Justification for NTS?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2015, 07:26 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
(13-10-2015 06:51 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(12-10-2015 11:59 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Thanks Big Grin

So there's a man in the sky who chooses (using unknowable criteria) which of his creation will get to live with him, after they die, in his eternal theme park. Yeah, right.
As if.

Why Calvinists have the gall, and the imagination, to believe they are at the centre of the universe, is beyond me. I pity their children. Poor kids can't help but become egocentric tossers.

Go rape a porcupine.

Don't dare judge my parenting on a adjective that I use to describe myself.

You have no idea what I teach my kids, asshole.

Touchy subject apparently!

It's news to me that you're a Calvinist. And an angry, abusive one. Nice. Do you expect people should respect you because of the fact? Count me out. The world is too full of religious people who think they're special. They're on the news every day.

Glad to hear you're not filling your kids' heads with your religious crap. They will respect you much more when they grow up. Shame you can't grow up too.
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
13-10-2015, 08:28 PM
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?

Your scenario is nothing like the NTS fallacy.

"No True Scotsman (NTS) is a logical fallacy that occurs when (1) someone changes the definition of a word to make a claim true by default or (2) a term is defined biasedly to allow easier use of the first form. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them.
The fallacy does not occur in defining a group or label narrowly to begin with, but in narrowing it by excluding evidence that contradicts an initially broad definition.
"

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
13-10-2015, 08:38 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
(13-10-2015 07:26 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 06:51 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Go rape a porcupine.

Don't dare judge my parenting on a adjective that I use to describe myself.

You have no idea what I teach my kids, asshole.

Touchy subject apparently!

It's news to me that you're a Calvinist. And an angry, abusive one. Nice. Do you expect people should respect you because of the fact? Count me out. The world is too full of religious people who think they're special. They're on the news every day.

Glad to hear you're not filling your kids' heads with your religious crap. They will respect you much more when they grow up. Shame you can't grow up too.

Too be fair, he didn't actually ever say he didn't do it, he just said you don't know what he teaches his kids. Which is likely true. That said, he really had no right to be so butthurt that quickly IMO. If he isn't doing what you said, then he is in a pretty small minority of believers so as I see it, you were playing the odds. KC also accused me last year of harrassing him because he was a christian. Which was absolutely not true as I had no idea he even was one at the time and I even told him so. It was almost as if he thought that someone was incapable of judging the comment independent of the commentor. That was my experience though. Otherwise, he has been a pretty interesting guy.

"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
14-10-2015, 08:17 AM
RE: Justification for NTS?
(12-10-2015 01:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  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.

I'd say that everyone believed the person was a cancer patient based on all the available evidence at the time, and people were making decisions based on this false knowledge. Whether or not the person actually "was" a cancer patient is a moot point, and it's senseless, post hoc label-applying. It's effectively meaningless.


(12-10-2015 01:52 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  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".

There are multiple definitions of Christian, and not all Christians believe this to be true. This line of thinking is defeated simply by not accepting it as true, a priori. This is the thing we've been trying to get Q to understand for quite some time, now. No one type of Christian has ever definitively been able to prove why they're the really real deal and that the others are not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RobbyPants's post
14-10-2015, 12:52 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
It seems to me if you use the criteria that if a "Christian" later in life unexpectedly loses their faith and becomes an atheist and hence was deemed to have never been a Christian in the first place,

Then

Since people cannot predict the future with 100% certainty even though they may currently think "I will never lose my faith" that in order to be truly honest, the person cannot claim to be a Christian in the first place.
At best all they can say, "I think I'm a Christian, I can't foresee ever loosing my faith in the Christian god, but stranger things have happened so I can't know if I am a Christian or not"


KC - Are you a Christian?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
14-10-2015, 01:20 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
The NTS fallacy only applies when a definition first used is changed afterwards in an attempt to justify one's position ad hoc. That's when it is fallacious. Without the definition change, it isn't the NTS fallacy.

Although it still may be a fucking stupid definition.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 02:09 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
You know, Bucky, there aren't actually "right" answers to questions like this.

You really do need to take a reality check.

As for the OP's question, I have no idea what he is talking about.

If you accept Christianity as being the dogmatic adherence to a story about a man in a white robe who was born of a virgin, could walk on water, who rose from the dead, was the son of God, healed people magically, it is simple to see how people can deconvert, because Christianity read that way is nothing more than an ancient Superman story.

If you accept (think hard Bucky, I know it's difficult) that Christianity has a "god" which is "reason", ie., a Hellenistic concept, rather than a sky dong, and that the philosophy is reason based, ie., do unto others, then it is also easy to see why this religion tries to hook people with a lot of exciting talk of some super hero type and that it is really a way of co-opting some kind of paganistic cult pre-dating Jesus and giving them a Hellenistic value system.

Maybe more intelligent people understand both that the moral structure of Christianity isn't based on whether or not Mary had sex with an invisible sky man. But, maybe intelligent people also realize that the reason based morality in Matthew doesn't actually require one to believe all the nonsense it it and that it is a vehicle for introducing a moral system.

There is an expression: The moral of the story is...

But if people who need the story because, like children, they need that, then what you have in the New Testament is a finely woven story based on "something".

What we have on this forum, however, is a never-ending argument over who Paul was, and constant reminders that Saul was a Jew from Tarsus when there isn't actually any historical record of this man. But, for some people it seems essential to their personality makeup that they are "right", are taken seriously, and that they need a forum to abuse anyone who thinks outside the box and takes a fresh and sensible look at this religion.

If I were to say, for instance, that my entire motivation in life was to act in a way which respected other people, and that I rejected religions which were based on Abrahamism and "an eye for an eye", I can still weave a story about a man, embellish him with attributes of a semi-godlike nature. If I said that the only principle (the law and the prophets) was "do unto others etc", I would expect a sensible person to realize that my story about a flying cow with x-ray vision, was just a fiction. Rational thinkers do write fiction, and can write propaganda, if that is the task they set themselves.

Yet, on this forum, we have countless examples of someone who pontificates and spouts off about his own version of Judeo-Christian history which is purely conventional and out of text books. He seems to think that if he can show he can write exam answers better than others, it makes his views on Judaism and Christianity "right", because he reads only peer reviewed works.

But that doesn't explain anything because religion and theology is not about truth or historicity or about ancient wars or the economics of the Near East which led the Romans to want to conquer the area and fight the "Jews".

Nowhere have I seen Bucky explain in any way who the "Christ" was and that this figure had to be a "Jewish" religious figure. Why doesn't he want to take that on board. Also, the cross has to have been a "Jewish" symbol because it was used to crucify people of that religion in the Near East.

People like Jo Atwill say, plainly, that there was a religion predating Jesus which was "messianic" and had a "Christ" figure. This has to have been the "Jews" the Romans fought. So, for him to just throw out comments like "Saul was a Jew" or that for the first century AD Christians were "Jews" is completely meaningless and an exercise of what he himself calls "presentism", as though there was a religion called Judaism, which was just like modern Judaism, and a few people departed from it, followed a white-robed hippy, and brought about a world religion based on "love".

There must be something about this guy that he needs to flog this position and that he can't stand anyone who throws a curve ball at him which makes him think. He responds with almost hysterical abuse. I can just see him sitting at his computer with veins bulging in his forehead simply because he sees the name, Ralph Ellis, on the screen. Strange.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
(13-10-2015 08:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(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?

Your scenario is nothing like the NTS fallacy.

"No True Scotsman (NTS) is a logical fallacy that occurs when (1) someone changes the definition of a word to make a claim true by default or (2) a term is defined biasedly to allow easier use of the first form. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them.
The fallacy does not occur in defining a group or label narrowly to begin with, but in narrowing it by excluding evidence that contradicts an initially broad definition.
"


That's really helpful. In the future can you just say "NTS is defined in the On-line dictionary" and leave it at that. This way, not only do we not have to listen to your opinions, which typically are, "that isn't true" but we can look up the definition of the term ourselves. It would also give us credit for 1) knowing what it means, and 2) being sufficiently conversant with the use of a computer and the internet, to look the expression up ourselves, should we be so interested in spending our time doing this sort of thing...as you are.

For you, this approach has the benefit of making you look less like a 1) pompous twat and 2) an anal retentive.

Just a bit of friendly advice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
(14-10-2015 02:09 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Maybe more intelligent people understand both that the moral structure of Christianity isn't based on whether or not Mary had sex with an invisible sky man. But, maybe intelligent people also realize that the reason based morality in Matthew doesn't actually require one to believe all the nonsense it it and that it is a vehicle for introducing a moral system.
Although, of course, the utmost intelligent people will realise that the bible is non sense, and in order to navigate their way through the many choices encountered in their own lives they must have trust and have faith in themselves to think through the consequences both on themselves and their enduring reputation.

Referring to dogma in an ancient book written by people in a time long since past, in the context of a failed and forgotten culture without much of the scientific knowledge we have today does not equate to progress, it is stagnation at it's most irrelevant.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-10-2015, 02:45 PM
RE: Justification for NTS?
(14-10-2015 02:20 PM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(13-10-2015 08:28 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your scenario is nothing like the NTS fallacy.

"No True Scotsman (NTS) is a logical fallacy that occurs when (1) someone changes the definition of a word to make a claim true by default or (2) a term is defined biasedly to allow easier use of the first form. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them.
The fallacy does not occur in defining a group or label narrowly to begin with, but in narrowing it by excluding evidence that contradicts an initially broad definition.
"


That's really helpful. In the future can you just say "NTS is defined in the On-line dictionary" and leave it at that. This way, not only do we not have to listen to your opinions, which typically are, "that isn't true" but we can look up the definition of the term ourselves. It would also give us credit for 1) knowing what it means, and 2) being sufficiently conversant with the use of a computer and the internet, to look the expression up ourselves, should we be so interested in spending our time doing this sort of thing...as you are.

For you, this approach has the benefit of making you look less like a 1) pompous twat and 2) an anal retentive.

Just a bit of friendly advice.

Obviously the OP has a misunderstanding of what the NTS fallacy is, so it was helpful to others who may not know what it is.

Since you added nothing of substance in your criticism, maybe you could try harder next time and look like less of an asshole. Drinking Beverage

Just a bit of advice.

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: