On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:51:46 -0500, Andrew Gideon
wrote:

Really. It's tough to have a discussion with someone that makes up
definitions for words.

What?! Point to the spot where *I* made up a definition for a word.

I gave you a whole alternate worldview, embraced by millions of
people, even if they are a significant minority. I gave you its
source, not written by me, and therefore not my contrivance. I gave
you its fundamentals. I gave you the reason why the definition is not
found in a dictionary.

Therefore, I didn't make up definitions for words, and the remainder
of your reasoning on that line is a really simplistic straw man. And
alleging so in this thread is ad hominem. "He's religious, therefore
we must not take any of his ideas seriously, no matter what."

It seems you'd rather attack a popular straw man than consider what a
different outlook might do to the fundamentals of a belief system
which is *not* atheism. I agree that that makes a good discussion very
difficult, but it is not I who has a problem with reason and logic
this time.

When I realized that he'd countered my dictionary citation with some
referenced scripture...well, there's little point to this.

You ask what source contains my notion, and I tell you. You dismiss
the notion because the idea is contained in scripture (a word whose
etymology reduces to "stuff written down", by the way). [1]

I didn't claim for you that the scripture was divine. I didn't swoon
about its heavenly source. I have no expectation that you'll click the
link and have a conversion experience of any kind.

I explained that that was the source of the *idea*. That was the
answer to your question:

I don't follow your definition of faith, as used here. Would you be so kind
as to provide that definition (instead of an example)?

And you answer that kindness by calling me the player in a fool's
game.

Address the *idea* on its *merits*, and you have the basis for arguing
the point of it. But if you apparantly can't stomach a proposition
because of its source, (which is basic logical fallacy; so much for
the atheist's worship of human reason) then and only then will there
be little point.

In any case, did you actually read the sentences which convey the
idea, or not? If not, what the hell are you afraid of?

Rob, who *has* read Rand, and rejected it on the merits

[1] At any rate, ask a "traditional" Christian minister whether or not
that particular reference is scripture, and why, and watch the
vitriolic denials fly.