No-thing vs Christianity
Offline CHRISTIANITY VS. NO-THING
Since Atheism and agnostic and freethinkers believe nothing, they are lacking knowledge in everything. To claim they know anything is inconsistent with their starting points of nothing.
So the question is not about theists vs. atheists. The question has to be Atheists vs. Christians, since a general theists worldview will not do. It has to be one that is within reason, and only Christianity fits this.
I've already made my arguments why elsewhere. So I will not repeat my deductive logic. However, Since I do not believe in Atheism, then the atheist must provide their type of proof for their position.
etymologically speaking, an atheist is one that claims an epistemology in no God or gods. So then, they must, via an infinite epistemology, provide such evidence within their means of knowing, to claim this is so.
Of course they cannot do this. So then, by definition they cannot be atheist. So then, these past 50 years, they've come up with a solution to the problem. Let's redefine our terms so that way they fit into what we are trying to say.
And you came up with George Smith type atheists (soft atheists) that say, oh no, we believe in a lack of faith. This is fun.
However, they do this without defining faith. Nobody knows what they are talking about. (You on here who are educated in this can help define what they mean via documentation).
Biblical Faith is interchangeable with belief and knowledge. Thus Biblical faith is knowledge. It believe what I know and I know what I believe. Unlike the liberal Kant who made a logical fallacy of a dichotomy this area. Thus faith is knowledge.
You cannot redefine the Christian Bible's understanding of faith. You do this among the uneducated Christians and they are fooled very easily. Perhaps the atheists are doing this out of ignorance. Kirkegaard is not the definition of Biblical faith, the Bible is where the definition comes from.
So if Faith is knowledge (Biblical understanding), and soft atheists are lack of faith, then logically they are lack of knowledge. They have defined their lack of according to the Biblical understanding of faith. Thus they admit the logical consequence that they lack knowledge.
This is logic consistency folks. Pretty simple stuff.
So since atheists lack an epistemology, they must borrow others and cover it up.
At this point we must refute empiricism, since this is their new mode of "thinking." Empiricism has been refuted already. I will do this in another article perhaps.
And this is why the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (8 volumes) credits the very beginnings of science to Christians, (NOT ATHEISTS). Funny stuff. They did this because atheism has nothing to give. They admit ignorance and they admit science at the same time. Completely funny due to absurdity.
I argue that atheists CANNOT know science or anything. They have a non-science, a fake science. Only Christians can have a proper science in anything. Since all is relative, then this would include science.
They are hypocrites. They claim knowledge is impossible to brainwash our kids, and then claim to know everything about science. Which is it pal. Do we have multiple personalities in atheism or something.
Thus it is no-thing vs. Christianity. Atheism vs. Christianity. To simply argue anything of intelligence is a refutation of the no-thing since it claims nothing.
The absurdity is extremely hilarious. Good luck getting out of that one.
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
We atheists have own own holiday on april fools? Nice one, you may as well steal that one for your religion just like you stole christmas and every other supposedly christian holiday. But im sure you realized that christianity actually really has pretty much no actual holiday for themselves that wasnt previously used for another religion or celebration right? And please, some advice, go look up what atheism is from an atheist or a dictionary that isnt made by christians and not a creationist website, they all like to break the 9th (or 10th depending on the denomination) commandment of thou shalt not bear false witness. It must really hurt knowing inside that your beliefs are not based in reality and have zero evidence backing them up, must really be a sad life.
"Living without religion is a luxury"
I'm not mad. I'm disappointed. And I don't know if I like you or not. I really don't know you. All I know about you is that you're a calvinist, you don't know what a liberal is (the way you use it, it seems to mean, 'Anyone who is not just like me'), you use the word "normative" as a noun instead of an adjective, and you don't know much about atheism. Other than that, I don't *think* you mean to be condescending, so I'm not really holding that against you. It's normal for people who falsely believe they are superior to come off as condescending.
Dude, Bill O"Reilly is about as conservative as you can get, and still be considered half-sane. He's not a liberal at all. Kurt Vonnegut was a liberal. Noam Chomsky is a liberal. Jon Stewart is a liberal-leaning centrist. Bill O'Reilly is most definitely a conservative.
And Married with Children did not attack the family. The family was dysfunctional, and not funny at all, but most episodes demonstrated true love and caring between the family members. Name one plot in which the family was under attack.
I think you mistake distaste of your tactics as "hurt feelings." I don't think many of us here care about you enough for you to have that kind of power.
You know what we call fathers who have children who fear him?
Abusive.
What is "consistent liberal atheism?"
Again, you seem to be conflating a sociopolitical concept (liberalism) with a (non-)religious concept (atheism). THEY ARE DISTINCT. Until you understand this -- that words have specific meanings and that you must abide by those accepted specific meanings to have any kind of meaningful communication -- there is little point in trying to engage you in discussion.
---
'When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'
'The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
---
Very nice. Insults again.
And the "ha-ha, only serious" excuse doesn't cut it. It's the first defense of the knave.
We also have Christmas (or, as it was known until the Christians usurped it, Saturnalia) and Easter (usurped from the Pagan fertility celebrations). Easter still bears many of the hallmarks of its Pagan origin: eggs and bunnies, for instance, great fertility symbols.
If you truly wish to engage, then I suggest you do this: attempt to maintain a single topic. Try to flow along a single line of conversation. This is especially keen if you try to maintain coherence. When claiming to use logic, it does not help to present nothing but fallacies (your favorites: is/aught, ad hominem, excluded middle, composition, division, non sequitur [though to be fair, most fallacies are just non sequiturs in disguise], argument from consequence, and proof by assertion).
These have been pointed out to you. You do not respond directly in any meaningful way. For instance, I have asked you to define "liberal." I do this to help clear up an ad hominem fallacy of which you are particularly fond -- you attempt to avoid addressing particular points by calling something "liberal" in a blanket assertion. It'd be peachy swell if you'd define what "liberal" means in a specific way, so we can come to a consensus on what it means. This Humpty Dumpty game of moving symbolic targets is tedious, and not fun for anyone.
I'm willing to engage seriously, honorably, and honestly, but I will only do so if you are willing to put some effort into communicating your ideas, and attempting to honestly understand mine.
The first step is to choose a narrow topic, such as, "What is unique about Christianity?" or, "If light only travels a light-year per year, how can we see light that is over 12 billion years old, if the universe were created 10,000 years ago?" Something simple yet interesting.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
No one hates you.... (yawn)
Seriously, why bother answering us if this is the case... Are we not damned already?
Now...lets talk about ad hominems...
Christians celebrate pagan holidays (Easter and Christmas). Isn't that sin?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Hello JCG,
You have a low tolerance? I thought the Hollywood motif was to be tolerant over everything. So you're tolerant over Madonna at the kabbalah, but you have a problem with me?
Where have I lied? How am I a hypocrite? Please relax.
But I do have a sincere question for you. You're a Hollywood guy. Why do you suppose that Hollywood went nuts when Mel Gibson made his movie on "The Passion?"
I know the drunk Jew thing, and his ex wife thing, but that was later. They went nuts before all that. Even though Mel has a strange type of Roman Catholic "religion," everybody went nuts.
They were going nuts as the movie was being made. As soon as they heard about it they went nuts.
Just the mere mention of Jesus or a movie about Jesus or anything Christian via Hollywood, and everybody becomes the 1992 LA Riots and has a fit. Does that not make you wonder? Seriously, from an academic view as a Hollywood insider, why does this happen? Your actual sincere thinking would be interesting.
Regarding your Vessels of Wrath question, the answer is no. You still make choices and you still chose. Thus you are accountable for your choices. God is not responsible since He is infinite and there is nobody ontologically better or higher for Him to respond to.
________________
Brian47,
Are you mad over my whoopass joke? I'm just giving you a hard time.
I know you don't think we are enemies my brother. But we are. You are on the side of God's Wrath, and I'm on the side of God's mercy. Now I know you don't believe God is. But actually you do. The Bible says you KNOW and you supress the truth. The evidence is within you. (Romans 1:18-20). God is allowing you to believe what is false (II Thessalonians 2:11).
So, even though you won't believe me, because God won't let you (at least for now), there is a God, and He is mighty. He is holding you up from the pit. Everyday, you curse the hand that holds you up. But be careful Brian. For God's mighty hand will not hold you up forever. There will be a time, very near time when God removes His hand, and you slip. Slip into the abyss. Even at that point, you will curse God.
Even when you are thrown in the pit, you will shake your fist at God. The Bible talks about this. So even though I'm your enemy and vice versa, we can still be friends and nice to each others. Maybe watch a football game, Red Skins vs. Sea hawks as Seattle destroys your team on the field.
You worship yourself. You don't think you believe in God so your sins and behavior can go without accountability. That's the real reason here. But you are your own god. Humanity is god. A form of secular non-knowing science is the the means to your godhead. I could elaborate specifics if you need, but that's the fact.
The Bible says NOBODY IS GOOD period (Jer 17:3, Is 64:4-6, Romans 3:10-12, etc). I'm not good, I too am evil. I am good positionally in Christ only, but not conditionally. The condition will occur when I'm in heaven.
So you logically are also evil. But you are evil both positionally and conditionally. And in terms of logic and philosophy, you have no means to know what is right and wrong. I'm really surprised nobody has brought up utilitarianism. I'm here beating your ethics to shreds, and nobody has pulled that one out yet. It's also been refuted in history, but what's one more thing to bring down. Atheism is dead, and is a fantasy belief system. It has no logical justification since it fragments all forms of thought.
I hope we can be friends and be friendly.
__________________
Hi Rebecca,
I'm sorry if the blood thing offended you. I really thought it was blood or pretend blood. Perhaps it's a bad picture. No hard feelings.That's why I asked you about the occult, you kind of look like a satanist.
My daughter was compared in reference to your sensitivity. You do know that many atheists are actually theists. There was a debate last year at Washington State University. I can't remember his name. Anyway, we had dinner after the debate at a restaurant. He was talking about his new adventures via the New Age Movement. A hardcore atheist, remaining an atheist, but tapping into the New Age.
This guy is not some Johnny come lately atheist that works in the Deli Department at Albertsons. This guys is a Beverly Hills Lawyer, and the Spokesman for the American Humanist Society. Hardcore atheist turning into the New Age.
And we see this with Spinoza and others. So I actually thought you were a LaVeyian satanist. Because one can remain an atheist, and do other things (well not technically, but they say they can).
Look, via your means of knowing, empiricism, you are 100% ignorant, and thus stupid. But I don't really thingk you guys are stupid. Because you borrow Christian epistemology every single day without realizing it. If you were to be 100% empiricist all day long 24 hours a day, you would die. I could elaborate on this if you wish later
Via the IMAGO DEI, you know that there is a God and it is evident in you. There's just enough revelation in creation to get you to hell, but not enough to get you to heaven.
So, what, you want me to apologize?> Relax. Let's move forward from this and see if we can improve our relationship from here. You have to admit that you've never met a Christian like me. I know you won't admit, but come on, it's true. You just have to take me in context. Stupid via a system that makes one non-knowing, but you know, thus you know, thus you are really not consistent.
Christians of intelligence are rare. This is a very sad thing. 150 years ago, virtually all Christians would be on top of all of this. The 20th century liberal attack really took a toll on things. That is the goal of a liberal, to make people as stupid as possible for utter control. (Just look at China).
So, can we move pass this? It would be good. And hey, speaking of utilitarianism, to converse regarding the "Great Conversation" would be for the greater good. There you go, I'm using atheistic empirical ethics. Good for 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).
Actually, they didn't "go nuts" until near the end of production, when it became clear it was blood-porn. Honestly, nothing was said over The Passion of the Christ that wasn't said over 300, or even The Matrix, except the bit about the implicit (and sometimes explicit) anti-semitism. Before that, it was mostly along the lines of, "Mel Gibson making a Jesus movie? Huh."
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
We had a long, fruitful discussion in which he gave me the inkling which I have felt free to extrapolate into the fact jesus does not want robots. He wants real people to play with in his intergalactic sandbox. This means all those believers who have dropped anchor over the false religion of the jews, with its peculiar canaanite war idol post-modernised by Paul's peyote-fuelled fantasies on the way to the street that is called straight, are actually completely deceived.
God told me that in your refusal to use your gift of free will to open your mind to empirical truth about his universe, you are like the servant who was given one talent who buried it in a hole in the ground. You give your owner back no more than he put in your hand. Sadly Jean, it's you who will be thrown into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth, and back-to-back 9-day test cricket matches between Zimbabwe and Bangladesh on the flattest pitches between here and the A1689-zD1 Galaxy.
You will never enter into the joy of your master.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hello,
Couple things, with the cliche robot fallacy. Robots have no souls, and are not created via the imago dei. Since we all still choose, we are accountable for our choices and actions. The more evil one is, the more punishment he shall receive, and less etc.
So grandma pagan with the chocolate chip cookies will not be in as much torture as somebody like Sapient.
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).
Do you actually want to move past this and stop being rude and obnoxious only to come back and say you're joking and blaming everyone else for being the ones that were rude first? See I'm starting to wonder if you are schitzaphrenic. People with schitzaphrenia think everyone else is crazy but not themselves. You fit this category like you wouldn't believe.
As far as the blood on me comment, I would suggest an eye exam and possibly bifocals. Look closer and you will see it isn't blood. It's sheer thigh hi's, gloves, a thong and tattoos. It's also Bettie Page, not me. Of course, I think you knew that. You're just trying to cover your own ass now.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Mr Calvin. The wages of sin is death. There is no delineation between sins and no gradations in the lake of fire.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hello Extremeist,
For being such an extreme atheist, you're now an expert on the Bible. Coming from a Word Faith "Charismatic" background (which typically is non-bible), this is a little odd.
Here are some verses regarding various degrees of torment.
Luke 12:46-48
Matthew 11:23-24
James 3:1
Matthew 23:13-14
Um, I think if we were playing Chess right about now, I would say something like, "CHECK MATE!!!"
And this is only fair. If Grandma is super sweet, and bakes cookies. She will not be punished like a hardcore gangster from M13 who murders steals and everything else. There are degrees of torment, and each person will be punished according to their deeds. Revelation 20.
Then the question is, how bad are 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).
Um, you seem to be playing against yourself. And you're cheating. Which is odd.
Jean,
I can promise you this. There are more atheists on here that know more about the bible than you do. There are also the ones like me that know that the evil things your god did showed he had no morals.
You think raping women, killing men, women and inocent children was a good thing? If so then you have no morals either. I see where your double standards come from. God says he is a loving god oh but wait, he wants these people killed because they don't believe in him. He wants people to kill whoever doesn't, even if it was their own children.
If people then were like you then no wonder there were so many that were murdered. Would you sacrifice your own child to the lord so that you could have something you want? You'll ignore this post I bet because you don't want to have to answer that question. That's ok,I'm repetitive like you wouldn't believe.
If all the Christians who have called other Christians " not really a Christian " were to vanish, there'd be no Christians left.
Miss the point much? I've noticed you have yet to respond to a single salient point. In this case, it's the point that you are not using God's gift of intelligence, observation, and discernment. As you did not refute that aspect of AE's post, I assume you tacitly agree that you have indeed buried your talent in the ground.
What evil has Sapient done? Please list.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I'm guessing he is thinking of me as grandma pagan - though I'm not pagan. And I would rather be in hell than in heaven with holier than thou christians. Jean can tell me that's an ad hom, and he will be correct.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
I don't think you can present an ad hominem fallacy, as Jean hasn't presented a logical point to rebut. At most, it's an insult, and a very mild one at that.
I just wrote a long screed about Jean's lack of cohesive presentation -- or anything of logical substance at all, for that matter. I decided not to post it. I offered a few insults of my own. They were quite creative, too, suggesting anatomically-challenging things to do with his Bible, his Jesus, and his poorly-disguised glee at the prospect of watching sinners suffer.
Jean has judged us all, though the Bible cautions against it (Matthew 7). I'm very fond of Matthew 7:21-23.
Jean here seems to be fond of prophesying in Jesus' name. He seems more the fruit of the thorn, not the grape of the vine.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Hey Jean Chauvin I have a couple questions for you, do you know for a fact you are going to heaven I presume yes, right? If you are not for sure then aren't you assuming a lot of Gods view by stating we are going to hell? If you are sure, of which I cannot see how, aren't you still presuming you know what God thinks. Now if you are sure, what are you basing your assurance on, the bible, your faith? What? I'm curious.
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
I think it's based on all the opiates he's taking
I read and enjoyed your other posts. Folding the bible into an origami shape and putting it where the sun doesn't shine sounds like a good thing for Jean to do. Certainly more productive than anything else he has done around here.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Hello Chrome,
You like my Aprils 1st thing there. It was pretty good wasn't it. I even have a pin I wear that says it.
Not sure what you mean by "steal" regarding Christmas. Again via usus loquendi, the term changes. So you did not steal the word the good meaning behind the term liberal, because language by definition changes.
Same for Christmas, since you are making the genetic logical fallacy. Study language.
You are kind of true and not true regarding holidays via something else. It is true that many were pagan, but they are now different via the means of language. Nothing wrong with that. Theses things are now traditions and not found in the Bible, but allowable via the liberty of Christianity (the book of 2 Corinthians).
You're new on here, and you have not read my arguments, so you are speaking via the air of nothing. But that's okay, I'm use to it. Welcome to the crowd. Regarding the definition of atheism, there are more definitions for atheism then there are atheists. lol. So perhaps next time I shall flip a coin.
I am defining it via its logical consistency of the argument.
______________________
Hi Nigel,
ad hominem abusive. Perhaps I don't speak upon INCONSISTENT atheism since you are living that life, but the consistency of the atheism is really a slap in the mouth isn't it. Refute my argument, don't complain or else get in the back seat.
I use to watch Bill O'reilly all the time. I remember him saying the following:
God may be a woman
Jesus may or may not be God.
Capital Punishment is wrong
Hmm, those are pretty hefty things to disagree with as a conservative. He doesn't even say he's a conservative, but a moderate (whatever that means)> Sometimes he gets it via luck.
The issue of fear is funny. Most atheists never had a real dad. A man of a dad. The greatest generation of earth according to one of your own talked about this slightly. You see, back then, children feared their dad's in retrospect to strength vs. mercy. And they became men. People of this generation don't know this because the dad's of today are a bunch of Eunuchs with no balls.
The dads of today are from San Francisco and can't spake their kids because it may 'lower their self esteem." funny stuff. I'm sorry Nigel that you never had a strong dad in your life to teach you this concept.
The april 1st was a joke. Lighten up. A dad would have taught you the difference. In the area of jokes, logic leaves the room.
Of course you still celebrate holidays, because you are an inconsistent atheist.
You have to patient with your requests. I am in a middle of a move. Patience is a Christian virtue, and I know as an atheist, you CANNOT have that which is Christian, I understand. So perhaps, count to the National Debt your worldview put us in. 1, 2, 3. and I will respond somewhere in between. That's the only way I know how to explain patience to an atheist.
Nice talking to you.
_________________
Hi UBUNTU
I'm glad you don't hate me. Are you tired?
I answer you via an ad hominem (a valid ad hominem) and as a means to see if there are any consistent atheists out there. I can't find any. Mao was close, but I find no Maos on here.
I already addressed the issue of holidays via the language of usus loquendi and the genetic logical fallacy. I can do it again if you ask me again.
_______
Nigel, are you sure? I remember them getting nuts before Mel went nuts. So you are saying that Hollywood has no problem with Jesus via the film industry on a professional level?
