Is this argument a Gish Gallop
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2015, 04:08 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(06-02-2015 04:02 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 01:00 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And don't get me started on the evil people who make everything from pollution to food products in the grocery store that promote cancer...

In your world, if your god hadn't created cancer, and all diseases, in response to Adam and Eve merely eating the forbidden apple, there would be no possible way for any people to promote it.

How are those rose colored glasses working out for you? Drinking Beverage

He's tedious for sure, I wonder if he could even take a dump without seeing Jesus floating in the bowl afterwards?

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
09-02-2015, 10:40 AM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(06-02-2015 04:02 PM)Impulse Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 01:00 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And don't get me started on the evil people who make everything from pollution to food products in the grocery store that promote cancer...

In your world, if your god hadn't created cancer, and all diseases, in response to Adam and Eve merely eating the forbidden apple, there would be no possible way for any people to promote it.

How are those rose colored glasses working out for you? Drinking Beverage

It's these kind of loaded questions that can make responding here a challenge. Do you mean like when God created entropy, a principle that applies to everything in the known universe, and touches on cosmology like we're arguing in another thread?

You may have met other Christians who say all diseases are an outcome of Adam and Eve's disobedience. But entropy is the state of all things before people were born--or died. The issue is Christians seem to have peace in many cases about death and sickness/decay while atheists seem pretty upset about it, and with "god". I care about suffering and I do things accordingly from my wallet to volunteer work to prayer.

Taken another way--it's almost like you are mad that God gives an explanation for human sickness and decay that doesn't align with the standard notion that life is in an endless cycle and food chain to perpetuate the species on the planet. But clearly you require such explanation for rather than saying, "Sad, but cancer is a part of evolution and necessity" you say "A child being sick is wrong."

I think atheists play a little fast and loose with their notions of right and wrong, and the more so since what they're really maintaining as a double standard is:

a) there is no human sin so God cannot hold me morally accountable for my actions, right and wrong

b) a child being ill is wrong so God "sins" (the Bible definition of sin includes the doing of wrong and imperfection)

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 10:56 AM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
@ Q

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid733139

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-02-2015, 11:59 AM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(09-02-2015 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 04:02 PM)Impulse Wrote:  In your world, if your god hadn't created cancer, and all diseases, in response to Adam and Eve merely eating the forbidden apple, there would be no possible way for any people to promote it.

How are those rose colored glasses working out for you? Drinking Beverage

It's these kind of loaded questions that can make responding here a challenge. Do you mean like when God created entropy, a principle that applies to everything in the known universe, and touches on cosmology like we're arguing in another thread?

You may have met other Christians who say all diseases are an outcome of Adam and Eve's disobedience. But entropy is the state of all things before people were born--or died. The issue is Christians seem to have peace in many cases about death and sickness/decay while atheists seem pretty upset about it, and with "god". I care about suffering and I do things accordingly from my wallet to volunteer work to prayer.

Taken another way--it's almost like you are mad that God gives an explanation for human sickness and decay that doesn't align with the standard notion that life is in an endless cycle and food chain to perpetuate the species on the planet. But clearly you require such explanation for rather than saying, "Sad, but cancer is a part of evolution and necessity" you say "A child being sick is wrong."

I think atheists play a little fast and loose with their notions of right and wrong, and the more so since what they're really maintaining as a double standard is:

a) there is no human sin so God cannot hold me morally accountable for my actions, right and wrong

b) a child being ill is wrong so God "sins" (the Bible definition of sin includes the doing of wrong and imperfection)

Oh yes, Q knows exactly what a "true" Christian believes.

A. There is no god, therefore there is no sin. That is a reasonable position that most atheists hold to.

B. A child being ill is not wrong or right, this is a by product of the natural world, if you assert that your all-powerful god is benevolent but does nothing to stop suffering, then that is disingenuous and isn't supported by the obvious evidence around us.

We're showing how your god concept fails on both points.

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
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
10-02-2015, 07:52 AM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(09-02-2015 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It's these kind of loaded questions that can make responding here a challenge. Do you mean like when God created entropy, a principle that applies to everything in the known universe, and touches on cosmology like we're arguing in another thread?

Presupposition.

Quote:You may have met other Christians who say all diseases are an outcome of Adam and Eve's disobedience. But entropy is the state of all things before people were born--or died. The issue is Christians seem to have peace in many cases about death and sickness/decay while atheists seem pretty upset about it, and with "god". I care about suffering and I do things accordingly from my wallet to volunteer work to prayer.

Entropy is not a 'state'. Atheists are not angry with god - why do you keep saying stupid shit like that?

Quote:Taken another way--it's almost like you are mad that God gives an explanation for human sickness and decay that doesn't align with the standard notion that life is in an endless cycle and food chain to perpetuate the species on the planet.

"Species perpetuation" is not part of evolution. Read a book.

Quote:But clearly you require such explanation for rather than saying, "Sad, but cancer is a part of evolution and necessity" you say "A child being sick is wrong."

Cancer is not a necessity. You say the stupidest shit.

Quote:I think atheists play a little fast and loose with their notions of right and wrong, and the more so since what they're really maintaining as a double standard is:

a) there is no human sin so God cannot hold me morally accountable for my actions, right and wrong

b) a child being ill is wrong so God "sins" (the Bible definition of sin includes the doing of wrong and imperfection)

You are an idiot.
a) The argument is that there is no God to do the accounting.
b) The argument is that if there were a loving god, how is it that children get cancer. An atheist isn't angry at god for this.

Pro tip: You don't understand what entropy is.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
10-02-2015, 09:24 AM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(10-02-2015 07:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It's these kind of loaded questions that can make responding here a challenge. Do you mean like when God created entropy, a principle that applies to everything in the known universe, and touches on cosmology like we're arguing in another thread?

Presupposition.

Quote:You may have met other Christians who say all diseases are an outcome of Adam and Eve's disobedience. But entropy is the state of all things before people were born--or died. The issue is Christians seem to have peace in many cases about death and sickness/decay while atheists seem pretty upset about it, and with "god". I care about suffering and I do things accordingly from my wallet to volunteer work to prayer.

Entropy is not a 'state'. Atheists are not angry with god - why do you keep saying stupid shit like that?

Quote:Taken another way--it's almost like you are mad that God gives an explanation for human sickness and decay that doesn't align with the standard notion that life is in an endless cycle and food chain to perpetuate the species on the planet.

"Species perpetuation" is not part of evolution. Read a book.

Quote:But clearly you require such explanation for rather than saying, "Sad, but cancer is a part of evolution and necessity" you say "A child being sick is wrong."

Cancer is not a necessity. You say the stupidest shit.

Quote:I think atheists play a little fast and loose with their notions of right and wrong, and the more so since what they're really maintaining as a double standard is:

a) there is no human sin so God cannot hold me morally accountable for my actions, right and wrong

b) a child being ill is wrong so God "sins" (the Bible definition of sin includes the doing of wrong and imperfection)

You are an idiot.
a) The argument is that there is no God to do the accounting.
b) The argument is that if there were a loving god, how is it that children get cancer. An atheist isn't angry at god for this.

Pro tip: You don't understand what entropy is.

You are making some interesting claims here that 1) survivability-enabling enhancements and refinements are not part of Evolution 2) that you know (perhaps by divine revelation?!) that cancer is not a necessity in either god's economy or that of evolution 3) that I said entropy is a "state" when I said no such thing--of course, even grade school students recognize how many things at our somewhat finite level on the Earth see most everything moving toward entropy...

I guess the one claim that stands out most of all is that you don't hate god when clearly you hate his followers, his standards, his statements and his sway over most of the masses to be theists!

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 09:27 AM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(09-02-2015 11:59 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  It's these kind of loaded questions that can make responding here a challenge. Do you mean like when God created entropy, a principle that applies to everything in the known universe, and touches on cosmology like we're arguing in another thread?

You may have met other Christians who say all diseases are an outcome of Adam and Eve's disobedience. But entropy is the state of all things before people were born--or died. The issue is Christians seem to have peace in many cases about death and sickness/decay while atheists seem pretty upset about it, and with "god". I care about suffering and I do things accordingly from my wallet to volunteer work to prayer.

Taken another way--it's almost like you are mad that God gives an explanation for human sickness and decay that doesn't align with the standard notion that life is in an endless cycle and food chain to perpetuate the species on the planet. But clearly you require such explanation for rather than saying, "Sad, but cancer is a part of evolution and necessity" you say "A child being sick is wrong."

I think atheists play a little fast and loose with their notions of right and wrong, and the more so since what they're really maintaining as a double standard is:

a) there is no human sin so God cannot hold me morally accountable for my actions, right and wrong

b) a child being ill is wrong so God "sins" (the Bible definition of sin includes the doing of wrong and imperfection)

Oh yes, Q knows exactly what a "true" Christian believes.

A. There is no god, therefore there is no sin. That is a reasonable position that most atheists hold to.

B. A child being ill is not wrong or right, this is a by product of the natural world, if you assert that your all-powerful god is benevolent but does nothing to stop suffering, then that is disingenuous and isn't supported by the obvious evidence around us.

We're showing how your god concept fails on both points.

The issue here is, I can't recall saying on any TTA thread that god is omni-benevolent or omni-merciful. The Bible, as you know, says quite the opposite. It says he is love but also a judge, arbiter, and executioner. Jesus said to fear god, not the devil, for god can cast into Hell. You are setting up a straw man (I'm not accusing you personally, every atheist I've spoken with does this also) by saying "How can a benevolent god ever cause a child to be gravely ill" while leaving off so many things.

Let me ask you, though--if this wasn't a "problem" for you, would you convert? The suffering of children was absolutely one of the biggest concerns for me before I became a Christian...

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-02-2015, 09:37 AM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(10-02-2015 09:24 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 07:52 AM)Chas Wrote:  Presupposition.


Entropy is not a 'state'. Atheists are not angry with god - why do you keep saying stupid shit like that?


"Species perpetuation" is not part of evolution. Read a book.


Cancer is not a necessity. You say the stupidest shit.


You are an idiot.
a) The argument is that there is no God to do the accounting.
b) The argument is that if there were a loving god, how is it that children get cancer. An atheist isn't angry at god for this.

Pro tip: You don't understand what entropy is.

You are making some interesting claims here that 1) survivability-enabling enhancements and refinements are not part of Evolution

Your reading comprehension is as poor as ever, I see.
I didn't say that - I was correcting your misunderstanding of evolution. "to perpetuate the species on the planet" is not part of evolution.

Quote:2) that you know (perhaps by divine revelation?!) that cancer is not a necessity in either god's economy or that of evolution

Evolution does not depend on the existence of cancers. Without cancers, evolution would continue on its merry way.
Some cancers appear to be the result of genetic defect and may, in fact, be an inevitable result of the existence of mutation. But that is effect, not cause.

Quote:3) that I said entropy is a "state" when I said no such thing--of course, even grade school students recognize how many things at our somewhat finite level on the Earth see most everything moving toward entropy...
Quote:But entropy is the state of all things before people were born...
Quote:I guess the one claim that stands out most of all is that you don't hate god when clearly you hate his followers, his standards, his statements and his sway over most of the masses to be theists!

Wrong again. I hate many of the messages in the Bible as they are anti-human, decry the fact that people are gullible enough to believe without evidence, and hate what some do as a result of their religious delusion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
10-02-2015, 01:25 PM (This post was last modified: 10-02-2015 01:54 PM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(10-02-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(09-02-2015 11:59 AM)TheInquisition Wrote:  Oh yes, Q knows exactly what a "true" Christian believes.

A. There is no god, therefore there is no sin. That is a reasonable position that most atheists hold to.

B. A child being ill is not wrong or right, this is a by product of the natural world, if you assert that your all-powerful god is benevolent but does nothing to stop suffering, then that is disingenuous and isn't supported by the obvious evidence around us.

We're showing how your god concept fails on both points.

The issue here is, I can't recall saying on any TTA thread that god is omni-benevolent or omni-merciful. The Bible, as you know, says quite the opposite. It says he is love but also a judge, arbiter, and executioner. Jesus said to fear god, not the devil, for god can cast into Hell. You are setting up a straw man (I'm not accusing you personally, every atheist I've spoken with does this also) by saying "How can a benevolent god ever cause a child to be gravely ill" while leaving off so many things.

Let me ask you, though--if this wasn't a "problem" for you, would you convert? The suffering of children was absolutely one of the biggest concerns for me before I became a Christian...

God being an evil prick? It's a major problem no doubt, but god being consistently invisible and unable to answer prayers without post-hoc rationalizations as to why it doesn't is an even bigger problem.

Then god having impossible and conflicting attributes doesn't help.

Then god being a rip-off of earlier Sumerian gods doesn't help.

Then the bible asserting stupid things like six days of creation and men made from mud, doesn't help.

Then apologists redefining words like benevolent doesn't help........

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
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
10-02-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(09-02-2015 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-02-2015 04:02 PM)Impulse Wrote:  In your world, if your god hadn't created cancer, and all diseases, in response to Adam and Eve merely eating the forbidden apple, there would be no possible way for any people to promote it.

How are those rose colored glasses working out for you? Drinking Beverage

It's these kind of loaded questions that can make responding here a challenge. Do you mean like when God created entropy, a principle that applies to everything in the known universe, and touches on cosmology like we're arguing in another thread?

You may have met other Christians who say all diseases are an outcome of Adam and Eve's disobedience. But entropy is the state of all things before people were born--or died. The issue is Christians seem to have peace in many cases about death and sickness/decay while atheists seem pretty upset about it, and with "god". I care about suffering and I do things accordingly from my wallet to volunteer work to prayer.

Taken another way--it's almost like you are mad that God gives an explanation for human sickness and decay that doesn't align with the standard notion that life is in an endless cycle and food chain to perpetuate the species on the planet. But clearly you require such explanation for rather than saying, "Sad, but cancer is a part of evolution and necessity" you say "A child being sick is wrong."

I think atheists play a little fast and loose with their notions of right and wrong, and the more so since what they're really maintaining as a double standard is:

a) there is no human sin so God cannot hold me morally accountable for my actions, right and wrong

b) a child being ill is wrong so God "sins" (the Bible definition of sin includes the doing of wrong and imperfection)

Leave it to Q to take a straightforward point and turn it into a tangled web of nonsense.

Sigh. Dodgy

You wanted to put at least partial blame for cancer on human constructs and actions that contribute to promoting it. But in your world, cancer - like everything - was created by your god. If your god was real and had at least equal morals to mine, cancer would never had been created. Why your god created cancer - because of Adam and Eve or otherwise - is irrelevant. It's that simple. Try ignoring the trees so you can see the forest.

You yourself believe in heaven - a place where there is no disease, evil, sadness, or anything else that is undesirable. Since you believe in that, then you believe you god can create such a place. So then what was the point of creating a less desirable place like this one with cancer et al. at all? Consider

I am not accountable to any God. I am accountable to myself - and not because I think I am God as some theists would try to assert - but because, no matter what actions I take, thoughts I think, or words I utter, I have to be able to live with myself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: