Who's really right?

[Vile Atheist]

"There is a God" is also an opinion, no more or less so than "Ice cream melts too fast." We, as audience, have the ability to discern statements made that are opinion from statements made that are fact. If there's any burden, it's on us to make that distinction and treat the statement accordingly.

I'll accept that, then, even if it is a little subjective.

 

[Riverwolf]

It is not the atheist's responsibility to prove that God does not exist anymore than it is our responsibility to prove that giant, flying spaghetti monsters, Bigfoot, the tooth fairy or any other proposed entity that is undetectable throught the 5 senses exists. There is as much physical evidence of God as there is of invisible flying spaghetti monsters. A normal person going through the course of his/her day encounters nothing to suggest that either exists. If you propose that such a thing exists, it is YOUR responsibility to justify such a proposition.

I make no claim of a factual existence of God; I cannot. (If I have worded a post that appears to say that it's a fact that God exists, direct me to it so I can edit it.) Neither can you state a factual non-existence of God.

 

[Vile Atheist]

I make no claim of a factual existence of God; I cannot. (If I have worded a post that appears to say that it's a fact that God exists, direct me to it so I can edit it.) Neither can you state a factual non-existence of God.

True, but much in the same way one cannot state the factual non-existence of minotaurs, unicorns, and pixies. So it's rather useless saying that.

 

[Riverwolf]

True, but much in the same way one cannot state the factual non-existence of minotaurs, unicorns, and pixies. So it's rather useless saying that.

It's especially useless after realizing you guys have been discussing this since the post I quoted. lol

However, when it comes to minotaurs and pixies, I suspect there are actual scientific reasons they cannot exist. Unicorns, on the other hand, can theoretically exist, as horses, as far as I know, are related fairly closely to other animals which do have horns.

 

[Amill]

As much as I like the idea of being in heaven, seeing loved ones, surfing the cosmos, and being able to watch the human race advance, I most definitely do not want any of the religions that condemn wrong and nonbelievers to be correct. I don't know how anyone could want a religion that sends billions of people to hell over something so unimportant in our lives...to be true. I would rather everyone just fade to black.

 

[Vile Atheist]

It's especially useless after realizing you guys have been discussing this since the post I quoted. lol

However, when it comes to minotaurs and pixies, I suspect there are actual scientific reasons they cannot exist. Unicorns, on the other hand, can theoretically exist, as horses, as far as I know, are related fairly closely to other animals which do have horns.

...I can't tell if you're joking lol....Please tell me you're joking.

 

[Beaudreaux]

If you didn't feel it was correct, would it be your opinion? :no:

Even then.

So, you believe that people may assert their opinion is correct and have no burden of proof?

 

[Vile Atheist]

So, you believe that people may assert their opinion is correct and have no burden of proof?

She thinks all statements of opinion have no burden of proof (of which I agree). She thinks all statements of fact have a burden of proof (of which I agree). She thinks someone who asserts their opinion is true still does not have a burden of proof (of which I disagree). She thinks this on the basis, as she said earlier, that if you didn't believe your opinion is true, you wouldn't hold that opinion.

 

[Riverwolf]

...I can't tell if you're joking lol....Please tell me you're joking.

About unicorns?

Are horses not related to animals that have horns?

 

[Vile Atheist]

About unicorns?

Are horses not related to animals that have horns?

That's not the point. You're trying to make a case for a magical animal?

 

[Renji]

Many Christians today argue that Islam is incorrect. Some Christians even harass and persecute Muslims. Now, it is well known, yet incessantly denied, that Christianity is an add on to Judaism, and Islam is an add on to Christianity. But if Christians can deny Muslims the right to tolerance,the Jews can deny Christians the right to tolerance, can't they? Give your opinion. Anything goes.

Hmm, I don't get the point of that line. Based on your topic, I think you are trying to ask of who/which is right of all those religions... Well that question is so difficult to answer because of many factors... First, for example, a Christian will say that his/her religion is correct/right. Ofcourse, he/she will not say anything against his/her religion. Same way with the Jews and Muslims. Secondly, religion affects a person's way of living. It is a part of his/her life so if you say anything against a person's religion, that person might be offended. Lastly, if you are going to take a look of the teachings of religions that you mentioned, they are almost the same.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Hmm, I don't get the point of that line. Based on your topic, I think you are trying to ask of who/which is right of all those religions... Well that question is so difficult to answer because of many factors... First, for example, a Christian will say that his/her religion is correct/right. Ofcourse, he/she will not say anything against his/her religion. Same way with the Jews and Muslims. Secondly, religion affects a person's way of living. It is a part of his/her life so if you say anything against a person's religion, that person might be offended. Lastly, if you are going to take a look of the teachings of religions that you mentioned, they are almost the same.

What!? It's a difficult question to answer because:

1) Everyone asserts their religions is correct
2) It offends other people if you criticize their religion
3) The religions are the same!?

What kind of tom-foolery is this?

If 3) is true, then 2) should not happen. If their religious teachings are basically the same, there should be no criticism. And then that means 1) is pointless. Then everyone is right which is obviously not the case.

I'll tell you who is right. I'm right. And all the atheists and humanists out there who don't buy into archaic BS and rely on a dusty old book full of stories of atrocities in order to teach us morality...they're right too.

 

[Beaudreaux]

She thinks all statements of opinion have no burden of proof (of which I agree). She thinks all statements of fact have a burden of proof (of which I agree). She thinks someone who asserts their opinion is true still does not have a burden of proof (of which I disagree). She thinks this on the basis, as she said earlier, that if you didn't believe your opinion is true, you wouldn't hold that opinion.

So, what is the difference between an opinion and a fact? Perhaps a definition of each is in order. I propose the following:

• Fact - proposition regarded as true by those best qualified to do so. Example: it is a fact that sugarless gum causes less tooth decay than sugared gum. 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed say so so it is a fact.
• Opinion - Proposition that does not have a reasonable consensus of those best qualified to judge it as true. Example: It is an opinion that The Matrix was the best movie ever made. There is no consensus among movie lovers so it is an opinion.

An interesting implication of these definitions is that facts are not always true. In 1491 it was a fact that the earth was flat because those best qualified to determine so regarded it as true.

Thoughts?

 

[Riverwolf]

That's not the point. You're trying to make a case for a magical animal?

No. There's no evidence for the existence of unicorns, either now or in the past.

Though I will have you know that I LOVE dragons!!!

 

[Riverwolf]

If 3) is true, then 2) should not happen. If their religious teachings are basically the same, there should be no criticism. And then that means 1) is pointless. Then everyone is right which is obviously not the case.

They're not completely the same; of course there are contradicting doctrines and elements.

However, at their cores, most religions teach the same things. The contradicting parts are simply cultural commentaries.

However, likely because of pride, arrogance, and in some cases, laziness, people are not aware of this.

 

[Riverwolf]

So, what is the difference between an opinion and a fact? Perhaps a definition of each is in order. I propose the following:

• Fact - proposition regarded as true by those best qualified to do so. Example: it is a fact that sugarless gum causes less tooth decay than sugared gum. 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed say so so it is a fact.
• Opinion - Proposition that does not have a reasonable consensus of those best qualified to judge it as true. Example: It is an opinion that The Matrix was the best movie ever made. There is no consensus among movie lovers so it is an opinion.

An interesting implication of these definitions is that facts are not always true. In 1491 it was a fact that the earth was flat because those best qualified to determine so regarded it as true.

Thoughts?

Uh... according to one of my old teachers, those who were educated were very well aware that the earth was round. The Greeks had proven this long before, and I believe 1491 was in the middle of the renaissance.

 

[Vile Atheist]

So, what is the difference between an opinion and a fact? Perhaps a definition of each is in order. I propose the following:

• Fact - proposition regarded as true by those best qualified to do so. Example: it is a fact that sugarless gum causes less tooth decay than sugared gum. 9 out of 10 dentists surveyed say so so it is a fact.
• Opinion - Proposition that does not have a reasonable consensus of those best qualified to judge it as true. Example: It is an opinion that The Matrix was the best movie ever made. There is no consensus among movie lovers so it is an opinion.

An interesting implication of these definitions is that facts are not always true. In 1491 it was a fact that the earth was flat because those best qualified to determine so regarded it as true.

Thoughts?

I think you're on the right track, but shaky. I would personally define each as:

Fact: A statement that is readily verifiable by conclusive evidence.
Opinion: A statement that is not necessarily supported by evidence and is of a subjective nature.

Fact: The Earth is round. Verifiable by satellite photos and weather patterns and circumnavigation.
Opinion: The Matrix is the best movie I've seen.


The problem I see with your definition of fact is that it leaves room for people to claim to be legitimate experts in a certain field and make these judgments while being able to technically pass their judgments as fact. Like theologians.

 

[Vile Atheist]

No. There's no evidence for the existence of unicorns, either now or in the past.

Though I will have you know that I LOVE dragons!!!

Good. I worried for your sanity for a second.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Uh... according to one of my old teachers, those who were educated were very well aware that the earth was round. The Greeks had proven this long before, and I believe 1491 was in the middle of the renaissance.

OK, so the year is wrong, but there was a time when it was an accepted "fact" that the earth was flat.

 

[Vile Atheist]

They're not completely the same; of course there are contradicting doctrines and elements.

However, at their cores, most religions teach the same things. The contradicting parts are simply cultural commentaries.

However, likely because of pride, arrogance, and in some cases, laziness, people are not aware of this.

If that's the case, then there should still be no criticism of the religions themselves, but of the cultures.