F***ing Scientologists
Offline I spent some time on the official scientology website today www.scientology.org, interesting, and creepy. By interesting I mean it is interesting that it says absolutely nothing about what the core dogma of the church is. Apparently this knowledge is only available to OT level VII or something members who have paid thousands for courses and auditing sessions and years of time that leave you, well "a little off." Apparently for most, at this point when they hit you with the insanity that is Scientology, you are so mind fucked, and you have spent so much money, you just stick with it. If you type in any words that have anything to do with their dogma in the search portion of their site, nothing comes up. Words like "Xenu" or "aliens" or "hydrogen bombs" render no results.
I'm sure many of you know the basic dogma behind scientology, but for those who don't I'll give you a quick overview:
There was an alien named Xenu (or Xemu, no one really knows because L Ron Hubbard hand wrote this crap down on a small piece of paper and it is difficult to determine if it is a N or M in the name) who was part of the galactic confederacy 75 million years ago. This confederacy was made up of 75 or so planets, and 25 or so stars. Some of the planets were getting to overpopulated, and so Xenu kidnapped billions of aliens from various planets and brought them to earth in a bunch of spaceships that very closely resembled our DC-8 aircrafts on earth today (this is very specific). Xenu froze the aliens and placed them in or around volcanos in Hawaii. Xenu then blew up all the aliens with hydrogen bombs. But, the aliens did not die, they turned into "spirits" or "souls" called thetans. Xenu then mind fucked the thetans by forcing them to watch videos that filled their heads with a bunch of bat shit crazy pohilosophies (which is considered by scientologists the reason for all bad religion, the bad in people, basically thetans = "the bad in us"
.
The thetans then lerked around the planet for a while before finding humans to be their hosts. The thetans attached themselves to the humans and that is the reason for our shortcummings. Dianetics is the process of getting rid of the thetans in which an E-meter (some device that reads stress waves?) is used in sessions called "auditing" to slowly get rid of the thetans. This is blantant mind munipulation.
There is much more specifics, I coudn't be bothered to learned any more, but this is the gist of it. Not a single word of this is on their official website, and many newcomers don't hear about this for years (untill you are considered "clear" by the church, as in free of thetans), what a bunch of creeps.
To any Christians (and I'm sure many did) who were reading this and thought to themselves "wow, what a crock, that just sounds like a stupid story, so obviously made up, it's just silly, Xenu and thetans and e-meters, what a joke." What you are thinking/fealing about the rediculous dogma of Scientology is exactly what every rational thinking person thinks/feels about you and your silly little story, and how unimaginably rediculous it is that you just picked a silly story, and said "yyyup, I believe this one." Is the existence of Xenu any less possible than the god of abraham, or allah. Is the existence of thetans any less possible than demons. Is it really any less possible that some guy named L Ron Hubbard had a special connection with space aliens in the 20th century and brought forth truths of it, than some guy named Jesus from 2000 years ago had some special connection to some god named Yahweh and brought forth truths of it. No, they are equally silly stories. No evidence exists that either are truth. What do you think, that was a pretty silly story wasn't it?
- Login to post comments
This is all rubbish, utter garbage. I will leave you to reply to Lumi's response to your comments as he captured my thoughts exactly, no need to double ask you. Again, garbage, really what are you thinking with these kinds of posts, are you attempting to come off loose in the head?
Also Jean, I'm still waiting for some well thought out reasons for why you believe the teachings of Christianity (forbiden fruit, talking snakes, deity sacrificing himself to himself, yadayada absurdities) are anyless absurd than the teachings of scientology (Xenu, body thetans, auditing, yadayada absurdities). Can you please demonstrate why one is less absurd than the other.
Jean,
Have you ever heard name Mayakovsky. He was russian and soviet poet, an atheist as far as I know. He wrote a few poems for children including "What's good and what is bad".
You can watch an old soviet cartoon based on this poem here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y05eK8ADtHc It is in Russian but with English subtitles.
This is an example of how moral principles were induced at the kindergarten level in Soviet Union.
I absolutely do not see how religion needs to be involved in this and what does it actually add to millenia-old moral principles other than the demand to unboundedly love some invisible terrifying deity.
Here in this my post I assume that your assertion of an atheist as a moralless monster is based on your lack of knowledge. So please get educated first in what you are talking about before your are making a fool of yourself.
100%
Hello,
I made an argument as to the logical consequence of CONSISTENT atheism and everybody gets upset. I did not simply assert, but gave syllogistic arguments as to the logical means of an atheist
I'm not going to rewrite my argument. Instead of getting upset, study my argument and tell my via logical argument where I am wrong. The following points of atheism leads to total evil.
1) No Epistemology (No knowledge of reality and beauty).
2) No Ethics (If you don't know, then you don't know what is right and wrong)
Thus, a consistent atheist, since ethics is nothing (non-"existent), then their actions of consequence are non-"existent." If I steal, have adultery, massacre my family, have sex before marriage, have sex with everybody, have sex with everything, no self control (no standard), no art, no music, no philosophy, standard, nothing.
Logically speaking, the most consistent atheist out there is a Skeptic. They admit this.
If the means of right and wrong are non-"existent", and the very notion of them consistently would put a blank look on your face, then all actions ultimately have NO consequences in the realm of ETHICS via right and wrong
Show me via argument where I'm wrong. This is the logical consequence. Sorry, logic 201.
"religion" has also been evil. But you have to define what you mean by that. Biblical Christianity has NOT been evil, only non-Biblical has.
______________
Again, reference to why Biblical Christianity is right, and the others are wrong are:
1) Method of Argument is Invalid (induction)
2) Consistently of the transcendental argument BREAKS throughout the argument
3) Logical fallacy of contradiction throughout the argument
4) Thus, the arguments OF their god is UNSOUND.
5) Thus, they are false.
_________________
The reason why you atheists are not serial killers is because:
1) The God you hate is holding you back
2) The Imago Dei
I cannot think of anybody in history that has gone 100% of their nature. I know that there will be such an individual. More like 3 of them.
1) The Anti-Christ
2) The Beast
3) The False Prophet
Now while you scoff at this now, you will not scoff when the time comes. You will be in to much pain. So keep scoffing, keep being evil, keep being a pagan, because ALL of your deeds will be accounted for, and they will correspond to your torment and it will be fair.
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).
Again, atheism is not a philosophy. So, it cannot have epistemology or ethics as parts of its "teachings". Example for you: filatelists have no philosophy, no teaching, no ethics, so they can kill. Right?
Ethics exists independently of atheism, religion, etc. You may say that ethics is given by some god. Fine with me if this is what does not let YOU to start killing people who you dislike. You are so full of anger and hate that your starting assumption is that all people just dream to start killing each other if there were no some book that tells you not to do it or they will burn in fire for eternity. It is a pretty paranoid assumption of a person who had been abused in his childhood.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Hi 100% Atheist,
So we agree. Atheism has no knowledge, no morals/ethics, no means of aesthetics, no means of knowing anything. It is the DEATH of philosophy since it has no philosophy, It is the death of beauty, justice, truth, knowing, and purpose.
It appears that you are slowly agreeing with me. lol. Perhaps you are not 100% atheist anymore. Perhaps you are not 75% atheist. Why don't you come all the way over now and get it over with.
Death = Atheism and Atheism = Death. REASON IS DEAD (in Atheism).
Good job. You're learning slowly.
But, atheism IS a worldview. It's a worldview of nothing.
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).
Nope. Try reading a post before you reply.
It is very sad some people can't see beauty, truth, purpose etc... in life without god. If it makes you happy, hey go ahead and believe in god, but don't you say others can't see these things without your god. For me personally it is quite the opposite, when I put on my christian hat and look at the world I see waiste, uglyness not beauty at all. 99% of all species have gone extinct, the planet is a natural warzone on the knife edge of life, not to mention the almost unimaginable celestial war going on in the universe with all the matter and forces just waiting to swallow us up or blow us to smithereens. Earthquakes, tsunamies, flesh eating bacteria, asteriods, solar flairs, worms that burrow into the eyes of children, cancer, too many dangers to list. For me I see no beauty looking at the world and the universe as a creation, as a creation it seems silly, waisteful, as if the creator was messing around. It is only when I look at the world for what it is, natural, can I appreciate its beauty. You say you see beauty, truth and purpose and with same breath threaten everyone with hellfire. That my dear sir is messed up.
I don't see much purpose in this world as a creation, if it was created it seems as though the creator made it appear as though there is no purpose in his creation.
Hey Crazy Guy,
I agree that the objective world around us is often times death. This is the result of Sin. Romans 6:23 talks about the wages of sin being death, along with death of the creation.
The beauty, truth, justice, Purpose, and meaning I see is via the God via His intention, God via the life that is, and God via God Himself. Via the Imago Dei, that beauty is ATTAINABLE.
My argument was regarding the logical possibility if an Atheists can even reach ANY of these things via their system of thought. Obviously they absolutely cannot, for you too agree that you see death in creation. You are admitting this to me. But you don't see the big picture because instead of looking ahead, and up, you are looking at your feet.
So tell me, what can Atheism bring to these things? Does Atheism have any answers regarding anything, let alone beauty, truth, justice, knowing, etc. You are among the death of the world via your atheism. You are again nothing, but a particular ready to die, and be eaten by worms in your eyes. You are a waste of time according to what Atheism says.
But Christianity does not say these things. Christianity says that you are the very Image of God. That you have meaning, purpose, beauty, via the relationship of personality to the very personality of God Himself. That though there is death in the world, there is something to look forward to via eternal life.
So while you sleep with that cold, old, and evil atheism tonight, the atheism that says you are a zero. I will sleep with Christianity, the one that is logical, the one that demonstrates purpose, and beauty. The one that says beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, but in the eye of God. And thus all reality stems from Him.
Have a goodnight death.
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).
By this he means that he intends to sodomize a pregnant woman, then rip her open and eat the fetus in front of her, because Calvinists have no need of morality as their fate is preordained. All Calvinists are infanticidal rapist murders.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
The only people who cannot see purpose in creation are those who fail to look.
And Jean, quit making assumptions about what things mean. Atheism is not darwinism, nor is it liberalism, nor is it "The universities." Atheism is, A-theism. That is, a lack of belief in a deity. And deity is not defined as "all knowledge."
Thus atheists can have knowledge. Atheism is not a worldveiw. There are no people whos affiliation is "atheist." There are people whose affiliation is liberal. Or Utilitarian. Or Socialist. You confuse the concepts.
Now, start actually responding to our points, rather than preaching to us, or you serve no purpose here.
Be as you wish to seem ~Socrates
It is curious to see that you agree that filatelists are murderers.
Ok, who's next? How about people with flu symptoms. They are certainly a group of people with no ideology, no philosophy, no ethics! Oh, mamma mia! They kill others! Here we go.
Actually, for many many of your posts I do not see anything new. If your "mission" was to write a few announcements on this website, then you have accomplished it. That's it. Have anything else to say? Apparently, you are not capable of learning or listening to what others tell you. Fine, I am sure there are people who are even more ignorant than you (though I should admit I would not recall many of your kind of anti-intellectuality); it's sad you have to live the rest of your life spitting remnants of your brain on keyboard. I wish you go as fast as you can to your sky daddy and be happy there. If there is hell and heaven, I would avoid by any means to stay in the same room with you, it is an eternal torture.
... feel sorry for your kid(s), I know how bad it is to live without dad. It is bad on double if you know your dad is a paranoid schizophrenic.
Wrong, it is an opigion, my opignion, and look I have, intensly. I understand where a thiest is coming from seing purpose in a creator. For me personally when I assume a creator, and then take in everything I know, the conclusion is that the creator is either not personal and doesn't care or involve himself in human affairs, or the creators character and intentions are to say the least questionable and his creation is certainly waisteful and doesn't really add up for a wise creation. For me adding big daddy doesn't give my life purpose. I feel purpose when I help someone. I feel purpose in my relationships, friends and family, my pupose is to love and be the best person I can be and help as many people as I can in my life. Your may see purpose in that or something different, that is fine you see I would never say "you can't see purpose" because of your particular set of beliefs in creation as this would be absurd of me, ofcourse you can.
Jean says all the messy parts of creation are a result of sin. This makes no sense at all, the first "sin" in your particular holy book of choice was a blink ago, lets think a little bigger than that shall we. Let's go back, find some nasties, what the heck did god create a few dozen or so (most likely more) giant T-Rex like dinosaurs for with 1ft long banana sized teeth and heads as big as cars, fast, monsters. What exaclty was he doing? Playing? Creates and then destroys??? From a natural viewpoint the T-Rex is a beautiful creature, coming from a super wise spiritual creator who is all love, it seems strange. I think about the millions and millions and millions of years that passed long before I existed, just animals eating animals, death and new life for billions of years. What was the purpose in that?
So let's assume you don't believe the world is this old, evolution is a crock and pre human life on earth was short, why create this kind of mess all at once only to destroy most of it? Is it satan that influenced the development of monsters, is the devil the cause of the predatory and gory nature in many animals??? How does this creation make any sense?
Let's think bigger. Why did god put us on this tiny ball, surrounded by DEATH! I mean that is what the universe is for us, death. The forces in space are rediculous, hit the event horizon of something powerful enough and get your body stretched a few thousand miles long. Perhaps he is controlling the universe to make sure none of these forces destroy his creation? Why? Why not create a safer place to live from the get go so he doesn't have to keep knocking giant asteroids out of collison with earth, or making sure the sun doesn't fart and turn the planet into a lays potato chip? Solar flares and killer asteriods, Satan at work again???
When I assume a creator a big giant can of worms opens up that never seems to stop, the little things that just don't make any sense are really what do it for me. You can't just put a book on the table and say "look, in this book it says satan did it," whatever your concern with the creation, satan did it, or sin did it. It is just a big fat naked assertion, it is meaningless the questions just keep going on and on. Why does god let satan go on? Why does god let any of this go on? "Freewill" this "satan did it" that, wait we are the cause of our dangerous surroundings, sins caused solar flares? More naked assertions. I respect someones opigion who believes in a creator, I understand how it can make them see purpose, I don't think I will ever understand what anyone finds appealling about the biblical creator and assosiated stories. I don't think I'll ever understand how someone connects super wise spiritual all loving creator to the world and our universe, for me it simply doesn't add up. You have to add silly stories to make any sense of it, and in the end that is all it ever is, naked assertions and silly stories. Their very well may be a god, although I highly doubt it, I would be very curious as to what the heck he was thinking. I would be tragically dissapointed if it turned out to be El lamo burnt flesh sniffing genital obsessed yahweh. Not because I'm surely doomed for thinking about what I see, but because he is such a primitive, strange and boring "ehh" deity. Atleast give me Buddha, a deity with a smile, someone I can have a meaningful conversation with without worrying I'll offend the widdle baybey and get gutted for eternity for asking questions.
100%, I'm curious as to where you conjure the patience to deal with those like Jean, a in a non-native language. Actually, I wonder where you get the patience to deal with me sometimes; if I got into debating someone like me, I would tire very quickly.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Kapkao,
My atheistic love to you gets stronger every time Jean posts a new piece of shit.
Also, I would not consider myself as a "patient" person.
Jean, your "Proof" of God has as its axiom a naked assertion, an assumption that there IS something like a God.
Therefore all you have "proved" logically, assuming that the rest of your argument is valid, is that IF your presupposition is true, THEN there is a God.
Now justify your starting points, the axioms/principles you apply in your "proof" God.
EDIT: By introducing a new "axiom" to get your "argument" off the ground, you are conceding that you have no evidence, where the only essential axioms are the essential Laws of Logic.
Calling it an "axiom" is just a lame attempt to conceal the truth that it is just a naked assertion.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Then ... what the fuck are you doing here?
Hello Phoenix,
I only made 2 assumptions via my first principles. The rest are not assumptions.
Since belief is knowledge, and your "soft" atheism lacks belief, then logically it lacks knowledge (A=B,B=C,C=A).
Atheism CAN have knowledge you are saying, and not be a worldview at the same time. Wow, that's what i've been waiting for. Let me hear your argument.
___________
Hi 100%Atheist
What I'm saying is that God is holding you back on your evil. If He were to let you go, you would logically be murderers. So by God's grace, you are not. Funny huh?
People keep asking me about the same old thing. So I naturally respond. As a Christian, It is natural for me not to be rude, unlike atheists.
___________________
Hi CrazyMan,
The problem with this, is you are starting from yourself, and ending with yourself. This is circular reasoning. You are making a deist argument. The Deists usually argument via natural theology.
But since the God of the Bible is person, then this gives meaning to our personality and humanity. And you don't know what you are feeling, since you don't know anything.
According to Dan Barker, you are having chemical squirts in your brain. So when you feel all warm and fuzzy with your mommy, those are chemical squirts, and are really meaningless in the spectrum of things. Would you like Dan's phone number, he can help you become a better atheists.
Since my means of knowlede is revelation, then those issues where revelation does not touch on it non-knowledge, and I do not go beyond what is written ( I Corinthians 4:6). God did not make them millions of years ago since the earth is only around 6000 to 10,000 years old.
We are not to "make sense" via our finite evil minds. The Bible says we are so evil, we don't even know ourselves (Jeremiah 17:3). Nothing was wrong with God making the dinosaurs since God is perfect. So His creation was also perfect (in the beginning). Perhaps when I get to heaven, I will learn more details regarding the Dinosaurs and why God made them.
The question is, why did God make you?
You keep using the word "sense." Not sure what you mean. Do you mean "Common Sense." And if you do (I am not a proponent of common sense) what kind of common sense are you using? there are at least 4 different kinds.
God lets Satan go on, and God lets you go on for the demonstration of His Wrath. Romans 9:21-22. God is both merciful and Just, and He will demonstrate both points someday.
You do have meaning, but via your own system of thought, you have 0 meaning. You are being a fool. The very thing (God) that gives you meaning you reject, and the very thing that give you no meaning, you embrace. This is exactly what the Bible talks about.
__________________
Hi BobSpencer1
EVERY SINGLE argument starts with an assumption. So if it's okay with logic in general, and logic as a study, then it's okay. But I based this assumption on something, so while it is an assumption, it is based upon the Imago Dei. Very important point.
You don't justify your axioms. lol. An axiom is a given that need no justifying. But I go out of the way, and my connection to the first principle is the Imago Dei. It would be improper logically to say the Imago Dei Justifies the Axioms, but it is related absolutely.
I am using a different kind of evidence then what you are use to. My evidence does not support, but demonstrates the argument.
The Imago Dei is an important key to my argument.
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).
Your axioms do need to be justified for your conclusions to be justified, if you want to apply your conclusions to reality. Your conclusions can be no more certain than your axioms.
Imago Dei needs to be established as true before your arguments based on that axiom can be considered true.
For example, Euclid's axiom about parallel lines only applies in a 'flat' space. Due to the influence of gravity, according to Einstein's General Relativity, the space we inhabit is not, in general flat, so two straight lines passing through a point may indeed meet at some distant point. So the sum of the angles of a triangle may well be greater than 180 degrees.
The "Imago Dei" is a concept in your mind, with no demonstrated basis in reality, so is irrelevant to establishing anything as true. If it is fundamental to your argument, you need to justify it, not just repeat it as a mantra.
Demonstrating your argument does not establish it as leading to a true conclusion.
All logic can do is show whether your conclusion is or is not consistent with your axioms and any other input propositions. It cannot demonstrate that it is objectively true.
Oh, and wrt to your comments earlier in this post, you have it backwards: knowledge is a form of belief, only specific forms of belief deserve to treated as knowledge.
We only lack belief in a specific concept, ie Gods, so that only means we have no positive knowledge of Gods, which is consistent with our belief that 'God' is not a particularly plausible concept.
You have much to learn, but first you have much to unlearn, if you seek wisdom, grasshopper.
Please feel free to try again.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
In fact, god is holding YOU back from murdering people. Atheists are fine without god. And you are pretty rude and mean, not others on this site (including theists).
The only question I asked you, why do you keep posting on this forum despite your absolute knowledge of everything including science and atheism? I have no other questions.
God/s/dess didn't make me. God/s/dess didn't make you. Our respective parents made us, screwing on a night mom was fertile.
Duh.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Hello BobSpencer1
You need to go back and study Immanuel Kant in relation to Axioms. You do not know what an axiom is.
The Imago Dei is a Postulate. Axioms and postulates are general truths. They are not to be justified since they are first principles. However, the argument as a whole is justified via correspondence to reality.
The reason why Christians are credited with science is because of their deductive axiomatic approach via the Infinite Reference Point. Because via consistent empiricism, it is impossible. And you are NOT a consistent empiricist by far.
You are right about Euclid completely neglects time and space, but the infinite reference point transcends time, so it still applies, however He interacts with time for us via His love giving us His son.
The Imago Dei is found in Genesis. Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 2 explains the Imago Dei. We are NOT a Tabulus Rasa because of the Imago Dei. Thus spitting right in the face of empiricism before it gets started.
Since I am arguing deductively, than the argument is true via the proof of the correspondence to reality. Thus the demonstration of the argument is a proof for the argument in the sense that it is what we would expect to find. Again, study Kant.
Via the Bible, knowledge, belief, and faith are all interchangeable. You have absolutely nothing to make your claim from an empirical standpoint. I have the Scriptures. I can break this down theologically if you'd like.
You do have positive knowledge of God via the Imago Dei. You ARE the Image of God. Though radically distorted. Again, read Romans 1:18-20 and Romans 2:15.
I am not trying again. I have had the same experience with cult members (Satanists, Mormons, Christian Science, Gnostics, Witches, etc). You are blinded from the truth. Thus I am patient in answering your questions regarding my argument. You have YET to give me your argument for anything as to why you are an atheist vs. an agnostic.
atheist etymologically speaking is a fixed claim, while agnostic is an open claim. How can you choose an etymological fixed claim if you deny all fixed claims. Remember, I speaking of etymologically, not George Smith. lol.
___________________________________
Hi 100%atheist,
You are just asserting out of thin air. As an empiricist, you can't even talk or write. Your own writing refutes your atheism.
________________________________
Hi CJ,
Read Ephesians 1:3-4 my Jewish friend.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
So when I punch you in the face you will still stand by your claim that I can't even do it.
My Atheism does nothing with ANY of philosophical teachings other than YOUR teaching that some deity exists.
I am not an empiricist or equilibrist or masochist or marxist or whatever else you attempt to use. BY DEFINITION.
I am not jewish - not ethnically, not religiously, not philosophically, not. Calling me jewish does not upset me, it just confirms how thick headed you are.
I added verse 5 since it shows, yet again, that christians must ignore women if they want to be bible pure. And I don't see doodly about how god/s/dess created you, just that s/he/it/they chose you. What I interpret this passage to be is yet another way for low self-esteem people to feel superior to others. Christianity is all about how superior believers are compared to the rest of the world. Chock full of arrogance and pride, they get a hard on telling us non-believers how we are going to roast one day. I grew up and out of this attitude a long time ago.
It is no skin off my nose if you are uncomfortable thinking of your parents screwing on a night mom was fertile and you were created.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Hi 100%Atheist,
I will know you punched me in the face, and I will be able to discern that you punch like a little girl, but you will not know what you have done via consistent empiricism. Like everything else via the Imago Dei, you must step out of empiricism to know anything.
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).
Uh, dude, I have no idea how 100% punches. However, I am a huge Scottish dude. When I punch, it will be felt.
Remember Micah 4:3? When you beat a man with a plough share, he will know that he has been beaten.
=
Your gentle touch burns hot, like fire.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Oh, I think I will kiss Jean instead. I feel you are so interesting little boy. Your god told me you are hot. Is it true? I can't believe he lied.
Edit:
Moderator. I am surely breaking some rules here because my several last posts look like some personal attack (nah... slapping) on Jean and his god. I just wonder, if someone consistently throughout dozens of messages calls every atheist (and most theists) on this forum dumb and heretics, who are basically next to dirt, and he does personal attacks too. Does this annul the forum rules in respect to such person?
Personally, it's getting annoying. I would gladly skip Jean's topics as I do with the long-living themes of Fonzie and Capocka, but he seems to be flooding every other thread. I would probably even agree to convert to True Christianity if this would shut Jean up for eternity.
Edit2:
Jean, you are not ready to learn anything on this forum. So I suppose you would be glad to convert people into True Christianity. Here is my question to you. Would you cut your arms and blind yourself if you know that you will convert one person to Christianity? Two? A Hundred? Give me the number.
Kant did not have anything useful to say about Axioms, just some constdered opinions, as with pretty much all philosophers.
from my dictionary:
a statement or proposition that is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true : the axiom that supply equals demand.
• chiefly Mathematics - a statement or proposition on which an abstractly defined structure is based.
So it still needs justification - the Earth as center of the Universe was once regarded as 'self-evident'.
They are not Truths, they are propositions. They are proposed first principles, requiring some form of verification.
Again, from my Dictionary:
a thing suggested or assumed as true as the basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief : perhaps the postulate of Babylonian influence on Greek astronomy is incorrect.
• Mathematics an assumption used as a basis for mathematical reasoning.
Science made progress by introducing and emphasizing evidence-based (ie 'empirical) analysis, so breaking free of the errors that Socrates, Aristotle, etc, propagated, such as the Geocentric model, the idea that heavy objects must fall faster than lighter objects, that flies had four legs, and so on.
No, Euclid did not neglect anything relevant to Geometry, he simply and understandably did not know that space itself may be curved, thus rendering the behaviour of straight lines not necessarily as he assumed.
Curvature of three-dimensional space in a higher dimension is analogous to the curvature of a two-dimensional surface such as the surface of a sphere.
When triangles are drawn on a curved surface, bounded by geodesics (the generalization of 'straight line', as the shortest distance between two points on a surface), the sum of the angles at which those three lines meet will not in general be 180 degrees. Time is not necessarily involved at all. We have to allow for this in laying out any large plan on the ground, and obviously in mapping and navigation.
In space, this effect becomes apparent particularly in the vicinity of a massive body, such as a star, and especially a black hole. It is observed in the 'bending' of light as it passes concentrations of mass.
If it is proved by its correspondence with reality, you are using empirical proof.
That is what science does - make a postulate, or hypothesis, and find some prediction it makes that is different to what alternative theories or hypotheses predict, and if observation and/or experiment show that it provides closer correspondence with reality than alternative postulates, then you have evidence that it is a better model of reality.
Kant may or may not have had ideas close to this, I don't care, this dates back before Kant.
I will take Victor Stenger as a better source for how we gain viable knowledge.
Faith is not knowledge, it is wishful-thinking, self-deception. Belief encompasses both knowledge and fantasy.
Image Dei is just an idea, not a Truth.
You will more than merely restating your assertions about the Imago Dei, certainly more than just pointing to where is is discussed in the Bible.
Agnostic is a 'weasel' word invented specifically to allow people avoid the social censure that a simple expression that they regard the God Hypothesis as not having sufficient warrant to be worth taking seriously, as distinct from many other ideas which similarly lack real credibility, even if theoretically possible.
We don't make such an issue about people who don't 'believe in' BigFoot, or Alien Abductions, to distinguish between those who find no credible reason why one should believe in such things, and those who entertain the slight possibility that they may exist.
Any truly scientifically minded person, including Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett, will not assert categorically that no form of God could possibly exist.
But they do make a distinction, essential for practical application of reason, between things which are generally improbable, and those which, in Dennett's phrase, are of "vanishingly low probability".
So, technically, Dawkins is an Agnostic, but that fails to distinguish his attitude to the concept from that of someone we would more commonly regard as an agnostic, who really does entertain the idea of a God a possibility, but thinks we simply do not, or cannot, know 'for sure'.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
.....and once again Jean Chauvin takes over a thread.... weren't we discussing Scientology?
This is messageboard sabatoge via douchebaggery.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
I've read pretty much all of L Ron Hubbard's Sci-Fi. Keeping that in mind especially his last book series Mission Earth, one has to wonder if L Ron was just pulling a huge one off on the suckers of the world. One thing for sure it did was sell a lot of books. In the Mission Earth series L Ron satirically destroys psychiatry and drugs used to treat mental disorders. After reading all of the 10 volumes you really wonder if L Ron came up with Dianetics and the resultant Scientology as satire or just a scam.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Dead on as usual, Rich.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I've posted this quote before.
So it was a scam. Intended to make Mr. Hubbard a lot of money easily and quickly. Appears to have done so. If you take a quick look at Mr. Hubbard's biography, there was a fair amount of arguing over money and scientology after his death.
I have always liked Harlan Ellison.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Well, the Earth DOES appear to be the center of the Universe, though the reason why is fairly straight forward: light has only had a finite amount of time to reach Earth, with the boundary of the visible Universe being at roughly 13.7 billion light years.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
That was my impression as well that L Ron was pretty much doing whatever it took to make a buck. Writers do reveal a lot about themselves and their ultimate goals even unintentionally.
I agree Ellison's work was always interesting. He wrote many of the late 1950s and 1960s TV shows.
____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me
"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.
Even better - it is still 'self-evident', but wrong.
Of course we now have a pretty good reason to believe that there is no center of the Universe, any more than there is some place on the surface of the Earth that is central.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
TY, Sir.
www.RichWoodsBlog.com
I am a big Harlan Ellison fan as well. Too bad the guy never seemed to gain the widespread fame that he so deserved. Hell, I just love listening to Harlan talk in regular interviews. The man has a ton of talent.
“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
His stories can be a little hard to take if you are at all squeamish. And the master of the horror short story - unfortunately - is overshadowed by the hack who writes horror tomes. I don't like Stephen King - sorry.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Hello Answers in Genesis,
I know that is not your name, but it's fun calling you that. Do you mind if I call you that?
And by the way, the thought the Scots were wimps? Now if you were to say that you were an Irishman, now, we'd be talking.
Do you know why God created beer? To keep the Irish from ruling the world.
___________________________________________________________
Hi 100%atheist,
Why are you trying to kick me off? Just ask me not to post here ever again, and I won't.
________________________________________________________
Hi Bob,
When I speak of Kant, I speak of Kant via his transcendental argument.
Axioms by definition, are not justified by definition.
I propose that propositions are truth statements. More on propositions later God willing.
Okay, if you assume the Babylonian myth, carry it out consistently and if the chain of reason breaks ever, then it is refuted.
Science made "progress" by understanding axiomatically that God created everything, and thus there is meaning in studying the things created by God. Bob, are you a product of the Public School system?
Getting to understand God's creation via actual true science was a means of worship for the early scientists.
How do you know about two-dimensional? Have you experienced two-dimensions? If not, then you cannot speak on the subject, only I can.
I agree with you that Euclid did not use time and space. In a way, since God transcends time and space, neither am I via my axiom. Those meaning via those particulars in time have more coherency nevertheless. though I may need to qualify that if confusion arises.
I was tired when I wrote that. The Imago Die is a clarification that can be deduced via the implications of the axioms. And as a side note, proof is not always empirical. 2+2=4 is a proof of sorts that's not empirical.
Within the 3 categories of secular knowing, comes the 3 means of proof within those categories.
Kant is extremely good reading. Even though Kant was a pagan, God gifted his mind on some methods of argument via the imago dei.
Again, you are interpreting faith via empiricism. By the way, empiricism does not say faith is wishful thinking. I can't say anything since you have not experienced or you can observe faith. It is a subject of ignorance for you to even talk about it.
But within the Christian epistemology, faith is knowledge. And since I am right and you are wrong, you have a lack for knowledge/faith.
In Philosophy class, we do make an issue as to why you don't believe in Big Foot or Aliens. Your system is limited. You cannot deny belief in things you haven't experienced. You can't even comprehend these things, since again, they are non-empirical.
Only those that you experience via your senses, can you even comprehend, let alone deny or affirm. Be consistent.
Probably via what normative? A normative which they made up. lol.
While I appreciate the lessons in definition, you have yet to justify why you claim a fixed position of atheism etymologically, while you deny fixed knowledge is possible at the same time. Again, we are speaking etymologically, which is a fixed claim. There is NO God is the rendering etymologically.
______________________________________
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).
He picked that name to mock Answers in Genesis, numbnuts. So yeah, go ahead.
He he's OCD and gets anal about the most trivial things, so yeah.
BTW, wrong beverage numbnuts.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
I never have liked Stephen King either. I didn't like him back in the 1980's when he was so popular .From the late 90's on, I never could even complete books that were written by him.The film adaptations of Stephen King are total waste of celluloid in my opinion. I agree that alot of Harlan's stuff is not for the squeamish. Even now, I'll be walking along and out of nowhere, I'll think of that title "I have no mouth and I must scream" and still get a jittery feeling. It would be hard for me to pick an Ellison favorite, since I have so many.
“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
A lot of people in the literary world seem to think "Tick Tock Man" is a classic. Funny, I don't remember much of that story, I'll have to read it again sometime. My recollection is it was mostly an anti-technology rant. Even as a kid, I thought technology was cool and couldn't see why people were so uptight about it.
As an aside - there was an article about the 10 worst music videos of all time. And "Mr. Roboto" by Styx was number 2. Should have been number 1.
I still remember passages and the story line from "I Have no Mouth and I Must Scream". And I am currently reading My Stroke of Insight. She couldn't talk or even understand language after her stroke. The parallels are frightening. Though Ellison's story is anti-technology and Dr. Taylor's experiences were very reliant on the latest technology.
I do wish I could forget the story I read in Playboy written under a pseudonym of Ellison's. Can't remember the name, but it was about a swamp monster and young, pretty girls. Yech.
edit: for a little more clarity
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Several times in high school back in the 80's, it was a pet joke of mine, when someone was trying to be bullying or intimidating to scream right in their face " REPENT HARLEQUIN !,". said the Tick Tock Man. "GET STUFFED,". said the Harlequin. To which I was always met with a look of total confusion and a chance to escape the bullying jocks (didn't turn into a semi-tough guy until much later, hehe).
Years later, when the documentary of Ellison's life, Dreams with Sharp Teeth came out, the beginning sequence where Harlan screams "REPENT HARLEQUIN,". said the Tick Tock Man had me laughing like hell.
To me the Tick Tock Man was more about a tyranny deciding what is best for everyone else than anti-technology (although there were some anti-technology hints in there as well). The Tick Tock Man was a world where being late was a felony and not being on time for several offenses could get you placed into detention. Seemed to me that Harlan was making an anti-establishment statement that it should not be up to a ruling power to decide what is best for everyone else (the classic line where Harlequin is screaming about not wanting to fit in seemed to ram that home for me).
I guess one of the most misogynist type works I ever stumbled across by Ellison (the swamp monster doesn't ring a bell) was the tale called, A Boy and His Dog. Which got made into a pretty forgettable film that had Don Johnson making a debut in a starring role. Both the story and the film had that bizarre twist ending, but apparently Ellison hated the last line of the film so much that he actually threatened to punch the director out for putting it in there.
“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
Read the story - saw the movie. The movie was - not the story - though they were both bizarre.
I don't know if the swamp creature (actually, it was a backwater of the creek) was ever reprinted. And, it was a pseudonym he used writing in the skin mags.
Sort of like us writing under aliases - heaven forbid any potential employer should actually read what I have written and realize that is the same person asking for a job! Would you want to be known for writing in Playboy or Penthouse or one of them if you had dreams of being a serious writer some day? Maybe - maybe not. And then there is the thought of your mom or dad reading something you wrote. The endless critiques would be hard to take.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
It's Answers in Gene Simmons! Gene Simmons, one of the KISS. (knights in Satan's service) The damn forum system doesn't display that long names.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Jean Chauvin lived in a two-dimensional universe in one of his previous lives; I believe it was the life after the life where he was Plato and before the life where he was Jesus.
Lol.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
I happen to like Stephen King. I learned english reading short stories by him and my first attempt at "The Stand" failed, due to my poor mastery of the english language at the time. I've since read almost every Stephen King book and while I recognize that he's no great writer, the man can tell a story almost as no other. It also makes for awesome bathroom reading, you can pick up any book and read it like watching a movie. I'm not even being sarcastic, I actually enjoy reading S. K. because it takes so little mental effort. My all time favourite S.K. book is "The Gunslinger" from the Dark Tower series... the rest of the series gradually digress into sucking but I still shamelessly enjoyed reading it. So get off your high horse, while mental masturbation with a good book is fun, nothing beats a good 'ole rub and tug by S. K.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I made it all the way up to Wizard and Glass on the Dark Tower series and by the time that the next book came out, I had actually lost interest. At the time the third book ended, I was highly pissed at having to wait for so long. I kept meaning to pick his stuff up again but never did. Heard the series ended kinda disappointing though.
Hehe, I read author Joe Hill's two books, a little over a year ago. I saw his picture on the back of the cover and thought "Damn that dude looks like Stephen King,". But didn't realize there was a good reason, he was Stephen King's son.
“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