Re: Pascal's wager (was ID does require a designer! (but it does not need to i

From: Bertvan@aol.com
Date: Mon Dec 11 2000 - 17:36:50 EST

Next message: Susan Cogan: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to i"

Previous message: Susan Cogan: "Re: Religious Beliefs that *Require* the Falsehood of Scientific Theories"
Next in thread: Susan Cogan: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to i"
Reply: Susan Cogan: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to i"
Reply: Chris Cogan: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to i"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Susan said:
>It's not so much that we mind our own business, but that we consider
>proselytizing to be in bad taste. :-)

As an agnostic I would never proselytize, but I regard ridiculing anyone's
religion in the worst possible taste.

Bertvan

Next message: Susan Cogan: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to i"
Previous message: Susan Cogan: "Re: Religious Beliefs that *Require* the Falsehood of Scientific Theories"
Next in thread: Susan Cogan: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to i"
Reply: Susan Cogan: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to i"
Reply: Chris Cogan: "Re: Pascal's wager (was ID *does* require a designer! (but it does not need to i"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 11 2000 - 17:37:06 EST