Re: NO EVIDENCE

On Wed, 14 May 2008 11:29:29 -0400, Adonis wrote:

> "thomas p." <gudloos@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:4829cb72$0$56770$edfadb0f@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Adonis" <zerocalories@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> skrev i en meddelelse
>> news:YeidnccTB6mKMLTVnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> <EskWIRED@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:g0c9t7$3d3$3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> In alt.religion.christian Bill Bowden <wrongaddress@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Religion is a way of setting
>>>>> standards and morals to live by
>>>>
>>>> You are confusing religion with ethical systems.  No belief in the
>>>> supernatural, the sine qua non of religion, is neccessary to set
>>>> standards to live by.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That is absurd. religion is not necessary for standards.
>>
>> Isn't that what was said in the post you responded to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sine qua non \sin-ih-kwah-NON; -NOHN; sy-nih-kway-\, noun: An essential
> condition or element; an indispensable thing.
> 
> So when he says......" the sine qua non of religion, is necessary to set
> standards"; is a another way of saying that religion is an essential
> condition to set standards to live by.
> 

Not what he said.  He said belief in the supernatural was the sine qua 
non of religion, and it was totally unnecessary in setting ethical 
standards.