Craven de Kere wrote:In your assertion that Catholicism is the one true religion you make the fatal error of trying to assert empirically that which is not empirical.
Wrong, as (almost) always.
Funny how you claim to care about empirical evidence when by now it's clear that your strengths and weaknesses are rooted in your excessive attachment to the purely speculative approach to issues that are heavily historical...
Every time you've attempted to "substantiate" your views with actual extermal evidence, you've put your foot into your mouth (obviously, you're not used to assessing the relative value of historical evidence - as in the Bishop Usher case). And you've even dared to openly refuse to bring specific evidence on specific issues (which shouldn't be surprising, given your lack of skill in dealing with historical data).
[In all fairness, other fellow secularists-atheists have done the exact same thing].
The ability to speculate and think of different scenarios is useful, but is hardly decisive when we talk about processes, facts, and discussions that are outside (and alien to) your brain. The skeleton of naked logic needs the flesh provided by facts as well as the ability to place them in a larger interpretative framework.
It's easier to be a sniper than an architect. And to build a case you need raw materials, which are provided by the outside world... not your very own (and overworked) speculative mind. In our case, the evidence ought to come from the
real history of Western institutions and ideas (not the biased, ideological, and prejudiced "history" we get through the dominant culture - public schools & colleges, the media, the "cool" newspapers, etc.).
