We cannot have an opinion

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 - 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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 - 06:45 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: 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 - 06:36 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:18 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
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: 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: 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: 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: 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,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: 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,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: 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: 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,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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:11 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Dave the Gnome
Date: 05 Jul 15 - 12:58 PM

Keep it current, lads :-)

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: 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: 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: 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.