I skimmed over the former thread and was puzzled by several ideas joined together in the original post.

1. I don't see how examining public behavior is an "ad hominem attack." I think we have every right to examine, say, the messages in a speech by the pope. I don't think of it as an "ad hominem attack" if thoughtful people find sexism or duplicity in a papal pronouncement -- and talk and write those issues openly. In fact, isn't it their responsibility as decent people to do so? Of course I think this applies not only to religious leaders but to secular people whether their religion is quietly in the background or they are openly atheists or they are openly advocating for science, reason, or any cause, such as communism. Whatever. That is irrelevant to me. They are public figures, and what they say and do is open to criticism (both fair and unfair). I suppose if you use your criticism of a prominent person to then attack the ideas or institution behind the person, that becomes an ad hominem attack of sorts. Neil deGrasse Tyson's misstatements on history and popular culture in no way reflect on the value of science or the solidity of the theory of evolution. But hey -- that NEVER happens around here. NO ONE ever uses say a quote from the Bible to attack all the Judeo-Christian tradition -- even those who do not practice, say, slavery, to grab one example at random.

2. I think it is fair to examine any person's behavior against their judgments of the behavior of others. That is not an ad hominem attack. It is practically the purpose of this board. People are bewildered, damaged, angry when the church of their youth stresses honesty and is caught in a lie. Examining such contradictions (hopefully) makes us saner, better people. Isn't that why we are all here? Of course religions are by no means the only institutions and religious people are by no means the only people who live out such contradictions. If you were paying attention in your humanity class, you realize this is the human condition. When "prominent atheists and thinkers" ding religions for sexism, they are moving in, lock and stock and barrel, to a very glass house, and it is hardly an "ad hominem attack" to examine THEIR relationships with women. They deserve the same scrutiny as the Pope, as Thomas S. Monson, as Warren Jeffs, as Geronimo Aguilar. Or "Do Unto Others." Ooops. Forgot for a moment that is a quote from an evil book which spawns only evil ideas and evil consequences and has no redeeming social value.

3. At first I was intensely puzzled that these problems in the "prominent" atheist community might even SUGGEST that atheism is a fraud. How so? While it might make one even more cynical about mankind, in what valid argument does any of this suggest that there is a God? Or that we have more of a reason to believe in God? I am so not seeing that argument.

But then it came to me -- in a way, yes, these revelations show us that there MIGHT be a problem not in atheism itself, but in the DOGMATIC ATHEISM that these very outspoken atheist have promulgated. They have pounded the idea that it is religions -- and religions alone -- that have created a sexist, racist, violent, unjust society. If we just leave religions behind, suddenly we have, in the printed opinion of Richard Dawkins, the world of "Imagine" -- of infinite peace and love.

In my opinion, yes, the misbehaving "prominent atheists and thinkers" are busily proving that VARIETY of atheism somewhat of a fraud, but I have had that figured for some time now. Yes, they are offering evidence that just ceasing to believe in god does not create an ideal society or even a better individual (any more than believing in god did). And hey -- you can prove that just by hanging out on the boards. It is just a little more complicated than that. And perhaps mankind is not built for "ideal" and struggles to obtain even "decent"?

I agree they are undermining their message that religion is the source of all evil. But I never equated that with atheism anyway. They are NOT proving that we would all be better off if we stayed safely inside religions (which were never safe), but I think they are offering us proof we should take the healing power of atheism with the same grain of salt we might ask of believers in church.

I remain firmly atheist through all this. Nothing has made me rethink the existence of god or made me want to rush right out and join a religion, but I think it would be good if it made us question our assumed superiority to believers. Hell -- I think that anything that makes us question that is A Good Thing.

This is just a wild aside, but Dawkins the perfect gentleman? Is someone kidding? I have long thought him the perfect ass.

"Richard Dawkins recently tweeted that knowingly birthing a baby with Down syndrome is immoral. That claim is not only offensive—it’s nonsensical.

"Lately, Richard Dawkins seems to scan the world for sore spots, take a good poke, and revel in the ensuing outcry. A few weeks ago, he proclaimed that stranger rape is worse than date rape. Last Wednesday, he tweeted that if a fetus was diagnosed with Down syndrome, the mother should “abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” Predictably, he was deluged with angry responses; as of this writing, he is still responding to critics."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/28/richard-dawkins-would-fail-philosophy-101.html

Calling Dawkins a "Creep Defender" clearly is not a statement of examination and goes beyond simple accusation into personal attack.

Next?

If that thread was about "examination" it should have been worded something like "Does Dawkin's actions make him a creep?"

Labeling him a creep indicates the examination of him being a creep is completed and determination made.

No, that thread was not about "examination".

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I skimmed over the former thread and was puzzled
> by several ideas joined together in the original
> post.
>
> 1. I don't see how examining public behavior is an
> "ad hominem attack."

It's not. An ad hominem attack is simply where someone does not respond directly to a specific statement, but prefers to criticize or attack the person who made the statement. This occurred a lot among Tyson supporters who reacted to reports of his fabrications by attacking the person who reported them. This method does nothing to actually prove or disprove the allegations. It's hugely satisfying to degrade the person delivering bad news, but it bears no weight on the validity of the actual news.

It's a lazy person's method of argument.

If Charles Manson says your house is on fire, will you just ignore him and fall back asleep, or will you give a sniff or two for smoke? His character is irrelevant regarding whether or not your house is on fire. An ad hominem attack simply yells that "he's a murderer!" and falls back asleep.

>
> 2. I think it is fair to examine any person's
> behavior against their judgments of the behavior
> of others. That is not an ad hominem attack.

True. You can locate a hypocrite this way, but you cannot evaluate the veracity of anything they say. Charles Manson may declare that he's opposed to all murder. That makes him a hypocrite. But when he yells that your house is on fire, you still better check for smoke. The fact that he's a murderer and a hypocrite bear no actual bearing on whether your house is on fire.


>
> In my opinion, yes, the misbehaving "prominent
> atheists and thinkers" are busily proving that
> VARIETY of atheism somewhat of a fraud, but I have
> had that figured for some time now.

I think they're just revealing themselves as human. We're all occasionally hypocrites and poor thinkers. Some Christians have bumper stickers that say, "I'm not perfect, just forgiven." Perhaps atheists should mimic this with one that says, "I'm not perfect, just human."

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> janeeliot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I skimmed over the former thread and was
> puzzled
> > by several ideas joined together in the
> original
> > post.
> >
> > 1. I don't see how examining public behavior is
> an
> > "ad hominem attack."
>
> It's not. An ad hominem attack is simply where
> someone does not respond directly to a specific
> statement, but prefers to criticize or attack the
> person who made the statement. This occurred a
> lot among Tyson supporters who reacted to reports
> of his fabrications by attacking the person who
> reported them. This method does nothing to
> actually prove or disprove the allegations. It's
> hugely satisfying to degrade the person delivering
> bad news, but it bears no weight on the validity
> of the actual news.
>

Where are you getting that definition of ad hominem?

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Ad hominem is about making personal attacks to discredit the person, the same thing happened TO Tyson when people take a reinterpretation of what Tyson said, claim it is a paraphrase then QUOTE it to make it appear as if Tyson said the words verbatim.

MJ Wrote:

>
> Where are you getting that definition of ad
> hominem?
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-homine
> m.html
>
> Ad hominem is about making personal attacks to
> discredit the person, the same thing happened TO
> Tyson when people take a reinterpretation of what
> Tyson said, claim it is a paraphrase then QUOTE it
> to make it appear as if Tyson said the words
> verbatim.

Ad hominem is a bit more nuanced than this.

I referred in my post to the attack that was waged against Sean Davis after he penned an article claiming that Tyson was fabricating some of the information in his public speaking appearances.

You may have seen that some posters on that thread suggested the website Davis posts on is unreliable. One poster attacked me as a t-bagger for Jesus. These are examples of ad hominem attacks. They made no effort to actually engage the claim that Tyson fabricated stories, but preferred to wage personal attacks against those who delivered the information.

The original article has links to pages with YouTube videos showing the Tyson actually delivering the quotes. So, lacking other mitigating information, the claims appear to be true.

If they are false, as you suggest, I'm not sure that's really a logical fallacy. They are just false allegations. Ad hominem is an attempt to dismiss a person's argument by attacking them personally and not actually engaging their argument. I don't believe that happened to Tyson. It happened to those who leveled accusations against him.

I have provided evidence to back up my claim. Until you do as well, I see no reason to accept your claims over the evidence.

You already have shown you will misquote what you call paraphrasing to misrepresent what others have said, thus damaging your credibility. Because of this, I see no reason to accept your word without supporting documentation.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2014 04:55PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have provided evidence to back up my claim.
> Until you do as well, I see no reason to accept
> your claims over the evidence.
>
> You already have shown you will misquote what you
> call paraphrasing to misrepresent what others have
> said, thus damaging your credibility. Because of
> this, I see no reason to accept your word without
> supporting documentation.

I'm a bit confused. You're claiming you have evidence that Tyson was misquoted, but you've never actually seen the YouTube videos of him making those statements? That's amazing.

BTW, dismissing an argument without examining the evidence is the fallacy of an argument from ignorance.

I had a number of professors who would give us a single source, and tell us that was the start of what we needed to know -- we were responsible for finding out the rest. I always learned more in those classes, so I've been trying to help you out similarly.

If you're too lazy to actually read a linked article and follow the links, how about trying Google? I just did a Google search for Tyson's Bush video and found it right away. Google actually owns YouTube, you know?

It's actually much simpler to just refuse to look for it, and accuse me of lying, isn't it? Don't be so lazy.

He certainly wasn't misquoted. In fact based on the video, this from the Federalist article is true:

"Tyson butchered the quote. He butchered the date. He butchered the context. He butchered the implication. And he butchered the biblical allusion, which was to the prophet Isaiah, not the book of Genesis (you can tell Bush was alluding to Isaiah because he explicitly said he was referencing Isaiah)."

All true. However, I don't think this is the 'take-down' of Tyson the right-wing mags seem to think it is. It is very dishonest point-scoring rhetoric, though.

Tall man was the one that did the misquotes I am talking about. I asked him repeatedly for the source of the quotes tall man attributed to Tyson and tall man said they came from the article. The quotes were nowhere to be found in the article. No, the quotes tall man attributed to tyson did not appear in the article or the video, at least not anywhere I could find.

Since the source tall man attributed the quotes to did not actually contain what tall man quoted, and tall man has never supplied a source for what he has quoted other than something that clearly did not contain what tall man quoted, I will assume they are misquotes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2014 05:52PM by MJ.

MJ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
the quotes tall man attributed to tyson did
> not appear in the article or the video, at least
> not anywhere I could find.

Bingo. Somehow others have found it. They're lying too, I suppose.




> Since the source tall man attributed the quotes to
> did not actually contain what tall man quoted, and
> tall man has never supplied a source for what he
> has quoted other than something that clearly did
> not contain what tall man quoted, I will assume
> they are misquotes.

And you will (in complete ignorance) assume a lie. Are you sure you were never a Mormon? Is this really the caliber of intellect you use as you stumble through life?

Don't be so lazy. Your accusations are little more than little boy schoolyard taunts since you base them upon . . . nothing. Google is your friend. Actually, it's likely your enemy.

If ignorance is bliss, you're the most blissful person I've met in a long while.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> the quotes tall man attributed to tyson did
> > not appear in the article or the video, at
> least
> > not anywhere I could find.
>
> Bingo. Somehow others have found it. They're
> lying too, I suppose.

Who found it and where is it? Another claim dismissed because there is no evidence to examine.

I ask again, where is the source for the quotes you attributed to tyson? IF you quoted him, you must know where the quotes came from.

>
>
>
>
> > Since the source tall man attributed the quotes
> to
> > did not actually contain what tall man quoted,
> and
> > tall man has never supplied a source for what
> he
> > has quoted other than something that clearly
> did
> > not contain what tall man quoted, I will assume
> > they are misquotes.
>
> And you will (in complete ignorance) assume a lie.

No, it is because there is no evidence I assume YOU misquoted and based on your seeming insistence to claim that a misquote means malicious intent, I will concluded that based on your standards, you had malicious intent. Sorry, but I am not speaking in complete ignorance, I am basing my concluding on your behavior.,


But I do like how you go on the personal attack.

[ Behavior miss attributed to tall man deleted with my apologies ]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2014 06:11PM by MJ.

I dismiss the quotes you attributed to Tyson for lack of evidence, I dismiss your claims about what an ad hominem is because you supply no evidence to back up your claim and examine. I dismiss the claims about Tyson having malicious intent when he made the misquotes because nobody has shown evidence related to his state of mind at the time. No, a misquote does not show malicious intent.

Yes, until you supply evidence to examine, I will dismiss what you claim because of lack of evidence to examine.

Your credibility issue is of your own making.

Oh, and I am waiting for the evidence to examine that shows what tyson was really thinking when he made those statements. If he was actually talking from a misunderstanding of a situation, you have nothing. So, where is the evidence that shows malicious INTENT, not just speculation. Until I have seen actual evidence of malicious intent to examine, I will dismiss the claims of malicious intent. Claims I have seen, evidence I have not.

Yes, you have shown him misquoting, but NOT what the intent behind those misquotes.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2014 06:02PM by MJ.

I don't have the time to follow-up on everything. If someone yells "he's a mormon", I'm going to draw some conclusions. I may be wrong.

Now, if the OP to this original thread yells something, I'll pay attention.

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>In my opinion, yes, the misbehaving "prominent atheists and thinkers" are busily proving that VARIETY of atheism somewhat of a fraud, but I have had that figured for some time now. Yes, they are offering evidence that just ceasing to believe in god does not create an ideal society or even a better individual (any more than believing in god did). And hey -- you can prove that just by hanging out on the boards. It is just a little more complicated than that. And perhaps mankind is not built for "ideal" and struggles to obtain even "decent"?
>


Theism or Atheism indeed is has NOthing to do with "decent" behavior. Ethical behavior is something entirely different.
I actually wonder if the theist - atheist debate is a smokescreen to avoid looking at social cause and effect - choice and consequences from a more simplistic position. Like you said, Perhaps mankind is not built for "ideal" and struggles to obtain even "decent". Perhaps humanity needs an upgrade.

On the other hand it's interesting when a number of atheists make a point of differentiating between an atheist and his practice, while not allowing the mormon who does the same thing with Joe.

I'm not an atheist or a theist. I'm a "moralist". lol, note to put the space between the a and m in a moral. Of course even a crusade to establish morals void of belief-non-beliefs is a challenge when people's definitions of morals differ.
Yah, for me it's about results and I don't see appealing results in with either camp.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2014 01:58PM by joan.

Atheist and theist are mutually exclusive terms.

There is:

Theist, everything that is theist (believes in God).
Atheist, everything that is not theist.

That accounts for everyone.

You may want to brush up on what the words mean before you make claims about how they apply to you.

The simple test to determine if you are an atheist or theist, answer the question "Do I believe in God?"

Answer yes, you are a theist, any other answer, you are an atheist.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2014 02:27PM by MJ.

I am an agnostic -- neither a theist nor an atheist.

One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_atheism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic_theism

Agnostic and atheist are not mutually exclusive terms.

Atheist is the negation of theist. Theist is having the belief in God(s). Atheist is the NEGATION of that. In other words, everything, I mean EVERYTHING that is not theist (has a belief in god) is atheist by way of negation of the term theist. That would include agnostics that claim they have no belief either way.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/21/2014 02:47PM by MJ.

Here's the definition of agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.

Atheism talks about belief, you are now talking about knowledge.

One may not KNOW for certain, but still BELIEVE one way or the other.

One may not KNOW for certain, yet still BELIEVE in god.
One may not KNOW for certain, yet still NOT BELIEVE in god.

The first is a a theist, the latter is an atheist. You point about knowledge is not what defines an atheist or a theist.

You have not actually addressed my point, which is about BELIEF not KNOWLEDGE.

Ah. I see. That's quite different!

Don't listen to this dodgy Dawkins - he will try to get you to join his Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. This only thing he is right about (and I know because I have done my research) is that Charles Dawkins is the bloke who invented evolution. Dawkins' website say he is into natural philosphy - now I ask you, would you trust a philosopher who likes to run about Britain with no clothes on?

My atheist friend says that Dawkins is like a god to him. So to square the circle I asked my religious friend if he would like to read a Dawkins' book. No way, said my friend. No way does my religious friend want to read a book by a sanctimonious know-it-all.

esias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>This only thing he is right about (and
> I know because I have done my research) is that
> Charles Dawkins is the bloke who invented
> evolution.

Your "research" was awful.
Evolution is an observed process that occurs in the natural world. Nobody "invented" it.
Charles *Darwin* was the first to provide an explanation of how evolution works that was based on evidence and has been verified. Many others (including the bible) tried to offer explanations before that -- none of them proved valid.

It's rather sad when someone says "I have done my research," and then gets NOTHING right.

I think it was satire.

Poe's Law strikes again.

I suppose it may be in our nature to desire to incorporate 'all' of a person we agree with and to feel betrayal or anger when we find out that not 'all of them is agreeable.

Whether or not prominent atheists are creeps or rapists or even murderers does not take one shred of evidence away from their argument in terms of logic.

However, we are not purely logical beings...and it is devastating to their credibility within the framework of emotional and cultural acceptance.

I know this has nothing to do with Atheism per se but it was viewing Joseph Smith's immoral acts that allowed me to begin to consider the fault in the rest of his arguments. It would be unfortunate if along that same vein people disregard known Science that is professed by immoral (read human) human beings.