Ad hominem?

RightWinged on June 5, 2007 at 1:49 AM

Well, let’s see. In recent threads you have said that I’m not smart enough to understand your arguments, that I can’t read, and now, apparently, that I’m too lazy to read. So yeah, ad hominem.

A little sensitive are we?

Not at all because as folks brighter than I have observed, it’s always enjoyable being the target of an ad hominem because then you know you’ve won the argument. And so, once again, as usual, we have:

I’m not going to waste my time on this.

If this happened once or even rarely we could write it off as, “he believes what he believes and doesn’t suffer fools gladly,” but when it happens almost every time, we’re justified in concluding that your arguments are all bluster and that when called on that, you pick up your ball and run from the field.

Ah, I see we’ve moved from ad hominem at one step’s remove to the real thing. As far as I can see, Peter Hitchen’s *best* argument is the one I described and I’m sorry, but it’s not a very good one. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us on what argument you think constitutes the smackdown.

student on June 4, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Again, if you are going to choose not to read the entire thing, I’m not going to waste my time on this. Ad hominem? A little sensitive are we?

No, but if that’s your interpretation of all of what he said, simply because you only read the excerpt, then that’s your decision.

RightWinged on June 3, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Ah, I see we’ve moved from ad hominem at one step’s remove to the real thing. As far as I can see, Peter Hitchen’s *best* argument is the one I described and I’m sorry, but it’s not a very good one. Perhaps you’d care to enlighten us on what argument you think constitutes the smackdown.

Christopher Hitchens was recently interviewed by David Horowitz and Peter Collier; the interview appears on David Horowitz’s frontpagmagazine.com. At one point, Christopher Hitchens remarks that if he did not know better about God (supposedly) not existing, he would say that American soldiers are doing the work of God. The truth is that American soldiers are doing the work of God.

I find it interesting that Christians again and again go back to the premise that since athiests have no belief in God, that there can be no basis for morality – “no north to the moral compass”, paraphrasing Hitchens.

peski on June 3, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Read the Hitchens/Wilson debate over at Christianity Today. It gives a good example of what we’re talking about.

PRCalDude on June 3, 2007 at 7:38 PM

As a Christian discussing this with an atheist, I have sought to show in the first place that atheism has nothing whatever to say about this topic—one way or the other. If Christianity is bad for the world, atheists can’t consistently point this out, having no fixed way of defining “bad.” If Christianity is good for the world, atheists should not be asked about it either because they have no way of defining “good.”

Douglas Wilson

Yep, that was a good example… none of the same old, tired logical fallacies to see here, move along…

peski on June 3, 2007 at 1:07 PM

Read the Hitchens/Wilson debate over at Christianity Today. It gives a good example of what we’re talking about.

student on June 3, 2007 at 5:48 PM

No, but if that’s your interpretation of all of what he said, simply because you only read the excerpt, then that’s your decision.

[H]e does lay quite the smackdown on his more famous brother here.

RightWinged on June 3, 2007 at 3:11 PM

Oh please. That tired and silly argument that without God you can’t be moral and that you’ll turn into Stalin–that’s your idea of a smackdown? To my mind, it’s just ad hominem at one step removed. I’m sure there’s an argument to be had here on religion versus atheism, but this certainly isn’t it.

Little Green Footballs

Now here’s a theological argument you can get your teeth into, as Hitchens reviews Hitchens.

Christopher is an atheist. I am a believer.

He once said in public: “The real difference between Peter and myself is the …

Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not, what kind of moral imbecile would lump Bush together with the likes of Kim-Jong Il? I really don’t understand this type of mentality.

packsoldier on June 3, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Kim Jong Il pretty much claims that he IS god, doesn’t he?
His kind usually do (make that claim). Furthermore, there appears to be a LOT of Koreans that WANT to believe it.

Meanwhile, I am fairly certain that W. would be laughed out-of-office if he made that sort of claim. In fact, W.’s claim on the Presidency is tenuous, at best. The liberals claim that he’s not even the REAL President. Some say Al Gore is the REAL President, and others say that Dick Cheney is REAL power behind 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

This guy’s argument is so weak, it’s pathetic.

I find it interesting that Christians again and again go back to the premise that since athiests have no belief in God, that there can be no basis for morality – “no north to the moral compass”, paraphrasing Hitchens.

peski on June 3, 2007 at 1:07 PM

This premise about Christians is only partly true. What is true is that without a belief system there can be no basis for morality. While religious people define their belief system as religion, atheists define their belief system as something else.

If the athiest appeals to some sort of socially derived moral boundary, he is then accused by the believer of “moral relativism”.

What Christians “go back to”, is pointing out that atheists really do embrace a religious-like point of view, often of their own making, and often with themselves at the center rather than a deity. The point is, if everyone’s belief system is based on a different focal point we end up with a chaotic mess. It doesn’t matter what your morals are, it only matters whether your morals conflict with mine. It is this seemingly chaotic mish-mash of moral ideologies that we call moral relativism.

But how does the believer square that with what I call “religious relativism” – various religions and sects have hundreds of conflicting and even contradictory moral pronouncements, most of them validated as “God’s morality”. To me, the unbeliever, this is just cloaking your socially derived morality in a false mantle of devine authority.

Primarily because our morals are not socially derived. It is a logical contradiction to argue that people holding to specific beliefs direct opposed to others are embracing any kind of religious relativism.

The fact that you believe the mantle of Devine authority to be false is a predetermined supposition on your part confusing what religious morality is really based on. Various religions and sects with conflicting moral pronouncements do try to embrace all views, however this causes the same problems as Atheist attempting to embrace all views under one big relative umbrella.

But what you are arguing against is not the religious people who are also relativists, but against those who hold to specific beliefs. In the end, the fact that we do not embrace a relativistic point of view of religion and morality is what makes our religious ideologies so incompatible with your atheist ideologies.

This is not the first time the Hitchens brothers have debated in writing or actually holding live debates. It’s like the Matalin/Carville machine.

I don’t know that I have ever seen Chris looking quite so miserable. I think he is a tormented man.

Glynn on June 3, 2007 at 12:23 PM

It’s Christopher – he abhors being called Chris, as he claims that Christopher is the name he was given by his parens.

He’s not miserable – he likes that carmudgeony persona – it serves him very well.

I like both Hitchenses and am glad we have them. They’re like many other families, just with more courage and talents on display. They both earn a good living that way and we have much to consider while analyzing them.

Whether you agree with the Iraq War or not, what kind of moral imbecile would lump Bush together with the likes of Kim-Jong Il? I really don’t understand this type of mentality.

packsoldier on June 3, 2007 at 11:36 AM

Easy: 49% of the American population.

a mangle in the porch

Can someone translate that from the British??

I find it interesting that Christians again and again go back to the premise that since athiests have no belief in God, that there can be no basis for morality – “no north to the moral compass”, paraphrasing Hitchens.

If the athiest appeals to some sort of socially derived moral boundary, he is then accused by the believer of “moral relativism”.

But how does the believer square that with what I call “religious relativism” – various religions and sects have hundreds of conflicting and even contratictory moral pronouncements, most of them validated as “God’s morality”. To me, the unbeliever, this is just cloaking your socially derived morality in a false mantle of devine authority.