Russell's Criticisms of Christianity & Jesus

Whateverman

Well-known member
4 x frivolous and unproven allegations of cruelty IS ad hominem, ignoramus.
No, it's not. Read the definition again:

 

Whateverman

Well-known member
An allegation of cruelty is an attack on character.
An ad hominem attacks the character of a person instead of attacking the argument the person is making. Just because you attack a person's character doesn't mean you're engaging in a logical fallacy :rolleyes:

And if a liar makes an argument and you point out that they're a liar, that's not a fallacy either.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
An ad hominem attacks the character of a person instead of attacking the argument the person is making. Just because you attack a person's character doesn't mean you're engaging in a logical fallacy :rolleyes:

And if a liar makes an argument and you point out that they're a liar, that's not a fallacy either.
Who said an ad hominem has to engage a logical fallacy?
 

cjab

Well-known member
And an attack on character is only an ad hominem if it is done in the course of an argument, in place of logic.
Russell's allegations of cruelty were so wildly and widely cast as to be obviously perverse and defamatory, which was my central point. For this reason he doesn't meet the minimum threshold to be worth engaging with.
 

cjab

Well-known member
An ad hominem is an informal logical fallacy. The term itself signifies a fallacious argument.

Seriously, use Google:

I am not interested in your ultra-esoteric definition of "an ad hominem."

In layman's terms "An ad hominem argument is a personal attack against the source of an argument, rather than against the argument itself."

In attacking both Christ and Christians for being cruel arbitarily (Christ never harmed anyone except their reputation and most Christians haven't either) the use of ad hominem is amply demonstrated by Russell.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
In attacking both Christ and Christians for being cruel arbitarily (Christ never harmed anyone except their reputation and most Christians haven't either) the use of ad hominem is amply demonstrated by Russell.
Completely unsupported. At no point have you addressed what Russell says. He brought up the historical correlation between religiosity and cruelty in society as a rebuttal against the false claim that society would be immoral without religion. In that context it is a valid point, and not an ad hominem at all.

Russell's allegations of cruelty were so wildly and widely cast as to be obviously perverse and defamatory, which was my central point. For this reason he doesn't meet the minimum threshold to be worth engaging with.
I set this thread up at your request, after you said either Russell or Nietzsche would be fine to discuss, and that you'd do so without ad hominems. Turns out neither of those was true.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Completely unsupported. At no point have you addressed what Russell says. He brought up the historical correlation between religiosity and cruelty in society as a rebuttal against the false claim that society would be immoral without religion. In that context it is a valid point, and not an ad hominem at all.
Clearly was an ad hominem as the only religiosity was Christian or nominally. In fact this a principal point why his arguments fail: he doesn't make the necessarily crucial distinctions between true religion and false religion, but confounds all and attacks all indiscriminately. Most erudite people have got better things to do that point out such trite failings in his arguments.

I set this thread up at your request, after you said either Russell or Nietzsche would be fine to discuss, and that you'd do so without ad hominems. Turns out neither of those was true.
We've already discussed this. You decided to include Russell's ad hominems at the start. May be you shouldn't in the context of the paramaters of your criteria. You should have limited yourself to any such arguments as Russell had that didn't include ad hominems against Christ himself, of whom nothing can be alleged in respect of cruelty, and all Christians generally.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Clearly was an ad hominem as the only religiosity was Christian or nominally. In fact this a principal point why his arguments fail: he doesn't make the necessarily crucial distinctions between true religion and false religion, but confounds all and attacks all indiscriminately. Most erudite people have got better things to do that point out such trite failings in his arguments.

We've already discussed this. You decided to include Russell's ad hominems at the start. May be you shouldn't in the context of the paramaters of your criteria. You should have limited yourself to any such arguments as Russell had that didn't include ad hominems against Christ himself, of whom nothing can be alleged in respect of cruelty, and all Christians generally.
Again, Russell did not make many ad hominems. You did, after saying you wouldn't.

You asked me to present a critique of Christ. That's what you asked for. It is obviously not an ad hominem to then criticize Christ.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Again, Russell did not make many ad hominems. You did, after saying you wouldn't.

You asked me to present a critique of Christ. That's what you asked for. It is obviously not an ad hominem to then criticize Christ.
Too many ad hominems for your own criteria. I wasn't going to engage in that kind of debate on the terms you defined. As for Nietzsche: just one long tirade against Christianity. These guys are real badass. They can only be contravened by pointing out their wrong motives.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Too many ad hominems for your own criteria. I wasn't going to engage in that kind of debate on the terms you defined. As for Nietzsche: just one long tirade against Christianity. These guys are real badass. They can only be contravened by pointing out their wrong motives.
No ad hominems from Russell. You clearly never had any interest in discussion.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
We must agree to differ. I didn't realize how bad Russell's arguments were.
So bad that you can't even begin to address them, and have to pretend that they are ad hominems just to excuse your own ad hominem responses.
 

Eightcrackers

Well-known member
Russell's allegations of cruelty were so wildly and widely cast as to be obviously perverse and defamatory, which was my central point. For this reason he doesn't meet the minimum threshold to be worth engaging with.
Unless they were being used in an argument to the falsity of Christianity, they are not ad hominem.
 

cjab

Well-known member
Unless they were being used in an argument to the falsity of Christianity, they are not ad hominem.
You're not getting my point. As Christianity itself has always drawn the distinction between true religion and hypocrisy, then to attack hypocrisy (if such was his aim) is not to attack Christianity itself, but to attack hypocrisy. Yet to an extend an attack on hypocrisy to an attack on Christianity is not worth debating.

In other words, you have to frame your opponent's argument in a "best sense" way, otherwise you will miss your mark. This is Russell's central problem. He gets nowhere near Christianity itself, which promotes the good, and his critique isn't worth debating from a Christian angle.

I am not going to defend hypocrites on the pretext of defending Christianity and likewise no-one should mistakenly attack hypocrites if they want to critique Christianity.

If you want to attack Christianity's failure to deal with hypocrites, I will point you in the direction of Christ. I think you'll find they normally occupy seats of power and are unassailable by most Christians.
 
Top