My belief in Christianity says that gambling is a sin and that why I dont use insurance.
So how is it a straw man argument or irrelevant subject?
Considering that you only mentioned this in response to my pointing out that your “beliefs” in Christianity are irrelevant to a debate over health insurance is gambling, it’s pretty clear that you’re lying in order to conflate the two.
And, considering how obviously dishonest you’ve been in almost every comment you’ve made here, my conclusion that you’d resort to lying rather than lose an argument is well-supported by the available evidence.
Argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a logical fallacy that occurs when something is considered to be true or good solely because it is popular. Undoubtedly many popular notions are true, but their truth is not a function of their popularity, except in circumstances where other factors ensure that popularity is related to truth. The fallacy is the opposite of an appeal to the minority.
Would you like me to admit I’m wrong about my belief in Christianity while I’m at it?
Changing the subject again?
Would you consider Christianity to be based in ignorance?
I would consider it an irrelevant subject in a debate over whether heath insurance is gambling.
Also, a blatant straw man argument.
My belief in Christianity says that gambling is a sin and that why I dont use insurance.
So how is it a straw man argument or irrelevant subject?
Considering that you only mentioned this in response to my pointing out that your “beliefs” in Christianity are irrelevant to a debate over health insurance is gambling, it’s pretty clear that you’re lying in order to conflate the two.
And, considering how obviously dishonest you’ve been in almost every comment you’ve made here, my conclusion that you’d resort to lying rather than lose an argument is well-supported by the available evidence.
Just because my briefs don’t align with yours it doesn’t make me a liar or dishonest.
Here is a well known Christian with the same beliefs as me.
No, but your comments here sure do.
So? That just another fallacy:
Argumentum ad populum