you are a liar and a fraud...i will devote no more time to you and your lying ways.
LOL
So you don't have an answer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
There is a thing called common sense that gets tossed out in all these debates...everyone is free to do and think as they wish regardless of whatever else someone else says. In fact you and I are doing that very thing right now. I am not harmed by your differences and your vociferous defending of them, and vice-versa.
Read my posts. I said i didn't know. I wanted you to show me some facts. someone said it earlier, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim. ... or is that only the case for christians?
No the point i am getting at is just because someone wrote it doesn't mean it fact by an atheist account / rules. you need proof right? just because the bible is in writing means its not fact, as such are your proof of facts.
The history of ancient religions aren't factual because they're in writing. They're factual because we have gathered empirical evidence that they existed and, with archaeology, have used the scientific method to date artifacts.
The Following User Says Thank You to Kybosh For This Useful Post:
So sick of people mentioning that Wikipedia isn't a credible source.
It absolutely is.
Anyone can edit it, but if you edit something of importance it will be edited back within the hour and Wikipedia will track down your IP and ban you from editing if you're effing around.
Your sir are wrong. I was just in college and wikipedia is 100% not a credible source. But believe what you will
So sick of people mentioning that Wikipedia isn't a credible source.
It absolutely is.
Anyone can edit it, but if you edit something of importance it will be edited back within the hour and Wikipedia will track down your IP and ban you from editing if you're effing around.
It's been proven it is as reliable if not more reliable than traditional encylopedias.
I like to start there, and then dig deeper elsewhere. That's what anyone should do with any source or argument anyway, no matter where they start,
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Daradon For This Useful Post:
So sick of people mentioning that Wikipedia isn't a credible source.
It absolutely is.
Anyone can edit it, but if you edit something of importance it will be edited back within the hour and Wikipedia will track down your IP and ban you from editing if you're effing around.
He's right that Wikipedia should not be cited as a source in an academic paper, but most reasonable people will agree that it's "good enough" for an informal internet discussion.
I'm convinced he must be trolling us if his counter-argument is to attack the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of info.
The history of ancient religions aren't factual because they're in writing. They're factual because we have gathered empirical evidence that they existed and, with archaeology, have used the scientific method to date artifacts.
What is the definition of "Fact"? Does it only have to come from a credible source? Or can anyone write it? Does it have to physically be viewed?
Your sir are wrong. I was just in college and wikipedia is 100% not a credible source. But believe what you will
I'm surprised your two-bit community college doesn't allow you to reference the back of a froot loops box.
__________________
"For thousands of years humans were oppressed - as some of us still are - by the notion that the universe is a marionette whose strings are pulled by a god or gods, unseen and inscrutable." - Carl Sagan Freedom consonant with responsibility.
He's right that Wikipedia should not be cited as a source in an academic paper, but most reasonable people will agree that it's "good enough" for an informal internet discussion.
I'm convinced he must be trolling us if his counter-argument is to attack the credibility of Wikipedia as a source of info.
Oh, I'm well aware of that, but I think we can all agree that Wikipedia is a great source of infromation and there is no reason to believe a page is all lies because the page doesn't suit your opinion on a subject.
If a Wikipedia page shared his opinion I'm sure he'd be the first to post a Wikipedia link.
You inferred i am racist...you know it, I know it, and anyone else that read the post knows it.
You are a piece of work not worth my response....liar
You know that's false, so I guess that makes you the liar.
As you well know, I was simply trying to show you how ridiculous your 'no harm, no foul' argument is, and apparently I've succeeded, because this seems to be one of the very few times you're lost for words.
What is the definition of "Fact"? Does it only have to come from a credible source? Or can anyone write it? Does it have to physically be viewed?
I'm not sure what you're getting at. Do you think that the only way a person can know something as fact is to have personally conducted all the primary research themselves? My stars, humanity would still be struggling in the pursuit of fire if this was the case.
