Hey man, long time no see.  I wish I was anywhere near there, the weather here sucks.  I will have a glass of wine and think of you though

I'm not in the area but instead of buying me a beer how about hanging around here a little more often?  We missed you.

Pshawww whatever we didn't disown you.  

 Not sure if I can go up for Saturday, but I can drink on my own in the OC.   I'd recommend hitting up Blue Palms in Hollywood though if you're searching for beer. 

We really need to consider all meeting at a prominent atheist convention sometime.

I live in Anaheim, Orange County. Tell me your bar of choice so I can grab you a beer!

Beer? I'd figure you for a fruit cocktail. SORRY! Couldn't resist. (Waits for rolled up newspaper or rotten tomatos.)

I'm not saying you cant have one, but I thought that was a straight thing. I drink beer and you have a drink with an umbrella in it.

You know what would kill rednecks? If a NASCAR driver came out as gay. That would be so fucking cool. They could name their car the Pink Panther and the number could be 69.

Actually I think there was a gay Redskin who died a while back.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Smith_%28American_football%29

He was never open unfortunately during his career. But back then no one who was could be.

To those reading this, just to warn everyone a head of time, every time this twit posts, I am going to remind everyone that he blamed the Japanese Tsunami on America not sucking up to his god. A Tsunami that killed 13,000 people.

Unlike this jackass, while I do see religion as a claim and a concept divisive, and that most of the Middle East is still stuck in it's own dark ages, I do see individuals as such. Unlike this jackass, I may disagree with the concept of religion but know how to separate a person from a claim or position that person might hold.

I am quite sure there ARE plenty of Muslims that wish the middle east would catch up to the pluralism we have in the west if it were not for the governments they live under. But let Jean serve as an example of the hatred and bigotry the world needs less of.

Aww, I didn't see this. Thanks, it does mean a lot to hear that.

Sorry, the quote was a bit long but I wanted to highlight the poe's abnormal use of the word "wasteland" a lot. Does anyone else play the Fallout series? I just beat Fallout: New Vegas a second time, this time under Caesar, while the first time was as an independent ruler of New Vegas. All the games in the series are simply fucking amazing, undeniably works of gaming art. I'm guessing whoever plays Jean Chauvin is into the series and the word is on the tip of his tongue; "The Wasteland" is that the in-game characters use to refer to their post-nuclear war world.

I know Jean is kinda annoying, but I've known Calvinists most of my adult life (which, admittedly, has only been four years). He really gets them down well, from the awkward use of English to praise the LORD of the Bible (I've never understood why they do it so awkwardly), to nailing various epistemological and theological stances of contemporary Calvinism. By far the best poe I've ever seen. I'm really looking forward to the guy who plays him either joining the forums or revealing who he really is on the forums.

Jean, if you could answer (in character), how do you feel about some Calvinists abandoning presuppositional apologetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presuppositional_apologetics) in favour of evidential apologetics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidential_apologetics)? I started noticing this trend last year among some writers in the so-called "Young, Restless, Reformed" movement (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/september/42.32.html).

Don't you think it's unfair to regulate Thomas Aquinas' contributions to Western philosophy solely as the property of the Roman Catholics? Do his works have no value at all insomuch as Calvinist theology intersects with the greater Western tradition?

It's interesting you bring up Calvinist legalism. Most of my Calvinist friends are about my age and they are against legalism too, although, I have at least one Calvinist friend who believed in domionionism at one point.

You said that you've never been refuted, but from my time here I've seen many posts that have done exactly that. Now, I know I'm more than likely unsaved therefore God has damned me never to see the superior logic of your views (as per John Calvin), but still, I'd like a recap. I'm guessing at one point another, before becoming a poe, you *were* a Calvinist.

Let's put the dividing line between you, as a Reformed Christian, and "we" as secular humanists (with all the baggage that comes with that label; rationalism, empiricism, naturalism, and existentialism).

You presume the Biblical worldview. But why? Reformed Christians often say that we secular humanists presume that rationalism and empiricism (and possibly idealism), therefore are no better than Christians who presume the Bible. But, no human thought is possible without basic rational or empirical elements. We have simply chosen a bottom line that everything would deconstruct to; rational and empirical thought. And then naturalism is the byproduct of a worldview solely composed of rationalism and empiricism, with existentialism being an affirmation of the individuality of the human experience.

The presumption of the Bible is not the bottom line; you could go much further in deconstructing reality. Even to read or understand the Bible, you essentially depend upon rational and empirical foundations. Reading itself is the product of rationalism and empiricism; the presumption of your worldview could not exist without our worldview, meaning that we secular humanists depend on a much lower common denominator than you depending upon the Bible.

But, once again, I'm not as familiar with the rhetoric as I should be. I'd like to hear why presuming the Bible as truth is somehow more justified than we presuming rationalism and empiricism. My guess is that it's primary superiority is linked with the fact that those who believe it are saved and those who do not are damned.

Hello,

Aquinas synthesised Aristotelianism thinking into Christianity, thus blending paganism with christianity. His argues for God are logically unsound since It doesn't get you all the way you want to go. Aquinas was a pagan and was so fat they had to lower his circular desk over his body via a crane type tool.  I could write a book on Aquinas but bottomline,  He was a slob and a heretic.

Roman Geisler and Sproul are into Aquinas because they have comprised along the way. Sproul Sr. Personally told me to my face that he believes aquinas is in heaven.

Well that's great you're around calvinists that are not legalistic, they must be young. Majority of Reformed Churches are legalistic i am affiliated with F.I.R.E. as a result.

lol, no, i've never been refuted. You are correct, you are not given the gift of intelligence to understand logical argument and sound reasoning as a result (I Corinthains 1:14; 1:16).

So wait, you're a secular humanist? Because some atheists on this site hate humanists. lol. So then basically your religion of humanism since it is a religion according to both manifesto's I and II. Just clarifying.

Um, not all Humanists are Existialist or Rationalists or Empiricists. lol. Plus Rationalism capital R is catelogically antithetical to empiricism so if they are both, then they self refute themselves. So are you an Existialist? You've told me nothing of you except that you are of the religion of Humanism.

When you say rational empiricism? what does this mean? Are you saying empiricism is rational or are you blending to antithetical epistemological categories?

I have given my argument on countless occasions so I will only summerize for you how this works. God's Being and His Word are axioms. Thus the Theorums of Scripture demonstrate (not substantiate) via evidence what is to be expected. 

I have no idea what epistemology you hold to since logically you can't be both lol, However, it comes down to :

Faith and Reason

vs.

Reason or Faith (if that's what you are? ).

My argument is assumed because ALL first principles in logical are assumed similar to How Euclid assumed his first prinple in the paralelle 5th postulate.

Since God and the Bible are both axioms, they need not justification or proof, they are self evident which is demonstrable in the Imago Dei which each of us are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).