Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-10-2014, 01:29 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(29-10-2014 01:20 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(29-10-2014 01:14 PM)cjlr Wrote:  It depends.

Do you endorse beating children?

Yes. When I play sports or videogames or Mensa puzzles against children, I typically beat them pretty badly.

What about with hoses?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2014, 11:55 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(29-10-2014 01:28 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(29-10-2014 01:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  3. I'm innocent of No True Scotsman if neither you will define what a Christian is nor allow me to do so! If NEITHER of us can define what a Christian IS, then I'm "allowed" to say EVERYONE is a Christian and/or NO ONE is a Christian at will!

This doesn't follow, but then again, I suspect you already know that. Disingenuousness so becomes you.

We as non-believers are not defining anything, but we are noting the beliefs, doctrines, and acts of those who do, by their professions and self-expressed identities. Their claims are self-evidently inconsistent.

You assert that in that case, your claims are correct, because they are yours.

Which is about as terrible an argument as I'd expect from you...

(29-10-2014 01:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  "No (or rather few!) of Hitler's inner circle or those who ran the death camps (not soldiers in the trenches) were Jesus-loving, Bible-believing, decent-folk (volk!) who loved God, loved their neighbor as themselves, and prayed for peace and to be peacemakers."

While it's charming that you've backtracked all the way to "few" of the "inner circle", you'd be wrong regardless. The deeds of the German leadership required the complicity of millions to enact. Most of those millions were Christian.

Yes, I recognize that you are not defining anything, which is why you cannot employ NTS here. It is not enough to say from a relativist's view that if many disagree no one is correct. I myself wanted to know what a "real" Christian was regarding salvation. If you won't say whether Pluto is a planet you cannot say I'm wrong for saying it isn't one. I'd accept that some say it is and some say it isn't, so we can respectfully disagree on whether Hitler was a Christian.

As has been observed frequently, the Nazis' deeds did not require complicity as much as the inaction of millions. But the death camp killers and Hitler's crew weren't born again, Jesus-loving, Bible-adoring believers.

And yes, if won't define terms, and it's not Bible adherence or church attendance, but what you were born/were in your youth, most of the atheists on this forum are Christians. But if saying there is no god makes a Xian not a Xian, then surely instigating war and holocaust does? You cannot have it both ways.

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
30-10-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, I recognize that you are not defining anything, which is why you cannot employ NTS here. It is not enough to say from a relativist's view that if many disagree no one is correct. I myself wanted to know what a "real" Christian was regarding salvation. If you won't say whether Pluto is a planet you cannot say I'm wrong for saying it isn't one. I'd accept that some say it is and some say it isn't, so we can respectfully disagree on whether Hitler was a Christian.

That is an atrocious and nonsensical analogy.

Those defining Pluto one way or another are referring to coherent standards and demonstrable evidence. Moreover, the methodology is testable and repeatable. The choice is binary.

Those defining Christianity one way or another are referring to feels-based subjective interpretation of contradictory scriptures. There is no evidence and there is no methodology. There are many thousands of variations.

See the difference?

(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  As has been observed frequently, the Nazis' deeds did not require complicity as much as the inaction of millions. But the death camp killers and Hitler's crew weren't born again, Jesus-loving, Bible-adoring believers.

A giant "citation needed" on that, my disingenuous chum.

Your feels are not evidence.

(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And yes, if won't define terms, and it's not Bible adherence or church attendance, but what you were born/were in your youth, most of the atheists on this forum are Christians.

Has anyone but you ever made this argument?

(hint: no)

(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But if saying there is no god makes a Xian not a Xian, then surely instigating war and holocaust does?

Re-asserting your feels does not count as substantiation.

Please try harder.

(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You cannot have it both ways.

Apparently treating different things differently is "having it both ways" now. Interesting.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
31-10-2014, 09:56 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(30-10-2014 12:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Yes, I recognize that you are not defining anything, which is why you cannot employ NTS here. It is not enough to say from a relativist's view that if many disagree no one is correct. I myself wanted to know what a "real" Christian was regarding salvation. If you won't say whether Pluto is a planet you cannot say I'm wrong for saying it isn't one. I'd accept that some say it is and some say it isn't, so we can respectfully disagree on whether Hitler was a Christian.

That is an atrocious and nonsensical analogy.

Those defining Pluto one way or another are referring to coherent standards and demonstrable evidence. Moreover, the methodology is testable and repeatable. The choice is binary.

Those defining Christianity one way or another are referring to feels-based subjective interpretation of contradictory scriptures. There is no evidence and there is no methodology. There are many thousands of variations.

See the difference?

(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  As has been observed frequently, the Nazis' deeds did not require complicity as much as the inaction of millions. But the death camp killers and Hitler's crew weren't born again, Jesus-loving, Bible-adoring believers.

A giant "citation needed" on that, my disingenuous chum.

Your feels are not evidence.

(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  And yes, if won't define terms, and it's not Bible adherence or church attendance, but what you were born/were in your youth, most of the atheists on this forum are Christians.

Has anyone but you ever made this argument?

(hint: no)

(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But if saying there is no god makes a Xian not a Xian, then surely instigating war and holocaust does?

Re-asserting your feels does not count as substantiation.

Please try harder.

(30-10-2014 11:55 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  You cannot have it both ways.

Apparently treating different things differently is "having it both ways" now. Interesting.

I appreciate your desire to keep me on point, but you have not addressed my point at all, so please allow me to restate it:

If you won't define a true Christian and won't let me define it, either, how can you say I'm guilty of NTS?

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
31-10-2014, 10:03 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(31-10-2014 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(30-10-2014 12:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  That is an atrocious and nonsensical analogy.

Those defining Pluto one way or another are referring to coherent standards and demonstrable evidence. Moreover, the methodology is testable and repeatable. The choice is binary.

Those defining Christianity one way or another are referring to feels-based subjective interpretation of contradictory scriptures. There is no evidence and there is no methodology. There are many thousands of variations.

See the difference?


A giant "citation needed" on that, my disingenuous chum.

Your feels are not evidence.


Has anyone but you ever made this argument?

(hint: no)


Re-asserting your feels does not count as substantiation.

Please try harder.


Apparently treating different things differently is "having it both ways" now. Interesting.

I appreciate your desire to keep me on point, but you have not addressed my point at all, so please allow me to restate it:

If you won't define a true Christian and won't let me define it, either, how can you say I'm guilty of NTS?

You clearly do not understand what the No True Scotsman fallacy is.
Wikipedia Wrote:No true Scotsman is an informal fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim ("no Scotsman would do such a thing"), rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule ("no true Scotsman would do such a thing").

People have said that self-professed Christians have done certain things and you counter with "they aren't really Christians".
If you do not understand that you have committed this fallacy by stating that you are either stupid or in denial.

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
31-10-2014, 12:50 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(31-10-2014 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I appreciate your desire to keep me on point, but you have not addressed my point at all, so please allow me to restate it:

If you won't define a true Christian and won't let me define it, either, how can you say I'm guilty of NTS?

Other Christians have different definitions of True Christianity™. That's the whole point.

You - and they - self-evidently differ; very well, then. You - and they - have, however, exactly the same justification for your respective definitions: personal subjective experience.

You have no possible means for demonstrating the greater validity of your definition as opposed to the many thousands of others in existence.

Your feels on the matter are not privileged. They are no more compelling than others'. That you think you are correct might make you feel special, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
31-10-2014, 01:43 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(31-10-2014 12:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 09:56 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I appreciate your desire to keep me on point, but you have not addressed my point at all, so please allow me to restate it:

If you won't define a true Christian and won't let me define it, either, how can you say I'm guilty of NTS?

Other Christians have different definitions of True Christianity™. That's the whole point.

You - and they - self-evidently differ; very well, then. You - and they - have, however, exactly the same justification for your respective definitions: personal subjective experience.

You have no possible means for demonstrating the greater validity of your definition as opposed to the many thousands of others in existence.

Your feels on the matter are not privileged. They are no more compelling than others'. That you think you are correct might make you feel special, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

I agree with both of you if truth in Christianity is merely subjective and not objective. Wikipedia finds that an objective statement can be made defining this religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity):

"Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word Χριστός, Christos, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Māšîăḥ, meaning "the anointed one",[1] together with the Latin suffixes -ian and -itas) is an Abrahamic, monotheistic[2] religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. Christianity is the world's largest religion,[3][4] with nearly 2.4 billion adherents, known as Christians." --emphasis mine.

Can we start there? Would you agree or disagree with this definition? It should be suitably broad for your purposes. If not or if you will not suggest an alternate definition, I can move on to other threads, with the understanding that you were not wanting to risk real debate as terms need to be defined.

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
31-10-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(31-10-2014 01:43 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(31-10-2014 12:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Other Christians have different definitions of True Christianity™. That's the whole point.

You - and they - self-evidently differ; very well, then. You - and they - have, however, exactly the same justification for your respective definitions: personal subjective experience.

You have no possible means for demonstrating the greater validity of your definition as opposed to the many thousands of others in existence.

Your feels on the matter are not privileged. They are no more compelling than others'. That you think you are correct might make you feel special, but it does nothing for the rest of us.

I agree with both of you if truth in Christianity is merely subjective and not objective. Wikipedia finds that an objective statement can be made defining this religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity):

"Christianity (from the Ancient Greek word Χριστός, Christos, a translation of the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ, Māšîăḥ, meaning "the anointed one",[1] together with the Latin suffixes -ian and -itas) is an Abrahamic, monotheistic[2] religion based on the life and oral teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as presented in the New Testament. Christianity is the world's largest religion,[3][4] with nearly 2.4 billion adherents, known as Christians." --emphasis mine.

Can we start there? Would you agree or disagree with this definition? It should be suitably broad for your purposes. If not or if you will not suggest an alternate definition, I can move on to other threads, with the understanding that you were not wanting to risk real debate as terms need to be defined.

Whatever; I'll grant you such trivialities freely. It makes no substantive difference whatsoever. There is an incredible diversity of disagreement among Christians by that definition all the same.

You are then left with the exact same problem: what you consider a valid interpretation of your version of scripture has nothing to recommend it over others' interpretations of what they consider scripture. All of this disagreement occurs within professed Christianity.

Your feels remain uncompelling.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
01-11-2014, 06:50 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(29-10-2014 01:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Most all the Bible fundies fall on one side only of Robby's questions.

2. Most all the "Bible is a'ight, but we have traditional viewpoints that are as important as adherence to the scriptures" Christians fall on the other side only of Robby's questions.

3. I'm innocent of No True Scotsman if neither you will define what a Christian is nor allow me to do so! If NEITHER of us can define what a Christian IS, then I'm "allowed" to say EVERYONE is a Christian and/or NO ONE is a Christian at will!

And all of those "wrong" Christians assert that their side is Biblically correct. They even have scriptural justifications for it! Imagine that.

Q, this is what's called the principle of explosion. When you have something that posits both A and !A, you can draw any conclusion you want from it. That's why there are so many Christian sects; they're all just picking the interpretations they want (and assuming they're the "correct" interpretations).

I know you think there is one true interpretation, and I know you think you've found it, but so do all the adherents of the other sects. What you're doing isn't new or special.

[Image: RRWJKpn.jpg]

Nothing new or special. Still a No True Scotsman, though.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like RobbyPants's post
03-11-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
Most Christian movements were started in one of two ways:

1. Individuals read the scriptures, witnessed their faith to others and started a movement.

2. Individuals or groups within a movement sought to reform another group that had fallen away from a literal adherence to the Bible text and splintered a new movement.

I take it neither of you will agree with me or the other on a definition of 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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: