Is this argument a Gish Gallop
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-02-2015, 01:57 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(10-02-2015 01:47 PM)Impulse 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)

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

Better get the high hip waders on, Q's about to shovel a ton of bullshit.

[Image: breathable-chest-waders-clothes-for-fishing.jpg]

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, 01:57 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(09-02-2015 10:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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 need to address this one separately because it's not what I say at all. But it is what you should be saying because you believe in your god. A child being sick is only wrong if your god exists. It's wrong then because your god supposedly can do anything and therefore he didn't have to create sickness in the first place and he can easily rid the world of it anytime. Yet sickness is still here.

Otherwise, without your god, it's undesirable, but nevertheless a fact of life. Morals have nothing to do with it. This is what I say.

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
10-02-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(05-02-2015 06:12 PM)Christian Wrote:  If you don't think their is a God or Christ then maybe the place to start with is God exists relationally between us in our hearts and minds

We don't "think" there is a god because there is nothing that suggests he/she/its there. You suggest looking with or in our hearts and mind. Well if I look inside my heart I'm just going to see muscle and blood. The heart is an organ tasked to pump blood throughout our bodies. Purely mechanical...but I know that's not what you meant. Looking with or in our hearts from your perspective is emotional response. It cannot be considered evidence.

And you damn sure don't want us looking in or with our minds. "In" is going to be just brain matter, but looking with our minds is what got us where we are now.

I suggest to you that you attempt to use your brain to locate god or provide some evidence of his/her/shim's existence.

Go ahead. I'll wait.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2015, 02:58 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(10-02-2015 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 09:24 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

Again, you are being overly literal in your critiques. Survivability characteristics give a species the opportunity to perpetuate or evolve upward. 'Kay? I also never said "evolution depends on cancers". I said "cancer is a necessity" in terms of everything is moving from birth toward death and decay. Half of adults in America are getting cancers partially because of mutation and partially because of sinful pollution.

And your hate for me and many other on this forum is evident or if you wish to deny it, I'll just say it's "self-evident" to me. It's still hate, and it shows there's some love of Christ missing there. I'm sorry, but...

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
11-02-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(11-02-2015 02:58 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 09:37 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.


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.


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.

Again, you are being overly literal in your critiques.

No, I am being precise - in contrast to your sloppy, mistaken description.

Quote:Survivability characteristics give a species the opportunity to perpetuate or evolve upward. 'Kay?
[/quote

No, not OK. Evolution is not driven by species perpetuation nor is there any 'upward' in evolution.

[quote]
I also never said "evolution depends on cancers". I said "cancer is a necessity" in terms of everything is moving from birth toward death and decay.

That seems a distinction without a difference. Cancer is not a necessity in evolution.

Quote:Half of adults in America are getting cancers partially because of mutation and partially because of sinful pollution.

All cancers are due to mutations. Some mutations are triggered by chemicals or radiation.

Quote:And your hate for me and many other on this forum is evident or if you wish to deny it, I'll just say it's "self-evident" to me.

Oh, poor Q. Are you being hated on?

I don't hate you or anyone else here.

Quote:It's still hate, and it shows there's some love of Christ missing there. I'm sorry, but...

But what?

Correcting your errors is not hate. Criticizing your foolish or ugly beliefs is not hate.

Burning people at the stake is hate. Now who did that? Consider

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
11-02-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(10-02-2015 01:25 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  
(10-02-2015 09:27 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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........

I'd be delighted to discuss the multiple issues you've raised (in your Gish Gallop) today with this post. However, I didn't redefine benevolent. God is a person is a total picture just as you are a person who is benevolent for certain things yet intolerant of other things...

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
11-02-2015, 03:29 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(10-02-2015 01:47 PM)Impulse 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)

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

You can answer your own question... I believe in Hell, a place where there is suffering and regret. "So then what was the point of creating a less desirable place like this one with cancer et al. at all? Consider"

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
11-02-2015, 03:30 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
(10-02-2015 02:20 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  
(05-02-2015 06:12 PM)Christian Wrote:  If you don't think their is a God or Christ then maybe the place to start with is God exists relationally between us in our hearts and minds

We don't "think" there is a god because there is nothing that suggests he/she/its there. You suggest looking with or in our hearts and mind. Well if I look inside my heart I'm just going to see muscle and blood. The heart is an organ tasked to pump blood throughout our bodies. Purely mechanical...but I know that's not what you meant. Looking with or in our hearts from your perspective is emotional response. It cannot be considered evidence.

And you damn sure don't want us looking in or with our minds. "In" is going to be just brain matter, but looking with our minds is what got us where we are now.

I suggest to you that you attempt to use your brain to locate god or provide some evidence of his/her/shim's existence.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

You may want to review dozens of my other posts in this matter regarding my Christian worldview, which says that you can push away the evidence or pull it closer. You can also search the scriptures--there are tests within that you can employ.

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
11-02-2015, 06:50 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
Hello again. Smile

(11-02-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You may want to review dozens of my other posts in this matter regarding my Christian worldview,

Actually... been keeping up with your posts in most of the threads and I must admit they never seem tog get past first base. You usually just seem to past the same sort of comments and never proceed past them.

(11-02-2015 03:30 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Which says that you can push away the evidence or pull it closer.[/auote]

So... how goes your 'One on one' with Full Circle ? There's even a thread created just for your participation.

[quote='The Q Continuum' pid='734443' dateline='1423690238'] You can also search the scriptures--there are tests within that you can employ.

Again, I think you've posted this before and people have pointed out the errors of it. Consider

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
11-02-2015, 08:40 PM
RE: Is this argument a Gish Gallop
I don't subscribe to your Christian worldview or any other's. And I don't care what you've gathered from scripture because another Christian has come to a different conclusion reading the same verse.

Like the rest, your translation isn't unique to any truth, only unique to you. So like the rest, you're not special, unless we're talking 'IQ below the bell curve' special.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: