It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Opinions are NOT facts!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Sun Matrix:
As I've already mentioned, you can dance around the issue all you want, but making assumptions and stating your opinions will not replace facts, not even when you disguise them as such. Facts have to pass the test in my opening post. Let me know if you ever come up with one.



[edit on 22/4/06 by mytym]




posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Mr Mxyztplk:
In regards to facts and truth, truth must be objective for it to be true in absolution. Facts are an example of this. They are the objective truth. However, in my opinion, two people viewing the same event can have two different versions of the story and both can be true to each. This is an example of subjective truth. The factuality is yet to be determined as both people only have access to their own perspective in perceiving the said events.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:35 AM
link   
If two people see one event and describe two different scenarios well yes they maybe saying some thing that is true, in that they are not lying, But only one can be speaking the truth.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:39 AM
link   
That's correct. Only one can be speaking the absolute truth, and most likely neither is speaking the absolute truth, but unless they are lying both may be speaking the truth as they see it. Again, this is just my opinion, my subjective truth if you like.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
truth    ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (trth)
n. pl. truths (trthz, trths)
1.Conformity to fact or actuality.
2.A statement proven to be or accepted as true.
3.Sincerity; integrity.
4.Fidelity to an original or standard.
a.Reality; actuality.
b.often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

Words have meaning or they don't, truth cannot be subjective.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:56 AM
link   
I'm sure if you asked one of the two hypothetical people if his statement of what happened satisfies all of these conditions that person would answer yes. The problem is the same person making the statement is also making this assessment, thus it's subjective. Allow me to demonstrate:

1.Conformity to fact or actuality. Yes, it conforms to the actuality perceived by the subject.
2.A statement proven to be or accepted as true. Yes, accepted to be true by the subject.
3.Sincerity; integrity. Yes, the statement is sincere and has integrity.
4.Fidelity to an original or standard.
a.Reality; actuality.
b.often Truth That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence. Yes, fidelity exists between the statement and the reality of the events through the eyes of the subject.

This is just my opinion, you don't have to accept it as fact. It holds true in my eyes, but it may not in yours, I accept that.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   


Sun Matrix: As I've already mentioned, you can dance around the issue all you want, but making assumptions and stating your opinions will not replace facts, not even when you disguise them as such.


As I have already mentioned, I know the root of your problem. I recall you saying this in another thread:




One of the downfalls of the Bible is that it provides so many opportunities to be proven wrong.


Here was my response:

Well, I'm going to give you a chance to produce one of these many opportunities. I don't want a list of crap, just one of these many so called opportunities to prove the Bible wrong.

You have the whole Bible to pick from. What you got?





Facts have to pass the test in my opening post.


No problem. The fact that you can't see that they do is not a requirement.






Let me know if you ever come up with one.


Whose dancing around the issue????????????????? I believe I am the one waiting for you to produce one of the many opportunities to prove the Bible wrong. Again your quote.




One of the downfalls of the Bible is that it provides so many opportunities to be proven wrong.


Let me know if you come up with one.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   
I already gave you an example and you could not prove it to be factual. If I recall you used opinions and assumptions in an effort to prove your point. I indicated this to you, but you failed to acknowledge it. You then went on to ask for another example despite your inability to disprove the first one. In order to earn the right to disprove another example you must first disprove the first example. What is the point of having two examples when one already satisfies the requirement?

[edit on 22/4/06 by mytym]



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Once you have made a objective truth into a subjective truth you no longer have the truth.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
I already gave you an example and you could not prove it to be factual. If I recall you used opinions and assumptions in an effort to prove your point. I indicated this to you, but you failed to acknowledge it. You then went on to ask for another example despite your inability to disprove the first one. In order to earn the right to disprove another example you must first disprove the first example. What is the point of having two examples when one already satisfies the requirement?

[edit on 22/4/06 by mytym]


Re-read the post. As before. You have your answer. Your crutch is gone. The question was answered.

Just another person that can't FACE THE FACTS, FACE THE TRUTH.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
If an objective truth exists then chances are the subjective truth will be identical to it. The objective truth can never evaporate once established. Objective truth is fact and facts do not change.



posted on Apr, 22 2006 @ 01:19 AM
link   
Sun Matrix:
I don't deny the question was answered, but answering the question doesn't disprove the example. Anyone can provide invalid answers. There is a difference. By the way highlighting, bolding and capitalising statements don't disprove the example either. Nice try though.


[edit on 22/4/06 by mytym]



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 12:44 PM
link   
what was the question?



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
Mr Mxyztplk:
Sun Matrix asked me for one example of an opportunity that the Bible provides to be proven wrong. My example was the 120 age limit imposed by God on humans, despite many examples of humans living longer than this. He/She proceeded to use his/her opinions and assumptions to devise an alternative interpretation in an effort to avoid the contradiction. He/She then went on to deny that he/she had interpreted or assumed anything. Sun Matrix answered the question, but failed to prove the answer is factual and not merely his/her assumption, interpretation and opinion.

Here is the thread in question:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Hope this helps.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 10:16 PM
link   


If an objective truth exists then chances are the subjective truth will be identical to it. The objective truth can never evaporate once established. Objective truth is fact and facts do not change.


...and this is why Immanuel Kant is my favourite thinker. You can never know the thing in itself, the actual truth. You can merely estimate the probability of having the actual truth based upon inductive thought or basing your conclusions on premises derived from induction. Human beings aren't Gods, and this is the line that we must draw. For all practical purposes then, the truth is up to debate. This is why I don't even waste my time on people attempting to prove God doesn't exist- it is simply beyond the scope of human experience to draw such a conclusion.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by mytym
Mr Mxyztplk:
Sun Matrix asked me for one example of an opportunity that the Bible provides to be proven wrong. My example was the 120 age limit imposed by God on humans, despite many examples of humans living longer than this. He/She proceeded to use his/her opinions and assumptions to devise an alternative interpretation in an effort to avoid the contradiction. He/She then went on to deny that he/she had interpreted or assumed anything. Sun Matrix answered the question, but failed to prove the answer is factual and not merely his/her assumption, interpretation and opinion.

Here is the thread in question:
www.belowtopsecret.com...

Hope this helps.


Actually, the question that no one could answer for all these years was answered exactly by reading just what the Bible said. No interpretation or symbolism is necessary. The question was answered completely, the crutch is gone. Face the Facts. Where is your next trick question? You shot your wad, just like I said.

Where are all of these countless reasons that the Bible is easily proved wrong??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Sun Matrix:
As soon as you can prove your answer factual, I will be happy to provide another example. Until then, I await a valid answer. It might help if you read your last post out aloud while looking into a mirror, you may just receive some well directed advice on facing facts.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Failing to understand the seemingly obvious distinction between opinions and facts can lead to a number of embarrassing outcomes, especially when posting on a debate orientated thread. Below I have listed some of the examples I have seen demonstrated on ATS recently:

1. You believe that you are providing proof of factual information by using the Bible as your sole point of reference to back up your claims.

2. You mistake your unshakeable belief that the Bible is completely and literally factual for an objective truth, thus eliminating it from contamination by those perpetrating a so called matrix blinding us from the truth, all the while remaining oblivious that you are actually being blinded by a matrix of sorts which encompasses much of what you have already uncovered. This oversight limits what you challenge in your quest to find the truth, thus despite the accuracy of your research, your ultimate conclusion remains terminally flawed.

3. You mistakenly post quotes from unrelated threads made by your debating opponents in an effort to prove a contradiction in their reasoning, and feel quite pleased with yourself that you have uncovered a chink in their armour, all the while remaining oblivious that you are actually supporting their arguments.

4. You choose to ignore anything your debating opponent raises that contradicts your beliefs (in your eyes these beliefs are facts), rationalising the contradictions as baseless claims made by posters with no credibility who know not what they post about, thus ignoring the objective truth contained within. Instead you opt to ridicule your debating opponent, continuously raise the same baseless claims under the belief that stating them as facts will actually make them facts, all the while remaining oblivious that in the process you are demonstrating all of the attributes you perceive your debating opponent to possess.

I'm sure you will be able to find many other examples of the pitfalls a failure to understand the concept of facts can present, so feel free to contribute your findings.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Romans 1:21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 ,
Professing to be wise, they became fools

I saw the thread where you wore down Prot0n with your constant foolish nonsense. He finally broke.

I think your truth logic was too much for him to take. That's just my opinion, of course.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Sun Matrix]

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Sun Matrix]

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Sun Matrix]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 07:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
I guess you will be picketing the Da Vinci Code movie as it claims to be fact and clearly isn't.


I believe you are mistaken.

From the author of The DaVinci Code, Dan Brown:



HOW MUCH OF THIS NOVEL IS TRUE?
The Da Vinci Code is a novel and therefore a work of fiction. While the book's characters and their actions are obviously not real, the artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals depicted in this novel all exist (for example, Leonardo Da Vinci's paintings, the Gnostic Gospels, Hieros Gamos, etc.). These real elements are interpreted and debated by fictional characters. While it is my belief that some of the theories discussed by these characters may have merit, each individual reader must explore these characters' viewpoints and come to his or her own interpretations. My hope in writing this novel was that the story would serve as a catalyst and a springboard for people to discuss the important topics of faith, religion, and history.


p.s mytym - We all know the difference between fact and fiction, opinion, belief, faith, idea, etc. Well, most of us do anyway. Those who insist that their beliefs are "fact" are usually a bit insecure in them. As far as I can see, there's no way to convince a person that his/her beliefs are just that and not something we call "facts", any more that we could convince a crazy person that there aren't blue elephants flying obout his head or bugs crawling all over his skin. To him, it's a fact. It is my opinion that someone who doesn't know the difference between reality and belief, fact and fiction, is delusional.

[edit on 7-5-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join