Another apologist with his "clever" questions

[Jesster]

I never understood the celebrity status of Dawkins among some atheists. He beclowns himself with straw man objections to serious arguments.

I agree with you. Also, I can't stop myself from rolling my eyes every time he says YHWH is a "big bully". Ad hominem, anyone?

Not that I necessarily want to place Dawkins on a pedestal, but calling someone a big bully is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be "you are a big bully and therefore your opinion is wrong".

[FallentoReason]

I agree with you. Also, I can't stop myself from rolling my eyes every time he says YHWH is a "big bully". Ad hominem, anyone?

Not that I necessarily want to place Dawkins on a pedestal, but calling someone a big bully is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be "you are a big bully and therefore your opinion is wrong".

An ad hominem is a fallacy because you're not attacking someone's ideas. You're attacking them.

[Jesster]

Not that I necessarily want to place Dawkins on a pedestal, but calling someone a big bully is not an ad hominem. An ad hominem would be "you are a big bully and therefore your opinion is wrong".

An ad hominem is a fallacy because you're not attacking someone's ideas. You're attacking them.

Insulting someone isn't necessarily doing that. You can insult someone as a conclusion of your argument against them without using that fallacy ("you are wrong, and therefore you are a big bully"). If you use the insult as a method of attacking their ideas, then yes, it is an ad hominem.

I'm not entirely sure if Dawkins has made that fallacy or not, but the way you worded it didn't make it sound that way.

[FallentoReason]

An ad hominem is a fallacy because you're not attacking someone's ideas. You're attacking them.

Insulting someone isn't necessarily doing that. You can insult someone as a conclusion of your argument against them without using that fallacy ("you are wrong, and therefore you are a big bully"). If you use the insult as a method of attacking their ideas, then yes, it is an ad hominem.

I'm not entirely sure if Dawkins has made that fallacy or not, but the way you worded it didn't make it sound that way.

Well, he generally begins with "YHWH was a big bully. He commanded the deaths of blah blah and the destruction of blah blah."

[Jesster]

Insulting someone isn't necessarily doing that. You can insult someone as a conclusion of your argument against them without using that fallacy ("you are wrong, and therefore you are a big bully"). If you use the insult as a method of attacking their ideas, then yes, it is an ad hominem.

I'm not entirely sure if Dawkins has made that fallacy or not, but the way you worded it didn't make it sound that way.

Well, he generally begins with "YHWH was a big bully. He commanded the deaths of blah blah and the destruction of blah blah."

That sounds like a "he did x so he is y" statement to me. It still works if you use the descriptor first and the explanation second. This is still addressing why he is a wrong instead of using "he is a big bully" as the argument itself.

If you can find an exact quote, I might be convinced to agree with you (because I honestly do not know). So far this isn't an ad hominem though.

Anyway, I don't want to clog this thread up with this stuff too much. I just don't happen to agree with this particular argument. I'm fine with you disliking Dawkins, though.

[FallentoReason]

Well, he generally begins with "YHWH was a big bully. He commanded the deaths of blah blah and the destruction of blah blah."

That sounds like a "he did x so he is y" statement to me. It still works if you use the descriptor first and the explanation second. This is still addressing why he is a wrong instead of using "he is a big bully" as the argument itself.

If you can find an exact quote, I might be convinced to agree with you (because I honestly do not know). So far this isn't an ad hominem though.

Anyway, I don't want to clog this thread up with this stuff too much. I just don't happen to agree with this particular argument. I'm fine with you disliking Dawkins, though.

I'm surprised you've never heard him say it. I don't know if my memory is being biased, but I hear him say it in every other debate he's in, in every other breakfast show he's in, in every other written quote I read about him.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/23651-t...y-the-most

This is literally him every other time. And all he's doing is just badmouthing. There's no discussion of ideas, just personal attacks to undermine YHWH.

[Jesster]

That sounds like a "he did x so he is y" statement to me. It still works if you use the descriptor first and the explanation second. This is still addressing why he is a wrong instead of using "he is a big bully" as the argument itself.

If you can find an exact quote, I might be convinced to agree with you (because I honestly do not know). So far this isn't an ad hominem though.

Anyway, I don't want to clog this thread up with this stuff too much. I just don't happen to agree with this particular argument. I'm fine with you disliking Dawkins, though.

I'm surprised you've never heard him say it. I don't know if my memory is being biased, but I hear him say it in every other debate he's in, in every other breakfast show he's in, in every other written quote I read about him.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/23651-t...y-the-most

This is literally him every other time. And all he's doing is just badmouthing. There's no discussion of ideas, just personal attacks to undermine YHWH.

Okay then. In this case, God is the subject of the debate. God is not his opponent in the debate. This is not an ad hominem. I can understand if you are frustrated with him badmouthing the idea of God, but this isn't the fallacy you were looking for.

[FallentoReason]

I'm surprised you've never heard him say it. I don't know if my memory is being biased, but I hear him say it in every other debate he's in, in every other breakfast show he's in, in every other written quote I read about him.

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/23651-t...y-the-most

This is literally him every other time. And all he's doing is just badmouthing. There's no discussion of ideas, just personal attacks to undermine YHWH.

Okay then. In this case, God is the subject of the debate. God is not his opponent in the debate. This is not an ad hominem. I can understand if you are frustrated with him badmouthing the idea of God, but this isn't the fallacy you were looking for.

One doesn't have to be in a debate for one's ideas to be challenged (or lack of a challenge).

[Jesster]

Okay then. In this case, God is the subject of the debate. God is not his opponent in the debate. This is not an ad hominem. I can understand if you are frustrated with him badmouthing the idea of God, but this isn't the fallacy you were looking for.

One doesn't have to be in a debate for one's ideas to be challenged (or lack of a challenge).

I'm just saying that it is not at all an ad hominem to use an insult in this manner.

If you want to dislike him for his tactics, I will grant you that. I am not really here to defend Dawkins. I'm just trying to clear up how this specific fallacy can be applied. It happens a lot with this one.

[FallentoReason]

One doesn't have to be in a debate for one's ideas to be challenged (or lack of a challenge).

I'm just saying that it is not at all an ad hominem to use an insult in this manner.

If you want to dislike him for his tactics, I will grant you that. I am not really here to defend Dawkins. I'm just trying to clear up how this specific fallacy can be applied. It happens a lot with this one.

But it's very simple! Dawkins is trying to discredit the Judeo-Christian God. He does so via insults. This results in the fallacy of an ad hom.