...primary source for their argument? How do the religious justify using the doctrine they aim to defend, as a primary source for their argument?
I find it to be a little akin to the act of using a tern to define the term itself. More than anything, I'm just quite curious to see what some of you think.
I was a "Christian" from birth until I matured enough (around age 12) to know better. I was never myself compelled to defend my "religion" (I'm using quotes because I was born into it and never accepted it nor was asked what I thought about religion) and I can't recall a time when I was in the position to; however, I have never used my source to defend the same source...
Let me know what you think. Feel free to write this off as atheist propaganda, that way I'll get some intelligent responses from both sides of the spectrum.
Thanks in advance.
I find it to be a little akin to the act of using a tern to define the term itself. More than anything, I'm just quite curious to see what some of you think.
I was a "Christian" from birth until I matured enough (around age 12) to know better. I was never myself compelled to defend my "religion" (I'm using quotes because I was born into it and never accepted it nor was asked what I thought about religion) and I can't recall a time when I was in the position to; however, I have never used my source to defend the same source...
Let me know what you think. Feel free to write this off as atheist propaganda, that way I'll get some intelligent responses from both sides of the spectrum.
Thanks in advance.