Is this argument a Gish Gallop
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-02-2015, 02:56 PM
Is this argument a Gish Gallop
This argument is from a theist on another site. i posted it on the Favorite Pictures For A Laugh At Religion thread but I don't want to hijack that thread so I'm re-posting it here. It's a response to Sam Harris' statement

Quote:Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes, or he doesn't care to, or He doesn't exist. God is either impotent, evil. or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.

The response below by Devil's Advocate is so ill worded that I think it qualifies as a Gish Gallop. Your thoughts?


Quote:If god stepped in and stopped every tragedy from occurring and actively helped everyone achieve a perfect life then this would be heaven, so then what is the point of a mortal life? God does not intrude because this is supposed to be man working out his free will and learning from his own life mistakes and suffering when we make the wrong decisions through our unwise behavior brought about by our own selfish motives. This is the only way to lead to spiritual perfection is to learn the value of spirituality [sic] and the egoless self through the conflicts and troubles our own bad behavior creates in our life. If this was not the case then we would be automatically in heaven without having any mortal experiences so we would be nothing more than mindless creations protected by God eternally with no mortal experiences to give us a real knowledge of goodness and evil and a sense of earned spirituality.

Sapere aude
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 03:00 PM (This post was last modified: 04-02-2015 03:03 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
Sounds like mindless drivel from some apologist. Human choice is a cop-out answer to the problem of evil.

So a child dying from cancer, through no choice of their own, gives us "a sense of earned spirituality". Go f*** yourself and your god.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like TheInquisition's post
04-02-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
"Flesh eating bacteria" --- What kind of "Supreme Being" puts this kind of shit on their resume????

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like onlinebiker's post
04-02-2015, 03:16 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
I don't think a written response can be a 'Gish Gallop'.

A 'Gish Gallop' is purely a verbal debate tactic to toss in as many flawed points as possible. The perpetrator knows the opponent has no possibility to respond to and refute every one in the time period allowed. Therefore, he can go back at a later time in the debate and point out all the points he made that the opponent did not address.

Since there is no time limit to the response, every point that Devil's Advocate makes in his/her post can be refuted.

What you have with the response by Devil's Advocate is just a bunch of unsupported assertions and ad hoc fallacies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Simon Moon's post
04-02-2015, 06:14 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(04-02-2015 02:56 PM)f stop Wrote:  This argument is from a theist on another site. i posted it on the Favorite Pictures For A Laugh At Religion thread but I don't want to hijack that thread so I'm re-posting it here. It's a response to Sam Harris' statement

Quote:Either God can do nothing to stop catastrophes, or he doesn't care to, or He doesn't exist. God is either impotent, evil. or imaginary. Take your pick, and choose wisely.

Silly neuroscientist. You missed one. Prick's not only responsible for causing catastrophes, sick prick enjoys them. We haz teh evidenz in teh BuyBull.

(04-02-2015 02:56 PM)f stop Wrote:  The response below by Devil's Advocate is so ill worded that I think it qualifies as a Gish Gallop. Your thoughts?


Quote:... God does not intrude because this is supposed to be man working out his free will and learning from his own life mistakes and suffering when we make the wrong decisions through our unwise behavior brought about by our own selfish motives. This is the only way to lead to spiritual perfection ...

I've seen worse. Hell, I've Gishy Galloped my self far worse (don't know what it means but I like the way it sounds). My response to Satan's Counsel is to what end? To what end? To be God, silly. Tongue

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 06:38 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
So my moral decisions now cause catastrophic natural disasters.

Who knew ?

I better straighten up and fly right before the next seasonal hurricane hits.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
04-02-2015, 06:58 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
Doesn't really matter if we learn from mistakes, just gotta ask Jesus to live in your heart.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-02-2015, 07:17 PM (This post was last modified: 05-02-2015 12:16 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
What Simon Moon said. While this argument is flawed in many respects, it does not qualify as a Gish Gallop. It is relatively short, relatively tightly focused (though it moves the goal posts a bit), and it does not take an eternity to debunk.

I'd adopt a somewhat broader definition of Gish Gallop than Simon seems to be putting forward, though. Traditionally, a Gish Gallop is deployed in a debate, or other format where limited time makes a proper response impossible. I'd also extend it to formats where limited space or other such factors make a proper response impossible, as well as to situations where taking the time for a full, detailed response, while possible, becomes highly undesirable. For example, we've had a bunch of drive-by folks who just post huge, rambling lists of hundreds of bad arguments at once, all tangled up into the Apologetic Ball of Twine from Hell. Untangling them and picking them apart one at a time would require hours or days to compose the post. While most of us are capable of doing that, we just plain don't fucking want to, and so the apologist troll gets only character attacks, snipes, and partial responses. Even though there is not a time-limiting factor, I'd still describe this as a Gish Gallop.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Reltzik's post
05-02-2015, 07:37 AM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
Quote:If god stepped in and stopped every tragedy from occurring and actively helped everyone achieve a perfect life then this would be heaven, so then what is the point of a mortal life?

I think this quote sums up the problem perfectly. Under this author's view of Christianity what is the point of a mortal life? Does an omniscient god need to test us? Does he delight in sending some of us to hell? Is he such a poor creator that he has such a high defect rate? If Heaven can be perfect why can't earth be perfect?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
05-02-2015, 07:55 AM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(04-02-2015 02:56 PM)f stop Wrote:  The response below by Devil's Advocate is so ill worded that I think it qualifies as a Gish Gallop. Your thoughts?

It's not a gish gallop, but it is ad hoc reasoning, trying to reconcile what he wants with what we can see. He wants heaven and believes he'll get it eventually, but earth is what we have now. So, he goes on to try and explain it...

...in a rather bad way. The very first question he raises shows the folly of his reasoning.


Quote:If god stepped in and stopped every tragedy from occurring and actively helped everyone achieve a perfect life then this would be heaven, so then what is the point of a mortal life? God does not intrude because this is supposed to be man working out his free will and learning from his own life mistakes and suffering when we make the wrong decisions through our unwise behavior brought about by our own selfish motives...
(Emphasis mine)

So, even if we accept that earth sucks because free will, and heaven doesn't suffer from this problem, I still have to ask the question "what is the point of moral life?". He said it himself, but in defense of free will. That question can be asked in critique of free will. Honestly, what does an omnipotent god need from giving us free will. We suffer here and aren't in heaven now precisely because God wants it that way.

Anything else is flowery gibberish to make this sound less insane and assholeish than it is. While I find Calvinism creepy and depressing to contemplate, I will totally give them points on internal consistency with their beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: