Difference between revisions of "Talk:Counterexamples to the Bible"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Doesn't this become tautological if you are unwilling to consider counterexamples? [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT) | Doesn't this become tautological if you are unwilling to consider counterexamples? [[User:TylerGD|TylerGD]] 10:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT) | ||
:The "counterexamples" you posted were repeatedly brought up over the years by atheists, agnostics, and the generally dimwitted over the course of thousands of years; and these "counterexamples" were repeatedly proven wrong. That's "Proven" with a capitol "P". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:27, 11 August 2010 (EDT) | :The "counterexamples" you posted were repeatedly brought up over the years by atheists, agnostics, and the generally dimwitted over the course of thousands of years; and these "counterexamples" were repeatedly proven wrong. That's "Proven" with a capitol "P". [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:27, 11 August 2010 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::Sorry, I must have missed something. Which counterexamples did TylerGD post? If they have all been Proven wrong with a capital P, shouldn't this article address them and state why they are wrong, as with every other counterexample here, instead of just not considering them? --[[User:MarcoT2|MarcoT2]] 11:48, 11 August 2010 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 15:48, August 11, 2010
No counterexamples to the Bible?
Doesn't this become tautological if you are unwilling to consider counterexamples? TylerGD 10:17, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
- The "counterexamples" you posted were repeatedly brought up over the years by atheists, agnostics, and the generally dimwitted over the course of thousands of years; and these "counterexamples" were repeatedly proven wrong. That's "Proven" with a capitol "P". Karajou 10:27, 11 August 2010 (EDT)
- Sorry, I must have missed something. Which counterexamples did TylerGD post? If they have all been Proven wrong with a capital P, shouldn't this article address them and state why they are wrong, as with every other counterexample here, instead of just not considering them? --MarcoT2 11:48, 11 August 2010 (EDT)