Re: On credulity and religion
Sun, 14 Jul 1996 17:37:55 -0700

F. Bryant Furlow wrote:
> wrote:
> >You obviously have no concept of the broad spectrum of this thing called
> >religion. Religion and science are two totally different areas of
> >inquiry.
> Again, I ask: Then why are you so offended when I say the same thing?!

I am not offended. I have no stake in this argument to be offended
about. I am only addressing flaws in your argument. Flaws which you not
only fail to address, but attempt to turn any efforts to address them
into something they are not.


sisial: I don't think I've presented an argument on either side of the

you: You are correct. I apologize; I threaded back and re-read your
posts. You simply asked for evidence that there is not an undetectable
afterlife of some sort, I gather. And ignored my point that you can no
more disprove my claims about pink unicorns inventing the elements than
I can falsify your untestable claims about God. These are, as we've all
pointed out in the course of this thread, different questions than can
be answered scientifically.

No. I addressed a specific argument which claimed 'conclusive evidence'
which disproves the concept of life after death. I asked that this claim
of evidence be substantiated.

You continue to refer to my claims about God. I have made no claims
about God, nor have I even said that I believe in a God. This is a
conclusion you draw without any foundation. I stated at one point that
my religion does not conflict with science. This is the only time I
mention my religion. You seem to infer from this that my religion must
not only be theistic, but Christian (God with a capital G is a Christian
tradition). This is a false assumption, and further evidences your bias.

sisial: I was not the one who claimed that there is 'conclusive
which disproves the concept of life after death. All I asked for was
something to support this claim.

you: An absurd request, for the reasons I sketch above. More to the
point, I never claimed (or, more cautiously, never meant to convey) that
there was 'conclusive evidence' against an afterlife.

Ah, you're getting the point. It was absurd to claim such 'conclusive
evidence'. I merely challenged the claim. If you do not have such
evidence, then do not claim it.

you: My point was that anybody looking for evidence to support the ideas
they're handed as children would quickly become dissatisfied with
spiritualism/mysticism. Hence, the need to not adopt a standard of
evidence when thinking about our religions. Hence the term "blind"
faith, and hence the "sin" of doubt. I do, of course, recognize the
utter futility of talking evidence with True Believers.

Again, you overgeneralize. I have on several occasions provided
information which conflicts with this conclusion. None have been

you: You get brownie points with God just by disagreeing with me, after
all. :)

Obviously you must believe in a God to make such a statement. I
certainly have not claimed such a belief. However, my recieving 'brownie
points' is not a valid reason to evade addressing my counter arguments.

Let me take a shot at my own inference.

You are someone who has been disillusioned by religion. More
specifically, Christianity (as you seem to present many points which you
claim for religion, but which are only applicable to Christianity). You
decided to make an argument against religion. A common belief is that
science and religion are in opposition. So, science becomes your new
religion. You post an argument presenting your religion as the only true

Along comes me. I'm bored. I see an argument which shows extreme bias.
The interesting thing is it is an argument uses biased statements to
address the bias of another group. It uses irrational statments to argue
rationality. It uses pseudo-scietific methods to argue science. I can't
resist. I sit down and respond to those comments which are unfounded or

You conclude that I must be religious. More specifically, Christian (as
you continually attribute comments to me that are only applicable to a
Christian. Actually, only some Christians). Instead of addressing the
issues presented, you draw on your assumptions of my beliefs to counter.
Not only do you present a shallow argument (because there is no base for
your assumptions), you try to patronize me.

That's OK. I find it entertaining. However, this conversation has moved
far from even the pretentions of scientific enquiry. As such, it really
has no place in sci.anthropology. Let's try to keep our sarcasms and
patronization of each other within the boundries of this newsgroup or
move it elsewhere.

I do understand the argument you are trying to present. However, a
biased argument does nothing to forward your point. The adamant hold you
have on these biases are exactly the sort of thing you are trying to
address. This mindset you are in is the exact same religious mindset
you're attacking. The only difference is that you have made science your