Dan Covill wrote: > On 03/02/12 17:52, Pete Theisen wrote: >> Matters of faith can not meet the criteria set forth here for "rational >> exchange'. > > And what is the basis for that assertion? It may be impossible to reach > an 'agreement' on matters of faith, but surely it is possible to have a > 'rational exchange' of viewpoints.
Hi Dan, His/her first question. "Can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic?" Obviously, if the person could, his/her mind would already be changed. "Discussion" according to Fan Tai's rules is rigged. You couldn't discuss anything you were committed in faith to. But people of faith discuss matters of faith all the time. They don't need Fan Tai's permission to do so. Atheists and "skeptics" (the new atheists) like to paint the people of faith as "irrational", and thus incapable of "real" discussion. We shall all see someday. Perhaps Fan Tai already knows? It is only a "rational" discussion with an atheist when you agree beforehand to let the atheist win. Regardless of how clever the debate, or the debater, God can not be disproved. The person of faith can (sometimes) be detached from it, willing to explain his/her position without demanding that others embrace it. Often not, some (most?) people of faith are as rigid and dogmatic as the atheists are. You will play billy hell getting that graphic big enough to read, by the way. I guess he/she wants it accepted on faith. -- Regards, Pete http://pete-theisen.com/ http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
