Jean Chauvin wants me to debate on the validity of the worldview of atheism with him.

I'll start off by asking Jean, to explain what he means by that, because there is no such thing, to begin with.

It's a logical fallacy.

You're mistaken.

The confusion I indicated, was on your part.

I said there was no such thing as a 'worldview of atheism'.

It's a logical fallacy.

There's no 'direction' that we all head towards. We all have different goals and directions, but, we make great efforts to work 'in concert' (harmony) within humanity, trying to ensure that no one person's 'personal' wills, impose on another's.

Pretty basic concept.

Personal boundaries.

No, there are natural absolutes. They are the natural 'constants'. You people struggle with making distinctions about 'absolutes' all the time.

They are 'natural' absolutes. The forces acting on all particles, that cannot be superseded, by 'thought'.

And there are 'truths' (thoughts) that are personal, and subjective, and can be altered.

Absolute is a quantitative. (x)

Truth is a qualitative. (y)

Apples(x) and green(y).

Two different things...

Sounds like a made up strawman. Because the premise is inane, and self contradicting. Something I'd expect a theist to utter.

I've clarified the concept of atheism to you, in the other thread.

Skepticism is the default position, of any human, from birth.

I'll copy what I posted over there, into this thread, because you completely ignored my detailed explanation of the distinction between theists and non theists.

If you want to debate, you will have to directly contend with my assertions.

Here it is:

---------------

Theism/Atheism is a dichotomy.

An either/or position, or 'state'.

They are not competing positions, or opposing positions.

A theist is one who believes in a god. An non theist is someone who is not a theist. An atheist cannot be religious.

A deaf person, is one who is deaf. A non deaf person is someone who is not a deaf person. A non deaf person cannot be a deaf person.

A swimmer is someone who swims. A non swimmer is someone who is not a swimmer. A non swimmer cannot be a swimmer.

A person name Jean is someone named Jean. A person not named Jean, but Kim, is someone who is not named Jean, but Kim. A person not named Jean, but Kim, cannot be a person named Jean.

They are not 'competing', or 'opposing' positions.

They are seperate categories.

You mistakenly asserted that atheism was a religion that was counter to your religion.

Skepticism is a base instinct for survival. It is a reflex.

We are born this way.

Skeptics and atheists.

It's inherent in us.

It's in our 'nature'.

It's how 'nature' selected us to not be killed off.

It's completely natural to our species.

We are born completely oblivious to the natural world.

We can only move 'away' from skeptisicm/atheism, or 'fall back' to skepticism/atheism.

Neither requires logic, at all, because we are also emotional, subjective, passion driven beings.

It's natural skepticism which prevents some of us from being theists.

The 'atheist', is just a label to be distinguishable from the 'gullible'.

Atheism is not a movement. It's steadfastness.

If one moves away from skepticism, it's because they've adopted something else.

Theists 'deviate' from the default position, of skepticism.

Theists are the 'deviants'.

Not atheists.

To claim anything other, indicates you are ignorant, or a liar.

Or both.

-----------------------

This is my assertion. If you choose to ignore it, it signifies clearly

1- You do not understand

2- You understand, but do not want to challenge it

3- You cannot overcome the soundness of my assertions.

Who?

I don't know who you are talking about. Nor do I care who she is.

Are you stupid?

WTF do I care about how some person defines themselves? If you have an issue with her opinions, debate her.

I'm not interested in her.

So?

WTF do I care about how they generally 'interpret' non theists?

Non theists are individuals. They're like snowflakes.

You'd like to 'assert' they're all the same, so that you can attempt to kill all the birds with 1 stone, which is utterly stupid.

We don't have 1 mind, like you people do.

There's no 'bible' for atheists, or dogmas that are indoctrinated into non theists.

There's no such thing. Where do you think there is an academy of atheism? 

WTF are you talking about?

A 'state' of mind is a collection of thoughts, that are flexible, and subjective, and based on the individuals feelings.

There is no absolute right and wrong. They are not physical attributes. They are feelings. 

I don't know what you're talking about. It sounds stupid.

Beliefs can be tied in to knowledge.

But, knowledge is a relative term. Almost a banal term.

Strawman.

Equivocation.

I'm not confused, whatsoever. Nor are any atheists, that I'm aware of.

Your personal opinion that they are, is irrelevant. It has no value, in reality. 

Being skeptical of ludicrous claims, is not a thrust, but a steadfastness.

Because I can contrast things, to reality, for instance, and come to an objective conclusion.

This is not obvious to you?

How do you avoid not getting hit by a bus?

1- You need to cite where there can be found any 'academy' of 'atheism'.

What babble is this that 'atheism' is like a religion? Where do you people get this sh1t?

Where is Mecca for atheists? Where is our 'Holy Land'?

Where are our temples and shrines, and tokens, and symbols?

Where, Jean?

Where?...

Is that so?

I do?

I don't recall being conflicted about anything, whatsoever...

You need to understand what I explained about skepticism, before we can engage any further.

What about these people?

Why should I care about opinions from these 2 individuals?

Let's see if you understand my clarifications, or if you'll ignore them, and continue equivocating, and monologuing...

RedBull,

It appears RedBull needs his wings. But to be honest, I won before I even began, let's be honest. The guys's very uneducated regarding his very own position.

Hey RedBull, when you get your wings, and you're done crying to mommy, grow some balls and admit that you lost. Otherwise answer my questions.

Also, the burden of proof is one you, you did not provide the burden, and you lost double time.

Funny Stuff.

Christian Wins, Atheist, Big time loser.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Fuck are you people dense.

You can't even distinguish between one thing, and an entirely different category of 'things'.

Let me take you back to primary school, so you can learn the basics, you ignorant fuck...

Humans are born completely oblivious. Neutral.

1- Skepticism is an individual's tendency to evaluate things, from a neutral position, on a topic, before making a determination, and/or acting on it.

It's a precursor (thing). It's singular. It's not plural.

There is no deviation during skepticism (neutral), till a conclusion has been finalized.

Then a person(they) become polarized.

2- There is/are no precursorism(s).

A theist is a (+)polarity.

A non theist is not (+)

This (non theist) is called an 'atheist'.

This is the disambiguous meaning of 'atheist'.

When we say 'they are atheist', the 'they' does not necessarily mean more than 1.

Even though they is 3rd person plural, it does not mean 'they' signifies more than 1.

You use the term 'atheist' in whatever ambiguous meaning that suits you, as a divisive epithet, or pejorative.

Because you people are based in bigotry and hate. They are your mantras.

You people are theocrats.

There are hundreds of millions, if not billions of individuals, who are against theocrats, and theocracies.

They can be anything, including theists.

When you speak of 'atheist worldviews', or 'movements' what you are pointing to is a heterogeneous group of individuals who reject theocracy.

You are not fighting for supremacy against one army, you are fighting everyone else, who isn't one of your cult.

You people need to get that through your incredibly dense skulls...

Does she?

Does he?

So?

About himself?

Why are you asking me?

But, he doesn't speak for me. And I'm not part of his group.

Get it?

That's not what I said.

Don't paraphrase me.

I never said that.

Do I?

I don't see why...

What are those?

Did I?

Please quote where I wrote 'Natural attributes'.

WTF are natural attributes in the absolute?

That makes no sense.

You are making a category error fallacy.

Methodologically, of course.

But I only define pure science, that is falsifiable, as a valid methodology.

Everything else is conjecture.

Did I?

Where?

Absolutes are universal constants, and are falsifiable.

Don't care if she was the Pope.

Am I?

I'm a party of 1.

I don't see how that's possible.

Because you have yet to falsify my claims.

That's right.

Your opinion doesn't matter.

Don't you get it?

No atheist I know, really cares about you personally, Jean.

Are they?

About what?

What about it?

Is that true?

There's no way you're a professor.

Not a chance.

The psychology professors would recognize that you're a sociopath, and have you investigated.

If anyone read your vitriol and hatred, you'd never teach again, let alone be allowed near children.

In any event, I debated all my college professors constantly. They couldn't keep up with my challenges. Not 1.

Were are you from?

Quebec?

Are you a Parti Quebecois militant separatist?

That would explain a whole bunch. You people are fucking fascist hoodlums.

Wow.

Something I said actually registered with you. I'm impressed...

Yes, that is what the truth is. Human's are born completely oblivious to the natural world.

Did you assume otherwise?

What is your obsession with other peoples' minds?

Why do you have a mind of your own, if you're just going to have it made for you by someone else's mind?

Do you have some kind of cognitive disability?

No.

You can have different topics come up, within the discussion of a subject. A professor should not only know that, but teach it...

Is that so?

I just checked with me, and the answer is, "STFU".

I gave not only a clear definition, but a very clear elaboration of what a non theist is.

The onus has always been on you. You are the one making an assertion based in inductive reasoning.

People like you, are that patently stupid.

Someone catches a cold, and you people inductively reason that they're a sinner.

You are special pleading, and being intentionally obtuse.

Being a theist is (x)

Not being a theist, is not being (x)

Even a child can understand this simply premise. Yet you are completely mentally and emotionally tied up in knots by such a simple concept.

In your mind, being healthy, is a different illness.

You're like a broken record.

Elvis has long left the building. You completely missed the show...

Stop posturing.

If you could defeat my claim, you would have gone all 'Logic Ninja'

It means they are not relevant.

You just keep going in circles with your strawman.

Because.

It's an inalienable right.

One's state of mind, is not a democracy.

Take a reading comprehension class, and then go back to the top of the page, and read my posts again.

If you'd like to rebuke them, go ahead.

I challenge you to debate them.

The subject is the same.

Not (x)= Not (x)

What part of that escapes you?

So?

Maybe someone over there has never heard of me.

WTF does that illustrate?

Well, bully for you.

I like Dan a lot. He's got fucking balls.

I guess it doesn't occur to you that as an individual, you can fight for your rights as set out in the Constitution.

Anyone is free to become a sort of 'ombudsman'. That's what's so great about American, and how women stood up to oppression. How blacks overcame oppression. How gays overcame oppression.

No.

It's not only patently stupid, it's patently delusional.

There is NO position.

No polarity.

It's NEUTRAL.

It's like saying there are different 'denominations' of 'non spanish speaking' people, or 'healthy' people, or 'non pregnant' people, who need to justify their 'non spanishism', or their 'non illnessism', or their 'non pregnantism'.

How fucking dense are you?????

By your definition, an individual not eating seafood, and discussing the different reasons why they don't eat seafood, is a 'denomination' of non seafood eaterism.

That's just an EPIC fucking FAIL.

Are you in training for the Olympics in 'Circular Reasoning'?

Hey RedBull,

Cat got your tongue? Shall you admit ignorance so we can continue or shall we explore the subject of your very unique definition some more.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Hi Red,

You must justify your unequivocal in relation to Univocal or Analogical. Most agree that analogical is the key to anything in reference to knowledge.

If you are defining atheist as an antitheis of acquiescene, then this can be applied to more then just theism. It can be applied to Communism, the Police, your football coach, or your mommy.

So then, how do you justify your definition as superior over the leading atheists of the 20th century. Why are they wrong and you are right since they had a completely different definition.

It appears that you cannot answer this question. You don't even know your own position. So we can accept that, and you can ask me a question now if you'd like to get the debate further along. Otherwise, this was pretty pathetic on your part.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Hi Red,

ipso facto is just asserting in the latin without justification. ispo facto (the fact itself) must be justified via the meaning of a fact. In the study of historiography, the understanding of fact has been used in multiple conflicting ways. So by what fact is this, how do you justify it as a fact, and what is your definitions of a fact.

In relation to the leading atheists of the 20th century, you have no answer

In relation to Dictionaries, Encyclopedias, and Reference Works regarding atheism via definition, you have no answer

In relation to the burden on you to show me that you are superior to all the leading reference works you have no answer

in relation to relativity of the univerity vs. absolutes of your kind you have no answer.

Since you are without coherent thought regarding these very easy answers, and since you contradict the leading atheists of the 20th century, the reference works, Professors, etc, and since you don't even know about these things you contradict.

Then it is clear that you have lost this debate and have been utterly destroyed.

This is like relaxing in the Bahama's eating those little umbrella drinks. Come on, if somebody with intelligence wishes to debate me I'm here. At least an atheist of intelligence would be more fruitful and entertaining.

Since Red did NOT carry the burden as the form form of the debate was set up, then he clearly lost the debate.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

UnDefeated Champion of Intelligence

Hi Red,

I will try this one more time, and if you make circular answers and you don't answer my question, I'm done here. You are being destroyed by my superior logic.

ipso facto, the fact itself is ambiguous. Various historians define fact in several ways. Gordon H. Clark wrote on this in his work on history.

So then, by what means of fact are we talking about, and is this a universal absolute of definition or is a subjective. Careful here.

Ipso facto doesn't say anything. It's like if somebody asked me my argument for God, and all I said was axiomatically. Even though this is way more logical of a start then you, there's more to it then that.

If all you have is ipso facto, then you are like a boy trying to reach the airport. You get in the cab, and the cab takes you to the next corner, you have 15 miles to go to get to the airport.

Get in your cab, and go the rest of the way. If your mind is to stoned to drive you to your destination (which is probably the case), then you lose like you've been losing. LOL.

___

So you are saying that there are no leading atheists of the 20th century. That Madalyn Murray O'Hair was just some girl who worked at Papa Murpheys? Just so I understand this before you are again embarrassed by this. Is this what you are saying?

____

If dictionaries and reference works cannot define your worldview, and if your worldview is personal, then your worldview by definition is subjective and a particular and has no claim towards knowing.

For one to know, a particular of a subject must be connected to a universal all the time. If you being without this means of an attempt at the know, then you admit that your atheism is irrational and outside of knowledge.

____

Turn off the death metal playing in the background so you can concentrate. Hurry up because you are embarrassing all atheists in this world.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).