Introductory Logic: Basic Ad Hominem, or “How to Not Respond to a Commenter”

Our Christian blogger friend in Here responded to My Post about his bad defence of Euthyphro dilemma on the comment section in the same page of his own blog. Now, surely he was not obligated to respond in mine, but since he did not publish my comment on his response, I decided to put this into good educational use and make a new post out of it.

My response to him was as follows: “lol! Ad hominem. Quite pathetic tbh, but I don’t expect anything more. :D Which was not published. That’s OK, after all, I probably should have expected less! However, his comments in response to me are interesting enough to put here. I believe this is a good introductory example of ad hominem attack:

Though I do appreciate your commentary, your discourse here reflects what most Atheists have; an inadequate understanding of Christian theology. This would be like me walking up to a Chinese man and telling him that his worldview (in the context of philosophy) was crazy without the slightest idea of how Confucian worldview operates. I really do appreciate when we can have discussion from one side to the other, but do your homework on true systematic Christian theology because your arguments, though seemingly adequate on the surface, would be considered irrelevant in academia by both atheists and theologians.

Also, I prefaced my argument with you must have the most basic understanding of orthodox Christianity and you have proven that you in fact so not have that most rudimentary skill necessary to argue on the other side of this post. It only makes sense within a Christian worldview. I don’t expect it to make sense to an atheist. That’s why that post was for Christians who were struggling with philosophy, not atheists. You of all people (self proclaimed master of logic) should know that you can’t make an argument without premises  :).

I would like to also mention that my linked post is devoid of any comments about him or his knowledge of moral philosophy, or lack there of. Also, just for the record, to my recollection I have never called myself “master of logic”.

 

About these ads

4 thoughts on “Introductory Logic: Basic Ad Hominem, or “How to Not Respond to a Commenter”

  1. “Hello, would you like to talk about fairies?”
    “Well, fairies don’t exist, so, no…”
    “WHAT? How can you say so? How would you explain the left-handed fairy pristination observation IF they don’t exist?”
    “The what?”
    “HA HA! Now I got you. As everyone can see, you have no clue about south-western–Idaho-irish-sidhe-fairiology! You only have a stupid, childish image of fairies in your mind, in which I don’t believe either. You are a FOOL, as the great fairiology book tell us: ‘The fool says – there are no fairies!’.”
    “Yeah sure. I’m totally convinced now.”

    Let’s face it: Christianity had 2.000 years to come up with a way to show everyone that their version(s) of god exists. And what did they come up? Convoluted arguments, rhetorical tricks and the inquisition. If science wanted to proof something for 2.000 years, it either found out that it’s pretty unlikely (and let go) or found some good evidence for it. Science got us to the moon, while religion didn’t even do the basic task of finding a really perfect argument for their most basic belief.

    All religion managed was to make itself more and more complex. Do you really think that Jesus (assuming he existed) would have any clue about the complex terms theologians use today? Not really. They were invented to explain one simple fact: The “Christianity Hypothesis” simply doesn’t work. So they have to add layer and layer of explanation to prevent themselves from seeing this simple fact. And yes, they had 2.000 years, so they got pretty good at it. That just doesn’t replace facts.

    • Of course. And not only that, I find it fascinating that after all these years of bringing suffering, death and mayhem to the world, they [All of them, Christianity, Islam etc] have the audacity to claim their bloody God is the key to ethics and moral behaviour. My goodness just 10 minutes of looking at a history book should prove otherwise.

  2. In this case what you have is not an actual “ad hominem attack” but a simple insult. An ad hominem attack would consist of a counter-argument based on the personal circumstances of the opponent, such as a vegan being “refuted” by pointing out that he or she was perfectly willing to wear leather shoes.

    • Thank you for the comment.

      He is exactly implying that I am wrong because I know nothing about “Christian theology”. He gives absolutely no reason for my claims being “irrelevant”, and rants about my lack of knowledge.

      Even if you were right, still, it’s pathetic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s