Where We Agree

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

Where We Agree?

In the grand scope of things, agnostics pretending to be atheists and bare knuckle, full contact Christian apologists must agree on something(s). This thread is an attempt to start with aggreement and then work towards our disagreements slowly and eventually. I will be giving answers and assuming intelligence is among the midst. 

*We will disagree with methods, means, and measures, but we shall work up to that slowly. For now, agreements.*

A friend of mine who was a Christian marched with an "atheist" to protest the cultic brainwashing of Rev. Moon of the moonies who was to meet with some politicians many years ago. The Christian, and the "atheist" agreed and had a common goal. I would have marched along side that "atheist" as well. 

Things we may agree with: 

Humanitarian Goals Feeding the poor, helping the sick, homeless, etc. 

Science The pursuit of scientific study in order to find out how this world and universe operates.. Of course we may differ on the method, but we both want to scientifically understand. Since science was founded on Christianity according to all the major reference works, this is an obvious aggreement. REMEMBER:  

Education. This is extremely important from a Christian perspective, and a secular Platonic perspective as well. This Platonic importance has been infuential in "atheism."

Pollution: We both agree that we are responsible for taking care of the earth we live on. We obviously disagree on this issue in reference to the elements of this subject, but nevertheless, we agree that the earth should not be destroyed by pollution and such.

Nuclear Weapons: We both do not want a nuclear dooms day.

There are many other areas of agreement. However, just like science, two scientists can be looking at the exact same date (artifact), however since they have different methods of arriving at their conclusions, so the different will be noted. I should mention that our disagreement on many of these issues STARTS WITH METHOD. Once we understand this and study this issue, we can start to see the differences.

Those who know me on this board, know me to be pretty bare knuckle black eye in the face. However, I am assuming intelligent actually does exist out there. Once our agreements are understood, then our methods of those disagreements can be realized as well.

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).


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
For the love of UnHoly chimichangas . .

  There are NO blunt force implements

  There are NO knife fights.

  There are NO street fights

  There are NO Panzerkampfwagen E-100 TANKS

  There are NO Frigging scythes

  There are NO frigging Bazookas

  There are NO bare knuckles (anything) !!!

  Your history indicates you would like to make up your own rules. Well, Guess what ?!!!? This IS NOT your board.

Stop treating folks like they are Night Stalker Richard Ramiez's, creepier frigging Uncle.  Put it out of your head RIGHT NOW!!!!!

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Where We

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Where We Agree?

In the grand scope of things, agnostics pretending to be atheists and bare knuckle, full contact Christian apologists must agree on something(s). This thread is an attempt to start with aggreement and then work towards our disagreements slowly and eventually. I will be giving answers and assuming intelligence is among the midst. 

*We will disagree with methods, means, and measures, but we shall work up to that slowly. For now, agreements.*

A friend of mine who was a Christian marched with an "atheist" to protest the cultic brainwashing of Rev. Moon of the moonies who was to meet with some politicians many years ago. The Christian, and the "atheist" agreed and had a common goal. I would have marched along side that "atheist" as well. 

Things we may agree with: 

Humanitarian Goals Feeding the poor, helping the sick, homeless, etc. 

Science The pursuit of scientific study in order to find out how this world and universe operates.. Of course we may differ on the method, but we both want to scientifically understand. Since science was founded on Christianity according to all the major reference works, this is an obvious aggreement. REMEMBER:  

Education. This is extremely important from a Christian perspective, and a secular Platonic perspective as well. This Platonic importance has been infuential in "atheism."

Pollution: We both agree that we are responsible for taking care of the earth we live on. We obviously disagree on this issue in reference to the elements of this subject, but nevertheless, we agree that the earth should not be destroyed by pollution and such.

Nuclear Weapons: We both do not want a nuclear dooms day.

There are many other areas of agreement. However, just like science, two scientists can be looking at the exact same date (artifact), however since they have different methods of arriving at their conclusions, so the different will be noted. I should mention that our disagreement on many of these issues STARTS WITH METHOD. Once we understand this and study this issue, we can start to see the differences.

Those who know me on this board, know me to be pretty bare knuckle black eye in the face. However, I am assuming intelligent actually does exist out there. Once our agreements are understood, then our methods of those disagreements can be realized as well.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Quote:
Nuclear Weapons: We both do not want a nuclear dooms day.

 

Sure you don't considering that you threatened, oh wait, your god used you as a messenger because we all know you have the one tin foil hat that gives you the cosmic Bat Phone to the big guy, you used that claim that you knew that god wanted Japan to suffer as a third party to serve as warning that America find your God.

 

"No one wants to die" NO SHIT DUMBFUCK!

The problem with assholes like you is that what you really mean is " If you just do it my way and submit, no one has to die"

 

Your problem is that we don't drink the same doomsday Kool Aid assholes like you do and threaten America with the Japanese Tsunami with.

 

You don't want peace, you want submission.

"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


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Where We

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Where We Agree?

In the grand scope of things, agnostics pretending to be atheists and bare knuckle, full contact Christian apologists must agree on something(s). This thread is an attempt to start with aggreement and then work towards our disagreements slowly and eventually. I will be giving answers and assuming intelligence is among the midst. 

*We will disagree with methods, means, and measures, but we shall work up to that slowly. For now, agreements.*

A friend of mine who was a Christian marched with an "atheist" to protest the cultic brainwashing of Rev. Moon of the moonies who was to meet with some politicians many years ago. The Christian, and the "atheist" agreed and had a common goal. I would have marched along side that "atheist" as well. 

Things we may agree with: 

Humanitarian Goals Feeding the poor, helping the sick, homeless, etc. 

Science The pursuit of scientific study in order to find out how this world and universe operates.. Of course we may differ on the method, but we both want to scientifically understand. Since science was founded on Christianity according to all the major reference works, this is an obvious aggreement. REMEMBER:  

Education. This is extremely important from a Christian perspective, and a secular Platonic perspective as well. This Platonic importance has been infuential in "atheism."

Pollution: We both agree that we are responsible for taking care of the earth we live on. We obviously disagree on this issue in reference to the elements of this subject, but nevertheless, we agree that the earth should not be destroyed by pollution and such.

Nuclear Weapons: We both do not want a nuclear dooms day.

There are many other areas of agreement. However, just like science, two scientists can be looking at the exact same date (artifact), however since they have different methods of arriving at their conclusions, so the different will be noted. I should mention that our disagreement on many of these issues STARTS WITH METHOD. Once we understand this and study this issue, we can start to see the differences.

Those who know me on this board, know me to be pretty bare knuckle black eye in the face. However, I am assuming intelligent actually does exist out there. Once our agreements are understood, then our methods of those disagreements can be realized as well.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

No one wants to die? Uhm... suicide wouldn't be a thing if that were true. Don't even counter with Christians wouldn't want to kill themselves, as there are plenty of cases of it, infact without people who were willing to die, a lot of martyrdom would not have happened throughout history.

"We do not want a nuclear doomsday" Uhm... I don't know about you but I don't want any kind of doomsday, though if I had to have my pick, I'd choose gamma ray, black-hole, or nuclear. Why? they're quick and relatively painless. 

 

Oh and Science was NOT founded on Christianity. Are you telling me that the Jewish, you know the people that came up with Christianity ( by which I mean Jesus being a Jew and his followers were mostly Jews), were completely without science? They simply roamed around looking for food never settling? How could they without farming tech? Not even herding without understanding of animal husbandry. By that token they had to eat all of their food raw as there was no way to make fire, no one could speak to each other in any manner as no one would have anything to convey to one another, as without science there are no thoughts...

You said this was according to major reference works? Uhm... care to cite them?

As far as reaching the same conclusions via different methods. The methods should be the same fundamentally. Example Tan (45&degEye-wink and Tan ( п/4) both = 1. Different methods? Yes. Same type of approach? Yes. 2+2+2+2 = 8, 2*4=8 Methods different on a literal level? Yes, one was multiplication the other was addition. Are they quintessentially the same thing when all is said and done? Yes.

Thus Science would back up Christianity and Christianity would back up Science. This is obviously not the case. To state the obvious there would be no debate of creationism and evolution, should this be the case.

As concerning Pollution, pollution is pollution, not much else to it, Things like SO₂ (that's sulfur dioxide) need to be removed from the atmosphere, not much else to that.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
anybody, christian or

anybody, christian or atheist or whatever, who takes a platonic perspective on anything is an imbecile.  augustine, for example, was an incredible imbecile who somehow gained (and still holds) the respect of most of the western world.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:anybody,

iwbiek wrote:

anybody, christian or atheist or whatever, who takes a platonic perspective on anything is an imbecile.  augustine, for example, was an incredible imbecile who somehow gained (and still holds) the respect of most of the western world.

I agree with that one Smiling Oh wait a minute, we're both Atheists.

Anyway, to begin with, where WE agree to me is a false dichotomy indicating there are two camps. Hell, there are Theists (well not Christians, but theists nonetheless) that I would rather spend time with than some Atheists that I know. So there is no WE to it anyway.

That's like this sweeping statement that I have heard people make about : "People all basically want the same thing."

For some reason, when I hear that, it totally pisses me off. People obviously do not want all the same thing. Otherwise the world would not be in the shape that it is in right now and has been since civilization first began.

"The American Dream" for many people seems to be the popular image of the wife, kids, two car garage and the whie picket fence. That particular vision is revolting to me.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I get my homonyms confused was that conceded OR conceited ?

Re ::I get my homonyms confused was that conceded OR conceited ?

Brian37 wrote:

super-troll wrote:

Non-Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Quote:
Nuclear Weapons: We both do not want a nuclear dooms day.

 

Sure you don't considering that you threatened, oh wait, your god used you as a messenger because we all know you have the one tin foil hat that gives you the cosmic Bat Phone to the big guy, you used that claim that you knew that god wanted Japan to suffer as a third party to serve as warning that America find your God.

 

"No one wants to die" NO SHIT DUMBFUCK!

The problem with assholes like you is that what you really mean is " If you just do it my way and submit, no one has to die"

 

Your problem is that we don't drink the same doomsday Kool Aid assholes like you do and threaten America with the Japanese Tsunami with.

 

You don't want peace, you want submission.

  Brian  (LoL)  


 Jean  here's a thought.  Get around to reviewing your homonyms.

  Jean help me to remember, I get confused, (homonyms) are you conceded OR conceited ?

 

  Geese Louise! Wladyslaw must think we (brian37 and danatemporary) ever coming across like raving lunatics, w/ this. If it is unintelligible, that is due to  both who it is to and referencing  things outside of this 'particular' Thread, K?   Calvin's own has a notorious distinction on the board as a pariah  and permanent badge holder, apparently. We all may be headed to therapy :¬

  Jean is guilty of many things on the board; after feeling the heat in Trollville may even privately be seeking absolution. Oddly Monsignor wasnt to be found any-where  on the forum.  He may wish his sins were as far as the east is from the west. Rest assured, beneficence shall be extended exactly  5480 ± 100 miles worth,  the distance from the tsunami-swept coast of Japan to America.

 "unga bunga".

 

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
For the sake of moving the discussion

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Where We Agree?

In the grand scope of things, agnostics pretending to be atheists and bare knuckle, full contact Christian apologists must agree on something(s). This thread is an attempt to start with aggreement and then work towards our disagreements slowly and eventually. I will be giving answers and assuming intelligence is among the midst. 

*We will disagree with methods, means, and measures, but we shall work up to that slowly. For now, agreements.*

A friend of mine who was a Christian marched with an "atheist" to protest the cultic brainwashing of Rev. Moon of the moonies who was to meet with some politicians many years ago. The Christian, and the "atheist" agreed and had a common goal. I would have marched along side that "atheist" as well. 

Things we may agree with: 

Humanitarian Goals Feeding the poor, helping the sick, homeless, etc. 

Science The pursuit of scientific study in order to find out how this world and universe operates.. Of course we may differ on the method, but we both want to scientifically understand. Since science was founded on Christianity according to all the major reference works, this is an obvious aggreement. REMEMBER:  

Education. This is extremely important from a Christian perspective, and a secular Platonic perspective as well. This Platonic importance has been infuential in "atheism."

Pollution: We both agree that we are responsible for taking care of the earth we live on. We obviously disagree on this issue in reference to the elements of this subject, but nevertheless, we agree that the earth should not be destroyed by pollution and such.

Nuclear Weapons: We both do not want a nuclear dooms day.

There are many other areas of agreement. However, just like science, two scientists can be looking at the exact same date (artifact), however since they have different methods of arriving at their conclusions, so the different will be noted. I should mention that our disagreement on many of these issues STARTS WITH METHOD. Once we understand this and study this issue, we can start to see the differences.

Those who know me on this board, know me to be pretty bare knuckle black eye in the face. However, I am assuming intelligent actually does exist out there. Once our agreements are understood, then our methods of those disagreements can be realized as well.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

Forward, yes, we are socially moral people and generally agree with many of your points with a caveat in areas like science and education. We agree they are important, tho' perhaps our definitions are at variance in places. 

I'd be interested to hear the difference between a religious and secular scientist in terms of methodology. I always loved the Sagan quote when he said the philosopher and scientist had much in common but the philosopher had no laboratory. 

 

 

 

 

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


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
 Ha, no, I read some of the

 Ha, no, I read some of the other things that Jean has posted. I laughed uncontrollably, though this is supposed to be a 'kindness homocide' thread, so I saved and changed some words between my final post and the final one. :3

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3696
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:  There

danatemporary wrote:

  There are NO knife fights.

Sure there are, here is how to  win:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4mrcSGRqdE

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Luv that . . .

 Re ::  Luv that . . .

EXC wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  There are NO knife fights.

Sure there are, here is how to  win:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4mrcSGRqdE

 

  I am doubly tickled

 


 


 


Wladyslaw wrote:

 Ha, no, I read some of the other things that Jean has posted. I laughed uncontrollably, though this is supposed to be a 'kindness homocide' thread, so I saved and changed some words between my final post and the final one. :3

 Most of the good threads end up in Trollville, I understand.  Jean has some pretty unusual  (and archaic) knowledge on the Occult, under his hat.  That may be pretty obscure after engrossing himself in a couple of titles. You know, I am still waiting on him for an answer on one thing.  But, I am patient. 

 


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

Hello,

When I speak of agreements, I am obviously speaking in general terms. There are always rare exceptions to the rules such as the consistent atheists that kill themselves (e.g. Hemingway). This was eliptically understood.

I believe Brian broke the kindness rules and ought to repent and apologize to all. How Convenient!

In regards to methods of sceince and education for that matter to answer Extreme's question. The starting point for the Creationist is completely different from the secular evolutionary perspective. Secular "science" starts with particulars according to the scientific method, and trys to inductively add up and trace the origins or meaning of a specific piece of data. Christans on the other hand start deductively via a-priori. I will go into this a little further.

Though we are already starting to discuss our disagreements, perhaps things that we agree upon should be brought fourth first for discussion.

The Scientist who is a Chrisitan does use the scientific method, however, their use is not to substantiate, but demonstrate what is already known via a-priori.

For example, when I hiked to the crater of Mt. Saint Helens with Dr. Steve Austin, a Creationist and the #1 authority on Mt. Saint Helens. It was Dr. Austin who has caused a schism in the secular geological community over presupposes catastrophe over uniformitarinism. Many secular geologists recognize catastrophe as a possibility now which was absolutely unheard of 30 years ago. In fact, if a secular geologist were to say this in their writings, they would be shunned by their other patrons.

The Grand Canyon has logs sticking up completely vertically. Logs stripped of its bark inplanted. The secular understanding of this is many years via the uniformitarian theory. However, while I studied Mt. Saint Helens and swam in Spirit Lake, I saw logs floating vertically straight up in the water. Logs typically don't do this. This did not happen over millions of years, but in a matter of seconds. This is due to carbon being formed incredibly quickly thus "proving" that carbon does not take millions of years to produce.  The logs that did sink, were implanted vertically on the floor bed. I was able to see some examples of this for myself.

http://www.icr.org/article/261/

Thus, for the Christian, we know the flood took place a-priori, and then expect to find the evidence to demonstrate this (what must be, in order for what is to be what it is).

I should note, this is only the starting point of our competely antithetical methods. However, when it comes to the so called millions of years that are purported for the various artifacts at the Grand Canyon, I have seen with my own two eyes this utter absurdity.

Instead of figuring out here to place the timing belt with all the pieces taken apart and scattered in the garage (or the world for secular scientists), I would deductively place the timing belt where need be with all the parts together and in tact.

I hope to continue discussion on our agreements. I will discuss our differences on education at a later time.

Regarding answering Dana, I tend to not pierce my pigs for diamond nose rings.

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: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello,

When I speak of agreements, I am obviously speaking in general terms. There are always rare exceptions to the rules such as the consistent atheists that kill themselves (e.g. Hemingway). This was eliptically understood.

I believe Brian broke the kindness rules and ought to repent and apologize to all. How Convenient!

In regards to methods of sceince and education for that matter to answer Extreme's question. The starting point for the Creationist is completely different from the secular evolutionary perspective. Secular "science" starts with particulars according to the scientific method, and trys to inductively add up and trace the origins or meaning of a specific piece of data. Christans on the other hand start deductively via a-priori. I will go into this a little further.

Though we are already starting to discuss our disagreements, perhaps things that we agree upon should be brought fourth first for discussion.

The Scientist who is a Chrisitan does use the scientific method, however, their use is not to substantiate, but demonstrate what is already known via a-priori.

For example, when I hiked to the crater of Mt. Saint Helens with Dr. Steve Austin, a Creationist and the #1 authority on Mt. Saint Helens. It was Dr. Austin who has caused a schism in the secular geological community over presupposes catastrophe over uniformitarinism. Many secular geologists recognize catastrophe as a possibility now which was absolutely unheard of 30 years ago. In fact, if a secular geologist were to say this in their writings, they would be shunned by their other patrons.

The Grand Canyon has logs sticking up completely vertically. Logs stripped of its bark inplanted. The secular understanding of this is many years via the uniformitarian theory. However, while I studied Mt. Saint Helens and swam in Spirit Lake, I saw logs floating vertically straight up in the water. Logs typically don't do this. This did not happen over millions of years, but in a matter of seconds. This is due to carbon being formed incredibly quickly thus "proving" that carbon does not take millions of years to produce.  The logs that did sink, were implanted vertically on the floor bed. I was able to see some examples of this for myself.

http://www.icr.org/article/261/

Thus, for the Christian, we know the flood took place a-priori, and then expect to find the evidence to demonstrate this (what must be, in order for what is to be what it is).

I should note, this is only the starting point of our competely antithetical methods. However, when it comes to the so called millions of years that are purported for the various artifacts at the Grand Canyon, I have seen with my own two eyes this utter absurdity.

Instead of figuring out here to place the timing belt with all the pieces taken apart and scattered in the garage (or the world for secular scientists), I would deductively place the timing belt where need be with all the parts together and in tact.

I hope to continue discussion on our agreements. I will discuss our differences on education at a later time.

Regarding answering Dana, I tend to not pierce my pigs for diamond nose rings.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

So when we rake you over the coals rightfully this is where the cockroach runs and hides. See, this section is not a place for trolls to hide. This is more for newbies and non troll theists who like the library, it is not for cowards like you to use as a shield. I can't stop you from posting here because this is not my website, but everyone here is aware of you trying cover for all the trollish behavior you exhibit.

 

I am not a mod, but if I were, I would move this thread out of this section because you are merely trying to hide from your own behavior. Now you want to come here and use this as a shield and use code to snipe at us.

 

 

"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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
This is kill 'em with

This is kill 'em with kindness, where everyone is held to a higher standard. When I saw this topic I thought I'd be moving it in two seconds. But surprisingly it has been going ok for the most part. Lets keep it that way shall we?

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:This is kill

Vastet wrote:
This is kill 'em with kindness, where everyone is held to a higher standard. When I saw this topic I thought I'd be moving it in two seconds. But surprisingly it has been going ok for the most part. Lets keep it that way shall we?

I will try but Jean does not make it easy.

"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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Where we don't agree . . ((Btw, The Heat is NOT off !!))

Yes, Speaking of beds of coals, Kevin Littleton had something to say on the subject . .

Nu 11
Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens
Copyright © 1996-1997 by Keith Littleton

(Nu 11) Where we don't agree . .

We do NOT live in an upside-down topsy turvy world!! ICR is a para-church organization, only!! They've sunk millions of dollars into their museum. While refusing to do real science. Nothing to do with HOW THE DATA is viewed, totally absent of corroborating evidence, left with something so suspect. You are hardly the first or the last Troll to post something from an ICR webpage to this forum, (just so that you know).

Never managed to get it through your skull there is a diversity to the board, yet? More's the pity! Why don't you start paying attention to what others are saying about you; instead of what you think about yourself for a change ?!?

To ::OP To falsely self-identifying christians . .



30 “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters"

33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.
..........................................................................................................................................................................................

{Ex-minister said..}

ex-minister wrote:
Jean is an azzhole! No news flash there. I split this thread in hopes that y'all will take it outside with him. He has zero sympathy and he is a child that demands attention and knows how to get it. It is easy to get sucked in. I have made it my policy to not talk to him, but about him.I know he represents a portion of theists, but being on here I see not all theist are like that.



According to Ex-minister, his words, there's a feeble attempt to be insulting to bait others into this childish non-sense, he would like to suck anyone in-to. Honestly! Warped and Twisted individual(s) would take pleasure in any type of attention given or have such ego needs to start with (I'm just saying).



Jeano wrote:
Though your loser doctorate board will probably approve it because it's against Chrisianity.
Respectfully, Jean Chauvin (Jude 3)


Hey, Look YEC related . .


Yeah .. about that:


Theologians  Need to Hear from Christian Geologists About Noah's Deluge  . .    . .

 
  Ken Wolgemuth, PhD, Gregory S. Bennett, Gregg Davidson, PhD November 18, 2009
real evidence in college or later in life, and reject Christ in the mistaken notion that they must choose between sound science and Christian faith. It is this tragedy we wish to avert. A few brief examples are worth describing.A friend (who wishes to remain anonymous) attended conservative churches his entire life churches that openly push and teach a young-earth position. He has been a teacher and a leader in his local church. He is a strongly logical, thinking person who wants to know God’s 'truth'. He told us recently that he is thinking about giving up on Christianity and becoming anagnostic. Why? As he became more knowledgeable about the scientific evidence regarding the age of the earth, he found increasingly that facts presented by young-earth organizations had been misrepresented. He no longer knows who to believe or who to rely on. He feels that he has believed lies his whole life. Glenn R. Morton tells his story in an article in  Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith

  Morton was a young-earth creationist until he became a geophysicist for a major oil company. As he worked directly with geologic data, he found absolutely no scientific support for a young earth in the rock record. He was successfully finding oil and gas using classical geological evidence that flew in the face of what he had learned in his church upbringing. In his testimony he said, “Being through with creationism, I was almost through with Christianity. I was thoroughly indoctrinated to believe that if the earth was not young and the flood not global, then the Bible was false. I was on the very verge of becoming an atheist.”

 

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:This is kill

Vastet wrote:
This is kill 'em with kindness, where everyone is held to a higher standard. When I saw this topic I thought I'd be moving it in two seconds. But surprisingly it has been going ok for the most part. Lets keep it that way shall we?

I would not have realized that had you not pointed it out.

What happened to the big red letters that used to appear in the navigation bar on the left ?

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Wladyslaw wrote: Ha, no, I

Wladyslaw wrote:

 Ha, no, I read some of the other things that Jean has posted. I laughed uncontrollably, though this is supposed to be a 'kindness homocide' thread, so I saved and changed some words between my final post and the final one. :3

Well we are still human and when a bigoted ignorant insult about my Japanese x wife being used as a pawn in the Tsunami which resulted in 13,000 deaths I have to admit I wanted to literally kick Jeans ass. And  I do harbor  to this attempt here in a section of this forum where rules limit me from the other threads where I can tell him exactly what I think about him.

But to some degree, and to the credit of another member here when I demanded his booting, they simply conveyed "Brian let him hang himself with his own rope"

 

I think that Jean now understands that he cant go elsewhere on this website and spew the garbage he has. But that is nothing more than attempt to limit us, which wont do any damage to our position considering the corner he painted himself into.

No one laughs when it hits close to home, not them not us. But Jean nor any politically correct left or right will disrupt the much needed conversation humanity needs. All I can ask is that people be aware of thugs like Jean so that they cannot play victim. He lost in the other sections of this forum trying to set himself up as martyr, and all I see is him trying to do that in this section.

 

"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
Brian

Brian,

While it is apparent you have negative emotionals towards my arguments, I would ask that you convey propositions of agreement. As I stated in the past, American Christianity is not Biblical Christianity and this may be why you have been given sugar cookies with your other discussions with so called Christians. I happen to be consistent in my doctrine and lifestyle while I would argue you are inconsistent in yours.

But I would again ask to find agreement between the two worldviews. You disagreed with some of my suggestions in the opening post, so any suggestions you may have would be appreciated.

Again, once this is done, an internal critique of worldviews can begin.

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).


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Brian,

While it is apparent you have negative emotionals towards my arguments, I would ask that you convey propositions of agreement. As I stated in the past, American Christianity is not Biblical Christianity and this may be why you have been given sugar cookies with your other discussions with so called Christians. I happen to be consistent in my doctrine and lifestyle while I would argue you are inconsistent in yours.

 

A couple of things, one I addressed all of them and didn't get a response.

Two, atheists don't have a doctrine, that's kind of the point.

Three, how are you consistent with something that is inconsistent? (Genesis 1:1-2:3, Genesis 2:4-25 for example, on creation. Used New King James' Version)

 

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


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

How Convenient,

The fact that most "atheists" are liberal, this is no convenience

The fact that most "atheists" are evolutionist,

The fact that most "atheists" are naturalist

The fact that most "atheists" have apathy towards art

The fact that most "atheists" say there are no absolutes

Etc

Etc

Etc,

It is naive for anybody to think that "atheism" does not carry with it a worldview. Even Carl Sagan has a worldview where he believed that we are part of "star stuff" and thus yearn in wonder when we see the universe we came.

Since most on here are not atheists at all and lie while they are really agnostic, even this has a worldview. Most agnostics have on here have a deistic worldview and many don't realize it.

From a person perspective, where do you agree with Christianity?

So you must qualify, are you pretending to be an atheist but a closet agnostic, or are you a traditional atheist that believes agnosticism is atheism with no guts. Until you understand your own "atheism" you cannot understand the consequences thereof and are perserved in your own poison.

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).


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
re:: You and I bible NOW ?!!

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Brian,

American Christianity is not Biblical Christianity and this may be why you have been given sugar cookies with your other discussions with so called Christians. I happen to be consistent in my doctrine and lifestyle while I would argue you are inconsistent in yours.

This isnt about Brian, it's about you !! You dont get to change the subject Troll. No one has to cooperate. Jesus is very disappointed in you Jean, dont ever forget it !! You are damn lucky I am not a moderator you'd be cooling your heels in Trollville yet, Sonny boy.


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

Dana,

Try to remember that this thread is a kindness thread. Where would you find agreements with Biblical Christianity and your worldview Dana? Since this is the topic at hand perhaps we can stay on topic.

I appreciate your cooperation.

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).


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Who know me on this board, know me to be pretty bare knuck

Quote:
Those who know me on this board, know me to be pretty bare knuckle black eye in the face. However, I am assuming intelligent actually does exist out there. Once our agreements are understood, then our methods of those disagreements

Sorry Jean, you dont get to pull this. It is not the time to run your mouth for what seems like decades and pull this

No!!

YOU FORGET people do not need of to cooperate !!!!!!
........................................................................................................

Watch out buddy ::

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Hello My Agnostic Friends,

The Japanese earthquake was the wrath of God. You see, Amos 3:6 tells us that God creates evil. The verse says that God created evil on a specific city. Just like He did in Japan.

God is the Cause of All

Japanese earthquake was a cause

Thus, God was the Cause of the Japanese Earthquake

If there are any agnostics who would like to volunteer to clean up the effect of God's wrath please do so. Perhaps an ounce of sanity will penetrate your absurdity in knowing that you're next.

Since agnostics (there no such thing as an atheist), since Agnostics are very evil people, I doubt this is physically possible.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

(Edit :: Sorry Typeo and two letters were wrong )


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
 I disagree, you cannot say

 I disagree, you cannot say that most atheists are "liberal" personally, I think that communism is the way to go, politics is not a doubly paved road.

Most Atheists are evolutionists because fact is fact. .-. So are most Hindus and Buddhists, even Janists for that matter.

Most atheists understand that we're destroying our planet by burning trillions of kilos of dirt every year to sustain ourselves, hence "naturalists"

I do disagree entirely with you saying that atheists are apathetic towards art, there are a plethora of atheist actors, singers, musicians, painters, sculptors, programmers, gamers, etc...

As far as your question to my atheism, well, I rejected Christianity in 2009, November. Smiling Christianity, and all forms of dogma and any thought of deities.

With that said, atheism its self does not carry its own world view, as a matter of fact everyone ever born was born an atheist, as newborn children have no idea of the concept of deities, good, bad, they're barely breathing, let alone worried with life after death. So even you were an atheist at one time. Smiling

 

Edit: As to the topic, I agree with a lot of the "love thy neighbor" parts of Christianity, you know, the ones that are nice, peaceful, and loving. I, however, stand in abhorrence of the things like: Numbers 31:17-18

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


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

Hello Waldy,

Liberalism is indeed communism. Today the term has changed and that is what I was talking about. Most "atheist" tend to lean towards a socialistic communistic political worldview or in otherwords, liberal.

By saying most "atheists" understand that we are destroying our planet demonstrates that "atheism" does have a worldview.

Regarding you rejecting Christianity, actually that is not the case. Biblically, God rejected you and turned you over to your pagan desires according to Scripture (Romans 1:18-25).

To say "atheism" does not carry its own worldview is false. Worldview meaning a web of beliefs in which all aspects of experience and knowledge are determined. If you say there is no God or you have a lack of belief in God, consequences follow that are adhered to that consist of a worldview.

Dana, to quote me from another thread doesn't apply here. That was based on a specific topic other then this. This topic and forum is that of kindness and your obligation to demonstrate kindness to me is a requirement.

Also, I would ask that you stay on topic. Where do we agree?

Thank you Dana for your participation and future kindly replies.

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).


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Why Exactly

When most people hear communism they think of Fascism, which is a governing body.

Socialism is an internal welfare system, something I am conflicted about

Communism is an economic system, wherein everyone works for the good of a whole, ever heard the phrase: " The whole is more than the some of its parts" Or something along those lines?

You say that it was God that rejected me? Why would an omniscient loving merciful being have me created, and born into a Christian family only to damn me an at arbitrary point in my life? That makes little to no sense at all, in fact it's a rather absurd notion.

When I made mention of "Most atheists" I was referring to a lot of people who happen to be atheists believe this way, again, there are a plethora of Hindus, Janists, Buddhists, even Scientologists that understand that we're destroying the Earth. Along side, of course, the people of the Abrahamic  religions.

I would like to reiterate, with an example this time, that atheism does NOT in its self carry its own world view.

 

I stated earlier that everyone is born atheist, there is no way around this as newborns are mentally incapable of understanding such concepts. Now we take that newborn and allow them to grow without having been told a single thing beyond what is known to be fact. (Math, chemistry, other things that simply can't be up for debate.) Then, introduce them to the concept of religion and deities, and I'm willing to bet that there is a very large chance, if not one hundred percent chance, that they would look at you as if you had gone insane.

Oh, and I forgot to mention in my last post, that you said that most atheists were evolutionists, correct me if I'm wrong, but the entire concept of evolution was thought up and later proven by a clergyman of an Abrahamic religion. Smiling

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Re:: What shall we review first ((play your games))!!

Jean Chauvin wrote:
..

What did I say in the PM. Oh, That's right: The End.

How did that Steve Tayor song go.
Jesus is for losers
Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees

If I was groping
Groping around for some ladder to fame
I am ashamed

Keyword:: Personal shame!! What has folks been saying about liars on the board ?!!

.. ..

You have an awful cheek and nerve to say what you've said thus far !!

Young man enough to insult others and take cheap shots but not quite man enough to defend the Bible ? Ouch!! What have I been forced to remind you about ? If you need more, I expect payment!! You sir, are doing what other than inviting abuse?!? You invite it. This Thread perfect example (one for the scrap¬books). It's written all over the Thread. Btw, Where is your shame Jean? You are that proud you have none (ever)? I have need of nothing (biblical allusion). You want some more bible quotations then ?!?? WHERE'S my money then ?!? Oh, but Jean ... Christ (if you will) among us, that is something. ICR not enough for you fists of bullshit ?!? Noticed the ignore. You have none I take it (shame), why am I not surprised after all you've said to everyone? No shame! Pure ego. Making your own rules. Ha! Real life you do this ?!! After insulting the hell out of people. You insist on denigrating others' very characters. False witness, I havent mentioned that a time or twelve. You dont get to make your own rules, Mr Christian cultist!! Or maybe Trollville is missing someone ? Huh?! But Play time something new to play, at the hideout. Listen!! Which lies do you believe about yourself each morning? You've more to thank me for than you'll ever know. You are proud. According to the bible, G-d is not liking the Proud. Pride goes before a big fall. Your faith must be empty you dont even believe the words in your bible. Anytime Atheism awaits, Jeano. You insult all you need to, I couldnt care-any-less. Act as if you did nothing. Afterall YOU have such an ego to maintain (like we give a damn?)?! Funny. You miss everything and claim all knowledge, the word fool ring a bell ? Now I am guilty of what again ? Posting the wrong song due to its' double message. Then calling a cultist a fool (that is tricky) See if I am guilty Lamby Lamb, K? Brethern. Oh, Yeah.
Testamonies . .
You have none. You are better than American Evangelicals, tells a lot about a person listening to all the countless you condemn. Judge not lest ye be judged, remember the second part of the verse? Or do you ever pull out your Bible ? Why bother?!! You've already got most people going to their graves and straight into hell. Wuss, HEY, sure wuss out. Why not. Jesus's love is "around your heart", no ?!? Oh, But you have the perfect Theology, you wear around your heart. Your fate is sealed, you've made your bed. Yeah, it has to be nappy time go to sleep (yet?!?) In you is evil the badge stays on FOREVER Troll!! I did mention have I not ? That is enough. Yes, It is certainly about enough. I fully expect to be insulted, this little piggy, some more, and completely disappointed. Worse Jesus is disappointed Jean; Jesus is disappointed. Good luck with the explainations (really) Why come ? Oh, It's a win Smiling GET DANA's goat priceless. Act like a prick. The board wins, I win (scrap-book), and even you win. Cool that is rare. Talk about ICR hell no?!? The power of suggestion is all that is needed, Jean feeds off it. How is this always about you ?!? Let's talk about Ken Ham or Brian even, shall we ? You get attention. Oh, How dumb of me. Good for you. Is that all then ?!? So, Where is my money ?! :¬ Jean the picture of respectability, now that is worth something :¬ $$

p.s. -- Hey take the high road it's about time. Out of the mouth is an evil you will always exhibit (count on it)!!


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Re:: What shall we review first ((play your games))!!

Jean Chauvin wrote:
..

What did I say in the PM. Oh, That's right: The End.

How did that Steve Tayor song go.
Jesus is for losers
Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees

If I was groping
Groping around for some ladder to fame
I am ashamed

Keyword:: Personal shame!! What has folks been saying about liars on the board ?!!

.. ..

You have an awful cheek and nerve to say what you've said thus far !!

Young man enough to insult others and take cheap shots but not quite man enough to defend the Bible ? Ouch!! What have I been forced to remind you about ? If you need more, I expect payment!! You sir, are doing what other than inviting abuse?!? You invite it. This Thread perfect example (one for the scrap¬books). It's written all over the Thread. Btw, Where is your shame Jean? You are that proud you have none (ever)? I have need of nothing (biblical allusion). You want some more bible quotations then ?!?? WHERE'S my money then ?!? Oh, but Jean ... Christ (if you will) among us, that is something. ICR not enough for you fists of bullshit ?!? Noticed the ignore. You have none I take it (shame), why am I not surprised after all you've said to everyone? No shame! Pure ego. Making your own rules. Ha! Real life you do this ?!! After insulting the hell out of people. You insist on denigrating others' very characters. False witness, I havent mentioned that a time or twelve. You dont get to make your own rules, Mr Christian cultist!! Or maybe Trollville is missing someone ? Huh?! But Play time something new to play, at the hideout. Listen!! Which lies do you believe about yourself each morning? You've more to thank me for than you'll ever know. You are proud. According to the bible, G-d is not liking the Proud. Pride goes before a big fall. Your faith must be empty you dont even believe the words in your bible. Anytime Atheism awaits, Jeano. You insult all you need to, I couldnt care-any-less. Act as if you did nothing. Afterall YOU have such an ego to maintain (like we give a damn?)?! Funny. You miss everything and claim all knowledge, the word fool ring a bell ? Now I am guilty of what again ? Posting the wrong song due to its' double message. Then calling a cultist a fool (that is tricky) See if I am guilty Lamby Lamb, K? Brethern. Oh, Yeah.
Testamonies . .
You have none. You are better than American Evangelicals, tells a lot about a person listening to all the countless you condemn. Judge not lest ye be judged, remember the second part of the verse? Or do you ever pull out your Bible ? Why bother?!! You've already got most people going to their graves and straight into hell. Wuss, HEY, sure wuss out. Why not. Jesus's love is "around your heart", no ?!? Oh, But you have the perfect Theology, you wear around your heart. Your fate is sealed, you've made your bed. Yeah, it has to be nappy time go to sleep (yet?!?) In you is evil the badge stays on FOREVER Troll!! I did mention have I not ? That is enough. Yes, It is certainly about enough. I fully expect to be insulted, this little piggy, some more, and completely disappointed. Worse Jesus is disappointed Jean; Jesus is disappointed. Good luck with the explainations (really) Why come ? Oh, It's a win Smiling GET DANA's goat priceless. Act like a prick. The board wins, I win (scrap-book), and even you win. Cool that is rare. Talk about ICR hell no?!? The power of suggestion is all that is needed, Jean feeds off it. How is this always about you ?!? Let's talk about Ken Ham or Brian even, shall we ? You get attention. Oh, How dumb of me. Good for you. Is that all then ?!? So, Where is my money ?! :¬ Jean the picture of respectability, now that is worth something :¬ $$

p.s. -- Hey take the high road it's about time. Out of the mouth is an evil you will always exhibit (count on it)!!


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

Wlady,

"Atheism" took a turn towards the worse during the era of Post-Modernism brink into existence. The traditional strong "atheists" have all stated their worldviews in the past. John Dewey for example is a famous traditional "atheist" that had a worldview towards education. In fact, he is known as the Father of Modern "Education."

He also carried varous other points via his "atheism." We see Instrumentalism, Utilitarianism, and aesthetics. Our secular school system is founded on "atheistic" principles (worldview) via Dewey's philosophy.

Modern "atheism" realized that they were constantly getting beat intellectually in debate so they redefined "atheism" In 1977 George Smith came out with a book, "A Case Against God." We see the beginnings of "weak atheism."

Weak Atheism is misleading since it is not atheistic at all. It is agnostic. Nevertheless, George made his case via his worldview against God.

But even among the agnostics on here, there are several worldviews, as said previously, Deism would be one example.

Dewey is just one of many examples of traditional atheists that had worldviews due to their atheism. To deny this is to deny basic history and shows a lack of understanding in what atheism is.

However, where do you agree with me as a Christian.

Shall we allow prayer in the schools?

Shall we teach evolution AND creation to allow students to make up their own mind?

Shall we dig for oil in Alaska and anywhere else in America we find oil?

Shall we make abortion illegal?

Shall Homosexuals NOT be allowed to marry?

Your worldview differs with mine on these issues and you simply don't recognize this reality. To say you have no worldview somehow makes you think that you have no burden to bear and simply get to enjoy your beverage in cigar while the boats go by.

In terms of history, logic, philosophy, you simply are ignorant of the meaning of atheism.

God would have rejected you since He from eterntiy past chose not to rescue you (John 6:44, Ephesians 1:3-4, etc). Since He is all knowing, you would have most likely been created as a vessel of wrath.

Now where do we agree with your worldview and mine? If you wish to continue to deny the reality of your worldview, then personal perspectives would be fine.

Dana,

This is the 3rd time you have replied to me without demonstrating common beliefs. If you wish to be angry with me, that would be required in another thread, in this thread, i would require your kindness or ask that not reply since you have changed the topic on each reply.

I appreciate your participation, but I'd ask you follow the rules.

Thanks.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

Wlady,

"Atheism" took a turn towards the worse during the era of Post-Modernism brink into existence. The traditional strong "atheists" have all stated their worldviews in the past. John Dewey for example is a famous traditional "atheist" that had a worldview towards education. In fact, he is known as the Father of Modern "Education."

He also carried varous other points via his "atheism." We see Instrumentalism, Utilitarianism, and aesthetics. Our secular school system is founded on "atheistic" principles (worldview) via Dewey's philosophy.

Modern "atheism" realized that they were constantly getting beat intellectually in debate so they redefined "atheism" In 1977 George Smith came out with a book, "A Case Against God." We see the beginnings of "weak atheism."

Weak Atheism is misleading since it is not atheistic at all. It is agnostic. Nevertheless, George made his case via his worldview against God.

But even among the agnostics on here, there are several worldviews, as said previously, Deism would be one example.

Dewey is just one of many examples of traditional atheists that had worldviews due to their atheism. To deny this is to deny basic history and shows a lack of understanding in what atheism is.

However, where do you agree with me as a Christian.

Shall we allow prayer in the schools?

Shall we teach evolution AND creation to allow students to make up their own mind?

Shall we dig for oil in Alaska and anywhere else in America we find oil?

Shall we make abortion illegal?

Shall Homosexuals NOT be allowed to marry?

Your worldview differs with mine on these issues and you simply don't recognize this reality. To say you have no worldview somehow makes you think that you have no burden to bear and simply get to enjoy your beverage in cigar while the boats go by.

In terms of history, logic, philosophy, you simply are ignorant of the meaning of atheism.

God would have rejected you since He from eterntiy past chose not to rescue you (John 6:44, Ephesians 1:3-4, etc). Since He is all knowing, you would have most likely been created as a vessel of wrath.

Now where do we agree with your worldview and mine? If you wish to continue to deny the reality of your worldview, then personal perspectives would be fine.

Dana,

This is the 3rd time you have replied to me without demonstrating common beliefs. If you wish to be angry with me, that would be required in another thread, in this thread, i would require your kindness or ask that not reply since you have changed the topic on each reply.

I appreciate your participation, but I'd ask you follow the rules.

Thanks.

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).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean wrote:The fact that

Jean wrote:

The fact that most "atheists" are liberal, this is no convenience

The fact that most "atheists" are evolutionist,

The fact that most "atheists" are naturalist

The fact that most "atheists" have apathy towards art

The fact that most "atheists" say there are no absolutes

most black people are democrats.  so let's just start calling it the black party, since blackness clearly carries a worldview with it.  as for blacks who aren't democrats, well, they're clearly not black at all, because they're not consistently black.

jean, for someone who obviously likes to try to dazzle others with the terminology of logic (it doesn't work, btw), you have the logical skills of a toddler.

surprise, surprise.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


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

Ick,

You pose a false analogy since pigmention is concrete and "atheist" is abstract. This basic classificational fallacy is similar to the logical fallacies made by homosexuals.

Since "atheists" are of every race, it is not the race itself but the philosophical worldview they hold to that causes their intellectual weakness, that beng "atheism."

Thu your rebuttal was the result in 2 logical fallacies which makes your attempt invaild or "game over" in another sense. You would need to enter in two more credits to try again.

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).


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:Ick,You

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Ick,

You pose a false analogy since pigmention is concrete and "atheist" is abstract. This basic classificational fallacy is similar to the logical fallacies made by homosexuals.

Since "atheists" are of every race, it is not the race itself but the philosophical worldview they hold to that causes their intellectual weakness, that beng "atheism."

Thu your rebuttal was the result in 2 logical fallacies which makes your attempt invaild or "game over" in another sense. You would need to enter in two more credits to try again.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

and he still fails to see the irony...

when i get shit, jean, i give shit.  do you have asperger's or something?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote: Jean

danatemporary wrote:
Jean Chauvin wrote:
..
What did I say in the PM. Oh, That's right: The End. How did that Steve Tayor song go. Jesus is for losers Just as I am Pass the compass, please Jesus is for losers I'm off about a hundred degrees If I was groping Groping around for some ladder to fame I am ashamed Keyword:: Personal shame!! What has folks been saying about liars on the board ?!! .. .. You have an awful cheek and nerve to say what you've said thus far !! Young man enough to insult others and take cheap shots but not quite man enough to defend the Bible ? Ouch!! What have I been forced to remind you about ? If you need more, I expect payment!! You sir, are doing what other than inviting abuse?!? You invite it. This Thread perfect example (one for the scrap¬books). It's written all over the Thread. Btw, Where is your shame Jean? You are that proud you have none (ever)? I have need of nothing (biblical allusion). You want some more bible quotations then ?!?? WHERE'S my money then ?!? Oh, but Jean ... Christ (if you will) among us, that is something. ICR not enough for you fists of bullshit ?!? Noticed the ignore. You have none I take it (shame), why am I not surprised after all you've said to everyone? No shame! Pure ego. Making your own rules. Ha! Real life you do this ?!! After insulting the hell out of people. You insist on denigrating others' very characters. False witness, I havent mentioned that a time or twelve. You dont get to make your own rules, Mr Christian cultist!! Or maybe Trollville is missing someone ? Huh?! But Play time something new to play, at the hideout. Listen!! Which lies do you believe about yourself each morning? You've more to thank me for than you'll ever know. You are proud. According to the bible, G-d is not liking the Proud. Pride goes before a big fall. Your faith must be empty you dont even believe the words in your bible. Anytime Atheism awaits, Jeano. You insult all you need to, I couldnt care-any-less. Act as if you did nothing. Afterall YOU have such an ego to maintain (like we give a damn?)?! Funny. You miss everything and claim all knowledge, the word fool ring a bell ? Now I am guilty of what again ? Posting the wrong song due to its' double message. Then calling a cultist a fool (that is tricky) See if I am guilty Lamby Lamb, K? Brethern. Oh, Yeah. Testamonies . . You have none. You are better than American Evangelicals, tells a lot about a person listening to all the countless you condemn. Judge not lest ye be judged, remember the second part of the verse? Or do you ever pull out your Bible ? Why bother?!! You've already got most people going to their graves and straight into hell. Wuss, HEY, sure wuss out. Why not. Jesus's love is "around your heart", no ?!? Oh, But you have the perfect Theology, you wear around your heart. Your fate is sealed, you've made your bed. Yeah, it has to be nappy time go to sleep (yet?!?) In you is evil the badge stays on FOREVER Troll!! I did mention have I not ? That is enough. Yes, It is certainly about enough. I fully expect to be insulted, this little piggy, some more, and completely disappointed. Worse Jesus is disappointed Jean; Jesus is disappointed. Good luck with the explainations (really) Why come ? Oh, It's a win Smiling GET DANA's goat priceless. Act like a prick. The board wins, I win (scrap-book), and even you win. Cool that is rare. Talk about ICR hell no?!? The power of suggestion is all that is needed, Jean feeds off it. How is this always about you ?!? Let's talk about Ken Ham or Brian even, shall we ? You get attention. Oh, How dumb of me. Good for you. Is that all then ?!? So, Where is my money ?! :¬ Jean the picture of respectability, now that is worth something :¬ $$ p.s. -- Hey take the high road it's about time. Out of the mouth is an evil you will always exhibit (count on it)!!

Dana, I am with everyone here in using Jean as zoo exhibit. But the meme of "manhood" is sexist. How about not putting men above women? How about just simply saying he cant defend the bible and resorts to childish tactics when he cant?

If there is no script to life then gender roles are not the way to counter his tripe.

"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


Wladyslaw
atheist
Wladyslaw's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2012-10-21
User is offlineOffline
What!?

 Firstly, I have no problem with prayer in schools, I deal with it in my school anyway. Also who are you to say that those world views don't lead to atheism rather than the other way around, quite frankly I had those beliefs before I even thought about renouncing my religion.

If Christian creationism is taught in schools, then schools would have to teach every religion's creation myth. Evolution can be observed in the world around us, how, without evolution, do you propose that viruses EVOLVE to become drug resistant?

I'm not sure where you stand on the drilling for oil in America issue, as I believe that we should be moving away from fossil fuels entirely putting more time into nuclear power, with breeder reactors we have enough Uranium to sustain the world for the next five billion years.

The legality of abortion, well I think it ought to be legal, people don't have to have children they don't want (and the child's upbringing would reflect that) and we have a source of stem cells for medical research.

The marriage of homosexuals? Well what is it to you if they get married, it doesn't hurt you in anyway shape or form. Nor does it take away rights from anyone else. Only positives can come from it.

By the way: John 4:16 "God is Love" do pray-tell why the metaphysical manifestation of love would be wrathful?

I don't believe that I have ever once refuted my own world views, that would be hypocritical.

Agnostics believe that there IS something out there and that there is no way to know of it if there is, or that it is currently unknown, moreso the former than the latter.

Implicit or "weak" atheists do not outright assert that there is no "god" but rather do not believe in it.

Explicit or " strong" atheists assert that there is no form of god or higher power, period.

Again, I will pose the question, who is to say that the world views you associate with atheism didn't come before, and then later lead into atheism. Thus, atheism does not carry a world view, but is a world view its self. .-. 

I'll even alter the earlier analogy a bit.

Through most of history in Africa if one was a Prisoner of War, then you were a slave. Then as colonies in the "New World" came about they bought slaves that were prisoners of war (more often than not), they happened to be black. At this point one could say that if you one was a slave, then they were a prisoner of war. However it eventually became cheaper to breed the slaves in the United States, or later the only legal way to attain more slaves. This new generation of slaves is still comprised of slaves, but they are not prisoners of war. Thus the earlier assertion is now null.

"Your sins are not redeemed, by swearing perjury." ~ Mathias Blad

"Change how you look at all things and what you see will change" ~ Per Nilsson/Henrik Ohlsson
"As the need for knowledge flows through the catharsis of thought, ask a question and the answer will be born."


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote: Once

Jean Chauvin wrote:
 Once our agreements are understood, then our methods of those disagreements can be realized as well.

As I have stated above, I still see the use of the word WE in the contextual language of this particular thread, as a bit of a false dichotomy.

There are people with theistic leanings, theists and such, that I would rather spend time with than some Atheists that I know.

For instance, I knew a guy once, that was involved in something called : Christian Motorcycle Ministries. (I believe they have dissolved now).

Anyway, we spent literally hours arguing over the existence/nonexistence of god, while closing down more bars and midnight diners than you can imagine.

He would also introduce me to friends of his as "one of the Atheist brethren".

I don't see this as an us vs. them mentality.

Now, I am willing to bet that you are going to talk about consistent christianity, true christianity and such. Which to me would indicate that maybe different branches of christianity would need to establish where THEY agree.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Vastet

harleysportster wrote:

Vastet wrote:
This is kill 'em with kindness, where everyone is held to a higher standard. When I saw this topic I thought I'd be moving it in two seconds. But surprisingly it has been going ok for the most part. Lets keep it that way shall we?

I would not have realized that had you not pointed it out.

What happened to the big red letters that used to appear in the navigation bar on the left ?

I have no answer for you, but it has been a problem in the past as well. For a time you would never see the text if you entered the topic from the recent posts page. Tripped me up more than once.

But here it doesn't matter how you enter the topic, so I don't know.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3360
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote: I have no

Vastet wrote:
 I have no answer for you, but it has been a problem in the past as well. For a time you would never see the text if you entered the topic from the recent posts page. Tripped me up more than once. But here it doesn't matter how you enter the topic, so I don't know.

I'll just glance at the tabs at the top of the screen for future reference. I almost always enter all the posts from the recent posts page. I almost never pay attention to what thread I am in. But, usually, I relied on the bold text to the side of the navigation bar to remind me that I was in the Kill 'em with Kindness forum, and therefore the rules were a little different.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Re :: JackPot

 

 

 

 :: JackPot ?

 

 

 

...

:       The Devil's own cabana-boy hasn't the necessary Cojones balls!

. . . .
 

. . . .
 

  Science ? 

   ***************************************************************************************

 Freeze-frame ::  To 'any' non-Trolls and General Theists, checking on this month's scrap book (so to speak). Where you wrongly see either of truly slot-machine type reference or perhaps a outright mock of religion; with the images from my cell (viewing the depiction of a most influential and rather famous religious figure).  I can say, at least in my head, I first honestly think of this verse (kidding NOT), as in the following , no joking, (where I personally am forgiven, of course) :

 

19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal; 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

   I went out of my way on this one to indicate this is sincerely NOT a mock. Please don't be overly harsh on the cartoon drawings themselves. If all the 'missed the  elephant in the room'[B][B]ers find themselves put off by that, sit through a Aig Answers in Genesis Seminary done by Duane Gish or the man Ken Ham. Admittedly, who knows, maybe subsciously I shouldn't hesitate, a 'cartoon', all too apt for 'this' thread now!
Check out they're still using the most cartoon-i-ist of their own presentational overlays, to this very day (sources tell me). But Christ is affirmed . . .

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4190
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
WHY do Dana's posts keep

WHY do Dana's posts keep showing up in the live feed as new posts, even when they've been here for hours?  this has happened to me in several threads, in several different forums, many times on this site.  it will say a new post was added, many times like 30 seconds ago, and it will be the same post (not a duplicate) she posted 6 hours ago.

this has never happened to me with any other user's posts and it's getting really annoying.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 12919
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Every time a post in a topic

Every time a post in a topic is edited it generates the thread update icon. Dana is a prolific editor. Happens with me all the time too. I skim through every single new post to weed out spam, so every time Dana edits her post I get to skim through it again.

To be clear, I'm not complaining personally. So Dana, please don't think I'm criticising you or berating you. If you aren't happy with your post I don't have any problem with repeated edits whatsoever. It's much better than finding 10 spam posts, regardless of the pleasure I take in obliterating spam.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Sorry to All and especially iwbiek and to Brian too:

  Sorry All and iwbiek and to Brian.

 

   Machine glitch. It needs overhauling about now but I have a truck to work on instead. At this end, Pages take forever to load on this old machine, might BE the real problem or even OCD. Can't tell what is being Uploaded or times-out. But Yes I do edit a lot (and often) as my 'final' posts often show. There are a couple of problems. I'm not meaning to be a pain about it (now if it bugged Jean, I cannot tell you what I would say AFTER THIS) :¬  :¬  Indicates sense of humor . .

 Example of the edit though it Times Out (Below) ::


  To the actual Trolls but cannot help themselves because they are Trolls. Hell to be you (ouch).  I responded to what asked send by you in Trollville.  Remember 'home' :¬  Thanks for getting back to Ms Piggy btw. The Ego!!! Jean Jean Jean (head shaking)!

 

From an infamous Ms. Grant's song :: Though the people couldn’t see What messiah ought to be. Though your Word contained the plan, They just could not understand Your most awesome work was done Through the frailty of your son ..

No I have a passionate enthusiasm for older Mesopotamian religious works and mini-interest in understanding if Rome is an Apostate Church (those Catholics), not in the 'universal' sense of the term. Its' meaning. We were talking Rome,. Wasn't there something about it being Occultic, Huh? Bigger christian issues as determining the nature of Christ, do not come up ever on this board. Places like TheologyWeb forum you can find out and get feedback there. Here it's more the hisoricity claims in the ancient writings,. Jimenezj (Theist) at rationalresponders has like three threads on this. You're question would be forcing me to bringing up things like the hyper-static union and specifically monophysitism, instead of Christ having two natures. Most people only split over issues like the outright Denial/Diminishing of the Deity of Christ historically (usually it's big issues that are cut and dried). Although issues over the Church's view of the nature of Christ were hammered out over a fairly long period, undoubtedly. Folks at TheologyWeb make you eligible to discuss theological matters; whereas, what incentive do I have ? And, All-the-while, losing sight of the whole evidence for the Occultic influences (if there are any to start with) of the other Catholics. Look, If you don't mind, No offense but we were trying to establish a case for Occultism in the Roman Catholic Faith. I asked about symbols and imagery used by the Roman Catholic Faith. And What of significance to this there is. With regards to Occultism and Roman Catholics or Roman Catholics and the Occult (the What If ..). Little early to get sidetracked, if you don't mind ? Most websites have devalued a coherence case for Rome's Dark Arts practices are honestly Occultic. (?)There are actual grounds for such serious allegations ? If that were the actual case, I guess, you'd expect corroborating evidence of some sort or another. ( Wouldnt you? ) Especially IF an entire book's worth of information/materials are floating around. How about something of those helpful inquiries, that dont involve Secret hand signals, are they to remain coldly silent.?

Best check that enthusiasm at the door (how little you know me)!! It's not a matter of reason or a matter of logic. It's a knowledge gap (neednt say more) . . . The adopted heirs do suffer fore a lack of knowledge often times.

 

Nu 29 --

 If I unfairly point out your age  it might be  due to  such the expert job you've done in hiding it. The Lord keep thee. What did I say about trying to suck people in. As I recently was saying to you Troll (quote): Nothing against you personally. Not that you did anything bad, he who does no wrong,. These sort of questions are the very reason why I generally loathe (and simply detest) having ANY one-on-one conversations / interactions online. Everyone starts to veer (pronounced vere) into inconsequential matters. Further, it often creates a false intimacy that people act differently then if it were group discussion (as in life). This false intimacy robs from the substance of the question. An Example, case in point, Old Seer, I spent a couple of full months probing his Smurfdom (non-christian) beliefs, after a while, we are pals, right ? I dont know if you even know any of this? Or One only naturally would assume, look at all the time we spent just one on one. Which was not really what I was after at all. There is a method to the madness (Tehe). Like here, I was simply trying to find out something. I was there to document his beliefs (much as a folklorist does), because of his broken record way of approaching any subject. But, I couldn't call him a pal now can I ? Troll statis kills the whole pal thing also. Besides, People get to chatting and lose fast sight of whatever they were talking about in the first place, like the questions about Occultic symbols use(-d). As guilty as I am of introducing things that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Topic. I never lose sight of it (rarely). Now that is in group discussion

I do not think religion is all bad nor is it helpful to entertain fantasies of it's soon to become extinct. Nor is it true if the world were rid of all religion, a Utopian civilization would arise from the ashes. This is non-sense, most unhelpful and clearly ignoring human behaviour to toute this. As you well may be reminded of, acts done because of religion continue to combined amazement and dismay; and arguments against the adoption of religion are very powerful to this day. That should never be left out. That said, I’m (personally) friendly to religion on the grounds that it seems to me to be distinctively human, and it has produced many good things. This puts me into a camp of my very own (lucky me) :~ It's a unexpected forceful expression, irregardless of cost to self, to obtain the virtue and the good, this I do. But you see these humanists or rationalists who seem to hate this distinctively human feature. Almost programmed into us, lose sight of the beauty that is often found. This to me seems to me very odd. These evangelical atheists say things such as: religion is like child abuse, that if you had no religious education, there would be no religion. It’s completely absurd. We have to all live the reality that is. I’m always proud to say that I remain (no thanks to trolls) friendly to religion on the grounds that it seems to me to be distinctively human! (The End).

 

To any Mondo¬impudent Self-Centered SuperTrolls forgetting their PariahShip on this board :: ((Yeah, No honor. It's true none are so blind as he who cannot see!!)) Matt. 23:13 b --

13 “Woe to you, ..You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

p.s. -- I am a bit of a mischievous little imp. This is not the spirit of any Trolls, that cause bad things generally!! The last Bible verse, seeing it's you, I tossed in for free, for old times sake

 

  And Fin :¬


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

We must understand that "atheism" has become victimized by the very Post-modernism it helped produce. Thus the traditional hardcore "atheists" such as O'Hair, Dewey, Leary, and even Lavey died with the old atheism of modernism.

Post-modernism has brought extreme apathy on everything. No hope, no help, no God, no meaning, no purpose, etc.

Thus, "atheism" redefining its terms to meet this apathetic era known as "weak atheism." The "atheism" on here that Sapient and everyone else adheres to, is not atheism at all but agnosticism which is a contradiction with atheism historically.

But contradictions don't matter in Post-modernism. Thus there is no worldview, nothing. Everything is as Nietzche described, everything is nothing, including atheism.

Thus with this Post-modern understanding, I'd ask where we would find agreement with Christianity. Anything at all? For the agreements that we do have are they not old, out of date and not with the Post-modern times that the very system you subscribe to has caused.

Or may I qualify and simply say that the "weak atheists," are victims of Post-modernism, trapped in the quick sand and thus their contradictions, confusions, and circular arguments are to be expected, ignored, and even accepted.

So where do we agree via your Post-modern atheism is complete and total disaster.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

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

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


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

We must understand that "atheism" has become victimized by the very Post-modernism it helped produce. Thus the traditional hardcore "atheists" such as O'Hair, Dewey, Leary, and even Lavey died with the old atheism of modernism.

Post-modernism has brought extreme apathy on everything. No hope, no help, no God, no meaning, no purpose, etc.

Thus, "atheism" redefining its terms to meet this apathetic era known as "weak atheism." The "atheism" on here that Sapient and everyone else adheres to, is not atheism at all but agnosticism which is a contradiction with atheism historically.

But contradictions don't matter in Post-modernism. Thus there is no worldview, nothing. Everything is as Nietzche described, everything is nothing, including atheism.

Thus with this Post-modern understanding, I'd ask where we would find agreement with Christianity. Anything at all? For the agreements that we do have are they not old, out of date and not with the Post-modern times that the very system you subscribe to has caused.

Or may I qualify and simply say that the "weak atheists," are victims of Post-modernism, trapped in the quick sand and thus their contradictions, confusions, and circular arguments are to be expected, ignored, and even accepted.

So where do we agree via your Post-modern atheism which is the  complete and total disaster of ultimate depression.

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).


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Since atheism has been around for millennia and as it can only be an issue in a creedal religion of which Christianity became the first, how does post-moderism come into this?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


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

Answer,

Since the current Post-modern definition of atheism is no longer atheism at all but rather agnosticism, and since etymologically linguists understood the two classifications for these concepts, they were not mingled, and since the circular argument starting with the definition of Post-modern atheism (weak atheism) that came on the scene in 1977 then the question should be asked. '

 

Weak Atheism or the atheism on this board which is a by-product of Post-modernism never existed in the history of philosophy. Logicians never said cold and not sure if X is cold was ever the same thing. This absurd contradiction is the result of the apathy, depression, and suicidal tendacies of Post-modernism.

And as a result, arguments made for or against are in violation to the era is thrives in.

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).


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Answer,

Since the current Post-modern definition of atheism is no longer atheism at all but rather agnosticism, and since etymologically linguists understood the two classifications for these concepts, they were not mingled, and since the circular argument starting with the definition of Post-modern atheism (weak atheism) that came on the scene in 1977 then the question should be asked. '

 

Weak Atheism or the atheism on this board which is a by-product of Post-modernism never existed in the history of philosophy. Logicians never said cold and not sure if X is cold was ever the same thing. This absurd contradiction is the result of the apathy, depression, and suicidal tendacies of Post-modernism.

And as a result, arguments made for or against are in violation to the era is thrives in.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Let me clarify, atheism was around before moderism. It was around before the Renaisance. One cannot be an atheist before belief is required. Christianity is the first and almost only religion that requires belief in anything. Atheism is non-belief.

What does atheism have to do with post modernism?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5130
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Oh, dear.

 

Jean Chauvin wrote:

Post-modernism has brought extreme apathy on everything. No hope, no help, no God, no meaning, no purpose, etc.

 

The pain of it all. If only I had the moral coherence of the christian bible to guide my stumbling feet...or is this an appeal to consequence in an otherwise unsupported argument that assumes its first premise?

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


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
: Again with the homonyms (jewish accent)!

Re:: Again (jewish accent) with the homonyms!

 

: :

I get my homonyms confused was that a miter or a miter (See:: Uploaded Images)?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15497
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jean Chauvin wrote:We must

Jean Chauvin wrote:

We must understand that "atheism" has become victimized by the very Post-modernism it helped produce. Thus the traditional hardcore "atheists" such as O'Hair, Dewey, Leary, and even Lavey died with the old atheism of modernism.

Post-modernism has brought extreme apathy on everything. No hope, no help, no God, no meaning, no purpose, etc.

Thus, "atheism" redefining its terms to meet this apathetic era known as "weak atheism." The "atheism" on here that Sapient and everyone else adheres to, is not atheism at all but agnosticism which is a contradiction with atheism historically.

But contradictions don't matter in Post-modernism. Thus there is no worldview, nothing. Everything is as Nietzche described, everything is nothing, including atheism.

Thus with this Post-modern understanding, I'd ask where we would find agreement with Christianity. Anything at all? For the agreements that we do have are they not old, out of date and not with the Post-modern times that the very system you subscribe to has caused.

Or may I qualify and simply say that the "weak atheists," are victims of Post-modernism, trapped in the quick sand and thus their contradictions, confusions, and circular arguments are to be expected, ignored, and even accepted.

So where do we agree via your Post-modern atheism is complete and total disaster.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Calling O'Hair "hard core"  is stupid. Please tell us what makes a human "hard core" for calling bologna what it is? Hardcore is what you did in using my x's country as a pawn to threaten the US with your pet god. Hardcore is slamming planes into buildings because someone picked on Allah. Hardcore is shooting abortion doctors because insecure men use the bible to justify controlling the bodies of women.

Saying the moon is not made of cheese needs to be screamed out loud by sane people. More people need to scream like O'Hair, not less.  Here is a famous quote for you "Well behaved women seldom make history".

 

And here is a new one from me. " If women worldwide want more power then they need to scrap the books of antiquity". But don't feel alone Jean, that includes all religions, not just yours.

 

Tell me Jean, are you frightened by women who question?

 

"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