NationStates

New Kereptica wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:I think you're exaggerating. And anyways, prove that I am wrong. Your little aruguements really aren't and proof or anything. I want REAL proof. Not theories, not ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_ ... tive_proof

You trust wikipedia?

Do you have any argument that goes against theirs, or are you going to continue to pedantically dismiss his source?

Mhema the Strong wrote:You trust wikipedia?

Mhema the Strong wrote:

New Kereptica wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:I think you're exaggerating. And anyways, prove that I am wrong. Your little aruguements really aren't and proof or anything. I want REAL proof. Not theories, not ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_ ... tive_proof

You trust wikipedia?

Do you have any argument that goes against theirs, or are you going to continue to pedantically dismiss his source?

People change things on Wikipedia.

Mhema the Strong wrote:People change things on Wikipedia.

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:People change things on Wikipedia.

And if I were using it as a source for scientific claims, political or historical events, or likewise, it could be considered questionable. However, I'm using it as an explanation of something in pure logic. The only way to dismiss what is said on that page is to reject logic itself.

Mhema the Strong wrote:So you believe in the whole revelutionism idea?

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:So you believe in the whole revelutionism idea?

The what?

Mhema the Strong wrote:The whole "How the Earth was made" and "We descended from Gorillas!" theory? Don't yell at me! It's a scienctific idea that is somehow "proven in many cases."

Mhema the Strong wrote:

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:People change things on Wikipedia.

And if I were using it as a source for scientific claims, political or historical events, or likewise, it could be considered questionable. However, I'm using it as an explanation of something in pure logic. The only way to dismiss what is said on that page is to reject logic itself.

So you believe in the whole revelutionism idea?

Exilia and Colonies wrote:I'm not seeing how this is relevant to the point of Wikipedia's accuracy as a descriptor of basic logic

Kormanthor wrote:

The Kropotkinite Union wrote:Nope. You're the one making extraordinary claims (original sin being only one of them). It's your responsibility to provide evidence, not mine.

Kormanthor wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:

Kormanthor wrote:Pick one, they all say the same thing.

No they don't.

Prove It

Kormanthor wrote:I don't have time to read all that, pick out something you want to focus on.

Kormanthor wrote:

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:Yeah-people take the time to write something down that is WRONG from w-a-y back then. It wasn't exactly easy to record something. I'm sure if they wrote something down, it was the truth. Religion is not superstition.

So the koran is true as well, right?

No, that's not right, because the Koran doesn't believe in him being the Christ.

Mhema the Strong wrote:

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:Yeah-people take the time to write something down that is WRONG from w-a-y back then. It wasn't exactly easy to record something. I'm sure if they wrote something down, it was the truth. Religion is not superstition.

So the koran is true as well, right?

Haven't I already answered this?!

Kormanthor wrote:

Big Jim P wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:What is it with you and false dichotomies. Do you honestly think that "It's 100% accurate." and "They lied." are the only options?

He's about right. No historical document should be believed without other supporting documents.

In before someone tries to argue an exception for the bible.

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:

Kormanthor wrote:No, that's not right, because the Koran doesn't believe in him being the Christ.

Every argument he has made can be used just as easily to support Islam as it can to support Christianity. All one needs to do is replace every instance of "bible" with "koran". If he doesn't find those arguments a convincing reason to believe in Islam, then there's no reason I should find them a convincing reason to believe in Christianity.

Seriously, I've explained this like four times now. It's not a difficult concept. Why is it so hard for you people to understand?

As I said earlier: Willful ignorance.

I am willing to disbelieve what the Koran teaches, but that won't land me in hell.

Kormanthor wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:Yes, I KNOW. The bible has supporting documents.

Waht's a supporting document for the ten commandments?

The First and Second Commandments spoke of by Jesus in the New Testament.


http://members.datafast.net.au/sggram/f967.htm

Kormanthor wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:

Kormanthor wrote:Click the link I just added to that post

I don't get it?

Postby Fartsniffage » Sat Jan 02, 2010 6:55 pm

Mhema the Strong wrote:Yes, I KNOW. The bible has supporting documents.



Waht's a supporting document for the ten commandments?


When Jesus was asked, "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" he replied, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind' - this is the great and foremost commandment, and there is a second like it, 'You shall love your neighbour as yourself'. The whole Law and Prophets hang on these two commands." (Mtt 22:37-40, Mrk 12:28-34).

Mhema the Strong wrote:

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:

Mhema the Strong wrote:The doctors had no explanation to her recovery. She was going to DIE. Her lungs had COLLAPSED. Yet, she went home, ALIVE.

Medicine is not as precise of a science as you seem to think it is.

IS IT JUST A COINCEDENCE THEN THAT RIGHT AFTER THE ANGEL APPEARED THAT SHE HEALED????????!!!!!!!!!!!

Diseased Imaginings wrote:christians don't base their ideologies on reason, they base it on tradition. Most christians have it hammered into their heads from age 1 that gays are evil and that christians must oppose them with every ounce of resolve they possess, or something irrefutably horrible will happen.

In short, they just do as they're told.

Bacteriany wrote:

Diseased Imaginings wrote:christians don't base their ideologies on reason, they base it on tradition. Most christians have it hammered into their heads from age 1 that gays are evil and that christians must oppose them with every ounce of resolve they possess, or something irrefutably horrible will happen.

In short, they just do as they're told.

Oh shut up. Even athiests like me get grossed out when i see two benders kissing.

New Kereptica wrote:

Bacteriany wrote:

Diseased Imaginings wrote:christians don't base their ideologies on reason, they base it on tradition. Most christians have it hammered into their heads from age 1 that gays are evil and that christians must oppose them with every ounce of resolve they possess, or something irrefutably horrible will happen.

In short, they just do as they're told.

Oh shut up. Even athiests like me get grossed out when i see two benders kissing.

What's a bender?

UnhealthyTruthseeker wrote:Jesus Dyokovo, how many times can you post in row?

Buffett and Colbert wrote:

New Kereptica wrote:

Bacteriany wrote:

Diseased Imaginings wrote:christians don't base their ideologies on reason, they base it on tradition. Most christians have it hammered into their heads from age 1 that gays are evil and that christians must oppose them with every ounce of resolve they possess, or something irrefutably horrible will happen.

In short, they just do as they're told.

Oh shut up. Even athiests like me get grossed out when i see two benders kissing.

What's a bender?

I was about to ask the same thing...