Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-08-2015, 12:32 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 11:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 11:14 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  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.

I guess if that is true, some atheists would be able to define "god". Please do so now, right here, on this thread.

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
26-08-2015, 12:34 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]

But most Christians I know, including me, think most sects are A-Okay with us and with God, and only a few "sects" are actually destructive cults. Fortunately, the cults believe some wacky stuff. And most of the many Christian sects believe in mainly the same things. I've been to dozens of different churches as a believer and as a sometime worker in missions, etc. They are all basically believing the same stuff.

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
26-08-2015, 12:35 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(26-08-2015 12:32 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 11:20 AM)Chas Wrote:  "The tenets of atheism?" Seriously? Here's the entire list:
  • Not having a belief in any gods.

I guess if that is true, some atheists would be able to define "god". Please do so now, right here, on this thread.

Thanks!

You really don't seem to understand how this works.

Ignosticism and atheism are not exclusive positions.

"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
26-08-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 01:48 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 12:00 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  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.

Why do you seem unwilling to accept the following definition:

People who "really" follow Jesus will try as much as they can to do what He says in the Bible.

And before you disagree, isn't my statement true of anyone who follows anyone? I follow Tiger Woods in golf, I model my swing after his... I follow Richard Dawkins, I read his books and quote him to other people... I follow President Obama on Twitter and always read his tweets...

And isn't it true of any false person or hypocrite that they say X when they are doing Y? Isn't Josh Duggar being criticized by both Christians and non-Christians for saying "porn is wrong" and then not owning up to his addiction? Yes? No?

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
26-08-2015, 12:38 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 01:59 PM)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:  No True Christian talks meaningfully about logical fallacies.

I "liked" this post. It was very clever. Made me smile today. 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
26-08-2015, 12:39 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.

Are we back to you and Mark with your "We won't enter the Boxing Ring with Q because his resolutions aren't clearly defined"? COP OUT.

PS. Show me how incoherent I am by coming up with an acceptable definition of god right now! Ready... set... go!

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
26-08-2015, 12:44 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 03:30 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(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.

Oh, that is interesting. Would you say for ANY given term x, that there are "an infinite variety of definitions that are true..."? Because I think you have gotten overly drunk at the well of relativism, BB. That doesn't even hold for NTS! I think most of us would say something like:

A true Scotsman was born there OR feels like one inside OR has ancestors from Scotland OR... a few more things, but not an INFINITE amount of definitions. You are being... well... silly.

And for someone who claims to know the Bible as well as the historical and textual criticism which helps us understand and define it, you seem woefully ignorant that the word "Christian" means... "follower of Christ":

Strong's definition: Χριστιανός Christianós, khris-tee-an-os'; from G5547; a Christian, i.e. follower of Christ:—Christian.

I mean COME ON BB. Give me and yourself and all of us... a break. You sir, are no true Christian! Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 1 user Likes The Q Continuum's post
26-08-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 03:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Oh, Q-ball, you have had a hair across your ass about this for months.

Months ago, you committed the most obvious and glaring NTS fallacy when you responded to someone posting that some Christians do (whatever it was) with the clear statement that no true Christian does that.

You have been denying it ever since when it was and is obvious to everyone here that you did. You've shown a lack of understanding of what comprises the NTS fallacy, have claimed that your statement was not fallacious because you know what a true Christian is, and have now gone to the extremely stupid length of trying to re-define it.

Your ignorance and arrogance are on full display for all here to see. Well done. Thumbsup

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?

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
26-08-2015, 12:46 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(26-08-2015 12:39 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Show me how incoherent I am by coming up with an acceptable definition of god right now! Ready... set... go!

That really isn't how this works.

If someone asks you if you believe in a schmurple, but does not supply a coherent definition of the term, then you are quite capable of saying that you lack belief in schmurples, and it is not up to you to tell them what a schmurple is.

"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
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
26-08-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: Misuse of the No True Scotsman Fallacy
(20-08-2015 03:51 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 11:15 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  Very well. I appreciate your insight. True Scotsmen have Scottish citizenship. True Christians have heavenly citizenship.

Thanks.

So, Christians inhabit heaven? And you have proof of this?

Did I say that? I said they hold heavenly citizenship. If you think I am currently in my adopted land of Heaven, then you must also admit... our ISP works really well on the earthly Internet from here!

PS. True Scotsmen may hold Scottish citizenship while not being currently in Scotland.

PPS. Should I change my signature to "Faraway in Heaven since trusting Jesus some time ago!"

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: