Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-08-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(26-08-2015 12:46 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Chas, are you a true Christian or truly a Christian? And if you know why you are not a Christian, on what basis can you affirm the negative if no one and nothing can define the positive affirmation?

The issue is that there are so many different definitions. That's, uh, kind of the essence of your problem.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 11:06 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(27-08-2015 08:30 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I believe in some things without understanding them in their totality.

Oh, I never said anything about totality. Just a working definition would do.

You don't need to be able to label every part of a car in order to tell me what a car is. In a similar fashion, most theists don't bother with trying to avoid supplying a definition themselves, which is almost always something painfully simple, such as the prime mover concept. That's fine. It's still nonsense, but at least it's a working definition.

On the other hand, simply saying "Jesus Christ" when asked "what do you mean by 'god'?" is not helpful.What has your god done that makes it a god?

(27-08-2015 08:32 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 01:11 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Ah. Easily identifiable, then.

So where is it?

Is your atheism solely responsible for your disdain of poetic language or are you just an even more unspiritual person than most atheists claim to be? My life has been stamped but that is a poetic metaphor for Christ's salvific and sanctifying work.

Yes, I am aware that it is a metaphor. My point, which again you seem to have missed, is that it is utterly useless and does not actually answer the question raised.

"How do you know who is and is not a True Christian?"

"Well, True Christians have heavenly citizenship."

"Wonderful. And how can you tell that they do?"

"It's just a metaphor!"

...and so on.

As for having a "disdain for poetic language", well, this is a bit of an aside, but really, you couldn't be further from the truth, and I'm a bit affronted at the suggestion.

I am a writer and a student of literature. I could spend hours expounding the merits of Poe's "The Conqueror Worm", or Tennyson's "The Lady of Shalott", or Norton Juster's absolute command of the English language in The Phantom Tollbooth. Terry Pratchett's Reaper Man reduces me to tears with a single sentence - DO YOU KNOW WHY THE PRISONER IN THE TOWER WATCHES THE FLIGHT OF BIRDS? - and I have a similar problem when listening to, oh, any song you care to choose from the score of Les Misérables.

"My passport is stamped with the blood of Christ", on the other hand, is not poetic language. It isn't even an amateur's attempt. There is nothing poetic there. There is no skill in writing involved there. It's just a rather clunky and silly hand-wave.

If you want points for poetry, try writing some poetry first.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
27-08-2015, 12:03 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(27-08-2015 10:33 AM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(26-08-2015 12:46 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Chas, are you a true Christian or truly a Christian? And if you know why you are not a Christian, on what basis can you affirm the negative if no one and nothing can define the positive affirmation?

The issue is that there are so many different definitions. That's, uh, kind of the essence of your problem.

Yabut it doesn't count as a NTS when he does it.

See,
  • We say there are lots of types of Christians, and Q says that only some are true Christians.
  • We call him on NTS and he says it doesn't count because the Bible offers a definition of a true Christian.
  • We tell him there are multiple interpretations, and he cannot prove his is correct.
  • He commits yet another NTS that his interpretation is... wait for it... the true interpreation.
Assertion via recursion!

[Image: recursionImage.jpeg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like RobbyPants's post
27-08-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
Tries to define NTS fallacy, and commits NTS fallacy in doing so.

Checkmate, atheists!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EppurSiMuove's post
27-08-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(27-08-2015 12:16 PM)EppurSiMuove Wrote:  Tries to define NTS fallacy, and commits NTS fallacy in doing so.

Checkmate, atheists!

Quite.

Stupid, or just hopelessly dishonest? YOU decide!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
27-08-2015, 01:44 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(27-08-2015 01:35 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 12:16 PM)EppurSiMuove Wrote:  Tries to define NTS fallacy, and commits NTS fallacy in doing so.

Checkmate, atheists!

Quite.

Stupid, or just hopelessly dishonest? YOU decide!

[Image: 64169219.jpg]

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
27-08-2015, 02:20 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
Ah, shit... It seems I've forgotten the tenets of atheism. What were they again..?
Oh wait, there are none, other than not accepting the claim that there is evidence for a god or gods (the opposite of a theist).
Even then, that does not amount to a "tenet". More like, oh idk, let's just call it... A FUCKING LITERAL DEFINITION.

If I hadn't seen Q's other posts around here before, I might give him credit enough to consider it ignorance, or sheer stupidity. Alas, given this is Q we're talking about, it's definitely just dishonesty.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EppurSiMuove's post
27-08-2015, 04:20 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(27-08-2015 02:20 PM)EppurSiMuove Wrote:  Ah, shit... It seems I've forgotten the tenets of atheism. What were they again..?
Oh wait, there are none, other than not accepting the claim that there is evidence for a god or gods (the opposite of a theist).
Even then, that does not amount to a "tenet". More like, oh idk, let's just call it... A FUCKING LITERAL DEFINITION.

If I hadn't seen Q's other posts around here before, I might give him credit enough to consider it ignorance, or sheer stupidity. Alas, given this is Q we're talking about, it's definitely just dishonesty.

At fucking last -- someone who knows the difference between "tenets" and "tenants"!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thumpalumpacus's post
27-08-2015, 04:36 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(27-08-2015 04:20 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 02:20 PM)EppurSiMuove Wrote:  Ah, shit... It seems I've forgotten the tenets of atheism. What were they again..?
Oh wait, there are none, other than not accepting the claim that there is evidence for a god or gods (the opposite of a theist).
Even then, that does not amount to a "tenet". More like, oh idk, let's just call it... A FUCKING LITERAL DEFINITION.

If I hadn't seen Q's other posts around here before, I might give him credit enough to consider it ignorance, or sheer stupidity. Alas, given this is Q we're talking about, it's definitely just dishonesty.

At fucking last -- someone who knows the difference between "tenets" and "tenants"!

Of course; tenet is Latin, and tenant is French. What could be simpler?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-08-2015, 05:21 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(27-08-2015 04:20 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  
(27-08-2015 02:20 PM)EppurSiMuove Wrote:  Ah, shit... It seems I've forgotten the tenets of atheism. What were they again..?
Oh wait, there are none, other than not accepting the claim that there is evidence for a god or gods (the opposite of a theist).
Even then, that does not amount to a "tenet". More like, oh idk, let's just call it... A FUCKING LITERAL DEFINITION.

If I hadn't seen Q's other posts around here before, I might give him credit enough to consider it ignorance, or sheer stupidity. Alas, given this is Q we're talking about, it's definitely just dishonesty.

At fucking last -- someone who knows the difference between "tenets" and "tenants"!
[Image: David-Tennant-david-tennant-28069109-392-620.jpg]

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: