₦airaland Forum

IAmSabrina:
We've established that "science" is "using our intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".

And when i call it the "law that governs the entire universe", i call it the only method by which we establish Objective "truths" that we're aware of. Every action we take and/or decision we make in this universe is based on this "science".


I'm OK with this, Budaatum

budaatum:
So, scientific laws do not govern anything, but are laws we deduce from our observation of reality and which we call objective truths. Or rather, Scientific laws are laws that subjected us deduce from our subjective observation of an objective reality and which subjected us call objective truths. What objectifies it is our competent use of the objective photometer to systematically observe, measure, experiment, formulate, test and modify our subjective beliefs. Its why I don't do "belief" by the way. I keep looking, observing, measuring, experimenting, formulating, testing and modifying so much that I can never hold on to any long enough.

I do not agree however that "Every action we take and/or decision we make in this universe is based on this "science"". Some have wonky photometers!

IAmSabrina:
Are you sure, you seem to be doing a very good job of picking bananas, jnr. Not just here. But in nearly every thread you've ever created during your stay on Nairaland

As for being wearisome, the blunt truth is that judging from your posts and interactions, i think its safe to say you're a Nairaland meme and that we can count the number of people who actually like you on Nairaland, and they may or may not be more than 1

Even you know i'm not lying

IAmSabrina:
I trust you're smart enough to understand what I meant in my post. I also trust you are familiar with figures of speech


I have also known you long enough to know that you're fond of writing epistles making little to no point at the end of day. The verbose above is a long rant that translates to nothing meaningful and/or relevant to the discussion at the end of the day. I'd appreciate you make the points you want to make without delving into long stories with little to no substance

As i've repeated, the issue of Atheism being a belief has been worn out, washed, rinsed, and left to dry multiple times that the argument has faded and weakens me now. In fact, i haven't heard this argument in a long time until you just brought it up. Please don't equate this to fear. That would be laughable indeed. The "Atheism is a belief system" is one of the most malnourished arguments die hard fanatics like yourself have brought forward against christianity


Nope. Cause then i'd be committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. That is, engaging in circular logic.

For instance, i make an absolute statement that group A is innocent of negative quality X. Someone points out an example of a member of group A which is X, contradicting my statement and showing it to be invalid. Rather than modifying my statement and acknowledging that A can be X, I declare that, if such a person/thing is truly X, then they cannot possibly be a member of group A, because, as previously stated, all A are innocent of X.

Example:
P1: "All left-wing activists are pacifist."

P2: "Here are some examples of left-wing activists engaging in violent protest."

P1: "If they engaged in violent protest, then they are not truly left-wing, because all left-wing activists are pacifist.".


SMH Don't cry o!

If anything, this should show you why you should never call atheism a belief. Does Subjectivity mean anything to you, Jnr? Get a grip, man, you're lagging behind!


[img]https://media./images/75564c9a29be2b3398f0ce67911d1840/tenor.gif[/img]
Jesus Jnr! Nairaland's Bible Belt Boy!

I'm starting to think you have no idea what you're arguing and perhaps you just want to involve yourself in the discussion, which i appreciate but i put it to you, Jesus jnr, that you have no idea what you just walked into....

A belief system is, according to Dictionary.com, "a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code."

To be more specific, a belief system is a codified set of beliefs and ideas. In the case of modern religions, these ideas do not arise in a vacuum but are spread virally from person-to-person through indoctrination, either orally or through books. If you are exposed to such belief systems, you have the option to either accept them as truth (believe) or reject them (disbelieve). Disbelief of (all) gods, when you've been exposed to the concept also qualifies as Atheism. But most people disbelieve in some gods — there are, after all at least 1,000 gods out there. Christians believe in 1 god and reject the other 999. Atheists who have been exposed to religions merely reject 999+1 god.

Yes, there are atheists who believe there are no gods (I haven't come accross one on NL tho), but that's not required to be an atheist, since it's a different proposition.
Proposition 1: Do you believe any gods exist?
Proposition 2: Do you believe that no gods exist?

Some people try to claim that you must subscribe to one of these or the other, but that's just not true. It's like a court case: "Do you believe the defendant is guilty? No? Then you must believe they're innocent!" would be terrible reasoning, and a basic inability to understand that "is guilty" and "is innocent" are two different claims. In court, we address exactly one of these: do you find the defendant guilty? The result is either "Guilty" or "Not guilty." It's not "Guilty" or "Innocent." It's not a coincidence that this is true: the court is looking at only one question — that of the defendant's guilt. Innocence is a different proposition.


[img]https://s2/images/MuttleyHilarious34d26efd4dfccb03.gif[/img]

Oh come on Jesus Jnr, get up off your knees! You're blowing the game! You really can't be serious here lol...

I'm kicking the ball over to you for the final time now:
a) Define "motive"
b) Explain how "the lack of belief in a claim" is a "motive"



[img]https://media./images/189bc14b567783143f3c6fce21d31259/tenor.gif[/img]
With all due respect, Jnr. I'd ask you to carefully consider the argument you try to make before you bring it forward. Quit pushing the envelope if you can't mail it in properly.

Please don't take any offense here. But suffice it to say i can't help but find your argument ridiculous and laughable at best

IAmSabrina:
Yes, there are atheists who believe there are no gods (I haven't come accross one on NL tho), but that's not required to be an atheist, since it's a different proposition.

LordReed:
You have...budaatum.

HardMirror:
you talk too much. So how my mention found it's way into ur post.

budaatum:
My Lord! You must provide evidence for this your claim!

LordReed:
You have...budaatum.

jesusjnr:
Wait a minute! How could you think that you're the only one that likes me on Nairaland?

Haba na, that would be too selfish of you, Lol!

But it appears that's what you're all about in Nairaland, the likes, and shares right?

Well maybe that should distinguish the diff between us because as you could see on my signature, so even if I have not one like in Nairaland that is actually the concept!

Yeah! Because only one like matters to me, and that like is the only like that would matter at the end, and the like is not of the world, but a supernatural like, if you know what I mean?

Yeah that's why I don't give a dead cell about any damn bloody likes on Nairaland, if that would make me loose the only like that matters.

Wow! So much truck loads of gibberish just for atheism not to be a belief.

Well the only sense you made to me of all you said is that you've rejected my generous offer to rescue you from the deep hole you got yourself into.

So while i feel saddened that you've rejected my offer to help, i will not leave you alone in the deep hole, but in the company of three different dictionaries' definition of atheism for you to continue your baseless/unfounded argument with.

#atheismisabelief

IAmSabrina:
.
*WHISTLE!!!*

Offside! Bring the ball back into the pitch, Jnr! You've woefully missed the point!
I hope you're aware that i'm not talking of likes & shares on your posts or profile. I'm talking of the number of enemies you have here
TATIME, HardMirror, Martinez39, Anas09 & countless others i can't quite remember now

IAmSabrina:
The banana-picking has picked up a furious pace i see, Jnr . I can only register this reply as an admission that you have no good reason to say atheism is a belief. And since we're now pulling definitions from the web, what say you about the following?:

Atheism is, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.
- Britannica

a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Atheism means “lack of a belief in gods” or “a belief that there is no god.” But, atheists are not necessarily anti-spiritual, anti-religion, or immoral; many atheists believe that atheism can provide a better foundation for morality and a meaningful life than theism (belief in a god or gods)
- Philosophy Terms

You can also study this if you have the time

There's many more where that came from but i'll pause here.... for now

Cc. LordReed

jesusjnr:
Speaking of missing the point, if anybody missed any point, it most definitely wasn't me.

For that was exactly my point, for likes and shares in Nairaland are not done by spirits, but human beings even if some at controlled by spirits.

So all join, if you really know me you would know that I have the most important personality with me, so the most important thing to me is to keep that most important personality with me, because even if every nairalander likes me, but I don't have that personality with me, I have nothing!

Yeah! that's how I roll for that's the basis of every thing I do here in Nairaland, to make sure that I don't lose that personality, because if I do, my own don finish.

So that's where I differ from the likes of you, who do what you they do for people to like them, for if you actually ponder on my moniker, you'd see where I got that from.

For Jesus was a hated Man, and i'm not even just talking of the Jews, for even many of His disciples left Him at some point because of the Words He spake, and even His brothers didn't like Him etc.

And the reason was because all He did was to make sure the most important personality was always with Him and never left Him, for that meant everything to Him.

So I actually learnt this way from Him, but it's not that I don't have people that like me here, for you'd be surprised to find out who some of them are, for instance you mentioned hardmirror, I must advise you not to bank on that.

So I have nairalanders that like me most definitely, but it's in the process of being who I am that I get them to like me, and not trying to please them, or do or say what they want, but doing what the most important personality wants me to do.

At the end you'd see that we are back where we started from, for if we reconcile both definitions we've provided what we'd get is the lack of belief, strong disbelief, rejection of belief in God or any other god's existence etc., is also a belief.

For you have chosen definitions that tally with your position of lack of belief, while I have chosen that of belief which supports mine, so I guess we come to the point where we have to agree that both applies, that is both lack of belief and belief.

So I agree with both, but do you?

LordReed:
The conversation beginning here: https://www.nairaland.com/1412636/non-christian-chatbox-sticky/181#73052447

IAmSabrina:
.
*WHISTLE!!!*

Offside! Bring the ball back into the pitch, Jnr! You've woefully missed the point!
I hope you're aware that i'm not talking of likes & shares on your posts or profile. I'm talking of the number of enemies you have here
TATIME, HardMirror, Martinez39, Anas09 & countless others i can't quite remember now


The banana-picking has picked up a furious pace i see, Jnr . I can only register this reply as an admission that you have no good reason to say atheism is a belief. And since we're now pulling definitions from the web, what say you about the following?:

Atheism is, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.
- Britannica

a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Atheism means “lack of a belief in gods” or “a belief that there is no god.” But, atheists are not necessarily anti-spiritual, anti-religion, or immoral; many atheists believe that atheism can provide a better foundation for morality and a meaningful life than theism (belief in a god or gods)
- Philosophy Terms

You can also study this if you have the time

There's many more where that came from but i'll pause here.... for now

Cc. LordReed

IAmSabrina:
.
*WHISTLE!!!*

Offside! Bring the ball back into the pitch, Jnr! You've woefully missed the point!
I hope you're aware that i'm not talking of likes & shares on your posts or profile. I'm talking of the number of enemies you have here
TATIME, HardMirror, Martinez39, Anas09 & countless others i can't quite remember now


The banana-picking has picked up a furious pace i see, Jnr . I can only register this reply as an admission that you have no good reason to say atheism is a belief. And since we're now pulling definitions from the web, what say you about the following?:

Atheism is, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings.
- Britannica

a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Atheism means “lack of a belief in gods” or “a belief that there is no god.” But, atheists are not necessarily anti-spiritual, anti-religion, or immoral; many atheists believe that atheism can provide a better foundation for morality and a meaningful life than theism (belief in a god or gods)
- Philosophy Terms

You can also study this if you have the time

There's many more where that came from but i'll pause here.... for now

Cc. LordReed

budaatum:
Are you sure that was buda my Lord? Or it's you bringing the better out of me! It does sound way above my intelligence level!

Yep! Its definitely your fault, my Lord!

Thanks for reminding me!

Martinez19:
Why theists love to brand atheism is something I don't understand. Perhaps by grouping atheism as a religion, they can deluded themselves that it's okay to have beliefs since, according to them, atheism is belief system/religion too.

IAmSabrina:
Both are true obviously but just don't pick one and claim atheism in general is a belief. I'm a "lack of belief' atheist, not a "belief in no gods" atheist. So you can't single me out and say i believe gods don't exist.

jesusjnr:
I can see what you're trying to do.

You trying to pin this on me, eh?

But even though that would not fly with respect to entails of this argument, for the single fact that you've shown some character by shifting ground where need be, compels me to do same, and let the matter rest at least for now.

Don't know about you, but didn't expect to have this much fun while engaging you I must say, so hope we do more of the same some time soon.

Maybe then you can give me more info concerning your story which led to your "lack of belief" in the existence of God or any other gods.

p.s. Kindly let your atheists fellas know that you are equal to the task and more than capable to handle the little matter of jesusjnr yourself, so that they have nothing to fret about, for i'm not worth all the apprehension.

IAmSabrina:
Who is pinning what on you? I'm lost....


Unlike you, i ain't a dogmatist. I'm open to other views. And i never misinterpreted or intentionally twisted the definition of atheism in the first place.


Don't hold your breath

jesusjnr:

Michellekabod1:
Gone through the post the umpteenth time and yet to discover where Christianity or prayer was insulted,when you find one please do alert me...
It could be my eyes are failing me...

Hahn, lordreed, hardmirror,martinez39,jesusjnr, CAPSLOCKED,happypagan,jesusjnr

IAmSabrina:
We live in an Objective Universe, built upon by scientific, observable principles;

We exist in a Subjective Reality, where our thoughts and feelings and memories can be manipulated by the ethereal as well as the concrete, but are also the primary lens through which we experience the world, and therefore one's experience is entirely relative to the individual.

Will you agree with me, Buda, that to distinguish fact from fiction, we eliminate human bias (subjective reality) and gain as much a solid grasp of objective reality as we can?


[img]https://media./images/ba8e438a9b946f71a533e88f45055d80/tenor.gif[/img]

Ihedinobi3:
Obviously, the prayer was a mockery of the Lord's Prayer. The latter goes:

Our Father Who is in Heaven
Hallowed be Your Name
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done on earth as it is done in Heaven
Give us today our daily bread
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us
Don't lead us into temptation
Deliver us from evil.

See the similarity?

Ihedinobi3:
Obviously, the prayer was a mockery of the Lord's Prayer. The latter goes:

Our Father Who is in Heaven
Hallowed be Your Name
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done on earth as it is done in Heaven
Give us today our daily bread
Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us
Don't lead us into temptation
Deliver us from evil.

See the similarity?

Michellekabod1:
So similarity equates mockery? You disappoint me!

IAmSabrina:
Interesting, Buda, very interesting!

For the purpose of clarity and nothing else:
We live in an Objective Universe, built upon by scientific, observable principles;
- IAmSabrina(f): 2:18am on Apr 02

And unobservable things we don't know are there or see yet. Not elephants on Neptune though!
- budaatum: 2:51am on Apr 02

If certain things are unobservable and can't be known at this time, does it make sense to verify it to be true as a fact. If so, how do we arrive at that conclusion?
- IAmSabrina(f): 3:39am on Apr 02

We verify by doing science.
- budaatum: 1:26pm on Apr 02

We should consider what "unobservable" means though. For example, i don't think we can observe supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena objectively. We should also consider that "science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it. Unless you, Buda, may truly believe that the universe will remain in the absence of "science".....

Now you imply that "Objective Universes" & "Subjective Realities" can indeed be seperated by "doing science". So Buda, you tell me, can any experiment be proposed in favor of spirituality to falsify its existence?


Brilliant argument. Like you said, we seperate objectivity & subjectivity "scientifically". We are encouraged to seek only positive evidence hoping that the reality we perceive in accordance with the evidence presented.

When the evidence opposing theistic religions like Christianity are presented, they refuse to understand why. They try to ignore the counterexamples. Observing objective reality objectively can indeed be painful because it exposes all the errors we have committed, and continue to commit. Its very easy for people to weave new stories around facts. Some "truths" needs to be discarded and replaced with an alternate explanation. Pride allows humans this talent or skill and that's why christians think they have the answer to every question! Shame won't allow them to admit ignorance!

Unfortunately, the only truth is that any explanation still could be wrong. It does not serve us well to cling too tightly to anything we want to believe, Buda. Tightly held beliefs will blind you to the truth!

That is my problem with religion, Buda! When we let the ego convince us to deny certain facts, life gets more complicated for a reason - because our subjective reality is no longer the truth. Why should we live our lives based on assumptions of whether these things are true?....

Cc. LordReed



Really, Buda?

I think distinguishing "subjective realities" from "objective realities" is a worthy pursuit that brings simplicity to our daily endeavours. It may be difficult but Sabrina enjoys it


I'd like to add to that warning and say that people need to have a proper understanding of objectiveness, Buda!

Whether Buda likes it or not, Sabrina's rectangle is Buda's rectangle. We observe shapes exactly the same. My eyes see the exact same thing yours do. Just a little sharper and maybe slight nuances in the colors but the overall picture is identical.

Eyes are not subjective, Buda's square is not Martinez's circle, and neither are Sabrina's! We hear things the same way we might interpret them differently, but the sound produced in our heads are the same. Some people can understand objectiveness and some people simply don't have the brain power to do so. If we couldn't understand objectiveness we wouldn't be able to understand math. Punctum Supremum!

If we couldn't understand objectiveness, Sabrina, Martinez, Buda, Lord, JJ, Michelle,.... we'll all be helpless! We wouldn't be able to build a single thing because what were building might not be that. Beans na beans no matter who chop am....

Cc. Martinez39 / Martinez19

Martinez39:
It's not a mockery. It's a different version that exalts the brain instead of an imaginary deity.

Michellekabod1:
So similarity equates mockery? You disappoint me!

Ihedinobi3:
Some statements here interest me.

1. "...can any experiment be proposed in favor of spirituality to falsify its existence?"
What is this question really about? Are you asking if the unobservable spiritual (unobservable by physical means, that is) can be experimented on? Or are you asking if the claims made about the physical world from a spiritual perspective can be tested by experiments on the physical world to determine veracity?

2. "...we seperate objectivity & subjectivity "scientifically"
It is true that many ideas that people have about the world can be separated from what is actually true about the world through scientific experiments, but this is not an absolute principle, since science itself is built on subjective assumptions.

To explain, consider that science always begins with a hypothesis that is then tested to see if the hypothesis holds true. Now, under given known circumstances at the time, it may hold true, so that it is held as a theory that explains a given observed phenomenon. This soon comes to be taken for granted, and usually people treat the theory as a law, and ignore and oppose any evidence that challenges the theory, until someone that is not only brave enough but also forceful enough to bring the new evidence to the fore arises who changes the science. Science is continuously being revised like that.

This means that at the foundation of all science is at least some subjective appreciation of the physical world. This is unavoidable. The testing we do too is necessarily subjective since we can only test the subjective hypotheses under as many conditions as we think are necessary or useful to achieve a comprehensible result. The interpretation of the results too is a subjective affair, even if the results themselves are not subjective. All of this is why scientifically conferences and publications can be pretty exciting with scientists often trying to shout each other down about what is really true. Science is continually dogged by the sore lack of complete information that would help scientists reach absolute conclusions that cannot be questioned further since they are completely objective.

Science is useful, but not by a long shot any kind of absolute judge of objective reality.

3. "When the evidence opposing theistic religions like Christianity are presented, they refuse to understand why."
I presume that the 'they' here refers to Christians. Let's talk about the evidence a little.

From #2, it is obvious that science does not quite achieve escape velocity from subjectivity. That is not all, however.

You and I have debated a few times. Not once have you offered evidence that opposes Christianity. Opposes Christianity objectively, that is, since the opposition seems so evident to you, but not to me. Judging by your position here, this would be just as much because of a subjective interpretation of the evidence on your part as because of such an interpretation on mine or some other Christian's part. Why is it to be assumed that you have the objective point of view just because you are not a Christian? In what scenario does that become logical?

So your claim here is not necessarily the case. In fact, I am refusing to be absolute about it only because many Christians play at apologetics without first making sure to understand what the Christian position is, therefore such Christians may actually be more inclined to dismissing the evidence and failing to properly account for it in their arguments. That is the only reason I am not making an absolute statement in rejecting your claim here.

4. "Pride allows humans this talent or skill and that's why christians think they have the answer to every question! Shame won't allow them to admit ignorance!"
Now, why is it Christians who are too proud to admit that they don't have all the answers? Why not atheists? Is your reason that atheists admit not to know some answer when they don't? What does that have to do with a Christian's provision of answers when he does have them? When atheist say that they don't know the answer to one question or other, why must that be construed as meaning that nobody knows the answer? Is that not arrogance on the part of the person doing the construing? Are atheists the only ones who know what answers can be known?

5. "Unfortunately, the only truth is that any explanation still could be wrong. It does not serve us well to cling too tightly to anything we want to believe... Tightly held beliefs will blind you to the truth!"
First of all, first sentence is quite absolutely and obviously false. If any explanation could still be wrong, then there is no explanation at all. There must be an explanation that is correct because it takes absolutely all information pertaining to the puzzle into consideration. That human beings unaided are unable to provide such an explanation does not mean that it does not exist. That is a truism.

Second, if your second sentence is correct, then you should hold your atheism much less dogmatically than you do. Before you jump to the typical atheistic retort that atheism is not a belief, please note that "I don't believe that there are any gods" is exactly the same as "I believe that there are no gods," and that "there is no evidence for the existence of a God" is exactly the same as "I am confident (that is, I believe completely) that no God exists." I am fully aware of the gymnastics that atheists including yourself are wont to do about this, but it too is a truism, so it is hardly worth debating about.

Also, your second sentence is obviously wrong because your first sentence on which it was based is also wrong as demonstrated above. Since there is a true explanation which cannot be wrong, if one finds it, one should believe it and hold tightly to it no matter what, because the alternative is insanity.

Third, your third sentence admits to the existence of a "the truth". Your use of the definite article there suggests that this is an objective truth, one which cannot be wrong. Ironically, this truth is that there is no truth judging by your first sentence. How are we to deal with such a claim? How can we take it seriously?

6. [The rest of your post addressing objectivity/subjectivity]
I believe you make way too much of objectivity. I don't mean at all that seeking objective truth is not that important. It most certainly is. The problem is that you seem to think that it is not only possible to escape subjectivity completely, but that subjectivity is the anti-thesis of objectivity. Neither is necessarily true.

Objectivity is important for discerning truth as a thing in itself. But to be able to actually use truth, we have to make it personal. That means that although we understand for what it is independent of us, we also appreciate it for what it is in relation to us, and thus for what we can do with it. It is not actually possible to divorce one from the other. Human beings cannot understand truth without relating it to themselves, and this is a good thing, because the truth only becomes usable to us when we can relate to it.

Ihedinobi3:

Some statements here interest me.

1. "...can any experiment be proposed in favor of spirituality to falsify its existence?"
What is this question really about? Are you asking if the unobservable spiritual (unobservable by physical means, that is) can be experimented on? Or are you asking if the claims made about the physical world from a spiritual perspective can be tested by experiments on the physical world to determine veracity?

2. "...we seperate objectivity & subjectivity "scientifically"
It is true that many ideas that people have about the world can be separated from what is actually true about the world through scientific experiments, but this is not an absolute principle, since science itself is built on subjective assumptions.

To explain, consider that science always begins with a hypothesis that is then tested to see if the hypothesis holds true. Now, under given known circumstances at the time, it may hold true, so that it is held as a theory that explains a given observed phenomenon. This soon comes to be taken for granted, and usually people treat the theory as a law, and ignore and oppose any evidence that challenges the theory, until someone that is not only brave enough but also forceful enough to bring the new evidence to the fore arises who changes the science. Science is continuously being revised like that.

This means that at the foundation of all science is at least some subjective appreciation of the physical world. This is unavoidable. The testing we do too is necessarily subjective since we can only test the subjective hypotheses under as many conditions as we think are necessary or useful to achieve a comprehensible result. The interpretation of the results too is a subjective affair, even if the results themselves are not subjective. All of this is why scientifically conferences and publications can be pretty exciting with scientists often trying to shout each other down about what is really true. Science is continually dogged by the sore lack of complete information that would help scientists reach absolute conclusions that cannot be questioned further since they are completely objective.

Science is useful, but not by a long shot any kind of absolute judge of objective reality.

3. "When the evidence opposing theistic religions like Christianity are presented, they refuse to understand why."
I presume that the 'they' here refers to Christians. Let's talk about the evidence a little.

From #2, it is obvious that science does not quite achieve escape velocity from subjectivity. That is not all, however.

You and I have debated a few times. Not once have you offered evidence that opposes Christianity. Opposes Christianity objectively, that is, since the opposition seems so evident to you, but not to me. Judging by your position here, this would be just as much because of a subjective interpretation of the evidence on your part as because of such an interpretation on mine or some other Christian's part. Why is it to be assumed that you have the objective point of view just because you are not a Christian? In what scenario does that become logical?

So your claim here is not necessarily the case. In fact, I am refusing to be absolute about it only because many Christians play at apologetics without first making sure to understand what the Christian position is, therefore such Christians may actually be more inclined to dismissing the evidence and failing to properly account for it in their arguments. That is the only reason I am not making an absolute statement in rejecting your claim here.

4. "Pride allows humans this talent or skill and that's why christians think they have the answer to every question! Shame won't allow them to admit ignorance!"
Now, why is it Christians who are too proud to admit that they don't have all the answers? Why not atheists? Is your reason that atheists admit not to know some answer when they don't? What does that have to do with a Christian's provision of answers when he does have them? When atheist say that they don't know the answer to one question or other, why must that be construed as meaning that nobody knows the answer? Is that not arrogance on the part of the person doing the construing? Are atheists the only ones who know what answers can be known?

5. "Unfortunately, the only truth is that any explanation still could be wrong. It does not serve us well to cling too tightly to anything we want to believe... Tightly held beliefs will blind you to the truth!"
First of all, first sentence is quite absolutely and obviously false. If any explanation could still be wrong, then there is no explanation at all. There must be an explanation that is correct because it takes absolutely all information pertaining to the puzzle into consideration. That human beings unaided are unable to provide such an explanation does not mean that it does not exist. That is a truism.

Second, if your second sentence is correct, then you should hold your atheism much less dogmatically than you do. Before you jump to the typical atheistic retort that atheism is not a belief, please note that "I don't believe that there are any gods" is exactly the same as "I believe that there are no gods," and that "there is no evidence for the existence of a God" is exactly the same as "I am confident (that is, I believe completely) that no God exists." I am fully aware of the gymnastics that atheists including yourself are wont to do about this, but it too is a truism, so it is hardly worth debating about.

Also, your second sentence is obviously wrong because your first sentence on which it was based is also wrong as demonstrated above. Since there is a true explanation which cannot be wrong, if one finds it, one should believe it and hold tightly to it no matter what, because the alternative is insanity.

Third, your third sentence admits to the existence of a "the truth". Your use of the definite article there suggests that this is an objective truth, one which cannot be wrong. Ironically, this truth is that there is no truth judging by your first sentence. How are we to deal with such a claim? How can we take it seriously?

6. [The rest of your post addressing objectivity/subjectivity]
I believe you make way too much of objectivity. I don't mean at all that seeking objective truth is not that important. It most certainly is. The problem is that you seem to think that it is not only possible to escape subjectivity completely, but that subjectivity is the anti-thesis of objectivity. Neither is necessarily true.

Objectivity is important for discerning truth as a thing in itself. But to be able to actually use truth, we have to make it personal. That means that although we understand for what it is independent of us, we also appreciate it for what it is in relation to us, and thus for what we can do with it. It is not actually possible to divorce one from the other. Human beings cannot understand truth without relating it to themselves, and this is a good thing, because the truth only becomes usable to us when we can relate to it.