Vlad,
So let's see....if it self identifies as a duck, barks and lifts its hind legs at a lamppost......it must be a duck.
Oh dear. Phelps says that the Bible “self-identifies†as homophobic – look, it says so right there in Leviticus! – and “practically expurgates†the bits that contradict that.
You on the other hand say that the Bible espouses love - look, it says so right there in a different part of the same book! – and “practically expurgate†the bits that Phelps references.
Whence then your “self-identifying†when the same book supports both positions?
Non sequitur to the issue at hand.
Besides I don't say because I have faith I must be right. Like you I have faith that I am right.
Actually I’m pretty sure that you have said that but, either way, there are plenty who do say it. They’re
certain – really, really certain – about their assertion “Godâ€, and they know that because that’s what their “faith†tells them. Alan Burns for example tells us that no amount of scientific evidence could ever shake his faith.
I notice too the sly introduction of “like you†there as if an approach that’s reason-based, probabilistic and uncertain is somehow equivalent to the “it’s true because I think it’s true†of religious faith. Very naughty.
The Faith as a virtue crock is a concoction brewed at Atheist Central and promulgated by Dawkins little wizards.
You don’t think religious faith is a virtue then? Wow!
(Oh, congrats on finally managing to spell
non sequitur correctly by the way. All you need to do now is to find out what it means – ie, that a conclusion does not follow from its premise. Presumably what you were reaching there was “irrelevant†or similar, albeit as it turned out wrongly.)
