LightGigantic's Defense Thread

[lightgigantic]

Sarkus

There's a difference between being 100% true to the religion you hold and being 100% sure that God exists.

One can be 100% sure God exists but not actually be religious - so I'm talking theists here, rather than religious (i.e. just dealing with the belief in God aspect).

Its not clear what is the distinction between being religious and being 100% convinced of gods existence since, at least according to my understanding, religion culminates in granting the experiences necessary to have a 100% conviction in gods existence.

For instance one person is praying to god for a new car and a pay raise - someone else is praying to have the abilitity to render service to god with or without material facility - obviouslythe more one is capable of being "religious" outside of conditions of happiness/distress and other dualities, the more they are convinced about the nature of god. And th emore they are situated in doubt about god, the more they take shelter of secondary things.

 

[Sarkus]

Its not clear what is the distinction between being religious and being 100% convinced of gods existence since, at least according to my understanding, religion culminates in granting the experiences necessary to have a 100% conviction in gods existence.

Being a theist is not equal to being religious - although the two are obviously linked. One can be a theist without religion.

 

[swivel]

Thanks for coming in with your fortnightly ad hom - guess we will hear from you again in another two weeks

I love how the people that don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is are the ones that throw the term around with wild abandon.

An ad hominem is not a put-down or a personal attack. It is the fallacy of directing an argument away from the facts and towards the person. A common type of ad hominem is an appeal to profession. A lawyer friend tells you that litigation is a necessary facet to a well-working legal system and you reply, "Of course you think that - You are a LAWYER!". That is an ad hominem.

Calling someone an idiot is not an ad hominem. It is just an insult. If someone says that they are against abortion, and you say, "You're an idiot". That isn't ad hominem either. It is tangential. However, if you were to have said, "You're wrong because you are an idiot", then you have committed an ad hominem.

Most importantly, it is perfectly OK to insult someone if you can back it up with some evidence. Then it is not an ad hominem. Lightgigantic obviously does not know what an ad hominem is, as I have seen him misuse this term dozens of times over and over. Because of this observation, I can assume that Lightgigantic is not as smart as he thinks he is. Or, he uses the term as a shut-off switch due to his inability to argue the points, much as someone would use the word "racist" to kill a discussion.

So, Lightgigantic is either an idiot, or he is immoral. (or both)

And that is an example of what you would mistakenly call an ad hominem. Don't forget, when the subject being debated is your ignorance, any evidence pointing towards your ignorance is NOT off-subject. And therefore not an ad hominem.

My advice is to stay away from Wikipedia as a source from which to learn your Latin and syllogisms.

 

[S.A.M.]

I love how the people that don't know what an ad hominem fallacy is are the ones that throw the term around with wild abandon.

An ad hominem is not a put-down or a personal attack. It is the fallacy of directing an argument away from the facts and towards the person. A common type of ad hominem is an appeal to profession. A lawyer friend tells you that litigation is a necessary facet to a well-working legal system and you reply, "Of course you think that - You are a LAWYER!". That is an ad hominem.

Calling someone an idiot is not an ad hominem. It is just an insult. If someone says that they are against abortion, and you say, "You're an idiot". That isn't ad hominem either. It is tangential. However, if you were to have said, "You're wrong because you are an idiot", then you have committed an ad hominem.

Most importantly, it is perfectly OK to insult someone if you can back it up with some evidence. Then it is not an ad hominem. Lightgigantic obviously does not know what an ad hominem is, as I have seen him misuse this term dozens of times over and over. Because of this observation, I can assume that Lightgigantic is not as smart as he thinks he is. Or, he uses the term as a shut-off switch due to his inability to argue the points, much as someone would use the word "racist" to kill a discussion.

So, Lightgigantic is either an idiot, or he is immoral. (or both)

And that is an example of what you would mistakenly call an ad hominem. Don't forget, when the subject being debated is your ignorance, any evidence pointing towards your ignorance is NOT off-subject. And therefore not an ad hominem.

My advice is to stay away from Wikipedia as a source from which to learn your Latin and syllogisms.

BS. On a discussion forum, if you call someone an idiot, its obvious that you are commenting on your impression of his personal character based on the opinions he expressed on a post. No need to dot all the i's or cross all the t's to get a message. Unless you know someone personally off this board, ALL your insults are directed towards a person here due to opinions expressed on a post.

The very fact of calling a person ignorant on a discussion forum is an ad hominem.

 

[Godless]

Swivel; Sam is right. There are different interpretations of ad-homs, you got a point, though dirrect attack at a person is also ad-hom since you are trying to derail the argument, by characterising your opponent inept, idiotic, irrational or what not! So the person whom this is said to, finds himself on the defencive sometimes totally derailing any argument he/she may have had! Good tactic, however sometimes, when idiotic crap is being laid out, one has to call on it!

Sarkus;
I have to side with Cole on this one, When I was a Catholic, I had my doubts as did many others, howeve I also find that there were some individuals who were also apsolutely sure, that a god exists. So my call is 50/50 on this one.
As for believing in god, and not being religious, we have a name for this: Deism. A deist believes in a supreme being, but believes the sumpreme being is in not involved in human affairs.

 

[Sarkus]

Sarkus;
I have to side with Cole on this one, When I was a Catholic, I had my doubts as did many others, howeve I also find that there were some individuals who were also apsolutely sure, that a god exists. So my call is 50/50 on this one.

Ah - but you were merely an atheist who didn't know it yet.
But fair enough - I guess we can all only speak from experience.

As for believing in god, and not being religious, we have a name for this: Deism. A deist believes in a supreme being, but believes the sumpreme being is in not involved in human affairs.

Yeah - I'm aware of Deism - but that's only one type on non-religious theism.
Someone who merely believes (100%) a god exists, even the Christian God, could still be non-religious - and just not really care about it, knowing that to lead a "good" life is enough for them.

 

[S.A.M.]

Swivel; Sam is right. There are different interpretations of ad-homs, you got a point, though dirrect attack at a person is also ad-hom since you are trying to derail the argument, by characterising your opponent inept, idiotic, irrational or what not! So the person whom this is said to, finds himself on the defencive sometimes totally derailing any argument he/she may have had! Good tactic, however sometimes, when idiotic crap is being laid out, one has to call on it!

Indulging in an ad-hom is a sign that you have given up. That you cannot debate with argument or reason.

Its also a sign of a total lack of imagination.

 

[Fire]

Or, he uses the term as a shut-off switch due to his inability to argue the points, much as someone would use the word "racist" to kill a discussion.

Bingo...At least in part. Anyone who persues idiotic, irrational and vague arguments and wants them respected, is pained by ad homs.

I don't think giving an ad hom to a genuine idiot is justified, but to someone who is deliberately idiotic, it is deserved.

 

[S.A.M.]

Bingo...At least in part. Anyone who persues idiotic, irrational and vague arguments and wants them respected, is pained by ad homs.

I don't think giving an ad hom to a genuine idiot is justified, but to someone who is deliberately idiotic, it is deserved.

Righto, moron.

Your inability to debate a philosophical construct does not translate as someone else's idiocy.

 

[swivel]

The very fact of calling a person ignorant on a discussion forum is an ad hominem.

Wrong, and precisely my point. It is only an ad hominem if you are ignoring the pertinent discussion points, and directing your argument towards something regarding the discusser. And again, there is the misconception in your post that ad hominems are bad things or insults. They aren't. Most ad hominems are neutral, or even positive.

If I ask you to trust the mathematics of a man because he is Asian, I am making an ad hominem fallacy. Appeals to authority are a special type of ad hominem, so common that they deserve their own Latin jargon. Trust him, he has a PhD. That is an ad hominem as well, though most would not be so generic, and call it argumentum ad verecundiam.

I was discussing ecological issues the other day and a friend pointed out that I was wrong about something because I drive a V8. Ad hominem. Nothing rude about his point, but he wasn't finding anything wrong in my argument, instead he pointed out what seemed to him a contradiction in my character.

All of this is germane to the discussion about LG because he brings up this cop-out all the time, and I have yet to see him use it accurately. And Sam just goes to show that he isn't alone in this. People who do all their arguing on forums have been brainwashed into thinking that ad hominem means something it doesn't. They have learned incorrectly because of the vast number of posters that feign intelligence by calling an insult an ad hominem, in the hopes that a little Latin will shield them from the burden of actually defending their points.

 

[KennyJC]

Your inability to debate a philosophical construct does not translate as someone else's idiocy.

What is the difference between philosophical musings and set beliefs that 'yes, there is a god in heaven' or 'yes, jesus was raised from the dead and bodily ascended to heaven'?

If religion was just philosophy that didn't require beliefs of it's more extravagant and supernatural claims, I would have no issue with religion.

The very fact of calling a person ignorant on a discussion forum is an ad hominem.

That may be, but if a creationist discredits evolution without obviously reading up on it, how is that not ignorance?

 

[Satyr]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8sKvG3EEwk

Those that most profess their humanity, as being something special and other than an animal nature, are the ones that eventually expose themselves to be nothing more than that which they pretend they are not.
The height of hypocrisy.

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5bN2aH0S0iU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5bN2aH0S0iU" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

[baumgarten]

What is the difference between philosophical musings and set beliefs that 'yes, there is a god in heaven' or 'yes, jesus was raised from the dead and bodily ascended to heaven'?

If religion was just philosophy that didn't require beliefs of it's more extravagant and supernatural claims, I would have no issue with religion.

Philosophy is not just a few interesing ideas that you can play with. The whole point of thinking about the world is to better understand it, and the whole point of understanding the world is to live by what you have learned. All philosophy is the search for truth, and that requires belief.

 

[KennyJC]

I hated that part of that documentary *shudder*

 

[KennyJC]

Philosophy is not just a few interesing ideas that you can play with. The whole point of thinking about the world is to better understand it, and the whole point of understanding the world is to live by what you have learned. All philosophy is the search for truth, and that requires belief.

Faith? Revelation? Myths documented as fact? That is just bad philosophy.

 

[Satyr]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/pAXJ8kn4skQ"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/pAXJ8kn4skQ" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

[Satyr]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/28pNxgD-ldc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/28pNxgD-ldc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

 

[Syzygys]

There are two sides to LG that I have noticed.

Have to agree here. LG is trying to debate atheists, but he won't notice that he also has to debate all the religions mutually exclusive with his beliefs.

I offered for him that I pick a religion and we can debate which one is the only TRUE between ours. He doesn't seem to like the challenge...

 

[baumgarten]

Faith? Revelation? Myths documented as fact? That is just bad philosophy.

No, none of that is philosophy at all.

 

[lightgigantic]

KennyJC

What is the difference between philosophical musings and set beliefs that 'yes, there is a god in heaven' or 'yes, jesus was raised from the dead and bodily ascended to heaven'?

for a start here is an absence of general principles behind statements of confidence - a tendency also there amongst atheists (particularly those that tend to ad hom for some strange reason)

If religion was just philosophy that didn't require beliefs of it's more extravagant and supernatural claims, I would have no issue with religion.

philossophy, both in religion and empriric fields, also works with axioms - there are even philosophical principles to determine the basis of axioms ....

That may be, but if a creationist discredits evolution without obviously reading up on it, how is that not ignorance?

It would be the same as an evolutionist who discredits a particular standpoint of religion thats basis is not undermined by established evidence of evolution (micro evolution and speciation, as opposed to abiogenesis and macro evolution which are firmly imbedded in theoretical frameworks)