AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Good Philosophers are scarce, that is a major reason why the world is in such a mess.
Ideally everyman would be a good philosopher..... lol
Ideally everyman would be a good philosopher..... lol
Dixie, Step Up
- Thread starter Agnosticus_Caesar
- Start date
I feel no need to convince another that their belief in God is misplaced. There is not enough evidence to state with assurance that they are wrong. There may be a reason that every culture in the world has named a Deity, and it may not only be because of cultural aspects.
uscitizen
Villified User
Me neither, but I am drawn to annoy the confused ones....
Espousing my belief that god does not exist is largely pretty dangerous in my case. Some Christian would sooner or later probably shoot me
Agnosticus_Caesar
Fuck You Too
There is no such thing as "evidence of lack". There is either evidence to support a concept, or there is a lack of evidence to support said concept.
Even when a concept lacks evidence, that does not mean that said concept should be dismissed.
Even when a concept lacks evidence, that does not mean that said concept should be dismissed.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
I feel no need to convince another that their belief in God is misplaced. There is not enough evidence to state with assurance that they are wrong.
Not to state absolutely, but to say with assurance, there is.
There may be a reason that every culture in the world has named a Deity, and it may not only be because of cultural aspects.
Deities have two roles. God of the gaps, in which societies attribute that that they don't understand to the actions of a deity (s) and God, the great comforter, the 'parent in the sky', who provides comfort by providing guidlines (morality), comfort from the confusing nature of existence and the fear of death.
God of the gaps has largely been destroyed by the onset of epistemologically sound methodologies such as the scientific revolution. Those that still stand by the 'God of the gaps' are left relying on logical fallacies such as ID.
God, the great comforter is a tougher creature, basically because accepting the cold, uncaring, amoral nature of existence isn't easy to accept. Reading Satre's Nausea, or Neitzsche demonstrates this.
Not to state absolutely, but to say with assurance, there is.
There may be a reason that every culture in the world has named a Deity, and it may not only be because of cultural aspects.
Deities have two roles. God of the gaps, in which societies attribute that that they don't understand to the actions of a deity (s) and God, the great comforter, the 'parent in the sky', who provides comfort by providing guidlines (morality), comfort from the confusing nature of existence and the fear of death.
God of the gaps has largely been destroyed by the onset of epistemologically sound methodologies such as the scientific revolution. Those that still stand by the 'God of the gaps' are left relying on logical fallacies such as ID.
God, the great comforter is a tougher creature, basically because accepting the cold, uncaring, amoral nature of existence isn't easy to accept. Reading Satre's Nausea, or Neitzsche demonstrates this.
The roles of Deities as you list them are opinion, not fact.
Once again, there is not enough evidence to state with assurance that no Deity exists. You want there to be because it will make you feel superior to those who work within a different belief system than yours, but there isn't. The roles of superior feelings can be oversimplified as well. You want to feel superior emotionally because you know that you are not intellectually, this is the "great comforter" version of the feeling of superiority. Or, they help to divide the world into more stereotypical roles of "the fool" and "My side", each side can claim this superiorty, it is the "gap filler" version of the feeling of superiorty...
There is enough to state personally with assurance that I don't/do believe in a Deity, there is not enough to state with assurance that there is none and another is a fool for believing in such a Being.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Me neither, but I am drawn to annoy the confused ones....
I don't get personal satisfaction from arguing against religion, or at least no more than I would arguing any philosophical point. I do however, enjoy argument immensely.... lol
I don't get personal satisfaction from arguing against religion, or at least no more than I would arguing any philosophical point. I do however, enjoy argument immensely.... lol
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
The roles of Deities as you list them are opinion, not fact.
Define the difference between a fact and an opinion? Isn't a fact just a commonly held opinion? It is only an opinion that the sun will rise again tomorrow, even if it is a highly substantiated opinion.
The roles of deities can be broken into smaller sub catergories, but all those fall into these two.
Can you present an example of a role of a deity that doesn't?
You want there to be because it will make you feel superior to those who work within a different belief system than yours, but there isn't. The roles of superior feelings can be oversimplified as well. You want to feel superior emotionally because you know that you are not intellectually, this is the "great comforter" version of the feeling of superiority. Or, they help to divide the world into more stereotypical roles of "the fool" and "My side", each side can claim this superiorty, it is the "gap filler" version of the feeling of superiorty...
Ad hominems and pop-psychology? Below you Damo....lol
There is substantial evidence that the idea of the existence of deities is a human creation, from the evolution of religious belief from its origins attributing phenomenom such as fire and the actions of the oceans to the work of deities, to the anthropomorphised notions extant. It is even possible to demonstrate by a priori logic. If a deity is unknowable, as deities tend to be claimed to be, how did the concept of the existence of deities come into human understanding?
There is enough to state personally with assurance that I don't/do believe in a Deity, there is not enough to state with assurance that there is none and another is a fool for believing in such a Being.
I would differ, and state that there is sufficient to state with assurance that there is none. But I wouldn't call someone a fool for believing. I know that if I want to persuade someone of something, I wouldn't rely on ad hominems nor mockery, it is the surest way to place the subject on the defensive and make them retreat into dogma.
I did, however, laugh when Dixie explained that 'god' gives him financial advice in the shower, simply because the absurdness of the claim was very funny.
Define the difference between a fact and an opinion? Isn't a fact just a commonly held opinion? It is only an opinion that the sun will rise again tomorrow, even if it is a highly substantiated opinion.
The roles of deities can be broken into smaller sub catergories, but all those fall into these two.
Can you present an example of a role of a deity that doesn't?
You want there to be because it will make you feel superior to those who work within a different belief system than yours, but there isn't. The roles of superior feelings can be oversimplified as well. You want to feel superior emotionally because you know that you are not intellectually, this is the "great comforter" version of the feeling of superiority. Or, they help to divide the world into more stereotypical roles of "the fool" and "My side", each side can claim this superiorty, it is the "gap filler" version of the feeling of superiorty...
Ad hominems and pop-psychology? Below you Damo....lol
There is substantial evidence that the idea of the existence of deities is a human creation, from the evolution of religious belief from its origins attributing phenomenom such as fire and the actions of the oceans to the work of deities, to the anthropomorphised notions extant. It is even possible to demonstrate by a priori logic. If a deity is unknowable, as deities tend to be claimed to be, how did the concept of the existence of deities come into human understanding?
There is enough to state personally with assurance that I don't/do believe in a Deity, there is not enough to state with assurance that there is none and another is a fool for believing in such a Being.
I would differ, and state that there is sufficient to state with assurance that there is none. But I wouldn't call someone a fool for believing. I know that if I want to persuade someone of something, I wouldn't rely on ad hominems nor mockery, it is the surest way to place the subject on the defensive and make them retreat into dogma.
I did, however, laugh when Dixie explained that 'god' gives him financial advice in the shower, simply because the absurdness of the claim was very funny.
It isn't "ad hominem" to simply take the same opinion and turn it around, stating it much the same way and tone as was presented from the beginning.
To be reasonably assured personally of the existence/non-existence of a Deity is one thing. To suggest that your opinion is of such value that all others with equal "evidence" to the contrary are daft is quite simply what you did, call it "pop-psychology" if you will but it is what it is. There is no scientific evidence to make such assurances. Science is not designed to answer to the question of such an untestable as the Deity. The attempt to apply it to such is psuedoscience and pop-psychology.
It only is "ad hominem" if you take it personally and you can only take it personally if it applies as such.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
It isn't "ad hominem" to simply take the same opinion and turn it around, stating it much the same way and tone as was presented from the beginning.
Tone is subjective, if you interpreted mine as anything other than dispassionate, then mea culpa. As for taking the opinion and turning it around, the analogy hardly fits. Do you deny that morality, and a paternal reassurance in relation to the cold nature of existence (death etc) are comforting? You retort simply states that you consider that I am arrogant in my argument so that I am comforted... This is ad hominem.
Again, can you think of any role of a deity that doesn't fit into either of those two catergories?
To be reasonably assured personally of the existence/non-existence of a Deity is one thing. To suggest that your opinion is of such value that all others with equal "evidence" to the contrary are daft
I am not suggesting my opinion has a higher value to others, I am merely presenting it. On nearly every topic I comment on you seem to suggest that I think my opinion has a higher value or that I believe I am operating absolute knowledge.....even though I have stated many many times that every statement I make is made in recognition of the impossibility of such knowledge. I make bold statements without this qualification to save typing time, but If you prefer, I'll certainly make sure this qualifier is there on every post.
call it "pop-psychology
The pop-psychology I refered to was your attempt to provide an explanation as to why I claimed what I did, your 'analogy' that I claim the knowledge of falsehood in the concept of god derives from a need to be comforted by a sense of superiority.
Science is not designed to answer to the question of such an untestable as the Deity.
You do realise that implicit in this statement is a belief that science is the only form of epistemology?
It only is "ad hominem" if you take it personally and you can only take it personally if it applies as such.
Ok, attempted ad hominem.... lol
Tone is subjective, if you interpreted mine as anything other than dispassionate, then mea culpa. As for taking the opinion and turning it around, the analogy hardly fits. Do you deny that morality, and a paternal reassurance in relation to the cold nature of existence (death etc) are comforting? You retort simply states that you consider that I am arrogant in my argument so that I am comforted... This is ad hominem.
Again, can you think of any role of a deity that doesn't fit into either of those two catergories?
To be reasonably assured personally of the existence/non-existence of a Deity is one thing. To suggest that your opinion is of such value that all others with equal "evidence" to the contrary are daft
I am not suggesting my opinion has a higher value to others, I am merely presenting it. On nearly every topic I comment on you seem to suggest that I think my opinion has a higher value or that I believe I am operating absolute knowledge.....even though I have stated many many times that every statement I make is made in recognition of the impossibility of such knowledge. I make bold statements without this qualification to save typing time, but If you prefer, I'll certainly make sure this qualifier is there on every post.
call it "pop-psychology
The pop-psychology I refered to was your attempt to provide an explanation as to why I claimed what I did, your 'analogy' that I claim the knowledge of falsehood in the concept of god derives from a need to be comforted by a sense of superiority.
Science is not designed to answer to the question of such an untestable as the Deity.
You do realise that implicit in this statement is a belief that science is the only form of epistemology?
It only is "ad hominem" if you take it personally and you can only take it personally if it applies as such.
Ok, attempted ad hominem.... lol
Last edited:
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
That's me for the W/end Damo, will reply after.....
Have yourself a good one.....
Have yourself a good one.....
Tone is subjective, if you take a dispassionate turn of phrase and apply it to yourself then, mea culpa.
The dispassionate Deity of the Deists does not fit into either of those categories. Nor does the more subjective Deity of the Mihayana Buddhists. It is not the Deity that brings comfort or assurance, it is yourself in both accounts.
I wasn't attempting to say "you" in a personal sense, I was simply turning the phrase around, as it was originally written. It was not an ad hominem, you simply took a dispassionate phrase and internalized it. That you feel so "insulted" is very telling. It wasn't about you, it was about the subjective nature of your "evidence". One can make the same statements in the other direction. Feeling "good" about ones mental superiority can be very comforting to some people.
I did not say that nor was it inferred. It was speaking to the valued information of the audience. One does not quote the Bible, except in the negative, when speaking to a group of Atheists, much like I would use the bible when speaking to a christian, I use science when speaking to somebody suggesting that "scientifically" there is some sort of evidence of the non-existence of a deity. It is rubbish, there is no such evidence.
Your words themselves effect an assumption of superiority in idea, you infer in your statements superiority of belief. To so often suggest another to be a fool for believing in something is clearly more than just a "suggestion" of a feeling of superiority, it is clear evidence of it.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
The dispassionate Deity of the Deists does not fit into either of those categories. Nor does the more subjective Deity of the Mihayana Buddhists. It is not the Deity that brings comfort or assurance, it is yourself in both accounts.
With Deism, The role of the deity still fits into those two catergories. Deists still believe in a creator god, attributing existence to the 'god of the gaps'. Deist's deity also provides comfort, deists believe in an afterlife, the great comfort from man's mortality. They also believe in a deity providing moral guidance (and thus comfort and straight lines in this confusing world) as they believe in a deity that rewards moral and punishes immoral behaviour in that afterlife.
It is also with great irony that the deists believe in a deity that is unknowable, they reject 'divine revelation' yet do not explain how they would even have any knowledge of a god that is unknowable.
As for Mahayana buddhism, it is better described as a metaphysical philosophy system than a religion. Is the notion that we all have the potential to become 'gods' (Buddha) that far from Neitzsche's notion that we all have the potential to become 'gods' (ubermensche)?
Having said that there is a degree of 'god, the great comforter' in the idea of the possibility of our transcending our mortal bodies and reaching nirvana, an immortality of our essence. Fear of permanent death is one of the main things in which humanity looks to belief in deities for comfort from, hence the creation of the notion of an afterlife. And don't forget that there are a series of transcendental bodhisattvas, to guide followers, another part of the role of 'god, the great comforter.
I wasn't attempting to say "you" in a personal sense, I was simply turning the phrase around, as it was originally written. It was not an ad hominem, you simply took a dispassionate phrase and internalized it. That you feel so "insulted" is very telling. It wasn't about you, it was about the subjective nature of your "evidence". One can make the same statements in the other direction. Feeling "good" about ones mental superiority can be very comforting to some people.
Of course it can. So can eating hot, buttery toast. I am not commenting on how people find comfort, but that providing comfort is one of the roles of deities. I didn't feel insulted Damo, this is the internet, feeling insulted is a little pointless. I was a little disappointed that you took it off at such an irrelevant tangent. I wasn't stating that finding comfort as a role of a deity was a weakness or neccesarily negative in itself because as you mentioned, we all seek comfort.
I did not say that nor was it inferred. It was speaking to the valued information of the audience. One does not quote the Bible, except in the negative, when speaking to a group of Atheists, much like I would use the bible when speaking to a christian, I use science when speaking to somebody suggesting that "scientifically" there is some sort of evidence of the non-existence of a deity. It is rubbish, there is no such evidence.
I haven't stated that repeated observation provides the only evidence of the non-existence of a deity. I would agree that it wouldn't be possible through scientific methods to demonstrate such a negative as false. For example, one method, you look at the concept itself, follow its path from its origins as the misunderstanding of phenomenon such as fire and childbirth, through to its modern incarnations and you see a steady evolution of human activities, of human manipulation and human creation. This isn't something I can demonstrate in a few pithy phrases, if you are interested, a good starting point of reference would be Robert Graves, the Greek Myths.
Your words themselves effect an assumption of superiority in idea, you infer in your statements superiority of belief. To so often suggest another to be a fool for believing in something is clearly more than just a "suggestion" of a feeling of superiority, it is clear evidence of it.
Again, you aren't attacking my point, but my rational for making the point. I haven't called anyone a fool for their belief, and I might add that any 'suggestions' of superiority in the tone of my argument are largely irrelevant to the debate. Let's get back to the points...
With Deism, The role of the deity still fits into those two catergories. Deists still believe in a creator god, attributing existence to the 'god of the gaps'. Deist's deity also provides comfort, deists believe in an afterlife, the great comfort from man's mortality. They also believe in a deity providing moral guidance (and thus comfort and straight lines in this confusing world) as they believe in a deity that rewards moral and punishes immoral behaviour in that afterlife.
It is also with great irony that the deists believe in a deity that is unknowable, they reject 'divine revelation' yet do not explain how they would even have any knowledge of a god that is unknowable.
As for Mahayana buddhism, it is better described as a metaphysical philosophy system than a religion. Is the notion that we all have the potential to become 'gods' (Buddha) that far from Neitzsche's notion that we all have the potential to become 'gods' (ubermensche)?
Having said that there is a degree of 'god, the great comforter' in the idea of the possibility of our transcending our mortal bodies and reaching nirvana, an immortality of our essence. Fear of permanent death is one of the main things in which humanity looks to belief in deities for comfort from, hence the creation of the notion of an afterlife. And don't forget that there are a series of transcendental bodhisattvas, to guide followers, another part of the role of 'god, the great comforter.
I wasn't attempting to say "you" in a personal sense, I was simply turning the phrase around, as it was originally written. It was not an ad hominem, you simply took a dispassionate phrase and internalized it. That you feel so "insulted" is very telling. It wasn't about you, it was about the subjective nature of your "evidence". One can make the same statements in the other direction. Feeling "good" about ones mental superiority can be very comforting to some people.
Of course it can. So can eating hot, buttery toast. I am not commenting on how people find comfort, but that providing comfort is one of the roles of deities. I didn't feel insulted Damo, this is the internet, feeling insulted is a little pointless. I was a little disappointed that you took it off at such an irrelevant tangent. I wasn't stating that finding comfort as a role of a deity was a weakness or neccesarily negative in itself because as you mentioned, we all seek comfort.
I did not say that nor was it inferred. It was speaking to the valued information of the audience. One does not quote the Bible, except in the negative, when speaking to a group of Atheists, much like I would use the bible when speaking to a christian, I use science when speaking to somebody suggesting that "scientifically" there is some sort of evidence of the non-existence of a deity. It is rubbish, there is no such evidence.
I haven't stated that repeated observation provides the only evidence of the non-existence of a deity. I would agree that it wouldn't be possible through scientific methods to demonstrate such a negative as false. For example, one method, you look at the concept itself, follow its path from its origins as the misunderstanding of phenomenon such as fire and childbirth, through to its modern incarnations and you see a steady evolution of human activities, of human manipulation and human creation. This isn't something I can demonstrate in a few pithy phrases, if you are interested, a good starting point of reference would be Robert Graves, the Greek Myths.
Your words themselves effect an assumption of superiority in idea, you infer in your statements superiority of belief. To so often suggest another to be a fool for believing in something is clearly more than just a "suggestion" of a feeling of superiority, it is clear evidence of it.
Again, you aren't attacking my point, but my rational for making the point. I haven't called anyone a fool for their belief, and I might add that any 'suggestions' of superiority in the tone of my argument are largely irrelevant to the debate. Let's get back to the points...
Last edited:
No, Deists believe that there is a God that made the place but then left us on our own. There is no gaurantee of an afterlife with a Deist, nor is there moral guidance.
Potential to become gods? We aren't Mormons, dude. Mahayana Buddhism has no belief that Buddha is "God". Rather they believe in a far more faceless God. One more like Gnostics, we believe that each thing living is a portion of that Deity and that we are each responsible for our lives as well as the lives around us. There is some tiny form of comfort in that you "continue" as it were, but you don't continue as an individual as such, it is less "comfort" than you think. You will no longer be "you".
You should make a point that you haven't "in this thread" because I have seen you state much of that sentiment in other threads. I do not speak from the "vacuum" of this thread but in a far larger context of our mutual knowledge of each other on the boards for some time. And yes, attacking the rationale of another is a valid form of argument.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
No, Deists believe that there is a God that made the place but then left us on our own. There is no gaurantee of an afterlife with a Deist, nor is there moral guidance.
How does god making the place not equate to creation and thus become part of 'god of the gaps'?
The source I used with reference to the afterlife in deism reads:
Constructive elements of deist thought included:
God exists and created the universe.
God wants human beings to behave morally.
Human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife.
In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Potential to become gods? We aren't Mormons, dude. Mahayana Buddhism has no belief that Buddha is "God". Rather they believe in a far more faceless God. One more like Gnostics, we believe that each thing living is a portion of that Deity and that we are each responsible for our lives as well as the lives around us. There is some tiny form of comfort in that you "continue" as it were, but you don't continue as an individual as such, it is less "comfort" than you think. You will no longer be "you".
And Neitzsche didn't call the Ubermensche gods, hence why I used that analogy, maybe I should have put 'like gods'.
But besides, you have, as you say, the comfort of an afterlife, and the comfort of the belief that you are part of a larger, paternal force...
You should make a point that you haven't "in this thread" because I have seen you state much of that sentiment in other threads. I do not speak from the "vacuum" of this thread but in a far larger context of our mutual knowledge of each other on the boards for some time. And yes, attacking the rationale of another is a valid form of argument.
Mocking? I mocked Dixie about the financial advice in the shower, but that was only because of the surreal comedy nature of the claim. Do you mean because I consider religious belief a psychological disorder? That's not mocking. And don't forget, I am arrogant, maybe I am percieved as mocking when I'm not.
Attacking the rationale for another to make their argument is ad hominem, playing the man, rather than the ball to use a football analogy. Why I make an argument has no effect on the content of the argument.
How does god making the place not equate to creation and thus become part of 'god of the gaps'?
The source I used with reference to the afterlife in deism reads:
Constructive elements of deist thought included:
God exists and created the universe.
God wants human beings to behave morally.
Human beings have souls that survive death; that is, there is an afterlife.
In the afterlife, God will reward moral behavior and punish immoral behavior.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
Potential to become gods? We aren't Mormons, dude. Mahayana Buddhism has no belief that Buddha is "God". Rather they believe in a far more faceless God. One more like Gnostics, we believe that each thing living is a portion of that Deity and that we are each responsible for our lives as well as the lives around us. There is some tiny form of comfort in that you "continue" as it were, but you don't continue as an individual as such, it is less "comfort" than you think. You will no longer be "you".
And Neitzsche didn't call the Ubermensche gods, hence why I used that analogy, maybe I should have put 'like gods'.
But besides, you have, as you say, the comfort of an afterlife, and the comfort of the belief that you are part of a larger, paternal force...
You should make a point that you haven't "in this thread" because I have seen you state much of that sentiment in other threads. I do not speak from the "vacuum" of this thread but in a far larger context of our mutual knowledge of each other on the boards for some time. And yes, attacking the rationale of another is a valid form of argument.
Mocking? I mocked Dixie about the financial advice in the shower, but that was only because of the surreal comedy nature of the claim. Do you mean because I consider religious belief a psychological disorder? That's not mocking. And don't forget, I am arrogant, maybe I am percieved as mocking when I'm not.
Attacking the rationale for another to make their argument is ad hominem, playing the man, rather than the ball to use a football analogy. Why I make an argument has no effect on the content of the argument.
Last edited:
No, "you are a poo-poo head!" is Ad Hominem, attacking faulty rationale is a rational way to argue. It would be like saying the attempt to poke a hole in a theory in science isn't valid because attacking the premise has no bearing on the science. That is total rubbish. Attacking the premise, the foundation of an argument, is not "Ad Hominem" which is an attack on the person.
If questioning the rationale is not valid then the Socratic method would have no place in argument.
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
Because it isn't to fill in any "gaps". How does a Deity that doesn't fill the gaps suddeny "fill the gaps"?
'God of the gaps' refers to the human habit of attributing phenomenon that is not fully understood the the actions of a deity. If the deist god created all, then it fits into 'god of the gaps', in as much as origins (which are not fully understood) are attributed to the actions of the deity.
Small comfort if you do not keep your individuality, which is what the "comfort" is supposed to alleviate. You just want to substantiate your argument so you apply a different "comfort" level to each thing you wish to believe brings "comfort".
What comfort is derived is determined by the individual experiencing the comfort, comfort being, after all, subjective.
As to the notion of losing your 'identity', how is it different in this aspect from any other religion. For example the Xtians believe that your immortal 'soul' leaves your body, but isn't your body as much a part of your identity? Doesn't identity, ie the sense of self, change throughout a human life? If identity changes, how can you lose it?
No, "you are a poo-poo head!" is Ad Hominem, attacking faulty rationale is a rational way to argue. It would be like saying the attempt to poke a hole in a theory in science isn't valid because attacking the premise has no bearing on the science. That is total rubbish. Attacking the premise, the foundation of an argument, is not "Ad Hominem" which is an attack on the person.
If questioning the rationale is not valid then the Socratic method would have no place in argument.
But you aren't attacking my argument, or the premises that they sit upon. You are attacking what you percieve as my personal rationale for making the argument, not the argument itself.
Socratic method conctrates on countering an argument by addressing the points themselves, why the person is making the point is largely immaterial.
'God of the gaps' refers to the human habit of attributing phenomenon that is not fully understood the the actions of a deity. If the deist god created all, then it fits into 'god of the gaps', in as much as origins (which are not fully understood) are attributed to the actions of the deity.
Small comfort if you do not keep your individuality, which is what the "comfort" is supposed to alleviate. You just want to substantiate your argument so you apply a different "comfort" level to each thing you wish to believe brings "comfort".
What comfort is derived is determined by the individual experiencing the comfort, comfort being, after all, subjective.
As to the notion of losing your 'identity', how is it different in this aspect from any other religion. For example the Xtians believe that your immortal 'soul' leaves your body, but isn't your body as much a part of your identity? Doesn't identity, ie the sense of self, change throughout a human life? If identity changes, how can you lose it?
No, "you are a poo-poo head!" is Ad Hominem, attacking faulty rationale is a rational way to argue. It would be like saying the attempt to poke a hole in a theory in science isn't valid because attacking the premise has no bearing on the science. That is total rubbish. Attacking the premise, the foundation of an argument, is not "Ad Hominem" which is an attack on the person.
If questioning the rationale is not valid then the Socratic method would have no place in argument.
But you aren't attacking my argument, or the premises that they sit upon. You are attacking what you percieve as my personal rationale for making the argument, not the argument itself.
Socratic method conctrates on countering an argument by addressing the points themselves, why the person is making the point is largely immaterial.
Once again, the Deist God does not "fill in those gaps". A Deist, while they believe in a Deity, wouldn't simply say "God did it" and move on. They want to know HOW. This Deity doesn't answer the question of origin. Such a Deity doesn't answer any question whatsoever.