Thanks for the replies all, very interesting read.
Regarding Dr. Sings analysis..
If we take the statement from AZ as a factual claim
"AZP3" writes:
Is it 'my' religion with 'my' conception of 'my' god?
and apply it to what Rahvin was saying
"Rahvin" writes:
All claims should be evaluated against reality
We can see that "'my' conception of God" cannot be evaluated against reality... correct?
To then take something that cannot be evaluated against reality and then evaluate it against another claim that cannot be evaluated against reality (i.e. another religion), what do we end up with?
A bit of a muddled head if you ask me!
Edited by killinghurts, : example