Another thing... if so called «pro-lifers» want to make a reasonable argument against those who are pro-choice or even just on the fence, you might want to smarten up and take
the religion out of your argument.
Leave
religion out of the argument and what are you left with?
Not exact matches
On the other hand, if your
religion tells you things that can't be backed up with good secular
arguments (like putting to death or shunning certain «undesirables») then those religious aspects should be kept
out of the larger secular world.
The minute to bring
religion in as your justification for abortion laws (or any laws honestly) the whole
argument becomes invalid and should be tossed
out due to a seperation
of church and state.
We are the ones that carefully listen to the
arguments of «God's character» based on the Bible, vs His / Her character based on observations
of creation, the «wisdom that cries
out in the marketplace or among the elders», or the insights from other
religions.
It would be better if he were to keep
religion out of political discussion, especially when it comes to an
argument between RC and Protestant about who is the most Satanic.
I guess Tarver ran
out of arguments for his
religion as all he's left with is quoting scripture (as if that does anything but give him a warm fuzzy feeling that he's right all along).
Your
arguments try to nullify all the good work done by the Ahmadi Prophet Mirza Ghulam Ahmad to take the violent jihad
out of Islam like a malignant cancer and transform it from a primitive, violent version into a modern and respectable
religion.
Dearborn, plenty
of atheist sites to find
out there and many
of them would love you to visit but you better have a good
argument why your
religion is real and all the others are make believe.
Here is the curious thing: As I interact with people
of other
religions, and through the course
of conversation find
out why they hold their beliefs, I find that nearly all people
of all
religions have these same four basic
arguments for why their beliefs are true.
Although I agree with the basic premise
of this
argument, I would be remiss if I did not point
out that the inroads science has made into those realms previously occupied by
religion is far greater than just storm prediction.
This feeling was shared by many who pointed
out flaws in Dawkins»
arguments or, at the very least, questioned the certainty the scientist holds that all
religion is a load
of rubbish.
A lot
of people have trouble telling the difference between a debate and an
argument but I can as.sure you that I'm here to discuss the ins and
outs of religion (especially christianity since this blog seems to attract mostly christians... and atheists).
As to those who disbelieve or mock
religion, I read something recently that I'd like to share — not
out of a spirit
of contention and
argument, but in one
of genuine concern and interest for those who have not been taught by their own mothers or fathers (as I have most thoroughly been blessed):
I think the «we're keeping
religion out of government for the good
of the country»
argument is a canard.
I would ask for proof
of this unsupportable
argument of yours, but it seems like every time
religion gets cornered by logic, it lashes
out with the same rhetoric: «Non-believers don't understand.»
As Steven Weinberg points
out here, the
argument made against extremists ends up invoking a moral sense to argue that the religious ideas
of the extremists are wrong, when the whole point
of religion is that it should be the other way around.
Several theories about the film's origins
of myth are thrown
out: it follows Joseph Campbell's hero cycle (not really) and it follows Dante's Inferno (sort
of, in that they start
out at a party and move up to the bowels
of Hell — alas, the
argument that they are almost separated into those who deserve to die and those who do not doesn't support the data) before professor
of religion (at Pepperdine University, a fact unmentioned in this featurette) Christopher Heard throws
out that it's an adaptation
of the Christ myth.