Opinions are NOT facts!

I have seen many examples of posts, and indeed threads, here on ATS that seem to confuse facts with beliefs and opinions. Just because you state something as a fact, doesn't make it so. The theory of evolution, the so-called Matrix that we are all blinded by and the Bible being true, are three such examples that immediately come to mind, of opinions (or assumptions of best fit as I like to refer to them as), being confused with facts. It is actually quite simple to distinguish one from the next. Allow me to demonstrate by using an excerpt from a old post:

Opinions are required to interpret ambiguous statements, events or circumstances. Beliefs are usually derived from these interpretations. Facts however, make beliefs and interpretations redundant, as a fact has no ambiguity, thus does not need to be interpreted. Facts do not have a time limit, they are indisputable and what is a fact 1,000 years ago is still a fact now and will be in another 1,000 years. If any alleged facts do not meet this criteria, they are not facts.

Hopefully this has cleared things up for those of you that are confusing these elements.

*smiles*

Thanks, Mytym.

I participate in some of the religious threads at times, so I kinda think this applies to me. What I hope is not implied in my replies is a "You have to believe" image or "the only true faith is the XXXXXXX faith." I try very hard to stay away from promoting that for my own personal reasons.

There have been a couple other threads that I have seen lately that have been lamenting that members are promoting ideals, dogma or personal belief as fact with either nothing verifiable to back it up or not providing links to back their statement. Kind of a "because I said so..." thing.

I think people post from an emotional standpoint at times, too, and that can lead to a bad debating style. It quickly breaks down into personal attacks, going back and forth between a couple of posters.

As far as me personally, I try to include an "In my opinion (IMO)", or "I was taught to..." Hopefully that way my post is construed in a way that lets people know that my viewpoint is based on my past experiences and not necessarily being stated as a "fact".

Oh well, just saying that I pretty much agree with you.

Cheers,

JDub

It is my opinion, that, in fact, there does exist something called the Theory of Evolution.

Just as IMHO there exists a concept known as Inteligent Design.

It is also a fact that bibles exist. I found one in a hotel nightstand drawer once.

I took the liberty of pulling this off another thread.



The Bible is a book of factual truth. It has stood against all attempts to disprove it.

You have choice to reject or believe the truth. It is my opinion that you don't understand this.


[edit on 13-4-2006 by Sun Matrix]

What stands for fact is what we most currently believe is the truth until proven false.

Science is an example of this, what we believe today to be fact about the world around us may seem to be a joke when taught to children 100 years from now.

My point is that you shouldn't cling too tightly to your views on either side of the debate.

Then there is the simple question: why cannot both sides have validity as explanation of what we observe? They can and do but it is always us vs them in these arguments isn't it?

Originally posted by mytym
Opinion Are Not Facts

Just referenced 17 different dictionaries, and, although it pains me to say this, it looks like he is right folks. Opinion are NOT facts. Thanks for clearing this up mytym.

I know it may seem like pointing out the obvious to many of you, but as is even evidenced here on this thread by one poster at least, there are those of you that still cannot grasp this concept. Sad, but true, I'm afraid.

I have noticed a new post in the last day or two where a serial offender has once again confused their facts, this time with an assumption, same ball park I know.

Jumping to the conclusion, that a poster who openly admits to not following any religion but has many interesting ideas on spirituality and inner knowledge, must have got those ideas from books or Eastern religions or some other source, the serial offender completely ignores the probability and indeed likelyhood, that these ideas could come from personal experience.

This is an assumption which rules out various possibilities that are deemed to be unworthy of considering based on personal opinion, it is not a fact. Hardly surprising though, seeing as how the school of thought professing "The Bible is the truth, because the Bible says so" seems to have played a hand in this assumption.

I apologise to all of you who know all of this already, but it is a real sticking point with me. I'm all for freedom of speech and members expressing their opinions, regardless of the contrast to my own, but disguising opinions, assumptions, beliefs or anything else subjective as objective facts is something I cannot stand for or remain silent about. It's happening far too often and something needs to be done about it, especially when these "facts in disguise" are being used to prove a subjective point of view.

You're correct when you say that opinions are not facts...because they are not.

IMO...all religion stems from 'connection' with a seperate reality through the effects of altered states. The 'tunnel' which those who have near death experiences, the 'stars' we see when we get clobbered by that baseball that jumps out of your glove and the strange lights and designs we see when we press our palms to our eyes; these are the primary indicators to this 'altered state'. When we cause our bodies to suffer extreme stress, like isolation, or when we starve ourselves or deny sleep, then these visions become more real to us.

We're seeing visions that don't really exist...just like dreams.

The following author and book outline the beginning of religions as they were practiced by us in the dawn of our time...30-50 thousand years ago.

The Mind in the Cave by David Lewis-Williams published by Thames & Hudson;

I am not alone in emphasizing the importance of making sense of altered states of consciousness in the genesis of religion.

Peter Furst, then a research associate of the Harvard Botanical Museum, wrote, 'It is at least possible' though certainly not provable, that the practice of shamanism...may have involved from the first- that is, the very beginnings of religion itself- the psychedelic potential of the natural environment.

Without stressing the use of psychotropic plants to alter consciousness,James McClenon sums up the matter: Shamanism, the result of cultural adaptation to biologically based altered states of consciousness is the origin of all later religious forms.

And Weston La Barre came to the same conclusion: 'All the dissociative 'altered states of consciousness'- hallucination, trance, possession, vision, sensory deprivation and especially the REM-state dream- apart from their cultural contexts and symbolic content, are essentially the same psychic states found everywhere among mankind;...shamanism or direct contact with the supernatural in these states...is the de facto source of all revelation, and ultimately of all religions'.

That is 'underground stream' from which all religions flow...and none of it is fact. It is our 'mindscape'...we see visions because of the way our brains are hard-wired. We can either choose to 'believe' those visions or ignore them. It must be said, though, that over 50 millenia has not seen mankind let go of the idea that the supernatural exists and I sincerely doubt we will in the future either.

To those who have never seen a highway or city street, a red light is meaningless, but, to those 'in the know' it means stop. So it is with the supernatural and our present materialistic understanding of it.
. edit for grammar

[edit on 14-4-2006 by masqua]

I'm all for freedom of speech and members expressing their opinions, regardless of the contrast to my own, but disguising opinions, assumptions, beliefs or anything else subjective as objective facts is something I cannot stand for or remain silent about.

If you can't remain silent, I guess you will be picketing the Da Vinci Code movie as it claims to be fact and clearly isn't.

Why don't you use your energy attacking the obvious lie passed as truth.

It's happening far too often and something needs to be done about it, especially when these "facts in disguise" are being used to prove a subjective point of view.

I think that it is possible that your problem might be the result of someone answering your question regarding Noah and the 120 year supposed age limit on man.

You have been using that crutch, as a reason not to believe the Bible. Someone just used facts and read the Bible exactly as it said and guess what, your mystery question was answered. No more crutch.

If you can prove the Bible is opinion, you will be the first.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by Sun Matrix]

Opinions are not facts.


Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

Repeating the same line twice doesn't get you off the hook.

[edit on 16-4-2006 by AgentSmith]

Originally posted by mytym
I know it may seem like pointing out the obvious to many of you, but as is even evidenced here on this thread by one poster at least, there are those of you that still cannot grasp this concept. Sad, but true, I'm afraid.

Tell us what facts are then? I would like you to explain to us. I can quote from learned books and quote scholars that may in 10 years time be proven wrong... is that a fact?

I can tell you that 2 + 2 =4 but humans defined that... is that a fact?

We know the sun will come up tomorrow but is that a fact? What if it doesn't? Will it happen forever?

If I drop and feather and a rock, the rock falls faster because of resistance to air... but we believe that they will only fall at the same rate in a vaccuum... what if there is no gravity what then?

What is a fact?

Sun Matrix
True, the Da Vinci Code movie is not fact, and if any of the makers of this movie are reading this thread, then it is directed at them as well. I am using my energy attacking the obvious lie passed as truth, what would indicate to you that I'm not? Did I not point out my challenge on opinions disguised as facts?

Sun Matrix:
We are all entitled to our opinions, however I don't see why me proving that your conclusion on the 120 year age limit was your opinion, would pose a problem for me.

I see you still cannot get passed your belief that the Bible is the truth. Read my initial post in this thread and put your supposed facts to the test. I believe you will find that they fail that test.

Whether the Bible is opinion is not my concern. I am not obligated to prove it as such. However you use it as the basis of facts, using your opinion to reach this conclusion. Thus if you are unwilling to preceed your opinions with "IN MY OPINION", then you are obligated to prove them as facts.

is Fact just commonly held belief?

Truth is different from fact?

Truth is very difficult to get hold of. Facts are not

denythestatusquo:
I'm not here to tell you what facts are, just what they are not. I cannot say that any of the examples you raise are facts, because they don't appear to pass the test in my original post.

AdamJ:
There is a perception by some that facts are commonly held beliefs, but this is just a perception, not truth. If anything, truth could be considered commonly held beliefs, as in my opinion, it can be subjective. However facts are exclusively objective, thus commonly held beliefs will not suffice as facts. Facts are near impossible to come across.

All “facts are open to opinion. Two people watch the same event, then you will have two opinions as too what really happened. Facts are not objective when they enter our brains, We twist them and turn them in till we end up with what we want..

As for stating opinions as facts, We humans just love our opinions so much that we must state them as facts. And that saddly is just a fact.

That's correct, you make an important distinction, but the two opinions are not different versions of the facts, they are different versions of the truth. The facts do not change, it is our perception of the truth that varies. This is why I say truth can be subjective but facts are objective.