We cannot have an opinion

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: 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: 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: 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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: GUEST
Date: 07 Jul 15 - 01:01 PM

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

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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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: 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 - 07:02 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.