On Tue, Jul 08, 2003 at 08:48:07PM -0600, Michael Harney wrote: > Wrong, that's faith based as well. The problem with that wording > is that there *is* evidence of a god. Documentation and reports of > apparitions, stigmata, healing of "uncurable" conditions through > prayer, other miracles, personal revelations, etc. How *credible* > the evidence is is a value jugdement. Someone saying their is no > evidence of a god is is making a faith based declaration saying that > the evidence is invalid or fabricated without prooving it invalid or > fabricated.
Fine, add the word scientific before evidence. The evidence you are talking about is not something that can be empirically verified by anyone -- it is really poor evidence, if it is even evidence at all. I'd call it anecdotes, but I don't want to argue semantics, so just add the word scientific. -- "Erik Reuter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.erikreuter.net/ _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
