Your standard for determining truth is an appeal to popularity and a bandwagon approach?
This isn't an election this is an effort to determine real world truths.
If you got something to argue then paraphrase it. Linking to a bunch of articles that are pages long without stating a damn thing is the signs of an amateur at work. "Can you please CITE IT FROM YOUR SOURCE, AND QUOTE IT?!? Or perhaps paraphrase in a logical manner what the evidence is that supports your argument. You don't just give someone a source, with no explanation at all, and expect them to do your work for you. You make an argument, and if ASKED for a source for your claims, if your source is lengthy or contains various materials you quote the relevant passage that validates your claim, and provide the link in case one wishes to look into the validity of the source, or read the passage in its context."
If there is in fact that kind of scientific evidence, I am ALL EARS and will immediately convert to the religion of said scripture, for when the world knows of this said religion will be known as a science, and could be verified anywhere all over the world as easily as the chemical properties of table salt.
Do you have anything to debate or do you let other people think for you? I'll be waiting to debate with you when you develop an opinion of your own
.
"There are 3 ways to argue for religion:
1. Argue that religion is true, which there is no evidence for.
2. Argue that religion is useful, that it has utility of some kind in the natural world. Which does in no way advance the truth claim of said religion.
3. And to attack atheism, which is not a thing at all."
Linear Mode
