From: DRAGONFLY           
To: SAAVIK              
Subject: Page 2         
Date & Time: 05/22/91 13:23:50
Message Number 17014

   Now, I expect both Turtle and Chaz to jump over me when I write
how I've seen their opinions:
    
   Turtle jumped into the middle of the discussion with the quote:
"That's why religious discussions are not logical."  (I.E. They're not
verifiable, therefore they're not logical.)  All I've been saying is
that a religious discussion CAN be logical (i.e. it can have logic
being applied to it), but the assumptions might not be verifiable.
    
   Chaz and I have been hammering out our differences of definition.
He (and Turtle, I might add) seem to think "logical" means the same
thing as "true."  In other words,  something isn't "logical" according
to him, if the assumptions aren't verifiable.
    
    (One thing that surprises me:  No one has tried to jump on me for
saying that something wouldn't be "true" if it's not verifiable.  Praise
Occam for that!)
    
--------------------------------
    
   There's another discussion with Turtle that seems to have petered 
out.  It was (at one point) about different moral viewpoints.
                        //Dragonfly//