President Bush's Skills... \o/

DeletedUser

Speaking of copying...

Should we talk about how the bible gets corrected every now and then in new translations, and how this impacts the bible beeing "the word of god"?
 

DeletedUser

Well, I'll excuse myself from any discussion of prophecies and archaeology because my position is firm and I don't consider it necessary for me to go and find evidence to refute claims of bible truth any more than I find it necessary to talk about Nostradamus.

And I'm pretty sure discussions of the original texts from which the bible has been connstructed and reconstructed and copied and recopied and translated and re-translated would yield similar fruitless discussions. :)
 

DeletedUser

And since you discovered that you can copy from other websites, I don't think you have come up with any arguments that you actually thought up yourself.
Click to expand...

I have written everything that I've posted pertaining to evolution.
 

DeletedUser

Well, I'm thinking that we might make some allowances and not have to reference our posts like academic papers. I think we can all recognise the bias of Justin's source material, whether there are footnotes or not.
 

DeletedUser

Violette LeDrunc said:
Well, I'm thinking that we might make some allowances and not have to reference our posts like academic papers. I think we can all recognise the bias of Justin's source material, whether there are footnotes or not.
Click to expand...

Doesn't take a trained eye to do that, it's rather obvious.
However, if one is making claims of a certain nature, one should be able to back them up with a source.
 

DeletedUser

True!? That isn't even close to true. Not everyone has a bias. Looking at actual facts is an unbiased source.

Maybe you should have a look at some facts, Justin.
 

DeletedUser

Everyone has some bias, however objective they try to be, that said, not all people have an agenda.
 

DeletedUser

True, everyone has bias, but that doesn't mean that everything they say is lies. If that were true then we would never get anywhere.

When people write reports or encyclopaedia articles, they usually write un-biasedly, even if they are normally a biased person.
 

DeletedUser

Well, I don't think even encyclopaedias are without bias. The editors are human. :) And there is nothing wrong with bias. It is inescapable. There is only something wrong when what is known is distorted or misrepresented in order to make a case. Because that is not bias... That is lying.
 

DeletedUser

Well, I don't think even encyclopaedias are without bias. The editors are human. And there is nothing wrong with bias. It is inescapable. There is only something wrong when what is known is distorted or misrepresented in order to make a case. Because that is not bias... That is lying.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 

DeletedUser

If you only write facts, with no opinions, then I don't see how it can be biased.

Unless you only write facts that support one argument; and ignore the facts that support the other argument. But I have never seen an encyclopaedia written like that.
 

DeletedUser

oisinallen said:
If you only write facts, with no opinions, then I don't see how it can be biased.

Unless you only write facts that support one argument; and ignore the facts that support the other argument. But I have never seen an encyclopaedia written like that.
Click to expand...

It's called the Bible! :p

Sorry, couldn't help myself.
 

DeletedUser

Oh man, that WAS hilarious! Brilliant!

Anyways, we are getting waaaaaay OT, lol.

EDIT: A bit more on topic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top