[woot]

Originally Posted by creekster

So does is this only a problem for religious fundamentalists or was that just to help me realize you meant me, tooblue and other believers? Also, you are doing the same thing woot and NS are doing; accusing Tooblue of something he hasn't said. While he may very well mean what you say, he certainly didn't' say it here. I can't speak for Tooblue, but I can say that this thread smacks of the sort of gang mentality that so many here complain about enduring on CB. Let the guy speak, disagree if you want, but can we do so based on what he says as opposed to what you think he means?

Look, empiricism has many answers, ultimately it might have all the answers, but not yet. Faith exists and, IMO, it is independent from empirical probing. The lack of empirical proof is not an insurmountable problem for me, or many others, even though we don't ignore the truths that we find are well supported as result of empirical truth. At the same time, assuming the inviolability of certain scientific precepts as the basis for criticism of religious belief, even of a fundamentalist strain, is no wiser in some instances than the problem you describe. This may be tooblue's point.

I'd hate to accuse him of trolling, but it really does seem like he cast 4 or 5 hooks (science articles) at the same time, and then took off. I'd love to hear his actual views on these matters.