Please Help

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Forget it, A1. 

 

To be fair, BAA, I don't get where you are going with that question either. I think A1 did alright answering, all things considered (unless I'm just having an extra dense moment).

 

 

Objective vs. Subjective knowledge Dude.

 

 

Dude,

 

I offered A1 the chance to save himself a lot of work by setting him a simple question, based on a simple (subjective) statement about my partner Maureen.  I had hoped that he would see that my trust in her was an example of subjective knowledge and therefore he had no objective way of knowing whether to trust her or not.  So the correct and logically derived answer was that he should not trust her because he had no objective way of testing the truth of my (subjective) statement. 

 

Having realized this A1 would then go on to realize that there would be no point in including examples of this kind of subjective knowledge from his own life as his reasons for being a Christian.  But that didn't happen.  So it looks like he can't see the difference between subjective and objective knowledge.  Which probably means his reasons for being a Christian will contain a LOT of subjectivity - which we will be obliged to reject as inadmissible. Which means he will probably protest at our rejection of it.  And he will probably claim that he is right and we are wrong and then claims and counter-claims will probably be exchanged and we will get nowhere and nothing will be resolved and we will not move off first base and everything will go to hell... again!  

 

Which is what my initial offer was trying to avoid. 

A1 could have saved himself a lot of work by excluding everything subjective from his reasons for being a Christian.  But that failed.  Apparently it was my fault.  For not wording the question properly.  Which is odd, when you can see that Fweethawt and Brother Jeff had no trouble understanding my statement, my question and what I was doing with them. Dude, A1's resistance and refusal to accept help, advice and correction from anyone tells me that whenever he posts his reasons the words fiasco, debacle and fubar just won't cover the trouble it'll generate.  Trouble I was hoping to avoid.

 

When the time comes, I'll gain no pleasure in saying, "I told you so!"  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forget it, A1.

To be fair, BAA, I don't get where you are going with that question either. I think A1 did alright answering, all things considered (unless I'm just having an extra dense moment).

Objective vs. Subjective knowledge Dude.

Dude,

 

I offered A1 the chance to save himself a lot of work by setting him a simple question, based on a simple (subjective) statement about my partner Maureen. I had hoped that he would see that my trust in her was an example of subjective knowledge and therefore he had no objective way of knowing whether to trust her or not. So the correct and logically derived answer was that he should not trust her because he had no objective way of testing the truth of my (subjective) statement.

 

Having realized this A1 would then go on to realize that there would be no point in including examples of this kind of subjective knowledge from his own life as his reasons for being a Christian. But that didn't happen. So it looks like he can't see the difference between subjective and objective knowledge. Which probably means his reasons for being a Christian will contain a LOT of subjectivity - which we will be obliged to reject as inadmissible. Which means he will probably protest at our rejection of it. And he will probably claim that he is right and we are wrong and then claims and counter-claims will probably be exchanged and we will get nowhere and nothing will be resolved and we will not move off first base and everything will go to hell... again!

 

Which is what my initial offer was trying to avoid.

A1 could have saved himself a lot of work by excluding everything subjective from his reasons for being a Christian. But that failed. Apparently it was my fault. For not wording the question properly. Which is odd, when you can see that Fweethawt and Brother Jeff had no trouble understanding my statement, my question and what I was doing with them. Dude, A1's resistance and refusal to accept help, advice and correction from anyone tells me that whenever he posts his reasons the words fiasco, debacle and fubar just won't cover the trouble it'll generate. Trouble I was hoping to avoid.

 

When the time comes, I'll gain no pleasure in saying, "I told you so!"

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I did answer objectivly out of 1 of my 3 responses.

 

I said I couldn't possibly trust Maureen because I do not know her.

 

Did u miss that statement?

 

 

And two who decided that looking at something *objective* was the cornerstone for truth? If so who?

 

You CAN trust someone without knowing them objectivly. Its personal decision and preference.

 

And I am always willing to change adjust and learned I never take the high road of I'm right and your wrong u should know me by know.

 

Debating nis about WHO is right discussing is about WHAT is right. I say that all the time because I am not interested in *winning* or being Mr *right*

 

I thrive on being wrong it helps me develop variety and understanding on many different levels.

 

I prefer casual conversation with growth and learning not a right and wrong high throne

 

 

For the record not comphrehending is not the same as closing my ears and not wanting correction.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

 

Forget it, A1.

To be fair, BAA, I don't get where you are going with that question either. I think A1 did alright answering, all things considered (unless I'm just having an extra dense moment).

Objective vs. Subjective knowledge Dude.

Dude,

 

I offered A1 the chance to save himself a lot of work by setting him a simple question, based on a simple (subjective) statement about my partner Maureen. I had hoped that he would see that my trust in her was an example of subjective knowledge and therefore he had no objective way of knowing whether to trust her or not. So the correct and logically derived answer was that he should not trust her because he had no objective way of testing the truth of my (subjective) statement.

 

Having realized this A1 would then go on to realize that there would be no point in including examples of this kind of subjective knowledge from his own life as his reasons for being a Christian. But that didn't happen. So it looks like he can't see the difference between subjective and objective knowledge. Which probably means his reasons for being a Christian will contain a LOT of subjectivity - which we will be obliged to reject as inadmissible. Which means he will probably protest at our rejection of it. And he will probably claim that he is right and we are wrong and then claims and counter-claims will probably be exchanged and we will get nowhere and nothing will be resolved and we will not move off first base and everything will go to hell... again!

 

Which is what my initial offer was trying to avoid.

A1 could have saved himself a lot of work by excluding everything subjective from his reasons for being a Christian. But that failed. Apparently it was my fault. For not wording the question properly. Which is odd, when you can see that Fweethawt and Brother Jeff had no trouble understanding my statement, my question and what I was doing with them. Dude, A1's resistance and refusal to accept help, advice and correction from anyone tells me that whenever he posts his reasons the words fiasco, debacle and fubar just won't cover the trouble it'll generate. Trouble I was hoping to avoid.

 

When the time comes, I'll gain no pleasure in saying, "I told you so!"

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

I did answer objectivly out of 1 of my 3 responses.

 

I said I couldn't possibly trust Maureen because I do not know her.

 

Did u miss that statement?

 

No.  I saw it, A1.

But the whole point of my offer to help you was for you to see that the word, 'know' can be used subjectively or objectively.  Unless you plainly declare it,  I can't possibly intuit which of those you meant when you wrote the word, 'know'.  Or if you meant either or neither or both at the same time.  I can't 'know' that unless your write it and you didn't write it.  

 

And two who decided that looking at something *objective* was the cornerstone for truth? If so who?

 

I'm going by the accepted definitions of Objectivity and Subjectivity.  

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectivity

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/subjectivity

Your subjective reasons for being a Christian cannot be accepted by us but your objective ones can.  Only that which is true for everyone is acceptable as being objective. This principle applies in a court of law and it also applies in this forum. 

 

Which is why I was offering to help you understand this and save yourself from writing a LOT of subjective material in your reasons for being a Christian.  It looks like you want to redraw the rules to suit yourself or not be bound them.  And that's why I said to Duderonomy that there will be trouble.  If you can't abide by the rules that operate in a court of law your testimony will be ruled as inadmissible.  Ditto for this forum.  You may not agree with that, may not like it and may not want to abide by it - but this is how things are in this forum.  We don't accept subjective knowledge as being objectively true.  Period.

 

You CAN trust someone without knowing them objectivly. Its personal decision and preference.

 

Yes, you can choose to trust someone without knowing them objectively.

But then your choice to do will not be made on any objective basis.  

 

And I am always willing to change adjust and learned I never take the high road of I'm right and your wrong u should know me by know.

 

Then please learn how to save yourself a lot of trouble before it actually happens.

 

Debating nis about WHO is right discussing is about WHAT is right. I say that all the time because I am not interested in *winning* or being Mr *right*

 

But you could save yourself the trouble of having to debate each and every separate reason (for being a Christian) along the way, justifying which is subjective (inadmissible) and which is objective (admissible), by choosing in advance to write down only the objective reasons.  That was my offer to you.  To save you the time, the effort and the energy of writing down admissible and inadmissible reasons.  And to save us the time and the effort and the energy of having to go hand-in-hand with you, debating the merits and demerits of each and every reason, weeding out the inadmissible from the admissible. 

 

I thrive on being wrong it helps me develop variety and understanding on many different levels.

 

I just hope that you have some qualitative means of discerning what is useful and beneficial from among the various and different results you get from being wrong.

 

I prefer casual conversation with growth and learning not a right and wrong high throne

 

But why must this forum bow to your preference, A1? 

Why must the many conform to the wishes of the one?  

Please justify why we must do as you prefer.

 

For the record not comphrehending is not the same as closing my ears and not wanting correction.

 

 

To comprehend something your eyes have to be open and you have to want to learn.

[duderonomy]

 

 

 

Forget it, A1. 

 

To be fair, BAA, I don't get where you are going with that question either. I think A1 did alright answering, all things considered (unless I'm just having an extra dense moment).

 

 

Objective vs. Subjective knowledge Dude.

 

 

Dude,

 

I offered A1 the chance to save himself a lot of work by setting him a simple question, based on a simple (subjective) statement about my partner Maureen.  I had hoped that he would see that my trust in her was an example of subjective knowledge and therefore he had no objective way of knowing whether to trust her or not.  So the correct and logically derived answer was that he should not trust her because he had no objective way of testing the truth of my (subjective) statement. 

 

Having realized this A1 would then go on to realize that there would be no point in including examples of this kind of subjective knowledge from his own life as his reasons for being a Christian.  But that didn't happen.  So it looks like he can't see the difference between subjective and objective knowledge.  Which probably means his reasons for being a Christian will contain a LOT of subjectivity - which we will be obliged to reject as inadmissible. Which means he will probably protest at our rejection of it.  And he will probably claim that he is right and we are wrong and then claims and counter-claims will probably be exchanged and we will get nowhere and nothing will be resolved and we will not move off first base and everything will go to hell... again!  

 

Which is what my initial offer was trying to avoid. 

A1 could have saved himself a lot of work by excluding everything subjective from his reasons for being a Christian.  But that failed.  Apparently it was my fault.  For not wording the question properly.  Which is odd, when you can see that Fweethawt and Brother Jeff had no trouble understanding my statement, my question and what I was doing with them. Dude, A1's resistance and refusal to accept help, advice and correction from anyone tells me that whenever he posts his reasons the words fiasco, debacle and fubar just won't cover the trouble it'll generate.  Trouble I was hoping to avoid.

 

When the time comes, I'll gain no pleasure in saying, "I told you so!"  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Well, BAA, I think I get where you are coming from now.  Thanks for the explanation.

 

I'm giving A1 the benefit of the doubt for a few reasons...first, he might actually see in the end that there is a difference between reality in the clear light of day and the reality of looking at current events with God goggles on.

 

Second, as often as these things get rehashed here, there are always new people coming along that may not have heard the arguments before, or may hear them in a different way that finally makes sense.

 

Third, I used to be a big follower of the Van Impe and Hal Lindsay end time prophesy stuff. I don't believe any of it anymore, but I do understand first hand how it is when one gets programmed to see current events as Biblical prophesy being fulfilled. You know, the Book of Revelation in one hand and the newspaper in the other. I'm interested in what A1 has to say. He may not get the finer points of subjective vs. objective (and sometimes neither do I), but I do believe he is sincere, and I hope I'm not wrong about that. If I am wrong about his sincerity, everyone is more than welcome to point at me and laugh.

 

Fourth, I see on this site where a lot of people are held in fear or doubt or both because of the End Times stuff, just as many are about the subject of Hell. I don't think one more discussion of either is wasted time. I certainly hope it doesn't devolve into a morass of crap, and you are probably right BAA...it will.  Still, like I said above, someone might learn something along the way.

 

Fifth, if you came to the Den and wanted to post your pet reason for holding on to Christianity, wouldn't you (knowing what you know now as an Ex-C) want someone to take you seriously and at least listen? 

 

Sixth, being a Christian or a follower of any religion or any relationship with an imaginary entity is of course a subjective thing. When we were Christians, did we have some special objective proof? Dropping a ten thousand pound brick of cold hard logic on a Christian is easy. I'd rather instead meet them where they are now, emotion for emotion, opinion for opinion, what if for what if, verse for verse, thought for thought. It's funner and it's where most people, including me, live most of the time.

 

I don't mean any disrespect BAA, and you know that. Sometimes there is the letter of the law and sometimes there is the spirit of the law.

[bornagainathiest]

Dude,

 

Thanks for speaking your mind forthrightly and honestly.

I value these character traits very highly and I'm very pleased that you feel you can be open and honest with me like this.  Your respect for me is reciprocated, btw.  The points you make are well made and it's commendable that you feel disposed towards A1 in this generous and accommodating way.  

 

It seems to me that, by and large, we want the same things for him and the other members of this forum.

So, if you and I do see things at all differently, where we diverge isn't what we want but how we think we should get there.  We desire similar results, but differ on the best way to achieve them.  

 

Anyway, A1 has asked for help and I've offered to give it.

That offer is still open.  Now it's up to him.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

Duderonomy and BAA. I respect you both and all here

 

 

and as I mention before none of what y'all said has gone in vain. I find myself desiring truth and knowledge more and more. I question everything more things than I ever have in my friendships family and even at work. Not nonchalant questions with no meaning but with purpose.

 

I find myself doing better at work because I have started to think about the most efficient way to go about doing things a type of thinking I never did before arriving at this site. Never learned from any other Christian except Matt slick he does tend to lean on the logical side rather than emotion and feeling. But I heard of him after discovering this website.

 

Welp idk when I will get to the current event essay I'm suppose to give based on 95% non christian sources on a desktop Cuz I'm still on a cell. But I just want to say thank u everyone for being so awesome

[Travi]

Duderonomy and BAA. I respect you both and all here

 

 

and as I mention before none of what y'all said has gone in vain. I find myself desiring truth and knowledge more and more. I question everything more things than I ever have in my friendships family and even at work. Not nonchalant questions with no meaning but with purpose.

 

I find myself doing better at work because I have started to think about the most efficient way to go about doing things a type of thinking I never did before arriving at this site. Never learned from any other Christian except Matt slick he does tend to lean on the logical side rather than emotion and feeling. But I heard of him after discovering this website.

 

Welp idk when I will get to the current event essay I'm suppose to give based on 95% non christian sources on a desktop Cuz I'm still on a cell. But I just want to say thank u everyone for being so awesome

It's a long path to using rational thinking and talking points - but once you do, it opens an entirely new world for you A1. To see that you are doing this is wonderful, and as you practice it, and allow it to be your guide instead of just accepting things blindly, you see the world is an amazing place and is meant to have questions asked about it.

 

Keep it up, use your mind for what it is - a logical tool to help you figure out things on your own. Thinking for myself is the best thing I ever did, and now that it's been done - I could never go back to accepting things as is, just because such and such said so. Good luck!

 

EDIT: Fixed the fatigue factor of typos, redundancy, and grammar. Ugh.

[1AcceptingAThiest1]

 

Duderonomy and BAA. I respect you both and all here

 

 

and as I mention before none of what y'all said has gone in vain. I find myself desiring truth and knowledge more and more. I question everything more things than I ever have in my friendships family and even at work. Not nonchalant questions with no meaning but with purpose.

 

I find myself doing better at work because I have started to think about the most efficient way to go about doing things a type of thinking I never did before arriving at this site. Never learned from any other Christian except Matt slick he does tend to lean on the logical side rather than emotion and feeling. But I heard of him after discovering this website.

 

Welp idk when I will get to the current event essay I'm suppose to give based on 95% non christian sources on a desktop Cuz I'm still on a cell. But I just want to say thank u everyone for being so awesome

It's a long path to using rational thinking and talking points - but once you do, it opens an entirely new world for you A1. To see that you are doing this is wonderful to see, and as you practice it more and more and allow it to be your guide instead of just accepting things blindly, you see the world is an amazing place and is meant to have questioned asked about it.

 

Keep it up A1, use your mind what it is - a logical tool to help you figure out things on your own. Thinking for yourself is the best thing I ever did, and now that it's been done - I could never go back to accepting things as is, just because such and such said so. Good luck!

 

Thanks bud...words cannot express and I cannot even form a thought for the amount of things I have learned here.

[Guest sylensikeelyoo]

I'm glad to see you are using non-christian sources for your "end-of-the-world" events paper and I am looking forward to reading it. I'm also glad to see you have a desire to learn and think rationally. Once you're done with your research on your current events, you should go through and read your bible chronologically. Make a note of anything that sticks out at you as odd. You are going to need an entire 300 page spiral notebook. when you are done reading the whole thing cover to cover and chronologically, look through your notes. You have months, possibly years of deep study to do. Question everything. Question your bible, question your preachers, question your friends, and question us. Everyone and everything, whatever you are told, question it. Then seek those answers for yourself. It will amaze you the things you find.