What fresh hell is this ??

Here's my complaint. They profess relativity like you confirmed in teh hypothetical, but then in the practical, when your kid loocks up and asks why you love her., you give her abstract reasons. An atheist cannot get it straight.

We both taste the same apple. But which worldview best corresponds to what is really happening? Since atheism is relaivistic like you say, then you could be eating an apple or the but of an elephant. They both taste like apples, but maybe elephant but tastes like apple.

Regarding seeng the apple. Well, i've already refuted empiricism. Since time and space being non empirical elements to the problem this means empiricism falis and you don't know what you're doing.

And finally, since everything is in the subjective, and there is no objective uiniversal for apple. Then it is only your opinion it's an apple. If it's an apple to you then it's an apple to you, if it's an apple to me it's an apple to me lol.

Atheism has problems. Just like Pre George Smith Days. So you have to come up with a new denomination to fix this like they did with weak atheism.

Thus since the reality of love has nothing to tie itself to via knowledge of universals, then love is unknown. Thus you don't know if you love your child or not. Since feeligs are non logicaly.

So when you ask yours kids, do you love me dad, if you're being honest, you're not sure.Perhaps throwing your kids out the window is your own personal kind of love. Or throwing off a building, Or even puching them. It's all relative. there are no objective absolutes. So if you punch your kid in the face and get that squirty feeling, then that's atheistic love.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Welcome back Jean. What happened, did you get tired of wacking off over Lott and his daughters?

 

Hi,

You guys. I almost have a tear in my eye? Oh wait, that's just dust. So nobody can answer my question? How convenient. Yes, hate is consistent for atheism, since all atheists are extremely evil to the core, and since atheism philospohically speaking is a form of anarchy and communism (anarchry for it's leaders), thenlogically atheistm is a hate crim.

atheism is a hate crims. They would kill with smiles and are nutty nuts. The only thing holding them from the brink of crazy glue is the Christian influence i bring to the table.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Jean are you a poe? Common you can tell me...your not really this bonkers right?

The "Love" in Christianity is the 'love' of the abusing husband to his wife.

Christianity provides no proper basis for love or morality, it just demands you obey the commands of the evil being known as God, and suck up to him.

God is a wildly inconsistent concept, a definer and ultimate source of Love and Goodness who creates a world full of things that afflict us, and is purported to have had temper tantrums and drowned the world, or sent more localized disasters on whole cities or nations who pissed him off.

OTOH, real love and morality are based on our evolved empathy and drive toward cooperation as a social species.

Unfortunately, evolution has also wired into us an instinct to follow the 'alpha male', which is obviously what helps inspire the urge to follow the imagined ultimate 'alpha male', ie God. This does have a purpose when the group finds itself stressed, and must act in a more coordinated way, and especially if in conflict for resources with another group, but can be manipulated by those with a desire to exert power over the rest of us.

If the group is inclined to follow one of these mythical hyper-alpha-male figures, that can be exploited to manipulate the followers. Just as with other authoritarian, absolutist system, such as those fostered by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot. Even today, there are those in parts of Russia who miss "Uncle Joe", seen as a powerful father figure who took care of them, not unlike a God.

The balance of these impulses drives much of our behaviour, and things can go seriously wrong when either is triggered inappropriately for the circumstances.

 

 

Ok - so what was love again - apart from an arbitrary label applied by those without knowledge of neurology. 

The divorce rate is the inconsistent means of Christainity. This is due to you atheist liberals taking a bite right in the ass of the Christian Church. WIth your homosexual freak out nutty nuts. So as a  result, intelligence has gone down. That's why most Christians you encounter don't know what they'r talkking about.

And as a result of the impotency of knowledge comes ethics. in 1841 the divorce rate among Christians was very low. Because the poisonous bite of liberal anarcy had yet inserted their venom.

Regarding the post of "Get your hands behind your head and on the ground, NOW!!!" um, is that the best you can do?
 

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

 But they must be of TRUE Scottish origin!   I find arguments with Jean useful for two reasons.  Once in a while he throws a logic curveball that I haven't considered, and secondly, it gives us a good opportunity to point out the absurdity of claims that epitomize Christianity.  That, and he's funny at times.

 

Neither can you.


I don't understand, even if it is like that, what are you trying to show?


Because that would be nonsense. Darwin has been quoted: evolution demonstrated thousand of years of philosophy and theology false.
And that includes universals.

You have not shown to know sufficiently what love and religion are. Religion is so empty of evidence that it's merely a cultural knowledge. Not so many decades ago christians retained right to beat their children, and I knew one that was effectively beaten -- I heard him.
And again it's like you are saying that someone that is not christian can only be a robot. You should start to think about the fact that, instead, explaining the world with a religion poses more questions that it answer them.

 Just tell me why you're posting this here?  You're not contributing to the boards and you certainly don't seem to be trying to spark a conversation of any relevance to the boards.      Although,  Query. How many different "faiths" (plural) allow and affirm the institution of marriage between a man and a woman?  I only wish we could get the Michelle and Bob Duggar's perspective.

  Throughout this thread, Interestingly, What your (Jean Chauvin) comments tell us is that Jean Chauvin is unable to make clear distinctions between various groups  or better categories.  This frankly is not what I would  expect from Jean. Open  it up a little bit  because I, all of a sudden, do not get you man. Anyone care to explain this observation of mine ?  Have I stumbled upon something ?  

 _ _ _ _ _

 .....  depeche mode depeche mode depeche mode.  Other  eighties music. God please dont allow that (please)

 

 

 

 

 

Come on guys, you are being too harsh on Jean. He's only defending a god who condones genocide as a conflict/resolution formula. Not just the flood of the bible, but hey, why not unleash a tsunami on Japan which has virtually  no crime rate to speak of, and a highly educated population.

I wonder if Jean hangs out with Dave Mabus?

lol, so some atheist says you can't define universals and actually attacks them, then butter ball attempts to define. lol. Definition is only possible if you have universals.

Once again, the various denominations of atheism.

Can somebody answer my question. If atheism has all the answers, why does Dan Barker admittedly rip off Christian ethics?

Butter Ball doesn't know how to love unless she rips off Christiainity. So since there are no universals in atheism (consistent atheism), and since love can only be understood via universals, then you cannot know if you love your children. If you were to be honest, and your kids asked you if you love them, you honestly cannot answer the question.

The only thing you can do is lie.

All the other "religions" are false and only Christianity is right as the perfection of Judaism of the TaNaK.  or

You may disagree with my position, but you should at least agree with that one guy atheist who is consistent in this thread. If you cannot know, you cannot know if it's love that you have or evil intentions.

So since you're ripping off Christiainity to begin with, why not come all the way over and bow your knee to your Creator.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Love is defined as an extension of yourself over the loved object. You think as the recipient of your love as part of you.

Universal are only old deprecable ideas.

Last thing you seem not only pretty sure of yourself, but a bit imprecise: what the kid could know about "love"? How do you know what that kid means for 'love'?

Christianity is everything but perfect.

The concept of love existed long before "Christian Thinking" was around.  Quit trying to steal other peoples toys.

 

 

Non essentials like who goes to heaven and who doesn't, Jean? Like I said before, you don't really know your Calvinism. Why claim what you don't understand?

Surprise surprise, punching someone in the face is not excluded as an act of love. What it is being determined is what is collected empirically, it's nonsense saying "you can't be sure". You just observed it.

Beating someone, by the way, was an act of love: parents beated their children to thoughen them up. I think that was part of the old testament too, but I saw it real.

Again, i agree that we cannot distinguish truth from error, which is the same problem for empiricism and Rationlism. I Corinthians 1:14; 16 says so. However, if God changes your nature and gives you faith, or knowledge in understanding reality, then in that way you can know.

You kind of made my argument for me for your positions.

With God and God's Word being both axiomatic as i've explained before which is understood via the imago dei. So unless God gives you the gift of faith (knowing/belief) and grace, that is no way to know, again the natural man can only understand the nature and the spiritual only the spiritual.

Wait? you're a logician now? or an empiricist? You can't be both. But since logic is impersonal, and cannot answer the connection of Man's personality, it does nothing. Also, since there is not an infinite reference point to tie in the logic, then it cannot apply in the realm of knowledge but simply a code in the realm of a system.

Ad hominems are not neccessarily logical fallacies. I taught you this before. ad hominem abusives are . I have never committed an ad hominme abusive.

Respectfully

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

This week, Jean kept fishing for a win, but kept falling on his face.

Tune in next week to see it happen again!

Same bat-time, Same bat-channel!

Poor jean doesn't know fallacies or how to apply them. He doesn't know logic at all (god is the opposite of an axiom lolol), and has only a vague familiarity with the term empirical. He also doesn't know that children are born knowing nothing, so one must fervently hope, for childrens sake, that he never has kids. He'd abuse them to an extreme. The false idea that kids are born knowing anything at all would lead to beatings when the child demonstrated ignorance of any kind towards jeans invisible friend. He'd probably kill them, considering the hate that drips from every post he makes.

Oh, yeah, what happens when you have not-protected intercourse with faith? Abraham happens, so you do not beat your children, you directly sacrifice them!


No it's easy to refute you: simply you're not univocal. Any imaginary being could do what you are arguing. From there to the the biblic gods (el/yhwh/NT god) there are eons.
Shall I suggest you some readings? Critical thinking, an appeal to reason - peg tittle:

There are many others:

Continuing:

Sorry but being Holy Spirit Inside (TM) changes nothing, since it's your immagination.


This has been explained to you. Everything is physical, it's nonsense "you cannot sense or experience logical syllogisms", because the ability to generalize is called "intelligence", but the sources of information are our senses. If you didn't have them you'd be a vegetal, with nothing to think on.


[deVille mode on]
Fact: it is invalid. If you had the Holy Spirit Inside (TM) brand in your brain, your computers would be perfect.
[deVille mode off]

The fact that Loco you even knows about critical thinking let alone reading books about the subject means you're more on my side then on atheism. I mean, my Professor told me that there are no absolutes. This would also be consistent of grammar and language. So the word LOVE once again is relative and can mean to punch a person in the face.

Modern empiricism so called is logical positivism. Logical positivism has been refuted a very long time ago, 1930's. The fact of this absurdity is well known among the educated. I assume you have no idea what i'm talking about.

When there is a self refutation found all over the hazodous waste of atheism, you find self refutations ALL over the place. lol. Every where among the corpses of atheistic thinking, you find this, this is what you would expect to find.

A contradiction would be like Socrates is mortal and Socreates is immortal. Since only the educated is aware of this, and since this is rarely found among atheists and never found among consistent atheists, then let me educate you regarding the historical absurdity of what happen to what Bob you are referring to as a kind of modern empiricism.

Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus in which i have a copy, a leading logical empiricist at the time that the propositions he relayed in his writings did not add up at all to how his own standard of understanding and meaning. Thus, he recommended that his propositions were a figuarative type l"ladder" that you would discard after you're done to reach a higher level.

Pay attention to this one Loca, after a while the L.P. said that language cannot ever state an empirical fact in reference to truth and falsity. unless empirically VERIFIED (that's a common word) in nature. But people started noticing that the (verification principle) cannot be empirically verfied according to the standards of the the empiricism of logical positivism. ha ha.

Historically speaking, this argument caused Logical Positivism's Funeral.

However, among the non educatued consistent atheists, they have resurrected this logical positivism again. No where does this MIX logic in any way with it's formula. I think we have a nutty nut logical positivist on here hardcore and out. Most thoug are in the closet with the faggots or are so ignorant about what i'm talking about, they have to ask their granny for directions.

Logic can never ever ever be incorporated into empiricism. I like you bob but this is just a flat out stupid idiotic statement. Your argument would have to be hegelian and self refuting lol. oh my. 

You're wrong and once again, Bob has made a catelogicaly falacy between Reason and Empiricism.

Check Mate.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

He is incapable of having an aneurysm because that would require a brain in the first place to have one.

 

Thank you Jean,

for finally demonstrating that your comprehension is totally and irredeemably f**ked.

You clearly don't understand what either Logic or Empiricism and Rational thought actually are, as actually employed in disciplines such as Science.

You seem to just think of them as labels on schools of Philosophy, which while arguably true in the case of "Empiricism" and "Rationalism", is irrelevant to the process of rational enquiry into the nature of Reality I keep outlining to you. As is 99% of all Philosophy and 100% of Theology and Metaphysics.

Words often do have more than one usage, as you would have noticed if you had ever opened a dictionary.

Ok, ignore the label 'empirical', just think of the process I described, as processing the information we gather and interpret via our senses, frequently via instruments which mean that our senses require no more reliability than that needed to read a book - you do appear to be able to read...

The content of logical propositions is not in any way restricted as to how it is obtained, or do you actually disagree? Can 'Logic' only validly and 'logically' be applied to information derived via certain modes of thought???  Or modes of delusion, in your case...

When I use the Math equation "1 + 1 = 2", am I not 'allowed' to apply that to count 'empirically' observed apples? Because that expression is ultimately derived by logic applied to the definitions attached to each symbol - "!", "2", "+", and "=".

 

So are you implying that philosophy is somewhat useless in describing an attempt at epistemology, which is centered right in the heart of philosophy itself? Um, Bob, you are totally ignorant of the ways things are connected in rational thought.

You CANNOT use Rationalism (captial R) and Empiricism because they are contradictive.

1) Empiricism ALWAYS starts inductively while Rationalism ALWAYS starts deductively

2) Empiriicsm claims the concrete, Rationalism the abstract

3) Empiricism starts with particulars, Rationalism starts with Universals

4) Empiricism cannot interpret, Rationalism cannot see

5) Empiricism cannot think, Rationalism cannot experience.

If you combine both antithetical views, you are combining two things that contradict. It would be like a person combining Christianity and Satanism which some attempt to do.

So to do this, you would have to become even more absurd and use a sort of crazy nutty Hegelian Dialecticism lol just making things even worse.

If we're combing Rationalisn with Empiricism why not also combine Intuition. That's the 3rd secular form of epistemology and the last secular kind.

I also notice that you have yet to respond to the well known historical account of the death of what you call modern empiricism.

So if you want to be logical and sound, it's impossbile, unless you clap with one hand. And yes, this subject is 100% philosphical however philosophy has subcategories within the sciences.

 

You cannot do 2+2 - 4 in Rationalism and Empiricism. lol. Empiricism cannot interpret and Rationalsim cannot see the apples. lol. They would both be blind saying du du du duhhhhhhhh lol.

Bobby, now come on. It's one thing to not be a Chrisitan but at least be logical. Stop being confused and mixing up antithetical categories and making catalogiacl fallacies.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).