Keeping End3 Honest.

[Lucy]

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?

 

 

Do you believe an objective reality exists and that we are perceiving it subjectively? Or something else? I am not trying to argue. I'm just trying to understand what you are stating.

[Guest end3]

 

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.

 

Crock? Go read the opening post to this thread. You must be the missing stooge to BAA and the Prof.

 

And what galls me is, there are infinite ways to view any given "reality"...all in dynamic motion, and then to have the audacity to present the argument that we "know". We don't know squat. Who is actually being objectively dishonest? Who is actually assessing our objective capabilities and asking if we WILL know "omniscience".

[Guest end3]

 

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?

 

 

Do you believe an objective reality exists and that we are perceiving it subjectively? Or something else? I am not trying to argue. I'm just trying to understand what you are stating.

 

Without an interpretation, it's meaningless.

 

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?

 

Faith is the default in my opinion...and will always be....always. How can we really refute this.

[mymistake]

 

Who is actually being objectively dishonest?

 

 

That would be you.

 

 

 

 

And what galls me is, there are infinite ways to view any given "reality"...all in dynamic motion, and then to have the audacity to present the argument that we "know".

 

I'm not sure if it is truly infinite but certainly it would be a very large number.  Epistemology is an entire discipline.  Thousands of man hours have been invested into it.  You bring your high school dropout mentality and you demand respect for all the things you choose to not learn.  That list of things you demanded we defined could be googled in a just a few minutes but you can't be bothered to find out what those things mean.

 

 

Yes or no - is there an objective reality?

[StillLooking]

Faith is the default in my opinion...and will always be....always. How can we really refute this.

 

Why do you say that your faith is objective? Isn't it subjective too since you perceive it? This is the crux of the discussion not some objective reality discussion on science.

[StillLooking]

End3,

 

We can move on once you admit that your faith is subjective.

[ironhorse]

End3,

 

We can move on once you admit that your faith is subjective.

 

 

I think End3 would move on. I know I would.

 

Will you admit StillLooking also that your faith is also subjective?

[Ravenstar]

I'll the the bait… since that is what it is.

 

What faith?

 

  ding! ding! ding!.. and you win!!!!!! The coveted WLC Award! An honour for the best equivocator.

[Bhim]

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?

Are evangelicals allowed to use the word fuck? I thought that such speech violated Ephesians 5:4.

[ironhorse]

 

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?

Are evangelicals allowed to use the word fuck? I thought that such speech violated Ephesians 5:4.

 

 

 

Why not read about the origin of the word? Reading is fun.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck

[StillLooking]

 

End3,

 

We can move on once you admit that your faith is subjective.

 

 

I think End3 would move on. I know I would.

 

Will you admit StillLooking also that your faith is also subjective?

 

 

I don't believe in anything supernatural... so what should I admit?

 

Edit to add this:

 

Also, if his faith (and your faith) is subjective, then it is fallible. This means your God can be wrong thus your Bible can be wrong. Then, of course the logical conclusion is we shouldn't use your God and your Bible as guidance in life.

[StillLooking]

 

 

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.

 

Crock? Go read the opening post to this thread. You must be the missing stooge to BAA and the Prof.

 

And what galls me is, there are infinite ways to view any given "reality"...all in dynamic motion, and then to have the audacity to present the argument that we "know". We don't know squat. Who is actually being objectively dishonest? Who is actually assessing our objective capabilities and asking if we WILL know "omniscience".

 

 

"We don't know squat" So why do you believe in Christian God? Why do you believe the Bible writers received God divinity when they wrote the Bible?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

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.

This is a bald-faced lie, End3; and you know it. 

 

Yes, you did offer to discuss objective reality; you even asked us to present our ideas to you for discussion.  I did so.  I presented you with my idea of objective reality and how it can be perceived objectively.  You responded by glazing over my idea, saying, "That was really nicely written."  Then when I pressed you for further comment (because that is how discussions work), you responded by saying, "I don't really understand it."

 

I DID NOT decline your offer on the basis that you can't discuss objectivity up to my standards.  YOU declined the discussion because you couldn't understand objective reality.

 

For you to now make the claim that your offer was declined is nothing more than an outright lie.  You are bearing false witness against me.

 

Now do you see why BAA feels the need to keep you honest?  It's because you obviously can't (or won't) do it yourself.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

 

 

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.

 

Someone commits a bifurcation fallacy when s/he presents a situation as though the only options are A or B, when there are other options.  Someone who says "everything is either beautiful or ugly" commits a bifurcation fallacy, because some things could be neither, and some things can be beautiful in one respect and ugly in another, and so on.  A bifurcation fallacy oversimplifies.

 

I may have misunderstood IH.  I took him to be saying that reality is either objective or subjective. 

 

It may be rather that he committed a hasty generalization fallacy.  That happens when, from the fact that a good number of things are A, you conclude that everything is A.  Ironhorse said that most, if not all, of what he says is subjective.  He ended by saying- or it sounds as though he said it - that reality is subjective.  To the extent that I understand his last statement, it sounds as though he's claiming that everything is subjective.

 

Unless that statement itself is subjective, IH is making at least one statement that he's presenting as true independently of his own viewpoint.  So perhaps Ironhorse is undermining his own claim that reality is subjective.

 

I can't go further to try to puzzle out IH's meaning;  if he wants to develop it, he is welcome to do so.  I am not sure I understand what he means by "the subjectivity of reality."  This phrase may be literally nonsensical;  it may resolve to a claim that whatever each person experiences/perceives or what have you, is true for that person.

 

Plato went into this in the Theaetetus.  Where's Wololo when we need him?

[Orbit]

End the fact that you perceive reality at all makes it objective. You know this by comparing notes with others--look, they see the red light, too! And if they perceive the color differently because of color blindness, the light still changed. The top light is still lit, and they know that means to stop. So we can have shared agreement about objective reality even where there are variations in subjective perception.

[Guest end3]

 

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.

This is a bald-faced lie, End3; and you know it. 

 

Yes, you did offer to discuss objective reality; you even asked us to present our ideas to you for discussion.  I did so.  I presented you with my idea of objective reality and how it can be perceived objectively.  You responded by glazing over my idea, saying, "That was really nicely written."  Then when I pressed you for further comment (because that is how discussions work), you responded by saying, "I don't really understand it."

 

I DID NOT decline your offer on the basis that you can't discuss objectivity up to my standards.  YOU declined the discussion because you couldn't understand objective reality.

 

For you to now make the claim that your offer was declined is nothing more than an outright lie.  You are bearing false witness against me.

 

Now do you see why BAA feels the need to keep you honest?  It's because you obviously can't (or won't) do it yourself.

 

You're right, you did do that, but in the context of some objective reality outside of our perception. So what. You wouldn't know about a leaf cutter ant without your subjective perception. Everything is processed that subjective frame. By the very objective relationships that bring you the ant also brings a brain. You can not say one is real without the other.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

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.

This is a bald-faced lie, End3; and you know it. 

 

Yes, you did offer to discuss objective reality; you even asked us to present our ideas to you for discussion.  I did so.  I presented you with my idea of objective reality and how it can be perceived objectively.  You responded by glazing over my idea, saying, "That was really nicely written."  Then when I pressed you for further comment (because that is how discussions work), you responded by saying, "I don't really understand it."

 

I DID NOT decline your offer on the basis that you can't discuss objectivity up to my standards.  YOU declined the discussion because you couldn't understand objective reality.

 

For you to now make the claim that your offer was declined is nothing more than an outright lie.  You are bearing false witness against me.

 

Now do you see why BAA feels the need to keep you honest?  It's because you obviously can't (or won't) do it yourself.

 

You're right, you did do that, but in the context of some objective reality outside of our perception. So what. You wouldn't know about a leaf cutter ant without your subjective perception. Everything is processed that subjective frame. By the very objective relationships that bring you the ant also brings a brain. You can not say one is real without the other.

 

So, I guess when you have jesus to forgive you, there's no need to apologize for your lie?  That's fine; I a big boy.  You're forgiven.

 

Now, back to the leaf cutter ants.  Do you suppose that leaf cutter ants would suddenly cease to exist without humans around to perceive them?  If the human race suddenly went extinct, would leaf cutter ants suddenly disappear out of existence as well?

 

If the answer is "No", then there is an objective reality that exists outside of your subjective perceptions.  This is how the rest of us can objectively know that leaf cutter ants are real.

[mymistake]

 

 

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.

This is a bald-faced lie, End3; and you know it. 

 

Yes, you did offer to discuss objective reality; you even asked us to present our ideas to you for discussion.  I did so.  I presented you with my idea of objective reality and how it can be perceived objectively.  You responded by glazing over my idea, saying, "That was really nicely written."  Then when I pressed you for further comment (because that is how discussions work), you responded by saying, "I don't really understand it."

 

I DID NOT decline your offer on the basis that you can't discuss objectivity up to my standards.  YOU declined the discussion because you couldn't understand objective reality.

 

For you to now make the claim that your offer was declined is nothing more than an outright lie.  You are bearing false witness against me.

 

Now do you see why BAA feels the need to keep you honest?  It's because you obviously can't (or won't) do it yourself.

 

You're right, you did do that, but in the context of some objective reality outside of our perception. So what.

 

 

Then why did you lie?

 

 

 

You wouldn't know about a leaf cutter ant without your subjective perception. Everything is processed that subjective frame. By the very objective relationships that bring you the ant also brings a brain.

 

Pardon?  Does that mean you admit there is an objective reality?  It's a very simple question.  Nobody else seems to mind answering that question but when people ask you I see you squirm and avoid.

 

Why do you call a human observing an ant a "relationship"?  You use that word conspicuously often.

[bornagainathiest]

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?

 

Ok End, you can begin by addressing this.

.

.

.

You used science to conclude that subjectivity is an unavoidable human condition.

 

But when you apply that conclusion retroactively to that science...

 

...the science itself becomes unavoidably subjective.

 

But, science always strives to be as objective as possible.

 

So the science you used no longer qualifies as science. 

 

This is because unavoidably subjective science cannot (by your own definition) strive for any level of objectivity.

 

It is always doomed to be unavoidably subjective.

 

Science with 0% of objectivity is no longer science.

 

Therefore, your original conclusion (which used only science) is both invalid and unsafe.

.

.

.

And everything in your life that you've based on that invalid and unsafe conclusion is equally invalid and unsafe, End.

.

.

.

Oh and btw...

 

"Reasons Greetings for tomorrow!"   

[Guest end3]

You're conclusion is moronic

[mymistake]

You're conclusion is moronic

 

 

Then it should be easy for you to demonstrate why.  Please do.  I'm sure we would all like to see that.  Or rather, we would enjoy seeing you try and fail.

[Bhim]

Why not read about the origin of the word? Reading is fun.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck

I'm already up to date on the literature.  It does nothing to explain why it's acceptable for an evangelical Christian to ever use the word fuck.

[sdelsolray]

Why attempt to keep End3 honest?  He'll just invoke his standard non-relationship, graceless and non-communal tactics of passive-aggressiveness, moving the goalposts, innate stubbornness, changing the subject and (his favorite) bald hate.

 

He doesn't have any meaningful relationships, or any grace or any community.  That's why he's always fantasizing about relationships, grace and community.  He self-medicates by pretending he has these things when, actually, he does not.  

 

I hope he gets a Jesus Action Set for Christmas.  He can go play relationship, grace and community with that.

[Guest end3]

This is because unavoidably subjective science cannot (by your own definition) strive for any level of objectivity.

How do you come to the conclusion, your conclusion that science, although subjective, can not strive for objectivity. Seriously, how the hell did that come out of your brain. You act like it is an all or nothing choice. That is never what I have expressed. YOU are the one making this claim.

[Guest end3]

Why attempt to keep End3 honest?  He'll just invoke his standard non-relationship, graceless and non-communal tactics of passive-aggressiveness, moving the goalposts, innate stubbornness, changing the subject and (his favorite) bald hate.

 

He doesn't have any meaningful relationships, or any grace or any community.  That's why he's always fantasizing about relationships, grace and community.  He self-medicates by pretending he has these things when, actually, he does not.  

 

I hope he gets a Jesus Action Set for Christmas.  He can go play relationship, grace and community with that.

Pretty accurate S. I actually do have several very honest, meaningful, wonderful, and joyous relationships. Not an overwhelming number, but several good, real ones that are more valuable than a whole congregation of marginal. It is through Christ Himself that I have come to realize the value in relationships.

 

But you're right, I came by the list of qualities you mention honestly in my youth. Many of you here trigger these qualities in me. Y'all often remind me of the same selfish trash responsible for my errant learning curve. Should I have more grace for y'all? Sure. But I don't sometimes.

 

But, the good news is I HAVE seen the Light, the difference, due to my Jesus Action Set. I hope you find yours because one thing I DO recognize S is the true hate that I know, it's in you too.