Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-11-2014, 02:34 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
If I said "No true Christian is a Martian," is that NTS? Of course not. Would you argue that some Christians are beings from the red planet? Of course not.

There are areas in which No True Christian and No True Scotsman are inequalities.

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
13-11-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(13-11-2014 02:32 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  We have two different interpretations and yours cannot be correct de facto nor can mine.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RobbyPants's post
13-11-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(01-10-2014 12:36 PM)dimaniac Wrote:  Creationist here.
Unlike my last thread this is an abortion debate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome
Quote:About 92% of pregnancies in Europe with a diagnosis of Down syndrome are terminated.
So did Hitler win? Is eugenics good?

Ja.


Evil_monster

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-11-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(13-11-2014 02:47 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 02:32 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  We have two different interpretations and yours cannot be correct de facto nor can mine.

Exactly. That's what I've been saying.

But IF mine is true that the Bible is univocal, than I can define what a true Christian is and make exclusions that are not in violation 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
13-11-2014, 04:14 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(13-11-2014 03:02 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But IF mine is true that the Bible is univocal, than I can define what a true Christian is and make exclusions that are not in violation of NTS.

And if somebody else's interpretation is true then THEY can define what a true Christian is and make exclusions that are not in violation of NTS. IF your interpretation, or any interpretation, could be shown to be true then there would be a standard against which to measure a true Christian. Since you believe yours to be true and others believe theirs to be true and we have no definitive yardstick against which to measure the interpretations there is no way for an outsider to differentiate. If you say somebody else is not a true Christian according to your understanding and they say you aren't a true Christian according to their understanding what's a poor atheist to do? It's all NTS from my perspective until you guys all agree on what a TS actually is.
Drinking Beverage

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
13-11-2014, 04:26 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(13-11-2014 03:02 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 02:47 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Exactly. That's what I've been saying.

But IF mine is true that the Bible is univocal, than I can define what a true Christian is and make exclusions that are not in violation of NTS.

No, you can't. Your opinion that someone who does thus-and-so can't really be a Christian is precisely committing a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

RationalWiki Wrote:No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them.

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
[+] 6 users Like Chas's post
13-11-2014, 07:56 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(13-11-2014 03:02 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 02:47 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  Exactly. That's what I've been saying.

But IF mine is true that the Bible is univocal, than I can define what a true Christian is and make exclusions that are not in violation of NTS.

And then somebody else interprets the Bible differently and claims the Bible is on their side. As Chas said, you can't assert this any more than your opinion.

I've said it before: what you're doing here is nothing new and nothing special. Every sect that pulls their justifications from the Bible feels they're doing it "correctly". So, when you tell you that you're interpretation is the really real one and that everyone else just thinks they're correct, I make this face:

[Image: skeptical-sm_zps59fc1324.png]

(Yes, my skin gets all yellow and jaundicy, too. Please stop saying that. My liver can't take this, and I really like beer.)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RobbyPants's post
13-11-2014, 11:44 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(13-11-2014 03:02 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But IF mine is true that the Bible is univocal, than I can define what a true Christian is and make exclusions that are not in violation of NTS.

It's as if I were to say "No true atheist is a vegetarian" - now def of atheist is "does not believe in any God" (OK, some might split hairs but for now I'll leave it at that). I think there may be plenty of people who do not believe in any God, who also are vegetarians, so I am committing a ridiculous fallacy by trying to exclude them - to impose my *new* definition of what an atheist is.

Def of Christian is a bit harder I guess because there are so many sects that claim to be - for me, if you claim to be a Christian, who am I to disagree? But you can't claim to be a True Christian because language doesn't work like that. As long as there are plenty of other people claiming to be Christians, then you can't impose your definition of what a Christian is.

You are free however, to make up your own new religion and call it something else. Something like "Protestantism" for example. To be protestant, you kinda are by definition opposed to the Catholic church. So you can say with confidence "No true protestant accepts the Pope as head of the Church".

I think you could say "No true follower of Q-Christianity does X" and not commit a fallacy, provided that you're not modifying the definition of a Q-Christian on the fly to not admit people that you don't like.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
17-11-2014, 09:51 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(13-11-2014 11:44 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 03:02 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But IF mine is true that the Bible is univocal, than I can define what a true Christian is and make exclusions that are not in violation of NTS.

It's as if I were to say "No true atheist is a vegetarian" - now def of atheist is "does not believe in any God" (OK, some might split hairs but for now I'll leave it at that). I think there may be plenty of people who do not believe in any God, who also are vegetarians, so I am committing a ridiculous fallacy by trying to exclude them - to impose my *new* definition of what an atheist is.

Def of Christian is a bit harder I guess because there are so many sects that claim to be - for me, if you claim to be a Christian, who am I to disagree? But you can't claim to be a True Christian because language doesn't work like that. As long as there are plenty of other people claiming to be Christians, then you can't impose your definition of what a Christian is.

You are free however, to make up your own new religion and call it something else. Something like "Protestantism" for example. To be protestant, you kinda are by definition opposed to the Catholic church. So you can say with confidence "No true protestant accepts the Pope as head of the Church".

I think you could say "No true follower of Q-Christianity does X" and not commit a fallacy, provided that you're not modifying the definition of a Q-Christian on the fly to not admit people that you don't like.

Thank you. I agree. I'm not reluctant to offer a definition of what makes a Christian, but Chas and Robby are. I don't know if this is because they don't have a working definition or...? I'm open here.

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
17-11-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(17-11-2014 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 11:44 PM)morondog Wrote:  It's as if I were to say "No true atheist is a vegetarian" - now def of atheist is "does not believe in any God" (OK, some might split hairs but for now I'll leave it at that). I think there may be plenty of people who do not believe in any God, who also are vegetarians, so I am committing a ridiculous fallacy by trying to exclude them - to impose my *new* definition of what an atheist is.

Def of Christian is a bit harder I guess because there are so many sects that claim to be - for me, if you claim to be a Christian, who am I to disagree? But you can't claim to be a True Christian because language doesn't work like that. As long as there are plenty of other people claiming to be Christians, then you can't impose your definition of what a Christian is.

You are free however, to make up your own new religion and call it something else. Something like "Protestantism" for example. To be protestant, you kinda are by definition opposed to the Catholic church. So you can say with confidence "No true protestant accepts the Pope as head of the Church".

I think you could say "No true follower of Q-Christianity does X" and not commit a fallacy, provided that you're not modifying the definition of a Q-Christian on the fly to not admit people that you don't like.

Thank you. I agree. I'm not reluctant to offer a definition of what makes a Christian, but Chas and Robby are. I don't know if this is because they don't have a working definition or...? I'm open here.

Therefore you agree you were committing a No True Scotsman Fallacy.

My having or not having a definition of Christian has absolutely no bearing on any of this. You either still don't understand the fallacy or you are trying to deflect the discussion.
Again I point out that you are either stupid or dishonest.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: