From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 17:58:52 GMT

In article <1992Oct8.153239.20883@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:

>>Now you're asking a totally different question as to the validity of the
>>assumption.  Did you really think I was trying to prove what I had
>>assumed?
>
>I am at a loss right now as to what you are trying to show.

I'm sorry Rich, and maybe I'm not making myself clear to which I
apologize.  But I truly think that you are confusing what I posted
with perhaps someone else?  If you go back and read the thread, my
original contention was that it was impossible to scientifically
verify the existence of the soul.  I then gave a definition to
someone who requested it and it was then taken apart as being
unscientific, etc.  My intention was never to show a scientific or
testable definition of the soul, that is exactly the opposite of
my position.  If you can show me a posting where I have said
anything to the contrary, then Email me or post here but I truly
am not out to "get" you...

>
>>>>>>My point was to subject everyone to all the conclusions that it meant to me.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, I meant my point was *NOT* to subject everyone, but you probably
>>>>guessed that.
>>>
>>>No, I read it the other way, it seemed you wanted to share[?] what it meant
         ~~~~
>>>to you.
>>
>>I'm glad that you know what I meant better than I did, but if you reread the
>>postings, you will see that I did not actually jump in and gladly "share"
>>this bit of information at all.
>
>I may not know what you mean, but I know what you posted. And I assumed
>that you had meant what you had posted. Now you seem to be claiming that
>I am claiming to "know what I meant better than I did", get real. I have
>made no such silly claim, and I find your claim rather insulting. 
>
>Let me re-phrase the above in the hopes of better understanding.
>
>I READ IT THE WAY YOU POSTED IT, NO MORE, NO LESS AND NO DIFFERENT. That
>you claim to have meant differene does -not- mean that I misread what
>you posted.

Sorry Rich, when you said "I read it the other way" for some reason my mind
pronounced it as "reed" not "red".  It sounded like you were rejecting my
correction.  I certainly didn't mean to criticize the fact that you took
my posting literally; I do intend for people to most of the time. :)
Again, I sincerlely apologize...

> 
>>>>>How is it that the validity of the claim that 'god answers all prayers'
>>>>>cannot be tested? I belive this is in the Bible, I will have to check.
>>>>
>>>>You wouldn't take a quote out of context, now would you? :)
>>>
>>>The claim is often made, regardless of it's source. Perhaps you would like
>>>to fill in some context? I do not see how this claim could not be tested.
>>
>>If some religion (none that I'm aware of) made a claim that every
>>person's unqualified wish and desire expressed as a prayer would
>>be granted to that person, 
>
>I have correctly repeated what I have ehard and read, that "every prayer
>will be answered". Now you change it to "prayer would be granted to that 
>person" for no reason, and want to argue that. John, you are going non-linear
>on me. You ignore what I post, and want to argue silly things which I
>did not post and that do not follow from what I post. And you claim that
>I claim to know what you mean better than you do, again for no reason.

What *do* you mean by "every prayer will be answered".  Most
people take that to mean that their request will be granted,
although I do not subscribe to that definition.  If you mean
differently, what is your definition? 

>>                           then you could easily test that and
>>come to the conclusion that this particular belief of that
>>religion is correct or incorrect, which could be different than
>>the religion itself being false.  I am not aware of any such religion, 
>>are you?
>
>If god granted 10% of all prayers, than that could still be tested
>by statistical methods. Not that it matters, if you continue as before,
>you will ignore what I post, make up something silly and argue that.

Hmmm, aren't you now equating answering prayers with granting prayers?  That
is why a definition would be in order.

>Rich
>
>payner@netcom.com
>
>
-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729