And conversely, what some people call opinions are actually facts, regardless of whether or not they want to believe them. I get really irritated when people get butt hurt if I tell them their view is wrong. They can have an opinion all they want, I can respect that. But if they're wrong, they are wrong, and I'd be remiss if I didn't tell them that.

We really need to get out of this mentality that everything that someone says is just their opinion, because everything ISN'T. Certain things are just plain facts, no matter if they like them or agree with them. They do not change.

most things are,, because most things come from something someone READ somewhere as opposed to seeing for themself

and most of what was read was written by someone else who READ it somewhere

so alot of what people say is an opinion of which materials they think are most likely , as opposed to anything that is irrefutably provable by the person stating it,,,


I get reamed all the time by people suggesting that my faith is ridiculous because it doesnt make sense even though it just might be the truth,,, I understand their point of view that I cant PROVE it

likewise, most of what people repeat in these threads, they cant personally prove and havent seen, they just believe what someone else has told them or written about,,,


it actually tickles me when people post on politics that they know the 'truth' , like what happens in Israel or the middle east or what this leader did or didnt do,,,

when they have hardly ever witnessed any of it themself and just swear that their source is the one that must be the accurate one,,,lol

Religions do the same thing.......but you have no problem believing in a 2000 year old book do you? That's pretty hypocritical to me.

This is an opinion: Bush was not very smart.

This is a fact: Bush did not get the highest scores out of our Presidents, graduating with just a C average from an Ivy League school.


This is an opinion: They are taking our freedoms away.

This is a fact: They now have precedent to wire tap and search without warrant


,,,,,facts dont change, but people continue to try to make them more concise through their personal evaluations ,, or opinions...

I have no problem with believing it, true.

The difference is If I didnt think it was true I would not believe it. But I dont belittle others intelligence if they do not believe it. I dont think my 'truth' has to be right. I believe it is right, but Im prepared and open to other possibilities.

I dont place an absolute stake on the 'truth' above and superior to anyone else. I believe it to be true, thats the foundation of what belief is, we rarely believe if we dont think its true.

But If I Was wrong,,,I will have lost nothing, I would just be as fallibly human as everyone else who was ever wrong.

My faith is the truth. It is logical to me. It doesnt have to be logical to everyone else for them to be logical.

in politics, everyone thinks their truth is the absolute and anyone who doesnt agree is inferior in intelligence or awareness.

I just hate this nanny crap of everyone being right basically, fact of the matter is, on some things many are WRONG especially politically. No matter what they may think, they are still wrong. Cold? Maybe, but it's the truth.

But the thing is, just like religion, noone will really know who is right or wrong, until everything is OVER,,....


in the moment, most of us are just making our most logical and reasonable guess,,,

Disagree, there is information all over the place showing what is happening and what has happened. No matter whether people wanna close their eyes to it or not, it is there and it can be known long before it's ever over.

Oh. This has suddenly turned into a discussion about religion. lol

there is not CONSISTENT or EXCLUSIVE information of any one version of whats going on....


there is information all over the place, DIFFERENT information about what is and has happened, and people CHOOSE which parts of that information ring truest to THEM....

It doesn't change that some is true, and some is not, one group is going to be wrong no matter if they like it or not.

we agree, there is one truth, but anyone who hasnt experienced it themself is guessing at what it is

the facts (truth) changes based on new information

so at times we will all be wrong

but some truths we may hold regardless of what others think - opinions are our truths that others may or may not share - those can be based on facts, experiences and feelings. We are entitled to our opinions

but they're subjective truths - no matter how much fact you throw at someone - if their experience has been different - they will probably remain true to their opinion based on their experience - those experiences are their facts

so you can tell me over & over that (for example) FWB is an OK lifestyle but I will not agree because my experience is otherwise, and that is a fact

I think when people try too hard to convince others to believe what is true for them (whether it is casual sex, who pays on a date, or deepest religion) it is because they are really a little insecure in their truths.

I see this in the religion & politics forums all the time - I see it up in this section too-it is possible for two people to look at 2 sets of facts and formulate different opinions, particularly the more complex the information

You know, too many people like to think in terms of black and white when, in truth, there are a myriad shades of grey in between. As a result, most often the truth is neither black nor white but some shade of gray. That means that in many cases of conjecture or dispute neither side is going to be all right or all wrong. That's why people discuss things - to sort through opinions and ideas to learn where they are wrong and thereby find the truth.

The law of averages dictates that both sides are going to have false ideas or notions. The more people involved who are willing to discuss things rationally and logically, the more likely they are to find the truth. However, most people do not discuss topics rationally much of the time. They have opinions and a bias. These are hurdles they must first overcome in order to make progress. This goes for all people in a discussion. And yet, it is also their bias which may aid in pointing out flaws in another's thinking. It's called a different perspective. This is what's meant by "viewing an idea from all angles" - gathering multiple perspectives and making sure all is taken into account before reaching a conclusion.

Such a discussion cannot happen unless all parties are willing to listen to each other. It cannot happen so long as some believe they are all right 100% of the time. It cannot happen if some are skeptical to such an extreme that they cannot believe anything anyone else may say. This is where the distinction between opinion and fact must be made. Facts are irrefutable. Opinions are not. Denial or dismissal does not alter the validity of a fact. A fact does not need be accepted at face value for it is independently verifiable.

Like when I provided multiple film clips of the Pentagon being struck on 9/11. Sure, you couldn't clearly tell it was a plane. However, in watching the full film from multiple angles and seeing reflections in windows, you can determine what happened. Like when I pointed out the piece of debris that flew up from the impact, and was flung down the entire length of the building to land just short of the camera. Then another camera showed the same thing from a different angle, and it was clear the debris was a torn and twisted piece of sheet metal. Furthermore, from that angle you could make out the paint on the metal, which was the parallel stripes of red, white, and blue consistent with the markings on American Airlines jets. Plus, you can see the tail section strike the building and explode into a cloud of debris thrown over the outer ring - a direction completely inconsistent with the rest of the debris because only the tail was elevated enough to not be deflected by the outer wall.

Next I provided pictures of lamp posts knocked over by the plane on its approach, including pictures of cars hit and damaged by the falling lamp posts. Someone was in those cars driving them when the lamp posts were knocked over. They are witnesses, as are the others who had to stop because of damage on the highway.

Then I provided pictures of the debris field that was claimed by some to be non-existent. With that was included a photo of the hole from impact before it collapsed. The hole was much larger than some in the thread claimed, fully spanning two floors making it over 20 foot in diameter.

And yet, despite all the physical evidence shown, some still refuse to believe that a plane, not a missile, hit the Pentagon. They said it a was a missile....and I showed a piece of debris with American Airlines markings flying from the point of impact to land in front of two cameras. They said there was no debris field. Not only did the aforementioned videos debunk that, but I showed a picture of the debris field, which had been thrown further away and all to one side of the impact, hence giving the appearance in close-up shots that there was no debris. They said no light posts were knocked over. I showed them too, and the damage they caused, and the people standing in the aftermath. Someone said the hole was only about 6 ft in diameter. I showed a photo that clearly showed the hole was much larger. What more evidence did I have to present other than tracking down the driver of the cab hit by one of the light posts?

I would say the evidence I provided was pretty overwhelming, and each came from a different source and a different angle. Still there are those who will tell me I am dead wrong, and that it was a missile, not a plane. Well then, where is their proof....their evidence? I provided mine, and allowed it to state its own case. But I was shown links filled with conjecture, speculation, and opinion to refute photographic evidence that is verifiable through eyewitnesses. They couldn't produce any evidence to refute mine because there isn't any. Instead, they reiterate a theory - an opinion - in an attempt to discredit the evidence presented, and to explain why they cannot produce evidence themselves. The burden of proof was shifted to them, and they dropped the ball. Are they going to tell that cab driver that he didn't see a plane clip the lamp post that smashed his cab?

some people just like to bandwagon on weird theories I think mostly as a form of rebellion against the "authority" or mainstream that has presented the facts

like the gov't or the police said it happened this way so they must be lying - as a form of rebelliousness

even tho I also do not trust everything that comes from the gov't, the police, or the mainstream media - there are times when the facts are irrefutable, I agree

too many conspiracy theories regarding your issue simply means that someone has too much time on their hands

There is one indesputable fact and personal truth I can think of....

When I was young...I knew EVERYTHING. But,the older I get...the less I know.

No, no. We will not know if there is a god or not, and possible not know that even when everything is over.

But we do know that religions are false. If someone tells me "I am a mean and jealous god" means a loving father, then I call them out.

Some things do not require guesses. Some things can be known.

There are more things that can be known than "cogito ergo sum" that cover truths of the physical world. All you need to arrive at truth for sure, and leave the guesswork or uncertainty out, is to assume that certain things are true for sure.

Assumptions are not the devil's suggestions, as many think. Assumptions are valid things when used properly.

"I state that the earth is round, assuming that photos taken from space do not lie." I am passing the responsibility of no 100% surety in my statment over to the assumption, which is my trust in something else being true for sure.

That other thing may not be true; but my assumption is that it is, and that assumption assures that my opinion is knowledge.

And when it comes to who makes logical and reasonable guesses... my money would be on "absolutely everybody". The differences in opinion crop up when my logic (which includes premises taken as truth) are different from your logic, either in the premises, or in the logic, or both, and definitely in the conclusion.

Example: Will we gain all possible knowledge after death? MsHarmony says, yes, based on the Christian bible. You assume that the christian bible says the truth. You are not opening an argument over whether the christian bible says the truth or not; you say that's a given, we assume that, and therefore treating that assumption for the sake of the ensuing statement, and not for the sake of reality,(because that can't be assured or proven) that the bible says the truth, then we must accept that potentially we shall know everything knowable. Unless we don't go to heaven.

Will we gain all possible knowledge after death? Wux says it is undecidable. I assume that the christian bible is not the truth, but has some potential of being the truth.I assume that any unknowable fact is possible. There are false facts, which are stated and believed, but they are KNOWN to be false. Some facts that can't a priori be proven to be wrong, do have the potential of being true. Therefore there are so many variations of what happens to our conscious after death, that we had better not commit for the truth of any one of them. We might get our souls annihilated, or we can gain infinite wisdom, or infinite joy, or horrible suffering, or rebirth into a being on Earth once more, etc. etc. One is not any one reliable assumption to make, than any of the other. THIS was our assumption, and therefore our conclusion can only be, that we can't know what happens to our conscious after we die.


-------------

Edit: Disclaimer:

I am so tired, that I can't comprehend my own text and judge it for sense. I am sorry, I am really sleepy, I'm keeling over. So if it blatantly does not make sense or says stupid things, then it's my fault, please forgive me for it.

And if it's on Wikipedia, it's undisputed fact.

Good one.