G Man - Revision history

imported>Godless9: added most recent gman drama

2019-02-07T14:10:26Z

added most recent gman drama

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:10, 7 February 2019
Line 42:		Line 42:

	G Man's mental capabilities have been the subject of debate for as long as he's been on youtube/google+. It's clear to all parties that he views the world in a strict dichotomy, leaving little room for grey area. Only recently has he acknowledged exceptions to any given scenario, but only mentions them as footnotes.		G Man's mental capabilities have been the subject of debate for as long as he's been on youtube/google+. It's clear to all parties that he views the world in a strict dichotomy, leaving little room for grey area. Only recently has he acknowledged exceptions to any given scenario, but only mentions them as footnotes.

			Other epic drama with G Man is that he became homeless and moved into a house owned by Shanny ForChrist from Youtube. In late January there was an argument over a phone bill and Shanny evicted Gman with dramatic back and forth videos and live hangouts of them fighting on Youtube.
			[[File:G Man Drama Shanny ForChrist Evicting Him!!!!!\|thumb\|330x330px]]

			[[File:Shannyandgman.jpg\|left\|thumb\|129x129px\|[[Shanny's CPS called on her\|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNGsLmDVAmo&t=310s]]]]
			[[File:G Man's landlord.PNG\|thumb\|164x164px]]

	== Fun Facts ==		== Fun Facts ==
Line 48:		Line 54:

	DO NOT ask G Man about a 'RED BUTTON'!		DO NOT ask G Man about a 'RED BUTTON'!
			* G Man, like many radical evangelist morons on the internet, has the two-dimensional mindset of a small child (where they think ''"If I close my eyes, they can't see me"''). As a result, if someone says something that G Man believes to be untrue, they are automatically 'lying'.
	G Man, like many radical evangelist morons on the internet, has the two-dimensional mindset of a small child (where they think ''"If I close my eyes, they can't see me"''). As a result, if someone says something that G Man believes to be untrue, they are automatically 'lying'.

	Doesn't understand that you can't [[DMCA]] someone for using his real name or saying something that he doesn't like.		Doesn't understand that you can't [[DMCA]] someone for using his real name or saying something that he doesn't like.

imported>House Escalus at 09:30, 21 November 2018

2018-11-21T09:30:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:30, 21 November 2018
Line 168:		Line 168:
	'''<u>The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy Doesn't Apply to Christians</u>'''		'''<u>The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy Doesn't Apply to Christians</u>'''

	This argument is a special kind of Stupid<sup>'''TM'''</sup>. For those unaware, the "God of the Gaps" is a style of argument that relies on human's lack of complete knowledge of our Universe. It asserts that, because some phenomenon or aspect of the natural world is not understood, that the cause of that thing must be [[God]], therefore validating God's existence and theist's belief in him. Obviously, this is fallacious. One can't say that, because something is unknown or the cause of something is unknown, that the cause CAN be known and that that cause is God. This fallacy is a special case of an argument from ignorance, as the premise of the argument relies upon the user's lack of information about the nature of the Universe as the basis for the existence of God. In fact, this argument is SO fallacious that almost any theist trained in apologetics with half a brain would never be caught dead attempting to use this argument, at least not brazenly or without hiding it deep inside of a more complex argument. It would have to take a very exceptional sort of idiot to use this argument, and a VERY exceptional, VERY logically challenged sort of idiot to even attempt to DEFEND this so universally-disfavored argument. G Man, however, is one such idiot.		This argument is a special kind of Stupid<sup>'''TM'''</sup>. For those unaware, the "God of the Gaps" is a style of argument that relies on human's lack of complete knowledge of our Universe. It asserts that, because some phenomenon or aspect of the natural world is not understood, that the cause of that thing must be [[God]], therefore validating God's existence and theist's belief in him. Obviously, this is fallacious. One can't say that, because something is unknown or the cause of something is unknown, that the cause CAN be known and that that cause is God. This fallacy is a special case of an argument from ignorance, as the premise of the argument relies upon the user's lack of information about the nature of the Universe as the basis for the existence of God. In fact, this argument is SO fallacious that almost any theist trained in apologetics with half a brain would never be caught dead attempting to use this argument, at least not brazenly or without hiding it deep inside of a more complex argument. It would have to take a very exceptional sort of idiot to use this argument, and a VERY exceptional, VERY logically-challenged sort of idiot to even attempt to DEFEND this so universally-disfavored argument. G Man, however, is one such idiot.

	G Man asserts that the classic God of the Gaps fallacy doesn't and can't apply to any Christianity because... ''"Christians don't believe in gaps.... [https://youtu.be/NO_8sZlLHbs?t=1844 There are no gaps. [God] created everything.]"'' No, don't worry, your screen hasn't malfunctioned, and yes, you read that right. He really thinks that.		G Man asserts that the classic God of the Gaps fallacy doesn't and can't apply to any Christianity because... ''"Christians don't believe in gaps.... [https://youtu.be/NO_8sZlLHbs?t=1844 There are no gaps. [God] created everything.]"'' No, don't worry, your screen hasn't malfunctioned, and yes, you read that right. He really thinks that.

imported>House Escalus at 09:28, 21 November 2018

2018-11-21T09:28:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:28, 21 November 2018
Line 142:		Line 142:
	Ironically and apparently completely unbeknownst to G Man, this argument is just as much against the label "monotheist" as it is the label "atheist." If people can't be atheists because they believe in the existence of natural gods, then people also cannot be monotheists because, even if they only believe in one supernatural god, they also believe in the existence of multiple natural gods. So interestingly, in order for his argument to be valid, G Man has to denounce his own theology. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a excellent and truly miserable logical-own-goal.		Ironically and apparently completely unbeknownst to G Man, this argument is just as much against the label "monotheist" as it is the label "atheist." If people can't be atheists because they believe in the existence of natural gods, then people also cannot be monotheists because, even if they only believe in one supernatural god, they also believe in the existence of multiple natural gods. So interestingly, in order for his argument to be valid, G Man has to denounce his own theology. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a excellent and truly miserable logical-own-goal.

	Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of ~~the~~ position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.		Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of a position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.

	To conclude, this argument is perhaps the worst against atheism that I have ever seen, and should be treated as nothing more than the complete logical and semantic trainwreck that it is. If, ~~dead~~ reader, G Man ever attempts to use this argument on you, it would be advisable to just concede defeat and become an [[Agnosticism\|agnostic]] (at least for the sake of the conversation) as, even though this argument is '''''<u>DEEPLY</u>''''' flawed on almost every conceivable level of scrutiny, the amount of logical fuck-ups that a mind had to go through to dream-up this semantic-faceplant are so incalculable, that reasoning that mind out of ~~that~~ argument is most likely impossible, and therefore a waste of your valuable and limited existence on this Earth.		To conclude, this argument is perhaps the worst against atheism that I have ever seen, and should be treated as nothing more than the complete logical and semantic trainwreck that it is. If, dear reader, G Man ever attempts to use this argument on you, it would be advisable to just concede defeat and become an [[Agnosticism\|agnostic]] (at least for the sake of the conversation) as, even though this argument is '''''<u>DEEPLY</u>''''' flawed on almost every conceivable level of scrutiny, the amount of logical fuck-ups that a mind had to go through to dream-up this semantic-faceplant are so incalculable, that reasoning that same mind out of this argument is most likely impossible, and therefore a waste of your valuable and limited existence on this Earth.

	'''<u>Dogs Live for Millions of Years</u>'''		'''<u>Dogs Live for Millions of Years</u>'''

imported>House Escalus at 01:01, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T01:01:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:01, 24 October 2018
Line 144:		Line 144:
	Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of the position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.		Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of the position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.

	To conclude, this argument is perhaps the worst against atheism that I have ever seen, and should be treated as nothing more than the complete logical and semantic trainwreck that it is. If, dead reader, G Man ever attempts to use this argument on you, it would be advisable to just concede defeat and become an [[Agnosticism\|agnostic]] (at least for the sake of the conversation) as, even though this argument is '''''<u>DEEPLY</u>''''' flawed on almost every conceivable level of scrutiny, the amount of logical fuck-ups that a mind had to go through to dream-up this semantic-faceplant are so incalculable, that reasoning that mind out of that argument is most likely impossible, and therefore a waste of your valuable and limited ~~time~~.		To conclude, this argument is perhaps the worst against atheism that I have ever seen, and should be treated as nothing more than the complete logical and semantic trainwreck that it is. If, dead reader, G Man ever attempts to use this argument on you, it would be advisable to just concede defeat and become an [[Agnosticism\|agnostic]] (at least for the sake of the conversation) as, even though this argument is '''''<u>DEEPLY</u>''''' flawed on almost every conceivable level of scrutiny, the amount of logical fuck-ups that a mind had to go through to dream-up this semantic-faceplant are so incalculable, that reasoning that mind out of that argument is most likely impossible, and therefore a waste of your valuable and limited existence on this Earth.

	'''<u>Dogs Live for Millions of Years</u>'''		'''<u>Dogs Live for Millions of Years</u>'''

imported>House Escalus at 00:59, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T00:59:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:59, 24 October 2018
Line 144:		Line 144:
	Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of the position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.		Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of the position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.

	To conclude, this argument is perhaps the worst against atheism that I have ever seen, and should be treated as nothing more than a complete logical and semantic trainwreck that it is. If, dead reader, G Man ever attempts to use this argument on you, it would be advisable to just concede defeat and become an [[Agnosticism\|agnostic]] (at least for the sake of the conversation) as, even though this argument is '''''<u>DEEPLY</u>''''' flawed on almost every conceivable level of scrutiny, the amount of logical fuck-ups that a mind had to go through to dream-up this semantic-faceplant are so incalculable, that reasoning that mind out of that argument is most likely impossible, and therefore a waste of your valuable and limited time.		To conclude, this argument is perhaps the worst against atheism that I have ever seen, and should be treated as nothing more than the complete logical and semantic trainwreck that it is. If, dead reader, G Man ever attempts to use this argument on you, it would be advisable to just concede defeat and become an [[Agnosticism\|agnostic]] (at least for the sake of the conversation) as, even though this argument is '''''<u>DEEPLY</u>''''' flawed on almost every conceivable level of scrutiny, the amount of logical fuck-ups that a mind had to go through to dream-up this semantic-faceplant are so incalculable, that reasoning that mind out of that argument is most likely impossible, and therefore a waste of your valuable and limited time.

	'''<u>Dogs Live for Millions of Years</u>'''		'''<u>Dogs Live for Millions of Years</u>'''

imported>House Escalus at 00:58, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T00:58:21Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:58, 24 October 2018
Line 140:		Line 140:
	Really, this argument's main logical issue is that it simply defines "gods" into existence: It just asserts that something (usually a person) is a "god," gets an atheist to admit that they they believe in the existence of that thing, then declares victory. In essence, this argument fails because it commits the fallacy of equivocation and completely ignores the concept of the burden of proof for both its premises and its conclusions.		Really, this argument's main logical issue is that it simply defines "gods" into existence: It just asserts that something (usually a person) is a "god," gets an atheist to admit that they they believe in the existence of that thing, then declares victory. In essence, this argument fails because it commits the fallacy of equivocation and completely ignores the concept of the burden of proof for both its premises and its conclusions.

	Ironically and apparently completely unbeknownst to G Man, this argument is just as much against the label "monotheist" as it is the label "atheist." If people can't be atheists because they believe in the existence of natural gods, then people also cannot be monotheists because, even if they only believe in one supernatural god, they also believe in the existence of multiple natural gods. So interestingly, in order for his argument to be valid, G Man has to denounce his own theology. That a truly miserable logical own-goal.		Ironically and apparently completely unbeknownst to G Man, this argument is just as much against the label "monotheist" as it is the label "atheist." If people can't be atheists because they believe in the existence of natural gods, then people also cannot be monotheists because, even if they only believe in one supernatural god, they also believe in the existence of multiple natural gods. So interestingly, in order for his argument to be valid, G Man has to denounce his own theology. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a excellent and truly miserable logical-own-goal.

	Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of the position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.		Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of the position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.

imported>House Escalus at 00:55, 24 October 2018

2018-10-24T00:55:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:55, 24 October 2018
Line 132:		Line 132:
	'''<u>Natural God Argument</u>'''		'''<u>Natural God Argument</u>'''

	G Man maintains that, citing dictionaries or unsuspecting non-believers, that an [[Atheism\|atheist]] cannot, by definition, believe in the existence of any [[God\|gods]]. Most will agree with this sentiment, as even though there is some dispute as to the definition of atheism being the claim "there is no ~~God~~" or just "I don't believe in ~~God~~," both definitions preclude that an atheist must reject the idea of gods. So far, so sane.		G Man maintains that, citing dictionaries and unsuspecting non-believers, that an [[Atheism\|atheist]] cannot, by definition, believe in the existence of any [[God\|gods]]. Most will agree with this sentiment, as even though there is some dispute as to the definition of atheism being the claim "there are no gods" or just "I don't believe in gods," both definitions preclude that an atheist must reject the idea of gods. So far, so sane.

	However, G Man asserts that this rejection must extend to ''"natural gods"'', as well as to supernatural gods like the ones postulated by Christianity, Islam, and so on. To G Man, a ''"natural god" ''is a god with no supernatural abilities, properties, or characteristics, but is called, or can be refereed to as, "a god." This can include things like money, sex, influence, power, etc which can be "worshiped" by people, or something as simple as a religion which deems its human members as "gods." He preaches that, if a person believes in the existence of any of these things, then that person cannot be an atheist, and is instead just a Christian-bashing God-hater who needs to repent to Jesus. Therefore, because there are no such people who disbelieve in ''"natural gods''," that no atheists exist. One example of G Man using this argument (of which there are many) can be seen in the [https://youtu.be/0SWKpDsTPOI?t=4841 aftershow] of a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKltaQ5HlA heated conversation] between [[AronRa]] and [[Kent Hovind]] on [[Steve McRae\|Steve McRae's]] and [[Kyle Curtis]]' [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-ElvDDr3kszDmKVgvr_BtA "The NonSequitur Show".]		However, G Man asserts that this rejection must extend to ''"natural gods"'', as well as to supernatural gods like the ones postulated by Christianity, Islam, and so on. To G Man, a ''"natural god" ''is a god with no supernatural abilities, properties, or characteristics, but is called, or can be refereed to as, "a god." This can include things like money, sex, influence, power, etc which can be "worshiped" by people, or something as simple as a religion which deems its human members as "gods." He preaches that, if a person believes in the existence of any of these things, then that person cannot be an atheist, and is instead just a Christian-bashing God-hater who needs to repent to Jesus. Therefore, because there are no such people who disbelieve in ''"natural gods''," that no atheists exist. One example of G Man using this argument (of which there are many) can be seen in the [https://youtu.be/0SWKpDsTPOI?t=4841 aftershow] of a [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKltaQ5HlA heated conversation] between [[AronRa]] and [[Kent Hovind]] on [[Steve McRae\|Steve McRae's]] and [[Kyle Curtis]]' [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-ElvDDr3kszDmKVgvr_BtA "The NonSequitur Show".]
Line 138:		Line 138:
	The most obvious problem with this argument is the obvious equivocation between definitions of the word "God" as to mean "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers" and the more tame definition meaning "a person or thing of supreme value" [definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary], and to claim that an atheist should not be capable of ascribing, recognizing, or accepting that things can have value is completely asinine. Secondly, even granting him that some people do hold certain things to high value does not mean that they worship them, as just because something is a god (by either of the aforementioned definitions), that does not mean that it must be, deserves, requires, or even desires worship. Finally, regarding religions with ''"natural gods"'', G Man forgets that, simply because someone claims they are a "god", that does not mean that they are (by any definition). This section of his argument depends entirely upon an atheist taking a complete stranger at their word that they have supernatural abilities or supreme value, neither of which are necessarily true. In short, this part of the argument fails because it is possible to accept that a person exists and not accept whatever it is that person believes, which should be <u>REALLY</u> fucking obvious, especially for someone who spends so much of his time debating his ideas with other human-beings on the internet.		The most obvious problem with this argument is the obvious equivocation between definitions of the word "God" as to mean "a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers" and the more tame definition meaning "a person or thing of supreme value" [definitions from Merriam-Webster dictionary], and to claim that an atheist should not be capable of ascribing, recognizing, or accepting that things can have value is completely asinine. Secondly, even granting him that some people do hold certain things to high value does not mean that they worship them, as just because something is a god (by either of the aforementioned definitions), that does not mean that it must be, deserves, requires, or even desires worship. Finally, regarding religions with ''"natural gods"'', G Man forgets that, simply because someone claims they are a "god", that does not mean that they are (by any definition). This section of his argument depends entirely upon an atheist taking a complete stranger at their word that they have supernatural abilities or supreme value, neither of which are necessarily true. In short, this part of the argument fails because it is possible to accept that a person exists and not accept whatever it is that person believes, which should be <u>REALLY</u> fucking obvious, especially for someone who spends so much of his time debating his ideas with other human-beings on the internet.

	~~To conclude~~, this argument's main issue is that it simply defines "gods" into existence: It just asserts that something (usually a person) is a "god", gets an atheist to admit that they they believe in the existence of that thing, then declares victory. In essence, this argument fails because it commits the fallacy of equivocation and completely ignores the concept of the burden of proof for both its premises and its conclusions.		Really, this argument's main logical issue is that it simply defines "gods" into existence: It just asserts that something (usually a person) is a "god," gets an atheist to admit that they they believe in the existence of that thing, then declares victory. In essence, this argument fails because it commits the fallacy of equivocation and completely ignores the concept of the burden of proof for both its premises and its conclusions.

			Ironically and apparently completely unbeknownst to G Man, this argument is just as much against the label "monotheist" as it is the label "atheist." If people can't be atheists because they believe in the existence of natural gods, then people also cannot be monotheists because, even if they only believe in one supernatural god, they also believe in the existence of multiple natural gods. So interestingly, in order for his argument to be valid, G Man has to denounce his own theology. That a truly miserable logical own-goal.

			Also, here's the real kicker: this argument, even if completely valid, is not an argument against (or disproving the existence of) those people who don't believe in supernatural gods (who possess supernatural abilities like omniscience or creating universes out of nothing) such as the one G Man subscribes to. So, even if valid, this argument is utterly useless if the aim is to convert anyone to theism, let alone Christianity. What G Man's argument is really saying is that most of those people who call themselves "atheists" should not do so because the label "atheist" means a position that they do not hold (a rejection of natural AND supernatural gods). It is an argument against a word; a label, not the validity of the position; literally the definition of a semantic argument. Even if every single person who calls themselves an atheist accepted this argument, they would just have to find (or create) a new label that describes their lack-of-a-belief in (or belief in the non-existence of) supernatural Gods.

			To conclude, this argument is perhaps the worst against atheism that I have ever seen, and should be treated as nothing more than a complete logical and semantic trainwreck that it is. If, dead reader, G Man ever attempts to use this argument on you, it would be advisable to just concede defeat and become an [[Agnosticism\|agnostic]] (at least for the sake of the conversation) as, even though this argument is '''''<u>DEEPLY</u>''''' flawed on almost every conceivable level of scrutiny, the amount of logical fuck-ups that a mind had to go through to dream-up this semantic-faceplant are so incalculable, that reasoning that mind out of that argument is most likely impossible, and therefore a waste of your valuable and limited time.

	'''<u>Dogs Live for Millions of Years</u>'''		'''<u>Dogs Live for Millions of Years</u>'''

imported>House Escalus at 13:54, 6 September 2018

2018-09-06T13:54:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:54, 6 September 2018
Line 164:		Line 164:
	This argument is a special kind of Stupid<sup>'''TM'''</sup>. For those unaware, the "God of the Gaps" is a style of argument that relies on human's lack of complete knowledge of our Universe. It asserts that, because some phenomenon or aspect of the natural world is not understood, that the cause of that thing must be [[God]], therefore validating God's existence and theist's belief in him. Obviously, this is fallacious. One can't say that, because something is unknown or the cause of something is unknown, that the cause CAN be known and that that cause is God. This fallacy is a special case of an argument from ignorance, as the premise of the argument relies upon the user's lack of information about the nature of the Universe as the basis for the existence of God. In fact, this argument is SO fallacious that almost any theist trained in apologetics with half a brain would never be caught dead attempting to use this argument, at least not brazenly or without hiding it deep inside of a more complex argument. It would have to take a very exceptional sort of idiot to use this argument, and a VERY exceptional, VERY logically challenged sort of idiot to even attempt to DEFEND this so universally-disfavored argument. G Man, however, is one such idiot.		This argument is a special kind of Stupid<sup>'''TM'''</sup>. For those unaware, the "God of the Gaps" is a style of argument that relies on human's lack of complete knowledge of our Universe. It asserts that, because some phenomenon or aspect of the natural world is not understood, that the cause of that thing must be [[God]], therefore validating God's existence and theist's belief in him. Obviously, this is fallacious. One can't say that, because something is unknown or the cause of something is unknown, that the cause CAN be known and that that cause is God. This fallacy is a special case of an argument from ignorance, as the premise of the argument relies upon the user's lack of information about the nature of the Universe as the basis for the existence of God. In fact, this argument is SO fallacious that almost any theist trained in apologetics with half a brain would never be caught dead attempting to use this argument, at least not brazenly or without hiding it deep inside of a more complex argument. It would have to take a very exceptional sort of idiot to use this argument, and a VERY exceptional, VERY logically challenged sort of idiot to even attempt to DEFEND this so universally-disfavored argument. G Man, however, is one such idiot.

	G Man asserts that the classic God of the Gaps fallacy doesn't and can't apply to any ~~Christians~~ because... ''"Christians don't believe in gaps."'' No, don't worry, your screen hasn't malfunctioned, and yes, you read that right. He really thinks that.		G Man asserts that the classic God of the Gaps fallacy doesn't and can't apply to any Christianity because... ''"Christians don't believe in gaps.... [https://youtu.be/NO_8sZlLHbs?t=1844 There are no gaps. [God] created everything.]"'' No, don't worry, your screen hasn't malfunctioned, and yes, you read that right. He really thinks that.

	'''''<u>(Will Expand Upon Later)</u>'''''		'''''<u>(Will Expand Upon Later)</u>'''''

imported>House Escalus at 13:43, 6 September 2018

2018-09-06T13:43:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:43, 6 September 2018
Line 25:		Line 25:
	[[Atheism]]/ Skepticism by Driving Reasonable Christians Away from Religion\|links = [https://plus.google.com/u/0/+GManpreachingtothechoirministries Google+]		[[Atheism]]/ Skepticism by Driving Reasonable Christians Away from Religion\|links = [https://plus.google.com/u/0/+GManpreachingtothechoirministries Google+]

	[https://www.youtube.com/user/xxoo54 YouTube]\|scientific_name = Barrelus ~~stackitus~~}}G Man is a squawking idiot who doesn't even understand the simplest of concepts. Ideas that are available to infants fly right over G Man's head like a Learjet as he primes himself for his trademark ''"Let me axe you a question..."''. If you watch G Man's hangouts you can actually see the moment where he stops listening, usually a second or so after the other person has started to talk. G Man is the sole member of ''"errrrrrr Preaching to the Choir Ministries"'' and, whilst being oblivious to the fact that preaching to the choir is considered to be a bad thing, to date has managed to convert precisely zero people to his witless brand of radical, evangelical Christianity.		[https://www.youtube.com/user/xxoo54 YouTube]\|scientific_name = Barrelus Stackitus}}G Man is a squawking idiot who doesn't even understand the simplest of concepts. Ideas that are available to infants fly right over G Man's head like a Learjet as he primes himself for his trademark ''"Let me axe you a question..."''. If you watch G Man's hangouts you can actually see the moment where he stops listening, usually a second or so after the other person has started to talk. G Man is the sole member of ''"errrrrrr Preaching to the Choir Ministries"'' and, whilst being oblivious to the fact that preaching to the choir is considered to be a bad thing, to date has managed to convert precisely zero people to his witless brand of radical, evangelical Christianity.

	'''''<u>G</u>''''' M'''''<u>a</u>'''''n is ve'''''<u>ry</u>''''' particular with who knows his real name despite doxing himself on at least seven different occasions. He has '''''<u>M</u>'''''entioned his name in c'''''<u>o</u>'''''mments sections, in his own vide'''''<u>o</u>'''''s and he has his name in his Paypal account. G Man's real name is so well known that there is no need to '''''<u>r</u>'''''epeat it her'''''<u>e</u>'''''.		'''''<u>G</u>''''' M'''''<u>a</u>'''''n is ve'''''<u>ry</u>''''' particular with who knows his real name despite doxing himself on at least seven different occasions. He has '''''<u>M</u>'''''entioned his name in c'''''<u>o</u>'''''mments sections, in his own vide'''''<u>o</u>'''''s and he has his name in his Paypal account. G Man's real name is so well known that there is no need to '''''<u>r</u>'''''epeat it her'''''<u>e</u>'''''.
Line 162:		Line 162:
	'''<u>The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy Doesn't Apply to Christians</u>'''		'''<u>The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy Doesn't Apply to Christians</u>'''

	This argument is a special kind of Stupid<sup>'''TM'''</sup>. For those unaware, the "God of the Gaps" is a style of argument that relies on human's lack of complete knowledge of our Universe. It asserts that, because some phenomenon or aspect of the natural world is not understood, that the cause of that thing must be [[God]], therefore validating God's existence and theist's belief in him. Obviously, this is fallacious. One can't say that, because something is unknown or the cause of something is unknown, that the cause CAN be known and that that cause is God. This fallacy is a special case of an argument from ignorance, as the premise of the argument relies upon the user's lack of information about the nature of the Universe as the basis for the existence of God. In fact, this argument is SO fallacious that almost any theist trained in apologetics with half a brain would never be caught dead attempting to use this argument, at least not brazenly. It would have to take a very exceptional sort of idiot to use this argument, and a VERY exceptional, VERY logically challenged sort of idiot to even attempt to DEFEND this so universally-disfavored argument. G Man, however, is one such idiot.		This argument is a special kind of Stupid<sup>'''TM'''</sup>. For those unaware, the "God of the Gaps" is a style of argument that relies on human's lack of complete knowledge of our Universe. It asserts that, because some phenomenon or aspect of the natural world is not understood, that the cause of that thing must be [[God]], therefore validating God's existence and theist's belief in him. Obviously, this is fallacious. One can't say that, because something is unknown or the cause of something is unknown, that the cause CAN be known and that that cause is God. This fallacy is a special case of an argument from ignorance, as the premise of the argument relies upon the user's lack of information about the nature of the Universe as the basis for the existence of God. In fact, this argument is SO fallacious that almost any theist trained in apologetics with half a brain would never be caught dead attempting to use this argument, at least not brazenly or without hiding it deep inside of a more complex argument. It would have to take a very exceptional sort of idiot to use this argument, and a VERY exceptional, VERY logically challenged sort of idiot to even attempt to DEFEND this so universally-disfavored argument. G Man, however, is one such idiot.

	G Man asserts that the classic God of the Gaps fallacy doesn't and can't apply to any Christians because... ''"Christians don't believe in gaps."'' No, don't worry, your screen hasn't malfunctioned, and yes, you read that right. He really thinks that.		G Man asserts that the classic God of the Gaps fallacy doesn't and can't apply to any Christians because... ''"Christians don't believe in gaps."'' No, don't worry, your screen hasn't malfunctioned, and yes, you read that right. He really thinks that.

imported>House Escalus: Fleshed out "The God of the Gaps doesn't apply to Christians" section. Will revise and complete later.

2018-09-05T04:26:09Z

Fleshed out "The God of the Gaps doesn't apply to Christians" section. Will revise and complete later.

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:26, 5 September 2018
Line 147:		Line 147:

	'''<u>Debunking the No True Scotsman Fallacy by Being:</u>''' <u>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=184ROlSAbyc The Chocolate Atheist]</u>		'''<u>Debunking the No True Scotsman Fallacy by Being:</u>''' <u>[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=184ROlSAbyc The Chocolate Atheist]</u>

			I'll get around this one eventually...

	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPngS92ERNE		https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPngS92ERNE
Line 159:		Line 161:

	'''<u>The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy Doesn't Apply to Christians</u>'''		'''<u>The "God of the Gaps" Fallacy Doesn't Apply to Christians</u>'''

			This argument is a special kind of Stupid<sup>'''TM'''</sup>. For those unaware, the "God of the Gaps" is a style of argument that relies on human's lack of complete knowledge of our Universe. It asserts that, because some phenomenon or aspect of the natural world is not understood, that the cause of that thing must be [[God]], therefore validating God's existence and theist's belief in him. Obviously, this is fallacious. One can't say that, because something is unknown or the cause of something is unknown, that the cause CAN be known and that that cause is God. This fallacy is a special case of an argument from ignorance, as the premise of the argument relies upon the user's lack of information about the nature of the Universe as the basis for the existence of God. In fact, this argument is SO fallacious that almost any theist trained in apologetics with half a brain would never be caught dead attempting to use this argument, at least not brazenly. It would have to take a very exceptional sort of idiot to use this argument, and a VERY exceptional, VERY logically challenged sort of idiot to even attempt to DEFEND this so universally-disfavored argument. G Man, however, is one such idiot.

			G Man asserts that the classic God of the Gaps fallacy doesn't and can't apply to any Christians because... ''"Christians don't believe in gaps."'' No, don't worry, your screen hasn't malfunctioned, and yes, you read that right. He really thinks that.

			'''''<u>(Will Expand Upon Later)</u>'''''

	'''<u>G Man Thinks GMOs are a Type of Hormone Comprised of Organisms fed to Chickens to Make Them Fat, Which in Turn Makes People Sick and Gives them Heart Attacks... and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dz He's Waging a 1-Man War Against Them]</u>'''		'''<u>G Man Thinks GMOs are a Type of Hormone Comprised of Organisms fed to Chickens to Make Them Fat, Which in Turn Makes People Sick and Gives them Heart Attacks... and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Dz He's Waging a 1-Man War Against Them]</u>'''