Delano

Bravo @Cynique

Well done @Mel Hopkins @Cynique Note this well @Pioneer1

Are you disputing that the numeric value of most calendar years is based on religion . @Mel

In deed.

While years on the Standard Gregorian calendar are measured in relation to the presumed birth of Jesus, non-Christian communities often benchmark theirs against the birth, death or particularly significant episode in the life of their religious leaders: Iran; Afganistan; Saudi Arabia ; India and Ethiopia. This is a reference from the book It's About Time pp 58 - 62 by Liz Evers.

@Delano @Mel Hopkins I have to agree with Mel. That your example using priest is flawed. You could have argued that by invoking their religious background they are represent a religious view and hence a representative of the church. However by definition they are not religion they are a facet of religion. And the part is not a proxy of the whole. The only instance that is true is for holograms. Mel it's your turn.

The Mayans, The Muslims and the Christians and the Jews all have calendars with different years. Their calendars are astronomical for religious holydays.

Did you catch that pun.

But whichever way one pitches it, the origin of Year One is , unchanged, coinciding wIth the assigned birth year of Jesus. So Pioneer is correct

I happen to be reading two books on time. I will post the answer.

Is anyone not using "facts" to bolster their argument?

How is it possible that I can be both super tolerant and doing a thorough job of arguing points? What would be the source of my repressed anger. If you could detail it for me you would be doing me and my associates a great service. If you facts don't sway your target either your facts aren't compelling, they aren't facts or one or both of your are mistaken about the facts. Opinons are a function of belief and life experience and to assume your opinions are more valid is arrogant. Is Pioneer the only one gloating over being right? An opinion is not a factual statement so it is not possible to correct someone's opinion. Unless they think their opinion is an expression of fact. Which was the point that I was attempting to make. If i say chocolate is better than vanilla you can't say that is wrong. If I say it is a fact that chocolate is better than vanilla. I am still not wrong but it is not a true statement. Since it can't be validated. So I am hesistant to say someone is wrong I will most likely say we have a misunderstanding or I was not clear

I only speak and think for myself. Which is why I declined your request to explain the clip. Furthermore I think everyone has a valid opinion which is not subordinate to my agreement. Paradoxically if you say someone's opinion is wrong then you are wrong. If you feel are expressing a factual statement rather than your opinion.

I thought it was funny, not all humour has to make sense in order for it to be funny. If you can't picture this is will provide an example. Her take down was so good that I am going to argue against myself. And do an even bigger takedown. In addition I am going to use my own style of argument. Although Mel can use whatever style of argument when it is her turn. @Mel Hopkins @Troy @zaji@Cynique @Pioneer1 This is true, which is why I have decided to discuss topics. Instead of arguing points. @Pioneer1

It's an exercise on being open minded and seeing if you can see the other person's point of view. It also deepens the conversation. Also it is in the religion topic

Ha Ha man that is funny. Most people like to think they are open even when they are not @Cynique@Mel Hopkins @Pioneer1 @Troy @zaji @Del Strachen @Del

@Mel Hopkins there's a slight misunderstanding. You can define it however you wish as can anyone. But what I was suggesting is that you use my definition. That includes priest. And I use your definition and exclude priest and discuss it from there other persons point of view. I can not tell you what it says any more than I can tell you what to think. There may be a transcript online.

@Troy you said science and religion are largely incompatible. Then ask who even said that. Then you critique me for the word misspelling the word odd. I mean adherents that are the gatekeepers. So that can be scientist, priest and leaders of movements. Buddhism has monks. @Mel Hopkins "religion" for me includes the belief set, the followers , the priest and the high priest. Rupert Sheldrake is talking about science , the practitioner and the entire structure, that is how I read it. However you can decide what aspect you prefer to focus on or exclude. We can decide to discuss it from each others perspective. Which only requires that we accept the other person assumptions and then see whether our perspective position change. An attempt to clarify my position with the exception of Troy I am not saying you are wrong. However I disagree with your statements which may be definitional. And contingent on the word "priest" and "religion"

Have you watched the clip by Rupert Sheldrake?

The banning of the clip is a very good example of scientific dogma. And dogma is in fact the topic of the clip. Banning it really makes Rupert Sheldrake's case more than anything else. In addition I have seen Ted Talks that were in no way science. Melissa Gilbert Talking about her wildly popular book Eat Pray Love and a "talk" by Reggie Watts.

I disagree. I went to a Jesuit school and we discussed religion. I think religion can have all of the elements that you mentioned. And it definitely is true for priest. The following "priest'' were big thinkers Buddha , St. Thomas Aquinas , Albert Einstein , Martin Luther King , Cornell West . Also I would include the monks who were also scribes. At one point churches funded universities and there priests who studied alchemy magic astrology /astronomy and mathematics.

We are in agreement. You make odo statements. @Troy

http://www.okayplayer.com/culture/ryan-coogler-michael-b-jordan-reteam-wrong-answer-movie.html Cogler and Jordan plan on doing a movie about the richest man in history http://thesource.com/2018/02/19/ryan-coogler-and-michael-b-jordan-wants-to-bring-mansa-musa-to-the-big-screen/ These two Brothers know how to work the system. So now the next couple of movies are more realistic based on their success with Black Panther. You ring the register the studio let's you make a smaller movie. Although based on the success of their previous collaboration they may get an epic budget. So if they do a small budget film that does box office. They can make an epic film. Not because it's the right thing to do but because it's a good investment.

Only snippets, but I know how it ends.

You did @Troy I agree the statement is bizarre. And you made it first. The beauty though is that you didn't see your post right above mine. Clarity indeed.