Friday, April 01, 2011

The Soul is Real


[trailer for Source Code; released today]

This movie's plot is based on Captain Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) waking up in the body of an unknown man.

What's interesting is that among all the reviews, no one to my knowledge is baffled by the basic premise that a person could theoretically inhabit someone else's body. No reviewer has objected "I don't understand what this is talking about. A person does not 'inhabit' a body. A person is his body. So what does this mean?"

No one would make a movie about an iPad waking up in a PC; it makes no sense. The iPad and PC are different machines and each is what it is.

This shows that we intuitively see ourselves as inhabiting our bodies but we don't identify ourselves by it. Therefore it is at least conceivable that "we" could "wake up" in a different body. We don't identify ourselves with our bodies but rather we are an incorporeal essence which could conceivably move to another body.

In other words: We are not merely a bag of chemicals produced by mindless natural forces. We have a soul.

71 comments:

JRKmommy said...

Of all the arguments you could make for the existence of the soul, this one is pretty weak. Hollywood is all about fantasy.

Have you never seen Oh Heavenly Dog?

jewish philosopher said...

I'm not making my argument from the movie. I doubt that Jake Gyllenhaal is actually going to inhabit someone else's body just in time to, hopefully, save the lovely Michelle Monaghan from being blown to bits. Although worse things could happen.

My point is the reviewers. No one seems to be baffled by the basic premise. If a movie would be made about my iPad waking up in a PC, no one would understand what that is supposed to mean. The iPad is the iPad and the PC is the PC. What exactly is being transferred from one to the other? However, we intuitively see ourselves as inhabiting our bodies but we don't identify ourselves by it. Therefore it is at least conceivable that "we" could "wake up" in a different body. We don't identify ourselves with our bodies but rather we are an incorporeal essence which could conceivably move to another body.

Anonymous said...

The brain is just matter. But the mind has qualities that are not propertioesof matter. So it is really hard to explain how the mind comes from the brain using only the laws of physics and chemistry that apply to matter. So either we say that there is more to the mind than matter, or we haveto come on to the old atheists fall back "we hope to have an answer for you, someday."

jewish philosopher said...

As I've pointed out, atheism relies too much on the concept "nothing is what it seems".

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/02/lame-duck-why-atheism-fails.html

I think unless you have some very strong evidence to the contrary, things are what they seem.

JRKmommy said...

I got your point about the reviewers, but it's still lame.

Can the movie-going public grasp the concept of a soul existing apart from its body? Yes. It's part of the cultural vocabulary.

That doesn't say much, though, because plenty of other concepts - some of them clearly fantasy - are also part of the cultural vocabulary that movie-goers will accept.

These include:

Aliens
Monsters
Mermaids
Hobbits
Munchkins
Santa Claus
Easter Bunny
Oompa-Loompas
Vampires
Werewolves
Humans having relationships with mermaids or vampires or werewolves
Scientists generating life
Defrosted caveman coming back to life
Dinosaurs coming back to life
Man being reincarnated as a dog
Man turning into a dog
Man turning into Santa Claus

Why not discuss something more persuasive like near-death experiences?

jewish philosopher said...

Even fiction must be based on something which people can imagine. For example, we cannot imagine more than more three spacial dimensions

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/dimensions.html

and therefore you won't find movies depicting this.

An anonymous atheist recently claimed:

You say: "The existence of the human soul is proven by the fact that we see ourselves as inhabiting our bodies but we don't identify ourselves by it."

No, I don't think we do see ourselves this way at all.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/03/rip-my-little-friend.html?showComment=1301367765370#c7491612043766818430

If indeed true, how would this "Source Code" movie be comprehensible?

I like the near death experience idea, however atheists will reject it as being merely the brain's reaction to low oxygen levels. I would tend to believe something more than that is happening, but the proof is a little shaky.

jewish philosopher said...

Also, although inhabiting someone else's body is science fiction, I don't think any reviewer has pointed out that we don't even "inhabit" our own bodies, but rather we ARE our bodies.

So again, the existence of the souls seems to be universal and intuitive.

Anonymous said...

"we intuitively see ourselves as inhabiting our bodies but we don't identify ourselves by it."

Big deal if we do. our brain plays tricks on us.

Everything else in your post is too stupid for more comment.

NC said...

I believe that the philosopher David Hume asserted that if we are able to conceive of something logically is most likely exists. This was a belief grounded in Scottish Common Sense philosophy.

However, our methods of knowledge have advanced quite a bit sense then, and using "common sense" as source of information about complex topics is a risky endeavor....

Jeff said...

The body is real in that we have proof that it exists - insofar as as one can trust one's physical sensations. The reality of the soul is merely an intuitive process (as you yourself concede) that requires one to make assumptions upon the nature of reality. If one cannot see physical evidence of a things existence then one is merely making a set of assumptions, and have not proved anything.

jewish philosopher said...

So from an atheist point of view:

- We are all hallucinating. (see this post)

- There is no more reason to rescue a boy run over by car than there is to rescue a dog run over by a car.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/03/rip-my-little-friend.html

- There is no more reason to punish a human criminal than there is to punish any animal or a machine which misbehaves.
http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2010/05/crime-and-punishment.html

Anonymous said...

Jeff:

You have to assume that seeing physical evidence of something is proof. So empirical evidence is ultimately no better than intuition.

Jeff said...

Our reality is based on empirical evidence that follows a set of natural laws. Although one can ask if these laws, and perception are in fact real, one does live by them and they are a constant. Intuitive proof is not verifiable, or constant, and is inherently different than empirical proof.

NC said...

Looks like a cool movie.

Anyway, JP: Your observations about the existence of a soul are really more a description of a phenomena, rather than proof of the existence of anything discrete.

Example: A smile. Is a "smile" an existing, independent entity? Does a "smile" exist beyond the person smiling? Of course not. But you see "evidence" of it, it is a series of actions/phenomena which you interpret to mean something.

Same with a "soul"-- you're just describing feelings and behaviors, rather than showing the existence of something separate.

So if you want to define soul as "that property which gives us the feeling of being ourselves and having will"-- well, I have no problem with that, although it does not really add to our knowledge or understanding. But to assert any other properties or characteristics of the soul-- including an independent or perpetual existence, that it is uniquely human, etc, that simply does not follow, nor is there any evidence for that.

So we aren't hallucinating any more than when we see a "smile". And we evolved to have empathy with our loved ones, and extend it to others in our community, out of enlightened self-interest. Only a psychopath would not understand that.

jewish philosopher said...

"Intuitive proof is not verifiable"

A mental impression is evidence. For example, if I have a memory of seeing John Doe shoot and kill Henry Doe, John could be put to death on that basis of that memory, although no one can see or feel that memory. It's something which exists only in my mind. Certainly if thousands of people have that same memory, it would constitute valid proof.

"to assert any other properties or characteristics of the soul-- including an independent or perpetual existence"

We all perceive it as having an independent existence, as this movie demonstrates.

"we evolved to have empathy with our loved ones"

I have heard atheists explain that they naturally empathize with other humans because we are all the same species.

What I find disturbing about this is that it reduces all ethics and morality to merely an irrational emotion. It leaves everything up the individuals feelings, and obviously different people have different temperaments. Some people might empathize with all humans, others with all animal life, others only with their own nationality, race, gender, religion, neighbors, family or no one but themselves. No feeling is more good or evil than any other; it's just how I feel.

Anonymous said...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/04/shades_of_gray.php

Keep blathering about souls and other harmful deceits, JP. Meanwhile, people are killing and dying in the name of your god, spurred by publicity hounds and CYA politicians.

Jones and Karzai--they are both Jews. The soul and the bible/koran--they are figments of the human imagination. They all kill. Happily, greedily--that all kill.

This is you. The same killer promoting the same killing message. Why? I can only guess: to compensate for your sense of lacking a real identity. Make no mistake, however, that you glorify the killing. You love it, you thirst for it, and it troubles you not at all.

Great work, JP. Great morally superior work.

You should wish to be as moral as P.Z.

Jeff said...

Does history help us understand the nature of the soul? Since the soul is something which, by your claim, is a universal intuition; it should follow that the actions of the possessors of this truth would behave accordingly. If so how do you explain the long history of genocide, ethnic-cleansing, and violence against others, all of whom possess the same soul as ourself?

Anonymous said...

