Re: (OT) Giving up on faith

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 13:45:33 -0500, Gregory Weston wrote
(in article <uce-4C3F4A.13453328012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

In article <0001HW.C3C35EC500581A6FF040E6D8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 07:59:20 -0500, Gregory Weston wrote
(in article <uce-189830.07592028012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>):

In article <0001HW.C3C2C3F1004BB8AAF04906D8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
J.J. O'Shea <try.not.to@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

[lots of nonsensical yammering]

So here's a partial laundry list of tactics you've used:

- Ad hominem attacks.

List 'em.

You labeled me as arrogant as a means to dismiss the credibility of my
claims.

Bullshit. Please show where I called you arrogant. Even once.

Your justification for that was to incorrectly and without basis
assert that I was inventing definitions and then holding them as
supreme.

Bullshit. I don't like your definitions. You don't like the fact that I don't
give a damn what you think. Pity.

A habit you've acknowledged doing yourself.

Yeah, but I'm _right_. Hint: when you try to say that I am not an atheist wrt
Thor, you're talking purest bullshit. If you don't like me saying so, then
STOP TALKING BULLSHIT. If your definition says something which is contrary to
fact, then there is something wrong with your definition, as by definition
there can be nothing wrong with the facts. And you're gonna have to work
_real_ hard to convince me that I am _not_ an atheist wrt Thor, no matter
what 'definitions' you can drag up.

Zeno proved with perfect logic that arrows don't move. However, if necessary
I can demonstrate that they _do_ move. You wanna stand next to the wall while
I do so?

There's something wrong with your definitions. Accept it. Correct it. Move
on.

Or don't. It's up to you... 'cause, frankly, your word games are getting
_really_ tiresome.


You've also falsely accused me of playing "word games."

Neither of which are ad homs. Especially when you _are_ playing word games.
You insist that your definitions, and your interpretation of said
definitions, are superior to mine. You have the sheer audacity to say that
you know _my_ feelings on a subject (Thor) than I do myself. And then you
scream like a stuck pig when I point this out.

here is a description of how ad homs work:

"Description of Ad Hominem
Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or
"against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument
is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the
person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two
steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her
circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or
actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to
be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making
(or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:
1.
2. Person A makes claim X.
3. Person B makes an attack on person A.
4. Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the
character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have
a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of
the argument being made).
Example of Ad Hominem
1.
2. Bill: "I believe that abortion is morally wrong."
Dave: "Of course you would say that, you're a priest."
Bill: "What about the arguments I gave to support my position?"
Dave: "Those don't count. Like I said, you're a priest, so you have to say
that abortion is wrong. Further, you are just a lackey to the Pope, so I
can't believe what you say.""



- Non-standard definitions of critical terminology, along with outright
rejection of the standard definitions.

Of _your_ definitions.

Of the definitions I get from every dictionary I have at my disposal.

You must be using 'em wrong.


- Illogical and circular assertions.

List 'em.

Rituals are necessary components of a religion because without rituals
it's not a religion.

Does the word 'tautology' have any meaning for you?


- Broad claims citing no authority other than your own instinct.

Now that's true.

- Outright falsehoods regarding historical fact.

List 'em.

"And, in any case, it's certainly good enough for me. You asked for my
opinion on the matter. You have it."

Out of context.


(No I don't, because you didn't answer the actual question.)

I did. You didn't like it. Tough.


"Exactly on point. You asked me how what I thought. I've told you."

(No you didn't. Again, you didn't answer the question that was asked.)

"Perhaps you haven't noticed that you're playing tiresome word games."

You are.


I've played no word games,

Ooh, my.

so I can't have played tiresome ones. Unlike
you, I'm working with standard definitions. In particular, unlike you,
I'm *not* overloading terminology critical to the debate with
requirements they don't actually have.

Bullshit.



- Repeated deviation from the topic.

Bullshit. You asked, I answered. You didn't like the answers. Pity.

You replied. It doesn't count as an answer because it wasn't relevant to
the question.

Bullshit.

It was an answer to a different question that happened to
share many of the same words. (And you accuse *me* of playing word
games? I'll give you this: You've got some big ones. Almost as big as
the person who accused me of lying and invented out of whole cloth
evidence to support the accusation.)

Says the one who dragged in _turbans_.


Since I've done the courtesy of being very clear and explicit about what
I'm saying, it'd be nice if people who felt the need to disagree would
actually disagree with what I've said instead of inventing and inferring
whole new arguments for me and then railing against those instead. Only
2 or 3 people in this thread seem to have been able to make an honest
argument, and even if I don't agree with them I can certainly respect
them for taking the discussion seriously and responding in a relevant
manner.

Right. Sure. Kreme has given you a perfectly adequate definition of
'religion', one which fits _my_ parameters... and atheism does not, and
cannot, fit. You continue to play word games to get around it.


--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More life back in AGB!
    ... That's a load of bullshit and you know it, you Nazi loving pervert. ... Ad hominem, the thinking man's attack. ... One of my daughters is called Ad Hominem ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: Updated AAH Definition
    ... ad hominem 1. ... (1-0 to Jason) ... > disregard criticism in favor of a series of attacks on the messenger. ... 'objections' you chose simply to attack me. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Keith O **really** slams Hillary C
    ... Oh, he'll attack you for posting anonymously, even if ... Perry, your critique seems so fair and balanced, and yet ... Ad hominem, need I say more? ... He certainty knows we are not 'sockpuppets' ...
    (rec.arts.tv)
  • Re: How stupid can HPT be?
    ... you have *no* idea what an ad hominem attack is. ... You simply are stupid (and, no, that is not an ad hominem attack... ... Ad hominem troll at its simplest, will attack people personally, rather ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: How stupid can HPT be?
    ... Ignore dictionaries when they don't support you. ... use the term "ad hominem" correctly. ... The fact is you make *lots* of accusations, and when asked to support them ... you attack my character. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)