with the standard rules of logical argumentation. He said he was very similar to Dawkins. Peterpieman Hi guys, I think Bnonn misunderstands my point about Stuarts comment being backward. ""Different conclusions are a result either bad logic, or the other factor needed for sound argumentation, namely TRUE PREMISES"" This sounds to me as though Stuart has already decided that different conclusion are wrong to begin with, which is backwards. If something is real then I think it should be repeatable and objectively observable. If something was real then, of course, it's not repeatable. I have no doubt that many christians such as yourselves have contrived your epistemologies so that christianity wins. But do you not think that muslims and jews and hindus do this? You are no different from them. I think if us three were born in Saudi Arabia, you two would be Muslims and I would still be an atheist! No, I think there is a far more sensible explanation to why the evidence for christianity is always in old books or in arguments with which you have to be already biased to agree with: it is no different to any other religion. ttp://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz D Bnonn Tennant This sounds to me as though Stuart has already decided that different conclusion are wrong to begin with, which is backwards. Even if Stuart's conclusion on some given issue is wrong, it stands to reason that since truth is exclusive, only one conclusion is right. Therefore, the various other different conclusions