Beware the Believers (Dedicated to Hayter)

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaGgpGLxLQw

I dedicated this song to hayter because of his response to my recent thread on synthetic life. Hayter like Richard Dawkins, in many cases, insists on treating people as if they were less intelligible in discussion rather than being open minded and giving people the benefit of the doubt.

[tackattack]

:ROFLMAO: * infinity That is the most hilarious thinkg I've ever seen. OMFG

literally I want to put it as my sig everwhere... but alas

In regards to Adian, I'm not aware of any instances (particularly related to me) where he has not been open minded or given anyone the opportunity to prove his worldviews wrong.He's very intellegent and knowledgable, especially in the areas of debate and philosophy, IMO.

[Violet]

That was funny... but I have seen funnier. Of course... Hayter is smarter than all three of us... but at least I have chicken.

[tackattack]

I have popcorn... trade you..

[Tiberius]

Hayter like Richard Dawkins, in many cases, insists on treating people as if they were less intelligible in discussion rather than being open minded and giving people the benefit of the doubt.

Ah, I'm glad to see the ad hominem attacks have continued in other parts of the forum. Of course, the rational here will understand that you use ad hominems when you either don't have a rebuttal to present, or you can't admit to being wrong.

If you want to beat me in a debate, attack the argument, not the person.

I'm perfectly open minded in discussions, but being open-minded doesn't mean accepting everything that people tell you; in fact it means the opposite. Being open-minded is being skeptical, but listening to all the points given equally.

I listened to your points; I wasn't convinced by them. In fact, I thought some of them were just plain wrong and you'd confused definitions. I corrected you on these, and you respond with attacks. I don't so much mind the attacks; they are quite humourous and they reinforce my belief that I am indeed correct in these matters. Course, I'd prefer either you to respond to my points or admit you may have been wrong, but I'm not demanding anything of you.

[Dotard]

I can't stand rap music in any form. But I actually liked and enjoyed that video! Who the hell would have guessed Darwin could dance like that?!

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

@Tiberius

an ad hominem is not an insult. an ad hominem is a type of argument. My insult to your character was not an argument or a supporting part of my argument.

example of ad hominem
you should not believe that the earth revolves around the sun because Nicholas Copernicus was an infidel.

explanation: as you can see, the argument uses an irrelevant fact about Nicholas Copernicus to try to discredit his hypothesis that the earth revolves around the sun. I did not use any irrelevant derogatory facts about you to try to discredit your arguments.

example of a statement (insult)
Nicholas Copernicus is an infidel. so much for NIcholas copernicus being an infidel.

wiki : "An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise.[1] The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.[2]"

---

i forgot to mention that you also used a straw man argument against my position on the thread when accusing me of defending the position that life isn't created from scratch until biologists create matter from nothing . I thought you were good at this whole 'philosophy and debate' thing. I better post the definition of a straw man argument too.
wiki:
"A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet weaker proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[1][2]'

[Tiberius]

An ad hominem attack isn't just an insult, you are correct. However, it is an ad hominem to attack an opponent personally rather than attacking the argument, which you have done (both in the original thread and here).

I also didn't use a strawman; perhaps it is you who needs the definition, not I. My assertion was a hypothetical, not an argument, nor was it an attack of a position you do not hold. I merely stated that given your current meanderings about the meaning of certain words and their use in science, I wouldn't be surprised to find you asserting the same kinds of things when they do eventually create life "from scratch".

Again, you use ad hominems by attempting to belittle my character again and again in your response. Ad hominem can be used through implication, I hope you realise. The given examples on Wikipedia aren't the definitive examples of how every ad hominem should be. If you attack the character of a person, and by doing so make an implication on their arguments (as you did by referring to 'philosophy and debate' and saying you had 'better post a definition'), you are making an ad hominem.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

i attack the argument and, just as you do, add a snide remark. PZ Myers write a rebuttal to an argument and adds his foul opinion of creationists on his blog many a time and theists, just as you are doing, claim he only uses ad hominems (incorrectly too since ad hominems means the whole argument is based on an ad hominem, my statement about 'so much for cambridge' or 'better post a definition' are irrelevant to the argument and people can decide whether or not they feel that way too).

I can entertain (or maybe even agree) that an ad hominem may be used through implication but then I might as well accuse you of ad hominems

the first thing you said on the thread:

Creation of anything from scratch violates the conservation of energy...that is, energy cannot be created or destroyed. It's a pretty simple thing to understand; you just failed to do that.

was very belittling. You're the one that came into the thread assuming I meant 'from scratch' meant 'from nothing' which is obviously against the law of conservation of energy: you came into the thread and distorted my position into a straw man.

Perhaps a bit more thought should go into your posts next time

another ad hominem on your part: you imply that i don't put much thought into my posts. I do, but you refuse to be charitable and you continue to treat me as if i was stupid.

[The_Flying_Skeptic]

discussion on ad hominems should move to 'What is an Ad Hominem?' http://atheistforums.org/thread-3787.html