Re: On credulity and religion
17 Jul 1996 10:12:47 -0600
In article <31E992E3.72A8@ix.netcom.com>, <Sisial@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>F. Bryant Furlow wrote:
>> 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
We said the same thing. Whether it "offended" you or you were merely
"objecting" (got to cover the semantic bases with you), you're
"addressing flaws" with which you seem to agree.
>science and religion are in opposition. So, science becomes your new
>religion. You post an argument presenting your religion as the only true
Sure, hey, why not. I'll take a "religion" that lacks dogma, continually
questions its own assumptions, tests predictions derived from its
hypotheses, and saves millions of lives.
But, to address your incredibly disengeneous statement, I'd like to
remind you that I said only that religions tend to do miserably at
predicting accurately things about the physical world, and that
religionists and mystics and LSD fans should limit themselves to moral
issues which scientific methods cannot address.
> 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.
>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
See above. Yawn.