Opinion

[thormas]

9 hours ago, JosephM said:

You can withhold payment but what is " a legitimate right to be a bit upset " You can be upset or not. It's your choice. If he is ill informed or not that is his problem. You can be upset or laugh at the experience and calmly find an alternative to your destination. Why legitimize your being upset? Upset is a cloud i mentioned in my last post.

Getting hung up in the dichotomy of right and wrong, in my view, is also a cloud . Of course , you have that right but in my view, it is not expedient to revelations if they interest you. 🙂

So, you are not in agreement. on this topic of Warsaw .... nothing wrong with that. 🙂 Perhaps you gleamed something else from the discussion

The very human expectation that the driver was competent and knowledgeable, that he knew where he was going and how to find your destination. And again, it is a bit upset not a desire to kill the driver. If your sick mother or child was in that capital and you were hurrying to them, that the driver was in the wrong, would be a bit upsetting. His being uninformed has also become your problem. But again, in a discussion on what one own's, I get your point.

There is no hang up, there is the simple recognition that the driver drove to a location (not the capital) and was simply and completely wrong. Sometimes there is a time for revelation and a time to get to the capital to attend to your sick mother. Now one can be in the other but arriving at the capital seems, in this instance of importance and one not to be laughed at.

I disagree on Warsaw but agree, for the most part, on revelation. Good insight.

Edited June 12, 2019 by thormas

[thormas]

9 hours ago, romansh said:

Materialism by and large is an accepted fact in the science community. There are those of a flat earth type of devotion to dualism who do not accept this. And they have an opinion that is by and large unsubstantiated. It's not a problem. But the point of this thread is, calling a point of view an opinion. in no way negates that opinion.

You yourself have demonstrated that with Warsaw and flat Earth.

Materialism has been shown to be doubted and its evidence disputed by some in the scientific and philosophical community and beyond.

Nice attempt to dismiss those who disagree with the questionable ideology of materialism by comparing them to flat earth devotees. Sort of a Trumpian attack, isn't it?

It no way negates an opinion, simply makes clear that it (materialism) is an opinion or belief with 'evidence' that is questioned/disputed.

That Warsaw is the capital Poland and that the earth is not flat are opinions and not fact? One problem that America has with Trump is that all is opinion and there is no accepted fact. When he doesn't like a fact, he labels it fake news.

 

[romansh]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Materialism has been shown to be doubted and its evidence disputed by some in the scientific and philosophical community and beyond.

So if we have scientific types the deny human caused climate change then, anthropogenic climate change becomes opinion?

Rather than arguing/debating the evidence of say materialism, one avoids, simply by saying it is opinion and one doesn't have to do any heavy lifting.

 

Apologies to Joseph, I started replying to you and ended up arguing with thormas  in my last post.

[JosephM]

13 hours ago, thormas said:

Thanks for the response.

First question: is the divine disclosure information or the experience of the divine?

If it is the latter, I agree that it is not privileged because it is possible for all and a matter of being aware or developing awareness. If it is information, then for me, it is similar to the 'deposit of faith' and moves back to privileged information.

(snip)

The experience , however,  information is known in the experience and one can oscillate between the shift in consciousness/identity from ones being in God (ones deeper self) to ones conditioned  sense of self (who you think you are from your life story and mental activity) so that information can be verbalized limited by the extent of ones conditioning and vocabulary. At least that is my experience in words.

[thormas]

10 hours ago, JosephM said:

The experience , however,  information is known in the experience and one can oscillate between the shift in consciousness/identity from ones being in God (ones deeper self) to ones conditioned  sense of self (who you think you are from your life story and mental activity) so that information can be verbalized limited by the extent of ones conditioning and vocabulary. At least that is my experience in words.

Not sure I know what you mean by information. That is (in large part) what a traditional understanding of revelation has been: that God provides information to select individuals of his choosing. If, however, you are saying there is an experience and then, upon reflection, one articulates their insight, based out of that experience, I basically agree. However, even that articulation and that experience is provisional as they are the acts of finite beings.

