Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 11:18 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 09:58 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  Particularly given the tendency of each of the Christian sects to NTS each of their fellow "Christian" sects as "not really Christians".

It's practically all I heard about, growing up: the Catholics aren't really Christian, son, they worship Mary. The Mormons aren't really Christian, son, they think Jesus came to earth twice. The Calvinists aren't really Christian, kid, since they don't believe in God's grace granting us free will. The scientists who claim to be Christian aren't really Christian, son, because without the Fall and Original Sin, there would be no need for the sacrifice of Jesus.

Et cetera, ad nauseam.

Read my previous posts where I point out you are using an argument from emotion to try to contradict the fact that just because some or many adhere to a wrong definition doesn't mean there is NO correct definition for a given term.

And you spoke to the wrong folk. Logically (and in my experience) there are saved members of each group you mentioned. This has to do with the individual's choice to be born again and has less to do with the fact that some official doctrines of each of those sects is incorrect.

I would NEVER say ALL Catholics et al are lost. I think some TTA skeptics are saved, just backslidden! I sure hope you are saved. I don't think often about Hell, but I thought about it some today.

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
20-08-2015, 11:20 AM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 11:14 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 09:13 AM)Gilgamesh Wrote:  To follow, to imitate, to pursue, to obey; these are all very ambiguous actions. This information does not allow one to discern true christians from non-true christians.

How is it ambiguous? You follow the tenets of atheism, I follow the tenets of Christ. If someone said "I'm an atheist!" and then 30 seconds later you heard them praying the rosary, you would accept them as an atheist? Really? Be consistent.

"The tenets of atheism?" Seriously? Here's the entire list:
  • Not having a belief in any gods.

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
[+] 11 users Like Chas's post
20-08-2015, 12:00 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 08:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  PS. If you are that emotionally stunted that you don't want to admit the difference between someone who outwardly professes adherence to Jesus and who truly adheres to Him, then how the heck can I know whether anyone at TTA is an atheist or a Poe?

Congratulations. You still missed the point, and you strawmanned me, to boot. I never said this was a battle between one sect who follows Jesus and 999 who just profess to; the whole point is every single fucking sect thinks they're the ones actually following Jesus, and everyone else is wrong. You've got your head wedged so far up this strawman's ass that you are mentally incapable of seeing this.

[Image: Q-miminw2_zpst5zasdmy.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 11 users Like RobbyPants's post
20-08-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 11:18 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  ... I don't think often about Hell, but I thought about it some today ...

Presumably elevating your anxiety. You can have it, but don't try to share it. It's inconsiderate, rude, and stupid.

Real life is difficult enough without adding a nonsensical fear that some inscrutable judge might find you deficient and condemn you to eternal torture. A clinically masochistic mind might burden itself this way but not a healthy one.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Airportkid's post
20-08-2015, 01:48 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 12:00 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  PS. If you are that emotionally stunted that you don't want to admit the difference between someone who outwardly professes adherence to Jesus and who truly adheres to Him, then how the heck can I know whether anyone at TTA is an atheist or a Poe?

Congratulations. You still missed the point, and you strawmanned me, to boot. I never said this was a battle between one sect who follows Jesus and 999 who just profess to; the whole point is every single fucking sect thinks they're the ones actually following Jesus, and everyone else is wrong. You've got your head wedged so far up this strawman's ass that you are mentally incapable of seeing this.

[Image: Q-miminw2_zpst5zasdmy.gif]

Clap Amazing how this mental condition can make someone so stubborn to the big picture of religions. Like he knows who "really does" follow jesus, and who "not so much" follows jesus". He either thinks he is god himself, or is just another self-righteous nutjob with low self worth, and the previously mentioned mental condition of delusion.

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 01:59 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
No True Christian talks meaningfully about logical fallacies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Thumpalumpacus's post
20-08-2015, 02:12 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 04:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Likewise, there is a current thread where several people are avoiding entering the Boxing Ring with me to debate the existence of God as it is claimed that no true definition of God can exist. This is the kind of sophistry that frustrates those Christians who wish to debate atheists. You cannot logically hold both of the following positions simultaneously:

1. No god exists

2. No one can sufficiently define what a god is

Unless that is, there are no atheists, only agnostics (which would allow for #2 above, but still not offer conclusive proof for #1 above).

I am open to learn more, and I relish the opportunity to test my ideas here at TTA. I welcome your comments and pledge to read them with an open mind. Thank you.

I have not seen anyone say "No definition of a god *can* exist". Only that you have never come up with a coherent one .... and you haven't.

There are 33,000-35,000 sects of Christians. Each one thinks they are the "authentic" group. You are hardly one to be be lecturing anyone about the NTS fallacy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
20-08-2015, 02:18 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 02:12 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 04:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Likewise, there is a current thread where several people are avoiding entering the Boxing Ring with me to debate the existence of God as it is claimed that no true definition of God can exist. This is the kind of sophistry that frustrates those Christians who wish to debate atheists. You cannot logically hold both of the following positions simultaneously:

1. No god exists

2. No one can sufficiently define what a god is

Unless that is, there are no atheists, only agnostics (which would allow for #2 above, but still not offer conclusive proof for #1 above).

I am open to learn more, and I relish the opportunity to test my ideas here at TTA. I welcome your comments and pledge to read them with an open mind. Thank you.

I have not seen anyone say "No definition of a god *can* exist". Only that you have never come up with a coherent one .... and you haven't.

There are 33,000-35,000 sects of Christians. Each one thinks they are the "authentic" group. You are hardly one to be be lecturing anyone about the NTS fallacy.

Yabut, only a True Scotsman can recognise another Scot, Bucky.

CHECKMATE ATHEISTS.

...

Weeping

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
20-08-2015, 03:05 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 11:15 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 07:06 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  All Scottish people were born in Scotland? Let's swap out America for that and see what happens: All Americans were born in America. Um, no.

Very well. I appreciate your insight. True Scotsmen have Scottish citizenship. True Christians have heavenly citizenship.

Thanks.

Can I see your passport fucknuts? Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-08-2015, 03:30 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 04:06 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  There continues to be misunderstanding of the application of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy at TTA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

A logical fallacy does not exist in a vacuum. There must be a logical truth the fallacy is pitted (in error) against. In the NTS case on Wikipedia, there are two conflicting definitions, one stated, one implied:

False: All Scottish people avoid sugar on their porridge

True (not supplied by Wikipedia, but obvious): All Scottish people were born in Scotland

The problem of misapplication is how NTS is applied by TTA members to Christian definitions. It is wholly incorrect to claim that the informal logic rule known as the NTS fallacy supports this concept: that no person may apply any definition as to who are the members of the complete set of Christians in the world. Indeed, this in itself is an example of the NTS fallacy (no true logician may define what a Christian is). Here are two such examples of false definitions I've heard used at TTA, and frequently:

False: All persons who are born as Christians are Christians

True: All persons who trust Jesus's atoning death and resurrection to take their sin, guilt and shame--in hope of Heaven--are Christians

In the example above, if all persons born Christian are Christians, most TTA members who identify as skeptics are now... still... Christians.

False: All persons who profess to be Christian are Christians

True: All persons who trust Jesus's atoning death and resurrection to take their sin, guilt and shame--in hope of Heaven--are Christians

In the example above, another definition is supported that is unsustainable via the application of simple logic. Atheists believe that reincarnation is a false belief as it involves the sustaining of a person's id after death followed by total or partial metempsychosis. Are all persons presently in mental hospitals who claim to actually be Napoleon Bonaparte truly him? Are all persons in the general population who claim to be the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte truly him? The answer from any atheist must be an absolute no in both cases, but only as far as they are willing to accept the true definition: Napoleon Bonaparte was a deceased historical figure who was emperor over a French empire. Likewise, it must follow logically that not all persons who say they are Christians must be Christians--even if many of them are Christians. Simple deductive logic tells us that a murderer hoping for clemency, for example, will claim to have found religion while on trial or in prison--some have, some really have not.

I personally agree with the TTA members that the NTS fallacy is a true logical fallacy, yet clearly we disagree not on the operation of the fallacy itself but on the definition of what a Christian is. One has to know that a true Scotsman is born in the country of Scotland to be able to say with impunity that sugar on one's porridge is not the real defining issue.

Likewise, there is a current thread where several people are avoiding entering the Boxing Ring with me to debate the existence of God as it is claimed that no true definition of God can exist. This is the kind of sophistry that frustrates those Christians who wish to debate atheists. You cannot logically hold both of the following positions simultaneously:

1. No god exists

2. No one can sufficiently define what a god is

Unless that is, there are no atheists, only agnostics (which would allow for #2 above, but still not offer conclusive proof for #1 above).

I am open to learn more, and I relish the opportunity to test my ideas here at TTA. I welcome your comments and pledge to read them with an open mind. Thank you.

The reason there is "no true Scotsman" is not the reason you state, nor does it require what you state. The reason is that there are an inifinte variety of definitions, not just one, all equally valid. Just like there are "true Christians" every bit as "christian" as you claim to be, who do NOT believe in "Jesus's atoning death and resurrection to take their sin, guilt and shame--in hope of Heaven--are Christians" ... and who indeed know much more about Christianity than you ever will.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: