also derived from a lifetime of thought, is that you are incorrect.

What are your beliefs?

My beliefs are a part of my many posts here. I see no point in recapitulating them here at any length and thus derailing your post.

Kinda funny, that one, which makes your opinion that anyone else is wrong on the subject not worth much.

Just sayin'

Coming from someone whose best is canned replies.

See my signature line, once again. I do not pretend otherwise. All posts written by me are my opinion. If I quote someone else's words, I indicate that very clearly and provide a link. Otherwise I am openly posting my opinion, as I say at the bottom of each and every post.

What are your posts?

with not a whit of evidence

Everything you think about everything is an opinion. All your opinions fall into one of 3 categories: pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. All you can ever really know is your own individual experience.

And that individual experience, that life philosophy, proves nothing except that it is an opinion.

that there is a common physical reality that we can as a society build a shared knowledge about its properties?

Epistomology is that branch of philosophy that deals with how we know what we know. And psychology is that science that deals with how the mind works. I adhere to the Buddhist teachings on the nature of mind and the creation of sense of self. It took me many years to understand Buddhist teachings on emptiness. But basically "emptiness" means that phenomena are void of existing in impossible ways. Yes there is phenomena, stuff, that exists "out there." Stump your toe, and you'll immediately discover that there's stuff "out there." The conventional way of thinking about phenomena is that stuff exists as independent and self-existent. But actually all phenomena arise from previous causes and conditions. Moreover all compound things are impermanent. The opinions (good, bad, pretty, ugly, big, little, etc etc) that we impute onto phenomena are not actually part of the phenomena. For example, which is long?

This: ======
or this ==========

Now which is long"

This: ======
or this ==========
or this ==============

I give you the example of the really good cake. A woman goes to the store and buys the ingredients to bake a cake. Comes home, pours the ingredients into a bowl, mixes it up, pours the batter into a baking pan, bakes it in the oven. When done, assembles and ices the layers. Then serves cake pieces to her guest, who exclaims that it's a really good cake. But actually there is no goodness in the cake. If there was "good" in the cake, it would have been as if the baker had bought a bottle of "good" at the store and pored it into the cake batter. The experience of good is not in the cake, it's in the person experiencing the cake.

If you want to understand Buddhist teachings on emptiness, that things are void of existing in impossible ways, you have to understand the 5 skandas: Form, feelings, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. We humans put the 5 skandas together and call them "I."

You don't have to agree with any of the above.

As a philosophical way of looking at things and even existence, it is one way to focus the mind on such questions. It is not, however, the only way, nor necessarily the correct way. It is simply a way.

I can easily follow Buddhism's approaches to their logical conclusions, and have. However, I came to the conclusion that using the mind alone as a way of understanding does not cover all of the ground I want to cover. If one seeks emptiness and the void, then it is a good path to that understanding.

It is not, however, suitable for all persons. It looks internally, rather than externally. I find more satisfaction in looking outward, rather than inward. Since I am the one looking, my path goes in a different way.

You appear to be a skeptical Buddhist idealist. Other skepics can be empirical materialists. We think there is a common physical reality that we can imperfectly perceive through our senses and that we can understand through a cooperative process with other humans using rigorous evidence based reasoning.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make with your “longer” example. You do understand that that word describes a property of an object relative to other objects, right?

before reality stops being real?

I think reality is probably real. I can't really know it though, but life operates most smoothly for me if I just go with it being so.

never walk through walls either.

on ancient stories and hopes. I prefer the former, I must say. I form my opinions based on evidence of real things in a real universe.

nt

And if you have an opinion, you might reject evidence that contradicts your opinion.

And given that you have no idea how many real things exist in the universe, your opinion is based on your own experience, and your ability to understand what you experience.

I re-examine my opinion, Guy. But, only after confirming that evidence as factual, objectively, as best I am able to do so.

You are quick to tell people what they think, but reluctant to tell what you think. You blithely proclaim what you think I know or what I have experienced, but reveal little about your own knowledge and experiences.

Based on what I have seen, you are not a fount of knowledge. You rarely, if ever, present evidence of anything. You are, however, a deep, deep well of opinion about things. The two are not the same.

I merely pointed out the obvious weakness of you stating an opinion when your opinion is so limited.

And your final paragraph well describes yourself, and your style of posting in religion.

And your claim of re-examination is limited, as you admitted, by your ability to recognize fact and reality.

It's simply a form of extreme skepticism towards opinions you don't like, so that you can keep opinions you do like without any justification whatsoever.

Unprovable opinions are just that. No matter which side of the theist/non-theist argument, they are unprovable.

Last edited Mon Oct 1, 2018, 12:24 AM - Edit history (2)

I am asking for a definition, not examples of opinions, and also not a request that you ask me to prove something.

Any belief that is not provable is an expression of belief, or opinion.

Because we may disagree on what constitutes proof or what makes something provable.

That is provably correct.

Does a god exist, or not exist? Any answer is an opinion based on an unprovable belief.

A definition, please. Not examples or a request to prove something.

What did you understand, or not understand, by it?

The other is unprovable and requires opinion.

Not an reassertion of your assertion that something is provable because it is not a matter of opinion, and it is not a matter of opinion because it is provable.

Legal proof is different from scientific proof.

But in the most basic sense, if a thing can be seen, that proves that it exists. I can prove that my keyboard exists because I am typing on it.

if anything. If you don't have a definition of proof, the you can't make a meaningful assertion about whether something is provable or not.

Can it be measured?

Can it affect things around it?

You mentioned legal proof, but law can't be seen or measured and it might not affect anything.

And as I stated, there are many types of proof.

that doesn't depend on an example?

Belief in a deity is unprovable. I see no real need to revisit this statement. Have a nice night.

"belief in a deity is unprovable" is as meaningless as "belief in a deity is covfefe."

Good night.

And much confusion arises when it is used in different ways by different people in the same conversation.

The key words in the first definition are "not necessarily based on fact or knowledge." One can have an opinion based on no information at all, false information, or without even thinking. However, it can also be based on solid, repeatable evidence, in which case it is far more reliable.

My opinion that the earth is flat is just as good as your opinion that it is round. I don't even have to tell you why I think it is flat because you can't prove to me that it isn't. You can only prove it to yourself.

Some regard this a great virtue of opinions since everyone gets to be right.

All others are weakly considered and false.

first there is the quality of the expression of that opinion.

But more importantly opinions based on evidence that can be verified have a higher quality than other opinions. “That is a cat” has a higher quality than “I believe cats are gods”.

Fuzzy, partial opinions are light in weight, it seems to me.

I know that once I began questioning the religion into which I was born and initially indoctrinated I looked for the opinions of others. I went to the library (before the internet and google) and read. Probably not odd at all, my reading was in the Science Fiction section more than in philosophy. Authors in Science Fiction have long been presenting an alternative view of the universe unencumbered by a God or viciously ruled by malevolent ones in order to make people think.

Harlan Ellison's short-story "The Deathbird" in his compilation A Pantheon of Modern Gods really changed the way I thought as a teenager. The story positions the Serpent in the Garden of Eden as the protagonist.

These days I read Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and others. So, yes, your thesis is correct for religion and atheists. The difference is the factual basis rather than faith for the opinion.

What exactly is the factual basis for atheism? How is disbelief more credible than belief?

The point is you do not know whether God exists or not yet you insist that people who disbelieve have more credibility than those who believe. People of faith would argue that they are influenced by their belief in God, that their faith makes them better people and that they can feel the presence of God in prayer and in his creation


Me, I am just an asshole agnostic from NY who wishes he had faith but somehow can't achieve it.

None of us are born believing in some religion. That's a learned behavior. We're all natural-born atheists. Atheism requires no "factual basis." It is merely the absence of belief in deities.

We are neurologically immature. Belief or lack thereof requires a certain degree of cognitive function. People raised among theists may become atheists and those raised among atheists may become theists. I don’t think it is simple learning.

Being a better person because of faith doesn't really prove anything. There are people who became better people after becoming atheists, for example, becoming less judgemental about people who don't agree with them.

"Feeling the presence of God" is one of the reasons I am agnostic. I have felt the presence of God, but think most likely it's a brain illusion, even if it feels very strong and wonderful. Possibly it is more than that. But even so, that's just a subjective proof that doesn't meet the usual standards for any kind of real proof.

There is no god.

No god is there.

No god is over here, either.

No god is in there, on top of this, over there, under that.

No god is there.

Everywhere we look. Every time, ever.

No god.

Good chat. Take care.

Disbelief must be more credible than belief to you. Otherwise, you would believe, wouldn't you?

You say you wish you had faith but somehow can't achieve it. I have two questions for you:

1. Faith in what, exactly? Please be specific.
2. Why do you want to have faith in it?

I believe in the theory of evolution is a statement of fact, not opinion.