We cannot have an opinion

Subject: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 04:40 AM

I will try again on the strict premise that this thread should not be used to have a go at anyone. Please respect that wish.

I have been told that I am not entitled to an opinion unless I can back that opinion up with facts. I do not believe this to be true. I am of the opinion that Blackbeard's Tea Party are currently the best band on the folk scene. I have no facts to back this up and it is purely my opinion. On a more serious note there are millions of people who are of the opinion that if they adhere to the strict tenets of their faith, they will be rewarded with eternal paradise. There are no facts to back that up either. Both opinions are subjective so cannot be substantiated in an objective manner. Surely that is the way of many opinions isn't it?

Discuss (Nicely :-) )

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 04:40 AM

Sorry - Should be BS

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 04:48 AM

Yes, Dave, you can have an opinion but there is no reason why I should take it seriously, or agree/disagree with it, unless it's backed up by facts and evidence. Religious faith is fervent and unquestioning belief in something invisible for the existence of which there's no evidence. In my opinion (!) that's just ... very silly!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 04:55 AM

Of course anyone is entitled to an opinion. It may on the basis of experience, belief, or even prejudice.

But one is entitled to hold it.

Trying to persuade other people of the correctness of that opinion is, however, a different matter. IMHO.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 05:08 AM

Ah - This is the sort of good stuff I was hoping for :-) Couple of things. How can I back up an opinion that involves, as in the first example I gave, personal taste? I cannot back up my opinion about Blackbeard's Tea Party with anything other than personal experience. Does that mean that anyone is entitled to tell me that my opinion is nonsense? Secondly, can an opinion be formed on the basis of the research of other people? How much should we trust our sources or must we back up our opinions with first hand facts and evidence?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 05:24 AM

I cannot back up my opinion about Blackbeard's Tea Party with anything other than personal experience.

You could look at record sales, ticket sales for concerts or reviews in press and make reference to discussions you have had with others interested in folk music. All of these could back up your opinion.

DC

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 05:27 AM

You could look at record sales, ticket sales for concerts or reviews

Working on that basis One Direction must be a better band than Blackbeard but I don't like them as much. Surely popular opinion can never be the same as informed opinion can it?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 05:47 AM

Your claim is for the best band on the folk scene. One Direction don't come into that category.

Record/ticket sales aren't proof but they can used to back up your opinion. If there are other folk bands who far outsell Blackbeard's Tea Party, then perhaps your opinion is wrong.

DC

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 06:02 AM

On the other hand, you could be one of the few who recognise talent early on and perhaps, in time, your opinion will be vindicated.

DC

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 06:04 AM

With respect to Blackbeard's Tea Party, Dave, I suspect that you're confusing opinion with personal taste.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 06:42 AM

The Wiki definition below summarises it quite nicely.

An opinion, in general, is an unsubstantiated belief. The minute you can back it up with facts it becomes - a fact.

There are of course other sorts of opinion - public, legal, group etc etc..

WIKI

In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective.

What distinguishes fact from opinion is that facts are verifiable, i.e. can be objectively proven to have occurred. An example is: "United States of America was involved in the Vietnam War" versus "United States of America was right to get involved in the Vietnam War". An opinion may be supported by facts, in which case it becomes an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analyzing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:08 AM

If someone has nothing to back up their opinions, then in my opinion they would feel much more at home on facebook.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:08 AM

Yes, you are right, Doug. Poor example on my part. Maybe a better comparison would be with Bellowhead who I went to see last week. They outsell Blackbeard's but, in my opinion, are not as good. It is partly personal taste, Shimrod but that is not all of it. Personal taste would say I like them. Opinion says they are the best band.

Kampervan, very good point. That may well answer my question. If opinion is substantiated, then it becomes fact. That is what has been niggling me. Asking to prove or substantiate an opinion negates the opinion itself. If it could be proved, it would no longer be an opinion. Is asking why you have a particular opinion therefore like asking why you like a particular band or why you believe in a god?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:09 AM

This forum is primarily for adults.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:10 AM

But that is just your opinion, ake :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:14 AM

...which is, incidentally, entirely wrong. Facebook has a minimum age of 13 before you can open an account. This forum has no such rule.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:20 AM

DtG, yes, of course you can be asked for or give reasons for your opinion..

e.g. I think that Black Sabbath are the best group in the world because they are very loud

That they are very loud may be a fact, but whether or not that makes them the best group is still an opinion.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:28 AM

I used to teach university students about the differences between truth and fact, fact and opinion, and of the varying weight of professional, informed, uninformed, and mass opinion, and of personal taste.

Many had given these ideas only superficial thought at best.

I've also met people with doctorates who insist that a verifiable fact they don't care to factor into their belief is "merely your opinion."

Why should we expect it to be different here?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:32 AM

Lighter -
Maybe not, but it's still worth discussing

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:51 AM

I think this refers to an exchange with me.

I have been told that I am not entitled to an opinion unless I can back that opinion up with facts.

You were told no such thing.

Of course everyone can have an opinion on anything.

What I told you was that you can not expect it to get serious consideration if it is not based on any actual knowledge.

Your opinion was that mainstream media, and specifically BBC, play a bigger role in radicalising people to join IS than the internet.

Much has been said and written about the problem of radicalisation, but that notion is unique to you Dave.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Raggytash
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 07:59 AM

I think the idea in a debate is you consider someone's opinion and decide whether to give it any credence or not. Not merely to shout them down as often occurs.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:02 AM

Do you mean writing in capitals Rag?
Otherwise, how can one person on a forum shout down a gang?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:12 AM

"Otherwise, how can one person on a forum shout down a gang?"
Or how does anybody shout down a troll idiot
Terms like "gang" are exactly the sort that get threads closed
As far as I am aware, all contributors post independently on this forum - there are no cabals, other than those that have been planted by organisations like BNP
PLEASE DON'T KILL THIS THREAD BEFORE IT GETS GOING
As for being taken seriously - there are a few here who, due to past behaviour, never will be
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:15 AM

"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts."

E. B. White

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:15 AM

No references to specific old discussions from me, Keith. If you choose to continue old arguments on here that is your business but I expect that will serve no purpose other than closing the thread. If I wanted to discuss radicalisation I would have opened a thread on it. This thread is intended to be about what opinions actually are and whether they should be considered. If you have nothing to say about that please stay out of it.

One thing you did say that does have a bearing though is that an opinion should not be considered seriously unles it is based on actual knowledge. Does that include the opinion that there is a divine being? If so, what 'actual knowledge' does anyone have on that?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:20 AM

When are facts facts?

Example: I drop a brick on my foot and it hurts, is that fact or opinion?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:24 AM

I think that is more cause and effect, #. My opinion is that you should have been more careful or worn safety boots :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:27 AM

True. But my foot was frozen and the brick was made from styrofoam. :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:37 AM

Only the person on whose foot the brick fell could have known for a fact if it hurt or not. Everyone else would simply have had an opinion.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:48 AM

LOL, good one Kampervan.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:08 AM

One thing you did say that does have a bearing though is that an opinion should not be considered seriously unles it is based on actual knowledge.

Yes.
An opinion based on ignorance is worthless.

Does that include the opinion that there is a divine being?

Yes.

If so, what 'actual knowledge' does anyone have on that?

None either way.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:11 AM

Only the person on whose foot the brick fell could have known for a fact if it hurt or not. Everyone else would simply have had an opinion.

An opinion based on direct experience of similar events.
That would be an informed opinion and I would give that due consideration.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Derrick
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:20 AM

I think the existence or non-existence of a divine being is a matter of belief rather than an opinion.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:26 AM

Ah - Well done, Derrick. As I was watering the garden I just came up with my next question which you have led in to very well. Thanks :-)

Is there any difference between a belief and an opinion? Is it OK to mock an opinion or belief if it is groundless or should all opinions and beliefs be respected?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:32 AM

Why "LOL"? It's true.

Of course, if they'd ever had a similar painful experience (heavy weight dropped on flesh and bone), and you had no obvious reason for making up the whole thing, their most rational opinion would be that your pain was a fact - until the Styrofoam evidence surfaced.

At that point, they'd wonder what you were after.

Amputees frequently report itching or other "feeling" "in" the amputated limb.

The experience of the feeling appears to be a fact (according to   medical opinion). But if the amputee insisted, on the basis of his presumably factual but subjective feeling, that the limb must still be there, that opinion would be not only false but crazy.

And, of course, just because the feeling (called "phantom limb syndrome") is a widely accepted fact, that particular individual could be lying about experiencing it personally.

Short of a brain scan, what way would there be to tell?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:40 AM

Oh, sorry, I should have addressed an earlier point first. I, for one, do not know if anyone's opinion is based on ignorance or not. I can make certain assumptions about the opinions of others based on my trust of them but I have no way of telling if their opinion is correct or not. If it was certain to be correct it would not be an opinion but a fact. Going back to my original point. If I do not reveal the knowledge that led me to form that opinion, does that make my opinion less valid? It is simply a question of trust surely? I would trust the opinion of a leading philosopher and social activist but I would not trust anything I read or hear in the popular press. That is purely my opinion of course but a lifetimes experience has led me to it. If my opinion is not trusted by some, fine, I accept that. But to say it is worthless because my experience and qualifications for that opinion are unknown is rather unjust is it not?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:49 AM

DtG said:

One thing you did say that does have a bearing though is that an opinion should not be considered seriously unles it is based on actual knowledge. Does that include the opinion that there is a divine being? If so, what 'actual knowledge' does anyone have on that?

None, as far as I can tell. Therefore that opinion should not be expected to be considered seriously. The only fact there is that (whoever) states that (s)he does hold that opinion.

Citing that so-and-so holds a certain opinion (or states it as if it were a fact) is merely indulging in one of the classical fallacies, the appeal to authority.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 09:55 AM

Interesting Dave, I cross posted with you just as I was saying I would trust certain opinions but not others. Is that appeal to authority or simply a matter of deciding who you would trust?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:00 AM

Once we define what we mean by the number 1, what we mean by +, what we mean by =, we can define what the number 2 results from. We have yet to define what 2 is. That's my belief, opinion and fact. All else is commentary.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:07 AM

I don't think it is a fact, #. 2 may not exist at all so how can it be defined? There are only 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:09 AM

If I do not reveal the knowledge that led me to form that opinion, does that make my opinion less valid?

What reason could anyone have for stating an opinion but withholding the knowledge they claim to base it on?

It would seriously reduce your credibility.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:20 AM

If this were a philosophical/mathematical forum, # would have stipulated that he was talking about the ordinary, not the binary, meanings of numbers and operators. He might have expected wise-guy comments.

Besides, the binary system is just another way of representing numbers.

That system isn't the *idea* of the numbers, any more than are 1,2,3, IX, D, or (in the even more impractical system I just made up now), ^%, or )(, or ":<.

The properties of numbers don't change according to the style of representing them.

Essay question:

Are the properties of numbers real, and do they exist independently of us? Or are they are just something dreamed up by the ancients with little or no relation to truth? Discuss.

Extra credit: What is the "reality" of an "imaginary number" like the square root of -1 ? Hint: "imaginary numbers" are actually used in certain calculations.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:21 AM

There are many reasons people may not want their knowledge made public. Maybe I am just not looking to make myself more credible to people who are not important to me. One thing is for certain, those who know me and those I care about know that my opinions are far from vacuous whims.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:22 AM

If I do not reveal the knowledge that led me to form that opinion, does that make my opinion less valid?

Your opinion is still valid but it weakens the argument supporting it.

Going back to your original example of which, in your opinion, is the best band:- the term 'best' is not black and white. One band may be best in the studio, another best on stage. A band, that may not be technically the best, may give the best entertainment value. As individuals will put different weighting on these various alternatives, the overall 'best' will always be opinions, no matter how strong the arguments.

DC

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:26 AM

"Those who understand binary and those who do not."

I'm glad some folks have a sense of humour about this :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:26 AM

I was quite amazed when my eldest chose to do a dual subject degree in Maths and Philosophy. Not having had the benefit of higher education other business based a a grounding in economics I could not envisage how the two would work together. Following our chats during his course I became more and more aware of the philosophical nature of mathematics. Still cannot get my head around some of it, but at least now I know I do not know enough to hold meaningful discussions on it. In my opinion of course :-)

BTW - Said eldest son becomes 40 on Tuesday! Makes me feel really old...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:27 AM

Maybe I am just not looking to make myself more credible to people who are not important to me.

If the people are important enough to give the opinion to, why not also tell them why you hold it?

If you want to state an opinion, and want it given consideration, you should be prepared justify it.
(In my opinion.)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:33 AM

Exactly, in your opinion. It is not a fact that this must happen. As I have argued previously the opinions of some carry more weight than others. There are those I trust and those I do not but I would never say any of them are worthless. I just disregard those I do not trust. Maybe that is wrong of me but I have reached an age (see earlier post!) where I do not want to spend precious time on futile arguments. I want to learn, not win or lose.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:34 AM

If you want to state an opinion, and want it given consideration, you should be prepared justify it.

For instance, by stating that all living historians who write for the tabloid press & whose books are available in bookshops agree with that opinion.

See, Dave, I wasn't really before time after all! ;>)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:39 AM

Dave, off topic but that's never stopped me before.

My eldest daughter really took to maths. She was learning, understanding and applying calculus at the age of 15. I'm mostly sure how to spell it, the history of it and even some uses for it. But edo it? Not a chance. I can keep a running estimate of groceries and their total cots and usually I'm out by a percent or two on $100 dollar shopping days. That from a guy who has grade 10 despite sitting through a year of grade 11. This has led me to conclude that genetics is a black art.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:42 AM

edo = do
cots = costs

It's a fact that in my opinion I can't type worth a darn. Well, I can obviously because I just did: worth a darn. Two in a row.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:44 AM

I am sure we did calculus at school but I can't remember any of it! I do remember working out logarithms - Not just using them but actually working out how to arrive at a logarithm. I was always more fascinated by tangents, sines and cosines as I loved formulae. Still do to a certain extent which is probably why I ended up computing!

Anyway, genetics is only a black art in your opinion :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:46 AM

> Maybe I am just not looking to make myself more credible to people who are not important to me.

Then why waste time "debating" them? One can't change minds without sound arguments.

And if one has sound arguments from sound evidence, and wants to influence people by being credible, one needs to provide the arguments and the evidence while keeping open to new information that might change his own mind.

Similarly, no one who thinks his arguments and evidence are sound should bother trying to reason with carping, quibbling, partisan, careless, disagreeable "true believers" or, as the case may be, leg-pullers.

Once I had a student who was absolutely unshakable in her opinions on just about everything of any importance. She had a knack of laughing off or explaining away any information that would suggest she was wrong.

Her justification, which she said proudly, was "I'm a stubborn person. That's the only way you can get what you want."

After one more failing grade, she dropped the course.

That must have been what she wanted.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 10:58 AM

Then why waste time "debating" them? One can't change minds without sound arguments.

I don't do either Lighter. Did I not just say I do not chose to play the win or lose game? I want to learn but do occasionally get caught up in what I believe are stupid arguments. I am just not interested in changing anyone's mind. Unless it is to get them to buy me a drink.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 11:23 AM

Greg, an excellent example!
I expressed that opinion and backed it with literally scores of quotes from established and recognised historians.
Recognised because their work can be found on the actual shelves of libraries and bookshops, and is discussed in each others works.


Dave, I am fully prepared to justify any opinion I express.
Take a recent example.
I expressed the opinion that radicalisation and recruitment to IS mostly happens via the internet.
You refuted that, and asserted that media and BBC publicity was responsible.

I produced quotes quotes from reputable sources agreeing my position.
You produced nothing at all.
You said you had knowledge but would not divulge it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 11:28 AM

My gawd Agnes . . .

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 11:35 AM

Back to the thread...

I actually do not think there is a *right* to ignorance. If your opinion is based on ignorance, and there exist facts to the contrary, then I agree that you do not have a *right* to that opinion.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 11:36 AM

I repeat from 08:15 AM

No references to specific old discussions from me, Keith. If you choose to continue old arguments on here that is your business but I expect that will serve no purpose other than closing the thread.

I have also said in the past that there is no point arguing with you. There is not. Just my opinion of course, but with the knowledge that it will only end the same way as all the rest. Please stop before this one gets closed as well.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 11:43 AM

Sorry - premature submit.

If you want to continue your argument about radicalisation please stick to your thread to do it. You know, the one where you said you had nothing more to say on the subject.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 12:45 PM

> If your opinion is based on ignorance, and there exist facts to the contrary, then I agree that you do not have a *right* to that opinion.

What makes you say that? Should people be fined or imprisoned for ignorance or stupidity?

In "1984," nobody had the right to an opinion not promoted by the State. Same in Stalin's Russia, Mao's China, Hitler's Germany. At least no such opinion could be expressed, much less discussed.

Perhaps you mean that nobody should expect or demand anybody else to share in an ill-founded opinion?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 12:55 PM

Greg, an excellent example!

Absolutely, Keith! You backed an untenable, minority opinion with irrelevant bullshit to support an opinion you'd decised upon before hand based pretty much on nothuing at all!

GOOD JOB!!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 12:58 PM

Keep it current, lads :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 01:09 PM

"Does that include the opinion that there is a divine being?"

"Yes."

"If so, what 'actual knowledge' does anyone have on that?"

"None either way."

This adds a third strand to this discussion. There are facts, there are opinions and there are ways in which to represent things. The above is a shining example of misrepresentation, and it isn't even a particularly cunning one. None either way is true only in a technical sense. One way harbours irrational belief, the other way depends in reason and rationality. "None either way" standing alone is a misrepresentation because it seems to give equal intellectual weight to both the ways. As the believer faction has suggested a divine being deliberately designed to be permanently inexplicable by any facts that could ever be gleaned, there is an element of dishonesty about "none either way" unless this is clarified.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: EBarnacle
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 01:25 PM

Side note==Raggytash, if you are still watching this thread, please sign in and PM me. I have a question for you.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 01:59 PM

I was just giving recent examples, not seeking to continue a thread which I walked away from and left you people carrying on.

I have expressed my opinion that an opinion based on ignorance is worthless, and that refusing to show that it is not based on ignorance destroys your credibility.

That seems to be the consensus too.

Greg,
You backed an untenable, minority opinion with irrelevant bullshit to support an opinion

Can you name any current historians I did not quote?
Would you like a list of those I did?
Can I remind you that you people could not produce any.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 02:09 PM

not seeking to continue a thread which I walked away from

Obviously another lie, Keith - 'cause here you are!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 02:35 PM

IMO , it is not a case of there being no evidence either way as to the existence of a Devine being. The fact is there is a creation that got here somehow.   Very few opt for an eternal universe , I understand, so that either means it was created, or it sprung out of nothing. Then it boils down to presuppositions adopted by each position. To the theist, it is obvious that the universe could not come into existence without intelligence and great power. The atheist is obviously not satisfied with that logic and demands other evidence.                               The " irrational belief" , IMO ,as Steve says, and suggests is applicable to the theist, is rather more apt for the atheist.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 03:41 PM

"You" is not derogatory.
"People" is not derogatory.
"You people" is not derogatory.
All entirely neutral, and used only to save typing a whole list of names.

Obviously another lie, Keith - 'cause here you are!

Yes.
Here I am on a different thread with a different subject.
No lie.
I do not lie Greg.
The previous thread was about a tragedy (Tunisia) that you people tried to make into just another squabble with me.
So I left.

I leave this one for the same reason.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 04:02 PM

Thank heavens for that. Now, can I ask a possibly naive question? I am still not sure why explaining your reasoning to arrive at an opinion is important. When I vote I am not asked why I voted that way. When I go to the pub to indulge in some quite intense debates I am not questioned about my motives. I have said I am not interested in getting someone who obviously disagrees with me on my side. So why does it seem important to some? Lighter, you seem to understand it. Can you explain?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 04:11 PM

Is that obvious as in easily perceived or understood; clear. (Concise Oxford English Dictionary)

How do the theists perceive ? What do they understand ?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 04:16 PM

"When I go to the pub to indulge in some quite intense debates I am not questioned about my motives" How do you have a debate without explaining the basis for your opinions ?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 04:25 PM

http://i674.photobucket.com/albums/vv101/Konradius5/Gary%20Larson%20Comics/MissileCaution.jpg

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 05:23 PM

How do you have a debate without explaining the basis for your opinions ?

It's very easy.

"You're a wanker"

"No I'm not"

"Yes you are. Want another pint?"

"OK, go on then..."

Nice one, # :-)

Maybe I should go into more detail on why I will no longer go into detail on my opinion.

Arguant (Is there such a word?) #1: I believe this.

Arguant #2: Why do you believe that?

Arguant #1: Because web site a, b and c

Arguant #2: But those sites are crap

Arguant #1: But they are valid

Arguant #2: No they are not because x, y and z

And so it goes. I just get pissed off with these circular arguments and I have said so in more than one place. Still it goes on. Why?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 05:46 PM

IMO , it is not a case of there being no evidence either way as to the existence of a Devine being. The fact is there is a creation that got here somehow.   Very few opt for an eternal universe , I understand, so that either means it was created, or it sprung out of nothing. Then it boils down to presuppositions adopted by each position. To the theist, it is obvious that the universe could not come into existence without intelligence and great power. The atheist is obviously not satisfied with that logic and demands other evidence.                               The " irrational belief" , IMO ,as Steve says, and suggests is applicable to the theist, is rather more apt for the atheist.

Well, apart from the fact that this is brainless rubbish, it is also highly mischievous. My post was not an attempt to get religious nut jobs all worked up, but to demonstrate how an argument, any argument about any topic, can be hijacked by someone of dishonest intent who decides to misrepresent, as Keith did. Do read it again if you can be arsed, and ignore this ludicrous and pointless response. I tried to respond hours ago, but this damn website wouldn't let me open the thread.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 06:26 PM

"You" is not derogatory.
"People" is not derogatory.
"You people" is not derogatory.
All entirely neutral, and used only to save typing a whole list of names.

Well now, let's see. And I'm going to have to type the bloody F-word here, which is totally against my personal online policy...

"Fuck" is not derogatory. In fact, in the right setting, it can be a beautiful word.

"Off" is not derogatory. It has a number of different applications in many different contexts. A pretty ordinary and useful word, in fact.

"Keith" is not derogatory. It's a perfectly normal boy's name. Not my personal favourite by a long chalk, but hey ho.

Need I say more? I bloody hope not.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 06:27 PM

Try using either awe.mudcat.org or etta.mudcat.org, Steve. They are direct servers rather than a load balancer. I think there may be another but I can't remember what it is.

Anyway, thank you, this thread is primarily about how to argue rather than content. Let us continue in that direction if we are allowed.

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 08:01 PM

I tried to post to the other thread before it was closed:

thusly... Opinions are not the sort of thing that facts are relevant to.
Opinions should be about flavors, colors, beauty... and bands & songs...etc.
Facts are about things that can be measured & documented.

In the original thread, you said something about an opinion being 'valid', and I spent some time saying that validity is about the logical relation of premises to conclusions.
These distinctions are important because people constantly misuse words.... so religious beliefs are an opinion about some claims made by others. There are certain facts ABOUT flavors... and bands and the history OF religions.. but no facts that serve to prove any one is 'better'.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:38 AM

Yes, Steve this damn website often won't let me open threads either. But as you wrote earlier, about the divine being thing:

""None either way" standing alone is a misrepresentation because it seems to give equal intellectual weight to both the ways."

In this case the ONUS is on the believer to produce evidence to support his/her case. To claim, as a certain believer here often does, that God is unknowable/inexplicable etc. merely serves to undermine his case.

Actually, a fervent young man stopped me the street the other day and asked me if I "knew Jesus" (or some such bullshit). When I asked him to back up the various claims he was making with evidence, all he could do was come up with was pious waffle, anecdotes (people have been cured etc.) and appeals to 'authority' (a certain old book). He couldn't even give me a coherent reason for why he was trying to convert me. I got bored after a while and told him that I was busy.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Musket sans digestive
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:16 AM

That isn't argument, that's contradiction!
No it isn't!
Yes it is!

Surprised nobody thought of quoting that, although they might quote it verbatim rather than in my case, memory.

I have noticed that those who indulge in extreme opinions with generally no basis in reality are also the ones who scream for data to back up opinions of others. It is, in my opinion, a result of not having courage of conviction for their own nastiness. There seems to be a comfort for them in comparing their tenuous "back it up" nonsense, found usually on far right websites or tabloid lies with reality, because after all, the ex leader of The British National Party once pointed out to his troops that in a discussion, their sources are still sources and at the very least have to be compared to sources for the opposite view.

The evidence for an opinion is not the business of the reader, and it is rather insulting when some always scream for it, from "you people." The inference is that anyone who educates the TC is a liar.

Not really worthy of a an adult discussion thread. There again, my co Musket seems to get to the nub of the matter but you have to be quick to read it...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:19 AM

""None either way" standing alone is a misrepresentation because it seems to give equal intellectual weight to both the ways."

In this case the ONUS is on the believer to produce evidence to support his/her case. To claim, as a certain believer here often does, that God is unknowable/inexplicable etc. merely serves to undermine his case.

Not rejoining, just clarifying my statement for you.

I said there is no "evidence" for or against God.
That is a fact not an opinion, and certainly not a "misrepresentation."

There is no "onus" on anyone to produce it, because there is none.
Is that hard for you to deal with?

You can believe if you want to, or not, but there is no point demanding "evidence" or bemoaning its absence, or blaming anyone for the absence.

There is no evidence for or against.
Sorry.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:26 AM

That's why belief in a deity is called 'Faith'.

There is no incontrovertible evidence, adherents are asked to believe but not to ask for proof.

Do you, don't you believe? That's a personal decision.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Sans Kendal Mint Cake
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:43 AM

Good point guest.

Although to have a belief is not necessarily to believe any of that actually happened. I know plenty of people comfortable to say they have a faith or belief but I doubt any of them actually think a bloke called Jesus did magic tricks and came back to life or that Mohammed had a flying carpet.

It is at the level of my faith and belief in Sheffield Wednesday. I can't back it up with facts and logically, we'd all support Chelsea. But like religion, logic and common sense play no part.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:46 AM

"literally scores of quotes from established and recognised historians."
Time this was put to bed once and for all.
Your arguments relied on (out of context) quotes from one historian and one tabloid journalist (a non historian you had disqualified to the rest of us because he wasn't a "real historian"), you produced cut-'n-pastes from their writings, neither of which yo had read, and you chose to ignore quotes they had made wit#ch undermined your case.
You failed to convince anybody and that remains the case.
As for the evidence on there being a god - two of the vital ingredients missing from argument are proof and logic, both of which are need if the idea is to make sense.
The belief in a god is as tangible as the once world-wide belief in fairies - once, just as firmly held.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:13 AM

"I said there is no "evidence" for or against God.
That is a fact not an opinion, and certainly not a "misrepresentation."

There is no "onus" on anyone to produce it, because there is none.
Is that hard for you to deal with?"

There is an onus on the believer in God to produce evidence for his belief ONLY if he tries to convince me of the validity of his belief or attempts to convert me to his religion. The intention, on the part of the believer, leads to the onus.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 05:07 AM

I understand the intended spirit of this thread and have no wish for the discussion to be derailed into another God or no God argument. My point is that the curt "there is no
evidence either way" is a disingenuous and dishonest way of misrepresenting a position in a debate in which evidence is not possible, in this particular case made impossible by the nature of the initial proposition set up by believers. It is not a neutral position to take because it serves to protect believers from attack from people who would rather rely on rationality and reason. Suppose you claim that dandelions must grow on top of Mount Etna. We look at all the literature and check with the local botanists and find that dandelions have never been noted on top of Mount Etna. Well, we can then assemble a posse of plant hunters to go and do a thorough search. When we find no dandelions up there (which we won't by the way; I'm a botanist and I've been up and seen for myself), we then have evidence. Not incontrovertible evidence, as we may have missed a few nooks and crannies, but enough to show that the claim was almost certainly false. To start with, there was no evidence either way, though reason told us that the claim was probably false in view of the inhospitable conditions up there. That was at least an honest representation. It is not honest when evidence is impossible. In fact, it's actually rather a silly thing to say when you think about it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 05:32 AM

Sorry, the guest at 03.26 was me.

But the fact that you can't prove something doesn't make it wrong. That's the whole basis of scientific method.

You postulate,develop a theory, or a belief, and then you look for evidence to support it.

But the absence of evidence doesn't mean that it's wrong. Just that its unproven. Scientists believed in the existence of the Higgs-Boson particle for years before there was any proof.

So, no-one's proved that God exists - yet.

And its far more difficult to prove that something DOESN'T exist.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 05:40 AM

It was indeed, Steve, with a specific context in mind. My issue is about having to back up opinions with facts. The problem I have is that whatever you link to substantiate your opinion, someone will provide a link that puts the opposite. It becomes a pointless circular argument and no matter what you say, it will be dismissed by quoting a different authority. I have genuinely tried to look at arguments from all sides and have now come to the conclusion that most, if not all, opinions have some element of truth but are never the whole picture. These is no point in trying to convince someone that your opinion is correct because, chances are, it is not the whole truth. Likewise when someone tries to tell me that their opinion is right or better than all others, I know that they are deluding themselves.

It does seem that I am cynical in this, but the opposite is the case in reality. I tend to believe everything to a greater or lesser degree and, although people may think me naive, I do tend to think the best of most people. But not all ;-) I get very frustrated with the 'I'm right everyone else is wrong' attitude of many posters on here. Even some I am often in agreement with. Knowing that there is no point in arguing, for the reasons I have just stated, and being frustrated by the conceit and pomposity of some posters I am left with only one option. Take the piss. I know I shouldn't, but I am only a Gnome after all...

Cheers

Dave

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Raggytash
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 05:44 AM

Kampervan,

There's a slight flaw in your argument. If someone doesn't believe in the Higgs Bosun particle there hasn't been a raft of laws and legislation over many centuries telling him/her that they have to conform to certain norms because other people DO believe in the Higgs Bosun particle.

People haven't built temples, churches, synagogues and mosques to "celebrate" the Higgs Bosun particle. People haven't started wars (at least not to my knowledge) over the existence of a Higgs Bosun particle.

So we have a situation whereby our everyday lives are governed to an extent by the belief, by some people, of an entity they cannot prove exists.

I find that rather bizarre.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 05:58 AM

You can't prove a flying teapot orbits the Earth controlling us.

But there again you can't prove it doesn't.

If we didn't have religious nonsense, someone would go and invent it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:18 AM

So, no-one's proved that God exists - yet. And its far more difficult to prove that something DOESN'T exist.

On the contrary. We can quite readily point to a time when God most certainly didn't exist, and we can look at how the idea of monotheism evolved from preceding pantheons & mythologies. We can also look at other cultures and religions for whom the very idea of God is anathema, if only to show that even in our own time the God concept is far from ubiquitous.

In nature, there is no God. The idea only exists in humanlore and has no basis in reality. Humanity created God simply because they didn't know. Now that we're at least beginning to, the idea has significantly less appeal. Indeed, the very idea of God is synonymous with an arrogant & aggressive righteousness that would insist that even the galaxies we see in the famous Hubble eXtreme Deep Field Image which are up to 13.2 billion years old, are the work of a God we only dreamed up (at best) 4,000 years ago.

Ergo, God doesn't exist. Simples!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:25 AM

J B , you MAY be right, but your contribution is a series of unsupported statements.

Perhaps God always existed and man just discovered him circa 4000 years ago.

i do not doubt the truth about the origins of the universe, as far as we understand it now, but that preclude the existence of God.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:26 AM

PS - Whilst we acquire tastes, and form opinions, beliefs are readily constructed in terms of theological dogma to be adopted wholesale by those who feel compelled to believe. Belief requires faith, and faith is delusion.

It's all subjective, of course, but there is an objective reality; that all-inclusive broader picture that only resolves itself when we stand far enough back from it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:28 AM

"You postulate,develop a theory, or a belief, and then you look for evidence to support it."

This is not the scientific method. First, belief has nothing to do with it. Second, the theory comes after some good evidence is amassed, not before, as you state here. Naturally, theories can be strengthened by further evidence. The theory of evolution by natural selection was formulated before there was much knowledge of genetics or cellular biochemistry, areas of knowledge that have subsequently overwhelmingly supported Darwin. Third, you do not just look for evidence to support it. You look for evidence on both sides. In fact, much good scientific endeavour begins with a statement that the initial hypothesis is wrong, putting the onus on workers to show that it's worth pursuing after all. Look up "null hypothesis." Finally, there is no proof that the Higgs Boson exists. There is a good deal of evidence in its favour. As has been stated a hundred times here, science sets out to amass more and more evidence which contributes to the body of human knowledge, not seek "proofs" for anything at all. Naturally, this is an invitation to Snail to wade in with his take on falsifiability.... :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:36 AM

One reason arguments go round in circles here is sloppy use, both deliberate and accidental, of terms like belief.

It undermines the logic of people who are careful how they use terms. Deliberate misuse in a very specific way also devalues the arguments of people who are happy to use them informally.

How about about sticking with Faith as belief without evidence and Belief as a firmly held conviction.

That way people can believe in a deity and Steve can believe that dandelions do not grow on top of Mt Etna. I can choose to believe that dandelions do not grow on top of Mt Etna or can regard Steve's belief as an opinion that I won't waste time challenging unless either I have some more evidence or can point to a flaw in his evidence or logic.

(crossing with Steve and others so will leave it at that for now)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:37 AM

Perhaps God always existed and man just discovered him circa 4000 years ago.

God only exists in literature & folklore; like Tam Lin and Harry Potter. We don't find him in objective reality; God is a character of our individual / collective imagination. Is God is real then Tam Lin and Harry Potter are real too; likewise all the other Gods we've dreamed up over the years. As Richard Dawkins said - We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:45 AM

continuing:   except to wonder if Steve has theory, or maybe a working hypothesis, or perhaps just some suggestions as to why dandelions might not grow on top of Mt Etna.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Kampervan
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:49 AM

Guess I'm just going to have to differ with a number of contributors and call it a stand-off. They think that they're right and whilst I may be wrong, none of their contributions persuade me.

I think I'll bow out on this one rather than go round in circles, which can get quite boring.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:57 AM

God only exists in literature & folklore; like Tam Lin and Harry Potter.

No. Harry Potter is known to be a literary invention . A case can be made (probably one above the line here) that Tam Lin is the invention of a writer or story teller.

God(s) could be a response to a human proclivity for seeing agency in inannimate objects or as an explanation for phenomena that are not understood.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:01 AM

@Kampervan. FWIW I was going to disagree with Raggytash saying there a was a flaw in your argument but it was too much like hard work to unpick what Raggytash said.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:01 AM

Of course. I went up Mount Etna in dandelion season this year. I'm a keen botanist and I took lots of pictures and videos both of the plant life I found and of the terrain. I know the climatic range preferred by dandelions, their soil requirements and the state of both those things on Etna's upper reaches. Etna's highest slopes are covered in loose tephra full of unleached and highly toxic chemicals inimical to plant life. The volcano is in a permanent state of eruption and nothing lasts long on those upper slopes. I won't go on. Somewhere, in a favoured little cranny, there may be dandelions. There are lots of keen botanists like me but no records. It's all evidence. None of it incontrovertible, but evidence nonetheless, though of course you may ask for corroboration, which is what science does. I don't have beliefs about this. I conclude that dandelions almost certainly don't grow at, say, over 10000 feet on Etna.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:08 AM

That sums it up, Kampervan. I always accept that my opinion may be wrong but, as in your case, there are not many contributions that would make me change my mind. It is, quite often, the way things are put across rather than the content and very often a question of the trust in someone as I suggested earlierthe.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:12 AM

Harry Potter is known to be a literary invention .

Sure, he is now but one day, who knows, maybe 4,000 years down the line, Harry Potter will be seen as historic reality rather than a recent manifestation of the same mythic supernatural hero archetype we've been kicking around now for the past 50,000 years. Harry Potter, Jesus Christ - it's all the same thing. It begins as metaphor - then it becomes something more persuasive as it takes hold. It's a fascinating process (however so noxious & inevitable its atrocities) but only in terms of humanity's ability to tell stories and delude themselves into subsequent belief.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:29 AM

It begins as metaphor - then it becomes something more persuasive as it takes hold.

Do you have evidence for that being the case for all Gods ? People will believe in agency in inannimate objects and feel spooked in the dark without anyone making up a story for them.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Stu
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:57 AM

"You postulate,develop a theory, or a belief, and then you look for evidence to support it."

No, you look at the evidence, develop a hypothesis and then test it. Looking for evidence to support a belief is not science, it's faith.

Opinions are not equal, and this has to be taken into account when discussing any given subject. I certainly have an opinion on why my car does this funny thing when the turbo on the diesel fails to kick in sometimes, but in truth I have no bloody idea at all and my opinion, compared to that of a mechanic, is actually worthless and should be ignored. My observations might prove useful though, as evidence of the fault and it's nature.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:58 AM

I'd say it's pretty much self-evident even unto the point of ubiquity but - get this - no two religions ever come out the same. Why's that I wonder? If God is so true? The equation is simple : they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. As Dawkins says : one god further.

Religion fascinates as folklore, it's an aspect of human culture; a scourge, indeed, like war and musicals. And whilst it tells us a lot about the workings of the primitive mind, it tells us nothing at all about nature other than that we've always been wowed by it. These days we're more wowed than ever; science gives us that - it reveals nature be one big beautiful Godless wow.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:14 AM

But does it, as with Harry Potter, Tam Lin and Gandalf begin as entertainment? Fictional characters like those are a needless complication to the debate.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:45 AM

They begin as creative impulses, stories and metaphor replete with cunning, analogy and all the twists and turns a canny storyteller-cum-shaman can get in there to wow their audience by way of ritual / ceremonial exorcism.   So I guess it's all entertainment, no matter how seriously we might take it.

In the beginning humanity saw itself as other from Nature, and with its new found words and cognition began the process of personifying it in terms both benevolent and malevolent. In time our many gods were rolled up into the one big horrible monotheistic super god and Nature became the metaphor of that, thus giving Mankind carte-blanche to enslave women, massacre others for thinking differently and use the planet indiscriminately for its own ends.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:06 AM

In the beginning. Huh, what beginning?

Anecdotally some hunter-gatherer communites do/did not regard themselves and other than Nature. Quite definitely some religions are still polytheistic.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:17 AM

Jim,
Your arguments relied on (out of context) quotes from one historian and one tabloid journalist

Not true Jim.
Below is a list of the historians I quoted.
I quoted them in context, with a link so it could be seen in context.
Not one was challenged as being out of context.

All the historians lead, or hold senior positions in, university history faculties except for Hastings.
He is an acclaimed historian by virtue of his research and his books.
Here the BBC places him at the head of their list of "ten leading historians" of WW1.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26048324


Saul David, Nigel Jones, Richard Holmes, Peter Hart, David Stephenson, Dan Todman, Gary Sheffield, Max Hastings, Malcolm Brown,
Stuart Halifax, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan, William Philpott,
Tristram Hunter, Dan Snow, Ian McMillan, David Renolds, heather Jones,
Jane Winter, Pierre Purseigle, Brian Bond, Daniel De Groote, Jeremy Paxman/OU History Dept.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:34 AM

No Keith - those were out-of-context claims - the "quotes" were inconclusive and meaningless.
Tou settled on Sheffield and Hastings, refused to comment on the contradictions with the writings of all those you are still claiming supported your case - you insisted on "real historians" selling in "real bookshops" for the rest of us
Your tabloid journalist does not have the qualifications you insisted on for the rest of us mortals, whatever the Beeb choose to call him.
Sorry - You Lose (to borrow one of your own phrases) only it's not a "win or lose game for the rest of us.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:37 AM

Sorry - missed a bit
Over and out
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:47 AM

Anecdotally some hunter-gatherer communites do/did not regard themselves and other than Nature

Doesn't change the fact that as a cognitive / cultural species (the only cognitive cultural species who made The Great Leap in to Behavioural Modernity not so very long ago - see HERE for the basics) we are other from nature. No matter how far-out our philosophy of the cosmos, it's still philosophy, which is entirely unknown in nature. For sure, we are all Stardust but we left the garden behind thousands of years ago. Good for us, some of us anyway, most of us maybe, but not so good for the planet. Time, I think, we made another leap...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:50 AM

For goodness sake Keith and Jim. If you want to continue the history debate please do so on another thread. One of my main complaints on this one is that a round of people quoting one set of experts against another gets extremely tedious.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:53 AM

Until Keith and Jim got up and reentered the fray this thread was an example of something extremely unusual a mudcat - a thread that went from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Excellent discussion of opinion/faith/evidence/theory/ and this one needs to be etched in stone:

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:36 AM

One reason arguments go round in circles here is sloppy use, both deliberate and accidental, of terms like belief.

It undermines the logic of people who are careful how they use terms. Deliberate misuse in a very specific way also devalues the arguments of people who are happy to use them informally.

How about about sticking with Faith as belief without evidence and Belief as a firmly held conviction.

That way people can believe in a deity and Steve can believe that dandelions do not grow on top of Mt Etna. I can choose to believe that dandelions do not grow on top of Mt Etna or can regard Steve's belief as an opinion that I won't waste time challenging unless either I have some more evidence or can point to a flaw in his evidence or logic.

In my humble opinion. Good job!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:04 AM

Doesn't change the fact that... It makes "In the beginning humanity saw itself as..." a poor start to the expression of a point of view.

My dog may see itself as the centre of a world in which other dogs are more like it than me and the cat. Recognising Nature as something to be of or not is quite a cognitive advance on that. Maybe one made before your 'beginning'.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:12 AM

I wasn't sure, Acme. I agree about the going round in circles bit but, bearing in mind where I was coming from on this thread, I am still confused about the terms belief and opinion. If, in the above example, Steve says that no dandelions grow on Mt Etna, is that a belief, a theory or an opinion? It seems to me that people are happy to ridicule other peoples opinions but, according to some, ridiculing a belief is wrong. What is the difference?

Anyway, I don't want to labour the point. Just take it that I accept my opinions can be as wrong as anyone elses! What is this about starting off as ridiculous anyway? Cheeky monkey...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:15 AM

We know that Harry Potter is mythical because we can ask his inventor. But what about Robin Hood, William Tell and King Arthur? Ah, how the mists of time add lustre to the legends, never allowing the prosaic to get in the way. Go back even further and things get even more etiolated: Jesus, Moses, Noah...

And I told you, Acme. I do not believe that dandelions don't grow on top of Mount Etna. I have reached the conclusion that they probably don't from what evidence there is. My conclusion is ever open to revision should new evidence come to light.   People who believe in a supernatural being do so in spite of absence of evidence. Here's the difference. If it were ever possible to prove beyond doubt that God did not exist, millions of believers would be absolutely devastated. If someone found dandelions on top of Etna, I would be surprised, intrigued and delighted.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:21 AM

"Steve says that no dandelions grow on Mt Etna, is that a belief, a theory or an opinion?"

None of those. It's a conclusion based on evidence that I know could be overturned. And I'm talking only about Etna's highest reaches. There are plenty of dandelions on the lower slopes. I've seen 'em, but you could find yourself asking for my evidence.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:23 AM

Not your first post DtG, but some of the initial posts followed a predictable trajectory.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:33 AM

Steve. If you were not a botanist and had not been to the top of Mt Etna but someone else was, had been there, and had made the same observations, what word would you use to describe your view on whether or not dandelions grew there ?

By only ever using belief to mean belief without evidence you are making the discussion of faith harder. Which is odd because you seem to like discussing it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:35 AM

crossed with Steve

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:36 AM

... also conclusion is an odd word for something that might be re-assessed.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:37 AM

Maybe one made before your 'beginning'.

It WAS the beginning - that's the point. Modern Humanity begins with that. We became a breed apart from the rest of nature and can do with pretty much what we like with it - including domesticating wolves and turning them into a myriad of different dog breeds. We are thus storytellers and dog-breeders; we are the transfiguring alchemists of nature who can take the mineral deposits of a billion years and an understanding of the laws of physics and turn them into a mighty steam engine, or a nuclear bomb, or a contrabass clarinet.

We are the tricksters & myth-makers who end up believing our own hype.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:50 AM

Modern Humanity begins with that. You mean a recognition reached simultaneously by all members of the species ? A shared 'light bulb moment'.

The slippery slope of metaphor.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:50 AM

I would ask him for his evidence. He would have fired my curiosity. Taking account of his credentials, and any corroboration he could offer, I would quite likely reach a conclusion as strong as the one I have now. My take on the word belief is that it has no place in the scientific process. It implies acceptance on insufficient evidence or none at all, and could be difficult to uproot. Of course, outside science we might use the word in a looser sense, which is fine by me. In fact, I haven't got as much to say about faith, in its religious sense, as you seem to think. I think that accepting an extremely unlikely claim, such as a phenomenon that goes against the laws of nature, as a act of faith is delusional, and I think it is wrong to try to pass it on to other people as truth. As for opinions, I have opinions about art, music and literature that are predicated on aesthetic considerations, and I don't need to show evidence for those. Opinions about the veracity or otherwise of things are a different matter. If you're my trusted mate, you may take me at my word. Otherwise, I half-expect, at least, to be asked to provide support. What we often argue about here is the nature of the support offered for opinions, which can often be very faulty. Read any post by our resident creationist to see what I mean. .

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:55 AM

Hmmm. I think we are now talking about at least 2, possibly 3, different things. My initial premise was about primarily political opinion. If you have a political opinion, I don't think it can ever be wrong or right. To ask someone to substantiate that opinion is what then becomes the circular argument calling upon higher and higher authorities. The second one, talking of higher authorities, is a religious belief in a divine body which can never be proved and relies on faith. The third is scientific theories, or conclusions, which are based on known evidence but cannot be considered wholly correct because there is always the possibility it could be disproved.

Can we agree that those are the different types of opinion and, maybe, concentrate on the first one?

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:56 AM

We use the word conclusion in science at the end of an investigative process, an experiment for example, in order to weigh the probability of what may have been demonstrated. Note, however, that in experiments we do not set out to demonstrate, but to investigate. To obtain more evidence. There is nothing final about a conclusion. It's a statement of where we've got to so far.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 11:03 AM

I suppose some people held the opinion that Hitler was a great man who got it right. Political opinions are complicated. There is every possibility that any given political opinion could be coloured by ignorance and/or self-interest and more. Maybe the words right and wrong don't apply. But a political opinion can certainly be reached by a very dubious route.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 11:53 AM

There is every possibility that any given political opinion could be coloured by ignorance and/or self-interest and more.

I do find that quite significant, Steve. It could also be any other subjective opinion which involves matters of taste, background and many other factors. These are the things that I do not feel can ever be treated to fully objective analysis. The thing that started off this train of thought is much more this type of opinion. To be asked to explain it, when I know very well that whatever explanation I give would lead to the usual circular arguments, seems to be tactic relied upon by some posters on Mudcat. In my opinion that is :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:02 PM

Jim,
Tou settled on Sheffield and Hastings,

Not true.
What about the many quotes from all those others, especially those from Dan Todman, Catriona Pennel, Margaret MacMillan, heather Jones, Brian Bond, and Daniel De Groote?

(I claim right of reply. Sorry if it offends.)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:06 PM

Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is my favourite of the nine symphonies.

Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is the greatest of the nine symphonies.

Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony is, in my opinion, the greatest of the nine symphonies.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Doug Chadwick
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:07 PM

My initial premise was about primarily political opinion.

Your opening post expressed an opinion on the best band on the folk scene. People having opinions on faith was also mentioned. Politics never came into it.

DC

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:09 PM

You mean a recognition reached simultaneously by all members of the species ? A shared 'light bulb moment'.

Simultaneously? The jury's still out on that one. But Behavioural Modernity begins with the lightbulb (indeed we'd have no lightbulb without it, though it took a while) known as The Great Leap - and with it our essential humanity.

For more see : Behavioural Modernity

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:12 PM

Interesting that Keith says those he believes to be academics must be right about history but when two medical profs, a reader in public health and a registrar on a sexual health attachment all try to show him where is wrong with using health statistics to further his homophobic stance, we either don't exist or are not as clever as a retired PE teacher.

Views are, as I said, subjective. Reality doesn't move with bigotry, bigotry just looks all the more ridiculous.

Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Thick Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Cunt Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom Boom

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Takes the biscuit
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:20 PM

Replies don't offend, their content may insult the intelligence of normal people though.

Funnily enough, I saw a poster outside a clappy happy church a while ago, stating that the bible is in the non fiction section of book shops.

Obviously meant Christian book shops.

Meanwhile, iTunes has a Kate Rusby album as country and western, so people quoting subjective nonsense in order to make their opinion seem like a fact is hardly credible is it?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:42 PM

Didn't read the thread as my 'opinion' is I couldn't be arsed to do so after all the tripe and lard posted on previous contrary similarly titled threads. That makes 136 opinions, IMO, so the title statement is false.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 12:45 PM

> In this case the ONUS is on the believer to produce evidence to support his/her case. To claim, as a certain believer here often does, that God is unknowable/inexplicable etc. merely serves to undermine his case.

This, I think, is a special situation because, as the faithful acknowledge, theistic arguments are not bound by reason.

An onus exists only in a discussion based on reason alone, which is to be decided on known, accessible evidence. The nature of God, as generally defined, is said to be beyond logic, which prevents either side from proving its case.

Aquinas in the Middle Ages acknowledged that God's existence cannot be proved by reason alone, and, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Luther considered reason to be a "whore" that could be manipulated to "prove" anything.


Skeptics can state correctly that none of the evidence proffered for God's existence is conclusive. Except for miracles taken at face value, it isn't even impressive at first blush.

But "not impressive" does not necessarily mean "wrong" in terms of what really exists and what doesn't.

But there's no "onus" on skeptics either. They are not logically required to prove a negative about something that, by definition, is inexplicable and beyond human powers of reason.

If God exists and his methods and purposes inexplicable and unknowable, the use of reason to tell us anything (or anything much) about God would be pointless.

All agree that positive belief is indeed a matter of "faith" rather than of logic. Perhaps all faith is wishful thinking.

In any case, I believe all agree also that faith can indeed be misguided in terms of its consequences for others - and sometimes even for the believer: the Crusades, the Aztecs, ISIS.

Religions are notoriously contradictory. While nearly all recommend deep compassion, that compassion is most often for selected co-believers only. The natural world, moreover, exhibits no compassion whatsoever. Whether human compassion, such as it is, comes from inside or outside the human mind, from evolution or from God, is another imponderable.

There is no compelling evidence either for or against God's existence.   

The evidence, however, is extraordinarily compelling that *if* God's existence is real, that existence is poorly represented by *any* known religion, most of which hold to almost entirely contradictory tenets. Converts are people who have found their previous faith (or lack of it) to be "wrong," but every religion has converts and apostates. Some atheists get religion, and some fundamentalists become atheists. (That alone is almost enough to cast doubt on the truth of any given religion.)

And even *if* a God were the inexplicable, self-created source of the universe, one couldn't say very much more on the subject. What that God might want from us, if anything, or what his/her/its purposes might be, or how (or if) that God wanted to be worshiped, are questions that are beyond logical proof.

Which means that in spite of all arguments pro and con, God in some way either exists or doesn't. Get over it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:04 PM

You don't know what you are missing, gnu. It has even been described as "Excellent discussion of opinion/faith/evidence/theory".

Doug, the opening statement, after a preliminary which will not make sense unless you knew that an earlier thread was deleted, is "I have been told that I am not entitled to an opinion unless I can back that opinion up with facts. I do not believe this to be true." The two opinions expressed were examples, nothing more. If you chose to try and make something of that, feel free, but it is an irrelevance.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:21 PM

The only problem with all the reason, logic and constructive comment in Lighter's post above is that it forgets one important fact.

There is no such thing as God, unless it's the term you give to what we haven't worked out yet.

The God of bibles, other scriptures, island superstitions etc can easily be seen as illogical impossibilities that exercised the minds of medieval men and later, simpletons of today.

You can't have a baby without being impregnated, Angels don't exist, turning water into wine requires chemical interaction that can be easily explained if anyone does it, only Chris Waddle ever walked on water, dead men don't rise and if there was a man called Jesus who was nailed to a tree for pissing off those doing well under Roman rule, he didn't rise up to see his imaginary Dad.

Of course, you are free to have an opinion that such conjuring tricks and fables are impressive, and if they could be done, would be. But considering the bible's first line begins with an assertion that cannot be substantiated, it is a belief as opposed to being something to actually believe.

Up the Owls.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:32 PM

The problem, Lighter, is that it's all very well claiming that reason is the wrong tool for considering God's existence, even resorting to calling it a whore, until you remember that the people who put God beyond reason in the first place had to abandon reason in order to put him there.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,see note
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:36 PM

For information Could humans achieve 'virgin birth'?

(this from the GUEST who was debating with Steve and Jack)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:41 PM

"Not true."
True, I' afraid - sorry if that offends.
"Until Keith and Jim got up and reentered the fray"
Putting the record straight - I'm gone
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 01:52 PM

That kind of Virgin birth wouldn't be a miracle though as it would be scientifically completely explicable. That would be far too distressing for people of faith.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:12 PM

There is no compelling evidence either for or against God's existence.   

That very lack of evidence FOR is compelling enough evidence AGAINST.

This doesn't work the other way around, alas, because the onus really has to be on the believer to prove otherwise. The non-believer merely gestures smilingly to the infinite wonders of the cosmos and says : 'Look! No God! No heaven! No hell! No afterlife! Just a universe of wondrous being (mostly) devoid of human bullshit of which God has to be a pretty rich & fetid example.'

*

Who are all these GUESTS anyway? Can't they distinguish themselves in anyway? At least when I post as a GUEST I come up with a name (Rïah Sahïltaahk being a recent one). so the debate can proceed in an orderly fashion. Log in or name yourselves. Gets confusing otherwise. Ta!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:29 PM

That very lack of evidence FOR is compelling enough evidence AGAINST.

No it is not.

Re miracles, if there is a supreme being that created the universe, it would be capable of making scientifically inexplicable things happen.

Human science has cracked virgin birth and transmutation of elements anyway, so nothing inexplicable about that.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:38 PM

"The nature of God, as generally defined, is said to be beyond logic, which prevents either side from proving its case."

Who says so? Believers, of course! This 'argument' always sounds to me like someone making up the rules as they go along: "heads I win, tails you lose!"

I still think that the onus is on the EVANGELISING believer to support his case. Non-evangelising believers can believe whatever they like, as long as they stay away from me!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 02:45 PM

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. There doesn't need to be evidence. It is, after all, an opinion.

However, if verifiable facts (I refrain from defining "fact"!) are not involved, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Yes, all those freaks, losers, call them what you will, who strangely have an opinion that is unacceptable, illogical, or just downright stupid... Guess what? They probably think your opinion is the same.

No-one is right. That's what an opinion is. A view. That's all. Believe what you want. Accept that other people are allowed the same. If you don't agree with them, you can argue against them. But never tell them they're not allowed to have their opinion. Do so & you just told yourself the same thing...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:12 PM

Well said the Raedwulf.... Long time no see?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:36 PM

I'm not aware that anyone here has said that anyone else is not entitled to their opinion. But no-one's entitled to have their openly-stated opinion unchallenged. Of course, if they are challenged and fail to respond, they look like utter bellends. Don't forget, an opinion that can't be supported by its owner may well be a sign of second-handedness, of predigestion, of prejudice or of bigotry.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:55 PM

Many have opinions. Do they, however, have a RIGHT to that opinion? Only (in my opinion) if it is informed and rational.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 03:57 PM

But never tell them they're not allowed to have their opinion.

Bur you can sure as hell prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their opinion is 14 karat bullshit and tell them so.

Whether they accept said proof or not, since stupid is as stupid does.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:27 PM

The problem's not so much with opinion, belief, faith, but with the state using our taxes to fund such things. In my local area, two out of five primary schools and one out of two secondary schools are faith schools. I'm not having it that that reflects the local community (though it seems that plenty of people miraculously develop a faith just about the time they need to decide which school to send their kids to...). What it means is that people of faith don't just have an opinion, they have one I'm expected to subsidise. That's where it stinks.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:30 PM

Why do people lie and cheat to get their kids into a brainwashing factory?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Not Jack if it helps
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:38 PM

Opinions are on different levels.

You have opinions based on your mental capacity. Opinions based on insular upbringing. Opinions based on being learned and well read, on good logical understanding, on personal experience, on second hand experience or empathy, on bigotry, on vendetta or agenda, on lots of other things too.

You also have opinions based on whether you denigrate or cause others to change their opinions of sections of society based on your discrimination.

Then a peg is required to put on your nose. The small people have arrived

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:42 PM

Why do people lie and cheat to get their kids into a brainwashing factory?

What do all living historians who write for the tabloid press and have their books available in real bookstores have to say on this question, Keith?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:52 PM

My opinion that Liverpool are the greatest club in the world and that Bill Shankly was greater than God himself is fondly held but ultimately untenable. But it doesn't actually do anyone any harm no matter how often I say it. I would say that as a deluded fool I'm entitled to that opinion. What I'm not entitled to is to expect my opinion to remain unchallenged. I'm also not entitled to force my opinion on anyone else or to employ it as hate speech. What goes on in my head is one thing. Once it gets out of my head I'd better be prepared to justify it.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,A hungry Musket sans cookie jar
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 04:55 PM

I have an opinion that Sheffield Wednesday are the only team to support.
It is a fact that their record suggests looking elsewhere.

I have an opinion that Richard Thompson writes and performs like no other.
It is a fact that musical appreciation is subjective.

I have an opinion that my pet greyhound must have been abused in his racing days.
It is a fact that so many trainers have been convicted of cruelty, my opinion might have facts to back it up, but it's still just an opinion.

I have an opinion that Mudcat moderators occasionally moderate on the basis of personal stances on a subject.
It is a fact that Max requires them not to.

I have an opinion that WW1 soldiers were influenced by jingoism and let down by inept leadership.
It is a fact that the war grave cemeteries contain white slabs to beyond the horizon.

I have an opinion that some use Mudcat to justify their less savoury views.
It is a fact that you can only judge what you read, and sometimes it ain't pretty.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 05:58 PM

> There is no such thing as God, unless it's the term you give to what we haven't worked out yet.

Prove it. Maybe certain things can never be worked out. Just when I was getting a handle on anti-matter, they came up with dark matter. Then dark energy snuck up on me. There seems to be no reason to assume that one day, all things will be "worked out." It could happen - but maybe not. If what cannot then be "worked out" is called God, so what? There are things that may never be worked out.

Of course you can't prove that God is non-existent. What you can prove is that the idea of God is not logically required to explain things. That highlights the difference between facts (what we can ascertain) and truth (the way things really are, whether we know it or not).

What's more, there's no "burden of proof" on anyone in a debate in which the subject is acknowledged by all to be beyond proof.

I say Santa is real, you say I'm crazy. The "onus" is certainly on me if I wish to convince you or anyone that Santa is real; but I'm equally justified in say that if you wish to convince me otherwise, the burden is on you.

Not scientific, but who said Santa was scientific?

Try this. It's 1715. You're arguing for something very much like quantum physics before your scientific colleagues. They have every logical reason to say you're talking nonsense. But you're not.

The Truth seems to be (note "seems") that quantum physics is real, but nobody in 1715 would have any reason to think so. QP was not necessary to explain the world to the satisfaction of scientists in 1715.

Also, several posts seem to mix up "God" in the most basic sense of conscious creator and organizer, prime mover, or the like, with the version of "god" promoted by their favorite or least favorite religion.

They also seem to confuse the issue of whether God exists or could exist, with the related but distinct issue of whether there's logical evidence to make them believe in God - usually as promoted by someone else.

There was no compelling evidence to believe in quantum physics in 1715. Or in T. rex, other galaxies, the mountain gorilla, etc.

God either exists or not. Except as a diversion, debating the matter is currently pointless. IMHO, of course.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 06:15 PM

What I'm not entitled to is to expect my opinion to remain unchallenged.

Exactly, Steve, but there is challenge and there is challenge. If I were to challenge your opinion about the great Mr Shankly with a counter opinion about, say, Alex Ferguson (Not that I would you understand, this is for demonstrative purposes only) we would then get into the realm of who won most trophies etc. etc. But, as I have said before, that is not the whole picture. We then become involved in the type of circular argument that so often becomes the norm here and, in this case, based on just one aspect, you lose ;-)

By refusing to state why we arrive at a particular opinion, the opinion is not necessarily any less valid. In my opinion of course.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:01 PM

> There is no such thing as God, unless it's the term you give to what we haven't worked out yet.

Prove it.

No problem, Lighter- as long as you can prove that there IS such a thing as God.

So have at it - we're all anticipation.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:20 PM

Bur you can sure as hell prove beyond a reasonable doubt that their opinion is 14 karat bullshit and tell them so.

Whether they accept said proof or not, since stupid is as stupid does.

Greg F, IMO your opinion is 14 karat bullshit.....etc.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:40 PM

It seems to me that, taking all the known facts into consideration and applying a little logic to the subject, there is every reason to believe that there isn't a god and no reason whatsoever to believe there is.
In the end, the onus of proof lies with those who believe that there is someone/something out there which we can only accept if we "have faith" to show why we should suspend our logic and ignore the total lack of evidence.
it's not our job to disprove the irrational beliefs of others.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 07:57 PM

Greg F, IMO your opinion is 14 karat bullshit

Absolutely.

But that's your opinion, unsubstantisted by evidence or fact.

Q.E.D.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:28 PM

I'm not bothered about wanting to prove whether there's a God or not, and anyone who asks for proof one way or the other is an idiot. All I can do is to state the case based on reason (not tonight, Josephine). If for any reason at all you eschew reason in favour of faith, in my eyes at least you're diminished. That's your problem if you can be arsed to let it be. I honestly don't know whether there's a God or not and never will. Mind you, if I get to the pearly gates and St Pete asks me why I didn't believe in God, I'd have to tell him that I reached that conclusion via reason, using the mighty brain that God gave me. OK, Lord, so you exist after all, and I got it a bit wrong, I'd have to say. But at least I used my God-given brain to its fullest potential in order to reason it out, which is more than can be said for any believer. And Dave, as you know, God sits at Shankly's right hand. Ferguson, in contrast, is, as we all know, Beelzebub personified. Try to not mention them in the same post from now on. ;-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:28 PM

It seems to me, that "discussions" that consist solely of unsupported opinions, don't go very far. There has to be some sort of rational basis to a discussion - otherwise, the discussion just won't work.

There are those above who state that religious belief falls into this category of "unsupported opinion," but I would beg to differ. Religious belief is most often built upon some sort of shared tradition, mythology, or experience - so belief can be meaningful to those who accept or respect that shared foundation. There are some in this forum who assert that the foundations of religion are false, and therefore religious belief must be false or meaningless. I don't think so. I don't believe Egyptian mythology, but I find it very interesting. Not only that, but it gives rich information about the history and culture of a people. It generated a lot of wonderful things, things that should be revered and appreciated - not rejected as false. And even if Egyptian mythology is regarded as an invalid premise, it was the foundation of a lot of deep and valuable thought.

So, I'd be careful about discounting beliefs or traditions that you reject. Even false premises can produce much that is of great value.

Go to Karnak, and you'll see what I mean. It's a little dangerous there these days, which is a shame. Guess I was lucky to get there in a window of relative safety in 2012. Take a look at my photos and get a feeling for what I'm trying to say. Even though all those edifices were built upon what many moderns consider to be a "false premise," there's something very deep and intriguing to explore there.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:36 PM

> so belief can be meaningful

Observation supports that statement beyond question.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 08:39 PM

Well I'm an atheist but that shared tradition you mention is as much mine as it is yours. Those ancient cathedrals and other venerable religious sites are mine as much as they're yours. You can't claim that tradition and experience for yourself and exclude me. Therefore you and I need to work out why we have reached radically different conclusions about the nature of things. Your traditions, mythology and experience are no different to mine. So we could sideline them for a minute and resort to reason instead. We could, but we won't. That's your issue.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 09:41 PM

I picked Egyptian mythology and tradition for a reason, Steve. They are not MY tradition, but yet I see wisdom in them and they have led me on rich and fascinating journeys.

I come from a background of Christian mythology and tradition, knowing full well that at least part of that tradition is fictional. Still, it is my tradition, and I have found wisdom there and I've been led on rich and fascinating journeys.

You say you come from the same tradition, Steve - but you reject it as false. End of story.

Is there a lesson there?

Please note that fiction is not necessarily falsehood, although it does take intelligence to be able to separate "fact" from "fiction" - and it also takes intelligence to know what to do with the two once you've differentiated them. What we call "fiction" is often far richer and wiser than that which we call "fact."

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Jul 15 - 10:12 PM

"Cultural literacy" is what I suspect is at the heart of Steve's assertion that that history is as much his. Though he does not accept the religious dogma as valid, there is a great deal in the culture that sprang from a long tradition of religious belief that is baggage in the culture itself. Idiomatic expressions that come from religious practice, references that we understand (i.e., describing someone's shift in opinion as a conversion on the road to Damascus, a rescue or kind act as the act of a good Samaritan, and many many more. For those who speak English, I suspect the only other source of expressions we use daily is Shakespeare.

The cultural literacy is ingrained in his (and my and many of our) culture with a dominant religious overlay. We could go through life never understanding why we say what we do, but over time one tends to learn the sources of expressions. I don't accept the religious beliefs, but it would be a fool's errand to try to exclude all references and daily expressions that come from christian sources.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 12:23 AM

I was amazed when my eldest chose to study Mathematics and Physics

I am of the opinion that Philosophy is one of the most undervalued subjects on the planet. Go to any job interview with a Philosphy degree and you will be lucky if you escape without patronising sneering. But as the very existence of this thread shows, it is actually a subject that almost every thoughtful person touches on.

As I have said repeatedly I work in mathematical sciences, and naturally computing is an important part of that. There are no more than a handful of ideas I know of in computing, for example, that were not studied in more depth decades or centuries before in Philosophy. The links between philosophy and science are clear to anyone who cares to look, but many scientists seem to think it would be somehow tainted if anything other than "pure science" was recognised. It depresses slightly when I read research presented as new original scientific ideas which have been thought about in the Middle Ages. No one is saying take the Middle Ages thoughts as science, but there is great value in utilising them as a guide for developing the science further.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Crumb trailing Musket
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:35 AM

Interesting point about shared traditions.

Of course the old churches and especially cathedrals are there for us all to enjoy from an architectural, cultural and historical perspective. If they have a ring of bells, you can guarantee that Mrs Musket and her mates have possibly performed a quarter peel there.

My first wife and I married in a church and had both our children christened there. Yet neither of us have any religious thoughts in any way. So why did we do it?

Tradition.

I doubt any Morris dancers genuinely believe their hobby will result in better crops in the fields.

Oh, I couldn't help laughing at an article on BBC News today. The chancellor has decided to relax Sunday trading. So as not to get flack from the bishops, he has said he will devolve the decision to local mayors.

A spokesman for a lobby wanting Sunday trading said that people going to church would not have to rush around so much to be able to shop... Humour is best served dry.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:50 AM

I mourn the change to Sunday trading, but not for reason of faith.
People who now have to work on Sunday have been robbed of a day with their families.

In the end, the onus of proof lies with those who believe that there is someone/something out there which we can only accept if we "have faith"

You can't have proof Jim.
Sorry but none is available either way.

There is no "onus" on us.
I would like you to have what we have, but it is your choice and I do not really care if you choose not to.

Those of us who believe have our reasons.
We are happy to share, but it is usually so personal it would not help anyone else.

If it was obvious that there is a God, we would not need to have faith, and free will would be reduced.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:04 AM

"You can't have proof Jim."
Don't need proof either way, we're not claiming anything other than your claims don't hold water
It's up to you to show that they do - doesn't get any simpler than that.
"There is no "onus" on us."
Yes there is if you want to be taken seriously, and more inportantly, if the church is to have any say in the running of the state (as it does) - it's entirely up to believers to prove the validity of their beliefs - I'd be happy if they just said,"my belief is my belief" and too financial and social responsibility for it.
As far as Sunday trading is concerned, as long as workers are guaranteed a day off, it doesn't matter what day it is - who wants a day off when nowhere is open and you can't go anywhere - still have wonderful memories of Tony Hancock's 'Sunday at Home' - sums it up perfectly
Certainly not up to the church to decide what day it should be,
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:17 AM

I not reject the tradition at all. I do reject the lies and the authoritarianism of some of its guardians. We are where we are (good post putting it well, Acme) and I'm not denying the influences of religion on culture, society and me. But religious superstition is slowly giving way to real knowledge (I won't pit science against religion in that sentence, as it's only one of those sides who sees the other as antagonistic). It's going to take a long time, but religion is probably doomed. I love having the tradition but I remember all those people who had to suffer in its cause.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:31 AM

we're not claiming anything other than your claims don't hold water

Not making any claims Jim.

It's up to you to show that they do - doesn't get any simpler than that.

No it is not.
I do not have to show anyone anything.
Your choice entirely Jim.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Raggytash
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 06:07 AM

It's very difficult, I should imagine, to show anyone your invisible friends.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 06:30 AM

They are not MY tradition, but yet I see wisdom in them and they have led me on rich and fascinating journeys.

The multiplicity of traditions are indeed vast and wondrous. One thing they all have in common is that they are the work of Behaviourally Modern human beings upon whose pyramids, earthworks, stone circles and cathedrals we can now look upon with objective fascination without the slavery, human sacrifice, torture, pogrom and execution that routuinely attended the undoubted wisdom of those who built them.

The march of science is towards a goal of Objective Truth of which we're all part of the cosmic equality regardless of mere faith, opinion or belief. We dwellers on the Pale Blue Dot must remember the mistakes of the past in trembling dread of those who insist upon repeating them.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 07:02 AM

I have now had time to read through that wikipedia article that Jack linked (Behavioural Modernity ) and some other stuff on the internet (including this , which seems to be written for a general readership)

I am profoundly unconvinced. It all reads too much like seeking out evidence for a theory rather than putting the evidence together and coming up with a theory that fits.

I will stick to science thank you, and I don't regard some anthropology and archeology as properly scientific, especially in the way it is written up. Theories with inadequate evidence. Paradigms shifting a little too fequently.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 07:12 AM

You can have a good theory based on good evidence yet still be seeking more evidence. That includes not dismissing evidence that seems, inconveniently, not to fit. That kind of tendentious behaviour has no place in science, though, unfortunately, it is occasionally found there. The pharmaceutical industry is a not infrequent culprit. Investing money in your idea brings the risk of such bias, to all our detriment.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 07:37 AM

I should have been clear that it was the approach exemplified by the Wikipedia, and apparently espoused by Jack, that I was unconvinced by.

I thought that the Nature article (The Transition to Modern Behavior ) was good. Having a single author, and not favouring a particular 'package' of theory, allows the fragmented evidence to be discussed properly.

I liked for example The challenge for future research is to expand archaeological criteria for modern behavior that are fully integrated with neuro-evolutionary theory and cognitive science. Similar to the geologists' "present is the key to the past" in interpreting particular findings rather than interpreting it in the light of current theories.

The Wikepedia article reads almost like presentation of a story in competition with creation myths. For me Jack's prose enhances that.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 07:48 AM

For me Jack's prose enhances that.

This is a forum for casual / polemical discussion not a journal for the presentation of scientific articles.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 08:18 AM

"There is no "onus" on us.
I would like you to have what we have, but it is your choice and I do not really care if you choose not to."

I insist, the onus of proof IS on you - and your fellow theists - ONLY if you attempt to convert others to your faith or attempt to influence society in general. How difficult is that to understand, KAoH?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 08:48 AM

Well put, Shimrod. But loonies may still be ridiculed for being loonies even if they do not try to convert others or to impose rules that derive from theist beliefs upon non-theists. Indeed they may be roundly condemned - for example I forget which cult it is that refuses blood transfusions and other life-saving interventions - the adults who believe in such rubbish are killed by those who promulgate the beliefs.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 08:55 AM

"Not making any claims Jim."
You're claiming that there is a sky fairy who made everything (not you personally, but the church is)
As you say - that is your personal belief and you are entitled to it.
You totally ignore the point i made, as is your wont.
If we are going to give the church access to our children to teach such nonsense as fact, we are entitled to an explanation.
If the Church is to play any part in our lives (outside of freely sought spiritual guidance), we are entitled to an explanation.
If the Church is to ave a say in how our country is run (as for instance in The House of Lords) we are entitled to an explanation.
If the church is going to have nay say in sending our children to war, as it has in previous wars (including and especially the W.W.1. bloodbath) we are entitled to an explanation.
If religion is, in any way, to receive state support, we are entitled to an explanation.
Unelected state-supported organisations claiming any of these privileges, based on ancient myths need to (at the very least) give an account of themselves.
That is the pint you appear not to want to respond to.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 09:27 AM

That is the pint you appear not to want to respond to.

I'll have a Guinness, old man. Otherwise - a moving repost!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 09:50 AM

I think the Church has a say in some things because is followers comprise a constituency (as in "a group of people with shared interests or political opinions"). They represent cultural traditions that don't really stem from a deity, even for many of those of that faith.

They don't have to explain the supernatural part even if they think that it is the only basis for their view. They may have to explain their position though, in the same way as anyone else.

So, for example, in the House of Lords a bishop's experience and viewpoint may be no less useful that some of the others there.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 10:02 AM

And in that context I have always wondered how many of the difficulties faced by Roman Catholics in the UK over the centuries are political rather than religuous - having a centre of authority that is not in old books (or in the sky) but in Rome. Being like a multinational corporation. The local constituency being guided from outside the country.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 10:08 AM

> They may have to explain their position though, in the same way as anyone else.

Exactly. An explanation is not the same as meeting a burden of proof. Discussion is not debate.

Explanation of one's opinion on either side is an informative process, not an investigative one. It is not intended to "prove."

Where proof either way is impossible, the idea of "burden of proof" becomes meaningless.

So while debating certain topics is pointless and inconclusive, discussion may be fruitful in other ways.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 10:10 AM

"I'll have a Guinness, old man."
One waiting behind the bar in Friel's whenever you're passing Jack - but not this week - to many ****** musicians about.
"House of Lords a bishop's experience and viewpoint may be no less useful that some of the others there."
They are appointed because of the position they occupy in society, not on their merit not on their merit.
The present lot got there (historically) because Henry VIII was able to burn the opposition at the stake so he could continue to get his leg over.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 10:18 AM

They are appointed because of the position they occupy in society

Yes, but just like most of the rest of the Lords they get to their position in society by having some merit within their "constituency". Same as a captain of industry, trade union official or rabbi.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 10:23 AM

But fair enough, they shouldn't be there automatically. However, that doesn't change the point that they have a "constituency" - and a moral code that comes from a contemporary(ish) interpretation of cultural traditions in an old book.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 10:58 AM

"Yes, but just like most of the rest of the Lords they get to their position in society by having some merit within their "constituency""
Surely, whether that "merit" is of use to society in general is the point
I might be the greatest chess player in the world (or even electrician), that in no way qualifies me to vote on whether to, say, reintroduce the death penalty, or limit immigration, or send troops to Iraq.
Trades Unionists are. more often than given a seat as a reward for selling out their members (or as a bribe for them to do so)
Don't get me started on the past record of those who "earn" the right to a seat in the House of Lords      
Just had a quick shufti down the list - obscure, non- elected no-marks or what?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 11:08 AM

I'm going to attempt to clarify the opinion problem from the opening post.

Everyone has opinions, some of which may not be rationally founded.

No problem with that, whether rationally founded or not. No "onus" is created on the opinion-holder at that stage. Or better expressed, I think, there is no burden or proof.

Many, if not most, opinion-holders will from time to time state their opinion(s). No problem with that, as far as it goes, and no onus or burden or proof follows from it.

However, when a speaker or writer expressly or impliedly calls on other individuals or society in general to believe and/or act on an opinion he expresses or endorses, there is a burden placed on him to at least attempt to substantiate the opinion. In the absence of substantiation, there are results that follow. Some of them are:

1. Hearers/readers are likely to discount the opinion out of hand.
2. Hearers/readers are at least tempted to reject other opinions put forward by what I'll call the initial opinion-expresser, even if an explanation is attempted in that case.
3. Such blanket rejection might be applied to others who echo or support the unsubstantiated opinion, unless they supply the missing rational basis or at least attempt to do so.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 11:57 AM

That pretty much sums it up, Dave. The opening statement, to remind everyone, was I have been told that I am not entitled to an opinion unless I can back that opinion up with facts. I do not believe this to be true.

I believe that I misrepresented this as I was not told I was not entitled to an opinion and for that I apologise. I was told my opinion was 'just a whim from an empty head and deserves to be dismissed'. Do bear in mind I was not trying to convince anyone I was right. I was just stating an opinion which is rationally founded. I refused to deliver my rationale because I believed that whatever I said at that point would be distorted for future reference. That opinion was also rational as it was derived from past experience.

I will reword the opening argument to be a better representation of what did happen.

I have been told that my opinion is just a whim from an empty head that deserves to be dismissed unless I can back that opinion up with facts. I do not believe this to be true.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 12:47 PM

Many groups refuse medical intervention.

Richard, I suspect you meant the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 12:52 PM

I have been told that my opinion is just a whim from an empty head that deserves to be dismissed unless I can back that opinion up with facts.

Still not accurate Dave.
This is what you were really told, and asked.

"An opinion based on no actual knowledge is just a whim from an empty head and deserves to be dismissed.
Please share with us the knowledge that your opinion is based on."

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:01 PM

'deserves' seems rather inflammatory. Why not just 'can' ?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:36 PM

Uncle Dave nails it very succinctly there. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, even if it's a rather wacky one. Yes, you are entitled to express that opinion out loud, though personally I'd draw the line at speech intended to spread hate or fear. If you're trying to influence or persuade other people to fall behind you, though, you'd better be ready to be challenged to support your opinion, to demonstrate that you are not prejudiced, bigoted or otherwise unduly partial. Even if you're not challenged, you should be honest enough to offer that support in any case. That would mark you out as a person of integrity, not a mere charlatan. What we often see in discussions here are opinions expressed that are either unsupported or wrong-headedly supported. An anti-evolution opinion that describes evolutionary biologists as operating from a faith position or following some sort of religion would be a good example. Another would be "look at this wonderful world of ours and consider how inadequately science tries to explain it all. The only possible explanation is that a supernatural being put it all here." Spot the flaw.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:04 PM

I was under the impression (gained from reading this forum) that a number of the posters here who favour right-wing and right-wing-ish views express themselves to support Xtianity.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 02:22 PM

No, it is on this thread for anyone to read and make their mind up with no out of context posts and spin from anyone. It is in the past on another thread. People can decide for themselves without any help from you or me. Let it lie and let people move on with this thread. I am not going to be drawn into your games any more.

---

Off-topic bickering removed above, but this reminder can serve to redirect religious argument elsewhere. ---mudelf

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 03:15 PM

"I am not going to be drawn into your games any more."

Well said.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 04:29 PM

Thank you, #.

Thank you too, Mudelf. Unfortunately, as you can see, it is still going on. Please feel free to deal with other off topic bickering as you see fit.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 04:43 PM

If you mean my post Dave,
it is not bickering,
it is agreeing with points raised by several other contributors,
and it is on-topic, referring as it does to the OP and the thread title.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:03 PM

Keith, take mudelf's advice and redirect your arguments elsewhere. Go away. I have nothing further to say to you.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:22 PM

My post was in reply to Steve, and not directed at you.
It agreed with the main point in Steve's post, and pointed out that others made the same point.
It also referred to the issue raised in the OP.

I do not understand why it has been deleted.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 05:41 PM

Don't matter who your post was in reply to, KoAH: GO AWAY.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 06:06 PM

It's about time these bloody mudelves realised that the topic of religion can be used in a very good way to illustrate various points in a discussion about the validity of opinions. In fact, it's one of the best topics for that purpose. Recent "mudelf" interventions have often been clumsy and over-sensitive. You will delete this, and I might go on to make the point again, but whatever you do please spare me your tedious footnotes.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 06:49 PM

"... the topic of religion can be used in a very good way to illustrate various points in a discussion about the validity of opinions. "

But it never stops with just illustration. It usually deteriorates into repetitive bickering and eventually, insults-- and the moderators can't keep up. I suspect they are quite outnumbered.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 07:13 PM

But I really haven't seen any need for an intervention in this thread, Bill. At least not in its main thrust. Ok, Jim and Keith are at it again basically because Keith turns up everywhere like a soddin' bad penny, but it hasn't gone far enough to warrant a mod intervention. It's bloody repressive at times, to be honest. And if the mods feel overworked or overwhelmed, they could back off. Threads that wander off topic or go sour have a habit of righting themselves in the end. If they're given a chance, of course. Or maybe I have too much bloody faith in human nature.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 01:21 AM

One last try.

Dave,
Steve,
be ready to be challenged to support your opinion, to demonstrate that
you are not prejudiced, bigoted or otherwise unduly partial. Even if
you're not challenged, you should be honest enough to offer that
support in any case. That would mark you out as a person of integrity,
not a mere charlatan.

I agree Steve, and Richard and others made the same point.
It is the point I made to Dave that he so objected to, and led him to
start this thread.

I said,
"An opinion based on no actual knowledge is just a whim from an empty
head and deserves to be dismissed.
Please share with us the knowledge that your opinion is based on."

(He had expressed the view that mainstream media and BBC reporting was      
a major cause of radicalisation to join IS)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:16 AM

Other thread, where it belongs, Keith. Stop cluttering this one with repetition.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 03:32 AM

In another thread we are asked if the church should have any role in governing the state. I said no. That is an opinion. Is it not valid because I have not explained why?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:04 AM

I am familiar with those arguments Dave, but generally an opinion not based on any actual knowledge is not worthy of consideration.

"be ready to be challenged to support your opinion, to demonstrate that
you are not prejudiced, bigoted or otherwise unduly partial. Even if
you're not challenged, you should be honest enough to offer that
support in any case. That would mark you out as a person of integrity,
not a mere charlatan."

"It seems to me, that "discussions" that consist solely of unsupported opinions, don't go very far. There has to be some sort of rational basis to a discussion "

"However, when a speaker or writer expressly or impliedly calls on other individuals or society in general to believe and/or act on an opinion he expresses or endorses, there is a burden placed on him to at least attempt to substantiate the opinion. In the absence of substantiation, there are results that follow. Some of them are:

1. Hearers/readers are likely to discount the opinion out of hand.
2. Hearers/readers are at least tempted to reject other opinions put forward by what I'll call the initial opinion-expresser, even if an explanation is attempted in that case.
3. Such blanket rejection might be applied to others who echo or support the unsubstantiated opinion, unless they supply the missing rational basis or at least attempt to do so."

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:13 AM

I have an "opinion" on where some of the "evidence" in the post above came from.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:16 AM

If someone who often talks sense expresses an opinion without giving an explanation in may be worth thinking about why they take that view.

I have not got round to seeking out Blackbeard's Tea Party on youtube yet, but I may do if I don't forget.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,XX
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:18 AM

The converse is also true, IMO.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 04:50 AM

However, when a speaker or writer expressly or impliedly calls on other individuals or society in general to believe and/or act on an opinion

That is the point. I didn't. I had and still have no intention of getting anyone to believe or act on my opinions. This, as I have often said, is a trivial site dedicated to folk music. It is not important and even less influential. If I wanted anyone to believe or act on anything but folk music, it would not be on here.

I am sure Steve well understands the point I was putting across and I am not going to go through it again here as it belongs on the other tread. Whatever the case I still contend that an unexplained opinion can still be as valid as one where the details are made clear. What is more, there are some people who will use the minutiae to nit pick where the overall meaning is obvious. Of course he is right about prejudice and bigotry and opinions based on those should be challenged. I am prejudiced against the mainstream media, I make no secret of that. Just as I am prejudiced against other bigots and hate mongers. It is a valid opinion to hold with or without explanation.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 05:53 AM

I had and still have no intention of getting anyone to believe or act on my opinions.

Then why so cross when I dismissed your opinion?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,#
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:17 AM

For Dave :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:23 AM

In another thread we are asked if the church should have any role in governing the state. I said no. That is an opinion. Is it not valid because I have not explained why?

Context is everything. Because I know you well enough online and agree with most of what you say, I would trust that as your honest opinion. I happen to agree with your opinion and if we were in face-to-face conversation about it we would be expanding on our common position. Your curt "no" here could kick off further debate and someone could ask you why you said no. If you said "oh, dunno really, I just said it". (which you won't!), you'd be taken for a buffoon. If you said cautiously, "I'd rather not go into it with you because you're Keith and you may be setting me a booby trap" that would be understandable. As long as you're prepared to support your position if asked to, your opinion as an honest broker is perfectly valid. In my opinion. ;-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Sans Edinburgh shortbread
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:48 AM

Don't confuse booby trap with a booby trying to set one.

The whole point of booby traps is to trap unsuspecting people. Snag is, everybody has him weighed up.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:00 AM

There's a matter of degree too. I have strongly held opinions, fleeting opinions, contradictory opinions, opinions I don't really that much of a toss about, opinions I'm bored with, opinions that are probably wrong or at least illogical. It's only the first category on the list that I might be inclined to back up with evidence - the rest are largely good for shooting the shit and little more. If some pedant started demanding I back every bit of nonsense I come up with with facts and evidence, it would be a very short discussion. Sometimes we just want to chew things over, throw stuff out, play with ideas. lConversation isn't a randomised control trial.

Meanwhile...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 07:31 AM

Loved the card.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:04 AM

Keith - I was not cross. I was puzzled as to why my opinions should be explained to anyone, let alone you. If you want to see me cross try pushing in when it is my turn at the bar.

Thanks again. #, much appreciated :-)

Steve - A big yes. Context and trust. There are people who's opinions I trust and those who I would not believe if they said today was Wednesday.

Spleen - Well said. I Love the card too.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Raggytash
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:14 AM

Dave, sorry to be a pedant but it is actually Thursday in New Zealand !!!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:15 AM

:-P

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 09:11 AM

For your consideration (a few of my favorite sites)

Logical Fallacies

Nizkor Project list

The Secular Web

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 11:23 AM

Thank you, Acme. The only issue I have with any of these is that everyone involved in a debate believes that they are following the rules as laid out and, because they do, they believe the other parties are breaking them. The other big problem that I see over and over again here is that there is no referee or umpire in the debates and no time limit so there is no real indication of anyone winning or losing arguments. Which is why they go round in circles until someone gives up. The other person or people then believe that they have won and continue in the same vein with every argument they are involved in! I would be the first to admit that I more than likely do the same in an effort to get 'the last word' but I am a novice compared to some other members who are absolute masters of it!

The answer? I don't know, sorry. Maybe a time limit or posting limit on such debates? Maybe an independent adjudicator to say who is right, who is wrong or whether a compromise is available? Their word being final! Maybe, as I indicated earlier, it does not matter. This is a folk music site and not particularly influential in any other field so these discussions are nothing more than a trivial diversion. Although there are times you would think otherwise :-)

Cheers

DtG

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 12:50 PM

"Maybe an independent adjudicator to say who is right, who is wrong or whether a compromise is available?"

The problem DtG, is that if we had a resident PhD in philosophical logic who ruled on the various arguments, it would do little good, as the ultimate defense is something like.."Well, my position is 'right', no matter what your expert says about how I phrased it."

And there is a certain force to that. Humans are the only animal that can rationalize and adopt implausible, inaccurate and contradictory positions and then base entire political, religious and aesthetic schemes on them.

*I* can use the pages Acme listed... and various others... to show flaws in many discussions... and have done so in the past. I had many classes in logic & philosophy in school, but I can still only point out logical fallacies to those who care to listen. *shrug*

SUBJECTIVITY is one of the most powerful forces in the universe of human discourse.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 02:11 PM

True, Bill. Thanks for reminding us.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Raedwulf
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:02 PM

If you don't agree with them, you can argue against them.

I said that. So, that's right, Steve, no-one is entitled to have their opinion not challenged. The same to Greg F & others. I don't hang around here much these days, for various reasons, and this is a long thread. I was responding only to what I thought I was reading in the upper reaches.

And no, Richard, everyone does, in my opinion, have a RIGHT (insofar as I believe in rights, but that's a whole other discussion) to their opinion. It is somewhat curtailed these days by laws, in various countries, about hate speech. But you don't challenge hate speech by banning it; you destroy it by showing how f***ing stupid it is. Banning it merely drives it underground, and then more twisted seeds sprout in badly illuminated soil. I digress a little...

The problem is twofold. First, there are those who do not understand the difference between objective & subjective, between fact & opinion. So opinion is fact & gods help you if you're on the other side!

And the second is the way you challenge. Now, mea culpa, I've spent a long time learning gentler ways of getting my point across, and I am often still imperfect. Particularly to utter dickheads who aren't interested in debate, only in yelling "I'M RIGHT. YOU'RE DISAGREEING SO YOU MUST BE WRONG!!!" Or words to the that effect.

It's all very well being right, but there's precious little point, as far as I'm concerned, in being Cassandra - always right, but never listened to.

As Bill says, Subjectivity is one of the most powerful forces in the universe of human discourse. The problem is that all too many people can't recognise when they stop being objective. And, all too often, the most driven, determined and persuasive are those who have not the slightest inkling that they long since stopped being objective...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:13 PM

"Objectivity is just male subjectivity." --feminist claim, ca1987.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 06:59 PM

"Objectivity is just male subjectivity."

A subjective opinion.. *grin*

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Jul 15 - 08:21 PM

"Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum -- "I think that I think, therefore I think that I am;" as close an approach to certainty as any philosopher has yet made." 
― Ambrose Bierce, The Unabridged Devil's Dictionary

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 02:21 AM

"Sometimes we just want to chew things over, throw stuff out, play with ideas. lConversation isn't a randomised control trial."

I think you're talking about speculating or hypothesising here, Cringe. But speculation often leads to opinion and far too often opinion can lead to the logically false position, "I want it to be true ... therefore it is true!" I strongly suspect that most political ideology is based on such a logical fallacy ... but that's just speculation!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 06:42 AM

I think I just spotted a straw man argument elsewhere. Not raking up old coals so I will start afresh.

You say "All good folk music comes from Bellowhead."
I say "Well, no, Blackbeards Tea Party are pretty good as well"
You say "Saying that only Blackbeards Team Party perform good folk music is stupid."

Is that a Straw Man?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Lighter
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 07:48 AM

Bill, of course it's a subjective opinion.

But and because female subjectivity is just objectivity.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Spleen Cringe
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 08:52 AM

Blackbeard's Tea Party? Ptah! I'll raise you Trembling Bells...

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:34 AM

Very nice, Spleen. Another to add to my list :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 09:48 PM

It's been said above that it's hard to tell who wins these debates.

I see two big problems with that, namely the misuse of the terms
"debate" and "win". My opinion. YMMV

There are several two modes of interchange that are referred to as "debates".
    There are formal debates, such as colleges, universities, and other institutions of learning indulge in, which are organized as a sort of intellectual sport. There are judges who apply formalized rules and standards and award points, the highest point total resulting in a "win". There is an attempt made to apply objective (there's that word again!) standards.
    Then there are the so called "debates" carried on as part of election campaigns. There are either no standards or very vague standards for these, but at least generally speaking there tends to be an effort to avoid personality conflicts and name-calling. There are no judges, at least formalized judges at the time of the rhetorical exchange, whose rulings are seen as binding or authoritative. There are always lots of volunteers (including radio and television people) who will criticize, and deliver fuzzy comments like, "I think Mr. XYZ won the debate," or "I think XYZ was vague" or the like. No mechanism for scoring the rhetorical exchange.
    Then there are the "debates" that go on in the legislative process, which are even more unregulated. In some circumstances there may be a vote on some legislation fairly promptly after the speeches, and that could be said to be a scoring mechanism, with winner(s) and loser(s), but usually the real persuasion of the "judges" who vote on legislation has been done off the floor and entirely separate from the speechifying, and based on criteria unrelated to the subject matter of the "debate".
    And then we have the fights, the insulting rejoinders, the repetitious assertions of opinions, often opinions masquerading as facts, the name calling--the blackguarding and raucous quarrels that we so often find these days here on Mudcat, I'm glad to say in other threads than this one (so far at least).

    Truth be told, and logic too, the only one of those styles of
claim-spouting that really should be called by the name "debate" is the first one, the academic sport kind, and it is only in that endeavor that the concept of "winning" can truthfully be applied.

    We should at least try to distinguish between debates, discussions, arguments, quarrels, and slanging matches.

    I should live so long!

    Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Pete from seven stars link
Date: 09 Jul 15 - 10:20 PM

Even the word .....argument.....is open to interpretation.   Do we mean , the explanation of , or defence a particular pov, or do we mean as in a volatile exchange.    The first is, IMO, healthy, but the second achieves nothing, except perhaps demonstrating the argumentative party cannot achieve the former.         Of course, anyone can say they have such an such opinion, and decline to back it up with reason and evidence, but they can hardly expect others to give it much consideration, as nothing was given to consider!

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:21 AM

A bit like your arguments that God exists.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 02:54 AM

Makes sense as well, Dave O. No-one ever wins or looses these 'debates' hence their circular nature. Far better therefore, as suggested elsewhere, to forget the concept of debate on Mudcat and just take the piss:-) In my opinion.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 04:44 AM

Trembling Bells? Pah! I'll raise you Knob Lick Upper 10,000

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:03 AM

Oh, c'mon, Jack. A 60's folk group singing a song about 2 little boys made famous by a paedophile! Why did you do that to me? :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:18 AM

I know, I know - the name, the song... Couldn't resist. (I've just kicked MacKeeper off my MacBook so I'm in a happy mood). In compensation, I really dig the brutish sonics, banjo picking & harmonies on this one...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NQ-HZh_YKk

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 06:11 AM

Ok, seeing as the band is from the 60's I will allow you to dig it, man :-) And, yes, that last one is pretty good.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Jack Blandiver
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 06:46 AM

Thank you. It feels real to me - possessed of a certain urgency that appeals to my more - er - folkish sensibilities, although I'm aware that it's mainly the name and the fact of them doing an early cover of TLB that is the real catch here.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 10 Jul 15 - 05:05 PM

well, I wonder if the mod will delete mystery guest, or will mod delete me if I respond to guest by calling guest on his unevidenced beliefs !.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 02:39 AM

On another thread, pete says some people call his opinions bigotry and don't know the difference.

Bigotry is an opinion.

Ok, it might be an odious one. It might be seen to encourage hatred which makes it a criminal one, but it is an opinion.

I doubt his mate Jesus looked down on people eh?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 04:42 AM

I just read a brilliant quote - I may have been on the loosing side, but it was still the right one. All the people who score political points at the expense of a human tragedy, remember that :-)

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 05:08 AM

All the people who score political points at the expense of a human tragedy, remember that :-)

Name names.
Jim using the Tunisia thread as a vehicle for his anti-Israel agenda.
I have asked him to desist.
If we both ask he might take notice.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:28 AM

Naming names would only cause personal disagreements, Keith. "All the people who score" etc. means exactly what it says. If anyone recognises themselves in that description they should take note.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: GUEST,Musket pissing himself laughing
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:44 AM

Whenever someone criticises without naming names, Keith leaps in all defensive.

You shouldn't post so many things that require criticism then Keith. Do people mean you? Well, yes, usually.

A made to measure cap if ever I saw one.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 06:57 AM

I looked through the Tunisia massacre thread again.
The only blatant political point scoring is Jim about Israel, and you Dave about BBC and the media.

I am sure you are insinuating that I am guilty, but I am not this time.

I also remember the earlier threads about the massacre which you and your friends used for a silly competition about when they would be closed.

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 11:51 AM

I am sure you are insinuating that I am guilty

Why would you assume that Keith? When you go to a rugby match do you assume that the scrum are whispering about you as well?

Subject: RE: We cannot have an opinion
From: Musket
Date: 11 Jul 15 - 12:27 PM

Naw, they've all got their arses in the air. They are talking about Akenhateon.