As to God as one's deeper self, I hedge. I find my best/deepest self in God and God as Being (so to speak) is 'my deepest self' but I still experience/understand God as Creator where I am creature, as Fullness in which I participate. as Love by which I become. My experience is not that God is me - is that what you mean and experience? I read the mystics as 'finding themselves in God' as akin to one 'lost' or found in love (analogous to human falling in love) but not as the other. This gets a little murky because I do believe that if God is Love, we literally 'do God' in a finite way and thus become our best/deepest self (or at least begin that journey in this incarnation). We indeed become the image and likeness but it is the image and likeness of the Other who IS (whereas I become).

It seems to be that it is as created, embodied beings who have a life story and mental activity, that we come to God and live. Otherwise, why are we embodied in nature? 

I find this topic important and fascinating, so again, thanks.

 

[romansh]

Thormas

The problem with opinion (for me) as you use it is … Thormas does not have to bring anything to the table. 

It's not interesting to me [thormas], Rom's expressing an opinion, I don't care about the evidence supporting his opinion, I don't have any to bring. Yet I will take the odd pot shot, like "Materialism is an opinion."

At least when Joseph defends the God is Love he brings some evidence to the table … eg people think they experience it.

 

[thormas]

4 hours ago, romansh said:

The problem with opinion (for me) as you use it is … Thormas does not have to bring anything to the table. 

It's not interesting to me [thormas], Rom's expressing an opinion, I don't care about the evidence supporting his opinion, I don't have any to bring. Yet I will take the odd pot shot, like "Materialism is an opinion."

At least when Joseph defends the God is Love he brings some evidence to the table … eg people think they experience it.

Of course opinion brings something to the table. Your opinion on materialism, Joseph's that God is Love and........mine. And, you must recognize that your opening sentence is opinion also. Actually the more accurate representation of what I said is: Rom is expressing an opinion, it has enough interest that I have engaged but not enough that I will drop everything I am currently working on to deal with a topic that has, pardon, limited interest (and is disputed/doubted within the scientific community).  I respect that it is important to you, I simply don't share your level of interest. 

It is interesting though, once again, that you feel the need to 'go after' those who disagree with you. I never thought you had much interest in or much to say about many theological questions but I have no problem with you presenting 'your opinion' even though you lack evidence and don't share the level of interest that I and some others have.

"People think they experience it" is an opinion or a belief statement. I enjoy the dialogue with Joseph:  he speaks from his experience rather than offering 'evidence.' What is the evidence that can convince one to believe in God and what is the evidence that God is Love? But you get points for trying:+}

[romansh]

23 hours ago, thormas said:

Joseph's that God is Love

If I recall correctly Joseph suggested something like acceptance rather than love, but I could be wrong here.

23 hours ago, thormas said:

And, you must recognize that your opening sentence is opinion also

I could argue it is no less opinion than Warsaw is the capital of Poland.

23 hours ago, thormas said:

that you feel the need to 'go after' those who disagree with you.

And yet is this not going after me? But in a sense I agree with you. I do think our ideas, beliefs and opinions are extensions of ourselves. So when I or someone suggests an opinion or belief is hopelessly wrong, then the holder of that opinion can feel as though they have been gone after.

23 hours ago, thormas said:

ay about many theological questions but I have no problem with you presenting 'your opinion' even though you lack evidence

You are absolutely right here. I lack evidence regarding theological opinions. And despite repeatedly asking for this evidence for these theological opinions all I get is someone else's opinion. Feel free to bring on the evidence.

23 hours ago, thormas said:

What is the evidence that can convince one to believe in God and what is the evidence that God is Love?

Personally I can't see it. But again feel free. Having said that, as a whole I am more distrustful of my experience of feelings than evidence. I am quite happy to go with love. But things like greed, hate and fear are definitely not to be trusted in a philosophical and quite often a practical sense. In terms of the experience of the feeling of love, to this date I have been lucky. But then looking around my immediate universe others have not been as lucky.

You get points for avoiding 😉

 

Here's a question.

Without looking up the answer is this an opinion:

Timbuktu is in Mali?

Just wondering?

[thormas]

On 6/14/2019 at 10:29 PM, romansh said:

If I recall correctly Joseph suggested something like acceptance rather than love, but I could be wrong here.

Actually I assumed you had already checked, thus you said, "At least when Joseph defends the God is Love ..."

On 6/14/2019 at 10:29 PM, romansh said:

I could argue it is no less opinion than Warsaw is the capital of Poland.

You could but you'd be wrong but we have been down this road.

On 6/14/2019 at 10:29 PM, romansh said:

And yet is this not going after me? But in a sense I agree with you. I do think our ideas, beliefs and opinions are extensions of ourselves. So when I or someone suggests an opinion or belief is hopelessly wrong, then the holder of that opinion can feel as though they have been gone after.

Not at all, it is just pointing out what you are doing yet again. I rarely (i.e. never) tell anyone they are 'hopelessly wrong' as that seems to be overkill, I simply might disagree because sometimes people are ....... wrong, as my example of the errant Polish cab driver.

On 6/14/2019 at 10:29 PM, romansh said:

You are absolutely right here. I lack evidence regarding theological opinions. And despite repeatedly asking for this evidence for these theological opinions all I get is someone else's opinion. Feel free to bring on the evidence.

I too lack evidence, since we would be talking about a belief. Therefore, all you'll ever get is opinion, most of it though very well research, based on brilliant writers and thinkers of the past, highly logical and reasonable. This is probably what I meant to say.

On 6/14/2019 at 10:29 PM, romansh said:

Personally I can't see it. But again feel free. Having said that, as a whole I am more distrustful of my experience of feelings than evidence. I am quite happy to go with love. But things like greed, hate and fear are definitely not to be trusted in a philosophical and quite often a practical sense. In terms of the experience of the feeling of love, to this date I have been lucky. But then looking around my immediate universe others have not been as lucky.

You get the point then and thus I mentioned Joseph speaking from his experience rather than providing evidence in contrast to what you stated, "At least when Joseph defends the God is Love he brings some evidence to the table". 

As to luck, if we are talking about love as commonly understood, some are more fortunate than others. However, love as agape or compassionate concern is of a different kind.

On 6/14/2019 at 10:29 PM, romansh said:

You get points for avoiding 😉

No, you missed the point. Points are awarded for trying and not succeeding not for avoiding which, however, I didn't. So, points to me for trying and succeeding (which is an entirely different points system):+} 

 

 

[romansh]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Actually I assumed you had already checked, thus you said, "At least when Joseph defends the God is Love ..."

There is a difference between defending a position and believing it. 

 

1 hour ago, thormas said:

You could but you'd be wrong but we have been down this road.

There is a difference between defending a position and believing it.

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Not at all, it is just pointing out what you are doing yet again. I rarely (i.e. never) tell anyone they are 'hopelessly wrong' as that seems to be overkill

I actually simply asked a question here. Burl actually accuses me of not stating my position and asking questions. But you do appear to dismiss arguments as "opinion".

1 hour ago, thormas said:

Therefore, all you'll ever get is opinion, most of it though very well research, based on brilliant writers and thinkers of the past, highly logical and reasonable

But without evidence?

1 hour ago, thormas said:

As to luck, if we are talking about love as commonly understood, some are more fortunate than others. However, love as agape or compassionate concern is of a different kind

I am talking about love how ever it is experienced. 

1 hour ago, thormas said:

No, you missed the point. Points are awarded for trying and not succeeding not for avoiding which, however, I didn't

 

On 6/14/2019 at 7:29 PM, romansh said:

Here's a question.

Without looking up the answer is this an opinion:

Timbuktu is in Mali?

 

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

There is a difference between defending a position and believing it. 

My point is evident: as you stated Joseph suggested (and believes) that God is love and then 'defends' it by referring to his experience. 

1 hour ago, romansh said:

I actually simply asked a question here. Burl actually accuses me of not stating my position and asking questions. But you do appear to dismiss arguments as "opinion".

2 hours ago, thormas said:

I cannot speak for Burl, that is between the two of you. I do not believe, for example, in materialism or the position that there is no God or that God is not Love but if someone holds those positions, that is their right. However, all such positions and my positions are beliefs or opinions. There is no evidence (I take evidence as proofs) for belief (as an example, there is no proof that God Is or, if you will, that God exists). However, one can point to the intellectual tradition that supports a belief/opinion but this is not evidence or proof that one's belief is an accurate take on reality (I can point to that tradition in Christianity but, obviously, there are many people who don't accept that tradition or what that tradition holds to be true).  It remains a belief statement. So other, dissenting opinions are not dismissed but they are not believed (for example, by me) and they do not change my belief. However, others might, for example, panentheism as opposed to traditionally understood theism which I grew up with and was 'the' take on reality.

Materialism seemed to be put forth as the correct take on reality with corroborating evidence/proof. It has been established that is not the case: the 'evidence' is questioned, doubted or differently interpreted within the scientific and philosophical communities and it is doubted by some/many that it is the correct take on reality. It is an opinion or belief; it is not dismissed because it is an opinion but that it is an opinion shows that it is legitimate to question that it is the correct take on reality; it is not dismissed per se but not accepted (by me in this case).

1 hour ago, romansh said:

But without evidence?

See above on 'evidence.'

1 hour ago, romansh said:

I am talking about love how ever it is experienced. 

It seems there is an element of 'fortune' if the topic is romantic love or friendship (to mention two kinds) it that this love is reciprocal. However, compassionate concern or 'Christian love' is not necessarily reciprocal: it is given freely, without the expectation of being returned, yet the recipient can still receive its 'benefits.' 

[romansh]

24 minutes ago, thormas said:

However, compassionate concern or 'Christian love' is not necessarily reciprocal

never claimed otherwise

 

25 minutes ago, thormas said:

it is given freely, without the expectation of being returned

This is a more accurate statement, and it is still a matter of luck. 

 

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Here's a question.

Without looking up the answer is this an opinion:

Timbuktu is in Mali?

????  … on topic

[romansh]

42 minutes ago, thormas said:

the position that there is no God

Is it your opinion that there are no Roman Gods or is that a statement like Warsaw is the capital of Poland?

But people question the evidence that the Earth is not flat. Or is it your opinion that position is beyond the pale?

If so how do we decide what opinions are beyond the pale?

Edited June 16, 2019 by romansh

[romansh]

2 hours ago, thormas said:

Materialism seemed to be put forth as the correct take on reality with corroborating evidence/proof

Anaesthetics are corroborating evidence but not proof. 

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

never claimed otherwise

Exactly, it is different in kind.

2 hours ago, romansh said:

"it is given freely, without the expectation of being returned" This is a more accurate statement, and it is still a matter of luck. 

In other words, this is your opinion. Thanks.

 

[romansh]

2 minutes ago, thormas said:

In other words, this is your opinion. Thanks.

In your world can one opinion be more accurate than another?

[romansh]

2 hours ago, romansh said:

Here's a question.

Without looking up the answer is this an opinion:

Timbuktu is in Mali?

Any thoughts?

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Is it your opinion that there are no Roman Gods or is that a statement like Warsaw is the capital of Poland?

But people question the evidence that the Earth is not flat. Or is it your opinion that position is beyond the pale?

If so how do we decide what opinions are beyond the pale?

The 'no God' reference is typically taken as referring to the God of the major western Religions. 

Certain people, at a certain time in history, believed in Greek or Roman gods, seemingly for different reasons. Not the Jews however.

It is my opinion that there are not presently and never were, Greek and Roman gods. It is a fact that many believed in them in certain times and places and it is this fact that is similar, as a fact, to the discussion of Warsaw.

It seems a fact that the earth is not flat and flat earthers are, therefore, factually wrong - as is the cabdriver that took us tho Gdansk when we asked to be taken to the capital of Poland. 

It seems apparent that a denial of fact results in one being wrong (and beyond the pale). One is entitled to an opinion and opinions can vary widely - so are opinions beyond the factual pale if there is no factual evidence for or against?

 

[thormas]

37 minutes ago, romansh said:

Anaesthetics are corroborating evidence but not proof. 

Seemingly even this 'evidence' is questioned in the community.

[thormas]

17 minutes ago, romansh said:

In your world can one opinion be more accurate than another?

Well, in our world, since it seems to be the same world, unless you have something to share with the audience, it does seem that some opinions are more accurate - but this too just might be an opinion. 

[thormas]

19 minutes ago, romansh said:

19 minutes ago, romansh said:

Timbuktu is in Mali?

Well it seems like a Warsaw comment as opposed to an opinion on materialism but it could be possible that country lines were redrawn, names changed or there might have been a different border and ownership in another time. However, why would anyone deny another the opportunity to research and learn present factual information, isn't that like keeping info from the flat earthers?

 

[romansh]

31 minutes ago, thormas said:

Well it seems like a Warsaw comment as opposed to an opinion on materialism but it could be possible that country lines were redrawn, names changed or there might have been a different border and ownership in another time. However, why would anyone deny another the opportunity to research and learn present factual information, isn't that like keeping info from the flat earthers?

Well it would seem it depends on whether we can verify (bring [sufficient] evidence to bear) on the matter whether something is an opinion or fact.

So who is the arbiter of whether sufficient evidence has been brought to bear? You seem to deny that anaesthetics is even evidence that is in favour of materialism, I don't see, how one even you, could do this? What is your rationale for doing this and who said anaesthetics are not evidence for materialism. I am not debating whether that evidence is sufficient or not, only that it is evidence.

Edited June 16, 2019 by romansh

[romansh]

1 hour ago, thormas said:

so are opinions beyond the factual pale if there is no factual evidence for or against?

I have to be a little ignostic here. Do you mean a deistic god or a personal God that actually comes down and plays with us?

Are suggesting there is no evidence against Abrahamic gods. there is no evidence against these in the same way there is no evidence against Roman Gods.

[thormas]

1 hour ago, romansh said:

Well it would seem it depends on whether we can verify (bring [sufficient] evidence to bear) on the matter whether something is an opinion or fact.

So who is the arbiter of whether sufficient evidence has been brought to bear? You seem to deny that anaesthetics is even evidence that is in favour of materialism, I don't see, how one even you, could do this? What is your rationale for doing this and who said anaesthetics are not evidence for materialism. I am not debating whether that evidence is sufficient or not, only that it is evidence.

Not exactly: we can verify facts, like Warsaw, the earth not being flat, etc. but we cannot verify opinions or beliefs like God (for or against) or the materialist belief about reality. Perhaps it is that something that is a fact can be discovered once we are able to obtain the information - again like Warsaw or the earth. One can have an opinion on Warsaw, Mali or the earth but there is a discoverable answer and one is either right or wrong.

However, some opinions or beliefs, specifically (but perhaps not limited to) those dealing with the meaning of life or the reality of all existence, cannot be discovered. One's 'evidence' can be disputed by others of equally good will. In religious language, it is believed that a finite human being cannot know the Godhead in and of itself; one can only 'know' or have an opinion/belief/insight about the human experience of "God." So too, one cannot know the ultimate meaning of being or the ultimate make up of reality itself (for example, the materialist position or that Reality is Love) - this is ultimately opinion or belief. 

All I have reported is that "even this 'evidence' (of anaesthetics for materialism) is questioned in the (scientific and philosophical) community." What you term evidence is found to be wanting, questioned, doubted and dismissed by some, just as it is accepted by others. That is the reality. There is a difference in kind between the evidence that Warsaw is the capital of Poland and what you call evidence for the materialist belief about reality. Warsaw's evidence is beyond dispute, materialism's 'evidence' is not. If 'evidence' is disputed or not accepted, there is no definitive answer: we have differing opinions about the 'evidence' and therefore different opinions about the validity or truth of, for example, materialism.

I reserve the right to make changes to this as I am still thinking on it.

[thormas]

52 minutes ago, romansh said:

I have to be a little ignostic here. Do you mean a deistic god or a personal God that actually comes down and plays with us?

Are suggesting there is no evidence against Abrahamic gods. there is no evidence against these in the same way there is no evidence against Roman Gods.

Well I neither accept nor believe in a deistic god or a personal God, at least as you have described above. 

If by the Abrahamic gods you mean the community and intellectual tradition about the God who is referred to as I AM, then there is no evidence for or against (it's not like Warsaw). If you mean something else by Abrahamic gods, perhaps earlier evolutions evident in the developing belief of the community, that might be a different story.