One of the issues in the assessment of a logical argument is determining the existence of logical fallacies within the argument and their nature. Among the fallacies of relevance are Appeal to Force , Appeal to Pity , Appeal to Emotion , Appeal to Authority , Appeal to Ignorance , and Irrelevant Conclusion. Appeal to Ignorance is what we are dealing with here. Again from Kemerling:
So does money and land and pretty much everything else. Rational people who rely on reason usually don't kill at all. How many Catholics have blown themselves up in the name of religion? How many Christians kill at all in the name of their God? Few, and the ones who do are condemmed. Ok, what irational system did the capitalists who slaughtered the Indians in the American west have faith in. Probably capitalism.
based on whose supposition? someone who was lost in the bowels of academia years ago? exactly what credentials does kemerling bring to the table other than the "rules of engagement" academia prescribed at an earlier date. exactly why is kemerling "right" and Billy Graham wrong? because some professor said so? sounds kind of like carbon dating to me. why have you decided belief in an afterlife in an appeal to ignorance? because you can't see it, touch it? you prefer to believe that the creation of the cosmos was a random event? great! from where i sit, that is a far greater leap of faith than belief in God.
not in the way that religion does. for example, if jews only cared about land they would have quit fighting ages ago. they care about "holy" land. that goes through generations. with religion, people take up the fights of their parents. they just dont do that as much over other things. because ordinary people of reason are individuals and do not care about things done against their mystical tribe. i do not care about things that happened to my group before i was alive. i have no group. i am an individual. religions keep people from thinking like individuals over generations. anything that does that is bad. correct i am not the greatest student of history, but my guess is it could be in the millions. no system is perfect. and indians sucked anyways. also smarter capitalists might have enslaved or befriended those injuns instead. that is another topic i guess.
These arguments work only on things that can be proven. It can be proven that there is no life on the moons of Jupiter. The afterlife will never be proven or disproven. Belief with science and belief through faith should not be judged with the same principles.
there is a thing called reality. it exists and are there are things about it that just are. you make observations about reality and you can assert things based on these observations. you do not just go around william-nilly making up things and asserting them based on nothing.
martin was asked to prove his position. He can't. Just because he can't doesn't require anyone to believe the contrary as fact simply because he failed to provide evidence there is no afterlife, and his inability to do so has no bearing on my beliefs whatsoever. As usual, he will begin by stating without a doubt there is no God and no afterlife. However, from time to time, when he gets worn down and loses interest, he will back pedal and confess that even though he thinks the notion of God and faith is ridiculous, he does not know this for certain. So, would not a proper response to the original question be to state there is no proof of my position, however, I am of the belief that .blah blah blah............Now wouldn't that be the correct way for both sides to state their position, rather than throwing out absolutes?
right, this is what we are trying to tell 157. red takes a very friendly approach to the difference here because he is a moderate gentleman. but i like to define the difference between faith and science BS and non-BS. reality and fantasy.
you simply are not reading. never once have i done this. i would appreciate if you would not tell lies about what i say. that is cheap and dishonest and you are terrible for doing it. i have explicitly said this is not my claim many many times over and over and over. ****ing cut it out. this is a total misrepresentation, but for once i do not have the time to destroy it. later.
