Re: On credulity and religion
Sat, 13 Jul 1996 11:17:33 -0700

Bryant wrote:
> In article <>, <> wrote:
> >
> >What conclusive evidence exists which disprove the concept of an afterlife?
> You've got to be kidding. *Another* "God in the Spaces" argument?!
> Egad. Yuck.

I don't think I've presented an argument on either side of the issue. I
was not the one who claimed that there is 'conclusive evidence' which
disproves the concept of life after death. All I asked for was something
to support this claim.

What would the 'rational' response be to such a challenge? Assuming that
this 'conclusive evidence' exists, wouldn't the 'rational' approach to
my challenge be simply a reference to support the claim?

Consider your response above for a moment: Is it 'rational' to conclude
that a challenge to the existance of 'conclusive evidence' which
disproves life after death is an argument in favor of life after death?
(Is it even 'rational' to conclude that a challenge is an argument?)
Even had I presented an argument in favor of life after death, is it
'rational' to conclude that I must therefore be theistic?

Contary to your conclusions, my argument has not even been about life
after death.
Rather, my argument has been about the irrationality of using an
irrational argument to show that others are irrational.