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).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:I"m not trying to make

Quote:
I"m not trying to make friends.

That's obvious, and the only fact you have stated since you have been here.

As far as "civility" you get what you put into it. You came in here with some delusional idea that you were going teach us lost puppies the truth. Then when you got hit with reality which you didn't want to face, rather than defend your position you resorted to ad homins.

If you really want to have a long productive stay here drop your condescending crap. Capioska and Fonzie are both trying to sell the same super hero you are, but unlike you, they are not being a prick like you.

And drop your "respectfully" crap at the end of every post. It is annoying and superfluous.

Stop being an asshole and and you wont be treated like one.

Get this through your thick skull.

1. We don't believe in your fictional superstition.

2. We don't hate all people who believe things we don't.

3. We do hate condescending pricks.

4. Stop being a condescending prick.

Read and repeat reading until that soaks in. Otherwise I would suggest you not torture yourself by posting 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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:
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.

Sure.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
God has put it on my heart to pray for Rebecca and AtheistExtremists for some reason. Nobody else. I don't know why.

I do.

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

Of course you were.


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean,You saw someone acting

Jean,

You saw someone acting like they were demon-possessed (likely so the "exorcist" could aggrandize himself and get paid).

Your wife grabbed her legs either because she genuinely bought into the acting job or because she was in on it. The "demon" didn't go into her because that wasn't in the script.

Just a case of some dishonest actors taking advantage of those with a Christian worldview. Do you believe that the arts only have meaning to Christians because they're some of the most easily conned?

I'm sure that Rebecca and AE will think for you. Prayer - how to do nothing and claim you're helping.

I would have liked to see that debate. If you did as well then as you are doing now I would have witnessed your logical evisceration.

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Though we disagree, I hope we can respect each other through this.

I can't speak for Bob, but I respect you with the minimum amount of respect I give to everyone who seems to be a decent person at heart. I even respect you a bit more, since you came here among a bunch of atheists.

Things I don't respect: your thoughtless ideas, which you base on misinformation (once again, Obama is not a Muslim, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that he has ever been a Muslim). Your constant ad hominem of opposing ideas by calling them "liberal." Your inability to engage in a meaningful conversation, and your insistence on preaching rather than discussing. Your complete lack of empathy, or ability to understand opposing viewpoints and ideas. Your closed-minded dogmatic recitation of ideas you don't seem to truly understand (SEE, for example, your list of 10 fallacies, of which at least 3 you got completely wrong, and your completely oddball claims that Sir Francis Bacon didn't use induction). Your haughty and arrogant attitude. Your condescension.

Shall I go on?

I do respect you. If I did not, I would have verbally (well, in writing) eviscerated you.

I'm not sure you respect us, though. Your constant use of the ad hominem "liberal" (not as an insult, but as a way to dispose of arguments you don't understand, rather than addressing them directly) is itself an insult to our intelligence. While you scrupulously use the signoff of "respectfully," your attitude does not seem to convey respect at all. You are more like a movie villan, asking to shake the hero's hand and entreating him to just be friends, all the while holding a dagger ready to strike.

In your case, the dagger is nothing more than one of those dollar-store rubber toy daggers (and rather ratty and ill-used, at that). But it's the thought that counts.

You want respect? Earn it. Around here, there's only one currency worth a damn: intellectual honesty. Humor and intelligence count for a lot, too, but intellectual honesty is the base requirement.

You want respect?

Earn it.

"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: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Jean

Anonymouse wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
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.

Sure.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
God has put it on my heart to pray for Rebecca and AtheistExtremists for some reason. Nobody else. I don't know why.

I do.

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

Of course you were.

Oh man, I feel sooooooo left out. What am I going to do with my life since Jean won't pray for me? IT'S SO UNFAIR! It's over, my life is over, boo hoo. I want my mommy.

"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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:Jean

Anonymouse wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
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.

Sure.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
God has put it on my heart to pray for Rebecca and AtheistExtremists for some reason. Nobody else. I don't know why.

I do.

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

Of course you were.

LMAO, I mean... LMFAO... wow, that is funny.  I must admit I skipped over the first page of this post but I'm going to go back and read it now.  I normally don't partake in personal attacks because I believe they say more about attacker then the person being attacked.  I'm also a firm devotee to the Church of Latter Mind Your Own Fucking Business Day Saints.

 Regarding Jean Chauvin, I admire the way that you go out of your way to rub people the wrong way.  I remember being 16 and going on some live lobby or other.  Playing devil's advocate and pissing people off is a lot of fun.  I'm going to make some suppositions here regarding Jean Chauvin.

1.  Jean Chauvin is an atheist. (I mean the knuckle-head posting here not the real Jean Chauvin)

2.  Jean Chauvin resembles Napoleon Dynamite irl ((this I get from his claims about the ninja father and arbitrary claimed numbers like 10,000 books.(you can fill a 10X10X9 room with about 9000 paperbacks, I mean fill 100% not arrange))

3.  Jean Chauvin has very bad skin and is overweight. (I know this because he stresses quite a bit over the smallest detail, and strikes me as someone that spits when they talk, also talks very loudly to make his pointless)

4.  Jean Chauvin is not married, and probably a virgin. ( If this is his true personality, I don't see someone putting up with him for more then 2 days at the time)

5.  Jean Chauvin fancies himself the Stephen Cobert of this forum only not as funny or witty. (see http://www.colbertnation.com/home for more detail)

 

I apologize about the personal attacks and I understand I'm reflecting my own insecurities in most of them.  But to quote a mature argument "He started it!" 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
LMAO, I mean... LMFAO...

Quote:
LMAO, I mean... LMFAO... wow, that is funny.  I must admit I skipped over the first page of this post but I'm going to go back and read it now.  I normally don't partake in personal attacks because I believe they say more about attacker then the person being attacked.  I'm also a firm devotee to the Church of Latter Mind Your Own Fucking Business Day Saints.

Regarding Jean Chauvin, I admire the way that you go out of your way to rub people the wrong way.  I remember being 16 and going on some live lobby or other.  Playing devil's advocate and pissing people off is a lot of fun.  I'm going to make some suppositions here regarding Jean Chauvin.

I had no idea I had such a fan. Are you the president of my fan club? For you, we will celebrate on April 1st (Psalm 14:1).

I don't go out of my way to tick people off. Jesus Christ ticks people off. This is what He said would happen. Just mentioning His name pisses people off.

#1 is true. I am a theist. I made this one up on my own. I think it's pretty good.

I'm way funnier then Colbert. My humor is that of class. Like Johnny Carson or Sapient when he tries to debate. Only a conservative can truly be funny.

The rest of your chant is simply the echoes of my victory regarding my argument. It's like I stepped on a bug. And all the other bugs are now saying that I'm bugging them.

No, not bugging, just destroying their arguments. Perhaps Sapient would like to debate me? Let's go. No? I only debate those who have written at least one book. If he has done this, it's a date. Just bring a box of tissues since you will be crying off stage.  

All in good fun.

But you have to at least admit that I"m arguing way better then Kirk and Ray. Even if you are to prideful to admit defeat. They were like Virgins giving advice to Dr. Ruth.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Anonymouse

Ktulu wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
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.

Sure.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
God has put it on my heart to pray for Rebecca and AtheistExtremists for some reason. Nobody else. I don't know why.

I do.

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

Of course you were.

LMAO, I mean... LMFAO... wow, that is funny.  I must admit I skipped over the first page of this post but I'm going to go back and read it now.  I normally don't partake in personal attacks because I believe they say more about attacker then the person being attacked.  I'm also a firm devotee to the Church of Latter Mind Your Own Fucking Business Day Saints.

 Regarding Jean Chauvin, I admire the way that you go out of your way to rub people the wrong way.  I remember being 16 and going on some live lobby or other.  Playing devil's advocate and pissing people off is a lot of fun.  I'm going to make some suppositions here regarding Jean Chauvin.

1.  Jean Chauvin is an atheist. (I mean the knuckle-head posting here not the real Jean Chauvin)

2.  Jean Chauvin resembles Napoleon Dynamite irl ((this I get from his claims about the ninja father and arbitrary claimed numbers like 10,000 books.(you can fill a 10X10X9 room with about 9000 paperbacks, I mean fill 100% not arrange))

3.  Jean Chauvin has very bad skin and is overweight. (I know this because he stresses quite a bit over the smallest detail, and strikes me as someone that spits when they talk, also talks very loudly to make his pointless)

4.  Jean Chauvin is not married, and probably a virgin. ( If this is his true personality, I don't see someone putting up with him for more then 2 days at the time)

5.  Jean Chauvin fancies himself the Stephen Cobert of this forum only not as funny or witty. (see http://www.colbertnation.com/home for more detail)

 

I apologize about the personal attacks and I understand I'm reflecting my own insecurities in most of them.  But to quote a mature argument "He started it!" 

 

2 through 5 definitely. #1 I'm not so confident with, I go back and forth. 

 

BTW welcome back Jean I missed you dearly. I wish you hadn't stopped talking to me. 

 

Respectfully,

Beyond Saving

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


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Anonymouse

Ktulu wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:
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.

Sure.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
God has put it on my heart to pray for Rebecca and AtheistExtremists for some reason. Nobody else. I don't know why.

I do.

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

Of course you were.

LMAO, I mean... LMFAO... wow, that is funny.  I must admit I skipped over the first page of this post but I'm going to go back and read it now.  I normally don't partake in personal attacks because I believe they say more about attacker then the person being attacked.  I'm also a firm devotee to the Church of Latter Mind Your Own Fucking Business Day Saints.

 Regarding Jean Chauvin, I admire the way that you go out of your way to rub people the wrong way.  I remember being 16 and going on some live lobby or other.  Playing devil's advocate and pissing people off is a lot of fun.  I'm going to make some suppositions here regarding Jean Chauvin.

1.  Jean Chauvin is an atheist. (I mean the knuckle-head posting here not the real Jean Chauvin)

2.  Jean Chauvin resembles Napoleon Dynamite irl ((this I get from his claims about the ninja father and arbitrary claimed numbers like 10,000 books.(you can fill a 10X10X9 room with about 9000 paperbacks, I mean fill 100% not arrange))

3.  Jean Chauvin has very bad skin and is overweight. (I know this because he stresses quite a bit over the smallest detail, and strikes me as someone that spits when they talk, also talks very loudly to make his pointless)

4.  Jean Chauvin is not married, and probably a virgin. ( If this is his true personality, I don't see someone putting up with him for more then 2 days at the time)

5.  Jean Chauvin fancies himself the Stephen Cobert of this forum only not as funny or witty. (see http://www.colbertnation.com/home for more detail)

 

I apologize about the personal attacks and I understand I'm reflecting my own insecurities in most of them.  But to quote a mature argument "He started it!" 

 

2 through 5 definitely. #1 I'm not so confident with, I go back and forth. 

 

BTW welcome back Jean I missed you dearly. I wish you hadn't stopped talking to me. 

 

Respectfully,

Beyond Saving

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


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Quote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Quote:
LMAO, I mean... LMFAO... wow, that is funny.  I must admit I skipped over the first page of this post but I'm going to go back and read it now.  I normally don't partake in personal attacks because I believe they say more about attacker then the person being attacked.  I'm also a firm devotee to the Church of Latter Mind Your Own Fucking Business Day Saints.

Regarding Jean Chauvin, I admire the way that you go out of your way to rub people the wrong way.  I remember being 16 and going on some live lobby or other.  Playing devil's advocate and pissing people off is a lot of fun.  I'm going to make some suppositions here regarding Jean Chauvin.

I had no idea I had such a fan. Are you the president of my fan club? For you, we will celebrate on April 1st (Psalm 14:1).

I don't go out of my way to tick people off. Jesus Christ ticks people off. This is what He said would happen. Just mentioning His name pisses people off.

#1 is true. I am a theist. I made this one up on my own. I think it's pretty good.

I'm way funnier then Colbert. My humor is that of class. Like Johnny Carson or Sapient when he tries to debate. Only a conservative can truly be funny.

The rest of your chant is simply the echoes of my victory regarding my argument. It's like I stepped on a bug. And all the other bugs are now saying that I'm bugging them.

No, not bugging, just destroying their arguments. Perhaps Sapient would like to debate me? Let's go. No? I only debate those who have written at least one book. If he has done this, it's a date. Just bring a box of tissues since you will be crying off stage.  

All in good fun.

But you have to at least admit that I"m arguing way better then Kirk and Ray. Even if you are to prideful to admit defeat. They were like Virgins giving advice to Dr. Ruth.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Watching a debate between you and Sapient might be interesting. You'd have to remember to bring an argument though. You haven't done so yet. You've asserted a lot of things but haven't argued for them. Still waiting...

"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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1831
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I had no

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I had no idea I had such a fan. Are you the president of my fan club? For you, we will celebrate on April 1st (Psalm 14:1).

I don't go out of my way to tick people off. Jesus Christ ticks people off. This is what He said would happen. Just mentioning His name pisses people off.

#1 is true. I am a theist. I made this one up on my own. I think it's pretty good.

I'm way funnier then Colbert. My humor is that of class. Like Johnny Carson or Sapient when he tries to debate. Only a conservative can truly be funny.

The rest of your chant is simply the echoes of my victory regarding my argument. It's like I stepped on a bug. And all the other bugs are now saying that I'm bugging them.

No, not bugging, just destroying their arguments. Perhaps Sapient would like to debate me? Let's go. No? I only debate those who have written at least one book. If he has done this, it's a date. Just bring a box of tissues since you will be crying off stage.  

All in good fun.

But you have to at least admit that I"m arguing way better then Kirk and Ray. Even if you are to prideful to admit defeat. They were like Virgins giving advice to Dr. Ruth.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I find you very entertaining, I will admit it.  Don't confuse that with respect for your point of view.  I respect your intellect and I respect your right to make your point of view heard even though you tend to rant on occasion.  It's rare for someone that claims theism to be entertaining.  Usually they're downright idiotic or frustratingly non-engaging in the argument.  

I guess you just struck a cord because I can relate with an younger version of myself.  Keep up the good work I guess I am a bit of a fan of your rants at times.  It's more like watching that show "Kids say the darndest things", what silly thing is he going to come up with next?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:I had no

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I had no idea I had such a fan. Are you the president of my fan club? For you, we will celebrate on April 1st (Psalm 14:1).

I don't go out of my way to tick people off. Jesus Christ ticks people off. This is what He said would happen. Just mentioning His name pisses people off.

LOL. Ok, I got to admit, that struck me as pretty funny, even though I have heard the April Fools Day joke before. Yeah, Jesus has a tendency to get on my nerves. I do find it funny that so many people think of him as some great thinker or teacher when the dude obviously had some really screwed up mental issues.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

#1 is true. I am a theist. I made this one up on my own. I think it's pretty good.

I'm way funnier then Colbert. My humor is that of class. Like Johnny Carson or Sapient when he tries to debate. Only a conservative can truly be funny.

Johhny Carson and Sapient are conservatives ? You made up the term theist ?

Not really a big fan of comedy to be honest. Now, I know that this is because via atheist empiricism I can logically have no true understanding of what laughter is. But there is not that many comedians that I can say that I enjoy all of that much.

By the way, do you think God has a sense of humor ? Do you think that God laughs ? Religion seems to be such a dour, solemn and depressing view of humanity that I often wonder where they have time for laughter ? Is there anything outside the realms of empiricism and epistemology that acknowledge the appropriate time and place for laughter ?

Actually, I am sort of laughing as I type this. I guess I really do crack myself up on occasion. Empricism has taught me this.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The rest of your chant is simply the echoes of my victory regarding my argument. It's like I stepped on a bug. And all the other bugs are now saying that I'm bugging them.

No, not bugging, just destroying their arguments. Perhaps Sapient would like to debate me? Let's go. No? I only debate those who have written at least one book. If he has done this, it's a date. Just bring a box of tissues since you will be crying off stage.  

All in good fun.

Truth to be told, I would actually like to see a Nightline debate like that. I would actually pay money to come see that. Especially a whole bunch of terms about epistemology and refuting empiricism as the core of the argument. I probably would need tissues because I would be laughing so hard.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 

But you have to at least admit that I"m arguing way better then Kirk and Ray. Even if you are to prideful to admit defeat. They were like Virgins giving advice to Dr. Ruth.

Well, I never thought that I would say it, but I actually agree that you are far more entertaining than Ray and Kirk. They were pretty pitiful. But logically speaking, if you are refuting empricism, how can I agree that you are better than Kirk and Ray if I have nothing to base my opinions off of since I am an Atheist and don't believe anything ? Does the bible speak clearly on when people are better than not?

I feel like I am on an episode of Saturday Night Live, back when it was really funny (alot of those comedians were liberals though, nevermind).

“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


ZuS
atheist
ZuS's picture
Posts: 562
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
"An Intelligent Atheist

"An Intelligent Atheist Trained in Logic vs. An Intelligent Chrisitan Trained in Logic" - that's sounds like a conversation between two monkies.

It takes half a second to realise that secular and religious societies carry roughly the same amount of delusion with them - about the amount that an average human society carries. If this is not important to you and you would rather debate terms and some imaginary "logic" behind these, your priorities are fucked.

Reading through this thread is literally painful.

Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.


Brick Bungalow
Brick Bungalow's picture
Posts: 2
Joined: 2010-12-30
User is offlineOffline
 Don't feed trolls. See, I

 

Don't feed trolls. See, I was trained in logic too.


Craigart14
Posts: 5
Joined: 2011-01-23
User is offlineOffline
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.

There is nothing in this argument that is objective.  It begins by begging the question, i.e., using your conclusion as evidence.  The Bible reference is a false appeal to authority that assumes that the Bible is authoritative.  For non-believers, these premises are untenable and useless as any part of a scientific argument.  I know you think you are being logical and philosophical, but philosophy is entirely speculative and proves nothing, and your "logic" is not at all logical.

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

Begging the question again with a useless premise.   If you are trying to prove the existence of God, you can't logically use God as an authority.

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.

Gibberish.  The infinite reference point is somewhere in the back of your head.

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.

More gibberish.

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.

Goodness, you are full of shit.  Secular morality is usually based on humanistic values instead of divine pronouncements.  Whatever your Christian belief system, it most likely includes cruelty to human beings--not to mention animals--based on conjectures about the meaning of an ancient book or books written by people too ignorant to understand the mechanics of rainfall.  One group's interpretation may well disagree with another's, so of course there can be no consistent objective morality.  Calvin's assumed that God chose before the beginning of time which 144,000 people would be saved, based on a passage in Revelation--cherry-picking one passage of several.  The children worshipping the lord of the flies in Golding's novel illustrate not atheism but reversion to savagery, unmasking the illusion that Europeans were morally superior to the various indigenous peoples they had conquered and oppressed.  Atheists do not steal Christian morals; those portions of Biblical "morals" worth following were stolen from earlier cultures.

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.{/quote]

I think the argument is about whether or not God exists, not whether or not Christians have the "truth."  More begging the question.

 

Quote:
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

If we can't know everything, we can't know anything?  Beyond idiotic.  If you are not an empiricist, then your arguments have no bearing on the real world.  You're just playing a game in your mind.

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.

Please demonstrate, without a faulty appeal to the Bible or some pagan philosopher, the existence of this infinite reference point.

Quote:
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.

Since imago dei is a wholly theological speculation, we don't even have that.

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.

_______________________

Quote:
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.

Philosophical first principles ARE assumptions or hypotheses; scientific hypotheses are tested and verified again and again.

Quote:
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.

They admit that what is a religion?  Humanism or atheism?  Neither is a religion.  Besides, you stated earlier that religion is a dead term that no longer has meaning.  WTF?  There are countless schisms in all religions I know.  Atheists have diverse opinions in many areas.  What we share is a lack of belief in God or gods.  There is no sound reason to believe in deities, so we don't believe.

 

Quote:
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.

I can't figure out what you're claiming is not a religion, so I'll cover a couple things.  Humanism, secular humanism, and atheism (I'll toss in evolution) are not religions.

Quote:
HI Sapient,

 

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."

Religious fundamentalists are those who believe the fundamental tenets of their religion.  Logical fundamentalists, I guess would be people who accept the rules of logic.  Christian fundamentalism means  believing literally in the six-day creation, the global flood, the virgin birth, the resurrection, biblical inerrancy, and Christ's atoning death.  The first five are ludicrous, the last unfalsifiable.  As for believing things "just because," that is exactly what Pascal's Wager, still spouted by many Christians, demands.

[quoteI'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.

Logical Christians are rarer than you think.

Quote:
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).

Because your "logical" premises are unverified and unverifiable, you have abandoned logic from the very start.  You believe in God, the infinite reference point, and imago dei "just because."  Christianity is a "revealed religion," and as such, is never logical.  You must accept the existence of God to begin, as well as the incarnation of a son who is somehow the same age as his father.  You must accept that this son was born to a virgin, tortured and killed, then rose from the dead.  To be a Calvinist, you must believe that ancient books chock full of mistakes and contradictions, are true.  Much of your logic is fallacious, some is gibberish, but the entire structure is built on sand and has been demolished by science--and relatively simple critical thinking.

 

Craig

(I'm new here, too.  I read some of your later posts; they contain the same nonsensical "logic," numerous casual insults in the form of ad hominem attacks on a large group, and poisoning the well.  In one post you claim that because Galileo was wrong about some things, modern science is wrong about everything.  This may be the most blatant non sequitur I have ever seen.  You refer other posters to the encyclopedia of philosophy.  Really?  An encyclopedia?   That's like reading Reader's Digest Condensed Books and claiming to be an expert in literature.  Whoever trained you left out a lot of the basics of scholarship and learning.  There is a rather large difference between logic and sophistry.  So you're a poorly educated, sophistic condescending prick.)