LOVE??? IS IT POSSIBLE FOR AN ATHEIST?

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
LOVE??? IS IT POSSIBLE FOR AN ATHEIST?

Absolutely not. An atheist cannot define love. They borrow Christian thinking like Dan Barker does on ethics, but consistent atheism would say that love is a brain squirt of a chemical reaction in the brain. So if your kids give you a hug, that's not really love. Just a chemical reaction.

Since consistent atheists cannot love, they cannot fall in love. Rather they hate. In fact, consistent atheists like Mao, committed so many hate crimes, but he was just being consistent as an atheist.

This is why atheists are stupid. They know they love there child via being created in the image of God. They supress this and kill it by removing all meaning and worth. They're like that king, everything would turn to gold, with atheism everything would turn to death.

Atheism cannot answer any of life's questions. When amatuers atheists here this, they play dead by saying, oh atheism isn't a system. It's not a belief system or a worldview.

Only Christianity provides a meaning and purpose for love. When you hug  your children or pour wine for your romantic love, there's something there. It's not empty nothingness.

An atheist is like a golfball that can't get in the hole. It knows about love but to be consistent would be a lack of love lol. Not a denial but a lack of lol.

Quit ripping off Chrisitnaity. be consisent in yoru atheism. Have a worthless kind of love for your kids. I'm sur ethey'd appreciate that. No wonder Anton LaVey castrated his son. He too was an atheist.

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).


Antipatris
atheist
Antipatris's picture
Posts: 187
Joined: 2011-05-20
User is offlineOffline
What fresh hell is this ??

What fresh hell is this ??


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
 I see you have met Jean

 I see you have met Jean Smiling he's back and in form.

I have to agree with you in principle Jean.  Everything we experience is "a brain squirt of a chemical reaction in the brain".  Everything is just an electrical/chemical interaction of our neurons.  So LOVE, HATE, FARTING, and everything else are fundamentally equating.  Love has no less worth in a consistent relativistic view than any objective frame of reference you can provide.  In fact, you are cheapening LOVE by making it something that can only be of a third party (god in this case).  My pragmatic approach to emotions make them so much more real.

It is as though you are saying I'm not really tasting an apple because I'm not a Christian.  I taste the apple the same as you, I experience love the same as you. 

"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

Here's my complaint. They profess relativity like you confirmed in teh hypothetical, but then in the practical, when your kid loocks up and asks why you love her., you give her abstract reasons. An atheist cannot get it straight.

We both taste the same apple. But which worldview best corresponds to what is really happening? Since atheism is relaivistic like you say, then you could be eating an apple or the but of an elephant. They both taste like apples, but maybe elephant but tastes like apple.

Regarding seeng the apple. Well, i've already refuted empiricism. Since time and space being non empirical elements to the problem this means empiricism falis and you don't know what you're doing.

And finally, since everything is in the subjective, and there is no objective uiniversal for apple. Then it is only your opinion it's an apple. If it's an apple to you then it's an apple to you, if it's an apple to me it's an apple to me lol.

Atheism has problems. Just like Pre George Smith Days. So you have to come up with a new denomination to fix this like they did with weak atheism.

Thus since the reality of love has nothing to tie itself to via knowledge of universals, then love is unknown. Thus you don't know if you love your child or not. Since feeligs are non logicaly.

So when you ask yours kids, do you love me dad, if you're being honest, you're not sure.Perhaps throwing your kids out the window is your own personal kind of love. Or throwing off a building, Or even puching them. It's all relative. there are no objective absolutes. So if you punch your kid in the face and get that squirty feeling, then that's atheistic love.

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).


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
HATE??? IS IT POSSIBLE FOR

HATE??? IS IT POSSIBLE FOR AN ATHEIST?

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13836
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Welcome back Jean. What

Welcome back Jean. What happened, did you get tired of wacking off over Lott and his daughters?

 

"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: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Love has to be much more

Love has to be much more consistent with an Atheist world-view, considering what a hateful prick God is, especially the version of the myth Jean appears to believe in.

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


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

Hi,

You guys. I almost have a tear in my eye? Oh wait, that's just dust. So nobody can answer my question? How convenient. Yes, hate is consistent for atheism, since all atheists are extremely evil to the core, and since atheism philospohically speaking is a form of anarchy and communism (anarchry for it's leaders), thenlogically atheistm is a hate crim.

atheism is a hate crims. They would kill with smiles and are nutty nuts. The only thing holding them from the brink of crazy glue is the Christian influence i bring to the table.

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).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi,You

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi,

You guys. I almost have a tear in my eye? Oh wait, that's just dust. So nobody can answer my question? How convenient. Yes, hate is consistent for atheism, since all atheists are extremely evil to the core, and since atheism philospohically speaking is a form of anarchy and communism (anarchry for it's leaders), thenlogically atheistm is a hate crim.

atheism is a hate crims. They would kill with smiles and are nutty nuts. The only thing holding them from the brink of crazy glue is the Christian influence i bring to the table.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Crazy glue? Well, Jeannine, you're half right. It's not the glue half though.

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


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi,You

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi,

You guys. I almost have a tear in my eye? Oh wait, that's just dust. So nobody can answer my question? How convenient. Yes, hate is consistent for atheism, since all atheists are extremely evil to the core, and since atheism philospohically speaking is a form of anarchy and communism (anarchry for it's leaders), thenlogically atheistm is a hate crim.

Jean are you a poe? Common you can tell me...your not really this bonkers right?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hi Jean

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Absolutely not. An atheist cannot define love. They borrow Christian thinking like Dan Barker does on ethics, but consistent atheism would say that love is a brain squirt of a chemical reaction in the brain. So if your kids give you a hug, that's not really love. Just a chemical reaction.

Since consistent atheists cannot love, they cannot fall in love. Rather they hate. In fact, consistent atheists like Mao, committed so many hate crimes, but he was just being consistent as an atheist.

This is why atheists are stupid. They know they love there child via being created in the image of God. They supress this and kill it by removing all meaning and worth. They're like that king, everything would turn to gold, with atheism everything would turn to death.

Atheism cannot answer any of life's questions. When amatuers atheists here this, they play dead by saying, oh atheism isn't a system. It's not a belief system or a worldview.

Only Christianity provides a meaning and purpose for love. When you hug  your children or pour wine for your romantic love, there's something there. It's not empty nothingness.

An atheist is like a golfball that can't get in the hole. It knows about love but to be consistent would be a lack of love lol. Not a denial but a lack of lol.

Quit ripping off Chrisitnaity. be consisent in yoru atheism. Have a worthless kind of love for your kids. I'm sur ethey'd appreciate that. No wonder Anton LaVey castrated his son. He too was an atheist.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Please define love. And then explain using data you've gathered how you know this thing relates in any way to external agency, the metaphysical or the concept of soul. And don't pretend your mental experience is the same as testable explanation. 

 

 

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
The "Love" in Christianity

The "Love" in Christianity is the 'love' of the abusing husband to his wife.

Christianity provides no proper basis for love or morality, it just demands you obey the commands of the evil being known as God, and suck up to him.

God is a wildly inconsistent concept, a definer and ultimate source of Love and Goodness who creates a world full of things that afflict us, and is purported to have had temper tantrums and drowned the world, or sent more localized disasters on whole cities or nations who pissed him off.

OTOH, real love and morality are based on our evolved empathy and drive toward cooperation as a social species.

Unfortunately, evolution has also wired into us an instinct to follow the 'alpha male', which is obviously what helps inspire the urge to follow the imagined ultimate 'alpha male', ie God. This does have a purpose when the group finds itself stressed, and must act in a more coordinated way, and especially if in conflict for resources with another group, but can be manipulated by those with a desire to exert power over the rest of us.

If the group is inclined to follow one of these mythical hyper-alpha-male figures, that can be exploited to manipulate the followers. Just as with other authoritarian, absolutist system, such as those fostered by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Even today, there are those in parts of Russia who miss "Uncle Joe", seen as a powerful father figure who took care of them, not unlike a God.

The balance of these impulses drives much of our behaviour, and things can go seriously wrong when either is triggered inappropriately for the circumstances.

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


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

Hello,

The Greek uses the term loves in a few ways. When it's to love God via loving our neighbors it's agape. Since this is required. However, via a human contact nature of one to one, almost every time the term is PHILOS. This is a kind of back and fouth love of joyful sacrifice and dedication to providine and protecting them. As a result of this, feelings happen.

I know this via the implications found in Scripture deductively speaking from the axioms of God as the Infinite Reference Point. I argue straight down.

_______________________

Bob,

This is stupid.I know that's what atheists belive. Johanson tried to come on with a evoluationary way to explain language. lol. It was more out of what they call science and more into the philosophical what he wanted.

Since love in evolution and atheist remains forever and ever subjective. And since there are no universals tieing it down to knowing, then you don't know if you're loving. You don't know. You could be humpping your cat.

Darwin had no "scientifical" explanation for the man as the head but a kind of guess. He said since the men are hunters, and thus bring the food back to the family, that would place them as head and evolution just evolved them that way.

Um, Bob, that's not science. You'd be a fools really to swallow bullshit.

But just for fun, evolutions love to talk about the man's descent. For this would be a goodplace to start.

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).


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Adventures in labelling

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

The Greek uses the term loves in a few ways. When it's to love God via loving our neighbors it's agape. Since this is required. However, via a human contact nature of one to one, almost every time the term is PHILOS. This is a kind of back and fouth love of joyful sacrifice and dedication to providine and protecting them. As a result of this, feelings happen.

I know this via the implications found in Scripture deductively speaking from the axioms of God as the Infinite Reference Point. I argue straight down.

 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Ok - so what was love again - apart from an arbitrary label applied by those without knowledge of neurology. 

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


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Only

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Only Christianity provides a meaning and purpose for love. When you hug your children or pour wine for your romantic love, there's something there. It's not empty nothingness.

Having the apparent monopoly on love and romance, you'de think they would have a lower divorce rate than atheist.

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


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

The divorce rate is the inconsistent means of Christainity. This is due to you atheist liberals taking a bite right in the ass of the Christian Church. WIth your homosexual freak out nutty nuts. So as a  result, intelligence has gone down. That's why most Christians you encounter don't know what they'r talkking about.

And as a result of the impotency of knowledge comes ethics. in 1841 the divorce rate among Christians was very low. Because the poisonous bite of liberal anarcy had yet inserted their venom.

Regarding the post of "Get your hands behind your head and on the ground, NOW!!!" um, is that the best you can do?
 

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).


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
You just narrowed the

You just narrowed the playing field to include not just a person with christian faith but also some arbitrary measurement of intelligence. What may I ask is next, do they need to be of Scottish origin?

 

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
neptewn wrote:You just

neptewn wrote:

You just narrowed the playing field to include not just a person with christian faith but also some arbitrary measurement of intelligence. What may I ask is next, do they need to be of Scottish origin?

 But they must be of TRUE Scottish origin! Smiling   I find arguments with Jean useful for two reasons.  Once in a while he throws a logic curveball that I haven't considered, and secondly, it gives us a good opportunity to point out the absurdity of claims that epitomize Christianity.  That, and he's funny at times.

 

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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Chuckle...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

The divorce rate is the inconsistent means of Christainity. This is due to you atheist liberals taking a bite right in the ass of the Christian Church. WIth your homosexual freak out nutty nuts. So as a  result, intelligence has gone down. That's why most Christians you encounter don't know what they'r talkking about. In 1841 the divorce rate among Christians was very low. Because the poisonous bite of liberal anarcy had yet inserted their venom.

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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
rule 0.5

jc wrote:
Atheism cannot answer any of life's questions.

Neither can you.

jc wrote:
They both taste like apples, but maybe elephant but tastes like apple.

I don't understand, even if it is like that, what are you trying to show?

jc wrote:
And finally, since everything is in the subjective, and there is no objective uiniversal for apple.

Because that would be nonsense. Darwin has been quoted: evolution demonstrated thousand of years of philosophy and theology false.
And that includes universals.

You have not shown to know sufficiently what love and religion are. Religion is so empty of evidence that it's merely a cultural knowledge. Not so many decades ago christians retained right to beat their children, and I knew one that was effectively beaten -- I heard him.
And again it's like you are saying that someone that is not christian can only be a robot. You should start to think about the fact that, instead, explaining the world with a religion poses more questions that it answer them.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I thought of making a

I thought of making a brilliant essay for you, Jean, to nibble on... but then I just settled for

“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)


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1616
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re::Atheists are sure borrowing alot from christianity So I hear

Quote:
Only Christianity provides a meaning and purpose for love. When you hug  your children or pour wine for your romantic love, there's something there. It's not empty nothingness

 Just tell me why you're posting this here?  You're not contributing to the boards and you certainly don't seem to be trying to spark a conversation of any relevance to the boards.      Although,  Query. How many different "faiths" (plural) allow and affirm the institution of marriage between a man and a woman?  I only wish we could get the Michelle and Bob Duggar's perspective.

  Throughout this thread, Interestingly, What your (Jean Chauvin) comments tell us is that Jean Chauvin is unable to make clear distinctions between various groups  or better categories.  This frankly is not what I would  expect from Jean. Open  it up a little bit  because I, all of a sudden, do not get you man. Anyone care to explain this observation of mine ?  Have I stumbled upon something ?  

 _ _ _ _ _

 .....  depeche mode depeche mode depeche mode.  Other  eighties music. God please dont allow that (please)

 

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3730
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Absolutely not. An atheist cannot define love.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/love

1. a profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person.

2. a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection, as for a parent, child, or friend.

3. sexual passion or desire.

4. a person toward whom love is felt; beloved person; sweetheart.

5. (used in direct address as a term of endearment, affection, or the like): Would you like to see a movie, love?

Quote:
Since consistent atheists cannot love, they cannot fall in love. Rather they hate. In fact, consistent atheists like Mao, committed so many hate crimes, but he was just being consistent as an atheist.

Lol.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13836
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Come on guys, you are being

Come on guys, you are being too harsh on Jean. He's only defending a god who condones genocide as a conflict/resolution formula. Not just the flood of the bible, but hey, why not unleash a tsunami on Japan which has virtually  no crime rate to speak of, and a highly educated population.

I wonder if Jean hangs out with Dave Mabus?

"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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Come on guys,

Brian37 wrote:

Come on guys, you are being too harsh on Jean. He's only defending a god who condones genocide as a conflict/resolution formula. Not just the flood of the bible, but hey, why not unleash a tsunami on Japan which has virtually  no crime rate to speak of, and a highly educated population.

I wonder if Jean hangs out with Dave Mabus?

So his god can hate us but we can't hate ourselves?! Puzzled


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

lol, so some atheist says you can't define universals and actually attacks them, then butter ball attempts to define. lol. Definition is only possible if you have universals.

Once again, the various denominations of atheism.

Can somebody answer my question. If atheism has all the answers, why does Dan Barker admittedly rip off Christian ethics?

Butter Ball doesn't know how to love unless she rips off Christiainity. So since there are no universals in atheism (consistent atheism), and since love can only be understood via universals, then you cannot know if you love your children. If you were to be honest, and your kids asked you if you love them, you honestly cannot answer the question.

The only thing you can do is lie.

All the other "religions" are false and only Christianity is right as the perfection of Judaism of the TaNaK.  or

You may disagree with my position, but you should at least agree with that one guy atheist who is consistent in this thread. If you cannot know, you cannot know if it's love that you have or evil intentions.

So since you're ripping off Christiainity to begin with, why not come all the way over and bow your knee to your Creator.

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).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Even if there are

Even if there are "Universals", it is not possible for beings with finite knowledge to know them with certainty.

It doesn't matter, since we only need minimal assumptions, such as the Laws of Logic, and that we exist, applied to what we empirically observe, to establish a consistent, workable model of reality.

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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
peace

Jean Chauvin wrote:
Butter Ball doesn't know how to love unless she rips off Christiainity. So since there are no universals in atheism (consistent atheism), and since love can only be understood via universals, then you cannot know if you love your children. If you were to be honest, and your kids asked you if you love them, you honestly cannot answer the question.

The only thing you can do is lie.

All the other "religions" are false and only Christianity is right as the perfection of Judaism of the TaNaK.

Love is defined as an extension of yourself over the loved object. You think as the recipient of your love as part of you.

Universal are only old deprecable ideas.

Last thing you seem not only pretty sure of yourself, but a bit imprecise: what the kid could know about "love"? How do you know what that kid means for 'love'?

Christianity is everything but perfect.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:lol, so

Jean Chauvin wrote:

lol, so some atheist says you can't define universals and actually attacks them, then butter ball attempts to define. lol. Definition is only possible if you have universals.

Once again, the various denominations of atheism.

Can somebody answer my question. If atheism has all the answers, why does Dan Barker admittedly rip off Christian ethics?

Butter Ball doesn't know how to love unless she rips off Christiainity. So since there are no universals in atheism (consistent atheism), and since love can only be understood via universals, then you cannot know if you love your children. If you were to be honest, and your kids asked you if you love them, you honestly cannot answer the question.

The only thing you can do is lie.

All the other "religions" are false and only Christianity is right as the perfection of Judaism of the TaNaK.  or

You may disagree with my position, but you should at least agree with that one guy atheist who is consistent in this thread. If you cannot know, you cannot know if it's love that you have or evil intentions.

So since you're ripping off Christiainity to begin with, why not come all the way over and bow your knee to your Creator.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Which Christianity is right? Calvinism, Arminianism, Methodism? one of the others listed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_Christian_theology?

No thanks. What you bow your knee to and call the creator is itself a creation. I thought you didn't do idolatry.

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


neptewn
Silver Member
neptewn's picture
Posts: 296
Joined: 2007-06-25
User is offlineOffline
The concept of love existed

The concept of love existed long before "Christian Thinking" was around.  Quit trying to steal other peoples toys.

 

 

Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs


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

I agree with you that if there are universals it is impossible for finite people to know them with certainty. You remember our discussion. This is why empiricism is so weak and useless.

The only way for a person to know with absolute "certainty" (the term certainty denotes a probable in some circles), is if THE Creator of all universals Reveals absolute truth to you. Which is only found in Scriptures.

You and i agree though Bob. That was my argument forever a go on here. A particular or finite person not only cannot know, but cannot have value or purpose unless a Personalbe INfinite Reference Point gives them meaning by His eternal decree. Hypoethically speaking Bob from your position, or for the sake of argument, If you admit that God is true and if you admit that the Bible is inerrant and if you admit that God is eteranl and infinte, just for the sake of argument, if in your mind this was even possible, that would be the only way to know anything. And when i speak of the known that is only found in absolute truth.

))))))))))))

JCG, the Calvinists and Methodists don't disagree over essentials. Only non essentials. Atheists however, disagree regarding the essentials of atheism, or those things that tie the atheistic/humanistic worldview toegether.

_____________________

Luca, you just made a proposition that love is an extension of  yourself. But again, there are no absolutes or known truth, so you don't know that for sure. Love may be the punching of somebodies face.

I agree love was around before the Bible. Adam and Eve had love for eachother. God instructed them on how to love since there was no Bible at that time. This is why Adam ate the "apple" not out of deception, but love for his wife. However, when God revealed truth to Moses areoun 1446 B>C. and the Bible was being written for the first time, it was recorded from the almight for us to know today.

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).


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Non essentials like who goes

Non essentials like who goes to heaven and who doesn't, Jean? Like I said before, you don't really know your Calvinism. Why claim what you don't understand?

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
JC, the problem with your

JC,

the problem with your approach is that our finite and fallible minds cannot know when they have selected the 'correct' source from which to comprehend or access the 'true' and 'absolute' reference point needed for attaining and recognizing the chimera of 'absolute' truth.

We have no way to distinguish when we are actually having the ultimate truth 'revealed' to us, even if that really happened, or just imagine we are. That in itself would require us to already be capable of 'absolute' and 'perfect' apprehension, which we could not 'know' we had, if we did. The whole idea of absolutes and perfection is part of the deeply deluded philosophy of Platonic Idealism. It is all circular and logically futile.

'Revelation' is the most fundamental delusion and logically nonsensical idea within religion.

It is ONLY by starting with the most basic assumptions of the Laws of Logic and applying them to our empirical observations that we can build a progressively refined model of reality, tested against reality, that we can achieve any degree of workable and practical knowledge.

The technology we are using to carry on this discussion is just one examples of the effectiveness and fruitfulness of this empirical approach, while the endlessly fragmenting and conflicting versions of religious doctrine and belief are evidence of the sterility of 'revelation'.

One of the few things I know with approaching 100% certainty, and know that I know it, is that this true 'wisdom' and insight will whoosh! right over your head, and both the brain cells within it, and you will come back with some version of the standard ad hominems and condescension you use to paper over your scripturally derived, wilful ignorance. See, even an ignorant atheist can do insults...

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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
ftw

jean wrote:
Luca, you just made a proposition that love is an extension of  yourself. But again, there are no absolutes or known truth, so you don't know that for sure. Love may be the punching of somebodies face.

Surprise surprise, punching someone in the face is not excluded as an act of love. What it is being determined is what is collected empirically, it's nonsense saying "you can't be sure". You just observed it.

Beating someone, by the way, was an act of love: parents beated their children to thoughen them up. I think that was part of the old testament too, but I saw it real.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
luca wrote:jean wrote:Luca,

luca wrote:

jean wrote:
Luca, you just made a proposition that love is an extension of  yourself. But again, there are no absolutes or known truth, so you don't know that for sure. Love may be the punching of somebodies face.

Surprise surprise, punching someone in the face is not excluded as an act of love. What it is being determined is what is collected empirically, it's nonsense saying "you can't be sure". You just observed it.

Beating someone, by the way, was an act of love: parents beated their children to thoughen them up. I think that was part of the old testament too, but I saw it real.

And, according to the OT, if your kids disobeyed you even slightly you were allowed to get the town together and stone them to death in the town square.

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


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

Again, i agree that we cannot distinguish truth from error, which is the same problem for empiricism and Rationlism. I Corinthians 1:14; 16 says so. However, if God changes your nature and gives you faith, or knowledge in understanding reality, then in that way you can know.

You kind of made my argument for me for your positions.

With God and God's Word being both axiomatic as i've explained before which is understood via the imago dei. So unless God gives you the gift of faith (knowing/belief) and grace, that is no way to know, again the natural man can only understand the nature and the spiritual only the spiritual.

Wait? you're a logician now? or an empiricist? You can't be both. But since logic is impersonal, and cannot answer the connection of Man's personality, it does nothing. Also, since there is not an infinite reference point to tie in the logic, then it cannot apply in the realm of knowledge but simply a code in the realm of a system.

Ad hominems are not neccessarily logical fallacies. I taught you this before. ad hominem abusives are . I have never committed an ad hominme abusive.

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).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Empirical research is

Empirical research is logical. Logic by itself establishing nothing but a collection of statements of the kind 'IF  <proposition A> AND proposition B> ... etc hold, THEN <X follows>.'

Empirical observation and experiment provides the content  of propositions A, B, etc, leading to the conclusion X as a valid and true implication of the empirical observations. Are you still failing to grasp this fundamental process?? Pity.

There is no way to know whether "God [has given] you the gift of faith", or you are just imagining it, so that idea has no utility whatever. It certainly provides no way to distinguish your 'faith' from others arrived at by the same mechanism, yet inconsistent with yours.

Of course since this information pulls the rug out from under your epistemology, and reveals your whole position to be based on logical fallacies applied to naked assertions which you label 'axioms', you will continue to stick your fingers in your ears and shout "la-la-la-la" as I yet again try to bring you up to speed with modern understanding. In your case, insulting atheists is your equivalent of shouting "la-la-la-la", containing no more sense.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10727
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This week, Jean kept fishing

This week, Jean kept fishing for a win, but kept falling on his face.

Tune in next week to see it happen again!

Same bat-time, Same bat-channel!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

We had this conversation again. I understand your position but you are again like before making a categorical fallacy.

A consistent empiricist can ONLY ONLY ONLY go by their exprience via there senses. You cannot sense or experience logical syllogisms Bob. If you mis the two you self refute yourself as a absurd baboon since they are antithetical.

As a result, you are an inconsistent empiricist and an inconsistent logician. Perhaps i need to start a thread adn actually qyote the words of actual empiricists because you just aren't getting it.

Of course there is a waya. Tabula Rasa is wrong. Since we are born not as blank sltes but as people imbedded with God's Imageo, we BEing God's image, then logically speaking, the faith or knowledge we receive corresponds to our make up of the image of God.

Also, Since God is axiomatic along with his Word, then the knowledge via Faith is the implication of the argument thus making the case that you can know according to my framework. You deny the axiom since you hate God or supress God and maess with your own head.

It does not pull anything but your chain. Axiomatically speaking via the impliaction of Scripture, i know that i know when i have faith to see what the implications are logically consistent of via the postulates and axioms.

Since you are finite, then you cannot refute me due to means that i start deductively from the Infinite Person, while you start with your shoes.

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).


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10727
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Poor jean doesn't know

Poor jean doesn't know fallacies or how to apply them. He doesn't know logic at all (god is the opposite of an axiom lolol), and has only a vague familiarity with the term empirical. He also doesn't know that children are born knowing nothing, so one must fervently hope, for childrens sake, that he never has kids. He'd abuse them to an extreme. The false idea that kids are born knowing anything at all would lead to beatings when the child demonstrated ignorance of any kind towards jeans invisible friend. He'd probably kill them, considering the hate that drips from every post he makes.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Ok, Jean, you still

Ok, Jean, you still obviously don't come anywhere near grasping the current state of how we gain knowledge, despite using technology derived from the process I have attempted to explain to you.

I qualified as an Electrical/Electronic Engineer, and spent much time over my life applying logic and math to the empirical data represented by the readings on my measuring equipment, and logically and mathematically analysing that data to work out how to correct malfunctions in the equipment, or how to adjust or modify a circuit I had designed to achieve a certain functionality. I was recognized by my peers and superiors as having talent in this field.

I have continued into the area of computer software development, which is totally based on logic, to the extent that any error of logic, any 'fallacy' encoded in the program, will cause the software to not work as intended.

So I am not speaking from pure speculation, or purely in an academic sense, about this.

You presumably cannot chew gum and walk at the same time.

You are telling me that the process used to design the computer you are using to communicate this idea to me is invalid...

 

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


luca
atheist
Posts: 400
Joined: 2011-02-21
User is offlineOffline
it 102

jcg wrote:
And, according to the OT, if your kids disobeyed you even slightly you were allowed to get the town together and stone them to death in the town square.

Jean Chauvin-deVille wrote:
With God and God's Word being both axiomatic as i've explained before which is understood via the imago dei. So unless God gives you the gift of faith (knowing/belief) and grace, that is no way to know, again the natural man can only understand the nature and the spiritual only the spiritual.

Oh, yeah, what happens when you have not-protected intercourse with faith? Abraham happens, so you do not beat your children, you directly sacrifice them!

jean wrote:
Also, Since God is axiomatic along with his Word, then the knowledge via Faith is the implication of the argument thus making the case that you can know according to my framework. You deny the axiom since you hate God or supress God and maess with your own head.

No it's easy to refute you: simply you're not univocal. Any imaginary being could do what you are arguing. From there to the the biblic gods (el/yhwh/NT god) there are eons.
Shall I suggest you some readings? Critical thinking, an appeal to reason - peg tittle:


There are many others:


Continuing:

jc wrote:
However, if God changes your nature and gives you faith, or knowledge in understanding reality, then in that way you can know.

Sorry but being Holy Spirit Inside (TM) changes nothing, since it's your immagination.

jc wrote:
Wait? you're a logician now? or an empiricist?

This has been explained to you. Everything is physical, it's nonsense "you cannot sense or experience logical syllogisms", because the ability to generalize is called "intelligence", but the sources of information are our senses. If you didn't have them you'd be a vegetal, with nothing to think on.

bob wrote:
You are telling me that the process used to design the computer you are using to communicate this idea to me is invalid...

[deVille mode on]
Fact: it is invalid. If you had the Holy Spirit Inside (TM) brand in your brain, your computers would be perfect.
[deVille mode off]


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jean is confusing an

Jean is confusing an absolutist 'definition' of Empiricism with the sense in which it is applied in practice today. Plus the error of treating Logic as 'knowledge' in the same category as knowledge of what entities exist, and the attributes of those entities, and the interactions between those entities, etc., with abstract principles of analysis, ie Logic and Math.

Although it is arguable that Logic can be incorporated into Empiricism, if you consider it based on the observation that the Laws of Logic are reasonable inferences from what we perceive to be the fundamental nature of reality, namely that we 'sense' that there are discretely identifiable 'entities', and that clear perception requires that any point cannot be both part of entity A and part of that which is not A simultaneously.

But really, Jean is just confused, period. Not capable of grasping such subtle arguments...

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


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

The fact that Loco you even knows about critical thinking let alone reading books about the subject means you're more on my side then on atheism. I mean, my Professor told me that there are no absolutes. This would also be consistent of grammar and language. So the word LOVE once again is relative and can mean to punch a person in the face.

Modern empiricism so called is logical positivism. Logical positivism has been refuted a very long time ago, 1930's. The fact of this absurdity is well known among the educated. I assume you have no idea what i'm talking about.

When there is a self refutation found all over the hazodous waste of atheism, you find self refutations ALL over the place. lol. Every where among the corpses of atheistic thinking, you find this, this is what you would expect to find.

A contradiction would be like Socrates is mortal and Socreates is immortal. Since only the educated is aware of this, and since this is rarely found among atheists and never found among consistent atheists, then let me educate you regarding the historical absurdity of what happen to what Bob you are referring to as a kind of modern empiricism.

Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in which i have a copy, a leading logical empiricist at the time that the propositions he relayed in his writings did not add up at all to how his own standard of understanding and meaning. Thus, he recommended that his propositions were a figuarative type l"ladder" that you would discard after you're done to reach a higher level.

Pay attention to this one Loca, after a while the L.P. said that language cannot ever state an empirical fact in reference to truth and falsity. unless empirically VERIFIED (that's a common word) in nature. But people started noticing that the (verification principle) cannot be empirically verfied according to the standards of the the empiricism of logical positivism. ha ha.

Historically speaking, this argument caused Logical Positivism's Funeral.

However, among the non educatued consistent atheists, they have resurrected this logical positivism again. No where does this MIX logic in any way with it's formula. I think we have a nutty nut logical positivist on here hardcore and out. Most thoug are in the closet with the faggots or are so ignorant about what i'm talking about, they have to ask their granny for directions.

Logic can never ever ever be incorporated into empiricism. I like you bob but this is just a flat out stupid idiotic statement. Your argument would have to be hegelian and self refuting lol. oh my. 

You're wrong and once again, Bob has made a catelogicaly falacy between Reason and Empiricism.

Check Mate.

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).


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10727
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ Poor jean has an aneurysm

^ Poor jean has an aneurysm when his brain can't handle logic. Laughing out loud

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13836
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:^ Poor jean has

Vastet wrote:
^ Poor jean has an aneurysm when his brain can't handle logic. :D

He is incapable of having an aneurysm because that would require a brain in the first place to have one.

 

"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: 13836
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Logic can never ever

Quote:
Logic can never ever ever be incorporated into empiricism

This concludes our public service announcement on the dangers of feeding your kids lead paint chips.

Jean, did your mommy tell you the paint chips were corn flakes?

 

"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: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Thank you Jean,for finally

Thank you Jean,

for finally demonstrating that your comprehension is totally and irredeemably f**ked.

You clearly don't understand what either Logic or Empiricism and Rational thought actually are, as actually employed in disciplines such as Science.

You seem to just think of them as labels on schools of Philosophy, which while arguably true in the case of "Empiricism" and "Rationalism", is irrelevant to the process of rational enquiry into the nature of Reality I keep outlining to you. As is 99% of all Philosophy and 100% of Theology and Metaphysics.

Words often do have more than one usage, as you would have noticed if you had ever opened a dictionary.

Ok, ignore the label 'empirical', just think of the process I described, as processing the information we gather and interpret via our senses, frequently via instruments which mean that our senses require no more reliability than that needed to read a book - you do appear to be able to read...

The content of logical propositions is not in any way restricted as to how it is obtained, or do you actually disagree? Can 'Logic' only validly and 'logically' be applied to information derived via certain modes of thought???  Or modes of delusion, in your case...

When I use the Math equation "1 + 1 = 2", am I not 'allowed' to apply that to count 'empirically' observed apples? Because that expression is ultimately derived by logic applied to the definitions attached to each symbol - "!", "2", "+", and "=".

 

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10727
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Vastet wrote:^

Brian37 wrote:

Vastet wrote:
^ Poor jean has an aneurysm when his brain can't handle logic. :D

He is incapable of having an aneurysm because that would require a brain in the first place to have one.

 

Oh there's a brain there, it just doesn't know how to think for itself, and it exhibits emotional breakdowns whenever opposing views come in to play. Read some of his posts carefully and count the number of times he says stupid and other inflammatory words. Poor jean is genuinely angry. It's kind of like watching an 8 year old throwing a tantrum. There's bigger words, but he generally doesn't know what they mean, so it may as well be jibberish.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


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

So are you implying that philosophy is somewhat useless in describing an attempt at epistemology, which is centered right in the heart of philosophy itself? Um, Bob, you are totally ignorant of the ways things are connected in rational thought.

You CANNOT use Rationalism (captial R) and Empiricism because they are contradictive.

1) Empiricism ALWAYS starts inductively while Rationalism ALWAYS starts deductively

2) Empiriicsm claims the concrete, Rationalism the abstract

3) Empiricism starts with particulars, Rationalism starts with Universals

4) Empiricism cannot interpret, Rationalism cannot see

5) Empiricism cannot think, Rationalism cannot experience.

If you combine both antithetical views, you are combining two things that contradict. It would be like a person combining Christianity and Satanism which some attempt to do.

So to do this, you would have to become even more absurd and use a sort of crazy nutty Hegelian Dialecticism lol just making things even worse.

If we're combing Rationalisn with Empiricism why not also combine Intuition. That's the 3rd secular form of epistemology and the last secular kind.

I also notice that you have yet to respond to the well known historical account of the death of what you call modern empiricism.

So if you want to be logical and sound, it's impossbile, unless you clap with one hand. And yes, this subject is 100% philosphical however philosophy has subcategories within the sciences.

 

You cannot do 2+2 - 4 in Rationalism and Empiricism. lol. Empiricism cannot interpret and Rationalsim cannot see the apples. lol. They would both be blind saying du du du duhhhhhhhh lol.

Bobby, now come on. It's one thing to not be a Chrisitan but at least be logical. Stop being confused and mixing up antithetical categories and making catalogiacl fallacies.

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).


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5907
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jean,you are simply

Jean,

you are simply confirming the uselesness of those subdivisions of Philosophy. Similarly, the "death of modern empiricism" is only the 'death' of a particular set philosophical ideas. None of that is of any consequence.

I am only concerned with the process I described, which manifestly does work, otherwise we would not be communicating via the modern technology which that sort of process is able to lead to, a process I spent most of my working life practicing, with an Honors degree in Electrical Engineering.

You have yet to answer why I cannot apply Logic to propositions derived from, or describing, actual observations.

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