How do you know I'm mad? I have cited evidence while you didn't. What reason should I be mad why I cannot convince a liberal atheist to see my way. That happens all the time. Even when someone who has good speaking skills and research skills can't convince someone like you, I admit at the getgo, I don't have a chance. I only argue with you to let you know why I came to the conclusion the way I did. Nothing more.
You cited zero works of history, and that is because you have read exactly zero works of history.
Even when someone who has good speaking skills and research skills can't convince someone like you
Well, you're certainly not putting those research skills to good use, because you couldn't cite even a single work of history that was guilty of your made-up complaints.
You see, you don't give me the evidence. I'm supposed to believe you because you said so. I gave you anecdote why I don't believe it. Just because you are not satisfied with that response, don't go sperging on me on this thread. Sounds like you are the one still fully invested in continuing this silly argument, I don't. That's why I stopped responding on that thread.
I'm sure the guy who is complaining about "official history" without being able to tell what "official history" is, or present even one example of a history book he has a problem with (because he has not read any), is rull concerned about 'evidence'.
don't go sperging on me on this thread
I'll remind you that you engaged me, not vice versa.
That's why I stopped responding on that thread.
You stopped responding cause you couldn't back up your claims, and still can't.
You just lost. You couldn't back up your claims, hell, you couldn't cite a single work of history you had a problem with, so now you're mad.
How do you know I'm mad? I have cited evidence while you didn't. What reason should I be mad why I cannot convince a liberal atheist to see my way. That happens all the time. Even when someone who has good speaking skills and research skills can't convince someone like you, I admit at the getgo, I don't have a chance. I only argue with you to let you know why I came to the conclusion the way I did. Nothing more.
Cause you brought it up elsewhere.
You cited zero works of history, and that is because you have read exactly zero works of history.
Well, you're certainly not putting those research skills to good use, because you couldn't cite even a single work of history that was guilty of your made-up complaints.
You see, you don't give me the evidence. I'm supposed to believe you because you said so. I gave you anecdote why I don't believe it. Just because you are not satisfied with that response, don't go sperging on me on this thread. Sounds like you are the one still fully invested in continuing this silly argument, I don't. That's why I stopped responding on that thread.
I'm sure the guy who is complaining about "official history" without being able to tell what "official history" is, or present even one example of a history book he has a problem with (because he has not read any), is rull concerned about 'evidence'.
I'll remind you that you engaged me, not vice versa.
You stopped responding cause you couldn't back up your claims, and still can't.