Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id LAA04272 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:36:27 +0100 Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 11:11:39 +0100 To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along Message-ID: <20010924111139.F1098@ii01.org> References: <20010923025935.AAA19677@email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.15i In-Reply-To: <20010923025935.AAA19677@firstname.lastname@example.org>; from email@example.com on Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 10:59:34PM -0400 From: Robin Faichney <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Sat, Sep 22, 2001 at 10:59:34PM -0400, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> Hi Bill Spight -
> > Wrong definition.
> >> conviction of the truth of some
> >> statement or the reality of some being or
> >> phenomenon especially when based on
> >> examination of evidence
> Interesting take on 'belief' - and the first I've ever seen using
> 'evidence' within it. Sounds like an apologist wrote that dictionary.
Sounds like you're confusing "belief" with "faith".
Knowledge is only justified, true belief, you know.
-- Robin Faichney "One person's mess is another's complexity" inside information -- http://www.ii01.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 24 2001 - 11:42:15 BST