faith not science

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
faith not science

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110512/ap_on_re_us/us_dna_hearing_texas

It only took "god" and "faith" 27 years to come up with a dna test to free him, isn't that awesome.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


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

Hi OPY,

You phrased your thread wrong. It ought to be framed as reason OR faith. I know what you mean though. Kind of funny. The Christian position is that one cannot have science without faith. And thus all secular science is non-sense or non-science. Those that work, are stolen from Christianity under the secular name.

It's more of a game then anything else.

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).


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: The

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 The Christian position is that one cannot have science without faith. And thus all secular science is non-sense or non-science.

You mean yours right? I don't need faith to know that most cells have a wall, yours is quite obvious.. after all.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


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

Hi Rob,

I am simply helping you to be a better athiest, since you kind of suck as an atheist. But yes, in terms of logic, you do need to have faith (Biblical faith) to know that cells have walls. If it is not in the Bible, then we are dealing with probability, and not knowledge.

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).


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi Rob,I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rob,

I am simply helping you to be a better athiest, since you kind of suck as an atheist. But yes, in terms of logic, you do need to have faith (Biblical faith) to know that cells have walls. If it is not in the Bible, then we are dealing with probability, and not knowledge.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Yes I'm aware of the difference in blind "biblical" faith and faith based on observation and experience though I don't consider the latter to be much faith at all. Observable action/reaction, repeatable results and experience through prior testing is not quite faith but reasoning and probable cause.

Faith that when I drop a rock it will hit the ground is not the same faith as dropping a rock and expecting it to float.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


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

Hi Rob,

Um, not sure what you meant by that. Blind faith is Existialism, not Chrisitanity. That is more atheistic since Existialism is a denomination of atheism.

Observation and experimentation is never knowledge, since if you did the same things 51,745 times of an experiment, you do not KNOW if it will occur the 51746 time. Thus, both original and origin science is never knowledge, only probablility via a presupposition of an assumption.

But you're getting off track here.

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).


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rob,

Um, not sure what you meant by that. Blind faith is Existialism, not Chrisitanity. That is more atheistic since Existialism is a denomination of atheism.

Observation and experimentation is never knowledge, since if you did the same things 51,745 times of an experiment, you do not KNOW if it will occur the 51746 time. Thus, both original and origin science is never knowledge, only probablility via a presupposition of an assumption.

But you're getting off track here.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Probable cause is not blind faith. As for the rest of what you are saying I can't really hear you past the Jeanful insight. It almost seems as if you are saying we don't really know how to produce electricity.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rob,

I am simply helping you to be a better athiest, since you kind of suck as an atheist. But yes, in terms of logic, you do need to have faith (Biblical faith) to know that cells have walls. If it is not in the Bible, then we are dealing with probability, and not knowledge.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

You have to love Jean. At least he's consistent...

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


ymalmsteen887
Posts: 306
Joined: 2011-02-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Jean

Atheistextremist wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rob,

I am simply helping you to be a better athiest, since you kind of suck as an atheist. But yes, in terms of logic, you do need to have faith (Biblical faith) to know that cells have walls. If it is not in the Bible, then we are dealing with probability, and not knowledge.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

You have to love Jean. At least he's consistent...

I dont get this guy there is no way he is for real.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1829
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
ymalmsteen887

ymalmsteen887 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rob,

I am simply helping you to be a better athiest, since you kind of suck as an atheist. But yes, in terms of logic, you do need to have faith (Biblical faith) to know that cells have walls. If it is not in the Bible, then we are dealing with probability, and not knowledge.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

You have to love Jean. At least he's consistent...

I dont get this guy there is no way he is for real.

hehe, I stopped questioning, I just go with it, he's funny.

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


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

Hello,

You say I'm funny because you hit a brick wall and are now unconscious intellectually speaking. How can Christianity be blind faith, if the notion of blind faith is an invention of the 1800's via Kirkengarrd? He was pronounced as a heretic. Sarte came later and started another atheist denomination of Existialism. So you are confusing the history of philosophy.

Secular empiricism is blind faith, because you never know what will happen. If you did an experiment on blowing air in a car tire. And each time it worked. And you did it 1000 times. You do not know if it will blow air in a tire 1001 times. Thus, you do not know. You have to do the same thing for infinity to know.

Thus it is blind since secularists assume that is will happen via the uniformitarian theory. This happens ALL the time in geology and is a secular principle of geology. Even though the principle deals with the past, they also apply it to the future experiments.

So anyway, I am just trying to help you. Here are the 4 views.

Faith AND Reason (My position)

Reason And Faith (Empiricism) - You

Faith OR Reason (Mysticism)

Reason OR Faith (Rationalism)

There is no 5th view.

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).


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: Secular

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

Secular empiricism is blind faith, because you never know what will happen. If you did an experiment on blowing air in a car tire. And each time it worked. And you did it 1000 times. You do not know if it will blow air in a tire 1001 times. Thus, you do not know. You have to do the same thing for infinity to know.

Would you have reason to believe the car tire would not air up if it had worked 1000 times? God is not demonstratable at all.  You are much too deep into the philosophy pool with your rubber ducky. /squeak squeak

Discuss with common sense when dealing with my ilk if you please, I am simple and rather dim witted and happily so when it comes to deep philosophical bullshit..or have you the capacity to stoop from your pedestal to join someone in the lower plane of reality?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


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

Hi Rob,

Since belief is not knowledge according to weak atheism, then you statement "reason to believe" is irrelavant. The issue is knowledge. While Christianity says belief is knowledge.

According to empiricism, which starts with particulars only, you can only go off of sense data. You assume blindly that it will occur again. It is blind since you are working inductively up a ladder with zero z priori thinking and zero presupposition.

Schilereieimacher said that knowledge is not objective, but only via passion. Perhaps this is more your cup of tea?

Yes, God is not demonstrable via empiricism, but God is via demonstration of argument verses substantiation. Meaning we work with what we know, not what we don't know.

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).


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rob,

Since belief is not knowledge according to weak atheism, then you statement "reason to believe" is irrelavant. The issue is knowledge. While Christianity says belief is knowledge.

According to empiricism, which starts with particulars only, you can only go off of sense data. You assume blindly that it will occur again. It is blind since you are working inductively up a ladder with zero z priori thinking and zero presupposition.

Schilereieimacher said that knowledge is not objective, but only via passion. Perhaps this is more your cup of tea?

Yes, God is not demonstrable via empiricism, but God is via demonstration of argument verses substantiation. Meaning we work with what we know, not what we don't know.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You didn't follow through properly. When you turn the key to your car do you first ponder if it will start? Do you worry or just assume it will start from prior experience? One day when it doesn't start do you assume it will never start again or do you think maybe it's time to replace the battery? If your car has been running fine and every morning you break out in a sweat wondering if it will start with absolutely no reason to expect it wont, you may have a problem and it's not the car.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


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

Hi Rob,

No I do not ponder when I turn my key. Well, sometimes I do. Anyway, the issue is not about pondering, it is about knowing. The key will start the car probably or not probably (if it's a Ford or GMC). If it's a toyota, it's very probable it will start. But probability is not knowledge, and that's the issue we're talking about.

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:Hi Rob,No

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rob,

No I do not ponder when I turn my key. Well, sometimes I do. Anyway, the issue is not about pondering, it is about knowing. The key will start the car probably or not probably (if it's a Ford or GMC). If it's a toyota, it's very probable it will start. But probability is not knowledge, and that's the issue we're talking about.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

So, you don't use empiricism to gain knowledge then Jean? do you just walk around muttering bible verses all day?  How do you dress yourself in the morning? Is it written in Revelations that Jean shall wear the pink shirt with the yellow bandana hanging out of your jeans back pocket, on May 13th, 2011? 

I think you probably use empiricism to pick out your clothing and apply your makeup, or whatever else you do in the mirror in the morning Smiling

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


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

Hi KTULA,

Logic does not apply to everything. It does not apply to jokes. And it does not apply to your favorite Ice Scream. It also does not apply to picking out clothing.

While I do use my senses since God created them, I do not use them for knowing, since this is non-Biblical. If I'm going to wear a yellow shirt is not empiricim.

Also, color is not empiricial per sa. Locke said they were 2nd attributes, and put them on the inferior category of reality.

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:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi KTULA,

Logic does not apply to everything. It does not apply to jokes. And it does not apply to your favorite Ice Scream. It also does not apply to picking out clothing.

While I do use my senses since God created them, I do not use them for knowing, since this is non-Biblical. If I'm going to wear a yellow shirt is not empiricim.

Also, color is not empiricial per sa. Locke said they were 2nd attributes, and put them on the inferior category of reality.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Well, you either believe your sense, or you believe that god is the ultimate frame of reference for everything.  And you're wrong, logic does apply to everything. Smiling

You should know that Jean.  Colour is most definitely determined empirically, do you think your yellow shirt uses telepathy to give you that bit of information about itself? I think it uses photons at a frequency that equates with colour yellow.  

So let me get this straight, you criticize empirical method but you believe logic doesn't apply to everything, and you think that colour information is gained telepathically... Jean, Jean, you talk about consistency.

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi Rob,No

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Rob,

No I do not ponder when I turn my key. Well, sometimes I do. Anyway, the issue is not about pondering, it is about knowing. The key will start the car probably or not probably (if it's a Ford or GMC). If it's a toyota, it's very probable it will start. But probability is not knowledge, and that's the issue we're talking about.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

So, what you are saying is that we can't know anything but your jeebus..

There are no absolutes, a purple unicorn with tarantula legs and a holy bible inlaid in it's forehead could crawl out of your ass but it's not really likely imo..I'm just sayin'.

edit: no you don't have to check your ass every morning now ..really, yea.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


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

Hello,

Logic does not apply to everything, you are wrong. Please explain the logic via the difference between a pregnant woman and a light bulb in which you can unscrew a lightbulb.

One's favorite Ice Scream is outside the scope of logic.

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).


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3506
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:One's

Jean Chauvin wrote:

One's favorite Ice Scream is outside the scope of logic.

   .....and your ramblings are outside the scope of sanity.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Jean

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

One's favorite Ice Scream is outside the scope of logic.

   .....and your ramblings are outside the scope of sanity.

qft, I wonder if he even knows what he is saying let alone understands it.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

Logic does not apply to everything, you are wrong. Please explain the logic via the difference between a pregnant woman and a light bulb in which you can unscrew a lightbulb.

One's favorite Ice Scream is outside the scope of logic.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

When you ask a logical question I'll let you know.

But what is my favorite "ice scream" mr spock on an lsd trip.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi KTULA,

Logic does not apply to everything. It does not apply to jokes. And it does not apply to your favorite Ice Scream. It also does not apply to picking out clothing.

While I do use my senses since God created them, I do not use them for knowing, since this is non-Biblical. If I'm going to wear a yellow shirt is not empiricim.

Also, color is not empiricial per sa. Locke said they were 2nd attributes, and put them on the inferior category of reality.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

What colors are as qualia are experiential and therefore yes empirical mental symbols for whatever it is we actually experience. Since I am pragmatic I think that there is actual correspondence of the mental symbol (which is actually a language) to the external world.  While qualia can not be shared we can through verbal language point and objectify what our mental language represents and agree upon reality empirically.


 

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

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: While I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

While I do use my senses since God created them, I do not use them for knowing, since this is non-Biblical. If I'm going to wear a yellow shirt is not empiricim.

 

So you admit you know nothing outside of the biblical, why are you here yapping ?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ScientiaPotenti...
Posts: 20
Joined: 2011-04-02
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Jean Chauvin

robj101 wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

While I do use my senses since God created them, I do not use them for knowing, since this is non-Biblical. If I'm going to wear a yellow shirt is not empiricim.

 

So you admit you know nothing outside of the biblical, why are you here yapping ?

Another conclussion on this is that if Jean is doing the same experiment as an atheist scientist, the atheist scientist doesn't know the results for a truth but Jean knows the result as a truth.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3192
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is onlineOnline
Atheistextremist wrote: You

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

You have to love Jean. At least he's consistent...

ROFLMAO. I gotta admit, I do find Jean to be very entertaining and funny. More entertaining than another thread where a certain theist proclaims that "It works for him".

However, it can only be one or two things. Either he really is as fanatic as he says (doubtful, in my opinion, ) and just enjoys attempts to get a rise out of us. Or, he is a devout Atheist that enjoys playing the role of POE. I almost suspect the latter, but empirical observation says it could be the former.

But, I look on the bright side of his posts. If he is really for real and talks to all of these people that he claims to have encountered, think of how many agnostics out there will become Atheists if he encounters them on the streets ?

Got to hand it to you Jean, as  much fun as I have trying to annoy you, if you are truly as you say you are, think about ALL the Atheists that you have probably helped jump from the Agnostic position.

Probably helping the cause more than I, Dawkins, Penn and Teller, and the whole crew of "evil pagan apostates" could ever do. And I do admit to being a proud apostate.

A Respectfully Strong Atheist of rare intelligence with an epistemology of non belief in fictional deities that has a sound argument against all forms of theism (LOL)

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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Observation and experimentation is never knowledge, since if you did the same things 51,745 times of an experiment, you do not KNOW if it will occur the 51746 time.

The definition of insanity.

You've probably asserted that Jesus was the son of God more times than that, and you still don't know if it's true, yet you persist.

 

Classic...

 

Jean Jean, still can't reconcile the distinction between 'faith', and 'understanding' universal laws.

He probably licked one too many door jambs as a child that were covered with 'leaded' paint, and still thinks there's no proof he has suffered arrested development as a result.

What a fucking tool...

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


ZeroSignal
atheist
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:You

Atheistextremist wrote:

You have to love Jean. At least he's consistent...

 

Too consistent, I do believe he is a bot.  That's the only explanation.

____

The bible, good fiction? A 3 year old can write a better story.