Moniker wrote:Wait! I need to amend that. It's obvious that religion is true, in the sense it exists. The problem lies in convincing anyone else of the supernatural aspects of the beliefs.
And we all know that there is general, universal agreement on the particulars of the various denominations, sects, and cults of Christianity.
seems like a lot of people are ignoring factual errors in their scriptures and religious doctrine and either arguing the usefulness of it, or the problems associated with not believing.
There are no errors. It’s only people who make errors.
seems like a lot of people are ignoring factual errors in their scriptures and religious doctrine and either arguing the usefulness of it, or the problems associated with not believing.
Right, well it's easier to attack others and adopt a bunker mentality then to look at your own beliefs. What I find startling is why they think atheist thought is flawed. Now, I could understand believing that atheists have it "wrong" in the sense that they just don't recognize God and are missing out. Yet, that's not what they do. They must attack atheism as a belief system -- they NEED atheism to be equated somehow to a dogmatic religion to try to strip it down and defeat it. Odd?
Well of course they do. It’s the essence of the straw man attack.
GoodK wrote:One of my last posts at Mormon "apologetics" was about how people defend religion in three ways.
One of those is arguing that it's true. Anyone think it's still possible to argue that religion is literally true?
If you are wondering whether a persuasive case can, or has been made for religion, I would think that the impressive number of adherents and converts to religion would clearly evince in the affirmative.
Granted, the impressive numbers are not proof of religious truth, but rather proof that people have been persuaded that religion is true.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
So, by using the same logic, can we say that Islam is more true than Mormonism?
No--as I explicitly noted in the second sentence (I have highlighted the relevant portion for your benefit). In fact, my logic would enable you to avoid that kind of fallacious appeal to majority.
GoodK wrote:One of my last posts at Mormon "apologetics" was about how people defend religion in three ways.
One of those is arguing that it's true. Anyone think it's still possible to argue that religion is literally true?
If you are wondering whether a persuasive case can, or has been made for religion, I would think that the impressive number of adherents and converts to religion would clearly evince in the affirmative.
Granted, the impressive numbers are not proof of religious truth, but rather proof that people have been persuaded that religion is true.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
So, by using the same logic, can we say that Islam is more true than Mormonism?
No--as I explicitly noted in the second sentence (I have highlighted the relevant portion for your benefit). In fact, my logic would enable you to avoid that kind of fallacious appeal to majority.
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
You are beginning to grow on me... I've bolded the portion I found relevant, for your benefit:)
Would it be easier for you to respond if I ammended my statement to say:
So, by using the same logic, can we say that Islam is more persuasive than Mormonism?