bornagainathiest Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Florduh locked the thread before I could keep End honest, so... ...I'll copy his words to here and help him out in this new thread. Posted Today, 02:19 PM florduh, on 23 Dec 2014 - 6:29 PM, said: So the conclusion is, "reconciling the violent god with a loving god" can't be done. All you can do is make shit up. The Bible either describes your god or it doesn't. I think it can be done. Perfect grace in my mind would essentially be silence....allowing for the other in the relationship to learn on their own terms/timeline. So it's entirely possible for God to be a god of immediate judgment when He was "dwelling" with the people and that same God but practicing grace at the moment. The scary part for non-believers should be that He is still the God of the OT.......my subjective version of theodicy... Sorry End, but if everything is subjective, then everything you've posted here is subjective too. You can't objectively know what can or can't be done. You can't objectively know what perfect grace is. You can't objectively know what is possible for God. You can't objectively know what is scary for non-believers. Likewise, you cannot know is this your subjective version of theodicy... because your thoughts about this are subjective. . . Just keeping you honest. BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucy Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 What is this about? Is there some argument spilling over into multiple threads? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted December 23, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted December 23, 2014 What is this about? Is there some argument spilling over into multiple threads? Nah, end3 just weighed in with the usual "grace" thing in the thread of a serial troll who needed to be banned again and have his thread locked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StillLooking Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 What is this about? Is there some argument spilling over into multiple threads? End3 claims everything that a human perceives is subjective. For him the statement "Fire is hot" is subjective because we, humans, perceive it through our touch sense. He also thinks science is subjective because of the same reason, scientists are using their eyes and hands to observe and thus making science subjective. He also claimed the only objectivity in the whole universe is Bible God, so we have to align ourselves with that God to be objective. We proved this opinion of his is unsound and illogical in this thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65617-grace-is-the-knowledge-of-inseparability-and-of-us/page-33#.VJn8-8AAA I believe the subjectivity conversation started around page 25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 You can't keep somebody honest when they reject facts in order to keep their faith. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted December 24, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted December 24, 2014 You can't keep somebody honest when they reject facts in order to keep their faith. Damn! That right there is pretty profound. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironhorse Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I admit that most (if not all) of what I post here is subjective. So what? Can anyone here claim to be purely objective in their views? The fact that people cannot inherently cannot agree 100% on an event that they experienced is a testament to the subjectivity of reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Idiots.... I haven't rejected anything. Y'all are just ignoring the definition(a) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I admit that most (if not all) of what I post here is subjective. So what? Can anyone here claim to be purely objective in their views? The fact that people cannot inherently cannot agree 100% on an event that they experienced is a testament to the subjectivity of reality. This all rests on a bifurcation fallacy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 This all rests on a bifurcation fallacy. There's no fallacy to it F. The definitions didn't just arise out of some fallacy, but reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted December 24, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted December 24, 2014 I'm not keeping up with the "subjective" tennis match. So what's the deal? Have we agreed that there is an objective reality but we must view it subjectively? What's the argument in a nutshell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 This all rests on a bifurcation fallacy. There's no fallacy to it F. The definitions didn't just arise out of some fallacy, but reality. What Ironhorse wrote rests on a bifurcation fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 The definitions didn't just arise out of some fallacy, but reality. Careful now. That sounds like you are recognizing that an objective reality exists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I'm not keeping up with the "subjective" tennis match. So what's the deal? Have we agreed that there is an objective reality but we must view it subjectively? What's the argument in a nutshell? Yes, but they keep insisting that there is some other way to view it. Even if we practice science, there is no way to ultimately escape subjectivity. And if there were, science can't define it. So basically there are a few idiots that want to keep some inane argument alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 What is this about? Is there some argument spilling over into multiple threads? In a way, yes. If I hit myself in the head with a hammer, the reality would be that I hit myself in the head with a hammer. E3 would say that that is just the way I see it. Wait, did I just answer you Lucy, or did I provide the answer to Florduh's question of what the argument is in a nutshell, or both? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 This all rests on a bifurcation fallacy. There's no fallacy to it F. The definitions didn't just arise out of some fallacy, but reality. What Ironhorse wrote rests on a bifurcation fallacy. So explain a "bifurcation fallacy". I intuitively think you are putting three dollar words together to make up something that doesn't exist...but go ahead, here's your shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator florduh Posted December 24, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted December 24, 2014 Ah, carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I'm not keeping up with the "subjective" tennis match. So what's the deal? Have we agreed that there is an objective reality but we must view it subjectively? What's the argument in a nutshell? Yes, but they keep insisting that there is some other way to view it. Even if we practice science, there is no way to ultimately escape subjectivity. And if there were, science can't define it. So basically there are a few idiots that want to keep some inane argument alive. E3, whom(s) are you calling an idiot? Not that it would matter, it would just be your subjective opinion. "Is there a reality?" Is that what you are really getting at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 Who among us can agree that Ironhorse is out of his league as we have observed it so far in our subjective opinions? How about an absolute then. Who among us can agree that Ironhorse is out of his league according to the unchanging word of almighty Biblegod? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 I'm not keeping up with the "subjective" tennis match. So what's the deal? Have we agreed that there is an objective reality but we must view it subjectively? What's the argument in a nutshell? Yes, but they keep insisting that there is some other way to view it. Even if we practice science, there is no way to ultimately escape subjectivity. And if there were, science can't define it. I don't think that accurately describes your opponents' view. It certainly doesn't describe mine. And it doesn't sound like anything I've seen Prof or BAA write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucy Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 What is this about? Is there some argument spilling over into multiple threads? End3 claims everything that a human perceives is subjective. For him the statement "Fire is hot" is subjective because we, humans, perceive it through our touch sense. He also thinks science is subjective because of the same reason, scientists are using their eyes and hands to observe and thus making science subjective. He also claimed the only objectivity in the whole universe is Bible God, so we have to align ourselves with that God to be objective. We proved this opinion of his is unsound and illogical in this thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/65617-grace-is-the-knowledge-of-inseparability-and-of-us/page-33#.VJn8-8AAA I believe the subjectivity conversation started around page 25. Thank you. That clears things up for me. It seemed like this same topic is going across multiple threads and I wasn't sure where the origin was. What is this about? Is there some argument spilling over into multiple threads? In a way, yes. If I hit myself in the head with a hammer, the reality would be that I hit myself in the head with a hammer. E3 would say that that is just the way I see it. Wait, did I just answer you Lucy, or did I provide the answer to Florduh's question of what the argument is in a nutshell, or both? Yes, this answers my question. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 3 user(s) are reading this topic3 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users duderonomy, end3, ironhorse Bring it biotches! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 MM, You're going to have to get BAA and the Prof to explain their view. BAA just keeps saying I can't know blah blah...some stupid shit, because I say everything is subjective....AFTER saying that I would gladly discuss objective reality via science. He and Prof decline that offer because they say I can't do that to their standard. Idiots. And BAA continues to harass me where ever I show up with this same stupid shit....for example this thread. So any of you, let's finish this, post the goddamn definitions of subjective, subjectivity, objective, and objectivity and explain how we may totally escape subjectivity. Do the honorable thing Spock and bring your stupid shit argument out where everyone can see. And when you answer the idiot, he claims he can't understand or you didn't answer adequately and asks some more stupid shit questions. And THEN constantly harasses those Christians who didn't answer his stupid shit questions from then on. And keep records no less. That's a fucked up life BAA. Keeping records on participants in a public forum, really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 MM, You're going to have to get BAA and the Prof to explain their view. BAA just keeps saying I can't know blah blah...some stupid shit, because I say everything is subjective....AFTER saying that I would gladly discuss objective reality via science. He and Prof decline that offer because they say I can't do that to their standard. Idiots. And BAA continues to harass me where ever I show up with this same stupid shit....for example this thread. So any of you, let's finish this, post the goddamn definitions of subjective, subjectivity, objective, and objectivity and explain how we may totally escape subjectivity. Do the honorable thing Spock and bring your stupid shit argument out where everyone can see. And when you answer the idiot, he claims he can't understand or you didn't answer adequately and asks some more stupid shit questions. And THEN constantly harasses those Christians who didn't answer his stupid shit questions from then on. And keep records no less. That's a fucked up life BAA. Keeping records on participants in a public forum, real E3, be always ready to answer for your faith. Don't respond in anger. You know that as a Christian, right? But how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 24, 2014 Share Posted December 24, 2014 MM, You're going to have to get BAA and the Prof to explain their view. BAA just keeps saying I can't know blah blah...some stupid shit, because I say everything is subjective....AFTER saying that I would gladly discuss objective reality via science. He and Prof decline that offer because they say I can't do that to their standard. Idiots. And BAA continues to harass me where ever I show up with this same stupid shit....for example this thread. So any of you, let's finish this, post the goddamn definitions of subjective, subjectivity, objective, and objectivity and explain how we may totally escape subjectivity. Do the honorable thing Spock and bring your stupid shit argument out where everyone can see. And when you answer the idiot, he claims he can't understand or you didn't answer adequately and asks some more stupid shit questions. And THEN constantly harasses those Christians who didn't answer his stupid shit questions from then on. And keep records no less. That's a fucked up life BAA. Keeping records on participants in a public forum, really? What a total crock . . . You know full well that BAA has brought his argument multiple times. I've lost track of how often he has paraded it out for you. I have never seen anybody claim that we can totally escape subjectivity. I don't think that was ever part of it. It all boils down to everyone else recognizing that there is an objective reality and one guy not wanting to admit there is an objective reality. I guess now you are trying to back peddle and pretend the conflict was about something completely different. It would seem that you now acknowledge that an objective reality exists so the conflict is resolved - right? Perhaps BAA intends to quote your original claim and ask you to confirm that it is wrong but I don't care to go that far. I'm satisfied simply by you abandoning your claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts