# Religion vs. science?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-science/22092
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [June 12, 2000, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-science/22092 "2000-06-12T05:42:01Z")
**Posts on this page:** 6
**Page:** 3
### Author:  [@avalongod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/avalongod)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2000, 5:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-science/22092/41 "2000-06-18T05:25:48Z")
David B:
I am inclined to believe Horselover did not remember what Demon Haunted World was about. Otherwise he would have known quoting from it to support the paranormal was like quoting Anton LeVay to bring inspiration to a bible class.
---
### Author:  [@avalongod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/avalongod)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2000, 5:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-science/22092/42 "2000-06-18T05:42:54Z")
David B:
By the way, let me say I hope never to get on YOUR bad side!
---
### Author:  [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)
#### Post date: [June 18, 2000, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-science/22092/43 "2000-06-18T13:00:40Z")
Avalongod: If you don’t tell blatant lies, use obvious ad hominem attacks, try to link irrelevant information, or let your bias against certain groups/people get in the way of intelligent discourse, you have nothing to fear. 🙂
---
### Author:  [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2000, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-science/22092/44 "2000-06-19T05:57:17Z")
Fine don’t believe me, I’m not here to convince the unconvincable, keep your head in the sand for all I care. I admitted to coming across it on a webpage and I do remember reading Sagan’s thoughts on certain parapsychology experiments(RNG, Ganzfeld) and it fit in with the quote I posted. Its called a mistake, people do them, focusing on one error and ignoring everything else is a typical pseudo-skeptic fare.
In fact the doctored quote is on this page, along with what looks like the authentic quote on parapsychology. Of course DavidB will accuse me of creating this webpage just now to cover my tracks. Take a chill pill dude.
[http://209.1.224.15/Area51/Rampart/2271/fs-psi.html](http://209.1.224.15/Area51/Rampart/2271/fs-psi.html)
Don’t bother mailing the webmaster about the quote I already did.
Here’s the authentic quote, check it skeptics!, that led me to believe Sagan might be against CSICOP as anyone who cares about open discourse and objectivity should be.
_At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study: **(1) that by thought alone humans can (barely) affect random number generators in computers; (2) that people under mild sensory deprivation can receive thoughts or images “projected” at them; and (3) that young children sometimes report the details of a previous life, which upon checking turn out to be accurate and which they could not have known about in any other way than reincarnation.**_
Try around page 302.
David B: The name calling is just childish, wanna cut it out? Thanks.
---
### Author:  [@avalongod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/avalongod)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2000, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-science/22092/45 "2000-06-19T06:03:04Z")
I do remember Sagan saying something to the effect of Horselover’s quote. He wasn’t saying he believed in it, but thought there might be enough evidence to warrant further study.
I don’t know if Sagan was either explicitly for or against CISCOP. I don’t think he really rendered a verdict on that…CISCOP was not the point of Demon Haunted World, and I think he just discussed them anecdotally. It has been awhile though since I read that, so I could be wrong.
---
### Author:  [@David\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_B)
#### Post date: [June 19, 2000, 11:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-science/22092/46 "2000-06-19T11:54:02Z")
**Horselover** said:
> [@](#):
>
> Fine don’t believe me, I’m not here to convince the unconvincable
Ah, I see. Anybody who points out your lies, ad hominems, etc. is “unconvincable.” Funny, I pretty well pointed out just the opposite – how your bias made you “unconvincable” the other way around. But I don’t expect you to accept that – you’ve already shown that you won’t directly address the points made against you.
> [@](#):
>
> I admitted to coming across it on a webpage
Actually, you just said you “came across it recently.” You didn’t say where.
> [@](#):
>
> I do remember reading Sagan’s thoughts on certain parapsychology experiments(RNG, Ganzfeld) and it fit in with the quote I posted.
Bullshit. Just because Sagan thought they might be worthy of further study doesn’t mean he would attack CSICOP. Nice try. Again, no go.
> [@](#):
>
> Its called a mistake, people do them, focusing on one error and ignoring everything else is a typical pseudo-skeptic fare.
First, you just now acknowledged it as a mistake (your brief remark earlier just said you thought it was authentic – no apology or admission of error. And I haven’t been focusing on “one error.” Indeed, I pointed out _numerous_ problems with what you’ve been saying here. But you’ve been avoiding them all. Funny, that. You know, continuing to lie like this when people can simply go up and read everything to disprove your claims doesn’t help your credibility any.
> [@](#):
>
> In fact the doctored quote is on this page, along with what looks like the authentic quote on parapsychology. Of course DavidB will accuse me of creating this webpage just now to cover my tracks. Take a chill pill dude.
You lie and say I’ll do something that would be ridiculous, and then you tell me to chill based on that. If you’re trying to restore credibility, you’re doing a piss poor job of it.
> [@](#):
>
> Here’s the authentic quote, check it skeptics!, that led me to believe Sagan might be against CSICOP as anyone who cares about open discourse and objectivity should be.
>
> At the time of writing there are three claims in the ESP field which, in my opinion, deserve serious study …
Yup, that one matches. But the point is that he said it deserves study – not that he believes it. In fact, he follows that immediately by saying: “I pick these claims not because I think they’re like to be valid (I don’t), but as examples of contentions that _might_ be true.” So your continued attack on CSICOP as being against open discourse and objectivity fails again. Sagan has talked (in the portion I quoted earlier) about how he supports CSICOP and wishes they could be _more_ active. And yet you quote him to support your claims. Don’t you understand how backwards that is? The funniest thing is that you ignored the part of his quote that I italicized in my post, above: “Those wounded by CSICOP’s analyses sometimes make just such a complaint…” That’s _exactly_ the way you’re acting.
> [@](#):
>
> The name calling is just childish, wanna cut it out? Thanks.
Pointing out the problems in your posts and the way you are acting is not “name calling.” When you stop lying, I’ll stop pointing it out. When you stop using ad hominem, I’ll stop pointing it out. When you stop avoiding the issues, I’ll stop pointing it out. But if you continue to post in the manner you have been, I’ll continue to point it out.
**avalongod** said:
> [@](#):
>
> I don’t know if Sagan was either explicitly for or against CISCOP. I don’t think he really rendered a verdict on that…
Well, consider what he said in the quote I mentioned earlier. He’d been involved with it since the beginning and it serves an important function.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/religion-vs-science/22092.md?page=2)