The ridiculous crap Jean is going on with about the 'correct' definition of the words 'atheism' or 'atheist' is a clear example of his pathologically anal and rigid thinking.

Jean, many words have many shades of meaning, or even when the basic meaning, as with atheist, is very simple, the connotations and associations can cover a wide spectrum from context to context, from person to person. You are conflating the simple meaning, without belief in a God, with one or two of the many interpretations in the minds of others, especially of Theists.

Dictionaries do not define the meanings of words, they record the meanings that are read into them in common usage. 

This is further complicated with 'non-' or 'a-' prefixed words referring to beliefs, by the confusion between 'lacking belief in A' and 'belief that not A'.

Characterising the stance of real people on such things as necessarily being either one or the other is seriously simplistic.

This is the sort of trap (or 'crap' ) that pedants in general, and, philosophers, theologians, etc in particular, often fall into, in trying to make 'logical' arguments in support of clever-sounding statements and 'theories' about 'knowledge' ( 'epistemology' ) and 'truth' and so on.

If you can't pin down the meanings of such words, and all their various connotations, you shouldn't be using them in logical propositions, or pretend that you are establishing any useful broader 'truths'.

AFAICR, Wittgenstein addressed this to a significant extent.

 

Why does Jean act so incredibly smart, while not getting you can't prove a negative? I mean, I don't understand half of what he says because it's philosophical gibberish to me, but it should be rather clear that the only 'proof' we logically CAN have, is that there is no proof for the opposite statement.

Here is another stupid argument, from Jean,

Ok, if a billion people swear on a Koran that Allah is the one true god, it must be true because they testified to it?

We should not, in reality, as a species be still debating tribalisitic goat herding bullshit myth written by unscientific people. WE do debate, not because we want to, but because if we don't people like you will continue to infect others with this enormous lie.

Debating the existence of an invisible brain with no brain, no location, with a magic wand, is only important in the fact that people still believe this bullshit.

Debating the existence of a fictional comic book super hero is like debating "flat earth" claims. We only do it because so many people still buy into a diety claim BY ANY NAME, because they do not understand that it is merely wishful thinking in a REAL evolutionary desire to continue. Making up gods is merely a reflection of human ignorance.

WE are trying to pull humanity out of the  past and into the reality of now and the future.

The things humanity agree on as far as "proof" are the things taken into LABS and studied and tested and falsified and independently verified. A court is simply a social norm to keep people civil, it is not a lab nor can it substitute for a lab.

Otherwise anyone can make any fucking claim they want and it is true by default and for every 7 billion individuals you are not going to find overlap on the claim that a god exists, ESPECIALLY not in a court.

Seriously Jean, if a court is good enough by itself, then take your Christian god claim into an Iranian court and see how far you get with their system.

The reality is that there is no debate, there are merely humans who falsely believe in all sorts of gods(insert name here) because they don't know any better. The sun was not a thinking being like falsely believed for over 3,000 years by the Egyptians, and our species WILL continue without Allah or Jesus or Vishnu.

What no god claimant of any religion can do is take this claim into a NEUTRAL lab setting and variety of independent scientists and DEMONSTRATE it as "proof"

Claims are not "proof" claims become proof when it is kicked and thrashed and tested over and over and over to the point that it is provable BEYOND pet claims.

We debate, not because we want to, but because we know humanity can do far better with telescopes and computers and medicine than we have with divisive superstition.

 

 

I was bored so I searched the interwebs to see if our friend here had any other ramblings and boy did I find a good one.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/09/02/898149/-SHOULD-A-WOMAN-BE-IN-ANY-POLITICAL-POWER

It seems like it's a hobby of his to troll as many websites as he can, take a look at this gem. 

http://www.beyonceonline.com/us/news/beyonc%C3%A9-grabs-4-peoples-choice-award-nominations#comment-84783

 

 

Hello,

Somebody asked a good question about negative proof. Technically speaking according to the norm of today, you CANNOT prove ANYTHING. It is impossible.

If the secular nutty nuts even agree that all is probable, then logically the proof is also probable thus making it impossible to prove or know anything

There's only one way to prove or know anything. And that's via the Christian epistemology of sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone).

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Hi Answers in Genesis,

You see, most Christians are so weak today (unlike 100 years ago) they fall for this. You're not doing it on purpose, you're just naturally ignorant (I Cor 1:14).

I do not use the same means of argumentation as you. You are so pagan, even your argument stinks like Rosanne Bar.

The Bible is demonstrated axiomatically, remember. axioms need not be proved. However, a different definition of proof then you is a means of demonstration, NOT substantiation.

So while the consistent of the Bible is a demonstration of proof of it's integrity, it is not needed like in court. If the Bible says God made trees and fish, and we go out and see trees and fish, this is a proof of demonstration.

Your kind of proof ALWAYS results in the probability, which even  your kind admit is probable false or true. My means is absolutely true with no chance or no way of error.

My argument is valid, you do not like the soundness because you're a pagan.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 

 As a side note Jean, out of curiosity and since you claim logic your strong point, what's your take on T.A.G. and O.A.?

Hi KTULA,

While there proof regarding God and the Bible, it is NOT of the same kind of proof you are talking about. It's like you are from the planet nutty nuts, and I'm from earth. Totally different understanding. Mine is logical.

There are numerous examples of this. The logical understanding of faith in relation to believe as knowledge and understanding. Luke 16:27:31 demonstrates that if you don't believe Scripture, then there is nothing else that logically is true.

Empiricism or so called secular science is also refuted in Luke 16:31. Since he experienced "hell" (hades&quot he wanted to go tell people about it so they don't go there. But it didn't work. You will be in the same boat soon.

The verses again empiricism are numerous. The only Biblical means of knowing if via faith. Not the faith that has been distorted in wimpy Christianity, but faith via knowing since faith and knowing are interchangeable in the Bible.

If you wish to have a Bible lesson. Email me and I will have one with you KTULA. And we can go into this much further. There is a lot more on this subject and is a very interesting subject that very few touch on in today's wimpy Christianity.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

[email protected]

 

Fuck!!

There must be a god!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hell is here on earth listening to mindless fucking drones like you, making Jeebus sounds and claiming it's 'sophisticated reasoning'...

So Jean, you say that the "Holy" Babble is, and I quote,

so by that standard bats are birds (Lev. 11:13-19), rabbits chew cud (Lev. 11:5-6), if you go high enough on a tree you can see all of the world (Dan. 4:10-11), and there is a crystal dome over the earth that keeps the water on earth and the water in the sky separate (Gen. 1:6-8)? All those things are in your "Holy" Babble, so they must be true, right?

Sorry buddy, but that stuff is just plain stupid and are obviously the stories of uneducated people trying to make sense of the world they lived in. They had an excuse, but as someone living in a time where we have access to better information on what's actually going on, you have no excuse. So Jean, continue to dress up your ignorance in pretty poetic, philosophical language all you want, but know that you still look like a moron for trying to rationalize this stuff.

Oh, and your little passive-aggressive threats about us being tortured forever for not buying into your little myth don't do anything but tell us that you have no evidence to support your claims, and you need to rely on terror to coerce others into your cult. If you had any evidence to support these claims, you wouldn't need to act the part of the schoolyard bully with your "If you don't do what I say, I'm going to have my big brother hurt you" bullshit. But you do, which tells me that you have no intellectual legs to stand on, and simply rely on the tactic of trying to give your enemies nightmares so they join in lockstep with your mental dictatorship. It may work on children, as your fellow child indoctrinating co-coreligionists know so well, but it doesn't work on people with fully functional brains.

So please continue, since posting your little insane pieces on the net just gives us more ammo in our argument that religion destroys a persons ability to think, in your words, "properly".

I must keep missing the punchline with these threads...

I wonder if Jean gets any feeling at all at how his posts here are seen by us as self-refuting, in the sense of 'Reductio ad Absurdum', ie the absurd  things he says about atheism, science, even his complete misunderstandings of things like Mach's Principle, that seem to follow from his fundamental position, demonstrate that he is starting from a fallacy, or at least, a position completely orthogonal to well-established contemporary understanding.

He surely can't be persisting here with any hope of influencing our view-points, rather he confirms with every post the vacuous absurdity of his whole world-view.

He mocks empiricism and science, conveying his ideas to us by means of devices and infrastructure totally the product of the approach to knowledge he so confidently ridicules.

I do hope he gets as least as much amusement out of our responses as we get out of his.

 

If you cant prove anything absolutely then how did you post this garbage on this website. If it could be anything and not just a computer, then it could have been a cat or a pencil that you posted with and not a computer.

And "Christian epistemology" is meaningless gibberish. No different than if you said "Muslim epistemology" or "Jewish epistemology" or "Apollo epistemology".

Making something sound fancy doesn't make it true. Harry Potter is an elaborate book, but that doesn't mean little boys can fly around on brooms.

All you have is a naked assertion and a very bad one at that. I'll take a telescope or microscope over your book of myth any day of the week.

 

This sentence doesn't seem sound to me... You don't demonstrate something with assumptions (axioms are assumptions).
You can tell somebody: if you agree to my axioms and propositions, and my argument is sound, you have to agree with the conclusion.
Since we do not agree with your axiom that the Bible is true, we won't be persuaded by the argument. You'll have to find something outside of Scripture, which you can't, according to yourself.

Because neither option of this dichotomy (scripture-based arguments and non-scripture-based arguments) precedes progress, arguing with us is pointless.

You forgot the other possibility: if there's proof that contradicts the Bible, we have a paradox: the Bible is both true and false. Since false belongs to the group not-true, and true and not-true is a dichotomy, it can't be both.
If we, then, could find only one piece of evidence, either from the Bible, or from something the is described BY the Bible, which doesn't rhyme with the Bible, we know that Sola Scriptura is a false assumption (also called reductio ad absurdum).

I'll leave it to my fellow atheists to bring those pieces of evidence(I believe someone already did).

Then there's also the problem of the Scriptura being composed by humans. How can you know they picked the right texts?

Empiricism deals with probability, because you can ignore the chance of in not being true, if that chance is small enough, since the consequences are finite.

Except that your means rely on assumptions, which CAN be erroneous, and therefore your conclusion CAN be erroneous, too.

It only states that if you're not convinced by Moses and the prophets (sounds like a cool band name), you won't be convinced by the dead.
1. It's not talking about being true or false, just the power of convincing people. There are more believers than people that believe because of the Bible, so there seems to be a way to be reached by God without the use of Scripture.
2. It doesn't say anything about the New Testament, and a big part of the Old One. Yet you rely on the New One to prove it. Since we don't know the New One is true (I haven't seen a proper argument for it) I don't have to believe it, and therefore nor do I have to believe that Moses and the prophets are true.
3. Even if it was pointing to ALL of scripture, it would still be circular reasoning.

This is my first time arguing properly, so how do you guys think I did?