Two Questions for Atheists

[G.T.]

 

[Boss]

Again... you must be misunderstanding my purpose in this thread. You seem to think this is about you. That I am somehow compelled to convince you, and failing that, I have failed to accomplish my objective. I'm not here to convince you and don't really give two shits what you reject.

I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature. You cannot compare what you don't believe in. What you're attempting to do is to be antagonistic. btw.. you failed.

" You seem to think this is about you. "

Oddly, as said in response to a two-sentence post, each one directly addressing your ideas. You are one odd guy, Boss. I have not assumed you are compelled to convince me, nor have I asked you to convince me of anything. Another creation, out of thin air, by you. I have responded to your ideas with my own thoughts of why they are nonsensical. And, along the way, I have pointed out your little cons and tricks, all of which older than dirt.

"I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature."

Yes, you got me there, it's "Just my opinion". Deep, man. Yes, that's right Boss, it's my opinion that reason-based morality is superior, and I have said exactly why I think that. And, no, I don't have to try your nuttery out for 5 years or even 5 minutes to correctly think that.

Well, no... actually you never stated why. You simply waddled in and proclaimed that you were rejecting my argument and declared it to be nonsensical. I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective. Humans reason all sorts of things as morally right when they are anything but. I gave you a few examples of that. When you rely on reasoning for your morals it simply means your morals are based on your own self-serving interests.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems facing Atheism. There is no moral accountability. Moral relativism is responsible for the fall of many great civilizations. You can sit here and defiantly reject everything I say and pretend you've addressed my points but you cannot prove "reason-based" morality is superior to anything. Where in history are all the great Atheist civilizations? That's right, they do not exist!

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

" It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it."

That's right, it's not evidence for anyone but you. Which, of course, means it is not actually evidence at all, in any empirical sense of the word.

Evidence is another thing we can define as highly subjective. I've been over this one before as well. Not only is evidence itself subjective, even what is considered evidence is subjective. I've presented numerous examples to illustrate this. There are people who truly believe they have evidence aliens crashed in Roswell. There are people who believe there is evidence we never landed on the moon. Or that Elvis is still alive. Or that 9/11 was an inside job. How can this possibly be if evidence isn't subjective?

So we can caveat "evidence" much like you did with "reasoning" and we can say that some evidence is based on rules, principles and laws which are empirical, making the evidence objective.... but still, it is subjective. The OJ Simpson jury heard evidence that clearly showed he killed Nicole and Ron, but they didn't believe the evidence. Did the jury's finding render the evidence invalid? Or was their interpretation of the evidence subjective?

For ME to believe in God, I only need evidence for myself. I don't need to convince you. Look.... let's say there is a 10 ft. puddle of water in your back yard... you go out there and take a running jump and clear the puddle. You have proven to yourself that you can jump the puddle. I live next door and I don't believe you can jump the puddle. Do you have to convince me you can before you believe you can? Of course not! You believe you can because of evidence you have for yourself. So you say, "Come with me and I'll show you!" But I say, "Nonsense, I don't believe you and I refuse to go watch!" Well, what else can you do at that point? You can't force me to accept your evidence and I refuse to accept your claims and I'm not interested in exploring it further. Does that mean you can't jump the puddle? If I start to mock and ridicule you for claiming you can jump the puddle, does that change what you believe?

That's a perfect analogy of what we have going on here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

" You seem to think this is about you. "

Oddly, as said in response to a two-sentence post, each one directly addressing your ideas. You are one odd guy, Boss. I have not assumed you are compelled to convince me, nor have I asked you to convince me of anything. Another creation, out of thin air, by you. I have responded to your ideas with my own thoughts of why they are nonsensical. And, along the way, I have pointed out your little cons and tricks, all of which older than dirt.

"I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature."

Yes, you got me there, it's "Just my opinion". Deep, man. Yes, that's right Boss, it's my opinion that reason-based morality is superior, and I have said exactly why I think that. And, no, I don't have to try your nuttery out for 5 years or even 5 minutes to correctly think that.

Well, no... actually you never stated why. You simply waddled in and proclaimed that you were rejecting my argument and declared it to be nonsensical. I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective. Humans reason all sorts of things as morally right when they are anything but. I gave you a few examples of that. When you rely on reasoning for your morals it simply means your morals are based on your own self-serving interests.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems facing Atheism. There is no moral accountability. Moral relativism is responsible for the fall of many great civilizations. You can sit here and defiantly reject everything I say and pretend you've addressed my points but you cannot prove "reason-based" morality is superior to anything. Where in history are all the great Atheist civilizations? That's right, they do not exist!

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

No, reasoning is not subjective. Premises can be subjective. Reasoning itself follows very strict laws, like mathematics. And some premises are objective fact. And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective. The conclusion is also a fact. I reject your (#9 million in a boring series) attempt to taint everything with an equal, thick brown coat of subjectivity. And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding. Given the large volume of logical errors you make, I have no choice but to wonder if that's just you, believing and living the absurd idea that "reasoning is subjective", while completely oblivious to the fact that you are violating the rules of logic. In fact, I am now sure of this.

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that. I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.


And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations. In fact, you've been a constant source of anti-deterministic, anti-materialistic, and anti-scientific bullshit. You've also tried to fill our gaps in understanding with your "magic, not-magic!" nonsense. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... then it's a magic-believing duck, no matter if it claims it isn't...

Yes, reasoning IS subjective. I even presented several examples to show you that it is. Premises are also subjective. Reasoning doesn't have to follow any rules or laws. Even if it does, it still depends on that individuals interpretation of the rules and laws.

And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective.

Here is where you start to tap dance around your original claim and try to carve out a caveat. You want to "qualify" your reasoning as a certain type, meeting certain predefined criteria. I have no problem saying some things may be objectively reasoned but that wasn't what you claimed. Reasoning is always subjective, even when you claim it is objective it can still be subjective.

And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding.

I'm not trying to wedge anything anywhere. I reason the universe had a spiritual Creator because logic dictates physical nature cannot create itself. You haven't countered that argument. All you can do is say it's "silly nonsense" and deem it "magical bullshit."

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that.

But you haven't taken my word for it. You've mocked and ridiculed me. Said it was all in my head and it's "magical bullshit" or "silly nonsense." Then you told me I didn't have any evidence when I have plenty of evidence. I have all the evidence I need to believe what I believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.

Well yes, it is, but who's peddling here? I have never said you must believe as I do. I'm simply defending what I believe against your mockery and ridicule. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not. I think you're wrong but that's up to you.

And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations.

Again... No, I don't believe in magic. I can't offer you materialistic explanations of something that isn't materialistic. It's like asking for physical evidence of my thoughts. What if I asked you to quantify the percentage difference in the love you have for your mother versus a cheesecake? Can you give me a number? C'mon, give me a materialistic explanation? You see, you can't because love doesn't work that way.

There is no obvious material evidence of anything spiritual or the spiritual thing wouldn't be spiritual. I mean-- I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. It's over and over again in every one of these threads. You Atheists continue to demand something that can't be given. So we're kind of stuck here... You won't believe in God until you have material evidence and that would essentially negate spiritual God.

So Fetch isn't gonna happen, Gretchen!

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

 

[hobelim]

Well, no... actually you never stated why. You simply waddled in and proclaimed that you were rejecting my argument and declared it to be nonsensical. I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective. Humans reason all sorts of things as morally right when they are anything but. I gave you a few examples of that. When you rely on reasoning for your morals it simply means your morals are based on your own self-serving interests.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems facing Atheism. There is no moral accountability. Moral relativism is responsible for the fall of many great civilizations. You can sit here and defiantly reject everything I say and pretend you've addressed my points but you cannot prove "reason-based" morality is superior to anything. Where in history are all the great Atheist civilizations? That's right, they do not exist!

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

No, reasoning is not subjective. Premises can be subjective. Reasoning itself follows very strict laws, like mathematics. And some premises are objective fact. And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective. The conclusion is also a fact. I reject your (#9 million in a boring series) attempt to taint everything with an equal, thick brown coat of subjectivity. And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding. Given the large volume of logical errors you make, I have no choice but to wonder if that's just you, believing and living the absurd idea that "reasoning is subjective", while completely oblivious to the fact that you are violating the rules of logic. In fact, I am now sure of this.

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that. I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.


And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations. In fact, you've been a constant source of anti-deterministic, anti-materialistic, and anti-scientific bullshit. You've also tried to fill our gaps in understanding with your "magic, not-magic!" nonsense. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... then it's a magic-believing duck, no matter if it claims it isn't...

Yes, reasoning IS subjective. I even presented several examples to show you that it is. Premises are also subjective. Reasoning doesn't have to follow any rules or laws. Even if it does, it still depends on that individuals interpretation of the rules and laws.

And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective.

Here is where you start to tap dance around your original claim and try to carve out a caveat. You want to "qualify" your reasoning as a certain type, meeting certain predefined criteria. I have no problem saying some things may be objectively reasoned but that wasn't what you claimed. Reasoning is always subjective, even when you claim it is objective it can still be subjective.

And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding.

I'm not trying to wedge anything anywhere. I reason the universe had a spiritual Creator because logic dictates physical nature cannot create itself. You haven't countered that argument. All you can do is say it's "silly nonsense" and deem it "magical bullshit."

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that.

But you haven't taken my word for it. You've mocked and ridiculed me. Said it was all in my head and it's "magical bullshit" or "silly nonsense." Then you told me I didn't have any evidence when I have plenty of evidence. I have all the evidence I need to believe what I believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.

Well yes, it is, but who's peddling here? I have never said you must believe as I do. I'm simply defending what I believe against your mockery and ridicule. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not. I think you're wrong but that's up to you.

And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations.

Again... No, I don't believe in magic. I can't offer you materialistic explanations of something that isn't materialistic. It's like asking for physical evidence of my thoughts. What if I asked you to quantify the percentage difference in the love you have for your mother versus a cheesecake? Can you give me a number? C'mon, give me a materialistic explanation? You see, you can't because love doesn't work that way.

There is no obvious material evidence of anything spiritual or the spiritual thing wouldn't be spiritual. I mean-- I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. It's over and over again in every one of these threads. You Atheists continue to demand something that can't be given. So we're kind of stuck here... You won't believe in God until you have material evidence and that would essentially negate spiritual God.

So Fetch isn't gonna happen, Gretchen!

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

Right. If the subjective premise if false , perfectly logical reasoning would lead to completely false conclusions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

No, reasoning is not subjective. Premises can be subjective. Reasoning itself follows very strict laws, like mathematics. And some premises are objective fact. And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective. The conclusion is also a fact. I reject your (#9 million in a boring series) attempt to taint everything with an equal, thick brown coat of subjectivity. And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding. Given the large volume of logical errors you make, I have no choice but to wonder if that's just you, believing and living the absurd idea that "reasoning is subjective", while completely oblivious to the fact that you are violating the rules of logic. In fact, I am now sure of this.

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that. I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.


And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations. In fact, you've been a constant source of anti-deterministic, anti-materialistic, and anti-scientific bullshit. You've also tried to fill our gaps in understanding with your "magic, not-magic!" nonsense. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... then it's a magic-believing duck, no matter if it claims it isn't...

Yes, reasoning IS subjective. I even presented several examples to show you that it is. Premises are also subjective. Reasoning doesn't have to follow any rules or laws. Even if it does, it still depends on that individuals interpretation of the rules and laws.

And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective.

Here is where you start to tap dance around your original claim and try to carve out a caveat. You want to "qualify" your reasoning as a certain type, meeting certain predefined criteria. I have no problem saying some things may be objectively reasoned but that wasn't what you claimed. Reasoning is always subjective, even when you claim it is objective it can still be subjective.

And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding.

I'm not trying to wedge anything anywhere. I reason the universe had a spiritual Creator because logic dictates physical nature cannot create itself. You haven't countered that argument. All you can do is say it's "silly nonsense" and deem it "magical bullshit."

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that.

But you haven't taken my word for it. You've mocked and ridiculed me. Said it was all in my head and it's "magical bullshit" or "silly nonsense." Then you told me I didn't have any evidence when I have plenty of evidence. I have all the evidence I need to believe what I believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.

Well yes, it is, but who's peddling here? I have never said you must believe as I do. I'm simply defending what I believe against your mockery and ridicule. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not. I think you're wrong but that's up to you.

And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations.

Again... No, I don't believe in magic. I can't offer you materialistic explanations of something that isn't materialistic. It's like asking for physical evidence of my thoughts. What if I asked you to quantify the percentage difference in the love you have for your mother versus a cheesecake? Can you give me a number? C'mon, give me a materialistic explanation? You see, you can't because love doesn't work that way.

There is no obvious material evidence of anything spiritual or the spiritual thing wouldn't be spiritual. I mean-- I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. It's over and over again in every one of these threads. You Atheists continue to demand something that can't be given. So we're kind of stuck here... You won't believe in God until you have material evidence and that would essentially negate spiritual God.

So Fetch isn't gonna happen, Gretchen!

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

Right. If the subjective premise if false , perfectly logical reasoning would lead to completely false conclusions.

Correct. And that logic would either be invalid or valid, as decided by the well defined rules of logic . Reasoning is not subjective.

 

[Boss]

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

No, I'm not wrong, I'm right and you know that I'm right because you've already attempted to backpedal and couch your remarks with qualifiers for a certain type of reasoning. That was the moment you surrendered the argument in defeat whether you realize it or not.

I'm not a martyr, I don't need to be. You're not pushing back against anything other than your own ill-fated point you failed to establish. Now you seem to want to double down on stupid and that's fine with me. Be my guest! You've not established your point and I have. You've been schooled. Schlonged up the ass by the best! lol Was it good for you?

I'm not keeping any damn thing on the shelf except my trophies --huge chunks of your pathetic ass. I might have to start giving those away... maybe Breeze could use some? Hey Breeze? You want some FunBag ass chunks? I've got plenty to share!

 

[hobelim]

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

No, reasoning is not subjective. Premises can be subjective. Reasoning itself follows very strict laws, like mathematics. And some premises are objective fact. And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective. The conclusion is also a fact. I reject your (#9 million in a boring series) attempt to taint everything with an equal, thick brown coat of subjectivity. And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding. Given the large volume of logical errors you make, I have no choice but to wonder if that's just you, believing and living the absurd idea that "reasoning is subjective", while completely oblivious to the fact that you are violating the rules of logic. In fact, I am now sure of this.

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that. I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.


And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations. In fact, you've been a constant source of anti-deterministic, anti-materialistic, and anti-scientific bullshit. You've also tried to fill our gaps in understanding with your "magic, not-magic!" nonsense. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... then it's a magic-believing duck, no matter if it claims it isn't...

Yes, reasoning IS subjective. I even presented several examples to show you that it is. Premises are also subjective. Reasoning doesn't have to follow any rules or laws. Even if it does, it still depends on that individuals interpretation of the rules and laws.

And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective.

Here is where you start to tap dance around your original claim and try to carve out a caveat. You want to "qualify" your reasoning as a certain type, meeting certain predefined criteria. I have no problem saying some things may be objectively reasoned but that wasn't what you claimed. Reasoning is always subjective, even when you claim it is objective it can still be subjective.

And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding.

I'm not trying to wedge anything anywhere. I reason the universe had a spiritual Creator because logic dictates physical nature cannot create itself. You haven't countered that argument. All you can do is say it's "silly nonsense" and deem it "magical bullshit."

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that.

But you haven't taken my word for it. You've mocked and ridiculed me. Said it was all in my head and it's "magical bullshit" or "silly nonsense." Then you told me I didn't have any evidence when I have plenty of evidence. I have all the evidence I need to believe what I believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.

Well yes, it is, but who's peddling here? I have never said you must believe as I do. I'm simply defending what I believe against your mockery and ridicule. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not. I think you're wrong but that's up to you.

And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations.

Again... No, I don't believe in magic. I can't offer you materialistic explanations of something that isn't materialistic. It's like asking for physical evidence of my thoughts. What if I asked you to quantify the percentage difference in the love you have for your mother versus a cheesecake? Can you give me a number? C'mon, give me a materialistic explanation? You see, you can't because love doesn't work that way.

There is no obvious material evidence of anything spiritual or the spiritual thing wouldn't be spiritual. I mean-- I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. It's over and over again in every one of these threads. You Atheists continue to demand something that can't be given. So we're kind of stuck here... You won't believe in God until you have material evidence and that would essentially negate spiritual God.

So Fetch isn't gonna happen, Gretchen!

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

Right. If the subjective premise if false , perfectly logical reasoning would lead to completely false conclusions.

Correct. And that logic would either be invalid or valid, as decided by the well defined rules of logic . Reasoning is not subjective.

There.

Now can you see how your subjective premise that all scripture is superstitious bullshit from the past has lead you with perfectly logical reasoning to the false conclusion that all interpretations are equally valid however irrational because there is no limit to the absurdities that can be produced by an unrestrained imagination based on stories that YOU believe aren't true anyway?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

No, I'm not wrong, I'm right and you know that I'm right because you've already attempted to backpedal and couch your remarks with qualifiers for a certain type of reasoning. That was the moment you surrendered the argument in defeat whether you realize it or not.

I'm not a martyr, I don't need to be. You're not pushing back against anything other than your own ill-fated point you failed to establish. Now you seem to want to double down on stupid and that's fine with me. Be my guest! You've not established your point and I have. You've been schooled. Schlonged up the ass by the best! lol Was it good for you?

I'm not keeping any damn thing on the shelf except my trophies --huge chunks of your pathetic ass. I might have to start giving those away... maybe Breeze could use some? Hey Breeze? You want some FunBag ass chunks? I've got plenty to share!

I have not backpedaled one iota. Anyone can read that, and I think enough posters are familiar with your ad hoc bullshit that I don't feel much need to defend myself.

Let's review:

You are compelled to construct a nonsensical dogma, wherein everything is equally and completely subjective, because that is the only arena in which you feel your nonsensical, magical ideas can get the cresit they deserve. Of course, if you weren't so steeped in this very bullshit, you might realize that all you are doing is attempting to remove any credibility from any knowledge, which just results in all ideas being equally worthless. In the end, you have not elevated your nonsense, you have merely dragged knowledge down into the worthless muck and tried to declare victory.

It's a joke.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, reasoning is not subjective. Premises can be subjective. Reasoning itself follows very strict laws, like mathematics. And some premises are objective fact. And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective. The conclusion is also a fact. I reject your (#9 million in a boring series) attempt to taint everything with an equal, thick brown coat of subjectivity. And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding. Given the large volume of logical errors you make, I have no choice but to wonder if that's just you, believing and living the absurd idea that "reasoning is subjective", while completely oblivious to the fact that you are violating the rules of logic. In fact, I am now sure of this.

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that. I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.


And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations. In fact, you've been a constant source of anti-deterministic, anti-materialistic, and anti-scientific bullshit. You've also tried to fill our gaps in understanding with your "magic, not-magic!" nonsense. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... then it's a magic-believing duck, no matter if it claims it isn't...

Yes, reasoning IS subjective. I even presented several examples to show you that it is. Premises are also subjective. Reasoning doesn't have to follow any rules or laws. Even if it does, it still depends on that individuals interpretation of the rules and laws.

And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective.

Here is where you start to tap dance around your original claim and try to carve out a caveat. You want to "qualify" your reasoning as a certain type, meeting certain predefined criteria. I have no problem saying some things may be objectively reasoned but that wasn't what you claimed. Reasoning is always subjective, even when you claim it is objective it can still be subjective.

And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding.

I'm not trying to wedge anything anywhere. I reason the universe had a spiritual Creator because logic dictates physical nature cannot create itself. You haven't countered that argument. All you can do is say it's "silly nonsense" and deem it "magical bullshit."

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that.

But you haven't taken my word for it. You've mocked and ridiculed me. Said it was all in my head and it's "magical bullshit" or "silly nonsense." Then you told me I didn't have any evidence when I have plenty of evidence. I have all the evidence I need to believe what I believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.

Well yes, it is, but who's peddling here? I have never said you must believe as I do. I'm simply defending what I believe against your mockery and ridicule. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not. I think you're wrong but that's up to you.

And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations.

Again... No, I don't believe in magic. I can't offer you materialistic explanations of something that isn't materialistic. It's like asking for physical evidence of my thoughts. What if I asked you to quantify the percentage difference in the love you have for your mother versus a cheesecake? Can you give me a number? C'mon, give me a materialistic explanation? You see, you can't because love doesn't work that way.

There is no obvious material evidence of anything spiritual or the spiritual thing wouldn't be spiritual. I mean-- I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. It's over and over again in every one of these threads. You Atheists continue to demand something that can't be given. So we're kind of stuck here... You won't believe in God until you have material evidence and that would essentially negate spiritual God.

So Fetch isn't gonna happen, Gretchen!

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

Right. If the subjective premise if false , perfectly logical reasoning would lead to completely false conclusions.

Correct. And that logic would either be invalid or valid, as decided by the well defined rules of logic . Reasoning is not subjective.

There.

Now can you see how your subjective premise that all scripture is superstitious bullshit from the past has lead you with perfectly logical reasoning to the false conclusion that all interpretations are equally valid however irrational because there is no limit to the absurdities that can be produced by an unrestrained imagination based on stories that YOU believe aren't true anyway?

Wrong. I don't have to argue, nor did I , that all interpretations are equally valid. I merely have to point out (no argument is required) that there is no way to tell which one is correct.

And, yes, a "great flood" is magical bullshit. You say people are fools for interpreting that literally. Okay. While I might agree, that does not lend any special credibility to your interpretations or opinions.

You have convinced yourself otherwise, deferring to your own authority to do so, and using ad hominem on anyone who might not accept your opinion.

 

[hobelim]

Yes, reasoning IS subjective. I even presented several examples to show you that it is. Premises are also subjective. Reasoning doesn't have to follow any rules or laws. Even if it does, it still depends on that individuals interpretation of the rules and laws.

And sound reasoning drawn from those objectively true premises is never subjective.

Here is where you start to tap dance around your original claim and try to carve out a caveat. You want to "qualify" your reasoning as a certain type, meeting certain predefined criteria. I have no problem saying some things may be objectively reasoned but that wasn't what you claimed. Reasoning is always subjective, even when you claim it is objective it can still be subjective.

And the fact that this absurd goal of yours is the only way to wedge your silly nonsense into the realm of empirical knowledge gained from reason should tell the whole world what an empty bag you are holding.

I'm not trying to wedge anything anywhere. I reason the universe had a spiritual Creator because logic dictates physical nature cannot create itself. You haven't countered that argument. All you can do is say it's "silly nonsense" and deem it "magical bullshit."

I don't doubt that your spirituality is beneficial to you. I'll take your word for that.

But you haven't taken my word for it. You've mocked and ridiculed me. Said it was all in my head and it's "magical bullshit" or "silly nonsense." Then you told me I didn't have any evidence when I have plenty of evidence. I have all the evidence I need to believe what I believe. I don't have to prove anything to you.

I am not asking you to abandon it. Peddling it? Now that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?.

Well yes, it is, but who's peddling here? I have never said you must believe as I do. I'm simply defending what I believe against your mockery and ridicule. Frankly, I couldn't care less whether you believe in God or not. I think you're wrong but that's up to you.

And yes, you believe in magic. You aren't offering any materialistic explanations.

Again... No, I don't believe in magic. I can't offer you materialistic explanations of something that isn't materialistic. It's like asking for physical evidence of my thoughts. What if I asked you to quantify the percentage difference in the love you have for your mother versus a cheesecake? Can you give me a number? C'mon, give me a materialistic explanation? You see, you can't because love doesn't work that way.

There is no obvious material evidence of anything spiritual or the spiritual thing wouldn't be spiritual. I mean-- I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you. It's over and over again in every one of these threads. You Atheists continue to demand something that can't be given. So we're kind of stuck here... You won't believe in God until you have material evidence and that would essentially negate spiritual God.

So Fetch isn't gonna happen, Gretchen!

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

Right. If the subjective premise if false , perfectly logical reasoning would lead to completely false conclusions.

Correct. And that logic would either be invalid or valid, as decided by the well defined rules of logic . Reasoning is not subjective.

There.

Now can you see how your subjective premise that all scripture is superstitious bullshit from the past has lead you with perfectly logical reasoning to the false conclusion that all interpretations are equally valid however irrational because there is no limit to the absurdities that can be produced by an unrestrained imagination based on stories that YOU believe aren't true anyway?

Wrong. I don't have to argue, nor did I , that all interpretations are equally valid. I merely have to point out (no argument is required) that there is no way to tell which one is correct.

And, yes, a "great flood" is magical bullshit. You say people are fools for interpreting that literally. Okay. While I might agree, that does not lend any special credibility to your interpretations or opinions.

You have convinced yourself otherwise, deferring to your own authority to do so, and using ad hominem on anyone who might not accept your opinion.

Ok. lets make it simple.

Eat my flesh. Thats one sentence with three words.

Are you telling me that you can't determine which interpretation of that sentence with three words and a finite number of possible literal or figurative meanings for each word is correct?

All that you would have to do is read the next few sentences where the author himself, whoever the hell he was, explains the metaphor clearly in his own hand.


Thats not my opinion, thats a fact put in writing thousands of years ago.

If I was never born and if I never pointed it out to you and if no one ever figured out the truth it would still be a fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

Right. If the subjective premise if false , perfectly logical reasoning would lead to completely false conclusions.

Correct. And that logic would either be invalid or valid, as decided by the well defined rules of logic . Reasoning is not subjective.

There.

Now can you see how your subjective premise that all scripture is superstitious bullshit from the past has lead you with perfectly logical reasoning to the false conclusion that all interpretations are equally valid however irrational because there is no limit to the absurdities that can be produced by an unrestrained imagination based on stories that YOU believe aren't true anyway?

Wrong. I don't have to argue, nor did I , that all interpretations are equally valid. I merely have to point out (no argument is required) that there is no way to tell which one is correct.

And, yes, a "great flood" is magical bullshit. You say people are fools for interpreting that literally. Okay. While I might agree, that does not lend any special credibility to your interpretations or opinions.

You have convinced yourself otherwise, deferring to your own authority to do so, and using ad hominem on anyone who might not accept your opinion.

Ok. lets make it simple.

Eat my flesh. Thats one sentence with three words.

Are you telling me that you can't determine which interpretation of that sentence with three words with a finite number of possible literal or figurative meanings for each word is correct?

All that you would have to do is read the next few sentences where the author himself, whoever the hell he was, explains the metaphor clearly in his own hand?


Thats not my opinion, thats a fact put in writing thousands of years ago.

If I was never born and if I never pointed it out to you and if no one ever figured out the truth it would still be a fact.

Ridiculous comparison. A simple statement like that cannot be compared to literary volumes. In fact, I turn this stupid example back on you and ask you to explain why it should not be taken literally and what the correct metaphorical and literary meaning of it is.

And again, you have nothing but an authoritative declaration at your disposal. People will usually recognize this as their own opinion, but not you. You grant yourself some sort of special authority....gained from, of course, yourself.

 

[hobelim]

Right. If the subjective premise if false , perfectly logical reasoning would lead to completely false conclusions.

Correct. And that logic would either be invalid or valid, as decided by the well defined rules of logic . Reasoning is not subjective.

There.

Now can you see how your subjective premise that all scripture is superstitious bullshit from the past has lead you with perfectly logical reasoning to the false conclusion that all interpretations are equally valid however irrational because there is no limit to the absurdities that can be produced by an unrestrained imagination based on stories that YOU believe aren't true anyway?

Wrong. I don't have to argue, nor did I , that all interpretations are equally valid. I merely have to point out (no argument is required) that there is no way to tell which one is correct.

And, yes, a "great flood" is magical bullshit. You say people are fools for interpreting that literally. Okay. While I might agree, that does not lend any special credibility to your interpretations or opinions.

You have convinced yourself otherwise, deferring to your own authority to do so, and using ad hominem on anyone who might not accept your opinion.

Ok. lets make it simple.

Eat my flesh. Thats one sentence with three words.

Are you telling me that you can't determine which interpretation of that sentence with three words with a finite number of possible literal or figurative meanings for each word is correct?

All that you would have to do is read the next few sentences where the author himself, whoever the hell he was, explains the metaphor clearly in his own hand?


Thats not my opinion, thats a fact put in writing thousands of years ago.

If I was never born and if I never pointed it out to you and if no one ever figured out the truth it would still be a fact.

Ridiculous comparison. A simple statement like that cannot be compared to literary volumes. In fact, I turn this stupid example back on you and ask you to explain why it should not be taken literally and what the correct metaphorical and literary meaning of it is.

And again, you have nothing but an authoritative declaration at your disposal. People will usually recognize this as their own opinion, but not you. You grant yourself some sort of special authority....gained from, of course, yourself.

Oh please, with all that by what authority bullshit if not just your own..I am not making any appeal to authority argument.

By what authority do you make conclusions?

And yes, a simple parsing of a statement like that can be applied to volumes of scripture.

A little yeast makes the whole loaf rise.

Yes, you could ask why it should not be taken literally and what the correct metaphorical and literary meaning of it is..

And yes, I could give you the answer.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Correct. And that logic would either be invalid or valid, as decided by the well defined rules of logic . Reasoning is not subjective.

There.

Now can you see how your subjective premise that all scripture is superstitious bullshit from the past has lead you with perfectly logical reasoning to the false conclusion that all interpretations are equally valid however irrational because there is no limit to the absurdities that can be produced by an unrestrained imagination based on stories that YOU believe aren't true anyway?

Wrong. I don't have to argue, nor did I , that all interpretations are equally valid. I merely have to point out (no argument is required) that there is no way to tell which one is correct.

And, yes, a "great flood" is magical bullshit. You say people are fools for interpreting that literally. Okay. While I might agree, that does not lend any special credibility to your interpretations or opinions.

You have convinced yourself otherwise, deferring to your own authority to do so, and using ad hominem on anyone who might not accept your opinion.

Ok. lets make it simple.

Eat my flesh. Thats one sentence with three words.

Are you telling me that you can't determine which interpretation of that sentence with three words with a finite number of possible literal or figurative meanings for each word is correct?

All that you would have to do is read the next few sentences where the author himself, whoever the hell he was, explains the metaphor clearly in his own hand?


Thats not my opinion, thats a fact put in writing thousands of years ago.

If I was never born and if I never pointed it out to you and if no one ever figured out the truth it would still be a fact.

Ridiculous comparison. A simple statement like that cannot be compared to literary volumes. In fact, I turn this stupid example back on you and ask you to explain why it should not be taken literally and what the correct metaphorical and literary meaning of it is.

And again, you have nothing but an authoritative declaration at your disposal. People will usually recognize this as their own opinion, but not you. You grant yourself some sort of special authority....gained from, of course, yourself.

Oh please, with all that by what authority bullshit if not just your own..

By what authority do you make conclusions?

And yes, a simple statement like that can be applied to volumes of scripture.

A little yeast makes the whole loaf rise.

Yes, I get it. You are demanding that your opinion is not actually your opinion, but rather, objective fact. I simply do not agree. And neither do a lot of peolle with differing opinions. But they obviously do not have functioning brains, as you so graciously pointed out.

 

[hobelim]

There.

Now can you see how your subjective premise that all scripture is superstitious bullshit from the past has lead you with perfectly logical reasoning to the false conclusion that all interpretations are equally valid however irrational because there is no limit to the absurdities that can be produced by an unrestrained imagination based on stories that YOU believe aren't true anyway?

Wrong. I don't have to argue, nor did I , that all interpretations are equally valid. I merely have to point out (no argument is required) that there is no way to tell which one is correct.

And, yes, a "great flood" is magical bullshit. You say people are fools for interpreting that literally. Okay. While I might agree, that does not lend any special credibility to your interpretations or opinions.

You have convinced yourself otherwise, deferring to your own authority to do so, and using ad hominem on anyone who might not accept your opinion.

Ok. lets make it simple.

Eat my flesh. Thats one sentence with three words.

Are you telling me that you can't determine which interpretation of that sentence with three words with a finite number of possible literal or figurative meanings for each word is correct?

All that you would have to do is read the next few sentences where the author himself, whoever the hell he was, explains the metaphor clearly in his own hand?


Thats not my opinion, thats a fact put in writing thousands of years ago.

If I was never born and if I never pointed it out to you and if no one ever figured out the truth it would still be a fact.

Ridiculous comparison. A simple statement like that cannot be compared to literary volumes. In fact, I turn this stupid example back on you and ask you to explain why it should not be taken literally and what the correct metaphorical and literary meaning of it is.

And again, you have nothing but an authoritative declaration at your disposal. People will usually recognize this as their own opinion, but not you. You grant yourself some sort of special authority....gained from, of course, yourself.

Oh please, with all that by what authority bullshit if not just your own..

By what authority do you make conclusions?

And yes, a simple statement like that can be applied to volumes of scripture.

A little yeast makes the whole loaf rise.

Yes, I get it. You are demanding that your opinion is not actually your opinion, but rather, objective fact. I simply do not agree. And neither do a lot of peolle with differing opinions. But they obviously do not have functioning brains, as you so graciously pointed out.

lol... I am not demanding anything., If you feel some sort of pressure it is coming from the force of reason.

You don't have any interest in examining rationally anything that might send you back to the drawing board, You're old, I get it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Wrong. I don't have to argue, nor did I , that all interpretations are equally valid. I merely have to point out (no argument is required) that there is no way to tell which one is correct.

And, yes, a "great flood" is magical bullshit. You say people are fools for interpreting that literally. Okay. While I might agree, that does not lend any special credibility to your interpretations or opinions.

You have convinced yourself otherwise, deferring to your own authority to do so, and using ad hominem on anyone who might not accept your opinion.

Ok. lets make it simple.

Eat my flesh. Thats one sentence with three words.

Are you telling me that you can't determine which interpretation of that sentence with three words with a finite number of possible literal or figurative meanings for each word is correct?

All that you would have to do is read the next few sentences where the author himself, whoever the hell he was, explains the metaphor clearly in his own hand?


Thats not my opinion, thats a fact put in writing thousands of years ago.

If I was never born and if I never pointed it out to you and if no one ever figured out the truth it would still be a fact.

Ridiculous comparison. A simple statement like that cannot be compared to literary volumes. In fact, I turn this stupid example back on you and ask you to explain why it should not be taken literally and what the correct metaphorical and literary meaning of it is.

And again, you have nothing but an authoritative declaration at your disposal. People will usually recognize this as their own opinion, but not you. You grant yourself some sort of special authority....gained from, of course, yourself.

Oh please, with all that by what authority bullshit if not just your own..

By what authority do you make conclusions?

And yes, a simple statement like that can be applied to volumes of scripture.

A little yeast makes the whole loaf rise.

Yes, I get it. You are demanding that your opinion is not actually your opinion, but rather, objective fact. I simply do not agree. And neither do a lot of peolle with differing opinions. But they obviously do not have functioning brains, as you so graciously pointed out.

lol... I am not demanding anything., If you feel some sort of pressure it is coming from the force of reason.

You don't have any interest in examining rationally anything that might send you back to the drawing board, You're old, I get it.

You, of course, are demanding that your opinion is objective fact. It's literally the only point you've managed to try to make.

I have a suspicion you also try this trick out on your other opinions.

 

[hobelim]

Ok. lets make it simple.

Eat my flesh. Thats one sentence with three words.

Are you telling me that you can't determine which interpretation of that sentence with three words with a finite number of possible literal or figurative meanings for each word is correct?

All that you would have to do is read the next few sentences where the author himself, whoever the hell he was, explains the metaphor clearly in his own hand?


Thats not my opinion, thats a fact put in writing thousands of years ago.

If I was never born and if I never pointed it out to you and if no one ever figured out the truth it would still be a fact.

Ridiculous comparison. A simple statement like that cannot be compared to literary volumes. In fact, I turn this stupid example back on you and ask you to explain why it should not be taken literally and what the correct metaphorical and literary meaning of it is.

And again, you have nothing but an authoritative declaration at your disposal. People will usually recognize this as their own opinion, but not you. You grant yourself some sort of special authority....gained from, of course, yourself.

Oh please, with all that by what authority bullshit if not just your own..

By what authority do you make conclusions?

And yes, a simple statement like that can be applied to volumes of scripture.

A little yeast makes the whole loaf rise.

Yes, I get it. You are demanding that your opinion is not actually your opinion, but rather, objective fact. I simply do not agree. And neither do a lot of peolle with differing opinions. But they obviously do not have functioning brains, as you so graciously pointed out.

lol... I am not demanding anything., If you feel some sort of pressure it is coming from the force of reason.

You don't have any interest in examining rationally anything that might send you back to the drawing board, You're old, I get it.

You, of course, are demanding that your opinion is objective fact. It's literally the only point you've managed to try to make.

I have a suspicion you also try this trick out on your other opinions.

I am not demanding anything. I am telling you to use your own mind and use everything you know about science and biology and physics, philosophy, literary expressions, teaching techniques, and historical facts as constraints to seeing for yourself what I have found by reasoning.

It really isn't that hard.

You are demanding your right to be obstinate and lazy..

You have my blessings...

 

[Czernobog]

" You seem to think this is about you. "

Oddly, as said in response to a two-sentence post, each one directly addressing your ideas. You are one odd guy, Boss. I have not assumed you are compelled to convince me, nor have I asked you to convince me of anything. Another creation, out of thin air, by you. I have responded to your ideas with my own thoughts of why they are nonsensical. And, along the way, I have pointed out your little cons and tricks, all of which older than dirt.

"I will finish by pointing out you have no idea or possible way of knowing what is superior because you don't believe in spiritual nature."

Yes, you got me there, it's "Just my opinion". Deep, man. Yes, that's right Boss, it's my opinion that reason-based morality is superior, and I have said exactly why I think that. And, no, I don't have to try your nuttery out for 5 years or even 5 minutes to correctly think that.

Well, no... actually you never stated why. You simply waddled in and proclaimed that you were rejecting my argument and declared it to be nonsensical. I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective. Humans reason all sorts of things as morally right when they are anything but. I gave you a few examples of that. When you rely on reasoning for your morals it simply means your morals are based on your own self-serving interests.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest problems facing Atheism. There is no moral accountability. Moral relativism is responsible for the fall of many great civilizations. You can sit here and defiantly reject everything I say and pretend you've addressed my points but you cannot prove "reason-based" morality is superior to anything. Where in history are all the great Atheist civilizations? That's right, they do not exist!

"I went to the trouble to explain why "reason-based" morality is worthless. Reasoning is subjective."

And magical bullshit isn't? haha, you are tripping over yourself. you have bad habit of trying to ascribe qualities to others or to their ideas which more appropriately apply to your own. And this is one of those times.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored in reason or fact. Then you have the arrogance to argue to this hilarious nonsense as some sort of authority? That's something I might expect from a guy on a corner with a sandwich board and a bullhorn.


And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective. Premises may be subjective, but reasoning follows well-defined laws. And the "subjectivity" of premises comes in degrees (ignoring "degrees of subjectivity" is your specialty, after all). How varying would the simple, rational responses be to the question, "Should the objective well-being of all humans matter?" Not much.

Now, ask the same question ONLY to people whose minds are infused with magical bullshit,. like the kind you are peddling. Every one of them, to a man, would have to pause to check their "authoritative, magical code" before answering such a simple question. "What would Jaysus say?... okay, that's my answer". And if they don't do that, then they are deferring to reason-based morality instead of their magical bullshit .... as they should.

No, friend, your bullshit carries mountains more subjectivity than do reason based morals, as they start from premises and reach conclusions, following well-defined rules. They force us to agree on a few basic, humanistic principles, then build on them. ... your embarrassing bullshit starts from "absolute truths!!!" and works backwards, with the outcome of the debate already decided by whatever moral defect lies in your brain or in your stupid religion..

And, no, reasoning itself is not subjective.

Well... YES, it IS! I'm sorry but you're just flat out wrong! Reasoning is based on an individual interpretation and evaluation of evidence to support conclusion. It's entirely subjective. You can use terms like "objective reasoning" but what does that mean? It means you've subjectively determined the reasoning is objective!

A three-year-old may reason they should be able to eat candy for dinner. A pedophile may reason that it's okay to fuck children. Jeffrey Dahmer reasoned it was alright to keep his dissected lovers in his freezer. Hitler reasoned it was okay to incinerate 7 million Jews. People can reason all kinds of things, it doesn't have anything to do with being objective, altruistic or empirical.

You seem to be under the hilariously wrong impression that your magical bullshit is somehow "absolute truth", when it is just an absurd creation of your own mind, completely unmoored (sic) in reason or fact.

You keep referring to what I believe in as "magic" or "magical bullshit" and I have to take exception to that assertion. I don't believe in magic! Magic is an illusion to make something impossible seem real. God is very real and there's nothing impossible (or magical) about it. The fact that you don't believe in something, doesn't make it not real.

It's not a creation of my mind, I've already told you that, but like everything I'm telling you, you're just a stubborn insipid hard head and you refuse to listen. Has it not occurred to you that I already considered it might be in my head? Do you think I've just always had faith and believed in God? Before I became a Spiritualist, I was very much a skeptic like you. My parents tried to instill Christian values in me and I rebelled. I never believed the bullshit being preached to me on Sunday. Still don't.

But I have discovered through experience (took me 50 years) that being spiritually-connected and nurturing my spirit is beneficial to me. I can tell a discernible difference if I haven't meditated or if I stray from the spiritual light. Bad shit tends to start happening. I start to feel like crap. Problems seem to overwhelm me.

So I've tried it both ways, thinking it's all in my head... it's fucking NOT in my head! Now... this is evidence for me. It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it. That doesn't change what I know.

" It's not evidence for you because you've not experienced it."

That's right, it's not evidence for anyone but you. Which, of course, means it is not actually evidence at all, in any empirical sense of the word.

Evidence is another thing we can define as highly subjective. I've been over this one before as well. Not only is evidence itself subjective, even what is considered evidence is subjective. I've presented numerous examples to illustrate this. There are people who truly believe they have evidence aliens crashed in Roswell. There are people who believe there is evidence we never landed on the moon. Or that Elvis is still alive. Or that 9/11 was an inside job. How can this possibly be if evidence isn't subjective?

So we can caveat "evidence" much like you did with "reasoning" and we can say that some evidence is based on rules, principles and laws which are empirical, making the evidence objective.... but still, it is subjective. The OJ Simpson jury heard evidence that clearly showed he killed Nicole and Ron, but they didn't believe the evidence. Did the jury's finding render the evidence invalid? Or was their interpretation of the evidence subjective?

For ME to believe in God, I only need evidence for myself. I don't need to convince you. Look.... let's say there is a 10 ft. puddle of water in your back yard... you go out there and take a running jump and clear the puddle. You have proven to yourself that you can jump the puddle. I live next door and I don't believe you can jump the puddle. Do you have to convince me you can before you believe you can? Of course not! You believe you can because of evidence you have for yourself. So you say, "Come with me and I'll show you!" But I say, "Nonsense, I don't believe you and I refuse to go watch!" Well, what else can you do at that point? You can't force me to accept your evidence and I refuse to accept your claims and I'm not interested in exploring it further. Does that mean you can't jump the puddle? If I start to mock and ridicule you for claiming you can jump the puddle, does that change what you believe?

That's a perfect analogy of what we have going on here.

Okay. Before I respond to this post, I'd like some clarification. Are you saying that some evidence can be subjective, or is it your position that all evidence is subjective.

Because you used the very generalized "evidence" throughout your post, suggesting that you do not believe that any evidence can possibly be objective.

 

[BreezeWood]

You continue to inject your predetermined conclusion without the least regard for what is being conveyed -

The metaphysical created physiology to give itself a physical presence, the proof of its being is when it leaves the physiology the physiology perishes - that something is what motivates the "brain", the brain is nothing more than an organ for the maintenance of the physiological assembly.

your statement makes no sense at all - the metaphysical created the physiology so it would have a way of existing in a physical state - physiology perishes when the metaphysical is no longer present i.e. mutually dependent state of being. one proves the other ("I do not know where physiology came from").

Okay. So...it is your contention that the "metaphysical" creates a physical body so that it can experience the physical world, and then changes back to "Metaphysical", causing the person that the "Metaphysical" became to die. Aaand...your evidence of this is that we exist? Am I getting this?

.

Okay. So...it is your contention that the "metaphysical" creates a physical body so that it can experience the physical world, and then changes back to "Metaphysical", causing the person that the "Metaphysical" became to die. Aaand...your evidence of this is that we exist? Am I getting this?

Okay. So...it is your contention that the "metaphysical" creates a physical body so that it can experience the physical world

the metaphysical created physiology as the means to have a physical presence is correct - as a response to your quote below ...

Really? The "Soul"? You have obviously never studied the brain, psychology, or neurology. "Feeling good" isn't a function of "the soul". It is a function of brain chemistry. You know, kinda like how chocolate has been demonstrated to help with depression, and demonstrated, chemically, and neurologically why it helps.

"Feeling good" isn't a function of "the soul". It is a function of brain chemistry.

("I do not know where physiology came from") - is a quote from you somewhere, the brain is an organ that would not be able to create itself as you are mistaken it was created by the metaphysical for their purpose in its role and performs not as you insinuate but as a medium for what its purpose is in its creation to reflect the consequential attitudes of the particular metaphysical being the physiology was made for.

and then changes back to "Metaphysical", causing the person that the "Metaphysical" became to die.

they are the same, the only thing that perishes is the physiology - and also the metaphysical if they fail to comply the requirements for further existance, Admission to the Everlasting - by accomplishing The Apex of Knowledge : The Triuph of Good vs Evil.

your evidence of this is that we exist? Am I getting this?

the evidence is the disconnect you have for the "brain" its function the reason for all the organs, the existence of physiology that has no natural reason to exist does not do so as an inanimate object is found nowhere else in the solar system and is a vessel created for supporting the metaphysical life.

 

[Boss]

Reasoning is not subjective. You are wrong and will always be wrong about that. Only premises are subjective.

I'm not demanding anything of you, martyr-boy. I am just pushing back against your bullshit.

There is no material evidence....which means, there is no evidence. Just call your faith, "faith", and keep it on the shelf where it belongs...with Al other faith, far from the shelf of evidence-based knowledge.

No, I'm not wrong, I'm right and you know that I'm right because you've already attempted to backpedal and couch your remarks with qualifiers for a certain type of reasoning. That was the moment you surrendered the argument in defeat whether you realize it or not.

I'm not a martyr, I don't need to be. You're not pushing back against anything other than your own ill-fated point you failed to establish. Now you seem to want to double down on stupid and that's fine with me. Be my guest! You've not established your point and I have. You've been schooled. Schlonged up the ass by the best! lol Was it good for you?

I'm not keeping any damn thing on the shelf except my trophies --huge chunks of your pathetic ass. I might have to start giving those away... maybe Breeze could use some? Hey Breeze? You want some FunBag ass chunks? I've got plenty to share!

I have not backpedaled one iota. Anyone can read that, and I think enough posters are familiar with your ad hoc bullshit that I don't feel much need to defend myself.

Let's review:

You are compelled to construct a nonsensical dogma, wherein everything is equally and completely subjective, because that is the only arena in which you feel your nonsensical, magical ideas can get the cresit they deserve. Of course, if you weren't so steeped in this very bullshit, you might realize that all you are doing is attempting to remove any credibility from any knowledge, which just results in all ideas being equally worthless. In the end, you have not elevated your nonsense, you have merely dragged knowledge down into the worthless muck and tried to declare victory.

It's a joke.

Yes, you certainly DID backpedal. You started by stating reasoning is not subjective. I gave you numerous examples of subjective reasoning. You responded by moving the goal posts and changing to a qualification of a particular kind of reasoning with pre-established parameters of adherence to math and science, laws and rules. But that wasn't your statement. Now you're trying to ignore your original statement while still maintaining it... that's peculiar indeed. Furthermore, you seem to want to appeal to popularity... as if other people supporting you will make you correct.

I have a feeling this is par for the course with you. You're an insipid hard head who no one can get through to because you think you know it all. You've abandoned your spirituality in favor of popularity. You think that makes you one of the cool kids. You're actually one of the oddballs. 95% of us believe in something greater than self. Only 5% of humans are Nihilists and believe in nothing.

Let's review...

I've not attempted to remove credibility from knowledge, I've tried to give you knowledge but you refuse to accept it because you don't think you need any more. Again, my ideas are not magical or nonsensical. They are reasonably common and acceptable. Granted, not everyone believes exactly what I believe but that's okay, I'm alright with that. I've demonstrated how you continue to label things "magic" and "nonsense" because you simply don't understand them. I'm sorry that you're not more open minded but it doesn't make anything I say any less valid.

I truly don't know why you mentioned "dogma" in your reply, unless it's force of habit because you are used to debating Christians. I don't have any dogma.... I have a dog.... does that count? My belief is in Spiritual Nature which I know exists because I connect with it daily and it benefits my life tremendously. There's no dogma, no magic, no nonsense and it's not in my head. There is plenty of evidence for it but you won't accept it because it's mostly spiritual and you don't believe in the spiritual. I've even given you the circumstantial physical evidence for God... you won't accept that either. You just want to continue grandstanding, insisting you're right and everybody else is wrong.

 

[Boss]

Okay. Before I respond to this post, I'd like some clarification. Are you saying that some evidence can be subjective, or is it your position that all evidence is subjective.

Because you used the very generalized "evidence" throughout your post, suggesting that you do not believe that any evidence can possibly be objective.

Well, I would say that because all evidence can be subjective that it cannot be objective. Now... just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's flawed, wrong or invalid. It just means it's subject to individual evaluation. Now, you may think that certain things aren't subject to individual evaluation but they are. Everything is, down to reality itself. There is no rule that says your evaluation has to be correct and people make incorrect evaluations all the time.

And again... "Evidence" is a tricky word. Not to get out in the weeds with semantics but it just is, and this needs to be pointed out. You can claim anything is "evidence" of anything you please. It doesn't mean it is or it isn't. Evidence is just a word to describe what you think helps to prove a premise. I may agree, I may disagree... with your premise or your evidence... or even if your evidence is actual evidence. It's all subject to individual evaluation.... Subjective!