Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I'm not sure MM that our problems can be completely objectively defined. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need this website nor religion, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I think the world(people) need understanding. If we call God "understanding", then yes, I think the world needs God. Is there understanding without God? There is objective certainty, but not complete understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 2, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2015 I think the world(people) need understanding. If we call God "understanding", then yes, I think the world needs God. How can we have true "understanding" if everything is subjective? KYH. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey101 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I think the world(people) need understanding. If we call God "understanding", then yes, I think the world needs God. Is there understanding without God? There is objective certainty, but not complete understanding. Belief in a Christian God doesn't give exclusive access to understanding. There are many different beliefs in the world, and they have just as much understanding as anyone else. If you can't realize the bigotry in what you're saying, you have no basis to understand your own dishonesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 2, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2015 I'm not sure MM that our problems can be completely objectively defined. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need this website nor religion, etc. Of course our problems cannot be objectively defined. Everything is subjective, right? There aren't starving children in Africa; those kids only believe they are starving. World hunger isn't an objectively defined reality. It's just their subjective belief that there's no food available that's killing them. Geez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 2, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2015 I think the world(people) need understanding. If we call God "understanding", then yes, I think the world needs God. Is there understanding without God? There is objective certainty, but not complete understanding. EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, END3. That means that there is NO objective certainty and NO complete understanding. There is ONLY subjective belief. KYH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I'm not sure MM that our problems can be completely objectively defined. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need this website nor religion, etc. We don't need religion. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I think the world(people) need understanding. If we call God "understanding", then yes, I think the world needs God. Is there understanding without God? There is objective certainty, but not complete understanding. EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, END3. That means that there is NO objective certainty and NO complete understanding. There is ONLY subjective belief. KYH. I'm going to say this one last time Prof. Everything is ultimately subjective. I may practice objectivity within that subjectivity. Unless you can define my subjectivity with objective certainty, I'm not buying your, nor BAA's explanation. I can AGREE though that we may practice objective thought and practices to come to some objective certainty......even come to agreement in our subjectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FreeThinkerNZ Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I think the world(people) need understanding. If we call God "understanding", then yes, I think the world needs God. Is there understanding without God? There is objective certainty, but not complete understanding. EVERYTHING IS SUBJECTIVE, END3. That means that there is NO objective certainty and NO complete understanding. There is ONLY subjective belief. KYH. I'm going to say this one last time Prof. Everything is ultimately subjective. I may practice objectivity within that subjectivity. Unless you can define my subjectivity with objective certainty, I'm not buying your, nor BAA's explanation. I can AGREE though that we may practice objective thought and practices to come to some objective certainty......even come to agreement in our subjectivity. I'm not buying your... religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I put you on ignore too NZ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 2, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2015 I'm going to say this one last time Prof. Everything is ultimately subjective. I may practice objectivity within that subjectivity. Unless you can define my subjectivity with objective certainty, I'm not buying your, nor BAA's explanation. I can AGREE though that we may practice objective thought and practices to come to some objective certainty......even come to agreement in our subjectivity. Sorry, End3, but this is a pile of bovine excrement. If everything is subjective, then everything within that subjectivity is also subjective. There is no such thing as objectivity within subjectivity. Buy it or don't, that's the objective reality of it. This is, I must point out again, where your subjective belief (faith) comes between you and the people who care about you. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I'm going to say this one last time Prof. Everything is ultimately subjective. I may practice objectivity within that subjectivity. Unless you can define my subjectivity with objective certainty, I'm not buying your, nor BAA's explanation. I can AGREE though that we may practice objective thought and practices to come to some objective certainty......even come to agreement in our subjectivity. Sorry, End3, but this is a pile of bovine excrement. If everything is subjective, then everything within that subjectivity is also subjective. There is no such thing as objectivity within subjectivity. Buy it or don't, that's the objective reality of it. This is, I must point out again, where your subjective belief (faith) comes between you and the people who care about you. That's fine, hopefully we may come to an understanding. By "everything", I mean that ultimately everything, whether it be objective thought or practice, is subject to my brain, and my brain is subject to my environment. I would ask you how we may have any objectivity that is not processed through our minds? This is why I say, if we had the capability to define our own subjectivity, then I would be much more inclined to agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 2, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2015 Honestly, End3, I wouldn't think I would have to explain to a fellow scientist how to think objectively. Granted, if I'm at the grocery store, I may make decisions based on pure emotion. "I'm really hungry; I think I'll get some frozen burritos." "Wow, those five alarm chili flavored peanuts look really good." But in viewing the ultimate reality around me, in dealing with the people I come in contact with, in making major life decisions, I MUST be objective. I can't be subjective and base everything on how I feel or what I've chosen (or, rather, not chosen) to put my faith in. I have to be rational, calculating, sometimes even cold. Yes, I can look at a mountain vista in the early morning sunrise and be moved on an emotional, subjective level. I can also look at the same image with the objective mind of a biologist and categorize the various species that live is such an environment, their food sources, their reproductive strategies, life cycles, survival rates, etc. I can do both because, for me, there is subjective reality and objective reality. Ultimately, not everything is subjective. That mountain vista, and its attendant co-existent array of species would exist whether I saw it or not. It doesn't need my cold biological analysis for it to be an objective reality any more than it needs my emotional, subjective, panty-pudding little feelings about it. That's the difference between believing that everything is subjective and knowing that an objective reality exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Honestly, End3, I wouldn't think I would have to explain to a fellow scientist how to think objectively. Granted, if I'm at the grocery store, I may make decisions based on pure emotion. "I'm really hungry; I think I'll get some frozen burritos." "Wow, those five alarm chili flavored peanuts look really good." But in viewing the ultimate reality around me, in dealing with the people I come in contact with, in making major life decisions, I MUST be objective. I can't be subjective and base everything on how I feel or what I've chosen (or, rather, not chosen) to put my faith in. I have to be rational, calculating, sometimes even cold. Yes, I can look at a mountain vista in the early morning sunrise and be moved on an emotional, subjective level. I can also look at the same image with the objective mind of a biologist and categorize the various species that live is such an environment, their food sources, their reproductive strategies, life cycles, survival rates, etc. I can do both because, for me, there is subjective reality and objective reality. Ultimately, not everything is subjective. That mountain vista, and its attendant co-existent array of species would exist whether I saw it or not. It doesn't need my cold biological analysis for it to be an objective reality any more than it needs my emotional, subjective, panty-pudding little feelings about it. That's the difference between believing that everything is subjective and knowing that an objective reality exists. Ok, at least we know how each other thinks about it. I'm going to continue to have my own understanding of this issue and will try to remember yours when we visit. Thanks for sticking it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 We all see things different, yet we all can agree that we are seeing the same event (like a tornado) when it's occurring even though we may apply different emotions and biases to it. This is how people can get things accomplished. Unless someone wants to claim solipsism as the only true reality, (making everyone else imaginary) you're going to have to admit that people can have shared experiences and generally conclude that the same event is happening right in front of their eyes. How would anyone make it through a traffic jam if they did not share some objective view of where the cars were, which direction they were going, etc? It is rather sad though that a Christian cant just say, "You may be right. Jesus might not exist." I guess verbalizing what you already know deep down would break the spell for sure. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 We all see things different, yet we all can agree that we are seeing the same event (like a tornado) when it's occurring even though we may apply different emotions and biases to it. This is how people can get things accomplished. Unless someone wants to claim solipsism as the only true reality, (making everyone else imaginary) you're going to have to admit that people can have shared experiences and generally conclude that the same event is happening right in front of their eyes. How would anyone make it through a traffic jam if they did not share some objective view of where the cars were, which direction they were going, etc? It is rather sad though that a Christian cant just say, "You may be right. Jesus might not exist." I guess verbalizing what you already know deep down would break the spell for sure. We all see things different, yet we all can agree that we are seeing the same event (like a tornado) when it's occurring even though we may apply different emotions and biases to it. This is how people can get things accomplished. Unless someone wants to claim solipsism as the only true reality, (making everyone else imaginary) you're going to have to admit that people can have shared experiences and generally conclude that the same event is happening right in front of their eyes. How would anyone make it through a traffic jam if they did not share some objective view of where the cars were, which direction they were going, etc? It is rather sad though that a Christian cant just say, "You may be right. Jesus might not exist." I guess verbalizing what you already know deep down would break the spell for sure. What you're describing is what I am calling subjective agreement. Science leads us to objective agreement. Jesus might not have existed. I'm thinking and believing He did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted January 2, 2015 Super Moderator Share Posted January 2, 2015 What you're describing is what I am calling subjective agreement. Science leads us to objective agreement. Jesus might not have existed. I'm thinking and believing He did. The problem, though, is that you can't trust your subjective beliefs. They are, by your own admission, subjective. You've chosen believe in jesus and in the bible; but without objective proof, how can you trust that choice? If it is based on emotion, subjectivity, then it is no more trustworthy than a decision to swing into McDonald's when you're hungry. The evidence all demonstrates that fast food is unhealthy; just as it demonstrates that religion is unhealthy. Why not adopt a worldview that you can actually trust and use to make trustworthy decisions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest end3 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 What you're describing is what I am calling subjective agreement. Science leads us to objective agreement. Jesus might not have existed. I'm thinking and believing He did. The problem, though, is that you can't trust your subjective beliefs. They are, by your own admission, subjective. You've chosen believe in jesus and in the bible; but without objective proof, how can you trust that choice? If it is based on emotion, subjectivity, then it is no more trustworthy than a decision to swing into McDonald's when you're hungry. The evidence all demonstrates that fast food is unhealthy; just as it demonstrates that religion is unhealthy. Why not adopt a worldview that you can actually trust and use to make trustworthy decisions? You're not understanding what I am saying. I CAN practice objective as a subset of subjective. This does not mean that everything is emotional and touchy feely. Again, how may we dismiss the subjectivity of our minds even when practicing objective thought? I'll dance at your next wedding if you will give me that answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 Yes, End. We're not understanding what you're saying - because what you're saying isn't understandable to us. We understand this... "All subsets of subjectivity are, by definition, subjective." But we don't understand this... "Not all subsets of subjectivity are, by definition, subjective." . . . Could you please explain so that we can understand you? Thanks, BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdp Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I put you on ignore too NZ... Me too! Me too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted January 2, 2015 Author Share Posted January 2, 2015 Since I'm on ignore I might as well go for broke. . . . Does End3 know that his family exists? . . . Sure, he can believe they do, but does he actually live as if they are a set of unverifiable beliefs? . . . The acid test of a belief is to live it out - not just pay lip service to it. (As in Christianity.) . . . For End to be consistent, his family HAVE to be just another set of unverifiable beliefs to him. . . . Really..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 Jesus might not have existed. I'm thinking and believing He did. I'm glad you're willing to say that. I'll say maybe Jesus is real, maybe he isn't. If he is, well, he's too subtle for my taste. shrugs. This sort of ends the whole subjective/objective debate for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 So E3, when I get to the Pearly Gates and Jesus says "Depart from me, I never knew you", I can tell him that it was the fault of my subjective brain that I stopped believing? Do you think that will really work there? This isn't rhetorical, I really need an answer for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I'm not sure MM that our problems can be completely objectively defined. If that were the case, we wouldn't even need this website nor religion, etc. What do you mean "we"? I know why I need this website. Why do you as a Christian need an ex-Christian website? But you are wrong about objectively defining my problems eliminating my need for this website. Once again you typed out a string of random thoughts that are wrong. You also failed to address my point. It is dishonest of you to change the meaning of words to force God or your religion into everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mymistake Posted January 3, 2015 Share Posted January 3, 2015 I'm going to say this one last time Prof. Everything is ultimately subjective. I may practice objectivity within that subjectivity. Unless you can define my subjectivity with objective certainty, I'm not buying your, nor BAA's explanation. I can AGREE though that we may practice objective thought and practices to come to some objective certainty......even come to agreement in our subjectivity. This is nonsense. It's almost as if you can't grasp the meaning of the words. If everything is ultimately subjective then there is no objectivity to practice. If everything is ultimately subjective then there is no objective certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts