Perhaps the pen is mighter than the sword, but IF this sword represents the force... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DzcOCyHDqc
On Oct 29, 2:11 pm, "Liz Purkrabek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The philosophy of Han Solo: > > Han Solo: "Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good > blaster at your side, kid." > > Luke: "You don't believe in the Force, do you?" > Han Solo: "Kid, I've flown from one side of this galaxy to the other, and > I've seen a lot of strange stuff, but I've never seen *anything* to make me > believe that there's one all-powerful Force controlling everything. 'Cause > no mystical energy field controls *my* destiny. It's all a lot of simple > tricks and nonsense." > > Liz > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clogtowner > Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 9:09 AM > To: Memphis Freethought Alliance > Subject: Re: Thinking Freely about Freethought > > Hi y'all - I don't say that atheism is a prerequisite of freethought. > I think Michael is a freethinker. There are many positions one could > take, that do not involve an unsubstantiated belief in the > supernatural, which I would call freethought. > I can't follow the logic of your argument about Han Solo - is he a > philosopher that I'm unfamiliar with?- I'll look him up. Nevertheless, > if he is using logic, reason and evidence to support his belief in a > God then he should make me familiar with the process and I'll join > him. > > On Oct 29, 12:20 am, Aaron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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. > > > ===- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
