Grace Is The Knowledge Of Inseparability, And Of Us.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Look End,

 

To demonstrate that I'm not out to hurt you or to expose you to harm, let me offer you a lifeline.

 

Taking it won't be very palatable, but doing so will be better (in the long run) than holding out.

 

If you like, I'll even explain what it is before you commit yourself in any way, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

My offer is to join us in a discussion where I will talk objectively.

 

 

Well those few words represent a 180 degree change from you, End!

 

You will talk objectively?

 

I thought that was impossible for you.  

.

.

.

So in the last few minutes you've just acquired the ability to talk objectively with us?

 

Or, you had this ability all along, but you chose to tell us that it was impossible for you to be objective?

.

.

.

Isn't the second option... LYING to us?

 

Please explain, End.  I'm all ears.

 

It doesn't compromise my beliefs BAA.

 

Maybe not.  Maybe, so long as your beliefs are intact - that's all you care about.

But if that's so - it shows us that you care nothing about being honest with us.  And WE WILL take note of that.  Either you acquired a 'miraculous' new ability to talk objectively or you had it all along.  Which is it?

 

Like I said to the Prof., we don't understand Cause. Me discussing reality relative to Cause is like talking about the mindset of ants relative to outer space.

 

BTW, YOU were the one who labeled me as unable to discuss in a certain manner.

 

No Sir!

That's wrong.  Here's what you wrote 4 days ago.

 

Posted 14 November 2014 - 12:20 PM

Orbit, on 14 Nov 2014 - 5:13 PM, said:

No, I breathe different air, I eat different foods, my body is programmed differently. So everything is subjective right down to every microsecond that I am alive. So what now. 

 

 

Everything is subjective...?

 

So how can you be talking objectively now, when everything is subjective, End?  

 

By your words and your definition, you CANNOT BE TALKING OBJECTIVELY now.  You are unable to be objective because (according to you) everything (including End3) is subjective.

.

.

.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

Look End,

 

To demonstrate that I'm not out to hurt you or to expose you to harm, let me offer you a lifeline.

 

Taking it won't be very palatable, but doing so will be better (in the long run) than holding out.

 

If you like, I'll even explain what it is before you commit yourself in any way, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

My offer is to join us in a discussion where I will talk objectively.

 

 

Well those few words represent a 180 degree change from you, End!

 

You will talk objectively?

 

I thought that was impossible for you.  

.

.

.

So in the last few minutes you've just acquired the ability to talk objectively with us?

 

Or, you had this ability all along, but you chose to tell us that it was impossible for you to be objective?

.

.

.

Isn't the second option... LYING to us?

 

Please explain, End.  I'm all ears.

 

It doesn't compromise my beliefs BAA.

 

Maybe not.  Maybe, so long as your beliefs are intact - that's all you care about.

But if that's so - it shows us that you care nothing about being honest with us.  And WE WILL take note of that.  Either you acquired a 'miraculous' new ability to talk objectively or you had it all along.  Which is it?

 

Like I said to the Prof., we don't understand Cause. Me discussing reality relative to Cause is like talking about the mindset of ants relative to outer space.

 

BTW, YOU were the one who labeled me as unable to discuss in a certain manner.

 

No Sir!

That's wrong.  Here's what you wrote 4 days ago.

 

Posted 14 November 2014 - 12:20 PM

 

Orbit, on 14 Nov 2014 - 5:13 PM, said:

 

No, I breathe different air, I eat different foods, my body is programmed differently. So everything is subjective right down to every microsecond that I am alive. So what now. 

 

 

Everything is subjective...?

 

So how can you be talking objectively now, when everything is subjective, End?  

 

By your words and your definition, you CANNOT BE TALKING OBJECTIVELY now.  You are unable to be objective because (according to you) everything (including End3) is subjective.

.

.

.

 

Everything still is subjective. I am speculating on objectivity.

[Orbit]

Everything is not subjective. Gravity is not subjective. It exists independent of your perception of it. You can test that by stepping off a building.

[Guest end3]

Everything is not subjective. Gravity is not subjective. It exists independent of your perception of it. You can test that by stepping off a building.

I acknowledge your opinion.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

 

Look End,

 

To demonstrate that I'm not out to hurt you or to expose you to harm, let me offer you a lifeline.

 

Taking it won't be very palatable, but doing so will be better (in the long run) than holding out.

 

If you like, I'll even explain what it is before you commit yourself in any way, ok?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

My offer is to join us in a discussion where I will talk objectively.

 

 

Well those few words represent a 180 degree change from you, End!

 

You will talk objectively?

 

I thought that was impossible for you.  

.

.

.

So in the last few minutes you've just acquired the ability to talk objectively with us?

 

Or, you had this ability all along, but you chose to tell us that it was impossible for you to be objective?

.

.

.

Isn't the second option... LYING to us?

 

Please explain, End.  I'm all ears.

 

It doesn't compromise my beliefs BAA.

 

Maybe not.  Maybe, so long as your beliefs are intact - that's all you care about.

But if that's so - it shows us that you care nothing about being honest with us.  And WE WILL take note of that.  Either you acquired a 'miraculous' new ability to talk objectively or you had it all along.  Which is it?

 

Like I said to the Prof., we don't understand Cause. Me discussing reality relative to Cause is like talking about the mindset of ants relative to outer space.

 

BTW, YOU were the one who labeled me as unable to discuss in a certain manner.

 

No Sir!

That's wrong.  Here's what you wrote 4 days ago.

 

Posted 14 November 2014 - 12:20 PM

 

Orbit, on 14 Nov 2014 - 5:13 PM, said:

 

No, I breathe different air, I eat different foods, my body is programmed differently. So everything is subjective right down to every microsecond that I am alive. So what now. 

 

 

Everything is subjective...?

 

So how can you be talking objectively now, when everything is subjective, End?  

 

By your words and your definition, you CANNOT BE TALKING OBJECTIVELY now.  You are unable to be objective because (according to you) everything (including End3) is subjective.

.

.

.

 

Everything still is subjective. I am speculating on objectivity.

 

 

 

Now you're speculating on objectivity?

.

.

.

A few minutes ago you said I could join you in a discussion where you would talk objectively.

(I've highlighted it, above)

.

.

.

So, from your last message, I'm to gather that you haven't started to talk objectivity yet?

.

.

.

But, since everything is still subjective (your words) then you can't begin to talk objectively, can you?

.

.

.

Please stop this, End!

 

I'm still willing to give a lifeline out of this tangle of contradictory nonsense.

 

Please think about it.

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

Please stop this, End!

 

I'm still willing to give a lifeline out of this tangle of contradictory nonsense.

 

Please think about it.

 

BAA.

I'm sorry if it is confusing. Some objectivity we can rigidly discuss because there are means to measure. I also can speculate about objectivity. The discussion at hand has limited means of measurement because they are too complex. Regardless, the entire discussion is by default subjective.

[Orbit]

Hey guys--instead of meta-conversation about having an objective conversation, why not just start doing it? Converse!

[bornagainathiest]

 

Please stop this, End!

 

I'm still willing to give a lifeline out of this tangle of contradictory nonsense.

 

Please think about it.

 

BAA.

I'm sorry if it is confusing.

 

I'm not the confused one here, End.

 

Some objectivity we can rigidly discuss because there are means to measure. I also can speculate about objectivity. The discussion at hand has limited means of measurement because they are too complex. Regardless, the entire discussion is by default subjective.

 

If the entire discussion is, by default subjective - then no part of it is or can become objective.  It remains, by default, subjective.

 

Which takes me back to my question.

 

Please tell us why objectivity is impossible for you in this forum, but easy for you outside of it?

 

 

 

There is no escape by digging and digging, End.

 

My offer remains open, however.  

 

Please take it.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

If you know the mechanism(s) it is.

 

 

we don't understand Cause. What happens in our reality is just that.

I think you just contradicted your first point with your second.  If you don't know the cause of the stimulus, then you can't objectively approach it.

 

Right, that's why I put the statement out earlier and then said "now what" Prof. I was soliciting thoughts.

 

If you know the mechanism of the stimulus you can be objective; but if you don't know the cause you can't?  You're not really making any sense.

[bornagainathiest]

End,

 

If this entire discussion is (by default) subjective, then your offer to me, to join you and the Prof in an objective discussion was either...

 

False.

(Because you knew, even as you were typing the offer, that this entire discussion is still subjective and can by definition, never be objective.)

 

Wrong.

(Because you're just confused and getting yourself more and more tangled up trying to reconcile mutually-exclusive conditions.)

 

My offer is still open, btw.

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Everything is not subjective. Gravity is not subjective. It exists independent of your perception of it. You can test that by stepping off a building.

I acknowledge your opinion.

 

 

Gravity converts Orbit's opinion into an objective fact.

[Guest end3]

 

 

Everything is not subjective. Gravity is not subjective. It exists independent of your perception of it. You can test that by stepping off a building.

I acknowledge your opinion.

 

 

Gravity converts Orbit's opinion into an objective fact.

 

We went here yesterday...not going again today.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Gravity converts Orbit's opinion into an objective fact.

 

We went here yesterday...not going again today.

 

 

Then if the objective fact of gravity is off-limits to you End, please be so good as to answer this question.  

 

Thanks.

 

Please tell us why objectivity is impossible for you in this forum, but easy for you outside of it?

[bornagainathiest]

Hey guys--instead of meta-conversation about having an objective conversation, why not just start doing it? Converse!

 

Sorry Orbit!

 

 

But End's declared this entire thread to be subjective.  

Therefore it's impossible to start doing it or being it.  Everything is subjective, as he makes clear here...

 

Posted 14 November 2014 - 12:20 PM

 

Orbit, on 14 Nov 2014 - 5:13 PM, said:

 

No, I breathe different air, I eat different foods, my body is programmed differently. So everything is subjective right down to every microsecond that I am alive. So what now. 

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

If you know the mechanism(s) it is.

 

 

we don't understand Cause. What happens in our reality is just that.

I think you just contradicted your first point with your second.  If you don't know the cause of the stimulus, then you can't objectively approach it.

 

Right, that's why I put the statement out earlier and then said "now what" Prof. I was soliciting thoughts.

 

If you know the mechanism of the stimulus you can be objective; but if you don't know the cause you can't?  You're not really making any sense.

 

Yes, the entire mechanism. If I were to know that A caused B,C,D, and E, then I know cause. The way I view this is evaluating humanity is like looking at D and E and calling that mechanism complete. I don't see it like that.

[Fweethawt]

I remember a time when people would mean what they say, and say what they mean in order to converse conclusively. Yet, within this thread, the exact opposite is the case and is being touted as some sort of communication/communion that happens on a higher intellectual level.

 

How can any honest person NOT come to the conclusion that this is just plain bullshit?!?

 

Oh, I forgot! That would require removing the element of religion...

 

Carry on!

[bornagainathiest]

I've been trying to help you for nearly six hours, End.

 

That's enough for today.

 

My offer of help still stands open - but it will only remain so until the latter part of tomorrow.

 

After that I will withdraw it.  Now I'm gone.

.

.

.

BAA.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

If you know the mechanism(s) it is.

 

 

we don't understand Cause. What happens in our reality is just that.

I think you just contradicted your first point with your second.  If you don't know the cause of the stimulus, then you can't objectively approach it.

 

Right, that's why I put the statement out earlier and then said "now what" Prof. I was soliciting thoughts.

 

If you know the mechanism of the stimulus you can be objective; but if you don't know the cause you can't?  You're not really making any sense.

 

Yes, the entire mechanism. If I were to know that A caused B,C,D, and E, then I know cause. The way I view this is evaluating humanity is like looking at D and E and calling that mechanism complete. I don't see it like that.

 

Please explain how knowing the mechanism of a stimulus allows one to be objective in merely responding to it.

[florduh]

Yes, the entire mechanism. If I were to know that A caused B,C,D, and E, then I know cause. The way I view this is evaluating humanity is like looking at D and E and calling that mechanism complete. I don't see it like that.

 

That's perhaps because you are assuming an A, B and C must exist. If no one can find them, perhaps they do not. One can only productively discuss what is known and merely speculate on the unknown.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

No, because you have come to an ex-c forum and claimed that god made humans, and been merely asked to support your claim.  You don't get to come here, make an extraordinary claim, and then be "left alone".  If you want that, find a forum where people do that.

[Guest end3]

 

Yes, the entire mechanism. If I were to know that A caused B,C,D, and E, then I know cause. The way I view this is evaluating humanity is like looking at D and E and calling that mechanism complete. I don't see it like that.

That's perhaps because you are assuming an A, B and C must exist. If no one can find them, perhaps they do not. One can only productively discuss what is known and merely speculate on the unknown.

 

That is what I am trying to do....speculate about objectivity....specifically the mechanisms that support subjectivity. Too goddamn complex to discuss and even being honest about it and somehow I am still wrong.

 

So people will understand. Billions upon billions of reactions all in dynamic change just in a brain alone then compounded by genetics and environment and we really want to say we have a handle on objective? Not sure what y'all are missing.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

No, because you have come to an ex-c forum and claimed that god made humans, and been merely asked to support your claim.  You don't get to come here, make an extraordinary claim, and then be "left alone".  If you want that, find a forum where people do that.

 

I'm leaving you alone as you requested....thx, bye.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

If you know the mechanism(s) it is.

 

 

we don't understand Cause. What happens in our reality is just that.

I think you just contradicted your first point with your second.  If you don't know the cause of the stimulus, then you can't objectively approach it.

 

Right, that's why I put the statement out earlier and then said "now what" Prof. I was soliciting thoughts.

 

If you know the mechanism of the stimulus you can be objective; but if you don't know the cause you can't?  You're not really making any sense.

 

Yes, the entire mechanism. If I were to know that A caused B,C,D, and E, then I know cause. The way I view this is evaluating humanity is like looking at D and E and calling that mechanism complete. I don't see it like that.

 

Please explain how knowing the mechanism of a stimulus allows one to be objective in merely responding to it.

 

Sorry, I am missing what you are asking Prof.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So people will understand. Billions upon billions of reactions all in dynamic change just in a brain alone then compounded by genetics and environment and we really want to say we have a handle on objective? Not sure what y'all are missing.

 

I think what we're missing is how, in light of the billions and billions of reactions... you can positively claim that your god and your "grace and relationships" is really the explanation behind it all, without offering any support beyond your subjective belief.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Sorry, I am missing what you are asking Prof.

 

You said that religion was a response to a stimulus.  I said a response to a stimulus wasn't the same as objective thought.  You said it is if you know the mechanism.  Now I'm asking you to support this claim.  

 

In other words, how is knowing the mechanism of a stimulus able to allow one to objectively approach subjective beliefs?