Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion

The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Looking For Atheist / Theist Debate And Discussion

Hello everyone,

I'm interested in reasonable atheist / theist debate and discussion. Is this a good place to engage in those types of discussions? If so perhaps we could start off by informing me what you think an atheist is.

To me, it is simply the antithesis of the theist. The atheist doesn't believe in gods. This seems illogical to me since a god can be anything. My question, then, to begin would be simply What do you think a god is and what do you think an atheist is.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Sapient

The Theist wrote:

Sapient wrote:
At least you have cool graphics.

I noticed you said that earlier. What do you mean, here on the forum or my website? Thanks for the compliment, I do pay attention to detail and think the graphics on my site are important.

 

Your signature here, the avatar you're using, and the graphics on your site.  I like all of it.

 

The Theist wrote:

Sapient wrote:

The Theist wrote:

You have basically made the same post as Ktulu

Even more interesting: I didn't read his post.

Great minds think alike I guess.

 

Or you used the same sources. 

You caught us!!  We both drew on years of experience from the following sources: science, reason, and honesty.  Using those three we were able to come to the the same conclusion without ever looking at what the other was saying.  Awesome how that works.

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Brain37 wrote:

The Theist wrote:

Whenever some lame ass atheist starts shouting "Peer review, empirical testing, blah, blah, they are selling their world view which is historically as flawed, biased and potentially dangerous to mankind as any superstitious nonsense you are so foolishly opposed to.  

Science is not a world view any more than gravity is a world view. You are demonstrating complete ignorance.

DNA doesn't run for political office. Quarks don't worship anything or sell anything. Their discovery by scientists is because scientific method puts quality control on observation to insure quality output of data. It is no more a religion than taking a shit is a religion.

Science is not a comprehensive worldview, but it's still a way of viewing reality, albeit through a certain kind of experimentation.  The chemist views metal differently than the layman.  It doesn't matter that the chemist has the accurate view of what metal is, he still views it accurately.  Knowledge changes perception; you can actually see the changes in the neurons.

 


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:Your signature

Sapient wrote:
Your signature here, the avatar you're using, and the graphics on your site.  I like all of it.

Thanks,  I appreciate that.

Sapient wrote:
You caught us!!  We both drew on years of experience from the following sources: science, reason, and honesty.  Using those three we were able to come to the the same conclusion without ever looking at what the other was saying.  Awesome how that works.

No, you used a pocket dictionary and Wikipedia. Those do not constitute science, reason, and honesty.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Sapient

The Theist wrote:

Sapient wrote:
You caught us!!  We both drew on years of experience from the following sources: science, reason, and honesty.  Using those three we were able to come to the the same conclusion without ever looking at what the other was saying.  Awesome how that works.

No, you used a pocket dictionary and Wikipedia. Those do not constitute science, reason, and honesty.

You aren't qualified to determine what constitutes science, reason, and honesty.  You use delusions and dishonesty to come to your conclusions.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:The Theist

Sapient wrote:

The Theist wrote:

Sapient wrote:
You caught us!!  We both drew on years of experience from the following sources: science, reason, and honesty.  Using those three we were able to come to the the same conclusion without ever looking at what the other was saying.  Awesome how that works.

No, you used a pocket dictionary and Wikipedia. Those do not constitute science, reason, and honesty.

You aren't qualified to determine what constitutes science, reason, and honesty.  You use delusions and dishonesty to come to your conclusions.

 

 

Do you really think that?! Do you think that this is nothing more than an attack on your personal beliefs? Because I don't think of atheism in that way. I just think that atheists are ill informed. This due to their primary opposition being ill informed. You know the Bible only through these very limited sources. Traditional modern day apostate Christianity, in your (the Western atheistic) specific case.

I'm a fair and reasonable person. I loath apostate Christianity probably more than you because it has so distorted the truth for the consideration of any, including the atheist. I'm not going to sacrifice that for a petty definition to a world view. I'm trying to inform you. Pretty much of just that you need to take a closer, less emotionally based look - a rational look - at all of that.

I was okay in your eyes when I was telling Jean of the pagan influence in Christianity with hell, the immortal soul, trinity, cross, Easter, rapture, Christmas but not so cute when I told you the truth.


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

What "KIND" of a theist are you? are you liberal? Let me guess, are you a kind of break off from the Jehovah Witnesses?  or perhaps a Wiccan?

The term Jehovah is an anglican word first used around the 13th century, Yahveh is most appropriate though we obviously do not know for sure.

Since Hell does not yet exist, then how could "Jehovah" be in hell? When I inform people of them going to hell i speak in a non technical sense. They will enter hades which is also torment and is where they are kept until they are actually thrown in the pit of hell.

As for Jesus going to hades after His death, this is perfectly find and is recited in the Apostles Creed though the creed does say hell but with a qualification of correction, we say hades.

So what theological means do you subscribe to my Jehovah Witness schismatic friend.

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).


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Sapient

The Theist wrote:

Sapient wrote:

The Theist wrote:

Sapient wrote:
You caught us!!  We both drew on years of experience from the following sources: science, reason, and honesty.  Using those three we were able to come to the the same conclusion without ever looking at what the other was saying.  Awesome how that works.

No, you used a pocket dictionary and Wikipedia. Those do not constitute science, reason, and honesty.

You aren't qualified to determine what constitutes science, reason, and honesty.  You use delusions and dishonesty to come to your conclusions.

Do you really think that?!

Yes.

 

Quote:
Do you think that this is nothing more than an attack on your personal beliefs?

I didn't think you were attacking me at all. 

 

Quote:
I just think that atheists are ill informed.

Some are, but in this case we're simply using the dictionary and admitting to how the words are commonly used.  Your arguments boil down to accusing the dictionary of being misinformed.  

 

 

Quote:
I was okay in your eyes when I was telling Jean of the pagan influence in Christianity with hell, the immortal soul, trinity, cross, Easter, rapture, Christmas but not so cute when I told you the truth.

I usually don't read conversations that Jean is engaged in.  I didn't read any of your interaction with him.  I have limited time in general and normally just look to see if there is a response to my specific interaction.  

This isn't about you being okay, or not being okay.  You might be a great person, maybe a good friend, but you're being dishonest with yourself and anyone you communicate with if you insist on redefining words to suit your need.  

The question is... do you know why you need to do that?  I think I have a good idea, and I also have a hunch that you have nowhere near the level of honesty (with yourself) as to admit why you want to redefine those words.  It's ok, it's not entirely your fault... you're a theist and you want there to be a god, in order to argue it you are forced to be ignorant, dishonest, or both.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
The Theist wrote:Kapkao

The Theist wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
David... I, on the other hand... I hope you become an insane, envious creature of such distorted, warped thinking that >YOU< decide to create your own faith with >YOU< as the central, "venerated" figure!

That will never happen. Even if I formed the perfect "faith" is the word you use, I would use religion, within 10 years it would transmogrify into something entirely different because once something gains momentum it is always the power hungry who take advantage of the ignorant masses to turn it into something which it isn't for their own egotistical or political ends.

And you don't need it anyway.

Correction: I don't need anything.

“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
Hey Theist

Theist,

yeah, that's 'what i said, you're a schismatic Jehovah Witness or a break off from the J.W. religion. How did I know that without you even telling me? I tell you what.

The Jehovah Witnesses have a lot of break offs. In fact, the JW's originally were a break off of the Seventh Day Advenstists. Charles T. Russel was a follower of White. And SDA was a break off of William Miller's gang of false prophesies.

So explain your break of the J.W. Cult. Do you still agree with Russell and Rutherford? Wha about studies of the Scriptures or the rainbow set?

And wait, J.W''s don't believe in hell, you do? ? ?

Do you still believe that Jesus came in 1914 spiritually? You do know Russel originally predicted physically. He also predicted that in 1874.

I have book cases of rare old Jehovah Witness material. But in the words of the cult members that no longer visit me since I cause to much doubt:

Quote:
the flame keeps getting brighter and brighter
lol

Logically speaking, how do you know today's "truth," is not tomorrow's lie.

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).


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Theist,

yeah, that's 'what i said, you're a schismatic Jehovah Witness or a break off from the J.W. religion. How did I know that without you even telling me? I tell you what.

The Jehovah Witnesses have a lot of break offs. In fact, the JW's originally were a break off of the Seventh Day Advenstists. Charles T. Russel was a follower of White. And SDA was a break off of William Miller's gang of false prophesies.

So explain your break of the J.W. Cult. Do you still agree with Russell and Rutherford? Wha about studies of the Scriptures or the rainbow set?

And wait, J.W''s don't believe in hell, you do? ? ?

Do you still believe that Jesus came in 1914 spiritually? You do know Russel originally predicted physically. He also predicted that in 1874.

I have book cases of rare old Jehovah Witness material. But in the words of the cult members that no longer visit me since I cause to much doubt:

the flame keeps getting brighter and brighter
lol

Logically speaking, how do you know today's "truth," is not tomorrow's lie.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

“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)


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Theist,

yeah, that's 'what i said, you're a schismatic Jehovah Witness or a break off from the J.W. religion. How did I know that without you even telling me? I tell you what.

The Jehovah Witnesses have a lot of break offs. In fact, the JW's originally were a break off of the Seventh Day Advenstists. Charles T. Russel was a follower of White. And SDA was a break off of William Miller's gang of false prophesies.

So explain your break of the J.W. Cult. Do you still agree with Russell and Rutherford? Wha about studies of the Scriptures or the rainbow set?

And wait, J.W''s don't believe in hell, you do? ? ?

Do you still believe that Jesus came in 1914 spiritually? You do know Russel originally predicted physically. He also predicted that in 1874.

I have book cases of rare old Jehovah Witness material. But in the words of the cult members that no longer visit me since I cause to much doubt:

Quote:
the flame keeps getting brighter and brighter
lol

Logically speaking, how do you know today's "truth," is not tomorrow's lie.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

                                     

 

 

                                                Yee Haw !  There's nothing better than watching theists bitch slap each other over who has the truthiest truth ! 

 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


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

Hello,

I do not call myself a theist, but a Chrisitan theist. I do not argue as an ambigious theist but I argue logically via a Christian theist.

and just as the Bible says, there will be many false propheisies and false religions. Among them are the Jehovah Witnesses which are cult members and are by definiton non Chrisitan pagans.

In fact, Charles T. Russell founded his religion on the occult and pryamidology and discussed in Studies of the Scripture volume 7.

On his grave sits a pretty good size pryamid. hmm?

Russell was hardcore into the occult and thus his religion also. Oh, But the flame (truth) is getting brighter, Bethel doesn't subscribe to anything like that in which the very founder did.

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: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Theist

The Theist wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:
Your "truth" is more aligned with the

Seventh Day Adventist

version if I remember correctly ?

 

I think you mean the Jehovah's Witnesses? Yeah. Take out the pagan shit and it's all the same. Comes from the Bible.

Everybody's got their truth, Prozac. Even you.

 

No

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but none of us are entitled to our own facts. You are not going try to pull a bait and switch by trying to misuse the word "truth" to try to create the fallacious argument that your claims are equal.

Facts are independent of our own personal whims. FACT, DNA exists. That is not open to opinion, it is a fact. FACT the earth is a globe. FACT, the moon pulls the tides of the ocean. ALL FACTS

You want to try to swap out your personal fantasy and call it "truth". No, there is a huge difference between what you want to be true, and what you can DEMONSTRATE, beyond your own personal bias, to be a credible claim.

Say "I believe", do not pretend it is "truth", you have no damned evidence for what you believe.

 

"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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hello, I

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

I do not call myself a theist, but a Chrisitan theist. I do not argue as an ambigious theist but I argue logically via a Christian theist.

and just as the Bible says, there will be many false propheisies and false religions. Among them are the Jehovah Witnesses which are cult members and are by definiton non Chrisitan pagans.

In fact, Charles T. Russell founded his religion on the occult and pryamidology and discussed in Studies of the Scripture volume 7.

On his grave sits a pretty good size pryamid. hmm?

Russell was hardcore into the occult and thus his religion also. Oh, But the flame (truth) is getting brighter, Bethel doesn't subscribe to anything like that in which the very founder did.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 

                                     Please Jean, such distinctions matter nothing to me.  I'm just here to see a good fight.  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


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

Brian,

did you say demonstrate as truth? did you really? crapola. lol. I'm rubbing off on you subconsciously evidently then. That's exactly right. lol.

You cannot have evidence via the substantial only the demonstrative. I'm proud of you Brian.

Regarding opinion, you have to define what you mean by opinion and what you mean by fact. For example, the objectives of truth are not opinions, that's the atheistic way that leads to ignroance. They are absolutely true based on reality, Thus christianity, I suppose would be a kind of absolutely fact while atheism would be an opinion (which we agree on that).

The definition of opinion is:

Quote:
a thought based on uncertainty

Since this is the motto of atheism, then yes, as you would agree, atheism in all that it entails is indeed an OPINION, while Christianity would be absolutely based on reality and the consequences of your actions which will be accounted for via every second of every day of your life.

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: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Brian,did

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Brian,

did you say demonstrate as truth? did you really? crapola. lol. I'm rubbing off on you subconsciously evidently then. That's exactly right. lol.

You cannot have evidence via the substantial only the demonstrative. I'm proud of you Brian.

Regarding opinion, you have to define what you mean by opinion and what you mean by fact. For example, the objectives of truth are not opinions, that's the atheistic way that leads to ignroance. They are absolutely true based on reality, Thus christianity, I suppose would be a kind of absolutely fact while atheism would be an opinion (which we agree on that).

The definition of opinion is:

Quote:
a thought based on uncertainty

Since this is the motto of atheism, then yes, as you would agree, atheism in all that it entails is indeed an OPINION, while Christianity would be absolutely based on reality and the consequences of your actions which will be accounted for via every second of every day of your life.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Opinions are merely holding a position. FACTs go beyond holding an opinion which are backed up by data.

FOR EXAMPLE

I am of the position that you are a fucking retard. Sure, it is just a position I hold.

But I think anyone who threatens America with their god by unleashing a Tsunami on Japan, like you did, kinda turns you being a fucking retard from a mere opinion into a fact by proxy of being an asshole.

So the FACT IS you are a fucking retard.

 

"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


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

Hey Brian,

So here's the deal that I have taught you subconsciously evidently.

Since you subscribe to demonstration vs. substantiation, just know then by definion you are FORCED to deny empiricism. You see, empiricism needs inductive evidence via the substantial. Only deductive a-priori are to have evidence of demonstration.

So i'm confused brian, are you coming around? I mean, now you deny empiricism or else you are confused and simply confused.

Either way, you're getting closer to my side of Chrisitanity absolutes. you have one foot over on my side and another foot in the human waste of thinking called atheism. My advice Brian, just simply move your other foot over to my side and be a Christian. I mean, you're half way there. You can still rock to Dr. Feel Good and listen to Motley Crue, you just won't be burning in hell and tortured.

Good job.

Oh, that's an odd definition of fact, not sure any scholar recognizes that definition.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
              

 

 

                        I just tried to coax The Theist to get over here and play with Jean,    ...what's taking so fucking long ?

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Jean, The Theist comes from

Jean, The Theist comes from the name of my website based upon the story of a futuristic atheist accumulating data in a sort of museum when challenged to explore spirituality.

My beliefs are similar, though not the same as the JWs who, as you know, have borrowed from other sources. There are no sane original teachings of a thousands year old collection of books, you know. I don't defend the JWs or any other organized religion, if fact I loath them all. I have never had the misfortune of belonging in any sense to any of them and I never will.


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

Hi Opie,

So you don't believe in organized religion? Do you prefer unorganized religion? what do you mean organized? You mean organized within a demoniminational headquarters? What if a church has no affiliation with any corporate office but is independent, small, maybe 100 people? Is that organized to you?

so if you're into unorganized religion, then are you a religious anarchist?

What do you subscribe to and deny in J.W thinking? I mean help me out. You obviously deny the inerrancy and infallability of Scripture, but what else?

A cult is a cult no matter what name you give it. You can call the J.W.'s Pizza Pie and it would still be a cult. So if you broke away from the pizza pie cult and instead you're a pizza roll you're still in a cult.

What exactly do you exclude in your thinking from modern J.W. thinking.

Do you believe Rutherford was a false prophet. I've been to the house in San Diego where Rutherford said Abraham, Issac and Jacob were going to come to earth so Rutherford built a home for them to live in. lol.

Do you believe Russell and Rutherford are false prophets? Or jus liars?

What about the 144,000.

You gotta give me specifics man. I can smell a J.W. from a mile away. They smell pretty bad by the way.

The entire J.W. religion is founded on the occult and  false prophesies, so why would you even be part of a shismatic part of that ridiculous cult. What the hell?

You need the real Biblical Jesus. He was not Michael the Arch-Angel. He is God and man and He mediated before the Father via the sins of His children.

Trust in Christ and ask Him to save you. Jesus did not die spiritual but physically for our sins.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved (rescued).

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
Hi David

 

The Theist wrote:

Yeah, we need to talk about your repeated insistence upon avoiding faith based opinions. If you think the Bible is false without really knowing much about it, that is a faith based opinion. If you want to know what the Bible says and want to discuss it you have to reference it, and your faith based opinion don't mean shit to me any more than mine means to you. If everything I say, is in your uninformed opinion, "faith" based then we have nothing to talk about except music and stuff on the other forum.

 

If I want to know what Andromeda looks like, I'm going to use the Hubble, not the bible. There's no faith required. I've read the bible and it has nothing cogent to say about reality. Like others, I struggle to understand why you'd even bother to defend it. When the bible's assertions come with testable explanations and its hypotheses are peer reviewed then I'll pay attention. Until then they are bald assertions supported by insults and threats and they warrant no respect whatever.

In claiming atheists think as they do because they don't understand the bible, you are simply being obtuse. This most recent series of threads from you is going to end the same way as last time, with you having a dummy spit because all the 'idiot atheists cling to their faith'. But what's really going on is that we want material, knowable evidence before we commit to a position of belief in relation to supernatural claims. And yes, we're all aware that such evidence, by definition, cannot exist.  

 

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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 


 But what's really going on is that we want material, knowable evidence before we commit to a position of belief in relation to supernatural claims. And yes, we're all aware that such evidence, by definition, cannot exist.  

 

 

                                     ...which is an eloquent way of saying put up or shut up.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


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

Hi,

You read the Bible and it says nothing Cogent about reality? Nothing at all?

What about when it talks about the City of Jerusalem? Is this not cogent to reality? i mean you said nothing so then you would agree then Jerusalem the city is not found in reality.

hmm? odd.

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).


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Jean Jean

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Opie,

So you don't believe in organized religion? Do you prefer unorganized religion? what do you mean organized? You mean organized within a demoniminational headquarters? What if a church has no affiliation with any corporate office but is independent, small, maybe 100 people? Is that organized to you?

so if you're into unorganized religion, then are you a religious anarchist?

What do you subscribe to and deny in J.W thinking? I mean help me out. You obviously deny the inerrancy and infallability of Scripture, but what else?

A cult is a cult no matter what name you give it. You can call the J.W.'s Pizza Pie and it would still be a cult. So if you broke away from the pizza pie cult and instead you're a pizza roll you're still in a cult.

What exactly do you exclude in your thinking from modern J.W. thinking.

Do you believe Rutherford was a false prophet. I've been to the house in San Diego where Rutherford said Abraham, Issac and Jacob were going to come to earth so Rutherford built a home for them to live in. lol.

Do you believe Russell and Rutherford are false prophets? Or jus liars?

What about the 144,000.

You gotta give me specifics man. I can smell a J.W. from a mile away. They smell pretty bad by the way.

The entire J.W. religion is founded on the occult and  false prophesies, so why would you even be part of a shismatic part of that ridiculous cult. What the hell?

You need the real Biblical Jesus. He was not Michael the Arch-Angel. He is God and man and He mediated before the Father via the sins of His children.

Trust in Christ and ask Him to save you. Jesus did not die spiritual but physically for our sins.

Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved (rescued).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Git 'em Jean! Sick 'em! Sick 'em!  I never thought I would be rooting for you Jean. It's like watching 2 boys fighting over who's dad is the toughest. You Go boy!


 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hey

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hey Brian,

So here's the deal that I have taught you subconsciously evidently.

Since you subscribe to demonstration vs. substantiation, just know then by definion you are FORCED to deny empiricism. You see, empiricism needs inductive evidence via the substantial. Only deductive a-priori are to have evidence of demonstration.

So i'm confused brian, are you coming around? I mean, now you deny empiricism or else you are confused and simply confused.

Either way, you're getting closer to my side of Chrisitanity absolutes. you have one foot over on my side and another foot in the human waste of thinking called atheism. My advice Brian, just simply move your other foot over to my side and be a Christian. I mean, you're half way there. You can still rock to Dr. Feel Good and listen to Motley Crue, you just won't be burning in hell and tortured.

Good job.

Oh, that's an odd definition of fact, not sure any scholar recognizes that definition.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

You are a joke. I could think of lots of believers I find to be decent people, YOU are not one of them. Your idea of Christianity that has a god that holds a third party hostage and murders them in a Tsunami to get to America, would NEVER be my idea of Christianity, even if I wanted to believe, which I dont.

Using dead Latin words "priori" meaning "from before" doesn't constitute your god, or Thor or Posiden or Neptune or pink unicorns. No one here is impressed with your slight of mind gibberish.

 

 

 

 

"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


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3659
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Brian, can you

  Brian, can you temporarily call a time out and let the two theists engage in their jihad ?   I'm going to voluntarily bow out so as not to distract from the battle.  Please Brian, just put your thoughts on hold.   I reeeeally want to see how this plays out....

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The Theist comes from

Quote:
The Theist comes from the name of my website based upon the story of a futuristic atheist accumulating data in a sort of museum when challenged to explore spirituality.

I think you watch too much si fi crap. Saying that humans don't need religion, or gods, or "spirituality" DOES NOT make us machines. This entire idea is nothing but your childish fear mongering manifested in your si fi imagination.

I am human, I have emotions, but non of my behavior, OR ANYONE in our species, needs to be explained with vacuous terms.

It to me is just as stupid when someone goes to see an Illusionist on the Vagas stage. I am curious and do want to know how the trick is done. You are the guy who says "that will spoil the show"

Humans make this mental mistake all the time. You are so in love with the "sense of awe" and that if someone else comes by and discovers a natural answer to the "mystery" your world will fall apart and we will all magically turn into robots, BULLSHIT.

Your buying into this childish fear that humans have always suffered from when they fear change,

On top of that your motif is insidious in that it plays of the stereotype that atheists are evil, and need to be saved "IE confronted by spirituality".

No one is a borg simply because I state the fact that evolution is the reality and bad guesses lead to our imaginations making up gods. That does not make me a robot or a borg or evil, and I wish people like you would stop fantasizing about such horrible meme that sells the idea that the atheist is broken and needs to be fixed.

You value credulity and demonize curiosity and discovery which is what the word "spirituality" should mean. When I have a really awesome experience I simply say 'WOW"  or "AWESOME", but I don't pretend like you that life needs a superstitious word to explain it. And I am tired of people like you trying to demonize people who don't replace reality with fantasy.

I see lots of neat and WOW and AWESOME things in life. My mother's love, my co workers and friends friendship, my cat's love, a pretty sunset. My marriage, which was awesome while it lasted. WE both have the same range of emotions because that is what evolution has produced. Saying that there is no magic to life and no super hero governing our lives and accepting that my emotions, no matter how high or how low, are just that, emotions and not the product of "spirituality". Emotions are merely the human reaction to the input we take in through the entire course of or lives.

Your idea is horrible and it demonizes atheists for no other reason than you simply don't understand us. No one here wants robots, so get over yourself in stupidly thinking we do.

 

 

 

"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


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh yes, Jean.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi,

You read the Bible and it says nothing Cogent about reality? Nothing at all?

What about when it talks about the City of Jerusalem? Is this not cogent to reality? i mean you said nothing so then you would agree then Jerusalem the city is not found in reality.

hmm? odd.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

I believe in Jerusalem and Ruth weeping in the alien corn and the backwards flight of the swine of Gadera. But this geographical and cultural knowledge says nothing useful about the the underpinnings of material existence, hypothetical supernatural first cause, abiogenesis, the externalization of human morality and so forth. So I mean, you know, molecular reality. The nature of existence. That sort of thing. 

 

* Ooops! I disturbed a jihad!  

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Brian, can you temporarily call a time out and let the two theists engage in their jihad ?   I'm going to voluntarily bow out so as not to distract from the battle.  Please Brian, just put your thoughts on hold.   I reeeeally want to see how this plays out....

Shit, sorry I read this AFTER my last post. Sure, no problem. It's just hard for me not to want to jack slap Jean after what he said about Japan and my x wife. And the theist is getting to me as well, not in the same context. I don't  hate him, but his claims make me twitch. But sure, I like to watch two theists go at it as well.

"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: 3203
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This is why I don't debate faith based opinions; this is why people of faith need to learn to accept their faith and stop trying to prove it to others.

BTW - when are you going to get around to answering my questions? I'm still waiting for your response.

No no no no, look, from a political perspective. and a human rights perspective, I agree, but from an intellectual standpoint faith is inexcusable and nowhere justifiable. Not even yours.

Buddhism requires as much "faith" as any other religion. Not having a god does not make it not a religion. It is still a club with superstitious rituals. Buddhism was born in the same age of scientific ignorance as any other club.

Buddhism does not prevent people from doing anything. It is merely a placebo you justify in order to maintain some sense of control in your life. It is merely your own personal predilection.  But just like all other labels in our species history, none of them are required for evolution to occur.

If it gets your rocks of and gets you by and keeps you non-violent, have at it. But even you have tried to justify your label as being a credible source of morality and by proxy the sudden start of morality. Buddhism can only be your own prism, but they are not your eyes and eyes in humans existed long before Buddhism and eyes would still exist, and false perceptions would still happen if your club had never been invented. Life would go on as it has with or without it.

Buddhism exists in a very literally chance sense, if the sperm that became Buddha had not become an adult life, another sperm may have become another person and your religion never would have started. WE exist, outside of labels because of evolution, not labels.

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

I'm sure all those texts have various areas of "information" which are truthful, but that still does not prove their "god" is real.

Buddhism when practiced as a religion is phony. Siddhartha even said this when he warned people about dogma and traditions.

You still don't understand me. You still don't understand what my views are about buddhism or atheism. You specifically do not address questions I have concerning my philosophy on life. This makes for a very poor discussion because you are nitpicking your subjects.

I do not believe in a creator.

I do not believe the universe was created.

I believe in impermanence.

I believe in reincarnation.

 

 

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

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
The Theist

The Theist wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

This is why I don't debate faith based opinions; this is why people of faith need to learn to accept their faith and stop trying to prove it to others.

BTW - when are you going to get around to answering my questions? I'm still waiting for your response.

Yeah, we need to talk about your repeated insistence upon avoiding faith based opinions. If you think the Bible is false without really knowing much about it, that is a faith based opinion. If you want to know what the Bible says and want to discuss it you have to reference it, and your faith based opinion don't mean shit to me any more than mine means to you. If everything I say, is in your uninformed opinion, "faith" based then we have nothing to talk about except music and stuff on the other forum.

It appears I know more about the bible than you do; I'm still waiting for your reply from previous posts.

I'm not avoiding faith based opinions. I'm avoiding debating faith because of the fallacy it is to do so.

 

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

-Scott Adams


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:No no

digitalbeachbum wrote:

No no no no, look, from a political perspective. and a human rights perspective, I agree, but from an intellectual standpoint faith is inexcusable and nowhere justifiable. Not even yours.

Is this some metaphysical philosophy, because although I don't mind having those sorts of conversations, I'm not up for debating them and they will just probably make my toes itch and give me a vague but intense pain behind my left eye. That isn't really why I'm here.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Buddhism requires as much "faith" as any other religion. Not having a god does not make it not a religion. It is still a club with superstitious rituals. Buddhism was born in the same age of scientific ignorance as any other club.

Okay. That sounds about right.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Buddhism does not prevent people from doing anything. It is merely a placebo you justify in order to maintain some sense of control in your life. It is merely your own personal predilection.  But just like all other labels in our species history, none of them are required for evolution to occur.

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

I don't really care. I don't think evolution has anything to do with it and don't know why you would bring it up like that unless you intend to infer that evolution itself was an invention of uncertainty in a primitive culture. A time when chimps who were displayed in public had to be dressed in human clothes for the sake of modesty and smoking was prescribed as good for you. If your opinion is that religion was introduced and developed by ignorant ancient people to explain the unknown to them you don't know much about religion, and you fail to see the irony in your own estimation being basically that which you describe as the origins of religion itself. That is a popular mode of 'thinking' in the poor scholarship of higher criticism and evolutionary jargon.

You are far more likely to have the opportunity to successfully test sacred and quasi sacred texts - even pictograph, ideograph, cuneiform and hieroglyphics than you could ever even come close to doing with your "scientific" explanations on the origin of religion. Its bullshit for the phony intellectual who likes to dismiss religion as primitive in the guise of "science" which is nothing more than theoretical. Conjecture.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
If it gets your rocks of and gets you by and keeps you non-violent, have at it. But even you have tried to justify your label as being a credible source of morality and by proxy the sudden start of morality. Buddhism can only be your own prism, but they are not your eyes and eyes in humans existed long before Buddhism and eyes would still exist, and false perceptions would still happen if your club had never been invented. Life would go on as it has with or without it.

Are you laboring under the erroneous conclusion that I am an Buddhist, for some unexplained reason?

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Buddhism exists in a very literally chance sense, if the sperm that became Buddha had not become an adult life, another sperm may have become another person and your religion never would have started. WE exist, outside of labels because of evolution, not labels.

Bullshit. In my opinion.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I'm sure all those texts have various areas of "information" which are truthful, but that still does not prove their "god" is real.

Okay. I'm currently working on the addition to The Theist of the Venerable Ajahn Sumedho Talk on The Four Noble Truths, one of my favorites. Real practical application of the basic essence of Buddhist thinking but as you indicated above, I don't usually associate that with any gods. I don't know what the hell that has anything to do with anything, but okay.

I don't recall you ever having mentioned any of this. I can't read every post, but . . .

digitalbeachbum wrote:
Buddhism when practiced as a religion is phony. Siddhartha even said this when he warned people about dogma and traditions.

Well, first of all I think you may have your own application of "religion" and secondly, nobody really knows what Siddhartha said since his teachings were not put to writing until 500 to 1,000 years after his death, and then by a more than likely mythical council of 500 bhikkus.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
You still don't understand me. You still don't understand what my views are about buddhism or atheism. You specifically do not address questions I have concerning my philosophy on life. This makes for a very poor discussion because you are nitpicking your subjects.

I don't mind doing that, but it isn't really why I come here. I don't even come here to discuss my own beliefs, although of course they surface nonetheless. I come here to inform the uninformed about the Bible. And to mock atheists who think they know it when they don't.

At least I'm up front about that. And I expect the same in return.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I do not believe in a creator.

I do not believe the universe was created.

Okay. As you say, have at it.

digitalbeachbum wrote:
I believe in impermanence.

I believe in reincarnation.

Alright.

 

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith?  If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith?  If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

 

OH, DEAR! I can't believe you would have the sack to say that, man!

OVER HERE! [Pointing at Philosophicus] OVER HERE THE HERETIC!

BLASPHEMY OF The One True SCIENCE!

Sorry. I had to do it, they were starting to look like a mob to me.

Just say Ramapithecus to them, it confuses 'em unmerciful.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
@the theist

Huh. Learn how to edit and post, then maybe I'll debate with you.

Untill then, practice, practice, practice.

 

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

-Scott Adams


Jeff Sherry (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hello there, Gods or a god

Hello there, Gods or a god is a human social construct giving explanations for the unknowable. Quite simply an atheist is one that has no belief in a god or gods. With additional tags for myself being a non-supernaturalist and agnostic.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith?  If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

What is faith in the most general of terms?

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

-Scott Adams


The Theist
TheistardTroll
The Theist's picture
Posts: 217
Joined: 2012-03-09
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Hi

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hi Opie,

Call me Opie . . . one more time, and I will henceforth refer to you as Gomer.


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

Hello,

First of all Brian, God does not murder or threaten, you know these are logical falllacies of strawman arguments. You just act like a little girl when I argue with you becaue you can't handle the sword piercing your conscience.

__________

Opie, you're not going to specify what happen? To say that christmas and easter and so fourth are pagan is the logical fallacy of usus loquendi as well as the etymological fallacy.

The Trinity? shall we really talk about this? I assume you've read John 1:1 10,000 times in your little brown book of knowledge via it's interpretation. lol.

Did you know in the asleep magazines you guys put out they have graphics imprinted on the pages that are very hard to see. You really have to know what to look for and concentrate. Picture of people just walking and on the side of the street a etched image of a demon. I have countless asleep magazines that have this.

Opie, do you not wish to engage with me? What KIND of J.W> are you? Do you believe the 1914 thing, are rutherford and russell false prophets. what about the prophesies of Jesus coming back in:

1874

1914

1925

1941

1975

1983

Since non of those prophesies came true and since the asleep says that the WatchTower is God's prophet, ergo would that not make the watchtower a false prophet. so then, why on earth would you have any part with this at all?

On a side note, most J.W.'s are pretty ugly, don't take care of themselves. often times fat, you know. part of the depression i suppose. We don't find this with the Mormons. odd.

-----------

Extremeist,

You made a universal negative that there is nothing at all cogent in reality in the Bible. Now your back peddling. So now there are some things cogent with reality, but now you're saying they're not very important.

How convenient Extremeist

________

Sapient debated 2 guys who suck at debating and not trained in logic or really theology. Kirk liked Ray gave him money, and now he is well known. Dr. Robet Morey wasn't to happy about that.

Sapient, debate me or a friend of mine and if you win via the audience vote, I will personally give you 10,000 dollars, but if you lose, you give me 10,000 dollars. Or we can tag team, my colleague Dr. Robert Morey and I can debate you and who cares any pathetic 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).


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith?  If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

What is faith in the most general of terms?

Faith is a proposition that isn't derived from other propositions; it's believed without being reasoned for.  In other words, an assumption. 

 


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

Phil,

Seriously, You're going to be this stupid?

All first principles in All arguments are assuptions all the time always.

You also assume the inerrancy of empiricism via your experiences and senses. You assume this without justifying the validity of the mode which you argue from. Thus your arguments based on empiricism are circular reasoning since your knowlege of the scientic method is via empiricism, and your empiricism is because of the scienfic method.

Around around we go chuck. You are in a boat with one oar.

Since faith is a category of epistemology, and since I do not argue in a circle but start with my first prinple and work downwards, I do not violate the same logical fallacy you do.

Atheism is known for being so extremely circular in their worldview and cult.

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).


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

The Theist wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith?  If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

OH, DEAR! I can't believe you would have the sack to say that, man!

OVER HERE! [Pointing at Philosophicus] OVER HERE THE HERETIC!

BLASPHEMY OF The One True SCIENCE!

Sorry. I had to do it, they were starting to look like a mob to me.

Just say Ramapithecus to them, it confuses 'em unmerciful.

No!  I said that if digitalbeachbum was going to say that philosophy is based on faith, he might as well say that science is too.  Philosophy is based on reason (some existentialists might disagree),  and science is based on experiments and math.  Neither are based on faith, unless you count the necessary assumptions, which should be as few in number as possible (Ockham's razor, use it every day).

 

 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Faith is a proposition that isn't derived from other propositions; it's believed without being reasoned for. In other words, an assumption.

Phil,

Seriously, You're going to be this stupid?

All first principles in All arguments are assuptions all the time always.

You also assume the inerrancy of empiricism via your experiences and senses. You assume this without justifying the validity of the mode which you argue from. Thus your arguments based on empiricism are circular reasoning since your knowlege of the scientic method is via empiricism, and your empiricism is because of the scienfic method.

Around around we go chuck. You are in a boat with one oar.

Since faith is a category of epistemology, and since I do not argue in a circle but start with my first prinple and work downwards, I do not violate the same logical fallacy you do.

Atheism is known for being so extremely circular in their worldview and cult.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

What in my comment are you disagreeing with?  I didn't mention first principles, I mentioned assumptions.  I also didn't mention empiricism.  I'll address your post, but since you didn't attack anything I wrote, I don't need to defend it. 

In logic, a first principle is a proposition that can't be derived from another proposition and is assumed.  This doesn't mean that all assumptions are first principles.

 


Odemus
Silver Member
Odemus's picture
Posts: 19
Joined: 2007-05-06
User is offlineOffline
What exactly is the debate

What exactly is the debate here? I see a lot of semantics, I see the typical shifting of goal posts, but I don't see any real effort to demonstrate the existence and attributes of god. Who is this god? What evidence leads you to conclude it exists? How does it direct your life?


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:The

Philosophicus wrote:

The Theist wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith?  If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

OH, DEAR! I can't believe you would have the sack to say that, man!

OVER HERE! [Pointing at Philosophicus] OVER HERE THE HERETIC!

BLASPHEMY OF The One True SCIENCE!

Sorry. I had to do it, they were starting to look like a mob to me.

Just say Ramapithecus to them, it confuses 'em unmerciful.

No!  I said that if digitalbeachbum was going to say that philosophy is based on faith, he might as well say that science is too.  Philosophy is based on reason (some existentialists might disagree),  and science is based on experiments and math.  Neither are based on faith, unless you count the necessary assumptions, which should be as few in number as possible (Ockham's razor, use it every day).

There are philosophers who have suggested various observations which were taught through the years in schools and colleges. Are they truth? Opinion? Testable? Are they taken on faith by the students? Did all the students who "learned" those previous observations test them to see if they are valid? If those observations are not valid does it make them false or is it because the reality of each person is different?

Not all philosophies are true. Some are taken on faith.

 

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

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith?  If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

What is faith in the most general of terms?

Faith is a proposition that isn't derived from other propositions; it's believed without being reasoned for.  In other words, an assumption. 

 

Then my first statement is true.

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

-Scott Adams


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

The Theist wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith?  If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

OH, DEAR! I can't believe you would have the sack to say that, man!

OVER HERE! [Pointing at Philosophicus] OVER HERE THE HERETIC!

BLASPHEMY OF The One True SCIENCE!

Sorry. I had to do it, they were starting to look like a mob to me.

Just say Ramapithecus to them, it confuses 'em unmerciful.

No!  I said that if digitalbeachbum was going to say that philosophy is based on faith, he might as well say that science is too.  Philosophy is based on reason (some existentialists might disagree),  and science is based on experiments and math.  Neither are based on faith, unless you count the necessary assumptions, which should be as few in number as possible (Ockham's razor, use it every day).

There are philosophers who have suggested various observations which were taught through the years in schools and colleges. Are they truth? Opinion? Testable? Are they taken on faith by the students? Did all the students who "learned" those previous observations test them to see if they are valid? If those observations are not valid does it make them false or is it because the reality of each person is different?

Not all philosophies are true. Some are taken on faith. 

You said that if something is not tested scientifically, then it's based on faith.  Philosophies based on reason are not tested scientifically, and don't qualify as faith-based.  To answer your questions about "philosophers who have suggested various observations which were taught through the years in schools and colleges" being truth, opinion, testable, or faith-based: it depends on which philosophers you're talking about, and, more specifically, which view they argued for.

I agree that not all philosophies are true, and the ones based on faith aren't worth pursuing.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

The Theist wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

All text, religious or philosophical in nature are taken on faith unless they can be tested and reviewed with scientific methods.

Do you think reason is taken on faith?  If you do, you might as well say that the results in science are based on faith too because they could be wrong.

OH, DEAR! I can't believe you would have the sack to say that, man!

OVER HERE! [Pointing at Philosophicus] OVER HERE THE HERETIC!

BLASPHEMY OF The One True SCIENCE!

Sorry. I had to do it, they were starting to look like a mob to me.

Just say Ramapithecus to them, it confuses 'em unmerciful.

No!  I said that if digitalbeachbum was going to say that philosophy is based on faith, he might as well say that science is too.  Philosophy is based on reason (some existentialists might disagree),  and science is based on experiments and math.  Neither are based on faith, unless you count the necessary assumptions, which should be as few in number as possible (Ockham's razor, use it every day).

There are philosophers who have suggested various observations which were taught through the years in schools and colleges. Are they truth? Opinion? Testable? Are they taken on faith by the students? Did all the students who "learned" those previous observations test them to see if they are valid? If those observations are not valid does it make them false or is it because the reality of each person is different?

Not all philosophies are true. Some are taken on faith. 

You said that if something is not tested scientifically, then it's based on faith.  Philosophies based on reason are not tested scientifically, and don't qualify as faith-based.  To answer your questions about "philosophers who have suggested various observations which were taught through the years in schools and colleges" being truth, opinion, testable, or faith-based: it depends on which philosophers you're talking about, and, more specifically, which view they argued for.

I agree that not all philosophies are true, and the ones based on faith aren't worth pursuing.

Agreed

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

-Scott Adams


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Double post...

I'll give this as a funny... I like the "god's first mistake was making me an atheist"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBdhnmnLnUc&feature=related

 

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

-Scott Adams


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Double post...

I'll give this as a funny... I like the "god's first mistake was making me an atheist"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBdhnmnLnUc&feature=related 

Nice vid.  I like seeing celebrities advocating atheism.  An interesting tidbit about Ricky Gervais, besides his public atheism, is that he has a degree in philosophy from University College London.  He also has a cartoon show on HBO called The Ricky Gervais Show, where they talk about various topics, including some philosophy.