Quote:
Originally Posted by evman150
You are saying something with no legitimacy (bull****, if you will) grows into legitimacy over time.
I mean, I guess when you say legitimacy I'm thinking that that entails a certain truth claim?
Like an illegitimate religion is one that makes a demonstrably false truth claim, a more legitimate religion is one that makes a dubious truth claim, and a legitimate one makes a truth claim that is not demonstrably false and is even plausible, if unlikely.
But truth claims are not, ceteris paribus, subject to evolution, so then doesn't your argument fall apart? Or is there something beyond a truth claim going on in "legitimacy"? I think we have to define our terms here.
|
Ohhhhh, Evman's using Latin! How intelligent he is!
Nowhere did I say for certain that a religion that is not mainstream would develop into something more common. You may wish to read my post again. See "
maybe scientology will become mainstream in a 100 years or so,
maybe it will fizzle out".
Also in terms of defining what truth is in terms of religion, well, if it was that easy we wouldn't need this thread. Many different people are trying to decide what religions have a truth claim, hence we have many different religions. Again, read my part on "faith" and "knowledge".
I hope your next post is intelligently designed!
::cough,cough!::