Has Christianity finally been debunked?

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

This is the holdup.

There is no objective reality to discuss in the first place.

Is this an objectively true statement?

Because if it is, then you're contradicting yourself. And if it isn't, you're contradicting yourself.

If you say that empirical evidence cannot verify facts as true, then you are saying that you have some other method of discovering what's true. If you do have a better method of discovering what's true which is better than science, I'm open to hear it, but until you tell me your method for determining truth from falsehood, you have no reason to tell me that I'm wrong.

[snapshot]

Basically, if you tell me there is no objective reality, then I think it would be consistent of you to not ever put forth any positive statements about reality such as these:

There is no objective reality to discuss in the first place.

And discussing SUBJECTIVE reality (which can, indeed be discussed in terms of logic and empirical data), is far from bullshit. It's the foundation for our entire existence.

the belief that the only way truth can be found is through "empirical data" is a SUBJECTIVE belief

It is our SUBJECTIVE experience that creates the seemingly objective truth that the sky is blue.

I could keep going on and on, quoting these positive statements you make, to which I could ask, "Is that true?" to which you couldn't say since you don't believe there is an objective reality, so you couldn't say anything other than, "It's true for me," because you can't make objective statements about reality according to your own philosophy.

If you don't believe there is an objective reality, how can you keep making these positive truth statements?

[verklingen]

he's not telling you you're wrong (i don't think), he's telling you that it's possible to believe differently than you on the objectivity of truth and still be every bit as "right" as you are. perhaps not for you in your own terms, but that doesn't matter. and if you can't accept that it doesn't matter, you've become like a parent who tells their weed-smoking atheist teenager that he will be disowned if he doesn't stop toking because they think god doesn't like it.

this:

Originally Posted by me

amid all this talk of objectivity, consider the importance you place upon the process of subjective understanding which lead you to a belief in the objective importance of logical consistency.

and this:

Originally Posted by jcp

I think if you could recognize that the belief that the only way truth can be found is through "empirical data" is a SUBJECTIVE belief, and therefore no more valid than any other subjective belief (regardless of how silly it may seem to you), discussions would be far more productive.

are very important if you wish to understand where we are coming from. and it's fine if you dont.

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by snapshot

If you don't believe there is an objective reality, how can you keep making these positive truth statements?

because he's making positive statements about HIS perspective on truth, not asserting that they are positive statements on EVERYONE'S perspective on truth. is it really that hard to get?

edit:

Originally Posted by snapshot

so you couldn't say anything other than, "It's true for me,"

what's wrong with that?

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

Is this an objectively true statement?

Because if it is, then you're contradicting yourself. And if it isn't, you're contradicting yourself.

If you say that empirical evidence cannot verify facts as true, then you are saying that you have some other method of discovering what's true. If you do have a better method of discovering what's true which is better than science, I'm open to hear it, but until you tell me your method for determining truth from falsehood, you have no reason to tell me that I'm wrong.

No, it's not an objectively true statement, since my subjective consciousness is incapable of saying or understanding one. It is a subjective statement, which is my point.

What is true is SUBJECTIVE snapshot. My way of discovering what is or is not true is irrelevant. If I believed reading tea leaves showed me the truth, that is just as valid as your empirical evidence and logic. Why? Because what determines truth and falsehood is ME, the SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCER. Does this determine truth or falsehood to YOU, A DIFFERENT subjective experiencer? No...or yes, depending on what your beliefs are. And both are just as valid (and invalid).


All I have is subjectivity, since I am a subjective experiencer. The contradiction here is to say there is an objective truth based on subjective reasoning.

Snapshot, you're not following me. I did not say empirical evidence cannot verify facts as true. Empirical evidence can verify lots of things as true, if you believe empirical evidence does such a thing! But it takes a SUBJECTIVE belief in that evidence to call it a truth. And that makes it subjective, not objective.

I really don't know what else to say to you...I am not, nor have I ever disagreed with your methodology for determining what you think is true or not. If logic is your way of getting at what you (the subjective snapshot) things is true or untrue, that's totally fine!

What I do disagree with you on is the conclusions you make based on what you believe to be true or not. What you find to be "truth" is a SUBJECTIVE belief that does not make it objectively true. Nothing you believe is any more true than anything anyone else believes, rational or not. And to claim some sort of OBJECTIVE TRUTH about an issue because of the belief structures you have regarding logic/evidence is no different than a religious fanatic.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by verklingen

because he's making positive statements about HIS perspective on truth

What truth?

[verklingen]

^ his!

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

If you don't believe there is an objective reality, how can you keep making these positive truth statements?

what part of my subjectivity isn't jiving with you?

I am saying what is true from my subjective consciousness. If you disagree, more power to you, as none of us really know anything.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

No, it's not an objectively true statement, since my subjective consciousness is incapable of saying or understanding one. It is a subjective statement, which is my point.

What is true is SUBJECTIVE snapshot.

If this is a subjective truth statement, I could say the exact opposite and be just as right since "What is true is OBJECTIVE, JCP" would be subjectively true for me. So why are you trying to tell me what's true, and then tell me that you can't tell me what's true?

I can't continue to debate with you if you keep contradicting yourself.

I suggest downloading this: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...ne_15_2008.mp3
and fast forwarding to 23:00. This is a call-in show with a philosopher, and at 23:00, the person calling in appears to hold the same position as you. The file is 80MB and the show is 133:00 minutes, but the person with your similar perspective in only on for 15 minutes or so.

In the show, at right around 29:30, they appear to be having the same discussion we are.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

What truth?

.......my truth.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

If this is a subjective truth statement, I could say the exact opposite and be just as right since "What is true is OBJECTIVE, JCP" would be subjectively true for me. So why are you trying to tell me what's true, and then tell me that you can't tell me what's true?

I can't continue to debate with you if you keep contradicting yourself.

I suggest downloading this: http://www.freedomainradio.com/Traff...ne_15_2008.mp3
and fast forwarding to 23:00. This is a call-in show with a philosopher, and at 23:00, the person calling in appears to hold the same position as you. The file is 80MB and the show is 133:00 minutes, but the person with your similar perspective in only on for 15 minutes or so.

Saying something is an objective truth requires me to agree with your beliefs for my opinions to have merit. You are not my God, nor are your beliefs any more valid than mine.

If you cannot see the difference between my pointing out that we are both subjective experiencers, and you claiming to be able to understand objective truth (which is something, therefore, that anyone who wants to understand truth must agree with), then I suggest you check yourself.

I am giving you complete freedom to believe anything you want. You, however, are doing the opposite.

I don't give a hoot about someone on the radio. He's just as right as the crazy man on the corner, snapshot. That link is NOT AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

I am giving you complete freedom to believe anything you want. You, however, are doing the opposite.

I am not telling you what to believe. I am telling you what you are doing.

[snapshot]

I'll make the file easier to download.

[snapshot]

Originally Posted by JcP

That link is NOT AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH.

Are you sure?

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

I am not telling you what to believe. I am telling you what you are doing.

I disagree, but even this statement of yours can help illustrate my point:

you are telling me what you believe I am doing. Your subjective experience of this conversation. It is not objectively true that I am doing what you are saying I am. Your consciousness is seeing it that way (much to my frustration, as my consciousness is saying something terribly simple as simply as it can). Is it true for you? YES! Is it TRUE for me? NO!

Therefore is is OBJECTIVELY TRUE?

I'm done. I can't make this any clearer than this.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by snapshot

Are you sure?

as sure as a subjective mind can be, snapshot. Which you, apparently, have transcended.