There Are Absolutely No Absolutes?

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
There Are Absolutely No Absolutes?

Hello,

I've done this before but since you stupid atheists are now starting to act mentally retardard, i thought it would be

appropriate to ressurrect this thread again.

Since Professors in most major universities in the country and the world profess there are absolutely no absolutes,

And that is what the majority of atheistic experts are saying, your own religion must follow the norm of society at

the time and it is now infested in society.

1) Reality - There are many realities that are personal to you, you do not have to know to believe.

2) Knowledge - What is your truth is your truth, what is my truth is my truth.

3) Ethics - to each their own.

4) Art/Beauty - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

 

This disgusting filth is imbedded in our culture. The Scriptures tell us this will happen in the last days but that's a side note. I am not surprised by this at all.

So then regarding Love, or truth or 2+2=7? or whatever, there are no absolutes. 2+2 could  be 4 or 7 or whatever.

But you stupid hypocrites wish for us to ignore this embarrassment that is your own religion. You use it in every argument as a presupposition.

But the sad little atheists thinks, wait, we made it on the moon right? we invented the atom bomb. we've done great

scientific achievements with atheistic thinking so it can't really be absolute, but that's what everybody says, so hmm?

what to do what to do? i know we will kind of ignore it and use it when we want. And it if comes up where we can't

ignore it we will just say we're pragmaticists.

The proble is pragaticism is based on an absolute. lol. poor little people.

And you assume that the scienfic advances were made via atheistic thinking, This is actually not the fact at all. Via the differences of origin and origional startings points of science, these people used Christian understanding of absolutes,

in order to advance their "experiments" we will say just for fun. This has been documented in Encyclopedia of Philosophy among other places that I will with glee provide as this sess pool progresses.

So regarding REALITY OF ANY KIND? are there absolutes or not you dummies? Justify logically that there are no absolutes without refuting yourself and then explain to me how telling your little baby that he a a piece of shit and throwing hi to a pack of wolves verses giving him kisses. One society says wolves, one society says kisses. They're both right. Say you live in the society that said wolves, would you do it? Would you be consistent evil bastards as your religion dicates or would you via being the image of God though perverted resist evil.

Watch now the following in this order:

1) ad hominem abusives

2) "ibid"

3) "Ibid"

4) "Ibid'

5) "Ibid".

I rest my case.

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).


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Since

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Since Professors in most major universities in the country and the world profess there are absolutely no absolutes,

And that is what the majority of atheistic experts are saying, your own religion must follow the norm of society at

the time and it is now infested in society.

I'd really like some quotes from the aforementioned people backing this up.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

1) Reality - There are many realities that are personal to you, you do not have to know to believe.

2) Knowledge - What is your truth is your truth, what is my truth is my truth.

3) Ethics - to each their own.

4) Art/Beauty - Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

As stated, #1 and #4 are undeniably accurate. I'm not sure about #2 and #3 though...

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

This disgusting filth is imbedded in our culture. The Scriptures tell us this will happen in the last days but that's a side note. I am not surprised by this at all.

So then regarding Love, or truth or 2+2=7? or whatever, there are no absolutes. 2+2 could  be 4 or 7 or whatever.

But you stupid hypocrites wish for us to ignore this embarrassment that is your own religion. You use it in every argument as a presupposition.

But the sad little atheists thinks, wait, we made it on the moon right? we invented the atom bomb. we've done great

scientific achievements with atheistic thinking so it can't really be absolute, but that's what everybody says, so hmm?

what to do what to do? i know we will kind of ignore it and use it when we want. And it if comes up where we can't

ignore it we will just say we're pragmaticists.

The proble is pragaticism is based on an absolute. lol. poor little people.

 

I not sure I understand what you're saying, but the fact absolutes appear to exist and we assume they exist doesn't necessarily prove that they exist. However, I'm fairly certain that math and logic do prove that absolutes exist (at least as concepts).

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

 

And you assume that the scienfic advances were made via atheistic thinking, This is actually not the fact at all. Via the differences of origin and origional startings points of science, these people used Christian understanding of absolutes,

in order to advance their "experiments" we will say just for fun. This has been documented in Encyclopedia of Philosophy among other places that I will with glee provide as this sess pool progresses.

I would very much like to see that documented evidence.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Justify logically that there are no absolutes without refuting yourself

Um, you can't?  The statement "there are absolutely no absolutes" is inherently self-contradictory; what you're asking is impossible, at least in this universe...

 

 

Now, I have a question for you: why do you sign all your posts with "Respectfully,"?

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
What's this about absolutes

What's this about absolutes lololz??

 

I haven't seen any... just a bunch of opinions.

“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)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote: i thoughtDON'T THINK

Quote:
i thought

DON'T THINK AXEL, IT MAKES MY DICK ITCH!

"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


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 2975
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
If you are talking

If you are talking mathematics then you have results which are either true or false.

If you are talking opinions then you have realities which are either truth or untruth.

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:If you

digitalbeachbum wrote:

If you are talking mathematics then you have results which are either true or false.

If you are talking opinions then you have realities which are either truth or untruth.

Useful way of putting it... /tiphat

“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)


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:
But you stupid hypocrites wish for us to ignore this embarrassment that is your own religion. You use it in every argument as a presupposition.
But the sad little atheists thinks, wait, we made it on the moon right? we invented the atom bomb. we've done great
scientific achievements with atheistic thinking so it can't really be absolute, but that's what everybody says, so hmm?
what to do what to do? i know we will kind of ignore it and use it when we want. And it if comes up where we can't
ignore it we will just say we're pragmaticists.
The proble is pragaticism is based on an absolute. lol. poor little people.
And you assume that the scienfic advances were made via atheistic thinking, This is actually not the fact at all. Via the differences of origin and origional startings points of science, these people used Christian understanding of absolutes,

Only you know what you are saying.

Jean Chauvin wrote:
So regarding REALITY OF ANY KIND? are there absolutes or not you dummies? Justify logically that there are no absolutes without refuting yourself and then explain to me how

I don't see where the problem is. "There are no absolutes" is absolute in the 'logic' realm -- in the physical realm there are still no absolutes. You see? Two different things.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
As I am fond of saying,

As I am fond of saying, "logike is 80% philosophy, 19% math, and 1% actual human thought required"

Better to use a computer for computational tasks, really.

“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)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Hello Jean, your language is

Hello Jean, your language is provocative in order to mask how weak your points are.  I understand, if my philosophical stance was 2000 years old I too would make sure I make lots of noise and fling a lot of poo to mask the fact that I have nothing to say.  That being said... the phrase "there are absolutely no absolutes" while illogical, is also wrong.  Of course there are absolutes, the trick is... listen up now... that everything is relative.  Smiling whooaaaa?!?!!  Did that just blow your mind?...

Wtf is it all relative to? you ask? is the fact that everything is relative, also relative? of course it is.  WHOOOAA?!?!  Smiling you see Jean, it is all relative to your frame of reference.  Smiling

Pragmatism is based on this principle.  In layman's terms, you need to test your knowledge experimentally... against a set of reference.  Let's take your example with the 2+2=7.  First of all, math is a very strict and small frame of reference.  You set up rules and parameters and then you observe the relationship between concepts, within the set frame of reference.  You define your absolutes.  

Let's say that you are looking at two wires 5 meters away, and you use a laser pointer to measure how long they are.  You check 1 from one end to one end and you get 2 meters.  Goody, now you do the same for the second one, and you come up with another 2 meters.  Yay you! if you add them up you come up with 4 meters of wire.  Are you sure about that? of course you are sure, I mean, ABSOLUTELY sure? Yes, relative to your frame of reference, those two lengths of wire will ALWAYS add up to 4 meters, that's an absolute.

Now then let's say you move in an arc, 90 degrees north, and you look at the wires again.  You measure the same wires, with the same instruments, and you realize that the wires are much longer now that you can see them from this angle.  The first one is 3 meters and the second one is 4 meters.  From this frame of reference you have 7 meters of wire.  Where you wrong the first time? well... not really.  Unless I expand your frame of reference I cannot prove that you were wrong, your 2 meters + 2 meters of wire in reality = 7 meters of wire.  It's all a matter of reference. Smiling

Logic and mathematics set up absolutes to define a limited frame of reference in which you can make practical absolute statements.  Pragmatism says, fuck all that, check your freaking knowledge you dimwit, there are no absolutes across frames of reference.  Smiling 

 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
So where does actual thought

So where does actual thought come in to all of this? Yes, the practical, creative, imaginative and intuitive portions of the human brain that make this little known concept called "discovery" truly possible?

Nowhere, apparently. It's just a bunch of hocuspocus analytical philosophy. No practical applications known, that I am aware of.

(As I suggested earlier... taking a dump on philosophy is fun because it amounts to nonknowledge and esoteric verbiage partly dependent on New Latin. It's also fun to frustrate people because they have no ability whatsoever to think outside the Aristotlean box. )

“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)


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

Hi KTULA,

Before I educate you, there are a few on this site that don't know what they're doing in terms of thinking. They do embrace absolutes and are Rationalists capital R as opposed to empiricists. If you are a Rationalist in the French Revolution kind of way, lol, then this does not pertain to you. But Rationalism also fails since everybody's Ratioanlism is of a different kind and subject them. Since there are no universals to trace every single thought in Rationalism, only fragments of subjectives, then it fails. But this is for another thread.

_________

Your first paragraph was ad hominems. Therefore need no response since it is invalid.

- Okay, it is all relative to your frame of reference? But you would have to admit that even your frame of reference is flux.Thus causing your own subjective reference relative to your reality.

- You cannot use mathmatics since it is based on a fixed frame of reference. Remember as a relativists, all frames of reference must also be relative. This is old heraclitus type thinking, nothing new here.

Also, pragmaticism in it's end result is based as an attept on fixed principles. On every single occasion, pragmaticism says if it's true because it world. . Thus pragmatism fails like mathematics for the relativist. Oh and by the way, Chrisitanity says that it's works because it's true.

But then again you need to ask yourself what KIND of pragmaticis do you prefer? You need to define this KTULA? August Comte or Popper or what?

-You recognize that there is indeed a lazor absolutely lol. You see you claim relativity in theory, but absolutely not in practice. A relativist cannot say that there is even a lazor there. For all you know you're nothing more then a chipmunk constantly hungry for nuts. You cannot pick and choose like a buffet table what is and what is not relative, you are not consistent my little man.

-90 degrees based on a fixed reference? You dummy, the concept of 90 degress was understood through fixed axioms and implications. Not by a relative means.

Bottom line, you are using fixed frames of references to justify relativistic means. Since this is self refuting and inconsistent, relativity breaks down and fails.

You cannot use geometry that is understood through axiomatic absolutes, as a just cause for that which is not absolutes.

Thus relativity fails.or if you're a relativists, I was talking to a uncle's monkey on a stick. Or what I?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13549
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi KTULA,

Before I educate you, there are a few on this site that don't know what they're doing in terms of thinking. They do embrace absolutes and are Rationalists capital R as opposed to empiricists. If you are a Rationalist in the French Revolution kind of way, lol, then this does not pertain to you. But Rationalism also fails since everybody's Ratioanlism is of a different kind and subject them. Since there are no universals to trace every single thought in Rationalism, only fragments of subjectives, then it fails. But this is for another thread.

_________

Your first paragraph was ad hominems. Therefore need no response since it is invalid.

- Okay, it is all relative to your frame of reference? But you would have to admit that even your frame of reference is flux.Thus causing your own subjective reference relative to your reality.

- You cannot use mathmatics since it is based on a fixed frame of reference. Remember as a relativists, all frames of reference must also be relative. This is old heraclitus type thinking, nothing new here.

Also, pragmaticism in it's end result is based as an attept on fixed principles. On every single occasion, pragmaticism says if it's true because it world. . Thus pragmatism fails like mathematics for the relativist. Oh and by the way, Chrisitanity says that it's works because it's true.

But then again you need to ask yourself what KIND of pragmaticis do you prefer? You need to define this KTULA? August Comte or Popper or what?

-You recognize that there is indeed a lazor absolutely lol. You see you claim relativity in theory, but absolutely not in practice. A relativist cannot say that there is even a lazor there. For all you know you're nothing more then a chipmunk constantly hungry for nuts. You cannot pick and choose like a buffet table what is and what is not relative, you are not consistent my little man.

-90 degrees based on a fixed reference? You dummy, the concept of 90 degress was understood through fixed axioms and implications. Not by a relative means.

Bottom line, you are using fixed frames of references to justify relativistic means. Since this is self refuting and inconsistent, relativity breaks down and fails.

You cannot use geometry that is understood through axiomatic absolutes, as a just cause for that which is not absolutes.

Thus relativity fails.or if you're a relativists, I was talking to a uncle's monkey on a stick. Or what I?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

But yet invisible friends make all the sense in the world.

"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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I do, however love me a Jean

I do, however love me a Jean dancing up a pretty messageboard ballet for me Laughing out loud

“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)


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi KTULA,

Before I educate you, there are a few on this site that don't know what they're doing in terms of thinking. They do embrace absolutes and are Rationalists capital R as opposed to empiricists. If you are a Rationalist in the French Revolution kind of way, lol, then this does not pertain to you. But Rationalism also fails since everybody's Ratioanlism is of a different kind and subject them. Since there are no universals to trace every single thought in Rationalism, only fragments of subjectives, then it fails. But this is for another thread.

_________

Your first paragraph was ad hominems. Therefore need no response since it is invalid.

awww, did I hurt your feewings!!! Relax I don't think any less of your intelligence, you're a theist after all Smiling

Jean Chauvin wrote:

- Okay, it is all relative to your frame of reference? But you would have to admit that even your frame of reference is flux.Thus causing your own subjective reference relative to your reality.

No, you can arbitrarily set your frame of reference to define your own absolutes, for example mathematics, and logic.  I always have the "Cogito ergo sum" as my one true absolute to build from.  I have not claimed that there are no absolutes you dummy, I simply said that they are only valid in a PRE determined frame of reference.  Absolutes are elements of the frame of reference, it's how you DEFINE a frame of reference. 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

- You cannot use mathmatics since it is based on a fixed frame of reference. Remember as a relativists, all frames of reference must also be relative. This is old heraclitus type thinking, nothing new here.

Mathematics is a human construct.  It perfectly illustrates what I mean.  It is a fundamental frame of reference for relationships between concepts derived from nature.  We have the concept of 1 horse, and the concept of 2 horses.  You can observe that by separating the 2 horse you get 2 of the 1 horse concept.  You develop a system and eventually abstract an axis of natural numbers from -10 to positive 10.  You having 10 fingers and all.  You can define absolutes within such a frame of reference that would lead to coherent statements such as 3+4=7.  You can verify that empirically using your fingers and the only absolute = that sequential elements of the system increment by one unit.  So, you start out with your left thumb, and then sequentially increment by ONE to arrive at two on your pointer, and three on your middle finger (you may want to stop and giggle here for a moment, hehe, middle finger... let's get serious now ) and then continue 4 more times... See, no magic or divine intervention.  

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Also, pragmaticism in it's end result is based as an attept on fixed principles. On every single occasion, pragmaticism says if it's true because it world. . Thus pragmatism fails like mathematics for the relativist. Oh and by the way, Chrisitanity says that it's works because it's true.

How is pragmatism based on an attempt on fixed principles? 

Jean, I think you're funny but you really need to try a little harder at your grammar and spelling, I have to work at translating wtf you are trying to say.

I'm not even sure you know what pragmatism is.  Having the literacy of a second grader doesn't help get your point across but I'll try and translate.  You incorrectly believe that pragmatism claims something is true because it is in the world? And Christianity claims that something is true because it is true? That's too vague to even argue against, please try again.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

But then again you need to ask yourself what KIND of pragmaticis do you prefer? You need to define this KTULA? August Comte or Popper or what?

I refer to pragmatism in it's fundamental quality that practical consequences determine the validity of concepts.  Never once have I gone into detail.  Unless you bring up a difference in the schools of thought that's relevant to the argument I fail to see the point of your question.  What sort of shoes do you wear? What toothbrush do you use?  See I can pose idiotic useless questions as well. Smiling

Jean Chauvin wrote:

-You recognize that there is indeed a lazor absolutely lol. You see you claim relativity in theory, but absolutely not in practice. A relativist cannot say that there is even a lazor there. For all you know you're nothing more then a chipmunk constantly hungry for nuts. You cannot pick and choose like a buffet table what is and what is not relative, you are not consistent my little man.

lol @ "lazor" that's funny do lazors come on top of sharks?  as in "a freaking shark with a freaking lazor on it's head".  How is relativity deny the existence of anything out of hand? I know that lasers exist because I have seen them and understand the principle behind light.  I can use the concept and the object.  Wtf are you talking about?  Can you let me know when you start making sense? 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

-90 degrees based on a fixed reference? You dummy, the concept of 90 degress was understood through fixed axioms and implications. Not by a relative means.

Bottom line, you are using fixed frames of references to justify relativistic means. Since this is self refuting and inconsistent, relativity breaks down and fails.

You cannot use geometry that is understood through axiomatic absolutes, as a just cause for that which is not absolutes.

Thus relativity fails.or if you're a relativists, I was talking to a uncle's monkey on a stick. Or what I?

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

See above for a simple definition of concepts and how they can be applied.  Again, please let me know when you have something intelligent to say.

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


Zaq
atheist
Zaq's picture
Posts: 269
Joined: 2008-12-24
User is offlineOffline
http://silverskeptic.blogspot

http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2012/03/delusions-of-subjectivity.html

Click above to see my response as to why "it's subjective" is not a valid defense of religion.

In short, give me some objective support for your claims to subjectivity.

 

Also, I have never claimed that there are absolutely no absolutes.  I do not anticipate myself ever claiming this.  I do not know of any intellectuals who have claimed this.  Can you please provide some citations?  Furthermore, please specify what you mean by "absolute" and how it is different from "objective" (if indeed your use of "absolute" is different from the common use of "objective&quotEye-wink.  You can check my above link to see how I use the terms absolute, objective, relative, and subjective.

 

Are you aware that the ancient Greeks were practicing preliminary forms of science and mathematics long before Christianity was ever invented?

Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html

I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.