I just re-read your comments and I gotta say: You paint a pretty grim picture of us religious folk. Do you really feel that all religious-minded folks are sheep? Fodder for the next Jim Jones or david Koresh? Or do you worry that someone like myself fits that profile? Have you no consideration for the likes of Mother Teresa?

To put it another way: Do you honestly think that imposing atheism is better than imposing theism in a free society? When the imposed viewpoint is your own, are you OK with that, pluralistic society be damned?

Demonweed, I’m not quite sure you understand that a marketplace of ideas, that free expression itself does not demand or imply that no idea shall ascend to dominance. It means everyone has a voice, not that all ideas are equal. It means that free folk can discuss their ideas without threat or muzzling, but in the end the majority rules, meaning that plurality cannot be a homogenization of all ideas as equally valid [i.e. as equally irrelevant]. Such a homogenous plurality would lead to an effective muzzling of the masses and rule by a few already in power, so long as they were careful enough to make their stated views homogenous enough to appeal to the masses.

Dogma does not offend me. The insistence that I or anyone else shut up simply because I happen to disagree with you, that’s the dangerous idea.

Now more to the point, you fail to see that evolution is a naturalistic explanation of how life develops. It is true that it never explains life’s origins, but it presumes that all processes will be naturalistic.

Unless of course you’re conceding that God created life and set natural selection in place to guide it along? You see, that would be a supernatural explanation for the origin of life. Naturalism by definition is the belief that no God is needed to explain the universe. Or had you thought out the implications of the theory? True, a number of theist’s have attempted a synthesis, but they relegate God to a “God of the gaps.” The more they capitulate to naturalism, the less place He has in His Creation. My view is more consistent with both theistic belief and with the evidence at hand.

By this I mean the fossil record.

The naturalist must forever lament, as darwin did, at how “imperfect” the fossil record is, since it does not line up with the theory. It shows each kind of creature, with variations within each kind [as we see today in living creatures], with no transitionary forms, and each fully formed and functional as it is today. Fossils of fish immortalized in the act of swallowing fish and like fossils [like fossilized trees sticking up through several strata allegedly representing billions of years] better fit the picture of catstrophism than evolution.

But keep looking at the world the way they tell you to look at it, if it pleases you. I choose to actually consider the evidence, whether you concur with my conclusions or not.

—Sirius Knott

Thanks for clearing that up.

–Sirius Knott

What you have presented as logic here begins with bold assumptions rooted in no actual evidence and stumbles into conclusions you were determined to find long before the process began. Even if you cannot admit it . . . even if you cannot recognize it . . . that nonetheless happens to be the case. The idea that the universe must have had a creator is itself ludicrous (never mind the obvious, if unwritten, way you seem to conclude that creator has properties consistent with your personal faith.)

If you want to believe that which is unsupported by proof, fair enough. Thought policing is dirty work anyway. However, if you want to insist these unsupported personal convictions are actually some sort of facts supported by ironclad proof, then you run the risk of becoming/supporting one of those monsters who imposes the arbitrary whims of the sacred on those who do not make a personal choice to accept that faith as their own. That perverts faith and degrades the tranquility of any pluralist society. A free land should make a place for a diversity of religious beliefs, but it should never provide support for chicanery that passes off such beliefs as if any specific set was uniquely worthy of popular adherence.

I’ve never been banned. Most folks find that they like me despite their better judgment.

But you’re last paragraph was touching sophistry nonetheless. I’m sure fans of your tautology were sighing with emotion and appreciation of your gift of… well, insult.

Your point concerning my use of Manifesto Capitalization is a straw man. Evolution presumes that all processes will be natural and not supernatural and that, therefore, there will be a natural explanation for everything. It does not allow for supernatural intervention.

Here’s a clue-in: Beliefs have implications. If you believe that we evolved, you assume it was by a natural process and that God [the supernatural] was unecessary.

Your comments are alsoloaded with weasel words by the way.

As for my notes on how you comment on what I apparently believe as opposed to what I actually state, I was not commenting on your usage of the word “apparent.” I was comment on the fact that you constantly theorize and speculate about my motives, intents and very thoughts while largely ignoring what I’ve actually said.

It is little wonder then that straw men are apparently your modus operandi.

You also make sweeping generalizations, I see. When exactly did you prove how I had dismissed the application of reason, abandoned honesty or the like? Oh, because I’ve dismissed the square peg of atheistic evolution in light of the round hole of the fossil record? Equating naturalistic science with reason is yet another straw man. Do you NEVER tire of thatching these things?

–Sirius Knott

Still, there are straw men to be seen here. Those would misrepresentations of the other side in an argument for the purpose of appearing to win the clash on a particular point. For example, Sirius (using Manifesto Capitalization, of course) tells us “Evolution presumes that there is a natural explanation for everything.” Of course it does no such thing. Biological evolution provides a natural explanation for the process that, over the course of billions of years, transformed the earliest life on Earth into the diverse array of complex organisms inhabiting our world today.

Evolution makes no claims about how this initial life came to exist. It also makes no claims about how the planet itself came to exist (though astrophysics does offer a sound explanation for that.) Sirius sets up the straw man of “a natural explanation for everything” because without that bogus target to attack, perhaps not even he could embrace reasoning so shoddy as has been displayed in this discussion.

Not only does he dismiss the application of reason, but he also abandons honesty in his zeal to concoct a narrative that vindicates his heartfelt opinions on natural history. Were he an honest and rational person, he would learn what the science on evolution actually teaches, then compose his arguments as responses to that science. Of course, the whole martyr complex is also a nice touch. No doubt he is certain each and every ban he has endured online is persecution based on the desire to suppress his views. He cannot conceive of a scenario in which being cast out was a reaction to his inability to act as an honest and thoughtful participant in dialog.

Regardless of whether you ban me from your blog, I feel the need to point out that it is YOU who took a quote of mine OUT of context and created a straw man and stated that this was what I professed. Now let me ask you this: If I did this to you, would you feel insulted?

Demonweed,

My understanding of ad hominem came from debate. I certainly appreciate your clarification. Apparently, I was wrong. In some cases, rather than ad hominem attacks, you offered sweeping generalizations and straw men. I stand corrected. For example, when you comment in regard to what I “apparently believe” rather than what I’ve actaully said. Likening me to a child playing with a loaded gun would definitely be ad hominem. Your last sentence is a rather good straw man, pitting reason on your side and presuming that I have “eschewed” the same.

Spartacus,

Please take your own advice [and mine!]

–Sirius Knott

P.S. If you ban me, please let me know about it so that I can let everyone know on my blog. And kindly don’t quote me out-of-context in the future.

Your blog, your rules. Will do.

For example, if I am arguing with John McCain about Iraq policy, and I let “George W. Bush is a world class imbecile” slide from my lips, I have not made an ad hominem attack. In fact, I may be reinforcing (albeit crudely) my position in a dispute about whether or not the sitting President is a credible authority on matters of foreign policy. Had Sen. McCain recently said something like, “I agree with the President’s assessment that we cannot withdraw military forces form Iraq while terrorists remain at large within that nation’s borders,” then my crude remark would be entirely fair game. No source should be treated as impervious to critique, even if that souce should happen to be a human being.

However, the real disagreement here is about beliefs. Sirius apparently contends that if a belief is held near and dear to one’s heart, then repudiating it is no different from personally attacking an advocate in an argument. This is, of course, absurd. For a sad mad fringe of Americans, “this land was intended for the sole use of the white race,” is a belief held with fanatical zeal. Some may embrace it every bit as deeply as Sirius embraces his commitment to worship Jesus Christ. Of course, it is never an ad hominem argument to contradict such an assertion. This is not because it is obviously in error. Instead, it is because that belief is obviously not a person, and certainly not a party involved in the ongoing debate.

Like little children playing around with loaded rifles, Internet personalities utilizing formal terminology related to logic and argument can provide onlookers with an experience that is simultaneously disturbing and amusing. As it happens, most people who truly understand the ad hominem concept are also versed enough at the practice of argumentation to turn the tables without using that particular phrase as a shield.

When it is used correctly, “ad hominem” applies only to those arguments one participant in ongoing clash uses to undermine the personal credibility of another participant in the ongoing clash. In fact, even within those constraints there is a particular gray area. In casual human interactions, often sources and advocates are one in the same. If my half-blind senile uncle insists he saw Sasquatch picking out turnips at the local Safeway, a response of, “yeah, but you don’t see so clearly these days,” is a perfectly rational response. It may still be an attack on the advocate, but many logicians would not classify that response as an ad hominem because it goes to the credibility of that person as a source, which is not the same thing as his credibility in advocacy.

Anyway, thanks to all concerned for the light distraction today. I hope the long-windedness of my responses was not terribly problematic.

Other examples of arguments that are not ad hominem

Of course American Idol is not educational television!
Abraham Lincoln did not discover America in 1776!
There are real bones of human beings that died more than 10,000 years ago.
There are biological explanations for all manner of unreal perceptions, memories, apparent experiences, beliefs.
If there is a God, surely He would be more pleased by those able to honestly stare mystery in the eye than those who defile the best human endowments by eschewing the application of reason to the question of theism.