quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
Learn to take responsibility for actions without qualifying your apologies with comments about how unnecessary the apology is in the first place and things will be over much more quickly in the future.

Learn to take the original correction without making silly demands for further unnecessary corrections and things will be over much more quickly in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
Perfect example of why I'm right. I didn't say "the sky is blue". "the sky is blue is equivilent to "history REPORTS THAT...". I said "the sky would appear to be blue", which leaves open the possibility of revising my stance at a later date when it might "appear to be red", like at sunset. In fact if anyone ever says "the sky is blue" feel free to correct them and say "well, it appears to be blue right now, but that's not always the case is it? At night it is black with bright lights all over the place. During storms it can be all sorts of shades of green and orange and red. On clear days it is blue and on cloudy days it is gray. The sky most definitely is not just blue?"

quote:


I didn't say "history would appear to report my analysis was true" though did I?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
well if they were silly you should have stood your ground big guy. The mods probably would have sided with you anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
Perfect example of why I'm right. I didn't say "the sky is blue". "the sky is blue is equivilent to "history REPORTS THAT...". I said "the sky would appear to be blue", which leaves open the possibility of revising my stance at a later date when it might "appear to be red", like at sunset. In fact if anyone ever says "the sky is blue" feel free to correct them and say "well, it appears to be blue right now, but that's not always the case is it? At night it is black with bright lights all over the place. During storms it can be all sorts of shades of green and orange and red. On clear days it is blue and on cloudy days it is gray. The sky most definitely is not just blue?"

It's still a positive statement. The statement, "the sky would appear to be blue" is a positive statement. You are positively asserting that the sky would appear to be blue. The statement, "the sky would appear to be blue" does not mean, it can not mean, "the sky would not appear to be blue."

When you said, "History would appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it." that does not mean, it can not mean, "History would not appear to report that they favored their killer side, usually out of pure necessity, and used religion to supress the self awareness that conflicted with it."

quote:


Yes you did. Such a claim demands substantiation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
No it can't mean a direct negative, but it can mean it may appear differently at a later date or with more study or under some circumstances.

quote:


My conjecture is unlikely to frustrate anyone but you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
No it can't mean a direct negative, but it can mean it may appear differently at a later date or with more study or under some circumstances.

but you still said that, "History would appear to report" your opinion to be true. Such a claim requires substantiation.

quote:


My conjecture is unlikely to frustrate anyone but you.

So, do you expect to come here and make such outrageous claims and not have anyone ask for any substantiation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
You can ask for anything you want.

quote:

quote:


You expect to come here and make such outrageous claims and not have anyone ask for any substantiation?

Yep, that's what I expect. That's my analysis of the whole of religious history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
You can ask for anything you want.

Of course. Like I said, this isn't a public school or a tax funded forum.

quote:

quote:


You expect to come here and make such outrageous claims and not have anyone ask for any substantiation?

Yep, that's what I expect. That's my analysis of the whole of religious history.

The point is that, it seems like if it were up to you, no one would ever challenge anything you contend or ask for substantiation (since that seems to be what you expect). Like I said, this isn't a public school. Around here, if you make outrageous claims, expect to have someone ask for substantiation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
Religion has been claimed without evidence.

quote:


I have offered a criticism without evidence. What can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I'll substantiate my claims just after the religious substantiate their's.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1
Religion has been claimed without evidence.

We acknowledge the degree of faith our beliefs require.

quote:

The difference is that the secular community seems to assert that what they teach in public schools is a product of empirical methods and that's just not true. Anything you choose to believe, especially with respects to origin, requires faith.

quote:


So basically, your claim that, "History would appear to report" your conclusions is a false claim.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wayward1

quote:


So basically, your claim that, "History would appear to report" your conclusions is a false claim.

If you're willing to have it established by this precident that all unsubstantiated things are necessarily false then sure, I'll do that.

quote:


you might. Most state their beliefs as based in knowledge and facts.

quote:


Then advocate more truth in teaching. I'm not arguing that some teachers aren't flawed. We hardly pay them anything. Talent goes where the money is. So many public school teachers wouldn't be expected to be very talented.