I don't believe in Christianity primarily because of the brain

[Drich]

Despite what your peers say (logical fallacy: "Ad populum" ) Phycology says there is indeed a soul:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/bio...e-says-yes

So No I do not agree

I follow the evidence not popular thought to identify fact, you might want to give that a try.

In order to commit a fallacy, you have to use it in an argument, which SerenelyBlue did not. Thanks for beginning your post with a complete irrelevancy.

Check the definition sport. (or are you just trying to make me abide by how you personally define words?) A logical fallacy is coming to a result or premise based on faulty reasoning. In this case (of the OP) the logical fallacy: "Ad populum" is identified because the OP is verifying or validating his beliefs by the qualifying question "do you agree?" To validate belief based on what the majority would say on an atheist web site is seeking or playing to the popular prevailing thought. Which is "faulty reasoning."

The term "logical fallacy" refers to the concept of making an error in terms of reasoning. It is crucial to understand logical fallacies so that they can be identified and avoided when attempting to persuade.
http://examples.yourdictionary.com/examp...llacy.html

Seems to me you made a factual error, that is you assigned the definition of "informal fallacy" (which is a TYPE of logical fallacy) to the term "logical fallacy."
"Informal Fallacy – This is an inductive argument. "

Phycology is the scientific study of algae.

Again, maybe if you guys could remove the stick up you butts about how words were used, I or someone like me couldn't then take said stick from you and beat/verbally whip you with the words you are correcting. Or are you going to try and sell some more 'logical fallacy' to me?

An opinion blog post in Psychology Today is not peer-reviewed medical research (and the author seems to be another Chopra type claiming quantum weirdness=eternal soul).

You are 1/2 right. Physiology Today is considered a magazine, but with the caveat: "its intent is to make psychology literature more accessible to the general public. The magazine focuses on behavior and covers a range of topics including psychology, neuroscience, relationships, sexuality, parenting, health (including from the perspectives of alternative medicine), work,[3] and the psychological aspects of current affairs.[1]"
According to it's wiki page, the authors of said articles are written a wide variety of psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, medical doctors, anthropologists, sociologists, and science journalists. In following it's mission statement peer reviewed articles are indeed apart of every single issue.

Anyone who read your post and the linked blog post and believed it knows less now than they would have if they had skipped it. Your claim to follow the evidence is completely laughable, you don't even seem to know what evidence of a soul would be. Hint: 'we don't understand something' or 'we don't understand everything' does not mean 'souls are realz!'.

Do you?? Do you have any idea of what evidence of a soul would be? To describe its basic attribute according to this article it is an intangible consciousnesses. Science can not explain self awareness, or identify a physical cause for it. Which is what the theory of Biocentrism does, and all this article does is borrow the term soul from religion and apply it to the theory as it seems to be what it is the theory is describing

IF you took time to read the article you'd note that it was focused On defining what a soul is, and how it fits into the larger theory of Biocenterism.

I'll have more respect for you if it turns out you didn't even read the blog post and just grabbed the first thing on the internet that sounded 'sciencey' that you thought supported your position. If you read it and thought it was really evidence in your favor, that's just sad.

And I'd have more respect for you if you would simply acknowledge that you are not the fulcrum from which every scientific argument must be weighed. Meaning you did not feel the need to alpha/bully those who do not follow the same path as you do. Maybe one day you will have enough 'hair on your sack' to understand that no one has a complete lock on truth, that in your world of 'theory and evidence' there are no absolutes only best guesses. And to defend your 'best guess' as truth against someone elses 'best guess' is beyond foolish.

But since I did not simply look for a sciencie article and you will never see your best guess' as anything more than absolute truth (till the "Ad populum" consensus says other wise,) we are both destined to be disappointed with each other.

But the thing is I'm good with that. I CAN live and let live. I don't need you to subscribe to what I believe or why. I am good with whatever fate you choose for yourself. Where as you guys tend to act like rabid dogs when someone does not fall in with what and why you believe what you believe.