'It's just my opinion'

[redhen]

Sometimes the phrase stating it is my opinion is just a manner of speaking on my part and sometimes it is merely an attempt to not offend those who cherish an alternate opinion especially in regards to religion. I never really mean to offend even though I sometimes use sarcasm to make a point

I am reminded of the Jain teaching on Anekāntavāda.

"Anekāntavāda (Devanagari: अनेकान्तवाद) is one of the most important and fundamental doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth.

Jains contrast all attempts to proclaim absolute truth with adhgajanyāyah, which can be illustrated through the parable of the "blind men and an elephant"

cheers.

[SpiritWriter]

In my opinion I have some facts that people call opinions and seem to get really mad when I state them as facts. But I dont know if I say 'in my opinion' on a regular bases.. probably somewhat ..

Yeah your right about it weakening a statement.

[SpiritWriter]

I am reminded of the Jain teaching on Anekāntavāda.

"Anekāntavāda (Devanagari: अनेकान्तवाद) is one of the most important and fundamental doctrines of Jainism. It refers to the principles of pluralism and multiplicity of viewpoints, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth.

Jains contrast all attempts to proclaim absolute truth with adhgajanyāyah, which can be illustrated through the parable of the "blind men and an elephant"

cheers.

I totally agree with this.. I often see things with several viewpoints and ponder this subject a lot. I think of polarity and the variety of truths. Some peoples minds cannot see the multiplexity of what is possible and thats why they get stuck with their opininions. There are opinions and there are facts, some facts refute peoples opinions and they seem to desire more facts to understand, but all I can offer is an opinion on whether or not what your pondering is possible since you cant accept my facts.... for example. :-P

Edited August 30, 2013 by SpiritWriter

[moonshadow60]

It's a waste of time to argue with someone who will never change their mind and some folks flog a dead horse mercilessly rather than be thought to have the incorrect opinion. I say it is my opinion because it is; opinions are subjective. They may or may not be fact, but I don't want to debate or spend a lot of time opening numerous links someone has posted in order to prove my opinion is incorrect. If you do that, don't be surprised if I don't answer you.

[brlesq1]

Unless you have the facts to back up your statements, they are opinions. I don't think the words cheapens a position, I think they strengthened it. It's an invitation to debate, an invitation to try and sway the other.

[+Link of Hyrule]

The problem is that not everyone accepts the same "evidence" when discussing beliefs. An atheist may say "I have no empirical evidence of a creator therefore do not believe it exists". A Christian may say in return "I have personal experience that has proven God exists to me, therefore I believe in God". Someone else may say "I was clinically dead and saw my own body and a light at the end if the tunnel, therefore I believe God exists".

And so on and so forth, I could use dozens of examples, sometimes even contradictory answers depending on the person. The point is that different evidence is accepted or rejected when it comes to spirituality, which is why this section has an unusually large number of "it's my opinion" references.

[+Sherapy]

You can make a claim without people asking for proof. Preferences are one category for example; "Apples taste better than oranges". There's simply nothing to debate there.

But 99.999999...% of all the arguments on these forums use inductive logic, so there is no certitude, only inferences to the best explanation. In other words, it's all opinion. Of course there is a big difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed one.

Redhen, to be fair, in the defense-- of inductive reasoning--it is not sub-standard or 'bad' to use it; in fact, Goldbach's Conjecture is confirmed informally(inductively)-- as 'true' based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning uses observations, patterns, and past events. For example: if I am learning Spanish, I can use inductive reasoning to observe patterns that help me remember the words/meanings/rules. I can conclude with a high degree of accuracy that I am correct, too. If one just remembers that inductive(conjecture/educated guesses) and deductive (are statements that are always true (proof/postulates) and are approaches to reasoning,not that one is good/ one is bad- just that they have specific uses, that is fair enough. When you(general) use inductive reasoning you are drawing conclusions from specific observations that lead one to make the conjecture. I can not tell you how many times I have passed tests based on inductive reasoning. It is very useful/practical in making basic assumptions, many principles of Physics began as experimentation and then later were proven (deductive).

With that being said I do think 'the apples are better then oranges' type of reasoning falls under the 'faulty reasoning umbrella,' or the always keep in mind aspect of inductive reasoning that 'reminds' us-- 'it is not always true', especially if one is gonna try and argue the example. I think the same applies to the g-d stances, they really cannot be argued, (because of the 'it is not always true' clause) yet on the other hand we each have the right to a perspective/opinion that suits us. In that/this context, I think-- an 'IMO' is not such a horrible approach.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Sherapy

[+Liquid Gardens]

With that being said I do think 'the apples are better then oranges' type of reasoning falls under the 'faulty reasoning umbrella,' only if one is going to try and argue it. I think the same applies to the g-d stances, they really cannot be argued, yet on the other hand we each have the right to a perspective/opinion that suits us. In that/this context, I think-- an 'IMO' is not such a horrible approach.

I agree with you that this same approach probably 'applies' to questions concerning God, but I think that's out of practicality and politeness, not from a rational or logical standpoint. Stances on whether god exists to me does not fall under the subjectivity/preferences/values rubric, it is an empirical question and therefore shouldn't rely on people's tastes or feelings, and I do think they 'can be argued'. The result of the argument are very unlikely to change a believer's or skeptic's mind, but the epistemology used by many believers is invulnerable (and practically unfalsifiable) anyway; there really isn't getting around the selective invocation of 'faith'.

[+Sherapy]

I agree with you that this same approach probably 'applies' to questions concerning God, but I think that's out of practicality and politeness, not from a rational or logical standpoint. Stances on whether god exists to me does not fall under the subjectivity/preferences/values rubric, it is an empirical question and therefore shouldn't rely on people's tastes or feelings, and I do think they 'can be argued'. The result of the argument are very unlikely to change a believer's or skeptic's mind, but the epistemology used by many believers is invulnerable (and practically unfalsifiable) anyway; there really isn't getting around the selective invocation of 'faith'.

You do have a point, it will depend on our perspectives about the subject matter to begin with. These days I no longer argue one way or the other( used to though) because I do not think my atheistic stance has any more merit then my best friends Christian stance, simply because epistemologically, neither can be substantiated.

[+Liquid Gardens]

You do have a point, it will depend on our perspectives about the subject matter to begin with. These days I no longer argue one way or the other( used to though) because I do not think my atheistic stance has any more merit then my best friends Christian stance, simply because epistemologically, neither can be substantiated.

I hear what you're saying, but I do think the atheistic perspectiv,e given the evidence and reasoning that is used to support God's existence, does have more merit and is more rational (leaving aside the differences between the two, that the atheistic perspective even theoretically is almost impossible to ever substantiate, whereas the theist position could be effortlessly and in countless ways). I think it was the moderator Tiggs who said something similar that I didn't respond to because it was off-topic for the thread he posted it on, that the two propositions are somewhat equal because there was no compelling argument either way; I disagree in that the lack of compelling argument for something existing is itself an argument, one that I do find slightly compelling and find to be consistent with how almost everyone seems to think and act. There may very well be a community of gremlins living in a cavern 100 feet directly below my house; I don't think that proposition and the proposition that these gremlins do not are of equal merit though.

[spacecowboy342]

I agree with you that this same approach probably 'applies' to questions concerning God, but I think that's out of practicality and politeness, not from a rational or logical standpoint. Stances on whether god exists to me does not fall under the subjectivity/preferences/values rubric, it is an empirical question and therefore shouldn't rely on people's tastes or feelings, and I do think they 'can be argued'. The result of the argument are very unlikely to change a believer's or skeptic's mind, but the epistemology used by many believers is invulnerable (and practically unfalsifiable) anyway; there really isn't getting around the selective invocation of 'faith'.

I would have to disagree unless you have a narrow definition of God, it would seem the idea of God is unfalsifiable

[Frank Merton]

I think the idea of "God" as usually defined (with "infinite" in the definition) is falsifiable by arguments that have been around since at least the Scholastics, and Plato has an excellent demonstration that deities and right and wrong cannot be rationally linked.

If one allows some sort of finite "superman" to be defined as a "god," as we see in most Hinduism and primitive Greek religion, then who knows, and who cares? By those definitions almost anything sentient is a god.

[spacecowboy342]

I think the idea of "God" as usually defined (with "infinite" in the definition) is falsifiable by arguments that have been around since at least the Scholastics, and Plato has an excellent demonstration that deities and right and wrong cannot be rationally linked.

If one allows some sort of finite "superman" to be defined as a "god," as we see in most Hinduism and primitive Greek religion, then who knows, and who cares? By those definitions almost anything sentient is a god.

An omnipotent God is unfalsifiable because what argument can disprove when a miracle can always explain whatever argument is given? This is why no idea using God as reason for our existence can be called scientific

[White Crane Feather]

The problem is the devaluing and averaging of the individual. Carl Jung wrote about this. The existence of some sort of god can absolutely be argued intelligibly and with evidence; however when one claims superiority in how they evaluate information, on what philosophical basis even constitutes evidence,assumes their positions is correct and can create all manner creative story telling within their own phildophical framework, then their is no punching through the rhetoric. There is another name for it....... Fundamentalism.

[Leonardo]

The problem is the devaluing and averaging of the individual. Carl Jung wrote about this. The existence of some sort of god can absolutely be argued intelligibly and with evidence; however when one claims superiority in how they evaluate information, on what philosophical basis even constitutes evidence,assumes their positions is correct and can create all manner creative story telling within their own phildophical framework, then their is no punching through the rhetoric. There is another name for it....... Fundamentalism.

My emphasis.

This is only because those seeking to promote their belief in divinity invariably issue a definition as to what that divinity is - either in attributes or nature. A divinity that is undefined - such as the Deist 'unconcerned being' or the 'possible unknowable divinity' of the ignostic - is not subject to such argument.

[+Link of Hyrule]

I think the idea of "God" as usually defined (with "infinite" in the definition) is falsifiable by arguments that have been around since at least the Scholastics, and Plato has an excellent demonstration that deities and right and wrong cannot be rationally linked.

Can you elaborate? I've not yet seen an argument that disproves God from that point of view, so I'm intrigued. I'm expecting some variation on the so-called "problem of evil" but I've yet to find a compelling argument that an infinite God and evil should not be equally viable in our existence.

If one allows some sort of finite "superman" to be defined as a "god," as we see in most Hinduism and primitive Greek religion, then who knows, and who cares? By those definitions almost anything sentient is a god.

I would argue that such a being could never be described as "God". Perhaps "godlike", but not God. At least not in the sense of "god"described as the creator of absolutely everything. But not all religions classify god the way I'm arguing, so there is always room to argue.

[Beckys_Mom]

Nearly every post I make is from my own opinion, I figured that is what we generally done here? You post up your opinion on how you feel about a - Religious belief, news article, general statements ect.. Opinions fly al over the joint..

One thing I do know is - My opinions and other opinions I read on here, are not the same as facts, regardless how strongly your beliefs are, they remain your opinion / belief and nothing more or less... Well, that's my opinion lol

[+Sherapy]

I would have to disagree unless you have a narrow definition of God, it would seem the idea of God is unfalsifiable

Typically, the atheist argues there is not a g-d that can be evidenced. So its not that g-d can be falsifiable- it is that g-d cannot be established to falsify.

@Liquid Gardens, for me, the argument eventually gave way to the point that I couldn't establish/evidence 'a' g-d(other then by faith) so I really had nothing to argue; therefore, neither position really matters, until at which time evidence shows up, I have moved on.. I relate to your position too though, as I once held it.

[Leonardo]

Typically, the atheist argues there is not a g-d that can be evidenced. So its not that g-d can be falsifiable- it is that g-d cannot be established to falsify.

Which is an illogical argument. If god could be established, then how can god then be 'falsified'? And that no evidence appears to point to the existence of divinity could mean many things - not all of them that such a thing as divinity does not exist. It could mean, for example, that we simply do not know what evidence would point to the existence of divinity.

The critical factor in all the debate is our own lack of knowledge regarding what divinity is, and so the atheist position is as untenable as the theist position.

[redhen]

If one just remembers that inductive(conjecture/educated guesses) and deductive (are statements that are always true (proof/postulates) and are approaches to reasoning,not that one is good/ one is bad- just that they have specific uses, that is fair enough.

Yes, that's all I was claiming. There's nothing wrong or unethical about using inductive logic, I was just pointing out that almost all are reasoning is inductive.

With that being said I do think 'the apples are better then oranges' type of reasoning falls under the 'faulty reasoning umbrella,' or the always keep in mind aspect of inductive reasoning that 'reminds' us-- 'it is not always true', especially if one is gonna try and argue the example.

Here I was pointing out that some things are simply are not arguable, as they say "there's no accounting for taste".

I think the same applies to the g-d stances, they really cannot be argued, (because of the 'it is not always true' clause) yet on the other hand we each have the right to a perspective/opinion that suits us. In that/this context, I think-- an 'IMO' is not such a horrible approach.

I don't think the God hypothesis is arguable simply because it's not falsifiable, but yes, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[+Liquid Gardens]

And that no evidence appears to point to the existence of divinity could mean many things - not all of them that such a thing as divinity does not exist. It could mean, for example, that we simply do not know what evidence would point to the existence of divinity.

The problem I have with this reasoning is that you can substitute lots of propositions in the place of 'divinity'; our lack of knowledge and evidence concerning astrology, bigfoot, psychic powers, etc, may mean that we simply haven't discovered how to properly analyze or discover the evidence supporting the existence of these. The main reason atheism even exists is as a response to theism, and theists apparently do not necessarily agree with you, since they do seem to know what evidence points to the existence of their god.

The critical factor in all the debate is our own lack of knowledge regarding what divinity is, and so the atheist position is as untenable as the theist position.

Only if we assume certainty in the atheist position. Do you think that the proposition, 'the alignment of celestial bodies and the Earth does not directly influence people's personalities and futures', is as untenable as the pro-astrology position? Again, theists do seem to know some things about divinity apparently, and that is the conception of divinity that is usually criticized by non-believers.

[Leonardo]

The problem I have with this reasoning is that you can substitute lots of propositions in the place of 'divinity'

Not really, because 'divinity' is a rather unique class of object. Unlike astrology and psychic powers (both testable), or sasquatch (a readily definable creature), divinity has no known characteristics or nature. It could be anything, everything, or nothing. Where some have attempted to define divinity to be something, then generally that definition is either so loose or ambiguous it might as well be undefined, or the definition can be tested either empirically or via logic.

Only if we assume certainty in the atheist position.

The "atheist position" is one of certainty. Atheism is the belief that no god, or gods, exist. That is as certain as it gets. Someone displaying uncertainty regarding the existence of divinity is exhibiting agnosticism, not atheism. I accept that many modern "atheists" actually practice agnosticism, but claim to be atheist because:

1) they discredit certain specific definitions of divinity. However, atheism is not "the belief that a specific deity doesn't exist, but another (unspecified) deity might".

and

2) many 'intellectuals' in the public's eye have made a good living out of their atheism (it makes for good tv to slam backwards/behind -the-times religions), and it is my assertion that a significant proportion of modern "atheists" are simply bandwagonners attempting to appear intellectual (or more intellectual) by borrowing upon the arguments these media-centric intellectuals make.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Leonardo

[+Sherapy]

Which is an illogical argument. If god could be established, then how can god then be 'falsified'? And that no evidence appears to point to the existence of divinity could mean many things - not all of them that such a thing as divinity does not exist. It could mean, for example, that we simply do not know what evidence would point to the existence of divinity.

The critical factor in all the debate is our own lack of knowledge regarding what divinity is, and so the atheist position is as untenable as the theist position.

I agree, there is nothing to argue, one way or the other, for me--specifically. Yet, I appreciate the position and journey of those that want too, (on either side.) I will listen and enjoy the opportunity to see from another 's perspective without being invested in the outcome. It is liberating for me-- to be honest.

Did you see the movie the Life of PI ? If so you will know what I am saying when I say-- at the end of the day it is what story is the most believable and really it is a matter of preference. For the rest of it just having a keen sense of knowing the difference between what is real and what isn't is practical for life. And I think one can achieve this and be religious/or spiritual/or nothing at all.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

oops, double post.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Sherapy

[+Sherapy]

Not really, because 'divinity' is a rather unique class of object. Unlike astrology and psychic powers (both testable), or sasquatch (a readily definable creature), divinity has no known characteristics or nature. It could be anything, everything, or nothing. Where some have attempted to define divinity to be something, then generally that definition is either so loose or ambiguous it might as well be undefined, or the definition can be tested either empirically or via logic.

The "atheist position" is one of certainty. Atheism is the belief that no god, or gods, exist. That is as certain as it gets. Someone displaying uncertainty regarding the existence of divinity is exhibiting agnosticism, not atheism. I accept that many modern "atheists" actually practice agnosticism, but claim to be atheist because:

1) they discredit certain specific definitions of divinity. However, atheism is not "the belief that a specific deity doesn't exist, but another (unspecified) deity might".

and

2) many 'intellectuals' in the public's eye have made a good living out of their atheism (it makes for good tv to slam backwards/behind -the-times religions), and it is my assertion that a significant proportion of modern "atheists" are simply bandwagonners attempting to appear intellectual (or more intellectual) by borrowing upon the arguments these media-centric intellectuals make.

Leo, how does one look more intellectual being an Atheist? How does an Atheist discredit specific definitions of divinity? Please clarify?