“It is a shame and disgrace that someone that earned a Masters Degree from the U of A could be is ignorant of fallacies. The only explanation for you continuing to use them is that you are persuaded by the use of them… How could a man which writes in the preamble of his own blog, “My hope is that this blog, a source of truth, will likewise bless all that read it.”, be so ignorant of logical fallacies which dim the light on the path to truth….”

Ian, you might want to read the description of an Ad- Hominem fallacy again….

My statement is an indictment about the status of education, that a person which earned a Masters Degree in Education does not understand or can recognize logical fallacies.

Dr Kennedy has already stated that he is ignorant of logical fallacies, and my statement about his ignorance and the effect of that ignorance has on his assertion that his blog is a “source for truth” Here is his statement:

“Usually, I ignore Mr. Marbut’s comments because they seem to be more concerned with logical fallacies, which I’m not even sure I understand, than with the actual substance of what is false in what I wrote.”

I did not attack some physical flaw, parentage, religion, or morals ( or lack of morals!), I attacked his assertion that truth is the focus of his blog…. If logical fallacies are used to motivate an audience is the focus of that assertion focused on truth?

Please, by all means, show me where I commited a Ad- hominem logical fallacy….

By the way Ian, you have not answered my question about whether The “ends justifies the means” is an acceptable polemic? How far may one go using misrepresentations,cherry pick quotes out of context, and perform personal attacks on character and still exhibit a Christian ethic?

James Mark Marbut

This is a list of the most used fallacies with examples…

It is a shame and disgrace that someone that earned a Masters Degree from the U of A could be is ignorant of fallacies. The only explanation for you continuing to use them is that you are persuaded by the use of them… How could a man which writes in the preamble of his own blog, “My hope is that this blog, a source of truth, will likewise bless all that read it.”, be so ignorant of logical fallacies which dim the light on the path to truth….

Ad Hominem Argument: Also, “personal attack,” “poisoning the well.” The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., “He’s so evil that you can’t believe anything he says.” See also Guilt by Association. Also applies to cases where potential opposing arguments are brushed aside without comment or consideration, as simply not worth arguing about.

Appeal to Closure. The contemporary fallacy that an argument, standpoint, action or conclusion must be accepted, no matter how questionable, or else the point will remain unsettled and those affected will be denied “closure.” This refuses to recognize the truth that some points will indeed remain unsettled, perhaps forever. (E.g., “Society would be protected, crime would be deterred and justice served if we sentence you to life without parole, but we need to execute you in order to provide some sense of closure.”) (See also “Argument from Ignorance,” “Argument from Consequences.”)

Appeal to Heaven: (also Deus Vult, Gott mit Uns, Manifest Destiny, the Special Covenant). An extremely dangerous fallacy (a deluded argument from ethos) of asserting that God (or a higher power) has ordered, supports or approves one’s own standpoint or actions, so no further justification is required and no serious challenge is possible. (E.g., “God ordered me to kill my children,” or “We need to take away your land, since God [or Destiny, or Fate, or Heaven] has given it to us.”) A private individual who seriously asserts this fallacy risks ending up in a psychiatric ward, but groups or nations who do it are far too often taken seriously. This vicious fallacy has been the cause of endless bloodshed over history.

Appeal to Pity: (also “Argumentum ad Miserecordiam”). The fallacy of urging an audience to “root for the underdog” regardless of the issues at hand (e.g., “Those poor, cute little squeaky mice are being gobbled up by mean, nasty cats that are ten times their size!”) A corrupt argument from pathos. See also Playing to Emotions.

Appeal to Tradition: (also “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”). The fallacy that a standpoint, situation or action is right, proper and correct simply because it has “always” been that way, because people have “always” thought that way, or because it continues to serve one particular group very well.. A corrupted argument from ethos (that of past generations). (E.g., “In America, women have always been paid less, so let’s not mess with long-standing tradition.”). The reverse of this is yet another fallacy, the “Appeal to Innovation,” e.g., “It’s NEW, and [therefore it must be] improved!”

Argument from Consequences: The major fallacy of arguing that something cannot be true because if it were the consequences would be unacceptable. (E.g., “Global climate change cannot be caused by human burning of fossil fuels, because if it were, switching to non-polluting energy sources would bankrupt American industry.”)

Argument from Ignorance: The fallacy that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false (or that it must be true). E.g., “Scientists are never going to be able to positively prove their theory that humans evolved from other creatures because we weren’t there to see it! So, that proves the Genesis six-day creation account is literally true!” Sometimes this also includes “Either-Or Reasoning:” E.g., “The vet can’t find any reasonable explanation for why my dog died. See! See! That proves that my neighbor poisoned him! There’s no other logical explanation!” A corrupted argument from logos. A fallacy commonly found in American judicial and forensic reasoning. See also “Argumentum ex Silentio.”

Argument from Inertia (also “Stay the Course”). The fallacy that it is necessary to continue on a mistaken course of action even after discovering it is mistaken, because changing course would mean admitting one’s decision (or one’s leader, or one’s faith) was wrong, and all one’s effort, expense and sacrifice was for nothing, and that is unthinkable. A variety of the Argument from Consequences.

Argument from Motives (also Questioning Motives). The fallacy of declaring a standpoint or argument invalid solely because of the evil, corrupt or questionable motives of the one making the claim. E.g., “Bin Laden wanted us out of Afghanistan, so we have to keep up the fight!” Even evil people with corrupt motives sometimes say the truth (and even those who have the highest motives are often wrong or mistaken). A variety of the Ad Hominem argument. The counterpart of this is the fallacy of falsely justifying or excusing evil or vicious actions because of the perpetrator’s purity of motives or lack of malice. (E.g., “She’s a good Christian woman; how could you accuse her of doing something like that?”)

Argumentum ad Baculam (also “Argument from the Club”). The fallacy of “persuasion” by force, violence, or threats. E.g., “Gimmee your money, or I’ll knock your head off!” or “We have the perfect right to take your land, since we have the guns and you don’t.” Also applies to indirect forms of threat. E.g., “Believe in our religion if you don’t want to burn in hell forever and ever!”

Argumentum ex Silentio (see also, Argument from Ignorance). The fallacy that if sources remain silent or say nothing about a given subject or question this in itself proves something about the truth of the matter. E.g., “Science can tell us nothing about God, which proves God doesn’t exist.” Or “Science can tell us nothing about God, so you have no basis for denying that God exists!” Often misused in the American justice system, where remaining silent or “taking the Fifth” is often falsely portrayed as proof of guilt. E.g., “Mr. Hixel has no alibi for the evening of January 15th. This proves that he was in fact in room 331 at the Smuggler’s Pass Inn, murdering his ex-wife!”

Bandwagon (also, Argument from Common Sense, Argumentum ad populum): The fallacy of arguing that because “everyone” supposedly thinks or does something, it must be right. E.g., “Everyone thinks undocumented aliens ought to be kicked out!” Sometimes also includes Lying with Statistics, e.g. “Surveys show that over 75% of Americans believe Senator Snith is not telling the truth. For anyone with half a brain, that conclusively proves he’s a dirty liar!”

Begging the Question (also Circular Reasoning): Falsely arguing that something is true by repeating the same statement in different words. E.g., “The witchcraft problem is the most urgent challenge in the world today. Why? Because witches threaten our very souls.” A corrupt argument from logos. See also “Big Lie technique.”

Big Lie Technique (also “Staying on Message”): The contemporary fallacy of repeating a lie, slogan or deceptive half-truth over and over (particularly in the media) until people believe it without further proof or evidence.. E.g., “What about the Jewish Question?” Note that when this particular phony debate was going on there was no “Jewish Question,” only a “Nazi Question,” but hardly anybody in power recognized or wanted to talk about that.

Blind Loyalty (also Blind Obedience, the “Team Player” appeal, or the Nuremberg Defense). The dangerous fallacy that an argument or action is right simply and solely because a respected leader or source (an expert, parents, one’s own “side,” team or country, one’s boss or commanding officers) say it is right. This is over-reliance on authority, a corrupted argument from ethos that puts loyalty above truth or above one’s own reason and conscience. In this case, a person attempts to justify incorrect, stupid or criminal behavior by whining “That’s what I was told to do,” or “I was just following orders.”

Blood is Thicker than Water (also Favoritism, Compadrismo, “For my friends, anything.”). The reverse of the “Ad Hominem” fallacy, a corrupt argument from ethos where a statement, argument or action is automatically regarded as true, correct and above challenge because one is related to (or knows and likes, or is on the same team as) the individual involved. (E.g., “My brother-in-law says he saw you goofing off on the job. You’re a hard worker, but who am I going to believe, you or him? You’re fired!”)

Bribery (also Material Persuasion, Material Incentive, Financial Incentive). The fallacy of “persuasion” by bribery, gifts or favors, the reverse of the Argumentum ad Baculam. As is well known, someone who is persuaded by bribery rarely “stays persuaded” unless the bribes keep on coming in, and usually increasing with time.

The Complex Question: The fallacy of demanding a direct answer to a question that cannot be answered without first analyzing or challenging the basis of the question itself. E.g., “Answer me yes or no! Did you think you could get away with plagiarism and not suffer the consequences?” Or, “Why did you rob that bank?” Also applies to situations where one is forced to either accept or reject complex standpoints or propositions containing both acceptable and unacceptable parts. A corruption of the argument from logos.

Diminished Responsibility: The common contemporary fallacy of falsely applying a specialized American judicial concept (that criminal punishment should be less if one’s judgment was impaired) to logic in general. E.g., “You can’t count me absent on Monday–I was hung over and couldn’t come to class–it’s not my fault.” Or, “Yeah, I was speeding on the freeway and killed a guy, but I was high and didn’t know what I was doing, so it didn’t matter that much.” In reality the death does matter very much to the victim, to her family and friends and to society in general. Whether the perpetrator was high or not does not matter at all, since the material results are the same.

Either-Or Reasoning: (also False Dilemma, Black / White Fallacy). A fallacy that falsely offers only two possible alternatives even though a broad range of possible alternatives are really available. E.g., “Either you are 100% straight or you are queer–it’s as simple as that, and there’s no middle ground!” Or, “Either you’re with me all the way, or you’re my enemy and must be destroyed!

”E” for Effort. (Also Noble Effort) The contemporary fallacy that something must be right, true, valuable, or worthy of credit simply because someone has put so much sincere good-faith effort or even sacrifice and bloodshed into it. (See also Appeal to Pity, Argument from Inertia, or Sob Story.).

Equivocation: The fallacy of deliberately failing to define one’s terms, or deliberately using words in a different sense than the one the audience will understand. (E.g., Bill Clinton stating that he did not have sex with “that woman,” meaning no sexual penetration, knowing full well that the audience will understand his statement as “I had no sexual contact of any sort with that woman.”) This is a corruption of the argument from logos, and a tactic often used in American jurisprudence.

Essentializing: A fallacy that proposes a person or thing “is what it is and that’s all that it is,” and at its core will always be what it is right now (E.g., “All ex-cons are criminals, and will still be criminals even if they live to be 100.”). Also refers to the fallacy of arguing that something is a certain way “by nature,” an empty claim that no amount of proof can refute. (E.g., “Americans are cold and greedy by nature,” or “Women are better cooks than men.”)

False Analogy: The fallacy of incorrectly comparing one thing to another in order to draw a false conclusion. E.g., “Just like an alley cat needs to prowl, a normal human being can’t be tied down to one single lover.”

Finish the Job: The dangerous contemporary fallacy that an action or standpoint (or the continuation of the action or standpoint) may not be questioned or discussed because there is “a job to be done,” falsely assuming all “jobs” are meaningless but never to be questioned. Sometimes those involved internalize (“buy into”) the “job” and make the task a part of their own ethos. (E.g., “Ours is not to reason why / Ours is but to do or die.”) Related to this is the “Just a Job” fallacy. (E.g., “How can torturers stand to look at themselves in the mirror? But, I guess it’s OK because for them it’s just a job like any other.”) (See also “Blind Loyalty,” “Argument from Inertia.”)

Guilt by Association: The fallacy of trying to refute or condemn someone’s standpoint, arguments or actions by evoking the negative ethos of those with whom one associates or a collective to which he or she belongs. A form of Ad Hominem Argument. (E.g., “Don’t listen to her. She’s a Republican, so you can’t trust anything she says.”) See also “They’re Not Like Us.”

The Half Truth (also Card Stacking, Incomplete Information). A corrupt argument from logos, the fallacy of telling the truth but deliberately omitting important key details in order to falsify the larger picture and support a false conclusion (e.g. “The truth is that Ciudad Juárez, Mexico is one of the world’s fastest growing cities and can boast of a young, ambitious and hard-working population, mild winters, a dry and sunny climate, low cost medical and dental care, a multitude of churches and places of worship, delicious local cuisine and a swinging nightclub scene. Taken together, all these facts clearly prove that Juarez is one of the world’s most desirable places for young families to live, work and raise a family.”)

I Wish I Had a Magic Wand: The fallacy of regretfully (and falsely) proclaiming oneself powerless to change a bad or objectionable situation, because there is no alternative. E.g., “What can we do about high gas prices? As Secretary of Energy I wish I had a magic wand, but I don’t.” [shrug] Or, “No, you can’t quit piano lessons. I wish I had a magic wand and could teach you piano overnight, but I don’t, so like it or not, you have to keep on practicing.” The parent, of course, ignores the possibility that the child may not want or need to learn piano. See also, TINA.

Just in Case: A fallacy by which one’s argument is based on a far-fetched or imaginary worst-case scenario rather than on reality. Plays on pathos (fear) rather than reason. E.g., “What if armed terrorists were to attack your own neighborhood day-care center tomorrow morning? Are you ready to fight back? Better stock up on assault rifles!”

Lying with Statistics: Using true figures and numbers to “prove” unrelated claims. (e.g. “Gas prices have never been lower. When taken as a percentage of the national debt, filling up at your corner gas station is actually far cheaper today than it was in 1965!”). A corrupted argument from logos. (See also Half-truth, Non Sequitur, Red Herring.)

MYOB (Mind Your Own Business; You’re Not the Boss of Me), The contemporary fallacy of arbitrarily prohibiting any discussion of one’s own standpoints or behavior, no matter how absurd, dangerous, evil or offensive, by drawing a phony curtain of privacy around oneself and one’s actions. A corrupted argument from ethos (your own). (E.g., “So I was doing eighty and weaving between lanes on Main Street–what’s it to you? You’re not a cop, so mind your own business!”) (See also, “Taboo.”) Rational discussion is cut off because “it is none of your business!” (See also, the “Appeal to Privacy.”)

Name-Calling: A variety of the “Ad Hominem” argument. The dangerous fallacy that, simply because of who you are, any and all arguments, disagreements or objections against your standpoint or actions are automatically racist, sexist, anti-Semitic, bigoted, discriminatory or hateful. E.g., “My stand on abortion is the only correct one. To disagree with me, argue with me or question my judgment in any way would only show what a pig you really are.” Also applies to refuting an argument by simply calling it a fallacy or declaring it invalid, without proving why it is invalid. See also, “Reductionism.”

Non Sequitur: The fallacy of offering reasons or conclusions that have no logical connection to the argument at hand (e.g. “The reason I flunked your course is because the government is now putting out purple five-dollar bills!”). (See also Red Herring.) Occasionally involves the breathtaking arrogance of claiming to know why God is doing certain things. E.g., “Obviously, God sent the earthquake to punish those people for their great wickedness.”

Overgeneralization (also Hasty Generalization). The stupid but common fallacy of incorrectly applying one or two examples to all cases (e.g. “Some college student was tailgating me all the way up North Main Street last night. This proves that all college students are lousy drivers, and we should pull their driver’s licenses until they either grow up, learn to drive or graduate!”).

The Paralysis of Analysis (also, Procrastination): A postmodern fallacy that, since all data is never in, no legitimate decision can ever be made and any action should always be delayed until forced by circumstances. A corruption of the argument from logos.

Playing on Emotions (also, the Sob Story): The classic fallacy of pure argument from pathos, ignoring facts and calling on emotion alone. E.g., “If you don’t agree witchcraft is a major problem, just stop for a moment and think of all those poor moms crying bitter tears for their innocent tiny little children whose little beds and tricycles lie cold and abandoned, all because of those wicked old witches! Let’s string’em all up!”

Political Correctness (“PC”): A contemporary fallacy that the nature of a thing or situation can be changed simply by changing its name. E.g., “We can strike a blow against cruelty to animals by changing the name of ‘pets’ to ‘animal companions.’” or “What’s going on in Juárez is not a ‘war,’ it is a fight between drug cartels. That means it’s not that bad.”

Post Hoc Argument: (also, “post hoc propter hoc” argument, or the “too much of a coincidence” argument): The classic fallacy that because something comes at the same time or just after something else, the first thing is caused by the second. E.g., “AIDS first emerged as a problem during the exact same time that Disco music was becoming popular–that’s too much of a coincidence: It proves that Disco causes AIDS!”

Red Herring: An irrelevant distraction, attempting to mislead an audience by bringing up an unrelated, but usually emotionally loaded issue. E.g., “In regard to my recent indictment for corruption, let’s talk about what’s really important instead–terrorists are out there, and if we don’t stop them we’re all gonna die!”

Reductionism: (also, Oversimplifying, Sloganeering): The fallacy of deceiving an audience by giving simple answers or slogans in response to complex questions, especially when appealing to less educated or unsophisticated audiences. E.g., “If the glove doesn’t fit, you must vote to acquit.” Often involves appeals to emotion (pathos). E.g., “Moms! If you want to protect your little kids from armed terrorists, vote for Snith!”

Reifying: The fallacy of treating imaginary categories as actual, material “things.” (E.g., “The biggest struggle in youth culture today is between Goths and Emos.”) Sometimes also referred to as “Essentializing” or “Hypostatization.”

Sending the Wrong Message: A dangerous fallacy that attacks a given statement or action, no matter how true, correct or necessary, because it will “send the wrong message.” In effect, those who uses this fallacy are publicly confessing to fraud and admitting that the truth will destroy the fragile web of illusion that has been created by their lies. E.g., “Actually, we’re losing the war, but if we admit it we’ll be sending the wrong message to our enemies.”

Shifting the Burden of Proof. (see also Argument from Ignorance) A fallacy that challenges opponents to disprove a claim, rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument. E.g., “Space-aliens are everywhere among us, even here on campus, masquerading as true humans! I dare you prove it isn’t so! See? You can’t! That means you have to accept that what I say is true.”

Slippery Slope (also, the Domino Theory): The common fallacy that “one thing inevitably leads to another.” E.g., “If you two go and drink coffee together, one thing will lead to another, and soon enough you’ll be pregnant and end up spending your life on welfare living in the projects,” or “If we cut and run in Iraq or Afghanistan, pretty soon all of southwest Asia will be run by Al-Qaeda.”

Snow Job: The fallacy of “proving” a claim by overwhelming an audience with mountains of irrelevant facts, numbers, documents, graphs and statistics that they cannot be expected to understand. This is a corrupted argument from logos. See also, “Lying with Statistics.”

Straw Man (also “The Straw Person”): The fallacy of setting up a phony version of an opponent’s argument, and then proceeding to knock it down with a wave of the hand. E.g., “Vegetarians say animals have feelings like you and me. Ever seen a cow laugh at a Shakespeare comedy? Vegetarianism is nonsense!”

Taboo: The fallacy of unilaterally declaring certain arguments, standpoints or actions to be “sacrosanct” or not open to discussion or arbitrarily taking some standpoints or options “off the table” beforehand. (E.g., “Don’t bring my drinking into this,” or “Before we start, I won’t allow you to put my arguments down by saying ‘That’s just what Hitler would say!’”)

Testimonial (also Questionable Authority, Faulty Use of Authority): A fallacy in which support for a standpoint or product is provided by a well-known or respected figure (e.g. a star athlete or entertainer) who is not an expert and who was probably well paid for the endorsement (e.g., “Olympic gold-medal pole-vaulter Fulano de Tal uses Quick Flush Internet-shouldn’t you?”). Also includes other false, meaningless or paid means of associating oneself or one’s product with the ethos of a famous person or event (e.g. “Try Salsa Cabria, the official taco sauce of the Vancouver Winter Olympics!”) This is a corrupted argument from ethos.

They’re Not Like Us: A badly corrupted, bigoted argument from ethos where a fact, argument or objection is arbitrarily disregarded, ignored or put down without consideration because those involved “are not like us,” or “don’t think like us.” E.g., “It’s OK for Mexicans to earn half a buck an hour in the maquiladoras. If it were here, I’d call it exploitation and daylight robbery, but south of the border they’re not the same as we are.” Or, “Sure, the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, but over there they’re not like us and don’t think the same way we do about life and death.” A variety of the Ad Hominem Argument, most often applied to non-White populations.

TINA (There Is No Alternative. Also “Get Over It,” the “fait accompli”). A very common contemporary extension of the either/or fallacy, quashing critical thought by announcing that there is no realistic alternative to a given standpoint, status or action, ruling any and all other options irrelevant, or announcing that a decision has been made and any further discussion is simply a waste of time (or even insubordination or disloyalty) when there is a job to be done. (See also, “Taboo.”)

Transfer: A corrupt argument from ethos, falsely associating a famous person or thing with an unrelated standpoint (e.g. putting a picture of George Washington on an advertisement for mattresses or using Genghis Khan (a Mongol) as the name of a Chinese restaurant, or using the Texas flag to sell cars or pickups that were made in Detroit, Kansas City or Kyoto)..

Tu Quoque (also Two Wrongs Make a Right): The fallacy of defending a shaky or false standpoint or excusing one’s own bad action by pointing out that one’s opponent’s acts or personal character are also open to question, or even worse. E.g., “Sure, we may have tortured prisoners of war, but we didn’t cut off heads off like they do!” A corrupt argument from ethos. Related to the Red Herring and to the Ad Hominem Argument.

We Have to Do Something: The dangerous contemporary fallacy that in moments of crisis one must do something, anything, at once, even if it is an overreaction, is totally ineffective or makes the situation worse, rather than “just sitting there doing nothing.” (E.g., “Banning air passengers from carrying nail clippers probably does nothing to deter potential hijackers, but we have to do something to respond to this crisis!”) This is often a corrupted argument from pathos.

Where there’s smoke, there’s fire (also Hasty Conclusion, Jumping to a Conclusion). The dangerous fallacy of quickly drawing a conclusion and/or taking action without sufficient evidence. E.g., “My neighbor Jaminder Singh wears a long beard and a turban and speaks a funny language. Where there’s smoke there’s fire. This is war, our country is in danger, and that’s all the evidence we need to string him up!’” A variety of the “Just in Case” fallacy.

All this time and you do not have even a simple understanding of logical fallacies…. and the immorality of using them to sway an audience…

Just go to Google or the search engine of your choice and type Logical fallacies… Or do you choose to remain willfully ignorant so that you can stand before your audience and say, ” I did not know that horrible polemics are the same as lying….

You never attack the substance of what is presented to you but, without exception attack the bearer of the ideas… That is the Logical fallacy called Ad- Hominem…. latin for attack the man…..

This attack is always seen when the opponent cannot answer or contend with the assertion being presented. In polemics, it is the lowest of the low… It is used because it is effective, and that is a shame. It is merely a statement of the state of education in this country… It uses the audiences cognitive bias’s to an advantage. It promotes fear and bigotry. This tactic merely misdirects the audience away from the assertion and toward the individual… it In short, it is used to attempt to discredit the assertion made by the opponent by placing a label on him which colors the opinion of the audience… Example: Christ rejecters would as soon lie as tell the truth…

What is offered to give foundation to this assertion by Dr Kennedy? Absolutely nothing….

About the “Straw man” fallacy: This fallacy is the polemic of not attacking the actual assertion of your opponent, but presenting a stripped down, bastardized version of the assertion, and then beating the heck out of the straw man. Again this polemic is intellectually disingenuous….

It is apparent that Dr Kennedy does not actually read my post.

The Humanist uses a moral code which even Christians utilize. When a Christian reads the Old Testament ( excuse me for using a pejorative term, I mean the Jewish Scriptures, how should the believer interpret the horrible commands made by Jehovah, the misogyny, the establishment, and codifying of slavery, the raping of thousands of virgins by Israelite solders on Moses approval?

In these scriptures the edicts commanded by God are viewed by almost everyone as abhorrent. Why?

Because your abilities of Reason, Evidence, and Empathy tell you that these acts are not moral… If one uses the scriptures as a moral code then the practice of having slaves, beating children for disobedience, stoning witches, and a social norm of women being second class citizens, would be acceptable morality.

Who among you accept these actions as moral?

How does one determine if a situation not spoken to in the scriptures is moral or not? I mentioned Gene therapy, In-Vitro fertilization, Immunizations, etc, as examples of situations that the scriptures offer no guidance….Absolutely nothing! Humanistic morality is composed of weighing the benefits and harm based on reason and evidence, tempered with basic empathy… That is morality….

The Humanist does not accept that morality is something that is hard and fast. It is not a process where one merely opens up some holy book and obtains an absolute, all situation covered answer, for any moral question…

Morals are a function of the situation…

Humanist use the exact same method for evaluating whether some action is moral, by using the same method a believer uses to determine if a Old Testament action is moral or not. (At least I hope a believer does not accept these OT actions as moral.. If you do, what action ordered by your God, is out of bounds?)

If a believer reading this blog accepts that the horrible acts of genocide, mass rape, codified misogyny (women hating), homophobia, listed in the Old Testament is moral because they were the commands of God. What could God not order you to do and that action not be moral? Is their any limit to the evil that could be done in Gods name?

James Mark Marbut

The matter of humanists’ morals demands a reply. First, however in passing, I want you to know that I have made a pretty thorough study of Corliss Lamont’s The Philosophy of Humanism: a lucid summary of the growing Humanist movement, and of Humanism as an affirmative credo for shaping a better life in today’s complex world; fifth edition. This book would be Good News for Man if it didn’t have one fatal flaw – the depravity, the sin nature of man.

The matter of the humanist’s morals is summed up in a few sentences in the Humanist Manifestos I and II edited by Paul Kurtz and published by Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York in 1979 as follows on page 17:

Ethics is autonomous and siturational, needing no theological or ideological sanction. Autonomous, situational ethics is the reason our prisons are full of wasted lives; the reason we have women’s shelters, abortion clinics, etc., etc.

True, this booklet is quite old (1979), but if Humanists have seen the light since then, and recognized the fact of human depravity, I’m sure Mr. Marbut will inform us. Otherwise, we can depend on him to answer this by accusing me of lying or presenting another straw man.

Do you feel it is right/moral to mislead an audience? To use Cherry picked quotes out of context, attack the character of people rather than the content of their argument, and attempt to poison the well of an audience by suggesting a “Christ Rejecter” is somehow untrustworthy?

Is this the polemics you use in your everyday debates and contentions?
Should the ends justify the means?

Somehow I cannot square such behavior with the Christian ethic? Do you?
Step up and answer these questions, the answer will tell me a great deal about you…

James Mark Marbut

Do you people not get tired of being misled?

Lets read it…

” If evolution is true and creation is false, why is creation not permitted to be debated in public? Why does it have to be protected by national fiat backed up by the army, navy, and marine corps.”

Now lets take this statement apart…. Dr. Kennedy is making the statement that creates a false dichotomy, and supports that statement with the unsupported statement that Creationism cannot be debated in public and that restriction of Free Speech is defended by the United States Armed Forces….

What bunk!

First of all people may debate Evolution-Creation in any public forum. No restriction is present that limits free speech. When a Creationist wishes to take part in debate the creationist is not silenced, or made to disappear.. No Creationist has been shot or imprisoned for exercising his/ her free speech… However, while having the right to say anything, the Creationist does not have the right to not be called on the carpet for misinformation, cherry picked quotes, ad- Hominem attacks, or any other of the fallacious logic and outright misrepresentations that they disseminate… Since the beginning, I have called into question almost every assertion that Dr Kennedy has presented related to Creationism and Evolution subject. In every situation I have provided ample evidence against Dr Kennedy’s thesis.. In not a single instance has Dr Kennedy attacked my data. He cannot….. So the only position he has is to attempt to attack my character. In this very blog post Dr Kennedy has attempted to plant a seed of bigotry against people which hold my position. Tell me, dear reader, do you find this sort of polemics acceptable? When one cannot attack the ideas presented, is it acceptable to just attack the man?

I will let you decide….

Dr Kennedy desires total hegemonic domination of his ideology, and anything short of that goal is evidence in his mind of a conspiracy against his position…

I do feel sorry for an individuals like Dr Kennedy…. When you do not have evidence to support your position all you have is misrepresentation of facts, ad hominem attacks, cherry picking data out of context, and if that does not work, cry foul that your constitutional rights are being violated….

Dr Kennedy attack my facts, attack my logic and reason…. Please for once rise above your horrible polemics and debate without character assassination….

If these tactics are acceptable in defense of Christianity, then the death warrant has been signed….

James Mark Marbut

In his very first sentence Dr Kennedy lays out a ” begging the question” fallacy. . Lets read it now:

Why should not a Christ-rejecter tell a lie as quickly as the truth?. The question posed is used to intend a conclusion in the mind or the reader… In this form the conclusion intended by the writer is that a “Christ rejecter” would as soon tell a lie than tell the truth… The question and its intended conclusion promotes bigotry.

Read the rest of the paragraph and Dr Kennedy brings home his idea.. Lets read it:

“A conscience soon becomes seared in an unbeliever. So, by the same token, why shouldn’t an unbeliever be immoral, even more easily than he would be moral? Would he even know the difference? Why should he feel bound by his wedding vows, or his military oath, or any oath? The values an unbeliever creates for himself do not bind him, for if he wishes to change them in the middle of the night, who is to prevent him?”

Does Dr Kennedy offer any evidence for his assertion that Christ rejecters are immoral, not bound by vows, and devoid of values?
No! Absolutely nothing!

He just planted the seed of bigotry, hoping that his audience will not question his assertion. It is a typical polemic from him…. Poison the well, attack the character of the opponent, so that you do not have to deal with the arguments of your opponent….

Do any of you readers find this behavior as moral or ethical?

Since the question of morality has been broached in this email, let us explore that area… The majority of Atheist are Humanist. Humanism is a moral code which uses secular processes to evaluate what is a moral action… The primary tools used in this moral code is reason, evidence and empathy. A Humanist uses reason, evidence, and empathy to determine if a particular action is moral or not. In short, the moral code of a Humanist is, “the Intention to do the greatest good for the greatest number of people, or induce the least harm”…Humanist rightly view moral and ethical questions as a conflict of values, not a slavish adherence to a derived doctrine. Morality is rarely a Black and White proposition…

For example: Most people would agree that sticking a baby with a needle is wrong… What kind of monster would do that? However, if that painful act gives the child immunity from a deadly childhood disease, that action would be seen as moral. Is this not true? Many instances in my career have required my to hold down little children in order to establish an IV access. The terror exhibited in the child is horrible, but it is done in order to give life saving medications or prepared for a surgical intervention…

Morality to the humanist is not some filing cabinet, of moral doctrines in which a drawer is opened and the appropriate action is found and implemented, but is a system that requires the individual to evaluate the situation, determine the harm and the benefit to all the players and determine a action that does the least harm or the greatest good.

In contrast religious based morals are derived from doctrine,which are interpretations from holy writ, in the case of Christianity is the Holy Bible. One major problem with doctrine derived moral code is not every situation can be covered in a book. And in many situations the morality of that book has been superseded by secular morality….

For example if your Holy Writ allows slavery, codifies who may be enslaved, how they may be treated, who may own them, what does a religious person determine the morality or immorality of slavery? What is the moral code dictated by the Holy Writ? Someone , using the doctrinal authority method would find that slavery is a acceptable moral code… But of course, Christians in these modern times would never approve of slavery.. So how do they determine the morality or immorality of the institution of slavery? These religious people use the exact same method that the Humanist uses.. They evaluate the harm of the institution and determine that slavery is not a just institution…

To the women of Dr Kennedy’s audience… What does your Bible say about the role of women in society and in church? The entire Old Testament dictates that the role of women in the society, is akin to them being property. Even the New Testament the Apostle Paul, continued the misogynistic views of women in the Old Testament… So what would we determine about the role of women in society, based on the dictates of the Holy Bible?

Humanism evaluates the harm of the misogyny, and determines that the subjugation of women is immoral in a society which desires justice.

So far, I have discussed moral questions which the stance of the Holy Bible is opposed to the morality of secular society.. What about moral-ethical questions that are not mentioned, in the Holy Writ….

There is a list of social and other questions that are not covered in the Bible, but society had to deal with……

1. Lighting Rods….Do they thwart Gods will?
2. Women’s rights… Are women equal to men? Should women vote? Should they be paid the same as a man…
3. Birth Control…. Again, thwarting the will of God…
4. Stem Cell Research…. Modifying the genome to treat or prevent disease.
5. In-vitro Fertilization…. Playing God. Implanting five ova in the hope one would implant..
6. Immunizations… Is disease Gods will?
7. Treating Pain during Labor…. This was questioned! Genesis said women would endure pain in labor as a result of the sin in the garden….
8. Corporal punishment… Do parents have the right to physically hit their children? Bible says, Yes! What rights do children have in the Holy Bible?

Everyone of these social problems have been dealt with in a secular manner. One may attempt to extrapolate broad edicts or Commandments to determine the ethics or morality of these issues… But in actuality, none of these societal questions are covered to any specific degree in the Bible…

So how does one determine the morality or ethics of societal problems not covered explicitly in the Bible?

Answer: One uses the exact same Humanism based evaluation techniques that the Humanist uses in areas covered specifically in the Bible. The Humanist just cuts out the middle man so to speak….

When the slavish adherence to a moral code derived from a Holy Writ is followed, there is no limit to the evil that can be unleashed… In the Religious based moral-ethical system no concern is noted for the evil acts performed. Since the authority is from a God, the effects( harm) of the ethical code is not evaluated…. That slavish adherence to doctrine and dogma is the exact same behavior Christians find repugnant exhibited by fundamentalist Muslims desiring Sharia Law… … The only difference is you do not accept the doctrines derived from the Koran….

So if you use the Bible, and doctrines derived from it, to determine the ethics- morality issues. Then you should rise up to re-establish slavery, remove womens right to vote, stop all birth control, outlaw in-vitro fertilization.

Why not do these things?

Because using reason, evidence and empathy you have determined that these things should not be a part of a just society…. Is that not right?

This moral code that you exhibit on issues not addressed in the Bible, or are approved, in the Bible, and are now determined to be repugnant, is the exact same moral-ethical code that I follow….

So we come to the question of the morality and ethics of “Christ rejecters” as Dr Kennedy calls us… Dr. Kennedy reveals his total lack of knowledge on this subject. With the exception of myself. Dr Kennedy has never had any dealings with another Atheist, so his knowledge is nothing more than a ignorant guess of the morality of Humanist Atheist, and that ignorance is readily apparent in his writings….

In short, he just made it up and used the unfounded assertion as a tool to poison the well….. Burn away the chaff and this is his message… “ Atheist are without morals”

In reality, my ethics and moral fiber is superior to the ethics exhibited by one which has no concern for the harm done to others….. When someones ethics rest upon Divine authority there is no amount of harm that is out of bounds….

Dr Kennedy’s ethics and morality is based on the reward and punishment that are the result of his actions…. My ethics are the result of my love for humanity, without regard for a God or an afterlife…

I will let this audience judge which path is the more noble……Doing the right thing because it is right, or doing something driven by either pleasing or displeasing a God?

James Mark Marbut

Oz on his television set program, represents the newest in diet exploration,
being a fresh dietary supplement, it really is greater which
you obtain it over the web from a honest seller.
And can green coffee bean naturewise extract control blood glucose spikes?