Of course not. But that doesn't mean they have
good reasons. Do you think all reasons are equally
good?
>not that there's this thing called "faith" that you
>think is bad and others think is good, but that
>people disagree on what's a good reason for
>believing?
Sure. Can we discuss what makes a reason good?
>As so often, eventually you just have to face the
>need to get your hands dirty, by descending
>from generalisation to specifics. You believe
>in accepting what's said on good authority,
>don't you? (You can't check *everything* out!)
>Well, some folk think their local preacher is a
>good authority. Arguing about "faith" won't
>help them. Discussing their preacher, and
>what he says, with them, in depth, just might.
>Get specific!
If they have faith in something there is nothing
I can say that would influence them, by (my) definition.
The only recourse I can see is to attack faith itself.
>> What do you call
>> the category of assumptions for which there is no
>> good reason?
>>
>A matter of opinion.
Are all opinions OK with you no matter what effect
they have? If not, how do you decide? What do you do?
-- David McFadzean david@lucifer.com Memetic Engineer http://www.lucifer.com/~david/ Church of Virus http://www.lucifer.com/virus/