Surely the final say will be with one of the subgroups? Sure, your intellect can identify your emotions and take them into account, or your emotions can be influenced by your intellect, but is that the same as having made a complex argument? It seems to me just finding justifications to get away with inconsistent behaviour, causing hypocrisy.
It doesn't, except by luck. And it certainly has nothing to do with the process of finding out if something is true.
Oh so very wrong. On just the basic side of history, religion has been used to rally populations to war and conquest. So it was very useful to the conqueror. Johan van Hulst saved over 600 Jewish children from the Nazis, Irena Sendler saved about 2,500 children, Hugh O’Flaherty saved about 4,000 children and allied soldiers. The 3 were Christians and motivated by their Christian belief. I'm sure all the people they saved would disagree that faith ends at a persons nose. And politics is also about faith, so is nationalism. Do you really think they end at a persons nose?
By using the mechanisms I stated. You didn't refute what I said. Who cares what they think or would have said ...those changes came about by physical war, not by prayer. Do you think the alloys used to make the weapons were discovered by "faith"? You make my point with your example
And correct. If you are too thin skinned to have your ideas scrutinized, I suggest public forums might not be a good hobby for you.
Wow, so much dodging to try to save your refuted claim. Be a person of integrity and just admit you originally spoke lightly, or generally, or just exaggerated, and did nt mean it literally. Being so stubborn when you are so clearly wrong just makes you out to be a fool.
Since you clearly are unable to present any evidence for the existsnce of either auras or souls the entire discussion is a waste of time.
Excuse you, I spoke directly to your assertion that a war was won by faith. It was not. It was won by knowledge of the physical, brought by rigorous process. You discredit yourself with your rhetoric. The only benefit of faith in your scenario was mood alteration and self soothing. My point stands.
Wrong. You originally asserted that faith was useless and stopped at a persons nose. Faith is clearly and obviously and demonstrably a strong motivational force. I gave you clear proof of that. Then instead of just agreeing to such an obvious fact and excusing your original statement as exaggeration, you tried to justify it. Now you claim your original claim was something it was not. You do know this is all in writing and everyone can read your original claim? You are quickly moving to bottom of the barrel.
And each of those motivated has a degree of faith that stops at their own noses. In order to do anything at all about it, one uses everything but faith. Or one can sit and pray, accomplish nothing, with his faith still ending at his own nose.
There is no evidence of a soul and one cannot be observed. It is a matter of faith, not science. Science needs an observable phenomenon.
Thousands of people report that after a heart transplant, one finds new hobbies. A man that receives a new hart, all of a sudden starts to sing, or play the piano like he did that his whole life. https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/my-story/james-cadman
I've had two heart surgeries. I became weaker as a result of them. You haven't provided any evidence of anything.
Wait...the soul is in the Heart? Who ends up in heaven, the one who died and gave up his soul or the one who got his soul? Ever think that maybe the guy cant play baseball anymore so he collects stamps instead.
Mixing religious methodology and scientific methodology IS a mistake. The rules for the two do not match. Neither religion nor science can be satisfied by the perversion of their rules and methods that would result from mixing the two. In fact, the two aren't even designed to answer the same kind of questions. Science doesn't attempt to answer "why" as in "why are we here". It tries to answer "how" as in how something works here in our physical world. On the other hand, religion IS interested in "why" and it's tools are oriented to that, not to how our physical world works. There IS a possibility of accommodating the two. And, I try to encourage that. This is just ad hom. More ad hom.
Intellect, to function in balance in the human animal, HAS to recognize both aspects of faith/science, or the empirical and the theoretical. To attempt to exclude one is intellectual suicide, and moves the truth seeker into dogmatism and bigotry. The Einstein quote about science and religion is a good summation of this concept. Science can make no judgments about the abstract, or the theoretical, if there is not empirical evidence. The lack of empirical evidence cannot compel a conclusion, it can only return 'inconclusive'. It is dogmatic naturalists who dismiss the intangible and declare the abstract and theoretical, 'fictions of imagination!', based only on their own lack of information. That is a dogmatic position, not a scientific one. Exactly. But science/empiricism is not our ONLY vehicle of knowledge. It can take us so far, but without the ability to consider the abstract and theoretical, our knowledge base is limited.. lame, as Einstein put it. If all we had was empiricism, we would be the poorer for it, and would probably not have advanced to where we are, as a civilization. We would be trying to walk on lame limbs.
