Does one eliminate it subjectively or objectively?
As objectively as possible.
Do you think there is a possibility that this subjective analysis is not true?
It is subjective.
It is what it is - based on perspective.
If it was not something based on perspective then it would be objective.
If it is true, then is it possible that other subjective analysis could also be true?
If it is true, and subjective, aren't you wrong, as you only accept objective knowledge as truth, and give no serious credence to the subjective?
At that point it is a matter of guessing a coin-toss.
Things might be correct, they might be wrong, but without knowing one accepts a default position - and the one I find rational is to not assume existence of something until necessary.
Why ridicule the person?
Not that I accept that atheist don't try to ridicule the information.
They shouldn't, and atheists don't.
Some people who happen to be atheists do.
Some people who happen to be theists do.
The position we hold is more illuminating during the course of a discussion, than trying explain it. I will continue to view you as you come across to me, and cross check it with the position you claim to hold. If we simply believed others appraisal of themselves, we would not know who we are communicating with.
That doesn't address you discussing with me as though I am your stereotypical atheist (by which I mean someone who believes God does not exist).
I am not asking you to believe my appraisal of myself, but at least address what I write and not what you think I am due to your stereotyping.
They either exist or they don't. If they exist it means they are somehow objective.
If they don't exist, then we are deluded. You can't have it both ways.
Deluded? No.
Belief in that which can not be proven is not delusion, as I see it, as delusion is holding a position when there is proof to the contrary.
Consciousness, from your perspective, is also a subjective reality, but here you using it the term as though it is objective.
Almost as though what its objective reality is.
How am I using it as though it is objective?
Which is still subjective.
That we can all agree that wool is soft is evidence of the fact that wool is soft.
Wool is only soft to those who can experience what "soft" is.
"Soft" is a quality of the substance that only has meaning to people with consciousness.
You cannot separate the subjective from the objective.
Wool is there, but it means nothing without an idea of what it is.
Yet it is that state that is the objective state - the simple molecules in a certain arrangement - the reality of what wool is that is irrespective of who or what might observe it.
Any quality that is dependent upon the perspective of that observation is subjective.
And this is only with regard things that are subjective views of objective reality.
There are things that are solely subjective, that have no external objective existence.
Love is one such thing.
You also don't know, that other people don't know.
Yet you indirectly assert that you do.
I've yet to come across someone who does know.
Plenty of people have claimed to know, but they can provide nothing to support that.
I know only as far as I can know.
What does that question mean?
Let me put it another way: is God other than just a man-made concept?
To anyone who knowingly loves, or is loved, the object of their love exists. So experienced people will talk about love in an
objective way, and everyone who has that experience will know what they are talking about.
Shared subjectivity is not the same as being objective.
People without that experience will not know what they're talking about, and will be in a position to claim they are talking nonsense. They may even write papers on how love is an delusion, but it will only have value to those, who themselves are either devoid or ignorant of what love is.
Exactly - love is subjective.
Noone is denying that.
Love has no external existence in and of itself.
So when the question is "Is love other than a subjective feeling/emotion?" you can confidently say "No".
Accepting their claim means you have a better comprehension of it.
Not necessarily.
Accepting on trust requires no comprehension.
Many people have passed exams by merely regurgitating and not comprehending, because they accepted what the teacher told them.
If you simply deny everything they are saying, even though you have no real experiential knowledge of what they say.
Chances are you're ignorant.
I happily admit I am ignorant.
That is what "I do not know" means.
But I at least know that I do not know and do not seek to merely satisfy my ego with another answer.
The ancient Greeks were very knowledgeable. They learnt a lot from the ancient Egyptians, who in turn learned a lot from the Babylonians, and Sumerians, and so on. I think maybe the Greeks got a little above themselves, and they were definitely too horny.
So why do you place scriptures from antiquity on a pedestal, as containing knowledge out of reach of mankind at the time?
The same way implements came about to wipe ones bottom after a pooh.
Or to find something to keep you warm.
I'd hardly describe them as inventions.
Then I suggest you revisit your idea of what an invention is.
It's not really a case of anyone saying anything. The question remains... how did he know there were other planets, without have the capability, like a modern telescope to see them?
You don't need a telescope to map out the transit of Venus, or Mars, or Jupiter in the night's sky.
Just nights under a clear sky.
And a keen observer would note how they move differently across our skies compared to the constellations.
I can not answer exactly how people knew, or when they knew, but I don't discount the possibility that they did know and that the information was simply lost to the majority of people.
If you can prove otherwise, of course?
My point is, they don't know, yet they assert.
The same can be said of theist and atheists alike.
It is the same or similar method one would use to comprehend the objectivity of love.
I thought that by posting some definitions of what objective and subjective meant it would be patently obvious that love is purely subjective?
Otherwise, if I take what you have written as if you do understand, then with your comment you are confirming that searching for God is searching for the impossible - for that which does not exist.
As there is no objectivity of love.
If they can'tcomprehend what love is,
they're not likely to comprehend what God is. What they can comprehend of love, is very similar to what they will comprehend of God.
That it is a wholly subjective experience?
Is this what God is, then?
An emotion?
Which scripture is it that reasons? As far as I know, they tell you what's what. If we don't agree with it. Too bad. Or good. Depends how you look at it.
It is the reasons for accepting the scripture as true that seems to be circular.
No it doesn't work both ways.
There IS information about God.
So you believe.
For if God does not exist, then what is that information about?
For me to accept that it truly is information about God I would first need to actually believe that God exists, which requires me to believe that it is information about God...
Spot the circular reasoning yet?
The only information about NO God, is what you make up.
We have no need to erect barriers. You do.
There is no information about "NO God".
There is merely information about nature, none of which seems to require God as an explanation, unless it seems (to me at least) one wants to satisfy one's ego when they reach a point of "I don't know" and come up with a suitably satisfying answer.