Re: The Religious Rights' Unreal Understanding of Homo***uality:

On Tue, 13 May 2008 04:46:05 -0700 (PDT), Josh
Rosenbluth <jrosenbluth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On May 12, 10:25 pm, Peter Franks <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Nick...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 wrote:
>> > On Mon, 12 May 2008 09:28:06 -0700, Peter Franks
>> > <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>> >> What part(s) is/are unreal?  Chosen behavior, sin, and/or treatment?
>>
>> > That he would believe an unscientific claim, that he'd
>> > accept an unprovable collection of stories, fables and
>> > lies as IF it were truth.
>>
>> Ok, in a broader sense, is anything that is unprovable not true?
>
>You are missing akey point (and Nick did too).  It's not that Dobson
>accepts accepts something based on faith alone which is unprovable but
>still might be true.  It's that he accepts something which the
>evidence strongly indicates is false.

No, I agree with your response

I don't think I 'missed it"---I didn't refer to it.