Happy Atheist Forum

As an Atheist there has been a nagging confusion in my mind regarding objectivity and how it is used in arguments either for or against God.  Let me preface by saying that in college I studied some continental philosophy and was particularly influenced by Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, and Heidegger.  A common theme among these philosophers is that truth always begins with a human subject.  Out of the "lived world" we grapple for truth and form our basis for knowledge rather than receive knowledge from outside us through either empirical knowledge or logical proofs.  I could go into way more detail but the point is that I'm inclined to agree with these thinkers and I guess ultimately I hold the belief that Truth/Objectivity whatever you want to call it is always in some ways subjective.  

Lately I've been watching a lot of debates between theists and atheists (particularly the so called "New Atheists") and obviously the point of these debates is to argue that one position is better than the other.  The assumption being "my truth is better than your truth".  The confusion for me is that philosophically I have a hard time reconciling my belief that truth is subjective while simultaneously agreeing that one side of the argument is better.  Does anyone besides me have a problem when these debates focus almost exclusively on the objective nature of the arguments and almost never on the subjectivity of human knowledge?   Maybe someone could help clear this confusion for me.  Thanks.

Welcome blik. We have an introductions forum that you are not obligated to say hello on  .

I am also influenced by Heidegger. I don't have difficulty differentiating between the objective and the subjective. I suggest that your problem might be that you are reifying "truth". There is no "the truth". It is a wholly abstract (and confusing) concept.

I would disagree that truth does not exist. My definition of truth would be this: anything which exists independently of what animals’ think on the matter is true. For instance, even if I have a firm conviction that I can defy gravity, if I jump of a building it is highly improbable that I will float. As such, I conclude that gravity is an objective truth. Under my definition truth cannot be subjective (the entire point of subjectivity is that it changes from person to person therefore is not independent of the thought process) as its very subjectivity would mean that it could not be a truth.

Truth exists because there are clearly several things which exist independent of the thought process. This means several things are true, and by existing prove truth.

Blik, I think the things which you take to be subjective truths are probably not truths at all, but opinions (such as the greatest American etc) masquerading as truth. In regards to your problem with taking sides in a subjective argument; most people would say that the existence of a deity is independent of the thought process (not necessarily true). Assuming God (or the lack of one) is a truth, then it is perfectly understandable to take a side as there is a right and wrong in the argument therefore not contradictory to the principle of subjectivity-this definition of truth leaves room for subjectivity, just not universal subjectivity.

Hello and welcome, Dagda.  

Please, could you tell me how your definition of "truth" is different from the definition of "fact."  In my understanding, "fact" is a much narrower category than "truth," which is why they are two different words.

(Edit: Spelling error)

My experience so far has convinced me that it's true: you have to see it to believe it. If you haven't seen it, or experienced it, chances are, you won't believe it. Most people who have faith in God have evidence in their head, even though an outsider can't see it. Some people were brought up to believe, but without having any true personal experiences, fall away and say there is no God. I don't think this can ever be resolved in the courtroom of human reasoning. It's a very personal thing, and it makes me sad to see how nasty all the debates have become. People are hurting and need help. We all need to be there for each other.

Hello, and welcome to you too, 2010yma.

Not all of the debates have become nasty.  We try to maintain a reasonable level of civility here, and some of our discussions/debates, with both theists and atheists participating, could be described as cordial.  Sometimes members need help keeping it between the lines, and for that we have a remarkable team of moderators.  I hope you will enjoy reading and posting here.

Quote from: "Recusant"Hello and welcome, Dagda.  

Please, could you tell me how your definition of "truth" is different from the definition of "fact."  In my understanding, "fact" is a much narrower category than "truth," which is why they are two different words.

(Edit: Spelling error)

Would not a "fact" be something that can be checked or verified in some way while a "truth" is what we derive from a series of facts that seem to lead to one particular conclusion as opposed to another?

Quote from: "Recusant"Hello and welcome, Dagda.  

Please, could you tell me how your definition of "truth" is different from the definition of "fact."  In my understanding, "fact" is a much narrower category than "truth," which is why they are two different words.

(Edit: Spelling error)

I would disagree. Fact and truth are so similar that they could be used almost interchangeably. Truth is factual and facts are true.

Perhaps if I knew your own definition of fact and truth I would be able to clarify further?

Quote from: "Dagda"

Quote from: "Recusant"Hello and welcome, Dagda.  

Please, could you tell me how your definition of "truth" is different from the definition of "fact."  In my understanding, "fact" is a much narrower category than "truth," which is why they are two different words.

(Edit: Spelling error)

I would disagree. Fact and truth are so similar that they could be used almost interchangeably. Truth is factual and facts are true.

Perhaps if I knew your own definition of fact and truth I would be able to clarify further?

A fact is an instance of something, truth is an interpretation derived from facts, no?  

"The sky is blue" is more of a truth than a fact.  A blind person has no way of knowing if the sky is really blue so the statement may not ever be true.

"The sky is blue because of the way photons bounce around in the atmosphere and eventually make their way into our eyes, which have the ability to interpret the photons into a neurological impulse shot to our brains that assigns meaning to what is seen.  Such as "The sky is blue."  This, if my example holds, is an example of a fact.

I would define a fact as a proven truth.

I would define a truth as a proven fact.

Quote from: "Reginus"I would define a fact as a proven truth.

Surely a truth which is unproven is an opinion? There is hardly much point in saying something is true when it could be false; the word loses all meaning if it is just used to describe fuzzy areas which no-one is sure about. Truth is an absolute; something is either true or false; fact or opinion. Anyway, we seem to be arguing over semantics, which is always a little tedious. Back to the argument in hand; are there instances when something is objective and other instances where something is subjective?

Quote from: "Dagda"Back to the argument in hand; are there instances when something is objective and other instances where something is subjective?

Absolutely probably.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"

Quote from: "Dagda"Back to the argument in hand; are there instances when something is objective and other instances where something is subjective?

Absolutely probably.

Ok, the fact/truth thing is bothering me.  It seems to me that the difference between the two are - truths are subject to perception whereas facts are true regardless of perception.  It is a FACT that I have two hands.  When I say that I'm happy, it's the TRUTH.  You might look at me and you see that it is a FACT that I have two hands.  However, I have a strange look on my face and I'm kind of jittery so you don't believe my happiness is TRUTH.

I don’t see your point. If it is a fact that you have two hands, in any event could it both be false that you have two hands and fact that you have two hands? No, therefore one cannot be used to the exclusion of the other hence they are pretty much the same thing. If I believe it to be false that you are happy, it is my opinion that you are not in fact happy. You could not be truthfully happy, and factually sad. If we are talking about perceived truths, it is slightly different; for instance, it is true that I perceive you to be sad whilst you are in fact happy. In other words, it was a fact (true) that I thought you where sad, but also a fact (true) that you were happy. The first part deals with the truth of my perceptions, the second part the truth of your being; these are two different things which you seem to have confused. I can truthfully think the sky is pink, but it can be truthfully blue.

Quote from: "Dagda"I don’t see your point. If it is a fact that you have two hands, in any event could it both be false that you have two hands and fact that you have two hands? No, therefore one cannot be used to the exclusion of the other hence they are pretty much the same thing. If I believe it to be false that you are happy, it is my opinion that you are not in fact happy. You could not be truthfully happy, and factually sad. If we are talking about perceived truths, it is slightly different; for instance, it is true that I perceive you to be sad whilst you are in fact happy. In other words, it was a fact (true) that I thought you where sad, but also a fact (true) that you were happy. The first part deals with the truth of my perceptions, the second part the truth of your being; these are two different things which you seem to have confused. I can truthfully think the sky is pink, but it can be truthfully blue.

Ok, to continue the analogy - if someone saw a picture of me in which my hands were removed via photoshop, they could say that it is the truth that I don't have two hands and to them, this would be the truth because of their perception.  This truth that they have come to is honest because they're establishing their perception of truth based on the information they have available to them.  While factually they are wrong, they are still telling the truth.  That's why the two are in actually not interchangeable at all.

To use a real life analogy, with the advent of forensics in modern police work, more and more we are finding that innocent people have been sent to prison.  Often these cases were originally made around eye witness testimony.  These eye witnesses were absolutely telling the truth when they identified whom their assailants were, however the fact is that according to DNA and other forensic evidence, it wasn't the person they identified as the convict that actually committed the crime.

The problem I see with your belief that facts are the same as truths because what people believe are facts to them is not proof that they are interchangeable, only that people have the ability to make the two terms personally interchangeable.  You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.  All that means is that it is a fact that you believe that, that one fact is only personally relevant and is in no way proof to anyone else that unicorns are, in fact, real.

Quote from: "pinkocommie"

Quote from: "Dagda"I don’t see your point. If it is a fact that you have two hands, in any event could it both be false that you have two hands and fact that you have two hands? No, therefore one cannot be used to the exclusion of the other hence they are pretty much the same thing. If I believe it to be false that you are happy, it is my opinion that you are not in fact happy. You could not be truthfully happy, and factually sad. If we are talking about perceived truths, it is slightly different; for instance, it is true that I perceive you to be sad whilst you are in fact happy. In other words, it was a fact (true) that I thought you where sad, but also a fact (true) that you were happy. The first part deals with the truth of my perceptions, the second part the truth of your being; these are two different things which you seem to have confused. I can truthfully think the sky is pink, but it can be truthfully blue.

Ok, to continue the analogy - if someone saw a picture of me in which my hands were removed via photoshop, they could say that it is the truth that I don't have two hands and to them, this would be the truth because of their perception.  This truth that they have come to is honest because they're establishing their perception of truth based on the information they have available to them.  While factually they are wrong, they are still telling the truth.  That's why the two are in actually not interchangeable at all.

To use a real life analogy, with the advent of forensics in modern police work, more and more we are finding that innocent people have been sent to prison.  Often these cases were originally made around eye witness testimony.  These eye witnesses were absolutely telling the truth when they identified whom their assailants were, however the fact is that according to DNA and other forensic evidence, it wasn't the person they identified as the convict that actually committed the crime.

The problem I see with your belief that facts are the same as truths because what people believe are facts to them is not proof that they are interchangeable, only that people have the ability to make the two terms personally interchangeable.  You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.  All that means is that it is a fact that you believe that, that one fact is only personally relevant and is in no way proof to anyone else that unicorns are, in fact, real.

Pinkocommie, You two do realize this post is saying the exact same thing as Dagda's 'perceived truths', correct?   We have arrived at agreement!

[quote="pinkocommie
The problem I see with your belief that facts are the same as truths because what people believe are facts to them is not proof that they are interchangeable, only that people have the ability to make the two terms personally interchangeable.  You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.  All that means is that it is a fact that you believe that, that one fact is only personally relevant and is in no way proof to anyone else that unicorns are, in fact, real.[/quote]

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, but that is what I said in my last post. Your two examples again confuse the facts of perception and the facts of being. In the Photoshop example the only reason that truth and fact can’t be used interchangeably is because you have mashed together two instances and made one example.

Quote from: "Dagda"[quote="pinkocommie
The problem I see with your belief that facts are the same as truths because what people believe are facts to them is not proof that they are interchangeable, only that people have the ability to make the two terms personally interchangeable.  You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.  All that means is that it is a fact that you believe that, that one fact is only personally relevant and is in no way proof to anyone else that unicorns are, in fact, real.

I am sorry if I did not make myself clear, but that is what I said in my last post. Your two examples again confuse the facts of perception and the facts of being. In the Photoshop example the only reason that truth and fact can’t be used interchangeably is because you have mashed together two instances and made one example.[/quote]

I'm sorry, I guess my point is that I agree that truth is a matter of perception while fact is not which is why they're not interchangeable.  If that's what you were saying as well then we agree!  I had thought you were trying to say that truth and fact were essentially interchangeable terms, which I disagree with.  They CAN be the same, but they are far from interchangeable.  Sorry for my confusion!  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I'm sorry, I guess my point is that I agree that truth is a matter of perception while fact is not which is why they're not interchangeable.

I think you are saying truth when a better word would be honesty (considering the examples you are using).  If I see a picture of you without hands and I say "pinko doesn't have hands" I am being honest (I am not saying something I know is a lie) however I am not stating something that is true or factual (I'm not sure there is a difference between the words truth and fact other than that 'fact' seems to refer to tangible exidence while truth refers to that which is observed).  If I said that "pinko doesn't hands in his picture" then I'd be speaking the truth and stating a fact.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"I'm sorry, I guess my point is that I agree that truth is a matter of perception while fact is not which is why they're not interchangeable.

I think you are saying truth when a better word would be honesty (considering the examples you are using).  If I see a picture of you without hands and I say "pinko doesn't have hands" I am being honest (I am not saying something I know is a lie) however I am not stating something that is true or factual (I'm not sure there is a difference between the words truth and fact other than that 'fact' seems to refer to tangible exidence while truth refers to that which is observed).  If I said that "pinko doesn't hands in his picture" then I'd be speaking the truth and stating a fact.

I think I'm just doing a terrible job of explaining what I mean.    

I am almost in agreement with you. Basically, what I am saying is that there are two different types of truth/fact. Let us call the truth1 and truth2. Truth1 deals with truths/facts/honesty about perception. Truth2 deals with facts/truths about being. Whilst truth1 and truth2 can’t be used interchangeably, truth2 and your definition of facts could be used  interchangeably, and as per my original post, it is when truth2 is in use that an event is objective (it exists independently of truth1). When it is truth1 that is in use (e.g. I hate rap music etc) then the event/thing is subjective (needs human action to make it exist). I have probably just confused things more, but there you are

Quote from: "Dagda"I am almost in agreement with you. Basically, what I am saying is that there are two different types of truth/fact. Let us call the truth1 and truth2. Truth1 deals with truths/facts/honesty about perception. Truth2 deals with facts/truths about being. Whilst truth1 and truth2 can’t be used interchangeably, truth2 and your definition of facts could be used  interchangeably, and as per my original post, it is when truth2 is in use that an event is objective (it exists independently of truth1). When it is truth1 that is in use (e.g. I hate rap music etc) then the event/thing is subjective (needs human action to make it exist). I have probably just confused things more, but there you are

I see what you're saying, and I think the distinctions I make from your example are very slight.  In my mind, there is truth which can encompass facts but also deals with perception.  Facts can also be truths but they're entirely independent of perception.  I see your explanation as an example of why we do have two distinct terms - truth and fact - which while often interchangeable are not consistently interchangeable and therefore cannot be considered the same thing.

I think when I read this:

QuoteFact and truth are so similar that they could be used almost interchangeably. Truth is factual and facts are true.

I took it to mean that you believed fact and truth were essentially the same thing, when in my opinion it's the essential meanings of the terms that cause them to be different.  Anyway, thanks for being patient with me.  I appreciate it.  

Quote from: "pinkocommie"You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.

This is a good example of how tricky and subjective "facts" can be.

For some reason I'm not aware of, atheist forums like to use unicorns as the ultimate example of something that doesn't exist.   Everybody casually nods and agrees with this example, assuming it to be obviously true.   The non-existence of unicorns is declared a "well known objective fact".  

And yet, it's pretty easy to make a logic based case that unicorns currently do exist.

But that's not the real story.   The real story is that once a "fact" is widely accepted, people begin making personal identity and sometimes business investments upon this "fact".  It becomes important to defend this "fact" because we don't want to look like fools, or have our thought leader authority status challenged.  

Thus, once a "fact" gains enough momentum, few are truly interested in examining this "fact", and most of the intellectual energy will go in to maintaining the status quo.

That's the problem I see with "facts".   They quickly become sand in the gears of a real inquiry.

Quote from: "Jolly Sapper"A fact is an instance of something, truth is an interpretation derived from facts, no?  

"The sky is blue" is more of a truth than a fact.  A blind person has no way of knowing if the sky is really blue so the statement may not ever be true.

"The sky is blue because of the way photons bounce around in the atmosphere and eventually make their way into our eyes, which have the ability to interpret the photons into a neurological impulse shot to our brains that assigns meaning to what is seen.  Such as "The sky is blue."  This, if my example holds, is an example of a fact.

This is a good example, but I wasn't quite sure of the point you were trying to make.

I see the fact as "the sky appears blue to humans."

"The sky is blue" seems a good example of a subjective "truth", that is, it looks blue to us.   Was that your point?

Quote from: "Typist"

Quote from: "pinkocommie"You can say that unicorns are real and your belief that unicorns are real is a fact - but that doesn't make unicorns real.

This is a good example of how tricky and subjective "facts" can be.

For some reason I'm not aware of, atheist forums like to use unicorns as the ultimate example of something that doesn't exist.   Everybody casually nods and agrees with this example, assuming it to be obviously true.   The non-existence of unicorns is declared a "well known objective fact".  

And yet, it's pretty easy to make a logic based case that unicorns currently do exist.

But that's not the real story.   The real story is that once a "fact" is widely accepted, people begin making personal identity and sometimes business investments upon this "fact".  It becomes important to defend this "fact" because we don't want to look like fools, or have our thought leader authority status challenged.  

Thus, once a "fact" gains enough momentum, few are truly interested in examining this "fact", and most of the intellectual energy will go in to maintaining the status quo.

That's the problem I see with "facts".   They quickly become sand in the gears of a real inquiry.

no.

people dont believe in unicorns because they actually do not exist. there is a big lack of evidence that unicorns walk the earth today.
if you would have stated that they used to exists and went extinct and all evidence was washed from the earth, i wouldnt be posting this..

i agree with some of your post. just not to the extreme you have taken it.

Quote from: "G-Roll"there is a big lack of evidence that unicorns walk the earth today.

Ok, but, I didn't say unicorns walk the earth today.

QuoteAnd yet, it's pretty easy to make a logic based case that unicorns currently do exist.

You believe in unicorns… admit it.

Quote from: "G-Roll"You believe in unicorns… admit it.

Sorry, you're late.   I've already admitted it a number of times in various threads across the forum.

Quote from: "Typist"

Quote from: "G-Roll"You believe in unicorns… admit it.

Sorry, you're late.   I've already admitted it a number of times in various threads across the forum.

DAMN IT!! i thought i had something here.

not to toot my own horn, but i know a unicorn believer when i see one.

Quote from: "G-Roll"DAMN IT!! i thought i had something here.

Now you have something.  That was funny indeed, laughing out loud here.  

Quotenot to toot my own horn, but i know a unicorn believer when i see one.

You do indeed.   I'm indeed a unicorn believer, but not a unicorn evangelist.

Well...

Maybe just a little bit...  

I feel threatened by your belief.


Ok Lol… this has gone too far…. Its bed time here anyhow.

If one assumes truth does not exist objectively, then one cannot know anything. If one assumes truth exists objectively, then one can begin to use reason to elicit facts about the nature of reality, and build reasonable arguments to describe it.
                                                                                                              Or:
Any use of reason where the axiomatic belief is that truth is subjective inevitably leads to the destruction of the knowledge on which the assumption rests, or nihilism.

All knowledge rests on an assumption of either the subjective nature of truth, or the objective nature of truth. Since both are assumptions, then the only reasonable choice is the one where reason is possible, or the assumption truth is objective.

Since reason demands truth is objective, and objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions, all arguments for Atheism are necessarily subjective, and therefore not true.

Quote from: "objectivitees"objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions

^you have to support this for your argument to be valid

I fail to see how not having a belief in a god means that objective truth cannot exist.

Quote from: "objectivitees"objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions

Explain, then, how objectivity can exist under Christian presuppositions.

Quote from: "i_am_i"

Quote from: "objectivitees"objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions

Explain, then, how objectivity can exist under Christian presuppositions.

QuoteAll knowledge rests on an assumption of either the subjective nature of truth, or the objective nature of truth. Since both are assumptions, then the only reasonable choice is the one where reason is possible, or the assumption truth is objective.

Since reason demands truth is objective, and objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions, all arguments for Atheism are necessarily subjective, and therefore not true.

i agree with i am i. i don’t see how this logic doesn’t work both ways. both "truths."   or in any "truth" case. is a car truly a car?
it is an interesting argument though.... i haven’t heard this spin on truth till now, for the existence of god at least.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "objectivitees"objectivity cannot exist under Atheistic presuppositions

^you have to support this for your argument to be valid

I assumed a general knowledge of the state of affairs in philosophy today, with regards to epistemology was understood by most at this forum, since it is apparently not, I will help you try to understand. If knowledge is "relative" (as Atheism is forced to claim) all knowledge is based on some other knowledge. The way this works out in Atheism, is that because there is no foundational axiom that stands as an objective standard, there can never be any certainty that any knowledge is real, denying one the ability to make a rational argument for truth according to the precepts of Logic. It is only when one assumes a standard exists, that one can make reasonable arguments. For Theists, the "standard" is god. For Atheists, there is no standard, everything rests on the belief something else is true, and that "truth" rests on something else and so on and so on. When knowledge is relative, one can always find a way to show a flaw in the Logic and reason used to argue a point, making the argument invalid, and therefore "untrue". Modernism asserts there must be a standard in existence, therefore is capable of making rational arguments, postmodernism asserts there is no standard, and therefore cannot. Atheism is stuck with the postmodern stance, as it asserts there is no purpose in the universe as one of it's axiomatic presuppositions. No purpose=no standard. no standard = no valid argument for the "truth" of the position.

I don't know if AIP means the same thing as I do when I claim "there is no truth" or not, but basically all I am putting forth by that is: truth is something that does not exist because it cannot be known. In the fullest sense of the word, the mind is not capable of knowing anything. Not absolutely. As animals, we just perceive things, whether objectively or subjectively. All reality is an illusion produced thanks to the senses. So in many scientific and mathematical cases I suspect we have uncovered "the truth", or what reality is. But do we know it? No.

Quote from: "objectivitees"If knowledge is "relative" (as Atheism is forced to claim) all knowledge is based on some other knowledge. The way this works out in Atheism, is that because there is no foundational axiom that stands as an objective standard, there can never be any certainty that any knowledge is real, denying one the ability to make a rational argument for truth according to the precepts of Logic.

How does atheism claim anything other than "I don't believe in any gods"? That's the only thing that defines atheism. I don't see how believing in a magic man in the sky has anything to do with one's views on truth. Does the muslim not believe in truth because he has the wrong imaginary authority on what it is? There are quite a number of atheists who believe in "truth". Look into Ayn Rand's Objectivism. She was an atheist who believed the authority on truth was reality itself, and logic was the only absolute; thus a clear thinking, logical mind would lead you to it.

Quote from: "objectivitees"I assumed a general knowledge of the state of affairs in philosophy today, with regards to epistemology was understood by most at this forum, since it is apparently not, I will help you try to understand. If knowledge is "relative" (as Atheism is forced to claim) all knowledge is based on some other knowledge. The way this works out in Atheism, is that because there is no foundational axiom that stands as an objective standard, there can never be any certainty that any knowledge is real, denying one the ability to make a rational argument for truth according to the precepts of Logic. It is only when one assumes a standard exists, that one can make reasonable arguments. For Theists, the "standard" is god. For Atheists, there is no standard, everything rests on the belief something else is true, and that "truth" rests on something else and so on and so on. When knowledge is relative, one can always find a way to show a flaw in the Logic and reason used to argue a point, making the argument invalid, and therefore "untrue". Modernism asserts there must be a standard in existence, therefore is capable of making rational arguments, postmodernism asserts there is no standard, and therefore cannot. Atheism is stuck with the postmodern stance, as it asserts there is no purpose in the universe as one of it's axiomatic presuppositions. No purpose=no standard. no standard = no valid argument for the "truth" of the position.

So, basically you just said that by making up a god that objective values magically exist?  You don't see a problem with this way of thinking?

If theists can arbitrarily claim god as a standard for understanding objective truth then atheists can choose the scientific method...at least with the scientific method it has been reliable over time and doesn't require humans making guesses as to its results.

btw, try not to word your sentences as if you are having to talk down to me; it's just not a good way to treat your host.

QuoteHow does atheism claim anything other than "I don't believe in any gods"?

Read up a bit on the philosophical presuppositions of Atheism,  (the practical application in real life of not believing in any gods) and you will find that every philosophy has presuppositions. One of Atheism's presuppositions is truth cannot be known absolutely. The colloquial ways to express this idea is that truth does not exist, or truth is relative, or truth is subjective.  They all mean pretty much the same thing when applied to reality. That is, if one assumes truth is subjective, one cannot know that one knows truth is subjective. It's self contradictory.

Quote from: "whitney"So, basically you just said that by making up a god that objective values magically exist?

No, I said that if one assumes truth is subjective, one cannot make objective rational arguments to describe reality, and therefore,  all arguments for the truth of Atheism are false because Atheism presupposes  (assumes) that truth is subjective.

Quote from: "whitney"... at least with the scientific method it has been reliable over time...

Relative to what exactly? Your own subjective beliefs?

btw...if you feel I have talked "down" to you, it's probably because you took it too personal. Try keeping the emphasis on the academic nature of the posts, rather than interpreting them to be disparaging of any shortcomings you may or may not have. I made my original post under the assumption certain basic knowledge of philosophy was present here, and the immediate responses demonstrated I was in error. If in explaining these basics, I somehow offended your knowledge base, then I apologize.

I'm not even going to bother responding to you because you obviously think you know more than everyone else here and therefore there is nothing to discuss.

Quote from: "Whitney"I'm not even going to bother responding to you because you obviously think you know more than everyone else here and therefore there is nothing to discuss.

No, you aren't going to respond because you already know you can't answer the question I gave you (relative to what exactly) in anything other than subjective terms. (Which btw was the reason I phrased it that way, to point out to you rhetorically, what you won't acknowledge directly.)

"Presuppositions of Atheism [sic]" = ignorant assumptions about atheists, mostly on the part of theists.

Quote from: "elliebean""Presuppositions of Atheism [sic]" = ignorant assumptions about atheists, mostly on the part of theists.

You fail to distinguish between Atheism, and Atheists my dear, that's YOUR equivocation.

Quote from: "whitney"I fail to see how not having a belief in a god means that objective truth cannot exist.

let's try this another way...

I never said "not having a belief in a god means that objective truth cannot exist"

I said

You can't make a rational argument that objective truth exists given the assumptions of Atheism that does not end up in self contradiction or nihilism, because Atheism assumes at the outset that objective truth does not exist. I didn't say objective truth does not exist, I said you can't prove it exists according to the precepts of Logic. Every argument you make as an Atheist, will contain LOGICAL self contradictions in and of itself, or you will contradict other aspects of Atheism in your attempts to do so. Was that more clear?  

Quote from: "objectivitees"Atheism assumes at the outset that objective truth does not exist.

Are you replacing god with objective truth?  Because the only thing atheism indicates is a lack of belief in god/s.  I don't think god/s and objective truth are interchangeable concepts so your logic seems faulty here - a tad bit strawman-ish.

How about we try something else...you get an attitude adjustment now or you don't get to post on this forum.

Quote from: "Whitney"How about we try something else...you get an attitude adjustment now or you don't get to post on this forum.

How about you acknowledge I don't have an attitude as evinced by the fact I apologized to you, even when my initial remarks were not directed at you?? Your threat only proves my point. So much for open honest communication with those who differ from you. If you ban me, you only prove you are unwilling to have the discussion.

Come on whitney... at least cite specifically what bothers you so much...was it my apology?

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "Whitney"How about we try something else...you get an attitude adjustment now or you don't get to post on this forum.

How about you acknowledge I don't have an attitude as evinced by the fact I apologized to you, even when my initial remarks were not directed at you?? Your threat only proves my point. So much for open honest communication with those who differ from you. If you ban me, you only prove you are unwilling to have the discussion.

Come on whitney... at least cite specifically what bothers you so much...was it my apology?

You have done nothing but been abrasive since you joined....other Christians and Theists are posting here without a problem because they are being respectful.  It's almost as if you joined with the intent of getting banned.

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "elliebean""Presuppositions of Atheism [sic]" = ignorant assumptions about atheists, mostly on the part of theists.

You fail to distinguish between Atheism, and Atheists my dear, that's YOUR equivocation.

I will say unequivocally that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Quote from: "whitney"You have done nothing but been abrasive since you joined....other Christians and Theists are posting here without a problem because they are being respectful. It's almost as if you joined with the intent of getting banned.

I've done no such thing. I've read back through each post in this thread and find no abrasiveness, instead, I found rhetoric which challenged you to respond, and I can only guess that you have taken it personally. Rhetoric is not attitude, it is method. Again, please cite what you find so offensive prior to your first ban threat. Heck, even after that. I've respectfully asked you twice now, and you have only repeated your bald assertions.

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "elliebean""Presuppositions of Atheism [sic]" = ignorant assumptions about atheists, mostly on the part of theists.

You fail to distinguish between Atheism, and Atheists my dear, that's YOUR equivocation.

I will say unequivocally that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Without pointing to WHY you think what I have written is meaningless, your claim here is only your opinion, and has no relevance. Is it that you think a simple claim I don't know what I am talking about is sufficient to prove your assertion? If we are to have a meaningful conversation, you need to cite experts that deny my central claim, or an argument that logically shows it to be false.

The distinction between Atheism and any given individual Atheist's beliefs, are key to my assertion. My understanding of Atheism is not based on ignorance, despite your implication. Atheism requires naturalism as a foundational worldview. Naturalism requires relative acquisition of knowledge. All knowledge that is relative inevitably reduces to nihilism. Philosophy  has discounted the ability of obtaining absolute knowledge for several centuries now because of this. As such, Atheistic claims to truth must also be relative. Therefore all arguments for Atheism must also be relative, subjective, and uncertain. One cannot claim truth is subjective, except for the "objective" claim "truth is subjective"!  Since Atheism requires naturalistic means of obtaining knowledge and all knowledge is subjective, then all arguments for the "Truth" of Atheism must be subjective, and therefore not empirically true.

What Is the Definition of Atheism?: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... nition.htm (http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm)

atheist and atheism have the same definition and one is only used over the other when it is appropriate for structuring a sentence.  Being an atheist does not require naturalism...for instance, Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

So, when you are you going to support your claim to the contrary?

Quote from: "Whitney"What Is the Definition of Atheism?: http://atheism.about.com/od/definitiono ... nition.htm (http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm)

atheist and atheism have the same definition and one is only used over the other when it is appropriate for structuring a sentence.  Being an atheist does not require naturalism...for instance, Buddhism is an atheistic religion.

So, when you are you going to support your claim to the contrary?

I already did, you missed it. Atheists don't have to be naturalists, i didn't say they did. I said Atheism requires naturalism. it's perfectly possible to be an Atheist who's several beliefs are inconsistent with atheism's presuppositions.

So better yet, let's use your definitions of Atheist.

http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=830

Where you said amoung other things...

Quote from: "whitney"What is an atheist?

An atheist is a person who does not believe in god or gods. Other than disbelief in god, atheists don’t necessarily share anything in common.


What is an agnostic (weak) atheist?

Agnostic atheism is simply another name for the broadest conception of the word atheist. An agnostic atheist does not believe in a god yet does not claim to have knowledge of said god’s non-existence. A weak atheist’s disbelief is largely dependent on a lack of evidence for a god.

What is a gnostic (strong) atheist?

Strong atheism is a position that certain types of gods definitely do not exist. An atheist may be gnostic towards the non-existence of some types of gods yet an agnostic atheist towards other types of gods.

My emphasis.

QuoteThe distinction between Atheism and any given individual Atheist's beliefs, are key to my assertion. My understanding of Atheism is not based on ignorance, despite your implication. Atheism requires naturalism as a foundational worldview. Naturalism requires relative acquisition of knowledge.

Methodological naturalism (or scientific naturalism) which focuses on epistemology: This stance is concerned with knowledge: what are methods for gaining trustworthy knowledge of the natural world? It is an epistemological view that is specifically concerned with practical methods for acquiring knowledge, irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views. It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events.[1] Explanations of observable effects are considered to be practical and useful only when they hypothesize natural causes (i.e., specific mechanisms, not indeterminate miracles). Methodological naturalism is the principle underlying all of modern science. Some philosophers extend this idea, to varying extents, to all of philosophy too. Science and philosophy, according to this view, are said to form a continuum. W.V. Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers have advocated this view.
Metaphysical naturalism, (or ontological naturalism or philosophical naturalism) which focuses on ontology: This stance is concerned with existence: what does exist and what does not exist? Naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is, and all basic truths are truths of nature."[2]

This makes since to me. One doesn’t need to understand evaporation to know that rain is natural. I can see the claim that all atheist would believe that “all there is, is nature.” What else would it be that made natural occurrences like rain?
 

QuoteTherefore all arguments for Atheism must also be relative, subjective, and uncertain. One cannot claim truth is subjective, except for the "objective" claim "truth is subjective"! Since Atheism requires naturalistic means of obtaining knowledge and all knowledge is subjective, then all arguments for the "Truth" of Atheism must be subjective, and therefore not empirically true.  

I like this statement. It points out that at least atheists try and find this “truth.” I dont believe these rules you have apply to theists. Not to make a sweeping generalization of any one with a deist belief but... people have been making up the “truth” and calling it religion for well... as long as religion has been around.
I would like to site “god did it” as evidence for this.

Quote from: "objectivitees"I already did, you missed it. Atheists don't have to be naturalists, i didn't say they did. I said Atheism requires naturalism.

No...I didn't miss it...you never demonstrated that "atheism" is associated with any further definition than that which describes atheist.

Perhaps you missed that my previous post said "atheism"

Quote from: "Whitney"No...I didn't miss it...you never demonstrated that "atheism" is associated with any further definition than that which describes atheist.

Perhaps you missed that my previous post said "atheism"

Trust me, you have missed my point. You have to demonstrate that your use of Atheist and Atheism aren't just your equivocation. Equivocations are fallacies.

Practical application of the belief of you, an Atheist, who does not believe god or gods exist, (according to your definition) requires you to explain the universe in NATURAL terms, if you wish to be consistent. Notwithstanding, if you wish to be inconsistent, you may still claim to be Atheist, and simultaneously claim the universe was created by unicorns. my point is and always has been, which you have missed, is that Atheism presupposes naturalism. because it does, you have no rational argumentation that shows Atheism true. If you think not, I dare you to describe the inception of the universe in non-natural terms. go on, I dare you. I'm betting you will fail to answer this direct challenge the same way you have thus far ignored every other direct question I have asked you. Ready? Here's your direct question... How did the universe get here?

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "Whitney"No...I didn't miss it...you never demonstrated that "atheism" is associated with any further definition than that which describes atheist.

Perhaps you missed that my previous post said "atheism"

Trust me, you have missed my point. You have to demonstrate that your use of Atheist and Atheism aren't just your equivocation. Equivocations are fallacies.

Practical application of the belief of you, an Atheist, who does not believe god or gods exist, (according to your definition) requires you to explain the universe in NATURAL terms, if you wish to be consistent. Notwithstanding, if you wish to be inconsistent, you may still claim to be Atheist, and simultaneously claim the universe was created by unicorns. my point is and always has been, which you have missed, is that Atheism presupposes naturalism. because it does, you have no rational argumentation that shows Atheism true. If you think not, I dare you to describe the inception of the universe in non-natural terms. go on, I dare you. I'm betting you will fail to answer this direct challenge the same way you have thus far ignored every other direct question I have asked you. Ready? Here's your direct question... How did the universe get here?

Nope. There are New Agers and Mystics with Metaphysics quite different from mine, and most every atheists' here. Even some ancient godless religions were supersticious about nature.

Quote from: "G-roll"...irrespective of one's metaphysical or religious views.

Methodological naturalism is not irrespective of one's metaphysical views.  It requires one to believe sensory data is accurately transferred from the environment through the observer's sensory apparatus, to be accurately interpreted by the observer, which is an unprovable metaphysical assumption. You use Methodological naturalism as an Axiom.  Axiomatic beliefs by definition are religious, therefore your statement is false.

Quote from: "sophus"Nope. There are New Agers and Mystics with Metaphysics quite different from mine, and most every atheists' here. Even some ancient godless religions were supersticious about nature.

Nope, like I said, they would be holding INCONSISTENT beliefs.

Quote from: "objectivitees"Atheists don't have to be naturalists, i didn't say they did. I said Atheism requires naturalism. it's perfectly possible to be an Atheist who's several beliefs are inconsistent with atheism's presuppositions.

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "sophus"Nope. There are New Agers and Mystics with Metaphysics quite different from mine, and most every atheists' here. Even some ancient godless religions were supersticious about nature.

Nope, like I said, they would be holding INCONSISTENT beliefs.

Why can only theists believe in hocus pocus? One isn't any less irrational than the other in my opinion.

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "sophus"Nope. There are New Agers and Mystics with Metaphysics quite different from mine, and most every atheists' here. Even some ancient godless religions were supersticious about nature.

Nope, like I said, they would be holding INCONSISTENT beliefs.

Quote from: "objectivitees"Atheists don't have to be naturalists, i didn't say they did. I said Atheism requires naturalism. it's perfectly possible to be an Atheist who's several beliefs are inconsistent with atheism's presuppositions.

LOL how are ancient godless religions, new agers, and mystics any more inconsistent than a christians belief of creation?

Quote from: "objectivitees"Atheists don't have to be naturalists, i didn't say they did. I said Atheism requires naturalism. it's perfectly possible to be an Atheist who's several beliefs are inconsistent with atheism's presuppositions.

[/quote]
as in a christian doesnt have to believe in the story of creation to be a christian?
i dont know if i fully agree that atheism requires naturalism, but i have a hard time imagining atheism without it or science.
i think sophus answer is great, but wouldnt that be basically worshipping nature?

QuoteWhy can only theists believe in hocus pocus? One isn't any less irrational than the other in my opinion.

I never said that, I fail to see then how this applies to my argument.

QuoteLOL how are ancient godless religions, new agers, and mystics any more inconsistent than a christians belief of creation?

My emphasis.

We aren't talking about a Christians belief in creation, we're talking about an Atheists belief in non-creation. Try to stay on topic, especially when utilizing derision.

Quote from: "G-roll"i dont know if i fully agree that atheism requires naturalism, but i have a hard time imagining atheism without it or science.

If you don't "fully agree" then just try to describe the universe without it. that's the challenge I gave to whitney. In fact, ask one of the new age atheists, they won't be able to do it either, despite their claim naturalism is not "required". It is.

Quote from: "objectivitees"How did the universe get here?

No one knows.

Quote from: "objectivitees"

QuoteWhy can only theists believe in hocus pocus? One isn't any less irrational than the other in my opinion.

I never said that, I fail to see then how this applies to my argument.

All I'm saying is it seems hypocritical for someone who believes in a magical being to claim people with beliefs in a magical force are any less "consistent" in their beliefs.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "objectivitees"How did the universe get here?

No one knows.

That is an evasion of my question's intent and you know it. 'Tis true, no one "knows", but everyone still has a belief about it, yours is Naturalistic, and you know it as well as I do, you just want to avoid admitting it, because then you'd have to acknowledge my point is valid.

QuoteAll I'm saying is it seems hypocritical for someone who believes in a magical being to claim people with beliefs in a magical force are any less "consistent" in their beliefs.

Again, I never said anything about magical beings or magical forces. I still don't see how your comments apply.

Quote from: "objectivitees"

QuoteLOL how are ancient godless religions, new agers, and mystics any more inconsistent than a christians belief of creation?

My emphasis.

We aren't talking about a Christians belief in creation, we're talking about an Atheists belief in non-creation. Try to stay on topic, especially when utilizing derision.

hence the LOL you emphasized.

The second part of my post is on topic and even utilized the xian creation that was once off topic to compare to your statement. Thus making it eventually on topic.

QuoteIf you don't "fully agree" then just try to describe the universe without it. that's the challenge I gave to whitney. In fact, ask one of the new age atheists, they won't be able to do it either, despite their claim naturalism is not "required". It is.

My explanation would require naturalism. So I wouldn’t be able to answer your challenge.
My not sure if I 100% agree with you lays in with these “new age atheists” whatever they are and their beliefs. You gave an example (a very weak one) of unicorns creating the earth. I don’t find it hard to believe that someone out there believes in no god yet the world was created in unnatural ways. Perhaps aliens made it… I dunno.

Hell I wouldn’t have thought that someone believed that everyone had an individual personal god until I read the posts of that mark Holland guy.

Quote from: "objectivitees"

QuoteAll I'm saying is it seems hypocritical for someone who believes in a magical being to claim people with beliefs in a magical force are any less "consistent" in their beliefs.

Again, I never said anything about magical beings or magical forces. I still don't see how your comments apply.

You said Atheism requires naturalism.

QuoteThat is an evasion of my question's intent and you know it. 'Tis true, no one "knows", but everyone still has a belief about it, yours is Naturalistic, and you know it as well as I do, you just want to avoid admitting it.

Guess what? I don't! I'm a Nihilist.

Quote from: "G-Roll"I don’t find it hard to believe that someone out there believes in no god yet the world was created in unnatural ways.

This is precisely the point G-roll, the moment they try to describe it in "unnatural" ways, their "ways" could accurately be described as 'god', (ontologically speaking with respect to philosophy) and therefore would be inconsistent with their other claim that Atheism is true. There are only two possibilities, the universe's inception was natural, or it was Supernatural.  If your practical application of metaphysics is that there is no god, then you are stuck with naturalism.

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "objectivitees"How did the universe get here?

No one knows.

That is an evasion of my question's intent and you know it. 'Tis true, no one "knows", but everyone still has a belief about it, yours is Naturalistic, and you know it as well as I do, you just want to avoid admitting it.

Why can't I just not know?  I'm not much for making stuff up.  This is the same response I give every time I am asked that question; you can look it up elsewhere on the forum instead of accusing me of lying. (I am assuming you mean everything when you say universe because otherwise my answer is the big bang which would also be my answer if I were still a Christian because I wasn't raised to be a fundamentalist)


Not to mention that I could still be an atheist and think that something supernatural caused everything to exist; I could even think that the universe itself is supernatural.  Not that I believe in any of that stuff but I could and still be an atheist and still fall under the "atheism" category.  You are simply incorrect in your understanding of the word atheism....sorry.

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "G-Roll"I don’t find it hard to believe that someone out there believes in no god yet the world was created in unnatural ways.

This is precisely the point G-roll, the moment they try to describe it in "unnatural" ways, their "ways" could accurately be described as 'god', (ontologically speaking with respect to philosophy) and therefore would be inconsistent with their other claim that Atheism is true. There are only two possibilities, the universe's inception was natural, or it was Supernatural.  If your practical application of metaphysics is that there is no god, then you are stuck with naturalism.

You are being extremely broad in your definition of god.

QuoteGuess what? I don't! I'm a Nihilist.

Which is exactly what I said early on when i began to point out that Atheism presupposes Naturalism, therefore all arguments are subjective, relative, and necessarily devolve to Nihilism. The Atheist has no choice but to claim subjective nature of truth, as naturalism is all he's left... and subjectivity is nihilistic at it's core, as you should well know, being a nihilist. (Oh wait... if you know you're a nihilist, you already know you can't know anything, except of course, that you can't know anything!)

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "G-Roll"I don’t find it hard to believe that someone out there believes in no god yet the world was created in unnatural ways.

This is precisely the point G-roll, the moment they try to describe it in "unnatural" ways, their "ways" could accurately be described as 'god', (ontologically speaking with respect to philosophy) and therefore would be inconsistent with their other claim that Atheism is true. There are only two possibilities, the universe's inception was natural, or it was Supernatural.  If your practical application of metaphysics is that there is no god, then you are stuck with naturalism.

its strikes me as funny because i have agreed with most of your point through this thread!!
g-roll said -->

Quotei think sophus answer is great, but wouldnt that be basically worshipping nature?

i know that you have a lot of post coming at you and perhaps it is challenging to organize all the info that comes at you at once, but im basically in agreement... and have been since i entered this discussion.

i would still be surprised (as to answer your challenge) that someone believed the earth was made by aliens yet did not worship those aliens. its to broad a subject for me to think NO ONE has this belief.

bah damn quote fail!!!

Quote from: "objectivitees"

QuoteGuess what? I don't! I'm a Nihilist.

Which is exactly what I said early on when i began to point out that Atheism presupposes Naturalism, therefore all arguments are subjective, relative, and necessarily devolve to Nihilism. The Atheist has no choice but to claim subjective nature of truth, as naturalism is all he's left... and subjectivity is nihilistic at it's core, as you should well know, being a nihilist. (Oh wait... if you know you're a nihilist, you already know you can't know anything, except of course, that you can't know anything!)

You're making all the classic misconceptions of Nihilism. It just means we don't know anything with absolute certainty. I prefer to talk of 'reality' than 'truth'. Reality is not subjective. The human mind is simply not capable of knowing anything, therefore I don't have any real beliefs. Yet I live as though I do, de facto (Existentialism).

QuoteWhy can't I just not know?

Because Atheism presupposes a Natural explanation. Now, I'll admit, it's entirely possible to not know that Atheism presupposes naturalism but not that you don't have a belief about how it all happened. I'd even go so far as to admit you don't have certainty about whether your explanation is accurate, which is how you say with a straight face you "don't know".  You do claim to know things. You claim to have a deep understanding of what Atheism is. I doubt seriously you could be a moderator at this forum if you hadn't  studied a bit of philosophy far enough to understand everyone has an explanation of one kind or another. You have one, you are just avoiding it's elucidation, which BTW, is exactly what I predicted you'd do. Thanks for proving my claim.  

QuoteIt just means we don't know anything with absolute certainty. ... The human mind is simply not capable of knowing anything,

These two statements contradict each other. either you know things or you don't. You don't get to have it both ways. If you are nihilist, you can't know that you can't know.

Quote from: "objectivitees"

QuoteWhy can't I just not know?

Because Atheism presupposes a Natural explanation. Now, I'll admit, it's entirely possible to not know that Atheism presupposes naturalism but not that you don't have a belief about how it all happened. I'd even go so far as to admit you don't have certainty about whether your explanation is accurate, which is how you say with a straight face you "don't know".  You do claim to know things. You claim to have a deep understanding of what Atheism is. I doubt seriously you could be a moderator at this forum if you hadn't  studied a bit of philosophy far enough to understand everyone has an explanation of one kind or another. You have one, you are just avoiding it's elucidation, which BTW, is exactly what I predicted you'd do. Thanks for proving my claim.  

 

You aren't even aware enough of your surroundings to realize I'm the admin of this forum and only keep repeating yourself in hopes that someone will give in....I give up.  I've asked the mods what they think should be done with you.

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quote from: "objectivitees"

Quote from: "G-Roll"I don’t find it hard to believe that someone out there believes in no god yet the world was created in unnatural ways.

This is precisely the point G-roll, the moment they try to describe it in "unnatural" ways, their "ways" could accurately be described as 'god', (ontologically speaking with respect to philosophy) and therefore would be inconsistent with their other claim that Atheism is true. There are only two possibilities, the universe's inception was natural, or it was Supernatural.  If your practical application of metaphysics is that there is no god, then you are stuck with naturalism.

its strikes me as funny because i have agreed with most of your point through this thread!!
g-roll said -->

Quotei think sophus answer is great, but wouldnt that be basically worshipping nature?

i know that you have a lot of post coming at you and perhaps it is challenging to organize all the info that comes at you at once, but im basically in agreement... and have been since i entered this discussion.

i would still be surprised (as to answer your challenge) that someone believed the earth was made by aliens yet did not worship those aliens. its to broad a subject for me to think NO ONE has this belief.




bah damn quote fail!!!

Wow, you agree with most of my points? Perhaps you could be a bit more overt with your "agreement", or perhaps make corollary arguments in response to the others to help me out?

Quote from: "objectivitees"

QuoteIt just means we don't know anything with absolute certainty. ... The human mind is simply not capable of knowing anything,

These two statements contradict each other. either you know things or you don't. You don't get to have it both ways. If you are nihilist, you can't know that you can't know.

Exactly. It means I think that human interpretation is fallible, nor can the mind truly know anything with the upmost certainty. Do I believe I know that with the upmost certainty? Of course not.

QuoteYou aren't even aware enough of your surroundings to realize I'm the admin of this forum and only keep repeating yourself in hopes that someone will give in....I give up. I've asked the mods what they think should be done with you.

Wow. You really think your previous threats to ban me didn't make me aware of your Admin status? Please note not everyone here disagrees with all of my claims. I'm not repeating myself because I want to, I'm repeating myself because you don't get what I'm saying. You keep equivocating Atheism with Atheist. That's not my fault. I also noticed you were an admin here because your forum uses the same software as my forum, where I'm Admin. have a nice day, but please, do my the solid of actually quoting my offensive text before you ban me.

Quote from: "objectivitees"Wow, you agree with most of my points? Perhaps you could be a bit more overt with your "agreement", or perhaps make corollary arguments in response to the others to help me out?

okay....for that I'm going to put you on a 24 hour ban....it's bad enough that you treat everyone else poorly let alone the person who was trying to be nice to you.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "objectivitees"Wow, you agree with most of my points? Perhaps you could be a bit more overt with your "agreement", or perhaps make corollary arguments in response to the others to help me out?

okay....for that I'm going to put you on a 24 hour ban....it's bad enough that you treat everyone else poorly let alone the person who was trying to be nice to you.

Awww... and I was looking forward to his reponse on this one (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&p=62465#p62465).    Nah, good call though Whitney. Give him time to cool down and maybe he will.

QuoteWow, you agree with most of my points? Perhaps you could be a bit more overt with your "agreement", or perhaps make corollary arguments in response to the others to help me out?

LOL fair enough...
i cant argue the nihilist thing. the understanding of nihilism and what makes one a nihilists escapes me.

All I can offer in the defense of your position of atheism requiring naturalism, or be rooted in naturalism is that I know of no atheist belief that doesn’t include naturalism or some form of natural science. I know of no atheist that describes the occurrence of natural events in unnatural/supernatural ways.
In my opinion godless religions replace a deity with nature, so nature then becomes a deity.
To my understanding atheists can and often do believe in other supernatural… things. Like ghosts. But there is some other form of naturalism or of science or what have you right bedside it.

I still say there is most likely a person who fits the criteria of your challenge. But I don’t really know of anyone who actually believes the needed.. beliefs.
Its getting late.

So, for those that agreed with him....care to explain his argument in a rational calm manner so he can see what is appropriate when he returns?

I still fail to see how atheism automatically requires naturalism because there are atheistic religions.  Obj neglected to provide a definition of atheism that is valid that included anything more than not having a belief in a god.  He simply just kept saying the same thing over and over again and railroading people.

I've already made my points, and you couldn't even have the decency to cite the offense. I predicted perfectly that you would never answer my direct questions and you didn't. What I said to G-roll was said in complete sincerity.  I didn't notice he was being "nice" to me, but asking him to make corollary arguments to help is considered being offensive here? You've gotta be kidding. interesting to note though, by pointing out he was the "one person trying to be nice to me", you tacitly admit you were not being nice to me. you'll also note, that the person whom you did cite, didn't take offense, and interpreted my post to him in the humorous vein it was intended. G=roll, have a great time here, they will ban this user name soon enough.

I categorically deny anything I said was done with hostile intent, it's just you being touchy and misinterpreting my style. I guess now you'll ban me permanently. that's ok, I'd rather talk with intellectually honest Atheists over at doubtcast anyway.

Quote from: "G-Roll"To my understanding atheists can and often do believe in other supernatural… things. Like ghosts. But there is some other form of naturalism or of science or what have you right bedside it.

It's not a deity they're worshipping because it's not a being. There's actually an entire religion based off of the Star Wars force (it's larger than Scientology) that believes only in, well... a force. There's quite a number of "spiritualities" like this (perhaps spiritual is the better word over "religion").

Quotei cant argue the nihilist thing. the understanding of nihilism and what makes one a nihilists escapes me.

I know (not really ). I was really confused by it the first time I learned of it too. In short, I think humans cannot know (in the fullest sense of know - with 100% certainty) what is true. We can have our logical reasoning but our brains simply don't know. That's all. Simpler than it's made out to be.

Quote from: "strangeone"I didn't notice he was being "nice" to me...

Because you're too cynical. Lighten up!  

He's now on a 7 day ban for creating a sockpuppet.

Quote from: "Whitney"So, for those that agreed with him....care to explain his argument in a rational calm manner so he can see what is appropriate when he returns?

I still fail to see how atheism automatically requires naturalism because there are atheistic religions.  Obj neglected to provide a definition of atheism that is valid that included anything more than not having a belief in a god.  He simply just kept saying the same thing over and over again and railroading people.

I don’t know if I can state his point any better than he did but fuck it here we go..

As an atheists one has no belief in a deity or supernatural being. So god doesn’t make it snow. There is a scientific reason/explanation for this and just about every natural event on earth.
Perhaps his creation of the universe argument was a bad example. Keeping it smaller to natural explanations of say lightning, would be natural explanations.
Granted I think at least 98% of atheists have their belief rooted in naturalism. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there was at least one person who fitted the needed criteria. But I think I have posted that at least 3 times now.

I don’t understand the atheist side of the argument (ha that was fun to type). How can one not believe in any creator, but still not believe that any natural occurrence on earth isn’t naturally explainable.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "G-Roll"To my understanding atheists can and often do believe in other supernatural… things. Like ghosts. But there is some other form of naturalism or of science or what have you right bedside it.

It's not a deity they're worshipping because it's not a being. There's actually an entire religion based off of the Star Wars force (it's larger than Scientology) that believes only in, well... a force. There's quite a number of "spiritualities" like this (perhaps spiritual is the better word over "religion").

Quotei cant argue the nihilist thing. the understanding of nihilism and what makes one a nihilists escapes me.

I know (not really ). I was really confused by it the first time I learned of it too. In short, I think humans cannot know (in the fullest sense of know - with 100% certainty) what is true. We can have our logical reasoning but our brains simply don't know. That's all. Simpler than it's made out to be.

QuoteThere's actually an entire religion based off of the Star Wars force (it's larger than Scientology) that believes only in, well... a force

sometimes i go out of my way not to call others beliefs bullshit.. but that is utter bullshit. These are grown adults?
Does this force replace natural science though? Surely these force believers don’t belive the foprce created the earth all on its own. To my knowledge one has to wield the force. Grant it that person might not be considered a god but im really just making things up now.
would they believe in evolution? with or without the force that is natural science.

Quote from: "G-Roll"How can one not believe in any creator, but still not believe that any natural occurrence on earth isn’t naturally explainable.

Not everything that would qualify as supernatural would be right to call god as not everything supernatural is necessarily a being..such as the above mentioned Star Wars Force example.  (there are less obviously bullshit ones such as Collective Unconscious and animism)

So, one could be an atheist and think the Force explains 'natural' occurrences and not be a naturalist.  So, it wouldn't be right to tie up naturalism into the atheist viewpoint since that definition doesn't fit across the board.

He was too busy being upset to realize that I was making a point rather than me trying to argue that I'm personally not a naturalist.  Yet if we are talking about lightning and other things like that then most theists are naturalists too.  I know I didn't believe god made every single snowflake when I was a believer; I thought he created the universe and that from there everything happened naturally and miracles were when god intervened supernaturally.

I also think he was wrong to think that naturalism means you can't know anything but supernaturalist views mean you can know things....a god existing doesn't automatically change our ability to acquire knowledge.  For instance, if it is a deist god we'd have just as poor a chance of getting answers out of it as we would a rock.

Quote from: "G-Roll"As an atheists one has no belief in a deity or supernatural being. So god doesn’t make it snow. There is a scientific reason/explanation for this and just about every natural event on earth.
Perhaps his creation of the universe argument was a bad example. Keeping it smaller to natural explanations of say lightning, would be natural explanations.
Granted I think at least 98% of atheists have their belief rooted in naturalism. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there was at least one person who fitted the needed criteria. But I think I have posted that at least 3 times now.

I don’t understand the atheist side of the argument (ha that was fun to type). How can one not believe in any creator, but still not believe that any natural occurrence on earth isn’t naturally explainable.

Even most Christians believe in the scientific reasons behind why it rains or snows, but may believe God is still behind it sometimes (ex. we're all in a drought and need rain. It does. Hallelujah, it's a miracle!). Even a lot of the Catholics believe in evolution. This is why I thought it was hypocritical for him to call mystics any less consistent in their beliefs.

Oh and I don't really know much about the Force religion but you may be able to find more info here: http://www.jedichurch.org/

QuoteNot everything that would qualify as supernatural would be right to call god as not everything supernatural is necessarily a being..such as the above mentioned Star Wars Force example.

Agreed. Perhaps chi would be a good example?

QuoteSo, one could be an atheist and think the Force explains 'natural' occurrences and not be a naturalist. So, it wouldn't be right to tie up naturalism into the atheist viewpoint since that definition doesn't fit across the board.

LOL never in my life would i have thought the knowledge of the force or Collective Unconscious and animism would be useful. So forgive me if i type something ignorant because i know nothing of these things. But unless the force would have used itself to create everything, and every natural occurrence then i don’t think that would apply.
I know i posted it once but it went unanswered an i think sophus left already... but do the forcers believe in evolution?

QuoteHe was too busy being upset to realize that I was making a point rather than me trying to argue that I'm personally not a naturalist. Yet if we are talking about lightning and other things like that then most theists are naturalists too. I know I didn't believe god made every single snowflake when I was a believer; I thought he created the universe and that from there everything happened naturally and miracles were when god intervened supernaturally.

To that degree yes, everyone is a naturalist. Wouldn’t that make EVERYONE a naturalist though? Or am i just taking it to far?

QuoteI also think he was wrong to think that naturalism means you can't know anything but supernaturalist views mean you can know things....a god existing doesn't automatically change our ability to acquire knowledge. For instance, if it is a deist god we'd have just as poor a chance of getting answers out of it as we would a rock.

I think it was at that point he went into nihilism and... i dunno i was lost at that point. I only agreed with the naturalist being the root of atheism.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "G-Roll"As an atheists one has no belief in a deity or supernatural being. So god doesn’t make it snow. There is a scientific reason/explanation for this and just about every natural event on earth.
Perhaps his creation of the universe argument was a bad example. Keeping it smaller to natural explanations of say lightning, would be natural explanations.
Granted I think at least 98% of atheists have their belief rooted in naturalism. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there was at least one person who fitted the needed criteria. But I think I have posted that at least 3 times now.

I don’t understand the atheist side of the argument (ha that was fun to type). How can one not believe in any creator, but still not believe that any natural occurrence on earth isn’t naturally explainable.

Even most Christians believe in the scientific reasons behind why it rains or snows, but may believe God is still behind it sometimes (ex. we're all in a drought and need rain. It does. Hallelujah, it's a miracle!). Even a lot of the Catholics believe in evolution. This is why I thought it was hypocritical for him to call mystics any less consistent in their beliefs.

Oh and I don't really know much about the Force religion but you may be able to find more info here: http://www.jedichurch.org/

thank you for the link but honestly i doubt ill click it. i kinda like being ignorant. its gotten me this far  
yes a drought but rather than a god giving the rain its a natural explanation rather than a miracle.
and the catholics believing in evolution is them believing in the same natural science as we do?

Quote from: "G-Roll"thank you for the link but honestly i doubt ill click it. i kinda like being ignorant. its gotten me this far  
yes a drought but rather than a god giving the rain its a natural explanation rather than a miracle.
and the catholics believing in evolution is them believing in the same natural science as we do?

Right. A lot of theistic evolutionists fill the gaps with Abiogenesis, or the origins of life. Since our natural explanations haven't arrived at a verdict there, they fill the gap with God. Others may say God establish evolution or is the driving force behind it. Not much different from what one of my in-laws believes except he's not religious and doesn't believe in any gods. He's just "spiritual". But a smart fellow too.

Are you familiar with "The Secret"?

For the record the jedi church was started as a joke...while there might be some die hard Star Wars fans out there who have deluded themselves into believing it is true it is likely still a game for most of the followers.  I guess the force would actually be supernaturalism coming from naturalism since they believe the miticlorians (probably spelled wrong)  are in everyone and are the source of the force.

The collective unconscious is based in Jungian philosophy.  I'm not even that familiar with it anymore; I use to be able to explain the basics in a manner that didn't butcher it....it's actually kinda like the force idea minus it being automatically ridiculous for having been created for a fairy tale story.

Animism is a very primitive religious view that sees the spiritual world as being within nature...like native american religions but with no afterlife belief; you return to the earth to become one with the cycle of life.  I only know about this because I read the Ishmael series and then later did a bit more research since I wasn't sure how much of the series was based on fact and how much was purely to facilitate the storyline (the books are philosophical stories written in the Socratic method).

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "G-Roll"thank you for the link but honestly i doubt ill click it. i kinda like being ignorant. its gotten me this far  
yes a drought but rather than a god giving the rain its a natural explanation rather than a miracle.
and the catholics believing in evolution is them believing in the same natural science as we do?

Right. A lot of theistic evolutionists fill the gaps with Abiogenesis, or the origins of life. Since our natural explanations haven't arrived at a verdict there, they fill the gap with God. Others may say God establish evolution or is the driving force behind it. Not much different from what one of my in-laws believes except he's not religious and doesn't believe in any gods. He's just "spiritual". But a smart fellow too.

Are you familiar with "The Secret"?

The secret the book? Ive seen it but never read it.
And ive know of spiritual people that are not religious, so im following you.

QuoteA lot of theistic evolutionists fill the gaps with Abiogenesis, or the origins of life. Since our natural explanations haven't arrived at a verdict there, they fill the gap with God. Others may say God establish evolution or is the driving force behind it.

Many of my Christian friends make this claim.

Quote from: "G-Roll"The secret the book? Ive seen it but never read it.
And ive know of spiritual people that are not religious, so im following you.

Okay, so they both think there are supernatural activities behind the natural ones, and that somtimes the supernatural answers their prayers on works with them on a personal basis (like the Secret). This is why I don't see one being any more rational/irrational than the other. I think they're both silly. But I didn't see his point as to why the magic believing atheist was any more silly than the magic believing believer. Am I making sense?

QuoteFor the record the jedi church was started as a joke...

haha i knew it smelled of bs!!

QuoteAnimism is a very primitive religious view that sees the spiritual world as being within nature...like native american religions but with no afterlife belief; you return to the earth to become one with the cycle of life. I only know about this because I read the Ishmael series and then later did a bit more research since I wasn't sure how much of the series was based on fact and how much was purely to facilitate the storyline (the books are philosophical stories written in the Socratic method).

QuoteThat actually sounds really interesting and i might even look into this animismismismism....
I think that perhaps that might be the atheists that don’t believe in naturalism, but can it really be applied in todays world? And would it fit in todays society?

QuoteFor the record the jedi church was started as a joke...

Oh good! My fath in humanity is (somewhat) restored. It hasn't turned into anything serious though has it? I recall hearing about at least one loon who was serious about some place respecting his religion.

Quote from: "G-Roll"I think that perhaps that might be the atheists that don’t believe in naturalism, but can it really be applied in todays world? And would it fit in todays society?

It would definitely apply to the millions of Buddhists who believe in karma yet (rightly) don't consider Buddah to be god.

If obj at said that most self described atheists are naturalists; I wouldn't have argued that much with him over definitions.  The problem is in making blanket statements that aren't true across the board.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "G-Roll"The secret the book? Ive seen it but never read it.
And ive know of spiritual people that are not religious, so im following you.

Okay, so they both think there are supernatural activities behind the natural ones, and that somtimes the supernatural answers their prayers on works with them on a personal basis (like the Secret). This is why I don't see one being any more rational/irrational than the other. I think they're both silly. But I didn't see his point as to why the magic believing atheist was any more silly than the magic believing believer. Am I making sense?

you make total since.
but do these magic atheists regect science or natural science all together?
i dont want to take this discussion in circles, but i believe everyone believes in natural science. weather it be how our bodies work ei-its our lungs that breath in air.

but prehaps that wasnt the orginal argument... so are you saying the root of this magic atheist belief is magic rather than natural science? although he/she would still belive or... (i cant think of the word its late) natural science.

to clarify a bit....obj meant someone who thinks everything that exists has a natural explanation when he said naturalist.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "G-Roll"I think that perhaps that might be the atheists that don’t believe in naturalism, but can it really be applied in todays world? And would it fit in todays society?

It would definitely apply to the millions of Buddhists who believe in karma yet (rightly) don't consider Buddah to be god.

If obj at said that most self described atheists are naturalists; I wouldn't have argued that much with him over definitions.  The problem is in making blanket statements that aren't true across the board.

QuoteIt would definitely apply to the millions of Buddhists who believe in karma yet (rightly) don't consider Buddah to be god.

If obj at said that most self described atheists are naturalists; I wouldn't have argued that much with him over definitions. The problem is in making blanket statements that aren't true across the board.

I agree that most would be a much better word than all.  
I think im all out of ideas for this discussion... or sleep is calling me, one or the other. It was kinda fun to discus against atheists for once though. Haha you pesky atheists!!

Quote from: "Whitney"to clarify a bit....obj meant someone who thinks everything that exists has a natural explanation when he said naturalist.

well i no longer care about what he was saying. he was mean to me after all  
no but in all seriousness i think there most likely is at least one atheist that fits the bill. and i know the original argument wasnt everyone in some way believes in natural science. thats my own... ninja reasoning....

Quote from: "G-Roll"

Quote from: "Whitney"to clarify a bit....obj meant someone who thinks everything that exists has a natural explanation when he said naturalist.

well i no longer care about what he was saying. he was mean to me after all  ;)  (to jump back to my original point).

QuoteI think, in today's world, you are right (with maybe the exception of a few tribes?). As Whitney had said, a Naturalist would be someone who thinks everything has a natural cause. Both these sort of atheists and theists would not qualify as such because they both mix the two together. They're equally inconsistent  (to jump back to my original point).

To carry on the discussion with a fresh cup of coffee...
I believe the original argument stated an atheist need not be a naturalist, but rather natural science would be the root of atheism. As an atheist can believe whatever he or she chooses, but atheism requires the dismissal of god or gods. So in his argument a lack of supernatural or divine creation leaves only natural forces. I believe he separated the two (an atheist and atheism) and that made since to me.
I think Whitney said it best, most is a better word than all.  Yet i still cant find an atheistic religion that dismisses natural science. Animism is the closest so far and so far fits the bill. Ill have to do some more reading up on it though... if i feel like it  

I don't even think natural science sparked atheism; it just gave us better footing by taking away a few more questions about how life on earth came to be what it is today.  There were atheists before we understood evolution.

I still don't see how it makes since to separate atheist and atheism as calling it an ism doesn't add any more requirements to the label.

The reason he was trying to shoehorn atheist/atheism into having to accept naturalism is that his ultimate goal was to prove that atheists must be nihilists and admit that truth cannot be known.  Then he was attempting to use this point to offer the counter position that the only way truth can be known is if there is a god; which is pretty sloppy reasoning for reasons pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

QuoteI don't even think natural science sparked atheism; it just gave us better footing by taking away a few more questions about how life on earth came to be what it is today. There were atheists before we understood evolution.

good point.

The reason he was trying to shoehorn atheist/atheism into having to accept naturalism is that his ultimate goal was to prove that atheists must be nihilists and admit that truth cannot be known. Then he was attempting to use this point to offer the counter position that the only way truth can be known is if there is a god; which is pretty sloppy reasoning for reasons pointed out elsewhere in this thread.Lol but for a believer according to this train of thought... wait... how does this make us nihilists even if we would agree to the whole naturalism argument? and how would that be any different towards his christian stance?

It wouldn't matter; all he would do is insist that we don't understand it because we're not using the correct definitions of terms, which he alone is free to make up as needed to better serve his argument. Because, you know, he's so well versed in philosophy and we're not.  

Quote from: "G-Roll"how does this make us nihilists even if we would agree to the whole naturalism argument?

Well, it doesn't...but his position is that truth cannot be known without an objective source (the reasonable part) and then he jumped to the conclusion that the objective source must be God (the unreasonable part).

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "G-Roll"how does this make us nihilists even if we would agree to the whole naturalism argument?

Well, it doesn't...but his position is that truth cannot be known without an objective source (the reasonable part) and then he jumped to the conclusion that the objective source must be God (the unreasonable part).

riiiiiiiight. and who would come to that conclusion??  
he had me with the naturalist.... then he goes and pulls some crap like that.
did he state the objective source is god? in all fairness to him i dont recall him stating it was, and i dont like putting words in peoples mouths.

Quote from: "G-Roll"did he state the objective source is god? in all fairness to him i dont recall him stating it was, and i dont like putting words in peoples mouths.

I don't know if he stated it directly but when you say that you have to be a theist to have an objective source....

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "G-Roll"did he state the objective source is god? in all fairness to him i dont recall him stating it was, and i dont like putting words in peoples mouths.

I don't know if he stated it directly but when you say that you have to be a theist to have an objective source....

Exactly, his argument had no where else to go, yet he wanted to pretend to have us cornered.

Quote from: "G-Roll"did he state the objective source is god? in all fairness to him i dont recall him stating it was, and i dont like putting words in peoples mouths.

Quote from: "objectivitees, on page 3 of this thread"...because [according to the supposed 'atheist position,' as defined by objectivitees] there is no foundational axiom that stands as an objective standard, there can never be any certainty that any knowledge is real, denying one the ability to make a rational argument for truth according to the precepts of Logic. It is only when one assumes a standard exists, that one can make reasonable arguments. For Theists, the "standard" is god. [<~~This]

I find it amusing that objectivitees would like to equate atheism with solipsism.  If that line of thinking is valid, then theists are in the same boat.  As has been pointed out, objectivitees' assumption of an objective standard, in the form of a deity, is just as much of an unprovable axiom as the existence of reality itself.  Understanding the reason why asserting that a deity exists gives the theist a pass where the atheist gets none is beyond my powers of sophistry.

I regret not keeping up with this thread, it's been a very worthwhile one I think, and I actually enjoyed objectivitees' posts, despite the the subtle (and not so subtle) snarkiness and condescending tone.  Then again, they weren't directed at me, and no doubt I would feel differently were that the case.  

I guess I should go back to the last place in which I was active in this thread, where Dagda requested a definition of "fact" and "truth" from me.  This has been covered already.  Still, it can't hurt to reinforce the idea that "fact" pertains to reality as near to independent of the observer as is humanly possible.  Facts are verifiable by a variety of means. "Truth," on the other hand, is dependent upon the observer, in my opinion.  It's a judgment made by the observer, and it's existence, again, is dependent upon the observer.  Some truths can be verified by resort to observable facts, while others cannot, and I suppose one might try to build a hierarchy of truths, but I'm not sure how valuable that would be.  Now, if one wishes, it's easy to point out that no human can ever truly apprehend reality; we all are merely brains in a little box of bone, receiving data through our senses and reasoning on the basis of those data.  "Reality" and "facts" seem to exist independently of human observers, but it's remotely possible that is all an illusion. In fact there are whole philosophies and religions based on the concept that "all is illusion."  I was not aware that the atheist position required adoption of the "all is illusion" view, and I think that "proving" via logic that it does is a futile gesture.  Most people are aware that logic can be used to "prove" many things.  Whether those things have any relation to reality though, is dependent upon the position one adopts at the start of the path of logic.  G.I.G.O.  Then again, I freely admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed.  If and when objectivitees returns, I have no doubt that I will be shown the error of my ways.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Groll"how does this make us nihilists even if we would agree to the whole naturalism argument?

Well, it doesn't...but his position is that truth cannot be known without an objective source (the reasonable part) and then he jumped to the conclusion that the objective source must be God (the unreasonable part).

Not only does it not require that all atheists fit his misconception of Nihilists but it would in no way require atheists be actual Nihilists. Ayn Rand's absolute in Objectivism was reason, which is a lot more reasonable than a Being that decides upon what truth is by saying so, and whom you could have no way of knowing His existence or His thoughts. :hmm:  
"Nihilist und Christ - das reimt sich, aber das reimt sich nicht bloß." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche

Quote from: "blik"As an Atheist there has been a nagging confusion in my mind regarding objectivity and how it is used in arguments either for or against God.  Let me preface by saying that in college I studied some continental philosophy and was particularly influenced by Gadamer, Merleau-Ponty, and Heidegger.  A common theme among these philosophers is that truth always begins with a human subject.  Out of the "lived world" we grapple for truth and form our basis for knowledge rather than receive knowledge from outside us through either empirical knowledge or logical proofs.  I could go into way more detail but the point is that I'm inclined to agree with these thinkers and I guess ultimately I hold the belief that Truth/Objectivity whatever you want to call it is always in some ways subjective.  

Lately I've been watching a lot of debates between theists and atheists (particularly the so called "New Atheists") and obviously the point of these debates is to argue that one position is better than the other.  The assumption being "my truth is better than your truth".  The confusion for me is that philosophically I have a hard time reconciling my belief that truth is subjective while simultaneously agreeing that one side of the argument is better.  Does anyone besides me have a problem when these debates focus almost exclusively on the objective nature of the arguments and almost never on the subjectivity of human knowledge?   Maybe someone could help clear this confusion for me.  Thanks.

I think that the confusion about what is objective and what is subjective is a direct consequence of how humans acquire knowledge. Let me demonstrate this with an example. Let’s say there is a colour blind person living by him/her self in an island. Has not come in contact with anyone else.  In these persons world there are no colours. Thus He/She does not recognize colour as an objective property of any object.  Now why is this so for this person. It’s because this persons consciousness is incapable of creating models of the real world objects that also assign a colour to it. So what needs to be recognized is that the engine of Truth, Fact, knowledge etc  is consciousness.  So in my thinking I  see it all as follows.
Acquisition of knowledge by humanity is dependent on the consciousness of the individual. When a person makes an observation and comes to an understanding, this understanding is this person's subjective knowledge. If another person, on making a similar observation, arrives at a similar subjective understanding, this knowledge they share can be taken to be part of humanity's objective knowledge. Thus, all of humanity's objective knowledge is a subset of all of humanity's subjective knowledge; that is, there can be no objective knowledge that has not been some person's (dead or alive) subjective knowledge. Thus, an intrinsic assumption behind all of humanity's objective knowledge is the similarity of the axioms of consciousness of the individuals.