Faith

[jcribb16]

To fix the misunderstanding you can just leave my words the way they are, I don't need your help to convey my own thoughts.

Coincidentally, I don't need your thoughtless and baseless opinions.  Were you to suddenly begin backing them up with something other than random preference, they might be considered in the future.

I am sorry for coming in at this spot, but this issue about calling her opinions "thoughtless and baseless" has gone on long enough.

Opinion:   In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.

Collective or professional opinions are defined as meeting a higher standard to substantiate the opinion.  (Courtesy Wikipedia)

You are acting as if you are trying to hold her to a "higher standard to substantiate" her opinion.  This is not a "professional" debate and discuss thread. Her opinion, as well as others in here, are in general considered more "casual."  All are entitled to their own opinions without the harshness of words, such as "thoughtless and baseless" being thrown back at them.  Your opinions are not the only ones of importance like you seem to be insinuating.  However, if she was stating something as fact, or giving a professional opinion, then yes, the situation would be different.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: JediJohnnie on Today at 05:23:19 pm
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.

Quote from: falcon9:
Whatever you "believe", what it looks like is that she's still trying to 'maturely' get in the last word, rather than end this conversation by, oh I know, ceasing to reply to it?

Ha Ha Ha, hee hee hee, lol!!  You are comical!  If she did that, then YOU would be the one getting the last word!  It's pretty obvious that that is exactly what YOU want:   the last word!!!!!   

[SurveyMack10]

Quote from: JediJohnnie on Today at 05:23:19 pm
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.

Quote from: falcon9:
Whatever you "believe", what it looks like is that she's still trying to 'maturely' get in the last word, rather than end this conversation by, oh I know, ceasing to reply to it?

Ha Ha Ha, hee hee hee, lol!!  You are comical!  If she did that, then YOU would be the one getting the last word!  It's pretty obvious that that is exactly what YOU want:   the last word!!!!!   

 

[falcon9]

Notice that even though I am not responding to him he continues to try to bait me into another conversation.

Quote from: SurveyMack10 on Today at 03:15:18 pm, in reply to falcon9:

"In fact, I am perfectly fine with this conversation ending right now on a note of disagreement."



So much for "not responding" while cutting her own bait.

[falcon9]

I am sorry for coming in at this spot, but this issue about calling her opinions "thoughtless and baseless" has gone on long enough.

Opinion:   In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs.

Collective or professional opinions are defined as meeting a higher standard to substantiate the opinion.  (Courtesy Wikipedia)

You are acting as if you are trying to hold her to a "higher standard to substantiate" her opinion.

Nope, I was applying the main portion of your reference: "Opinion:   In general, an opinion is a subjective belief, and is the result of emotion or interpretation of facts. An opinion may be supported by an argument, although people may draw opposing opinions from the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. However, it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments.[1] In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."


Note that last sentence of your reference; that's what I stated about her "unsubstantiated information" in regards to her 'opinion' that "atheism is a belief system."  That assertion is not supported by facts or reasoned argument and is therefore baseless.  Thank you for the referral, though - it helped to verify that the conclusion was not, itself, an unsubstantiated opinion.

This is not a "professional" debate and discuss thread.

That's right, it isn't and that's why I applied the main usage of the term, before the secondary one.

Her opinion, as well as others in here, are in general considered more "casual."

Indeed and I concur.

All are entitled to their own opinions without the harshness of words, such as "thoughtless and baseless" being thrown back at them.

Where does it say that?  The U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees "freedom of speech", (which includes opinions but, does not include such restrictions on speech which dispute those opinions).  Further, this forum, (D+D), has an cautionary introduction which reads "enter at your own risk".  I found that to be both humorous and apropo.
 

Your opinions are not the only ones of importance like you seem to be insinuating.

There was no such insinuation; I did however, make the difference between an unsubstantiated opinion and a substantiated one fairly plain.

However, if she was stating something as fact, or giving a professional opinion, then yes, the situation would be different.[/color]

In that case, she did _initially_ state that "atheism is a belief system" as a factual assertion.  After this was disputed, that assertion 'morphed into being her "opinion", (which remained bereft of substantiation, despite rephrasing the claim).  Her "opinion" was therefore stated as a claim and, an unsubstantiated one at that.  The 'debate' actually ended some time ago when she declined to support her claim/opinion.  After that point, I even provided an 'out' by mentioning a portion of what you quoted above; namely that an unsubstantiated opinion isn't equivalent to a substantiated one.  That means that, yes, she remains entitled to holding a baseless opinion - just like anyone else is entitled to hold opinions which have substantive basis.

[falcon9]

Quote from: JediJohnnie on Today at 05:23:19 pm
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.

Quote from: falcon9:
Whatever you "believe", what it looks like is that she's still trying to 'maturely' get in the last word, rather than end this conversation by, oh I know, ceasing to reply to it?

Ha Ha Ha, hee hee hee, lol!!  You are comical!  If she did that, then YOU would be the one getting the last word!  It's pretty obvious that that is exactly what YOU want:   the last word!!!!!   

As long as either one of us continue replying in reference to the previous conversation, no one actually gets the last word.  That's what makes such a concept ironically-humorous.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 27, 2011, 07:01:35 pm
All are entitled to their own opinions without the harshness of words, such as "thoughtless and baseless" being thrown back at them.

Quote from: falcon9:
Where does it say that?  The U.S. Bill of Rights guarantees "freedom of speech", (which includes opinions but, does not include such restrictions on speech which dispute those opinions).  Further, this forum, (D+D), has an cautionary introduction which reads "enter at your own risk".  I found that to be both humorous and apropo.

I totally agree with the "enter at your own risk."  However, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be challenged, as well, since you do quite a bit of the challenging in here (no offense given, just what is seen.)  I've entered "at my own risk" just by challenging you about her opinions.  Her opinions, including yours, would both come under the "freedom of speech," however, in this thread, you are coming across as some "professor" holding her opinions, and others, to a higher and professional standard of providing substantial evidence.  Her opinion is based on faith, her beliefs, perspective, and understanding.  So, yes, the opinion may not be substianted in the way you want, but it does not mean that it is "baseless" or "empty" to her or others who hold faith as their basis of opinion.

[falcon9]

I totally agree with the "enter at your own risk."  However, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be challenged, as well, since you do quite a bit of the challenging in here (no offense given, just what is seen.)  I've entered "at my own risk" just by challenging you about her opinions. 

There is some inherent difference in challenging irrationality with rationality and in challenging rationality with irrationality.  Not all opionions are created equally, yet they are often conflated.  I try to met challenges which are based upon reasoning and substantive evidence while showing the lack of reasoning or evidence underlying challenges which lack those qualities.  Otherwise, I'd be chasing around stubbornly-circular irrationalities for longer than this thread has run so far.  In this instance, you aren't really challenging my "opinion" since my position is reflected nearly exactly by what you've quoted as reference.

Her opinions, including yours, would both come under the "freedom of speech," however, in this thread, you are coming across as some "professor" holding her opinions, and others, to a higher and professional standard of providing substantial evidence.  Her opinion is based on faith, her beliefs, perspective, and understanding.  So, yes, the opinion may not be substianted in the way you want, but it does not mean that it is "baseless" or "empty" to her or others who hold faith as their basis of opinion.[/color]

As I mentioned previously, her opionion is not being held to a "professional standard".  The standard being used is the "casual" one you quoted; " ... it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."


Note that last sentence of your reference; that's what I stated about her "unsubstantiated information" in regards to her 'opinion' that "atheism is a belief system."  That assertion is not supported by facts or reasoned argument but, as you alluded, is based upon "faith".  We've already established that "faith" is a belief without evidence therefore, the basis of the opinion is without evidence, (which means the basis is insubstantial).

[jcribb16]

I totally agree with the "enter at your own risk."  However, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't be challenged, as well, since you do quite a bit of the challenging in here (no offense given, just what is seen.)  I've entered "at my own risk" just by challenging you about her opinions.

There is some inherent difference in challenging irrationality with rationality and in challenging rationality with irrationality.  Not all opionions are created equally, yet they are often conflated.  I try to met challenges which are based upon reasoning and substantive evidence while showing the lack of reasoning or evidence underlying challenges which lack those qualities.  Otherwise, I'd be chasing around stubbornly-circular irrationalities for longer than this thread has run so far.  In this instance, you aren't really challenging my "opinion" since my position is reflected nearly exactly by what you've quoted as reference.

Her opinions, including yours, would both come under the "freedom of speech," however, in this thread, you are coming across as some "professor" holding her opinions, and others, to a higher and professional standard of providing substantial evidence.  Her opinion is based on faith, her beliefs, perspective, and understanding.  So, yes, the opinion may not be substianted in the way you want, but it does not mean that it is "baseless" or "empty" to her or others who hold faith as their basis of opinion.[/color]

As I mentioned previously, her opionion is not being held to a "professional standard".  The standard being used is the "casual" one you quoted; " ... it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."


Note that last sentence of your reference; that's what I stated about her "unsubstantiated information" in regards to her 'opinion' that "atheism is a belief system."  That assertion is not supported by facts or reasoned argument but, as you alluded, is based upon "faith".  We've already established that "faith" is a belief without evidence therefore, the basis of the opinion is without evidence, (which means the basis is insubstantial).

I completely understand what you are saying and I don't have a problem with your responses here.  I was challenging the words "thoughtless and baseless" and "empty."  By using the word "unsubstantial," as you just did, that word better fits the more casual opinion that was given, instead of sounding more superior and harsh with those other words when she or anyone else was giving a faith-based opinion.

You are obviously very knowledgeable with serious debating in this particular topic.    However, once you and whoever else start going in complete circles, over and over, that's when the debate goes downhill, and then the knowledge-level-reputation goes down.     

[MCRmy29]

i believe the younger kids who dont believein a god just want to rebel.

[SurveyMack10]

Quote from: JediJohnnie on Today at 05:23:19 pm
Actually,I believe she was trying to end this conversation in a mature way by agreeing to disagree.

Quote from: falcon9:
Whatever you "believe", what it looks like is that she's still trying to 'maturely' get in the last word, rather than end this conversation by, oh I know, ceasing to reply to it?

Ha Ha Ha, hee hee hee, lol!!  You are comical!  If she did that, then YOU would be the one getting the last word!  It's pretty obvious that that is exactly what YOU want:   the last word!!!!!   

I have ceased responding to him, yet he has still posted directly to me twice. Amusing.

[falcon9]

Her opinions, including yours, would both come under the "freedom of speech," however, in this thread, you are coming across as some "professor" holding her opinions, and others, to a higher and professional standard of providing substantial evidence.  Her opinion is based on faith, her beliefs, perspective, and understanding.  So, yes, the opinion may not be substianted in the way you want, but it does not mean that it is "baseless" or "empty" to her or others who hold faith as their basis of opinion.[/color]

As I mentioned previously, her opinion is not being held to a "professional standard".  The standard being used is the "casual" one you quoted; " ... it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."


Note that last sentence of your reference; that's what I stated about her "unsubstantiated information" in regards to her 'opinion' that "atheism is a belief system."  That assertion is not supported by facts or reasoned argument but, as you alluded, is based upon "faith".  We've already established that "faith" is a belief without evidence therefore, the basis of the opinion is without evidence, (which means the basis is insubstantial).

[/quote]

I completely understand what you are saying and I don't have a problem with your responses here.  I was challenging the words "thoughtless and baseless" and "empty."  By using the word "unsubstantial," as you just did ... [/quote]


Actually, the word I used was "insubstantial" but, the two are fairly interchangeable; unlike the meaning of 'opinion' ...

... that word better fits the more casual opinion that was given, instead of sounding more superior and harsh with those other words when she or anyone else was giving a faith-based opinion.

The casual opinions were still characterized under what you quoted; " ... it can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another by analysing the supporting arguments. In casual use, the term opinion may be the result of a person's perspective, understanding, particular feelings, beliefs, and desires. It may refer to unsubstantiated information, in contrast to knowledge and fact-based beliefs."

You are obviously very knowledgeable with serious debating in this particular topic.    However, once you and whoever else start going in complete circles, over and over, that's when the debate goes downhill, and then the knowledge-level-reputation goes down.     [/color]

There is an explanation for the circularity; the avoidance of supporting asserted and disputed points/opinions has lead to repetition of that aspect of the foregoing debate.  It stopped being a debate when the one asserting the empty claim went off on tangents, (and I hold the responsibility for replying to some of those tangents while also repeatedly bringing the disputed assertion back to the forefront).  One thing that may have been missed during the 'circlings' was that the initial assertion turned out to be empty.  Hence the conclusion that it was a baseless opinion.  Unfortunately, empty claims, (whether phrased as "opinion" or not), remain empty if they lack substantiation, (and "faith" does not qualify as substantiation by definition).

As far as I was concerned, the debate portion ended with the claimaint being unable to support her claim.  The remainder of the divergent 'circling' was considered to be her attempt to draw attention away from the unsubstantiated claim, (while my intent was to return the primary focus to the initial claim that "atheism is a belief system").  So, all we've determined is that the claimaint simply 'believes' that her opinion is correct, despite the complete lack of evidence provided to support her claim.  That's what makes it an empty/baseless claim.

[jcribb16]

Falcon9:

There are many definitions of atheism with regards to whether or not it is a belief system.  Most say not.  However a couple actually do say it is.  So her opinion has merit to it in that there are some who consider atheism a belief system.

a·the·ism 
1.the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
(Dictionary.com)

doctrine:
1. Is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the body of teachings in a branch of knowledge or belief system.  (Wikipedia)
2. . A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group; dogma.
(www.thefreedictionary.com/doctrine)

 
 It takes just as much faith to believe in atheism as believers have faith in theism.  What's ironic is that atheists show they have strong faith in the inferiority of having faith.   This "faith" includes using everything in their power to influence others to join their atheistic "non belief."  They also want to turn anyone and everyone away from the idea of any belief in God.  And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated."  All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.

[Falconer02]

And in today's society, some have gone so far as to openly say that people who believe in God need to be "eradicated."  All of this, in and of itself, shows that technically, atheism could be considered a belief system.

Who?

[abdyer2001]

One side will never be able to convince the other side of thei beliefs if they actually believe what thy say they do.  wheather it is belief in relegion or atheism. that is why they call it faith. it is the beleif in a pwer greater than themselves with which ther is no proof.  and as for all people that beleve needing to be eradicated, think that was back with the romans killing the christians.