I love religion!

[Purple Rabbit]

Objective truth would be observable, able to be described, peer-reviewed and lead to the best knowable truth. Atheists who ascribe to materialistic views only see scientific evidence as proof. How can reason (being an intangible construct) then be evidence. All of religion is intangible since religion itself is a construct. It can be objectified if reason, logic and intuition count as observations. Knowing anything is just establishing a universally accepted definition of something. The fact you use the word God in a sentce actually takes it from your electrical synapses of thought and ascribes a definition to it. The details of that definition are subjective and debatable, but a definition none-the less. Religion is about universally defining the concept of God. If religion would get out of the self-service industry and talk more to people it might appear less subjective to outside observers... must work at some point today.... .
grrrr

Tell me tackattack are all these words meant as a reply to my question or as diversion? I bluntly put that question to you because I find it somewhat dissapointing that you seem to think I would take it for an answer. You must know I really have liked your inquisitive postings so far but it seems some other thing is creeping in now.

Objective truth, ah that ever elusive treasure of knowledge. According to Kant it (the noumenon) never will be observable, so I don't know how you came to conclude that it is observable?

"Atheists who ascribe to materialistic views", is that the category you had in mind for me dear friend? By now you should know I value more than the material. The atheistic part has nothing to do with what follows ("only see scientific evidence as proof"). And please don't put the distinction of what is tangible and what is intangible on evidence. Mathematics and logic are part of science and they both are intangible yet they constitute proof. 1 + 1= 2 you see?

If all of religion really is only intangible we're surely done here. But that is not what they tell in church don't they?

logic and intuition do not count as observation only as logic and intuition. You cannot conclude anything about reality from those two things alone.

"Knowing anything is just establishing a universally accepted definition of something." So there is some universal lexicon you have access to? Definitions are words, my friend, human language, and words alone do not necessarily constitute reality. Hell, it's even debatable whether words can get us anyway near truth. As Wittgenstein said "a new word is like a fresh seed sown on the ground of the discussion". But then again, he also said "our greatest stupidities may be very wise".

When you objectify religion it becomes a comparitative study of religions and the most obvious fact it presents is that religion is a subjective experience all over the globe and through all ages.

I don't use the word 'God' in sentences. I only use the word 'god' in sentences because writing in capitals would mean that I know the guy and I won't feign that. See it as my token of respect for truth.

Work? You'd better take a good nap and think things over.

Oh and yes that question. It kind of still stands. So here is it again: How can you distinguish between subjective interpretation and objective interpretations if you have only access to your own subjective judgement?