Total Posts:149|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

America was not founded as a Christian nation

comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:54:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is something I keep hearing, "America was founded as a Christian nation." This is completely false. The people I consider being founders were Deist, not evangelical. Most used reason to counter religion, and felt as if it did a good enough job to disprove religion. They respected religion, but by no means were they followers of Christianity.

And this other notion that the constitution says, Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," is ignorant.

It gives us the freedom of religion and establishes a freedom from religion, as well. No one can make me follow a religion.

This is craziness, what are your thoughts.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:57:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:54:07 PM, comoncents wrote:
This is something I keep hearing, "America was founded as a Christian nation." This is completely false. The people I consider being founders were Deist, not evangelical. Most used reason to counter religion, and felt as if it did a good enough job to disprove religion. They respected religion, but by no means were they followers of Christianity.

And this other notion that the constitution says, Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," is ignorant.

It gives us the freedom of religion and establishes a freedom from religion, as well. No one can make me follow a religion.

This is craziness, what are your thoughts.

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 4:58:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 4:57:22 PM, Physik wrote:
At 1/12/2012 4:54:07 PM, comoncents wrote:
This is something I keep hearing, "America was founded as a Christian nation." This is completely false. The people I consider being founders were Deist, not evangelical. Most used reason to counter religion, and felt as if it did a good enough job to disprove religion. They respected religion, but by no means were they followers of Christianity.

And this other notion that the constitution says, Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion," is ignorant.

It gives us the freedom of religion and establishes a freedom from religion, as well. No one can make me follow a religion.

This is craziness, what are your thoughts.

Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Yes, thanks; I forgot that to mention The Treaty of Tripoli.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:09:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Treaty of Tripoli statment was forged and never existed in the original copy sent to the Muslims.

The positive evidence for the claim of America being a Christian nation is overwhelming.

For every positive claim against the idea, there is literally thousands of examples of evidence to show indeed the Nation was founded as Christian.

http://brr.wallbuilders.com...

A great place to get started as you sort through the mountains of evidence to support the Christian heritage of our nation.
tyler90az
Posts: 971
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:11:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
America was founded as a country that is tolerant of all religions. I agree....
Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today. - President Obama
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:13:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:09:06 PM, Gileandos wrote:
The Treaty of Tripoli statment was forged and never existed in the original copy sent to the Muslims.


It is not forged. They singed it as you read it...

The positive evidence for the claim of America being a Christian nation is overwhelming.


No it is not.

For every positive claim against the idea, there is literally thousands of examples of evidence to show indeed the Nation was founded as Christian.


This is false.

http://brr.wallbuilders.com...

A great place to get started as you sort through the mountains of evidence to support the Christian heritage of our nation.

This is completely false. This shows that evangelicals have rewritten history! This is what we need to get out of schools! Where did you learn this stuff???
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:15:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
HaHaHa, David Barton is the least credible person you could have brought up. Many historians have disclaimed all of his misleading, and do not consider him any authority on history.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:17:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:11:41 PM, tyler90az wrote:
America was founded as a country that is tolerant of all religions. I agree....

Yep, and not Christian. Most of the Founders were Diest. Founders- Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and Monroe= Diest.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:21:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Haha,

"In an article titled "Unconfirmed Quotations", Barton conceded that he has not located primary sources for eleven alleged quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (hence, the title of the article), but maintained that the quotes were "completely consistent" with the views of the Founders.[48] This drew criticism from Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who accused Barton of "shoddy workmanship", and said that despite these and other corrections, Barton's work "remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings".[49] WallBuilders responded to its critics by saying that Barton followed "common practice in the academic community" in citing secondary sources, and that in publishing "Unconfirmed Quotations", Barton's intent was to raise the academic bar in historical debates pertinent to public policy.[48]"

Wow!

Support
Barton has been praised by U.S. conservatives such as Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Senator Sam Brownback.

Criticism
He has received criticism from J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty,[38] Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,[39] Gordon College History professor Stephen Phillips,[40] Republican Senator Arlen Specter,[5] the Anti-Defamation League,[41] Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation Chris Rodda,[42] John Fea,[43] and Baylor University historian Barry Hankins.[44]

See the support verses the Critics; you really should never bring this guy up if you want to have a real discussion on religion and history.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:23:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:15:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
HaHaHa, David Barton is the least credible person you could have brought up. Many historians have disclaimed all of his misleading, and do not consider him any authority on history.

Despite your attacks upon him, he has the single largest personal library of primary source documentation bar any museum in the nation.

Primary source documents that he points to for verification of every claim he makes.

Your anecdotal evidence and personal attacks against David Barton is by far an inferior approach to reality and a worldview.

Repeating your anecdotal claims over and over again does not make them true.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:27:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Denying Historian David Barton's views by his detractors is a fallacious appeal to authority.

I can spend all day citing his proponents as well.

The point is everyone of his claims are supported by primary source data unlike anyone with an opposing view.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:29:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Of course, why not have an "is" and "ought" discussion?

I don't believe America was founded as "Christian" despite Gileandos' fierce preaching that it is so. But let's assume that is was. America was founded as Christian. Does that mean we "ought" to follow Christian ideals in all aspects of law and life? Obviously not.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:35:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
You are impossible to respond to as you ridicule and berat but offer nothing meaningful.

http://www.wallbuilders.com...

George Washington was not a deist.
This accusation was out in the 1830's to support the slavers movement by Bird and others.
George Washingoton's adopted daughter wrote a letter that decried such an abuse upon George washington. She indeed asserted his devotion to Christianity.

She affirmed he was indeed Christian and to 'question' his Christianity was to question his patriotism.

" Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:36:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:23:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:15:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
HaHaHa, David Barton is the least credible person you could have brought up. Many historians have disclaimed all of his misleading, and do not consider him any authority on history.

Despite your attacks upon him, he has the single largest personal library of primary source documentation bar any museum in the nation.


Wow, you were not kidding. Anyone who follows this guys history is not interested in real history.

Primary source documents that he points to for verification of every claim he makes.


He has taken almost every document out of context.

Your anecdotal evidence and personal attacks against David Barton is by far an inferior approach to reality and a worldview.


I don't have to attach him. Every true historian has- he has been weighed, measured, and his view on history has been found wanting. Anyone who follows his ideas spit in the face of real history.
Repeating your anecdotal claims over and over again does not make them true.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:38:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:29:48 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Of course, why not have an "is" and "ought" discussion?

I don't believe America was founded as "Christian" despite Gileandos' fierce preaching that it is so.

And you would be right.

But let's assume that is was.

Thats like asking me to assume Santa really exists.

America was founded as Christian. Does that mean we "ought" to follow Christian ideals in all aspects of law and life? Obviously not.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:39:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:21:48 PM, comoncents wrote:
Haha,



"In an article titled "Unconfirmed Quotations", Barton conceded that he has not located primary sources for eleven alleged quotes from James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (hence, the title of the article), but maintained that the quotes were "completely consistent" with the views of the Founders.[48] This drew criticism from Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, who accused Barton of "shoddy workmanship", and said that despite these and other corrections, Barton's work "remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings".[49] WallBuilders responded to its critics by saying that Barton followed "common practice in the academic community" in citing secondary sources, and that in publishing "Unconfirmed Quotations", Barton's intent was to raise the academic bar in historical debates pertinent to public policy.[48]"

Wow!



Support
Barton has been praised by U.S. conservatives such as Mike Huckabee, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann and Senator Sam Brownback.

Criticism
He has received criticism from J. Brent Walker of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty,[38] Rob Boston of Americans United for Separation of Church and State,[39] Gordon College History professor Stephen Phillips,[40] Republican Senator Arlen Specter,[5] the Anti-Defamation League,[41] Senior Research Director for the Military Religious Freedom Foundation Chris Rodda,[42] John Fea,[43] and Baylor University historian Barry Hankins.[44]

See the support verses the Critics; you really should never bring this guy up if you want to have a real discussion on religion and history.

His 'unconfirmed quotations' article was a fair practice rule of quotations floating around the internet.

He has confirmed countless quotes and documents that show the founding fathers are indeed Christian.

What you quoted above was clearly taken out of context. Surpise me *Sarcasm.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:44:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:29:48 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Of course, why not have an "is" and "ought" discussion?

I don't believe America was founded as "Christian" despite Gileandos' fierce preaching that it is so. But let's assume that is was. America was founded as Christian. Does that mean we "ought" to follow Christian ideals in all aspects of law and life? Obviously not.

Well, lets run down the assumption.
If the consitution, reflecting our founding values as a nation are based in Christianity then indeed, we should follow Christian Ideals.

As woodrow wilson, FDR etc continue to reinterpret the founding values we can see why an auxiliary source or foundation is a sure measure for the documents.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:47:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:36:58 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:23:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:15:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
HaHaHa, David Barton is the least credible person you could have brought up. Many historians have disclaimed all of his misleading, and do not consider him any authority on history.

Despite your attacks upon him, he has the single largest personal library of primary source documentation bar any museum in the nation.


Wow, you were not kidding. Anyone who follows this guys history is not interested in real history.

Primary source documents that he points to for verification of every claim he makes.


He has taken almost every document out of context.

Your anecdotal evidence and personal attacks against David Barton is by far an inferior approach to reality and a worldview.


I don't have to attach him. Every true historian has- he has been weighed, measured, and his view on history has been found wanting. Anyone who follows his ideas spit in the face of real history.
Repeating your anecdotal claims over and over again does not make them true.

Anecdotal unstudied assertions from you. Nothing you stated detracted from this man's work.

You are attempting to ad hominem this man into last week. How very scientific is your approach.
Historicity is determined by primary source documentation and a broader historical context.
You will need to follow such a process rather than a fallacious approach.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:48:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:27:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Denying Historian David Barton's views by his detractors is a fallacious appeal to authority.
http://web.archive.org...

I can spend all day citing his proponents as well.
And we can do so by citing his critics....

The point is everyone of his claims are supported by primary source data unlike anyone with an opposing view.

With such a controversy or disagreement over his work, I would expect an objective statement to not take such an absolute stance....
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:48:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:35:01 PM, Gileandos wrote:
You are impossible to respond to as you ridicule and berat but offer nothing meaningful.

http://www.wallbuilders.com...

George Washington was not a deist.

False, you need to read his diary. He is the ultimate politician, and was indeed a leaning Diest. Sorry. And one of his pastors, after his death said"Sir, he was a Deist."

President James Madison to a biographer of Washington in 1830: "Mr. Madison does not suppose that Washington had ever attended to arguments for Christianity, and for the different systems of religion, or in fact that he had formed definite opinions on the subject. But he took these things as he found the, existing, and was constant in his observation of worship according to the received forms of the Episcopal Church, in which he was brought up."

This accusation was out in the 1830's to support the slavers movement by Bird and others.
George Washingoton's adopted daughter wrote a letter that decried such an abuse upon George washington. She indeed asserted his devotion to Christianity.


She affirmed he was indeed Christian and to 'question' his Christianity was to question his patriotism.


Not, she was a Christian but never truly spoke of her Fathers true faith. She was assuming. Sorry, but he was not.

" Is it necessary that any one should certify, "General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

He had respect for it, but he was not a Christian. Sorry.
Physik
Posts: 686
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:50:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:44:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:29:48 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Of course, why not have an "is" and "ought" discussion?

I don't believe America was founded as "Christian" despite Gileandos' fierce preaching that it is so. But let's assume that is was. America was founded as Christian. Does that mean we "ought" to follow Christian ideals in all aspects of law and life? Obviously not.

Well, lets run down the assumption.
If the consitution, reflecting our founding values as a nation are based in Christianity then indeed, we should follow Christian Ideals.

As woodrow wilson, FDR etc continue to reinterpret the founding values we can see why an auxiliary source or foundation is a sure measure for the documents.

You understand that the constitution at the time of founding was a wholly secular document, and made no mention of Christianity, Jesus, or a supreme being.

I also enjoy your insinuation that the ideals of freedom and liberty reflected Christian ideals at the time.
"Just don't let them dissuade you. Stick to your beliefs no matter what and you'll be fine." - ConservativePolitico, the guy that accused me of being close-minded.

"We didn't start slavery, they themselves started it. When the white man first got to Africa they had already enslaved themselves, they just capitalized on an opportunity." - ConservativePolitico

"The Bible to me is a history book and requires very little faith to believe in." - ConservativePolitico
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:52:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:47:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:36:58 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:23:00 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:15:01 PM, comoncents wrote:
HaHaHa, David Barton is the least credible person you could have brought up. Many historians have disclaimed all of his misleading, and do not consider him any authority on history.

Despite your attacks upon him, he has the single largest personal library of primary source documentation bar any museum in the nation.


Wow, you were not kidding. Anyone who follows this guys history is not interested in real history.

Primary source documents that he points to for verification of every claim he makes.


He has taken almost every document out of context.

Your anecdotal evidence and personal attacks against David Barton is by far an inferior approach to reality and a worldview.


I don't have to attach him. Every true historian has- he has been weighed, measured, and his view on history has been found wanting. Anyone who follows his ideas spit in the face of real history.
Repeating your anecdotal claims over and over again does not make them true.

Anecdotal unstudied assertions from you. Nothing you stated detracted from this man's work.

No, anything you read on this guy will tell you. The man wok is based in opinion over fact. He has no respect when you speak to historian- I do all the time, and none respect his findings. He has been known to stretch the truth, take things out of context, and completely assume a lot. He lost respect from every academic I have ever spoken too.

You are attempting to ad hominem this man into last week. How very scientific is your approach.

No, I am stating fact. This guy lacks historical backing.

Historicity is determined by primary source documentation and a broader historical context.
You will need to follow such a process rather than a fallacious approach.

He is a very good story teller that does not back anything up with true fact. Sorry.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:54:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:48:33 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:27:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Denying Historian David Barton's views by his detractors is a fallacious appeal to authority.
http://web.archive.org...

I can spend all day citing his proponents as well.
And we can do so by citing his critics....

The point is everyone of his claims are supported by primary source data unlike anyone with an opposing view.

With such a controversy or disagreement over his work, I would expect an objective statement to not take such an absolute stance....

Yep, but I don;t think this guy, Gileandos, knows the truth behind this anti-historian.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:54:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:48:33 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:27:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Denying Historian David Barton's views by his detractors is a fallacious appeal to authority.
http://web.archive.org...

I can spend all day citing his proponents as well.
And we can do so by citing his critics....
That was the point. It is fallacious to appeal to a persons critics in such a context.


The point is everyone of his claims are supported by primary source data unlike anyone with an opposing view.

With such a controversy or disagreement over his work, I would expect an objective statement to not take such an absolute stance....

There is no controversy over his work. The point is you cannot cite proponents of the other side, who are potentially equally biased in the opposing view.

It is fallacious. You have to cite actual quality issues with the work.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:55:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Gileandos, would you mind addressing the criticisms of Barnet by historians and professors? offer convincing proof that Barnet was accurate despite the supposed distortion and revisionism in his work to a reasonable degree?
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:56:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:54:14 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:48:33 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:27:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Denying Historian David Barton's views by his detractors is a fallacious appeal to authority.
http://web.archive.org...

I can spend all day citing his proponents as well.
And we can do so by citing his critics....

The point is everyone of his claims are supported by primary source data unlike anyone with an opposing view.

With such a controversy or disagreement over his work, I would expect an objective statement to not take such an absolute stance....

Yep, but I don;t think this guy, Gileandos, knows the truth behind this anti-historian.

Again Anecdotal.
The odds are highly likely I am far more studied in this material than yourself. Making such an accusation is merely a circumstantial ad hominem.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:57:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:44:21 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:29:48 PM, M.Torres wrote:
Of course, why not have an "is" and "ought" discussion?

I don't believe America was founded as "Christian" despite Gileandos' fierce preaching that it is so. But let's assume that is was. America was founded as Christian. Does that mean we "ought" to follow Christian ideals in all aspects of law and life? Obviously not.

Well, lets run down the assumption.
If the consitution, reflecting our founding values as a nation are based in Christianity then indeed, we should follow Christian Ideals.


What? This makes no sense. The constitution does not reflecting Christianity. This is like twilight zone stuff.

As woodrow wilson, FDR etc continue to reinterpret the founding values we can see why an auxiliary source or foundation is a sure measure for the documents.

What?!!! Wow!!!
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:58:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:54:52 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:48:33 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:27:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Denying Historian David Barton's views by his detractors is a fallacious appeal to authority.
http://web.archive.org...

I can spend all day citing his proponents as well.
And we can do so by citing his critics....
That was the point. It is fallacious to appeal to a persons critics in such a context.


The point is everyone of his claims are supported by primary source data unlike anyone with an opposing view.

With such a controversy or disagreement over his work, I would expect an objective statement to not take such an absolute stance....

There is no controversy over his work.

What. Most of what he says is controversy because it is false.

The point is you cannot cite proponents of the other side, who are potentially equally biased in the opposing view.


What. Are you for real right now, or kidding. You must be kidding!

It is fallacious. You have to cite actual quality issues with the work.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 5:59:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 5:54:14 PM, comoncents wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:48:33 PM, Man-is-good wrote:
At 1/12/2012 5:27:18 PM, Gileandos wrote:
Denying Historian David Barton's views by his detractors is a fallacious appeal to authority.
http://web.archive.org...

I can spend all day citing his proponents as well.
And we can do so by citing his critics....

The point is everyone of his claims are supported by primary source data unlike anyone with an opposing view.

With such a controversy or disagreement over his work, I would expect an objective statement to not take such an absolute stance....

Yep, but I don;t think this guy, Gileandos, knows the truth behind this anti-historian.

Oh yes; he seems to be quite biased himself in believing in the work of Mr. Barnet.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau