Grace Is The Knowledge Of Inseparability, And Of Us.

[StillLooking]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since your faith is subjective (you answered both which means saying it is subjective is correct), it is faulty. Yes or no.

It is unique and incomplete.

 

Faulty seems relative

 

 

You are avoiding the question. Again, since your faith is subjective, it is faulty. Yes or no. This is based on your definition of subjective. Keep this in mind.

 

Faulty with respect to what, perfect. Yes, I'm not perfect by my subjective standards.

 

You are smarter than that. You are dodging my question here. We are not talking about you, we are talking about your faith.

 

Again, since your faith is subjective, it is faulty. Yes or no. This is based on your definition of subjective. Keep this in mind.

 

We don't really know do we. What standard are YOU using?

 

We are using your standard, your definition. Anything that a human perceives is subjective, because it is subjective then it is faulty.

So, please answer the question.

Since your faith is subjective, it is faulty. Yes or no.

 

Very truthfully, I use Jesus as the Standard. I doubt I comprehend what Christ does and by that, yes, even my faith is faulty.

 

So in the end we agree that your faith is faulty. So, the big question is: why do you try to persuade others to agree with you on a faulty subject? Another question: what do you think about other beliefs: islam, mormonism, reincarnation, pastafarians, tooth fairy? Are those beliefs on the same ground as christianity? If you use your thought frame that you use for christianity here, the answer can only be: YES, those beliefs are on the same ground as christianity.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

First off End, 

 

Thanks for reading and responding without getting mad at me.

I hope this stems from the fact you can see I'm making an effort to see your p.o.v. 

 

 

 

BAA,

 

I'm not opposed to saying there is a reality outside of my subjectivity. There very likely are planets orbiting suns, blah blah. And it's likely that our subjective observance of things are very similar. And we can even do our level best to take out the differences in our observances through science.

 

But yes, my views will always be explicitly mine not because I can't agree to practice science, but because my physiology is constantly dynamic. I literally can't remove my subjectivity from myself because of the dynamic nature of my body.

 

But may I ask how did you arrive at these two conclusions?

A.)  That you can't remove subjectivity from yourself.

B.)  That some dynamic aspect of your body is the cause of your subjectivity.

 

Presumably you drew these conclusions by faith - because faith is the only option acceptable to you?

 

So isn't that an example of you using your faith to rule out all other methodologies except your faith?

 

Which would leave your faith untested and un-testable by anything but... your faith?

 

Meaning that you believe A and B by untested and un-testable faith.  

 

And since you have no means of checking or testing these conclusions - you simply accept A and B on faith and by faith.

 

So, you could be 100% wrong End ...and you'd never know.

Because for you, the only acceptable method of examining the problem of subjectivity is a method that always confirms what you've already have faith in.  Your faith confirms to you that you can't remove subjectivity from yourself - so you believe (by faith) that you can't.

Your faith also confirms that some dynamic aspect of your body is responsible for this - so you believe (by faith) that this is so.

 

Also, science is not advanced enough to DEFINE how to remove subjectivity.

 

Ah... so you know this... by faith?  

Or do you just accept by faith that this is so?

​Having ruled out all others means of checking, except faith?

 

Please tell me how you know this, End.  Please answer these questions.

 

And on the philosophical side, even if we could remove subjectivity through science, it's really meaningless anyhow if humanity becomes extinct. Relative objective meaning, i.e. meaning between objects is stupid without perception....Prof.

 

Please note that I am not attacking you personally in this post, End.

 

I'm trying to work logically thru what I think your beliefs are and where they lead to.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

A) Subjectivity to me BAA in my mind stems from me viewing something through my individual uniqueness....a uniqueness that is constantly changing due to chemistry, physics, etc.

I do not draw these statements by faith but through my understanding of chemistry and physics. Our bodies are a constant reaction.

 

However, you have ruled out science as a valid method of dealing with subjectivity.

Therefore your understanding of chemistry and physics is invalid because it is subjective.

You do see that, don't you?

 

One of the only ways I in my mind can exclude subjectivity if it were possible to be reductionistic in evaluation with the human body to correlate the human experience to the individual perception and then perform associated calculations to adjust. I find this far beyond the scope of scientific prowess.

 

And therefore neither the science of chemistry or physics is a valid method of dealing with subjectivity.

You are back at square one.

You do see that the very method you've used to arrive at this conclusion invalidates the method you used to arrive at this conclusion?

There is no escape!

 

But I am up for suggestions. Seriously, everyone give me their ideas rather than me getting beat down for mine. It would be pleasant for a change.

 

Then I suggest you ask yourself how science can be valid, when (by your own methodology) it cannot adequately deal with your own subjectivity.  

 

The very answer (dynamic changes) you claim it gives you is disallowed by the dynamic changes it cannot deal with.

 

Care to try and explain to me how that works?

 

 

I do not rule out science BAA, I just find it incomplete. That's just a fact. Saying that science can rule out subjectivity would be actually abusing the idea of science itself. Part of my job is integrity....that I don't pencil in numbers. If I were to say science can do what it can't, then I would essentially be doing that.

 

I have asked for input on how science can rule out the problems I see with it. The Prof has offered up brain studies, but I am assuming these are a long way from defining to the level that I am speculating. It's an impossibility in my mind.

 

 

I've been busy replying to thread in the Science Vs. Religion sub-forum, End.  So I'm a bit behind with this one.

 

Sorry, but your response didn't actually answer my questions.  Therefore, I must find a better way of conveying their meaning to you. 

 

I'll do so tomorrow.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since your faith is subjective (you answered both which means saying it is subjective is correct), it is faulty. Yes or no.

It is unique and incomplete.

 

Faulty seems relative

 

 

You are avoiding the question. Again, since your faith is subjective, it is faulty. Yes or no. This is based on your definition of subjective. Keep this in mind.

 

Faulty with respect to what, perfect. Yes, I'm not perfect by my subjective standards.

 

You are smarter than that. You are dodging my question here. We are not talking about you, we are talking about your faith.

 

Again, since your faith is subjective, it is faulty. Yes or no. This is based on your definition of subjective. Keep this in mind.

 

We don't really know do we. What standard are YOU using?

 

We are using your standard, your definition. Anything that a human perceives is subjective, because it is subjective then it is faulty.

So, please answer the question.

Since your faith is subjective, it is faulty. Yes or no.

 

Very truthfully, I use Jesus as the Standard. I doubt I comprehend what Christ does and by that, yes, even my faith is faulty.

 

So in the end we agree that your faith is faulty. So, the big question is: why do you try to persuade others to agree with you on a faulty subject? Another question: what do you think about other beliefs: islam, mormonism, reincarnation, pastafarians, tooth fairy? Are those beliefs on the same ground as christianity? If you use your thought frame that you use for christianity here, the answer can only be: YES, those beliefs are on the same ground as christianity.

 

I like the discussions? It's as good as any? It's real to me through experience?

 

Truthfully, I not much of a surface reader and enjoy the potential relationships that might be in the Bible. Also, after somewhat careful consideration, I still find Christianity has the best fit for the meaning of life. Additionally, I am not wonderfully versed at the aforementioned.

[StillLooking]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since your faith is subjective (you answered both which means saying it is subjective is correct), it is faulty. Yes or no.

It is unique and incomplete.

 

Faulty seems relative

 

 

You are avoiding the question. Again, since your faith is subjective, it is faulty. Yes or no. This is based on your definition of subjective. Keep this in mind.

 

Faulty with respect to what, perfect. Yes, I'm not perfect by my subjective standards.

 

You are smarter than that. You are dodging my question here. We are not talking about you, we are talking about your faith.

 

Again, since your faith is subjective, it is faulty. Yes or no. This is based on your definition of subjective. Keep this in mind.

 

We don't really know do we. What standard are YOU using?

 

We are using your standard, your definition. Anything that a human perceives is subjective, because it is subjective then it is faulty.

So, please answer the question.

Since your faith is subjective, it is faulty. Yes or no.

 

Very truthfully, I use Jesus as the Standard. I doubt I comprehend what Christ does and by that, yes, even my faith is faulty.

 

So in the end we agree that your faith is faulty. So, the big question is: why do you try to persuade others to agree with you on a faulty subject? Another question: what do you think about other beliefs: islam, mormonism, reincarnation, pastafarians, tooth fairy? Are those beliefs on the same ground as christianity? If you use your thought frame that you use for christianity here, the answer can only be: YES, those beliefs are on the same ground as christianity.

 

I like the discussions? It's as good as any? It's real to me through experience?

 

Truthfully, I not much of a surface reader and enjoy the potential relationships that might be in the Bible. Also, after somewhat careful consideration, I still find Christianity has the best fit for the meaning of life. Additionally, I am not wonderfully versed at the aforementioned.

 

Ah, but your "Christianity has the best fit for the meaning or life" is subjective thus it is faulty. All in all, this means your Bible and your religion are faulty. So, how can you say something coming from faulty / subjective become objective?

[StillLooking]

end3, thank you for a good discussion. I cannot participate anymore because I am going to be busy. I think I drive my point home.

 

My point: if you want to consider everything human perceive as faulty, then Christianity is also faulty. This means Christianity is no better than Islam, Hindu, Spaghetti Monster, ET, Santa Claus, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, Sufism, Zeus, Helios, etc.

Be careful when you judge things through a certain frame, your belief will be judged through the same frame too and it might not survive.

 

Have a good Thanksgiving.

[StillLooking]

Thank you to all ex-cs too. I learn a lot from you too. 

[mikey101]

 

after somewhat careful consideration, I still find Christianity has the best fit for the meaning of life. 

 

This does not sound like someone who is 'lost', or seeking to deconvert from their religion.

[midniterider]

 

 

BAA,

 

I'm not opposed to saying there is a reality outside of my subjectivity. There very likely are planets orbiting suns, blah blah. And it's likely that our subjective observance of things are very similar. And we can even do our level best to take out the differences in our observances through science.

 

Cool.

 

But yes, my views will always be explicitly mine not because I can't agree to practice science, but because my physiology is constantly dynamic. I literally can't remove my subjectivity from myself because of the dynamic nature of my body.

 

A football team can't remove their own individual personal attitudes about things but they can work together in a dynamic environment. They can all watch and respond to the same event unfolding on the field. What does a constantly dynamic physiology have to do with personal subjective view? I think it's just word salad used to protect your baseless belief in Jesus.

Also, science is not advanced enough to DEFINE how to remove subjectivity.

 

Word salad deflection.

 

And on the philosophical side, even if we could remove subjectivity through science, it's really meaningless anyhow if humanity becomes extinct. Relative objective meaning, i.e. meaning between objects is stupid without perception....Prof.

 

But, you digress.

 

Let me ask you this M. What are your views? Do you think we can escape subjectivity? Do you think science can ignore it's own limits? What value does a tree have to an ant without a human's perception? Does the ant have it's own perception, consciousness?

 

 

 

My view in general is that there is no Jesus that is a supernatural being. If there were he would have made himself known to all of us. 

I think we escape subjectivity everyday, even though we have our own personal opinion and attitude we also share common experiences. 

Can science ignore it's own limits? I don't know what this means. Please elaborate. 

An ant would value a tree in it's own ant way, with or without human perception.

Ants keep finding a way into my house to steal crumbs so I think they must have their own perception and consciousness. I don't think what they do is random. 

[Fweethawt]

If End quit posting in this thread would that mean there is no End to this bullshit, or that this buillshit has no End?

 

 

Wait a minute...

 

Let me rephrase that.

 

If End quit bullshitting, would this... Oh, never mind!!!!!

[Guest end3]

end3, thank you for a good discussion. I cannot participate anymore because I am going to be busy. I think I drive my point home.

 

My point: if you want to consider everything human perceive as faulty, then Christianity is also faulty. This means Christianity is no better than Islam, Hindu, Spaghetti Monster, ET, Santa Claus, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, Sufism, Zeus, Helios, etc.

Be careful when you judge things through a certain frame, your belief will be judged through the same frame too and it might not survive.

 

Have a good Thanksgiving.

I enjoyed it as well. Please have a great holiday.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

There's the crux of it.  You are unwilling to admit that objective reality exists because to open yourself up to being able to see, understand, interact with, and be awed by, that objective reality "violates" your pre-conceived notions, prejudices, perceptions, and, ultimately "violates" your subjective beliefs (faith).

 

What are you so afraid of, End3?  Why are you so unwilling to give up your personal definitions?  You could see the beauty in what I wrote, the poetry of it.  Why are you so scared to see the beautiful poetry of the objective reality around you?

That's a good point that brings my issues to the surface. It's personal to me but I might PM you.

 

Feel free, brother; feel free.

 

Just to be clear, End3, I'm willing to help you in what way I can with any issue you'd like to discuss.  Feel free to PM me.

[Guest end3]

Ants keep finding a way into my house to steal crumbs so I think they must have their own perception and consciousness. I don't think what they do is random.

Sounds about as close to the truth as there is M. Wish I could enjoy this clarity.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

I challenge any of you to explain to me how, from and objective standpoint, we may define ourselves other than subjective.

 

Triple dog dare.

 

Make it good and sciency...I like sciency..

 

Not some chicken shit dodge. Real explanations peeps.

 

Oh just fuck off already.  This is past boring.

 

I knew you couldn't answer because you were a girl....lol. Checkmate sister.

 

 

That has to be the lamest attempt at baiting me that I've ever seen from you.  Talk about obvious.  

 

As long as someone will play with you, you'll keep going.  I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped feeding you.  It's kinda sad that you don't seem to bore yourself, though.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

I challenge any of you to explain to me how, from and objective standpoint, we may define ourselves other than subjective.

 

Triple dog dare.

 

Make it good and sciency...I like sciency..

 

Not some chicken shit dodge. Real explanations peeps.

 

Oh just fuck off already.  This is past boring.

 

I knew you couldn't answer because you were a girl....lol. Checkmate sister.

 

 

That has to be the lamest attempt at baiting me that I've ever seen from you.  Talk about obvious.  

 

As long as someone will play with you, you'll keep going.  I wonder what would happen if everyone stopped feeding you.  It's kinda sad that you don't seem to bore yourself, though.

 

Who was baiting who...

[Fweethawt]

It's 'whom', End; 'Who was baiting whom?'.

[mymistake]

 

 

This has to be one of the longest "Go Nowhere" threads ever. Are you still having fun or just posting out of boredom by now?

Has there ever been an End3 thread that actually went somewhere?  I'd consider believing in miracles again if you could direct me to one.

 

Yes, but through a relationship, we end up knowing each other...and would probably share a beer if it were offered. Not much closer to God than that in my book. That's my point. So it's not lost.

 

 

 

I don't know about anybody else but the kind of annoying, disingenuous dancing you have done in this thread makes me not want to share a beer with you.  Seriously you sound like Senator John Kerry.  Does a speech by Kerry make you want to have a beer with him?  Sorry but if I knew you in real life you would be the guy I avoid at parties.  I have actual relatives who pull this kind of crap and it is very annoying.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

This has to be one of the longest "Go Nowhere" threads ever. Are you still having fun or just posting out of boredom by now?

Has there ever been an End3 thread that actually went somewhere?  I'd consider believing in miracles again if you could direct me to one.

 

Yes, but through a relationship, we end up knowing each other...and would probably share a beer if it were offered. Not much closer to God than that in my book. That's my point. So it's not lost.

 

 

 

I don't know about anybody else but the kind of annoying, disingenuous dancing you have done in this thread makes me not want to share a beer with you.  Seriously you sound like Senator John Kerry.  Does a speech by Kerry make you want to have a beer with him?  Sorry but if I knew you in real life you would be the guy I avoid at parties.  I have actual relatives who pull this kind of crap and it is very annoying.

 

Well, we will leave you a space at the bar...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Ants keep finding a way into my house to steal crumbs so I think they must have their own perception and consciousness. I don't think what they do is random.

Sounds about as close to the truth as there is M. Wish I could enjoy this clarity.

 

You can enjoy this kind of clarity, End3.  You just have to break free of your pre-conceived ideas, prejudices, misconceptions, and subjective beliefs (faith). 

 

You're willing to admit that ants having their own perception and consicousness sounds true.  The reason it sounds true to you is because it is true.  And you could see that truth with the kind of clarity you long for if you will only get outside of your own head and objectively examine the reality around you as it actually exists.

 

Wouldn't you rather live in freedom than in fear?

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again End.

 

I'm still trying to get a handle on the process you went thru to arrive at your current belief system.

To do that, I need to check with you and make sure that I understand this process correctly.  So, please look at the following five points and confirm if they are correct.   If you see something that is incorrect, would you please alter it - so that it becomes correct?  Or just let me know where I'm going wrong and I'll revise the information accordingly. Thanks.

 

1.

You used the sciences of chemistry and physics to arrive at the following two conclusions.

 

2.

First, that you can't remove subjectivity from yourself.

 

3.

Second, that this subjectivity is caused by the ongoing and unavoidable dynamic changes of your body.

 

4.

You didn't arrive at these conclusions thru any kind of faith, but purely by the use of science.

 

5.

Taken together, these two conclusions mean that it's impossible for you to exclude subjectivity from your thinking processes.

.

.

.

Thanks again,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Guest end3]

I can practice objectivity but my view will always be subjective, yes.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I can practice objectivity but my view will always be subjective, yes.

 

Surely this is the point?  We all can practice objectivity when we choose to, and this provides a more accurate method than using our subjectivity.  You are choosing to ignore the benefits that objectivity can bring, and instead settling for the murkiness of subjectivity.

 

Thank FSM for the scientific revolution, or we'd all still be living in the dark ages.  A lot of us are only alive today because medical researchers chose to be objective.

[Guest end3]

 

I can practice objectivity but my view will always be subjective, yes.

 

Surely this is the point?  We all can practice objectivity when we choose to, and this provides a more accurate method than using our subjectivity.  You are choosing to ignore the benefits that objectivity can bring, and instead settling for the murkiness of subjectivity.

 

No I'm not. I practice objectivity for the benefit of others every day. I go to the doctor.....all kinds of good objective behavior. More that that, I have been criticized numerous times for comparing the language of the Bible to contemporary objective methods.

 

So what was your point?

[mymistake]

 

 

I can practice objectivity but my view will always be subjective, yes.

 

Surely this is the point?  We all can practice objectivity when we choose to, and this provides a more accurate method than using our subjectivity.  You are choosing to ignore the benefits that objectivity can bring, and instead settling for the murkiness of subjectivity.

 

No I'm not. I practice objectivity for the benefit of others every day. I go to the doctor.....all kinds of good objective behavior. More that that, I have been criticized numerous times for comparing the language of the Bible to contemporary objective methods.

 

So what was your point?

 

 

So if you know it's all hogwash why do you come here and play make-believe with us?

[duderonomy]

 

 

I can practice objectivity but my view will always be subjective, yes.

 

Surely this is the point?  We all can practice objectivity when we choose to, and this provides a more accurate method than using our subjectivity.  You are choosing to ignore the benefits that objectivity can bring, and instead settling for the murkiness of subjectivity.

 

No I'm not. I practice objectivity for the benefit of others every day. I go to the doctor.....all kinds of good objective behavior. More that that, I have been criticized numerous times for comparing the language of the Bible to contemporary objective methods.

 

So what was your point?

 

 

E3, why do you go to the doctor?

Shouldn't you call for the elders of the church who will anoint you with oil, and pray the prayer of faith that will save the sick and the Lord will raise you up? Isn't that what you should do so that others can see that your faith has healed you and thus bring glory to God? You do a disservice to the Almighty by going to a doctor, unless you only go in perfect health because it is mandated by your employer/insurer to do so.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

I can practice objectivity but my view will always be subjective, yes.

 

Surely this is the point?  We all can practice objectivity when we choose to, and this provides a more accurate method than using our subjectivity.  You are choosing to ignore the benefits that objectivity can bring, and instead settling for the murkiness of subjectivity.

 

No I'm not. I practice objectivity for the benefit of others every day. I go to the doctor.....all kinds of good objective behavior. More that that, I have been criticized numerous times for comparing the language of the Bible to contemporary objective methods.

 

So what was your point?

 

My question was rhetorical only.  I no longer have the energy to try and educate you.