nice somersaulting around logic. Here's Your disconnect: You need faith to believe IN something for which their is no proof. To not believe is simply that, not believing until proof is furnished. Just as theists have a problem with understanding what words like dogma, evidence, theory of____, and believe mean and how to use them, you are misusing the term faith in the same manner.
On Jan 28, 5:46 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that there is no > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if someone claims the > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that claim must be > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > Ian > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that ther eis no > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any evidence. There > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul is a 'field > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... Yes, I know > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, but that > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means it hasn't > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when Uranus and > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into existence when > the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot thing is > so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've said > before many times, just because you have not detected something is not > evidence that it does not exist. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
