Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-11-2013, 01:15 AM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(20-11-2013 01:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(20-11-2013 12:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  If your use of a Hitch quote is based on the idea that "Hitch said it, it must be true", then yes, that is fallacious. But he is an expert, and his opinion has weight in matters of theism/atheism.

I liked Hitchens and I miss him but I think you are mischaracterising his biography.

Hitchens was foremost a journalist and polemicist, he wasn't an expert in any field and he didn't ever pretend to be. He was a great journalist and polemicist but he didn't have expertise in philosophy, history, NT studies, comparative religion, evolutionary biology, cosmology or any other field. Hitchens' expertise was in gathering other people's work and presenting it in his distinct polemical style. He admitted that he didn't do well against WLC in a debate (which speaks to Hitchens' intellectual integrity) and that appeared to be because he hadn't encountered WLCs formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument before. If, for example, 80% of NT scholars stated X and Hitchens stated not-X I would go with the consensus of NT scholars rather than Hitchens and the minority of NT scholars.

Agreed. Hitchens was a great orator, well read and traveled, and to quote Sam Harris "the man had more wit and style and substance than a few civilizations I can name". But a leading biblical scholar or philosopher he was not.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-11-2013, 12:44 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(19-11-2013 07:28 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 02:40 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Well put. Ad populum for example, calls to question the validity of facts in evidence, and does not win an argument. Most people believe oaks take years, not days, to reach maturity--and they do. Most believe something factual here.

When PJ tells me my post is "well put", it makes me hear the lambs...screaming.

Well, when I replied to your post, my heatbeat never exceeded 85 per minute. Fava beans with their Bible, anyone? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 04:06 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(20-11-2013 12:44 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
(19-11-2013 07:28 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  When PJ tells me my post is "well put", it makes me hear the lambs...screaming.

Well, when I replied to your post, my heatbeat never exceeded 85 per minute. Fava beans with their Bible, anyone? Smile

At least you have some semblance of a sense of humor

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
20-11-2013, 07:12 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
Well it's not really the name of the argument that many are referring to when they point them out, it's the logical fallacy within the argument.

By grouping the various unique arguments into a uniform group (most all theistic arguments pertain to one or more logical fallacies) we can become more efficient debaters.

I'm on the debate team in high school and we often group arguments into many categories.

Example: An argument from utilitarianism.

Now, utilitarianism is not itself a logical fallacy, but it can be made to look like one if I use a straw man fallacy against it. Who knew that you could make something look like a fallacy by using a fallacy?

Thus, if someone is debating from the standpoint of utilitarianism than I could simply point to the slave eras, where the majority would benefit from slavery. Does this make slavery right?

Instantly the other debater is backed into a corner and cannot defend his or her self, and the debate is won.

HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE IS DIRTY!

I also hate it because of the strict rules, overbearing paperwork, lack of organization, and snooty people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 08:53 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(20-11-2013 01:08 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(20-11-2013 12:39 AM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  If your use of a Hitch quote is based on the idea that "Hitch said it, it must be true", then yes, that is fallacious. But he is an expert, and his opinion has weight in matters of theism/atheism.

I liked Hitchens and I miss him but I think you are mischaracterising his biography.

Hitchens was foremost a journalist and polemicist, he wasn't an expert in any field and he didn't ever pretend to be. He was a great journalist and polemicist but he didn't have expertise in philosophy, history, NT studies, comparative religion, evolutionary biology, cosmology or any other field. Hitchens' expertise was in gathering other people's work and presenting it in his distinct polemical style. He admitted that he didn't do well against WLC in a debate (which speaks to Hitchens' intellectual integrity) and that appeared to be because he hadn't encountered WLCs formulation of the Kalam Cosmological Argument before. If, for example, 80% of NT scholars stated X and Hitchens stated not-X I would go with the consensus of NT scholars rather than Hitchens and the minority of NT scholars.

One doesn't need to be an "expert" in the minutiae of the various biblical fairytales to be expert in calling bullshit on apologists.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-11-2013, 08:56 PM
RE: Does naming an arguments render it invalid?
(20-11-2013 07:12 PM)UndercoverAtheist Wrote:  Well it's not really the name of the argument that many are referring to when they point them out, it's the logical fallacy within the argument.

By grouping the various unique arguments into a uniform group (most all theistic arguments pertain to one or more logical fallacies) we can become more efficient debaters.

I'm on the debate team in high school and we often group arguments into many categories.

Example: An argument from utilitarianism.

Now, utilitarianism is not itself a logical fallacy, but it can be made to look like one if I use a straw man fallacy against it. Who knew that you could make something look like a fallacy by using a fallacy?

Thus, if someone is debating from the standpoint of utilitarianism than I could simply point to the slave eras, where the majority would benefit from slavery. Does this make slavery right?

Instantly the other debater is backed into a corner and cannot defend his or her self, and the debate is won.

HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE IS DIRTY!

I also hate it because of the strict rules, overbearing paperwork, lack of organization, and snooty people.

Yes, and it's pretty stupid for atheists to allow themselves to get dragged into high-school-type debates with people like WLC who know how to cheat them with Gish-Gallops and mountains of bullshit.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: