FACT: Atheists are Lost

To be politically correct is (IMHO) a good thing, however be careful of its own trappings.

 

Exodus 22:

16And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

18Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

19Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.

Are you (*)(*)(*)(*)tin me??

 

What (Pray tell) does your select citation of scripture have to do with being 'politically correct' or with the trappings which I referred to?

 

It shows precisely how ridiculous religion of any description and any version is. Only an idiot can possibly believe that they have a personal savior who will come riding in on the clouds and that they will rise up from their graves and fly up to join him. THEN...to live in a gated community behind pearly gates experiencing total bliss for all eternity while those who disagree with their crap burns in a lake of fire and brimstone. Such foolishness should finally be recognized for what it is and all the brainwashed youngsters should be taught better.

 

You do not have to assume objective reality/evidence exists. You are free to assume it doesn't.

The point is that if you do not assume the existence of objective evidence then there is no point in debating anything as nothing can be proven true unless one accepts that objective evidence is real.

There is no claim that can be proven without the use of objective evidence.

Coming in here and pretending to refute claims by challenging the validity of objective evidence is nothing but trolling.

The point of coming in here is specifically to debate the objective evidence for and against a given claim. NOT to debate the existence of objective evidence itself unless that is specifically the tread topic.

The fact of the matter is that your continued challenge "prove objective reality exists" is nothing but a complicated trollish and disingenuous dodge. It nether proves a claim true or shows it to be false and is therefor worthless.

The point of "DEBATE" is to provide objective evidence, logic, or reasons that provide support for, or prove a claim true or false.

Since you often have no objective evidence to support your position you default to challenging the existence of objective reality itself. Since this challenge can neither prove nor refute a claim, it has no purpose in a debate and does nothing but derail the thread.

It is your sneaky way of trying to deny the validity of the claims you do not like. Your hypocrisy is then when you turn around and use objective evidence (the same stuff you were demonizing as invalid earlier) to try and prove the validity of claims you do agree with.

Incorp - I have your number, I know your game so quit pretending otherwise and start coming up with valid arguments for your claims rather than avoiding being wrong by challenging the existence of objective evidence itself.

 

That is the same poll. Key indicators, Pew Research, 2012.

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1&version=NLT

Not only are we made in God's image, but we are also like God. You ask in what way?

Part of the answer to your question is when Adam was put out of the Garden of Eden.

Genesis 3:22 https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+3&version=KJV

So man has a mind like that of God (or the Gods rather - God does not say "like me" but like one of "us" and he is not referring to any trinity, this claim is abject nonsense) knowing good and evil. Comprehending good and evil just like the Gods.

The only thing separating Man becoming even more like the Gods ( more "Like US") is that he is not immortal. "lest he put for his hand and take also of the tree of life and become like us"

So according to Genesis mankind not only has comprehension similar to that of the Gods, at least in relation to good and evil which is after all the topic of discussion.

So when God orders the slaughter of whole towns including the slaughter of children, babies, and pregnant women it is a cop-out to claim. "We do not comprehend Gods ways".

According to the Bible in fact we do have the same comprehension of good and evil as do the Gods.

 

Ask Incorp. He is the one that thinks the freezing point of water is subjective because the symbols for numbers used on a thermometer were arbitrarily chosen.

That all measurement is subjective/arbitrary and therefor not objectively verifiable for the same reason.

Of course objective reality/evidence exists, at least on a level where we can depend on that existence for almost every action in our day to day lives.

The point of the discussion with Incorp was not about the actual existence of objective reality.

What I was pointing out is that his little trick of trying to use - denial of objective evidence itself to invalidate a claim because he has no other valid argument with which to challenge claims he does not like- is lame and disingenuous trollism.

And then when he turns around and uses objective evidence to try to validate claims he does agree with, it is hypocrisy.

 

There is no trap as I am not challenging the existence or none existence validity or authenticity of objective reality/evidence. You simply did not understand the point of the discussion.

By steering the conversation away from the central point down the existential rabbit hole ... you are doing nothing but furthering disingenuous and trollish debate tactics.

Premise - My child must have been rained on because his hair and clothes were soaked when he came home from school and there was raining outside

Is this claim true. In fact the claim could be false. The child may have fell into the swimming pool at school and gotten a ride home.

What is abject nonsense is to claim - you do not know that your child is even wet because your perception is subjective.

This "denial of objective reality argument" often used by Incorp renders debate of anything (other than objective reality/evidence itself) pointless.

 

To me objective reality is a misnomer as no person has the ability to be completely objective. I think where we come as close to objective reality as humanly possible in in pure mathematics as 2+2=4 and run the calculation a billion times over will return the same result.

When we enter the realm of tangible reality our view of reality is based upon quantitative and qualitative assessments of the tangible. For example I would hope that we all could agree upon what a chair is... but is a chair equal in the eyes of all who view it... who touch it... who lift it... who sit in it? I argue no, thus making the reality of the chair relative to the individual. One may say its too bulk and heavy to move... the next person may say its hard as a rock... while the next person may say the back of the chair does not go up high enough and hurts their back... while the next person may say that the chair is amazing and where can they buy one?

Objective reality in science is where things really get interesting. There are scientific tests that can be run here on Earth which will yield the same result no matter how many times the test is run. But run the same test in the zero gravity of space and the test may yield a different result. Run the test on some far off planet and the test may yield yet another different and unique result... thus making the result relative to the place the test is done. Its easy to limit our objective reality to Earth... but this may or may not typify the reality of places beyond our planet. Something I am humbled by is the realization that our collective knowledge in the area of physics falls apart at the event horizon of a black hole. I argue that what we know is insignificant to all that there is to be known. It becomes difficult for me to believe in an objective reality when we are missing so many pieces of the puzzle.

And lastly the heady realm of ideology, theology and philosophy which are based in intangible ideas and concepts. I argue here that there is no objective reality. At best an objective reality in my head becomes a subjective opinion once I express it to another. I can claim that God exists but I cannot prove it to an atheist. I can claim that morality is relative to the individual but I cannot prove it to one who believes morality is a set universal governed by a higher authority than man.

The stream of consciences above is more about me than my addressing you. Placing my thoughts out in the open to be challenged is one of the best tools I have in my inventory to gain in perspective and knowledge. So if you have made it this far thank you for enduring my meandering. If you have thoughts on the above I would be happy to hear them.

 

My comment about the rabbit hole and my general views on objective reality were in response to what another poster said and not in response to anything that you said.

My saying "I like to think that the claimant saw the trap that I set and wisely chose to avoid it", was arrogant and I regret saying it and publicly apologize for my words.

With that said I still see a conflict in saying "objective reality must be assumed to exist".

 

Actually every person has it, but most prefer not to use it, for the same reason many prefer to believe no one has that ability.

 

Interesting opinion, but if you want to elevate that to a fact I will need source citation.

 

Obviously I have no such ability, but it's hardly necessary in this case anyway.

What the hell good would that do, since by your own testimony you have no way of objectively evaluating the validity of the source?

 

If you do not have the ability to prove your claim then what is your basis for making the claim if not opinion?

Dodge noted. Please post quote of my allegedly saying I "have no way of objectively evaluating the validity of the source".

 

It's a self-evident truth, so its basis is objective reality.

projected. What's your alternative, after all?

I didn't say you said that verbatim, obviously. I merely noted that that follows ineluctably from what you did say.

 

Is a self-evident truth universal to all humanity or relative to the individual?

To post the source of your claim if your claim is not opinion.

Is what I said open to interpretation by others? If so then I argue that what others interpret that which I say can be far removed from what I actually said... as exemplified by your rephrasing of what I said to the point that it no longer reflected what I actually said.

 

Of course.

Which is not to say everyone acknowledges it, obviously.

This is unintelligible.

I didn't rephrase a damn thing. I merely drew a perfectly logical conclusion from what you actually said.

 

Case in point that logic is only as good as its premise. As I am the worlds leading authority on what I say and what I think I can state as a fact that your interpretation of what I said is factually incorrect. Your ironically self labeled "perfectly logical conclusion" led you to make an inaccurate assumption.

 

Obviously, but the premise is your own; so if my conclusion is false, your premise must be as well.

I did not "interpret" what you said, I took what you said about people in general and applied it to you in particular.

Sure you can, but not without making a brazenly false statement.

It's neither inaccurate nor an assumption, though your motive for pretending otherwise is obvious.

 

What specific group of people are you declaring to be idiots? Your description is vague and ambiguous and very capricious.

 

If anyone knew the answer to that, this discussion would be unnecessary.

 

Well, you previously stated "In order to debate anything other than the existence of objective reality, objective reality must be assumed to exist." Why are you now making an allowance for others to not make those assumptions and still be involved in the debate? Also, why are you now changing from "objective reality" to "objective reality/evidence"?

There you go changing the goal posts again. Now it is "objective evidence" as opposed to "objective reality" and "objective reality/evidence". Is there no consistency in your mind?

Well, that is a very interesting admission, but how does that relate to "objective reality" and debates and assumptions?

Well, first of all, you need to correct your statement about what I am challenging. I am challenging the scientific method, because the use of it is based upon assumptions. Assumptions as you might ought to know are things that are accepted as true but without proof. Be careful of your allegations.

Actually the thread title is "FACT: Atheists are Lost" which specifically has nothing to do with "objective evidence". Again, be careful of your claims.

Isn't it nice to be able to express opinions. That is all you have done in the statement above.

That would depend on the topic of the debate. At any rate, your use of the conjunction "or" allows one to express reasons (opinions) with or without the use of evidence, logic and that expression of reasons can be either to prove a claim true or false.

Wow... just a few paragraphs earlier you were claiming that I was challenging "objective reality" and "objective reality/evidence". Can you please make up your mind as to what it is that you want to talk about?

There you go making claims again that you are likely not to be able to prove. Can you prove the state of my feelings or virtues regarding 'objective reality' or for that matter (as you have stated in your misrepresentations) "objective evidence" and "objective reality/evidence"?

Why should I change what is proving to be effective in this debate arena? BTW: What is my number? Are you speaking about my house number, my phone number, my military enrollment number, my ssi number, my driver license number, my fishing license number, my birth certificate number, my marriage license number? Where did you obtain whichever number it is that you are talking about?

 

Well, why do you suppose the author of that comment made the comment that a particular group of people know the correct answer? I am still waiting for him to answer that question.

 

I have not read the entire thread, and shame on me for that, but based on my experience with you, it seems you think you know all the answers.