Mar 7, 2010 -- 5:20PM, Wendyness wrote:

Mar 7, 2010 -- 5:09PM, Cryano wrote:

Mar 7, 2010 -- 4:39PM, Wendyness wrote:

Mar 7, 2010 -- 4:27PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:

Mar 7, 2010 -- 1:27PM, teilhard wrote:

Mar 7, 2010 -- 11:36AM, Faustus5 wrote:

Not according to any accepted definition of "evidence" used by those of us who are both philosophically and scientifically literate.

(1)  Yeah ... Well, Religious Faith isn't ABOUT, doesn't ORIGINATE in, doesn't DEPEND upon, "Philosophy" or "The Natural Sciences"(2)  BTW, Fr. Teilhard IS "Philosophically AND Scientifically 'literate' ... " ... So ... 

Fundies Dogmatists come in all flavors.  It is amusing to watch them display it.  

 

I find watching the dogmatic atheists display their flavors amusing as well.

You got a god? Bring it around for a chat. I'm sure we settle this entire matter with a few questions.

Absent that you got nothing but your UPG as "evidence." Which ain't evidence of anything other than you claim to have it.

This forum is simply "The Mad Hatters Tea Party".  If only it included Johnny Depp it would be much more fun.

And that answer is indeed appropriate to the world of Alice in Wonderland -nonsensical and non-responsive.

Mar 7, 2010 -- 4:27PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:

Mar 7, 2010 -- 1:27PM, teilhard wrote:

Mar 7, 2010 -- 11:36AM, Faustus5 wrote:

Not according to any accepted definition of "evidence" used by those of us who are both philosophically and scientifically literate.

(1)  Yeah ... Well, Religious Faith isn't ABOUT, doesn't ORIGINATE in, doesn't DEPEND upon, "Philosophy" or "The Natural Sciences"(2)  BTW, Fr. Teilhard IS "Philosophically AND Scientifically 'literate' ... " ... So ... 

Fundies Dogmatists come in all flavors.  It is amusing to watch them display it.  

 

These Questions are ineluctably DEEPLY Universally "Human," and they call forth both the BEST and the WORST we can muster -- in, with, under, and always from our Thoughts, Feelings, Personal Histories, Dreams and Ideologies ...