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).


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

You admit to the death of modern empiricism?  You were just defending it a day ago.

Yes i have. Processing is contradictive to empiricism. An empiricist cannot process by definiton. Rationalism is the means of processing however, or the attempt. Rationalsim has problems too. They both have problems. lol. I have given only brief arguments regarding the weakness of capital R Rationalsim as well.

Bob, again, Rationalism are both 100% attempts at epistemology. Epistemology is the very heart of philosphy. Thus the epistemology of the various sciences would also be found in the philosophy of the science. Meaning, if philosohpy never existed, the sciences also could not have existed.

Your term for PROCESS EXCLUDES empiricism. I have no problem with process. However, i do have a problem with the process of Capital R Rationalsim.

But again, you cannot experience process. Explain process purely from an empiricial standpoint? You can't BOb.

However, since you insiste on process, i.e. Rationalsim capital R. perhaps i should tell you the huge problems wiht Rationalism as well. They're BOTH broken within the secular framework.

But besides that, since empiricism cannot process by definition, i would agree that it must say in the realm of Rationalsim by definition of the terms.

Oh, you don't go to the Dictionary to find the meaning of Rationalsim and Empiricism. lol. Since these are philosophical subjects, you must go to a philosophical type dictionary/Encyclopedia.

I have about 4 sets of the Encyclopedia of Philosophy in 8 Volumes. I'm dead serious, you pay for the library shipping, what 20 bucks and i'll send them  to you. They're around 300 bucks. But i don't mind sending you a set.

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: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean,I already explained to

Jean,

I already explained to you that Philosophy is 99% crap, playing with words, of no relevance to knowledge and understanding, so I have no interest in what they are talking about.

So now you want to see 'Process' as a philosophical topic?? LOL!

The last thing I would care about is how it is defined by Philosophy.

Typical dictionary definition is how I am using the term:

Quote:

a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end : military operations could jeopardize the peace process.
• a natural or involuntary series of changes : the aging process.
• a systematic series of mechanized or chemical operations that are performed in order to produce or manufacture something ;

About Empiricism, I described how I come to understand things, which is basically in accord with the scientific process.

Another dictionary reference (for 'empirical'):

Quote:

based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

It doesn't mean logic is not employed, but not purely logic, just to make sure you have no excuse to misread that.

So I am happy to label the way I obtain the data about reality as 'empirical', but that seems to conflict with a usage of the term in Philosophy to refer to a some more formal system, so I was simply avoiding it to avoid confusing you - you do seem to find it hard to get your head around such subtle distinctions.

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: 10721
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
^ jean thinks philosophy is

^ jean thinks philosophy is the way to go, never realising you need a functional brain with critical thinking skills to utilise philosophy in any useful way, while empirical data remains true regardless of an individuals intellect, or lack thereof. As long as he's hung up on philosophy without the use of logic and empirical data he'll never be rational.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The problem with Philosophy

The problem with Philosophy for me is that it is so open-ended; it depends so much on the intelligence and focus of the individual philosopher for useful and interesting discussion. It is far too easy for totally nonsensical ideas/systems to get traction among philosophers.

This is the down-side of the freedom of discussion, the 'brainstorming', which occasionally allows a real gem of an original and genuinely insightful idea to emerge.

I was originally 'into' philosophy pretty heavily, read Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' while at University, but have progressively become disenchanted as I have come across more reality-based discussion coming from the leading edge of Science. Typically the contrast between the deeply-informed discussion, inspired by the latest research in many fields, coming from Science, with the mostly vacuous philosophical discussions, still mired in many medieval concepts, became distressingly obvious to me. The rarity of a genuinely interesting discussion/article from a Philosophical perspective lead to me pretty much giving up on programs/podcasts on Philosophy.

The 'last straw' was probably listening to a series of podcasts from the BBC on the historically important/famous philosophers. To me, most of them were batshit insane in their ideas, even those who are remembered for some famous phrase, like 'cogito ergo sum'.

