junglecat Posted June 20, 2016 Author Share Posted June 20, 2016 Its the dictionary definition. Definitions are subjective, in that they are agreed upon, so no, I cant point to facts to prove it . I can point you to a dictionary for the generally agreed upon definition. Well, that's not the definition in my dictionary. The link you sent was not a dictionary nor did it conform to any dictionary definition I know of. In any case, it's a self contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 20, 2016 Author Share Posted June 20, 2016 Its the dictionary definition. Definitions are subjective, in that they are agreed upon, so no, I cant point to facts to prove it . I can point you to a dictionary for the generally agreed upon definition. Since when do dictionaries have comment sections underneath a blog post? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecurrentyear Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Well, that's not the definition in my dictionary. The link you sent was not a dictionary nor did it conform to any dictionary definition I know of. In any case, it's a self contradictory. What's the definition in your dictionary? It was your assertion, and yet others are providing definitions for you. How about you make your own case? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 21, 2016 Share Posted June 21, 2016 Well, that's not the definition in my dictionary. The link you sent was not a dictionary nor did it conform to any dictionary definition I know of. In any case, it's a self contradictory. ok, the link I sent wasnt a dictionary, but the definitions are definitely dictionary definitions. You have never heard of subjective and objective used this way, but you have heard of it as meaning sharing the same objectives? Where, What dictionary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 21, 2016 Author Share Posted June 21, 2016 What's the definition in your dictionary? It was your assertion, and yet others are providing definitions for you. How about you make your own case? OED 1(Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Merriam Webster based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world dictionary.com something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: cambridge objectively: in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fairly: Stefan's personal beliefs are atheistic, but his views, particularly on the subject of violence, are definitively Christian. Subjectively he does not recognize the divinity of Christ but objectively he holds the divinity of Christ over and above the deity of the ancient world, the god that rules through violence. Where he needs to develop his thinking is in the area of self-defensive "rights". For example, I know what "rights" meant to the writers of the Constitution, that they are granted by God and the laws or the government do not grant them. The laws only limit what the government can do. What I don't know is the definition of "rights" from an atheistic perspective. Maybe he has verbalized this somewhere but I haven't come across it. Can anyone in the forum help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Related: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 OED 1(Of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts: Merriam Webster based on facts rather than feelings or opinions : not influenced by feelings philosophy : existing outside of the mind : existing in the real world Right, thats what my definitions said dictionary.com something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: Ok, but this is the definition of objective as a noun, not as an adverb. saying objectively christian does NOT mean that you are intending to accomplish a purpose or goal. I feel that this is very dishonest of you, although it may be a genuine mistake on your part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share Posted June 22, 2016 Right, thats what my definitions said Ok, but this is the definition of objective as a noun, not as an adverb. saying objectively christian does NOT mean that you are intending to accomplish a purpose or goal. I feel that this is very dishonest of you, although it may be a genuine mistake on your part Neeeel, were you being dishonest when you said your definition was from the dictionary or is that only my feeling? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 Neeeel, were you being dishonest when you said your definition was from the dictionary or is that only my feeling? the definition I got, from googling "objective and subjective" while not directly from a dictionary website is the same as the dictionary definition so no, I wasnt being dishonest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 the definition I got, from googling "objective and subjective" while not directly from a dictionary website is the same as the dictionary definition so no, I wasnt being dishonest. Since this "agreeing on definitions" problem has persisted from the beginning, I'm going to have to pull the trump card here: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share Posted June 22, 2016 Its the dictionary definition. Definitions are subjective, in that they are agreed upon, so no, I cant point to facts to prove it . I can point you to a dictionary for the generally agreed upon definition. You told me it was the dictionary definition. Then later you said, "ok, the link I sent wasnt a dictionary" You're so quick to judge my motives but so slow to admit your own blatant mistakes. That's not very objective of you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share Posted June 22, 2016 Related: Is this intended as a response to my question about the foundation of atheistic rights? I doesn't seem to help but maybe I am missing something. Can you elaborate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 22, 2016 Share Posted June 22, 2016 You told me it was the dictionary definition. Then later you said, "ok, the link I sent wasnt a dictionary" You're so quick to judge my motives but so slow to admit your own blatant mistakes. That's not very objective of you. how was it a mistake if its the same definition as a dictionary definition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 22, 2016 Author Share Posted June 22, 2016 how was it a mistake if its the same definition as a dictionary definition? What you quoted was not a definition because it goes too far. By including the prerequisite that it is verified by facts or mathematical calculation it paints itself into a corner. The opinion of the author can not be verified by facts or mathematical calculations. Compare this to the Cambridge definition: in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fairly: This is precisely what I mean by Stefan being objectively Christian. His end goals, his practice in life, is in line with Christianity and yet his personal beliefs or feelings are not involved. He does not think of himself as a Christian, he does not feel or believe himself to be a Christian. You assert this is not true and I am being dishonest at worst or mistaken at best. I am neither. You, on the other hand, are definitively wrong about what you call a definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donnadogsoth Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 What you quoted was not a definition because it goes too far. By including the prerequisite that it is verified by facts or mathematical calculation it paints itself into a corner. The opinion of the author can not be verified by facts or mathematical calculations. Compare this to the Cambridge definition: in a way that is not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings; fairly: This is precisely what I mean by Stefan being objectively Christian. His end goals, his practice in life, is in line with Christianity and yet his personal beliefs or feelings are not involved. He does not think of himself as a Christian, he does not feel or believe himself to be a Christian. You assert this is not true and I am being dishonest at worst or mistaken at best. I am neither. You, on the other hand, are definitively wrong about what you call a definition. Boldfaced isn't true. Stefan very much appears to personally believe in his goals, and his agapic emotion (Christly love) is involved in what he does. He is starting even to refer to culture (and perhaps Christianity) as the "noble lie" that is needed to bridge the chasm of nihilism and reach Philosophy. So he's closer to Christ than you might think, closer to being self-aware of being an "objective" Christian than you might think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 23, 2016 Author Share Posted June 23, 2016 Since this "agreeing on definitions" problem has persisted from the beginning, I'm going to have to pull the trump card here: If you think what I have said is unreasonable, why not explain how? I'm still left seriously wondering about what you said because you haven't answered my questions: "I've said repeatedly on this forum and in other venues that judicious use of violence to quell violence can work, and that the circumstance that justifies the use of lethal force is the immediate, otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to oneself or the innocent, and that the circumstance that justifies the *threat* of lethal force is to quell felonious conduct." 1) were these your own thoughts that you wrote down? 2) does *threat* mean only a threat and no chance of violence? (an empty threat) 3) when you wrote, "We have no mechanism to directly sense or measure another's sense of justification for an activity" does that include your own thoughts on the justification for violent threats or actions? 4) when you wrote, "It doesn't matter if the other person thinks they are justified." does this mean that only your thoughts matter? I can only assume your silence is an admission that what you said makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 23, 2016 Author Share Posted June 23, 2016 Boldfaced isn't true. Stefan very much appears to personally believe in his goals, and his agapic emotion (Christly love) is involved in what he does. He is starting even to refer to culture (and perhaps Christianity) as the "noble lie" that is needed to bridge the chasm of nihilism and reach Philosophy. So he's closer to Christ than you might think, closer to being self-aware of being an "objective" Christian than you might think. Maybe. I don't think the difference is all that significant really. The fact is his ideology is almost universal at this point in history. This is evidence of the Holy Spirit working in the world today. Of course, those pesky weeds have grown up all the while. I'm still curious about your thoughts on salvation. I asked you if your idea of salvation includes saving humanity from an unending cycle of escalating retributive violence? I'm not discounting a post-death judgement and heaven and hell scenario. I'm asking does salvation have anything to say to humanity on the anthropological level here and now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearConscience Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 The thing that makes someone a Christian or not is if he believes in the divinity of Jesus and the existence of the Abrahamic god. Stefan does not believe in those. It does not matter that he shares some common beliefs with the doctrines or the Christians. Those are meaningless if he does not believe in God. Jesus espoused entirely new ideas for how we should think about Justice and ethics. Jesus was the first feminist. Jesus was an affront to the government of Israel to such an extent that they used rhetoric and sophistry to convince the general public to endorse his assassination. And you say that Stefan isn't Christian because he doesn't believe in a title... Your position is to say that a title, some particular status, is more important than the content, the substance, of the ideology. I'm sorry, I must have mistook this for a philosophy forum. What a shame. Hey junglecat, welcome to the boards! Christianity and archaic religion are actually the same in this respect. The greatest example of this is in the Passion of Jesus. In fact, Christianity is entirely based on an innocent man being sacrificed to bring salvation for all of humanity. An example of sacrificing the innocent bringing prosperity can be found in the story of Abraham and his son Issac. You are aware that this "example" is Jewish, for which Christianity can be thought of as a particular sect of Judaism... right? Jesus was a Jew. Your argument is unsound, though it may still lead to a true conclusion. It's yet to be seen. Suffice it to say that theist may borrow whatever sectarian thinking they wish, in order to sophisticate their brand and make it easier to sell. In all of theism there is but a single topic that defines the proposition. Is there a god? What is the evidence and is it worthy of conference. I simply note that god is a concept entirely without substance. An excuse for magic for some but more typically a tool for controlling others, at their expense. There is simply no good in it that was not borrowed from more disciplined thinkers. It's utterly astounding how one can place the chicken before the egg in such an obviously erroneous fashion. Which "more sophisticated thinkers" came before Jesus? The arguments made by Jesus in the Bible are actually very profound and highly counter-culture for its time and place, and align with much of what Stefan argues. Denying this link simply demonstrates a lack of understanding, either for Stefan's central tenets, or that of the New Testament. Stefan's criticisms of Christianity revolve almost exclusively around the Catholic tradition rather than the words written in the New Testament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 23, 2016 Author Share Posted June 23, 2016 Jesus espoused entirely new ideas for how we should think about Justice and ethics. Jesus was the first feminist. Jesus was an affront to the government of Israel to such an extent that they used rhetoric and sophistry to convince the general public to endorse his assassination. And you say that Stefan isn't Christian because he doesn't believe in a title... Your position is to say that a title, some particular status, is more important than the content, the substance, of the ideology. I'm sorry, I must have mistook this for a philosophy forum. What a shame. You are aware that this "example" is Jewish, for which Christianity can be thought of as a particular sect of Judaism... right? Jesus was a Jew. Your argument is unsound, though it may still lead to a true conclusion. It's yet to be seen. It's utterly astounding how one can place the chicken before the egg in such an obviously erroneous fashion. Which "more sophisticated thinkers" came before Jesus? The arguments made by Jesus in the Bible are actually very profound and highly counter-culture for its time and place, and align with much of what Stefan argues. Denying this link simply demonstrates a lack of understanding, either for Stefan's central tenets, or that of the New Testament. Stefan's criticisms of Christianity revolve almost exclusively around the Catholic tradition rather than the words written in the New Testament. Thank you for your comments! They are very encouraging. Have you read any René Girard? I think his theory is a major breakthrough in Christian thought. The problem atheists have with Christianity is that they equate it with belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a phantom, an eidolon. If they can see the anthropological truth of the gospel and they are truly thinking critically then lights may go on, pennies may drop. Of course I am reminded of that scene in the New Testament where the resurrected Christ appears and some still doubt. To some, no amount of evidence will be enough. The fact that they deny so vehemently is very touching. It's like trying to save a wild animal trapped in a hole. They do bite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 To some, no amount of evidence will be enough. Evidence of what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 23, 2016 Author Share Posted June 23, 2016 Evidence of what? Evidence of the anthropological truth of the gospel. To see the divinity of Christ in context with the divinity of the gods that ruled the world at that time- and that still do to a large extent. I'm talking about the gods of the ancient world that had violence as their primary ordering function, the mechanism of the scapegoat. This is the same god that Stefan rails against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ClearConscience Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Thank you for your comments! They are very encouraging. Have you read any René Girard? I think his theory is a major breakthrough in Christian thought. The problem atheists have with Christianity is that they equate it with belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, a phantom, an eidolon. If they can see the anthropological truth of the gospel and they are truly thinking critically then lights may go on, pennies may drop. Of course I am reminded of that scene in the New Testament where the resurrected Christ appears and some still doubt. To some, no amount of evidence will be enough. The fact that they deny so vehemently is very touching. It's like trying to save a wild animal trapped in a hole. They do bite. I haven't read anything by Girard and I honestly don't plan on it. I have no interest in psychoanalyzing the authors of the Bible. In my view, the historical and socio-political context is the furthest people can possibly hope to understand regarding the authors of the book. Trying to psychoanalyze the inner mind of people you've never met, who lived thousands of years ago, is a fools errand. I want to be clear that I'm not saying Girard is wrong. He could be 100% accurate. I simply do not know, and have no hope of ever being able to find out. I would hesitate to try to determine what atheists think about Christianity. Every atheist is different and often times atheists reject Christianity because they're strict empiricists. I would consider myself a rationalist. I don't know if anything in the Bible is true (it might be made up stories), but I know that those stories hold true moral virtue - because I study philosophy. And since that really really old book contains so much abstract truth, that I can verify, it would be silly to conclude that the other aspects that I cannot verify would be false. In short, if Jesus wasn't such an awesome guy, I probably wouldn't believe in the Bible. He's just so undeniably awesome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Evidence of the anthropological truth of the gospel. To see the divinity of Christ in context with the divinity of the gods that ruled the world at that time- and that still do to a large extent. I'm talking about the gods of the ancient world that had violence as their primary ordering function, the mechanism of the scapegoat. This is the same god that Stefan rails against. Where's your evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 23, 2016 Author Share Posted June 23, 2016 Where's your evidence Neeeel, I have been presenting it from the very start. I know you've had a hard time understanding what I am saying but surely you have grasped something of what I have said so far. Is there anything you've understood? Or perhaps you can pick one thing I've said that you find puzzling and we can go into detail? Tell me, are you at all familiar with Greek or Roman mythology? Have you ever read the New Testament? It's all well and good to reject all gods but if you don't know what they are about in the first place you don't know what you are rejecting. I'm not talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm talking about texts that are the foundation of our culture. You need to be a little more specific otherwise I'll just direct you to the top of the conversation and tell you to reread it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 Neeeel, I have been presenting it from the very start. I know you've had a hard time understanding what I am saying but surely you have grasped something of what I have said so far. Is there anything you've understood? Or perhaps you can pick one thing I've said that you find puzzling and we can go into detail? Tell me, are you at all familiar with Greek or Roman mythology? Have you ever read the New Testament? It's all well and good to reject all gods but if you don't know what they are about in the first place you don't know what you are rejecting. I'm not talking about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I'm talking about texts that are the foundation of our culture. You need to be a little more specific otherwise I'll just direct you to the top of the conversation and tell you to reread it. I must have missed all your points, because I cant point to one bit of evidence that you have presented. Just pick one and present it to me in a way that I can understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 23, 2016 Author Share Posted June 23, 2016 I must have missed all your points, because I cant point to one bit of evidence that you have presented. Just pick one and present it to me in a way that I can understand. The Bible in general and the passion of Christ as the culmination of the myth is told from the point of view of the victim. All other archaic myths are told from the point of view of the mob. The Bible decodes mythology. This is the central evidence that points to the anthropological truth of the gospel. Stefan talks about the power of the state, right? It gets it's power through violence, correct? This is the old myth, the archaic gods all do this, they bring peace and order through violence. Christ says "I give you peace, not as the world gives it" (through violence) The hyper awareness of victims in our modern culture is a concrete form of Christianity. Imagine going to a Roman functionary 2000 years ago and complaining that you were wronged by the state. They would be completely amazed and say "You deserve to die for saying that. Crucify him. Throw him to the lions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I can only assume your silence is an admission that what you said makes no sense. And you would be wrong. You never engaged on clarifying definitions therefore there is no value in engaging with you on the distractions you interjected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 23, 2016 Author Share Posted June 23, 2016 And you would be wrong. You never engaged on clarifying definitions therefore there is no value in engaging with you on the distractions you interjected. I'll define anything you want. Shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 The Bible in general and the passion of Christ as the culmination of the myth is told from the point of view of the victim. All other archaic myths are told from the point of view of the mob. The Bible decodes mythology. This is the central evidence that points to the anthropological truth of the gospel. Stefan talks about the power of the state, right? It gets it's power through violence, correct? This is the old myth, the archaic gods all do this, they bring peace and order through violence. Christ says "I give you peace, not as the world gives it" (through violence) The hyper awareness of victims in our modern culture is a concrete form of Christianity. Imagine going to a Roman functionary 2000 years ago and complaining that you were wronged by the state. They would be completely amazed and say "You deserve to die for saying that. Crucify him. Throw him to the lions." thats not evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 I'll define anything you want. Shoot. "Objective" and "Christian" and why you rejected the definitions I offered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 24, 2016 Author Share Posted June 24, 2016 "Objective" and "Christian" and why you rejected the definitions I offered. "Objective facts do not depend on a mind for existence, but you are applying it to a concept." Is this what you mean? Is this your definition? thats not evidence. This is from Wikipedia. Does it sound right to you? Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence. In law, rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence. The parts of a legal case which are not in controversy are known, in general, as the "facts of the case." Beyond any facts that are undisputed, a judge or jury is usually tasked with being a trier of fact for the other issues of a case. Evidence and rules are used to decide questions of fact that are disputed, some of which may be determined by the legal burden of proof relevant to the case. Evidence in certain cases (e.g. capital crimes) must be more compelling than in other situations (e.g. minor civil disputes), which drastically affects the quality and quantity of evidence necessary to decide a case. Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method. In philosophy, the study of evidence is closely tied to epistemology, which considers the nature of knowledge and how it can be acquired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 You are right, I didnt get you to clarify what assertion your evidence was in support of. So, can you clarify for me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 24, 2016 Author Share Posted June 24, 2016 You are right, I didnt get you to clarify what assertion your evidence was in support of. So, can you clarify for me? Can you be more specific? I clearly stated it a couple of posts above. What specifically don't you understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neeeel Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 The Bible in general and the passion of Christ as the culmination of the myth is told from the point of view of the victim. All other archaic myths are told from the point of view of the mob. The Bible decodes mythology. This is the central evidence that points to the anthropological truth of the gospel. Stefan talks about the power of the state, right? It gets it's power through violence, correct? This is the old myth, the archaic gods all do this, they bring peace and order through violence. Christ says "I give you peace, not as the world gives it" (through violence) The hyper awareness of victims in our modern culture is a concrete form of Christianity. Imagine going to a Roman functionary 2000 years ago and complaining that you were wronged by the state. They would be completely amazed and say "You deserve to die for saying that. Crucify him. Throw him to the lions." You posted the above, and are claiming that it's evidence of something. I don't know what it's evidence of. I am assuming that it's evidence of the existence of God or the veracity of Christianity or something along those lines , but it is actually evidence of neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junglecat Posted June 24, 2016 Author Share Posted June 24, 2016 Evidence of the anthropological truth of the gospel. To see the divinity of Christ in context with the divinity of the gods that ruled the world at that time- and that still do to a large extent. I'm talking about the gods of the ancient world that had violence as their primary ordering function, the mechanism of the scapegoat. This is the same god that Stefan rails against. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts