I simply love this conversation about the tree. It reveals the inner workings and psychology of the ATHEIST RELIGION.

Atheism is a wonderful religion - they love fallen trees !

hopefulLandlord:


There is resemblance and you don't get to wish it away on a whim, its you that needs to study your reply to my first question and see how you unsuccessfully tried to move the goalposts when I asked the next

Q: is it possible to be 6ft tall without having a dick?

vaxx: No!

Q: are you saying there are no 6ft tall females?

Question 2 does follow from the answer to question 1 or do you need your fellow theists to explain this to you? cuz I notice you guys tend to agree and disagree based on who's saying something rather than what the person is saying

Frustratingly subjective of them!

hopefulLandlord:

I wasn't talking to you sir

Ok then you were talking to yourself. Go ahead !

[quote author=JacksonD7 post=64185408][/quote]Wow ! The hidden truth is out !!!

hopefulLandlord:

You're panting like a fish out of water

I asked if its possible to be Peaceful and Loving without belief in a god

religion here has nothing to do with my own question so I have no idea why you're bringing it in here

I have checked again and it does tally bro, I'm good at knowing when someone is wrong but ego won't let him/her admit it

lol panting because of what ? i am only taking enough time to explain better to you but since you already conclude you are right shekenah......

your questions are not tally bro..... you can ask your partner if am wrong...

maybe when you accept your deficiency we may continue ...bye

budaatum:

Frustratingly subjective of them!

Its funny how this discourse has gone

vaxx first tried hard to avoid the first question by bringing in "Purpose" and when I showed how it does not follow, he answered No! and when I asked the next question he also tried to strawman by changing the question trying to drag the discussion back to the same "purpose" this time using "Essence"

budaatum:

Frustratingly subjective of them!

You are much difficult for me to understand...tell me why? sometimes i need to read your response more than once

JacksonD7:

Atheists claim to be non-religious by saying that they don't believe in God or gods. Well, lack of beliefs in God is a philosophy shared by all atheists. That makes atheism a religion, according to the first definition.

You should also note that you don't have to believe in a deity to be religious. There are such things as non-theistic religions. Buddhists don't believe in any particular god, but would you say Buddhism is not a religion?. Obviously not.

Non-theistic religion

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheistic_religion

Comparisons Between Atheism And Other Religions

01. An Organized Set Of Beliefs

Every religion, has a collection of principles and beliefs that are shared by adherents of that particular religion. There's beliefs often form the foundations of the religion, and any sects that don't believe in them are considered heretics or unbelievers.

Christianity has God, Jesus, the resurrection, baptism etc

Islam has Allah, Sharia, Ramadan etc

Chapter 2 vs 1 to the end of the "Atheist Scriptural Handbook", states that "Thou shalt believe in"

a. The non-existence of God (there is no God, everything is an accident

b. The big bang (in the beginning nothing exploded and created everything)

c. Abiogenesis (non-living things gave life to living organisms)

d. Evolution (and everything arose as a result of countless accidents over billions of years)

e. Deep time (the Earth is billions of years old, if you think otherwise you must be madly ignorant)

Wow! The truth is coming out with aplomb !!!

budaatum:
No! I was asking for no such 'proof'. I began with, "You remind me of the tree that fell in the forest." It fell. That statement is all the evidence there is.
Its objective end was the fall, and it is not presented as a "subjective end". It fell regardless of the subjective observer.

The argument is whether it really fell if there were no subject to observe it, such that the statement "the tree did not fall if no subject was present to say it fell" is a valid statement. And as you've rightly said, "the observer need not be present to witness or hear the tree when it fell".

This is what makes objectivity and subjectivity a very tricky subject. And believe me when I say I wouldn't be attempting it with you if I hadn't read the tread in which you impressed me with your ability to reason.

If no one went into the forest to observe the tree so as to be able to subjectively state the tree has fallen, objectively, the tree has fallen, there just is no subject to say it has, is the point. The subject is irrelevant to the trees actual fall. And only becomes relevant when statements, which are subject to the subject (my bad for the tautology), are made about the fallen tree in the forest.

The fall of the tree is objective. The statements are made by a subject and are therefore subjective. But they are not the same thing. For while the objective stands, or rather, fell, in its own right, the subjective statement is in the eye of the beholder. And at times, the two may stand in opposition to one another.

This, by the way, was what called for your defence. While subjective statements were made against you, no objective evidence was presented to validate it. Basically, in that scenario, a tree might or might not have fallen in the forest but I cannot, on that so flimsly (subjective) basis, have honestly asserted guilt as I have for the objectively fallen tree.

You are clearly missing the point so let me narrow it down for you in a simple way.

Can there be any objective evidence without a subjective presentation?

Can objectivity exist on its own without a subjective interference or inclusion?

Let me specifically focus on your tree analogy here.

Can your objective tree that fell bear witness of itself without a subjective viewer?

Can all subjective viewers offer same narration of how this objective tree fell if they were all viewing from different angles?

IF THERE WAS NO SUBJECTIVE VIEWER IN EXISTENCE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WOULD OBJECTIVITY EXIST?

Objectivity is a product of a subjective source. Take it or leave it.

vaxx:
lol panting because of what ? i am only taking enough time to explain better to you but since you already conclude you are right shekenah......

your questions are not tally bro..... you can ask your partner if am wrong...

maybe when you accept your deficiency we may continue ...bye

He has still not subjectively worked out what happened to that tree. His main question was, "Can someone be 6ft tall without a dick."

ScienceWatch:
He has still not subjectively worked out what happened to that tree. His main question was, "Can someone be 6ft tall without a dick."

check my post, i have raised more than three question for him......he left it unanswered .....


hopefullanlord is very good at dodging questions

JacksonD7:
03. A Promise Of A Reward

Every religion promises a reward to it's faithful followers.

Christianity promises salvation and heaven

Islam promises heaven, unlimited alcohol when you get there. 72 virgins etc

Scientology promises the world global peace if it were to follow it's teachings

Buddhism promises enlightenment, and achieving higher states of consciousness

Atheism promise a wise, logical and rational mind. Which is a step above the ignorant masses who still believe in God, gods, and other delusions

04. The Presence Of Spiritual Leaders

Every religion, has it's great philosophers or spiritual leaders whose ideas shaped the religion. In some cases, the religion would not exist or enjoy mass appeal without that particular leader.

Christianity has Jesus

Islam has Mohammed

Judaism has Moses

Buddhism has Siddharta Gautama (the Buddha)

Scientology has L. Ron Hubbard

Atheism has Richard Dawkins

05. The Creation Of Organizations

In the course of spreading their religion, atheists have created a number of tools to assist them. They have websites, forums, blogs, YouTube channels, they've written books on theology etc. Every other major religion makes use of these same tools.

JacksonD7, I take my hat off to you in public Sir. I have shown your study on Atheism to many of my Atheist friends and they say you have found the Holy Grail of Atheism. They are impressed and afraid at the same time.

vaxx:
check my post, i have raised more than three question for him......he left it unanswered .....


hpefullanlord is very good in dodging questions

By now you must know that Atheists are not good at answering questions.

Atheists are very good at asking questions, because asking is easier. Just ask beggars and thief's?

vaxx:
check my post, i have raised more than three question for him......he left it unanswered .....


hopefullanlord is very good at dodging questions

what are those 3 questions I dodged?

hopefulLandlord:


what are those 3 questions I dodged?

the one i ask on the objectivity? the purpose and essence of peace and love without GOD

vaxx:
the one i ask on the objectivity? the purpose and essence of peace and love without GOD

I ignored the second cuz it didn't in anyway relate to the discussion at hand

as for the first, would you be so kind to ask again?

and which one is the third?

butterflyl1on:


You are clearly missing the point so let me narrow it down for you in a simple way.

Can there be any objective evidence without a subjective presentation?

Can objectivity exist on its own without a subjective interference or inclusion?

Let me specifically focus on your tree analogy here.

Can your objective tree that fell bear witness of itself without a subjective viewer?

Can all subjective viewers offer same narration of how this objective tree fell if they were all viewing from different angles?

IF THERE WAS NO SUBJECTIVE VIEWER IN EXISTENCE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WOULD OBJECTIVITY EXIST?

Objectivity is a product of a subjective source. Take it or leave it.

Thank you for expanding Vaxx's wisdom on this issue so fluently Butterflyl1on. Considering the Bolded Red above, my narration would subjectively be that from where I was observing, there was no tree in the first place. Sorry !!!

vaxx:
the one i ask on the objectivity? the purpose and essence of peace and love without GOD

I observed the psychology behind his ducking Sir. His religion does not permit him to examine the purpose and essence of peace and love without GOD. This is something all Atheists adhere to without conscience. Ask Butterflyl1on to help you get the answers from him. He is like a master interrogator. Over to Butterflyl1on - be gentle Sir !

hopefulLandlord:


I ignored the second cuz it didn't in anyway relate to the discussion at hand

as for the first, would you be so kind to ask again?

and which one is the third?

The second question actually relate to it, i wouldn't have ask if it did not...

the first question was base on the evidence of objectivity in which i reply that if you argue for objectivity you would have to have some point of view that is outside of the subject you are trying to perceive. Unfortunately for objectivity, we are all inside the universe. We can not know if we perceive things the same way anyone else does or do you know?


for the third let me go through the thread.....ok

i ask you to check with an open heart if your two question has any element of resemblance

budaatum:

Why must I understand you trying to find evidence for what you claim is my "remembrance"?

Dude, do me a favour. If you do not understand my writing, just ask me to clarify. Stop trying to find evidence of non-existing things that seem to only exist in your imagination.

I beg your pardon Sir. You did say that Vaxx reminds you of a fallen tree. I decided to see if I could find objective evidence that supports your claim, that you had in fact, had that remembrance. Or could it be pure conjecture on your part. I beg you to clarify.

While you command me to stop finding evidence of non-existing things I have the pleasure of informing you that it is exactly what Atheists are doing when they keep asking for evidence of a Non-existing God.

ScienceWatch:
Thank you for expanding Vaxx's wisdom on this issue so fluently Butterflyl1on. Considering the Bolded Red above, my narration would subjectively be that from where I was observing, there was no tree in the first place. Sorry !!!

Exactly! And this would explain a lot.

1. It would explain why personal experiences when influencing our interpretation of scripture would often differ simply because it is being interpreted based on individual subjective experience.

2. It would also explain why atheism exists. They know the tree fell but simply because they did not see it based on their angle of view they declare it never even existed not to mention even falling.

The obstinate ones go one step further to ask if a tree fell in the forest, who planted the forest and who brought the first tree growing seed that produced the forest etc.

vaxx:
The second question actually relate to it, i wouldn't have ask if it did not...

it didn't

the first question was base on the evidence of objectivity in which i reply that if you argue for objectivity you would have to have some point of view that is outside of the subject you are trying to perceive. Unfortunately for objectivity, we are all inside the universe. We can not know if we perceive things the same way anyone else does or do you know?

Objectivity is something true or not regardless of someone's perception

subjectivity can unearth objective truths BUT even when it hasn't it doesn't make the objective truth any less objective

a tree (since we seem to be using it as example) that fell in the forest far away from the closest civilisation has fallen whether there's an observer there or not, objectively the tree fell but subjectively its undecided till one does go to the location of the said tree; objectivity isn't in anyway affected by subjectivity

I still Haven't seen th third question

butterflyl1on:


You are clearly missing the point so let me narrow it down for you in a simple way.

Okay. And I promise to be diligent.

butterflyl1on:

Can there be any objective evidence without a subjective presentation?

Yes. (The word "evidence" in itself implies subjectivity so I've striked it out. It's inclussion makes the question either meaningless, or strawmanlike).

butterflyl1on:

Can objectivity [things] exist on its own without a subjective interference or inclusion?

Yes. The Christian for instance would claim God exists whether a human being exists to confirm God's existence. The tree fell whether anyone saw it fall or not. There is sea in the ocean regardless of observers.

butterflyl1on:

Let me specifically focus on your tree analogy here.

Can your objective tree that fell bear witness of itself without a subjective viewer?

It does not need to, and I cannot safely say that the tree did not, at its point of falling say in tree language "oh my timber, I am falling". My subjective knowledge does not extend so far.

butterflyl1on:

Can all subjective viewers offer same narration of how this objective tree fell if they were all viewing from different angles?

Probably not, since they were not there to observe it falling. If the falling tree were the beginning of the universe, one may point to the numerous subjective creation stories as a case in point.

butterflyl1on:

IF THERE WAS NO SUBJECTIVE VIEWER IN EXISTENCE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD WOULD OBJECTIVITY EXIST?

Let me rephrase, for this is the specific point in question:
If there were no one to observe the falling of the tree, can the tree fall?

The answer is yes. You yourself have agreed to this!

butterflyl1on:

Objectivity is a product of a subjective source. Take it or leave it.

If this were true, if a group of people, or even one person, subjectively accused me of fraudulently dealing in pigs food, it would not matter if I did or not. Their subjective no evidence based allegation [the source] would produce the objective truth, and I would be guilty as charged, whether I actually committed the crume or not! Basically, whatever subjective statements individuals make would be the objective truth! You will kindly accept that I chose to not think that way.

Do you take to thinking that way yourself?

JacksonD7:
06. Evangelism

All major religions evangelize, atheism included. Atheists make financial contributions to spread their message, they hold rallies. They used the internet to get their beliefs across, they publish books on atheism.

They try to influence society and governments, to pass laws that favour their belief system. They are actively trying to convert the works to atheism. These actions are mirrored by all religions with the intention of spreading.

07. Behavioral Changes

Followers, or new converts to a religion tend to change their behavior in order to match the teachings of their religion.

A man converted to Christianity would start praying, reading the Bible, attending church etc.

A man converted to Islam would read the Koran, pray 5 times a day, grow a beard etc.

A man converted to Atheism would stop attending churches, adopt nihilism, join an atheist forum, blame God for the world's problems etc.

Awesome truth revealed to the world. 2018 has arrived Wow.
Yes, I have been to Atheist rallies, read Atheists books, I have read deceptive Theology books written by Atheists, I have scoured Atheist websites and understand their beliefs. Their mission for mankind is frightening to say the least.

budaatum:

Okay. And I promise to be diligent.


Yes. (The word "evidence" in itself implies subjectivity so I've striked it out. It's inclussion makes the question either meaningless, or strawmanlike).


Yes. The Christian for instance would claim God exists whether a human being exists to confirm God's existence. The tree fell whether anyone saw it fall or not. There is sea in the ocean regardless of observers.


It does not need to, and I cannot safely say that the tree did not, at its point of falling say in tree language "oh my timber, I am falling". My subjective knowledge does not extend so far.


Probably not, since they were not there to observe it falling. If the falling tree were the beginning of the universe, one may point to the numerous subjective creation stories as a case in point.


Let me rephrase, for this is the specific point in question:
If there were no one to observe the falling of the tree, can the tree fall?

The answer is yes. You yourself have agreed to this!


If this were true, if a group of people, or even one person, subjectively accused me of fraudulently dealing in pigs food, it would not matter if I did or not. Their subjective no evidence based allegation [the source] would produce the objective truth, and I would be guilty as charged, whether I actually committed the crume or not! Basically, whatever subjective statements individuals make would be the objective truth! You will kindly accept that I chose to not think that way.

Do you take to thinking that way yourself?

Sigh you are still missing the point by miles and I wonder why.

The declaration from vaxx which I expanded on is that objectivity first begins from subjectivity. In other words objectivity is the end product of a subjective source. This clearly means that the line of separation between objectivity and subjectivity is not needed since subjectivity ends with evidence (which is termed as objective).

The evidence does not negate the subjective source but rather supports and proves it right.

But for anyone who is objectively minded he needs to know that another persons subjective view cannot satisfy him until he looks for his objective stand but first beginning from a subjective position.

I honestly do not know how to make this any simpler for you.

If objectivity cannot exist on its own without a subjective inclusion then objectivity is redundant and a futile logic since its very foundation is clearly subjectivity.

hopefulLandlord:

it didn't

Objectivity is something true or not regardless of someone's perception

subjectivity can unearth objective truths BUT even when it hasn't it doesn't make the objective truth any less objective

a tree (since we seem to be using it as example) that fell in the forest far away from the closest civilisation has fallen whether there's an observer there or not, objectively the tree fell but subjectively its undecided till one does go to the location of the said tree; objectivity isn't in anyway affected by subjectivity

I still Haven't seen th third question

re read my post again

ok because of the inconvenience of going through the same cycle in argument, lets keep the second question on hold for now

thank jah you yourself agree subjective can invalidate objective evidence.....if subjective evidence has not invalidate objective evidence,it does not in anyway confirm the truthfulness of that objective evidence ....objective evidence is not a fact.....
how do you verified the truthfulness of objectivity ? objectivity is just a kind of mental convenience ,it is not necessarily mean it is true

vaxx:
You are much difficult for me to understand...tell me why? sometimes i need to read your response more than once

From this point henceforth, I, buda, promise to respect and regard you, vaxx.

The topic, Subjectivity and Objectivity, is a very difficult concept to discuss I have found. There is the subjective and the objective in their objective right, and they are being discussed subjectively by each one of us subjects. You may see how anyone can get lost in just the words, not to talk of ones own subjectivity.

Do note, this is our second time on this topic. Be patient. We will get it. In the meantime, and again, I, buda, promise to respect and regard you, vaxx.

Be specific with your question and you will have my attention.

vaxx:
re read my post again

ok because of going through the same cycle in argument, lets keep the second question on hold for now

thank jah you yourself agree subjectivity can invalidate objectivity.....if subjective evidence has not invalidate objective evidence,it does not in anyway confirm the truthfulness of that objective evidence ....objective evidence is not a fact.....
how do you verified the truthfulness of objectivity ? objectivity is just a kind of mental convenience it is not necessarily mean it is true

what? where did I say subjectivity can invalidate objectivity?

can you quote where I said that?

budaatum:

Okay. And I promise to be diligent.


Yes. (The word "evidence" in itself implies subjectivity so I've striked it out. It's inclussion makes the question either meaningless, or strawmanlike).


Yes. The Christian for instance would claim God exists whether a human being exists to confirm God's existence. The tree fell whether anyone saw it fall or not. There is sea in the ocean regardless of observers.


It does not need to, and I cannot safely say that the tree did not, at its point of falling say in tree language "oh my timber, I am falling". My subjective knowledge does not extend so far.


Probably not, since they were not there to observe it falling. If the falling tree were the beginning of the universe, one may point to the numerous subjective creation stories as a case in point.


Let me rephrase, for this is the specific point in question:
If there were no one to observe the falling of the tree, can the tree fall?

The answer is yes. You yourself have agreed to this!


If this were true, if a group of people, or even one person, subjectively accused me of fraudulently dealing in pigs food, it would not matter if I did or not. Their subjective no evidence based allegation [the source] would produce the objective truth, and I would be guilty as charged, whether I actually committed the crume or not! Basically, whatever subjective statements individuals make would be the objective truth! You will kindly accept that I chose to not think that way.

Do you take to thinking that way yourself?

Unfortunately, Vaxx and Butterflyl1on are correct again Sir. The fallen tree in question can not exist without the observer. The ocean can not exist without an observer. This truth has been observed in clinical studies.
If you start from that premise, you will come up with exciting conclusions.

Allow me to add this; When the scientific principle of relativity says that the observer is part of his observation, this means that the person who has experience of anything is part of his experience.

We may carry this further and now say that it means that the thought is part of the thing thought of. If we dig deeper into this statement we will see that the mental factor is inseparable from every object known.
And if we dig deeper we will find that the two are really one.

All the best !

vaxx:
re read my post again

ok because of going through the same cycle in argument, lets keep the second question on hold for now

thank jah you yourself agree subjective can invalidate objective evidence.....if subjective evidence has not invalidate objective evidence,it does not in anyway confirm the truthfulness of that objective evidence ....objective evidence is not a fact.....
how do you verified the truthfulness of objectivity ? objectivity is just a kind of mental convenience ,it is not necessarily mean it is true

Very true.

Let me further buttress your point here. How can anyone CONCOCT a story of a fallen tree if it never even fell?

If there was no observer or hearer of this said tree that fell how did the objective declaration that a tree fell regardless of a viewer or listener begin?

Just like you said, this objective position is self refuting and a baseless logic.

hopefulLandlord:


what? where did I say subjectivity can invalidate objectivity?

can you quote where I said that?

how will you translate this word of yours ''subjectivity can unearth objective truths'' hopefullanlord

vaxx:
how will you translate this word of yours ''subjectivity can unearth objective truths'' hopefullanlord

invalidate and unearth don't mean the same thing na haba!