redneF vs Jean Chauvin

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

This thread is a private 1 on 1 between myself and Jean Chauvin.

Please refrain from posting in this thread. The mods will only delete your posts.

Thank you, and enjoy the thread.

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


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

Jean Chauvin wants me to debate on the validity of the worldview of atheism with him.

 

I'll start off by asking Jean, to explain what he means by that, because there is no such thing, to begin with.

It's a logical fallacy.

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
Ambiguous Definitions

Hi Red,

Perhaps your confusion is derived from atheistic inconsistency academically speaking. Since all is relative, and there is no absolute truth, this would apply to definitions. Thus the definition of Neo "atheists" is actually the absense of thought. This is why atheism has been internally contradictive regarding it's very own definition.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair believed that atheism was:

"the denial of the existence of God/gods."

This is why many so called "atheists" accuse O'Hair as not even being an atheist. She was very consistent in her atheism which is why her life was so wickedly wretch.

Philosophically speaking, Belief is understood in 3 parts.

1) Notitia (Knowledge)

2) Assensus (Assent)

3) Fiducia (Committment, Trust)

The Stanford Encyclopedia also says that atheim is the denial of the existence of God. Thus placing atheism (as well as with O'Hair) in category #1. Knowledge of the subject of her opponent. Thus she could logically comment on the known.

Some have accused her of believing God exists in reality (#2), however, hating Him so and never reaching (#3). However, ALL atheists, no matter what double talk flavor there is assent (#2) and hate God. They all know of Him in reality (Romans 1:18, 2:15, etc).

So my question for Red is, how can he reconcile academic Atheism, which has no truth and all is relative, with his atheism which is absolute in definition and apparanet argument? Which one is right? Is the Stanford Encyclopedia right along with O'Hair, or are you right? If there is a right/wrong, does this not contradict the academic atheism of relativity.

If belief is not tied into knowledge, then describe Kantian philosophy via objectives without contradicting the all is relative motto of atheism. Would this be consistent Kantian philosophy as a result?

With all this internal confusion among atheists themselves, and with relativity being the thrust of atheism, how can you make ANY objective claims for or against anything since that is an attempt at a universal objective which is heresy in the face of atheistic academia.

And if you admit that it is subjective, then it has not truth that anybody can be sure of. Thus you would admit that you are possibly wrong by default.

Why is Atheism superior to the Philosophy of Skepticism, which is DIFFERENT philosophically speaking then atheism. Or what about LaVeyian Atheism? Or O'Hair Atheism?

Please respond systmatically.

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Red,

Perhaps your confusion is derived from atheistic inconsistency academically speaking.

You're mistaken.

The confusion I indicated, was on your part.

I said there was no such thing as a 'worldview of atheism'.

It's a logical fallacy.

There's no 'direction' that we all head towards. We all have different goals and directions, but, we make great efforts to work 'in concert' (harmony) within humanity, trying to ensure that no one person's 'personal' wills, impose on another's.

Pretty basic concept.

Personal boundaries.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Since all is relative, and there is no absolute truth, this would apply to definitions.

No, there are natural absolutes. They are the natural 'constants'. You people struggle with making distinctions about 'absolutes' all the time.

They are 'natural' absolutes. The forces acting on all particles, that cannot be superseded, by 'thought'.

And there are 'truths' (thoughts) that are personal, and subjective, and can be altered.

 

Absolute is a quantitative. (x)

Truth is a qualitative. (y)

Apples(x) and green(y).

Two different things...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Thus the definition of Neo "atheists" is actually the absense of thought.

Sounds like a made up strawman. Because the premise is inane, and self contradicting. Something I'd expect a theist to utter.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
This is why atheism has been internally contradictive regarding it's very own definition.

I've clarified the concept of atheism to you, in the other thread.

Skepticism is the default position, of any human, from birth.

I'll copy what I posted over there, into this thread, because you completely ignored my detailed explanation of the distinction between theists and non theists.

If you want to debate, you will have to directly contend with my assertions.

Here it is:

---------------

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.

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

 

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

We are born this way.

Skeptics and atheists.

It's inherent in us.

It's in our 'nature'.

It's how 'nature' selected us to not be killed off.

It's completely natural to our species.

We are born completely oblivious to the natural world.

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

Neither requires logic, at all, because we are also emotional, subjective, passion driven beings.

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.

 

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

Theists 'deviate' from the default position, of skepticism.

Theists are the 'deviants'.

Not atheists.

 

To claim anything other, indicates you are ignorant, or a liar.

Or both.

 

-----------------------

This is my assertion. If you choose to ignore it, it signifies clearly

1- You do not understand

2- You understand, but do not want to challenge it

3- You cannot overcome the soundness of my assertions.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Madalyn Murray O'Hair believed that atheism was:

Who?

I don't know who you are talking about. Nor do I care who she is.

Are you stupid?

WTF do I care about how some person defines themselves? If you have an issue with her opinions, debate her.

I'm not interested in her.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The Stanford Encyclopedia also says that atheim is the denial of the existence of God.

So?

WTF do I care about how they generally 'interpret' non theists?

Non theists are individuals. They're like snowflakes.

You'd like to 'assert' they're all the same, so that you can attempt to kill all the birds with 1 stone, which is utterly stupid.

We don't have 1 mind, like you people do.

There's no 'bible' for atheists, or dogmas that are indoctrinated into non theists.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So my question for Red is, how can he reconcile academic Atheism

There's no such thing. Where do you think there is an academy of atheism? 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Which one is right? Is the Stanford Encyclopedia right along with O'Hair, or are you right?

WTF are you talking about?

A 'state' of mind is a collection of thoughts, that are flexible, and subjective, and based on the individuals feelings.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If there is a right/wrong

There is no absolute right and wrong. They are not physical attributes. They are feelings. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If belief is not tied into knowledge, then describe Kantian philosophy via objectives without contradicting the all is relative motto of atheism. Would this be consistent Kantian philosophy as a result?

I don't know what you're talking about. It sounds stupid.

Beliefs can be tied in to knowledge.

But, knowledge is a relative term. Almost a banal term.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
With all this internal confusion among atheists themselves

Strawman.

Equivocation.

I'm not confused, whatsoever. Nor are any atheists, that I'm aware of.

Your personal opinion that they are, is irrelevant. It has no value, in reality. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
and with relativity being the thrust of atheism

Being skeptical of ludicrous claims, is not a thrust, but a steadfastness.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
how can you make ANY objective claims for or against anything

Because I can contrast things, to reality, for instance, and come to an objective conclusion.

This is not obvious to you?

How do you avoid not getting hit by a bus?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
..since that is an attempt at a universal objective which is heresy in the face of atheistic academia.

1- You need to cite where there can be found any 'academy' of 'atheism'.

 

What babble is this that 'atheism' is like a religion? Where do you people get this sh1t?

Where is Mecca for atheists? Where is our 'Holy Land'?

Where are our temples and shrines, and tokens, and symbols?

Where, Jean?

Where?...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And if you admit that it is subjective, then it has not truth that anybody can be sure of.

Is that so?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Thus you would admit that you are possibly wrong by default.

I do?

I don't recall being conflicted about anything, whatsoever...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Why is Atheism superior to the Philosophy of Skepticism, which is DIFFERENT philosophically speaking then atheism.

You need to understand what I explained about skepticism, before we can engage any further.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Or what about LaVeyian Atheism? Or O'Hair Atheism?

What about these people?

Why should I care about opinions from these 2 individuals?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Please respond systmatically.

Let's see if you understand my clarifications, or if you'll ignore them, and continue equivocating, and monologuing...

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
Hi Red

Hi Red,

If Atheism is a non worldview position, then O'Hair then poses a problem since she had a radical worldview regarding education, science, etc. So was O'Hair WRONG, or was she not really an atheist. If not how do you know.

What about Eddie Tabash who I personally know and had dinner with. He is the spokeman for the American Humanist Society and a laywer in Beverly Hills, CA. He is an atheist and claims to have a worldview via atheism. Is Eddie wrong?

While you say there are natural attributes that are absolute, definitions are not natural (via nature). Thus you must admit that you cannot define your own position with certainty.

Regarding natural attributes. You assert this in the naked air. So be it. But how does one KNOW these naturals attributes in the absolute. DEFINE YOUR METHOD OF KNOWING ABSOLUTELY.

And you thus admit that the nations top Universities are wrong, that not all is relative. But lonely you who plays the guitar and probably smokes a little Green Bud is right (LOL).

You got some work to do.

1) Define your method of knowing (epistemology) and demonstrate that the method is absolute regarding anything

2) Tell me why Atheistic Leaders are saying one thing, and you the other. And why they are all wrong

3) Since Definition is not natural, then how do you place definitions in the absolute.

4) Since absolutes you mentioned are of a specific category, how is this known vs. other categories not being absolute

5) How could I be making a logical fallacy if logic is not an absolute. If it is, then justify this epistemologically.

_____________________

Colors such as green according to Locke were 2nd attributes and were not of the same quality of understanding as a table or a chair. And what about the color Purple? Is Purple an absolute? How do you know?

_____________________________

Neo Atheism is my term since the another definition took shape with George Smith's book, " A case against God." in 1974. Before that, virtually all (most) atheists understood it to mean a denial of the existence of God.

______________________________

Skepticism is philosophically different related to epistemology. They believe that truth is, however man can never ever know truth even if it hit you in the head.

You cannot step in the same river twice via Heraclitus formed Skepticism. So academically, you are wrong and make a classification fallacy.

Now that you are aware, why are you right and Skepticism wrong. Your claim regarding some attributes natural are absolutes, but is this a universal atheistic proposition, or an opinion of a doupster?

_________________________

Justify your definition universally via absolutes.

_________________________

You have addressed my argument regarding belief. It was actually syllogistically written, thus making it more then an assertion.

_________________________

LOL - O'Hair was the most influential atheist of the 20th century. Very famous. This further demonstrates how completely ignorant you are of your own position. If you have no frame of reference regarding atheism, how on earth can you propose a subjective as a universal?

___________________________

So if the Encyclopedia, Dictionaries, Historians, and major reference works support my position, your response is so? LOL - So all of academia is wrong and a guy who smokes weed in his bedroom at night is right? The Burden of Proof is thus on you to demonstrate while tons of those reference works are wrong and you are right.

______________

If you are ignorant of academic atheism, then I'm debating a little person. I'm like a tank fighting against a little grasshopper.

Everytime I argue with you, you go into a trance with absurdity. A Professor in philosophy (Me) is debating a person who flunked Kindergarden.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3). 

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

RedBull,

It appears RedBull needs his wings. But to be honest, I won before I even began, let's be honest. The guys's very uneducated regarding his very own position.

Hey RedBull, when you get your wings, and you're done crying to mommy, grow some balls and admit that you lost. Otherwise answer my questions.

Also, the burden of proof is one you, you did not provide the burden, and you lost double time.

Funny Stuff.

Christian Wins, Atheist, Big time loser.

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:...let's

Jean Chauvin wrote:

...let's be honest

Jean Chauvin wrote:

I won before I even began

Did you?

What did you win?

 

You haven't touched my points.

I've broken them down into distinct groups.

You could go point by point, and 'win' every battle, if you were able to.

But you haven't.

Ergo...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The guys's very uneducated regarding his very own position.

So, you allege to understand me, better than I understand myself, based on your feelings?

That's precarious.

All I have to do is say that you're wrong, and you have no where to go but lose...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
..answer my questions.

I did. Very accurately, and succinctly.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Also, the burden of proof is one you, you did not provide the burden, and you lost double time.

Did I?

I don't know what I could have lost. I didn't make any errors...and I don't have anything at stake...

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Red,

If Atheism is a non worldview position..

Fuck are you people dense.

You can't even distinguish between one thing, and an entirely different category of 'things'.

Let me take you back to primary school, so you can learn the basics, you ignorant fuck...

 

Humans are born completely oblivious. Neutral.

1- Skepticism is an individual's tendency to evaluate things, from a neutral position, on a topic, before making a determination, and/or acting on it.

It's a precursor (thing). It's singular. It's not plural.

There is no deviation during skepticism (neutral), till a conclusion has been finalized.

Then a person(they) become polarized.

 

2- There is/are no precursorism(s).

 

A theist is a (+)polarity.

A non theist is not (+)

This (non theist) is called an 'atheist'.

 

This is the disambiguous meaning of 'atheist'.

When we say 'they are atheist', the 'they' does not necessarily mean more than 1.

Even though they is 3rd person plural, it does not mean 'they' signifies more than 1.

 

You use the term 'atheist' in whatever ambiguous meaning that suits you, as a divisive epithet, or pejorative.

Because you people are based in bigotry and hate. They are your mantras.

 

You people are theocrats.

 

There are hundreds of millions, if not billions of individuals, who are against theocrats, and theocracies.

They can be anything, including theists.

 

When you speak of 'atheist worldviews', or 'movements' what you are pointing to is a heterogeneous group of individuals who reject theocracy.

You are not fighting for supremacy against one army, you are fighting everyone else, who isn't one of your cult.

 

You people need to get that through your incredibly dense skulls...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...then O'Hair then poses a problem ..

Does she?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
What about Eddie Tabash ..

Does he?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  He is the spokeman for the American Humanist Society and a laywer in Beverly Hills, CA.

So?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 He is an atheist and claims to have a worldview via atheism. Is Eddie wrong?

About himself?

Why are you asking me?

But, he doesn't speak for me. And I'm not part of his group.

Get it?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 While you say there are natural attributes ..

That's not what I said.

Don't paraphrase me.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  definitions are not natural (via nature).

I never said that.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Thus you must admit that you cannot define your own position with certainty.

Do I?

I don't see why...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Regarding natural attributes.

What are those?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You assert this in the naked air.

Did I?

Please quote where I wrote 'Natural attributes'.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  But how does one KNOW these naturals attributes in the absolute.

WTF are natural attributes in the absolute?

That makes no sense.

You are making a category error fallacy.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 DEFINE YOUR METHOD OF KNOWING ABSOLUTELY.

Methodologically, of course.

But I only define pure science, that is falsifiable, as a valid methodology.

Everything else is conjecture.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 And you thus admit that the nations top Universities are wrong, that not all is relative.

Did I?

Where?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Justify your definition universally via absolutes.

Absolutes are universal constants, and are falsifiable.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  O'Hair was the most influential atheist of the 20th century. Very famous.

Don't care if she was the Pope.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
  This further demonstrates how completely ignorant you are of your own position.

Am I?

I'm a party of 1.

I don't see how that's possible.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 If you have no frame of reference regarding atheism, how on earth can you propose a subjective as a universal?

Because you have yet to falsify my claims.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 So if the Encyclopedia, Dictionaries, Historians, and major reference works support my position, your response is so?

That's right.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

Don't you get it?

No atheist I know, really cares about you personally, Jean.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So all of academia is wrong

Are they?

About what?

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If you are ignorant of academic atheism...

What about it?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Everytime I argue with you, you go into a trance with absurdity.

Is that true?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
A Professor in philosophy (Me)

There's no way you're a professor.

Not a chance.

The psychology professors would recognize that you're a sociopath, and have you investigated.

If anyone read your vitriol and hatred, you'd never teach again, let alone be allowed near children.

In any event, I debated all my college professors constantly. They couldn't keep up with my challenges. Not 1.

Were are you from?

Quebec?

Are you a Parti Quebecois militant separatist?

That would explain a whole bunch. You people are fucking fascist hoodlums.

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
Hi RedBull

People are born neutrual you say? Tubula Rasa? So you're of the school of Locke, or are you just pullling things out of a monkeys behind?

You are changing the subject, thus admitting defeat. You have the burden of proof to provide for me an absolute means of definition of your George Smith style atheism vs. the leading atheists of the 20th century.

Again, why is O'Hair wrong, the encyclopedias, dictionaries, and reference works wrong, but you are right? In the realm of intellect, you have the burden of proof to show me why you're right and the leading authorites are wrong.

If you've never heard of any of these leading atheists I've mentioned, never heard of the definitions from the leading reference works, then how on earth can you be dogmatic intellectually speaking with no logical justification behind it?

The burden is on you regarding definition. Go. And don't change the subject just because you're stuck.

Look, the Rational Response Squad is of the callibor of the "Freedom from Religion Foundation," in Madison WI. I've talked to Dan several times.

My point is simple. If there are several "DENOMINATIONS" of atheism, justify your definition and your denomination is superior over the others.

You have yet to do this. If you cannot do this, admit it and we will continue on in the debate.

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:People

Jean Chauvin wrote:

People are born neutrual you say?

Wow.

Something I said actually registered with you. I'm impressed...

Yes, that is what the truth is. Human's are born completely oblivious to the natural world.

Did you assume otherwise?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 So you're of the school of Locke, or are you just pullling things out of a monkeys behind?

What is your obsession with other peoples' minds?

Why do you have a mind of your own, if you're just going to have it made for you by someone else's mind?

Do you have some kind of cognitive disability?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You are changing the subject

No.

You can have different topics come up, within the discussion of a subject. A professor should not only know that, but teach it...

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...thus admitting defeat.

Is that so?

I just checked with me, and the answer is, "STFU".

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You have the burden of proof to provide for me an absolute means of definition of your George Smith style atheism vs. the leading atheists of the 20th century.

I gave not only a clear definition, but a very clear elaboration of what a non theist is.

The onus has always been on you. You are the one making an assertion based in inductive reasoning.

People like you, are that patently stupid.

Someone catches a cold, and you people inductively reason that they're a sinner.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Again, why is O'Hair wrong, the encyclopedias, dictionaries, and reference works wrong, but you are right?

You are special pleading, and being intentionally obtuse.

Being a theist is (x)

Not being a theist, is not being (x)

 

Even a child can understand this simply premise. Yet you are completely mentally and emotionally tied up in knots by such a simple concept.

In your mind, being healthy, is a different illness.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
In the realm of intellect, you have the burden of proof to show me why you're right and the leading authorites are wrong.

You're like a broken record.

Elvis has long left the building. You completely missed the show...

Stop posturing.

If you could defeat my claim, you would have gone all 'Logic Ninja'

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If you've never heard of any of these leading atheists I've mentioned ...

It means they are not relevant.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
... never heard of the definitions from the leading reference works

You just keep going in circles with your strawman.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
...then how on earth can you be dogmatic intellectually speaking with no logical justification behind it?

Because.

It's an inalienable right.

One's state of mind, is not a democracy.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The burden is on you regarding definition. Go.

Take a reading comprehension class, and then go back to the top of the page, and read my posts again.

If you'd like to rebuke them, go ahead.

I challenge you to debate them.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
And don't change the subject just because you're stuck.

The subject is the same.

Not (x)= Not (x)

What part of that escapes you?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Look, the Rational Response Squad is of the callibor of the "Freedom from Religion Foundation," in Madison WI.

So?

Maybe someone over there has never heard of me.

WTF does that illustrate?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
I've talked to Dan several times.

Well, bully for you.

I like Dan a lot. He's got fucking balls.

I guess it doesn't occur to you that as an individual, you can fight for your rights as set out in the Constitution.

Anyone is free to become a sort of 'ombudsman'. That's what's so great about American, and how women stood up to oppression. How blacks overcame oppression. How gays overcame oppression.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
My point is simple.

No.

It's not only patently stupid, it's patently delusional.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If there are several "DENOMINATIONS" of atheism, justify your definition and your denomination is superior over the others.

There is NO position.

No polarity.

It's NEUTRAL.

 

It's like saying there are different 'denominations' of 'non spanish speaking' people, or 'healthy' people, or 'non pregnant' people, who need to justify their 'non spanishism', or their 'non illnessism', or their 'non pregnantism'.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You have yet to do this. If you cannot do this, admit it and we will continue on in the debate.

How fucking dense are you?????

By your definition, an individual not eating seafood, and discussing the different reasons why they don't eat seafood, is a 'denomination' of non seafood eaterism.

 

That's just an EPIC fucking FAIL.

Are you in training for the Olympics in 'Circular Reasoning'?

 

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
Hi Red

Hi Red,

In debate or in court, the burden of proof rests on the plantiff or the one that affirms the position. The one who negates the position does NOT have the burden of proof.

2nd, in court, the first listing is the one with the burden. You listed this Rednef vs. Jean Chauvin. It's like saying Rednef vs. the State of California. Thus you have the burden.

You ought to be a little embarrassed that you don't know this. Especially in the middle of a debate.

If you would have began with "Does God Exist," then I would have had the burden. This is why virtually all atheists never debate unless the "theists" is on the defense. This is in the Atheist Debaters Handbook. Don't you have a copy? Buy it and read it. This is why I'm killing you right now at this.

_____________________-

You cannot change the topic unless:

1) You've answered the question

2) You've admitted that you cannot answer the question.

Since you have yet to answer the question regarding various atheist denominations, then you evidently have lost this point. Admit that you don't have an answer so we can move forward with the debate.

Otherwise, I will continue to ask you until you appear so foolish that your mother won't cook supper for you.

Again, why is your atheism denomination superior to others. Why are the leading 20th century atheists differ from you via definition? How do you know absolutely that they are wrong and you are right?

__________________

You definition must be justified before we continue. Admit you can't if you can't so we can move on.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

Hey RedBull,

Cat got your tongue? Shall you admit ignorance so we can continue or shall we explore the subject of your very unique definition some more.

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:You

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You cannot change the topic unless:

1) You've answered the question

Not (x) = Not (x)

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You definition must be justified before we continue.

 ipso facto

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
Hi Red

Hi Red,

You must justify your unequivocal in relation to Univocal or Analogical. Most agree that analogical is the key to anything in reference to knowledge.

If you are defining atheist as an antitheis of acquiescene, then this can be applied to more then just theism. It can be applied to Communism, the Police, your football coach, or your mommy.

So then, how do you justify your definition as superior over the leading atheists of the 20th century. Why are they wrong and you are right since they had a completely different definition.

It appears that you cannot answer this question. You don't even know your own position. So we can accept that, and you can ask me a question now if you'd like to get the debate further along. Otherwise, this was pretty pathetic on your part.

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:You must

Jean Chauvin wrote:

You must justify your unequivocal in relation to Univocal or Analogical.

Nope.

See : Ipso Facto

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Most agree that analogical is the key to anything in reference to knowledge.

Cite your peer reviewed source.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If you are defining atheist as an antitheis of acquiescene..

I'm not. That's how I distinguish myself from the majority of individuals.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
It appears that you cannot answer this question.
 

Not (x) = Anything but (x)

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You don't even know your own position.

I've never deviated from skepticism without sufficient reasons. It's not practical.

 

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
Hi Red

Hi Red,

ipso facto is just asserting in the latin without justification. ispo facto (the fact itself) must be justified via the meaning of a fact. In the study of historiography, the understanding of fact has been used in multiple conflicting ways. So by what fact is this, how do you justify it as a fact, and what is your definitions of a fact.

In relation to the leading atheists of the 20th century, you have no answer

In relation to Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, and Reference Works regarding atheism via definition, you have no answer

In relation to the burden on you to show me that you are superior to all the leading reference works you have no answer

in relation to relativity of the univerity vs. absolutes of your kind you have no answer.

Since you are without coherent thought regarding these very easy answers, and since you contradict the leading atheists of the 20th century, the reference works, Professors, etc, and since you don't even know about these things you contradict.

Then it is clear that you have lost this debate and have been utterly destroyed.

This is like relaxing in the Bahama's eating those little umbrella drinks. Come on, if somebody with intelligence wishes to debate me I'm here. At least an atheist of intelligence would be more fruitful and entertaining.

Since Red did NOT carry the burden as the form form of the debate was set up, then he clearly lost the debate.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

UnDefeated Champion of Intelligence

 

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:ispo

Jean Chauvin wrote:

ispo facto (the fact itself) must be justified via the meaning of a fact.

Not (x) = Anything but (x)

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So by what fact is this, how do you justify it as a fact

Because  "Not (x) = Anything but (x)"  produces 100% reliable predictions.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
In relation to the leading atheists of the 20th century, you have no answer

Incorrect.

I burned your strawman.

There are no 'leading Not (x)'ers'.

Just as there are no leading "Not Pregnant' people.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
In relation to Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, and Reference Works regarding atheism via definition, you have no answer

Incorrect.

I burned your strawman.

Dictionaries don't know me. They can't define me.

Neither can you.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
In relation to the burden on you to show me that you are superior to all the leading reference works...

I disambiguated the dichotomy of theist/non theist, and demonstrated the category error you keep insanely going in circles with...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Then it is clear that you have lost this debate and have been utterly destroyed.

You're once again delusional, Jean Jean.

You single minded automatons are so insecure about your 'collective position' that you try and project that you are battling a hydra, instead of battling against individual minds that are not part of a collective that is competing with you.

You stand in the way of individuals, individuals push you out of their way.

Individuals then carry on as if you (people) weren't even there...

 

And individually pursue their personal interests, not regress into becoming one of YOU people...

 

 

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
Hi Red

Hi Red,

I will try this one more time, and if you make circular answers and you don't answer my question, I'm done here. You are being destroyed by my superior logic.

ipso facto, the fact itself is ambiguous. Various historians define fact in several ways. Gordon H. Clark wrote on this in his work on history.

So then, by what means of fact are we talking about, and is this a universal absolute of definition or is a subjective. Careful here.

Ipso facto doesn't say anything. It's like if somebody asked me my argument for God, and all I said was axiomatically. Even though this is way more logical of a start then you, there's more to it then that.

If all you have is ipso facto, then you are like a boy trying to reach the airport. You get in the cab, and the cab takes you to the next corner, you have 15 miles to go to get to the airport.

Get in your cab, and go the rest of the way. If your mind is to stoned to drive you to your destination (which is probably the case), then you lose like you've been losing. LOL.

___

So you are saying that there are no leading atheists of the 20th century. That Madalyn Murray O'Hair was just some girl who worked at Papa Murpheys? Just so I understand this before you are again embarrassed by this. Is this what you are saying?

____

If dictionaries and reference works cannot define your worldview, and if your worldview is personal, then your worldview by definition is subjective and a particular and has no claim towards knowing.

For one to know, a particular of a subject must be connected to a universal all the time. If you being without this means of an attempt at the know, then you admit that your atheism is irrational and outside of knowledge.

____

Turn off the death metal playing in the background so you can concentrate. Hurry up because you are embarrassing all atheists in this world.

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
Jean Chauvin wrote:ipso

Jean Chauvin wrote:
ipso facto, the fact itself is ambiguous.

False.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Various historians define fact in several ways.

They can call their personal ideas anything they wish, but science only distills universal absolutes.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Ipso facto doesn't say anything.

Actually, it does, Jean Jean.

Reality is not dependent on you or me.

Scientific methodology isolates natural phenomenon, and verifies it by breaking up human 'bias', and scattering it into 'random' sequences. Thereby eliminating a linear 'stream' of conscious thought being a 'constant'.

You know squat about the scientific method.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So you are saying that there are no leading atheists of the 20th century.

Depends in what category.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Hurry up because you are embarrassing all atheists in this world.

How so?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7525
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
  I've given redneF and

  I've given redneF and his debate opponents access into the One on One debate forum.  Sorry I didn't get to it sooner.  Typical users aren't able to post in this forum, only people who have been granted entry.  This will help eliminate any future moderation issues in these threads.  


 

- Brian Sapient


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