Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-11-2014, 11:08 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 11:01 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(04-11-2014 03:38 PM)cjlr Wrote:  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.


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.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Self-professed Christians committed heinous acts. You say they couldn't really be Christians. That is the very model of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Just stop - you appear more stupid each time you post.

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
06-11-2014, 11:17 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
I'll define "true Christian. Someone who accepts Jesus as their lord and saviour.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:51 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 11:17 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I'll define "true Christian. Someone who accepts Jesus as their lord and saviour.

Sounds legit to me.

Trouble rather the tiger in his lair than the sage among his books. For to you kingdoms and their armies are things mighty and enduring, but to him they are but toys of the moment, to be overturned with the flick of a finger.”

― Gordon R. Dickson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 11:52 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 11:17 AM)Drunkin Druid Wrote:  I'll define "true Christian. Someone who accepts Jesus as their lord and saviour.

Unless they do something evil. Then they haven't really accepted Jesus as their lord and savior, because it's not possible to do so and commit atrocities. Says I.

While I say that in sarcasm, I'm guessing a sincere version of it will make an appearance shortly. Dodgy

If Jesus died for our sins, why is there still sin? If man was created from dust, why is there still dust? If Americans came from Europe, why are there still Europeans?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 11:01 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you'd like to offer a different explanation or definition of "Christian" that would be welcomed.

One who "follows Christ".

Of course, what that means is going to be different to any given Christian. This is why we have thousands of different Christian sects, and why each thinks they're right. Also, as soon as one cherry picks an interpretation they like from the Bible to assert why they're right while ignoring other's interpretations, they start committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

This is what we're trying to explain to you. What you're doing is nothing new and nothing special. You're pulling a NTS and then using Special Pleading to try and convince us that you're not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
06-11-2014, 02:11 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 11:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 11:01 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Self-professed Christians committed heinous acts. You say they couldn't really be Christians. That is the very model of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Just stop - you appear more stupid each time you post.

Not at all. Several of you made a de facto definition of Christianity here, that a Christian is one who is self-professed. Obviously you think being a Christian is a conscious choice and not a birthright or for toddlers who cannot conceive certain concepts.

But I've also been accused on this forum several times of not being what I am self-professed to be! If you continue with the self-profession line of reasoning, you will move eventually into what sounds like magical thinking to me. Is a man who self-professes to be the reincarnation of Socrates or Plato, Socrates or Plato? Atheists don't believe in magical thinking or the power of positive thinking, do they?

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, 02:18 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 01:17 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 11:01 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  If you'd like to offer a different explanation or definition of "Christian" that would be welcomed.

One who "follows Christ".

Of course, what that means is going to be different to any given Christian. This is why we have thousands of different Christian sects, and why each thinks they're right. Also, as soon as one cherry picks an interpretation they like from the Bible to assert why they're right while ignoring other's interpretations, they start committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

This is what we're trying to explain to you. What you're doing is nothing new and nothing special. You're pulling a NTS and then using Special Pleading to try and convince us that you're not.

That is better, thanks. But perhaps this will help. The disciples were first called Christians or "little Christs" or "Christ-like" in the scriptures. If you adhere to the end of Mark as a valid passage, real Christians do healings and miracles.

One of the problems is that you may have met many people who... "hold to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; avoid such men as these." - 2 Timothy 3:5, --that is, anemic "Christians".

Hitler didn't do miracles or healings, he didn't pray in Jesus's name. jospeh Goebbles even blasphemed and said in a broadcast on 19 April 1936, that "Germany has been transformed into a great house of the Lord where the Fuhrer as our mediator stands before the throne of God." The Bible says the sole God-man mediator is Jesus Christ.

The best we can say is that Hitler headed some kind of wacko Christian cult. You can see he was a "Positivist Christian", but even Wikipedia recognizes that:

"...Hitler himself was hostile to Christianity, and historians, including Ian Kershaw and Laurence Rees, characterise his acceptance of the term "Positive Christianity" and involvement in religious policy as driven by opportunism, and a pragmatic recognition of the political importance of the Christian Churches in Germany."

Source - Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler; Ebury Press; 2012; p135

I must take exception to the view of those on this forum that someone adamantly opposed to Christianity is also a self-professed 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
06-11-2014, 02:25 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 02:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 01:17 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  One who "follows Christ".

Of course, what that means is going to be different to any given Christian. This is why we have thousands of different Christian sects, and why each thinks they're right. Also, as soon as one cherry picks an interpretation they like from the Bible to assert why they're right while ignoring other's interpretations, they start committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

This is what we're trying to explain to you. What you're doing is nothing new and nothing special. You're pulling a NTS and then using Special Pleading to try and convince us that you're not.

That is better, thanks. But perhaps this will help. The disciples were first called Christians or "little Christs" or "Christ-like" in the scriptures. If you adhere to the end of Mark as a valid passage, real Christians do healings and miracles.

One of the problems is that you may have met many people who... "hold to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; avoid such men as these." - 2 Timothy 3:5, --that is, anemic "Christians".

Hitler didn't do miracles or healings, he didn't pray in Jesus's name. jospeh Goebbles even blasphemed and said in a broadcast on 19 April 1936, that "Germany has been transformed into a great house of the Lord where the Fuhrer as our mediator stands before the throne of God." The Bible says the sole God-man mediator is Jesus Christ.

The best we can say is that Hitler headed some kind of wacko Christian cult. You can see he was a "Positivist Christian", but even Wikipedia recognizes that:

"...Hitler himself was hostile to Christianity, and historians, including Ian Kershaw and Laurence Rees, characterise his acceptance of the term "Positive Christianity" and involvement in religious policy as driven by opportunism, and a pragmatic recognition of the political importance of the Christian Churches in Germany."

Source - Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler; Ebury Press; 2012; p135

I must take exception to the view of those on this forum that someone adamantly opposed to Christianity is also a self-professed Christian.

How do you consistently miss the point? It is almost as though you try to.

It is not about Hitler, it is about millions of Christian Germans, many thousands of whom did despicable things.

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
06-11-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 02:11 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 11:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Self-professed Christians committed heinous acts. You say they couldn't really be Christians. That is the very model of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

Just stop - you appear more stupid each time you post.

Not at all. Several of you made a de facto definition of Christianity here, that a Christian is one who is self-professed. Obviously you think being a Christian is a conscious choice and not a birthright or for toddlers who cannot conceive certain concepts.

But I've also been accused on this forum several times of not being what I am self-professed to be! If you continue with the self-profession line of reasoning, you will move eventually into what sounds like magical thinking to me. Is a man who self-professes to be the reincarnation of Socrates or Plato, Socrates or Plato? Atheists don't believe in magical thinking or the power of positive thinking, do they?

Perhaps people don't think you are what you say you are because you have a remarkable similarity to your average everyday TrolloPoe and I get the feeling most here would rather believe that most believers are not trolls, but rather trolls are simply being Poes to try to get their lawls via us.
Of course, if we take every TrolloPoe on their word, than the majority of believers (assuming the established trends seen here with 'religious' trolls being the most common form is representative of the wider net) are trolls.

And no; a dude who goes around claiming to be the reincarnation of Plato is not Plato; he's just your standard crazy dude. Why? Because Plato's long gone and there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that A) reincarnation is a thing or B) that that dude actually is Plato in any form.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-11-2014, 02:58 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(06-11-2014 02:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(06-11-2014 01:17 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  One who "follows Christ".

Of course, what that means is going to be different to any given Christian. This is why we have thousands of different Christian sects, and why each thinks they're right. Also, as soon as one cherry picks an interpretation they like from the Bible to assert why they're right while ignoring other's interpretations, they start committing the No True Scotsman fallacy.

This is what we're trying to explain to you. What you're doing is nothing new and nothing special. You're pulling a NTS and then using Special Pleading to try and convince us that you're not.

That is better, thanks. But perhaps this will help. The disciples were first called Christians or "little Christs" or "Christ-like" in the scriptures. If you adhere to the end of Mark as a valid passage, real Christians do healings and miracles.

One of the problems is that you may have met many people who... "hold to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; avoid such men as these." - 2 Timothy 3:5, --that is, anemic "Christians".

Hitler didn't do miracles or healings, he didn't pray in Jesus's name. jospeh Goebbles even blasphemed and said in a broadcast on 19 April 1936, that "Germany has been transformed into a great house of the Lord where the Fuhrer as our mediator stands before the throne of God." The Bible says the sole God-man mediator is Jesus Christ.

The best we can say is that Hitler headed some kind of wacko Christian cult. You can see he was a "Positivist Christian", but even Wikipedia recognizes that:

"...Hitler himself was hostile to Christianity, and historians, including Ian Kershaw and Laurence Rees, characterise his acceptance of the term "Positive Christianity" and involvement in religious policy as driven by opportunism, and a pragmatic recognition of the political importance of the Christian Churches in Germany."

Source - Laurence Rees; The Dark Charisma of Adolf Hitler; Ebury Press; 2012; p135

I must take exception to the view of those on this forum that someone adamantly opposed to Christianity is also a self-professed Christian.

Real Christians do miracles...
So there are no such thing as real Christians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Drunkin Druid's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: