This tripe is always put forth whenever someone postulates what Anon did. Sure, a talking aardvark sounds laughingly implausible because of lack of observational evidence. An analogy of this could be the work of Dr. Ron Mallett. For years he hid his true research because he was afraid of what his colleagues would think and that he would lose funding. However, this does not preclude that Dr. Mallett could NOT discover something that had previously been dismissed as balderdash.
Nothing mysterious about this in the least. We just like to sleep in is all. You can find the teachings of this in Ezekial 13:35
Ah, but doesn't a scientist's bent weigh heavily towards a search for truth?
I agree with you heartily on this AE. I tip my pilsner ale to you.
Also, it is YOU who define faith only when used in the context of religion. Merriam-Webster disagrees with you on this. The fact that the word faith can be applied to religion solely is incidental.
Do you believe that God exists?
Instead of faith, conviction would be a better description, methinks. Either way, the onus of proving that a God exists will ALWAYS fall squarely on the shoulders of the theists. BTW, posted you on FB ;)
Would you define faith as a firm belief in something for which there is no proof?
An interesting question was posed to an atheist friend of mine recently: "Do you have faith that God does not exist?" A bit of a paradox, no?
Parse the question CAREFULLY before responding intelligently.
documentary definition from thefreedictionary.com:
"Presenting facts OBJECTIVELY without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."
Sorry about your left nut. Keep your dad away from the liquor cabinet and he might have better luck next time.