Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid

[JaggedEdge]

talk about no sources and not indapendent I mean please a rant as "proof" OMG wow these are more laughable then the joke source link i sent before
anyways what about the common ground post before an atheist must be able to see that an agnostic is just a person who can not make a choice and is too afraid if they do

Do you even read.

From me in the post with the links.

Here you go, see how simple it is to find unreliable sources.

Did you really not catch that? They weren't meant to be quality links... Let me spell it out for you, I was mocking ya.

Also, for future reference, when engaging in a debate, people will take you more seriously if you write coherently.

JaggedEdge Reviewed by JaggedEdge on 09-14-2007. Argument made by religious people that just isn't valid A lot of people justify their belief in a certain religion by claiming that there is basically no difference between believing in religious texts and believing in commonly accepted historical texts. They'll say something like, "What's the difference between believing in the Bible and believing all the written accounts of the Civil War, for example? You choose to believe those accounts, even though you weren't actually there, just like I choose to believe in the Bible even though I wasn't Rating: 5