(December 8, 2018 at 6:03 am)Wololo Wrote:(December 1, 2018 at 7:00 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: What religion? What tabloid magazine? I posted a link from the NY Post, which originated in The Sun. Which one of those do you believe to be a tabloid?
Also, ridicule means squat...
Thomas Edison - Invented Light Bulb (Ridiculed)
Wright Brothers - Invented Airplanes (Ridiculed)
Albert Einstein - Came up with Theory of Relativity, as well as many other things (Ridiculed)
Gregor Mendel - Established the scientific field of genetics. (Ridiculed)
(Don't think I need to go on with this list)
Anytime there is a statement made about anything related to religion or politics, there will always be people who don't like it and find a reason to ridicule it.
Oh wow, we don't get the Gallileo fallacy here too often, probably because it's too visably stupid.
Let me explain, just because the religious refused to believe Gallileo's scientific observations because they contradiced their unevidenced religious assertions, it doesn't follow that your unevidenced religious assertions magically develop some quality of rightness because we refuse to entertain them.
In short your idea is among the 99.999999999999999% of ridiculed ideas that deserve it
You haven't demonstrated how that applies to anything I've said. Keep trying though.
What I asserted was a value of 1 (credible historian who shares a view) when someone asserted a value of 0. That's not a religious assertion. That's a direct assertion about that individual. Everything else is inconsequential to the discussion. If someone says 0 must be it, and you show 1, what else does there need to be?
My other assertion was that "ridicule means squat." Why? Because it's not a determining factor to whether something is true or not. I also provided examples of people who were ridiculed and validated. So your assertion here is actually proving my point. Good job hanging yourself though.