This was my last post and I used Amir’s quote:
It is clear that:
1. You have not read the whole book
2. You speak with your heart and not your mind.
3. You are dogmatic and not practical.
4. You have a bias and this blocks your vision.
“Here is what defines "civilization". “
Wikipedia is an open source encyclopedia. Anyone can write anything in Wikipedia including yourself!
Go try it. Write:
Yasser Arafat was a Jew in his biography and then observe the results.
An open source encyclopedia is worth nothing (Trash).
We reviewed history of Iran on Wikipedia and it is all flawed.
Scholars don’t write Wikipedia. Any Joe Shmoe can write anything in Wikipedia.
But that is not our argument. Our argument is in regards of this:
“And the earliest civilization was Sumer, which started about 3500 B.C.E, i.e 5500 years ago. The Persians have their historical achievements, but being the first civilization is not among them.”
Not true. The earliest civilization on Earth was Susa (Shush) Civilization of Iran in state of Khuzestan, way before Mesopotamia, Elam and Babylon. That is 6000 BC.
“Civilization has a definition and it starts with established system of social life in city-states.”
Before City-States, there was no civilization because human being lived as animals on the move like tribes or in the caves.
History must be viewed as a science and science changes because science is not dogmatic. I believe that’s excellent. Anything that’s worth anything must be put to the test of science.
Enjoy these words by Bertrand Russell, stating the same regarding philosophy:
“ I have been accused of a habit of changing my opinions … I am not myself in any degree ashamed of that habit. What physicist who was already active in 1900 would dream of boasting that his opinions had not changed during the last half century? … The kind of philosophy that I value and have endeavoured to pursue is scientific, in the sense that there is some definite knowledge to be obtained and that new discoveries can make the admission of former error inevitable to any candid mind. For what I have said, whether early or late, I do not claim the kind of truth which theologians claim for their creeds. I claim only, at best, that the opinion expressed was a sensible one to hold at the time … I should be much surprised if subsequent research did not show that it needed to be modified. Such opinions were not intended as pontifical pronouncements, but only as the best I could do at the time towards the promotion of clear and accurate thinking. Clarity, above all, has been my aim."
It is pretty clear that you do not have the reasoning, logic, knowledge base, background and tools to argue this topic. You are only shooting in the dark and throwing shots without knowing how to use the gun or how to shoot. You want to argue but this argument goes nowhere because like many other arguments, one party (that is you) is neither scientific, logical, has background information or even read the argument of the other party (the book written by Ahreeman which I directed you to read it), so this is a waste of time.
I only argue a scientific argument about the history.
I must end it here.