Peanut Gallary for rednef v Jean Claud van dippy

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Peanut Gallary for rednef v Jean Claud van dippy

I like this quip from Red at the end of the thread,

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

No Rednef, he is just putting on the opening show of epic fails. His attitude is "fail big or go home".

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The ridiculous crap Jean is

The ridiculous crap Jean is going on with about the 'correct' definition of the words 'atheism' or 'atheist' is a clear example of his pathologically anal and rigid thinking.

Jean, many words have many shades of meaning, or even when the basic meaning, as with atheist, is very simple, the connotations and associations can cover a wide spectrum from context to context, from person to person. You are conflating the simple meaning, without belief in a God, with one or two of the many interpretations in the minds of others, especially of Theists.

Dictionaries do not define the meanings of words, they record the meanings that are read into them in common usage. 

This is further complicated with 'non-' or 'a-' prefixed words referring to beliefs, by the confusion between 'lacking belief in A' and 'belief that not A'.

Characterising the stance of real people on such things as necessarily being either one or the other is seriously simplistic.

This is the sort of trap (or 'crap' ) that pedants in general, and, philosophers, theologians, etc in particular, often fall into, in trying to make 'logical' arguments in support of clever-sounding statements and 'theories' about 'knowledge' ( 'epistemology' ) and 'truth' and so on.

If you can't pin down the meanings of such words, and all their various connotations, you shouldn't be using them in logical propositions, or pretend that you are establishing any useful broader 'truths'.

AFAICR, Wittgenstein addressed this to a significant extent.

 

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Has anyone else noticed that

Has anyone else noticed that Jean doesn't seem to be quite as aggressive as he usually is?  Usually he writes with more flair than I'm seeing in his responses to red.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Why does Jean act so

Why does Jean act so incredibly smart, while not getting you can't prove a negative? I mean, I don't understand half of what he says because it's philosophical gibberish to me, but it should be rather clear that the only 'proof' we logically CAN have, is that there is no proof for the opposite statement.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Thunderios wrote:Why does

Thunderios wrote:

Why does Jean act so incredibly smart, while not getting you can't prove a negative? I mean, I don't understand half of what he says because it's philosophical gibberish to me, but it should be rather clear that the only 'proof' we logically CAN have, is that there is no proof for the opposite statement.

All that Logic can do is prove whether one proposition is, or is not, consistent with another. It cannot prove that some statement about Reality is true.

It can show that some statement is false, if it involves an internal contradiction. If it is not internal contradictory, that still doesn't prove it is even possible, since that would require totally complete and accurate knowledge of reality.

In the real world, all we can show is that some theory or proposition matches or predicts reality better than the alternatives. The more potentially falsifying tests it passes, the more confidence we can have in it.

Jean is stuck on the old idea that only beliefs that are known with 100% certainty count as knowledge. Which actually leads to an infinite regress, since it requires that our 'knowledge' that that belief is 100% certain itself be 'known' with 100% certainty, and so on. So by his own standards, he knows nothing.

EDIT: He then claims that postulating a God as the ultimate 'reference point' is the only way to terminate this regress, just like they try to claim that an uncaused God is the only way to explain how the Universe came to be, in the Cosmological Argument.

It fails because we do NOT require absolutely certain knowledge to function very effectively, and refine what uncertain knowledge we do have, and do things like build computers, space-probes, jet airliners, GPS navigators, etc, etc,

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Here is another stupid

Here is another stupid argument, from Jean,

Quote:
In debate or in court, the burden of proof rests on the plantiff or the one that affirms the position.

Ok, if a billion people swear on a Koran that Allah is the one true god, it must be true because they testified to it?

We should not, in reality, as a species be still debating tribalisitic goat herding bullshit myth written by unscientific people. WE do debate, not because we want to, but because if we don't people like you will continue to infect others with this enormous lie.

Debating the existence of an invisible brain with no brain, no location, with a magic wand, is only important in the fact that people still believe this bullshit.

Debating the existence of a fictional comic book super hero is like debating "flat earth" claims. We only do it because so many people still buy into a diety claim BY ANY NAME, because they do not understand that it is merely wishful thinking in a REAL evolutionary desire to continue. Making up gods is merely a reflection of human ignorance.

WE are trying to pull humanity out of the  past and into the reality of now and the future.

The things humanity agree on as far as "proof" are the things taken into LABS and studied and tested and falsified and independently verified. A court is simply a social norm to keep people civil, it is not a lab nor can it substitute for a lab.

Otherwise anyone can make any fucking claim they want and it is true by default and for every 7 billion individuals you are not going to find overlap on the claim that a god exists, ESPECIALLY not in a court.

Seriously Jean, if a court is good enough by itself, then take your Christian god claim into an Iranian court and see how far you get with their system.

The reality is that there is no debate, there are merely humans who falsely believe in all sorts of gods(insert name here) because they don't know any better. The sun was not a thinking being like falsely believed for over 3,000 years by the Egyptians, and our species WILL continue without Allah or Jesus or Vishnu.

What no god claimant of any religion can do is take this claim into a NEUTRAL lab setting and variety of independent scientists and DEMONSTRATE it as "proof"

Claims are not "proof" claims become proof when it is kicked and thrashed and tested over and over and over to the point that it is provable BEYOND pet claims.

We debate, not because we want to, but because we know humanity can do far better with telescopes and computers and medicine than we have with divisive superstition.

 

 

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
We are entitled to our own

We are entitled to our own opinions, not our own facts. Utterance by proxy of popular myth, especially one written in an unscientific age, is hardly worthy of being called "fact".

The bible, Koran, Torah, Talmud, Reg Vedas are ALL ancient books of myth. None of the god/s claimed in these books are lab testable or lab verifiable like DNA is, or a super nova is.

What IS true and can be verified is that the human brain is perfectly capable of believing false things AND THIS is scientifically provable. We also have plenty of dead gods that no one believes in now. Those two facts point to human ignorance and gap filling because of the mundane placebo of wishful thinking.

"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


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
I was bored so I searched

I was bored so I searched the interwebs to see if our friend here had any other ramblings and boy did I find a good one.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/02/898149/-SHOULD-A-WOMAN-BE-IN-ANY-POLITICAL-POWER

It seems like it's a hobby of his to troll as many websites as he can, take a look at this gem. 

http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-grabs-4-peoples-choice-award-nominations#comment-84783

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
lalib wrote:I was bored so I

lalib wrote:
I was bored so I searched the interwebs to see if our friend here had any other ramblings and boy did I find a good one.

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/02/898149/-SHOULD-A-WOMAN-BE-IN-ANY-POLITICAL-POWER

It seems like it's a hobby of his to troll as many websites as he can, take a look at this gem. 

http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-grabs-4-peoples-choice-award-nominations#comment-84783

 

 

Oooookay..........

Now I wanna know why we're bothering to take this guy seriously, and just exactly what it takes to get (and keep) a troll badge around here, because it seems damn near impossible.


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

Hello,

Somebody asked a good question about negative proof. Technically speaking according to the norm of today, you CANNOT prove ANYTHING. It is impossible.

If the secular nutty nuts even agree that all is probable, then logically the proof is also probable thus making it impossible to prove or know anything

There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
But Jean,  First you would

But Jean,  First you would have to prove that the bible is reliable.  If it is not, then you can't prove anything that way.

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

=


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

Hi Answers in Genesis,

You see, most Christians are so weak today (unlike 100 years ago) they fall for this. You're not doing it on purpose, you're just naturally ignorant (I Cor 1:14).

I do not use the same means of argumentation as you. You are so pagan, even your argument stinks like Rosanne Bar.

The Bible is demonstrated axiomatically, remember. axioms need not be proved. However, a different definition of proof then you is a means of demonstration, NOT substantiation.

So while the consistent of the Bible is a demonstration of proof of it's integrity, it is not needed like in court. If the Bible says God made trees and fish, and we go out and see trees and fish, this is a proof of demonstration.

Your kind of proof ALWAYS results in the probability, which even  your kind admit is probable false or true. My means is absolutely true with no chance or no way of error.

My argument is valid, you do not like the soundness because you're a pagan.

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: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:The Bible

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Bible is demonstrated axiomatically, remember. axioms need not be proved. However, a different definition of proof then you is a means of demonstration, NOT substantiation.

Where is the Bible demonstrated axiomatically?  I don't remember reading that in Genesis.  "And God said, this need not be proven".  Why would you consider a piece of failed propaganda axiomatic?

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 As a side note Jean, out

 As a side note Jean, out of curiosity and since you claim logic your strong point, what's your take on T.A.G. and O.A.?

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


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:So while

Jean Chauvin wrote:

So while the consistent of the Bible is a demonstration of proof of it's integrity, it is not needed like in court. If the Bible says God made trees and fish, and we go out and see trees and fish, this is a proof of demonstration.

 

Ouch.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


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

Hi KTULA,

While there proof regarding God and the Bible, it is NOT of the same kind of proof you are talking about. It's like you are from the planet nutty nuts, and I'm from earth. Totally different understanding. Mine is logical.

There are numerous examples of this. The logical understanding of faith in relation to believe as knowledge and understanding. Luke 16:27:31 demonstrates that if you don't believe Scripture, then there is nothing else that logically is true.

Empiricism or so called secular science is also refuted in Luke 16:31. Since he experienced "hell" (hades&quotEye-wink he wanted to go tell people about it so they don't go there. But it didn't work. You will be in the same boat soon.

The verses again empiricism are numerous. The only Biblical means of knowing if via faith. Not the faith that has been distorted in wimpy Christianity, but faith via knowing since faith and knowing are interchangeable in the Bible.

If you wish to have a Bible lesson. Email me and I will have one with you KTULA. And we can go into this much further. There is a lot more on this subject and is a very interesting subject that very few touch on in today's wimpy Christianity.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

institutio@gmail.com

 

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: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi KTULA,

While there proof regarding God and the Bible, it is NOT of the same kind of proof you are talking about. It's like you are from the planet nutty nuts, and I'm from earth. Totally different understanding. Mine is logical.

There are numerous examples of this. The logical understanding of faith in relation to believe as knowledge and understanding. Luke 16:27:31 demonstrates that if you don't believe Scripture, then there is nothing else that logically is true.

Empiricism or so called secular science is also refuted in Luke 16:31. Since he experienced "hell" (hades&quotEye-wink he wanted to go tell people about it so they don't go there. But it didn't work. You will be in the same boat soon.

I looked up the bible quote and I came up with this.  Luke 16:27-31

Quote:

27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’

29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’

30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’

31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Now... you realize what type of forum this is.  You're obviously not trying to convert, you're trying to preach over us.  How is this supposed to convince any of us in any way shape or form? I mean... you cite this as axiomatic versus empirically gained scientific theories?  *shakes head

Why do you even bother with logic and epistemology in general if the only book you need is the Bible?  Why attempt to reason it logically? do you have doubts?

"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:If the

Jean Chauvin wrote:

If the Bible says God made trees and fish, and we go out and see trees and fish, this is a proof of demonstration.

Fuck!!

There must be a god!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 KTULA

Hi KTULA,

You wanted an example, and I gave you an example. When you're in hell, you are going to want to go tell your family how horrible it is and how you are being tormented. You're going to ask the demon chewing your your skull and ripping your skin off, please, let me go warn them.

The words of the prophets and Moses were and are Scripture. Since the Bible is axiomatic, it is logical that there will be EXAMPLES of this type of thinking in Scripture.

I do hope that you are of the elect. I really hope you're not utterly in torment for eternity. When  you close your eyes for the last time, you will wake up in hell and remember our conversation.

I know this is funny to you, but it won't be when the time comes.

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: When

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 When you're in hell...

Hell is here on earth listening to mindless fucking drones like you, making Jeebus sounds and claiming it's 'sophisticated 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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi KTULA,

You wanted an example, and I gave you an example. When you're in hell, you are going to want to go tell your family how horrible it is and how you are being tormented. You're going to ask the demon chewing your your skull and ripping your skin off, please, let me go warn them.

The words of the prophets and Moses were and are Scripture. Since the Bible is axiomatic, it is logical that there will be EXAMPLES of this type of thinking in Scripture.

I do hope that you are of the elect. I really hope you're not utterly in torment for eternity. When  you close your eyes for the last time, you will wake up in hell and remember our conversation.

I know this is funny to you, but it won't be when the time comes.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

I find people like you superficially fascinating.  The type of compartmentalization that you present is far more severe than any other self proclaimed 'logical theist' that I've encountered.

I think I see what you're attempting to do, namely give pause.  Though I fear that your reasoning is so tainted by your style that it takes someone with great patience to even sort through the crap to get to the 'message'.  I'm still not convinced that you are being honest about the whole thing, it would make much more sense if you were an atheist.  

Now you claim that science = to know.  Which is again a cherry picking translation, because it actually means knowledge.  That simple approach shows how different our perspectives are.  I'm content with having knowledge, where as you are obsessed with knowing ( as in KNOWING ).  Your search for an absolute frame of reference has come up with the bible...  bravo... I'm sure it took a lot of interesting amount of self indoctrination, if you truly possess the mental capacity that you portray....  

Secondly Mach's principle has nothing to do with empiricism.  It doesn't touch on epistemology at all... it wasn't even coined by Mach, but by Einstein, and the twisted usage you're implying only makes sense if you consider the theory of relativity, but not on it's own.

I hope you're not basing your entire argument for a fix point of reference on your misinterpretation of a few basic concepts.  The rest of the knowledge you quote, you've cherry picked specifics, much like the bible.

Perhaps I will email you regarding that bible lesson, it will be interesting seeing your full perspective.

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


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
AWESOME!

So Jean, you say that the "Holy" Babble is, and I quote,

Jean Chauvin, resident Troll wrote:
There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

so by that standard bats are birds (Lev. 11:13-19), rabbits chew cud (Lev. 11:5-6), if you go high enough on a tree you can see all of the world (Dan. 4:10-11), and there is a crystal dome over the earth that keeps the water on earth and the water in the sky separate (Gen. 1:6-8)? All those things are in your "Holy" Babble, so they must be true, right?

Sorry buddy, but that stuff is just plain stupid and are obviously the stories of uneducated people trying to make sense of the world they lived in. They had an excuse, but as someone living in a time where we have access to better information on what's actually going on, you have no excuse. So Jean, continue to dress up your ignorance in pretty poetic, philosophical language all you want, but know that you still look like a moron for trying to rationalize this stuff.

Oh, and your little passive-aggressive threats about us being tortured forever for not buying into your little myth don't do anything but tell us that you have no evidence to support your claims, and you need to rely on terror to coerce others into your cult. If you had any evidence to support these claims, you wouldn't need to act the part of the schoolyard bully with your "If you don't do what I say, I'm going to have my big brother hurt you" bullshit. But you do, which tells me that you have no intellectual legs to stand on, and simply rely on the tactic of trying to give your enemies nightmares so they join in lockstep with your mental dictatorship. It may work on children, as your fellow child indoctrinating co-coreligionists know so well, but it doesn't work on people with fully functional brains.

So please continue, since posting your little insane pieces on the net just gives us more ammo in our argument that religion destroys a persons ability to think, in your words, "properly".

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote:Oh, and your

B166ER wrote:

Oh, and your little passive-aggressive threats about us being tortured forever for not buying into your little myth don't do anything

It must completely frustrate the piss outta these wannabe bullies when they can't scare someone with their 'boogey man' bullshit.

Add that to the fact that they can't spank the monkey and bust a nut, and no wonder they're wound up tighter than a snare drum...

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I must keep missing the

I must keep missing the punchline with these threads...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
hahahaha

redneF wrote:
It must completely frustrate the piss outta these wannabe bullies when they can't scare someone with their 'boogey man' bullshit.

Yeah, I can't imagine how they must feel when the terror tactics that got them to buy into that bullshit cult don't work on others. Sorry theists, but I'm not afraid of the shadows!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I wonder if Jean gets any

I wonder if Jean gets any feeling at all at how his posts here are seen by us as self-refuting, in the sense of 'Reductio ad Absurdum', ie the absurd  things he says about atheism, science, even his complete misunderstandings of things like Mach's Principle, that seem to follow from his fundamental position, demonstrate that he is starting from a fallacy, or at least, a position completely orthogonal to well-established contemporary understanding.

He surely can't be persisting here with any hope of influencing our view-points, rather he confirms with every post the vacuous absurdity of his whole world-view.

He mocks empiricism and science, conveying his ideas to us by means of devices and infrastructure totally the product of the approach to knowledge he so confidently ridicules.

I do hope he gets as least as much amusement out of our responses as we get out of his.

 

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


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
I doubt it...

BobSpence1 wrote:
I wonder if Jean gets any feeling at all at how his posts here are seen by us as self-refuting, in the sense of 'Reductio ad Absurdum', ie the absurd  things he says about atheism, science, even his complete misunderstandings of things like Mach's Principle, that seem to follow from his fundamental position, demonstrate that he is starting from a fallacy, or at least, a position completely orthogonal to well-established contemporary understanding.

I doubt it, sense that would involve being aware enough of reality to know that more exists in this universe then his imaginary bully. It is really funny that he rants at us about how he hates science and empiricism, yet he's ranting at us with a machine which, without science and empiricism, would not exist! I doubt he will see the irony though, as his mind is so clouded by ignorance that he probably thinks it was an actual Jesus who invented the computer through sheer mind power and scientists are just people in lab coats who eat babies and cackle a lot!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Somebody asked a good question about negative proof. Technically speaking according to the norm of today, you CANNOT prove ANYTHING. It is impossible.

If the secular nutty nuts even agree that all is probable, then logically the proof is also probable thus making it impossible to prove or know anything

There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

If you cant prove anything absolutely then how did you post this garbage on this website. If it could be anything and not just a computer, then it could have been a cat or a pencil that you posted with and not a computer.

And "Christian epistemology" is meaningless gibberish. No different than if you said "Muslim epistemology" or "Jewish epistemology" or "Apollo epistemology".

Making something sound fancy doesn't make it true. Harry Potter is an elaborate book, but that doesn't mean little boys can fly around on brooms.

All you have is a naked assertion and a very bad one at that. I'll take a telescope or microscope over your book of myth any day of the week.

 

"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


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

The Bible is demonstrated axiomatically, remember. axioms need not be proved. 

 

Axioms need not be proved because you can't prove an axiom...not because of some inherent truth value to axioms.

Any axioms are merely fundamental assumptions, we just elevate the status of these assumptions to axioms when we think that the assumptions are self-evident. 


Thunderios
atheist
Posts: 261
Joined: 2010-12-26
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:The Bible

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The Bible is demonstrated axiomatically, remember.

This sentence doesn't seem sound to me... You don't demonstrate something with assumptions (axioms are assumptions).
You can tell somebody: if you agree to my axioms and propositions, and my argument is sound, you have to agree with the conclusion.
Since we do not agree with your axiom that the Bible is true, we won't be persuaded by the argument. You'll have to find something outside of Scripture, which you can't, according to yourself.

Because neither option of this dichotomy (scripture-based arguments and non-scripture-based arguments) precedes progress, arguing with us is pointless.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So while the consistency of the Bible is a demonstration of proof of it's integrity, it is not needed like in court.

You forgot the other possibility: if there's proof that contradicts the Bible, we have a paradox: the Bible is both true and false. Since false belongs to the group not-true, and true and not-true is a dichotomy, it can't be both.
If we, then, could find only one piece of evidence, either from the Bible, or from something the is described BY the Bible, which doesn't rhyme with the Bible, we know that Sola Scriptura is a false assumption (also called reductio ad absurdum).

I'll leave it to my fellow atheists to bring those pieces of evidence(I believe someone already did).

Then there's also the problem of the Scriptura being composed by humans. How can you know they picked the right texts?

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Your kind of proof ALWAYS results in the probability, which even your kind admit is probable false or true.

Empiricism deals with probability, because you can ignore the chance of in not being true, if that chance is small enough, since the consequences are finite.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
My means is absolutely true with no chance or no way of error.

Except that your means rely on assumptions, which CAN be erroneous, and therefore your conclusion CAN be erroneous, too.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Luke 16:27:31 demonstrates that if you don't believe Scripture, then there is nothing else that logically is true.

It only states that if you're not convinced by Moses and the prophets (sounds like a cool band name), you won't be convinced by the dead.
1. It's not talking about being true or false, just the power of convincing people. There are more believers than people that believe because of the Bible, so there seems to be a way to be reached by God without the use of Scripture.
2. It doesn't say anything about the New Testament, and a big part of the Old One. Yet you rely on the New One to prove it. Since we don't know the New One is true (I haven't seen a proper argument for it) I don't have to believe it, and therefore nor do I have to believe that Moses and the prophets are true.
3. Even if it was pointing to ALL of scripture, it would still be circular reasoning.

This is my first time arguing properly, so how do you guys think I did? Laughing out loud

 


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

Hi Bob and All,

Before I came on this site, you people were has no idea about the use of logic. You never heard about Reductio Ad Absurdum. You never heard about epistemology. You may say you did, but you would be a liar. All atheists are liars.

Now that I taught you logic, you then hate God so much you continue in absurdity by trying to use logic which I taught you. This is comedy.

Look, you may disgree, but at least give credit where credit is due and admit that I taught you guys things you never heard of.

Regarding axioms being assumptions. ALL, ALL, ALL forms of logic start with an first principle which is always an assumption. However, my assumption is self evident via the imago dei which I have said a dozen times.

Also, since one guy on here was honest enough to admit that empiricism was probable. He never gave a way to know the ratio of that probability empirically speaking. LOL.

You guys are like clowns at the circus but nobody is laughing.

Look, I know you guys love me. I am teaching you things. Even though you are applying them horribly wrong.

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
Hi Bob and Others

Hi Bob and All,

Before I came on this site, you people were has no idea about the use of logic. You never heard about Reductio Ad Absurdum. You never heard about epistemology. You may say you did, but you would be a liar. All atheists are liars.

Now that I taught you logic, you then hate God so much you continue in absurdity by trying to use logic which I taught you. This is comedy.

Look, you may disgree, but at least give credit where credit is due and admit that I taught you guys things you never heard of.

Regarding axioms being assumptions. ALL, ALL, ALL forms of logic start with an first principle which is always an assumption. However, my assumption is self evident via the imago dei which I have said a dozen times.

Also, since one guy on here was honest enough to admit that empiricism was probable. He never gave a way to know the ratio of that probability empirically speaking. LOL.

You guys are like clowns at the circus but nobody is laughing.

Look, I know you guys love me. I am teaching you things. Even though you are applying them horribly wrong.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi Bob

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Bob and All,

Before I came on this site, you people were has no idea about the use of logic. You never heard about Reductio Ad Absurdum. You never heard about epistemology. You may say you did, but you would be a liar. All atheists are liars.

Now that I taught you logic, you then hate God so much you continue in absurdity by trying to use logic which I taught you. This is comedy.

Look, you may disgree, but at least give credit where credit is due and admit that I taught you guys things you never heard of.

Regarding axioms being assumptions. ALL, ALL, ALL forms of logic start with an first principle which is always an assumption. However, my assumption is self evident via the imago dei which I have said a dozen times.

Also, since one guy on here was honest enough to admit that empiricism was probable. He never gave a way to know the ratio of that probability empirically speaking. LOL.

You guys are like clowns at the circus but nobody is laughing.

Look, I know you guys love me. I am teaching you things. Even though you are applying them horribly wrong.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Quote:
but you would be a liar. All atheists are liars.

And all Catholics are child molesters, all Muslims are terrorists, and all Japs are Commies, and all people with mustashes love Hitler. But we don't know what "reducto ad surdum is"?

Quote:
You guys are like clowns at the circus but nobody is laughing.

Just the oposite, EVERYONE HERE, besides you is laughing at you and your pethetic childish tyrade because someone doesn't buy your fictional god.

Quote:
you then hate God

No, for the billionth time, we can't hate fictional beings any more than we can hate Mickey Mouse or Lex Luthor. But we damned sure hate your bad logic and your assholish bigotry.

Quote:
I am teaching you things

Thanks "teach". When we need a lesson in how to be retarded, we'll call on you.

 

 

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5800
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Seriously, Jean, this has

Seriously, Jean, this has got way past a joke, your dogged restating of your ideas, which come across to us as the ravings of a peculiar breed of fundamentalist fanatic.

Continuing to simply reassert your ideas without justifying them with more than scriptural references, to an inconsistent, and in places, blatantly contradictory set of writings, is not going to advance your arguments with us, rather the reverse.

If you wish to actually advance the 'debate', we can maybe discuss what we see see as inconsistencies in scripture, and you can actually respond, hopefully with more than simple re-assertions that we are wrong. And perhaps we could discuss just why you reject all other religious writings. 

Otherwise, this discussion is not going anywhere, and is a waste of time.

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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:You never

Jean Chauvin wrote:
You never heard about Reductio Ad Absurdum. You never heard about epistemology. You may say you did, but you would be a liar. All atheists are liars.

Yep, you got me. I've never heard of any of those things. And that one thread where I corrected you on the definitions of four different types of logical fallacies......yeah, I must have been dreaming. You're not the 10,000th theist to walk in here with the exact same arguments. You're the first and only one; you're perfect and special Jean.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
However, my assumption is self evident via the imago dei which I have said a dozen times.

Yeah, I know. It's self evident because you said so. Anyone who disagrees is a fool, as they're rejecting something that's self evident. I guess I'll have to stop torturing this puppy and go to church. 

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The Bible is demonstrated axiomatically, remember. axioms need not be proved. 

Axioms are substitutes for reality. They need not be compatible with reality.

They are useful for a dialect, but cannot overcome reality, like hindsight can.

 

No matter how you slice it...

 

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


Luminon
SuperfanTheist
Luminon's picture
Posts: 2455
Joined: 2008-02-17
User is offlineOffline
lalib wrote: I was bored so

lalib wrote:

I was bored so I searched the interwebs to see if our friend here had any other ramblings and boy did I find a good one.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/02/898149/-SHOULD-A-WOMAN-BE-IN-ANY-POLITICAL-POWER

It seems like it's a hobby of his to troll as many websites as he can, take a look at this gem. 

http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-grabs-4-peoples-choice-award-nominations#comment-84783

LOL. Nevermind the article on women, that's just... chauvinism Sticking out tongue

As for Beyonce and her so-called occult possesion... If Beyonce is into demons because she uses some occult symbolism, then I'd have to be at least a demon incarnate personally, no easy and common demon possession. 
It's all simple to recognize, if it's not in Bible, it's demonic. If it is in Bible, it's warning you, because it's demonic.

Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.


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

Luminon wrote:

 LOL. Nevermind the article on women, that's just... chauvinism Sticking out tongue

Ohhh fuck... that's geeenius!

 

That made my fuckin' week! Baaahaaahaaa!!

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


lalib
atheist
lalib's picture
Posts: 134
Joined: 2010-12-31
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Luminon

redneF wrote:

Luminon wrote:

 LOL. Nevermind the article on women, that's just... chauvinism Sticking out tongue

Ohhh fuck... that's geeenius!

 

That made my fuckin' week! Baaahaaahaaa!!

 

lol, the connection is funny, but Jean Chauvin = John Calvin 


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
HAHAHA

Jean Chauvinism, resident troll wrote:
Before I came on this site, you people were has no idea about the use of logic. You never heard about Reductio Ad Absurdum. You never heard about epistemology. You may say you did, but you would be a liar. All atheists are liars.

Yup you got me, I "were has" no idea about the use of logic. Apparently, all the books on logic that I have read didn't exist since you didn't show them to me. And you're right, none of us had ever heard of anything like that before you came here. Actually, none of us even EXISTED before you came here, and the universe is just a solipsistic hallucination in your head. DON'T LEAVE, I DON'T WANT TO CEASE EXISTING AGAIN!!! OH NOES!!!1!!11!!ELEVEN11!!

A little arrogant maybe? Now what does your little bully club handbook say about arrogance?

Sorry Mr. Ego, but the world does not revolve around you, as much as you would like it to. I know it's hard to accept reality for you, but that's how it goes.

Jean Chauvinism, resident troll wrote:
Now that I taught you logic, you then hate God so much you continue in absurdity by trying to use logic which I taught you. This is comedy.

No, what's comedy is that there are adults, who should have fully functional brains, arguing over who's imaginary friend is real. Actually, it's more of a tragedy with farcical moments, but in life we must find humor when and where we can!

And really, what's the reason to hate a fictional character. Now, the things humans do when they believe this fictional bully is backing them up on the other hand...

Jean Chauvinism, resident troll wrote:
Regarding axioms being assumptions. ALL, ALL, ALL forms of logic start with an first principle which is always an assumption. However, my assumption is self evident via the imago dei which I have said a dozen times.

Self evident? Which is why you have never been able to make your case with your "LOLgic" and just continually look like an idiot who has no other recourse in an argument but to fall back on threats. Ohhh... what a strong argument you have, that you need to threaten me to accept it! Again, bully tactics don't work on people with fully functional brains. We are not like the children in your indoctrination camps, er I mean sunday schools, who are pushed to tears when the adults around them, who should be loving, supporting, and protecting them, are in fact the very boogeymen that hide in the shadows of their minds waiting to strike. I really don't know how you fucking monsters can sleep at night. But then again, I, unlike you and your scumbag ilk, feel wrong about lying to children or acting like a mental terrorist!

This is a great example of why logic by itself offers us nothing without being coupled with empiricism. Thanks for making our case for us, Mr. Ego!

Jean Chauvinism, resident troll wrote:
You guys are like clowns at the circus but nobody is laughing.

Oh we're laughing all right, but in the same way people laugh at someone who repeatedly walks into a glass door, and you're the genius who thinks he can get through it if he just believes and tries one more time!

Luminon wrote:
LOL. Nevermind the article on women, that's just... chauvinism Sticking out tongue

Luminon, we have our differences and I have verbally attacked you before in the past over the whole "kids born with developmental problems are that way because of karma/I think you have to be a heartless bastard to think that they deserved it" thing, but that quote is comedy gold! Thank you for that one, I'll be using it in his name from now on. Perfect!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
B166ER wrote:... that quote

B166ER wrote:

... that quote is comedy gold! Thank you for that one, I'll be using it in his name from now on. Perfect!

Ya, he rocked it out of the park on that one, while Jean Jean is still  'swing and a miss!!'...

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


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Seriously,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Seriously, Jean, this has got way past a joke, your dogged restating of your ideas, which come across to us as the ravings of a peculiar breed of fundamentalist fanatic.

Continuing to simply reassert your ideas without justifying them with more than scriptural references, to an inconsistent, and in places, blatantly contradictory set of writings, is not going to advance your arguments with us, rather the reverse.

If you wish to actually advance the 'debate', we can maybe discuss what we see see as inconsistencies in scripture, and you can actually respond, hopefully with more than simple re-assertions that we are wrong. And perhaps we could discuss just why you reject all other religious writings. 

Otherwise, this discussion is not going anywhere, and is a waste of time.

I think this is analogous of the Pink Elephant in the room.  We're all trying to re-arrange the furniture and position the TV in such a way that it's all harmonious ( still haven't had that term defined in relation to the trinity, but oh well ), but the thing of it is... there's a big fucking elephant in the way.  Namely, the bible.  I mean, once you accept that as the ultimate fixed point of reference in the universe, why even argue anymore?  Any sound and valid argument will just be refuted with a few cherry picked verses.  

It's so simple to arrive at aberrations such as secular science = non sense, when you fail to understand the nature of sense and science.

"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:Somebody

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Somebody asked a good question about negative proof. Technically speaking according to the norm of today, you CANNOT prove ANYTHING. It is impossible.

If the secular nutty nuts even agree that all is probable, then logically the proof is also probable thus making it impossible to prove or know anything

There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

I missed this gem...

 

I'm picturing Jean Jean, in court, in handcuffs, arguing with a judge, charged with walking into a Ladies room, and flashing them, and arguing:

 

' you CANNOT prove ANYTHING, It is impossible'

'You cannot prove I have a wee wee, hee hee!!' 

' There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). ' 

 

 

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


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
he just doesn't get it...

Jean Chauvinism, resident troll wrote:
Somebody asked a good question about negative proof. Technically speaking according to the norm of today, you CANNOT prove ANYTHING. It is impossible.

If the secular nutty nuts even agree that all is probable, then logically the proof is also probable thus making it impossible to prove or know anything

There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

He just doesn't get it... He seems to think that we're making the case that everything is probable, when in fact a positions probability of being correct is directly proportional to the amount of evidence to support it. You are correct in one way Jean, in that you can't prove anything in the classical, 100% certainty, sense. But that doesn't mean we can't know anything. It just means that we realize that we don't already know everything and never can, but that we can continue to refine our knowledge and get a BETTER picture of the universe around us. You seem to think that you already know everything, which is why you're such an arrogant idiot!

Oh and Jean, you still haven't answered how you would know that rabbits don't chew cud or that bats are not birds if you're basing your position on the "Holy" Babble alone. So, is your precious "Holy" Babble correct or is reality correct, since I personally don't see rabbits chewing cud or bats laying eggs!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3681
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:I'm picturing

redneF wrote:


I'm picturing Jean Jean, in court, in handcuffs, arguing with a judge, charged with walking into a Ladies room, and flashing them, and arguing:

' you CANNOT prove ANYTHING, It is impossible'

'You cannot prove I have a wee wee, hee hee!!' 

' There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). ' 

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


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
 Jean is like any other

 Jean is like any other delusional fanatical theists, bible is true because the bible says its true. In the end he can't believe otherwise because his world view is destroyed, so he stays in a delusional state, in which no matter how obviously you show him his errors, he isn't wrong, your wrong because reality is wrong when it proves the bible wrong. He is is just that type of person.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13248
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
butterbattle wrote:redneF

butterbattle wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

I'm picturing Jean Jean, in court, in handcuffs, arguing with a judge, charged with walking into a Ladies room, and flashing them, and arguing:

' you CANNOT prove ANYTHING, It is impossible'

'You cannot prove I have a wee wee, hee hee!!' 

' There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). ' 

Lmao. 

 

Look at his avatar, it wouldn't shock me if that was really him "posing" like a creepy stalker who thinks chicks dig him.

"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
Brian37 wrote:butterbattle

Brian37 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

redneF wrote:

 

I'm picturing Jean Jean, in court, in handcuffs, arguing with a judge, charged with walking into a Ladies room, and flashing them, and arguing:

' you CANNOT prove ANYTHING, It is impossible'

'You cannot prove I have a wee wee, hee hee!!' 

' There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). ' 

Lmao. 

 

Look at his avatar, it wouldn't shock me if that was really him "posing" like a creepy stalker who thinks chicks dig him.

No. It's not him. I've seen that image before. It's a screen capture from a movie.

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 BI66

Hi BI66,

We agree that you cannot prove anything absolutely, yet you say that doesn't mean one doens't know. I'll assume you'll serious and I'll try to clarify for you. Very good definition of probability.

As I've said before, the probability ratio is NEVER done. If we say for example that pigs don't fly, something absurd. For us to KNOW this we must observe every single pig on this earth at the same time. This is impossible. So what's never done is the ratio of that statment being right or wrong.

The reason why nobody does a ratio, is because it is impossible. If we assert that fish evolved into frogs, since this is a theory to being with, the ratio also makes it more of a theory which puts it higher on the improbable scale.

Unless there is a point of reference of ratio for every probable data, you are just guessing. And a guess is NOT knowing.

Probability is always a ratio of a guess. To know is to eliminate all probability.

Since the attack on Christianity (modern attack) people have tried to find a way to know absolutely without Christianity. They all failed. So now, they REDEFINE knowledge as a guess, and think they can intellectually get away with this.

Thus all science (secular science) is a guess which is the opposite of the known.

Some Christian Scientists do know. For example, my friend and Ph.D geologist Dr. Steve Austin studied the Grand Canyon with a budget of $20,000. His finds were very well put together since he started from the known.

More could be said. But please tell me why any un ratio of of error is knowledge if what you "know" is unknown via the chances of it being wrong.

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:We agree

Jean Chauvin wrote:

We agree that you cannot prove anything absolutely

STFU with that millenia old hackneyed bullshit. It adds nothing of value to any conversation. If you're depressed about your limited scientific understanding, then go see a shrink, for your emotional trauma.

But stop spreading disinformation and trying to depress people.

 

There are virtually no limits, what can be 'computed' with the aid of computers and software. You don't even have a clue what they can do.

And don't even attempt to lie that you do, because you don't. Otherwise you'd be a 'beta tester', like I am, for software that isn't close to commercial release.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
As I've said before, the probability ratio is NEVER done.

That doesn't prevent anything from being accomplished.

Not in the slightest.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If we say for example that pigs don't fly, something absurd. For us to KNOW this we must observe every single pig on this earth at the same time. This is impossible.

It doesn't matter.

Pigs don't fly, unless they do. But unless they do, we can learn virtually everything else about them, including whether the potential exists that they do something other than what we've observed, for all intents and purposes.

Whether pigs can fly is not likely relevant to how the universe began, you fucking tool.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So what's never done is the ratio of that statment being right or wrong.

No reason to. It's a complete waste of time.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
The reason why nobody does a ratio, is because it is impossible.

