Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
You're not making much sense here again, as this was my original question
Me "How can something be objectively true, but only as a subjective philosophical concept." This clearly implies contradictions.
To which you replied:
"Because objectivity is itself a philosophical concept."
I then quoted the philosophical definition of objective:
"objectivity is a philosophical concept "of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination."
So having claimed objective facts are unobtainable and undiscovered, you now claim they can (only?) be obtained and discovered as philosophical concepts? So philosophy can discover objective truth but science can't, is that your position?
Could you give us some examples of objective truth philosophy has discovered that science can't validate or falsify?
" including or excluding the word subjective when modifying philosophy doesn't make a difference."
Well why would it when you have already claimed all human ideas and beliefs can only be subjective? The problem again is your original and contradictory claim that you have no doubt objective truths exist, how can you know this at all, ;;et alone have no doubts if they are as you also claim "unobtainable and undiscoverable"?
"Should I have said round ball, instad of just ball?"
N That would depend whether you had previously claimed balls can only be round. However this brings me back to my question, if philosophy being a human construct is subjective as you have claimed, how can it obtain or discover what you just claimed is "unobtainable and undiscoverable"?
I think you need to give some examples of objective truths that exist only as (subjective) philosophical concepts, and how they can be both? Also why you think science can't either validate or falsify these objective truths"?
I prefer the verb conclude rather than discover, when it comes to philosophy and other rationalist approaches.
I don't know what more I'm supposed to say on the matter. I've given you enough information to understand what I have said. Where your confusion lies, I have no idea.
You used the word undiscoverable not me.
You can say how a concept can be objective and subjective as you claimed?
Also how something can be beyond any doubt, but also be unobtainable and undiscoverable? Again as you claimed...
Also offer some examples of the (subjective) objective concepts philosophy can obtain, yet are also "unobtainable" and which science can't validate or falsify.
I'm not confused John, that's pathetic. You know what a question mark means, you dont have the integrity to answer questions to justify your claims, ok fine, but don't lie and pretend this is anything else.
Give one example of an objective truth that exists only as a philosophical concept, as you claimed. Then explain why that example can't be validated objectively, or falsified by science.
You're the one who seems confused.
I also note you introduced the claim that objective truth exists only as a philosophical concept, yet ignore how philosophy defines this? I've posted it twice and you haven't pretended to acknowledge it.
"Objectivity (philosophy) Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination."
I haven't ignored the definition you posted. Clearly, I'm the only one here aware that it stems from philosophy. That definition gives you all you need to know to understand my statements.
Me: " ignore how ****PHILOSOPHY**** defines this?"
Breezy "I'm the only one here aware that it stems from philosophy."
Dear oh dear John.
---------------------------------------------------------
" That definition gives you all you need to know to understand my statements."
No it directly contradicts your claim that objective truth is unobtainable and undiscoverable, despite your wriggle and about face to now assert it is both attainable and discoverable by philosophy.
I see not one example of such philosophical "concepts" is forthcoming, quelle surprise, your aversion to answering questions continues unabashed.
"Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination."
You can't know anything external without first perceiving it, therefore, true objectivity is unobtainable.
"You can't know anything external without first perceiving it, therefore, true objectivity is unobtainable."
So we've come full circle, and you are back to claiming to have no doubts about the existence of something that you also claim is unobtainable.
And of course making the risible assertion this does not imply a contradiction.
I still see not one example of objective philosophical "concepts" are forthcoming, quelle surprise, your aversion to answering questions continues unabashed.
I have no idea how to make it simpler. You'll just have to live with the fact that there are things you aren't able to understand.
In point of fact there is nothing anyone can understand about anything, if objective evidence doesn't exist as you are claiming. I don't need your contradiction simplified, and I understood it perfectly John, to claim something exists without any doubt, but that it is also unobtainable and undiscoverable is an obvious contradiction. You're just being a condescending prat now, once again. It's what we've all come to expect from you when you have painted yourself into a corner, but your ego won't let you admit it.
Not to worry John, this was the low point of your verbiage for me:
Me: " ignore how ****PHILOSOPHY**** defines this?"
Breezy "I'm the only one here aware that it stems from philosophy."
I think I'll reward myself with a break from your condescending nonsense now anyway. As it's clear you have nothing of value to offer here, and we will never see one example of objective philosophical "concepts" from you, we'll file it away with questions and evidence John has run away from providing.
Sounds good to me, I'll hold you to it.
And talk about being a braggart and a bigot...
Only Religious Absolutists...
rmfr
from Breezy to Sheldon: "You'll just have to live with the fact that there are things you aren't able to understand."
holy crap, am I reading this right? Did Breezy just belittle Sheldon? Breezy hasn't changed one bit from the other forum we were in. Sheldon is very intelligent, and if he's not understanding something Breezy said, I'm not surprised. Few, if any, understand Breezy.
That's very kind, but I'm happy to admit I have a middling intellect, and a have had only a mediocre formal education, also to admit that there actually is a great deal I don't know, or understand. Nor have I ever shied away from admitting plainly when I am not au fait with any topic.
In stark contrast to Breezy's posts on here I would hope, and I suspect his immaturity is the root cause for some his more arrogant condescension. Well I hope so anyway, I'd hate to think he is going to live his entire life exhibiting this kind of misplaced arrogant superiority. I'm fortunate to count among my personal friends some fairly prominent members of the medical and scientific profession, some of them leaders in their field of study, and not one of them ever sounds like Breezy's posts on here when they are discussing topics they have grasped over a lifetime, and often are paid to travel the world to teach and discuss. Maybe it's all an act from Breezy, bravado to mask insecurity?
Strange, when theists are present, or when I'm in an academic environment, people have no issues understanding me. Something about this location in specific seems to motivate people to pause their understanding.
@Breezy
Weird how people act differently in atheist hosted debate board with anonymity, no face to face. Would of never guessed that!!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Are you sure it is people lacking understanding and not people disagreeing with you?
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
▮ I am an atheist that always likes a good debate. ▮
▮ Please include @LogicFTW in responses directed to me. ▮
▮ Useful list on forum usage. A.R. Member since 2016. ▮
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
The two present themselves differently. People that disagree tend to argue a counter point. But those that don't want to understand, look for ways to complicate what has been said.
@Breezy
I actually agree with that.
But! We all need to be careful to not let our biases decide what is "complicating" and what is a counterpoint.
It couldn't possibly be your behaviour on here that is the cause of course. Maybe they're humouring you out of politeness, it's hard to say since you steadfastly refused to answer my questions about what you had and had not told your professors about your claim to have "evidence" that falsifies the scientific fact of evolution, or what their reaction might have been. That might have told us a great deal, about you, and them of course.
It's not relevant anyway, you are again trying to make a fallacious appeal to authority. It's what is said, and not whom it is said to, that matters. I'd have thought a student worthy of their education would know that much at least. I find it hard to believe you are as dismissive, evasive, dishonest and condescending to your peers in real life, as you are to the atheists on here. Well at least I sincerely hope not.
Double edge sword you just described there Breezy, except it cuts deeper, far deeper on the side of theism. Sure it gives room for the possibility of some sort of god idea, but it also points out just how easy it is for a mass delusion like religion. Further compounded by the fact that over the ages there has been thousands upon thousands of religious ideas followed by many people.
You can say observation reality must be subjective, but then you open the door that your god idea is just one of infinite possibilities and just as unlikely as any other idea. What is worse, our observation reality how powerful immediate effect where the religious ones are mostly centered around after death, other then perhaps that warm drug like feeling when someone "feels close to god."
The "subjective" reality you live in every day and think about 99% and organize most of your day to day around and has you typing here today is the same one atheist live and operate in. We just add in that last 1%. Kind of along the lines of: "You and I are 99.99 percent the same when it comes to our religious beliefs, just I believe in one less out of the thousands large following god ideas then you do.
1. Even Scripture warns that delusions and deceptions are possible: "For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect" Matthew 24:24.
2. I don't like the idea of using percentages; I get what you're trying to say, it just simplifies the issue in such a way that information is lost. For example, if you and I are looking at the same apple, in what sense is our experience of it the same? For one, we are both viewing it from different angles, so our experience of it cannot be simultaneously identical. Secondly, even the photons that are emitted from it are singular events. And although hundreds of identical photons may be emitted, each of them carries its own identity. So you cannot possibly see the photon that I saw, because it has already interacted with my retina and been transformed. So, to say we share 99% of anything isn't really true.
1. Very true. I agree with Matthew 24:24 probably more than you do. (It seems likely my interpretation of it is different than yours, I took it literally.)
2. You say viewing, Apples to don't emit photons that are viewable by us humans. It does however reflect photons from other sources that our photoreceptors in our eyes can pick up. Semantics I suppose.
I have trouble following your connections. You say you do not like percentages, then follow that up with a conversation about how we perceive apples on a photon level, and then follow up that with "we share 99% of anything isn't really true."
Hate to say it buddy but you and I are 99.9% similar on a physical level, the basic building blocks of who we are our genetic code are nearly identical.
Physicist Riccardo Sabatini demonstrated that "a printed version of your entire genetic code would occupy some 262,000 pages, or 175 large books. Of those pages, just about 500 would be unique to one self as an individual."
Yep that includes gender, hair color skin pigmentation etc etc etc Like it or not you and I are practically twinsies. Want to pub crawl and talk about how similar we are?? I got 10 fingers... oh my so do you! I got 10 toes.. woah so do you! What are the odds man??
So.. still want to say: "So, to say we share 99% of anything isn't really true."
I originally understood your 99% statement to be in reference to our perceptive environment, not our genetic makeup.
Probably should of dropped the 'anything' in the "So, to say we share 99% of anything isn't really true."
Not sure how you got "our perceptive environment" out of:
The "subjective" reality you live in every day and think about 99% and organize most of your day to day around and has you typing here today is the same one atheist live and operate in. We just add in that last 1%. Kind of along the lines of: "You and I are 99.99 percent the same when it comes to our religious beliefs, just I believe in one less out of the thousands large following god ideas then you do.
What do you mean how? You're using percentage in reference to subjective reality, the world we operate in, and religious beliefs.
Hmm here is the conversation thread we had as how I see it, perhaps we can figure out where I got lost on connections.
Breezy:
LogicForTW:
Breezy:
-- How did you go from talking about everything is subjective to the person, to talking about you do not like percentages, and then using how we perceive photons from an objective world as you do not like percentages. (By the way strictly speaking in that sense, exactly zero percent of the photons your eye receives do my eyes also perceive in the exact same way, even if we were standing right next to each other so no percentage at all!) A terrible example of percentages.
How can photons be identical? Each is unique. Plus the amount of photons bouncing off an apple? Well a single standard average light bulb emits very roughly 1.8 x 10^20 photons per second. Even if 99% of those photons are absorbed before they bounce off the apple we are still talking 1.8 x 10^18 photons per second! And that is if the lightbulb was absolutely the only lightsource for the apple. Put that apple outside and we are talking many orders of magnitude greater. And you said a few hundred with no time frame. You are aware the human eye has 6-7 million cones, and 120 million rods? In one second at looking at that apple (lets say outside during the day) the cones and rods are bathed in trillions upon trillions upon trillions of photons in a single second, with a tiny percentage of them actually being picked up and turned into electrical signal our brain can interpret. But still way more than a few hundred.
LogicForTW:
Breezy:
Where did I say perception? I said subjective. I started mentioning some stuff about how photons work after you mentioned your apple example. You brought up the visual perceptive environment, not me I simply responded to it, and made by 99% assertion before that.
How did you make the leap to our perceptive environment only after saying you do not like percentages, and "we share 99% of ANYTHING isn't really true." I gave an example where we are 99+ percent the same (genetic make up.) After you gave example that the photons we receive are 0% the same. (Physics of how photons work and are perceived.)
Ok so firstly, we agree that because of this we do not share 99% of our perceptive enviornment, right: "By the way strictly speaking in that sense, exactly zero percent of the photons your eye receives do my eyes also perceive in the exact same way, even if we were standing right next to each other so no percentage at all!".
There is no leap. We began with observations about an apple. Apples are things perceived from the environment, and so is the reality in which I organize myself from day to day, and which has me typing here today. That's all in reference to our perceptive environment. The leap occurred when you went from that, to genetics.
The shared percentage, if applied strictly, also affects our genes. We do not share our genes any more than we share our photons. Still, the conversation was about perception not genetics.
" Even Scripture warns that delusions and deceptions are possible"
Or does it? I mean who can be sure?
That actually isn't true, although I don't think that is critical to your argument.
What is the point of science from a materialistic pov? It leads to man’s eventual destruction and submission. We now work 8hrs a day staring at a computer monitor destroying our eyesight to bring home money to a family that no longer needs us while the climate gets worse and no solution is at hand, because the big money is in other things. Science only has real value when it seeks truth over just being “useful.” Why should philosophy be any different?
Natural philosophy philosophia naturalis, the philosophical study of nature and the physical universe, was the precursor of natural science. So it's hard not to view it as having peaked by giving us science, but I think philosophy is still useful and important. It is useful for defining what science is, and what it is not for a start. I'm not sure religious philosophy has much to validate religious beliefs, but then I'd be an odd atheist if I didn't think that.
Pages