|
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us. Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
|
Jean's list of Absolute truths.
Posted on: July 29, 2012 - 12:35pm
  Offline
Jean's list of Absolute truths.
Jean's list of Absolute Truths: Item 1. ______ Item 2. ______
There are no absolute truths because the concept of absolute truth is incoherent.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
|
|
Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2024.
|
Too Funny. Reading Jean Chauvin's post reminds me of the black knight in Monte Python's Quest for the Holy Grail.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
KORAN, n.
A book which the Mohammedans foolishly believe to have been written by divine inspiration, but which Christians know to be a wicked imposture, contradictory to the Holy Scriptures. ~ The Devil's Dictionary
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
dont you love how he comes up with these dumbass attempts to stump people..i guess hes just bored being him so he has to project... how long has he been trolling this site?
Chris
Lets all remember that Jean has our best interest at heart. When his God allows a Tsunami to murder 13,000 humans, not as a warning to them, but as a third party hostage to get America to kiss his ass, Japan deserved it. So I will see all of you doubters in Church on Sunday, right?
OH FUCK damned Redskins, fall is coming up. Never mind.
"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
@ hbmbc30:
He hasn't been here all that long. And probably won't be here much longer. In my experience, his type gets bored after a year or two of getting owned.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Although he has always been a stupid asshole, when he first came on board here, he had long lengthy posts about logic and such and there were several threads he started that actually managed to last for more than one or two posts. Over time, he has just degenerated and only occasionally comes in here to fling a flew insults and disappear.
My guess is, he ran out of anything with sufficient substance to even try to argue ( although his original threads were pretty pitiful, at least they actually had SOME discussion in them, they were much like TWD and Fonzie's threads).
But now : No more real debates, no more substance, just some childish prattling and insulting, disappear for a week or two, come back, fling a few more insults and claim victory.
Granted, his posts degenerated rather quickly. (It only took a couple of months). But now he really is not worth the time of day and typing effort, in my opinion.
I think the best thing to do is just ignore him completely. Sooner or later, when he can't get anymore attention, he'll go away.
Granted, I have been guilty of trying to piss him off with insults and everything else. But for me, that time has passed and there is no reason to even fool with it.So, when he responds to this post with a lot of nonsense directed towards me, I won't even bother to read all of it. I'll just keep scrolling down the page like he's not even there.
But that's just me.
He has the right to make a complete ass out of himself ( he doesn't really need any help from us, he's doing just fine all by himself with that one) and I have the right to ignore him.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
Hey!
You're right, I use to argue substantial and assumed you guys are able to think in logical terms. However, I was starting to see that 99% of you didnt' even know what I was talking about. You had to google wiki in order just to understand the argument before you could respond.
And the responses were highly pathetic, off subject, and ad hominems threw around like:
"philosphy is stuipd." lol
or
"logic isn't everything with atheism."
As a result of me witness the public education consequence on this board, instead of wasting me time with things you don't even understand, I simply ridicule, poke fun and laugh profusely as I see the stupidity of atheism as demonstrated on this board.
And you guys said that I'm an example to Christianity being so poor, how ironic it is when the truth is real and it is you atheists who don't know what a syllogism is let alone how to refute one properly. name calling is not a refuation.
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).
Anyways, moving on... Jean, can you give me a single example of an absolute truth?
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Hey!
I just did. There are absolutely no absolutes.
Do you agree with this absolute?
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).
I guess you do not care what the Bible says then. There are plenty of absolutes there.
Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker
No, the concept of absolute truths is nonsensical.
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
Hey!
So you do not agree with my statement? What kind of absolutues are there besides the absolute that there are no absolutes?
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).
Maybe or perhaps you could recommend some YEC literature to supplement the board's 'public eduction' .. ?
.. Url www.answersingenesis.org cec/books Ad Blurb -- The answers are there you just need to seek . . . .
How's that Trollin' working out for you ?
No, claiming that there are no absolutes is not an absolute. Claiming that there are no married bachelors is not an absolute. The concept of a married bachelor, as well as the concept of absolute truth , is nonsensical.
I see this argument as a staple of your Calvinism. You claim that relativism is self defeating, but it is not. There are no absolute truths!. This is a fact.
Let's define the terms of the argument from a philosophical paradigm.
Oxford Dictionary
"Philosophy
a value or principle which is regarded as universally valid or which may be viewed without relation to other things"
Basically, an absolute has to be irrelative of observer or time. If something is absolute now, it has always been an absolute, and will always be an absolute.
Truth is a concept used to validate a proposition. An observer will use the dichotomy of true/false to subjectively validate a statement.
From it's definition, you can equate truth with opinion. The conclusion is that absolute truths is an incoherent term, much like a married bachelor. Therefore, there are no absolute truths.
Edit: fixed quote
"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc
A) Statement B is true.
B) Statement A is false.
Figure that one out.
"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth
I sometimes participate in a forum for the local newspaper (which is always filled with racial and religious arguments as those are the two biggest dividing factors in my current city). But somehow the subject of absolute truth came up. I actually had this prick tell me there were 4 absolutes. I had a feeling this was going to be comical, so I asked him to please enlighten me what these FOUR absolutes are (supposedly you could live your whole life by these FOUR absolutes).
Guess what his response was ? (It's almost too dumb to type)
His four absolutes were : Always ask yourself, is it good or bad, true or false, beautiful or ugly, will it or will not hurt another. There is no room for interpretation in those four questions.
OMG. That was so stupid that I did not even bother responding.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
You should have.
If it were a conversation you had in private, he's clearly too dumb to understand how dumb he is, and walking away was the only thing to do. But in a public discussion, not answering tends to imply you can't answer, unless someone else steps up to the plate in your stead who is your equal or better in such a discussion. For such an idiotic comment as this, it's not particularly likely that someone would take the time.
In this scenario, the first part of his "truth" alone is sufficient to shut down the whole thing: "Always ask yourself".
The problem is that asking yourself is presupposing that you are the penultimate human who can do nothing wrong, ever. When combined with the remainder of the claim, it presupposes that the person asking themselves the questions has objective, accurate answers (that everyone will agree with) to the questions of beauty, truth, good, and harm of an issue. This is demonstrably false as NOTHING has ever been agreed upon by every single person who ever existed.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You could continue by pointing out every single fallacy the argument invokes, but that could take awhile. > >
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.