hopefulLandlord:

I wasn't talking to you sir

Hmm. I think I might have not been as wise as you've just been.

budaatum:

You remind me of the tree that fell in the forest. The tree and the forest are objects that exist. The argument is whether it really fell if there were no subject to observe it.

You seriously need to learn more about objectivity and subjectivity. You might understand how your subjectivity is devoid of objectivity.

that is why there is always a problem with objective agreement...Objectivity is a convenience way to settle disagreement . We agree that it is settled, although we never know when someone will come along to upset the agreement. this is what normally happen in science environment

budaatum:

You remind me of the tree that fell in the forest. The tree and the forest are objects that exist. The argument is whether it really fell if there were no subject to observe it.

You seriously need to learn more about objectivity and subjectivity. You might understand how your subjectivity is devoid of objectivity.

I admire your objectivity but I cant believe that Vaxx reminds you of a tree that fell in the forest. You dont say which forest? You dont provide satelite co-ordinates or any other objective evidence. How can I verify what you say here?

hopefulLandlord:


Is it possible to be loving and peaceful without belief in a god?

the purpose of love and peace without GOD IS USELESS.......WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF LOVE AND PEACE

JacksonD7:

Wonderful opening statements made in the OP, but the word "Wise" certainly dont apply objectively.

vaxx:
the purpose of love and peace without GOD IS USELESS.......WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF LOVE AND PEACE

You didn't answer the question at all but pulled ad hoc

budaatum:

Objectively, and regardless of a subject, the tree fell, seems to be what you are saying. Confirm please.

No! A tree fell and I never saw or heard its fall so as to describe

1. What made it fall

2. How many branches broke off while falling and in what order.

3. How long ago it fell.

However I got to the forest and saw tree trunks littered everywhere as proof that this object actually fell.

I the subject gave credence to the object. So as vaxx said, objective evidence is a subjective process. ONLY the subject can validate or invalidate the object.

vaxx:
the purpose of love and peace without GOD IS USELESS.......WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF LOVE AND PEACE

The evidence has been tried and tested for thousands of years by all true spiritual religions.

It proves conclusively that GOD is LOVE. When a person exhibits genuine Love, God;s spirit flows through him.
When a person exhibits hate and destruction, Satan's spirit flows through him.

Satanic rituals proves conclusively that Satan is the father of lies and hate.

hopefulLandlord:


Is it possible to be loving and peaceful without belief in a god?

strongly NO..... Humans are naturally violent, and there are valid scientific reasons for this.

Humans fight each other for money, power, land and so on

budaatum:

Bloody Tree-falling-atheist.

Please read the following again:

Please calm down Sir. Butterlyl1on is totally correct when he says, "The presence or lack thereof of an observer does not alter the fact that a tree fell in the forest. You may not have witnessed or heard the falling of the tree but the evidence of trees lying all over the floor of the forest is proof of an experience you never witnessed." Even though this is correct, I am saying that I cant allow myself to believe it, because I was not there to actually see it for myself. Thats why I dont believe in Dark Matter and Black Holes.

But you have to understand that I am trying to find objective evidence of your remembrance that Vaxx reminds you of a tree that fell in the forest.

vaxx:
strongly NO..... Humans are naturally violent, and there are valid scientific reasons for this.

Humans fight each other for money, power, land and so on

Exactly ! So here we see how perfectly the Bible and many other religions have WISDOM about this that Atheists lack. It is written, "MAN IS BORN IN SIN." There are scientifically verifiable reasons in the Bible and Koran for this too.

The spirit world rule and have superior power compared with an Atheists poor logic.

vaxx:
strongly NO..... Humans are naturally violent, and there are valid scientific reasons for this.

Humans fight each other for money, power, land and so on

So, you are of the opinion that there is no loving and peaceful atheist?

You frustrate me!

"No! A tree fell"

No one is yet discussing the "what", "how" or "when" it fell.

We do agree the tree fell, as you seem to have done in your statement as quoted in bold.

butterflyl1on:

No! A tree fell and I never saw or heard its fall so as to describe

1. What made it fall

2. How many branches broke off while falling and in what order.

3. How long ago it fell.

However I got to the forest and saw tree trunks littered everywhere as proof that this object actually fell.

I the subject gave credence to the object. So as vaxx said, objective evidence is a subjective process. ONLY the subject can validate or invalidate the object.

Now please explain what you mean "by subject gave credence".

You surely do not mean that the tree falling had anything to do with the subjective observer? And its fall has to be validated for it to actually have fallen? Or that, without validation, it did not fall?

(Please, can I have that butterflyl1on who rationally defended himself when accused. I like that one.)

Can the Christians in the thread not disagree with anything sciencewatch says.
Because he's a Christian, you are Christians and are arguing against atheists, that doesn't mean you'll agree with everything he says.
There's no way you can't at least find a few statements he makes ridiculous.

ScienceWatch:

But you have to understand that I am trying to find objective evidence of your remembrance that Vaxx reminds you of a tree that fell in the forest.

Why must I understand you trying to find evidence for what you claim is my "remembrance"?

Dude, do me a favour. If you do not understand my writing, just ask me to clarify. Stop trying to find evidence of non-existing things that seem to only exist in your imagination.

Fvcknames:
Can the Christians in the thread not disagree with anything sciencewatch says.
Because he's a Christian, you are Christians and are arguing against atheists, that doesn't mean you'll agree with everything he says.
There's no way you can't at least find a few statements he makes ridiculous.

Lol.

budaatum:
You frustrate me!

"No! A tree fell"

No one is yet discussing the "what", "how" or "when" it fell.

We do agree the tree fell, as you seem to have done in your statement as quoted in bold.


Now please explain what you mean "by subject gave credence".

You surely do not mean that the tree falling had anything to do with the subjective observer? And its fall has to be validated for it to actually have fallen? Or that, without validation, it did not fall?
(Please, can I have that butterflyl1on who rationally defended himself when accused. I like that one.)

You are the one talking about proof for a fallen tree when no observer or listener was present. While I am telling you that the observer need not be present to witness or hear the tree when it fell and that regardless of this, it is still the subjective observer who would still see the aftermath of this tree that fell to know that ONCE UPON A TIME a tree fell in that forest, in that very spot and if it was a large tree trunk then it must have made a hell of a noise on its way down.

I only agree with you that a tree fell not because I witnessed it but because I saw its aftermath so whether I saw it or heard it, the subjective end has justified the beginning.

hopefulLandlord:


So, you are of the opinion that there is no loving and peaceful atheist?

that is stereotyping, and that will be bias in generalizing a group of people with different faith from mine. the right question should be these , if everybody in the world turn to non believer, how many people will consider the essence of love and peace

vaxx:
that is stereotyping, and that will be bias in generalizing a group of people with different faith from mine. the right question should be these , if everybody in the world turn to non believer, how many people will consider the essence of love and peace

Now that is what I would call the question of the month.

budaatum:

Thanks for your subjective opinion.

yes it is my subjective view

vaxx:
that is stereotyping, and that will be bias in generalizing a group of people with different faith from mine. the right question should be these , if everybody in the world turn to non believer, how many people will consider the essence of love and peace

you're good at moving the goalposts; my question is as right as it can be, no need strawnanning me by creating another question to get out of the corner you put yourself in

I asked you if its possible to be loving and peaceful without belief in any god and you strongly said no, you either have to admit there are no loving and peaceful atheists OR your assertion is totally false, Catch-22, logic 101

budaatum:

Lol.

HHaaaaaaaaa! I am rolling on the floor from laughter. It is good to see someone has a sense of humor.

hopefulLandlord:


So, you are of the opinion that there is no loving and peaceful atheist?

No Sir, only pretenders.

vaxx:
that is stereotyping, and that will be bias in generalizing a group of people with different faith from mine. the right question should be these , if everybody in the world turn to non believer, how many people will consider the essence of love and peace

Wow. You hit the nail on its head Sir. You highlight the core of Atheists serious weakness - they ask the wrong questions.

From my sharp observations, I categorically state that Atheists will never consider the essence of love and peace!

Can someone please make a short list of what Atheists consider for humanity?

hopefulLandlord:


you're good at moving the goalposts; my question is as right as it can be, no need strawnanning me by creating another question to get out of the corner you put yourself in

I asked you if its possible to be loving and peaceful without belief in any god and you strongly said no, you either have to admit there are no loving and peaceful atheists OR your assertion is totally false, Catch-22, logic 101

hopefullandlord,you are asking me a GENERAL question? is it possible to love and be peaceful without GOD and i strongly said no.... and in your second question ? you assume i am of the opinion if there is any atheist without love and peace.. your questions do not follow up at all, i treated them differently.... you should have ask me specifically if there exist an atheist without love and peace......

study your first question with your second question ... you will realize it has no resemblance......

vaxx:
hopefullandlord,you are asking me a GENERAL question? is it possible to love and be peaceful without GOD and i strongly said no.... and in your second question ? you assume i am of the opinion if there is any atheist without love and peace.. your questions do not follow up at all, i treated them differently.... you should have ask me specifically if there exist an atheist without love and peace......

study your first question with your second question ... you will realize it has no resemblance......

There is resemblance and you don't get to wish it away on a whim, its you that needs to study your reply to my first question and see how you unsuccessfully tried to move the goalposts when I asked the next

Q: is it possible to be 6ft tall without having a dick?

vaxx: No!

Q: are you saying there are no 6ft tall females?

Question 2 does follow from the answer to question 1 or do you need your fellow theists to explain this to you? cuz I notice you guys tend to agree and disagree based on who's saying something rather than what the person is saying

Fvcknames:
Can the Christians in the thread not disagree with anything sciencewatch says.
Because he's a Christian, you are Christians and are arguing against atheists, that doesn't mean you'll agree with everything he says.
There's no way you can't at least find a few statements he makes ridiculous.

This is a very serious topic indeed. You are right, no humor is allowed. Let me help you deal with your very reasonable complaint here and now.
Yes, Christians disagree freely with everything I say, I encourage that. Your other complaint is that Christians are arguing against Atheists.
Please calm down while I explain what is really happening. Christians and Muslims have nothing to prove to Atheists. They are simply trying to chastise them for entering hallowed ground, and then get them to go play somewhere else.

It is just a little inconsiderate of you claim that Christians cant find at least a few statements of mine as ridicules. If there was any truth to your painful assumptions, I would have been an Atheist by know.

hopefulLandlord:


cuz I notice you guys tend to agree and disagree based on who's saying something rather than what the person is saying

Now you are hitting below the belt. I dont know you like that.
You know that Atheists are trained to do what you now, suddenly accuse others of. We all know that, what you are complaining about is a distressing Atheists phenomena.

hopefulLandlord:


There is resemblance and you don't get to wish it away on a whim, its you that needs to study your reply to my first question and see how you unsuccessfully tried to move the goalposts when I asked the next

Q: is it possible to be 6ft tall without having a dick?

vaxx: No!

Q: are you saying there are no 6ft tall females?

Question 2 does follow from the answer to question 1 or do you need your fellow theists to explain this to you? cuz I notice you guys tend to agree and disagree based on who's saying something rather than what the person is saying

that assumption is not correct ....i mean your last paragraph


you ask a general question if there can be peace and love without GOD in which i strongly rejected, do you know this is a general question ? not all religious are GOD FOCUS..... some are without GOD BUT THEY ARE NOT ATHEIST

you ask another question where you have assume i am of the opinion no atheist can be lovely and peaceful(specific question)...


check these bro? HOW DOES IT TALLY?

No! I was asking for no such 'proof'. I began with, "You remind me of the tree that fell in the forest." It fell. That statement is all the evidence there is.
Its objective end was the fall, and it is not presented as a "subjective end". It fell regardless of the subjective observer.

The argument is whether it really fell if there were no subject to observe it, such that the statement "the tree did not fall if no subject was present to say it fell" is a valid statement. And as you've rightly said, "the observer need not be present to witness or hear the tree when it fell".

This is what makes objectivity and subjectivity a very tricky subject. And believe me when I say I wouldn't be attempting it with you if I hadn't read the tread in which you impressed me with your ability to reason.

If no one went into the forest to observe the tree so as to be able to subjectively state the tree has fallen, objectively, the tree has fallen, there just is no subject to say it has, is the point. The subject is irrelevant to the trees actual fall. And only becomes relevant when statements, which are subject to the subject (my bad for the tautology), are made about the fallen tree in the forest.

The fall of the tree is objective. The statements are made by a subject and are therefore subjective. But they are not the same thing. For while the objective stands, or rather, fell, in its own right, the subjective statement is in the eye of the beholder. And at times, the two may stand in opposition to one another.

This, by the way, was what called for your defence. While subjective statements were made against you, no objective evidence was presented to validate it. Basically, in that scenario, a tree might or might not have fallen in the forest but I cannot, on that so flimsly (subjective) basis, have honestly asserted guilt as I have for the objectively fallen tree.

butterflyl1on:



You are the one talking about proof for a fallen tree when no observer or listener was present. While I am telling you that the observer need not be present to witness or hear the tree when it fell and that regardless of this, it is still the subjective observer who would still see the aftermath of this tree that fell to know that ONCE UPON A TIME a tree fell in that forest, in that very spot and if it was a large tree trunk then it must have made a hell of a noise on its way down.

I only agree with you that a tree fell not because I witnessed it but because I saw its aftermath so whether I saw it or heard it, the subjective end has justified the beginning.

budaatum:

Hmm. I think I might have not been as wise as you've just been.

Dont belittle yourself in font of him. He is not fit enough to
serve you breakfast.

vaxx:
that assumption is not correct ....i mean your last paragraph


you ask a general question if there can be peace and love without GOD in which i strongly rejected, do you know this is a general question ? not all religious are GOD FOCUS..... some are without GOD BUT THEY ARE NOT ATHEIST

You're panting like a fish out of water

I asked if its possible to be Peaceful and Loving without belief in a god

religion here has nothing to do with my own question so I have no idea why you're bringing it in here

you ask another question where you have assume i am of the opinion no atheist that can be lovely and peaceful(specific question)...


check these bro? HOW DOES IT TALLY?

I have checked again and it does tally bro, I'm good at knowing when someone is wrong but ego won't let him/her admit it


Peace!