Keeping End3 Honest.

[mymistake]

 

In my mind all definitions of some absolute reality have been formed via a subjective process.....which then put them in the category of "everything is subjective".

 

In my opinion, being subjects of the universe, we are doomed to our own definitions of reality. But again, that in itself makes it subjective.

 

It would be like a child walking up to an older person and dictating the use of some object that has been long used as one thing but then all the child knows is the modern day use. Our objective reality is like telling God, "no God that's not what you designed....we know it's this"....arrogantly mind you.

 

 

Are you on drugs?

 

 

To the God issue, it's the old religion vs. science discussions. He will admit that objectively defining our own subjectivity is an insurmountable hurdle, but he won't abandon whatever it is in his mind that keeps him allied with Spock and some objective perfection. I'm with you regarding the discussion, but they kept wanting me to admit to something totally outside of the definition.

 

Edit: To reiterate, I would lean further towards science if we could predict our own subjectivity. This would remove the default to faith.

 

 

End do you even understand what these words mean?  This way lies madness.

[Guest Furball]

I noticed that this person uses swear words and blasphemes gods name, all which are forbidden in the bible. Authentic believer my ass. How can you keep this person honest if they have proven themselves to be a hypocrite. And we know what the bible says about hypocrites....they will receive a greater damnation. -Jesus (yeshua)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

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?

I understand. One point I am trying to make is the ant would never have been called an ant although it may have existed. The definitions of reality are subjective. Regardless of whether we may assert something post consciousness, it still doesn't make it completely objectively true.

 

I can see where BAA is leaning towards science describing an absolute truth, but I don't think we have the ability to completely define that...and never will.

 

So, the important thing here isn't that you bore false witness against me.  The important thing, in your opinion, is that I might use the word "ant" and you think I am referring to my mother's sister.  Way to major on the minors, there, End3.

 

A coil just blew in my irony meter....

 

I don't dislike you Prof. I will try to be more responsible on my end. Thx. Apologies.

 

I don't dislike you either, End3; in fact, as far as discussions with christians go, you're probably my favorite.  I just don't understand how it is that you can't see that what makes objective reality objective is that it would continue to exist with or without human perception.

[bornagainathiest]

 

I'm not using Wiki definitions, End.

Obviously...or any other definitions.

 

 

What I'm doing is... "keeping you honest", End.

 

Honest to your own words and your own beliefs - which you clearly laid out for us across two other threads, before you introduced that new material from Wikipedia.  That's why I'm not using the Wiki stuff.

[bornagainathiest]

And for the record...

 

If other people are keeping End3 honest too, then that's up to them.  I have no authority over them and they have none over me.  End3 could opt to keep me honest to the content of my posts if he wants to.  That's up to him.  We're all equals here.  For myself, I'm not actively opposing or challenging the basis of End's beliefs.

Nor am I presenting any alternatives.  Nor am I presenting my own take on these issues.  My role is simply to keep End honest to his own words and beliefs.  Nothing more.

 

Since everything is subjective to him, when he writes something that violates this - I keep him honest by pointing out that he is contradicting his own clearly stated beliefs.   He chooses to call my actions, harassment.

 

Before I respond to that accusation... a bit of context.

For quite a few years now I've kept other Christians (Thumbelina, Rayskidude, OrdinaryClay, SteveBennett, etc.) 'honest' in a similar way. That is, I keep a careful track of their posts and compare what they write across many threads, looking for where they contradict themselves.  Once I find these contradictions I then use their own words against them to destroy their arguments, to uncover the falsity of their beliefs, to refute their claims and to expose their lies.  

 

Therefore, when I am keeping End3 honest - this is not harassment.

I consider it to be my duty to hold him accountable for his words and actions, just as I did with those other Christians. It's my duty because there are lurkers and newbies here who need help to see these things clearly and not be mislead or confused by them.  

 

Finality, I would like to categorically state  that I consider End3 to be genuine in his beliefs.  I say this so that he cannot accuse me of saying that he is lying.  That is my position. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

First, you may thank BAA for the ongoing discussion....the continued harassment.

 

 

Cry me a river.  

 

You come to an ex-c website to talk about your personal beliefs and then you complain when someone keeps tabs on your statements? Seriously?

[Guest end3]

 

 

I'm not using Wiki definitions, End.

Obviously...or any other definitions.

 

 

What I'm doing is... "keeping you honest", End.

 

Honest to your own words and your own beliefs - which you clearly laid out for us across two other threads, before you introduced that new material from Wikipedia.  That's why I'm not using the Wiki stuff.

 

It's illegal now to introduce new material that you won't respond to? This is how you are dishonest and harassing to boot. Antagonistic bitch....much like NZ. Y'all are a pair for each other.

 

"We can't discuss this because you never introduced it"

"We can't discuss this because you never completely answered my questions to my satisfaction"

 

And you wish to keep me honest.

[Guest end3]

And for the record...

 

If other people are keeping End3 honest too, then that's up to them.  I have no authority over them and they have none over me.  End3 could opt to keep me honest to the content of my posts if he wants to.  That's up to him.  We're all equals here.  For myself, I'm not actively opposing or challenging the basis of End's beliefs.

Nor am I presenting any alternatives.  Nor am I presenting my own take on these issues.  My role is simply to keep End honest to his own words and beliefs.  Nothing more.

 

Since everything is subjective to him, when he writes something that violates this - I keep him honest by pointing out that he is contradicting his own clearly stated beliefs.   He chooses to call my actions, harassment.

 

Before I respond to that accusation... a bit of context.

For quite a few years now I've kept other Christians (Thumbelina, Rayskidude, OrdinaryClay, SteveBennett, etc.) 'honest' in a similar way. That is, I keep a careful track of their posts and compare what they write across many threads, looking for where they contradict themselves.  Once I find these contradictions I then use their own words against them to destroy their arguments, to uncover the falsity of their beliefs, to refute their claims and to expose their lies.  

 

Therefore, when I am keeping End3 honest - this is not harassment.

I consider it to be my duty to hold him accountable for his words and actions, just as I did with those other Christians. It's my duty because there are lurkers and newbies here who need help to see these things clearly and not be mislead or confused by them.  

 

Finality, I would like to categorically state  that I consider End3 to be genuine in his beliefs.  I say this so that he cannot accuse me of saying that he is lying.  That is my position. 

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

We all know your whining ass position....respond already.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

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?

I understand. One point I am trying to make is the ant would never have been called an ant although it may have existed. The definitions of reality are subjective. Regardless of whether we may assert something post consciousness, it still doesn't make it completely objectively true.

 

I can see where BAA is leaning towards science describing an absolute truth, but I don't think we have the ability to completely define that...and never will.

 

So, the important thing here isn't that you bore false witness against me.  The important thing, in your opinion, is that I might use the word "ant" and you think I am referring to my mother's sister.  Way to major on the minors, there, End3.

 

A coil just blew in my irony meter....

 

I don't dislike you Prof. I will try to be more responsible on my end. Thx. Apologies.

 

I don't dislike you either, End3; in fact, as far as discussions with christians go, you're probably my favorite.  I just don't understand how it is that you can't see that what makes objective reality objective is that it would continue to exist with or without human perception.

 

I'm ok with that if it would move us all forward. Humanity didn't come first per the Bible. My point is, and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but even if humanity arose post creation and then consciousness derives or objectively assesses some objective reality, I still feel certain the human's evaluation of that reality is subjective.

 

Again, as I posted to MM, someone tell me how a human is to ultimately evaluate anything except through the mind?

 

Y'all say I am obfuscating. What about MM just saying this statement is irrelevant. It's not. Please see the following definitions:

 

adjective

 

adjective: subjective

 

 

 

1.

 

 

based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

"his views are highly subjective"

 

 

synonyms: personal, individual, emotional, instinctive, intuitive

"a subjective analysis"

 

adjective

 

 

1.

 

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

 

 

2.

 

pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual:

"a subjective evaluation."

 

 

3.

 

placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.

 

 

4.

 

Philosophy. relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.

 

 

5.

 

relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

 

 

6.

 

pertaining to the subject or substance in which attributes inhere; essential.

 

 

BAA won't be able to participate anymore....this is all new, illegal material.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Crybaby doesn't like it when someone keeps tabs on his statements, so he complains about "harassment" and calls people names, instead of answering questions and addressing the points raised.  Out of his depth completely.

[bdp]

so, end is still a(n obnoxious) dunce.  glad I didn't miss anything.

[Guest end3]

Pretty sure I have responded nz. Can you speak in any other language than bitch?

[Guest end3]

Where's your trademark fuck you bdp? You were always such a lovely person

[Guest end3]

Where's your trademark fuck you bdp? You were always such a lovely person

[mymistake]

 

I'm ok with that if it would move us all forward. 

 

 

There is only one guy who hesitates to admit there is an objective reality.  Just one guy isn't moving forward.  All you have to do to join everybody else is admit that you were wrong and it isn't all subjective.  But you don't have to.  Instead you could pretend you are being persecuted.  Let us know how that works out for you.

 

 

 

. . . I still feel certain the human's evaluation of that reality is subjective.

 

Nobody disputes that.  The dispute comes from your claim that there is no objective reality.

 

 

 

 

What about MM just saying this statement is irrelevant.

 

I didn't just tell you it was irrelevant.  I explained exactly why.  I did this multiple times.  However I can't force you to stop being ignorant.  Only you can make you learn.

 

 

 

 

BAA won't be able to participate anymore....this is all new, illegal material.

 

Rather you are back peddling.  You are pretending your original claim was something else with the hope that you don't have to take responsibility for admitting it was wrong.  Just admit it was incorrect to claim everything is subjective and admit there is an objective reality and move forward.

 

 

Does your refrigerator leave you puzzled?  Do you stare at it an wonder if the light stays on when you close the door?  Does the food you put inside it not exist when the door is closed and then pop back into existence when the door is opened?  Get over it.  There is an objective reality.  This was all a desperate ploy on your part to avoid admitting your religion is empty and lost.

