|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:31:47 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
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.
well if they were silly you should have stood your ground big guy. The mods probably would have sided with you anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:33:20 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1379
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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:
I didn't say "history would appear to report my analysis was true" though did I?
Yes you did. Such a claim demands substantiation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:34:25 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1379
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
I could have stood my ground, but I decided to be unnecessarily nice about it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 2:47:40 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
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."
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. Either way though your opinion of history seems to extend about 2000 years back and include only Judeo-Christian biblical history. If you don't know enough about the unending examples of cruelty and brutality done in the name of things we would call religions to simply see how someone would get the impression that man favored his killer instinct and convinced himself the "gods" wanted him to do it, then I will happily throw in the towel before beginning what would be an arduous task to bring you up to speed.
quote:
Yes you did. Such a claim demands substantiation.
Oh I think religions of the world have proven just how much one can claim without substantiation. And it is much more than I have claimed. My conjecture is unlikely to frustrate anyone but you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 3:02:43 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1379
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 3:04:52 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
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?
You can ask for anything you want.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 11:02:11 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1379
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 11:18:11 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
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.
Religion has been claimed without evidence. 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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 11:26:24 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1379
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Religion has been claimed without evidence.
We acknowledge the degree of faith our beliefs require. The difference is that the secular community seems to assert that what they teach in public schools is (at least almost) entirely a product of empirical methods and that's just not true. Anything you choose to believe, especially with respects to origin, requires faith.
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.
So basically, your claim that, "History would appear to report" your conclusions is a false claim.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 11:31:15 AM
|
|
|
wayward1
Posts: 231
Joined: 7/15/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: wayward1
Religion has been claimed without evidence.
We acknowledge the degree of faith our beliefs require.
you might. Most state their beliefs as based in knowledge and facts.
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.
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.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: What do you want to see? - 8/5/2008 11:43:18 AM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1379
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
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.
That's not what I said. You claim that history would appear to report your conclusions. It could be the case that history (as far as we know) does not appear to report your conclusions but your conclusions are true. It could be the case that history does appear to report your conclusions (as far as we know) and your conclusions are false. But if there is nothing in history (as far as we know) reporting your conclusions, then it is not the case that history would appear to report your conclusions regardless of whether or not your conclusions are true. If you want to claim that history would appear to report your conclusions, you are claiming that there is evidence for your conclusions (ie: historical documents reporting your conclusions). Such a claim begs for substantiation. It could be the case that history does not appear to report your conclusions now, but in the future we may find historical documents reporting your conclusions and only then will history appear to report your conclusions. In order for history to "appear" to report a conclusion, there must be something from history that we can "see" that reports your conclusion (historical documents reporting your conclusion). These historical documents may exist and it could be the case that we have not found them yet. If this is the case, then history does not "appear" to report your conclusions (at least not yet, not until we find these documents) because there are currently no historical documents that we "see" reporting your conclusions.
quote:
you might. Most state their beliefs as based in knowledge and facts.
I don't think this is the case. Even the Bible seems to acknowledge that what we believe requires faith.
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.
The point is that public schools are expected to teach evolution as fact without being able to expose students to criticisms and opposing views whatsoever.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 8/5/2008 11:51:34 AM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