_________
Hi Rebecca,
There are more atheists on here that no more about the Bible then I do? Really? Cool, who are they where are they? Perhaps one of those so called atheists that know more of the Bible could discuss the following:
1) Supralapsarian vs.Antelapsarianism
2) The Mystery of Ephesians 3:9
3) And the relationship between figures of speech via the literal vs. literary hermeneutical method.
4) The Difference between the Economical Concept of The Trinity vs. the Ontological Concept.
5) The 3 fold means of Faith via the Fiducia
Ready, Go!!!
Wait a minute, my God showed evil things. I thought you were an atheist. So you do believe in my God, just that God is evil right? Wow. I think you are slowly moving my direction.
Rape, murder, stealing are very evil and bad. I know this via the normative of Scripture. You have no normative, thus you do not KNOW anything in the areas of morals.
I'm not sure what you are saying? You think as a Christian I am making a defense for bad behavior? I think somewhere we got lost in translation.
___________
Hi Nigel,
ad hominem fallacy again. But that's okay. What point did you want to add to the robot that I did not address?
Sapient does not believe in God. This is one example. There are probably hundreds of more. I'm sure he's had sex outside of marriage, who knows.
___________
Hi Cj
An honest atheist for once. Good job.
____________
Hi Nigel,
You seem to be my biggest fan?
I am not going go type my arguments again since they are very long. If you would like to argue against me, go back and read my arguments in other posts, and refute. Don't be so lazy.
Ahh, the Matthew 7 homosexual verse of do not judge. I've been waiting for that.
Actually matthew 7 is talking about hypocritical judgment, not judgment in toto. And John 7:24 says to make a righteous judgement. And II Cor 13:5 says to judge ourselves. And we are to test all things (I thess 5:21). So as an atheist, one would expect you to take verses out of context and mutilate the bible.
Now do the Cast the First Stone verse. Come on, just do it for fun.
Thanks for the kisses Nigel. You kindness is what one would expect of an atheist.
_________
Hi Rev. Willie,
Yes, I do know absolutely that I'm going to heaven. Next question my pagan friend.
I am not presuming what God thinks, since God tells us what He things can gives us assurance in I John 5:13 among other places. Have you read the Bible? It's in almost all book stores. You know, Genesis and Revelation. I can send you one if you don't have one.
EVERYTHING regarding knowledge is based on the Bible. Thus God's promises to His children as well.
______________
I appreciate your questions. Though I would appreciate it if people like Nigel would not be lazy. I know you guys are liberals and want the government to spoon feed you over, and over, and over, and over, and over, but go back and look at my arguments regarding God and other things, then try to pick it about like UBuntU tried.
Then we can start moving forward.
Happy Thanksgiving!!!
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).
Mod edit: Double post.
So you presume you know God's will that you are going to heaven, yet you say you are not presuming what God thinks. You refer to the bible which was written by man as God's word well that is your faith but is it not still presuming you know God's will? Oh and yes I have read the tripe called the bible and still see it as a tool used to pervert a good teachers (i.e. Christ's) teachings and to subvert the masses to dogmatic control. Christ in my opinion taught against organized religion and was killed for it, he was too popular to discredit so they elevated him to Godhood so they could put him above people and therefore unattainable and pervert his teachings through time and disinformation, it is quite easy to do since they didn't have modern communications. Now you say Everything regarding knowledge is based on the Bible, just a thought what if the bible was a tool used to lead you away from the truth and God wanted you to question it in order to gain more understanding? You probably can't even fathom the idea but just a what if?
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
Hey Willie,
You probably know this, but I just thought I'd remind you. You are a heretic on your way to hell. But I know you don't care since you probably don't believe in hell. Probably Soul Sleep or whatever. You sound like my Unitarian universalist friends.
You seem to be a cross between a Mormon and a gnostic and a Unitarian.
Since God is Orderly via logic, and since non-order is non-logic, then logically God is for Organization. This would include organized "faith." Since I do not know what you mean by "religion."
Thus, the Body of Christ is an Organization.
The one who is for disorganization is Satan. He is the author of fragmentation.
Doubt does not lead to more understanding, but rather it brings into question what is already known. So if the known is doubt, then logically no new known will accuire since the doubt is burdened already to much via the know.
I know you are ashamed of your belief system, but why don't you tell me anyway what it is you are. That way we can discuss your heresy on a more specific level.
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).
This is pointless and only meant to attack, reminds me of a 3 year old and if there is a hell (which I don't think there is one), I'll see you there and I'll bring you a glass of water, because I can.
I am none of those I am of Reverend Willie G's spiritual viewpoint if you must know. I believe that my relationship with God is just that MY relationship with God, like none other. I walk with God I do not follow, when God gave me free will God made me equal so therefore I am the God of where I stand. God created the universe using evolution and in order for us to have free will God left us to our own devices and I consider that the greatest of gifts. Good, evil all of these things based on a perception are created by us not God. The heights of our divinity is matched only by the depths of our depravity. It is we that sets the bar not God.
You have a HUGE assumption here, I think God is all, God is both organization and chaos if you must look at it symbollically Christ is God's right hand and Lucifer is God's left hand. Okay I will use your word organized "faith" then instead of "religion". Organized "faith" is dogmatic puts its views on other people and in my opinion the worst kind of evil because it uses God's name to spread its lies, just like you.
You would use fearmongering and hate to divide people by saying they are wrong, that they are going to hell, if there is a Satan that is how fragmentation would be done, my viewpoint is all inclusive I believe there are as many pathways as there are people, do I think God cares if you are an athiest no. God would rather someone walk with God instead of kneeling behind, I have a hunch if we went to heaven God would be looking for the people that did good works because they wanted to instead of people who did it for a reward or because fear of consequences. Now I just have to point out this is my viewpoint it could be wrong could be right I really don't care what you think but it makes common sense to me.
You say you don't aspire to know what God thinks but here is a point, that is exactly what organized "faith", "religion" or whatever is doing. You constantly aspire to know what God thinks and attempt to ram it down peoples throats all the time in these threads you are very well read obviously but it has taught you nothing it seems. You can't seem to understand that when you use an institution such as organized "faith" i.e. the body of christ to preach politics you are using God's name in vain in the worst possible way and is in my opinion the worst thing you can do. When you use the body of christ to get the government to make law by threatening them in some way say like excommunicating senators or something you are using God's name in vain. It is vastly hilarious that you cannot see this because it is right in front of your face and has been brought up to you time and again by both athiest and thiests here yet you still cannot see you just continue to attack. Hopefully one day you will see what you are doing. Oh! did I mention that this is only opinion and I could be wrong unlike you who KNOW you are right and refuse to empty your cup to learn something new.
Have a wonderful evening
Reverend Willie G.
I am the God of where I stand
I feel that you are reasserting things ad nauseum...that's all.
A valid ad hominem is a contradiction in terms....And you keep arguing that you can't find any consistent atheists...but at every term, you've been shown to have fallacious constructs in your self-proclaimed "consistent" epistemology. And just about every time someone shows a problem, you reassert your position...
I'm not suggesting it is legitimate. I think it is a genetic fallacy too... But that aside, I would also say that your criticism against atheists for "stealing" ideas is not justifiable if deny that Christian did not borrow ideas either. You've yet to answer me in regards to Christians stealing ideas from Dionysus and Osiris and other life-death-rebirth deities. Is it because if you do, then you may have to admit that you were some how wrong?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
Projection of your own failing as a father?
Respectfully,
KSMB
This Chauvin seems to be a jerk just interested in yanking our chains, and throwing around pseudo-metaphysical terms which he mostly made up, as though he actually had some arguments.
The growing amount of totally dis-respectful comment he is now making about particular individuals here and atheists in general is likely to get him kicked off here.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Just incase anyone (not Jean, because he doesn't care) about what atheism and agnosticism actually mean, there is a link on the top left of this page called "Am I Agnostic or Athiest?"
Anyone who has questions about what these words actually mean should take a moment to click on that link and give it a read. It's pretty clear cut and will help to give people a good starting point on having a constructive conversation without just muddying the waters.
There is no negotiation of what the words agnosticism and atheism mean. They have definitions; we need only read them.
Signed,
No-Thing
deleted
Again, you fucking moron, abuse is not an ad hominem. You haven't made an argument; you've made an assertion, fucktard. These are entirely different things. You use words inconsistently, such as "consistent," as in, "consistent atheist." What the fuck does that even mean? Someone who doesn't believe in god all the time? That's about all it can mean.
You present a strawman atheist, and I'm not going to refute that, as it is self-refuting. Simply look up what "atheism" means, and you'll see you are presenting a complete strawman.
Do you know what a conservative is? You don't even have to believe in God to be a conservative. When applied to a political pundit such as O'Reilly, "conservatism" and "liberalism" are sociopolitical terms, not religious terms, nitwit. So again, you are investing words with meanings they simply don't have in the context in which you use them. O'Reilly is most definitely a conservative. He believes in limited government, little to no social programs, tax breaks for the rich, few corporate regulations, and American adventurism abroad. That makes him a conservative. Perhaps in today's climate he can call himself a moderate, but that's mostly because of reality-denying assholes like insist that they are the true conservatives. Huzzah Tea Party!
O'Reilly is a conservative, and he generally describes himself as such. If you want to make up your own language, fine. Just don't expect anyone else to play your stupid fucking word games.
Uhm, you realize your dad doesn't have to fuck you in the ass to be a real dad, right? I'm sorry about that. Really.
No, it wasn't a joke. If it was, itt was a "hah-hah, only serious" joke. Which makes you a fucking pussy, having to hide your insults in a joke. Real men insult others to their faces. Like I'm doing to you. I'm sorry your dad was so busy buggering you that he didn't have time to teach you that.
No -- it's because I'm a consistent human. An atheist doesn't believe in God. Full stop. It means nothing else. I celebrate holidays because they are social events, not religious events. Fuck, the Christians had to steal both Christmas (which was Saturnalia, among others, and the winter solstice celebrations in general) and Easter (taken from Pagan rites of spring, often accompanied by delicious orgies of food and sex) celebrates the resurrection of the earth (see how the Christians totally stole that one?) Hell, even as celebrated by Christians, it features symbols of fertility and reproduction: bunnies and eggs and little fuzzy chicks.
Isn't it wonderful that one of your holiest holidays celebrates sex and orgies? I bet Jesus would've loved it.
I figure if Christians can celebrate Pagan holidays, I can certainly celebrate Christian holidays. After all, they're really just an excuse to get together and hang out with family anyway.
You are a real asshat. And I believe you are doing it intentionally. That makes you a troll. And a rather transparent one at that. If you're not doing it intentionally, I'm amazed you've found someone to breed with. Oh wait. Is she your sister?
There is only one thing for which I have no patience: willful ignorance. You display ignorance in abundance. And as you use your ad hominem defense of "all atheists/liberals are evil liars, I don't have to listen to you or respond to you in a meaningful way," it sure the fuck seems willful. So, while I have an abundance of patience, I have no patience for you.
Do I hear a hint of irony? Wow. There may be hope for you yet.
Quite sure, and I'm positive that Hollywood has no problem with Jesus and God on a professional level. The Passion of the Christ. Godspell. Ben Hur. The Ten Commandments. Oh, God! Bruce Almighty. Evan Almighty. The Narnia movies. A Walk to Remember.
There were two things people complained about: the blood porn (which was also a complaint about 300, though Mel seemed to really linger on the crucifixion like an artsy porno on the money shot) and the vague anti-Semitism. The controversy was most definitely not about it being about Jesus. Though there was a certain amount of befuddlement. I mean, Mel Gibson? A religious movie? It just seemed odd.
But if you must feel persecuted, feel free to continue. I like watching a good martyr complex as much as the next guy.
Respectfully,
nigelTheBold
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
I hope to never completely wipe out religion, some of these people are far too entertaining.
Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin