>A ==> B
>therefore not A
>It is a valid logical structure, Tim (draw your own truth tables).
But look closely, Eric, "not B" is NOT the case. It is "I don't want to accept to possiblity of B" and "If B then all our work seems useless" that leads to "therefore not A" in this example:
>Wrong will win against
>right. And as soon as we concede that, TCS may as well give
>up, or merge with the Treating Children like Shit List. This
>is a core value we can't compromise on."
Maybe you'll see it more clearly if I put it in terms you're more used to dealing with with a critical eye:
"To condone the idea that there is no God or afterlife -- to do anything less than wholeheartedly oppose every last instance of secular humanism -- is to concede that our lives have no meaning beyond day-to-day existence, that there is no morality other than that we make up as we go along. And as soon as we concede that, we may as well give up, or merge with the Treating Each Other Like Shit list. This is a core value we can't compromise on."
Exactly the same logical structure to this agrument, Eric. Does that mean you believe in God now too?