No, because it's stupid, and a complete waste of time.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
If we assert that fish evolved into frogs, since this is a theory to being with, the ratio also makes it more of a theory which puts it higher on the improbable scale.

Not the fucking argument from incredulity canard again.

 

Lightning never strikes twice, huh, Jean Jean?

 

It's amazing how elastic your 'imagination' is, when it assuages your emotions, and how rigid and pedantic it is, when it doesn't. Mommy didn't breastfeed you enuf?

I've beat another one of you clowns senseless, trying to use that "Do you know what the odds are????" bullshit appeal to emotions.

 

The odds of something that has already happened, are 1 in 1. In other words, the odds were 'perfect'. It could NOT have happened any other way, than it DID.

The odds of it happening 'again'????

Who fucking knows how you'd even go about devising a method to calculate something that enormous.

But it's all for naught.

There is no reason to assume that what happened once, would not similarly happening again, in any length of time, from the previous instant.

Chew on that cud for a while, you silly theist.

 

You really are a stupid POS, who's too ignorant to know how clueless you really are.

 

 

 

 

 

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


B166ER
atheist
B166ER's picture
Posts: 557
Joined: 2010-03-01
User is offlineOffline
ummm... why?

Oh wow... where to begin...

Jean Chauvinism, resident troll wrote:
We agree that you cannot prove anything absolutely, yet you say that doesn't mean one doens't know. I'll assume you'll serious and I'll try to clarify for you. Very good definition of probability.

As I've said before, the probability ratio is NEVER done. If we say for example that pigs don't fly, something absurd. For us to KNOW this we must observe every single pig on this earth at the same time. This is impossible. So what's never done is the ratio of that statment being right or wrong.

First off, you really need to work on your writing. "I'll assume you'll serious" makes no sense, and doesn't even look like a simple typing mistake from the placement of the keys on the keyboard. You must know that not being able to properly structure a sentence makes it hard for people to believe you on matters of cosmic importance, right? Just saying.

Back on the subject, pigs totally fly dude, and First Mate Piggy's amphibian boyfriend plays a mean guitar! RAINBOW CONNECTION FTW!

Ok, joking aside.

Using your example of pigs flying, we have observed pigs for longer then humans have been recording information, and never has one flown. Never... well, unless you count falling off things like cliffs flying, which is stretching it. All the accumulated evidence we have shows that things shaped as they are can't fly. Everything we have documented flying is shaped significantly different then pigs are. So with the evidence available, the probability of pigs being able to fly is so close to zero as to be effectively zero. Nice try though.

I know that pigs don't fly, but I'm not arrogant enough to claim I know anything with 100% certainty because I know that I can and have been wrong about things in the past and am accounting for that. Am I wrong on pigs not flying? The evidence doesn't seem to point to that possibility as being very probable, but Jim Henson may yet be proven right. We may live in an objective universe, but we observe it through the subjective perspective that our sensory organs help our brains construct. So I account for that, which is why I won't claim 100% certainty about things.

You, on the other hand, have no problem gibbering on about certainty in the claims of a book, that makes known factual errors, and then claim that because the world is different then what's written within it's pages, then the world and not the book must be wrong.

Now lets look at another example. From all your posts, the evidence would seem to point out that you don't have even two working brain cells in that skull of yours. Now, I can't know anything with 100% certainty, granted, but with the evidence at hand, the chance of you being an intelligent person is effectively zero. I can't be 100% certain, as you may be pulling the most successful poe in the history of the interwebz, but the evidence points to you just being an idiot.

Jean Chauvinism, resident troll wrote:
Since the attack on Christianity (modern attack) people have tried to find a way to know absolutely without Christianity. They all failed.

Oh, like how you know absolutely that bats are fowl, rabbits chew cud, and above the sky is a set amount of water that your god gets to decide when to release when he wants to? That kind of "absolute knowledge" sounds a lot like the stupid ramblings of ignorant bronze age tribesmen, and not the insight of a cosmic deity who created and knows everything. But what do I know, since I base my information on the world around me and not what some factually incorrect tome of ancient stupidity would have me believe!

Jean Chauvinism, resident troll wrote:
Some Christian Scientists do know. For example, my friend and Ph.D geologist Dr. Steve Austin studied the Grand Canyon with a budget of $20,000. His finds were very well put together since he started from the known.

If he already knew, then what the fuck did he spend 20 grand on? Why would there be geologists, or any field of study for that matter, if things are already known? That would be like me needing money to "study" if I'm a nerd or not. Look at my avatar! It's the fecking TARDIS from Doctor Who for cripes sake! Of course I'm a nerd! Now don't get me wrong, if anybody wants to pay me 20 grand for that kind of "research", I'd be more then happy to take them up on it, but it won't change the fact that it would be a complete waste of both time and money. If I had spent money to "find" out what I already knew, it would have been as much of a waste of time and resources as what your friend did.

Plus, isn't Ph.D an evil, secular, god hating thing. That's what I've gathered from your previous rants against the evils of science. I'm surprised you hang out with evil, god hating academics!

"This may shock you, but not everything in the bible is true." The only true statement ever to be uttered by Jean Chauvinism, sociopathic emotional terrorist.
"A Boss in Heaven is the best excuse for a boss on earth, therefore If God did exist, he would have to be abolished." Mikhail Bakunin
"The means in which you take,
dictate the ends in which you find yourself."
"Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme leadership derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!"
No Gods, No Masters!