[verklingen]

Originally Posted by snapshot

Whether it's irrational or not, I sometimes get offended when it appears people claim what is objectively true when they can't offer evidence for it. It's like if someone said, "Time is a cycle," that by saying that without prefacing it with, "In my opinion," or, "I would like to think," the person is implying that if I disagree, I am wrong, even if no evidence can be offered to the validate the claim.

that's a silly assumption. YOU are implying that yourself, not the speaker. why not instead think that if you disagree, your disagreement doesn't matter to what they think or believe?

Originally Posted by snapshot

It's like by saying, "God exists," without empirical or logical evidence, I'm automatically wrong if I don't accept that conclusion.

yeah, wrong to THEM and FOR them and their belief (whoever says that). just as in you yourself not believing there to be a god they are wrong to you.

Originally Posted by snapshot

I'm likely more arguing against the way the claim was made, because it seems to me that when statements are made without those explications, people are more likely to take them seriously as opposed to just another viewpoint which one could/should consider. To me, the lack of specificity in the language is a subtext for indoctrination, whether intentional or unintentional. And since religion and government are my two main foils at the moment I chose to single out those moments when I feel that the lack of specificity is going to cause confusion rather than clarity in the person being addressed.

that's cool man. just know everything you're talking about is based on assumption. erroneous assumption in this case, but i recognize that this sense of being told you are wrong is very real to you. so i won't discredit your determination, just reflect the alternative possibility above.