Can Christians be humanists and moralists?

[Bad Wolf]

Yea, neither of you did that, you just called him an asshole.

[jesus_wept]

Im not convinced answering a question is an ad hom. An ad hom would've been if I just said don't believe him because he's stupid, instead I explained why you're stupid and answered your question.

And calling me an a hole isn't an ad hominem either, it's an insult (which I don't mind and shall turn the other cheek). But, if you're going to use logical fallacies, at least get them right, otherwise people might think you're stupid.

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:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
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).

I'm not sure why you posted this but, now you know what an ad hominem is, I hope you won't make the same mistake again.

[Zack]

Don't forget about Erasmus' friend Thomas More.

[Mister Agenda]

It's not what you want to call humanism Wolfie. But a humanist explained his position to me as that.

I also added about secular humanism, to include what you might associate with humanism.

Well, if someone who called himself a humanist explained it that way, it must be right, and any humanist who says different must be wrong. I mean that only makes sense.

The 'secular' in secular humanism is to differentiate it from religious humanism.

---

No true humanist I suppose

No one humanist speaks for everyone. If I quote an idiot Christian for you, will you get the point that Christian doesn't get to define Christianity?

---

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:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
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).

So you understand from that, that merely insulting you not an ad hominem fallacy, it has to be coupled as a reason for rejecting your claim, right?

[fr0d0]

Welcome to the party now it's over Agenda

Yes I made a mistake. It was a long time ago and I've repeatedly remembered incorrectly that the 2 hedonists I knew never made the mistake of calling themselves humanists like I did here and previously on these forums.

Never let it be said that I'm perfect

-

The point being dismissed on the grounds of insult is that I made up the people that I mistakenly recalled as saying that they were humanists. An illogical conclusion derived from an insult.

My claim to know these people was dismissed on the grounds that I'd mistaken the name of their philosophy and was therefore obviously stupid.

Rhythm initially made the error, jw and then you joined in. Looks like classic ad-hom to me.

Name calling. The "worst kind of argument":

[Michael B]

Don't forget about Erasmus' friend Thomas More.

Yes, good point, another great humanist, though perhaps without Erasmus' ability to tolerate disagreement in thought. More was incredibly intelligent, faithful and courageous, but he was also ruthless in his dealings with those who he considered heretics. I can't say I warm to More.

[Mister Agenda]

Welcome to the party now it's over Agenda

Story of my life.

Yes I made a mistake. It was a long time ago and I've repeatedly remembered incorrectly that the 2 hedonists I knew never made the mistake of calling themselves humanists like I did here and previously on these forums.

Never let it be said that I'm perfect

Or that you're incapable of admitting mistakes.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Is Michael B the member formally known as Michael?

Yes, I've managed to lock myself out of the other account.

PM an admin and they should be able to sort it for you!

[Mister Agenda]

The point being dismissed on the grounds of insult is that I made up the people that I mistakenly recalled as saying that they were humanists. An illogical conclusion derived from an insult.

My claim to know these people was dismissed on the grounds that I'd mistaken the name of their philosophy and was therefore obviously stupid.

If you actually got their philosophy right and still used them as an authority to override what we humanists here say humanism is, you would still be in error.

Rhythm initially made the error, jw and then you joined in. Looks like classic ad-hom to me.

Could you be more specific about what our error was? If you're just saying you're not stupid, I never thought you were.

Name calling. The "worst kind of argument"

Name-calling isn't an argument at all. It's usually venting.

[fr0d0]

I was in error regarding humanism full stop Agenda. My mistake.

This was Rhythms error:

LOL, Frodo...that's hedonism..not humanism........ hedonism (and not even ethical hedonism...yuck). I can see how this completely real person that you absolutely didn't make up might confuse the two, they both start with an H.

He accused me of making these two people up. A nonsensical conclusion.

Which JW compounded by responding to my reply of "why would I make them up?!" With:

I can.only presume stupidity. Anyone stupid enough to confuse humanism with hedonism is stupid enough to invent someone to prove their point.

So the reason that JW thinks I lied (claim) is because I'm stupid (attack).