₦airaland Forum

DeLioncourt:
Both, actually.

I'll assume it makes no sense to you. Someone else does not agree with you either. They said what a person in a room sucked out of god would become. Not that I've checked if that's true or not, mind.

vaxx:
it is like saying,is it truth that there is no truth, which to me is nonsense,Both subjective and objective truth can obviously exist. When two people agree, not just on a truth, but on the rationale justifying the truth even if it is ridiculous, then it becomes more objective and hence we say objectivity establish subjective evidence.

I am not saying there is no truth. There is truth, but it has nothing to do with the number of people who agree. A billion people can agree on a lie. We could be deceived that what is untrue is true. Objectivity and truth are not determined by vote! The standards that determine a thing is objective, or the truth, do not include the number of people who say it is!

Remember the tree falling in the forest with no one to witness it? Is it true that a tree can fall in a forest if there is no one to see it fall? We can reach absolute truth, once you abandon the idea that it is democratically determined, or impossible.

vaxx:
this mystery may explain God to you if you give in a second thought.

My ma onced said, "buda, if people tell you something, why don't you try it before abandoning it". So one Sunday morning in 2000thereabouts, I followed her to church. On the Tuesday, I went to Bible Study, on Wednesday, I assisted the vicar in publishing the newsletter, and on Thursday, I volunteered teaching English in the free school set up by the church, and I was the secretary of the Parochial Church Council and the Men's Group. And I did this all religiously, as in regularly for 12 years. I have to inform you that "belief" did not catch me.

When I was a child, going to church on Sunday was the only way to get out of the house, so I went, religiously. It piqued my interest, as in what the heck they all saying and worshipping, so at 9 I began reading the Bible and finished it by the time I was 12, and realised I did not have the disease called "belief".

I have been studying the idea of gods and religions from the spiritual perspective, archaeological perspective, religious perspective, historical, psychological, sociological, mythical, mystical etc for decades now and have done so because of a search for knowledge and a lack of belief, and all the studying makes me unable to believe even more.


I would say the above is sufficient to determine that I have often given the idea of gods way more than second thoughts numerous times. So please stop projecting your subjective opinion about the amount of investigation I have done regarding the gods. One does not boldly state that gods are figments of the imagination on a whim!

"Belief" is what you get once you have closed your mind and become unwilling to consider further. "Knowing" is what you get to when you have considered all the evidence there is and have nothing further to consider, but will consider it if you happen to find further evidence to consider.

vaxx:
if subjective statement is judged empirically,it become scientific and hence become objective,

Judging a statement objectively does not make the statement objective! It just means you have objectively tested the statement itself and it may still remain a subjective unverified statement.

vaxx:
good, it shows you are not close minded. you cannot be open minded and still remain an atheist, you now have one leg out of the river Rubicon.

My stock response to this is, "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." It's Alice's response to the Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass.

One cannot open ones mind to all sorts of nonsense vaxx. And there is no need to fill the gap with gods out of sheer laziness! One can objectively check the evidence even if at the end ones conclusion is subjective to oneself.

OkCornel:
My question still remains...

If man and ape have a common ancestor due to similarities in their genetic make up... can the same hold water for banana & plantain or yam & cassava having a common ancestor due to similarities in their genetic make up?

What are the genetic similarities you refer to please, between:

Yam and cassava?

Banana and plantain?

Humans and apes?

No, everyone's opinion is not necessarily biased, and if sufficient valid objective evidence is provided for an opinion, one would not say such a view is purely subjective. But if there is evidence (or none) to hold either side of a position, then a personal preference is one choice, sitting on the fence is the other. Deciding to not accept valid evidence for a claim is either due to bias, or perhaps not being sufficiently informed.

There is sufficient evidence out there about the common ancestry of apes and humans. Google will help.

OkCornel:
If we go by your logic... then most likely, your opinion and every other person's opinion is biased and subjective...

My reactions to apes and humans having a common ancestry stemmed from nothing being known about this common ancestor apes and humans shared... do you have anything that can help in that regard?

Potty mouth has nothing to do with our dialogue...thanks...

vaxx:
there is objective truth to any subjectivity or ......

No! Not true. I could be talking through my subjective ass with nothing objective to support it. Take the following possibly subjective statements for instance: "Vaxx has a potty mouth". How can that possibly be true? Or the aforementioned subjective opinion that, "Prince Harry is the current President of Nigeria". Can that be true in anyway whatsoever? What objective evidence supports either statement?

I assert that subjective statements can be objectively true if there is independent evidence to support them! This was what I tried to explain with my one litre jug that was half full and half empty because I accurately filled it with half a litre of water! I also equally assert that subjective statements can also be false, like when I subjectively talk through my ass!

vaxx:
faiths in science are a bit different from other faith of believers, scientific faith rested on research to support them that have been accepted as true for the sake of mental convenience

Finally, you admit that the faith of the scientist is a different faith to that held by a believer, which is based on no evidence whatsoever. (Now you remind me, I'm still pissed off you dilly dallied round the block without just saying this and being done with it!)

Would I be wrong in claiming the faith of a scientist is based on objective evidence, and not just a subjective convenience?

vaxx:
we should learn to separate objective reality from subjective reality. doing this we make us understand our selves better. i am surprised you are arguing for subjectivity, even when you claim you reject it in our last discussion, i must have really change your perspective.

Learning is why I have continued to have this discussion vaxx. You will find from now on that you and I will always consider the objective and the subjective when we make any claim or read those of others.

And, it is your subjective view that I am arguing, or that I have ever rejected the subjective view, though I cannot objectively prove that I am not arguing!

Let me tell you a story. I sat in a pub with a friend of mine twenty years ago and we continued a discussion about objectivity while his girlfriend went to get tickets for a show they were going to watch later. About an hour later, she returned and was very unhappy. The tickets were twice as much as she had budgeted, and a bus had splashed water on her from a puddle by the roadside. My friend, wrapped up in our discussion, unpityingly told her to be objective, to which I responded "how can she be objective about the water splashed on a body that is subjective her or the objective and subjective extra money she had had to spend?" That experience showed us the complexity of what we had been discussing.

The fact is, everyone has a subjective view or opinion, and to reject it is pure fallacy of the stupid ignorant type or the blatant lying type, and not being aware of it at all is simply not really having evolved to the point of recognising it type.

I, for instance, am known to be an atheist, but if you asked me, I would tell you that I do not believe gods exist or not, but that I categorically know that gods do not exist. I go a tard further by claiming gods are the figments of the imagination created in the minds of those who create them. And I would insist that I have objectively come to these conclusions, by which I mean I checked the evidence for and against before coming to a conclusion.

Now go listen to butter, who would categorically insist on the existence of at least, a God, a conclusion he would insist he came to after checking what he too would claim is the objective evidence.

The fact is really that we both are stating our subjective views, or we would have both placed our objective evidence on the table and one of us would have had to shut up by now! But you ask us still, and we'd both claim we are being objective and presenting objective evidence, "or can't you see", we'd ask one another, while claiming the other's subjectivity blinds them to what to us seems objective.

I am not arguing with you vaxx. I find you worthy to discuss with because you give me something to consider. It is by considering that I tend to learn to separate my subjectives from the objective.

Of course they are biased, that's usually what reviews are about, but one of them has less than 5 reviews in total indicative of the nicheness of his writing, and hardly a wide enough sample on which to base an opinion. But that wouldn't matter much, if not for more negative stuff about Richard Rives on the internet Ok. If you read such stuff about buda, we both know how you would take anything I say. Note how you reacted to apes having common ancestry with humans, yet you want more credence given to a more incredible claims made by an irreputable Richard Rives!

I'm done (least my mouth goes potty like annalice's). Hopefully, I would clear my mind from holding this against you in future discussions.

OkCornel:
First ... you are getting me more confused about what exactly you need... you stated this...


I asked you to check the book reviews of two books he wrote bordering on the flaws in modern Christianity (you would have discovered this if you googled as I told you to initially)... and now you are saying book reviews are subjective...

WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU WANT?

Are you implying majority of the feedback of those who reviewed the books are biased?

Anas09:
I said what i typed, but you being against me and what i stand for will consider me potty mouth..

That's not true. My opinion of your mouth being potty has nothing to do with whether you agree with me or not or what you, as annalice or emmanystone, stand for.

I am disagreeing with vaxx (sorry for the mention vaxx), but I have posted somewhere how much regard I have for him, and I wouldn't be wasting time discussing with him if his mouth were potty. I am disagreeing with OkCornel, and while I admit that I am reserving an insult for his avoidance of the elephant in his argument, his mouth is not potty. I disagree with butter pretty often, but I can not honestly claim his mouth is potty (least, not towards me), and here is immhotep disagreeing with me on homosexuality itself without pot in his mouth.

You however just can't seem to hold a discussion without resorting to baseless insults is what I find about you. But the uncouth way that you go about it is even more unbecoming and is the reason I give you a very wide berth. I refuse to insult myself by discussing with people who have not learnt how to behave in public! Associating with such people might make me stink like you do!

OkCornel:
Oh that...

He has authored two books with good reviews;

1) Too Long in the Sun

2) Time is an ally of deceit


You can do a google search on the book reviews...

Book reviews? That's the best you got? Do you know who writes them? People like you and me, and our subjective opinion at best.

OkCornel, you are skirting around the elephant in the room that you discovered when you researched Richard Rives. If you had found anything credible about him, you would have posted it here already, but you haven't.

Please do not let my respect for you evaporate in a puff of smoke! Post his credentials or admit the guy is a crackpot, as are his videos, his books and the organisation he worked for!

OkCornel:
Please I need a bit more clarity on what you mean of Richard Rives credibility...

You are asking me to seriously consider a video Richard Rives produced. Give me anything that you have discovered about him that in your opinion would make his opinion worth considering. Anything at all!

OkCornel:
Hi budaatum...I understand your impatience...and that's because you want facts.

You asked for a background of Richard Rives...and this is the first snippet I'm going to post across...
Other information as regards his academic background and work experience would be made available ... after this

https://www.coasttocoastam.com/guest/rives-richard/6289


On a side note: Engaging another person in a discussion does not mean I totally ignored you...

Thank you. I am embroiled in discussion with vaxx about objectivity. You will please understand that I have to bear that in mind at the moment.

The link you posted says nothing much about Richard Rives apart from the easily accessible about the organisational he is involved with. The following is however an opinion about your source:

Coast to Coast AM is an American late-night radio talk show that deals with a variety of topics. Most frequently the topics relate to either the paranormal or conspiracy theories.

The subject matter covers unusual topics and is full of personal stories related to callers, junk science, pseudo-experts and non-peer-reviewed scientists.

Scholars have criticized Coast to Coast AM for promoting pseudohistoric and pseudoscientific ideas.

Would you agree that it doesn't show Rives in the best of lights?

Please provide me with evidence that attests to the credibility of Richard Rives.

DeLioncourt:
Like I said, the onus isn't on me to prove that god doesn't exist.

I'm wondering about the above and if it is just laziness on the part of some. When I go to buy my spanking brand new red Ferrari with the imaginary million pounds that is in my bank account, is it the saleman's duty to prove I haven't paid yet when I say, "give me key now, let me drive away in my brand new car"? Your position above is the equivalent of the salesman telling me to "fuq off, thief!" While the other position is asking the salesman to prove I haven't paid.

I wonder who the cops would arrest when they get called and who the judge would jail when we get to court, the salesman or me and my imaginary million pounds?

DeLioncourt:
I'm sorry to say but this makes absolutely no sense...
I dont remember comparing air to anything

Like I said, and as a believer quickly picked on, one is either a non-believing atheist, or a non-believing-believing atheist. Both are oxymoronic if you asked me and as you rightly pointed out, but here on NL both exist, at least as far as some are concerned.

You didn't compare air to anything which is why I didn't quote you. I'm certain you can figure out who did though. Just check other responses to the post. Out of interest, what doesn't make sense about it exactly, the comparison itself, or my comment about such comparisons?

Anas09:
Emmanystone had to be registered since Anas09 couldn't login. And, all i said was 'If homosexuality is right because animals do it, why aren't we having sex with our parents because animals do it? I said he shd keep his filthy habit to himself and not push it to others.

they said i bullied a Nairalander and got banned for 2months

I thought you might be the same person. Did you say it in your usual potty mouthed way, the one that makes be avoid you like the plague?

I know people who haven't paid last term's school fees for their children but don't miss their tithes!

Anas09:
Yes, for this ban a reason was given.

Are you Emmanystone?

Anas09:
Yes, for this ban a reason was given.

Where?

Anas09:
See this moniker? it just got resurrected after more than a yr of being redundant. There was a time it was on the Mod's watch list. It gets banned by posting smilies. i got banned several times without mentioning my offends. I got used to it.

It just reads, 'A mod has banned this moniker with regards to this thread'. What about the thread? What did i say in the thread that warrants a ban? For wia? who go ansa you?

Na wa o. They should at least tell people why they are banned or how else can they correct their faults? There are rules though, and people should observe them. The person you wrote got banned for homosexuality probably got banned for her potty mouth.

Anas09:
Emma..... has been banned for two months for speaking against homosexuality.

I doubt that's the reason she was banned. I've engaged with people "speaking against homosexuality" and they haven't been banned, as they rightly shouldn't. Are you certain there's no more to it than that?

vaxx:
i will like to know the aim of this thread, is it to ascertain that truth can only be objective while subjective truth should be discarded.or subjective truth can also be verified scientifically ?

My aim of the thread is to keep discussions on objectivity and subjectivity in one single easy to follow thread instead of spreading it across numerous threads. Participants may have other aims personal to themselves.

The subjective view is not encouraged in science as it cannot objectively be verified or falsified (tested, you would say). That is not to say that in all spheres of life, you discard subjective truth (for which I give two opinions below).

A subjective truth is a truth based off of a person's perspective, feelings, or opinions. Everything we know is based off of our input - our senses, our perception. Thus, everything we know is subjective. All truths are subjective.

To say that something is “subjectively true” means that it is true for the person(s) making the judgment, even though it may not be true for others.

Some even claim that the objective view of the scientist is still tainted with subjectivity as the scientist is speaking from their own perspective.

But on a personal level, if I go to the doctor and say I have a pain in my head, I am giving a subjective opinion. The doctor will not say I have no pain because they can't measure my pain with their objective pain meter! Your request therefore, to discard the subjective view, is declined.

vaxx:
the concept of "knowledge'' we are sharing here depends upon on objective evidence. If there is know one, and there is nothing commonly agree to know, you and i will not be able to know anything at all and the importance of education will be jeopardize

No! What objective evidence is there for or against gods? Would the god-believers and non-god-believers therefore agree that they have no knowledge to share? I don't think so. Just look at the number of threads set up on either side for sharing the subjective opinion for and against gods.

The fact is that we share subjective knowledge everyday even more so than we share objective knowledge. And claiming educators are objective is naive, at best. They can only be objective if all they taught were the facts, and there is quite a lot of debate on how fact based education does not encourage the use of the mind and creates unthinking individuals.

Please note that while I wish that what I write is objective, I am fully aware that all I write is subjective, even when I provide objective evidence to support it.

vaxx:
we have to accept the existence of an objective reality as a premise in order to function in the world. If an objective evidence does not exist, then all of our actions are meaningless, and it is impossible for humans to acquire knowledge about the world

No! In reality, we actually live our lives based on a very subjective reality and function adequately and always have! Of course, when the objective reality contradicts my subjectivity and I insist on holding my subjective view, there is catastrophe, but I can pretty much go on for a while on the figments of my imaginations, and the human race has done so for centuries (i.e. the subjective view that the earth was the centre of the universe, or the once held view amongst some that it was the raising up of a donkeys hindlegs that got maidens pregnant.) A certain George Soros wrote extensively on the problem of ones subjective view diverging from objective reality. He called it [url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflexivity_%28social_theory%29?wprov=sfla1]Reflexivity[/url].

That said, it is our subjective ignorant conclusions that we build on to attain an objective view of all that surrounds us. But let us not delude ourselves in thinking we are objective, when in reality we are trapped in our very own subjectivity


As an aside, I am amused, by the way, that you have not yet picked up on the fact that if I am arguing for the validity of the subjective view, then why would I argue against the subjects view of gods, which you know I do discard!

MrPRevailer:
Yet many people don't know Ugandan jungle exists, the wonder cities discovered that were thought to be fables, 15 foot giantmen killed by the U.S military. Etc.

People don't even know what exists in the planet they live in, and yet they are so bold to ridicule God Almighty who they are not sure exists. What a slap.

The post you quoted mentioned Ugandan judges, and asked what the point of fearing them was if one did not live in Uganda. But there you are arguing whether jungles exist in Uganda! Na wa o. If we let you, you would ask us to run in fear from our own shadow!

jeremylawrence:
na so!.. pave way for arsenal to succeed

hmm. Or fail!

Please stop with this jumping from one argument to another when we have enough unresolved issues to deal with. Provide us with what has been requested or admit that what you posted was baseless.

You can always start another thread for apes!

Hui-neng, a well-respected Buddhist monk who later became known as the founder of the Zen school, one day happened to be passing by two monks who were arguing about the temple flag waving in the wind.

One said, "The flag moves."

The other said, "The wind moves."

They argued back and forth but could not agree.

The Sixth Ancestor said, "Gentlemen! It is not the wind that moves; it is not the flag that moves; it is your mind that moves."

immhotep:
At least I know that you are a committed gay sympathizer

I got nothing against them. What I can't stand are the holier than thou people who think they have the right to cast stones.

immhotep:
you just want to be gay by fire by force LOL.

Go ahead and depopulate your kindred.
Make sure you sell off your ancestral lands in the process.
Sai baba

But you know nothing about me, how can you say that? Do you just make things up as you go along?

immhotep:
Homosexuality is illegal in Nigeria, punishable by 14 years imprisonment.
It is as simple as that.

Policeman will stand by your bed in your bedroom and arrest you!

Has anyone actually been found guilty since this law was enacted ?

immhotep:
fine.
embrace your personal homosexual behavior and stop trying g to force it upon other people

Please na! Anyone reading what you wrote there would think I told you to bend over and be poked!

I repeat, you have as much right, in my opinion, to hold an opinion in your head as another has to poke his poker in a person willing to be poked. I cannot police your thoughts, and I don't think you plan to police my bedroom.

Or do you?

immhotep:
fine.
homosexuality remains evil

It's an opinion. And I can't say don't hold it. My opinion is that it isn't evil. As much not evil as a man sucking on his girl's tit or clit in the moment.

No! It is crap if coming from me. You must remember how I feel about talking oyinbo rats!

You would have to determine if it is crap to you! I can just about see it though. I would post a youtube video, and link to that one posting in subsequent references, while you might post the video over and over again perhaps. It uses up storage space or and bandwidth, would be a consideration of mine.

OkCornel:
If I am posting that obligatory monetary tithing is a scam on many tithe related threads and you think its crap... then so be it...

I'll continue with that...

immhotep:
all religions condemn homosexuality.
Nature has no need for homosexuals

Some people are not religions, I guess.

darkchild64:
we are trying to be objective and reasonable here sis and not sentimental
on what grounds is homosexuality evil ?

No! Stop elevating everyone to your level of understanding. You are being objective and reasonable. Homophobism is a product of sentimentalism!