You are asking me to provide evidence. Done. Bible. All there is. Then you are saying we have to prove the bible with more then the bible. Well you are ignorant if you actually believe you are making a reasonable request. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.
14 comments
Well, for starters, if your buybull didn't constantly contradict itself, it might be a little more credible. Second, if it agreed with a little more of the evidence available, it might be a little more credible. And third, if there were any indication that most of what it contains were more applicable to the 21st century than the 1st century, it might be a little more credible. Since none of the above seems the be the case, I'll stick with science.
Same can be said for any "holy" book. Observe:
You are asking me to provide evidence. Done. Koran. All there is. Then you are saying we have to prove the koran with more then the koran. Well you are ignorant if you actually believe you are making a reasonable request. THERE IS NOTHING ELSE.
Yay, an actual Fundie I feel like commenting on! So happy!
Now, Mr./Ms./Mrs. unworthyone, I submit to you that, in addition to the other insults here, that you have officially committed one of my Seven Damning Fundie Blunders (too long?). Namely, #6, or "Take my word for it, _______ is true and needs no corroboration".
So, historians don’t like documents that are anonymous. They really need to know who wrote something and when. An anonymous story of George Washington seeing a flying saucer is worthless if we can’t corroborate it. And if we can corroborate it, we’ll use that as the reference, we don’t need the anonymous account.
It’s just not trustworthy as history, so not terribly compelling as evidence is it?
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
