jzs said:
You used the quote function properly j^2! 
Ad hom.
That's right. I'm not claiming to be able to actually see the future. I'm guessing.
Therein making a claim about the future with your guess. A claim is a claim, no matter how many times you try to avoid that fact.
The nature and presentment of your claim, as well, shows your agenda full well.
I never stated that. You are really out in left field j^2.
Pathetic, outright baiting ad-hom. I thought you were complaining about people making fun of your name.
Hypocrite!
Your comments are in fact malicious since you are presenting your bs interpretation to make it look like I said what you claim I did. How about that j^2?
That is a foolish, illogical, childish statement.
Now, if you don't mind, quit wasting my time.
I'm not responsible for the fact that you use a private language of your own. If you want to cry about how your claim to future knowlege, your prediction, is not a claim to future knowledge, well, then, that's your problem.
You made a prediction.
This is your prediction:
----
I'll predict that the contributions from religious groups ("churches, mosques and synagogues") will be more than the contributions from the atheist groups.
----
That's not a guess, that's a claim to future knowledge. You didn't say "guess" you said PREDICT. A prediction is a claim to future knowledge. Furthermore, you have already stipulated that your claim to future knowlege was incorrectly phrased. I quote:
---
Well I meant based on percentages
--
But that's not what you said, and even "percentages" is a handwave. Percentage of what? Wealth in church vs. atheist organization hands? Percentage per capita?
It's just like every claim you make, it's vague, and set up so that when caught and challenged, you can run to some other interpretation.
When you make a claim to future knowledge (i.e. prediction, i.e. a statement that uses the word "predict") it is encumbent on you to phrase it in a fashion that is clear, concise, and understandable. You've failed that several times, now.
Of course, as apologia, you offer the following:
---
Dawkins's argument is that religion is the reason why there is no system in place. Why not say that politics and government are the cause for that? Hm?
--
Showing several faults. First, Dawkins refers to tax law and money, not to churchs, so your claim of what Dawkins said is suborned. Second, in referring to tax breaks, Dawkins implicitly includes politics and government as part of the preferential treatment that churches get over science. Finally, since he did imply that politics and government were involved by the mere mention of taxes, well, your "hm" us pure, malignant grandstanding.
Claus is right about you. You leap from vague statement to vague statement, trying to semantically argue yourself out of it when your attempts at suborned logic and rhetorical fallacies fail.
Finally, you refuse to accept the bald, evident fact that atheists have nothing in common other than a lack of belief, be it in gods, moons made of green cheese, or invisible pink unicorns. An atheist has no more in common with another atheist than an a-green-cheesist has in common with another a-green-cheesist.
Your deliberate atttempts to provoke are documented in here in quotes, in order to preserve your obvious malice.
Report me to the mods if you are so concerned. You act like you are all innocent, that you never provoke others, engage in rhetoric, etc. Pathetic.
