(04-Mar-2011 at 23:09)
Re: Faith based arguments.
My hypothetical situation did not include a staged murder, just as it DID include credible witnesses. You seem to want to redefine my scenario to nit pick on factors that weren't included in the first place.
Does it lower the credibility when one esteemed scientist has a theory based on huge amounts of solid data, and another esteemed colleague has another theory which is based on the same data? What if these theories created a rift in the scientific community, and half of the greatest minds on the planet found one more plausible and the other half thought the other theory was? Are all these people less credible because they believe one theory over another very plausible theory? Does this rift make their original solid data, which was used by both, void?
The same concept can be applied to the Old Testament being the solid data that all 3 of these major religions use.
BTW I love your thorough comments to most of my post, I say the majority of the world's population believes in the God of Abraham. You simply dismiss it as ridiculous. Great comeback!
Call my comments ridiculous if you like but with out explaining why just shows that your ability to have well thought out conversation is found wanting. I respect your beliefs no matter how opposed or ridiculous I think they are. But, I would be mature enough to explain why I feel that way.
Failure to do so lowers your credibility, and makes you look like a guy without answers..... who resorts to quick little insults in lieu of a reason why.
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Atheism History & Arguments (youtube links)||Peppie||Religious Discussions||62||24-Dec-2006 15:38|
|Why ask the monothesists about God ?||Grashnak||Religious Discussions||30||24-Sep-2004 20:00|
|Grabs based on NW?||Wavelength||Utopia Suggestions||10||18-Jun-2002 07:15|
|religious system||solistus||Utopia Suggestions||8||18-Mar-2002 09:44|
|Next Age||Digger||The Lunatic Asylum||30||14-Apr-2001 07:56|