> > Of course! What makes you think that <faith> isn't a worthy tool
> > in this collective endevour? I have <faith> it will succeed,
> despite
> > a lot of pessimistic evidence to the contrary.
> >
> > QED! (he he!) ;-)
> >
> > Reed
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now, now, You do NOT have <faith> it will succeed!! Are willing to bet
>
> your first born's life on this "faith"? I doubt it, if you had faith,
> you would. Unless you want to make a new definition of "faith".
> "Faith"
> by it's nature implies absoluteness. You "believe" it will succeed
> maybe.
>
> Reed said:
> > If we hold <faith> to be "a dangerous and parasitic meme" then the
> > same adjectives must be applied with equal weight to <reason>.
>
> Also, why must "reason" be held to the same adjectives. They are not
> even remotely similar words or meanings. In fact, "reason" can exist
> without "faith" but the reverse is not possible. If you believe what
> you
> are told by your priests and leaders, then you can reason that
> "Faith"
> is viable. "Reason" is a function and "faith" or "implanted" is a
> choice. Even the most zealous can reason that without water, they will
>
> die, regardless of the power of their faith.
>
> Sodom
Don't know where the word "implanted" came from, forget that word.
Sodom