On 1/28/2011 10:51 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 07:58:30 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Again, depends on the point of discussion. An argument is only rational
>> if it is *possible* to change someone's mind. If the reason they can't
>> is religion, then QED, they are not rational about that subject.
>
> It's entirely possible to be logical using the internal logic (which in
> many religions has some degree of consistency) and have a rational
> discussion.
>
Hmm. And here we where recently arguing over whether or not "string 
theory", which has "some degree of internal consistency", constituted a 
valid description of *anything* at all...

Mind, show me a religion that has *as much* consistency as string theory 
does to itself, and we can talk about the plausibility of it. It should 
also be noted that, imho, you just excluded pretty much every western 
religion in existence, since the only way to make most of them self 
consistent is by throwing out most, if not all, of the stuff the purport 
to base themselves on, and/or ignore the evidence (or total lack of it) 
supporting any of what they keep.

Sort of becomes an argument in line of, "Well, Tolkien's world is self 
consistent, as long as you ignore a) reality, b) all the stuff the ideas 
in it where stolen from, and c) the scattered notes he used to construct 
it, which show he changes bits in various places. But, you know, as long 
as you ignore it being fiction, and the old stuff it came from, and the 
stuff he edited, its all completely reasonable... lol

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message