God is logical?????????????

redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
God is logical?????????????

There is no way I can conclude that theism is 'sound', or 'logical'.

When you break it down, it only becomes more and more absurd, to me.

 

According to these people, the whole of the universe, apart from us, is basically superfluous. The universe is designed as, and created as, a moratorium for us, by a god. 

A distraction, that will filter some of us from making their way back to this god, wherever that may be.

And the ones who don't, are to suffer eternally, for becoming distracted from playing 'Simons Says'.

 

That's pathologically insane, sadistic, and masochistic.

 

How do these people reconcile that?
 

What kind of Stockholm Syndrome is that?

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


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

Hello Red,

Red is a good name for you since it is associated with fire, which shall be your only color around you. It will be aweful for an interior decorator to only work with red.

To simply ask the question if God is logical implies that there is a God, thus debunking and demoting you to theist which you admit as absurd.

I too would admit that general theists are absurd. Only a specific Christian theist with a proper understanding of the Trinity can be logical and rational.

You don't crawl up to God and those who don't crawl go to hell. You make a choice. To live your life pleasing to God, or yourself. If yourself, hellfire. If God, heaven.

Thus "atheists" is a very very selfish religion. It's a religion of pride.

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).


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello Red,

Red is a good name for you since it is associated with fire, which shall be your only color around you. It will be aweful for an interior decorator to only work with red.

Oh snap! have you ever heard the term fractally wrong? 

It means that as you break down your argument, it is wrong at every level Smiling

 

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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello Red

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello Red

Go fly a kite, 'Jean'....

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Red is a good name for you

That's not to astute of you, is it, Jean?

1-It's not my name, it's my online persona.

2- It's not 'Red', it's 'redneF'.

 

I know you have problems distinguishing between reality and your impressions of it, but you've just embarrassed yourself...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
To simply ask the question if God is logical implies that there is a God

I never implied there's a god. I was being satirical.

I was paraphrasing, and mocking, theists who claim that their personal god is good, when obviously, that would be patently stupid, as I outlined clearly in my OP.

 

If you're a hotshot 'logician', then you could have easily corrected my errors of interpretation, and educated us all.

Instead, you build a strawman, and run around poking it, hoping that someone will be impressed...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  ..thus debunking and demoting you to theist which you admit as absurd.

I've got it in my will, that if I ever loose my mind to that degree, that I wish to be euthanized, and my body donated to science.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I too would admit that general theists are absurd.

The basic premise of immaterial beings is absurd, and has no basis in the natural world, so there's actually no distinction between theists.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Only a specific Christian theist with a proper understanding of the Trinity can be logical and rational.

Well, it seems you feel you're up to the task to debunk my OP.

Great.

Which part did I get wrong?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 You don't crawl up to God and those who don't crawl go to hell. You make a choice. To live your life pleasing to God, or yourself. If yourself, hellfire. If God, heaven.

Let's suppose for a moment, that, that was actually a fact.

We all have free will.

So, if any of us choose to go to hell, that's not your business.

So what's the problem?

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Thus "atheists" is a very very selfish religion. It's a religion of pride.

That doesn't work either, Jean.

Theism/Atheism is a dichotomy.

An either/or position, or 'state'.

They are not competing positions, or opposing positions.

A theist is one who believes in a god. An non theist is someone who is not a theist. An atheist cannot be religious.

A deaf person, is one who is deaf. A non deaf person is someone who is not a deaf person. A non deaf person cannot be a deaf person.

A swimmer is someone who swims. A non swimmer is someone who is not a swimmer. A non swimmer cannot be a swimmer.

A person name Jean is someone named Jean. A person not named Jean, but Kim, is someone who is not named Jean, but Kim. A person not named Jean, but Kim, cannot be a person named Jean.

 

They are not 'competing', or 'opposing' positions.

They are seperate categories.

 

Now, how do you come to love such a delusion as God, that I outlined in my OP?

Because, it seems quite masochistic, to consciously dream such a sadistic fantasy...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

To simply ask the question if God is logical implies that there is a God, thus debunking and demoting you to theist which you admit as absurd.

That is non-sequitur and nonsense.

But I all I have to do is ask a question about somethings logical and show that something it exists, then "Is the Flying Spaghetti Monster logical?. Now it actually exists because I asked the question.

But if the logic of your god = nonsense then you've just proved your god by being nonsensical, but that's a contradiction in terms...because you can't prove your god by being logical. In fact, the use of logic invalidates the existence of your god, therefore your god doesn't exist. I'm just being satirical here though. I really don't see the connection...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I too would admit that general theists are absurd. Only a specific Christian theist with a proper understanding of the Trinity can be logical and rational.

The No True Scotsman Fallacy again... you really like this one, Jean.

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


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

Hi Red,

Your title was not satrical. The perpetual question marks perhaps is due to your jitters regarding your torment in hell.

For an agnostic to argue against God, they must assume God "exists" in order for them to assume He doesn't. So all of God's enemies do this, just with comedy assuming the very thing they assume not to be. This has many problems. More on that later if need be since i will direct your questions.

I did not say "atheism" and Christianity compete. That's funny. And there are valid dichotomy's in the world. Like Good and Evil. But a Dichotomy does not imply competion.

I have asked many so called atheists this question, not ONE has given me an answer (because they can't). Instead, they define atheism as "soft atheism" described in George Smith's book and use their own Scottsman Fallacy (very funny).

Try not to use the scape goat. Ready, go.

What logical justification does one have to be an atheist. Make an argument as to the religion of "atheism" as being the most sound and valid worldview known to man.

Come on Red. Don't say it's a lack of belief in God. I know all the phony definitions. Just give me an argument as to your position being the most sound and valid position in the world.

When I ask this, the "atheist" becomes a robot and goes into a trance state in a kind of neo-atheistic mode. Even if you are a soft atheist (which is really nothing more then an agnostic), and atheism is the lack of belief in God. Then logically, since belief IS knowledge, they you lack knowledge. So you will argue that it is not knowledge. Good. Show me why it is not via telling me that Atheism is the best worldview out there.

What about Skepticism? Is Atheism superior to Skepticism? Why?

Good Luck.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The Most Logical Christian You Know!!!

 

 

 

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:Your

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Your title was not satrical. The perpetual question marks perhaps is due to your jitters regarding your torment in hell.

Lmao.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13768
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello Red,

Red is a good name for you since it is associated with fire, which shall be your only color around you. It will be aweful for an interior decorator to only work with red.

To simply ask the question if God is logical implies that there is a God, thus debunking and demoting you to theist which you admit as absurd.

I too would admit that general theists are absurd. Only a specific Christian theist with a proper understanding of the Trinity can be logical and rational.

You don't crawl up to God and those who don't crawl go to hell. You make a choice. To live your life pleasing to God, or yourself. If yourself, hellfire. If God, heaven.

Thus "atheists" is a very very selfish religion. It's a religion of pride.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

The last time you spent time here you were just merely annoying. But now you are just being an outright arrogant prick.

READ what you are saying here.

"GOD WILL GET YOU"

There is NOTHING rational about valuing bullying.

I do not like tyrants and wont bow to them.

Fortunately for humanity such a comic book super tyrant doesn't exist. Unfortunately people like you who spew this crap do.

My fear is not of Lex Luthor or Mickey Mouse, my fear is of people like you spreading this gang mentality based on a false belief.

There are 7 billion people on this planet and you are special? The only person here with "pride" is you and what you have I wouldn't call "pride". I would call it delusional narcissism.

We tolerated you your last stint here, I doubt with your sudden return with these vile threats will be treated with as much patience.

 

 

 

"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


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Your

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Your title was not satrical.

I checked with the source.

Me, says it was.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The perpetual question marks perhaps is due to your jitters regarding your torment in hell.

I've heard the stupid Christian propaganda, and I still willingly want to live a life that would shoot me straight there.

So, what's the problem with that?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
For an agnostic to argue against God, they must assume God "exists" in order for them to assume He doesn't.

I'm not arguing against a figment of propaganda.

I'm simply pointing out the insanity of the propaganda, and arguing how stupid you people must be.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So all of God's enemies do this

That's just stupid. So Evolution is the 'enemy' of the Creationist?

I was right, you people must be stupid. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I did not say "atheism" and Christianity compete.

You mistakenly asserted that atheism was a religion that was counter to your religion.

How long have you suffered 'gaps' in your thought process?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
That's funny.

That's my line...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And there are valid dichotomy's in the world.

Well, duhhhh....

What do you think either/or is?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Like Good and Evil.

Good and evil are subjective terms. They are not objective values. You cannot measure them.

They are 'feelings', and 'thoughts' that people have. Like happy and sad.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
But a Dichotomy does not imply competion.

Is there an echo in here?...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I have asked many so called atheists this question, not ONE has given me an answer (because they can't). Instead, they define atheism as "soft atheism" described in George Smith's book and use their own Scottsman Fallacy (very funny).

Try not to use the scape goat. Ready, go.

What logical justification does one have to be an atheist.

Skepticism is a base instinct for survival. It is a reflex.

We are born this way.

Skeptics and atheists.

We can only move 'away' from skeptisicm/atheism, or 'fall back' to skepticism/atheism.

Neither requires logic, at all.

If one moves away from skepticism/atheism, it's because they've adopted something else.

 

The onus is on you to show why you've abandoned your base instinct, and adopted a particular propaganda.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  Make an argument as to the religion of "atheism" as being the most sound and valid worldview known to man.

It's completely natural to our species.

It's inherent in us.

We are born completely oblivious to the natural world.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Come on Red. Don't say it's a lack of belief in God.

You want me to lie to you?

I know you people love to be 'sold' on an ideal, but, I haven't got a 'sales pitch'.

All I've got is the 'fact' that a non theist, is called an atheist.

One who does not adopt any gods, is an atheist.

What's wrong with that answer?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 I know all the phony definitions.

You haven't backed that claim. And you never will, because it's a logical fallacy.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Just give me an argument as to your position being the most sound and valid position in the world.

I already did that.

We are all born atheists.

If you can falsify that, then you might have a case.

Are there any 'theist' newborn infants?

How do you study that?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
When I ask this, the "atheist" becomes a robot and goes into a trance state in a kind of neo-atheistic mode.

I think that's because they're on to you, and pulling your leg...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...atheism is the lack of belief in God. Then logically, since belief IS knowledge, they you lack knowledge.

You mean there's some evidence of a god??

Jesus Fucking Christ!!!!

Why didn't you say so?????

What is it??

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Show me why it is not via telling me that Atheism is the best worldview out there.

Because we focus entirely on reality...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
What about Skepticism?

It's what prevents us from swallowing too many marbles, and not reproducing...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Is Atheism superior to Skepticism?

It's natural skepticism which prevents some of us from being theists.

The 'atheist', is just a label to be distinguishable from the 'gullible'.

Atheism is not a movement. It's steadfastness.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...Most Logical Christian...

That's an oxymoron, you (oxy)moron...

 

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello Red,

Red is a good name for you since it is associated with fire, which shall be your only color around you. It will be aweful for an interior decorator to only work with red.

To simply ask the question if God is logical implies that there is a God, thus debunking and demoting you to theist which you admit as absurd.

I too would admit that general theists are absurd. Only a specific Christian theist with a proper understanding of the Trinity can be logical and rational.

You don't crawl up to God and those who don't crawl go to hell. You make a choice. To live your life pleasing to God, or yourself. If yourself, hellfire. If God, heaven.

Thus "atheists" is a very very selfish religion. It's a religion of pride.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Trinity by all rational people is considered illogical,  an archaic superstition and as funny as the Three Stooges who really are God.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Jean Chauvin

redneF wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Your title was not satrical.

I checked with the source.

Me, says it was.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The perpetual question marks perhaps is due to your jitters regarding your torment in hell.

I've heard the stupid Christian propaganda, and I still willingly want to live a life that would shoot me straight there.

So, what's the problem with that?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
For an agnostic to argue against God, they must assume God "exists" in order for them to assume He doesn't.

I'm not arguing against a figment of propaganda.

I'm simply pointing out the insanity of the propaganda, and arguing how stupid you people must be.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So all of God's enemies do this

That's just stupid. So Evolution is the 'enemy' of the Creationist?

I was right, you people must be stupid. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I did not say "atheism" and Christianity compete.

You mistakenly asserted that atheism was a religion that was counter to your religion.

How long have you suffered 'gaps' in your thought process?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
That's funny.

That's my line...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And there are valid dichotomy's in the world.

Well, duhhhh....

What do you think either/or is?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Like Good and Evil.

Good and evil are subjective terms. They are not objective values. You cannot measure them.

They are 'feelings', and 'thoughts' that people have. Like happy and sad.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
But a Dichotomy does not imply competion.

Is there an echo in here?...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I have asked many so called atheists this question, not ONE has given me an answer (because they can't). Instead, they define atheism as "soft atheism" described in George Smith's book and use their own Scottsman Fallacy (very funny).

Try not to use the scape goat. Ready, go.

What logical justification does one have to be an atheist.

Skepticism is a base instinct for survival. It is a reflex.

We are born this way.

Skeptics and atheists.

We can only move 'away' from skeptisicm/atheism, or 'fall back' to skepticism/atheism.

Neither requires logic, at all.

If one moves away from skepticism/atheism, it's because they've adopted something else.

 

The onus is on you to show why you've abandoned your base instinct, and adopted a particular propaganda.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  Make an argument as to the religion of "atheism" as being the most sound and valid worldview known to man.

It's completely natural to our species.

It's inherent in us.

We are born completely oblivious to the natural world.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Come on Red. Don't say it's a lack of belief in God.

You want me to lie to you?

I know you people love to be 'sold' on an ideal, but, I haven't got a 'sales pitch'.

All I've got is the 'fact' that a non theist, is called an atheist.

One who does not adopt any gods, is an atheist.

What's wrong with that answer?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 I know all the phony definitions.

You haven't backed that claim. And you never will, because it's a logical fallacy.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Just give me an argument as to your position being the most sound and valid position in the world.

I already did that.

We are all born atheists.

If you can falsify that, then you might have a case.

Are there any 'theist' newborn infants?

How do you study that?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
When I ask this, the "atheist" becomes a robot and goes into a trance state in a kind of neo-atheistic mode.

I think that's because they're on to you, and pulling your leg...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...atheism is the lack of belief in God. Then logically, since belief IS knowledge, they you lack knowledge.

You mean there's some evidence of a god??

Jesus Fucking Christ!!!!

Why didn't you say so?????

What is it??

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Show me why it is not via telling me that Atheism is the best worldview out there.

Because we focus entirely on reality...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
What about Skepticism?

It's what prevents us from swallowing too many marbles, and not reproducing...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Is Atheism superior to Skepticism?

It's natural skepticism which prevents some of us from being theists.

The 'atheist', is just a label to be distinguishable from the 'gullible'.

Atheism is not a movement. It's steadfastness.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...Most Logical Christian...

That's an oxymoron, you (oxy)moron...

 

 

 

Good post redneF Smiling 

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


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:redneF

Ktulu wrote:

redneF wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Your title was not satrical.

I checked with the source.

Me, says it was.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The perpetual question marks perhaps is due to your jitters regarding your torment in hell.

I've heard the stupid Christian propaganda, and I still willingly want to live a life that would shoot me straight there.

So, what's the problem with that?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
For an agnostic to argue against God, they must assume God "exists" in order for them to assume He doesn't.

I'm not arguing against a figment of propaganda.

I'm simply pointing out the insanity of the propaganda, and arguing how stupid you people must be.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So all of God's enemies do this

That's just stupid. So Evolution is the 'enemy' of the Creationist?

I was right, you people must be stupid. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I did not say "atheism" and Christianity compete.

You mistakenly asserted that atheism was a religion that was counter to your religion.

How long have you suffered 'gaps' in your thought process?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
That's funny.

That's my line...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And there are valid dichotomy's in the world.

Well, duhhhh....

What do you think either/or is?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Like Good and Evil.

Good and evil are subjective terms. They are not objective values. You cannot measure them.

They are 'feelings', and 'thoughts' that people have. Like happy and sad.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
But a Dichotomy does not imply competion.

Is there an echo in here?...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I have asked many so called atheists this question, not ONE has given me an answer (because they can't). Instead, they define atheism as "soft atheism" described in George Smith's book and use their own Scottsman Fallacy (very funny).

Try not to use the scape goat. Ready, go.

What logical justification does one have to be an atheist.

Skepticism is a base instinct for survival. It is a reflex.

We are born this way.

Skeptics and atheists.

We can only move 'away' from skeptisicm/atheism, or 'fall back' to skepticism/atheism.

Neither requires logic, at all.

If one moves away from skepticism/atheism, it's because they've adopted something else.

 

The onus is on you to show why you've abandoned your base instinct, and adopted a particular propaganda.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  Make an argument as to the religion of "atheism" as being the most sound and valid worldview known to man.

It's completely natural to our species.

It's inherent in us.

We are born completely oblivious to the natural world.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Come on Red. Don't say it's a lack of belief in God.

You want me to lie to you?

I know you people love to be 'sold' on an ideal, but, I haven't got a 'sales pitch'.

All I've got is the 'fact' that a non theist, is called an atheist.

One who does not adopt any gods, is an atheist.

What's wrong with that answer?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 I know all the phony definitions.

You haven't backed that claim. And you never will, because it's a logical fallacy.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Just give me an argument as to your position being the most sound and valid position in the world.

I already did that.

We are all born atheists.

If you can falsify that, then you might have a case.

Are there any 'theist' newborn infants?

How do you study that?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
When I ask this, the "atheist" becomes a robot and goes into a trance state in a kind of neo-atheistic mode.

I think that's because they're on to you, and pulling your leg...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...atheism is the lack of belief in God. Then logically, since belief IS knowledge, they you lack knowledge.

You mean there's some evidence of a god??

Jesus Fucking Christ!!!!

Why didn't you say so?????

What is it??

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Show me why it is not via telling me that Atheism is the best worldview out there.

Because we focus entirely on reality...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
What about Skepticism?

It's what prevents us from swallowing too many marbles, and not reproducing...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Is Atheism superior to Skepticism?

It's natural skepticism which prevents some of us from being theists.

The 'atheist', is just a label to be distinguishable from the 'gullible'.

Atheism is not a movement. It's steadfastness.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...Most Logical Christian...

That's an oxymoron, you (oxy)moron...

 

 

 

Good post redneF Smiling 

He is a no nonsense kind of guy ain't he? He goes straight for the jugular. I guess I've got too much jungle lion in me. I like to play with the prey.  It was a great post.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 Jean is always scared of

 Jean is always scared of reality, very jittery hence his statement about others going to hell and that he is on the path to god, because lets admit it, he knows very well that he is on shakey grounds with his belief system, and that really he is making a judgement call, something that even in his precious bullshit bible says that only god decides who goes to heaven and that no one else can make that call. That and the fact that there is no heaven, no god, but needs this belief in order to not deal with his fear of death, and that in the end has wasted his life with this absurd belief in god. Aww well typical theists crap about the whole hell part. Can't fear that which does not exist jean, no atheists fears hell, since they don't believe in it. However your fear of reality shows everytime you try to be arrogant. It simply shows how fearful of the truth you really are.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote: Jean is

latincanuck wrote:

 Jean is always scared of reality, very jittery hence his statement about others going to hell and that he is on the path to god, because lets admit it, he knows very well that he is on shakey grounds with his belief system, and that really he is making a judgement call, something that even in his precious bullshit bible says that only god decides who goes to heaven and that no one else can make that call. That and the fact that there is no heaven, no god, but needs this belief in order to not deal with his fear of death, and that in the end has wasted his life with this absurd belief in god. Aww well typical theists crap about the whole hell part. Can't fear that which does not exist jean, no atheists fears hell, since they don't believe in it. However your fear of reality shows everytime you try to be arrogant. It simply shows how fearful of the truth you really are.

I am an atheist but I believe in hell. Ever had those mornings when you wake up go to the mirror to shave and think I really have a razor at my throat?? That is hell. Ever got caught speeding that is hell.  Ever been to a family reunion and had to sit next to aunt Jean. Now that is hell. Death at least frees you from those things and worse. In the mean time we must make our own heaven on earth. Party on dude.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:latincanuck

TGBaker wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 Jean is always scared of reality, very jittery hence his statement about others going to hell and that he is on the path to god, because lets admit it, he knows very well that he is on shakey grounds with his belief system, and that really he is making a judgement call, something that even in his precious bullshit bible says that only god decides who goes to heaven and that no one else can make that call. That and the fact that there is no heaven, no god, but needs this belief in order to not deal with his fear of death, and that in the end has wasted his life with this absurd belief in god. Aww well typical theists crap about the whole hell part. Can't fear that which does not exist jean, no atheists fears hell, since they don't believe in it. However your fear of reality shows everytime you try to be arrogant. It simply shows how fearful of the truth you really are.

I am an atheist but I believe in hell. Ever had those mornings when you wake up go to the mirror to shave and think I really have a razor at my throat?? That is hell. Ever got caught speeding that is hell.  Ever been to a family reunion and had to sit next to aunt Jean. Now that is hell. Death at least frees you from those things and worse. In the mean time we must make our own heaven on earth. Party on dude.

 

 

Your right, let me clarify my statement, the theological hell does not exist. Hell Michigan does however as do situations which we consider to be hell (21hr 50 minute flight with a 5 year old and almost all the flights delayed....that was hell)


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck wrote:TGBaker

latincanuck wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

 Jean is always scared of reality, very jittery hence his statement about others going to hell and that he is on the path to god, because lets admit it, he knows very well that he is on shakey grounds with his belief system, and that really he is making a judgement call, something that even in his precious bullshit bible says that only god decides who goes to heaven and that no one else can make that call. That and the fact that there is no heaven, no god, but needs this belief in order to not deal with his fear of death, and that in the end has wasted his life with this absurd belief in god. Aww well typical theists crap about the whole hell part. Can't fear that which does not exist jean, no atheists fears hell, since they don't believe in it. However your fear of reality shows everytime you try to be arrogant. It simply shows how fearful of the truth you really are.

I am an atheist but I believe in hell. Ever had those mornings when you wake up go to the mirror to shave and think I really have a razor at my throat?? That is hell. Ever got caught speeding that is hell.  Ever been to a family reunion and had to sit next to aunt Jean. Now that is hell. Death at least frees you from those things and worse. In the mean time we must make our own heaven on earth. Party on dude.

 

 

Your right, let me clarify my statement, the theological hell does not exist. Hell Michigan does however as do situations which we consider to be hell (21hr 50 minute flight with a 5 year old and almost all the flights delayed....that was hell)

Yep that is hell and shows that it is more plausible to believe in a devil rather than a god. Who keeps screwing with my reality man? I've not lived in Michigan but I lived in an area of Mississippi for a while and that was literal theological hell.  I met the devil at some crossroads there, made a deal and so I'm on leave. I guess its all in how ya look at it. Though life ain't always what you make it you can still make it. Enough platitudes. NO FEAR is the motto.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5883
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
It is a little sad, but it

It is a little sad, but it seems my closest Hell, namely a franchise in Hell Pizza Australia, seems to have ceased trading, after some disruptions to business during the floods earlier this year. They fitted out their store with many classic symbols of Hell and death, but artistically done...

I enjoyed the pizzas too.

They weren't flooded, even close, but they suffered a prolonged power outage, maybe some problems with staff not being able to get into work for a while.

I'm sure Jean would have enjoyed them too, if he could be persuaded to enter the door, beneath the '666' inscription.

BTW, Jean, knowledge is a subset of belief, belief with a strong correlation with observable reality, although not that philosophical fallacy of 'justified true belief'.

Lack of belief in any particular proposition has no implications on anything not dependent on that proposition. And Atheism is typically a consequence of a thorough and consistent Skepticism, rather than an initial position.

It is not necessary to accept something as existing to argue about it, but we already know you are remarkably ignorant on logic, and could not be expected to know what a 'hypothetical' is. 

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

For an agnostic to argue against God, they must assume God "exists" in order for them to assume He doesn't. So all of God's enemies do this, just with comedy assuming the very thing they assume not to be. This has many problems. More on that later if need be since i will direct your questions.

This is a categorical mistake. Agnosticism is an epistemic position, not an ontological one. Do I have to affirm the existence of elves to say that I don't believe in them?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I have asked many so called atheists this question, not ONE has given me an answer (because they can't). Instead, they define atheism as "soft atheism" described in George Smith's book and use their own Scottsman Fallacy (very funny).

.

.

.

Come on Red. Don't say it's a lack of belief in God. I know all the phony definitions. Just give me an argument as to your position being the most sound and valid position in the world.

No matter what version of atheism you're talking about, all have one thing in common, and that is they don't believe in a god. It's simply a definition. You're trying to make atheism something it is not.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

What logical justification does one have to be an atheist. Make an argument as to the religion of "atheism" as being the most sound and valid worldview known to man.

The logical justification is the lack of a good reason to believe in a god and perhaps a good reason not to believe in god...

But calling something a religion doesn't make it a religion. I could call football a religion as people gather in mass to watch deified men toss around a pigskin, but that doesn't make it a religion. Furthermore atheism is a religion as much as bald is a hair color... it's simply not the case.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Most Logical Christian You Know!!!

Ummm....fail.

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


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Red,

...

For an agnostic to argue against God, they must assume God "exists" in order for them to assume He doesn't. So all of God's enemies do this, just with comedy assuming the very thing they assume not to be. This has many problems. More on that later if need be since i will direct your questions.

...blah blah blah... 

 

You sort of made a valid point: an agnostic, one who sits on the fence and says - 'there may be a god but, I won't believe it until I see it' -  is arguing as much to prove god exists as he is to prove he doesn't.

But, No, an atheist does not need to believe something exists in order to argue that it does not. An atheist believes there is no such creature and argues with theists to show them the error of their ways.

Personally, I have come to believe that it is a total waste of my time to argue with a theist about their delusional problems and their imaginary gods.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Jean Chauvin

Sandycane wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Red,

...

For an agnostic to argue against God, they must assume God "exists" in order for them to assume He doesn't. So all of God's enemies do this, just with comedy assuming the very thing they assume not to be. This has many problems. More on that later if need be since i will direct your questions.

...blah blah blah... 

 

You sort of made a valid point: an agnostic, one who sits on the fence and says - 'there may be a god but, I won't believe it until I see it' -  is arguing as much to prove god exists as he is to prove he doesn't.

But, No, an atheist does not need to believe something exists in order to argue that it does not. An atheist believes there is no such creature and argues with theists to show them the error of their ways.

Personally, I have come to believe that it is a total waste of my time to argue with a theist about their delusional problems and their imaginary gods.

I did therapy groups for 10 years and my wife is presently a psychotherapist.  Cognitive therapy has shown promise as an emerging treatment for delusions. The cognitive therapist tries to capitalize on any doubt the individual has about the delusions; then attempts to develop a joint effort with the sufferer to generate alternative explanations, assisting the client in checking the evidence. This examination proceeds in favor of the various explanations. Much of the work is done by use of empathy, asking hypothetical questions in a form of therapeutic Socratic dialogue—a process that follows a basic question and answer format, figuring out what is known and unknown before reaching a logical conclusion. Combining pharmacotherapy with cognitive therapy integrates both treating the possible underlying biological problems and decreasing the symptoms with psychotherapy. The treatment of delusions and schizophrenia is a very tricky one. One of the definitions of delusions is that they do not yield to corrective feedback from other people. Consequently, attempting to persuade an individual that the delusion is incorrect is obviously self-defeating. There is a whole body of literature on how to address delusions. In brief, questioning the patient like a journalist without indicating disbelief is one way. This tends to get the patient into a questioning mode. However, that approach is used much later in treatment. Initially, we train the patients to recognize their automatic thoughts and then lead them to recognize some of their non-psychotic misinterpretations. After a strong basis is made on this, we then lead them to consider the more paranoid interpretations of their experiences which we have labeled as their “upsetting interpretations.

Thus, in treating delusions, we try to develop or enhance the patient’s skills in handling some of their emotional problems and then later apply these skills to the delusional misinterpretations. Another technique is something we call “behavioral experiments”– we might have the patient who is afraid of going out of his ‘comfort zone’ go with the therapist or a trusted person for a few feet or yards, or even further, just to test out whether he is vulnerable.  This of course is dependent on the patient’s having a great deal of confidence in the therapist’s wisdom and trustworthiness.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I did therapy

TGBaker wrote:

I did therapy groups for 10 years and my wife is presently a psychotherapist.  Cognitive therapy has shown promise as an emerging treatment for delusions. The cognitive therapist tries to capitalize on any doubt the individual has about the delusions; then attempts to develop a joint effort with the sufferer to generate alternative explanations, assisting the client in checking the evidence. This examination proceeds in favor of the various explanations. Much of the work is done by use of empathy, asking hypothetical questions in a form of therapeutic Socratic dialogue—a process that follows a basic question and answer format, figuring out what is known and unknown before reaching a logical conclusion. Combining pharmacotherapy with cognitive therapy integrates both treating the possible underlying biological problems and decreasing the symptoms with psychotherapy. The treatment of delusions and schizophrenia is a very tricky one. One of the definitions of delusions is that they do not yield to corrective feedback from other people. Consequently, attempting to persuade an individual that the delusion is incorrect is obviously self-defeating. There is a whole body of literature on how to address delusions. In brief, questioning the patient like a journalist without indicating disbelief is one way. This tends to get the patient into a questioning mode. However, that approach is used much later in treatment. Initially, we train the patients to recognize their automatic thoughts and then lead them to recognize some of their non-psychotic misinterpretations. After a strong basis is made on this, we then lead them to consider the more paranoid interpretations of their experiences which we have labeled as their “upsetting interpretations.

Thus, in treating delusions, we try to develop or enhance the patient’s skills in handling some of their emotional problems and then later apply these skills to the delusional misinterpretations. Another technique is something we call “behavioral experiments”– we might have the patient who is afraid of going out of his ‘comfort zone’ go with the therapist or a trusted person for a few feet or yards, or even further, just to test out whether he is vulnerable.  This of course is dependent on the patient’s having a great deal of confidence in the therapist’s wisdom and trustworthiness.

 

It must take a lot of patience (and patients, ha ha ) to make a living doing what you do. Very worth while vocation, too.

Too bad we can't institute forced therapy for theists... not many would voluntarily seek to rid themselves of their delusions, would they?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

To simply ask the question if God is logical implies that there is a God, thus debunking and demoting you to theist which you admit as absurd.

No it is not.  The same way as questioning if Santa is logical does not imply he exists.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I too would admit that general theists are absurd. Only a specific Christian theist with a proper understanding of the Trinity can be logical and rational.

And who decides what is "proper understanding"?

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You don't crawl up to God and those who don't crawl go to hell. You make a choice. To live your life pleasing to God, or yourself. If yourself, hellfire. If God, heaven.

Sounds childish.  Show me one hellfire (or heaven), then I can make a choice, until then it is illogical. 

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Thus "atheists" is a very very selfish religion. It's a religion of pride.

 

Atheism is not a religion, I don't pray and I don't go to church. You should be quite retarded if you still don't understand it.  


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:TGBaker

Sandycane wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I did therapy groups for 10 years and my wife is presently a psychotherapist.  Cognitive therapy has shown promise as an emerging treatment for delusions. The cognitive therapist tries to capitalize on any doubt the individual has about the delusions; then attempts to develop a joint effort with the sufferer to generate alternative explanations, assisting the client in checking the evidence. This examination proceeds in favor of the various explanations. Much of the work is done by use of empathy, asking hypothetical questions in a form of therapeutic Socratic dialogue—a process that follows a basic question and answer format, figuring out what is known and unknown before reaching a logical conclusion. Combining pharmacotherapy with cognitive therapy integrates both treating the possible underlying biological problems and decreasing the symptoms with psychotherapy. The treatment of delusions and schizophrenia is a very tricky one. One of the definitions of delusions is that they do not yield to corrective feedback from other people. Consequently, attempting to persuade an individual that the delusion is incorrect is obviously self-defeating. There is a whole body of literature on how to address delusions. In brief, questioning the patient like a journalist without indicating disbelief is one way. This tends to get the patient into a questioning mode. However, that approach is used much later in treatment. Initially, we train the patients to recognize their automatic thoughts and then lead them to recognize some of their non-psychotic misinterpretations. After a strong basis is made on this, we then lead them to consider the more paranoid interpretations of their experiences which we have labeled as their “upsetting interpretations.

Thus, in treating delusions, we try to develop or enhance the patient’s skills in handling some of their emotional problems and then later apply these skills to the delusional misinterpretations. Another technique is something we call “behavioral experiments”– we might have the patient who is afraid of going out of his ‘comfort zone’ go with the therapist or a trusted person for a few feet or yards, or even further, just to test out whether he is vulnerable.  This of course is dependent on the patient’s having a great deal of confidence in the therapist’s wisdom and trustworthiness.

 

It must take a lot of patience (and patients, ha ha ) to make a living doing what you do. Very worth while vocation, too.

Too bad we can't institute forced therapy for theists... not many would voluntarily seek to rid themselves of their delusions, would they?

I did therapy groups on the side. I worked fulltime for the state of Georgia in Child Protective Services as a social worker and investigator of abuse and molestation. I also built computers for a while and was a probation officer.  Before that ministry and before that tool and die design.  On and on. I think what we need do with theists is have interventions


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:That's

redneF wrote:

That's pathologically insane, sadistic, and masochistic.

How do these people reconcile that?
What kind of Stockholm Syndrome is that?

 

I explain this as a psychological trauma resulted from being abused in childhood through religious indoctrination. 

It is the minority of those who join the gang in their later years, and those cases rather confirm the idea that it should be a special (abnormal) state of mentality to voluntarily join religion. 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 For example.  When I was

 For example.  When I was growing up in the USSR, I was absolutely happy and almost thankful to the communist party for that I was born in the best country in the world and not in evil America.

I thank now the USSR for two things:

1) that I was born and grown an atheist

2) that USSR collapsed. 

The problem with Christianity is that I don't see how it can collapse on its own.  ... but it can be outlawed as Nazi party is outlawed in many countries.


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

Hello Gang,

You know, we are so friendly and close, we should all meet somewhere and have a potluck. Don't talk about poisoning me, come on, bring some food, I'll bring the beer. What do you say?

TGBaker evidently is drenched with heresy. Thus his place in hell will be hotter then most. His wife is into psychology which is a complete joke of a "science." Psychology is completely useless and has no merit in the realm of intellectual understanding. Only Chrisitan psychology before the 20th century is of substance.

100% Atheist is a Commy. (LOL). No wonder you're 100% atheist. You're not really an atheist then since you worship the state. I'm sure you would be first in line in the killing of Christians. Though come to my potluck anyways.

The issue of definition is ambiguous. Again, all is relative for the atheist, so logically this would include definition. This has been shown via the various definitions of atheism over the years.

O'Hair was NOT a soft atheist and believed that it was a belief system. An agnostic is nothing more then an atheist with no guts like all you gutless "atheists" on here.

Belief is philosophically broken down into 3 categories, though of the same being.

1) Knowledge

2) Assensus

3) Trust

Thus, a lack of belief would philosophically equal a lack of understanding. Thus logically you CAN NOT speak about the subject that you lack.

You see, #1 above does not mean you subscribe to the thesis. Just that you are aware of it

You see #2 does not mean you subscribe to the thesis, Just that you are aware as truth but you deny it

You see #3 is the actually committment to the thesis.

Logically, you so called atheists are of the #1 category. But not according to your NEO Definition since youlack belief, then philosophically you are ignorant of your opponent. (LOL.).

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, Atheist is "the denial of the existence of God." This was O'Hair's definition as well. 

This is why so many ignorant modern atheists don't like O'Hair. O'Hair was a consistent atheist. She was a freak of nature and liked to hire convicted convicts.  She was a wretch of a person. But many wannabe "atheists" on this board don't even know anything about her other then her name.

So here's the question. If all is relative, and there is NO absolute truth. Then who's right? You or O'Hair. Is it a denial of the existence of God/gods, or is it a lack of belief in God/gods.

If there is no truth and all is relative, Couldn't atheism then be a belief in God?

Atheism is the most hypocritical evil system out there. It worships the self via immorality. It has a lot of double talk.

Atheism is for wimpy people who lack courage and guts. Only Chrisitans give us the answers in life.

Atheism has refuted itself over and over again internally. But atheists still subscribe to it, making Psalms 14:1 ever so true, that they are mere fools.

The Encylopedias, Dictionaries, and Reference Works are on my side. All that is on your side is speculation in the realm of abstract.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I'll Bring the Beer!!!

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).


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello Gang,

You know, we are so friendly and close, we should all meet somewhere and have a potluck. Don't talk about poisoning me, come on, bring some food, I'll bring the beer. What do you say?

TGBaker evidently is drenched with heresy. Thus his place in hell will be hotter then most. His wife is into psychology which is a complete joke of a "science." Psychology is completely useless and has no merit in the realm of intellectual understanding. Only Chrisitan psychology before the 20th century is of substance.

100% Atheist is a Commy. (LOL). No wonder you're 100% atheist. You're not really an atheist then since you worship the state. I'm sure you would be first in line in the killing of Christians. Though come to my potluck anyways.

The issue of definition is ambiguous. Again, all is relative for the atheist, so logically this would include definition. This has been shown via the various definitions of atheism over the years.

O'Hair was NOT a soft atheist and believed that it was a belief system. An agnostic is nothing more then an atheist with no guts like all you gutless "atheists" on here.

Belief is philosophically broken down into 3 categories, though of the same being.

1) Knowledge

2) Assensus

3) Trust

Thus, a lack of belief would philosophically equal a lack of understanding. Thus logically you CAN NOT speak about the subject that you lack.

You see, #1 above does not mean you subscribe to the thesis. Just that you are aware of it

You see #2 does not mean you subscribe to the thesis, Just that you are aware as truth but you deny it

You see #3 is the actually committment to the thesis.

Logically, you so called atheists are of the #1 category. But not according to your NEO Definition since youlack belief, then philosophically you are ignorant of your opponent. (LOL.).

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia, Atheist is "the denial of the existence of God." This was O'Hair's definition as well. 

This is why so many ignorant modern atheists don't like O'Hair. O'Hair was a consistent atheist. She was a freak of nature and liked to hire convicted convicts.  She was a wretch of a person. But many wannabe "atheists" on this board don't even know anything about her other then her name.

So here's the question. If all is relative, and there is NO absolute truth. Then who's right? You or O'Hair. Is it a denial of the existence of God/gods, or is it a lack of belief in God/gods.

If there is no truth and all is relative, Couldn't atheism then be a belief in God?

Atheism is the most hypocritical evil system out there. It worships the self via immorality. It has a lot of double talk.

Atheism is for wimpy people who lack courage and guts. Only Chrisitans give us the answers in life.

Atheism has refuted itself over and over again internally. But atheists still subscribe to it, making Psalms 14:1 ever so true, that they are mere fools.

The Encylopedias, Dictionaries, and Reference Works are on my side. All that is on your side is speculation in the realm of abstract.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

I'll Bring the Beer!!!

When you start talking about my wife you twit I have had enough. So you stay very much in your little dark delusional world with your tin god idol. And shut your frickin mouth....


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


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

TG the Heretic,

I'm talking about your wife personally, just what she does in psychology as a joke. She was deceived in thiking in was substantial so my heart goes out to her.

O'Hair was a true atheist since she subscribed to noticia (knowledge) and assensus. she just denied the trust or fiducia. Current Atheists are not even on the scale which makes them completely absurd. At least O"Hair had a starting point.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
I guess you can't directly

I guess you can't directly address my comments, like I did yours.

You are much weaker than most theists on this board, but talk more smack.

 

Classic...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I guess you

redneF wrote:

I guess you can't directly address my comments, like I did yours.

You are much weaker than most theists on this board, but talk more smack.

 

Classic...

I'm done fruit cake is no my dessert.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 Oh jean speaks tons o

 Oh jean speaks tons o smack, it's can be entertaining at times......but usually he just comes off as an ignorant arrogant idiot. The best part is his massive requirement that belief means knowledge. Where in reality his belief in god, is due to lack of knowledge and/or ignoring reality.


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I'm talking about your wife personally, just what she does in psychology as a joke.

 

This  sounds like an explicit  personal attack.  Meaning you are experiencing some sort of sadistic satisfaction of it.  And why am I not surprised.

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:Jean

100percentAtheist wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I'm talking about your wife personally, just what she does in psychology as a joke.

 

This  sounds like an explicit  personal attack.  Meaning you are experiencing some sort of sadistic satisfaction of it.  And why am I not surprised.

 

Yea I think so.  He's an anal twit.  You know I don't generally insult others unless they have started some sort of attack on others here. I don't see any use for it in a meaningful debate.  You can't really debate or discuss with some one like that. You can exchange expletives. But even the discussion is muted by a particular programming. He is using grammars and rules of interpretation created within a theological frmae that are not used outside a religious institute such as Classical or Ionic Greek. I went through the same indoctrination. We were given the vest pocket rules of interpretation. One rule is that if the text appears to conflict another text then if a harmonization is found it is true regardless of the plausibility.  The bible is inerrant so the appeared error is a mental failure on the part of the reader and not the text.  Ao and On delusional programming.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist wrote:Jean

100percentAtheist wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I'm talking about your wife personally, just what she does in psychology as a joke.

 

This  sounds like an explicit  personal attack.  Meaning you are experiencing some sort of sadistic satisfaction of it.  And why am I not surprised.

 

Well, of course it is. They're sadists and masochists. They're obsessed with pain.

When they feel backed into a corner and helpless, they want to lash out, and 'hurt' someone.

This kind of outburst is typical grade school 'Oh ya??? Well, your mother wears army boots!!', kind of infantile non sequitur. Shaking, and peeing their pants, all the while they're spewing their vitriol.

 

This clown is so easy to take on, 1 on 1. He just keeps equivocating, and trying to move the goal posts, long after after the game is over, and claiming that you never scored all those goals.

While you've got the trophy, and you're drinking the champagne...

 

He can't actually hurt anyone, he doesn't know, but he can fantasize.

That's what it is with these people. They are obsessed with fantasizing about others. Fantasies about what sex others are having, who they're having it with, what positions, and then fantasizing what suffering is going to be inflicted on them, by a 'Dominatrix', for their indulgences.

I think they live vicariously through libertines, and mentally derive pleasure from the fornication, then get some pleasure imagining the 'hell' that the 'fornicators' will suffer, and feel superior because they can vicariously 'participate', as voyeurs, yet, still stay outside of the 'physical' ramifications, and not be judged as 'participants' because although they indulged mentally, there was no 'flesh' of their own involved.

It's a mental mind trick. This way, they're 'innocent bystanders'...

They're funny. It's so infantile.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Well, of course

redneF wrote:

Well, of course it is. They're sadists and masochists. They're obsessed with pain.

When they feel backed into a corner and helpless, they want to lash out, and 'hurt' someone.

This kind of outburst is typical grade school 'Oh ya??? Well, your mother wears army boots!!', kind of infantile non sequitur. Shaking, and peeing their pants, all the while they're spewing their vitriol.

 

This clown is so easy to take on, 1 on 1. He just keeps equivocating, and trying to move the goal posts, long after after the game is over, and claiming that you never scored all those goals.

While you've got the trophy, and you're drinking the champagne...

 

He can't actually hurt anyone, he doesn't know, but he can fantasize.

That's what it is with these people. They are obsessed with fantasizing about others. Fantasies about what sex others are having, who they're having it with, what positions, and then fantasizing what suffering is going to be inflicted on them, by a 'Dominatrix', for their indulgences.

I think they live vicariously through libertines, and mentally derive pleasure from the fornication, then get some pleasure imagining the 'hell' that the 'fornicators' will suffer, and feel superior because they can vicariously 'participate', as voyeurs, yet, still stay outside of the 'physical' ramifications, and not be judged as 'participants' because although they indulged mentally, there was no 'flesh' of their own involved.

It's a mental mind trick. This way, they're 'innocent bystanders'...

They're funny. It's so infantile.

 

I think you've nailed it here.

(I think I've figured out your username...do you play guitar?)

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Well I play guitar don't I

Well I play guitar don't I get a name??? RedneF strikes me as a drummer.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:...do you

Sandycane wrote:

...do you play guitar?)

Yes.

And I can play with my teeth, just like Jimi...

I've got a bit of Jimi, in me.

 

He's the devil, you know...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Sandycane

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

...do you play guitar?)

Yes.

And I can play with my teeth, just like Jimi...

I've got a bit of Jimi, in me.

 

He's the devil, you know...

Dude Hendrix is my man.  We need ta jam.....

I play a Carvin t60, a Strat and Gretch electrically. I got a Martin Koa D16, a Takamine and an orange Gretsch Rancher for acoustic

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Sandycane

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

...do you play guitar?)

Yes.

And I can play with my teeth, just like Jimi...

I've got a bit of Jimi, in me.

 

He's the devil, you know...

  Ah ha...I bet I can guess what your favorite guitar brand is.

Is my hunch correct?

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:redneF

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

...do you play guitar?)

Yes.

And I can play with my teeth, just like Jimi...

I've got a bit of Jimi, in me.

 

He's the devil, you know...

  Ah ha...I bet I can guess what your favorite guitar brand is.

Is my hunch correct?

Uh huh.

You can see right through me...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Uh huh.You can

redneF wrote:

Uh huh.

You can see right through me...

I don't think TGBaker knows what I'm talking about...I won't tell. Lets see if he can figure it out.

'Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.' A. Einstein


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:redneF

Sandycane wrote:

redneF wrote:

Uh huh.

You can see right through me...

I don't think TGBaker knows what I'm talking about...I won't tell. Lets see if he can figure it out.

Fender Strat CBS corporate buy out period, large head,  nice neck, strings attached.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
No, no, no... pre CBS, 4

No, no, no... pre CBS, 4 bolt, staggered height pole pieces, alder body, maple fretboard, small headstock, original spaghetti logo.

Color? Hmmmm....I'm a natural born sucker for blondes, but, redheads are the devil, too.

Vintage baby!

Oh, ya, and of course, 100 w Super Lead Marshalls, on 11.

Jess like Ed V!

 

That's the jam, Sista!

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Sandycane
atheist
Sandycane's picture
Posts: 970
Joined: 2010-10-16
User is offlineOffline
Now, I have no idea what you

Now, I have no idea what you two are talking about...I call 'em 'guitars'.  


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:No, no, no...

redneF wrote:

No, no, no... pre CBS, 4 bolt, staggered height pole pieces, alder body, maple fretboard, small headstock, original spaghetti logo.

Color? Hmmmm....I'm a natural born sucker for blondes, but, redheads are the devil, too.

Vintage baby!

Oh, ya, and of course, 100 w Super Lead Marshalls, on 11.

Jess like Ed V!

 

That's the jam, Sista!

yea I like the pre-CBS even though Hendrix mostly played CBS ones.  My favorite strat was a Jeff Beck signature ( sea foam green ) with the Lace sensors replaced with Lenny Fralins. It was signed by Buddy Guy of all things when I got it. I've owned a couple of SRV sigs love the necks but not the pickups. I've had a Clapton Sig which the neck was not as beefy as I like and the wiring with the lace sensors was over the top. Another favorite of mine was an old japanese Fender Strat that was shell pink... It had perfect action. I've gotten into Teles the past few years something very Jimmy Page about them. They distort so nicely.  I've been using a 100w Traynor  with four tens and a cabinet of a Peavy with two twelves for more bottom end.  ( I'm an old Grand Funk head ). I do like those blondes to.  I've swapped and traded through a 150 guitars since 1999. I got my 21 year old interested in playing that way. I've had a blast. The Carvin'd are the best action I've ever had. My Carvin tele I put a P90 dogear in the bridge and a bridge humbucker Slash alnico pro 5 in the neck and a coil splitter.  Infinite sustain with both pickup on and in single coil.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Sandycane wrote:Now, I have

Sandycane wrote:

Now, I have no idea what you two are talking about...I call 'em 'guitars'.  

S'ok.

The main thing is to feel it, Baby!

 

It's all about how it makes you feel....

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Sandycane

redneF wrote:

Sandycane wrote:

Now, I have no idea what you two are talking about...I call 'em 'guitars'.  

S'ok.

The main thing is to feel it, Baby!

 

It's all about how it makes you feel....

 

 

Yes so true but the ears must bleed and the bones rattle or there is sumthun wrong with the amp.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Loud and proud, Baby! If

Loud and proud, Baby!

 

If you can't make her scream, you ain't doing it right... 

You've got to give her whatever she wants, whatever she needs, just the way she likes it, whenever she wants it...

 

Dats da sex, Baby!

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Loud and proud,

redneF wrote:

Loud and proud, Baby!

 

If you can't make her scream, you ain't doing it right... 

You've got to give her whatever she wants, whatever she needs, just the way she likes it, whenever she wants it...

 

Dats da sex, Baby!

It is definitely in the touch. But you still have to have something to touch or just whimpers.  I had a Les Paul that way.  Even through a great amp it just laid there.  You could get 50's rockabilly but no Hendrix or Zep.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: I had a Les

TGBaker wrote:

 I had a Les Paul that way.  Even through a great amp it just laid there. 

Time for "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You"...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


ubuntuAnyone
Theist
ubuntuAnyone's picture
Posts: 862
Joined: 2009-08-06
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:100%

Jean Chauvin wrote:

100% Atheist is a Commy. (LOL). No wonder you're 100% atheist. You're not really an atheist then since you worship the state. I'm sure you would be first in line in the killing of Christians. Though come to my potluck anyways.

What does communism have to do with being an atheist? There are plenty of religious communists... Unless of course you want to suggest they aren't "true" atheists because they are not communists, but that'd be your Scotsman fallacy again, wouldn't it?

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The issue of definition is ambiguous. Again, all is relative for the atheist, so logically this would include definition. This has been shown via the various definitions of atheism over the years.

I don't know where you're getting your ideas from, but it isn't atheists, or if it is an atheist, they do not necessarily represent all atheists.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Belief is philosophically broken down into 3 categories, though of the same being.

1) Knowledge

2) Assensus

3) Trust

Thus, a lack of belief would philosophically equal a lack of understanding. Thus logically you CAN NOT speak about the subject that you lack.

You see, #1 above does not mean you subscribe to the thesis. Just that you are aware of it

You see #2 does not mean you subscribe to the thesis, Just that you are aware as truth but you deny it

You see #3 is the actually committment to the thesis.

Logically, you so called atheists are of the #1 category. But not according to your NEO Definition since youlack belief, then philosophically you are ignorant of your opponent. (LOL.).

Lack of belief about one thing does not entail lack of belief about something else. I believe it is raining outside as I am writing this. I believe this because my sensory perceptions of hearing, feeling, sight, and smell all confirm that it is indeed raining outside. I have a belief and a good reason to believe it. Atheism is minimally a lack of belief, and most often so because of a lack of a good reason to have belief about something.

Your reformed theological understanding of saving faith does not necessarily constitute all philosophical belief. Asserting that anyone who does not agree with you as lacking understanding just perpetuates the fact that your delusionally lost in your Scotsman fallacy.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So here's the question. If all is relative, and there is NO absolute truth. Then who's right? You or O'Hair. Is it a denial of the existence of God/gods, or is it a lack of belief in God/gods.

If there is no truth and all is relative, Couldn't atheism then be a belief in God?

No...atheism cannot be belief in a god, as that is nonsense, and no, atheists don't believe that "all is relative" either...For some reason you keep wanting to extend the fact that atheists don't assert belief in one thing to all epistemic propositions. This only goes to show that the real lack of understanding is on your part, not the part of the atheist or anyone else for that matter.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Encylopedias, Dictionaries, and Reference Works are on my side. All that is on your side is speculation in the realm of abstract.

The realm of speculation and abstract is the realm of things that asserted independent of any grounding in reality. If I merely say, "Elves exist" as an axiom independent of reality, then it is pure speculation. This is precisely what you are doing with your conjecture that your god is an axiom.

I'm afraid reality is not on your side, only your delusions. And the only books that are on your side are the books written by others lost in delusions.

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