all I have to say at this point is like most every other christian I know you will[/QUOTE]
but you beleive jesus died on the cross because the bible says so[/QUOTE]
you just dont want to open your eyes to it because you feel it is not good for religion?[/QUOTE]
thats pretty good for someone that puts his faith in a book written 1000 yrs ago, by who knows who....[/QUOTE]
unlike the bible, this source is very credible[/QUOTE]
And so, ladies and gentlemen, sounds the death knell of civility and respect in this thread. The above is what is called an ad hominem attack. For those not familiar, please look to
Webster's.
The ad hominem is particularly viscious, because (if gone unchecked), it allows the attacker to set up a double standard: as long as Person A agrees with Person B, Person B's comments are OK, but as soon as Person B says something Person A doesn't agree with, Person B is wrong, not because his argument is false, but because of something totally unrelated.
In this thread, it goes like this: Otter is a Christian and believes in the Bible... nobody in their right mind believes in the Bible anymore and EVERYBODY knows that the Bible contradicts itself, so Otter must be wrong!
You see, it doesn't matter what the original argument is, or if what Otter said is factual: the fact that Otter believes in the Bible automatically makes his assertions invalid (or at best, questionable).
The ad hominem is a last-ditch attempt to make an effective point against what otherwise is a losing argument. It's not enough to say "I'll have to research what you're saying to prove it's validity", nor is it enough to say "I understand what you're saying, but it just doesn't sound right - give me some time to look at the facts". The ad hominem throws intellectual integrity out the window and appeals to the emotion of the audience (as opposed to the merits of a point made).
One of the main differences between you and I in this thread, Twisted, I think lays upon these comments:
I think any non christian can see what I am saying... and only to you do my arguments fall on its face, others know what I have said to be common knowledge, many people...[/QUOTE]
You see Twisted, I didn't choose to argue with you, you did me. When discussing views, I'm not trying to make a spectacle (as evidenced in my repeated attempts to take this offline). You however, didn't make arguments in order to support your assertions, you made them so that others would believe you. You gave no thought to my assertions, only looked for ways to exploit the fact that I'm a theist in order to gain sentimental credibility. In essence, you seem to care less about the truth than you do getting noticed.
What I don't think you appreciate is that none of that matters because truth is a mutually exlusive entity: all the personal attacks in the world aren't going to make erroneous conclusions correct. Furthermore, I would have been happy to agree with you, had you only provided decent evidence! What I wonder is why it is that what used to be two guys posting on a forum has gotten vindictive - why is it that you choose to attack me? Because of my faith? Because you don't agree? Because someone expected you to prove the things you say and you don't like it?
Whatever it is, it's not worth getting personal over. But I do think you're right - I do think people (many, by the look of the read count) will see this and draw their own conclusions. Unfortunately, there's not really much to see, and certainly not enough to draw decent conclusions from.
You've got my email - if you ever want to spark up a debate again (on theology, or anything else), let me know. But please: next time let's stick with the topic and supporting assertions, eh?
M_O
