Justification for NTS?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-10-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
(12-10-2015 02:48 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Remove the cause of the cancer...the priests and the preachers. Cut off their income and force them to get a real job. Make them pay tax like everyone else.
Also make them open their books. Where does the "charity" money go?
God certainly doesn't get "his" hands on it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
12-10-2015, 03:09 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
My first response would deal with defining the verbiage.
What can we do to define what a Christian is?

Most people would lean toward the biblical test / definition.

How does the bible define what a christian is?
Is it a ubiquitous definition or are there several?
Do you harmonize them all or not? (by harmonizing them we risk coming up with a definition that is completely different than what the writers meant)
What are we attempting to solve in the definition of a Christian?
Why does it even matter what the definition is?
Does it matter purely because of the outcome? Heaven vs. hell? Or are there more reasons which could be listed as primary / secondary etc?
Does the definition present anything regarding the future state of being held constant in order for christianity to be achieved or does it merely infer a present state of being?

These questions are important because you can either A) determine a method to define a christian or B) you can't.

If someone fits the definition of a christian today but tomorrow does not then either the definition has been changed, or the person has changed his/her mind about the evidence based on the information available, or there may be some other option that I am not thinking about (to keep this from becoming a false dichotomy).

If the definition of a christian is always constant, as it should be to capture the most amount of willing participants AND to ensure the participants are rewarded with what they were promised, then "A" (definition) must always = "A". "A" cannot be = to "A" today and "B" tomorrow otherwise it becomes completely meaningless and no one can be called a christian since no one can properly define it without moving the goalposts post hoc.

If the definition is nailed down (pardon the pun) then it should be said that if a person fulfills that definition, they are in fact a christian.

I find the problem of defining the word to be a heavy one. It's akin to throwing jello against a wall and hoping that it will stick in the same place and same form every single time. Undecided

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Tonechaser77's post
12-10-2015, 03:12 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
Also, cancer has undeniably shown it's existamce through repeated and repeatable demonstration. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to accept the existance and nature of cancer from the consistancy of the observations from aroynd the globe. God hasn't done this at all considering we know the ultimate end to cancer and few can agree on the ultimate end in the god department. Shoot, we understand the nature of cancer far, far better and it didn't communicate through an ancient book.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like The Organic Chemist's post
12-10-2015, 03:12 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
(12-10-2015 02:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  They are "benign" cancers, and that person was a cancer patient.
Just offering a second opinion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_tumor
Quote:A benign tumor is a mass of cells (tumor) that lacks the ability to invade neighboring tissue or metastasize. These characteristics are required for a tumor to be defined as cancerous and therefore benign tumors are non-cancerous

Quote:Although most benign tumors are not life-threatening, many types of benign tumors have the potential to become cancerous (malignant) through a process known as tumour progression
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
12-10-2015, 03:24 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2015 04:00 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Justification for NTS?
(12-10-2015 01:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  EDIT: Seriously? Wow. No True Scotsman. SMH.

DISCLAIMER:

I'm not Heywooding or popsing... this is a serious conundrum that came into my mind today. So yeah... y'all know me well enough to know I'm not trying to troll. I know the NTS fallacy has been argued over and over, but I want to see and hear actual answers to my scenario.



One night, after your shower, you notice a weird lump on your lower back close to your spine. You don't think much of it at first, but then it begins to grow larger. And, then it becomes painful.

You finally can't ignore it anymore, so you go to the doctor to get it checked out. The doctors are concerned so they put you through a litany of tests. They don't biopsy it because x-rays show that it's completely entangled in your spine. X-rays also show that it's the Big C. Stage 4 at least. They decided a biopsy would be needless, dangerous, and invasive since the docs have the evidence they need to make an informed medical decision.

They give you less than a year to live. Your only hope is agreeing to have an extremely dangerous surgery. So... it's official now. During this time you are living as a person with cancer. Everyone you know knows that you have cancer and the severity of it.

Finally, you make up your mind to have the surgery. The doctors do a miraculous job at removing the tumor and all its fingers without damaging your spine or spinal cord; but what's even more surprising is that the tumor was completely benign... not a trace of cancer in it.

So... with that being so... where you ever a cancer patient? How could you be? You never met the requirements (having cancer). Up until the time of the surgery, you lived as a cancer patient and everyone around you treated you as a cancer patient.

But, when faced with the requirements of being a cancer patient, you did not have a single iota of evidence that you ever were one or ever will be. It just simply appeared that you were. It was so convincing that you had cancer, trained medical professionals placed their reputations on the line in order to say that you had life threatening cancer.



How is this scenario different than those that claim to be Christians and then deconvert? According to Christian mythos, a true Christian can never leave God. People can do everything to appear to be a Christian; however, if they don't meet the simple requirement of being one of the beloved, they have the ability to "deconvert". But, according to the mythos, much like the "cancer patient" they never met the requirements in the first place.

How is this not justification for NTS?

? Nazarene theological seminary
? No true Scotsman
? NTS is an Australian digital radio station presenting news, talk and sport highlights from the Macquarie Radio Network stations including...
? Now that's something!
? Nearly time to shut up
? Not a tumour stupid!
? Nepalese tandoori salad...Doti King Prawn Marinated in Nepalese tandoori paste, grilled in clay oven £4.95 ... chilli, fresh ginger, garlic and Nepalese herbs served with salad (hot) £4.25 ...
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
12-10-2015, 03:43 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
With cancer there are objective criteria.

With Christianity there are none. It's about whether you "believe Jesus is your saviour". Mormons believe it. So does every sect of Catholicism, Pentecostals, Baptists, the whole lot. But many people will add that you must follow your Bible (cherry-picked by hand), or you must be homophobic, or you must be nice to other people, in order to be a True Christian.

Who are you to deny one person's experience? If they call themselves Christian, who are you to say that they are not? If they truly believe it.

Otherwise propose objective criteria by which one may tell that another person is or is not a Christian. These criteria must be applicable not just by you but by anyone. Also it might be more useful to have a different word than Christian, since that is a word with layers of meaning already and you will never get people to agree that your definition of Christian, objective though it may be, is correct. Maybe XChristians. Sorta like Xmen but holier.

As with No True Scotsman, there is no agreement on the definition of a Christian (Scotsman), so you as a Christian are de facto disqualified from claiming that someone else is *not* Christian. For example, if I had a Scottish ancestor but had never lived in Scotland, am I Scottish? If I speak gaelic but live in London? If I merely like to think of myself as Scottish? Who can tell me that I am not Scottish? Sure, you can make definitions for legal purposes but that's as far as it goes.

So you claim that I was never a Christian because I left the faith. I claim that you are not a Christian because no true Christian would doubt another's testimony.

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
[+] 6 users Like morondog's post
12-10-2015, 03:55 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
(12-10-2015 03:43 PM)morondog Wrote:  So you claim that I was never a Christian because I left the faith. I claim that you are not a Christian because no true Christian would doubt another's testimony.

It also seems to me that if the criteria includes it never being possible to lose your faith then nobody can ever know if anybody, including themselves, is a True Christian™. Too many people have stories like Dan Barker where they were absolutely convinced that they were "saved" and later stopped believing. No matter how certain anybody is they don't know what new experiences might change their mind.

When someone says that an ex-xian was never really a xian all they are really saying is that faith is not a reliable epistemology.

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
12-10-2015, 04:00 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
This definition makes it so that no one except the stubborn or deluded can be true Christians. Many have personal relationships with God and deconvert. Many are deeply and fully convinced and still deconvert.

If you say you can "never deconvert" then this is dishonest. If there is irrefutable proof that the assumption is wrong, the only honest response is to abandon those assumptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2015, 04:15 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
KC, I apologise to you.

I didn't see you had written "no true scotsman" at the top of your post.

I still can't make head nor tail of what you are saying. Could you reword it? Huh
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-10-2015, 04:24 PM (This post was last modified: 12-10-2015 04:28 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Justification for NTS?
(12-10-2015 01:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  EDIT: Seriously? Wow. No True Scotsman. SMH.

DISCLAIMER:

I'm not Heywooding or popsing... this is a serious conundrum that came into my mind today. So yeah... y'all know me well enough to know I'm not trying to troll. I know the NTS fallacy has been argued over and over, but I want to see and hear actual answers to my scenario.



One night, after your shower, you notice a weird lump on your lower back close to your spine. You don't think much of it at first, but then it begins to grow larger. And, then it becomes painful.

You finally can't ignore it anymore, so you go to the doctor to get it checked out. The doctors are concerned so they put you through a litany of tests. They don't biopsy it because x-rays show that it's completely entangled in your spine. X-rays also show that it's the Big C. Stage 4 at least. They decided a biopsy would be needless, dangerous, and invasive since the docs have the evidence they need to make an informed medical decision.

They give you less than a year to live. Your only hope is agreeing to have an extremely dangerous surgery. So... it's official now. During this time you are living as a person with cancer. Everyone you know knows that you have cancer and the severity of it.

Finally, you make up your mind to have the surgery. The doctors do a miraculous job at removing the tumor and all its fingers without damaging your spine or spinal cord; but what's even more surprising is that the tumor was completely benign... not a trace of cancer in it.

So... with that being so... where you ever a cancer patient? How could you be? You never met the requirements (having cancer). Up until the time of the surgery, you lived as a cancer patient and everyone around you treated you as a cancer patient.

But, when faced with the requirements of being a cancer patient, you did not have a single iota of evidence that you ever were one or ever will be. It just simply appeared that you were. It was so convincing that you had cancer, trained medical professionals placed their reputations on the line in order to say that you had life threatening cancer.



How is this scenario different than those that claim to be Christians and then deconvert? According to Christian mythos, a true Christian can never leave God. People can do everything to appear to be a Christian; however, if they don't meet the simple requirement of being one of the beloved, they have the ability to "deconvert". But, according to the mythos, much like the "cancer patient" they never met the requirements in the first place.

How is this not justification for NTS?

"How is this scenario different than those that claim to be Christians and then deconvert?"

It seems to me that the scenarios ( the person with a tumour and the person who deconverts from Christianity) are very similar.

Both have a toxic, annoying, embarrassing, unhealthy problem which they get rid of.

Or am I missing something?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Mark Fulton's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: