If he cannot rationally demonstrate a position is right, and must rely on faith to make the argument
Agree, but, for some it is not absolutely necessary, for some the eloquent use of a phrase is enough to make rational sense, whether or not it is true.
and as you know after that speech in February 26, 1860, he went on to win the presidential election later that year.
But that is precisely the danger. For those who are moved by a play on words, they may end up doing great evil. Reason has a way of cutting through the garbage and undermining immoral conduct. No one should obey, unless there is a good reason for doing so. If my parents told me to go to bed at 9 when I was a child, I should obey, not because my parents said it, but it was good advice, so I could get to school the next morning, and finish the day without falling asleep in class. However, if my parents told me I should drink some poisoned Kool Aid because their cult leader knows best, I should not obey.
Here is the thing people fail to realize: Reason is the only legitimate authority.
reasonvemotion wrote:Ha..... I read it the first time. I get it, I ....... get...... it.
The posting feed on here jacks with me. It won't put something through, then I have to hit the submit button again, and two posts show up instead of one.
ForgedinHell wrote:
Besides the concept of heaven is childish.
surely that depends on the particular concept
when i was around seven i thought that heaven was basically an unending church picnic with lots of cookies and lemonade combined with disneyland and pony rides and occasionally god drops by
ForgedinHell wrote:
Besides the concept of heaven is childish.
surely that depends on the particular concept
when i was around seven i thought that heaven was basically an unending church picnic with lots of cookies and lemonade combined with disneyland and pony rides and occasionally god drops by
You sure you weren't imaging hell? An unending church picnic reminds me of something Stephen King would write.
