What Have You Read?

[variant]

Associates degree in philosophy (because I found it fun).

I really don't have a catalog of what I've read sitting around.

Philosophical "snobbery" has always been kind of funny to me, if everyone can't access and understand your arguments then your probably doing it wrong.

Only in that neither are in the same league as the names I mentioned prior to that. Craig is far ahead of Strobel, to be sure, but he's still not that spectacular.

Craig seems quite impressed with his own PHD, regardless of his terrible rehashed cosmological argument.

 

[Gadarene]

Craig seems quite impressed with his own PHD, regardless of his terrible rehashed cosmological argument.

I'm still somewhat fond of the guy (regardless of the quality of his arguments) in that it was through him that I got into the philosophical debate about the existence of god, so if it hadn't been for him, I'd have missed out on that.

 

[variant]

I'm still somewhat fond of the guy (regardless of the quality of his arguments) in that it was through him that I got into the philosophical debate about the existence of god, so if it hadn't been for him, I'd have missed out on that.

Read the origional Aquinus, it is far superior (I don't think Craig adds anything to the origional arguments that wasen't already there).

(Or Aristotle)

 

[secondtimearound]

You may want to reread logic 101 before anything else, if that's your metric for someone doing a good job.

As Bertrand Russell pointed out "the ad hominem is a last ditch defense of the losing side".

 

[secondtimearound]

Philosophical "snobbery" has always been kind of funny to me, if everyone can't access and understand your arguments then your probably doing it wrong.

Sounds like you of all people should know that the arguments are easy to understand, it's the defense that gets difficult.

Craig seems quite impressed with his own PHD, regardless of his terrible rehashed cosmological argument.

Craig didn't make the comment. I did.

 

[variant]

Sounds like you of all people should know that the arguments are easy to understand, it's the defense that gets difficult.

That is why philosophy is interesting.

I find that making good arguments in the first place is actually the difficult problem since I think they are easier to pick apart then they are to originate.

Craig didn't make the comment. I did.

I was commenting on my impressions of Craig from Craig himself.

 

[Gadarene]

As Bertrand Russell pointed out "the ad hominem is a last ditch defense of the losing side".

Which would be relevant if I actually made one.

Guess that's one more thing to add to your reading list

 

[secondtimearound]

Which would be relevant if I actually made one.

Guess that's one more thing to add to your reading list

First you insulted Dr. Craig by putting him to the level of Lee Strobel (entry level apologetics [I am more than aware of Lee's reputation in the skeptical landscape]), but that wasn't an ad hominem, that was just rude. So I retorted by saying your need to insult him shows just how good of a job he is doing. In other words, childish name calling is what you have to resort to in order to discredit him. You then said I should go "reread logic 101 if that is your metric for someone doing a good job". So to invalidate what I said, you insulted my grasp of logic. *slow clap* Textbook ad hominem.

 

[variant]

First you insulted Dr. Craig by putting him to the level of Lee Strobel (entry level apologetics [I am more than aware of Lee's reputation in the skeptical landscape]), but that wasn't an ad hominem, that was just rude. So I retorted by saying your need to insult him shows just how good of a job he is doing. In other words, childish name calling is what you have to resort to in order to discredit him. You then said I should go "reread logic 101 if that is your metric for someone doing a good job". So to invalidate what I said, you insulted my grasp of logic. *slow clap* Textbook ad hominem.

There should be a logical fallacy for quibbling over the smallest perceived slights to your favored philosophers on message boards.

On a side note: drawing insults is not a good metric of someone doing a goog job.

 

[secondtimearound]

There should be a logical fallacy for quibbling over the smallest perceived slights to your favored philosophers on message boards.

Says the guy who is choosing to quibble with me over my percieved slights to my favored philosophers on this message board. Point a finger and you have three pointing back at you.

 

[variant]

Says the guy who is choosing to quibble with me over my percieved slights to my favored philosophers on this message board. Point a finger and you have three pointing back at you.

I am pointing out pettyness.

Is it by definition petty to point out pettyness?

I think your argument fails formally and informally.

 

[Gadarene]

First you insulted Dr. Craig by putting him to the level of Lee Strobel (entry level apologetics [I am more than aware of Lee's reputation in the skeptical landscape]), but that wasn't an ad hominem, that was just rude.

In that I don't rate him in the same category as Aquinas.

Hardly an insult, most people don't make that cut.

So I retorted by saying your need to insult him shows just how good of a job he is doing. In other words, childish name calling is what you have to resort to in order to discredit him. You then said I should go "reread logic 101 if that is your metric for someone doing a good job". So to invalidate what I said, you insulted my grasp of logic. *slow clap* Textbook ad hominem.

Claiming that an argument contains bad logic (which it did) is not an ad hom.

 

[secondtimearound]

On a side note: drawing insults is not a good metric of someone doing a goog job.

Yeah? Tell that to any professional athlete who has obtained a measure of success. Or anyone who has ever become the boss in a company. Success breeds hatred and always from the people who lack the abilities they do.

 

[variant]

Yeah? Tell that to any professional athlete who has obtained a measure of success. Or anyone who has ever become the boss in a company. Success breeds hatred and always from the people who lack the abilities they do.

The simple fact is that people can be and often are disliked for other reasons. Saying it is because they are good at what they do is just jumping to conclusions.

 

[secondtimearound]

In that I don't rate him in the same category as Aquinas.

Hardly an insult, most people don't make that cut.

You mentioned 3 philosophers and 1 journalist and you lumped Craig in with him.

Claiming that an argument contains bad logic (which it did) is not an ad hom.

Try not to trip over your own feet in your next post, won't you?

The right thing to do is not to insult me and show me how my logic is faulty. Since you can't show me how my logic is wrong you keep insulting me in an effort to save face. Do you have anything worth while to say, or is that your only game?

 

[secondtimearound]

The simple fact is that people can be and often are disliked for other reasons. Saying it is because they are good at what they do is just jumping to conclusions.

Success breeds hatred. Period. Can you tell me what Sidney Crosby has done to deserve the disrespect he recieves on a daily basis? How about my boss at work? A family man who everyday is forced to make hard decisions. The fact of this world is that if you are successful in anything, all the people who are underneath you will criticize you to no end. I am not jumping to any conclusions, that's just the way it is.

 

[Gadarene]

You mentioned 3 philosophers and 1 journalist and you lumped Craig in with him.

Yup, I listed the authors I've read.

Some were good.

Some, like Craig and Strobel, were not, hence the delineation.

The topic - as you should well be aware - is what reading we've done about the arguments from the other side. Strobel's, like it or not, comprise part of those arguments. I've had enough Christians recommend him to me, and I may as well look at the bad end of things. And lest we forget, I've already stated that I think Strobel is far worse than Craig.

Get over it now. The fanboyism is getting tiresome.

The right thing to do is not to insult me and show me how my logic is faulty. Since you can't show me how my logic is wrong you keep insulting me in an effort to save face. Do you have anything worth while to say, or is that your only game?

Variant's already pointed out why your logic was faulty.

I didn't expound on my claim immediately because I gave you credit enough to figure it out on your own.

Well, initially, at any rate.

 

[Gadarene]

Success breeds hatred. Period. Can you tell me what Sidney Crosby has done to deserve the disrespect he recieves on a daily basis? How about my boss at work? A family man who everyday is forced to make hard decisions. The fact of this world is that if you are successful in anything, all the people who are underneath you will criticize you to no end. I am not jumping to any conclusions, that's just the way it is.

Yeah, it's not conclusive, is the point. People also ridicule when something is absurdly wrong, for example.

Or to extend your example, you could be successful but hated because you did something hateful in order to be successful. A business owner mightn't be hated purely because he is successful, but because he operates his business unethically.

This is no different an argument in form to when some Christians think that opposition means that what they're doing is right, or that scoffers validate the end times. There are multiple reasons why one might be opposed, or scoffed at.

 

[variant]

Success breeds hatred. Period. Can you tell me what Sidney Crosby has done to deserve the disrespect he recieves on a daily basis? How about my boss at work? A family man who everyday is forced to make hard decisions. The fact of this world is that if you are successful in anything, all the people who are underneath you will criticize you to no end. I am not jumping to any conclusions, that's just the way it is.

The claim is simply unsupported. People dislike frauds, fakes, pretenders, snake oil salesmen, demagogues and talking heads too.

Mere dislike is not enough to show competence or effectiveness, as those must rely on the competence and effectiveness of the actual arguments.

Here it is in logical terms:

1. A therefore sometimes B
2. A
Therefore B

 

[Gadarene]

If the name Samantha Brick means anything to anyone in this thread, then she's a prime topical example of this.

Samantha Brick on the downsides to looking pretty: 'Why women hate me for being beautiful' | Mail Online

Simply put, she didn't get the backlash she did from this article because people hate her for being....ahem....beautiful.