Argumentum ad populum

For you Agerg,

Another logical Fallacy - a Strawman Argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

Copied without permission:


=============================

" Reasoning
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

1.Person A has position X.
2.Person B disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially-similar position Y. Thus, Y is a resulting distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.[1]
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context — i.e. choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see contextomy and quote mining).[2]
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then refuting that person's arguments — thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.[1]
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.
3.Person B attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious, because attacking a distorted version of a position fails to constitute an attack on the actual position.

======================================

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]====================================
So many times I have heard the argument that since so many people believe in God (or Christian god) it must be true.
======================================

I asked you for examples from major Christian thinkers for an example. You said "Why ???" and provided no examples.

How about I make it very ...[text shortened]... ave really NOT had Christians approach you with that line of reasoning all that much?"[/b]

How about you?

Let me summarise and paraphrase your argument in the "Winning souls for Christ" thread:

"Ha...agerg thinks Thor is as likely as divine Jesus; I'll show him...oooh look! billions of people think Jesus is worthy of discussion as opposed to practically no people discussing Thor. Ergo Jesus wins yay!"

and please, if you're going to respond...leave out the scriptures and preaching as you did above.

Originally posted by Agerg
How about [b]you?

Let me summarise and paraphrase your argument in the "Winning souls for Christ" thread:

"Ha...agerg thinks Thor is as likely as divine Jesus; I'll show him...oooh look! billions of people think Jesus is worthy of discussion as opposed to practically no people discussing Thor. Ergo Jesus wins yay!"

and please, if you're going to respond...leave out the scriptures and preaching as you did above.[/b]

===============================
How about you?

Let me summarise and paraphrase your argument in the "Winning souls for Christ" thread:

"Ha...agerg thinks Thor is as likely as divine Jesus; I'll show him...oooh look! billions of people think Jesus is worthy of discussion as opposed to practically no people discussing Thor. Ergo Jesus wins yay!"

and please, if you're going to respond...leave out the scriptures and preaching as you did above.
==================================

Likewise, in your "summary" leave out the cutsie clownish exclamations like "Ha" and oooh look!" which distract me.

Try your summary again with out the crap and I'll decide if you have accurately portrayed my thoughts.

Better yet, just provide me the example of the Populum Argument by anyone ever in all these discussions.

My argument was about the plausibility of alternatives and not proof of Christ's Deity.

So I'll spare you the Bible quotes and you spare me the BS theatrics from your Strawman factory.

Originally posted by jaywill
===============================
How about you?

Let me summarise and paraphrase your argument in the "Winning souls for Christ" thread:

"Ha...agerg thinks Thor is as likely as divine Jesus; I'll show him...oooh look! billions of people think Jesus is worthy of discussion as opposed to practically no people discussing Thor. Ergo Jesus wins y you the Bible quotes and you spare me the BS theatrics from your Strawman factory.

Your argument was as follows:

You posted

...Out of the possible thousands of claimants who said they were God, Who in human history would you vote for as the one who acted the most like God ?

I think you should have a short list. And the excuse of infinite possibilities, I think, is an artificial delimma.

The key phrase here is "who the most acted like God might be expected to act ?" in your perceptive opinion ?

I responded with

...*edit* Out of courtesy, I cannot think of any god that has been described to me for which I can assign any value of plausibility that is higher than something I could whimsically dream up in my head (your god btw is absurd). I have no shortlist.

You followed up with

...Among voices in this world who even made a claim to be Deity, I think you can arrive at a short list of the voices who demonstrated DEEDS that at least made the claim to being God call for some serious consideration, if one is not too lazy.

Do you mean to imply that history's Jesus Christ is on the same level of plausibility with Julius Ceasar, Nero, or any of the Roman emporers who claimed to be God? Do you class any of the Egyptian pharoahs who claimed divinity for himself to be as plausible as Jesus Christ ?

I think you should be able to arrive at a short list of possibilities to be seriously considered. All may be false gods. But too many candidates, I think, is a false delimma.

Whether that candidate is "mine" or not "mine" is irrelevant

To which my response was

The history of Jesus Christ as it is suggested in the Bible (at least in the divine or supernatural sense) is as plausible to me as the existence of Thor. I assume, so long as you can meaningfully recall, you've never been an atheist.

Your riposte was
Part 1

There was a period of time when I believed that I myself was god. The only supreme being that I really knew about was myself.

So Jesus and Thor are about the same ?

I am going to leave this post right now and do an Internet surf on Thor. If Jesus Christ and Thor are roughly the same, I think I should see as many discussions, forums, debates arguing for or against the reality of Thor as there are concerning Jesus Christ.

Maybe, I will ask you why there is such a disproportional amount of attention given to one or the other, if they are about the same.

You could drop me a hint. Since you have owned a PC how many debates have you been involved in trying to convince people that Thor is not really God ? IF Thor is as believable as Jesus, then perhaps you spend the same amount of time and effort to argue about Jesus ?

One is as believable as the other, so I think you should have given somewhat equal time to inform people that neither is a manifestation of God. Am I right ?

Anyway, off I go to get some hits on Thor.

Part 2

Many hits on the Internet on Jesus as verses Thor doesn't prove that Jesus is God incarnate, of course. I would insult no one's intelligence to suggest that.

But, if Jesus as God is as believable as Thor as God, WHY is there tons more sites discussing Jesus then Thor ?

When I surfed for Thor, pretty much all I got was the coming motion picture. The hits on Jesus were endless.

But Agerg says one is as believable as the other to him. What's up with this huge greater proportion of serious attention given to discussing Jesus Christ then Thor ?

This is your attempt at proving that Thor is not as plausible as Jesus by appealing to the masses. Ie: you use the argumentum ad populum fallacy. Minus the "ooh look!"s this is the lengthy version of what I summarised above.
Moreover you still do not acknowledge that your reasoning was flawed here, preferring instead to argue us both round in circles about it. This to be honest is getting somewhat wearisome. Indeed I'm ready to just let you wallow in misplaced self-adulation (you falsely believe you've handed me the smack down) and ignore your posts from now on.
I really have better things to be doing than bash my head against brick walls.

As for trawling the boards looking for occasions where the argument ad populum argument has been used to prove the assertion Bible god exists; I really cannot be bothered; I have heard it before, other atheists have heard it before, and you're really not worthy of the time I'd waste on this endeavour (both in trawling and the consequent arguing about it you would treat me to). You don't believe me? fine fair enough - cheerio!

Originally posted by Agerg
Your argument was as follows:

You posted
[quote]...Out of the possible thousands of claimants who said they were God, [b]Who in human history would you vote for as the one who acted the most like God ?

I think you should have a short list. And the excuse of infinite possibilities, I think, is an artificial delimma.

The key phrase here is " ...[text shortened]... t it you would treat me to). You don't believe me? fine fair enough - cheerio![/b]

As for trawling the boards looking for occasions where the argument ad populum argument has been used to prove the assertion Bible god exists; I really cannot be bothered...
So, the truth comes out. You made an allegation regarding the frequent use of the argumentum ad populum by Christians in their desperate attempts to bolster their oh-so-shaky confidence. You even resort to using a form of it yourself when you say I have heard it before, other atheists have heard it before--- and yet you are wholly unable to point to a single example of one such argument put forth by even one Christian!

If that wasn't enough, you end with a parting attack on the person. Classic!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]As for trawling the boards looking for occasions where the argument ad populum argument has been used to prove the assertion Bible god exists; I really cannot be bothered...
So, the truth comes out. You made an allegation regarding the frequent use of the argumentum ad populum by Christians in their desperate attempts to bolster their oh-so ...[text shortened]... one Christian!

If that wasn't enough, you end with a parting attack on the person. Classic![/b]

and yet you are wholly unable to point to a single example of one such argument put forth by even one Christian!

If that wasn't enough, you end with a parting attack on the person. Classic!

What's "classic" is that the very post to which you responded details such an example. Also rather than an "attack" it's simply an explanation of his position.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
and yet you are wholly unable to point to a single example of one such argument put forth by even one Christian!

If that wasn't enough, you end with a parting attack on the person. Classic!

What's "classic" is that the very post to which you responded details such an example. Also rather than an "attack" it's simply an explanation of his position.[/b]

Also rather than an "attack" it's simply an explanation of his position.
Well, his post was rather long, so you probably didn't get all the way through to the part where he put the cherry on top...

and you're really not worthy of the time I'd waste on this endeavour

As for your other charge, I don't think you're following the conversation closely enough, if this is your conclusion.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]As for trawling the boards looking for occasions where the argument ad populum argument has been used to prove the assertion Bible god exists; I really cannot be bothered...
So, the truth comes out. You made an allegation regarding the frequent use of the argumentum ad populum by Christians in their desperate attempts to bolster their oh-so ...[text shortened]... one Christian!

If that wasn't enough, you end with a parting attack on the person. Classic![/b]

A splendid feat of arse kissing, jaywill shall be pleased.

Oh and where again was my argument ad populum? (let's see if you understand the principle) 😵

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Also rather than an "attack" it's simply an explanation of his position.
Well, his post was rather long, so you probably didn't get all the way through to the part where he put the cherry on top...

and you're really not worthy of the time I'd waste on this endeavour

As for your other charge, I don't think you're following the conversation closely enough, if this is your conclusion.[/b]

As for your other charge, I don't think you're following the conversation closely enough, if this is your conclusion.
So, the truth comes out. You made an allegation regarding Agerg's unsubstantiated claim of argumentum ad populum usage by Christians in his desperate attempt to bolster his oh-so-shaky confidence. --- and yet you are wholly unable to discuss the post you responded to which contains such an example.

You're a funny guy! 😵

Originally posted by Agerg
A splendid feat of arse kissing, jaywill shall be pleased.

Oh and where again was my argument ad populum? (let's see if you understand the principle) 😵

The only ass I kiss is truth's.

Did you not see my post which emboldened a quote from yours? When you appealed to something everyone knows, this is a form of the same argument you're accusing some ghost-Christians of using.

And who do you have reading over your shoulder: "let's see?"

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The only ass I kiss is truth's.

Did you not see my post which emboldened a quote from yours? When you appealed to something everyone knows, this is a form of the same argument you're accusing some ghost-Christians of using.

And who do you have reading over your shoulder: "let's see?"

So you're saying I'm appealing to the masses when I assert "I have heard it before, other atheists have heard it before..."? That's your interpretation of argumentum ad populum?? Inspite of the fact that Fabian Fnas, has already testified to having seen it, and Penguin hinted the same??? (thus substantiating "other atheists" )

I'll help you out. What argument am I trying to prove (fill in the blanks)?
I and other atheists have heard argumentum ad populum before. Therefore _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ is true


As for my statement jaywill is not worthy of my time in the endeavour of trawling the web (coupled with the jaywill-style arguments which would follow); it was, as ThinkofOne rightly points out (along with his observation that you responded to the post which contained an argumetum-ad-populum), merely a statement of my position and not an attack. For the sheer mountain of nonsense I'd be exposing myself to where I to humour him, I'm not sure anyone is worthy of that hassle - not even my family (well maybe my family but it would be a stretch).

Agerg writes:

The history of Jesus Christ as it is suggested in the Bible (at least in the divine or supernatural sense) is as plausible to me as the existence of Thor.

According to this sentence it is the "history" of Jesus Christ which Agerg says is no more or less plausible to him then the existence of Thor.

This is even worse then the Deity of Christ. Maybe I should not have read Deity of Christ into his quote.

Minus the theological argument Agerg says the history of Jesus and that of Thor are equally probable to him.

Anyone know where Thor was born ? Can any one name me that town ?

Can anyone rattle off the names of four or five followers of Thor ?

I mean I know some followers of Jesus without a second thought - Peter, James, John, Levi, Thomas, Bartholomew, etc.

Somebody should be able to rattle off some disciples of Thor in a few seconds after I leave this post.

I know of some non-biblical and secular attestation to the history of Jesus - Julius Africanus, Pliny, Josephus.

Would Agerg inform me of outside Thor religion attestation to the historicity of Thor ? Should be a piece of cake.

I know that Western culture divides history from the First century into "Before Christ" - B.C. and [/b] In the year of our Lord" - A.D. [/b]

Is there a similar line of partition or something akin to it for Thor ?

Let's not lose track of Agerg's claim now:

"The history of Jesus Christ as it is suggested in the Bible (at least in the divine or supernatural sense) is as plausible to me as the existence of Thor. "

I may have been wrong to say this was an argument about the equal plausibility of the Deity of these two figures. According to his sentence it is the "history" of Thor which is every bit as likely as that of Jesus Christ.

Well I know we have the letters of Paul and the record of his missionary jouneys to testify that he met Jesus after His resurrection. Whether it is true or not, that he believed it to be true is evident.

Are there any writings, epistles, sermons, testimonials of people vouching that they saw Thor ?

C'mon now folks. Someone should be able to rattle off some names within a 60 or so seconds after I leave this posting.

What in Thor lore can I compare to the 13 or so letters of the Apostle Paul ? That is such letters of his activity and teachings concerning the resurrected Christ ?

How many theological seminaries are there in Europe trying to keep alive the doctrines concerning Thor ? How many as compared to Christian theological schools? I mean both are as likely to have had advocates trying to preserve their legacy.

The history of Thor is as likely as the history of Jesus ?

Can someone name me a few eyewitnesses of Thor ?

Can someone name me TWO eyewitnesses of Thor ? What were their names ? That is eyewitnesses.

Concerning Jesus we have records of thinkers opposing His teaching. The writings of rabbis arguing against the idea of Jesus being the Jewish Messiah, I believe we have record of from early centries.

Can anyone point me to the written arguments specifically refuting Thor as a god with a hammer ? I don't mean recent atheists like Chris Hitchens. I mean writings within the first few hundred years of Thor's alledged appearance on the on the world scene.

Is there a living priest of Thor ? What is his or her name?

Is there a present day monestory dedicated to Thor ? Where is it and what is its name ?

Not so fast now. Maybe Agerg has a case. When we say "Thursday" in English, we are really saying "Thor's Day". That does argue for some historical reference to the god Thor.

The Roman Catholic Church, in order to make the Christian Gospel palatable to the masses, allowed them to bring into Christiandom thier pagan beliefs.

"Thor's Day - "Saturnalia" as Christmas, Easter, etc. These are ideas based on pre-Christian pagan religions that Catholicism assimilated so as to lead the masses to believe that in becoming Christians they were not really giving up too much of their old pagan beliefs.

The question I have is, if Thor worship were more prevailing, why was it not the other way around ? Why isn't present day Thor worship ( if there is such a worship today ) not mixed with symbols from the New Testament ? The more prevailing belief should assemilate the less prevailing one.

Thor worship being subsumed into Roman Cathlicism as suggested by "Thor's Day" or Thursday, like "Moon Day" as Monday, etc. suggests to me that the stronger belief engulfed the weaker.

So why was the stronger belief stronger ? Perhaps because it had a stronger historical backround to it. Then it follows that the history of Christ seems stronger then the history of Thor.

Then they are not equally grounded in history though both have some history. One has more and tends to overshadow the other.

Among Thor worshippers is there a "Jesus Day" along with a "Mohammed Day" ?

Yet in the conglomeration of Roman Cathoicism there is and has been passed on to general Western civilization a "Thor's day" from Thor worship and a "Moon Day" from worship of the Moon and a Sunday from the worship of the Sun. And the other pagan religion enfluenced days all subsumed under the Catholic Church in thier ill advized efforts to make the Christian Gospel the big melting pot of all other religions.

I submit that the history of Jesus is not as equally plausible as the existence of Thor. The evidence suggests that the history of Jesus overshadowed that of Thor.

Originally posted by jaywill
Agerg writes:

[b] The history of Jesus Christ as it is suggested in the Bible (at least in the divine or supernatural sense) is as plausible to me as the existence of Thor.

According to this sentence it is the "history" of Jesus Christ which Agerg says is no more or less plausible to him then the existence of Thor.

This is even worse then gests that the history of Jesus overshadowed that of Thor.[/b]

Yet still this farce continues. Oh and you overlooked the all important "(at least in the divine or supernatural sense)"...never forget that one! (Ie I'm referring to magic Son of God Jesus born of a virgin as opposed to some character, human and non-divine as the rest of us possibly named Jesus (or possibly invented) - that type of Jesus is not Bible Jesus (since no magic properties))

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Also rather than an "attack" it's simply an explanation of his position.
Well, his post was rather long, so you probably didn't get all the way through to the part where he put the cherry on top...

and you're really not worthy of the time I'd waste on this endeavour

As for your other charge, I don't think you're following the conversation closely enough, if this is your conclusion.[/b]

I did see "the cherry on top" which WAS an explanation of his position as I said. Not sure what you don't understand about this.

Agerg proved his point which counters your assertion that he was "wholly unable to point to a single example of one such argument put forth by even one Christian". Don't know what you don't understand about that either - your vague protestation notwithstanding.

Seems like the inability to distinguish between ones beliefs and "truth" is an all too common malady of Christians such as yourself. Perhaps the level of self-deception required to keep some of the basic tenets of Christianity make this so.

Originally posted by Agerg
A splendid feat of arse kissing, jaywill shall be pleased.

Oh and where again was my argument ad populum? (let's see if you understand the principle) 😵

==========================
A splendid feat of arse kissing, jaywill shall be pleased.
===============================

That is very insulting and low.