Since when did saying that something may or may not be true mean that we should automatically behave as if it is true?ljtherock wrote:Earlier within this thread, you used the excuse that God is not proven to exist. You used this in order to combat anothers point in resepct of claimed authority or thereabouts.
Using your reasoning, one could also state the vice versa.
So as simply as claiming God may not exist, it could also be reasoned that God may exist. In which case your pale holds no water.
I may or may not have murdered someone, therefore I should be punished?
We need to find out if something is true, not if it might be true.
Why would someone else's behaviour have any bearing on someone's oath unless explicitly specified in the oath?ljtherock wrote:If the one you swear allegiance to stands under her Oath, then others of allegiance stand under it also, otherwise they cannot be true in their allegiance.
Of course I will consider otherwise if you can furnish the proof that this is not so, perhaps a peice of your favourite legislation that you could point to?
When I pledge allegiance to you, and you pledge allegiance to Thomas, that doesn't mean I've pledged allegiance to Thomas. Tomorrow you decide to break your pledge, what difference would that make to the fact that my allegiance was to you?
I don't believe that Adam was a real person, so the question doesn't make any sense. Besides, I said that some people would equate religion and the belief in a higher power; people define religion in different ways.ljtherock wrote:You stated that some would insist that God and religion are one and the same, or something to that effect.
If this is true then please answer, "What religion was Adam" ?