Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The Objectivist

s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 8:39:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The person of faith defines his, or her, beliefs as being objective; whereas, the person of reason defines that which is reasonable as being objective. Both believe in objectivity, but one believes it rests in the heart while the other believes it rests in the mind.

The person of faith believes anything that contradicts his, or her, faith is false; whereas, the person of reason believes anything that contradicts reason is false; both are objectivists. The person of faith readily admits to being an objectivist; whereas, the person of reason admits to objectivism in logical matters and dismisses faith as unreliable.

Both the person of faith and the person of reason are objectivists in that they share common beliefs among their respected groups and subjectivists in that they disagree.

The only difference between the person of faith and that of reason is one admits to objectivism, alone, and the other admits to objectivism and subjectivism but only puts his, or her, faith in objectivism, in other words, only pays lip service to subjectivism.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:58:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:39:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The person of faith defines his, or her, beliefs as being objective; whereas, the person of reason defines that which is reasonable as being objective. Both believe in objectivity, but one believes it rests in the heart while the other believes it rests in the mind.

The person of faith believes anything that contradicts his, or her, faith is false; whereas, the person of reason believes anything that contradicts reason is false; both are objectivists. The person of faith readily admits to being an objectivist; whereas, the person of reason admits to objectivism in logical matters and dismisses faith as unreliable.

Both the person of faith and the person of reason are objectivists in that they share common beliefs among their respected groups and subjectivists in that they disagree.

The only difference between the person of faith and that of reason is one admits to objectivism, alone, and the other admits to objectivism and subjectivism but only puts his, or her, faith in objectivism, in other words, only pays lip service to subjectivism.

And what I get out of that is no one is ever going to be right. So what then? It doesn't really matter.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:29:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:39:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The person of faith defines his, or her, beliefs as being objective; whereas, the person of reason defines that which is reasonable as being objective. Both believe in objectivity, but one believes it rests in the heart while the other believes it rests in the mind.

The person of faith believes anything that contradicts his, or her, faith is false; whereas, the person of reason believes anything that contradicts reason is false; both are objectivists. The person of faith readily admits to being an objectivist; whereas, the person of reason admits to objectivism in logical matters and dismisses faith as unreliable.

Both the person of faith and the person of reason are objectivists in that they share common beliefs among their respected groups and subjectivists in that they disagree.

The only difference between the person of faith and that of reason is one admits to objectivism, alone, and the other admits to objectivism and subjectivism but only puts his, or her, faith in objectivism, in other words, only pays lip service to subjectivism.

Only us saints and prophets know what "faith" means. What you're talking about is belief, which has nothing to do with faith. Some of God's people believe there's a Creator and other's don't believe there's a God. But only us saints and prophets know for sure there is a God because we all testified for Him in writing and speaking.
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:58:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 8:39:56 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The person of faith defines his, or her, beliefs as being objective; whereas, the person of reason defines that which is reasonable as being objective. Both believe in objectivity, but one believes it rests in the heart while the other believes it rests in the mind.

The person of faith believes anything that contradicts his, or her, faith is false; whereas, the person of reason believes anything that contradicts reason is false; both are objectivists. The person of faith readily admits to being an objectivist; whereas, the person of reason admits to objectivism in logical matters and dismisses faith as unreliable.

Both the person of faith and the person of reason are objectivists in that they share common beliefs among their respected groups and subjectivists in that they disagree.

The only difference between the person of faith and that of reason is one admits to objectivism, alone, and the other admits to objectivism and subjectivism but only puts his, or her, faith in objectivism, in other words, only pays lip service to subjectivism.

Unless you are equivocating on the word 'objective', this is the definition which applies:

objective, adjective
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.


A person of faith is not an objectivist as you claim if their belief rests "in their heart". If you reject something on the basis only of it contradicting your beliefs, you are most certainly not an objectivist.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 6:34:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And what I get out of that is no one is ever going to be right. So what then? It doesn't really matter.

I never said either the person of faith or the person of reason was wrong. For me to judge either one, I would need to take each of his, or her, beliefs, separately, and determine whether, or not, I agree with it. However, that's not to say either one's beliefs are wrong for him, or her, but they might be wrong for me.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 6:52:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 6:34:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
And what I get out of that is no one is ever going to be right. So what then? It doesn't really matter.

I never said either the person of faith or the person of reason was wrong. For me to judge either one, I would need to take each of his, or her, beliefs, separately, and determine whether, or not, I agree with it. However, that's not to say either one's beliefs are wrong for him, or her, but they might be wrong for me.

I understand. It is a personal thing. I'm cool with that too.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 7:23:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Unless you are equivocating on the word 'objective', this is the definition which applies:

objective, adjective
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

A person of faith is not an objectivist as you claim if their belief rests "in their heart". If you reject something on the basis only of it contradicting your beliefs, you are most certainly not an objectivist.

I'm not equivocating anything. Objectivism is the belief reality transcends the individual; it exists apart from the individual; it concerns things that can be objectified, things on which separate individuals can agree or experience.

How is this unlike the beliefs of the religionist? He, or she, believes in something that exists independently of himself, or herself. He, or she, believes this thing exists in reality. He, or she, has objectified this belief in his, or her, ability to describe it as an actual object. For instance, to the Christian, God is an actual person, who has been made known throughout history. Even the Jew who says God has no image has given God a place in space and time. The Jewish god met Moses on mount Sinai. King Solomon built God a temple in which to dwell; however, not only did the Jew say God dwelt in the Temple but inhabited a specific location, the inner sanctuary, hidden behind a veil. In giving God the physical properties of space and time in which the collective can agree, theists have objectified God and in the mind of the believer has made God as real as any material object.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 7:31:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 6:52:39 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 11/21/2014 6:34:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
And what I get out of that is no one is ever going to be right. So what then? It doesn't really matter.

I never said either the person of faith or the person of reason was wrong. For me to judge either one, I would need to take each of his, or her, beliefs, separately, and determine whether, or not, I agree with it. However, that's not to say either one's beliefs are wrong for him, or her, but they might be wrong for me.

I understand. It is a personal thing. I'm cool with that too.

I'm trying to refrain from taking sides and see things from each perspective. And, from reading the responses you have made, you seem to be more open-minded than most people in this forum.
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 9:43:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 7:23:40 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Unless you are equivocating on the word 'objective', this is the definition which applies:

objective, adjective
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

A person of faith is not an objectivist as you claim if their belief rests "in their heart". If you reject something on the basis only of it contradicting your beliefs, you are most certainly not an objectivist.

I'm not equivocating anything. Objectivism is the belief reality transcends the individual; it exists apart from the individual; it concerns things that can be objectified, things on which separate individuals can agree or experience.

No, it does not. See the bolded part of the definition above. "independent of thought or an observer". That's the exact opposite of what you are saying.

How is this unlike the beliefs of the religionist? He, or she, believes in something that exists independently of himself, or herself.

It's not about belief in it, it's about it being a fact. According to you, someone who believes in fairies is an objectivist. That is absurd.

He, or she, believes this thing exists in reality. He, or she, has objectified this belief in his, or her, ability to describe it as an actual object.

You see, you are equivocating on the word 'objective'. That is not the meaning under discussion.

For instance, to the Christian, God is an actual person, who has been made known throughout history. Even the Jew who says God has no image has given God a place in space and time. The Jewish god met Moses on mount Sinai. King Solomon built God a temple in which to dwell; however, not only did the Jew say God dwelt in the Temple but inhabited a specific location, the inner sanctuary, hidden behind a veil. In giving God the physical properties of space and time in which the collective can agree, theists have objectified God and in the mind of the believer has made God as real as any material object.

This is just ridiculous. Objectifying something has nothing to do with objective reality. How can dreaming up a concept, and then believing in it, make that something real? You have to be joking. No rational person could possibly think like this.
Dissonant_Harmony
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 9:46:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
And what I get out of that is no one is ever going to be right. So what then? It doesn't really matter.:

Just that with most things philosophical in nature, the propositions are unprovable either way...
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 9:51:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 9:46:11 PM, Dissonant_Harmony wrote:
And what I get out of that is no one is ever going to be right. So what then? It doesn't really matter.:

Just that with most things philosophical in nature, the propositions are unprovable either way...

I'm glad someone got my point =)
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 11:23:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not equivocating anything. Objectivism is the belief reality transcends the individual; it exists apart from the individual; it concerns things that can be objectified, things on which separate individuals can agree or experience.

No, it does not. See the bolded part of the definition above. "independent of thought or an observer". That's the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Do you know the meaning of the word transcend? If not, it means to be above or beyond. How is being above or beyond not being independent of an observer? Furthermore, I clarified my statement even further by saying, "(I)t exists apart from the individual;" but, I guess that wasn't even enough. Are you so blinded by your need to be right you fail to realize someone's agreeing with you?

How is this unlike the beliefs of the religionist? He, or she, believes in something that exists independently of himself, or herself.

It's not about belief in it, it's about it being a fact. According to you, someone who believes in fairies is an objectivist. That is absurd.

Are you telling me facts are not believable? Being unbelievable, why would you say they were true? I'm sorry but I can't take something as truth if I'm not able to believe in it.

He, or she, believes this thing exists in reality. He, or she, has objectified this belief in his, or her, ability to describe it as an actual object.

You see, you are equivocating on the word 'objective'. That is not the meaning under discussion.

If it doesn't mean being objective, what does it mean?

For instance, to the Christian, God is an actual person, who has been made known throughout history. Even the Jew who says God has no image has given God a place in space and time. The Jewish god met Moses on mount Sinai. King Solomon built God a temple in which to dwell; however, not only did the Jew say God dwelt in the Temple but inhabited a specific location, the inner sanctuary, hidden behind a veil. In giving God the physical properties of space and time in which the collective can agree, theists have objectified God and in the mind of the believer has made God as real as any material object.

This is just ridiculous. Objectifying something has nothing to do with objective reality. How can dreaming up a concept, and then believing in it, make that something real? You have to be joking. No rational person could possibly think like this.

Are you so benighted to believe objects from the outside jump into your head? How do you imagine they get into your brain? The mind through sensory impressions creates ideas; these ideas are the end products of stimulated afferent nerve fibers. What stimulates these nerve fibers other than a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic radiation? If an object appears to be a certain color, do you believe that object is, innately, that color? Or, does its color have to do with its ability to absorb and reflect light and our ability to detect it in that range? If an alien detected different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation than we do, how different would things appear? How would the alien's world look in comparison to ours?

Without our ability to objectify these sense impressions or without the ability to objectify them in the same manner, the world would be a very different place for us.
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 3:51:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 11:23:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I'm not equivocating anything. Objectivism is the belief reality transcends the individual; it exists apart from the individual; it concerns things that can be objectified, things on which separate individuals can agree or experience.

No, it does not. See the bolded part of the definition above. "independent of thought or an observer". That's the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Do you know the meaning of the word transcend? If not, it means to be above or beyond. How is being above or beyond not being independent of an observer? Furthermore, I clarified my statement even further by saying, "(I)t exists apart from the individual;" but, I guess that wasn't even enough. Are you so blinded by your need to be right you fail to realize someone's agreeing with you?

I stand corrected. I hadn't properly taken in what you were saying here.

How is this unlike the beliefs of the religionist? He, or she, believes in something that exists independently of himself, or herself.

It's not about belief in it, it's about it being a fact. According to you, someone who believes in fairies is an objectivist. That is absurd.

Are you telling me facts are not believable? Being unbelievable, why would you say they were true? I'm sorry but I can't take something as truth if I'm not able to believe in it.

The problem is that a religionist doesn't have facts, only faith.

He, or she, believes this thing exists in reality. He, or she, has objectified this belief in his, or her, ability to describe it as an actual object.

You see, you are equivocating on the word 'objective'. That is not the meaning under discussion.

If it doesn't mean being objective, what does it mean?

The word 'objective' has many different meanings. Look it up in an online dictionary. You seem to be switching between various definitions as it suits you. That is called equivocation.

For instance, to the Christian, God is an actual person, who has been made known throughout history. Even the Jew who says God has no image has given God a place in space and time. The Jewish god met Moses on mount Sinai. King Solomon built God a temple in which to dwell; however, not only did the Jew say God dwelt in the Temple but inhabited a specific location, the inner sanctuary, hidden behind a veil. In giving God the physical properties of space and time in which the collective can agree, theists have objectified God and in the mind of the believer has made God as real as any material object.

This is just ridiculous. Objectifying something has nothing to do with objective reality. How can dreaming up a concept, and then believing in it, make that something real? You have to be joking. No rational person could possibly think like this.

Are you so benighted to believe objects from the outside jump into your head? How do you imagine they get into your brain? The mind through sensory impressions creates ideas; these ideas are the end products of stimulated afferent nerve fibers. What stimulates these nerve fibers other than a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic radiation? If an object appears to be a certain color, do you believe that object is, innately, that color? Or, does its color have to do with its ability to absorb and reflect light and our ability to detect it in that range? If an alien detected different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation than we do, how different would things appear? How would the alien's world look in comparison to ours?

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

Without our ability to objectify these sense impressions or without the ability to objectify them in the same manner, the world would be a very different place for us.

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 8:11:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 3:51:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/21/2014 11:23:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I'm not equivocating anything. Objectivism is the belief reality transcends the individual; it exists apart from the individual; it concerns things that can be objectified, things on which separate individuals can agree or experience.

No, it does not. See the bolded part of the definition above. "independent of thought or an observer". That's the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Do you know the meaning of the word transcend? If not, it means to be above or beyond. How is being above or beyond not being independent of an observer? Furthermore, I clarified my statement even further by saying, "(I)t exists apart from the individual;" but, I guess that wasn't even enough. Are you so blinded by your need to be right you fail to realize someone's agreeing with you?

I stand corrected. I hadn't properly taken in what you were saying here.

How is this unlike the beliefs of the religionist? He, or she, believes in something that exists independently of himself, or herself.

It's not about belief in it, it's about it being a fact. According to you, someone who believes in fairies is an objectivist. That is absurd.

Are you telling me facts are not believable? Being unbelievable, why would you say they were true? I'm sorry but I can't take something as truth if I'm not able to believe in it.

The problem is that a religionist doesn't have facts, only faith.

He, or she, believes this thing exists in reality. He, or she, has objectified this belief in his, or her, ability to describe it as an actual object.

You see, you are equivocating on the word 'objective'. That is not the meaning under discussion.

If it doesn't mean being objective, what does it mean?

The word 'objective' has many different meanings. Look it up in an online dictionary. You seem to be switching between various definitions as it suits you. That is called equivocation.

For instance, to the Christian, God is an actual person, who has been made known throughout history. Even the Jew who says God has no image has given God a place in space and time. The Jewish god met Moses on mount Sinai. King Solomon built God a temple in which to dwell; however, not only did the Jew say God dwelt in the Temple but inhabited a specific location, the inner sanctuary, hidden behind a veil. In giving God the physical properties of space and time in which the collective can agree, theists have objectified God and in the mind of the believer has made God as real as any material object.

This is just ridiculous. Objectifying something has nothing to do with objective reality. How can dreaming up a concept, and then believing in it, make that something real? You have to be joking. No rational person could possibly think like this.

Are you so benighted to believe objects from the outside jump into your head? How do you imagine they get into your brain? The mind through sensory impressions creates ideas; these ideas are the end products of stimulated afferent nerve fibers. What stimulates these nerve fibers other than a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic radiation? If an object appears to be a certain color, do you believe that object is, innately, that color? Or, does its color have to do with its ability to absorb and reflect light and our ability to detect it in that range? If an alien detected different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation than we do, how different would things appear? How would the alien's world look in comparison to ours?

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

Without our ability to objectify these sense impressions or without the ability to objectify them in the same manner, the world would be a very different place for us.

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality.

Ignoring the other areas that are wrong, I always find it interesting when people use the term "religionists" to describe religious people. It's usally followed up with a screed about as informed on the subject matter as the typical person who attacks "evolutionists".
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 1:18:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The problem is that a religionist doesn't have facts, only faith.

Are you saying the religionist doesn't take that which he, or she, believes as factual? If so, why would he, or she, believe it, thinking it's fictitious?

He, or she, believes this thing exists in reality. He, or she, has objectified this belief in his, or her, ability to describe it as an actual object.

You see, you are equivocating on the word 'objective'. That is not the meaning under discussion.

If it doesn't mean being objective, what does it mean?

The word 'objective' has many different meanings. Look it up in an online dictionary. You seem to be switching between various definitions as it suits you. That is called equivocation.

No. I'm using the definition you provided.

The problem is you have a very narrow interpretation of its meaning. You're a materialist, and instead of taking the meaning of the word to see if it applies to your philosophy, you have taken its meaning and have stuffed it into your philosophical box.

For instance, to the Christian, God is an actual person, who has been made known throughout history. Even the Jew who says God has no image has given God a place in space and time. The Jewish god met Moses on mount Sinai. King Solomon built God a temple in which to dwell; however, not only did the Jew say God dwelt in the Temple but inhabited a specific location, the inner sanctuary, hidden behind a veil. In giving God the physical properties of space and time in which the collective can agree, theists have objectified God and in the mind of the believer has made God as real as any material object.

This is just ridiculous. Objectifying something has nothing to do with objective reality. How can dreaming up a concept, and then believing in it, make that something real? You have to be joking. No rational person could possibly think like this.

Are you so benighted to believe objects from the outside jump into your head? How do you imagine they get into your brain? The mind through sensory impressions creates ideas; these ideas are the end products of stimulated afferent nerve fibers. What stimulates these nerve fibers other than a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic radiation? If an object appears to be a certain color, do you believe that object is, innately, that color? Or, does its color have to do with its ability to absorb and reflect light and our ability to detect it in that range? If an alien detected different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation than we do, how different would things appear? How would the alien's world look in comparison to ours?

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

The problem I see with you is you compartmentalize knowledge. You say this is religious knowledge and this is scientific knowledge, this is religious truth and this is scientific truth. The reason I believe you do that is because it makes it easier for you to put each in its own box. It's easier to define, predict, and control that which you can keep in tidy little boxes.

The truth is reality is bigger than you; the moment you think you have it under your control you realize it controls you. Knowledge is knowledge and truth is truth; it is found in many different times and places; it wears many different costumes and has many different faces. It is not so easily contained.

The Christian believes his, or her, creed is objective because he, or she, believes God literally walked the face of the earth. He, or she, believes God died on a literal cross, was buried in a literal grave, and literally rose from the dead. Christian apologists say this is proven by an empty tomb. The Christian does not believe God is an abstract concept; that's your belief. The Jew and the Muslim do not believe God exists only as an idea; they believe God's existence is real and actual. You're the one who believes it's not. You may believe a person's religious beliefs are subjective. You may even believe they are false, and that's your right to do so. However, the religious believe their beliefs are objective and true. You and I may disagree with them; but, that in no way changes their beliefs.

Without our ability to objectify these sense impressions or without the ability to objectify them in the same manner, the world would be a very different place for us.

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality

According to you, but not according to them.
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 6:19:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 8:11:44 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 11/22/2014 3:51:39 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/21/2014 11:23:35 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I'm not equivocating anything. Objectivism is the belief reality transcends the individual; it exists apart from the individual; it concerns things that can be objectified, things on which separate individuals can agree or experience.

No, it does not. See the bolded part of the definition above. "independent of thought or an observer". That's the exact opposite of what you are saying.

Do you know the meaning of the word transcend? If not, it means to be above or beyond. How is being above or beyond not being independent of an observer? Furthermore, I clarified my statement even further by saying, "(I)t exists apart from the individual;" but, I guess that wasn't even enough. Are you so blinded by your need to be right you fail to realize someone's agreeing with you?

I stand corrected. I hadn't properly taken in what you were saying here.

How is this unlike the beliefs of the religionist? He, or she, believes in something that exists independently of himself, or herself.

It's not about belief in it, it's about it being a fact. According to you, someone who believes in fairies is an objectivist. That is absurd.

Are you telling me facts are not believable? Being unbelievable, why would you say they were true? I'm sorry but I can't take something as truth if I'm not able to believe in it.

The problem is that a religionist doesn't have facts, only faith.

He, or she, believes this thing exists in reality. He, or she, has objectified this belief in his, or her, ability to describe it as an actual object.

You see, you are equivocating on the word 'objective'. That is not the meaning under discussion.

If it doesn't mean being objective, what does it mean?

The word 'objective' has many different meanings. Look it up in an online dictionary. You seem to be switching between various definitions as it suits you. That is called equivocation.

For instance, to the Christian, God is an actual person, who has been made known throughout history. Even the Jew who says God has no image has given God a place in space and time. The Jewish god met Moses on mount Sinai. King Solomon built God a temple in which to dwell; however, not only did the Jew say God dwelt in the Temple but inhabited a specific location, the inner sanctuary, hidden behind a veil. In giving God the physical properties of space and time in which the collective can agree, theists have objectified God and in the mind of the believer has made God as real as any material object.

This is just ridiculous. Objectifying something has nothing to do with objective reality. How can dreaming up a concept, and then believing in it, make that something real? You have to be joking. No rational person could possibly think like this.

Are you so benighted to believe objects from the outside jump into your head? How do you imagine they get into your brain? The mind through sensory impressions creates ideas; these ideas are the end products of stimulated afferent nerve fibers. What stimulates these nerve fibers other than a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic radiation? If an object appears to be a certain color, do you believe that object is, innately, that color? Or, does its color have to do with its ability to absorb and reflect light and our ability to detect it in that range? If an alien detected different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation than we do, how different would things appear? How would the alien's world look in comparison to ours?

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

Without our ability to objectify these sense impressions or without the ability to objectify them in the same manner, the world would be a very different place for us.

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality.

Ignoring the other areas that are wrong, I always find it interesting when people use the term "religionists" to describe religious people. It's usally followed up with a screed about as informed on the subject matter as the typical person who attacks "evolutionists".

Um, I was just echoing back the word he used first.
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 6:53:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 1:18:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
The problem is that a religionist doesn't have facts, only faith.

Are you saying the religionist doesn't take that which he, or she, believes as factual? If so, why would he, or she, believe it, thinking it's fictitious?

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone truly believes in something then that something is a fact? Astrology for example? You can't be serious.

He, or she, believes this thing exists in reality. He, or she, has objectified this belief in his, or her, ability to describe it as an actual object.

You see, you are equivocating on the word 'objective'. That is not the meaning under discussion.

If it doesn't mean being objective, what does it mean?

The word 'objective' has many different meanings. Look it up in an online dictionary. You seem to be switching between various definitions as it suits you. That is called equivocation.

No. I'm using the definition you provided.

I don't think so.

The problem is you have a very narrow interpretation of its meaning. You're a materialist, and instead of taking the meaning of the word to see if it applies to your philosophy, you have taken its meaning and have stuffed it into your philosophical box.

What does that even mean? It's just babble to me.

For instance, to the Christian, God is an actual person, who has been made known throughout history. Even the Jew who says God has no image has given God a place in space and time. The Jewish god met Moses on mount Sinai. King Solomon built God a temple in which to dwell; however, not only did the Jew say God dwelt in the Temple but inhabited a specific location, the inner sanctuary, hidden behind a veil. In giving God the physical properties of space and time in which the collective can agree, theists have objectified God and in the mind of the believer has made God as real as any material object.

This is just ridiculous. Objectifying something has nothing to do with objective reality. How can dreaming up a concept, and then believing in it, make that something real? You have to be joking. No rational person could possibly think like this.

Are you so benighted to believe objects from the outside jump into your head? How do you imagine they get into your brain? The mind through sensory impressions creates ideas; these ideas are the end products of stimulated afferent nerve fibers. What stimulates these nerve fibers other than a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic radiation? If an object appears to be a certain color, do you believe that object is, innately, that color? Or, does its color have to do with its ability to absorb and reflect light and our ability to detect it in that range? If an alien detected different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation than we do, how different would things appear? How would the alien's world look in comparison to ours?

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

The problem I see with you is you compartmentalize knowledge. You say this is religious knowledge and this is scientific knowledge, this is religious truth and this is scientific truth. The reason I believe you do that is because it makes it easier for you to put each in its own box. It's easier to define, predict, and control that which you can keep in tidy little boxes.

No, it's because they are fundamentally different. You said it yourself when you were talking about colour and using our senses. I repeat, what colour is God? No answer?

The truth is reality is bigger than you;

That's just a bare assertion. Provide your evidence that there is more to the universe than what we perceive.

the moment you think you have it under your control you realize it controls you. Knowledge is knowledge and truth is truth; it is found in many different times and places; it wears many different costumes and has many different faces. It is not so easily contained.

An appeal to, what, the unknown? Not worth commenting on as it is just mere assertion.

The Christian believes his, or her, creed is objective because he, or she, believes God literally walked the face of the earth. He, or she, believes God died on a literal cross, was buried in a literal grave, and literally rose from the dead. Christian apologists say this is proven by an empty tomb. The Christian does not believe God is an abstract concept; that's your belief. The Jew and the Muslim do not believe God exists only as an idea; they believe God's existence is real and actual. You're the one who believes it's not. You may believe a person's religious beliefs are subjective. You may even believe they are false, and that's your right to do so. However, the religious believe their beliefs are objective and true. You and I may disagree with them; but, that in no way changes their beliefs.

I'm not interested in what their beliefs are. I'm interested in what they have evidence for. According to your reasoning there must be multiple objective realities. There is the objective reality of the one Christian Creator God, the objective reality of Allah as the one true god, and then there is Yahweh, Vishnu, and the list goes on. How is that possible? If a theist were honest, they would have to admit that they could be wrong because not all of you can be right at the same time. Theists don't have facts, they have wishful thinking and deep down inside (although they would never admit to it) most of them know it. There is nothing objective about any religious beliefs and most theists would be happy to own up to that. That's why it's called faith - belief in the absence of evidence. You seem to be an exception.

Without our ability to objectify these sense impressions or without the ability to objectify them in the same manner, the world would be a very different place for us.

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality

According to you, but not according to them.

But they're wrong. You're wrong because, as I said, you are the only one who seems to be pushing this particular illogical barrow.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 10:05:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are you saying the religionist doesn't take that which he, or she, believes as factual? If so, why would he, or she, believe it, thinking it's fictitious?

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone truly believes in something then that something is a fact? Astrology for example? You can't be serious.

I never said it was a fact for you; I said it was a fact for the one who believes it. It is apparent you have one thing in common with most religious people: you believe just because something is false for you, it must be false for everyone else.

He, or she, believes this thing exists in reality. He, or she, has objectified this belief in his, or her, ability to describe it as an actual object.

You see, you are equivocating on the word 'objective'. That is not the meaning under discussion.

If it doesn't mean being objective, what does it mean?

The word 'objective' has many different meanings. Look it up in an online dictionary. You seem to be switching between various definitions as it suits you. That is called equivocation.

No. I'm using the definition you provided.

I don't think so.

The problem is you have a very narrow interpretation of its meaning. You're a materialist, and instead of taking the meaning of the word to see if it applies to your philosophy, you have taken its meaning and have stuffed it into your philosophical box.

What does that even mean? It's just babble to me.

For instance, to the Christian, God is an actual person, who has been made known throughout history. Even the Jew who says God has no image has given God a place in space and time. The Jewish god met Moses on mount Sinai. King Solomon built God a temple in which to dwell; however, not only did the Jew say God dwelt in the Temple but inhabited a specific location, the inner sanctuary, hidden behind a veil. In giving God the physical properties of space and time in which the collective can agree, theists have objectified God and in the mind of the believer has made God as real as any material object.

This is just ridiculous. Objectifying something has nothing to do with objective reality. How can dreaming up a concept, and then believing in it, make that something real? You have to be joking. No rational person could possibly think like this.

Are you so benighted to believe objects from the outside jump into your head? How do you imagine they get into your brain? The mind through sensory impressions creates ideas; these ideas are the end products of stimulated afferent nerve fibers. What stimulates these nerve fibers other than a narrow spectrum of electromagnetic radiation? If an object appears to be a certain color, do you believe that object is, innately, that color? Or, does its color have to do with its ability to absorb and reflect light and our ability to detect it in that range? If an alien detected different wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation than we do, how different would things appear? How would the alien's world look in comparison to ours?

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

The problem I see with you is you compartmentalize knowledge. You say this is religious knowledge and this is scientific knowledge, this is religious truth and this is scientific truth. The reason I believe you do that is because it makes it easier for you to put each in its own box. It's easier to define, predict, and control that which you can keep in tidy little boxes.

No, it's because they are fundamentally different. You said it yourself when you were talking about colour and using our senses. I repeat, what colour is God? No answer?

I don't know because I don't see God as an object.

The truth is reality is bigger than you;

That's just a bare assertion. Provide your evidence that there is more to the universe than what we perceive.

"objective, adjective
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

Is that sufficient? Or, do you not see yourself as being objective?

the moment you think you have it under your control you realize it controls you. Knowledge is knowledge and truth is truth; it is found in many different times and places; it wears many different costumes and has many different faces. It is not so easily contained.

An appeal to, what, the unknown? Not worth commenting on as it is just mere assertion.

The Christian believes his, or her, creed is objective because he, or she, believes God literally walked the face of the earth. He, or she, believes God died on a literal cross, was buried in a literal grave, and literally rose from the dead. Christian apologists say this is proven by an empty tomb. The Christian does not believe God is an abstract concept; that's your belief. The Jew and the Muslim do not believe God exists only as an idea; they believe God's existence is real and actual. You're the one who believes it's not. You may believe a person's religious beliefs are subjective. You may even believe they are false, and that's your right to do so. However, the religious believe their beliefs are objective and true. You and I may disagree with them; but, that in no way changes their beliefs.

I'm not interested in what their beliefs are. I'm interested in what they have evidence for. According to your reasoning there must be multiple objective realities. There is the objective reality of the one Christian Creator God, the objective reality of Allah as the one true god, and then there is Yahweh, Vishnu, and the list goes on. How is that possible? If a theist were honest, they would have to admit that they could be wrong because not all of you can be right at the same time. Theists don't have facts, they have wishful thinking and deep down inside (although they would never admit to it) most of them know it. There is nothing objective about any religious beliefs and most theists would be happy to own up to that. That's why it's called faith - belief in the absence of evidence. You seem to be an exception.

Without our ability to objectify these sense impressions or without the ability to objectify them in the same manner, the world would be a very different place for us.

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality

According to you, but not according to them.

But they're wrong. You're wrong because, as I said, you are the only one who seems to be pushing this particular illogical barrow.

I never said in my OP religionists are objectivists because dee-em said so. Neither did I say religionists are objectivists because they adhere to some specific school of thought, or philosophy. I said religionists are objectivists because they see themselves as being consistent with being objective as it's defined, namely (if you'd allow me to borrow your definition) "objective: of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/22/2014 11:30:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/22/2014 10:05:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Are you saying the religionist doesn't take that which he, or she, believes as factual? If so, why would he, or she, believe it, thinking it's fictitious?

Are you seriously suggesting that if someone truly believes in something then that something is a fact? Astrology for example? You can't be serious.

I never said it was a fact for you; I said it was a fact for the one who believes it. It is apparent you have one thing in common with most religious people: you believe just because something is false for you, it must be false for everyone else.

What? Are you defining a fact as something which someone sincerely believes? If they believe it, it becomes a fact to them? Are you nuts?

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
--- wikipedia

People who sincerely believe in woo have had ample opportunity to demonstrate it but have failed miserably. James Randi has proven that. You have an incredibly warped idea of what constitutes a fact. Whilst the person holding a belief may treat the object of their belief as fact (most don't, they accept it's faith), it doesn't make it fact.

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

The problem I see with you is you compartmentalize knowledge. You say this is religious knowledge and this is scientific knowledge, this is religious truth and this is scientific truth. The reason I believe you do that is because it makes it easier for you to put each in its own box. It's easier to define, predict, and control that which you can keep in tidy little boxes.

No, it's because they are fundamentally different. You said it yourself when you were talking about colour and using our senses. I repeat, what colour is God? No answer?

I don't know because I don't see God as an object.

Thank you. Then you can't 'objectify' him.

The truth is reality is bigger than you;

That's just a bare assertion. Provide your evidence that there is more to the universe than what we perceive.

"objective, adjective
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

Is that sufficient? Or, do you not see yourself as being objective?

Of course it's not sufficient. The definition is talking about existence. I have no problem with everything in the universe which we perceive existing independent of an observer. However, you claim that there is more than we can perceive. I'll ask again. What is the basis of your claim?

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality

According to you, but not according to them.

But they're wrong. You're wrong because, as I said, you are the only one who seems to be pushing this particular illogical barrow.

I never said in my OP religionists are objectivists because dee-em said so. Neither did I say religionists are objectivists because they adhere to some specific school of thought, or philosophy. I said religionists are objectivists because they see themselves as being consistent with being objective as it's defined, namely (if you'd allow me to borrow your de

But they're not. If they can't demonstrate the existence of the object of their belief independent of their thought of it (which you have admittted is the only thing they go on) then it can't be considered part of bjective reality. I really don't know how you can continue to argue this.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 10:52:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I never said it was a fact for you; I said it was a fact for the one who believes it. It is apparent you have one thing in common with most religious people: you believe just because something is false for you, it must be false for everyone else.

What? Are you defining a fact as something which someone sincerely believes? If they believe it, it becomes a fact to them? Are you nuts?

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
--- wikipedia

People who sincerely believe in woo have had ample opportunity to demonstrate it but have failed miserably. James Randi has proven that. You have an incredibly warped idea of what constitutes a fact. Whilst the person holding a belief may treat the object of their belief as fact (most don't, they accept it's faith), it doesn't make it fact.

Christians believe Christ actually rose from the dead. Orthodox Jews believe God literally handed the Law to Moses. Muslims believe God really spoke to Muhammad. If you doubt this, I dare you to go into a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, or an Islamic mosque and tell them, respectively, these things did not actually happen.

I love how the definitions for objective and fact only apply to that which you have determined as being objective or factual. You have made it clear you are no different than any religious fundamentalist, except you put your faith not in his, or her, experience but yours. You have made holy the precepts of materialism and have sanctified the prescriptions of empiricism.

Science is not some immutable god removed from error; in fact, scientists make mistakes, everyday. Science is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. The world is not a dead relic but a living, breathing organism that is in a constant state of flux.

You have taken science and have made it into a god just as religionists have taken religion and have practiced their idolatries.

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

The problem I see with you is you compartmentalize knowledge. You say this is religious knowledge and this is scientific knowledge, this is religious truth and this is scientific truth. The reason I believe you do that is because it makes it easier for you to put each in its own box. It's easier to define, predict, and control that which you can keep in tidy little boxes.

No, it's because they are fundamentally different. You said it yourself when you were talking about colour and using our senses. I repeat, what colour is God? No answer?

I don't know because I don't see God as an object.

Thank you. Then you can't 'objectify' him.

I don't.

The truth is reality is bigger than you;

That's just a bare assertion. Provide your evidence that there is more to the universe than what we perceive.

"objective, adjective
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

Is that sufficient? Or, do you not see yourself as being objective?

Of course it's not sufficient. The definition is talking about existence. I have no problem with everything in the universe which we perceive existing independent of an observer. However, you claim that there is more than we can perceive. I'll ask again. What is the basis of your claim?

Do you honestly believe the universe only contains that which you can perceive? If so, you are contradicting the very definition you provided. Your definition says, "...existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality," in other words existing independent of perception. How do we perceive something that exists apart from observation? Is not observation perception?

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality

According to you, but not according to them.

But they're wrong. You're wrong because, as I said, you are the only one who seems to be pushing this particular illogical barrow.

I never said in my OP religionists are objectivists because dee-em said so. Neither did I say religionists are objectivists because they adhere to some specific school of thought, or philosophy. I said religionists are objectivists because they see themselves as being consistent with being objective as it's defined, namely (if you'd allow me to borrow your de

But they're not. If they can't demonstrate the existence of the object of their belief independent of their thought of it (which you have admittted is the only thing they go on) then it can't be considered part of bjective reality. I really don't know how you can continue to argue this.

Demonstrate the existence of something independent of your ability to conceive it.
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 6:16:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 10:52:34 AM, s-anthony wrote:
I never said it was a fact for you; I said it was a fact for the one who believes it. It is apparent you have one thing in common with most religious people: you believe just because something is false for you, it must be false for everyone else.

What? Are you defining a fact as something which someone sincerely believes? If they believe it, it becomes a fact to them? Are you nuts?

A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability, that is, whether it can be demonstrated to correspond to experience.
--- wikipedia

People who sincerely believe in woo have had ample opportunity to demonstrate it but have failed miserably. James Randi has proven that. You have an incredibly warped idea of what constitutes a fact. Whilst the person holding a belief may treat the object of their belief as fact (most don't, they accept it's faith), it doesn't make it fact.

Christians believe Christ actually rose from the dead. Orthodox Jews believe God literally handed the Law to Moses. Muslims believe God really spoke to Muhammad. If you doubt this, I dare you to go into a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, or an Islamic mosque and tell them, respectively, these things did not actually happen.

What part of "independent from thought" in the definition of 'objective' don't you understand?

I love how the definitions for objective and fact only apply to that which you have determined as being objective or factual.

The definitions are not mine and you have accepted them anyway. Too late to complain now.

You have made it clear you are no different than any religious fundamentalist, except you put your faith not in his, or her, experience but yours. You have made holy the precepts of materialism and have sanctified the prescriptions of empiricism.

Have I? That's interesting.

Science is not some immutable god removed from error; in fact, scientists make mistakes, everyday. Science is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. The world is not a dead relic but a living, breathing organism that is in a constant state of flux.

Thank you. And this is relevant how, exactly?

You have taken science and have made it into a god just as religionists have taken religion and have practiced their idolatries.

Yes, I worship at the altar of science daily. Would it be too much to ask for you to actually address my arguments instead of trying to tell me why you don't like my alleged worldview?

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

The problem I see with you is you compartmentalize knowledge. You say this is religious knowledge and this is scientific knowledge, this is religious truth and this is scientific truth. The reason I believe you do that is because it makes it easier for you to put each in its own box. It's easier to define, predict, and control that which you can keep in tidy little boxes.

No, it's because they are fundamentally different. You said it yourself when you were talking about colour and using our senses. I repeat, what colour is God? No answer?

I don't know because I don't see God as an object.

Thank you. Then you can't 'objectify' him.

I don't.

It was the royal 'you'.

The truth is reality is bigger than you;

That's just a bare assertion. Provide your evidence that there is more to the universe than what we perceive.

"objective, adjective
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

Is that sufficient? Or, do you not see yourself as being objective?

Of course it's not sufficient. The definition is talking about existence. I have no problem with everything in the universe which we perceive existing independent of an observer. However, you claim that there is more than we can perceive. I'll ask again. What is the basis of your claim?

Do you honestly believe the universe only contains that which you can perceive?

On what grounds would I believe otherwise?

If so, you are contradicting the very definition you provided. Your definition says, "...existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality," in other words existing independent of perception.

As I have already said, I have no problem with accepting that what we perceive can, and does, exist if we aren't around to observe it. It's the old conundrum of whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if there is no-one there to hear it. A tree doesn't disappear if no-one is looking at it. But that is not the issue. You are talking about things which have never, and can never, be perceived. Your task is to fit that into being 'objective' as in the definition above. You keep dodging this burden you have. How about addressing it?

How do we perceive something that exists apart from observation? Is not observation perception?

Do you have observation of god? If not, why waste your time with this red herring?

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality

According to you, but not according to them.

But they're wrong. You're wrong because, as I said, you are the only one who seems to be pushing this particular illogical barrow.

I never said in my OP religionists are objectivists because dee-em said so. Neither did I say religionists are objectivists because they adhere to some specific school of thought, or philosophy. I said religionists are objectivists because they see themselves as being consistent with being objective as it's defined, namely (if you'd allow me to borrow your de

But they're not. If they can't demonstrate the existence of the object of their belief independent of their thought of it (which you have admittted is the only thing they go on) then it can't be considered part of bjective reality. I really don't know how you can continue to argue this.

Demonstrate the existence of something independent of your ability to conceive it.

What does this have to do with anything I have been saying?

You have been pushing the nonsensical line that theists, by conceptualizing their god, are entitled to claim that he is objective to them. But the definition we have agreed on states that something is objective only if it exists in reality independent from thought. Either retract your claim or refute me. Those are your options.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 9:03:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christians believe Christ actually rose from the dead. Orthodox Jews believe God literally handed the Law to Moses. Muslims believe God really spoke to Muhammad. If you doubt this, I dare you to go into a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, or an Islamic mosque and tell them, respectively, these things did not actually happen.

What part of "independent from thought" in the definition of 'objective' don't you understand?

They believe these things happened apart from them in space and time. I have yet to meet a Christian who claims to have witnessed the resurrection.

I love how the definitions for objective and fact only apply to that which you have determined as being objective or factual.

The definitions are not mine and you have accepted them anyway. Too late to complain now.

You have made it clear you are no different than any religious fundamentalist, except you put your faith not in his, or her, experience but yours. You have made holy the precepts of materialism and have sanctified the prescriptions of empiricism.

Have I? That's interesting.

Science is not some immutable god removed from error; in fact, scientists make mistakes, everyday. Science is constantly changing as new discoveries are made. The world is not a dead relic but a living, breathing organism that is in a constant state of flux.

Thank you. And this is relevant how, exactly?

You have taken science and have made it into a god just as religionists have taken religion and have practiced their idolatries.

Yes, I worship at the altar of science daily. Would it be too much to ask for you to actually address my arguments instead of trying to tell me why you don't like my alleged worldview?

What colour is God? You can't compare the reality we perceive with our senses with what you were talking about in the paragraph above - the Christian God. You can't objectify an idea and then convince yourself that it is real just by virtue of the fact that you really want it to be. The Moon has objective reality. It is/was there regardless of whether there are people around to think about it or observe it. Can you say the same about God? You can't observe God with your senses and you certainly can't prove he exists any other way. Objective reality is about what exists and if you can't convincingly demonstrate existence then God is not part of it.

The problem I see with you is you compartmentalize knowledge. You say this is religious knowledge and this is scientific knowledge, this is religious truth and this is scientific truth. The reason I believe you do that is because it makes it easier for you to put each in its own box. It's easier to define, predict, and control that which you can keep in tidy little boxes.

No, it's because they are fundamentally different. You said it yourself when you were talking about colour and using our senses. I repeat, what colour is God? No answer?

I don't know because I don't see God as an object.

Thank you. Then you can't 'objectify' him.

I don't.

It was the royal 'you'.

I never once said I objectified God. I said religionists do.

The truth is reality is bigger than you;

That's just a bare assertion. Provide your evidence that there is more to the universe than what we perceive.

"objective, adjective
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality."

Is that sufficient? Or, do you not see yourself as being objective?

Of course it's not sufficient. The definition is talking about existence. I have no problem with everything in the universe which we perceive existing independent of an observer. However, you claim that there is more than we can perceive. I'll ask again. What is the basis of your claim?

Do you honestly believe the universe only contains that which you can perceive?

On what grounds would I believe otherwise?

If so, you are contradicting the very definition you provided. Your definition says, "...existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality," in other words existing independent of perception.

As I have already said, I have no problem with accepting that what we perceive can, and does, exist if we aren't around to observe it. It's the old conundrum of whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if there is no-one there to hear it. A tree doesn't disappear if no-one is looking at it. But that is not the issue. You are talking about things which have never, and can never, be perceived. Your task is to fit that into being 'objective' as in the definition above. You keep dodging this burden you have. How about addressing it?

Christians believe witnesses saw Christ after he was resurrected. Orthodox Jews believe the Jewish people saw Moses go up to meet God and descend with the Ten Commandments. Do I believe these things actually happened? No, but that's immaterial. Do I believe Nero burned the City of Rome or Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five thesis to the church door or George Washington crossed the Delaware? I believe they did. Did I witness any of these things? No. I have, only, the accounts of other people. I think the mistake you're making is you believe the word objective means something you, yourself, believe happened in reality. However, the word doesn't only apply to that which you think is real; it applies to that which anybody thinks is real, whether you think he, or she, is delusional, or not. Now, of course, you may think it's not objective, at all. That's great! However, you don't get to tell somebody that which is objective for him, or her.

How do we perceive something that exists apart from observation? Is not observation perception?

Do you have observation of god? If not, why waste your time with this red herring?

Whether, or not, I believe God is observable is immaterial. Other people believe God has been observed, in times past, and is being observed currently working in their lives. I don't have to agree with them in order for it to be a reality for them.

You're equivocating again. On the one hand you talk about material objects whose existence can be verified with our senses (or extensions of them). Then you try and equate that with concepts whose existence cannot be ascertained. No amount of hearsay makes the Christian God an actual object. His existence remains an open question. Therefore religionists are not entitled to include him in objective reality

According to you, but not according to them.

But they're wrong. You're wrong because, as I said, you are the only one who seems to be pushing this particular illogical barrow.

I never said in my OP religionists are objectivists because dee-em said so. Neither did I say religionists are objectivists because they adhere to some specific school of thought, or philosophy. I said religionists are objectivists because they see themselves as being consistent with being objective as it's defined, namely (if you'd allow me to borrow your de

But they're not. If they can't demonstrate the existence of the object of their belief independent of their thought of it (which you have admittted is the only thing they go on) then it can't be considered part of bjective reality. I really don't know how you can continue to argue this.

Demonstrate the existence of something independent of your ability to conceive it.

What does this have to do with anything I have been saying?

You have been pushing the nonsensical line that theists, by conceptualizing their god, are entitled to claim that he is objective to them. But the definition we have agreed on states that something is objective only if it exists in reality independent from thought. Either retract your claim or refute me. Those are your options.

Religious people believe God exists in reality independent from thought. Do you have to
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:58:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:03:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Christians believe Christ actually rose from the dead. Orthodox Jews believe God literally handed the Law to Moses. Muslims believe God really spoke to Muhammad. If you doubt this, I dare you to go into a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, or an Islamic mosque and tell them, respectively, these things did not actually happen.

What part of "independent from thought" in the definition of 'objective' don't you understand?

They believe these things happened apart from them in space and time. I have yet to meet a Christian who claims to have witnessed the resurrection.

"They believe". Thought. You just don't get it.

No, it's because they are fundamentally different. You said it yourself when you were talking about colour and using our senses. I repeat, what colour is God? No answer?

I don't know because I don't see God as an object.

Thank you. Then you can't 'objectify' him.

I don't.

It was the royal 'you'.

I never once said I objectified God. I said religionists do.

Yes, that's why I said I used the royal 'you' (opposite to the royal 'we').

If so, you are contradicting the very definition you provided. Your definition says, "...existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality," in other words existing independent of perception.

As I have already said, I have no problem with accepting that what we perceive can, and does, exist if we aren't around to observe it. It's the old conundrum of whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if there is no-one there to hear it. A tree doesn't disappear if no-one is looking at it. But that is not the issue. You are talking about things which have never, and can never, be perceived. Your task is to fit that into being 'objective' as in the definition above. You keep dodging this burden you have. How about addressing it?

Christians believe witnesses saw Christ after he was resurrected. Orthodox Jews believe the Jewish people saw Moses go up to meet God and descend with the Ten Commandments. Do I believe these things actually happened? No, but that's immaterial. Do I believe Nero burned the City of Rome or Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five thesis to the church door or George Washington crossed the Delaware? I believe they did. Did I witness any of these things? No. I have, only, the accounts of other people. I think the mistake you're making is you believe the word objective means something you, yourself, believe happened in reality. However, the word doesn't only apply to that which you think is real; it applies to that which anybody thinks is real, whether you think he, or she, is delusional, or not. Now, of course, you may think it's not objective, at all. That's great! However, you don't get to tell somebody that which is objective for him, or her.

So what is objective is subjective? ROFL.

How do we perceive something that exists apart from observation? Is not observation perception?

Do you have observation of god? If not, why waste your time with this red herring?

Whether, or not, I believe God is observable is immaterial. Other people believe God has been observed, in times past, and is being observed currently working in their lives. I don't have to agree with them in order for it to be a reality for them.

See above.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 11:04:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 12:58:18 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:03:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Christians believe Christ actually rose from the dead. Orthodox Jews believe God literally handed the Law to Moses. Muslims believe God really spoke to Muhammad. If you doubt this, I dare you to go into a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, or an Islamic mosque and tell them, respectively, these things did not actually happen.

What part of "independent from thought" in the definition of 'objective' don't you understand?

They believe these things happened apart from them in space and time. I have yet to meet a Christian who claims to have witnessed the resurrection.

"They believe". Thought. You just don't get it.

Are you telling me the only things you know to be true are those things you experienced first hand? In other words, nothing you learned through second hand knowledge, as in going to school, reading a book, or having a mentor is at all objective? Are you saying this first hand knowledge you attained through the integrity of your own faculties (be they trustworthy and not deluded) is the only understanding that merits reality? Are you also saying no faith is needed in assuring you there are no discrepancies between your perception and the real, or actual, world?

Seeing the only truly objective world exists within the parameters of your experience doesn't that contradict your definition of the word objective, meaning, "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality"?

Furthermore doesn't trusting the reliability of your faculties to perceive knowledge of the real world without discrepancies require a great deal of faith in yourself?


No, it's because they are fundamentally different. You said it yourself when you were talking about colour and using our senses. I repeat, what colour is God? No answer?

I don't know because I don't see God as an object.

Thank you. Then you can't 'objectify' him.

I don't.

It was the royal 'you'.

I never once said I objectified God. I said religionists do.

Yes, that's why I said I used the royal 'you' (opposite to the royal 'we').

If so, you are contradicting the very definition you provided. Your definition says, "...existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality," in other words existing independent of perception.

As I have already said, I have no problem with accepting that what we perceive can, and does, exist if we aren't around to observe it. It's the old conundrum of whether a tree falling in the forest makes a sound if there is no-one there to hear it. A tree doesn't disappear if no-one is looking at it. But that is not the issue. You are talking about things which have never, and can never, be perceived. Your task is to fit that into being 'objective' as in the definition above. You keep dodging this burden you have. How about addressing it?

Christians believe witnesses saw Christ after he was resurrected. Orthodox Jews believe the Jewish people saw Moses go up to meet God and descend with the Ten Commandments. Do I believe these things actually happened? No, but that's immaterial. Do I believe Nero burned the City of Rome or Martin Luther nailed his ninety-five thesis to the church door or George Washington crossed the Delaware? I believe they did. Did I witness any of these things? No. I have, only, the accounts of other people. I think the mistake you're making is you believe the word objective means something you, yourself, believe happened in reality. However, the word doesn't only apply to that which you think is real; it applies to that which anybody thinks is real, whether you think he, or she, is delusional, or not. Now, of course, you may think it's not objective, at all. That's great! However, you don't get to tell somebody that which is objective for him, or her.

So what is objective is subjective? ROFL.

How do we perceive something that exists apart from observation? Is not observation perception?

Do you have observation of god? If not, why waste your time with this red herring?

Whether, or not, I believe God is observable is immaterial. Other people believe God has been observed, in times past, and is being observed currently working in their lives. I don't have to agree with them in order for it to be a reality for them.

See above.
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 4:40:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 11:04:45 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:58:18 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:03:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Christians believe Christ actually rose from the dead. Orthodox Jews believe God literally handed the Law to Moses. Muslims believe God really spoke to Muhammad. If you doubt this, I dare you to go into a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, or an Islamic mosque and tell them, respectively, these things did not actually happen.

What part of "independent from thought" in the definition of 'objective' don't you understand?

They believe these things happened apart from them in space and time. I have yet to meet a Christian who claims to have witnessed the resurrection.

"They believe". Thought. You just don't get it.

Are you telling me the only things you know to be true are those things you experienced first hand? In other words, nothing you learned through second hand knowledge, as in going to school, reading a book, or having a mentor is at all objective? Are you saying this first hand knowledge you attained through the integrity of your own faculties (be they trustworthy and not deluded) is the only understanding that merits reality? Are you also saying no faith is needed in assuring you there are no discrepancies between your perception and the real, or actual, world?

Seeing the only truly objective world exists within the parameters of your experience doesn't that contradict your definition of the word objective, meaning, "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality"?

Furthermore doesn't trusting the reliability of your faculties to perceive knowledge of the real world without discrepancies require a great deal of faith in yourself?

Now that you've been caught out on what objective means, you switch to equivocating on the word 'faith'. You are hopeless. Don't you ever learn, or are you going to keep playing these equivocation games forever? Get yourself a dictionary and use it.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 7:58:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 4:40:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:04:45 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:58:18 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:03:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Christians believe Christ actually rose from the dead. Orthodox Jews believe God literally handed the Law to Moses. Muslims believe God really spoke to Muhammad. If you doubt this, I dare you to go into a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, or an Islamic mosque and tell them, respectively, these things did not actually happen.

What part of "independent from thought" in the definition of 'objective' don't you understand?

They believe these things happened apart from them in space and time. I have yet to meet a Christian who claims to have witnessed the resurrection.

"They believe". Thought. You just don't get it.

Are you telling me the only things you know to be true are those things you experienced first hand? In other words, nothing you learned through second hand knowledge, as in going to school, reading a book, or having a mentor is at all objective? Are you saying this first hand knowledge you attained through the integrity of your own faculties (be they trustworthy and not deluded) is the only understanding that merits reality? Are you also saying no faith is needed in assuring you there are no discrepancies between your perception and the real, or actual, world?

Seeing the only truly objective world exists within the parameters of your experience doesn't that contradict your definition of the word objective, meaning, "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality"?

Furthermore doesn't trusting the reliability of your faculties to perceive knowledge of the real world without discrepancies require a great deal of faith in yourself?

Now that you've been caught out on what objective means, you switch to equivocating on the word 'faith'. You are hopeless. Don't you ever learn, or are you going to keep playing these equivocation games forever? Get yourself a dictionary and use it.

The sad part is you blatantly contradict your own definition, and after it's pointed out, you fail to admit it. In fact, it was shown the way I was using the word objective was truer to the meaning you provided than the way you were.

Now, since you can no longer accuse me of equivocating with the word objective and it's been pointed out in no uncertain terms you were contradicting yourself, you're going to attack my use of the word faith. I can see this is an endless game with you.
dee-em
Posts: 6,464
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2014 8:46:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/27/2014 7:58:01 AM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/27/2014 4:40:45 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/26/2014 11:04:45 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:58:18 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 11/24/2014 9:03:59 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Christians believe Christ actually rose from the dead. Orthodox Jews believe God literally handed the Law to Moses. Muslims believe God really spoke to Muhammad. If you doubt this, I dare you to go into a Christian church, a Jewish synagogue, or an Islamic mosque and tell them, respectively, these things did not actually happen.

What part of "independent from thought" in the definition of 'objective' don't you understand?

They believe these things happened apart from them in space and time. I have yet to meet a Christian who claims to have witnessed the resurrection.

"They believe". Thought. You just don't get it.

Are you telling me the only things you know to be true are those things you experienced first hand? In other words, nothing you learned through second hand knowledge, as in going to school, reading a book, or having a mentor is at all objective? Are you saying this first hand knowledge you attained through the integrity of your own faculties (be they trustworthy and not deluded) is the only understanding that merits reality? Are you also saying no faith is needed in assuring you there are no discrepancies between your perception and the real, or actual, world?

Seeing the only truly objective world exists within the parameters of your experience doesn't that contradict your definition of the word objective, meaning, "existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality"?

Furthermore doesn't trusting the reliability of your faculties to perceive knowledge of the real world without discrepancies require a great deal of faith in yourself?

Now that you've been caught out on what objective means, you switch to equivocating on the word 'faith'. You are hopeless. Don't you ever learn, or are you going to keep playing these equivocation games forever? Get yourself a dictionary and use it.

The sad part is you blatantly contradict your own definition, and after it's pointed out, you fail to admit it. In fact, it was shown the way I was using the word objective was truer to the meaning you provided than the way you were.

Now, since you can no longer accuse me of equivocating with the word objective and it's been pointed out in no uncertain terms you were contradicting yourself, you're going to attack my use of the word faith. I can see this is an endless game with you.

Ha ha ha ha. Some people. (But thank you for the flattery).