Creation, Evolution, and faith

This is much like the mistake you are making when you claim that science invokes divine causes. It is not the fault of science that people yearn for a purpose that just isn't there, or at least can not be demonstrated. It is not the job of science to be subservient to our biases. In fact, it is the job of science to do away with these biases to the best of our abilities.Once again, the difference between science and religion are glaring. Religious faith is a collection of beliefs that we hope are true without reference to reason or logic. The faith we have in science is based on what we know is true (not True with a capital T, but true as in shown to be a fact) based on reason and logic.

Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared subjectivity" or not?If not I can only conclude that you have no idea what it is you are talking about and that you are simply combining words in ways that you find intuitively appealing.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I have often seen "intersubjective" used in these cases. Intersubjective is equivalent to objective with the added assumption that we can trust our perception of a rational reality.

Can you give an example of what you mean?

That is not the term I used, so I can't give you an example of that.As for shared subjectivity, you ought to be able to come up with examples yourself. If not, then I suggest you reread Message 383.

Yes, I have heard that term used, too. However, the Wikipedia entry seems to give it a more psychological connotation.

You expect me to come up with examples of your position?If you do actually know what you mean why won't you tell us? Instead of continually telling us what it is you don't mean?To me "shared subjectivity" would imply things like my Allah example: But in typically evasive and ambiguous fashion all you said to that was "No". So I have no idea what you do mean. More to the point it is becoming increasingly obvious that nor do you.

All you would need is already there in Message 383. You asked a YES/NO question. I answered "No". And then you call that "evasive and ambiguous."I don't know what's bothering you. But you sure seem to like to conduct heresy trials against anyone who says something that disagrees with your own rigid orthodoxy.That's a great way of providing ammunition for those who say that atheism is a religion.Edited by nwr, : No reason given.

First of all I fixed your attribution for the quote.Secondly, I have read Message 383 3 times now and have the same question as Straggler.Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared objectivity" or not? WTF? All he is asking for is for you to define your phrase. Either define it and give an example or withdraw it and STFU.It is a simple question. So far you have made no real answers and have been evasive and ambiguous. I am going to have to side with Straggler on this that you seem to be just using a cool sounding phrase. It means nothing if you cannot define what it is supposed to mean.Edited by Theodoric, : Accidentally submitted before preview

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

Thanks. Fixed in the original (bad cut and paste). That's Straggler's term (perhaps a typo), not mine. The last line of Message 383 is of the form x = y. You and Straggler have zillions of examples of x. Take any one of them and use it as an example of y.

Ok Strag had a typo. But playing stupid doesn't help your case, you must know what he meant.From you. bolded for emphasis
Message 383You brought it up. Define it and give an example so we know how you define it. Saying objectivity is shared subjectivity does nothing.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

See Message 401 (near the bottom of that post). See Message 415 (the last line or two).As previously posted, I have used that phrase before and nobody has considered it controversial. If you have a problem with it, then say what kind of problem.

Well apparently not. Myself and Rahvin have both given you examples of what we thought you meant. And you have told us both that is not what you meant. Theoderic is none the wiser as to what you do actually mean either. So far all you have told us is that:1) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" in the sense of my Allah example2) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" in the sense of popular agreement as per Rahvin's understanding.3) You don't mean "shared subjectivity" to be simply the necessarily subjective perception of objective reality How can anyone disagree with you if they don't know what you mean? I am asking you what you mean. I am asking for an example of what you do mean. I am asking you you to stop telling us what you don't mean and instead tell us what you do mean.Why is that so hard for you to do? It is quite obvious that you are just combining words which sound intuitively meaningful to you without actually having any idea what you are talking about.I ask again - Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared subjectivity" or not?What does this have to do with atheism?Your inability to explain yourself is a great way of providing ammunition to those who say that you post random disagreements without ever having coherent position of your own. Can you give an example of what you mean by "shared subjectivity" or not?

I made a minor casual remark of no great importance. You are blowing it way out of proportion, and dragging this thread off topic. In Message 415 (the last line), I explained how you can come up with zillions of examples.

Three people express their bewilderment at what you mean. Two of them give you examples of what they think you mean but (apparently) fail to get it right. You are repeatedly asked to provide examples of what it is that you do mean. Yet you unilaterally consider your position to be crystal clear and in no need of further explanation or example. Then FFS why don't you give us just one? Oh don't try and play the "Off-Topic" line to evade answering the question. If you are unable to give an example of what you mean why not just admit that this is the case?