like the fallacy of ad-homin..?
logical falacies as applied to God
- Thread starter NMSquirrel
- Start date
like the fallacy of ad-homin..?
That is an ad hom. It simply means you are focusing on the person. If you list what you consider to be fallacies or even generalize about the arguments - for example, these arguments have contained regular use of fallacies - that is fine.
@Pineal --
My evidence that he favors logical fallacies is in this very thread, I can link to others if you wish. And the reason that it's not an ad hominem is that I was in no way addressing any of his arguments. Beyond that, it wasn't even an attack on his character(which typifies most, but not all, ad hominems), I merely noticed a pattern and commented on it. This is not an ad hominem.
You could consider it a rude, offhanded comment, but as I addressed the topic in another post(and have yet to get any feedback on it), and as it was not used in place of an actual argument(which is what an ad hominem is, not every insult is an ad hominem fallacy), you can not legitimately say that my comment was one. It doesn't fit the criteria.
My evidence that he favors logical fallacies is in this very thread, I can link to others if you wish. And the reason that it's not an ad hominem is that I was in no way addressing any of his arguments. Beyond that, it wasn't even an attack on his character(which typifies most, but not all, ad hominems), I merely noticed a pattern and commented on it. This is not an ad hominem.
You could consider it a rude, offhanded comment, but as I addressed the topic in another post(and have yet to get any feedback on it), and as it was not used in place of an actual argument(which is what an ad hominem is, not every insult is an ad hominem fallacy), you can not legitimately say that my comment was one. It doesn't fit the criteria.
How many of your fallacies have I pointed out just here?
@NM --
You want proof? Look at post 58 in this thread.
You want proof from other threads? Well here's an ad hominem that you made against Dyw as you didn't address the arguments he was making, choosing instead to insult his character(in contrast, I addressed your arguments, hence no ad hominem).
And here's an ad hominem directed against me, as again you refused to actually address the arguments.
Here's a red herring from earlier in that same thread.
Here's a mutually exclusive statement in the same thread, where you ignore the fact that the two parts of your statement are logically impossible to reconcile.
Here's an argument from authority.
In this thread all of your posts are based on the circular reasoning fallacy. You consider testimony evidence because you accept it and you accept it because you consider it evidence.
This list took me about fifteen minutes to compile, do you want more? Or is that enough to convince you that you have a serious flaw in your argumentation style in that you favor fallacious arguments?(and wasn't it you, in another thread, who claimed to have no problem recognizing your faults? Are you going to put lie to your own words in this thread?)
You want proof? Look at post 58 in this thread.
You want proof from other threads? Well here's an ad hominem that you made against Dyw as you didn't address the arguments he was making, choosing instead to insult his character(in contrast, I addressed your arguments, hence no ad hominem).
And here's an ad hominem directed against me, as again you refused to actually address the arguments.
Here's a red herring from earlier in that same thread.
Here's a mutually exclusive statement in the same thread, where you ignore the fact that the two parts of your statement are logically impossible to reconcile.
Here's an argument from authority.
In this thread all of your posts are based on the circular reasoning fallacy. You consider testimony evidence because you accept it and you accept it because you consider it evidence.
This list took me about fifteen minutes to compile, do you want more? Or is that enough to convince you that you have a serious flaw in your argumentation style in that you favor fallacious arguments?(and wasn't it you, in another thread, who claimed to have no problem recognizing your faults? Are you going to put lie to your own words in this thread?)
@NM --
You want proof? Look at post 58 in this thread.
You want proof from other threads? Well here's an ad hominem that you made against Dyw as you didn't address the arguments he was making, choosing instead to insult his character(in contrast, I addressed your arguments, hence no ad hominem).
And here's an ad hominem directed against me, as again you refused to actually address the arguments.
Here's a red herring from earlier in that same thread.
Here's a mutually exclusive statement in the same thread, where you ignore the fact that the two parts of your statement are logically impossible to reconcile.
Here's an argument from authority.
In this thread all of your posts are based on the circular reasoning fallacy. You consider testimony evidence because you accept it and you accept it because you consider it evidence.
This list took me about fifteen minutes to compile, do you want more? Or is that enough to convince you that you have a serious flaw in your argumentation style in that you favor fallacious arguments?(and wasn't it you, in another thread, who claimed to have no problem recognizing your faults? Are you going to put lie to your own words in this thread?)
You want proof? Look at post 58 in this thread.
You want proof from other threads? Well here's an ad hominem that you made against Dyw as you didn't address the arguments he was making, choosing instead to insult his character(in contrast, I addressed your arguments, hence no ad hominem).
And here's an ad hominem directed against me, as again you refused to actually address the arguments.
Here's a red herring from earlier in that same thread.
Here's a mutually exclusive statement in the same thread, where you ignore the fact that the two parts of your statement are logically impossible to reconcile.
Here's an argument from authority.
In this thread all of your posts are based on the circular reasoning fallacy. You consider testimony evidence because you accept it and you accept it because you consider it evidence.
This list took me about fifteen minutes to compile, do you want more? Or is that enough to convince you that you have a serious flaw in your argumentation style in that you favor fallacious arguments?(and wasn't it you, in another thread, who claimed to have no problem recognizing your faults? Are you going to put lie to your own words in this thread?)
actual quote i think you are refering to;
?
see below for proof of dishonest comment..
referencing this?:
--
you have not refuted anything i have said..you have only posited your opinion of the value of what i have said.(and lied at that.)
then:
--
seems to me this is more of an observation that an attack.
so is it an ad-homin if it is proven true?
as far as the rest of your links..it seems that you only linked the ones that you didn't agree with..
(you will have to be a little more specific with the rest of the links, if you have any point to make, other than you don't agree with it..)
does anyone else agree with his assesment?
seems i missed this post..
your statement of
which led me to my comment of you wanting to 'do as your told'
is this in reference to;
--
--
this last 'through your own will' is a summation of your own comments..how does it warrent a 'because you say so' comment??
seems like this is a cop out..
i don't expect for you to change your mind,
but i do expect that when you ask a question, that you will accept an opinion different than your own whether you agree with it or not.
and not resort to character assassination just because you do not agree with me.(or more precisely, because you do not want to change your own opinion.)
this goes for you too Arioch.
there is a logical fallacy in that somewhere..
your statement of
says you want a specific religion to tell you what to do..you want to follow the 'right' religion, meaning you do not want to take responsibility for your own beliefs, you want to be able to 'blame' the religion you are following if it ends up being 'wrong'..
which led me to my comment of you wanting to 'do as your told'
is this in reference to;
how is that evading? actually it would seem you are evading any understanding of what i am trying to say..
i don't see how you got here from here;
--
you answered yourself.
through your own will.
--
this last 'through your own will' is a summation of your own comments..how does it warrent a 'because you say so' comment??
what concern? the one where you refuse to understand any other understanding concerning Hell as punishment/consequence?
seems like this is a cop out..
i don't expect for you to change your mind,
but i do expect that when you ask a question, that you will accept an opinion different than your own whether you agree with it or not.
and not resort to character assassination just because you do not agree with me.(or more precisely, because you do not want to change your own opinion.)
this goes for you too Arioch.
Which one?
It is only natural that humans want to do the right thing and avoid mistakes.
Wanting to do the right thing and wanting to avoid mistakes is not the same as refusing to take responsibility for one's actions.
Your reply is full of assumptions that you take for granted:
No, it does not say that. You claim it says that.
No, it does not mean that. You claim it means that.
You are, apparently, again, arguing for extreme religious individualism, for extreme epistemic egotism.
We have talked about this before. You are in effect arguing for a kind of solipsism.
You present religiousness in terms of extreme individualism - and I have all along argued that doing so is not valid.
I think doing so is an unjustified reduction.
It was in reference to you saying that what I was talking about was off-topic - while I was talking about logical fallacies in theistic discourse. Given that this thread is about "logical fallacies as applied to God," I was not off-topic.
I think I understand what you are trying to say.
I also think that your stance is not realistic (or at least as far as you have presented your stance, it is not realistic).
Even if one is to do things merely by brute force of will, one still needs a reason to do so.
To accept is to agree.
For one, you resort to character assassination regularly.
You do that whenever you say this or that is a "cop-out" or when you ridicule people for supposedly "wanting to be told what to believe, as opposed to taking responsibility for their beliefs."
fallacy.
Biased sample
Presenting some of the available evidence that appears to support your argument while ignoring other evidence that does not.
You referred to logical fallacies being a favorite tactic of christians in general and NM in particular. This is talking about character.
If you say, your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies, that is not ad hom and is focusing on a pattern. It may be true or false, but it is not focusing on NM.
To say something is a favorite tactic strongly implies things about either NM's mental abilities, but more likely his character, given 'favorite tactic' which strongly implies intent. In either case, it is ad hom. Focusing on him.
I can see what you are saying about how in that exact post you are not basing an argument on the attack on his character, however that seems like artificially isolating the comment. You are having an ongoing discussion/argument with this person and this is now a part of that discussion/argument. I can't see it as an isolated Tourette's-like outburst separate from the whole.
if i knew i would have said...
there is a fine line..
but i will still maintain the question of what religion to follow (which is the 'right' one) is a 'do as your told' thing. or an excuse not to follow any.
so i argue taking responsibility for ones own beliefs by not 'doing as your told' by religion and 'thinking for oneself' concerning religion,
and you are arguing that that is not correct? that one must follow ones religion irregardless of whether you agree with it or not?(irregardless of whether it makes sense or not?)(see do as your told comment)
i will accept that statement as my understanding of a thing, and my communication of that understanding doesn't always line up.
true enough..
ok..maybe i misused the word..i was thinking of this when i said that;
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle.
i do get frustrated when i think you(or anyone) are starting to understand what i am saying and then say something 180 degrees out of line with it..
its like they are refusing to understand the difficult concept i am trying to communicate.
there are ppl here who could argue my points more effectively than i could,as i have said i can be emotionally focused at times.
case in point sarkus and this thread..(cue to get this thread back on track)
Really? You will maintain this, no matter what arguments against it you see?
This is a false dichotomy you are presenting here.
Neither extreme individualism nor extreme dependance on others seem viable.
The question is, what is viable.
And here at this forum, we are entertaining thoughts, without accepting them.
"Refusing to understand"?
Bad faith is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
so you are equating 'think for yourself' as extreme individualism?
(the other does line up with how i am using 'do as your told')
'think for yourself' in the sense i am using it, does not exclude listening to others opinions, in matters of God one has to get 'data' to think with, the best place to get that data is through the bible and bible study, (studying with others who study the bible) which is why i say testimonies is evidence,not all/every, one must use SOME common sense when hearing anothers testimonies.
@NM --
What, when you asked for proof did you think that I would look at every post you've ever made? Sorry, but I have this thing called a life. I gave you a statistically relevant sample size, that's all that's necessary. And no, it's not a biased sample, it's a random sample gathered by picking a random thread you've participated in from the Religion subforum and looked to see if you made any logically fallacious arguments within.
I spent fifteen minutes getting you seven examples, that's one example every two minutes. Now what does that trend tell you? You have a habit of using fallacious arguments, this is a well established trend. In fact you seem to be the only one who's unaware of it.
@Pineal --
Sure, I'll grant that it was about character(never denied that really), though you did get the quote wrong. I said it was a favorite tactic of theists in general, not christians in general. However, that still doesn't make it an ad hominem fallacy.
Sure, but that's irrelevant. My comment was not an insult in place of a valid argument, therefore it is by definition not an ad hominem.
Well you're wrong. I wasn't having an ongoing discussion with NM because he completely ignored my post which contained actual content for discussion. My comment was to another person who had caught him in a fallacy, not at NM, and was therefore not part of any dialog. You could say that I was ridiculing him, and you'd be right, I certainly was. However ridicule is not a fallacy and is not an offense against the TOS, so I fail to see what the problem is.
Hell, I even went out of my way to point out a few of the examples of him using fallacious arguments that I found, so while you may not like my comment, you can't exactly doubt it's veracity.
What, when you asked for proof did you think that I would look at every post you've ever made? Sorry, but I have this thing called a life. I gave you a statistically relevant sample size, that's all that's necessary. And no, it's not a biased sample, it's a random sample gathered by picking a random thread you've participated in from the Religion subforum and looked to see if you made any logically fallacious arguments within.
I spent fifteen minutes getting you seven examples, that's one example every two minutes. Now what does that trend tell you? You have a habit of using fallacious arguments, this is a well established trend. In fact you seem to be the only one who's unaware of it.
@Pineal --
Sure, I'll grant that it was about character(never denied that really), though you did get the quote wrong. I said it was a favorite tactic of theists in general, not christians in general. However, that still doesn't make it an ad hominem fallacy.
Sure, but that's irrelevant. My comment was not an insult in place of a valid argument, therefore it is by definition not an ad hominem.
Well you're wrong. I wasn't having an ongoing discussion with NM because he completely ignored my post which contained actual content for discussion. My comment was to another person who had caught him in a fallacy, not at NM, and was therefore not part of any dialog. You could say that I was ridiculing him, and you'd be right, I certainly was. However ridicule is not a fallacy and is not an offense against the TOS, so I fail to see what the problem is.
Hell, I even went out of my way to point out a few of the examples of him using fallacious arguments that I found, so while you may not like my comment, you can't exactly doubt it's veracity.
So common sense tells you not to read the Koran or the Bhagavad-Gita?
Strangely or not, there's plenty of people whose common sense to study the Koran! And then there's plenty of people whose common sense tell them to study the Bhagavad-Gita!
Either some of you are lying; or you're not using common sense; or common sense is something that varies greatly, even from one person to the next.