From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:39:48 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.124052.9026@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com> kambic@iccgcc.decnet.ab.com (Bonus, Iniquus, Celer - Delegitus Duo) writes:
>
>Nope.  At this point, IMHO you are trying to weasel out of the situation.  If
>belief in <any parameter> failed to make a significant objective change under
>controlled conditions, then the belief in x does not affect the appropriate
>variable.  You may choose to continue to believe in x, but it will then be a
>subjective belief, rather than objective.  Have you been saying that all along?
>
>>>Of course, you are correct in saying that eternal salvation cannot be tested
>>>for.  I agree with that.  But there are a number of issues that could be tested
>>>for.  Study the correlation between the size of the bank accounts of
>>>televangelists, who claim to save people, and the size of their television
>>>audience.  
>> 
>> All that would tell you is how genuine the televangelists are, not
>> how genuine their beliefs are.  Given any belief, I could probably
>> always find a group of people who publicly espouse those beliefs
>> and yet do not practice them personally.  That does not make the
>> religious belief itself invalid.
>
>Left off the smiley on this one.  However to follow up, there appears  to be no
>manner in which you wish to test for the validity of beliefs, be they
>superstition or religion, in an objective manner.
>>>
>>>You were proposing a scientific study of superstition.  If you limit yourself
>>>to proposing tests of religion in which no data can be collected, well of
>>>course the test is meaningless, which means we are dealing in opinion again. 
>>>Are you ready to  agree with that?
>> 
>> I was only observing that, at least in the cases we were talking about,
>> the superstitious beliefs could be scientifically tested but the religious
>> beliefs could not.
>
>And as pointed out by others, if you choose not to define your beliefs in a
>manner that is objectively testable, or course.  But then your beliefs are only
>subjectively valid for you, have no proof, and are just that.  You have
>absolutely given no reason for anyone to want to believe as you do, other than
>your own subjective experiences.
>
>GXKambic
>sd
>

I certainly had no wish or desire to scientifically prove my
beliefs to anyone.  Again and again, I have stated religious
beliefs are not scientifically provable.  But some people, being
the skeptics that they are :) , requested definitions of terms so
that that they could see for themselves if my assertions are
correct.  Why then, am I not suprised that nothing scientific
could be done with the definitions and discourse that has
transpired?  Why do you sound so disappointed?  Have I promised
you something and then not delivered? 

I will once again state: my religious beliefs are founded on
faith.  Without that faith, it would mean nothing.  I do not
consider myself capable of scientifically proving my belief to
anyone.  Obviously, if I could do that then there would be no need
for faith at all, and every reasonable or rational person would
believe as I do (hmm.. sounds good to me :)).  Do we understand
each other?

-- 
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