Did Hitler win?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2014, 01:53 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(17-11-2014 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

I'm afraid I don't agree. My definition of a Christian is consistent. You wrote it's what one professes to be and then you were called out on that being a poor definition. Do you have another definition?

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, 03:10 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(17-11-2014 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 10:08 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

I'm afraid I don't agree. My definition of a Christian is consistent. You wrote it's what one professes to be and then you were called out on that being a poor definition. Do you have another definition?

In the actual context of the actual discussion, I don't actually need to provide an actual definition. And I haven't actually provided one.

You are the one committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy by making the claim that people who consider themselves Christians are not True Christians™ because no True Christian™ would do X. My definition of True Christian™ is of no importance.

You continue to display an abysmal lack of understanding of this.

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
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
17-11-2014, 03:18 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(17-11-2014 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 01:53 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I'm afraid I don't agree. My definition of a Christian is consistent. You wrote it's what one professes to be and then you were called out on that being a poor definition. Do you have another definition?

In the actual context of the actual discussion, I don't actually need to provide an actual definition. And I haven't actually provided one.

You are the one committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy by making the claim that people who consider themselves Christians are not True Christians™ because no True Christian™ would do X. My definition of True Christian™ is of no importance.

You continue to display an abysmal lack of understanding of this.

Indeed; he (deliberately?) refuses to admit that the problem isn't in what you or I might call a "true Christian", never mind the vacuity of the term, but in what other self-professed Christians believe, say, and do.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2014, 03:30 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(17-11-2014 09:51 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(13-11-2014 11:44 PM)morondog Wrote:  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 agree. Here is a sentence showing that I absolutely do not agree. In fact I agree so completely *not* with you, that I don't know what I am talking about." <- This is what your post reads like to me Tongue

Dude. No True Christian tries to define what a True Christian is. I can because I'm an atheist Wink And I'm not Scottish either.

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
18-11-2014, 01:21 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(17-11-2014 03:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 03:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  In the actual context of the actual discussion, I don't actually need to provide an actual definition. And I haven't actually provided one.

You are the one committing the No True Scotsman Fallacy by making the claim that people who consider themselves Christians are not True Christians™ because no True Christian™ would do X. My definition of True Christian™ is of no importance.

You continue to display an abysmal lack of understanding of this.

Indeed; he (deliberately?) refuses to admit that the problem isn't in what you or I might call a "true Christian", never mind the vacuity of the term, but in what other self-professed Christians believe, say, and do.

But as has been pointed out so ably by The Q on this thread, what one self-professes may not be what one is. You can say you are the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte and then kill your mother, that doesn't mean Napoleon I killed his mother, really.

Evangelical Christians like me are wearied of hearing "professors" name Christ's name and then do unbiblical things. Some of the members of this forum were self-professed Christians who went on to leave the church and commit what to Christians are moral crimes and blasphemies.

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
18-11-2014, 02:05 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(18-11-2014 01:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(17-11-2014 03:18 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed; he (deliberately?) refuses to admit that the problem isn't in what you or I might call a "true Christian", never mind the vacuity of the term, but in what other self-professed Christians believe, say, and do.

But as has been pointed out so ably by The Q on this thread, what one self-professes may not be what one is. You can say you are the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte and then kill your mother, that doesn't mean Napoleon I killed his mother, really.

Indeed. The problem being that you have no ability to judge others' beliefs.

"In all cases where others' interpretation of scripture differs from mine, I am always correct" is about as vacuously terrible an argument I've ever heard, but if you're well and truly doubling down on it, knock yourself out.

(18-11-2014 01:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Evangelical Christians like me are wearied of hearing "professors" name Christ's name and then do unbiblical things. Some of the members of this forum were self-professed Christians who went on to leave the church and commit what to Christians are moral crimes and blasphemies.

According to you they aren't acting like True Christians™.

According to them, they may be - or may have been.

At which point it is a matter of your special subjective feels against theirs. To an outside observer neither set of feels is or can possibly be more compelling than the other.

Your persistent and troublesome inability to understand this point can only, I feel, be deliberate fatuity on your part. I suppose I can grudgingly credit the overwhelming commitment to disingenuousness you exhibit, but I don't particularly appreciate the trait itself.

Or perhaps we should just posit "playing dumb for Jesus" to go alongside "lying for Jesus?" Two of a perfect pair, to be sure...

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like cjlr's post
19-11-2014, 01:19 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(18-11-2014 02:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 01:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  But as has been pointed out so ably by The Q on this thread, what one self-professes may not be what one is. You can say you are the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte and then kill your mother, that doesn't mean Napoleon I killed his mother, really.

Indeed. The problem being that you have no ability to judge others' beliefs.

"In all cases where others' interpretation of scripture differs from mine, I am always correct" is about as vacuously terrible an argument I've ever heard, but if you're well and truly doubling down on it, knock yourself out.

(18-11-2014 01:21 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Evangelical Christians like me are wearied of hearing "professors" name Christ's name and then do unbiblical things. Some of the members of this forum were self-professed Christians who went on to leave the church and commit what to Christians are moral crimes and blasphemies.

According to you they aren't acting like True Christians™.

According to them, they may be - or may have been.

At which point it is a matter of your special subjective feels against theirs. To an outside observer neither set of feels is or can possibly be more compelling than the other.

Your persistent and troublesome inability to understand this point can only, I feel, be deliberate fatuity on your part. I suppose I can grudgingly credit the overwhelming commitment to disingenuousness you exhibit, but I don't particularly appreciate the trait itself.

Or perhaps we should just posit "playing dumb for Jesus" to go alongside "lying for Jesus?" Two of a perfect pair, to be sure...

First, the ad homs are unneeded. If you were more sure of your logical argument, you would have less need of them to use against me.

Second, take the first verse of the Bible, rendered in English as:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Would you agree with this interpretation/translation as correct? "In the beginning, God did NOT create the heavens and the Earth..."? Not your atheist's perspective that God didn't exist then, but your understanding of the documents. We would agree that anyone who teaches that the Bible teaches God didn't incept the heavens and Earth, is incorrect in their interpretation/rendering.

Now, a Christian can believe in a 6-day creation, a Steady State of some kind, a Big Bang, etc. but we should agree that anyone teaching the polar opposite of the scriptural statement here is lying or ignorant in some intense way regarding the scriptures.

I've made my point that the scriptures say "No murderer has the Spirit of Christ" and that the Nazi murderers were... murderers. So if you can explain to me how I'm misunderstanding 1 John 3 here I can retract my statement.

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
19-11-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(19-11-2014 01:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(18-11-2014 02:05 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Indeed. The problem being that you have no ability to judge others' beliefs.

"In all cases where others' interpretation of scripture differs from mine, I am always correct" is about as vacuously terrible an argument I've ever heard, but if you're well and truly doubling down on it, knock yourself out.


According to you they aren't acting like True Christians™.

According to them, they may be - or may have been.

At which point it is a matter of your special subjective feels against theirs. To an outside observer neither set of feels is or can possibly be more compelling than the other.

Your persistent and troublesome inability to understand this point can only, I feel, be deliberate fatuity on your part. I suppose I can grudgingly credit the overwhelming commitment to disingenuousness you exhibit, but I don't particularly appreciate the trait itself.

Or perhaps we should just posit "playing dumb for Jesus" to go alongside "lying for Jesus?" Two of a perfect pair, to be sure...

First, the ad homs are unneeded. If you were more sure of your logical argument, you would have less need of them to use against me.

Second, take the first verse of the Bible, rendered in English as:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Would you agree with this interpretation/translation as correct? "In the beginning, God did NOT create the heavens and the Earth..."? Not your atheist's perspective that God didn't exist then, but your understanding of the documents. We would agree that anyone who teaches that the Bible teaches God didn't incept the heavens and Earth, is incorrect in their interpretation/rendering.

Now, a Christian can believe in a 6-day creation, a Steady State of some kind, a Big Bang, etc. but we should agree that anyone teaching the polar opposite of the scriptural statement here is lying or ignorant in some intense way regarding the scriptures.

I've made my point that the scriptures say "No murderer has the Spirit of Christ" and that the Nazi murderers were... murderers. So if you can explain to me how I'm misunderstanding 1 John 3 here I can retract my statement.

Thanks.

Their interpretation could be it's purely meant to be metaphor by being so absurdly contrasting to reality, so yes... they can interpenetrate it that way and still believe in the god/christian principals of Jeeeesus.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
21-11-2014, 10:18 AM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(19-11-2014 02:33 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(19-11-2014 01:19 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  First, the ad homs are unneeded. If you were more sure of your logical argument, you would have less need of them to use against me.

Second, take the first verse of the Bible, rendered in English as:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth."

Would you agree with this interpretation/translation as correct? "In the beginning, God did NOT create the heavens and the Earth..."? Not your atheist's perspective that God didn't exist then, but your understanding of the documents. We would agree that anyone who teaches that the Bible teaches God didn't incept the heavens and Earth, is incorrect in their interpretation/rendering.

Now, a Christian can believe in a 6-day creation, a Steady State of some kind, a Big Bang, etc. but we should agree that anyone teaching the polar opposite of the scriptural statement here is lying or ignorant in some intense way regarding the scriptures.

I've made my point that the scriptures say "No murderer has the Spirit of Christ" and that the Nazi murderers were... murderers. So if you can explain to me how I'm misunderstanding 1 John 3 here I can retract my statement.

Thanks.

Their interpretation could be it's purely meant to be metaphor by being so absurdly contrasting to reality, so yes... they can interpenetrate it that way and still believe in the god/christian principals of Jeeeesus.

I understand. Would it be a metaphor that God did or did not create or is or is not a creator? Do you see my point regarding how I have the right to say whether an interpretation is true or false even if it is not definitive regarding being literal or a metaphorical or even poetic verse in question?

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
21-11-2014, 12:18 PM
RE: Did Hitler win?
(21-11-2014 10:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I understand. Would it be a metaphor that God did or did not create or is or is not a creator? Do you see my point regarding how I have the right to say whether an interpretation is true or false even if it is not definitive regarding being literal or a metaphorical or even poetic verse in question?

Yeah, as your opinion. It's not like you can actually prove that nonfalsifiable notion true or false. So, this gets down to you using your opinion to figure out what the scripture really means, and using your opinion to decide who is and isn't a True Christian.

That's why you're getting called on NTS. Because it's what you're doing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RobbyPants's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: