He brews, she doesn't.He brews all right, but surely not Arabica.Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.

WOW...so i'm a little slow...

jar writes:

HeBrews

and mjfloresta replies: ROTFLMAOThank you, thank you, thank you. You have made my day!

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

my pleasure!! (despondedly)

Seriously. I really needed that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The book of Ruth. Remember the famous poem from Keats, where he refers to this book?Perhaps the self-same song that found a path
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for sex,
She stood in tears amid the alien beans . . .

Well at least as an excuse I can claim that I didn't know there was a book called Hebrews in the Bible.I'd be lying but I can claim it

---

Oops! Wrong Planet

Me neither. I didn't get it.

All of them. That is, if you apply the right bible code to them, I am sure you can find "woman shall not make coffee" in any book of the Bible you care to try. (Or in any other sufficiently long book, for that matter.)

Well I certainly agree with that. What makes you think I don’t do that? Because I don’t find the scientific explanation for my feelings of the soul to be accurate? And I’ve found that many aspects of my religion are still compatible with the “new information. So, all-in-all, I’d say that my religion IS logical, even though I maintain that it doesn’t have to be because it is a religion, and they shouldn’t be held to logical scrutiny like science is because you can believe in whatever religion you want and just be being illogical, but wrt science it doesn’t work like that. Science must be logically sound to be true. Religion’s truth value is left unknown. You seem to use the word logic more generally than I do. I think of logic as a specific thing, not some general practice, but I can start using it your way if I must. dictionary definition.Anyways, you say:

quote:

---

you have to find out whats really going on, and you need logic for that

---

I’m saying that there’s more going on than what science and logic have concluded and you have to look past them find out whats really going on. I think there is a spiritual existence in us, with its own world that science cannot touch, because of science’s necessary limitations. I’m also saying that if you limit your beliefs to that which science and logic will allow, then you’ll be missing out on a whole aspect of whats really going on.Now, if I believe science and logic’s limitations prevent them from accessing this spiritual existence, then how can you expect me to use science or logic to ”prove’ to you that it exists? Again, what makes you think I don’t do this? Because I believe in my soul? What about these things that cannot be proven? Don’t we have to take those things on faith? Or do you just disregard them altogether? Its not like my entire outlook on the world is based solely on faith . you seem to be arguing from the point that it is. come on now. And if logic isn’t required then it doesn’t. So now what? What is the 'it' refering to? Then what is a fallacy? The religion or the appeal?LOL, le’me quote your link:

quote:

---

It {{appeal to authority}} is one method of obtaining propositional knowledge and is a logical fallacy because its method of inference is not rock-solid. On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion of the authority is likely to be true.

---

bold added.Your quote seems to support my claims. Plausibility Nope, not for some things. And for some things logical support just isn’t possible. Of course you can’t go by anything you want, but I still don’t think logic is all you crack it up to be. Bullshit. Why don’t you use logic to back up that claim. I challenge you. At least I’ll have an example of what you want me to do. We’ve already been over how I believe in my soul due to this internal subjective ”evidence’, so I’m not just believing in random crap. The existence of my soul can be used as evidence, for myself, that god exists too. Like I’ve said, I’m not being totally illogical. I might be a little illogical though, like using an appeal to authority to justify some of my beliefs. I don’t see how the existence of god is a prediction, but anyways, you pointing out one tenet that must be believed in does absolutely nothing to my claim that you don’t have to believe every prediction(tenet) to be a part of the religion. Care to try again or just accept my claim?

You maintain your belief inspite of more convincing evidence (psycology, neurology...). No, because your 'feelings of the soul' are incompatible or at least unnecessery in order to explain (at least partialy) the phenomenum you are perceiving. Such as? are these important enough to disreguard all those aspects that aren't compatible? those aspects that aren't compatible are exactly what I'm talking about when I say that faith is dangerous. Thats just an assertion - you have to proove that there is something outside science. I never said there was not anything outside science - I just need evidence for it (any kind of evidence). You know what...? use whatever you want to proove it - I would like to see what evidence you could possably bring to support such a claim. I dont have a problem with you believing in a soul - it that you do it on faith that bothers me. Now, if you were actually convinced by some sort of objective evidence that your soul actually exists - I would have no problem with that. What things? (I'm reffering only to important things - I cant proove everything) Thats not even an arguement. I'm just saying that the root of the problem is also the title of this thread. The appeal to authority is a fallacy (thats the 'it'). Not really - your arguement was: This is in line with: and reguarding the last part - I dont think is specific enough to warrent 'a high enough probability of truth that it would be correct'. If that were true then the earth would be flat. Plausibility of what? Like religion? Of course not - its just the foundation of rational thought. Whats the problem, if you take something on faith, which is defined by believing something without proof, them you have no reason to look for a different answer to that specific question. Just like there is no reason for people who believe in the bible to look for another answer for the diversity of life - so they stopped where they are, never giving it another thought. There is actually more then that, but I'll stop here for now. My point is that you have to have at least one thing (usualy very
central to the religion) that you take on faith to be a part of a religion. Taking things that massive on faith is obviously illogical and so religion is illogical.

Wrong, I maintain my beliefs because I don’t find the evidence convincing or the evidence doesn’t discredit my belief. Wrong again. My feelings of the soul IS compatible with the scientific expanation, it is only omitted by science to maintain parsimony, also, the phenomenon I am perceiving necessitates something more than the scientific explanation, which does not automatically make it incompatible, its just not fully explained by science, IMO. Specifics aren’t necessary. All those aspects that aren’t compatible? There’s not a whole lot of stuff that I believe in that is incompatible with science, if any. I can think of a couple that might be, but they aren’t disproven by science, they are just not supported by it. I don’t think my faith is as dangerous as you think it is. Some faith can be for sure, but I think the majority of it is not. You’re including faiths that aren’t logically supported with faiths that are logically opposed and calling them all dangerous. Its almost discriminatory. Yeah, that’s what I’m asserting and there is no evidence. All I can say is that you should try to find it. If you don’t, then that’s fine, don’t believe me, hell, I may be crazy. But, don’t just hand wave it away because science has no evidence for it and needs to maintain parsimony. At least take a look, for no other reason than there is a logical science-minded person here telling you that there is something else out there, and I don’t follow it on blind faith alone. I don’t think this is enough evidence to warrant belief but it should be enough to at least consider it a possibility. There is no objective evidence. Its all subjective. I don’t believe in it on faith alone, I have feelings and thoughts on why I think it exists. I’m not claiming its true, I’m just using the appeal to authority to make it easier to believe. I think the appeal can be used to support a claim, it just can’t be used to say the claim is true. That’s why its not a fallacy in the way I use it. Except we can prove that the earth isn’t flat. We can’t prove that souls don’t exist. It’s a philosophical question, so we’re gonna have to rely on other people’s thoughts and not physical evidence. The plausibility of what you were referring to.I really hate having to spell everything out for you in order to squeeze out a reply, but here you go: The plausibility of the answer to the why question. If the answer is totally illogical or retarded then I won’t believe it but if it is plausible then I might. Like I typed, you just weigh it out mentally. It doesn't prove that your right and you can know for sure that your right but that doesn't mean you can believe that its true, does it? Yup. You see, logic is an ambiguous word with many definitions. If your using it to mean the basis for rational though, then my religion is totally logical. But if we are typing about formal logic (which is what I generally refer to with the word ”logic’) then my religion can be made to look illogical, formally. False. One reason may be finding the truth to the question. Having faith in one of the answers does not mean that I stop looking. I’m always looking. This exemplifies one of your misunderstandings about what faith actually is. Wrong again. Lets forget about fundamentalists for the purpose of our discussion because there certainly are people who fit the category you’re describing but you’re still wrong. I believe in the Bible and I sought an answer for the diversity of life, found evolution, accept it and continue to believe in the Bible. I don’t find them mutually exlusive. Again, your assuming that if you believe one aspect of a religion then you must believe all aspects but that is just not true.

As regards the plausibility of having a soul, might your reasoning go something like this?I have a private experience of consciousness/mind/thoughts/feelings/self-identity (i.e., soul).If this private experience is some sort of illusion, then it is a very powerful one. It seems to be something incorporeal, not physical. If incorporeal, then it's hard to see how it could have evolved. It's hard to see how something incorporeal could evolve from something corporeal.Something along those lines?

Sure and for the sake of argument, Yes.ABE: wait a minute, don't turn this into an argument from incredulity.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE