>"Enjoy your fantasies." >Irrelevant, opinion, assumes fact not in evidence. That's ok ART, you just these evening demonstrated *on the record* that for yourself there need not be *any* facts presented into evidence before determining the outcome of the case. Just a bit of your own medicine. JB
More claims and conclusions without supporting evidence relating to "the case." Regarding your medicine comments, you continue to attempt to personalize this discussion. Irrelevant and ad hominem.
I NEVER THOT WE'D AGREE ON ANYTHING BUT HERE WE ARE BROTHERS IN ARMS.. WILL WONDERS NEVER CEASE. HI BROTHER ! HOW'S TRICKS..
>What's frightening, Turok, is that there are so >many people just like him. Exactly DB. When one slowly and methodically uses their statements to show the flaws in their conclusions they withdraw into the only defense they can muster....blubbering denial. ART's "facts not in evidence" plea after *writing* the facts into the record that very evening is the laughable equivalent of Bart's "I didn't do it, no one saw me, you can't prove a thing". It's still rather enjoyable to reduce them to that state though. JB
Ahh shucks LS. 'Twas nothin'. I was watching the progress bar on my computer crunching backtesting numbers and had little else to do. JB
Again I will repeat my question - why do you accept faith as the tool by which you will come to know God? Why rely on faith when it has such a poor record in discovering truth? And why should faith apply to belief in God, but not belief in anything else? If someone said they "accept that faith is the tool by which I will come to know Santa Claus", would you view them as a rational or irrational person? If the latter, how is that any different to your position?