Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-11-2014, 09:24 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(03-11-2014 05:18 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(03-11-2014 04:58 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Where has he slunk off to? Been a while since he was here last banging The Holy Drum of Molyneux (PBUH).

Don't you be whistlin' up the devil. Angry

Facepalm Too late, sorry guys

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-11-2014, 03:01 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
Correct. I haven't given a definition of true Christian that has been accepted by another on this thread (yet) though I have ranged as widely as between 2.6 Billion people and only people who are born again.

If I suggest that no true person is an amoeba, I'm not guilty of No True Scotsman. Likewise, if we cannot find consensus on what a Christian is--no one here has offered any definition(s) besides me, we cannot say I have made a fallacy here. What I propose to do is have you accept one of my definitions or create your own, and then we can apply that definition to Hitler, the Nazis, me, etc. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Thanks.

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
04-11-2014, 03:09 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(04-11-2014 03:01 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Correct. I haven't given a definition of true Christian that has been accepted by another on this thread (yet) though I have ranged as widely as between 2.6 Billion people and only people who are born again.

If I suggest that no true person is an amoeba, I'm not guilty of No True Scotsman. Likewise, if we cannot find consensus on what a Christian is--no one here has offered any definition(s) besides me, we cannot say I have made a fallacy here. What I propose to do is have you accept one of my definitions or create your own, and then we can apply that definition to Hitler, the Nazis, me, etc. Does that seem reasonable to you?

Thanks.

Oh, give it up. You haven't a clue what you're talking about.

It is not up to us to define what a true Christian is and we haven't tried.
We have pointed out cases of what self-professed Christians have said or done, and you declared that they weren't really Christians.

That is the very epitome of the No True Scotsman Fallacy, and you have committed it more than once.

Your denial of this shows that you are in denial, disingenuous, and/or really, really stupid.

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
04-11-2014, 03:27 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
Good point. Is a person always what they self-profess to be? I'd said recently I'm being honest, and you just wrote I'm disingenuous. So you would say I profess to be an honest man and am not.

I repeat, just because Hitler professed to be a Christian didn't make him one. He didn't attend church for decades and had professing born again pastors executed or imprisoned while Nazi puppets took their place.

Self-professing does not make anyone anything! It's harder to walk the walk then talk the talk. Do you have a definition yet we may agree upon?

Thanks.

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
04-11-2014, 03:34 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(04-11-2014 03:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Good point. Is a person always what they self-profess to be? I'd said recently I'm being honest, and you just wrote I'm disingenuous. So you would say I profess to be an honest man and am not.

My money was on "stupid".

Quote:I repeat, just because Hitler professed to be a Christian didn't make him one. He didn't attend church for decades and had professing born again pastors executed or imprisoned while Nazi puppets took their place.

Self-professing does not make anyone anything! It's harder to walk the walk then talk the talk. Do you have a definition yet we may agree upon?

Thanks.

And you saying he wasn't a Christian doesn't mean he wasn't.
It is not for you to say whether he was or wasn't a Christian, except to express your opinion.

No, I don't have, nor do I need, a definition of True Christian™, because that isn't the issue. The issue is that you refuse to understand the fallacy you keep committing because you are focused on a non-issue.

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
04-11-2014, 03:38 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(04-11-2014 03:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Good point. Is a person always what they self-profess to be? I'd said recently I'm being honest, and you just wrote I'm disingenuous. So you would say I profess to be an honest man and am not.

He also allows for the possibility that you're in denial or merely stupid.

By omitting those possibilities in your response, you go a long way towards affirming "disingenuous".

So, good job on that, I guess.

(04-11-2014 03:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I repeat, just because Hitler professed to be a Christian didn't make him one. He didn't attend church for decades and had professing born again pastors executed or imprisoned while Nazi puppets took their place.

Self-professing does not make anyone anything! It's harder to walk the walk then talk the talk. Do you have a definition yet we may agree upon?

If an explicit profession of belief is insufficient then the appelation is useless.

You have merely repeated your No True Scotsman appeal. It remains a pathetic excuse.

Lacking an ability to read the minds of others, I am forced to take others at their word regarding their beliefs.

You then attempt to claim that that is insufficient; the profession - and thus faith - of others is insufficient. By this you can only mean that their actions are inconsistent with your interpretation of what that profession should entail.
(an insistence that deeds matter as opposed to faith alone would seem itself inconsistent from a theological point of view, but I'll let that slide)

You are then left with the obvious question: what makes your interpretation special?

The answer, of course, is nothing.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
06-11-2014, 10:57 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(04-11-2014 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 03:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Good point. Is a person always what they self-profess to be? I'd said recently I'm being honest, and you just wrote I'm disingenuous. So you would say I profess to be an honest man and am not.

My money was on "stupid".

Quote:I repeat, just because Hitler professed to be a Christian didn't make him one. He didn't attend church for decades and had professing born again pastors executed or imprisoned while Nazi puppets took their place.

Self-professing does not make anyone anything! It's harder to walk the walk then talk the talk. Do you have a definition yet we may agree upon?

Thanks.

And you saying he wasn't a Christian doesn't mean he wasn't.
It is not for you to say whether he was or wasn't a Christian, except to express your opinion.

No, I don't have, nor do I need, a definition of True Christian™, because that isn't the issue. The issue is that you refuse to understand the fallacy you keep committing because you are focused on a non-issue.

Well, there you have it. I profess to be reasonably intelligent, and you say I'm stupid. One of us correct. The other one is using an incorrect definition. We could simply define intelligence together, and then we could both avoid NTS in this case.

And it's not a non-issue IMO. If the Nazi murderers were Christians despite the fact that they abandoned the Bible, the church, etc. soon after their teens, than most self-professed atheists on this forum are likewise Christians.

So let's go there, is that your background? Robby Pants says he left Christianity after a long-agonizing decision process to become an atheist. What makes Robby NOT a Christian? That will certainly help me understand this defining terms better.

Thanks.

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
06-11-2014, 11:01 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(04-11-2014 03:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 03:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Good point. Is a person always what they self-profess to be? I'd said recently I'm being honest, and you just wrote I'm disingenuous. So you would say I profess to be an honest man and am not.

He also allows for the possibility that you're in denial or merely stupid.

By omitting those possibilities in your response, you go a long way towards affirming "disingenuous".

So, good job on that, I guess.

(04-11-2014 03:27 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I repeat, just because Hitler professed to be a Christian didn't make him one. He didn't attend church for decades and had professing born again pastors executed or imprisoned while Nazi puppets took their place.

Self-professing does not make anyone anything! It's harder to walk the walk then talk the talk. Do you have a definition yet we may agree upon?

If an explicit profession of belief is insufficient then the appelation is useless.

You have merely repeated your No True Scotsman appeal. It remains a pathetic excuse.

Lacking an ability to read the minds of others, I am forced to take others at their word regarding their beliefs.

You then attempt to claim that that is insufficient; the profession - and thus faith - of others is insufficient. By this you can only mean that their actions are inconsistent with your interpretation of what that profession should entail.
(an insistence that deeds matter as opposed to faith alone would seem itself inconsistent from a theological point of view, but I'll let that slide)

You are then left with the obvious question: what makes your interpretation special?

The answer, of course, is nothing.

I chose honest, and thought it redundant to say "I'm neither in denial nor stupid, either." But your accusation that I am dishonest undoes your own thesis here. You just wrote and I quote:

Lacking an ability to read the minds of others, I am forced to take others at their word regarding their beliefs.

And in the same post, you accused me of being dishonest when I just posted that I believe I am being honest! So clearly, you don't subscribe to your own posted assumptions here.

If you'd like to offer a different explanation or definition of "Christian" that would be welcomed.

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
06-11-2014, 11:02 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 10:57 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 03:34 PM)Chas Wrote:  My money was on "stupid".


And you saying he wasn't a Christian doesn't mean he wasn't.
It is not for you to say whether he was or wasn't a Christian, except to express your opinion.

No, I don't have, nor do I need, a definition of True Christian™, because that isn't the issue. The issue is that you refuse to understand the fallacy you keep committing because you are focused on a non-issue.

Well, there you have it. I profess to be reasonably intelligent, and you say I'm stupid. One of us correct. The other one is using an incorrect definition. We could simply define intelligence together, and then we could both avoid NTS in this case.

And it's not a non-issue IMO. If the Nazi murderers were Christians despite the fact that they abandoned the Bible, the church, etc. soon after their teens, than most self-professed atheists on this forum are likewise Christians.

So let's go there, is that your background? Robby Pants says he left Christianity after a long-agonizing decision process to become an atheist. What makes Robby NOT a Christian? That will certainly help me understand this defining terms better.

Thanks.

You clearly are not following the argument and you don't understand how it is that you are committing that fallacy.

So, as far as this issue goes, you are being very stupid.

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
06-11-2014, 11:04 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
Maybe Robbie is not a Christian because he doesn't accept the assertion that Jesus was the son of god or that god even exists! I don't know what Hitler really believed but I'm unaware of him ever professing to be an atheist. Whether he was a Christian or not is irrelevant. Many of the men who carried out the final solution were Christians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: