Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."
As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.
In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.
* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.
|
The only violation of logic that I see here is in your reasoning. Your conclusion doesn't follow the premises, which is a Non Sequitur Fallacy. "On the other hand, few if any people living on earth likely believe that the spaghetti monster has created much of anything." This is a Appeal To Common Belief Fallacy. Whether many people believe in the Spaghetti Monster, God or not has no barring on its logical accuracy. The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" is an analogy used to show certain logical fallacies committed by some religious groups. #3 is Poisoning The Well Fallacy, and Ad Hominem Abusive fallacies. |
answered on Sunday, Mar 29, 2020 11:14:24 AM by Jason Mathias | |
Jason Mathias Suggested These Categories |
|
Comments |
|
|
|
Not a False Equivalence nor an Appeal to Extremes on Dawkins' part since "God" and the FSM both exist as non falsifiable premises, therefore both have equal weight to either exist or not. |
|||||||||
answered on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2020 12:58:30 AM by Scott A. Shepler | ||||||||||
Scott A. Shepler Suggested These Categories |
||||||||||
Comments |
||||||||||
|
|
There can be no illogicality here because The Flying Spaghetti Monster is itself a god: the god of the Pastafarians, whose deeply held beliefs must be treated with respect and sensitivity. The FSM is not to be compared to the Invisible Pink Unicorn, which atheists claim can substitute the word "God" in any context and make as much sense, eg "I swear by almighty Invisible Pink Unicorn" or "So help me Invisible Pink Unicorn."
|
||||||||||||||
answered on Wednesday, Feb 12, 2020 08:58:34 PM by Kenny | |||||||||||||||
Kenny Suggested These Categories |
|||||||||||||||
Comments |
|||||||||||||||
|
|
This would be the simplest possible definition, which very few people subscribe. My searches of "God" resulted in far more detailed definitions that align with Christianity. For example, the source you referenced (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god) has a primary definition of the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped (as in Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism) as creator and ruler of the universe.
This is an analogy. What you are doing are choosing ways in which God and the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) are different; analogies look at the similarities between two things. One can compare apples and oranges, in that they alike because they are both fruits. Dawkins, and many other philosophers, use the FMS to compare to the Christian God that comes with a laundry list of supposed properties that are unfalsifiable and have no evidence... just like the noodly appendages of the FSM. In short, if you Strawman Fallacy one's analogy, you are the one committing a fallacy. If you have any evidence of Dawkins or anyone saying something similar to "a creator of the universe is just as outrageous to believe in as the FSM" then they would be guilty of a Weak Analogy . |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
answered on Monday, Feb 10, 2020 04:53:33 PM by Bo Bennett, PhD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bo Bennett, PhD Suggested These Categories |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|