center for Rational Thought) all the time. Knew the president, Vice President, and even worked in the office. I also went to a Public School which means most of the teachers were atheist lol. I have discussed things with Dan Barker and have read atheist books including the Case against God.

I was also part of a Debate with the spokemans for the humanist society in WSU.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3719
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Why are

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Why are you lonely Brian?

Lol.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So upon discussing things, I found out that she was into hardcore Satanism (I never found out the specific kind).

Ooohh, I wasn't aware that there were different "kinds" of Satanism. Did they torture puppies?

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


rebecca.williamson
atheist
Posts: 459
Joined: 2010-08-09
User is offlineOffline
Did god also tell you to be

Did god also tell you to be a sacastic smartass and mock me? Stop that praying crap for me. I told you, it's not gonna work. I don't like evilness and I don't fear him anymore. Let me live my damn life! You want to debate? Fine. You want to know why I reject christ? Fine. Don't insult me more by saying you are going to pray for me.

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