Is not applicable, not sure what the MODS should do.
Not sure if it’s applicable, or about the MODS.
Thirst should be warned and/or banned.
0voters
HELLO F(R)IEND(S)
I was curious if ad hominem could be applied to god; in particular the god of the bible. Here are some points:
The god of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity is male.
Minimally god is referred to as: him, he, his.
The Christian god has taken human form and perhaps so has the Jewish god (thereby the Islamic god).
The biblical god is a sentient being.
Man was made in the image of god (non-physically)
Many other religions believe in god as a being that represents the perfect man.
Insulting anyone’s beliefs could be viewed as an attack on the person.
Now, if I have a brother and I said that my brother disliked asian people some would consider him foolish in his thinking, while others would consider him [insert insult here]. Now, you do not know that I lied and have no brother but does the ad hominem apply to those who insult and do not know that this brother does not exist? Can this be applied to god Also, does ad hominem apply to a fictional character? If god was a character created by man would ad hominem still apply?
I ask because I wonder if insulting god should be unacceptable. I think that it should not be acceptable. As philosophers we should not need to resort to insults and attacks against god to make a point. I propose that calling god a jerk in a serious forum is unacceptable. If you want to call god a jerk do it in the Rant House or maybe Mundane Babble.
I vote that ad hominem applies to god and thus any attacks should merit warnings from the moderators and that all future threads with ad hominem against god be moved to the appropriate forums.
You mean Ad Theinem, or perhaps Ad Dieinem… I’m sure someone with better Latin will correct me if need be.
But while it’s still permissible, I’d just like to say:
[size=150]God’s a jerk.[/size]
[size=75][Waits for thunderbolt… 1 Misisippy, 2 Missisippy, 3 Missisipy(how the hell do you spell it…?)][/size]
Nothing - still here - You see, God is a jerk - but he’s a very [size=125]big [/size]jerk. So he doesn’t really care what we little jerks think about him. Actually, come to think about it, all these beautiful churches and praising etc. hasn’t really tempted God out of his hole for a triumphant return tour… Perhaps we should all join hands, turn our eyes to the skies, and shout.“Hey Jerk - yeah we’re talkin’ to you - come and have a go if you think you’re hard enough…”
Mind you we did off his son. You’d have thought that would have earned us a good smiting if nothing else.
[size=75][Sorry Thirst - I’m a bit of a pissed jerk at the moment.][/size]
Sorry, but this is a load of crap. You want to assume for everyone here that God is a singular entity. This is unacceptable. There are as many definitions of the term “God” as there are people in this whole forum. Bad idea. REALLY bad idea.
If you want to take offence at anyone’s description of “that which is”, it’s your problem. Until you can prove your version of “God” is the only correct way of seeing, you need to back off.
Man, I try not to just ‘go off’, but you really hit a hot button!
I think the mods only worry about ad hominems against posters, right? I mean, I can say all sorts of nasty stuff about a politician or a celebrity, but I don’t get in trouble until I stary insulting that Jerry guy, or Uniqor or something. So, as long as God isn’t posting here, I guess it’s not against the rules to say bad stuff about Him. Case in point, Thirst, did the mods take action against the stuff you said about the Pope back in the day?
However, it could be a violation in other ways. If I start a thread serving no purpose other than to say “Allah is a pee-hole” and other rude stuff, then I’m not contributing to the conversation or doing anything that belongs outside of the Rant House.
So, I agree and I disagree. Threads that exist to call God a jerk probably aren’t appropriate for this forum, but it’s not because they are an ad hominem against God.
Good point… I think that just about sums it up! Perhaps it should be added that no ad deinem should be allowed.
Four “S”, Four “I”, Two “P” and One “M” Mississippi…
Ha! That is hilarious. Tab you are now my second favorite poster. I get your rant above… and I would love that we could all join hands (sign of peace) and ask god to sod off (sign of the end of religious foolishness) but I don’t think this will happen because some people think of god as a being they must love, respect, and obey.
No need to apologize… I thought it was hilarious. Besides, you didn’t insult me. But statements that are done while one is pissed, in my opinion, belong in the Rant House. Not that they are any less interesting, or funny.
TENTATIVE… My friend said the exact same thing: that the argument was a shit. I think you should know that I am agnostic and don’t believe in god. However, I won’t back off (especially since I have no god and have nothing to lose ). Besides, wouldn’t you agree that calling any god a jerk is counter-productive? So, I guess that is my position that insulting god accomplishes nothing. It only turns people off to the potentially important message: WE DON’T NEED GOD.
UCCISORE has a point that these threads serve very little purpose than to say that Allah sucks or god is stupid, or god is {insult here}. I would argue that this kind of stuff belongs in the Rant House–even if it is not ad hominem or even ad deinem.
I’ve read it explained on my path that it is never good to talk down to any religious beliefs. The reason is that a person acquires it at a young age and often it becomes associated with a person’s openness to conscience. Such attacks just deny another their opportunity to experience conscience at some point. When a person wants to explore other beliefs or criticize their own it is one thing but it is never good just to criticize in this way from a perception of superiority.
One never knows who they are talking to. To some their concept of God is all that has sustained them during personal tragedy. It is a part of the family so to speak like a distant grandfather. Why ridicule this? I know I can’t but I admit to being old fashioned here and ignorant of the importance of developing self esteem at all cost.
The fact that people even have to discuss the ethics involved seems disturbing. But it is how it is.
If you must legislate just make sure that the same rules apply to all God versions. The worst thing IMO is the appearance of managerial favoritism.
The God of Islam (correctly pointed out as the God of the Abrahamic tradition of Prophets) is referred to as “him,” etc. however, the God of Islam is not understood in terms of a human. Anthropomorphication is a significant “no no” in understanding God for Muslims. God is described as boundless and all powerful. He is not understood in terms of human gender but is referred to as He because it is masculine and masculinity is often perceived as more powerful and commanding than to be feminine. Also, it would be less respectful to refer to God as “it.”
Islam denies some of the content of the texts as reliable although we are to believe in them. A Muslim is to believe in the Psalms of David, the Torah, the gospels of Jesus, and the Qur’an. One immediately notices that there are incompatibilities with our modern notions with respect to each. Islam’s view is that the bible for instance has been re-edited since soon after its compilation. Regarding the above, Islam does not endorse the position that God has taken human form or will ever, although it would follow so in thirst4metal’s logic above as framed in his context.
Islam denies this…tying back to anthropomorphication of God as a mistake. God is something we cannot understand as far as his nature(s) as “he” is nothing like us and nothing like we have experienced in the conventional sense.
Your punishment has already been meted out to you, i.e. you are both (acting like) royal jerks. And the longer you keep it up, the longer you will be miserable rotting athiests. It is its own punishment.
See how it works?
Pace,
mrn
(P.S. It’s spelled Mississippi – although I’m sure that was just for effect.)
I pesonally do not believe in a god, but I think insulting someone’s beliefs isn’t a very good route to take in trying to debate with them, generally tends to make people not listen to you at all. However, all arguments should be based on logic or reason rather than emotions right?
I hope I wasn’t insulting. In some arguments “wit” can be effective as a device to show the unreasonableness of another’s position, viz G.K. Chesterton’s essays. Humor is, in a way, based on unresonableness (in many cases).
Would you include matters of intellectual “taste” as being arguments from reason or emotions, or both? I mean when you are disposed to think “ick” of something of which you hear, having a distaste for it: a judgement based on your habit which can be either with or against reason.
LOL LOL, Aspacia agrees and believes if there is a God, whatever God’s name is, God is LOL too regarding human stupidity. I knew there was a reason I liked you.
Missississippiiiiii Oh Hell, who really gives a shit!
Of course there is a point, though not against ‘god’. The point is to help people realize that the whole concept of such a being is most likely ridiculous. (I say most likely because I too am an agnostic). The point is not to bash god, (well alright, maybe that’s part of it… not that there’s anything wrong with that), the point is to help people realize that they can be accountable to themselves. Does anyone really need a book to tell them how to behave? Of course not. This sort of behavioral motivation comes from within. So that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Ad Hominem is a logical error of attacking the arguer and not the argument.
So, Ad Hominem would only apply to God if God were makeing an argument.
For example, if God said:
“Homosexual relationships are not evil because no species of love can be evil, and homosexual love is a species of love.”
And one responded:
“Well, you made snakes, and I’m not listening to any snake maker. Hence, homosexual relationships are possibly evil.”
That would be Ad Hominem
However saying,
“God is a jerk because he made snakes, and any snake maker is a jerk.”
is just valid reasoning. (Although not nessisarily sound depending on the truth value of the premisis ‘he [God] make snakes’ and ‘any snake maker is a jerk.’)
Actually, lightning bolts for divine punishment seems like a culturally ambiguous premise. In ancient Greece, for example, people thought the playwright Euripides had Zeus’ approval because E.'s tomb was struck by lightning. So you might just be awaiting God’s approval.
This reminds me of longer stories from the movie The Paper Chase, and the life of Patton, for example, where a guy calling another guy an SOB (e.g.) is a welcome insult. I think we can still have a will focused on God with our emotions struggling at times.
LostGuy: Hi, long time, no see. That sounds very prejudicial against snake-makers. (King snakes are pretty cool.)
Perhaps it should be added that no ad deinem should be allowed. 
That is hilarious. Tab you are now my second favorite poster. I get your rant above… and I would love that we could all join hands (sign of peace) and ask god to sod off (sign of the end of religious foolishness) but I don’t think this will happen because some people think of god as a being they must love, respect, and obey.
). Besides, wouldn’t you agree that calling any god a jerk is counter-productive? So, I guess that is my position that insulting god accomplishes nothing. It only turns people off to the potentially important message: WE DON’T NEED GOD.