God may hate you!
Offline Hello,
Many wimpy Christians today tell people that God loves everybody. God is a flower child and puts tulips in guns. If you don't like God, He sits outside your door like a pussy cat, scrathing your door until you let Him in. Jesus has long hair like Fabio and may be a homosexural in San Francisco.
This is NOT the Biblical Jesus. If Jesus was wanting to come in your door, He'd kick it down.
God does not love everybody. He hated Esau (Romans 9:13). John 3:16 is not about the whole planet world, but only His elect in the world.
So you filthy no good immoral atheists are actually possibly hated by God. You think you hate Him? His hate is a righteous hate. And He will throw you in flames forever. You will be tortured soon enough.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
God Loves Me, but He may Hate You!
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
The more 'simplistic' the argument, the more difficult it is for guys like 'Jean' to make a valid case. Personally, I don't need religious belief. I detest 'organised' religion, which is often run by self-serving, arrogant, narrow-minded bigots, but I have no problem with individuals having religious beliefs provided that they don't try to ram it down my throat. What people choose to do in their own homes, etc etc. Gay sex, a love of Lady ga ga's music, whatever. Each to their own. Live and let live. People like 'Jean' were responsible for the slaughter of millions throughout history (yep, I know that atheists have committed atoricities in the past, too).
What people like 'Jean' apparently fail to see is that there are far more powerful forces than 'Christianity' at work in the world that threaten the existence of the human race. Whether or not someone indulges in gay sex, commits adultery or worships some other 'god' is insignificant when set against the need to own the natural resources of the world. I suppose that 'Jean' would applaud the practice of amputation for thieves in Saudi Arabia, or the decapitation of adulterous women in the same country. The current problems in Libya and the Middle East are. of course, down to the prevalence of wicked Islamists, and has nothing to do with the fact that 'there's oil in them there hills'?
Religion gave way to nationalism after the Enlighenment. Churches and cathedrals gave way to triumphal arches celebrating the cult of Emperors and leaders. Nationalism became the new 'religion', after science, the printing press and progress in education had basically debunked religion. Now, instead of being threatend by the wrath of 'god', people were glued together by the 'notion' of nationality. Nationalism is as crap an idea as a belief in a God, but hey ho, it'll do until something else comes along. The idea that a German is superior to a Frenchman is as stupid as a belief in the superiority of a Christian over a Jew. Complete and absolute bollocks.
You know that really rubbish film based on the rubbish Dan Brown book, the Da Vinci Code, with that guy in it (played by Paul Bettany) who likes to whip himself every now and then? That's who 'Jean;' reminds me of. Poor sod can't have any skin left on his back, by now. Illuminatti, indeed. Delusionatti, more like.
Most all Christians are wimps when the rubber meets the road. It takes no bravery to proclaim that you're a Calvinist. So what ? What does it cost you to simply state your belief on an atheist forum? Where's the bravery in that ?
The only Christian theists that I can admire were the "cult" referred to as the Branch Davidians. They may have been wacko but when they were attacked by armed agents of the Federal Government they shot the shit out of them and sent four BATF agents to the morgue ....on live TV. They stood their ground in the face of an overwhelming attack on their compound. They held out for 51 days until they were "rescued" by agents of the FBI who allowed the compound to burn ( with every one in it ) and who refused to allow fire trucks to get close enough to douse the flames.
Even as an atheist I admire them for answering force with force. You are a wimp by comparison.
Hello,
To say a guy or a girl or a community (you admit you don't know) invent God to control the masses is an assertion. Ocham's Razor is regarding logical solutions from logical problems, not guess' or hunches (LOL).
Thus, I deny this is the case. I do not believe God was invented by a person to control the masses. Since I take the negation, and you take the affirmative, then you have the burden of proof.
Now it is up to you to show me who invented God. What it a girl/boy/community/monkey/or your uncle. You must do this with logical argumetn via history and analysis.
If you do not back up your claims, or whine (no no no, you have the burden), then your irrationality will stink worse then Hillaray Clinton's under wear.
The laws of the court say, that if an assertion is made, the one that affirms the assertion has the burden, the one that negates it does not. Do you know why they say that? Ask me if you wish to know.
So you have a lot of work to do. I want names, dates, and specifics.
Now, since you asserted this, you ought to have this on the forefront of your mind regarding specifics. If you do not, than your adhominem is me, handing your kicked ass back to you for repair.
(LOL).
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).
Ockham's Razor is applied when you don't have a clear, unique, logical solution to a problem.
It applies when you have a number of equally plausible and possible solutions, as a basis to select the one to tentatively adopt until more information is available.
It definitely can apply to hypotheses based on guesses or hunches, as long as they are consistent with the evidence, ie possible solutions/explanations.
Logic alone cannot provide conclusive explanations if we have insufficient or uncertain evidence to apply the logical analysis to.
======
I know Jean will dispute this, I am addressing it to those who might be tempted to take Jean seriously as some sort of authority on this stuff.
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
You fucking moron, you have Jesus on the brain, like crabs on a pussy.
You were not around when the Reg Vedas were written. Yet you don't believe in their polytheistic gods.
Ocham's razor is NOT dependent on Christianity OR ANY FUCKING RELIGION OR GOD.
It simply states out of many given postulations to solve a problem the one with the least baggage is the most likely answer.
It is why when your car wont start you DONT take the engine apart as a default.
If I want to fix my car do I
1. Pray to a pixy for it to magically make it start?
Or
2. Check the battery cables. Then check the battery level if it is not the battery. Then if it is not the cable or the battery, then the starter.
Here is what you are doing like all other believers of all other god claims.
Everything is so complicated so therefore a magical disembodied being must have done all this. YOUR PET GOD CLAIM IS NOT SPECIAL! Everyone who believes in a deity does the same shit.
The solution is as simple as KISS, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!
You don't default to needless baggage first. You start with what is least complicated.
Your god claim does not explain shit. It is, and has always been a naked assertion like all the other god claims of the past of every fucking religion.
There is NO baggage to the simple statement that is provable that people are capable of believing false things. Which is why you reject all other pet gods besides your own. You are simply too fucking dense to apply that same logic to your own claims.
Somehow YOU personally got it right while the rest of the world got it wrong. So what, big woopdie shit. Claims are like assholes, everyone has one.
What you have not done with Ocham's Razor is apply it to your own claims. You have hijacked it and twisted it to suit your own agenda because really using it would frighten you.
"Everything leads to Jesus"
No, everything you want to believe leads you to your own conclusions.
You have no clue what logic is, and your dick couldn't find logic if it were a pussy an inch away.
How does it feel to be property Fido?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hi Bob,
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).
NO,
We know that humans go around claiming all sorts of gods. Those claims, including yours are not AXIOMS, they are naked assertions, INCLUDING YOURS.
We have absolutely no evidence that an invisible brain with no brain and no location with magical super powers exists, BY ANY NAME, not just your pet god claim.
Funny out of 7 billion lucky you got it right. What a bunch of bullshit.
Can we use the space between your ears for a wind tunnel. I think that would be the only practical thing it could be used for. You certainly aren't using it for anything.
How does it feel to be property Fido?
"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
Jean, you still haven't got it quite right.
Empiricism can not only "get off the ground" it has got us into space.
God is just a subjective feeling.
Ockam's Razor is definitely not about which of two or more proposed solutions is 'right' - it is about which is best to 'run with'. The one which makes fewer poorly supported assumptions, which introduces fewer new entities, is going to be simpler to work with in future. To that extent your use of 'easy' is applicable.
Keep trying.
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
'Jean', your reference to Hilary's underwear betrays your pathetic attempt at arguing your case. Indeed, thet very thought of Hilarys underwear will forever condemn your argument as a footnote in the annals of history as 'The ex-President's wife's Underwear debate'. Sad, eh?
Anyone with half a brain, after studying the history of the human race, can deduce that religion was, and still is, used as a force to control people. Before the printing press, the poor uneducated masses were forced to believe what the 'priests' told them was in the sciptures. It was the 'gospel'! Kings used the 'word of god' to enforce their positions - so you had the ridiculous notion of the divine right of Kings, the stupid idea that the King Of England, for example, was 'annointed' by God. The 'people' believed' this, because the 'Church' said it was so. Don't forget, 'Jean', most people were uneducated, they couldn't read, and even if they could understand basic written anglo-saxon words, they certainly couldn't read bloody Latin, which is the language the scriptures were written by monks centuries ago. Along came the reformation. Luther. 'Calvin' (you? hah!). Luther translated the bible into German, printing presses meant that that bible could be translated into other languages, which meant that the scriptures could be read by more people, who then didn't need the bloody daft monk with the stupid haircut to translate it for them. Silly religious twits with more time on their hands than was good for them were divided in their opinions over how to interpret the bible (such a shame that the television hadn't been invented, but there you go) and this led, in Europe, to a war between Protestants and Catholics, trinitarians against unitarians, everyone against the Jews, and so on. Even by then, it reads like a horror story. People could be declared as a 'heretic by dickheads like Calvin and be burned at the stake for their views. In England, in 17th century, you could have twats like the 'Witchfinder General' travelling around England having people burned at the stake for heresy and 'witchcraft'. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Actually, perhaps, 'Jean'you would like to see the return of the occasional public burning at the stake? Of course, all of this was based on pure ignorance. There will always be the odd bloke willing to torture and burn someone to death, but I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of pigshit that such a man was a pyschopath who volunteered for the job. Only a complete idiot/lunatic would want to be party to such a thing.
Are we getting anywhere, here 'Jean'?
Eventually, after Newton etc etc, the Enlightenment, the free availbililty of access to the scriptures, the fact that people, were no longer prepared to be subject to such a ridiculous notion as that which condemned them to a life of misery just because their 'betters' told them that that was how things are meant to be, we arrive at democracy, via the English Civil War (bollocks to the divine right of Kings, off with his head), The American war of Independence and the French Revolution. The power of the 'church', or 'organised religions, had begun to wane. The leaders of the various states recognised that the church's power was waining, and the notion of 'nationalism' took its place. Yes, 'Jean', it''s that terrible, horrifying period where people start to think for themselves! Isn't it awful. Just imagine! People actually think that they are able to better themselves, think for themselves, without having some self-serving, bigoted twat telling them how to live their lives!
'Jean'. before you reply, study some history please. It will serve you well, rather than falling back on some bollocks philosophical logic approach that even ties yourself up in knots! History will show you that, at least in the 'western world', 'man' has progressed from being a subservient, forlock tugging slave into a human being that, on the whole, cares about other people. You appear to want to return to a time when 'the masses' were subjugated by a class that claimed to have 'all the answers' When , in fact, they only claimed that they had all the answers so they could maintain the status quo. The 'ruling classes' will always use whatever power they have at their disposal to maintain the staus quo. Why do you think the Taleban is so powerful in that medieval country called Afghanistan? Could it possibly be that the people, largely uneducated and still belieivng in all that religious mumbo-jumbo, believe what they are told by the religious zealots? Hmmmm. Possibly, don't you think. I'm afraid, old chap, that stoning gays and people who eat shell fish is, thankfully, so last millenium.
Hi Bob,
You will never admit when I got you and you're wrong. You are like a batting cage. The bat whips my mother in law, and you say, oh, it was the bats fault.
Yes, 2 potential solutions to a given problem. The issue is regarding which solutions is typically correct. We are NOW saying the same thing.
Regarding empiricism getting us off the ground. Give it another shot. You have now learned the categories of epistmology, and this time you should have learned NOT to confuse them.
I argue that it was not empiricism that got us into space, but Chrisitan reasoning under the auspices of empiricism as a means of fooling the masses like yourself.
The reason why, is empiricism would have not gotten us to space, but to the grave.
Hey Brian,
The other religions are wrong because they contradict themselves both in their normatives and in their normative messengers.
For example, the older has more authority then the younger. So via logic, we ought to based the Koran on the Bible. But they don't. And we see things like this happen.
The first Muslim was Muhammad? Abraham? Jacob? Moses?
39:12
7:143
2:132
Chrisitanity is the fulfillment of consistent judaism. The "Jews" today are not really Jews (see the book, the 13th tribe).
So, all other religiions contradict.
The Bible is the only book that does not contradict (in the original autographs).
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
Jean,
"Christian Reasoning" is an oxymoron, with the emphasis on 'moron'.
You have unequivocably proved this, by example, in your time 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
Hi Bob,
Of course it is, but secular attempts at probable data with absolute no ration of error of the data is reason. wow, good one.
So I take it you're not going to show me the validity of empiricism getting off the ground, are you? Remember, empiricism is a means of the philospohy of knowledge.
I understand if you are a chicken.
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).
ROFL
, Kap sometimes I love you even if god doesn't
I mean, I have to 'prove ' that god exists? Why? I've just told you, man invented god, in order to 'create' order. There is no other reason for it. The 'morality' of your god is just an adjunct, a load of bollocks so that perverts can get off on torturing people. 'He stole my apple'! Okay, Let's cut his hand off. Which hand did he use? Ah, nevermind, most people are right-handed, that'll do". Tell you what. He wont steal an apple again. Well, not with his right hand anyway". Oh, your lot had such fun, didn't they, back in the day? Good burning here, followed by a heresy trial there and a hanging over there. Maybe a little bit of decapitation and disembowlment thrown in for good measure. I hate to see what magazines you kept beneath your bed when you were a teenager. Bet it wasn't Playboy. Perhaps something by Luther, on how to treat the jews?
The very notion that there is a moral force at work is at best ridiculous, and at worst, disgusting. You remind me of that Doctor at Auschwitz, deciding which Jews were fit for work as they arrived at the camp by train. Is that how your god behaves? Disgusting. Immoral. What a complete bastard! Is that what is meant by 'god creating man in his own image'? Maybe he was thinking of Hitler?
I really don't care if god exists or not. Well, not your god, anyway. I don't have to prove anything, 'Jean', just you go away now like a good chap and read up on some history. You will, I assure you, come to the conclusion, that organised religion was just a means to an end. That's all it was. CASE CLOSED.
Er, you don't have a response then 'Jean'? Please don't use valuable time cutting and a pasting from wiki too display your ignorance of basic historical fact! Yawn.............
What the hell is a 'secular attempt at probable data with absolute no ration of error of the data?'
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
that 'Jean' has finally lost his marbles, that he is trying (oh so very trying) to talk sense when in fact he is talking bollocks.
Put it another way - he thinks he's clever, when he is actually morally and intellectually bankrupt.
You'd make a great bureaucrat at the Ministry of Truth.
How does it feel to be property Fido?
"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
False.
An individual is under no obligation to justify their beliefs.
False.
One has the liberty to believe what it is they want, and to express their beliefs, without any obligation to justify their beliefs.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Hi,
ROFL. This is hilarous. You make up a statement from who knows where, your anas, and then, via logic, you can't back it up. WOW. You atheists ought to be on HBO, you're the real comedy.
Now look, since you failed so miserably, hopefully this will be a lesson for you. Not everything you hear is true. (LOL).
And yes, Redead, you do have to justify you beliefs if it is an ATTEMPT at argument. But to be honest, I can understand your position, since you can't justify your "beliefs" in absurdity, you would not want to be held accountable to justifying them.
You guys are hilarious.
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).
Well, duhhh...
It's not difficult.
You clowns assert you have knowledge of how reality works, and then extend that to lecture everyone else on the absolute 'correct' way they should 'conduct' their individual lives.
What part did I get wrong?
And the part that you people have a hypocritical double standard are, that I don't HAVE to justify my beliefs that you fucking people are pure fucking evil.
I can just ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT, ASSERT whatever fantasy I want, and use it as a basis to ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK anyone's character, I so choose.
Because it is what I 'believe' is 'true'.
Just like you fucking people.
So fuck all of you, for eternity, you fucking scum.
I think if you have to suffer the most terrible pain imaginable, for as long as imaginable, it's because of things you did, or ideas you held dear, and because I believe that's your subconscious punishing you for being 'wicked' and 'despicable'.
You got a problem with that?
You got a problem with a 'group' of people who believe the same??
T O O F U C K I N G B A D
It's what 'we' believe.
We don't need proof.
What's good for the goose, is good for the gander, motherfuckers!
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
That is pretty close to the way I see it.
Getting any more 'philosophical' about it is quite superfluous.
In that context, there is nothing to 'prove'. The success of the scientific method is all around you. We are using its fruits to communicate.
WTF do you think needs to be 'proved' here?
I freely acknowledge we can' t know 100% that we aren't, for example, 'in the Matrix', but so what?
