(April 5, 2012 at 8:15 am)genkaus Wrote: Actually, 3 is an invalid conclusion. Empathy may be a by-product of evolution - that does not mean it inherits all of evolution's characteristics.
On reflection, I think Chad's specific logic fallacy employed here is Poisoning the Well.
1. Unfavorable information about person X is presented, whether or not true.
2. Person X advocates A, B and C.
3. A, B, and C must not be true since person X is such a jerk.
Using another example:
1. Newton believed in crazy things like alchemy.
2. Newton gave us the theory of gravity
3. The theory of gravity must be a crazy idea like alchemy
And Chad's argument was:
1. Evolution is an amoral process
2. Evolution produced empathy.
3. Therefore empathy must be bad because something amoral produced it.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