[Guest end3]

Just respond to the definitions Mm i

[mymistake]

Just respond to the definitions Mm i

 

I agree with the definition you posted in #90.  However this looks trivial to me.  What about it?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I'm ok with that if it would move us all forward. Humanity didn't come first per the Bible. My point is, and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but even if humanity arose post creation and then consciousness derives or objectively assesses some objective reality, I still feel certain the human's evaluation of that reality is subjective.

 

Then obviously whatever training you had to qualify you to work in a lab was inadequate.  Scientists are trained to look past the subjective and deal with the facts only.  Science works because scientists can evaluate the evidence without clouding their judgment with emotions, prejudices, or pre-conceptions.  This is why scientists can examine the fossil record and know that humans evolved and were not created.

[mymistake]

 

 

I'm ok with that if it would move us all forward. Humanity didn't come first per the Bible. My point is, and maybe I'm misunderstanding, but even if humanity arose post creation and then consciousness derives or objectively assesses some objective reality, I still feel certain the human's evaluation of that reality is subjective.

 

Then obviously whatever training you had to qualify you to work in a lab was inadequate.  Scientists are trained to look past the subjective and deal with the facts only.  Science works because scientists can evaluate the evidence without clouding their judgment with emotions, prejudices, or pre-conceptions.  This is why scientists can examine the fossil record and know that humans evolved and were not created.

 

 

 

I think this illustrates the growing problem of American Christianity's anti-science movement.  In order to take the Bible literally science must be seen as a crock.  It was a message that was constantly drilled into my head as I was growing up.  It can be hard to overcome the brainwashing.

[Guest end3]

I think this illustrates the growing problem of American Christianity's anti-science movement.  In order to take the Bible literally science must be seen as a crock.  It was a message that was constantly drilled into my head as I was growing up.  It can be hard to overcome the brainwashing.

Oh yeah, it HAS to be Christian scientific brainwashing. It CAN'T be that science doesn't have the capability. Why don't YOU practice some objective thought so you might come to a more objective answer.

 

What a joke.

[bornagainathiest]

Even if I participate no further in this discussion, look at what good fruit my K.Y.H. posts have brought forth from the Born Again Christian called End3..!

.

.

.

"Idiots!  Stupid shit!  That's a fucked up life [of yours] BAA.  Your conclusion is moronic. Antagonistic bitch!  Your whining ass position. Fuck you, BDP." 

.

.

.

Matthew 7 : 15 - 20.

15 “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16 By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

 

Matthew 12 : 33 - 37.

33 “Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35 A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36 But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37 For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”

 

John 15 : 1 - 8.

“I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. 2 He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes[a] so that it will be even more fruitful. 3 You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. 4 Remain in me, as I also remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me.

5 “I am the vine; you are the branches. If you remain in me and I in you, you will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing. 6 If you do not remain in me, you are like a branch that is thrown away and withers; such branches are picked up, thrown into the fire and burned. 7 If you remain in me and my words remain in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. 8 This is to my Father’s glory, that you bear much fruit, showing yourselves to be my disciples.

.

.

By End3's fruit we recognize the goodness that is in him.

By End3's fruit we see the goodness that is stored up in him.

By End3's fruit we can see if he is really one of Jesus' disciples... or not.

Please draw your own conclusions.

Thanks,

BAA.

[Orbit]

Some simple, well-defined facts:

1.Color blind people still see the world, despite their differing perceptions/subjectivities. It prevents traffic accidents.

2. The little light in the fridge goes off when you close the door, even though you don't see it go off (from MM)

 

Therefore, objective reality exists independently of your subjectivity.

 

To perceive something in your subjectivity does not define objective reality, it just defines it for YOU. You can check for distortions by comparing notes with others to achieve intersubjectivity (from ficino). You can also use various measurement instruments to check the objective validity of your perception.

 

End, which one of the above statements do you disagree with and why?

[Guest end3]

Why don't you discuss the merits of your argument BAA rather than ad hom. I've posted Wiki and dictionary definitions ..... You know , objective shit that you now ignore for subjective attacks. Spock will be disappointed

[Orbit]

End? Yoo-hoo!

[bornagainathiest]

Why don't you discuss the merits of your argument BAA rather than ad hom. I've posted Wiki and dictionary definitions ..... You know , objective shit that you now ignore for subjective attacks. Spock will be disappointed

 

You're not paying attention End.  Here's what I wrote yesterday...

 

"For myself, I'm not actively opposing or challenging the basis of End's beliefs.  Nor am I presenting any alternatives.  Nor am I presenting my own take on these issues.  My role is simply to keep End honest to his own words and beliefs.  Nothing more."

 

So there are no merits of my argument to discuss - because, in this thread at least, I haven't presented one.

The title of this thread is a none too subtle clue as to it's contents, End.  I'm keeping you honest - not presenting any argument of my own.  Please try and keep up.  Thanks.

.

.

.

Keeping you honest to your faith is an ad hominem attack...?   Really..?

And there's me thinking that you calling me a moron, an idiot and that my life is fucked up was a angry series of ad hominem attacks of the lowest order..?

.

.

.