A Rational Chrisitan of Intelligence (Rare)
Offline Hello,
My name is Jean Chauvin and I am new on here. I saw this place when Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort gave some horrible arguments against two representatives on here.
I am a hardcore Christian trained in logic, philosophy and theology. I enjoy "sparing" if it is respectful and I do not wish to convert anybody to the truth since this is logically impossible.
Since I do not believe atheism (or agnosticism, free thinkingers, etc), then the burden or proof is on you to show me that it is. Since you cannot logically do this, you must find ways to switch the burden back to me so that you are not forced into absurdity.
So, you are stuck with picking on Christians not trained in logic and philosophy. This is sad and this is the state we are in right now. The Christian Church has dumbed down the Body of Christ so badly, they are using atheistic arguments to argue for Christian thinking. It's very bad.
I posted my arguments for God via the thread why do you believe your religion is true and not another (something like that). The question was poorly written since the term religion cannot be defined anymore.
Anyway, I hope I am welcomed. I enjoy talking to all kinds of pagans and heretics. They can range from Mormons to Satanists such as the Osmonds and Michael W. Ford.
Thanks for having me.
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).
- Login to post comments
If you knew the fallacy of Pascal's wager and Bentrand Russel's "teapot" example you'd know what mistake you are making with the "burden of proof".
Secondly, there is absolutely NOTHING logical or rational about claims of invisible non-material super brains with magical super powers, by any name, not just yours.
Being "hardcore" in religion only means you are a super fan of myth. Some si-fi fans know every name of every episode of Star Trec, but that doesn't make Klingons real or transporters real.
Modern science already has proven the fact that it takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, which pretty much blows your God's sperm theory of virgin births out of the water. Not to mention prior deities of prior religions were also allegedly born of virgins.
Not to mention modern science says humans do not survive riogr mortis, which pretty much blows your zombi god theory of Jesus surviving death out of the water.
I don't know what you call logic, but it certainly is twisted if that is what you go by.
A duck is a duck and a myth is a myth, and you are merely a fan of a popular myth. "BUT I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY AM A SUPER FAN". So, and billions of other people are super fans of their gods too. So what. If you want me to be impressed, nope. Not surprised, but not impressed either. Humans have always made up fictional gods and falsely believed them to be fact, you are no different in human history.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
ANSWER:
You Said:
"If you knew the fallacy of Pascal's wager and Bentrand Russel's "teapot" example you'd know what mistake you are making with the "burden of proof"
In terms of secular logic, the burden rest on the affirmative of the thesis. So if I say I do believe in God, and you say I don't, I have the burden of proof. But according to Black's Dictionary of Law, the burden can switch throughout the argument. Since I negative the atheist view and you affirm it, then the burden would be on you.
However, I do not argue according to the court systems. I am not an empiricism and I am not into induction. I argue differently. I argue according to Scripture via deductive first premises. This is perfectly acceptable and true in logic. And it is true, since you as an atheist cannot support the etymological understanding of atheist, you must position the debate so that the burden is on the Christian. I don't mind this at all and I welcome this. But this game that you guys play demonstrates your absurdity that you do not have logical support for your own relativistic view.
You Said:
"Secondly, there is absolutely NOTHING logical or rational about claims of invisible non-material super brains with magical super powers, by any name, not just yours."
Since I have picked on atheism you wish to throw one out there as a distraction. First off, in any argument, you must define your terms. I do not know what you mean by:
Invisible
non-material
super brains
magical super powers
I would agree that via my understanding of those terms universally speaking, I too don't believe in any of this and it would be illogical. Perhaps you may need to define your terms like a logician. Try again.
You Said:
"Being "hardcore" in religion only means you are a super fan of myth. Some si-fi fans know every name of every episode of Star Trec, but that doesn't make Klingons real or transporters real."
Again, not sure what you mean by religion. I never claimed to be in a religion. This is a straw man. Religion is a non-word since there is no universal meaning that can conotatively apply to it. You are using logical fallacies of a false analogy. It seems when you speak, reason leaves the room. Try again.
You Said:
"Modern science already has proven the fact that it takes TWO sets of DNA to manifest into a zygote, which pretty much blows your God's sperm theory of virgin births out of the water. Not to mention prior deities of prior religions were also allegedly born of virgins."
Again, define your terms. Modern science? You mean Da Vinci. He is credited for being the father of modern science, and failed in finding universals to the particulars outside of Christianity. He spent most of his life trying to do this via mathematics. So the very founder of this has failed.
Regarding your word "proven." You will have to define this. Do you mean empirically proven through operational science? Is this within probable means or absolute means? Again, you are very ambiguous. And then you go into sperm and Mary. Before you define anything, you jump all over like a Mexican bean. Relax. Make an argument by first defining your terms and again, put the logical fallacies away. I am trying to help you so that you can converse with a Christian intelligently.
You Said:
"Not to mention modern science says humans do not survive riogr mortis, which pretty much blows your zombi god theory of Jesus surviving death out of the water."
Modern Science Says? Okay, so then you are claiming that knowledge is possible and all the Universities are wrong? Science means to know. When I went to the University, they told me that there is no knowledge and all is relative. Now you say there is knowledge? Shall I flip a coin for the answer? lol.
And again my confused friend, you have yet to define your terms. And you have yet to justify modern science as a logical means of an epistemology. These are old recycled arguments.
You Said:
"I don't know what you call logic, but it certainly is twisted if that is what you go by."
Logic is the structure of argument via reason. Syllogisms and the process of arguing via validity and soundness. If you would like, I can recommend a beginners book on the subject since you pretty much said nothing in this post.
You Said:
"A duck is a duck and a myth is a myth, and you are merely a fan of a popular myth. "BUT I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY AM A SUPER FAN". So, and billions of other people are super fans of their gods too. So what. If you want me to be impressed, nope. Not surprised, but not impressed either. Humans have always made up fictional gods and falsely believed them to be fact, you are no different in human history."
Are you upset? Relax. I agree with you that a duck is a duck and a myth is a myth. Just as I agree with the Universities that you guys believe that all is relative. This would include modern science wouldn't it? What about the arguments you guys sometimes make about Quantum Physics. Atheists are really wishy washy.
I don't want you to be impressed. I am making arguments and you are getting testy. Try to make an argument next time. Define your terms, and justify your assertion. Appealing to modern science (whatever you mean by that), is a logically fallacy via an appeal to authority.
If you would like private lessons in logic, email me and I will take the time to help you.
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).
Conflating logic and science, again. Mutually exclusive decision calculus with different sets of audience requirements. Science does not operate within logic, or all hypo-testing models would be invalid (nothing can exist until it's got a reference)--of which nothing would exist until we construct it--logical requirement.
He is not shifting the burden, you are. If you were right, all scientists would be trained in logic. They are not.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
Cut the crap. All you are doing is trying to dress the skunk up in a new tux. I was born at night, just not last night.
I am sick of the dance down the Yellow Brick Road.
Before you even get to your convoluted book of tripe that took over 40 authors and 1,000 years to complete, the beginning argument is that a "being" with no material and no physical brain with magical super powers exists.
SO THE FUCK WHAT? Welcome to the mundane reality of human psychology. It feels good, and that is the only reason you believe. You are in good company in human history because most humans would rather go with what feels good, than actually test it.
You "Look at my cleaver arguments"
If I was using your same arguments to argue the existence of Allah would you still buy the same arguments you are making to me?
Take your own arguments and every time you want to use the word "Christian" or "Jesus" replace those words with some other god or religion then decide for yourself if your own arguments still make sense.
Elaborate bullshit is still bullshit no matter how cleaver it sounds.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Welcome to the forum.
No, the burden on the claimant. The theist is making the positive claim. Asserting that you don't 'believe in non-belief' is nothing but rhetoric.
I don't have to 'switch the burden back on you.' It is already on you.
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
Before we get into this could you define what you mean by 'god' for me please? Just in terms that make sense inside this particular space time. What is it specifically that you believe in?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hello Jean, glad to meet you. We always have room at the table for theists. Especially those who would challenge us. Out of curiosity, what is your goal?
Yah, that was pretty bad. I have seen worse, much worse. Not very often though.
OK, don't “believe in atheism”. In all honesty, that fails to affect me in one way or the other. However, I am curious as to what you think a belief in atheism is. You say that you are trained in logic, so tell me what you expect me to prove before you expect the burden to be on me.
Well, they are easy pickings. That and those are the ones that we get the most of around here. So that happens to be where most of our action comes from.
On the other hand, if you can provide a better challenge, the do please bring on the fury.
Well, there are lots of different bodies which claim to be the true church. Some are worse than others.
For example, my roots are in conservative Anglicanism. Given that, it is fairly trivial to pick on the flavors which are farther from the core than that. Which flavor do you mean?
I shall have to look at that thread and see where it is going.
Well, I would welcome you. I can't speak for anyone else though.
I do notice that you have already met Brian37. The fact is that he has yet to open his particular can of whoopass on you. He usually starts out tame to feel out an opponent. He has better stuff to come later.
=
Hi Atheistextremist,
It seems a lot of people on here don't like logic. This is odd since logic is the means towards reason. And this is Rational Response Squad Website. You don't know what you're doing? You cannot practice science properly and ignore logic since logic is how one reasons.
To answer your question in reference to God in connection to logic, this is easy and I've said it before. God is The Infinite Reference Point. God gives meaning to the particulars (us). He gives meaning, purpose, beauty, truth, justice, knowledge to us the particulars via presuppositional understanding towards knowledge. In order for one to know, you must connect to another subject all the time. This must be done deductively starting with the Infinite Reference Point.
The Infinite Reference Point, Is God (contrary to Sarte's finite reference point).
Thus, via atheism you cannot know since the particulars are stuck. They have fallen and they can't get up.
Now this is what you guys do. Since you don't have a position of logic, you try to make your position seem credible by attempting via slippery slope to "disprove" my position. That's okay, I welcome all challenges. But the point is, the disproof of ones position does not prove your position. This is a logical fallacy known as ignorantum eliche.
But that's find, challenge is good. I welcome it. But you must also provide an atheistic means of knowing via the universals. How do you jump from particulars to universals. It all relative or not? How is it all relative and yet not all relative via science? Which one is it? Is it absurd in the University and not absurd when you debate a Christian? Are atheists all bi-polar?
Show me your position as credible. If you can't know, then you can't know ethics and morals. If you can't know ethics and morals, you can't know reality. If you can't know ethics or reality, you can't know beauty. And then you say things like this which penetrates our culture into non-sense.
"Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder."
This is NOT the Christian position. There is objectivity in everything since the measure of objectivity is God Himself. I do not argue TO God since this is a logical fallacy but FROM God.
Now again, I welcome all challenges, but you must also provide an atheistic epistemology (which would be on my side) or admit you have non and the Universities are right. And if they are right. there is not secular science by definition.
Ready. Give it a shot if you can.
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).
with a first premise this oblique I'm fairly certain your logic is unsustainable. This definition sprawls over so many metaphysical borders as to defy comprehension. I'd love to discuss this further but I don't know what it is you want me to disbelieve in.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Your assertion tommygun is very impressive. Please tell me how ethics and morality relate to understanding reality and subjective beauty.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hi Atheistextremist,
Give me an atheistic epistemology. Give me a way you can know anything. And by knowledge I mean this:
"A Variable with Absolute Zero Error."
You must connect via a Universal from a particular using your means of knowing. Since most are empiricists, then use it via empiricism. David Hume and Berkley and Locke failed. Who knows, maybe you can do it.
You have not shown any refutation to my argument. You simply stated that you don't like it. That's outside of reason and is absurd. If you wish to argue with me via reason, then learn a little logic so you can keep up.
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).
I can't argue logically without a comprehensible first premise on your side and I still don't understand what god is. He sounds to me like a vague subjective concept and I'm still not sure what I'm meant to be disputing.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Yeah, I am an empiricist. I believe the universe exists of itself. That our analysis and rationalisation of it does not impact on its encompassing reality. That absolutist objectives - including your assertion god is the infinite reference point - are impossible for us to know. I believe the world of the immaterial is impossible, that if it existed it could not be detected, sensed, known or shown to another person.
I believe objects in reality are separate from my mind and I believe the starting point of all knowledge is sense data. Everything else is ambiguous and illusory. That includes your arbitrary reified infinite reference point who is miraculously the source of a range of human cultural appreciations.
Go ahead and crow, Jean. Your leveraging of empiricism's core integrity to score a cheap point only highlights your cognitive enslavement to meaningless words like 'god' which, in the complete absence of a coherent definition from you, is no more than an abstract noun without connection to actual matter.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Okay....so you want universals, that's fine. But without asserting them axiomatically. And I would like to point out grounding anchoring universals with another universal (i.e. a god) is question begging. You are no better off than you were before and there there is no more certainty in this either.
On the other hand, particulars should point to universals and insofar as I know is really the only way to know that universals are possible--that is through induction and inferences. But this is not guaranteed. Most atheists are content with probabilistic accounts for such things.
Some atheists do have a position on logic... Why do you assert that they do not? To say that all atheists don't is a hasty generalization.
This is only true if there is more than 2 terms...that is if something is either true or false, showing it is false guarantees it is not true.
The jump to universals is by way of inference, as mentioned before. But like I said, they are not guaranteed as such, and I do not think assuming universals is any better.
See above. Without assuming universals, how do you get objectivity?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Answers,
Thank you butter battle for welcoming me. I was not aware of polite atheists. You may be the first. The burden is all the claimant, you're right. The claim is of the positive vs. the negative of the claim.
However, if the topic switches, and we are discussing atheism, and I say atheism is false, and you say it is true, then it is you with the burden towards your claimed position. It's very simple.
The plantiff always has the burden of proof. I can discuss as to why if this is needed. The defendant does not initially have the burden. But in law, the burden can SWITCH in the debate. It CAN switch.
So if you say this, I have the burden:
Theistic Proofs for the Existence of God (Does God Exist). I have the burden of proof since I am representing the claim
But If I say this, then YOU have the burden.
Atheism is a logical worldview?
Then you logically would be affirming the thesis and I would be denying it, thus giving you the burden. This is virtually never staged against the atheist, but against the "Christian." This is common since atheism has no logical argument for their own position. Period. I'm simply explaining how it works. The Burden depends on the docket phraseology, and this is why the court systems hire people to get it right. And thus this is law and argument via burden of proof. See Black's Dictionary of Law under evidence and under burden of proof.
___________________________________________________________-
Hi AnswersinGene,
My goal is to find out if there "exists" a logical argument to support atheism, Skepticism, and the other wimpier ones in between.
You Said:
"OK, don't “believe in atheism”. In all honesty, that fails to affect me in one way or the other. However, I am curious as to what you think a belief in atheism is. You say that you are trained in logic, so tell me what you expect me to prove before you expect the burden to be on me."
How can I do this if I can not read minds. I do not practice the Occult like Michael W. Ford or Crowley, or Aquino. I don't even know if you are an atheist. It is not my job to do homework for you. You should already know what you believe and why you believe this. If you do not know this, then you are not an atheist because you have logical justifications for your reasoning.
If you would like, I do not mind teaching you logic to help you become the best atheist you can be. I truly mean that.
You Said:
"Well, there are lots of different bodies which claim to be the true church. Some are worse than others.
For example, my roots are in conservative Anglicanism. Given that, it is fairly trivial to pick on the flavors which are farther from the core than that. Which flavor do you mean?"
Anglican, wow. Anglicans are nothing more then Roman Catholics, except the Pope has been vacated from the premises. Though by conservative, do you mean Anglican Catholic, similar to C.S. Lewis? I do not believe Lewis was a Christian, but that's another point.
I am a hardcore Protestant Christian.
Sola Fide
Sola Graticia
Sola Christus
Sola Scritura
Sola Deo Glorium.
This is the backbone of the Reformation, and Biblical Christianity. It is not of infusion, but of imputation of Christ's righteousness that saves us. The Infinite Reference Point that transcends time and space via the incarnation of Jesus Christ bound Himself to time because He loved His children. Though He (God) hates the wicked (e.g. Romans 9:13).
The deductive arguments were in a thread somewhere that said give me a reason why you believe in your God. I don't know where it is. I'm sure it's somewhere around here.
You Said:
"Well, I would welcome you. I can't speak for anyone else though.
I do notice that you have already met Brian37. The fact is that he has yet to open his particular can of whoopass on you. He usually starts out tame to feel out an opponent. He has better stuff to come later."
This is funny. I've been speaking and studying Atheism for over 20 years. So open up the whoopass. But watch yourself that you don't get bitten back with reason.
I thank you for the kindness and the welcome.
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).
Hello Extremeatheist,
Oh no, you're an empiricist. That's a shocker.
I am not asking you to refute me. I am asking you to give me an atheistic epistemology. You must do this in the realm of subjectivity. Via your belief in whatever, how do you know whatever.
You say that God MUST be in the equation to know? This seems to be what you are saying. And if it is, then we are getting somewhere and you are slowly refuting yourself.
As an atheist, you must develop such an epistemology apart from God since you deny Gods are "existent." Why don't you just tell me an atheist cannot know by definition so we can get to the heart of things. Otherwise, good luck.
__________________________________
Hi ubuntuAnyone,
Again, you can't do this with God. You have to do this WITHOUT God. Why do you keep asking me about God. You are Atheists. It's about your worldview. Defend yourself for once.
Via induction and inferences. Very good, you are trying. Thanks for trying. However, via induction, you must always start with particulars. You cannot then go from a particular to a universal with an inference because for you to know, you must know ALL particulars in order to arrange them properly to know what they are thus making it a universal. You must be all knowing of all particulars at the exact same time in space and time.
And what about speech, and thought process and presuppositions. And then, via what you pick up via particulars, how do you know that the particular is true via a particular?
And if you believe that the particular make up the whole (a logical fallacy), then how could this be since the whole has no meaning, and thus you cut the throat of universals before you even begin. But I'm really happy you are trying. Keep thinking.
You Said:
"Some atheists do have a position on logic... Why do you assert that they do not? To say that all atheists don't is a hasty generalization."
In virtually all the atheistic Universities across the country, they teach that all is relative. That there are no absolutes. Then when the debate a Christian, they all of a sudden know logic and truth is absolute and they enjoy reason.
Atheists in this country as a whole are hypocrites. Either all is relative or it is not. If there are no absolutes, and science is knowledge, then knowledge is relative, and atheists by definition cannot know, want or attempt science EVER. They would have to step over to the Christian position of reason in order to do this, and they do. And they steal Christian ethics, and epistemology in their thinking.
So tell me, what's with the hypocrisy? Or are you telling me that the majority of Universities don't represent "true" atheism, that would be a fun way to go.
You Said:
"This is only true if there is more than 2 terms...that is if something is either true or false, showing it is false guarantees it is not true."
Well Kind of, but not really. You see terms don't determine concepts, but rather concepts determine terms. The two concepts of the terms could either both wrong, one right one wrong, neither wrong in reference to the same manner, way and relationship.
You Said:
"See above. Without assuming universals, how do you get objectivity?"
We all assume. This is perfectly logical in argument as a first principle. The issue in logic then becomes a two fold.
1) Validity
2) Soundness
In the way that some Atheists assume no God, I assume God. In the way some Atheists assume lack of faith, I assume faith (via Biblical definition). God is a given via the Imago Dei, and thus we all know, it's just a matter of reason in terms of how you get there. And this, I have yet to define.
This was good. I enjoyed this conversation. Perhaps we can move forward on the argument instead of teaching others argument before I state the argument and we move forward. So keep in touch.
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).
my theological noncognitivism must have been obvious from the start. You have still not defined god. God has no meaningful or measurable attributes. Unverifiable concepts existing outside the limits of sense data are meaningless and do not refer to knowable matter. Given your epistemology is based on an immaterial god as the 'infinite reference point', your position is more meaningless and empty than mine, and completely devoid of honesty. I await a meaningful definition of god before I can further discuss your position or assess the veracity of your so-called epistemology. In the meantime I will continue to consider your god nothing more than an unthinkable proposition.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hi ExtremeAtheist,
I have too defined God. You don't comprehend what you read.
God is THE INFINITE REFERENCE POINT. He IS Spirit (John 4:24) and He transcends time and space. But you are not suppose to develop an epistemology via your opponents thinking, but via your own thinking. This is very funny. You want to distract me and attack me. That's okay, I understand. I guess if I didn't have a leg to stand on and hated truth I would be doing exactly what you are doing. So, attack. I'm ready.
I also defined how you can verify my argument via evidence. The notion from Karl Popper that you have to falsify an argument was pulled out of thin air and was a linguistic argument. You must justify that before you claim it.
The rest is non=sense ad hominems again. You broke down somewhere in your thinking and went absurd.
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).
It has not been demonstrated that it is logically impossible to educate you in the truth- it is only empirically unlikely that you will accept reality.
1. If you do not accept atheism, and you are even passingly educated, you are evidently not rational. That is not to say there are no Christians who are rational, but those who are are either ignorant or are philosophically ambiguous as atheists (e.g. Paul Tillich)
2. Most atheists aren't making any claim, nor are they trying to convince anybody of anything- the burden of proof is not on them
3. It is not logically impossible to prove that theism is false, and to the contrary this has been frequently demonstrated. Apologists failed to adapt their concepts of the divine more than a hundred years ago. The matter is both trivial and resolved. This 'god' being is a falsehood- it is logically impossible and does not exist in our or any reality.
4. Where the burden of proof lies is moot- atheism has been long proven. If you do not accept logic and reason, I have no interest in banging my head against a wall trying to re-educate against medieval mindsets of reality. The discussion is over before it is begun for any educated participants. Arguments for and against 'god' are about as appropriate for adults as crayons are.
Not at all- those are even worse. They love to drop names and famous quotes, and reference logical fallacies of other Christians pretending they have a solution to everything that the rest of Christiandom has somehow missed in hundreds of years of apologetics.
They're megalomaniacal, that's what they are- they think because they have a parody of an education, that they are somehow qualified to make a new argument that we haven't already heard hundreds of times. They think they're better than all of the people *just like them* who came before.
Sorry to break it to you, but you aren't special. We get quite a few of your sort around here. You're still wrong. You aren't going to magically prove that 0 = 1.
Theism is debunked- it's time to move on.
Why can't- for once- somebody come here and admit that their god doesn't exist, and then argue for religious ethics? Why can't somebody who espouses atheism personally put forth a coherent argument that can actually be made- such that though this god doesn't exist, the belief in that god is important to keep the unwashed masses in check?
I've heard arguments like that- that's the kind of discussion that is worth having. Those are the kinds of questions that *aren't* definitively answered.
If you want to 'spar', don't chose such a miserable failure of an argument. If you want to argue for religion, take it for the sake of argument that your god doesn't exist, and everything about your mythology is factually incorrect, but argue from psychology, the practicality of education, and social order. That's an argument worth having.
I'm bored to tears with theist apologetics.
If by atheist arguments, you mean that some contemporary philosophers are actually giving leeway to logic and regressing god to a concept and an idea which doesn't actually exist as a being or reality, but which is a means of philosophically directing human thought and solving existential problems by metaphorical appreciation for being- that's not dumbing down, that's wising up.
The churches have been painted into a corner for a long time, and by embracing reality for the people who are capable of thinking- but by making it too complicated and obfuscated for ordinary people to understand- they may potentially achieve a brilliant coup in the battle of retention.
Vedic texts were based on a similar principle- graduated levels of thought from primitive superstition which was accessible and understandable to the masses with human-centric personifications and preschool concepts of diametric and paint by numbers morality, up to more abstract existential philosophy of being for the more educated (where the same principles of heresy no longer applied). Nowhere else, it seems, has that distinction ever been more clear-- though esoteric Kabbalistic practices were arguably similar.
The big problem Christianity had when it broke from Judaism is that it lost the 'higher' echelons of thought present in graduated texts by over-simplifying everything with their canon. It helped push Christianity (and Europe) into the dark ages, and coming out of it people only managed to graduate by moving out of the texts and away from the religion itself.
By creating a self-contained level of metaphorical existential memes, the Christian church is compensating to some degree for what it was lacking (those seemingly essential principles of gradation that many older religions have long ago developed). This is what the likes of Tillich and other modern existential Christian philosophers are doing with their "atheistic" arguments- and they're serving a vital role for the church. I'm not sure if I'm comfortable with the direction it's veering or not, but it seems to be an essential course in the evolution of any religion (essentially, retaining intellectuals by letting them in on the whole thing, and giving them license to actually *think* and be vindicated in doing so rather than killing them for it).
That said, you can be a crude bumpkin if you want, and indignantly reject this advancement in thought and understanding within your religion while pretending that you alone hold the ultimate key, the holy grail, to preserving all of your traditional dogma and culture (likely imposed on your ancestors anyway), having yourself achieved, as savior of the only true Christianity, something that people who were far more intelligent than you are have missed for hundreds of years (maybe just a little megalomaniacal)... or, you know, you could actually be rational like you claim. It's your call.
In the latter case, I would be happy to have any kind of debate with you in which you at least acknowledge that your god doesn't literally exist. So, I hope that rational thinking pans out for you and you adopt a realistic world view- and in the slim case that you do, I look forward to debating with you.
In the former case, I'm afraid I'm not interested in wasting my time. HOWEVER, if in the slim chance you have come up with an original argument which is not comparable to any apologetic argument ever made before, I would be happy to review it and debunk it for you, but I would ask that you make a deposit into an escrow to be refunded if it is *actually* an original argument, and forwarded to charity if it turns out that you (like every other Christian ever to come here claiming this) are lying and are just ripping off an argument that has already been thoroughly refuted elsewhere and that we have all here seen many a time already (a few hundred dollars would be fine- just a gesture to prove that you are earnest - and if it does end up being a waste of time, at least it was a waste of time for charity).
Anyway, that's my offer; "put your money where your mouth is"- If you have confidence in your argument, you have nothing to lose, right? (Since it's for charity, I bet I can even find an escrow to waive the fee).
Welcome anyway, and best of luck with rational thinking and coming to your senses!
I was...I was painting a dichotomy between asserting things based on observations in the world and making inferences from the observations to universals versus making naked assertions about universals. The former sounds more reasonable and believable.
And this is a consession I'm willing to make, but I think the fundmenatal difference between what your advocating and what I'm advocating is I'm grounding it in something. I'm fine with not knowing "all particulars" because I can make an inference from a sample of particulars with a rather low margin of error. This is much better than guessing, which insofar as I can tell, is what you are doing my saying "universal x is true" without and reason to believe or even know it is true.
I was not born with the ability to speak, rather I learned it by means of learning the particulars of the languages. I inferred the patterns and then apply them. The same could be said of though processes etc. Insofar as I know presuppositions are formulated after one infers something, not before. That is, when one becomes a member of a particular religion, he or she changes his or her presuppositions. One isn't born with such things....
I'm not sort that commits a fallacy of composition, if that's what you are talking about. This fallacy is more concerned about the particular parts of a system (i.e. a alternator as an engine part) verses particulars of a kind (that is a human being as part of the race, a planet as part of a set of all planets, or a star as a part of a set of all stars). The difference here is that one is making inferences about the category from a sampling of particulars from that category.
Umm...is this a naked assertion or are you basing this on a study or something like that. If it is the former, then it only validates my point that you are making unsubstantiated universal claims and assuming they are true. That's not rational, that's guessing.
When you say "in this country" please specify because I don't know what country you are talking about. RRS has users from all over the world.
What universities are teaching atheism?
I t think we agree here...I was getting at somthing like this: showing something is not an apple does not make it an orange. It simply shows it not an apple...
We want sound and valid arguments...yes. But what I think atheists and theist should do is approach something with the fewest assumptions as possible. Now an atheist can make the assumption that a god does not exist or assume nothing about the existence of a god. In either case, he or she is still and atheist. When one has sufficient reason to believe that a god exists, then he or she can change
My contention earlier was that your justification for universals was a universal, which I think is question begging. In otherwords, I think it is not sound.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Hi Blake,
You Said:
"It has not been demonstrated that it is logically impossible to educate you in the truth- it is only empirically unlikely that you will accept reality."
That sounds like you are pouting. I am not an empiricist. Empiricist is a logical fallacy. Empiricism leads to Skepticism. David Hume, the Great British Empiricist, could not deal with a fatal blow to his thesis and he eventually became a skeptic. If you would like to discuss the errors and fallacies of empiricism, I can do that for you. Empiricism has been refuted, and remains as a coin toss decision, since atheists were running out of choices.
You Said:
"1. If you do not accept atheism, and you are even passingly educated, you are evidently not rational. That is not to say there are no Christians who are rational, but those who are are either ignorant or are philosophically ambiguous as atheists (e.g. Paul Tillich)"
Tillich was a Neo-Orthodox Theologian under the influence of Karl Barth. He technically was not an atheist.
If I do not accept atheism, I am uneducated. This is a logical fallacy. Atheism cannot know ANY education since all is relative. So technically, you don't know anything. Unless the Universities across the country that say all is relative, and there is not absolutes is wrong when they say it? Which is it? According to Atheistic academia, you are ignorant and know nothing. I kind of agree with the Universities but kind of don't at the same time but in a different way.
You Said:
"2. Most atheists aren't making any claim, nor are they trying to convince anybody of anything- the burden of proof is not on them"
So, who cares. The issue is the framing of argument. I don't care having the burden of proof, but it is dependent on the thesis. I have already explained myself. Since you cannot give me logical justification for atheism, you remain lost and absurd. Give me justification then so we can move on. Tell me all those Universities are wrong, and that there ARE absolutes. Step over on my side, it's not as hot over here.
You Said:
"3. It is not logically impossible to prove that theism is false, and to the contrary this has been frequently demonstrated. Apologists failed to adapt their concepts of the divine more than a hundred years ago. The matter is both trivial and resolved. This 'god' being is a falsehood- it is logically impossible and does not exist in our or any reality."
I would argue that it is logically impossible to prove ANYTHING is false via empiricism. Since you don't know ANYTHING, then you don't have a frame of reference to judge truth. If you do know something, then you are an inconsistent atheist and more on my side then yours. But even within the realm of empiricism, proof is impossible in the realm of knowledge.
You Said:
"4. Where the burden of proof lies is moot- atheism has been long proven. If you do not accept logic and reason, I have no interest in banging my head against a wall trying to re-educate against medieval mindsets of reality. The discussion is over before it is begun for any educated participants. Arguments for and against 'god' are about as appropriate for adults as crayons are."
Atheism has been long proven? Really. How. Prove it please. I accept logic and reason and the rules of logical rhetoric, so via logic, tell me. You must first justify empiricism if you attempt to do it via that epistemological mode of argument.
You Said:
"Theism is debunked- it's time to move on."
I agree with you that General Theism is debunked. But I'm talking about specific Christian Theism via the Triune God of the Bible. By disproving theism, this does not prove atheism. This is a logical fallacy known as ignornatum ad eliche.
You Said:
"Why can't- for once- somebody come here and admit that their god doesn't exist, and then argue for religious ethics? Why can't somebody who espouses atheism personally put forth a coherent argument that can actually be made- such that though this god doesn't exist, the belief in that god is important to keep the unwashed masses in check?"
Where have you been? This site is full of dozens of people that do that every day. But an assertion does not an argument make.
You Said:
"I've heard arguments like that- that's the kind of discussion that is worth having. Those are the kinds of questions that *aren't* definitively answered."
I need an example. Arguments like what?
You Said:
"If you want to 'spar', don't chose such a miserable failure of an argument. If you want to argue for religion, take it for the sake of argument that your god doesn't exist, and everything about your mythology is factually incorrect, but argue from psychology, the practicality of education, and social order. That's an argument worth having.
I'm bored to tears with theist apologetics."
Oh, poor you. If you've heard of this argument before, then you should have a good refutation. Instead, you are pouting in your whole post. Refute via logic and reason or go pout in a corner.
You Said:
"In the former case, I'm afraid I'm not interested in wasting my time"
Of course you're not. You are to much of an elitist. You pout, and then make logical fallacies, and then do not come up with 1, one argument to:
Support/Demonstrate Atheism
Refute my Christian Arguments.
Your post has been absurd and outside of reason. Next time come back with some arguments please. If you are not trained in logic, I can recommend a good beginners book for you.
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).
Hi,
I will address your thoughts later. I'm tired. But I like you. You don't use as many logical fallacies and you try to think. It's atheists like you that I respect.
Goodnight.
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).
Hi,
I will address your thoughts later. I'm tired. But I like you. You don't use as many logical fallacies and you try to think. It's atheists like you that I respect.
Perhaps then I can demonstrate the refutation of observation and empiricism as a way to know at that time.
Goodnight.
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,
Please try to use the quote tag; it's easier to read.
It's just a left square bracket followed by the word quote followed by a right square bracket, without any spaces. The same, but with a slash / between the left square bracket and the q ends the quote segment.
I'm not pouting, I'm correcting you.
I'm not an empiricist either- empiricists are idiots.
That doesn't make empiricism entirely useless in every day affairs though- empiricism is not a mere coin toss (which represents a typical 50%-50% chance) but a weighted concepts of statistics. While it doesn't tell us anything absolute, it does tell us what's most likely. The house always wins, and following the odds you're bound to (as samples approach infinity) be right more than wrong.
I'm just telling you that there has been no logical proof presented that your ideas can not be reformed. There are many potential means- from medication, to lobotomy or shock therapy, to even (slimly possible) argument- to correct your incorrect notions of reality. It has not been demonstrated to be impossible; that is a weighty assessment to make of such a task.
Empirical evidence is not a logical fallacy; it must simply be taken with the statistical weight it deserves.
Empiricism is more of a tool of primitive theists who believe everything they "feel" (in a 'spiritual' sense)- I have rarely seen it advanced incorrectly for atheism. Science speaks only to the probability of certain empirical facts, and atheists can reference that probability as a rational safe bet. Most Empiricism is used to advance theism, not atheism.
You're in nebulous territory with that assertion. If you agree with Tillich, this would be a relevant point of discussion- but only if you actually understand what he was saying.
That sure would be! It's a good thing I didn't make that argument then, isn't it? You should read more carefully can take more care in not misrepresenting my statements.
The education most relevant to atheism is that of the nature of theism. In the presence of rational thought, that education reveals the impossibility of such deities.
Likewise, an education in science with ignorance of religion will indicate an overwhelming probability of the discoveries in science being correct, but ignorance of theism would fail the individual's attempt at comparing the two (which results in a mere "god of the gaps" ) .
Education on theism is essential to the assertion.
Here you indicate a lack of understanding of relativism. Evidently, the most pressing matter at hand is your ignorance.
Ignorance can be remedied, but only if the person is willing to learn. You seem to be decided on the issue already, so it is empirically unlikely that you are willing to learn (See? There's empiricism cropping up- it's not proved, but it's a probability that helps guide me in day to day activity, so I don't waste time).
It would be difficult for you to demonstrate willingness to learn, but there are many resources you could pursue in studying this if you were actually interested in learning it. I'm not your teacher, and I'm not being paid for this. I'm not available for tutoring you- there are some other forum members who would teach you if you asked nicely, though.
Burden of proof is largely a matter of intellectual economics, but you seem to have a dangerous misunderstanding of the assertions of atheism.
For the most part, atheists make no assertions- not about belief that a god doesn't exist, nor about belief that a god does not exist.
I am not a typical atheist- I am a positive atheist, or a militant one if you like- I do make an assertion that this god does not exist.
If I wanted to convince somebody of this, then the burden (like in a proper economic relationship) would be on me. If somebody wanted to convince me that a god might exist, the burden might be on them. In practice, it's largely a matter of who is coming to whom, and the education and perception of the evidence on the part of each party.
Yes, you have given sufficient indication that you are ignorant. You may or may not *also* be irrational, but the ignorance enough is sufficient to allow your theism.
Unfortunately, it will be more difficult to determine if you are or are not rational in this context, because you are unlikely to accept education.
As to the other comment, though:
What is the distinction between can not and will not? You might ponder that a bit. In some sense, will not *is* can not, because my ability to act is contingent upon my will to do so- my fingers won't likely move into action without that.
So, sure, if you want to you can say that I "can not", go for it, but don't fool yourself into believing that is for any other reason than that I "will not", if I willed to do so, I both could and would (obviously that is not to say that any will necessitates ability- in this case I am able but restricted by my lack of willingness to be irritated).
If you will consider depositing to an escrow in earnest, we could move on. $200 U.S.D. is sufficient. How about for SPCA? That's not too controversial- [scandalous]an educational charity might help people learn about *gasp* science! [/scandalous]
Your understanding of what most of the universities teach is incorrect. Note, also, that I am not an empiricist. I have no problem discussing absolutes- what I have a problem with is discussing absolutes with a dogmatic brick wall.
A dogmatic brick wall that puts up earnest money in an escrow for a charity, on the other hand, I can risk wasting time with- either to break through, or earn a little for a good cause.
Duh. Empiricism is about weighted probability. I am not an empiricist. Your assumption that I am is premature.
I could say that if you are a rationalist theist, then you are an inconsistent theist, and more on my side than yours.
After all, most theism is contingent on absolute faith in empirical feelings- most theists just feel, in their guts, that their god is real. These are empirical sensations, but unlike science, they aren't objective ones (which makes them statistically less reliable independent of any empirical element).
However, rationalist or empiricist, the greatest obstacle to your accepting reality is the stubborn arrogance that ensures your ignorance and denies you free thought- I think the kids are calling it "faith" these days. How strong is your faith in your deity, Jean? That's the important question here.
Escrow please.
I'm not an empiricist.
I assume you mean "Ignoratio elenchi"
And no, that is not what that is. You may be thinking of a common equivocation fallacy, but in so confusing this you are precisely backwards.
Calling out the equivocation fallacy would be: "Disproving the Triune god doesn't disprove all gods"
Deists and pantheists frequently make this argument- and it is true; disproving the Triune Christian god doesn't disprove their deities. Disproving a general (all gods), however, does disprove all of the specific types of gods that are contained within the disproved group (including the Triune deity of the Christians, which is a type of god).
Regarding Ignoratio elenchi, that fallacy would be made disproving Thor specifically and then saying that also disproves the Triune Christian Deity. That is not the case- these are, of course, different gods.
In a move of profound generosity, I will put this in terms of fruit, that you might understand:
Equivocation fallacy:
Constructing a logical proof that shows that there can be no green apples does NOT disprove all apples (there might still be red ones).
Valid logic:
Constructing a logical proof that shows that there can be no apples at all DOES disprove green apples, red apples, and every kind of apple.
Irrelevant conclusion fallacy:
Constructing a logical disproof that shows that there can be no apples does not disprove bananas.
Anyway, assuming that you actually do accept logic, then we may have made progress:
Which means you now must generally accept that your god doesn't exist (although prior empirical evidence indicates that you will probably instead choose to throw logic out the window, or backpedal in some other way).
If you do accept that your god doesn't exist, though, we can have an actual discussion.
I don't think you know what I'm talking about. More like an appeal for atheists to join the ranks of religion, recognizing that gods don't exist, with the intent of unifying religions and controlling the uneducated masses- proper conspiracy theory stuff. That would be an interesting discussion.
Genius isn't always all it's cracked up to be- it's comes with being surrounded by relative idiots. I do my best to have intelligent friends, but I'd like to see more interesting discussion go on. Maybe I should get back into academia.
I won't argue with any accusation of elitism. If you aren't willing to learn, you probably deserve to be an idiot. Sorry, I won't go far out of my way to help educate you if you're resistant.
I made the offer to spend my time having a discussion with you if you would put up earnest money in an escrow for charity. In fact, I'll even be more generous and say that you can make derivative arguments if you really don't have anything original, and you only have to pay out if you lose (as determined by the escrow's impartial judge).
You have presented no evidence to back up your assertion that you are rational, and you have presented evidence against your assertion that you are intelligent. That evidence, of course, is merely empirical, but it does give me a sense of pragmatic probability. If you aren't going to put your money where your mouth is, you won't get a debate out of me. Pretty simple.
Oh, please. After what you've said, you can drop the pretense. The idea that you're being respectful is about as probable as Christian humility.
If you want a discussion with me (and you should know, I'm one of few forum members who are positive, militant atheists rather than "agnostic" ones), you'll either put your money where your mouth is, or drop this whole "my special god exists" thing and have a debate about something more interesting and that hasn't already been beaten into the ground.
One exception to this is that I am willing to debate theists in person if it is a larger group of theists against me- though it isn't really fruitful in respect to the arguments, it helps me practice my public debating skills (The internet doesn't provide this opportunity). It's also kind of an adrenaline kick, which is fun. If you want to put me in front of a fairly large church Christian bible study group and are in a convenient city, I could go for that.
Translation:
"It bothers me that other people dont buy my superstitious super hero claim".
Your logic, "The moon is made of cheese"
My logic, "The moon is not made of cheese"
Good logic:
Prior data=established formula=projected outcome, then kicked around by outside independent sources to confirm your findings.
BAD LOGIC:
Snarfwidgets(naked assertion)<=pseudo intellect used to retrofit to naked assertion<=Gap filled by personal bias, combined with a refusal to have the tires kicked.
You are no different than any other human of any other god belief, past or present. Your invisible magical friend theory is as credible as any other claimed in human history. Your pet deity is not special to us. Humans have always and still do, make up pet invisible friends and falsely believe them to be real.
Humans make up gods and you are no different.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If we were at a Harvard banquet wearing tuxes then formal language would be in order. But this board is not a 5 star Hilton hotel in Beverly Hills, so you can drop this part of your posts.
None of us here expect you to "respect" our position. You don't respect our position otherwise you wouldn't be trying to convince us we are wrong. We don't respect your position, so it is all fair.
FYI if I haven't made it clear, I do always find it important to make the distinction between a person, and what comes out of a person's mouth. I can like a person without liking everything that they say.
I have family members and co-workers and friends who do believe. I love them all, but I hate the fact that they have a belief in invisible friends in the sky. And I am sure they don't like the fact that I don't believe.
So, keep that in mind when you debate us. Do not take our blasphemy personally, this is strictly about the god you are claiming is real, nothing more.
"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 Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hi Blake, I will give the quote thing a shot. I was getting tired yesterday, it happens. You posted something very long. You seem eager for the truth and not willing to admit it.
Okay, so let me get this straight. You are NOT an empiricist, but you are now going to give a defense of empiricism? This is common double talk that Atheists do. If you are saying that empiricists are idiots, and then you defend empiricism by saying it is useful. Thus making you an empiricists? Weird. If you are not an empiricists, then what is your means of knowing? I will discuss the logically fallacies of empiricism later, but probable is never knowledge since the negation of the know is always possible, no matter the risk factor of the claim. Knowledge again is:
More on that later.
Via the Biblical Definition of knowledge, it fails. And the Universities are right and Atheists know nothing.
Okay, I'll talk about it now. David Hume, the British Empiricist had a problem with space and time. When you are right next to the table, the table is big. When you are 500 ft. away from the table, the table is smaller. If you walk 10 miles away, the table is invisible. So the question is, at what point in time and space does one discern the point of reference to infer the empirical perspective of the knowledge to gain accurate information on the object itself. Since this question is outside of empiricism, empiricism is refuted as a way to know since it can't answer this question.
The very notion of time and space is also non-empirical. David Hume became discouraged at this point and slid down to Skepticism.
This was David Hume's problem. We have yet to discuss Immanuel Kant's refutation of Hume as well. In the 20th century, "secular science" attempted to be extremely consistent empiricists. This was known as logical positivism. It was refuted so badly, out of embarrassed they made it less consistent, changed the history books in our schools, and dumbed down our country.
I will speak on consistent empiricism (logical positivism later) in retrospect to todays inconsistent empiricism and give yet another critique, since there are so many. Empiricism fails as a system of knowing since non-empirical factors must be used to make it work, thus destroying the system internally within.
And why would you defend that of idiots? (your words).
Well, not sure what you mean by Theists. I don't argue from a theists, but specifically from a Christian theist of a Triune God. I make no apologies for this. The other way is the neatrality fallacy. Empiricism is not about feelings. This is known as mysticism. You are making a classification fallacy of epistemological philosophy.
It's a known fact that Tillich was a Neo-Orthodox theologian. He did not believe in the Biblical God but it was a weird Existential god. The ultimate other god. This is simple history. Sarte with an atheistic Existentialist, but Tillich was a theological ("Christian) Existentialist under Bultmann and Barth. Simply look anywhere and this is obvious.
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 "Chrisitan" of intelligence?
Reminds me of...
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Hi Brian,
This is rational response squad. Two opponents can disagree with each others but objectivity still be practicing logic. I have logically presented my case, you disagree with the premises. To react out of emotions because you hate Christians makes your assertions absurd and outside of reason. If you wish to reason with me, so be it. Some on here have done this. You seem a little emotional which is the antithesis of reason/logic.
I respect the people on here. I believe you are wrong, of course, as you do me. This is the beauty of logic. If we were in consistent atheistic communistic China, i would have already been shot in the head. Thank God America is not consistent Atheism in politics, but we are getting there.
So Brian, do you like me? Will you like somebody who wins all the time?
Invisible friend in the sky is a logical fallacy. And you know this. Argue, stop reacting emotionally.
It is extremely hard for me to be offended. I have been talking to all kinds of people. I've studied everything from Satanism to Mormonism, New Age, Humanistic Atheism, J.W, Scientology, etc, etc, etc, etc. etc.
They all have one thing in common. They are all on their way to hell. This is what I believe. I respect your beliefs in the sense of American freedom, but not in terms of eternal consequences. You seem nice. So argue with me, and stop complaining and using ad hominems.
At that point we will all have a good time.
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).
You think Brian hates Christians? I only wish you knew how insulting that insinuation is. He's likely the most accepting person of Christians on this site. He has close friends that are Christians and I believe his wife was even a Christian... oh and the mother that he spends lots of time with is a Christian. However considering your insulting insinuation I could easily see how he might start to hate a smug dishonest arrogant jerk such as yourself... don't get the truth twisted if you happen to feel hate directed at you specifically, it has virtually nothing to do with you being a Christian and everything to do with your actions.
You're like the Glen Beck of Christianity, not willing to frame anything in an honest manner and think you're always right.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
you twit. Stop suggesting people who don't agree with your specially-plead first cause assertion are evil and deserve to be incinerated while alive and I will resist telling you to fuck off.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
H Sapient,
If he accepts Christians that's great. I got that impressions because every time he responds, he responds emotionally outside of reason. In the area of logic this is known as absurd.
I heard he was very smart and I was expecting logical argument, instead, I got logical fallacies of argumentum ad hominem abusive. I posed the ending nicely by framing the solution in the positive. I apologize if I spoke haste, it's how it came across.
It must be hard being surrounded by Christians who want to convert you all the time. Probably the black sheep of the family? I don't know. No hard feelings I hope. Hopefully you are all right about this. But the emotional outbursts seem to be either out of anger or hurt or both. That's between him and God I suppose.
Again, no hard feelings.
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).
Christians are forever threatening me with the "fiery flames of hell" for questioning their dogmas or not agreeing with their belief systems. When all else fails, let's feel the superior smug satisfaction that people like me, will be burning in hell. HOWEVER, if Hell is completely empty of Christians, it can't be that bad of a place. If Heaven can be reserved for all of the believers and all of the fundamentalists, then that would mean that Hell is free of Islamic terrorists, Hell is free of people like Jerry Falwell, Hell is free of child molesting priests, Hell is free of Good Christians like Adolf Hitler, Hell is free of the hypocritical sanctimonious people with kooky ideas about morality. All in all, like the old AC/DC songs says. Hell ain't a bad place to be. Just hope that I am right and all of the Theists are not there in Hell with me, if such a fictional place were to exist. Which it does not.
But let's take the idea of Hell for a moment. Hmm, an eternal punishment for a temporary life ? So that means that God, would create free will, give people the right to live as they chose, and then when they exercise their free will and the ability to live life as they chose, he would punish them FOREVER, for living life as they chose and exercising their free will ? That would indicate a pretty insane and pretty sadistic notion would it not ? Even the worst crimes on Earth, committed by fallible humans, could not be justified for an eternal punishment. Sounds like a pretty ridiculous notion to me.
What of the mental mind set of the Christian people that believe in Heaven ? How much pleasure could you possibly derive from Heaven, if you had certain knowledge that beneath you people were burning in Hell ? What do Christians with non-saved family members do, if their fathers,mothers,brothers, sisters, or spouses and children do not share their belief system and end up in Hell ? You mean the Christians would be so satisfied that they would have made it to Heaven that they would not care ? Wow, that would indicate selfish and sociopathic behavior. Of course, most Christians will tell you that they would not be happy that people are in Hell. But if that is true, that would mean that Christians could not enjoy Heaven, for the sorrowful knowledge of God's cruelty, right ?
Now of course, the usual reply that I get on this is "Well, God doesn't want us to go to Hell, he is trying to save us,". Umm, NO. God is supposed to be the one making the rules right ? So that would indicate that he probably gets alot of great joy out of sending most of his creations to Hell.
Such a pretty, optimistic and uplifting picture that Christians paint of the afterlife and the meaning of life. How could they possibly have the idea that Atheists like me are negative ? I find their idea of humanity a very bleak and depressing one.
“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
Responding emotionally doesn't make someone unreasonable. He's emotional precisely because reason is not prevailing in the world. He sees a world where people who think like you, are pushing increasingly hard in the public square and pretending as if your insulting ridiculous holier than thou nonsense is somehow rational, logical, or honest. Did you ever think that it might hurt someone to feel part of a species that seems so hopeless at times? I know Brian well, that is where his emotion comes from. Many of us share the same feelings. I know personally that reading your posts has got me speechless. I see you as someone not worth responding to because if you actually believe the nonsense your saying, then there is no chance at all to get you to be honest with yourself.
You are the antithesis of the theory of inherent dishonesty in theism. One must act ignorant, dishonest, or both when defending belief in a god.
Call this all ad hominem if you want, understanding a few logical fallacies doesn't mean you use logic.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Hi HarleySportster,
You do not have to disagree with me to go to hell. Many supposed "Christians" are going to hell. You can live in a corner all your life and be mute and still go to hell. The issue is your relationship with God, not me or my arguments, though I do argue Biblically.
Before I even knew of this site, you are either an elect person, or a reprobate. You will know someday, for your bound by your desires. You have nothing to do with whether you are a Christian. God may have made you a vessel of wrath (Romans 9:21-22) and perhaps is deceiving you on purpose (II Thessalonians 2:11). I don't know. So subjective encounters don't matter. I think you already know this.
And if there is no Christians you say it won't be that bad of a place? Okay. Infinite pain of blisters all over your body, the smell of your own death and others death, blindness, constant torment not ever getting a chance to call up Dr. Kavorkians to kill you. You will be nashing your teeth with all your buddies alright. It's a foolish statement. You may have been designed for hell before conception. I don't know. But usually, if it doesn't bother you, you're reprobate.
God doesn't create free will. That is a myth. You know, Santa and Tooth Fairies. You are bound by your desires. Like a chain, you picked up things like a dog picks up fleas. This was all determined before time and space. Your choices correspond to your nature, thus, if your nature is evil (it is), then your choices are evil. God must change your nature and thus your choices will correspond to your nature and they will be good choices. Romans 3:10-12 says nobody is good, no not one, NOBODY SEEKS GOD. So if nobody seeks God, how can there be Christians. Because God seeks us and it was already planned before the foundations of the world (Ephesians 1:3-4).
You say that's not fair. But you are a puny evil particular. Why would an all good knowing God care about a puny particular. He is infinite and eternal. Nothing is above Him to respond to. He made it that way, deal with it.
Well, when I'm in "heaven," I plan on studying Bach's D- Composure. I also hope to continue in my studies on philosophy, theology, and logic. It will very enjoyable. Who knows what else, perhaps I may take up golf.
It is an absolute that Biblical Christians are going to heaven. There are many phony ones (Mormons, Jehovah Witness, Christian Science, Two by Twos, Word Faith (TBN Preachers), Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc. If you have a phony Jesus, you logically go to a phony heaven. You must have the Biblical Jesus to go to the Biblical heaven (e.g. II Corinthians 11:3-4).
No, God is not TRYING to save you. There are elect that WILL be RESCUED. The Greek word for save is sozo, which means to rescue. So there are some that are elect and will be rescued from hell. Some will NOT be rescued and will be purposely designed for hell and brimstone. God may hate you.
Not really, I don't like it. But it's not up to what you like, it's up to what is true. And thus I commit to it. You may have been destined for hell before conception, I don't know. Perhaps you are elect and the Holy Spirit has not grabbed you from the grave to the cross. As of now you are dead. Weather God will raise your spiritually dead corpse, I don't know. It is a sad thought, but God is Just AND merciful.
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 and stop signing yourself off with the word 'Respectfully'. You obviously have no idea what it means.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hi Sapient,
Wait, you just contradicted yourself in the same sentence. Emotional doesn't make you unreasonable, but he is emotional precisely because reason is not prevailing in the world? Things that make you go hmmm?
Reason is the antithesis of emotion and feelings. For one to choose which flavor in their favorite Ice Scream cone is outside of logic. Logic corresponds to mathematics.
2+2=4
This is true and has nothing to do with emotions. If I don't like the number 4 because papa beat me 4 times a day, I cannot then by my feelings say:
4+4=5
The same is for logic.
A=B, and B=C, then C=A
Pretty simple. My emotions can't change this.
Thus in logic, emotions are antithetical to logic. They are opposites.
Now, if you're one of those quantum physics guys we'll discuss that. But deal with what I'm talking about. One CANNOT reason via emotions. It's impossible. If you believe this to be so, then you are a mystic and belong in Witchcraft. And I will then refute the epistemology of mysticism.
How convenient.
Let me ask you a question. If somebody was in your house, and the whole house was on fire. But they were in the bathroom, and didn't know it. Say, the fire is about to explode in a few minutes. And if you had a chance to WARN them that the house is about to explode. Would you:
1) Warn them to get out, the house is about to explode?
2) Or would you not warn them, because you might hurt their feelings because they don't believe in fires?
Coming from my position, I am a Christian. I believe there is God and His Word, and there will be a hell someday for people to be thrown into (now it's Hades, I Peter 2:9). And I have valid logic behind it. Just because you disagree with my premises, does not make me illogical, since I've used the tools and art of logic to argue my case.
So, from my point of view. Despite the fact that you don't agree with me. But if you were in my shoes. Would you not mention fire because it hurts peoples feelings?
I have logical arguments that YOU have never heard of that are VALID, and I argue soundness according to the rules of logic. The area of epistemology have not been discussed which will go into the soundness of logical argument(s). But at this point, you are also speaking out of emotion. If you believe an emotion can be reason, then you are not playing by the objective game of argument.
You too are reacting out of emotion.
Hey Sapient, you are locked in the bathroom. There is a fire in your house, and it's about to explode and you will be killed. There's a way out over here for you to be rescued.
No, emotions won't get you out the window. Feeling bad about fires as a kids won't do it. There is logic. You must logically step here, here here, then jump, then 123, 456, 789, that will SAVE you.
What? You mean those who don't believe in fires will be able to party after the explosion? You mean it won't be bad blowing up? Okay.
That my friend is what we are dealing with.
And while I CANNOT rescue you, I am WARNING you. Only God can rescue you, if He chooses to. The 123, 456, 789, will only happen, if He changes your nature so that your choices correspond to it and logically make good choices (II Thessalonians 2:13).
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).
For all his earlier protestations of rationality and devotion to logic Jean was just using the theistic logic gap as a hook to hang up his big sack of nuts.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
HI Atheistextremist,
I liked your other picture better. The Terrorism look is more of a spring/summer fashion.
Look, I don't even really want to warn you. Again, you already know all this. I did not join this site to try to convert you again because this is logically impossible. I honestly wanted to see if somebody, an Atheist, for example, could come up with a logical argument of epistemology for their worldview. Period. So far, this has failed. Now that doesn't mean there is not one out there (I'm saying this for the sake of argument).
I truly want to see if anybody can do this.
So far, ironically on RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD, I've gotten Atheists who don't know what reason is. Some think it's emotional. Some thing feelings can decide 2+2=78.
We cannot argue logically, if I have to teach you logic. I don't mind teaching you the laws of logic. But this takes more time and patience. If you are to prideful to learn logic from me, then this is a good college introductory course on logic:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Introduction+to+Logic+Cohen&x=0&y=0
I think Cohen was a Jewish Atheist, I'm not sure. But it's a good beginner book on logic. Then we can discuss argument.
Perhaps at that point, you can come up with logical reasons for Atheism. Because logically it appears that Atheism is an emotional reaction and this is antithetical to logic, and reason itself.
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).
The imaginary picture of Hell that you are painting pre-dates Christianity with some of the more popular myths of the people before it. In all actuality, the idea of what Hell looks like did not even become popular until Dante's work in the Middle Ages. Now granted, your assertions of how everyone, even someone who is mute and in a corner is going to go to Hell, or could go to Hell, sums up the sort of irrational nature of what you call a loving deity. But of course, the only real major problem with us humans, that you keep touching upon, is desires. BOUND BY MY DESIRES ! Oh wow. That is not a new one for me. That is one that the Christians continually try to use as justification for sending swarms of people into eternal lakes of fire. Hmm, but where did the desires come from ? Wouldn't God, if he is the Creator of All, have not given us those desires ? He would not have ? Then that would mean that God is not all powerful. You say that God does not create free will ? Then if Man creates free will, what need would man have of God ?I know you have read Epicurus right ? If God allowed man to formulate free will and God KNEW that those desires and free will would send man to damnation, that would mean that either A) God has no control over his creations and is therefore not God B) That God does not care about his creations or that c) God is a cruel sadist. If God, as you state, has no interest in TRYING to save anyone and is not interested in the puny particulars, that would point to God being points B and C. Yet you claim that God is just and merciful ? What about the Christian sects that do not believe in that Calvinistic idea of pre-determination on Heaven and Hell ? Are they all going to Hell too ? If so, Heaven is bound to be a lonely place.
I find it funny that you plan on listening to Bach and studying theology in Heaven. What would you be studying for ? Heaven is the end of your journey if that is what you believe, what need would you have for studying anything in Heaven ? Shouldn't you have all of the answers once arriving in Heaven ? You openly admitted in the last sentence that you do not even like this particular design that you have faith in, but that you accept it as true. Hmm, wouldn't the all-knowing God see in your heart that you do not like the way that he handles the afterlife ?
“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
You quote mined. The next sentence lent context to the previous.
"He sees a world where people who think like you, are pushing increasingly hard in the public square and pretending as if your insulting ridiculous holier than thou nonsense is somehow rational, logical, or honest. Did you ever think that it might hurt someone to feel part of a species that seems so hopeless at times?"
Your quote mine illustrates what I said: "You are the antithesis of the theory of inherent dishonesty in theism. One must act ignorant, dishonest, or both when defending belief in a god."
Your analogy breaks down when one realizes that a fire can be proven and what you are selling has never been proven.
I welcome the fire as I know it's fake, I refuse to let terrorists win. I am here to teach others that people like you are simply terrorists, utilizing fear to win people to your nonsensical viewpoint. See http://www.BlasphemyChallenge.com
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
We could do this over and over with your posts but I'll just pick a point here or there...
Not only did this never happen, but it's not true.
"You are the antithesis of the theory of inherent dishonesty in theism. One must act ignorant, dishonest, or both when defending belief in a god."
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
You've decided your particular god came first and any atheist arguing an inductive/empirical/abductive position stands for nothing in the first instance because we must have an infinite eternal reference point or there can be no knowledge.
Trouble is, installing your biblical god as the eternal reference point is a false dichotomy and claiming any god as the required initial reference point is special pleading. As a great logician you already know this so you must be deliberately being obtuse.
As far as we are concerned the universe is its own meaning. And while we can observe the universe we cannot logically discuss the cause of it or the transcendental creator of it when we are in this space time. All we can do is speculate.
Apparently, yours is a logical argument from final consequence and wishful thinking.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Can you or can you not prove that these assertions about the afterlife are based in any sort of scientific evidence that exists outside of the Bible ? Do you have any firsthand accounts of Heaven or Hell ? Any photographs ? Any statements from beyond the grave that have been substantiated as authentic ? If so, why do you accept the tenets of your assertions as faith ? Isn't it true that faith is belief in something which can not be proven ? If that is true, then knowledge and faith would be two very different things. You seem to be attempting to operate from a position of knowledge, as though you already KNOW these things. Yet, I see no true evidence to back up any of these assertions. I am pretty sure that the Roman Catholic Church, a church that you feel is bound for the same Hell that I am condemned to, (hopefully we get separate pits) would be able to use the same Bible to refute your claims. So how do you claim to have the monoply on the afterlife and God ? How can you know that your assertions are correct ?
“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
Hi HarleySportster,
Post hoc ergo propter hoc. You made a logical fallacy. Dante has a view via Thomas Aquinas, who was a pagan. Though there will be degrees of torment for the wicked according to Jesus in the Gospels, the specifics are not described, and we are not to go beyond what is written.
Within the 20th century, there's been an explosion of weak minded Christians who don't know what they are talking about. It traces back to George Finney. God does NOT love everybody. We see in Romans 9:13 that God HATED Esau before he was even born. In Psalms 139:121-122, God hated David's enemies. God hates evil people, but He loves righteous people.
John 3:16, cosmos/world, is talking about the elect. John uses that term in many ways. If you would like to do a Bible study on the various "worlds" in the 5 books John wrote, I would be delighted to.
awww, the problem of evil. That's a fun one. I'm actually writing a book on this subject. This came up in the debate with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort. Ray spoke of a tradition in Church History since Augustine. You see, this has been unchallenged and not studied for over 1600 years. I do not take Augustine's view on evil, and Ray Comfort was WRONG. Period. Go back and listen to what he said if you wish to know what was wrong and what most Christians (almost all) say about evil.
How can God create evil, if He is good, for if He was good, He would stop it, if He doesn't, He is evil, and If He can't, He is not all powerful, and thus isn't God. Right? Something like that, paraphrasing.
While God creates evil (Amos 3:6, Luke 13:11), He is not the agent of evil. God is both a just and a merciful God. So, He created evil for His glory. So that the Devil, can use it for the wicked (e.g. hell), for God's Children (Christian who sin get spankings, divorce, death in family, hurricanes), and to have a final end to the Devil and the fallen angels. So thus, evil is good.
Logically, the creation of an opposite, does not logically contradict since there is no cause and effect between the creator and the evil. God created evil but the cause and effect of that evil originate in 3 places.
The Flesh (Having Sex outside of Marriage - AIDS, would be an example of evil to punish homosexuals).
The World (Hurricanes, Earthquakes)
The Devil (President Obama - a joke?).
So in this sense, God has done this. So, since Satan is evil to the core, and since YOU are evil to the core, and since you do not meet an infinite standard, you must be punished by an infinite standard, and that is hell.
The subject of theodicy is long. I don't mind discussing it, but perhaps make another thread and I will help you with the logic of Biblical Evil.
Well, we will not know everything in heaven. Well do you hear these things? We are particulars. God is Infinite. So we will learn and grow for Eternity. 10,000 years from now, I hope to have down precisely what Einstein meant via E=MC2. Perhaps 5000 years? Who know. But I'll get it eventually.
I do not like that there will be a hell, and that they will be tormented. But again. liking is emotion and has nothing to do with Logic. You don't have to like what is. But what is is what is.
Just because I don't like the Muslim President Obama to be an American President right now, does not mean that President Obama is not a President. Liking something does not determine reality. If I don't believe Obama is president, that does not affect the reality that Obama is President. It's truth which I accept, even though I don't like it.
Remember, emotions are antithetical to logic.
God is perfectly just and righteous, so my "feelings" are bound and I submit to Him. This is known as sanctification, and is part of the Christian process of growing.
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 knows his assertions are correct because there must be a god or we could have no knowledge. With this out of the way, he believes all the hocus pocus in the bible with no rational consideration whatever.
If only Jean applied his withering logic to his entire doctrine instead of to the one cognitive clothes hook. But he's just not consistent...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hi Extremist,
Well, that's why I'm on here. If there is a way to know absolutely without God, tell me. That's the whole point. If not, stop complaining.
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).
Surely a Poe...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Oh we can dream, but I fear he is not.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
You may not want to talk about this but do you believe scientific enquiry can explain anything at all? Where do you stand on electron theory, physics, chemistry and evolution for instance? What about medical science?
And on the god side, do you believe in Noah's Ark? Rising from the dead? Miracles in the carpark of Maccas when a single fillot-o-fish and an iced coffee moove fed five commodore-loads of stoned teenagers in 1983?
I'm not trying to lure you into a tu quoque or anything. I'm just curious about your broader position.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck