Re: On credulity and religion
F. Bryant Furlow (mycol1@unm.edu)
14 Jul 1996 19:03:53 GMT
Sisial@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>Bryant wrote:
>>
>> In article <31CEB1F1.E67@ix.netcom.com>, <Sisial@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>I don't think I've presented an argument on either side of the issue.
You are correct. I apologize; I threaded back and re-read your posts. You simply asked for evidence that there is not an undetecta=
ble afterlife of some sort, I gather. And ignored my point that you can no more disprove my claims about pink unicorns inventing th=
e elements than I can falsify your untestable claims about God. These are, as we've all pointed out in the course of this thread, d=
ifferent questions than can be answered scientifically.
> 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.
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. 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 ev=
idence when thinking about our religions. Hence the term "blind" faith, and hence the "sin" of doubt. I do, of course, recognize t=
he utter futility of talking evidence with True Believers. You get brownie points with God just by disagreeing with me, after all. =
:)
Bryant
|