You're doing it again, Ti. I never said that empirical evidence was the only evidence, or that things must be proven empirically for someone to have a right to believe them. I know this probably a lot better than you do, as I follow a faith based solely and entirely on experience and personal gnosis. But note what she said to elicit that response from me:

She was stating that there was a soul, objectively, and that you cannot create a soul, objectively. You cannot do that when the subject is by its very nature subjective and unprovable and not something that can even be examined, and if you do, you should be expected to prove it objectively because it was you who brought it into that sphere to begin with. You obviously thought it could be proven, otherwise you would have left it in the sphere of the subjective or hypothetical.

That was my entire problem with what she said, that she was stating this baseless theory like it was fact and starting with that as the base line. There is no room for differing opinions when you start off like that. I'm fine keeping things in the subjective, but not when one person places their personal experience in the objective. It is why I have, aside from a very few choice people, stopped discussing religion and spirituality with Christians. I know you'll take that as an inflammatory statement, but they just by and large cannot view me and my beliefs as equal, and are so quick to talk about their faith as objective while guffawing when I do the same about my own. It's rude and more than a bit self-absorbed, and I just will not put up with it.

And I'm fairly certain Amy understood all this (correct me if I'm wrong), so that whole post really wasn't necessary.