duderonomy Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 End3, every bit of this is addressed on the Burden of Proof thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66119-the-burden-of-proof/page-6#.VJ8PZF4CU From square one an eternal God is not necessary in order explain existence. From there proceed all questions of subjective and objective. If there were more objective evidence, as it was said earlier this thread, then it's felt that there'd be less reason to believe in a supernatural God. I found that statement interesting. But subjectively, there's no reason to assert a supernatural origin in the first place as is explained in the link. You've said that you feel that science is viewed through subjective perception and got hung up on a perceived lack of objectivity. Well, that being the case, then it must be acknowledged that subjective perception lays bare the idea that a supernatural God is required in order to explain existence. You don't even need the objective evidence that you think eludes us all in order to question a supernatural origin. Crap JP, I am stymied at the lack of ability of this group to assess the objective potential OF an objective assessment. Who gives a crap about the subjective, that's a no brainer. These people are convinced by their own flawed assessment of our potential. But a Christian could never think like that....they are brainwashed...blah blah, whine, bitch bitch bitch. Yet you keep coming to the well to drink. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Ok MM, you agreed with my posting of the definitions so how am I suppose to respond? Yay? How can you agree with the definitions, as I do, and then say it is something I can't grasp? You care to explain that? Just admit there is an objective reality. There is no need to have a meltdown. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Ok MM, you agreed with my posting of the definitions so how am I suppose to respond? Yay? How can you agree with the definitions, as I do, and then say it is something I can't grasp? You care to explain that? Just admit there is an objective reality. There is no need to have a meltdown. Even the Bible says there was the creation before man...that close enough for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 We of all people believed that Jesus could make us better, but alas we ended up much like end3. But we wouldn't lie to ourselves about what we become and we knew that the only way we could ever really love, was to kick this pathetic excuse for a god out on his un almighty arse. You're new PoP. Enlighten me how my turning away from Christianity would make me able to love. Well christianity teaches "He who does not love his brother, does not love god" and we know what happens to those who dont love god. That kind of thinking has very crippling effects on a persons ability to have a healthy love for people. Because forcing people to love everyone is wrong and downright dangerous. If you don't mind me asking PoP, how long were you a believer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Ok MM, you agreed with my posting of the definitions so how am I suppose to respond? Yay? How can you agree with the definitions, as I do, and then say it is something I can't grasp? You care to explain that? Just admit there is an objective reality. There is no need to have a meltdown. Even the Bible says there was the creation before man...that close enough for you. The Bible says a rape victim should marry her rapist. What does that have to do with anything? The Bible is just poorly written propaganda from the Iron Age. Kindly stick to the topic. Nobody else has a problem with saying the words "Of course there is an objective reality" so why is it giving you so much trouble? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Maybe E3 is realizing that the Bible is subjective? That it was written by subjective men writing subjectively about a subjectively perceived idea of a subjective "creator" that of course is real if one looks at the book subjectively? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Maybe E3 is realizing that the Bible is subjective? That it was written by subjective men writing subjectively about a subjectively perceived idea of a subjective "creator" that of course is real if one looks at the book subjectively? But it's authorship is theoretically divinely inspired vs. selfishly inspired... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Ok MM, you agreed with my posting of the definitions so how am I suppose to respond? Yay? How can you agree with the definitions, as I do, and then say it is something I can't grasp? You care to explain that? Just admit there is an objective reality. There is no need to have a meltdown. Even the Bible says there was the creation before man...that close enough for you. The Bible says a rape victim should marry her rapist. What does that have to do with anything? The Bible is just poorly written propaganda from the Iron Age. Kindly stick to the topic. Nobody else has a problem with saying the words "Of course there is an objective reality" so why is it giving you so much trouble? So if we have an objective reality that has given rise to humanity, and then humanity has realized that this objective state was there before them, the humans are still subjects of that reality are they not, hence subjective. But we can also claim objective reasoning because we may also think because we may manipulate that reality that somehow this may excuse our subjectivity? I'm very sure some of you think so. We may not possess complete objective certainty. It warns of this in the Bible...just sayin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Maybe E3 is realizing that the Bible is subjective? That it was written by subjective men writing subjectively about a subjectively perceived idea of a subjective "creator" that of course is real if one looks at the book subjectively? But it's authorship is theoretically divinely inspired vs. selfishly inspired... Theoretically, I am the center of the Universe, E3. To me it is real enough that from my point of view I can prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 We of all people believed that Jesus could make us better, but alas we ended up much like end3. But we wouldn't lie to ourselves about what we become and we knew that the only way we could ever really love, was to kick this pathetic excuse for a god out on his un almighty arse. You're new PoP. Enlighten me how my turning away from Christianity would make me able to love. Well christianity teaches "He who does not love his brother, does not love god" and we know what happens to those who dont love god. That kind of thinking has very crippling effects on a persons ability to have a healthy love for people. Because forcing people to love everyone is wrong and downright dangerous. If you don't mind me asking PoP, how long were you a believer? About 13 or so years. So apparently you felt like you were forced to love others when it didn't make sense and when you couldn't you figure you were a bad person and going to hell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Maybe E3 is realizing that the Bible is subjective? That it was written by subjective men writing subjectively about a subjectively perceived idea of a subjective "creator" that of course is real if one looks at the book subjectively? But it's authorship is theoretically divinely inspired vs. selfishly inspired... The Bible is inspired by God is an obvious lie. The Bible, as a whole, could not have been inspired by any sane and honest person. The whole thing is full of contradictions. There are major contradictions between the two Testaments, between the various books and even within the individual books. Sometimes the Bible can't even get through a single passage without contradicting itself. But you were about to admit there is an objective reality . . . weren't you? So go on ahead and say the words "There is an objective reality". 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Maybe E3 is realizing that the Bible is subjective? That it was written by subjective men writing subjectively about a subjectively perceived idea of a subjective "creator" that of course is real if one looks at the book subjectively? But it's authorship is theoretically divinely inspired vs. selfishly inspired... Theoretically, I am the center of the Universe, E3. To me it is real enough that from my point of view I can prove it. I realize the difference D. To me, it's looking at the older language and assessing whether that may potentially meet what we are discovering today. I personally think it does. Certainly not all people assess the Bible the same way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 Ok MM, you agreed with my posting of the definitions so how am I suppose to respond? Yay? How can you agree with the definitions, as I do, and then say it is something I can't grasp? You care to explain that? Just admit there is an objective reality. There is no need to have a meltdown. Even the Bible says there was the creation before man...that close enough for you. The Bible says a rape victim should marry her rapist. What does that have to do with anything? The Bible is just poorly written propaganda from the Iron Age. Kindly stick to the topic. Nobody else has a problem with saying the words "Of course there is an objective reality" so why is it giving you so much trouble? So if we have an objective reality that has given rise to humanity, and then humanity has realized that this objective state was there before them, the humans are still subjects of that reality are they not, hence subjective. But we can also claim objective reasoning because we may also think because we may manipulate that reality that somehow this may excuse our subjectivity? I'm very sure some of you think so. We may not possess complete objective certainty. It warns of this in the Bible...just sayin. Really? The Bible warns that you, End3, will go mad over trying to conflate and obfuscate the meaning of "subjective"? I don't remember any Bible passage that mentioned you specifically but I suppose I could be wrong. Come on and just say the words: "Of course there is an objective reality". You can do it. Let's see it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted December 28, 2014 Author Share Posted December 28, 2014 Pretty sure I have responded nz. Can you speak in any other language than bitch? You have ignored several people's questions, including Orbit's. Calling us names does not distract us from holding you to account. 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 Crybaby. Don't like it? Leave. It seems that I need to remind End3 (yet again!) of what happens in the Lion's Den. Christians are held accountable for their words, their claims, their beliefs, their faith, their displayed character and anything else pertaining to their status as Christians. You are not exempt for this scrutiny - even if you believe you should be, End. If you can't deal with this...leave. Yes, a disgusting place in reality where it's ok to be rude, bitchy, and selfish. What a joyous outcropping of non-belief. Just as well its ok to be rude and bitchy here or you wouldn't be able to get away with the crap you say. You are proof that xianity doesn't make people behave well. It seems to do the opposite, in fact. Correct, FTNZ...! End3 is excellent evidence that Christianity fails to deliver on it's promises and it's claims. His behavior is real and living proof that Jesus Christ did NOT rise from the dead. You can see it, I see it and it's my hope that the lurkers and newbies reading his posts will see it too. Thanks, BAA. You have no way to make any claims about what evidence I am End, Yet again I must keep you honest by reminding you that you cannot know this. You cannot KNOW anything at all. Everything is subjective, remember? Ok, you acknowledge the existence of an objective reality, but also acknowledge that you cannot KNOW anything about it. Your take on your subjective reality is by faith, not by knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted December 28, 2014 Author Share Posted December 28, 2014 End3, every bit of this is addressed on the Burden of Proof thread: http://www.ex-christian.net/topic/66119-the-burden-of-proof/page-6#.VJ8PZF4CU From square one an eternal God is not necessary in order explain existence. From there proceed all questions of subjective and objective. If there were more objective evidence, as it was said earlier this thread, then it's felt that there'd be less reason to believe in a supernatural God. I found that statement interesting. But subjectively, there's no reason to assert a supernatural origin in the first place as is explained in the link. You've said that you feel that science is viewed through subjective perception and got hung up on a perceived lack of objectivity. Well, that being the case, then it must be acknowledged that subjective perception lays bare the idea that a supernatural God is required in order to explain existence. You don't even need the objective evidence that you think eludes us all in order to question a supernatural origin. Crap JP, I am stymied at the lack of ability of this group to assess the objective potential OF an objective assessment. Who gives a crap about the subjective, that's a no brainer. These people are convinced by their own flawed assessment of our potential. But a Christian could never think like that....they are brainwashed...blah blah, whine, bitch bitch bitch. You cannot know that JP's words are crap, End. You only believe by faith that they are. Please stay true to your own beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted December 28, 2014 Author Share Posted December 28, 2014 Ok MM, you agreed with my posting of the definitions so how am I suppose to respond? Yay? How can you agree with the definitions, as I do, and then say it is something I can't grasp? You care to explain that? Just admit there is an objective reality. There is no need to have a meltdown. Even the Bible says there was the creation before man...that close enough for you. But science is telling us that there was no creation. Weep, wail and gnash your teeth, Christian..! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted December 28, 2014 Author Share Posted December 28, 2014 Maybe E3 is realizing that the Bible is subjective? That it was written by subjective men writing subjectively about a subjectively perceived idea of a subjective "creator" that of course is real if one looks at the book subjectively? But it's authorship is theoretically divinely inspired vs. selfishly inspired... A statement of faith on your part, End. You cannot know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted December 28, 2014 Author Share Posted December 28, 2014 Ok MM, you agreed with my posting of the definitions so how am I suppose to respond? Yay? How can you agree with the definitions, as I do, and then say it is something I can't grasp? You care to explain that? Just admit there is an objective reality. There is no need to have a meltdown. Even the Bible says there was the creation before man...that close enough for you. The Bible says a rape victim should marry her rapist. What does that have to do with anything? The Bible is just poorly written propaganda from the Iron Age. Kindly stick to the topic. Nobody else has a problem with saying the words "Of course there is an objective reality" so why is it giving you so much trouble? So if we have an objective reality that has given rise to humanity, and then humanity has realized that this objective state was there before them, the humans are still subjects of that reality are they not, hence subjective. But we can also claim objective reasoning because we may also think because we may manipulate that reality that somehow this may excuse our subjectivity? I'm very sure some of you think so. We may not possess complete objective certainty. It warns of this in the Bible...just sayin. Please stay true to your beliefs, End. Please qualify what you write with a disclaimer. End3 cannot know anything. His reality is based on faith, not knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted December 28, 2014 Author Share Posted December 28, 2014 I realize the difference D. To me, it's looking at the older language and assessing whether that may potentially meet what we are discovering today. I personally think it does. Certainly not all people assess the Bible the same way. Your assessment is based on faith, not knowledge, End. Please stay true to your beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted December 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted December 28, 2014 I realize the difference D. To me, it's looking at the older language and assessing whether that may potentially meet what we are discovering today. I personally think it does. Certainly not all people assess the Bible the same way. Whatever assessment you do will be, by your own admission, subjective; therefore, whatever conclusion you draw will be unreliable. The reason that not all people assiss the bible the same way is because the bible, itself, is a subjective text written by subjective men who had subjective social and political agendas. The bible, therefore, cannot be used as a means of objectively assessing the objective reality that exists all around us, nor is it appropriate in a discussion concerning said objective reality. The only objective means of assessing reality is science. You claim that science is inadequate because scientists are subjective themselves (despite also having made the contradictory claim that you "do objective 14 hours a day in two different labs"). However, I guarantee you that if you polled a large number of scientist and asked them if they'd offer their virgin daughters to a rape-hungry mob just to protect a couple of complete strangers, their collective, objective answer would be "NO". Moreover, ask them if the earth is flat or if virgin births are possible, you'd also get the objective answer "NO". Your precious bible subjectively called Lot a "righteous man", despite the sickening lack of morality he displayed. So, while science may not yet have provided us with all the answers we'd like to have in this life, it remains the most reliable, objective method for assessing reality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted December 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted December 28, 2014 We may not possess complete objective certainty. It warns of this in the Bible...just sayin. The bible also claims that god was not able to defeat an army with chariots of iron, despite making the contradictory claim that with god all things are possible. Compare this: And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Judges 1:19 With this: But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible. Matthew 19:26 The reason the bible is so full of contradictions like this one is because the bible is a subjective book written by subjective men who had subjective social and political agendas. The bible, therefore, is an unreliable source for assessing objective reality. Any and all biblically-based conclusions you draw concerning reality will also be unreliable. The only objective means of assessing reality is science. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted December 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted December 28, 2014 You have no way to make any claims about what evidence I am 16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. 19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Matthew 7 Yes, we do have a way of making claims about what evidence you are. We have the evidence of your own behavior, or, as your precious bible calls it, your "fruit". Of late, you've been displaying some very poor qualities. You may point out the irony of me using the bible after making several posts damning the bible as unreliable. However, I want you to understand the point I'm making here; I want you to be very clear and make no mistakes on what I am saying. I could have pulled a quote from a psychology textbook that said basically the same thing; but you would have rejected that. So, I'm showing you, from your own bible, the evidence against you. We know you by your fruit, End3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted December 28, 2014 Super Moderator Share Posted December 28, 2014 But it's authorship is theoretically divinely inspired vs. selfishly inspired... Theoretically, exactly. There is no reliable evidence to support the claim that the bible was divinely inspired. There is no reliable evidence to support the claim that the god of the bible even exists, let alone that he was the one who inspired the bible. There is plenty of reliable evidence in the form of scholarly research to support the claim that the bible is a subjective book written by subjective men who had subjective social and political agendas. The bible is, therefore, an unreliable means of accurately assessing the objective reality in which we all live. Any biblically-based conclusions you draw concerning said reality will also be unreliable. The only reliable way of objectively assessing reality is science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thackerie Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 We of all people believed that Jesus could make us better, but alas we ended up much like end3. But we wouldn't lie to ourselves about what we become and we knew that the only way we could ever really love, was to kick this pathetic excuse for a god out on his un almighty arse. You're new PoP. Enlighten me how my turning away from Christianity would make me able to love. I am more interested in whether holding on to christianity is what makes end the fantastically wise and loving person he portrays on this forum ... or if it just come naturally. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted December 28, 2014 Share Posted December 28, 2014 So is End3 honest yet? Will he be honest after another 160 messages? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts