budaatum:

A recent example of ones subjectivity clouding their objectivity was butter's recent atheist thread in which he shot himself with his gun that shoots both ways. The thread highlighted the ease with which one can be objectively blinded by ones very own subjectivity.

Why do you enjoy misrepresenting people by trying to force your own view to reality when your view is clearly wrong.

Here you are trying to use my thread to cite an example and claim I shot myself with the thread when I rather showed you how you cannot and will never be able to remove objectivity from a premise that has already been set out of which other inferences have been drawn. As long as there was a foundation already given then subjectivity dies as the premise already gave the pedestal to objectivity.

The thread actually highlighted the ease with with you and fellow atheists can be easily so close minded that you would never be able to see objectivity even when it is a fat red man dressed in a lemon coloured jacket and sitting right in front of you.

Kindly stop misrepresenting me and trying to force your views on people despite them being wrong, and trying to make my thread what you "think" it was when on same thread you were the one who couldn't see beyond your nose of subjectivity.

This comment was just to clear the air and also clear your fogged up mind. I will not respond if you reply. I do not like people when they deliberately want to misrepresent people just to make themselves look right when they are wrong.

Butterflyleo:


Why do you enjoy misrepresenting people by trying to force your own view to reality when your view is clearly wrong.

Here you are trying to use my thread to cite an example and claim I shot myself with the thread when I rather showed you how you cannot and will never be able to remove objectivity from a premise that has already been set out of which other inferences have been drawn. As long as there was a foundation already given then subjectivity dies as the premise already gave the pedestal to objectivity.

The thread actually highlighted the ease with with you and fellow atheists can be easily so close minded that you would never be able to see objectivity even when it is a fat red man dressed in a lemon coloured jacket and sitting right in front of you.

Kindly stop misrepresenting me and trying to force your views on people despite them being wrong, and trying to make my thread what you "think" it was when on same thread you were the one who couldn't see beyond your nose of subjectivity.

This comment was just to clear the air and also clear your fogged up mind. I will not respond if you reply. I do not like people when they deliberately want to misrepresent people just to make themselves look right when they are wrong.

And to think that BudaAtum is the most intelligent atheist that pride himself on fairness and logic. It now appears that his objectivity is desperately subjective.

budaatum:

Lol. I. Said we'd be coming back. But blame sc for reminding me.

What happened my dear. Are you looking for a scapegoat now. Lol.

I must apologise to VAXX for suggesting a rematch with you.

Butterflyleo:

I rather showed you how you cannot and will never be able to remove objectivity from a premise that has already been set out of which other inferences have been drawn.

butter, please, where did you show me the above? I don't think I saw it.

Welcome to the sub/obj thread.

An Essay On Objective Vs Subjective Morality

Sourced from Quora

when I say subjective, I imply that the truth is based on individual opinion and bias. when truth is based on what one considers as truth, it is subjective.

objectivity however is independent of individual opinion and bias. an objective truth is truth whether you like it or not. the whole world might say the opposite, but the truth remains the same.

Gggg102:
when I say subjective, I imply that the truth is based on individual opinion and bias. when truth is based on what one considers as truth, it is subjective.

objectivity however is independent of individual opinion and bias. an objective truth is truth whether you like it or not. the whole world might say the opposite, but the truth remains the same.

Well done. Now, tell, how is "objective truth" determined"

budaatum:
Well done. Now, tell, how is "objective truth" determined"

when a statement is consistent, unmovable by human opinion, it is objective.

Gggg102:


when a statement is consistent, unmovable by human opinion, it is objective.

emphasis on the opinion . opinion is not necessarily base on fact or knowledge......anyway am ok with your definition but need a bit adjustment.

Gggg102:


when a statement is consistent, unmovable by human opinion, it is objective.

No! It does need some adjustment, as vaxx too pointed out. But I think we are struggling to adjust it, aren't we, vaxx! But let me for now poke out the subjective errors in the above subjective statement.

A statement may be consistent. But a statement is already subjective by the mere fact that it must be made by a subjective individual.

Now, that statement, made by a subjective individual, may itself be immovable, but it is subjects who are failing to move it. And that in itself could be simply because they are being subjective as opposed to objective.

So to claim a subjective statement is immovable by subjective individuals with subjective opinions is incorrect.

You guys, budaatum and Gggg102 are still on this back and forth endless splitting hair thing
Bud is even trying to rope vaxx in too

MuttleyLaff:

Bud is even trying to rope vaxx in too

We have history with this very complex subject. And he has the mind to deal with it!

Butterflyleo:
Why do you enjoy misrepresenting people by trying to force your own view to reality when your view is clearly wrong.

Here you are trying to use my thread to cite an example and claim I shot myself with the thread
when I rather showed you how you cannot
and will never be able to remove objectivity from a premise that has already been set out of which other inferences have been drawn.
As long as there was a foundation already given then subjectivity dies as the premise already gave the pedestal to objectivity.

The thread actually highlighted the ease with with you and fellow atheists can be easily so close minded
that you would never be able to see objectivity
even when it is a fat red man dressed in a lemon coloured jacket and sitting right in front of you.

Kindly stop misrepresenting me and trying to force your views on people despite them being wrong,
and trying to make my thread what you "think" it was when on same thread you were the one who couldn't see beyond your nose of subjectivity.
This comment was just to clear the air and also clear your fogged up mind.
I will not respond if you reply.
I do not like people when they deliberately want to misrepresent people just to make themselves look right when they are wrong.

budaatum:
butter, please, where did you show me the above?
I don't think I saw it.

Welcome to the sub/obj thread.

Dont you just love bud
Guess, that's what you'll do, if you feel lucky,
try your luck, butter' might respond

budaatum:

No! It does need some adjustment, as vaxx too pointed out. But I think we are struggling to adjust it, aren't we, vaxx! But let me for now poke out the subjective errors in the above subjective statement.

A statement may be consistent. But a statement is already subjective by the mere fact that it must be made by a subjective individual.

Now, that statement, made by a subjective individual, may itself be immovable, but it is subjects who are failing to move it. And that in itself could be simply because they are being subjective as opposed to objective.

So to claim a subjective statement is immovable by subjective individuals with subjective opinions is incorrect.

let me use an example.

1+1=2

no amount of opinion or feeling can make 1+1=anything but 2.

Gggg102:


let me use an example.

1+1=2

no amount of opinion or feeling can make 1+1=anything but 2.

Good example. 1+1=2 wherever one goes provided all the symbols therein mean what they generally mean. No one can independently change it without changing the underlying meaning of the symbols in the statement. Not even God. It does not depend on opinions or feelings. Whatever anyone thinks or does or wherever it is done, 1+1=2. And objectively verifiable tests can be done to verify it. It can therefore be said to be an objectively verifiable truth that 1+1=2.

The law, however, and moreso morality is not of this same type of statement! The law is subjective. It's subjectivity is what makes homosexuality illegal in some places and legal in some places, and why people can make up their morality in their head, or according to their "feelings and opinion" or God's and beliefs (though less so the law, mind, since you can't pass laws by yourself for everyone else). The only way objectivity applies to the law is in its derivation. And by that I mean it was not made on a whim! But it is still subjectively determined, by we subjective human beings, unlike the objective 1+1=2 that one can not change however much one tries.

I feel you might want to, at this point, claim God's law is like 1+1, so let's look at God's very first 1+1:

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Now, if you may, please let me know if the above 1+1, eventually equalled the alleged 2!

Gggg102:


let me use an example.

1+1=2

no amount of opinion or feeling can make 1+1=anything but 2.

false ....in binary, 1+1=10.

In philosophy, you will have to go a long way ,like What is "1"? What is "+"? What is "2"?… if “1” is stands for a single object and "+” action is takes both sides, add them and dived by 2 (for normalization) and we will keep the original mining of “=” and “2” will be 2 objects.
Then, 1+1=2 is a false statement. Therefore logically we can arrive that 1+1 is not 2 unless in a conventional settings where will want to work with agree axioms( you call it opinion in your earlier definition ) I assume.

vaxx:
false ....in binary, 1+1=10.

In philosophy, you will have to go a long way ,like What is "1"? What is "+"? What is "2"?… if “1” is stands for a single object and "+” action is takes both sides, add them and dived by 2 (for normalization) and we will keep the original mining of “=” and “2” will be 2 objects.
Then, 1+1=2 is a false statement. Therefore logically we can arrive that 1+1 is not 2 unless in a conventional settings where will want to work with agree axioms( you call it opinion in your earlier definition ) I assume.

we already know I am talking in base 10.

even 10 in binary means 2 in decimal. the fact does not change. 1+1=2 the symbols are just symbols.

in Roman numerals, I would write I+I=II

Gggg102:


we already know I am talking in base 10.

even 10 in binary means 2 in decimal. the fact does not change. 1+1=2 the symbols are just symbols.

in Roman numerals, I would write I+I=II

if "we already know". Then that is axioms . Self evident base, not neccasry true. They are just an arbitrary rules that we assume to be true.

I still therefore says 1+1 is not 2 unless it is conventional. As I prove..

vaxx:
false ....in binary, 1+1=10.

In philosophy, you will have to go a long way ,like What is "1"? What is "+"? What is "2"?… if “1” is stands for a single object and "+” action is takes both sides, add them and dived by 2 (for normalization) and we will keep the original mining of “=” and “2” will be 2 objects.
Then, 1+1=2 is a false statement. Therefore logically we can arrive that 1+1 is not 2 unless in a conventional settings where will want to work with agree axioms( you call it opinion in your earlier definition ) I assume.

Trust you to get him in a muddle.

vaxx:
false ....in binary, 1+1=10.

In philosophy, you will have to go a long way ,like What is "1"? What is "+"? What is "2"?… if “1” is stands for a single object and "+” action is takes both sides, add them and dived by 2 (for normalization) and we will keep the original mining of “=” and “2” will be 2 objects.
Then, 1+1=2 is a false statement. Therefore logically we can arrive that 1+1 is not 2 unless in a conventional settings where will want to work with agree axioms( you call it opinion in your earlier definition ) I assume.

wrong sir.
actually in binary 1+1=10 true but not "ten" rather 1+1= one nd zero. in a counting system eg in base ten ; no number should be up to ten. the same goes for other bases. it is therefore wrong to say "1+1=ten" but 1+1=onezero.. its not subjective.

budaatum:

Good example. 1+1=2 wherever one goes provided all the symbols therein mean what they generally mean. No one can independently change it without changing the underlying meaning of the symbols in the statement. Not even God. It does not depend on opinions or feelings. Whatever anyone thinks or does or wherever it is done, 1+1=2. And objectively verifiable tests can be done to verify it. It can therefore be said to be an objectively verifiable truth that 1+1=2.

The law, however, and moreso morality is not of this same type of statement! The law is subjective. It's subjectivity is what makes homosexuality illegal in some places and legal in some places, and why people can make up their morality in their head, or according to their "feelings and opinion" or God's and beliefs (though less so the law, mind, since you can't pass laws by yourself for everyone else). The only way objectivity applies to the law is in its derivation. And by that I mean it was not made on a whim! But it is still subjectively determined, by we subjective human beings, unlike the objective 1+1=2 that one can not change however much one tries.

I feel you might want to, at this point, claim God's law is like 1+1, so let's look at God's very first 1+1:

And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Now, if you may, please let me know if the above 1+1, eventually equalled the alleged 2!

god made the law that eating from the tree is bad.
the serpent convinced them that eating from the tree is good.

assuming morality is subjective, eating of the tree would be good because that is their new opinion about the tree. they made eating from the tree moral. they made 1+1 to equal 3 as there is no fixed standard that give 1+1=2.

but since god was a standard, eating of the tree was bad even though they believed it was good. they can't make eating from the tree moral. same way they can't make 1+1 to equal 3.

Gggg102:


god made the law that eating from the tree is bad.
the serpent convinced them that eating from the tree is good.

assuming morality is subjective, eating of the tree would be good because that is their new opinion about the tree. they made eating from the tree moral. they made 1+1 to equal 3 as there is no fixed standard that give 1+1=2.

but since god was a standard, eating of the tree was bad even though they believed it was good. they can't make eating from the tree moral. same way they can't make 1+1 to equal 3.

Just state what in that law could be the =2 first please, so we know you understand!

What was the =2?

budaatum:

Just state what in that law could be the =2 first please, so we know you understand!

What was the =2?

=bad.

Gggg102:


=bad.

Let me help you. The =2 is specifically that "for when you eat from it you will certainly die" !

Now, tell did Adam and Eve die when they disobeyed God and ate of the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil"?

Did God's 1+1 actually =2 here?

budaatum:

Let me help you. The =2 is specifically that "for when you eat from it you will certainly die" !

Now, tell did Adam and Eve die when they disobeyed God and ate of the "fruit of knowledge of good and evil"?

Did God's 1+1 actually =2 here?

a Christian would say they did die. afterall, god does not lie.

death might not have been present in the world before the disobedience.

death might have been spiritual I. e cut off from god.

a Christian would assert that they died.

Gggg102:


a Christian would say they did die. afterall, god does not lie.

death might not have been present in the world before the disobedience.

death might have been spiritual I. e cut off from god.

a Christian would assert that they died.

Indeed a Christian would say so. But I would say they are trying to make a banana an apple, or doing what vaxx did and which you opposed at the time, changing the underlying meaning of the words used in that law as I did with my "If 1 really equalled 937, and 2 = ⅛ and + really meant multiply and = meant minus". For they did not surely die but "became like us, knowing the difference between good and evil"! Or would you not agree that the Christian is attempting to claim that their subjective view is objective?

Objectively speaking, God's very first 1+1 did not equal 2 unless one changes the well known meaning of the words used in that law. We atheists call it humptydumptyism, and have little regard for such nonsense!

budaatum:

Indeed a Christian would say so. But I would say they are trying to make a banana an apple, or doing what vaxx did and which you opposed at the time, changing the underlying meaning of the words used in that law as I did with my "If 1 really equalled 937, and 2 = ⅛ and + really meant multiply and = meant minus". For they did not surely die but "became like us, knowing the difference between good and evil"! Or would you not agree that the Christian is attempting to claim that their subjective view is objective?

Objectively speaking, God's very first 1+1 did not equal 2 unless one changes the well known meaning of the words used in that law. We atheists call it Humptydumptyism, and have little regard for such nonsense!

the humptydumptyism is not my concern for now.

to Christians, god does not lie. that is an objective fact for Christians.

so if god said Adam and eve will die if they ate the fruit, then they definitely died. god does not lie.

they might not know the definition of the death, but since it is an objective statement that god doesn't lie, then Adam and eve definitely died.

Gggg102:


the humptydumptyism is not my concern for now.

to Christians, god does not lie. that is an objective fact for Christians.

so if god said Adam and eve will die if they ate the fruit, then they definitely died. god does not lie.

they might not know the definition of the death, but since it is an objective statement that god doesn't lie, then Adam and eve definitely died.

Well, just understand that your approach is from your subjective position that God wrote the Bible.

Someone else might argue from a different subjective position that human beings wrote the Bible to explain reality and that in placing Adam and Eve naked in the Garden of Eden and telling them to work and not eat of one of the most valuable trees in the Garden, that those in charge were keeping them as slaves.

Then comes along their saviour, described as a serpent by the evildoers, telling them their supposed "God" lied, and just wanted to keep them as slaves, and that if they just knew about Good and Evil, they would be free to become like those they think are "Gods".

And so they ate of the Fruit and their eyes indeed opened and they in effect learnt of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and became like the Gods knowing the difference between the two and went on to make laws that they themselves may live by. And only now do we reach up by the might of the "Lord Jesus the Christ" (love, wisdom and knowledge) to feed on the Fruit of the Tree of Life so that we may life eternal life.

See, same text, just a different way of looking at it and therefore understanding it.

budaatum:

Well, just understand that your approach is from your subjective position that God wrote the Bible.

Someone else might argue from a different subjective position that human beings wrote the Bible to explain reality and that in placing Adam and Eve naked in the Garden of Eden and telling them to work and not eat of one of the most valuable trees in the Garden, that those in charge were keeping them as slaves.

Then comes along their saviour, described as a serpent by the evildoers, telling them their supposed "God" lied, and just wanted to keep them as slaves, and that if they just knew about Good and Evil, they would be free to become like those they think are "Gods".

And so they ate of the Fruit and their eyes indeed opened and they in effect learnt of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and became like the Gods knowing the difference between the two and went on to make laws that they themselves may live by. And only now do we reach up by the might of the "Lord Jesus the Christ" (love, wisdom and knowledge) to feed on the Fruit of the Tree of Life so that we may life eternal life.

See, same text, just a different way of looking at it and therefore understanding it.

we both have our subjective opinion about the text, but the objective truth about the text remains.

one of our opinion is the real truth, the other is false. or none might be true and the real truth about the text remains unchanged.

Gggg102:



we both have our subjective opinion about the text, but the objective truth about the text remains.

one of our opinion is the real truth, the other is false. or none might be true and the real truth about the text remains unchanged.

Possibly. But one of us would like to claim their subjective opinion about the text is the real truth. So you know what each of us does? We both show the fruits of our opinions and let providence, or our impatience, decide.

Take the laws on homosexuality in the two nations we've mentioned for instance. Now look at the "fruits" of each nation. Which is better?

budaatum:

Possibly. But one of us would like to claim their subjective opinion about the text is the real truth. So you know what each of us does? We both show the fruits of our opinions and let providence, or our impatience, decide.

Take the laws on homosexuality in the two nations we've mentioned for instance. Now look at the "fruits" of each nation. Which is better?

if better is determined rationally, then the one where it is legal is.

Gggg102:


if better is determined rationally, then the one where it is legal is.

No! I'm not having you go lazy on me now after all this work we've been doing!

How please did you come to this conclusion?