That's all well and good, but it seems beside the point. Consider this syllogism:
Freethought is the use of logic, reason and evidence instead of tradition, emotion or dogma to determine beliefs. Han Solo determines his beliefs (including his belief in God) using logic, reason and evidence instead of tradition, emotion or dogma. Therefore, Han Solo is a freethinker. Where is the formal fallacy in that? You can argue that the minor premise is improbable, but so what? A negative conclusion would require adding atheism to the major premise, but that's precicely what the essay is about! That's begging the question. To argue effectively against the ideas in the essay, one must offer compelling reasons why atheism should be a prerequisite of freethought rather than a consequence of it. Aaron http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/lowder1.html On Oct 28, 10:52 pm, Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <<Clog, I don't understand. Are you incapable of thinking > hypothetically, or are you just being stubborn because you don't like > where this particular conversation might lead?>> > > Clog is making an inductive argument: > === > All efforts at using logic and reason to demonstrate the existence of > a god have resulted in unsound arguments. Therefore, no sound > arguments exist and thus anyone who believes in a god does so through > faith. > === --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
