From: payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:11:01 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Oct2.224417.23923@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <1992Oct1.053346.25405@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct1.030539.14018@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:

[...]

>>>>you are making, but not the difference.
>>>
>>>You mean to tell me that certain logical conclusions don't fall
>>>into place for you if you accept the premise that a Supreme Being
>>>(god) created the heavens and the earth?
>>
>>But knowing only that "(god) created the heavens and the earth" tells
>>me nothing of it's purpose or nature. For that, you need to study the
>>religious manuals and doctrines. Usually, parents teach this to their
>>children before they are old enough to understand it. For most it catches
>>on, and they will either belive, or at least go through the motions. Some
>>ask questions right off, and never become believers. But this is more
>>a measure of human interaction than proof of god, or evidence of purpose
>>or the nature of the universe.
>
>I'll start you off...
>
>1) We are not alone in this universe.

Funny, this is the same claim made in alt.alien.visitors. 
 
>2) Someone created us, presumably for a purpose.  Maybe I'll be curious and
>try to find out what that purpose is.

They also make this claim in alt.alien.visitors.
 
>3) <Come on, I know you can fill in the blanks> :)

There are so many ways to fill in the blanks, all of which are reflections
of what you know and believe. 
 
>If nothing else, it certainly can change the way we look at the universe.

It can, but there are still those who see no reason to draw hard and
fast conclusions based upon lack of information and hearsay.

>>If it is self-evident to you, then why not share your wisdom.
>
>My point was to subject everyone to all the conclusions that it meant to me.

I can accept this...

>I was only trying to show that just accepting that premise can lead one
>to question and search in areas that they might not have otherwise done.

I doubt that most netreaders are ignorant of the premise you use. They have
either accepted it, or not, or use another premise entirely.
 
>>>Actually, the superstition can probably be objectively tested.
>>>That is, a study could be done to determine if knocking on wood
>>>statistically changed the presence of what we think is good luck.
>>>The control group would, of course, have an object that felt like
>>>wood but was not.  If the study was scientific and conclusive, I'd
>>>bet you'd start the practice of knocking on wood... :)
>>
>>No, I was asking if you had any such proof of the validity of religion.
>>And I still do not see what differentiates religion from superstition.
>> 
>
>My point was that a religion is valid irrespective of any scientific proof.  

By this do you mean that religion is valid as a personal belief? Or do you
mean that it's claims are valid?

>                           This is quite unlike the superstition in the
>example above whose validity can be scientifically tested.

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.
 
>>payner@netcom.com

>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com

Rich

payner@netcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.folklore.urban