are any guys of opeth satanists?

[Kenneth R.]

I don't read posts; I skim.

edit: and my original *point* was that Silentsong's comment was fucking idiotic.

explain why.

i did not say it was an opinion that EVERYONE holds. i said it was an opinion that is accepted by the majority who are familiar with the topic.

such as:

if scientists agree something related to science is a fact, people accept it as such.

if psychologists agree that something in their field is fact, people accept it.

this is because people trust that these researchers (and the same for all other fields) are searching for the "truth".

i'm curious. define "truth" cythraul? "truth" and "fact" are certainly seperate entities and OFTEN confused and interchanged.

 

[umdebaba]

explain why.

i did not say it was an opinion that EVERYONE holds. i said it was an opinion that is accepted by the majority who are familiar with the topic.

such as:

if scientists agree something related to science is a fact, people accept it as such.

if psychologists agree that something in their field is fact, people accept it.

this is because people trust that these researchers (and the same for all other fields) are searching for the "truth".

i'm curious. define "truth" cythraul? "truth" and "fact" are certainly seperate entities and OFTEN confused and interchanged.

[size=-1]fact - a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts" [/size]

 

[Sanzen]

This thread will rend the Opeth forum in two.

 

[umdebaba]

And to you that say atheists do nothing, look at most scientists, most scientists are atheists.

 

[Kenneth R.]

[size=-1]fact - a concept whose truth can be proved; "scientific hypotheses are not facts" [/size]

what do you define as "truth"

what i find ironic is just about everyone who called me "fucking idiotic" has done only so, and not shown any alternate definitions of what such a thing is.

i was pointing out this important difference in wording because when people begin to talk about things as if they are "truth" when they are instead "fact" or "opinion" it is misleading to others

 

[umdebaba]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...zilla:en-US:official&oi=defmore&q=define:fact
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...lla:en-US:official&q=define:truth&btnG=Search

 

[Kenneth R.]

that's google's definition. i asked for yours.

 

[umdebaba]

As far as I know the English language does not vary on the individual.... There can be multiple definitions for the same word, but here we are only talking about one and that definition does not change. Please introduce yourself to a dictionary.

 

[Kenneth R.]

what i am saying is, you assume that the dictionary is correct. you take it for granted.

 

[umdebaba]

I'm not assuming it is correct, it is called a reference. You take for granted the purpose of the dictionary. The words "fact" and "truth" can be known with a 2nd grade brain. Don't try to redefine words to fit your need.

 

[Kenneth R.]

no no no.

you believe that those are what these words mean because the dictionary says so, no?

i say, who's to say that the dictionary is even right? those words are extremely difficult to discern for most people. to say 2nd grade is a vast oversimplification. a 2nd grader would just equate the two words as meaning identical things, and that their meaning is "what people told me is true". which is of course incorrect.


simply put:

Truth is what IS. it is independent of all opinion and viewpoints.

Fact is the collected composition of what is believed to have happened/happening/will happen etc. It depends on the opinions of those who collected the information, and is accepted by others based on trust in the integrity of said collection.

example: a car drives by.
there is only one actual event.
however, every observer sees it slightly differently, and if you were to ask them what happened, they would all describe similar but different situations, and then collectively conclude what happened based on the sum of their views. other people would then accept this event's validity based on trust in the collective integrity of those who report it.

 

[umdebaba]

if scientists agree something related to science is a fact, people accept it as such.

So if scientists agree that there is a Pink Bunny Lord, does that make it a fact. Stop digging yourself into a growing hole.

 

[umdebaba]

no no no.

you believe that those are what these words mean because the dictionary says so, no?

i say, who's to say that the dictionary is even right? those words are extremely difficult to discern for most people. to say 2nd grade is a vast oversimplification. a 2nd grader would just equate the two words as meaning identical things, and that their meaning is "what people told me is true". which is of course incorrect.

I'm sure Webster decided to pull the biggest hoax ever by changing definitions...
Do you question toliets before you take a shit in them? Oh they said this thing was for shitting in but I don't believe it. The dictionary serves the purpose to define words as the toliet serves the purpose of shitting in. So just sit down and take a shit already.

 

[Kenneth R.]

and people have come up with the most amazing fallacies each time.

 

[umdebaba]

and people have dillusioned themselves into overlooking obvious definitions, that is amazing

 

[Kenneth R.]

your ignorance in the name of the "obvious" astounds me. do you question anything?

 

[umdebaba]

Yes I do, thats why I am atheist. You aren't asking me to question, you are asking me to be stupid.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i believe it makes you ignorant. if you don't care to wonder WHY people say things the way they do, accept things the way they do, or even do what they do....

i'm not asking you to be stupid. i'm asking you not to be a robot. anyone can program a set of data or instructions into a computer chip and expect it not to give a damn about the world around it. it just does what it's told. it doesn't question anything.

 

[umdebaba]

i believe it makes you ignorant. if you don't care to wonder WHY people say things the way they do, accept things the way they do, or even do what they do....

I do, but all that is besides the point. The point here is that you are trying to twist logic around to show that the definition of fact is not what everyone knows it is. No one lied to us. The definition was man-made and what man said it was, thats what it is. If you want to know what man defined "fact" as, consult a fucking dictionary or multiple ones and make your inference from there. Stop avoiding reason.

 

[Kenneth R.]

i'm not. i'm employing reason to investigate the meaning of these words that people often take for granted. i seem to have pissed you off. consult a question mark before you start sounding like a robot again.