It seems to me that regardless of our beliefs that we exist in the same
reality.
This actually eases the burden of belief and allows for a disagreement
to be approached openly.
The maturity level of a belief system which is not capable of this
flexibility is likely a false belief system.
The Abrahamic religions fail this criteria badly:
The book has been written.
One must preserve the book.
I have learned that this existence model is beyond alot of people.
Is this model objectivism?
I use skepticism heavily to the point of being cold.

-Tim

On 25 Jan, 17:41, "tg" earthlink.net> wrote:

"Subjective universe" isn't a coherent alternative

On Jan 25, 7:56 pm, "Timothy Golden BandTechnology.com"
yahoo.com> wrote:

I like Popper's searchlight analogy; we're like a group of people
outside on a pitch-dark night, with a strong searchlight. By pointing
it in different directions, we can discover some facts about where we
are, even if we cannot find out everything.

Religions are not the only example of a claimed body of knowledge based
on nothing but belief; but they are a paradigm example, and a most
instructive one.

I don't think that anyone (except a few misguided relativists)
disagrees with the idea that we somehow all live on the same planet and
in the same universe. But this is a far cry from those that insist that
what they claim to know is somehow based on absolute objective facts
beyond challenge or reproach. The fact is that there is no ultimate
place upon which to stand and view the world objectively. All knowledge
and perception has to go through the interpretive filter of the human
mind, one way or another via our limited senses. Thus that which we
call "objective knowledge" is actually collective subjectivity: a
viewpoint that those that praise evidence and reason above faith and
ignorance can share. But the very strength of science lies in the fact
that all this "objectively" aquired data...

chazwin wrote:

chazwin wrote:

Objectivity doesn't mean certainty, subjectivity doesn't mean lack of
certainty.
(e.g probability theory. Objective but uncertain).

Which means there is no objectivity so long as OBJECTIVITY CAN ONLY BE
ACHIEVED BY "VIEWING".

However, if you consider things generally held to be objective, like
maths and science, they are not literally based on "viewing", they are
based on avoiding contradiction, generalisation, confirmation and so
on.

1Z wrote:

tg wrote:

1Z wrote:

tg wrote: