Logical fallacies hijack discussion

[Butch5]

Your ad hominem is a suitable example, but could need a little refinement. Your 'begging the question' is a fair explanation. The conclusion is built into the premise. You end where you began. Or, you can't reach any other conclusion as you presume that will happen.

What is an ad hominem fallacy? This is one that is frequently used by those who attack Christians and Christianity. A claim is rejected because of a personal, irrelevant fact about the person. Generally it involves an attack on the character of the person or his/her situation. This attack is presented as evidence against the argument when it has nothing to do with evidence. It is simply a personal attack.

I had an example of this happen when I took a class in biopsychology when I was a student in the USA. I asked the professor in class about a certain example in the text book. His response was: 'You wouldn't have a clue; your views are b...s'. But he did not abbreviate. He later apologised to me outside of the class for what he said, but there was no apology in class for his ad hominem logical fallacy.

This happened 30 years ago. I was not as conversant then as I am now in logical fallacies. I should have challenged him in class about what he did or gone to the dean of the department to lodge a complaint. I didn't, but was overcome by shock in what the professor did to me in front of my peers.

Oz

I've had that same experience with moderators on Christian forums. Not on this forum but on others.

 

[Butch5]

No I ask God so I can get a better understanding of the bible. He isnt dead you know,

God is teh God of the living not the dead.

I would rather know God and Jesus than teh bible. Knowing the bible cant save you.

Php_3:8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

And he was a very learned man, Pharisee of pharisees he called himself.

In All His Love

How would you know God without the Bible?

 

[Barrd]

Your ad hominem is a suitable example, but could need a little refinement. Your 'begging the question' is a fair explanation. The conclusion is built into the premise. You end where you began. Or, you can't reach any other conclusion as you presume that will happen.

What is an ad hominem fallacy? This is one that is frequently used by those who attack Christians and Christianity. A claim is rejected because of a personal, irrelevant fact about the person. Generally it involves an attack on the character of the person or his/her situation. This attack is presented as evidence against the argument when it has nothing to do with evidence. It is simply a personal attack.

I had an example of this happen when I took a class in biopsychology when I was a student in the USA. I asked the professor in class about a certain example in the text book. His response was: 'You wouldn't have a clue; your views are b...s'. But he did not abbreviate. He later apologised to me outside of the class for what he said, but there was no apology in class for his ad hominem logical fallacy.

This happened 30 years ago. I was not as conversant then as I am now in logical fallacies. I should have challenged him in class about what he did or gone to the dean of the department to lodge a complaint. I didn't, but was overcome by shock in what the professor did to me in front of my peers.

Oz

Not meaning to hijack the thread...but, oh, Oz! I want to apologize to you that this happened to you in my country! That professor should have been sacked. I am so sorry, Oz!
We're not all like that. Please know that, Oz. There are a few decent Americans. Not many, perhaps ... But there are a few of us.

 

[ewq1938]

How do you think Christians on this forum could use the following logical fallacies?

• Ad hominem;

You speak against such fallacies yet you employ them.


http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21727-the-nicene-creed-is-not-christian/page-19

When will you ever admit you are wrong? 'No one has ever seen God', full stop, period, end of story, but ewq1938 wants to go on and on about God being 'seen' and having a body. Your failure to understand the hermeneutics of Scripture is causing you to come to a false understanding of the essence of who God is. He DOES NOT have a body with face, hands and back. Yes, he is described as having face, hands and back, but that is the use of an anthropomorphism. Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?

That is perfect example of an ad hominem. I told you that you were being immature and I was punished for that despite it being a fair response to the personal attack you leveled at me. It was claimed my response was an ad hominem which is clearly was not.

So, you use an immature ad hominem at me, I call it immature and report the post, and I am the one punished and your attack remains. How is someone supposed to learn not to use ad hominems if they aren't punished/corrected for it? I find it extremely hypocritical of you Oz to start a thread on fallacies when your own use of one is glaringly obvious.

So, Christian to Christian I ask you to admit what you did and apologize for it.

 

[Barrd]

You speak against such fallacies yet you employ them.


http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21727-the-nicene-creed-is-not-christian/page-19




That is perfect example of an ad hominem. I told you that you were being immature and I was punished for that despite it being a fair response to the personal attack you leveled at me. It was claimed my response was an ad hominem which is clearly was not.

So, you use an immature ad hominem at me, I call it immature and report the post, and I am the one punished and your attack remains. How is someone supposed to learn not to use ad hominems if they aren't punished/corrected for it? I find it extremely hypocritical of you Oz to start a thread on fallacies when your own use of one is glaringly obvious.

So, Christian to Christian I ask you to admit what you did and apologize for it.

Ewq...I'm afraid that you were the one in the wrong on that one.
And this post, I'm afraid, is actually against the rules. You are attempting to discuss an action taken by staff in an open forum, and, unless I am mistaken, that is a no-no.
This is just a bit of advice...but if I were you, I think I'd retract that statement, before someone decides to report it.

Oh, and btw, the notion that God the Father has a physical body, as you and Oz were debating, actually is a Mormon belief.
Sorry.

 

[ewq1938]

Ewq...I'm afraid that you were the one in the wrong on that one.

How so? If I said, "is a certain word too big for you to understand?" is that not a personal attack implying you are too stupid to understand the topic? Is it not immature to use that in a discussion?

I was reading some previous posts and a moderator said this:

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20709-interesting-facts-you-didnt-learn-in-school/page-2#entry238940

justaname, 08 Oct 2014 - 4:21 PM, said:
It is unethical in argumentation to attack the opponent as opposed to the argument.

I agree with justaname. It is unethical. It is also against the rules of the forum. OZ needs to address his personal attack against me not pretend it doesn't exist while complaining about others using it.

Oh, and btw, the notion that God the Father has a physical body, as you and Oz were debating, actually is a Mormon belief.

Irrelevant. The bible describes the Father having a body. It wouldn't matter who accepts what the bible says on that.

 

[OzSpen]

Not meaning to hijack the thread...but, oh, Oz! I want to apologize to you that this happened to you in my country! That professor should have been sacked. I am so sorry, Oz!
We're not all like that. Please know that, Oz. There are a few decent Americans. Not many, perhaps ... But there are a few of us.

The Barrd,

Thank you for your kindness. I did not apply that to all professors. That would be committing a hasty generalisation fallacy. I've had many excellent professors in the USA. I have BA and MA degrees from USA institutions before encountering this horrible fellow's remarks at doctoral level.

I know that you are not all like that. I regularly email friends in the USA and Canada whom I met during my studies. My MA is from Ashland Theological Seminary (Ashland University), Ashland OH and I still communicate by email with a friend in that city. We've been doing it for 30 years. We (my wife and I) have friends in Seattle where I earned my BA and Los Angeles. However, I did my PhD by distance education (dissertation only) with an accredited university outside of the USA.

Oz

 

[Barrd]

How so? If I said, "is a certain word too big for you to understand?" is that not a personal attack implying you are too stupid to understand the topic? Is it not immature to use that in a discussion?

I was reading some previous posts and a moderator said this:

http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/20709-interesting-facts-you-didnt-learn-in-school/page-2#entry238940



I agree with justaname. It is unethical. It is also against the rules of the forum. OZ needs to address his personal attack against me not pretend it doesn't exist while complaining about others using it.




Irrelevant. The bible describes the Father having a body. It wouldn't matter who accepts what the bible says on that.

He didn't say you were too stupid to understand anything. He simply said that your notion of God having a body smacks of Mormonism, which is true.
He asked you if you are a Mormon or a Mormon sympathizer.
You took this as an insult.
Why?
Do you have something against Mormons?

 

[ewq1938]

He didn't say you were too stupid to understand anything.

Of course he did. Comment on this please: "Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?"


Is that ok to say or not?

 

[Barrd]

Of course he did. Comment on this please: "Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?"


Is that ok to say or not?

Okay, here is the post you objected to:

OzSpen, on 31 Aug 2015 - 03:53 AM, said:

Your position is outside that of orthodox Christianity. What is your theological persuasion? From where do you gain these unorthodox views of the nature of God?

It doesn't matter if it's non-orthodox as being orthodox is completely meaningless. The fact that the Father has a physical body comes directly from scripture. I don't make lame excuses to explain the verses away.
Quote

You are promoting a Mormon view of God having a body of flesh and bones. See HERE.

No, I am promoting a biblical view of God having a body. I am not Mormon and do not agree with a great deal of their beliefs because they aren't biblically based. They simply happen to be correct about him having a body.


Quote

Your doctrine of God conforms with that of Mormonism.

That is meaningless.


Quote

Are you a Mormon or Mormon sympathiser?

Not in the slightest. I am a person whose beliefs come solely from scripture, regardless of what orthodoxy says about those scriptural things and regardless of what various cults agree with or not agree with.

This is a typical used fallacy when you can't dispute the scriptural facts you try to claim it must be false if a cult promotes it. It just happens this is one of the rare things a cult happens to get right which is amazing given the same people think they will become God's and live on other planets lol It reminds of the old saying that even a broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Barrd]

Now, can you show me, from that post, which you claim that you reported, where the ad hominem attack occurred?

 

[ewq1938]

Now, can you show me, from that post, which you claim that you reported, where the ad hominem attack occurred?

It didn't occur in that post. It was the last thing said in a post that same day, here is the ad hominem:

"Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?"

I asked you to comment on this, will you?

 

[OzSpen]

You speak against such fallacies yet you employ them.


http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21727-the-nicene-creed-is-not-christian/page-19


That is perfect example of an ad hominem. I told you that you were being immature and I was punished for that despite it being a fair response to the personal attack you leveled at me. It was claimed my response was an ad hominem which is clearly was not.

So, you use an immature ad hominem at me, I call it immature and report the post, and I am the one punished and your attack remains. How is someone supposed to learn not to use ad hominems if they aren't punished/corrected for it? I find it extremely hypocritical of you Oz to start a thread on fallacies when your own use of one is glaringly obvious.

So, Christian to Christian I ask you to admit what you did and apologize for it.

This going back to another thread seems to indicate that you don't know the meaning of ad hominem and how you used it back in that thread. I did not launch an ad hominem attack on you as you did on me in that thread. I will not apologise for something I did not do.

You rightly were punished for an ad hominem attack on me.

Now in this thread you are promoting the false teaching of Audianism that was identified in the 4th century when Audius taught it and is now taught by Mormonism and ewq1938.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

It didn't occur in that post. It was the last thing said in a post that same day, here is the ad hominem:

"Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?"

I asked you to comment on this, will you?

That was sarcasm, not a logical fallacy!

 

[Barrd]

It didn't occur in that post. It was the last thing said in a post that same day, here is the ad hominem:

"Or is that too big of a word for you to understand?"

I asked you to comment on this, will you?

Not without reading the actual conversation, no.
I read what you posted, and there was no attack in that post.

 

[Barrd]

The Barrd,

Thank you for your kindness. I did not apply that to all professors. That would be committing a hasty generalisation fallacy. I've had many excellent professors in the USA. I have BA and MA degrees from USA institutions before encountering this horrible fellow's remarks at doctoral level.

I know that you are not all like that. I regularly email friends in the USA and Canada whom I met during my studies. My MA is from Ashland Theological Seminary (Ashland University), Ashland OH and I still communicate by email with a friend in that city. We've been doing it for 30 years. We (my wife and I) have friends in Seattle where I earned my BA and Los Angeles. However, I did my PhD by distance education (dissertation only) with an accredited university outside of the USA.

Oz

Thank you for telling me this, Oz. I am glad to know that you don't judge us all by one as....uh....one jerk of a Professor.

 

[ewq1938]

Not without reading the actual conversation, no.
I read what you posted, and there was no attack in that post.

The attack is found in post which I have posted multiple times. Here is the direct link to the post in question.




http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21727-the-nicene-creed-is-not-christian/page-19#entry259302

Why are you dodging answering this? It's clearly a personal attack yet no one seems able to admit it.

 

[OzSpen]

You speak against such fallacies yet you employ them.


http://www.christianityboard.com/topic/21727-the-nicene-creed-is-not-christian/page-19




That is perfect example of an ad hominem. I told you that you were being immature and I was punished for that despite it being a fair response to the personal attack you leveled at me. It was claimed my response was an ad hominem which is clearly was not.

So, you use an immature ad hominem at me, I call it immature and report the post, and I am the one punished and your attack remains. How is someone supposed to learn not to use ad hominems if they aren't punished/corrected for it? I find it extremely hypocritical of you Oz to start a thread on fallacies when your own use of one is glaringly obvious.

So, Christian to Christian I ask you to admit what you did and apologize for it.

This demonstrates that you don't seem to understand the meaning and use of of an ad hominem logical fallacy. Here you are repeating this 'immature' labelling again for which you say your were punished. Why repeat it here?

 

[ewq1938]

That was sarcasm, not a logical fallacy!

It's a personal attack called an ad hominem. It implies the person is too stupid to understand the discussion or in this case a word used in the discussion. Telling you that was immature was not an ad hominem on my part. All uses of ad hominems are immature and properly labeled as fallacious.

Example: it would be an ad hominem if I said to you, "Are any of the words in this post too big for you to understand Ozspen?"

 

[ATP]

this thread is cute.