An Intelligent Atheist Trained in Logic vs. An Intelligent Chrisitan Trained in Logic
Offline Does Atheism or Skepticism have any logical means of consistency within their worldview? I would say absolutely not. They cannot say anything since the Universities tell them that all is relative, and there is nothing that is absolute.
This makes atheists hypocrites. They don't know anything at school, but then when they argue with a Christian, they know science, arts, and all kinds of things.
Which is it? Do you or don't you?
I say, logically, that a Consistent atheist CANNOT know anything since via inductive empiricism, he cannot escape the particulars into universals via knowing. Since he cannot do this, he cannot know science, beauty, truth, Justice, Right, Wrong, Honor, Purity, or Goodness.
Via the elements of philosophy, how does an atheist achieve this via knowledge?
Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Aesthetics.
Since Atheists love to fragment EVERYTHING (the family, music, arts, television, culture, the Church, philosophy, etc, and if knowing if only possible with unity, then how can the very core of atheism know if it is logically contradictory to the only possible way to know.
How can fragmentation lead to unity of knowing?
And thus, Atheism is a false "religion." It full of logical fallacies, and cannot know. It is a "religion" of ignorance, hypocrisy, and ego-centric selfishness. Thus all atheists, if they apply their worldview consistently, cannot ever do good and are the vast extreme criminals of our day. Only via inconsistency, can they hold back, the demise of their philosophical consequences.
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
That's obvious, and the only fact you have stated since you have been here.
As far as "civility" you get what you put into it. You came in here with some delusional idea that you were going teach us lost puppies the truth. Then when you got hit with reality which you didn't want to face, rather than defend your position you resorted to ad homins.
If you really want to have a long productive stay here drop your condescending crap. Capioska and Fonzie are both trying to sell the same super hero you are, but unlike you, they are not being a prick like you.
And drop your "respectfully" crap at the end of every post. It is annoying and superfluous.
Stop being an asshole and and you wont be treated like one.
Get this through your thick skull.
1. We don't believe in your fictional superstition.
2. We don't hate all people who believe things we don't.
3. We do hate condescending pricks.
4. Stop being a condescending prick.
Read and repeat reading until that soaks in. Otherwise I would suggest you not torture yourself by posting here.
"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
Sure.
I do.
Of course you were.
Jean,
You saw someone acting like they were demon-possessed (likely so the "exorcist" could aggrandize himself and get paid).
Your wife grabbed her legs either because she genuinely bought into the acting job or because she was in on it. The "demon" didn't go into her because that wasn't in the script.
Just a case of some dishonest actors taking advantage of those with a Christian worldview. Do you believe that the arts only have meaning to Christians because they're some of the most easily conned?
I'm sure that Rebecca and AE will think for you. Prayer - how to do nothing and claim you're helping.
I would have liked to see that debate. If you did as well then as you are doing now I would have witnessed your logical evisceration.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I can't speak for Bob, but I respect you with the minimum amount of respect I give to everyone who seems to be a decent person at heart. I even respect you a bit more, since you came here among a bunch of atheists.
Things I don't respect: your thoughtless ideas, which you base on misinformation (once again, Obama is not a Muslim, nor is there any evidence whatsoever that he has ever been a Muslim). Your constant ad hominem of opposing ideas by calling them "liberal." Your inability to engage in a meaningful conversation, and your insistence on preaching rather than discussing. Your complete lack of empathy, or ability to understand opposing viewpoints and ideas. Your closed-minded dogmatic recitation of ideas you don't seem to truly understand (SEE, for example, your list of 10 fallacies, of which at least 3 you got completely wrong, and your completely oddball claims that Sir Francis Bacon didn't use induction). Your haughty and arrogant attitude. Your condescension.
Shall I go on?
I do respect you. If I did not, I would have verbally (well, in writing) eviscerated you.
I'm not sure you respect us, though. Your constant use of the ad hominem "liberal" (not as an insult, but as a way to dispose of arguments you don't understand, rather than addressing them directly) is itself an insult to our intelligence. While you scrupulously use the signoff of "respectfully," your attitude does not seem to convey respect at all. You are more like a movie villan, asking to shake the hero's hand and entreating him to just be friends, all the while holding a dagger ready to strike.
In your case, the dagger is nothing more than one of those dollar-store rubber toy daggers (and rather ratty and ill-used, at that). But it's the thought that counts.
You want respect? Earn it. Around here, there's only one currency worth a damn: intellectual honesty. Humor and intelligence count for a lot, too, but intellectual honesty is the base requirement.
You want respect?
Earn it.
"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
Oh man, I feel sooooooo left out. What am I going to do with my life since Jean won't pray for me? IT'S SO UNFAIR! It's over, my life is over, boo hoo. I want my mommy.
"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
LMAO, I mean... LMFAO... wow, that is funny. I must admit I skipped over the first page of this post but I'm going to go back and read it now. I normally don't partake in personal attacks because I believe they say more about attacker then the person being attacked. I'm also a firm devotee to the Church of Latter Mind Your Own Fucking Business Day Saints.
Regarding Jean Chauvin, I admire the way that you go out of your way to rub people the wrong way. I remember being 16 and going on some live lobby or other. Playing devil's advocate and pissing people off is a lot of fun. I'm going to make some suppositions here regarding Jean Chauvin.
1. Jean Chauvin is an atheist. (I mean the knuckle-head posting here not the real Jean Chauvin)
2. Jean Chauvin resembles Napoleon Dynamite irl ((this I get from his claims about the ninja father and arbitrary claimed numbers like 10,000 books.(you can fill a 10X10X9 room with about 9000 paperbacks, I mean fill 100% not arrange))
3. Jean Chauvin has very bad skin and is overweight. (I know this because he stresses quite a bit over the smallest detail, and strikes me as someone that spits when they talk, also talks very loudly to make his pointless)
4. Jean Chauvin is not married, and probably a virgin. ( If this is his true personality, I don't see someone putting up with him for more then 2 days at the time)
5. Jean Chauvin fancies himself the Stephen Cobert of this forum only not as funny or witty. (see http://www.colbertnation.com/home for more detail)
I apologize about the personal attacks and I understand I'm reflecting my own insecurities in most of them. But to quote a mature argument "He started it!"
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
I had no idea I had such a fan. Are you the president of my fan club? For you, we will celebrate on April 1st (Psalm 14:1).
I don't go out of my way to tick people off. Jesus Christ ticks people off. This is what He said would happen. Just mentioning His name pisses people off.
#1 is true. I am a theist. I made this one up on my own. I think it's pretty good.
I'm way funnier then Colbert. My humor is that of class. Like Johnny Carson or Sapient when he tries to debate. Only a conservative can truly be funny.
The rest of your chant is simply the echoes of my victory regarding my argument. It's like I stepped on a bug. And all the other bugs are now saying that I'm bugging them.
No, not bugging, just destroying their arguments. Perhaps Sapient would like to debate me? Let's go. No? I only debate those who have written at least one book. If he has done this, it's a date. Just bring a box of tissues since you will be crying off stage.
All in good fun.
But you have to at least admit that I"m arguing way better then Kirk and Ray. Even if you are to prideful to admit defeat. They were like Virgins giving advice to Dr. Ruth.
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).
2 through 5 definitely. #1 I'm not so confident with, I go back and forth.
BTW welcome back Jean I missed you dearly. I wish you hadn't stopped talking to me.
Respectfully,
Beyond Saving
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
2 through 5 definitely. #1 I'm not so confident with, I go back and forth.
BTW welcome back Jean I missed you dearly. I wish you hadn't stopped talking to me.
Respectfully,
Beyond Saving
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
Watching a debate between you and Sapient might be interesting. You'd have to remember to bring an argument though. You haven't done so yet. You've asserted a lot of things but haven't argued for them. Still waiting...
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I find you very entertaining, I will admit it. Don't confuse that with respect for your point of view. I respect your intellect and I respect your right to make your point of view heard even though you tend to rant on occasion. It's rare for someone that claims theism to be entertaining. Usually they're downright idiotic or frustratingly non-engaging in the argument.
I guess you just struck a cord because I can relate with an younger version of myself. Keep up the good work I guess I am a bit of a fan of your rants at times. It's more like watching that show "Kids say the darndest things", what silly thing is he going to come up with next?
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
LOL. Ok, I got to admit, that struck me as pretty funny, even though I have heard the April Fools Day joke before. Yeah, Jesus has a tendency to get on my nerves. I do find it funny that so many people think of him as some great thinker or teacher when the dude obviously had some really screwed up mental issues.
Johhny Carson and Sapient are conservatives ? You made up the term theist ?
Not really a big fan of comedy to be honest. Now, I know that this is because via atheist empiricism I can logically have no true understanding of what laughter is. But there is not that many comedians that I can say that I enjoy all of that much.
By the way, do you think God has a sense of humor ? Do you think that God laughs ? Religion seems to be such a dour, solemn and depressing view of humanity that I often wonder where they have time for laughter ? Is there anything outside the realms of empiricism and epistemology that acknowledge the appropriate time and place for laughter ?
Actually, I am sort of laughing as I type this. I guess I really do crack myself up on occasion. Empricism has taught me this.
Truth to be told, I would actually like to see a Nightline debate like that. I would actually pay money to come see that. Especially a whole bunch of terms about epistemology and refuting empiricism as the core of the argument. I probably would need tissues because I would be laughing so hard.
Well, I never thought that I would say it, but I actually agree that you are far more entertaining than Ray and Kirk. They were pretty pitiful. But logically speaking, if you are refuting empricism, how can I agree that you are better than Kirk and Ray if I have nothing to base my opinions off of since I am an Atheist and don't believe anything ? Does the bible speak clearly on when people are better than not?
I feel like I am on an episode of Saturday Night Live, back when it was really funny (alot of those comedians were liberals though, nevermind).
“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
"An Intelligent Atheist Trained in Logic vs. An Intelligent Chrisitan Trained in Logic" - that's sounds like a conversation between two monkies.
It takes half a second to realise that secular and religious societies carry roughly the same amount of delusion with them - about the amount that an average human society carries. If this is not important to you and you would rather debate terms and some imaginary "logic" behind these, your priorities are fucked.
Reading through this thread is literally painful.
Logic is a systematic method of coming to the wrong conclusion with confidence.
Don't feed trolls. See, I was trained in logic too.
There is nothing in this argument that is objective. It begins by begging the question, i.e., using your conclusion as evidence. The Bible reference is a false appeal to authority that assumes that the Bible is authoritative. For non-believers, these premises are untenable and useless as any part of a scientific argument. I know you think you are being logical and philosophical, but philosophy is entirely speculative and proves nothing, and your "logic" is not at all logical.
Begging the question again with a useless premise. If you are trying to prove the existence of God, you can't logically use God as an authority.
Gibberish. The infinite reference point is somewhere in the back of your head.
More gibberish.
Goodness, you are full of shit. Secular morality is usually based on humanistic values instead of divine pronouncements. Whatever your Christian belief system, it most likely includes cruelty to human beings--not to mention animals--based on conjectures about the meaning of an ancient book or books written by people too ignorant to understand the mechanics of rainfall. One group's interpretation may well disagree with another's, so of course there can be no consistent objective morality. Calvin's assumed that God chose before the beginning of time which 144,000 people would be saved, based on a passage in Revelation--cherry-picking one passage of several. The children worshipping the lord of the flies in Golding's novel illustrate not atheism but reversion to savagery, unmasking the illusion that Europeans were morally superior to the various indigenous peoples they had conquered and oppressed. Atheists do not steal Christian morals; those portions of Biblical "morals" worth following were stolen from earlier cultures.
Logical Christians are rarer than you think.
Because your "logical" premises are unverified and unverifiable, you have abandoned logic from the very start. You believe in God, the infinite reference point, and imago dei "just because." Christianity is a "revealed religion," and as such, is never logical. You must accept the existence of God to begin, as well as the incarnation of a son who is somehow the same age as his father. You must accept that this son was born to a virgin, tortured and killed, then rose from the dead. To be a Calvinist, you must believe that ancient books chock full of mistakes and contradictions, are true. Much of your logic is fallacious, some is gibberish, but the entire structure is built on sand and has been demolished by science--and relatively simple critical thinking.
Craig
(I'm new here, too. I read some of your later posts; they contain the same nonsensical "logic," numerous casual insults in the form of ad hominem attacks on a large group, and poisoning the well. In one post you claim that because Galileo was wrong about some things, modern science is wrong about everything. This may be the most blatant non sequitur I have ever seen. You refer other posters to the encyclopedia of philosophy. Really? An encyclopedia? That's like reading Reader's Digest Condensed Books and claiming to be an expert in literature. Whoever trained you left out a lot of the basics of scholarship and learning. There is a rather large difference between logic and sophistry. So you're a poorly educated, sophistic condescending prick.)