Jeff:

It is only your intuition that empirical is better than your intuition.

jewish philosopher said...

"Jones and Karzai--they are both Jews."

Who is Jones?

"it should follow that the actions of the possessors of this truth would behave accordingly"

We also have, thanks to soul, free will and can choose evil.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 9:21:

Are you refering to Jim Jones? He was an atheist. And atheists like Stalin and Mao killed more people than any theists ever did

jewish philosopher said...

I thought maybe Tom Jones, but he's not Jewish either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Jones_(singer)

Jeff said...

There is a difference between the two, empirical evidence can be checked against a set of rules to determine its validity. This is not the case with something one intuits. I would say that a proposition that can be validated is inherently superior to one that cannot.

Jeff said...

True, someone can choose evil, but how can we test the proposition that we have Godly souls? A Godly soul should endow its bearer with nobility, virtue, justice, and other similar attributes. Now if the soul is so strongly felt, as to be an acknowledged universal condition, one would find only a small minority choosing selfishly, and committing evil. On the other hand, one should find that throughout history humanity has acted with goodwill, and charity towards their fellow. Since we know that this is not the case, it must reflect on the attributes of the soul.

It would follow that the attributes of this soul are greed, selfishness, and a propensity towards evil.

Anonymous said...

Terry Jones, pastor in Florida, who burns Korans.

Anonymous said...

Stalin went to seminary.

What's religion to blame for?
# 9/11
# The repression of women according to Islamic law and custom
# Deaths from AIDS because of Catholic importuning against birth control
# The sexual molestation of children by Catholic priests
# The horrible and often lifelong guilt instilled in children by Catholic priests who scare them with thoughts of hell and constant admonitions about sin
# Ditto for Islam, which threatens apostates and doubters with eternal hellfire
# The deaths and injuries due to Sunni/Shiite conflict: arguments about who are Mohammed’s true successors.
# The deaths of children whose parents relied on faith healing
# The persecution of gays on religious grounds, as occurs in both America and the Middle East
# The pedophilic marriage customs of some Mormon sects
# The mutilation by acid of Afghani girls who dare attend school
# Sexual fear and loathing
# Blanket prohibitions on abortion even when the mother is raped or her life is at stake; the persecution of single mothers in countries like Ireland
# Opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia
# The fleecing of the innocent by Scientology (if you consider it a religion)

jewish philosopher said...

" A Godly soul should endow its bearer with nobility, virtue, justice, and other similar attributes."

Straw man argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

In fact, see genesis 8:21

And the LORD smelled the sweet savour; and the LORD said in His heart: 'I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0108.htm#21

"What's religion to blame for?"

Not my religion. Straw man again.

NC said...

" It leaves everything up the individuals feelings, and obviously different people have different temperaments."

No, it's combined with social contract. That's what communities and nation states do. And man's nature is (mostly) compliant with rules of his own society. If he is not-- he is punished.

"A mental impression is evidence."

It can also be dead wrong, as seen in many cases.

"We all perceive it as having an independent existence, as this movie demonstrates."

Again, that is your interpretation of a feeling, not an entity. We all feel anger. Does that mean anger "exists"?

jewish philosopher said...

"And man's nature is (mostly) compliant with rules of his own society."

And as we know, societies can vary tremendously, from pacifist Amish to new guinea cannibals. So if morality is based on my allegedly natural empathy for creatures similar to myself, you may still come up with anything and everything. The Nazis murdered "subhumans" while the communists killed "class enemies". Americans today may throw you in jail for hiring someone who is not American.

"It can also be dead wrong, as seen in many cases."

Again, the old atheist claim that nothing is what it seems. Prove it.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 8:57

Stalin went to smeinary in his youth. He heard about evolution and became an atheist. During his career as dictator he killed a lot of clegymen in an attempt to end religion.

And while some religious people have done bad things, the facts are that the worst mass murderers where atheist, a disproportionate number of mass murderers were atheists, and every time atheists run a country, they wind up commiting mass murder. So the numbers are against the atheists.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous:

Are you saying that Tim Jones is bad because he burned a Koran. P.Z. Myers, whom you mentioned above as a paragon of morality desecrated a host.

Anonymous said...

Jeff:

It is only your intuition that tells you that what can be chech empirically is better than that which cannot be checked.

Anonymous said...

PZ Myers put a nail in a cracker. Jones helped incite an easily-inflamed religion.

Anonymous said...

"Not my religion."

Yes, your religion. Christianity and Islam belong to you. Stop lying.

jewish philosopher said...

Glad to hear the catholic church belongs to me. Tell the pope I'm selling the Vatican.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 11:41:

But you put Catholics in the same category as Moslims.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 11:43:

I'm assuming that you are an evolutionist. That means that Hitler belongs to you.

NC said...

"Again, the old atheist claim that nothing is what it seems. Prove it.

Now there's a straw man. Who says NOTHING is what it seems? I only said that "feelings" don't always correspond to reality, and therefore cannot be used as a proof of the existence of an entity. And I provided you with examples of that. A smile. Anger. Optical illusions. Etc. No modern man uses feelings as the "sole" (pardon the pun) source of evidence for anything.

"And as we know, societies can vary tremendously, from pacifist Amish to new guinea cannibals."

"What I find disturbing about this is that it reduces all ethics and morality to merely an irrational emotion."

More like a subjective assessment. Yes. The hard truth is that morality is relative, even yours. I have proven to you that even the supposedly "objective" morality of the Torah is subjective. Deal with it.

jewish philosopher said...

"Now there's a straw man."

It's a common baseless assertion made by atheists.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/02/lame-duck-why-atheism-fails.html

"No modern man uses feelings as the "sole" (pardon the pun) source of evidence for anything."

The idea that what we perceive with our senses is real and not merely an hallucination is also just an assumption and sometimes is wrong.

"The hard truth is that morality is relative, even yours."

The atheist concept that "I empathize with creatures similar to myself." is really meaningless. Ultimately, anything can be rationalized with that. Orthodox Jews on the other hand have exact rules which seem to work pretty well.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2008/09/orthodox-jewish-crime.html

Anonymous said...

Hitler the Catholic. No, another one of yours.

Remember, the gods you worship (a composite of yawweh, baal, el, etc.) are extraordinary killers. The love killing and raping, particularly the out-group. That's your morality. Very clear. No grey areas for you. If they are not "us," they can be killed. It's totally OK.

Do I have this wrong at all? No, of course not.

Anonymous said...

"Catholics in the same category as Moslims."

Historically, there's not much difference.

Anonymous said...

"Orthodox Jews on the other hand have exact rules which seem to work pretty well."

Except they don't work well at all. See "Unpious."

jewish philosopher said...

I've seen unpious; it's no more impressive than any other antisemitic propaganda.

jewish philosopher said...

Out of a population of 2 million, I believe 1 orthodox Jew is in prison for murder, zero for forcible rape and probably few for any other violent crime.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 11:47

I'm a little confused because you said P.Z. didn't do anything wrong by desecrating the Host becuase Catholics aren't violent like Moslems. But now you are saying that they are the same.

And Hitler was rasined a Catholic. But if you read "Mein Kampf" (the whole book, not some cuttings and pastings) you'll find that his core belief system was Darwinism.
He made his beliefs even clearer in his second book.

He discussed his views on conventional religion. He had a utilitatrin approach. Religion was good for organizing society, but it was time to use a more scientific, that is Darwinian approach.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous at 1:50:

The rules Orthodox Jews follow work very well when it comes to Tzedakah, Tomchei Shabbos, Hatzala, Bikur Cholim, all the Chesed organizations, etc. etc. etc.

YC said...

JP, for someone who claims that he is "fighting atheism" and that the Lord God is punishing him for not doing it enough, your blog is extraordinarily repetitive, not to mention dreadfully boring. You use the SAME GOD DAMN "arguments" that you have been using for the past 5 GOD DAMN YEARS!

You even continue to allow your anal bead "Nathan" (whom we all know is really a sock puppet of you) to post his moronic parrotry.

Serious question, what are your thoughts on the revolutionary movements shaking the Arab world? You are probably the ONLY blogger to neglect mention of such crucial geopolitical events.

Why is your blog so repetitive? When have you come up with a novel argument in the past four years?

Because you have NOTHING. No further argument, and your only resort to the outside world is to do this. That is your answer to the exciting geopolitical developments across the Arab world, or the global decline in Judaism.

jewish philosopher said...

I think I detect a whiff of disrespect to My Holiness.

Shalmo said...

BRILLIANT detective work, Your Holiness...

[Rolls eyes!]

So what do you have to say?

What is your opinion on the revolutionary movements in Egypt and Libya, which toppled Mubarak and Kadaffi respectively, or the similar revolutions in Syria and Tunisia and Yemen? I know it is a distraction from your holy jihad (Jewhad?) against atheism, but seeing how repetitive you've gotten, you can take a well deserved break.

How about a MUCH MORE pertinent question? What do you have to say about the fact that Judaism:

* Suffers from net de-conversion (apostates or converts to rival religions such as Christianity or Islam greatly outnumber baalei teshuva or converts to Judaism).

* Virtually half of Orthodox Jews "frei out" many of them (in the USA at least) become Reform or Conservative Jews.

* In Israel, the only growth in adherence to the Judaic religion is among the Haredim, owing mostly to a very high fertility. However, seeing as the Haredim are a "fifth column" this may be more harmful than helpful to Israeli Jewry in the long run.

Will you address these challenges or retreat into your fantasy world?

jewish philosopher said...

This blog is called Jewish Philosopher not Middle East Philosopher. Check out CNN.com.

YC said...

Very well, Jewish (so-called) "Philosopher," but you avoided my MUCH MORE pertinent question. Since Judaism is so self-evident, why are so many Jews becoming Christians or Muslims? After all, your stale creationism + Kuzari applies about as much to Christianity and Islam. Only Christianity and Islam are not obscure dying cults like Judaism is. Do you have anything to say about this or another smartass comeback?

P.S. I am not holding my breath...

jewish philosopher said...

News flash: Most people are fools.

Anonymous said...

YC:

First of all, it has been my experience that when people resort to name calling it is because they have nothing intelligent to contribute.

Now, would you be so kind as to provide some evidence for the assertion that so many frum people leave? Or become Christians or Moslims? The frum community I live in is growing so fast I can'r keep up wiht al the new yeshivas and shuls being built.

And I taught in a Yeshiva for at risk boys. All my students are now frum functioning sdults. Some are learning in Kollel. So my personal experience causes me to doubt the assertion made above.

ksil said...

"Virtually half of Orthodox Jews "frei out" many of them (in the USA at least) become Reform or Conservative Jews."

and at least half of the other half are straight up orthoprax - they dont believe a word of it! even thought they clean their house for pesach...

NC said...

Anonymous:

You should be informed that YC/Shalmo is a self-hating Jew who converted to Islam. His thinly veiled antisemitism is hardly worth responding to. The term that we usually apply to somebody who abrogates his association with his own people and adopts the identity of their adversary is usually "traitor".

jewish philosopher said...

"at least half of the other half are straight up orthoprax"

I'm having my doubts about the faith of atheists as well.

http://jewishphilosopher.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-are-ye-fearful-o-ye-of-little-faith.html

ksil said...

"faith of atheists..."

i guess you dont know what atheists are/mean/believe....oh well.

LOL

jewish philosopher said...

I used to be one.

LOL

ksil said...

"I used to be one"

a monkey, yes. and now you are a useless bag of chemicals - i know thats hard for you to swallow...so just keeping living in your fantasy land world - enjoy it

jewish philosopher said...

No, an atheist.

Anonymous said...

And I used to be a theist. Big deal.

If the question is still the soul, you still have no reason to assert it exists. Heck, you admitted you didn't even know what it was or how to find out what it was!

So you're left with asserting the existence of something that has no clear definition and no means of being apprehended.

That's terrific. Believe in all that and more if it makes you feel better. But really, what makes you think you stand on superior moral ground than others?

Anonymous said...

ksil:

Would you be kind enough to present evidence that 50% of OJ's are orthoprax. I know that you are all, like, scientific, you konw that it is all about evidence.

jewish philosopher said...

"So you're left with asserting the existence of something that has no clear definition and no means of being apprehended."

Neither do gravity or magnetism.

Anonymous said...

"Neither do gravity or magnetism."

And hence, your stupidity returns. No need for further comment. Thanks for coming, folks!

YC said...

JP, why is it that you limit yourself to sarcasm, sardonic mockery, or ad hominems while you are logged in (because "most people are fools," HAA, good one!) but you only attempt rational argument after logging out and posting anonymously.

To respond to the arguments that you would not dare make while logged into your "Jewish Philosopher" profile:

"First of all, it has been my experience that when people resort to name calling it is because they have nothing intelligent to contribute."

Indeed! Speak for yourself. Dismissing most people as "fools" in the absence of argument is such an example.

"Now, would you be so kind as to provide some evidence for the assertion that so many frum people leave? Or become Christians or Moslims?"

I must admit that sources are not so easy to come by, but here are some...

Data from the Encyclopedia Britannica: Judaism was reported having -70,447 conversions per annum. That is a net de-conversion!

Also, Apostasy Among American Jews

And, The Direction of Denominational Switching in Judaism

"The frum community I live in is growing so fast I can'r keep up wiht al the new yeshivas and shuls being built... So my personal experience causes me to doubt the assertion made above."

Anecdotal evidence! I happen to see many radically secular youths from Orthodox (and I mean ultra-Orthodox, not Dati Leumi) households here in the Jewish state, so what's your point! Any growth in Judaism, Orthodox Judaism particularly, is solely due to the very high birthrate among the Haredim. Haredi Jews happen to be the most fertile demographic among Israeli Jewry. They are also the poorest. So much for sustainability!

Not to mention, as ksil says, an untold proportion of Orthodox Jews are really Orthoprax. JP, you have yet to explain why God would allow his true religion (assuming that it is Judaism) to die.

"I used to be [an atheist]."

JP, we all know by now that you are completely full of shit. After all, you claim to have been a non-practicing Lutheran searching for God (not the same as an "atheist") in your alleged life story. So which is it?

NC said...
You should be informed that YC/Shalmo is a self-hating Jew who converted to Islam. His thinly veiled antisemitism is hardly worth responding to. The term that we usually apply to somebody who abrogates his association with his own people and adopts the identity of their adversary is usually "traitor".


NC, you fall in a funny category. The overwhelming majority of people come here to pick bones with JP, who is alone (notwithstanding his anonymous sock puppetry). Frumsters like Garnel and NC do not really like JP because he embarrasses them but they feel obligated to defend him against "enemies of Jewry."

Call me a "self-hating Jew" or "traitor" all you want. Personally, I would not live in Israel if I had much choice in the matter. Contrast that with Haredi hypocrites who live under the Jewish state whose very existence they oppose. Hypocrites like Neturei Karta, descendants of European Ashkenazi Jews who settled Palestine around the same time the secular Zionists did. JP himself sought refuge and religious education in the Jewish state whose existence he opposes. Who is the real traitor?

jewish philosopher said...

"And hence, your stupidity returns."

The appeal to ridicule again.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html

Anonymous said...

YC:

When did I ever call anyone a fool?I merely respond to name calling by observing that it contributes nothing.

I said that my experience causes me to doubt the assertions about apostsy in the frum community that were made without evidence. Scientific types like you like evidence.

And I know a lot of Baalei Teshuva. So my experience casue me to question the assertion made that the growth of Charei communities is only due to the high fecundity of OJ's.

Anonymous said...

YC:

I scanned the articles you linked. Now maybe my reading comprehension is weak, or the firs two articles were talking about all Jews, not just the Orthodox. And according to the third article, as near as I can tell, the turnover rate is lowest among those who were raised Orthodox.

And I'm still waiting the evidence that so many OJ's are Orthoprax.

Anonymous said...

I think I know what is happening here. YC can't counter my arguements, so he says I don't even exist. This an extreme form of the Ad Hominum fallicy. Interesting.

Nathan

Anonymous said...

"And hence, your stupidity returns."

The appeal to ridicule again.

It's not ridicule, JP. It's an observation.

NC said...

Nathan--For whatever reasons YC/Shalmo has a lot of resentment for Jews and Judaism. You need to call him out on it, or else you'll just get into a google search quote mining contest.

JRKmommy said...

Conversion rates mean very little when you are dealing with a religion that doesn't seek converts, and actually makes the process fairly difficult.