Ad Hominem: What it is and isn't

http://www.godvsthebible.com

The Ad Hominem isn't an insult. It's an insult used in order to avoid addressing the person's arguments.

Richard Dawkins Interview with Wendy Wright:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• skeptic
• bible
• study
• logical
• fallacies
• ad
• hominem

[Pook365]

I could well be missing something, but shouldn't that say

"Deism Because Life and the Natural Universe Aren't Wondeful Enough" ?

Dawkins has unbelivable restraint it really his one of his most admirable features.

Everytime he tells her that the evidance is there and she responds back with her stupid smily face that it isn't...I just couldn't stop my self from shouting at her "Just because you do not understand the evidance doesn't mean it's not there...you rediculous idiot!"

[4312ton]

"TruthfulChristian"

Best oxymoron I've seen in a long time.

Oh wait, maybe that was somewhat Ad Hominem.... Give me an example of Christian "truth" so I can be specific.

[jumpinjohnnyruss]

You're wrong. She's not claiming ad hominem; she's claiming ad hominin...

How Dawkins kept so much of his cool, I'll never know.

[AMomentOfClarity2011]

I get creationists bringing up names of 'scientists' to prove their points at times.

However they call any comment on the people ad hominem attacks. They usually fail to distinguish disputing someones authority if the claim is one FROM authority and actually ignoring the claim itself by ONLY attacking that person.

If that someone is not actually a scientist, or is not from the relevant field, his 'authority' is not worth as much as someone who knows what they are talking about.

[UrielCorinthian]

I tend to slightly disagree with your definition though (although I do concede that I may be mistaken - neither English nor Latin is a first language for me).

An Ad Hominem argument is not trying to *evade* someone else's point/argument as much as it attempts to *invalidate* the other person's statement by focusing on a character flaw (which obviously has no bearing on the argument), i.o.w. it really just goes off on a tangent to focus on something irrelevant to attempt to disprove an argument.

[DeistPaladin]

@SuperGolfing1 TAG Argument:

1. Without Yahweh, there can be no absolute morals (false dilemma fallacy)

2. Absolute morality exists (bare assertion fallacy)

3. (unspoken) And of course this god MUST be Yahweh (bare assertion fallacy)

4. Therefore, Yahweh exists

ONT Argument

1. Yahweh is the greatest thing that can be conceived. (Disputed. I can think of better gods)

2. What exists is greater than what does not.

3. Therefore Yahweh exists (non sequitur fallacy, reality doesn't care)

[kleenex3000]

@SuperGolfing1 (2)Pseudologic: He ascribed in the first place already, some properties to the Creator, that he cannot provide evidence for. It is obvious, that from the start off, he is inclined and biased towards a certain Creator with certain properties. This is very wrong.

[kleenex3000]

@SuperGolfing1 He omitted, to admit, that the unknown Creators, the existence of whose he "proves" are neither G-D nor Allah.

[SuperGolfing1]

@kleenex3000 So what did Craig omit to reach a false conclusion? When you say Pseudologic thats what Im referring to.

[kleenex3000]

@SuperGolfing1 Nobody can become "owned" by Mr.Craig. He might prove a "Creator principle" from OntO'- and CosmO'-Pseudologic arguments, but he cannot identify this principle with the mono G-D of the Scripture. The actual number of Creators is totally unknown (0,1,100s,1000s...?) as well as their Properties totally unknown.

[PacGamer]

@PacGamer I ran out of space. 1 last point. If I ever hear her say teach the controversies again, I will go insane. She clearly just googled hardcore christian websites and memorized 4 really shitty examples before going to the interview.

The controversy is taught... at higher levels of education! You don't teach a high school student theoretical physics, why bio?

Evolution is around us. It is like gravity. No scientist argues against its existence. The arguments are about how exactly it works