I have heard a few references to a movement to 'empirical philosophy' among some younger philosophers, who seemed like they recognized the same thing I saw, and were trying to rescue 'philosophy' from the blind alleys and rat-holes it was prone to going down. But I would now rather keep listening to the many science and skeptical podcasts I have come to enjoy to keep me 'in touch' with current knowledge and progress in understanding in general.

Jean seems to have got pathologically stuck on all the worst faults of philosophy.

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
don't die

Quote:
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.

Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in which i have a copy...

I have books too, you know, even the ones written between 1850-1950, and even in paper. Do you want to do "who's got bigger", now?

Quote:
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.

Guess what, Wittgenstein is dead, and the world continued. He thought he "solved" everything, that he "finished" logic, and he was wrong. Apart from that, you got an answer from Bob.

---

Love: you know, if I'm atheist, so if I would be malign, I would want you to suffer, so I would want you to stay alive.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5905
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think the major point Jean

I think the major point Jean and the philosophers he refers to don't get is that we don't really 'verify' any given proposition or theory absolutely or in isolation, otherwise you do end up with the problems of how you verify the verification, etc.

It is all about how well any given new idea fits in to what we have already have. We don't have ultimate, verified knowledge of reality, we have a 'model' of it, an approximation to it. We compare how predictions about reality we make using that model match up with what happens, and we use probability calculus (eg Bayes' Theorem) to assign degrees of confidence in the model, we score its performance.

If a new observation comes along which is highly confirmed by repeated independent testing, yet doesn't really fit our current model, its time for some new hypotheses, significant modifications to the model.

The point is that there are now so many points at which different areas of research touch, that the cross-correlation allows the consistency of the models in different disciplines to be checked in so many ways, we can have increasing confidence in the accuracy of the basic ideas across Science.

The irony is that our very success in being able to probe ever deeper into reality keeps turning up details which don't quite fit our current picture, presenting new puzzles for science to address. But if it wasn't already so effective, we would never have had any idea about these new mysteries.

Our 'reference point' for any explanation, any new reasoning about the nature of things, is what we have already modelled successfully, IOW it is the rest of reality itself.

Jean's approach is to make a grand assumption at the beginning ( 'God' ) and then proceed to force everything else to fit. If it can't be made to fit, then it must be wrong, so ignore it or ridicule it, never consider adjusting your initial assumption.

Here is an analogy:

If you are putting a jigsaw puzzle together, it is certainly much easier if you have a picture of what it should look like (a reference), but if it's the wrong picture , it makes it harder, but even if you have no picture of what it 'should' look like, it is still possible to solve it. The only assumption required is that there is a solution, an arrangement of the pieces where they fit together without being distorted. That we can be confident about, since we are talking about reality. Since we do exist, it is a reasonable assumption.

The alternative is to assume the pieces are being arbitrarily shuffled or modified  all the time, or could be. If that is the case, then no coherent, consistent knowledge would be possible, by any approach, and we are stuffed.

So we might as well continue with the additional assumption that there is some consistent basis for reality, and carry on. So far, we have come a long way, from the sub-atomic realm to the beginnings of the Universe, the evolution of Life, even hints of its origin, getting deep into the workings of our own minds, sending craft to the edge of our Solar System, possible cures for Cancer, etc, etc. I'd say that is a reasonable justification for pushing forward. So far, so good.

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
a

BobSpence1 wrote:
Since we do exist, it is a reasonable assumption.
If I may: since this is a starting point for you, me, and like most of the people on this world, it is an assumption for jc too. BUT he has the assumption that the new testament god exists because he says of the imago dei, I would say because of his faith, which exists in him. I would argue about that, or maybe even on other things, but always with an eye on that (with the 'faith' assumption his 'logic' is no more circular, but it's still generic, unevidenced, anthropocentric, and so on).