The Fool wrote: > >No. A falsehood is a falsehood. > A falsehood is a falsehood is a syllogism :-P
>A biblical literalist is not a rational person. You can't argue with a >biblical literalist. I know, I've tried, many many times. They are >incapable of seeing things rationally, > *Most* religious fanatics are not rational. But some religious fanatics are rational, and most religious people are rational [as far as most people can be rational...]. Religion has resisted the attack of at least 300 years of logic. >> Take, for example, the biblical text that defines >> Pi equal to three. Any engineer would treat this >> as a measurement error :-) > >But god is supposedly omniscient. God would know what the correct answer >is and 'inspire' the correct answer. Where is the correct answer? > This is hubris. _You_ think you know what God thinks. Why God didn't write the cure for cancer in the Bible, instead of those rules of how a son of Levi should dress in certain ceremonies? Alberto Monteiro _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
