The Atheist Debater's Handbook

Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Debater's Handbook

The Atheist Debater's Handbook

I have been told that the first edition was dedicated to Lucifer but I have not been able to verfiy this. Nevertheless, the book if full of fallacies and is somewhat weak and has been given a kind of bad review. I studied this book very intensely when I was 15 as a Chrisitan.

Chapter 1: God and Science

I would like to review from the perspective of the atheist and my critique very briefly. 

As an atheist, science is dominately empirical. Though there are a few Rationalists on this site that I have talked to but they tend to hide in the corner in fear.

The logical fallacy of this category is that empiricism IS the only type of evidence that can even be considered. Thus, if you argue or present evidence OUTSIDE of this category, then by definition you do not have evidence.

This narrow mindedness and ignorance can be seen in the presupposition of most atheists. Though they do not justify their empiciism.

When I speak of empiricism, purely it must be by experience via the sense ONLY. If you cannot experience blue or the interpretation of 2+2, then it is not empirical.

However these typses of atheists that are uneducated typically are begging the question. They are not only being circular in their reasoning (example: empirical evidence is true because it's tangible, tangible is true because it's empirical). but they are begging the question by not giving the validity of why the other epistemologies are false or true.

They start off blind and end blind since the presuppotions begins fallaciously.

Since SCIENCE is the known through epistemology, and since empiricism is only 1 THEORY, then this must be answered before the subject begins.

And since empiricism has been refuted severly, then science is understood through the meaning of what is the known via the evidence of type found in the epistemology of validity and soundness.

Thus, the entire chapter begs the questiion. Not only does it not address the issue of empiricisms validity, gives an ambigious understanding of science since the presupposition of science is not only fallacious in classification, but also the process of that classification.

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

I find the very idea of an Atheist's debaters handbook ridiculous. I don't need a book to tell me how to debate anything. It's not difficult in the least bit to use logic and reason. That's the difference between you and me Jean. You need a bible to tell you what you should think is real. I do not.  You think I am not intelligent, but the truth is you can read every book on Earth and you will not be smarter than me. However many tidbits of useless information you manage to store in that pea brain of yours is as useless as me memorizing the Chinese encyclopedia. To prove it, you are arguing with a book about arguing.  Once again you keep slamming your face into the window and I find it quite amusing. How many times were you fascinated by the guy who pulled a coin out from behind your ear?

"...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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 OF course it begs the

 OF course it begs the question, Jeannine, you wrote it.

It also created a nice little straw man for you didn't it?

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


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

Hello,

This book was written in 1983 lol. It actually does a pretty good job at portraying how atheists attempt to argue. Very basic with many mistakes. It's almost like I'm the teacher and you are all 2nd graders trying to argue against your teacher.

It's pretty pathetic.

But Tony, you cannot argue since you are empirical, thus you only go by the finite, while I go by the inifinte.

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: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

This book was written in 1983 lol. It actually does a pretty good job at portraying how atheists attempt to argue. Very basic with many mistakes. It's almost like I'm the teacher and you are all 2nd graders trying to argue against your teacher.

It's pretty pathetic.

But Tony, you cannot argue since you are empirical, thus you only go by the finite, while I go by the inifinte.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Pathetic is using your god claim to justify the death's of 13,000 people in the Japanese Tsunami as a threat to America for not sucking up to your god. Pathetic is using this same god to threaten a dead man with a hell that does not exist. THAT is pathetic.

 

 

"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


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

This book was written in 1983 lol. It actually does a pretty good job at portraying how atheists attempt to argue. Very basic with many mistakes. It's almost like I'm the teacher and you are all 2nd graders trying to argue against your teacher.

It's pretty pathetic.

But Tony, you cannot argue since you are empirical, thus you only go by the finite, while I go by the inifinte.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Since you're typing Jeannine, I have no way of knowing that you're not lying.

Do you have some way to source your quote?

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


Sage_Override
atheistBlogger
Sage_Override's picture
Posts: 582
Joined: 2008-10-14
User is offlineOffline
I was writing a response to

I was writing a response to Jean's ridiculous post last night, but I think Brian's server either reset or something weird happened because I couldn't access it so, let's continue...

 

Normal 0 MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}



Quote:

The Atheist Debater's Handbook

I have been told that the first edition was dedicated to Lucifer but I have not been able to verfiy this

 

Your friends that believe in the same whacked out shit that you do doesn't count, chuckles.

 

Quote:
Nevertheless, the book if full of fallacies and is somewhat weak and has been given a kind of bad review. I studied this book very intensely when I was 15 as a Chrisitan.

 

So, you devolved from being a Christian to psychotic zealot when exactly...?  I also have a hard time believing you studied any book "intensely," besides the heavyweight champion of lies that you clutch to your chest in a death grip, of course.

 

Quote:
As an atheist, science is dominately empirical.  Though there are a few Rationalists on this site that I have talked to but they tend to hide in the corner in fear.

 

(Definition of Empiricism):  "Empiricism is a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge comes only or primarily via sensory experience.  One of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism, idealism and historicism, empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, over the notion of innate ideas or traditions.  Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation."

 

Rationalism IS empiricism and vice versa; they all belong to the same branch of epistemology which is just a fancy word meaning "study of science and knowledge."  While you think you're being clever by twisting words and pretending that empiricism and rationalism are not related, they are both interwoven into the same basic principles and ideas.  If anything, you've been hiding in fear all your life and these "rationalists" you claim are hiding are really just covering their faces and acting distracted while they pass the crazed shouting vendor on the street (you).  

 

Quote:
The logical fallacy of this category is that empiricism IS the only type of evidence that can even be considered. Thus, if you argue or present evidence OUTSIDE of this category, then by definition you do not have evidence.

 

Yes, anything OUTSIDE of rational thought is also known as "BLIND FAITH" and it isn't "evidence" if there's nothing there. 

 

Quote:
When I speak of empiricism, purely it must be by experience via the sense ONLY. If you cannot experience blue or the interpretation of 2+2, then it is not empirical.

 

...as opposed to, oh, say...mental defects??  Joseph Smith had lots of these and he cured them by convincing those around him that his behavior was motivated by god's intentions, not by an obviously broken brain. 

 

I can experience blue, for your information, mister, and I can tell you that it is pretty damn delightful:

 

 

 

Quote:
However these typses of atheists that are uneducated typically are begging the question. They are not only being circular in their reasoning (example: empirical evidence is true because it's tangible, tangible is true because it's empirical). but they are begging the question by not giving the validity of why the other epistemologies are false or true.

 

I didn't know "typses" was a word, but I'm learning new shit from you all the time!  What's amusing is that your beliefs don't require one shred of evidence and those that use epistemology as what they believe to be true are referring to actual things, not unidentified often mythical frameworks to back up their claims.  They have their facts from observing, testing, providing historical evidence, etc.  You can bend and curve the use of empirical arguments all you want, but you can't ignore or try to cover up the fact that you dislike the reasoning that these people bring to the table.

 

Quote:
They start off blind and end blind since the presuppotions begins fallaciously.

 

 

 

Quote:
Since SCIENCE is the known through epistemology, and since empiricism is only 1 THEORY, then this must be answered before the subject begins.

 

*bangs head on desk*

 

Quote:
And since empiricism has been refuted severly, then science is understood through the meaning of what is the known via the evidence of type found in the epistemology of validity and soundness.

 

You know, after awhile, even if I never saw any of your previous posts, it's clear that you have bats in the belfry, you're one can short of a six pack and that you are, indeed, a mental case.  Stumble on your words some more; maybe you'll trip, bump your head and maybe you'll eventually come to some sort of rational thought.  Until then, stop using big words that you can't fully comprehend; it makes you look like a buffoon.

 

Just keep on doing what you're doing because the fire is just going to get higher. 

 

 

"Wipe your forehead, Jean, you got plenty of time to sweat." - Merv Green in "Death to Smoochy"

 

 

 

 

 

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me


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

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

This book was written in 1983 lol. It actually does a pretty good job at portraying how atheists attempt to argue. Very basic with many mistakes. It's almost like I'm the teacher and you are all 2nd graders trying to argue against your teacher.

It's pretty pathetic.

But Tony, you cannot argue since you are empirical, thus you only go by the finite, while I go by the inifinte.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

"...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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
shameless rip, again....

from www.sheepfluffer.com/2010/04/04/jesus-has-a-very-special-gift-for-you/

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

This book was written in 1983 lol. It actually does a pretty good job at portraying how atheists attempt to argue. Very basic with many mistakes. It's almost like I'm the teacher and you are all 2nd graders trying to argue against your teacher.

It's pretty pathetic.

But Tony, you cannot argue since you are empirical, thus you only go by the finite, while I go by the inifinte.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jesus has a very special gift for you!

 

 

Via http://www.flickr.com/photos/23003334@N06/3073772258

A friend of mine tuned me into this crazy growing phenomenon of hardcore Christians getting into hardcore BDSM.  Nothing quite says “PRAISE JESUS!” quite like tying your wife up, flogging her senseless, and then sticking your pulsing manhood into her dry vagina, and dry humping for ten seconds.  These people however, justify, what they’re doing via biblical scriptures.  And I found out it isn’t just BDSM…it’s everything.   Take this gem for example.

Fisting and Gods Will…

Then He said to Thomas, “Put your finger here and observe My hands. Reach out your hand and put it into My side. Don’t be an unbeliever, but a believer.” (John 20:27)

 

Amazing.  God told all of us to fist each other.  I guess the next time I have my entire hand shoved in some hooker’s vagina, and I’m feeling her cervix all up, I’ll remember that the “OH GOD!” are really prayers.  Perhaps she’s even Pentecostal and has the spirit!

But it isn’t just Fisting this site touches on. It’s everything.  Did you know Jesus loves oral sex?

Oral Sex in Accordance with God’s Will

Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is that is saying to you, “Give me a drink,’ you would have asked him, and he would have given you living water.” 11 The woman said to him, “Sir, you have no bucket, and the well is deep. Where do you get that living water?…15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water, so that I may never be thirsty or have to keep coming here to draw water.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come back.” (John 4:10-16)

“Living water” in this context refers to semen, which literally is the liquid of life. As Christ indicates, drinking of the “living water” provides a spiritual replenishment for the soul. When the woman asks Jesus where she can get this “water”, he tells her to fetch her husband, clearly with the intention of instructing her on how to fellate him and swallow his semen.

Yes kids.  Jesus told that poor soul to grab her husband, so he could watch while she sucked off a stranger.  But in the end, she would be saved by the seamen.  So the next time you’re feeling up a religious chick who doesn’t want to suck cock because of religious convictions, show her this passage.  Tell her she can only be saved by the living gift of cum.  I fully intend to use this line on some chick I meet at Church today.  I love to praise the Lord in my own ways.

Before you leave, check out their requirements and suggestions for meaningful Christian porn.  They truly want the cheesy storylines in hardcore pornography replaced by boring shots of these couples praying or studying the bible together.  What would you rather see kids, deep religious instruction or deep penetration?  The answer is clear.

“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)


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

I thought I'd heard it all Kapkao.  lol    Have you ever heard of "Clowning"? HBO had a real sex special on it.  I'll never get it out of my head.

"...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


Vision76. (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Ditto

Yes! I have never forgotten "ShotsZee" (spelling?) the clown. Never......