From: Tony B. Csoka (csoka@itsa.ucsf.edu)
Date: Sun May 11 1997 - 21:53:20 MDT
A good rebuttal against creationists is something like : " Creation is the
ultimate bad theory because it can neither be reproduced nor disproven."*
It doesn't apply quite so well to spiritualism, though, but if you think
along these lines I'm sure you can come up with something. Good luck.
*(This is contingent on the event that they actually understand what you
are saying, of course)
Tony B. Csoka
>Last night I found myself in a futile conversation. I couldn't tell at
>first if this woman was on a mystic-trip or actually in touch with
>reality, but I new it was over when she said, "Have you read _The
>Celestine Prophesy_?" I'm sure many of you have been there...
>
>The woman I conversed with exhibited a pattern of thought that I've noticed in
>numerous conversations with New Agers: They can rebuke any attempt at
>rational thought b/c their belief system allows them to say anything,
>making up mind-fodder as they go along. Now, many of you who are far more
>leathal at intellectual sparring than I are surely more successful at arguing
>with mystics than I. My arguing skills are need of developement (hence
>this post). As I struggle to put together rational replies to their
>fanciful ramblings, these mystics run circles around my logic. How do
>experienced rational thinkers deal with people who can say anything (that
>is to the extent that they can be dealt with)?
>
>Also, these people think they are quantum mechanics, rigging their
>silliness with quatum "stuff." These people don't even have a clue about the
>concept of a quantized energy packet, yet they think that watching _Quantum
>Leap_ or reading books by quacks who give no references gives them
>understanding enough to invoke quantum physics as "proof" of their
>madness. I know just enough about quantum mechanics to know not to f***
>with it, yet they don't notice that the people who do know what they're
>talking about spend years, if not decades, understanding quantum mechanics
>to the extent that is understood. These fruit-loops are a sad lot.
>
>Enough angst.
>
>Exovivo!
>Michael Bowling
>mlbowli1@cord.iupui.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:44:26 MST