no, you misunderstand me, i thought your premise was that unless something was observed then it would be considered unreasonable. following that train of thought, i took it to mean that since no one observed the big-bang theory (after all, it is just a theory, right?) then it would be unreasonable to assume it was the origin of our universe. i truly am not opposed to reason, i just allow for more possibilities than you, i guess. certainly if you think the big bang theory (or some other one) is reasonable, i won't try to dissuade you, i choose to think that it would be impossible for such a random act to occur. i choose to believe in a Creator.
You both are "dead" wrong about this!:lol: People cause countless millions of people's deaths not religion. Religion alone can't hurt anyone but you add the corruption of people who "think" they get a message and lookout. Kinda like Ahmadijahd and the halo around his head that was seen by his fanatics, my thought is that this is the Uranium they are using.:lol: There are plenty of people that dominated and killed people just from ego and power alone, they had nothing to do with religion. So its people that are the problem and not religion.
You entirely miss the point of my post. I made no statement of belief regarding anything including the afterlife. My point was about logical arguments. It has nothing to do with Billy Graham or any other item of religious faith. It was simply about the fallacy within Deeks argument. Kemerling is an international expert on logic. He knows a great deal more than Billy Graham, you, or I on the subject.
I couldn't agree more and I have said so many times. But martin and the Deekster were making statements about "lies" and "proof" which means they were talking about facts, not faith. If we are discussing facts then deductive reasoning and the rules of logical arguments are applicable.
I wasn't defending martins scattershot, argumentative style of debate, nor was I making any statement about God and the afterlife. I was suggesting the logical fallacy of Deek's response to martin's comment by asking him to prove something doesn't exist instead of responding with with proof that it does. To respond with proof that an afterlife exists would have shot down martin's argument. To respond with with a demand that martin prove that is does not exist is a logically irrelevant argument that does not answer martin's statement. Also it attempts to shift the burden of proof back to the questioner, another logical flaw.
I guess to sum it up, we interpret Deek's question differently. I didn't take it as him asking martin from proof, I took it as a subtle reminder that there is no proof either way. So yes, if either Deek or martin have formed their belief based solely on the fact there is no evidence to the contrary, then I would agree the textbook generalization you posted applies. However, I don't believe this is the case (ok, maybe with martin, but I can't say that for sure).
Perhaps you are correct. I've always said we need a smiley that indicates when we are being cynical. It's always hard to tell, when you cannot hear the voice inflection or see them rolling their eyes. And some of us are extremely cynical. :grin:
this argument is very simple. 1) martin accuses the pope of lying 2) i reminded him of his lecture on lies and lying by stating that, since there is no proof either way, it is impossible to call any religious statements lies, so i was simply demanding proof from him that his statements are untrue before he is able to call them lies 3) martin comes back and says that it is basically a lie to teach as true things which cannot be verified (often, in the Christian community, given that Biblical inerrancy is established, we often teach believers by stating common worldviews are lies; e.g. the idea that each person is in control of his or her own resources is a lie according to the Bible, and many Christians struggle with ownership and control in their lives)
