(July 10, 2012 at 4:07 am)Rayaan Wrote: It is not a grammatical error, but rather a style of speech. For example, the landlord of a house can say something like "We demand X and Y" or that "We have created this and that," but it would be absurd to think that the landlord by saying "we" is only referring to himself. He is referring to other people along with himself and hence the use of "we." This is the same style of speech used in some verses of the Quran.
I don't care to debate you on the contents of your holy tome. I only meant to provide some insight is all. However, nothing I said contradicts what you have said- at least. not that I am aware of.
I am not concerned at all about the specifics of one holy text or another. I refuse to play into a game where my life would be wasted in an attempt to fully understand all religions to determine their truth. I would prefer the truth to reach me on its own, as truth oftentimes does.
What I wonder is, is there a shred of argumentation that isn't a dusty sleeve of past contention? Is there anything new that religion has going for it in the way of syllogistic proofs?
My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true.
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity.
-Bertrand Russell
