I admire atheists for devoting time for "God"

[mikkel_the_dane]

In my case, it's based on neither.

It's instead based on the lack of knowledge.
It's based on "this is just a story... I have no reason to believe this story and the reasons people provided me with, are not convincing"

Yes, atheism can be subjective in how come an atheist is an atheist.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I hope you get off on you irrational beliefs about objective facts, which are subjective beliefs. So right back at you.

You call literally everything "subjective" in your little world of solipsism, so your comment is entirely meaningless.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, atheism can be subjective in how come an atheist is an atheist.

What is the point of this comment?
Is there even a point to it?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You call literally everything "subjective" in your little world of solipsism, so your comment is entirely meaningless.

No, e.g. gravity is in effect objective. But everything is neither only objective nor only subjective.

The joke is though, is that, your use of meaningless as for your claim about what I do, is subjective.
Here is the crude test of objective versus subjective.
Gravity is the same for all humans but not all forms of meaning are the same.
I can't get away with going against gravity, but I can get away with a different subjective meaning that you and I am doing it right not. You are looking at and that you can't cognitively cope with that, is subjectively in you.

That is it. There is no single universal methodology of only one type of correct answer. Everything is the set of all of factors interconnected but you can't reduce it done to one factor or category. You can try, but if what you do, involves subjectively making sense of the limited part of everything, which works subjectively, then I can just do it differently.

I can't help that you can't understand that we can play everything is physical and natural, but everything is not objective. In effect what you claim I do, is physical and natural. Even if I were doing that, which I am not, it would still be physical and natural. It is just that everything physical and natural is not all objective.

Do you really want to play falsification? It only works, because there is subjectivity. That you have to test your thinking is because your thinking as your thinking is subjective. Now in relationship to other aspects it can be objective, but you can't only be objective.
Now test that: Test if you can only be objective and if you are honest, you know that is not possible.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the point of this comment?
Is there even a point to it?

Well, it wasn't directed at you. But the point is that the reasons some atheists give for being an atheist are subjective in the end.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, it wasn't directed at you. But the point is that the reasons some atheists give for being an atheist are subjective in the end.

But you call literally everything subjective, so what's the point?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, e.g. gravity is in effect objective. But everything is neither only objective nor only subjective.

The joke is though, is that, your use of meaningless as for your claim about what I do, is subjective.
Here is the crude test of objective versus subjective.
Gravity is the same for all humans but not all forms of meaning are the same.
I can't get away with going against gravity, but I can get away with a different subjective meaning that you and I am doing it right not. You are looking at and that you can't cognitively cope with that, is subjectively in you.

That is it. There is no single universal methodology of only one type of correct answer. Everything is the set of all of factors interconnected but you can't reduce it done to one factor or category. You can try, but if what you do, involves subjectively making sense of the limited part of everything, which works subjectively, then I can just do it differently.

I can't help that you can't understand that we can play everything is physical and natural, but everything is not objective. In effect what you claim I do, is physical and natural. Even if I were doing that, which I am not, it would still be physical and natural. It is just that everything physical and natural is not all objective.

Do you really want to play falsification? It only works, because there is subjectivity. That you have to test your thinking is because your thinking as your thinking is subjective. Now in relationship to other aspects it can be objective, but you can't only be objective.
Now test that: Test if you can only be objective and if you are honest, you know that is not possible.

So you think it is impossible to distinguish methods of inquiry in terms of merits and that it's all just a matter of opinion of what works and what doesn't?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you call literally everything subjective, so what's the point?

No, everything is the combination of objective and subjective.

But the moment we play this game of reduction down to the necessary conditions, but not sufficient, the closest I can get, is a combination of 2. Whether it be physical and mental, rational and irrational, true and false and so on.

Now there is a point about everything, where everything becomes subjective, but it is still limited and is only one factor.
That everything matters, is always in the conditional sense that humans remain humans, subjective, because the referent to what matters is always subjective.
That is how I play with you and mess with your mind. If you however indirectly assume that you can turn what matters into being objective, I will point it out.
As related to meta-ethics and realism versus antirealism, I always do what matters as an antirealist in regards to any variant of objectivity.

So here it is for all the words and the combination you use. Always check if the referent is subjective or objective.
E.g. for the different versions of truth all versions are subjective, because they are all cognitive and an personal interpretation of what truth is.
If you removed all humans, there would be no truth or indeed objective or subjective.
Now pay attention to the words in these definitions of objective and learn to spot the absurd fact that they reference the subjective in part. That is the point of combination:
-expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
-of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
-having reality independent of the mind.

We in effect always end with a cognitive duality of positive and negative, but if you try to make objective real, true, positive and what not for everything, I just go negative and subjective and answer: No!
That is the game.
There is with philosophy no universal single methodology for only positive answers in the objective and what not sense, because I falsify that by going in a limited sense subjective.
I am skeptic and that is my trick. That is what I do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you think it is impossible to distinguish methods of inquiry in terms of merits and that it's all just a matter of opinion of what works and what doesn't?

No, but some methods are totally subjective and can't be turned objective. The objective is limited and so it is subjective.
Here it is for ethics with social science:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
Now pay attention and you will notice that all stages involve something subjective, that you can't reduce away.
You can for all I care just do science, but then you can't live, because you are also subjective. You can deny that, but that you deny it, is subjective.
No humans can live solely as a scientist only doing science.

So yes, you can test using objectivity to figure out what method works best there. But here is the limit of that and it is already known:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

It is the same for logic and we can go ever that, if you like. But objectivity is humans is a limited human behavior and only works in some cases and not others. That is the same for subjectivity. That is my point.
So again if you claim you can do everything objectively and not just some things, I test if I can do it subjectively or if what you do, is objective.

I have been doing this for over 20 years now and I haven't found a way to turn everything into either objective or subjective. But as a skeptic, I have learned to spot subjectivity.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, but some methods are totally subjective and can't be turned objective. The objective is limited and so it is subjective.
Here it is for ethics with social science:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html
Now pay attention and you will notice that all stages involve something subjective, that you can't reduce away.
You can for all I care just do science, but then you can't live, because you are also subjective. You can deny that, but that you deny it, is subjective.
No humans can live solely as a scientist only doing science.

So yes, you can test using objectivity to figure out what method works best there. But here is the limit of that and it is already known:
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/whatisscience_12

It is the same for logic and we can go ever that, if you like. But objectivity is humans is a limited human behavior and only works in some cases and not others. That is the same for subjectivity. That is my point.
So again if you claim you can do everything objectively and not just some things, I test if I can do it subjectively or if what you do, is objective.

I have been doing this for over 20 years now and I haven't found a way to turn everything into either objective or subjective. But as a skeptic, I have learned to spot subjectivity.

But you called it "subjective" to say that methods that use a standard of evidence are better then methods that don't.
That doesn't make any sense.

The track record of the scientific method (a method with high standards of evidence) shows that it works objectively better then methods that do not use such a standard of evidence.
This is why after millenia of inquiry without such a standard resulted in "bloodletting" and "exorcism" to cure deseases, while only a couple centuries of scientific inquiry brought us modern medicine and germ theory.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

But you called it "subjective" to say that methods that use a standard of evidence are better then methods that don't.
That doesn't make any sense.

The track record of the scientific method (a method with high standards of evidence) shows that it works objectively better then methods that do not use such a standard of evidence.
This is why after millenia of inquiry without such a standard resulted in "bloodletting" and "exorcism" to cure deseases, while only a couple centuries of scientific inquiry brought us modern medicine and germ theory.

Okay, short. Science uses observation. The result you get of "That doesn't make any sense." is not based on observation, if you check your own thinking. Objectivity is subjectively better if you want an objective result. Subjectivity is subjectively better if you want a subjective result.
Now for 1a, 2a and 2b compare and notice that your better is only better in the sense of 2b, but not 1a and 2b.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

I get your objectively better, but it is also only subjectively better because better as the word has no referent intendent of the mind and it is only better based on a given personal subjective standard for better.
If you subjectively choose a objective standard as science, then science is better for the objective, but you can't do some other human behavior only using science. I.e. there is no scientific theory of the correct morality or ethical system.

 

[Neb]

No, not believing in theism can be an emotional response and be not based on knowledge.

”emotion”? So how do you justify emotion?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

”emotion”? So how do you justify emotion?

You don't and you don't have to. The only thing required is lack of belief in gods. The reason is not required

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Okay, short. Science uses observation. The result you get of "That doesn't make any sense." is not based on observation, if you check your own thinking.

I was referring to your comment of calling something subjective when it is actually supported by objective evidence. You calling it subjective, is what isn't making any sense.

It's not just an opinion that it works better if and when the goal is to obtain accurate answers. It's demonstrated through evidence that it is.

Objectivity is subjectively better if you want an objective result. Subjectivity is subjectively better if you want a subjective result.
Now for 1a, 2a and 2b compare and notice that your better is only better in the sense of 2b, but not 1a and 2b.
Definition of OBJECTIVE

I get your objectively better, but it is also only subjectively better because better as the word has no referent intendent of the mind and it is only better based on a given personal subjective standard for better.
If you subjectively choose a objective standard as science, then science is better for the objective, but you can't do some other human behavior only using science. I.e. there is no scientific theory of the correct morality or ethical system.

This is ridiculous.

The goal of a method of inquiry is obtaining accurate answers to questions.
So if method A demonstrably does a better job at that then method B, then A is better then B. This is not merely an opinion.

There's no reason at all for this pseudo-intellectual over complication.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was referring to your comment of calling something subjective when it is actually supported by objective evidence. You calling it subjective, is what isn't making any sense.

It's not just an opinion that it works better if and when the goal is to obtain accurate answers. It's demonstrated through evidence that it is.



This is ridiculous.

The goal of a method of inquiry is obtaining accurate answers to questions.
So if method A demonstrably does a better job at that then method B, then A is better then B. This is not merely an opinion.

There's no reason at all for this pseudo-intellectual over complication.

Stop saying it is objective. That better is objective, just because just can say so. Explain with some words(justified reasoning) how you know and that. I don't call evidence subjective, I call better subjective.
So for better explain, how it is objective. Don't just claim it, use reasons, supportive explanations, make a case. I might be wrong and learn from it. But I can't tell if you just make unsupported claims.

So here it is, evidence as per science requires observations. What are your observational data for your claim of objectively better? What are your rule for objective in regards to evidence? What do you mean by objective? Are there different kinds of objective and are you using different kinds? Are you confusing objective observational data with that it makes sense?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Stop saying it is objective. That better is objective, just because just can say so

Not because I say so.
Rather, because of the context of what is being referred to.


Again: the goal, purpose of a method of inquiry is to obtain accurate answers.
By definition (not by opinion), a method of inquiry that gets the accurate answer 9 times out of 10, is objectively better then a method that gets it right 0 times out of 10.

This is not the same like saying "the beatles are a better band then the rolling stones" - because that deals with personal musical taste. There are no objective ways to determine that, because musical taste isn't like that.

In the context we are talking about, the method is a tool used to achieve a certain goal.
It's more like saying that a hammer is objectively better tool to drive a nail through wood then the palm of your hand is.

Explain with some words(justified reasoning) how you know and that. I don't call evidence subjective, I call better subjective.

And by doing so, you completely and utterly ignore the context in which the word is used.

So for better explain, how it is objective

Already told you.
Method of inquiry is a tool used for the purpose of obtaining accurate answers.
The evidence of how well the tool / method works, is found in its trackrecord of results.

Don't just claim it, use reasons, supportive explanations, make a case

I already did multiple times and every time you handwaved it away with intellectual masturbation that doesn't even make any sense.


And once again I find myself sucked into this nonsense.

So here it is, evidence as per science requires observations. What are your observational data for your claim of objectively better?

As said multiple times already: the trackrecord of results.

 

[Neb]

You don't and you don't have to. The only thing required is lack of belief in gods. The reason is not required

Then there is no truth in atheism. One must justify a belief with the truth.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then there is no truth in atheism. One must justify a belief with the truth.

But it is a lack of belief, not a belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not because I say so.
Rather, because of the context of what is being referred to.


Again: the goal, purpose of a method of inquiry is to obtain accurate answers.
...

Then you have to show that a goal or purpose is objective.
Beside that getting correct answers is objectively better.

So now it is goal, purpose and better.

ETA: Correct answer can be objective if the methodology is objective, but from that it doesn't follow that it is objectively better.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Then you have to show that a goal or purpose is objective.
Beside that getting correct answers is objectively better.

So now it is goal, purpose and better.

ETA: Correct answer can be objective if the methodology is objective, but from that it doesn't follow that it is objective better.