As long as working from the assumption that the results of Science describe something that matches our experience as closely as it seems to, as it has for a century or two so far, I am prepared to stick with it.
All you have presented so far are some claims - no actual logical arguments so far - based on 'proof' that the content of the Bible is 'true' based on your interpretation of a particular phrase or two within it.
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
I made that bit up earlier on. About the man and the book. Couldn't you see that? I thought it was obvious! Because that's actually what you are doing. Basing your entire argument on a supposed 'holy bible' that you cannot prove is 'the word of god'. (no, wait 'Jean', before you choose which part of my post to respond to, please read on....)
Mind you, I should also tell you that I have also heard of a book written in code that not many others are able to decipher yet, and it really does purport to reveal the entire truth. About everything. Think you should wait for the 'Made Simple' edition!
See what I did there, 'Jean'. You're even more stupid than I thought.
Now, back to everything else I mentioned, history, which you totally chose to ignore, for the reason that....? Well, it's obvous. You can't respond but you simply don't know if I'm right. Your knowledge of history is rubbish (perhaps you are now scrabbling through some history books, wherein you will find that the influence of religion is directly related to 'man's' need for it. When it is no longer needed (er, because the majority of people aren't stupid enough to believe it anymore), it becomes irrelevant.
I have no use for religion whatsoever (other than watching Life Of Brian from time to time). Nor do I need to argue with you on any level other than on historical fact. Spouting verses from the bible as if it's 'the truth' will get you nowhere in here, 'Jean'. In fact, it's rather laughable. (Cue 'Jean' ignoring everything else and coming back with a load of total religious bollocks...but hey ho, give a dog a bone and all that). Your need for me to start listing dates and people etc proves to me that you have no historical knowledge at all. There are plenty of books out there that will 'help you'. I did outline above a very brief synopsis, feel free to respond.
In the meantime, you just keep leaning on that crutch and sucking that dummy, eh! I think I know why you're here. Attention. Insecurity. Plain and simple. No one outside of a website like this would even consider engaging in a discussion with you, because, putting it bluntly, you're a complete idiot. So, are we going to talk history then, or are you going to come back with all that mumbo-jumbo bollocks? By the way, is this a 5 minute argument or the full half-hour? I'm good to go on this one for a long while yet, until I get some responses from you that actually relate to my statements. You coming back to me all the time suggesting that you wont respond because of this that or the other is merely, I suspect, 'trolling'. So either respond properly, or piss off.
Hi Drob,
Okay, so since I kicked you in your balls, you are now trying to dig with that shuffle via humor. Good one. And Bob, getting my definitions from wiki is not the most scholarly way to go (LOL). Come on Bob, this is absurd.
But just for fun, I looked up wiki too (this is retarded). You missed tons of stuff and just quoted what you wanted:
Don't know how to unblue the text.
Anyway Bob, since you're a wiki guy (LOL), then via this above, you now have to admit (if you're honest), that are early talks on this subject, that you indeed make a classificational fallacy by equating logic or Reason (capital R) with empiricism. (i.e. I think therefore I am).
Come on, be honest Bob. Empiricism as I have been saying is of a different category of Rationalism (captial R). Come on Bob. Wiki is on my side.
Logic, mathematics, deduction, are NOT empirical. Your quote even said it wasn't a priori. Yet you argumed via a priori many times.
oy vey.
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).
Ahem....who's absurd, exactly?
That's funny, 'cause we do the same with holy babbles.
Fuck, you people do that all the fricken' time, too. Imagine that?
Bet you can't find your ass with a mirror and a flashlight, either... unless the 'path' to it was written in your holy babble...
No.
Nothing any of us have been saying about empiricism is incompatible with what's written in Wiki.
You think so??
Prove it.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
But Fido's god isn't like our moral secular government that has a Constitution that gives us the liberty to believe what we want. Fido's god treats him and us like property and if we don't kiss this god's ass we get beaten and tortured forever. But if we are good puppies he pets us and we follow him around forever like a dog on a leash.
However, since Fido here has Jesus on the brain, he doesn't want to accept that although our human empathy allows us to believe what we want, empiricism doesn't allow us to make up our own facts.
Fido is under no legal obligation to justify his cosmic owner who treats him like property. But empirically AND morally I personally would not let my brains fall out like Fido has. Luckily even if I bought some other superstition I would still not be under any legal obligation to kiss his fictional cosmic dictator's ass.
He is just a whiny little brat who cannot understand that his logic sucks and no one in reality is obligated to buy his bullshit.
"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
Well, what the funniest part is, is that out one side of their mouths, these people will say that their 'experience' is all the justification they need to believe what is 'true', yet, castigate others who's 'experience' come to different conclusions.
It's quite insane, how they feel it's incumbent upon us to justify our experiences/perceptions, for their approval, when they're the ones whose 'experiences' are contingent on something that's not there...
Jean Jean is the pinnacle of insanity, when he feels that individuals don't have the right to use words and narratives in whatever way they choose, and that he arbitrarily appoints himself in a position of authority, because he argues for and from authority, and not from evidence of reality.
This guy can't even get along with his own kind, FFS...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
I don't get along with all atheists just because they hold the same label. But yea, I do find it funny when he points to other religions or other people claiming to be christian and says "Yea, that belief is funny and absurd" not wanting to face the reality that he too believes in an invisible boogie man with a magic wand.
Labels only are a short cut to describe a core, not the complexity of a given individual. Beyond and I go at it over economics all the time at this site, but economic differences don't change the fact that both of us hold the same position on the existence of a god.
I warn even atheists not to lump each other together. I know laymen atheists who do nothing to understand why they don't believe and to me I call them, easy pickings for slick oil salesmen. But they are still atheists. I know of or know personally, atheists of every class and every political party and education status.
Humans are in reality all individuals even if we form groups. I think humanity would do far better realizing this.
"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
<sign> I really wonder, Jean, why do I bother keep trying to straighten you out, your misconceptions go so deep...
Ok, I saw all that other stuff, but it mostly irrelevant since it is more addressing the 'philosophical' aspects, which like 99% of philosophy, is just verbal wanking.
IOW, I just quoted the stuff about that aspect, that application of a version of 'empiricism' that is relevant to the acquisition of 'real' knowledge, as distinct from the codified ignorance represented by documents such as the Bible.
Now to the serious stuff.
I did not equate logic or reason to empiricism, that would be a massive set of category errors.
Empiricism, as with any other approach to gaining knowledge (your approach excepted), uses logic and reason. Reason itself employs logic.
I have never claimed that logic and math are empirical, I know they are both deductive,
This is why Logic, in particular, cannot lead to knowledge about what actually is the state and nature of Reality.
Logic is a vital tool to help us avoid various fallacies, to keep our discourse on track and coherent ( you should try it sometime, Jean ).
It is also the foundation of Math, which is also a vital tool to analyse the data we gain via our senses, augmented by our instruments.
Wherever we find patterns that match to a useful degree some aspect of Math, some established formula, we can analyse that with the help of that formula.
I have really, grossly, 'dumbed-down' this account, simplifying it, in the fond hope you may glimpse thru the fog of your pre-suppositions and delusions, some glimmer of how modern knowledge has been developed, and continues to progress, so that we can have, among other things, ever more efficient and convenient ways to experience the 'pleasure' of exchanging insults across the world with dipshits like you, Jean.
That's more than enough for now.
EDIT: I "Unblued" the text for you Jean. I do it by pasting stuff with extra formatting in it, like that, into a plain text editor first, then Select All and Copy it out again before pasting it in 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
It's always been excruciatingly more than necessary.
Bottom line is, that any 'words' 'symbols' and 'narratives', are tautologies, as far as 'reality' is concerned (sic).
Reality is not contingent on us. It did fine before we came along.
It's really intriguing how much struggle these people have, just having the opportunity to live. It's quite insane.
Imagine being stuck on a deserted island with one of these fucktards, wanting to argue about every fucking little thing?
I can't even imagine what it's like to be in their skin, let alone their minds...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Er, when have you kicked me in the balls, Jean? Your total refusal to answer anything I've put to you is very telling. You obviously have absolute zero historical knowledge, therefore you refuse to answer. I 'hand back your ass for repair', as you would put it.
I didn't resort to humour at all. I merely started my post with a statement that said that I know the truth because I read it in a book, and someone else confirmed it to me. This is the entire basis of your ridiculous argument. There's a book...and then we have the dickheads who believe it and are 'self-appointed' / 'annointed' espousers of the garbage written in the book. Are you telling me that you were born like this, 'Jean'? Er. no you weren't. You have been programmed.
Tell me 'Jean', do you believe everything that is written in the bible? Everything? Tell me, if any, which bits you don't believe!
Now - answer / respond to everything - not the bits you think (being generous, here) you have an 'answer' to, but everything, otherwise piss off.
Keep sucking the dummy.
Show me just one person who has ever learned mathematics and logic some other way than by empirical means, and I might believe you...
As far as I know, no person I've ever met has ever learned mathematics any other way. I learned math by practicing it over and over. Likewise, if math was entirely a priori, I'd be out of job, because I wouldn't be teaching it to people.
So it appears that your statement about logic and deduction is empirically denied! The evidence suggests that it is empirical.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
reveal some innate knowledge you have that you did not learn from your brain's interaction with sense data on planet earth.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
'Innate' ideas cannot count as knowledge until they have been empirically verified as actually applicable to reality.
Jean's ideas manifestly fail in that respect.
You cannot distinguish between 'true' intuitions and brain farts without reference to something outside your own mind, anymore than you can 'prove' the validity of logic itself purely through logic.
Basic Logic is empirically justified since its founding assumptions (LoI and LnC) and methodology seem about as basic as we can get, and it appears to 'work' as a foundation for reasoning.
But it is purely deductive beyond those arguably empirical Laws. Which means it cannot establish anything beyond those laws, by itself, since any purely deductive argument only generates tautologies, that are already implicit in the axioms.
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
Hi Bob,
When I first came on here, you and I had very long discussions. You mixed the categories up. Is there a way to search on here so I can look up our past talks?
Empiricism IS a philosophical claim towards knowledge. Knowledge or the attempt to know is 100% philosophy. When a scientists gets a Ph.D in biology for example, that means he's mastered the subject via its philosophy (Doctorate in Philosophy).
Mathematics is apriori that a 2 is a 2. Empiricism doesn't know what a 2 is since it cannot relate a 2 with sense perception.
You quoted yourself when we first spoke that empiricism is logical because I think therefore I am. For you not to admit your error means you have a very poor memory, or you are proud.
Tell me how to search and I will pull up your past blunder.
And the guy that's new, if you have a question, shoot, and I will try to answer.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
You believe in a fictional invisible magical super brain with no material and no location with magical super powers. You are NOT making a new or even special claim by slapping your pet label onto it. We don't give a shit if you call it "Image of pink unicorns", it is still bullshit.
You have as much logic in your head as the lint in my pocket.
Humans make up fictional super heros and always have, you are not special and your claim is not special.
You have nothing.
How does it feel to be property Fido?
"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
While you were busy ignoring my other points.
Anyway, is there any part of the Bible that you don't believe, 'Jean'?
Empiricism as practised in Science, is an approach to gathering knowledge, which has proven its effectiveness via its results, within the self-checking regime of the scientific method. Any other associations, historical or otherwise, are irrelevant to this fact, except as historical background.
It is not so much a 'claim' to knowledge, it is demonstrably a source of knowledge. The onus is on people like you to discredit it. By Reductio Ad Absurdum, the absurd nonsense you spout shows the invalidity of your assumptions.
"2 + 2 = 4" is a tautology, implicit in the definitions of each term.
Empirical study, and every other coherent discourse, employs logic, just as it employs language. (How many times have I told you that, by now? ). Therefore empirical practice incorporates and utilises the definitions of logical entities and theorems.
The quantities of collections of perceived entities are part of sense perception. Several other species have been shown to be able to directly perceive small numerical quantities. The concept of '2' can be described explicitly in terms of sensory perception. Once that is understood, other quantities can be counted via systematic actions and logical analysis of sensory data.
As I said before, the only basic a priori truth we can really take as such is 'cogito ergo sum'. The Laws of Logic have to be justified to some extent empirically, by observation of the universe, which is also ultimately where even our intuitions originate, via evolution. So in reality, there is no 'true' a prior' knowledge apart from the mere observation that we exist. Denial of CES would imply a contradiction.
In principle, if someone could somehow demonstrate that an alternative to the Laws of Logic allowed more successful handling of life and dealing with the Universe, we would be obliged to adopt them.
Again, I don't expect anything but the usual illogical crap from you, I say all this for others benefit, and welcome their comments, and even criticisms. Your comments just help me to identify common fallacies and misunderstandings to be addressed.
With much disrespect (to Jean),
Bob S.
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
You've all that got that backwards, of course, because of taking things for granted.
If humans were a species of 'brains', without eyes, and ears, and senses of smell, touch, taste, we would not be 'philosophical'.
Such a human would not even be aware that it was born, or that it would die. It would not be aware that there was anything but itself (a).
Our brains are 'processors' and 'storage mediums', which require 'inputs'. The 'inputs' are derived from 'sensors'.
Our 'sensors' record (sample) 'empirical' data, where it's converted to electrical impulses, and converted into a digital code.
We do not experience anything in real time, and the input stream is not an analog wave. It is digital, and there is a tremendous amount of sampling error, filtering, latency, aliasing, truncation and non linearities during the entire 'sampling' process.
We are machines. Very poorly functioning machines.
We do not interface well with other machines of the same type, at all.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Sure, the parts we rightfully show the contradictions of. The scientific absurdity in it. The moral bankruptcy in it.
Remember, Jesus is an ass kicker and we are merely daddy's property to beat the shit out of for mere crime of not kissing his ass.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Hi Drob,
You question is weak. Well, I don't believe that we can ontologically become gods, as the serpent said in Genesis 3:5. But if you mean do I believe the Bible is errant. No. The Bible is inerrant and inspired.
Bob, you're goofy. Go back and review our earlier discussions, You're Wrong.
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).
Didn't you say somewhere else that not everything in the Bible is true?
Thanks for confirming yet again that you have no idea of how 'knowledge' works, in the real world of real knowledge gleaned from the study of reality.
It is not 'certain' knowledge, but has infinitely more justification and utility that your version.
To regard the Bible as inerrant, as a source of knowledge in any sense, is just further that you have no fucking idea, or are just the Poe most of us suspect.
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
...that my question isn't weak at all. I simply want to know which parts of the Bible you disagree with. That is all. Are there areas with which you disagree? If the bible is the word of god, then you cannot disagree with it. You cannot choose to agree with certain bits and disagree with other bits, if it is the 'word of god', unless you are going to tell me that some unholy 'editor' got involved and confused the issue.
So, you have already said that you don't agree with a certain passage. So, therefore, it cannot be the word of god, as you chose not to agree with it?
Blimey, you haven't thought this through, have you? No wonder you're confused.
Keep sucking on that dummy, 'Jean'.
...that as you appear to have started with Genesis (good place to start, I agree), there could possibly be lots more in the bible that you don't agree with? I mean, there are a lot of 'chapters and verses' to go before we reach the end, right? Or is that little bit you quoted previously the only bit? I seriously doubt it. Over to you!
Not necessarily. A PhD is not a mastery via a philosophy, but of a philosophy, and in the case you mentioned biological science.
So why is it that every child has to learn to count?
That, and I see a rock then I see it laying next to another rock. I see they are not the same rock but similar. They are the same sort of thing, so I assert that I have many of a type, and I assign it a specific cardinality, calling it "2"... I just related "2" with sense perception.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
The word "philosophy" in "Ph.D" is not a specific reference to the discipline of Philosophy, it has become a standard label for a higher-order degree.
Just as my degree of "Bachelor of Engineering" does not refer to my marital status.
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
You still haven't answered my question! What other parts of the bible do you not believe in, or accept?
Dave
Hi Droby
Now just as I concurred, you have once again taken me out of context. The fact that there aer things in the Bible that are not true, does not mean the Bible is errant.
The bible wrote down history. The truth of this history is inspired. But the specific incidents are not always true.
And thus there are recordings in the Bible of people lying.
Like Job's 3 friends, were wrong.
I even gave a disclaimer about the foam and the mouth.
However, via the accuracy of it's portrayer, the Word of God is 100% inerrant.
Practice taking people in context.
Regarding the Ph.D, this means that you have mastered the subject via its method. Your understanding of this Bob is not regarding your BA, but your BS.
And you cuss? I had no idea an atheist would cuss. I thought atheists were so kind and moral. (LOL).
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).