Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Converts from Evidence - (nf)
Message-ID: <561@pyuxn.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 12-Apr-84 10:40:01 EST
Article-I.D.: pyuxn.561
Posted: Thu Apr 12 10:40:01 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Apr-84 08:29:47 EST
References: <334@iuvax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J.
Lines: 45

It seems to me, from my modestly biased viewpoint, that advocates of
religion in this newsgroup are somehow changing their tune.  Originally,
discussions in this group were running rampant on the nature of
the evidence; now there seems to be a new theme in pro-religion articles.

It's almost as though, admitting that they have no convincing evidence
(Someone tried to say that they had "evidence" but not "convincing
evidence".  Hmmm..) for the existence of god and/or the veracity of their
religious claims, they are now saying:

	Look at this very logical rational person here (C.S. Lewis, scientists,
	author of the article).  He/she converted to Christianity!!  Isn't that
	evidence that there must be something behind all of this, some kernel
	of truth...

[The above was a paraphrase and not a direct quote from anyone in particular.]

Beyond answering the above question with a resounding "no", I have a comment to
make regarding Jeff Sargent's reply to my article "Who's attacking whom?"
I describe my efforts as an attempt to debunk, and Jeff responds that he
doesn't see much difference between "attacking" and "debunking".
American Heritage Dictionary (you knew it was coming) says:
	debunk, v. to expose or ridicule the falseness, sham, or exaggerated
			claims of
	attack, v. 1. to set upon with violent force... 2. to bombard with
			hostile criticism

As I've already stated in other words, though my criticism may at times seem
hostile, the intent is to expose the religious claims for what they are,
*unless* they can provide evidence to the contrary.  Thus, it should be seen
as a challenge to supply evidence or, by default, be debunked.  (Now let's
not rehash the argument about who should be supplying evidence. As someone else
said better than I did, the ones making the extraordinary claims have the
burden of proof.)

One last item:  Jon White sent a response to a Jeff Sargent article that
accused Jon and myself of being influenced by (or in league with) the
forces of darkness (or something like that).  Unfortunately, I never saw the
article, so I would greatly appreciate it if Jeff and/or Jon would send me
a copy of the original article.  Thanx in advance.

-- 
"An argument is an intellectual process.  It isn't the automatic gainsaying of
	what the other person says."
"... Can be."					Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr