midniterider Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 http://www.diffen.com/difference/Objective_vs_Subjective Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 16, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 16, 2014 Objective reality exists independently of your subjective perception of it. Oxygen exists for you to breathe whether or not you perceive it or how you subjectively feel about it. We can find common ground in objective reality. It's meaningless without subjective interpretation... Patently untrue. Objective reality doesn't require subjective interpretation, though subjective interpretation does often add spice. If I examine a tree, I will use objective "interpretation" (for lack of a better word). I will place thin layer leaf slices under the microscope, observe the xylem and phloem at work, count and categorize the number of other species that live within the tree, and discover the life cycle and reproduction strategy of the tree. None of this will be done subjectively. To the poet, though, the same tree might be interpreted as a place where young love once blossomed. I think I am not making myself clear. I am saying without humanity to define and then interpret reality, it' meaningless. In that, I really don't see how reality outside of subjectivity is possible. Picture a hawk swooping down upon a squirrel. Does the squirrel sit still staring at the hawk and its impending doom? Or does the squirrel attempt to flee as quickly as possible? Survival instinct would drive the squirrel into flight. This is because, on some level, the squirrel's life has meaning to itself. No human subjectivity is needed for the animal to objectively try to preserve its own life. "Reality" had its own meaning(s) long before our earliest ancestors ever swung down from the trees and it will continue to do so with our without out subjective interpretation of it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 16, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 16, 2014 If a tree falls in the forest......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 If a tree falls in the forest......... Yes, thank you. We can speculate that reality without humanity has some value, but based on most everyone's perspective here that we are nothing more than worm dirt when we are gone, what purpose does acknowledging a dynamic rock floating through space have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 16, 2014 Share Posted November 16, 2014 Objective reality exists independently of your subjective perception of it. Oxygen exists for you to breathe whether or not you perceive it or how you subjectively feel about it. We can find common ground in objective reality. It's meaningless without subjective interpretation... Patently untrue. Objective reality doesn't require subjective interpretation, though subjective interpretation does often add spice. If I examine a tree, I will use objective "interpretation" (for lack of a better word). I will place thin layer leaf slices under the microscope, observe the xylem and phloem at work, count and categorize the number of other species that live within the tree, and discover the life cycle and reproduction strategy of the tree. None of this will be done subjectively. To the poet, though, the same tree might be interpreted as a place where young love once blossomed. I think I am not making myself clear. I am saying without humanity to define and then interpret reality, it' meaningless. In that, I really don't see how reality outside of subjectivity is possible. Picture a hawk swooping down upon a squirrel. Does the squirrel sit still staring at the hawk and its impending doom? Or does the squirrel attempt to flee as quickly as possible? Survival instinct would drive the squirrel into flight. This is because, on some level, the squirrel's life has meaning to itself. No human subjectivity is needed for the animal to objectively try to preserve its own life. "Reality" had its own meaning(s) long before our earliest ancestors ever swung down from the trees and it will continue to do so with our without out subjective interpretation of it. Ok, I'll agree to consider this trail. What is the take home message if I observe reality "objectively"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Yes, thank you. We can speculate that reality without humanity has some value, but based on most everyone's perspective here that we are nothing more than worm dirt when we are gone, what purpose does acknowledging a dynamic rock floating through space have? Rocks were here long before us. They're part of us, so my question is why wouldn't acknowledging them have purpose? Instead of worrying about gods out there for us to believe in, keep it in this reality and we'll get somewhere. This forum is for ex-Christians so gods and faith is not really our thing right now. Is that maybe something you could consider, how others feel? Or should the entire forum be tailored just for you? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdelsolray Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Anthropocentric wannabe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Objective reality exists independently of your subjective perception of it. Oxygen exists for you to breathe whether or not you perceive it or how you subjectively feel about it. We can find common ground in objective reality. It's meaningless without subjective interpretation... Patently untrue. Objective reality doesn't require subjective interpretation, though subjective interpretation does often add spice. If I examine a tree, I will use objective "interpretation" (for lack of a better word). I will place thin layer leaf slices under the microscope, observe the xylem and phloem at work, count and categorize the number of other species that live within the tree, and discover the life cycle and reproduction strategy of the tree. None of this will be done subjectively. To the poet, though, the same tree might be interpreted as a place where young love once blossomed. I think I am not making myself clear. I am saying without humanity to define and then interpret reality, it' meaningless. In that, I really don't see how reality outside of subjectivity is possible. Picture a hawk swooping down upon a squirrel. Does the squirrel sit still staring at the hawk and its impending doom? Or does the squirrel attempt to flee as quickly as possible? Survival instinct would drive the squirrel into flight. This is because, on some level, the squirrel's life has meaning to itself. No human subjectivity is needed for the animal to objectively try to preserve its own life. "Reality" had its own meaning(s) long before our earliest ancestors ever swung down from the trees and it will continue to do so with our without out subjective interpretation of it. Ok, I'll agree to consider this trail. What is the take home message if I observe reality "objectively"? Here's a thought for you to consider, End. There is no 'what if?'. You do observe reality objectively. You have no trouble communicating (see all the examples I've cited recently) meaning that you can share common ground with anyone, any time you want to. Communicated with your family recently? Spoken to your neighbors? Talked to the guys at work? If you do these things then there is no 'what if?' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 17, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2014 Ok, I'll agree to consider this trail. What is the take home message if I observe reality "objectively"? Isn't "observe reality objectively" enough of a take home message? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Ok, I'll agree to consider this trail. What is the take home message if I observe reality "objectively"? Isn't "observe reality objectively" enough of a take home message? Prof, If I read End correctly, he might reply along these lines... "Only a perfect and absolutely true observation of reality is a truly objective view of it." "Since I can't see reality with 100% objectivity - I'm not going to accept that I can see ANY of it objectively." "Therefore I can't accept your 'Take Home' message - because it's impossible." . . . Shall we see how close I am? BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 17, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2014 Ok, I'll agree to consider this trail. What is the take home message if I observe reality "objectively"? Isn't "observe reality objectively" enough of a take home message? Prof, If I read End correctly, he might reply along these lines... "Only a perfect and absolutely true observation of reality is a truly objective view of it." "Since I can't see reality with 100% objectivity - I'm not going to accept that I can see ANY of it objectively." "Therefore I can't accept your 'Take Home' message - because it's impossible." . . . Shall we see how close I am? BAA. He'll then move on to "Only god can have a perfect and absolutely observation of reality, hence his grace." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Ok, I'll agree to consider this trail. What is the take home message if I observe reality "objectively"?Isn't "observe reality objectively" enough of a take home message? Prof, If I read End correctly, he might reply along these lines... "Only a perfect and absolutely true observation of reality is a truly objective view of it." "Since I can't see reality with 100% objectivity - I'm not going to accept that I can see ANY of it objectively." "Therefore I can't accept your 'Take Home' message - because it's impossible." . . . Shall we see how close I am? BAA. That's kind of all I was looking for, for a long time now.....an admission that science doesn't have the capability to do objective past a given complexity. Seems insurmountable to study.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Ok, I'll agree to consider this trail. What is the take home message if I observe reality "objectively"?Isn't "observe reality objectively" enough of a take home message? Prof, If I read End correctly, he might reply along these lines... "Only a perfect and absolutely true observation of reality is a truly objective view of it." "Since I can't see reality with 100% objectivity - I'm not going to accept that I can see ANY of it objectively." "Therefore I can't accept your 'Take Home' message - because it's impossible." . . . Shall we see how close I am? BAA. He'll then move on to "Only god can have a perfect and absolutely observation of reality, hence his grace." Jesus did say forgive them father, they don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 That's kind of all I was looking for, for a long time now.....an admission that science doesn't have the capability to do objective past a given complexity. Seems insurmountable to study.... Interesting that you've never answered my posts about considering others and not just yourself. Not surprising considering Christianity's track record of pushing it's beliefs on others without any thought that maybe they're ok without it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 17, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2014 This is getting old. Please allow me to clarify that which the bullshit generator hath wrought: Science has no answers. God (the Christian one) has all the answers. Now go home, spend some time with your family, your pets, your porn. This thread is a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 This is getting old. Please allow me to clarify that which the bullshit generator hath wrought: Science has no answers. God (the Christian one) has all the answers. Now go home, spend some time with your family, your pets, your porn. This thread is a waste of time. That's not what I said jackass. Science has a lot of answers but it doesn't come close to having the capability necessary to define the complex. A good example would be the global warming debate. You would like to admit the obvious or would you prefer to use your power to tko this discussion. We are good enough friends that I can call you a jackass when you really are being a jackass, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted November 17, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2014 end3: No, science does not have all the answers to everything you can come up with. No such claim has been made. On the other hand, religion has so far provided no answers whatsoever while claiming to have them all. Certain questions such as "why are we here" and others have no testable answers; we can only guess and apply wishful thinking or emotional satisfaction. When we make such a guess we call that philosophy, when we claim it's a fact we call that religion. - Your Favorite Jackass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 17, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted November 17, 2014 That's kind of all I was looking for, for a long time now.....an admission that science doesn't have the capability to do objective past a given complexity. Seems insurmountable to study.... Can we get an admission that religion can't do objective at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 End, would you be so kind as to address the contents of posts # 225 and # 233, where I ask about how you communicate with family, friends, colleagues, etc...? Thanks. All I'm kinda looking for now is... an admission that you can be sufficiently objective to communicate with them whenever you want to. Then (assuming you're willing to make that admission) could you please say why you can't be sufficiently objective, here in this forum? Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 17, 2014 Share Posted November 17, 2014 Ok, I'll agree to consider this trail. What is the take home message if I observe reality "objectively"?Isn't "observe reality objectively" enough of a take home message? Prof, If I read End correctly, he might reply along these lines... "Only a perfect and absolutely true observation of reality is a truly objective view of it." "Since I can't see reality with 100% objectivity - I'm not going to accept that I can see ANY of it objectively." "Therefore I can't accept your 'Take Home' message - because it's impossible." . . . Shall we see how close I am? BAA. That's kind of all I was looking for, for a long time now.....an admission that science doesn't have the capability to do objective past a given complexity. Seems insurmountable to study.... End, why do you raise the bar of 'objectivity' insurmountably high, here in this forum... ...when you don't raise it insurmountably high to be objective with others, outside of this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gall Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 This is getting old. Please allow me to clarify that which the bullshit generator hath wrought: Science has no answers. God (the Christian one) has all the answers. Now go home, spend some time with your family, your pets, your porn. This thread is a waste of time. That's not what I said jackass. Science has a lot of answers but it doesn't come close to having the capability necessary to define the complex. A good example would be the global warming debate. You would like to admit the obvious or would you prefer to use your power to tko this discussion. We are good enough friends that I can call you a jackass when you really are being a jackass, right? are you high? Do you even read what you write in these threads or just close your eyes and go? Science defines all sorts of highly complex systems and things. Religion is not complex and all and defines nothing but insanity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted November 18, 2014 Author Share Posted November 18, 2014 You say human nature. I say God made humans so he defined human nature. Please explain, using logic and evidence, why you believe that "god made humans". End, please answer this question, which was prompted by a claim you made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 This is getting old. Please allow me to clarify that which the bullshit generator hath wrought: Science has no answers. God (the Christian one) has all the answers. Now go home, spend some time with your family, your pets, your porn. This thread is a waste of time. That's not what I said jackass. Science has a lot of answers but it doesn't come close to having the capability necessary to define the complex. A good example would be the global warming debate. You would like to admit the obvious or would you prefer to use your power to tko this discussion. We are good enough friends that I can call you a jackass when you really are being a jackass, right? are you high? Do you even read what you write in these threads or just close your eyes and go? Science defines all sorts of highly complex systems and things. Religion is not complex and all and defines nothing but insanity... We are talking about the brain gall. If science could predict the brain then religion wouldn't be classified as insanity now would it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 You say human nature. I say God made humans so he defined human nature. Please explain, using logic and evidence, why you believe that "god made humans". End, please answer this question, which was prompted by a claim you made. Can you just leave me alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted November 18, 2014 Share Posted November 18, 2014 Ok, I'll agree to consider this trail. What is the take home message if I observe reality "objectively"?Isn't "observe reality objectively" enough of a take home message? Prof, If I read End correctly, he might reply along these lines... "Only a perfect and absolutely true observation of reality is a truly objective view of it." "Since I can't see reality with 100% objectivity - I'm not going to accept that I can see ANY of it objectively." "Therefore I can't accept your 'Take Home' message - because it's impossible." . . . Shall we see how close I am? BAA. That's kind of all I was looking for, for a long time now.....an admission that science doesn't have the capability to do objective past a given complexity. Seems insurmountable to study.... End, why do you raise the bar of 'objectivity' insurmountably high, here in this forum... ...when you don't raise it insurmountably high to be objective with others, outside of this forum? Y'all use your intellect to hurt people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts