Atheists in this forum. Do you claim objectivity?

[JayDeist]

Dianaiad stated that I could not find three atheists on this forum that did not believe there views were objective.

So the question for this debate. Atheists, do you believe your views are objective?

[Flail]

I am an atheist and a skeptic. I recognize objectivity to be the ideal towards which I strive. But I also realize that sometimes I fall short of the mark. So, while perhaps some of my views may be subjective, I am not aware of any subjectivity in my views and upon becoming aware of any subjectivity, I will do my utmost to correct that failing.

Perhaps you are conflating and confusing two denotations of the word 'objective.'

Objective....to be impartial, honest and nonpartisan.
Objective....to be factual and evidence based.

I am an ignostic and a skeptic. I too strive for objectivity (honest impartiality) in my views, but I recognize that many of my views, being my own non-evidenced opinions, are not objective, but rather subjective in relationship to ultimate truth.

[Chase200mph]

Dianaiad stated that I could not find three atheists on this forum that did not believe there views were objective.

So the question for this debate. Atheists, do you believe your views are objective?

Hi there, I am new to these forums and having been accustom to the freedom of MySpace forums forgive me as I stumble around while restricting the more aggressive mannerisms I was accustom.
Objective views, well I dont know if any view is free of bias, but views based in fact has always been my objective. While to the contrary, the Religious View which is absolutely NOT objective from beginning to end.
While I do not claim there is no god because I am not a true atheist in the sense that I have an irrational view of the universe that some theist may translate into something they could termed as a god, I know objectively there is no Christian/Judean god as loosing described in the bible (and even more loosely described in differing translations from the organized religion as it pertains to their variations/denominational doctrine/s).
I make this statement objectively according to the facts found in history, the contradictions in the bible, the further in the contradictions of doctrine, as well as through the contradictions of logic and reason the religious argument makes. All Religious Beliefs (and especially Christian/Judean beliefs) are inherently irrational in both the lack of any discernible facts and through the commission of the authority of their own biblical text.and none of them are objective because if every Religious/Christian denomination claims the other is wrong, then nobody is right to begin within short the Christian/Judean religion condemns and disproves itself.
While I have offered no support for any of the claims I just made, I invite any challenge in any arena where any Christian believes his view is objective despite the facts I will then offer to the contrary. : )
Please forgive me for throwing down the gantlet in your/this thread if I should have chosen another (?).

[Flail]

Dianaiad stated that I could not find three atheists on this forum that did not believe there views were objective.

So the question for this debate. Atheists, do you believe your views are objective?

Although I am often presupposed an atheist, I am an Ignostic. But I will answer the question anyway. Everyone's views are subjective of course, otherwise they wouldn't be 'our views'. As a skeptical secular humanist non-theist, all my views are tenuous at best, and subject to evolving into something else at any moment upon the receipt of what I find, subjectively of course, to be more logical, compelling and practical than views currently held. But I attempt to remain skeptical of everything, particularly in the macro and where practical; and most certainly so of my own views; even of the truth or validity of what I just stated. We are all guessing folks. There may be answers out there, but pretending we know them or believing in Gods as if we were credulous ninny's is no way to evolve. Best to admit our ignorance and keep asking questions rather than pretend we have answers. If there is a 'God' somewhere, some of those things we call 'Truths' might just end up pissing It off because of our insistence on deceits.

[andrewk]

Like Abraxas and Notachance on the first page, I am an atheist that doesn't believe my own views (or anybody else's) are objective.

Each belief in any collection of beliefs is either something one chooses to believe without logical support, or is ultimately derived from other beliefs that we choose to believe without logical support. These foundational beliefs we call axioms. It is impossible for anybody to have a set of beliefs that is self-justificatory without circularity.

So I think we all choose our unsupported beliefs / axioms based on personal preference, as we cannot choose them by logically proving them to be true.

To me the determinant of whether a collection of beliefs is worthwhile (another subjective term!) is not whether it is objective but whether it is logically self-consistent - ie does it lead to contradictions. I think there are probably plenty of different possible worldviews - some incorporating beliefs in the supernatural and some not - that are self-consistent.

However, my observation is that many, possibly most, people hold collections of beliefs that are mutually inconsistent but do not realise this.

[Strider324]

Objective - adjective:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

By this definition, many of us are certainly able to claim objectivity on any number of topics. I'm not sure why so many are afraid to own the Gift of objectivity they clearly possess. This is not a concept that requires perfection in order to apply.

Do you base your opinions on facts? Without prejudice or bias? Then you are able to be objective. Quit apologizing for it.


My grandmother taught me racial prejudice when I was 7 years old. Later, I began to see people of color as people. My prejudice dissolved, my bias disappeared, and I was able to formulate objective opinions on the subject of race.

It ain't rocket science......

[andrewk]

Do you base your opinions on facts? Without prejudice or bias? Then you are able to be objective. Quit apologizing for it.

The question I would ask in response to this very common sense advice is 'how do you know what is a fact?'

Most people would reply that if they have observed that something is the case then they know it is a fact. But all you really know is that you think you have a memory of observing that thing. You cannot prove that memory is correct or, if it is, that the original observation was correct. Like most people I choose to believe that my memory is reliable and that my senses give reliable information about reality, because it makes the world seem more intelligible to me to do so, and I prefer to live in an intelligible world. But that is a subjective choice.

[fredonly]

Dianaiad stated that I could not find three atheists on this forum that did not believe there views were objective.

So the question for this debate. Atheists, do you believe your views are objective?

No one is truly objective, but it's something that is worth striving for - because it seems to provide the best approach to seeking absolute truth. We can try to reach toward objectivity by considering multiple sides to an argument, testing our ideas with those who have different poinst of view, giving serious consideration to opposing views, seeking common ground, and consistent means of evaluating ideas.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

It's only possible to be totally objective on questions one knows nothing about and for which one has yet to draw any conclusions. However once a firm conclusion has been drawn concerning a question the only claim one has to genuine objectivity is to say, "Here are the reasons why I have reached my conclusions. Now, show me the reasons why you have reached different conclusions on that same question, and I will consider them." It's not closed minded for one to reject another person's conclusions when one has already considered those conclusions and rejected then with cause.

[andrewk]

It's not closed minded for one to reject another person's conclusions when one has already considered those conclusions and rejected then with cause.

I agree with this essentially, but I think there's an important condition. Whether you can reject a proposition that you have previously considered and rejected depends on why you rejected it in the first place. If you rejected it because you reasoned that the proposition could not be true then it is reasonable to reject any new attempt to assert the proposition. If, however, you rejected it because insufficient evidence was provided in support of it, then it is closed minded to not remain open to additional evidence.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

If, however, you rejected it because insufficient evidence was provided in support of it, then it is closed minded to not remain open to additional evidence.

As I said, "Here are the reasons why I have reached my conclusions. Now, show me the reasons why you have reached different conclusions on that same question, and I will consider them."