Originally posted by googlefudge
"No True Scotsman" argument... nice.

So now you claim I have a playbook I pull arguments out of?

Don't be daft. I'm not nearly as good at it as some here.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So now you claim I have a playbook I pull arguments out of?

Don't be daft. I'm not nearly as good at it as some here.

wow you owned again, you must be getting used to it by now

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
wow you owned again, you must be getting used to it by now

I don't believe I was talking to you. Take your opportunistic bias elsewhere.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So now you claim I have a playbook I pull arguments out of?

Don't be daft. I'm not nearly as good at it as some here.

No, you just made a no true Scotsman fallacy in your argument.

Whether you intended to do so or not I don't know, but that's what you did.

Perhaps if you were less disdainful of logic, you would make fewer logical errors.

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Chinese_history

As can be seen from the article from Wikipedia, any time before 2194 B.C. is a part of Chinese mythology and can't be trusted. This time date is clearly long after the worldwide flood of Noah's day. This would be about 4200 years ago and bible scholars generally estimate the worldwide flood to be 4400 - 4500 years ago.

Here is one study:

http://davelivingston.com/flooddate.htm

Here is one study:

http://davelivingston.com/flooddate.htm



did you notice that the section of the study dealing with carbon dating uses references mainly from the 1960's with the most modern claiming carbon dating is not accurate being from 1985!!!!

Originally posted by Suzianne
Christians do the right thing, it's these "claimed" Christians, or evil men "posing" as Christians that are the problem. God does guide Christians. Exactly what would you have Him do about these evil men? Stop their hearts in their sleep? One reason evil exists is to weed out the weakest Christians. Another reason evil exists is to temper, or strengthen, Christians.

The bible is full of people who were "true" believers, yet comitted acts that were evill Saul started out very comitted, but slowly turned into an evil king. David slept with another man's wife, and then killed him to keep it secret. Solomon, who wrote two books of the bible, turned away from God and worshipped other deities. Peter denied even knowing Jesus during Jesus' most crucial hour...on 3 separate occasions. Paul persecuted and murdered Christians.

By your standards, these men were never "true" believers who loved and revered God; yet, the bible clearly shows that they were. This means then, that the Christians who commited evil acts after them (Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) may not have all been "evil". It means that the bible failed in what it promised to, and did so very often.

Lastly, regarding your question about "what should God have done", and and should he have "stopped their hearts": you do realize we're talking about a god that wiped all almost all of mankind with a flood, right? You know, the same god that killed a man for not impregnating his dead brother's wife? The same god that killed all the first-born Egyptians because Pharoah wouldn't let the Hebrews go...due to God hardening Pharaoh's heart about it? The same god that killed 70 men just for looking in the Ark of the Covenant? The same god who killed a man for touching the Ark, when the Ark would've fallen and shattered had he not done so? The same god that killed 70,000 men just because David counted his army? So why then, would God not stop "evil men" from commiting atrocities in the name of Christianity?

Originally posted by googlefudge
"No True Scotsman" argument... nice.

Is that a bit like the "no true Muslim" or the "no true scientist" arguments?

Originally posted by divegeester
Is that a bit like the "no true Muslim" or the "no true scientist" arguments?

That would really depend on what the hell you are talking about.

Originally posted by googlefudge
That would really depend on what the hell you are talking about.

If it can be demonstrated that one who claims to be for example, a Christian and yet they demonstrate behavior of the profession of ideals that are at odds with Christianity, for example denying that Jesus was a real historical person, are they also part of the logical fallacy of a No true Scotsman or in this instance a No true Christian? or does the fallacy simply lie in the fact that its illogical to use the term, appealing to reason on the basis that no true Christian would not do such and such?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If it can be demonstrated that one who claims to be for example, a Christian and yet they demonstrate behavior of the profession of ideals that are at odds with Christianity, for example denying that Jesus was a real historical person, are they also part of the logical fallacy of a No true Scotsman or in this instance a No true Christian? or does the ...[text shortened]... se the term, appealing to reason on the basis that no true Christian would not do such and such?

It's a fallacy if you can't prove who is a Christian and who isn't, based on your "no true" statement. Suzianne can't prove which "evil men" were "true" Christians and which ones weren't. It's the same way that a Christian who witnessed Paul persecute and murder other Christians, couldn't say that Paul wasn't a "true believer" in God based on his actions. That's because despite Paul's evils, the bible says he believed in God, but was incredibly zealous.

The statement "no true Christians are carrots" would be correct.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
If it can be demonstrated that one who claims to be for example, a Christian and yet they demonstrate behavior of the profession of ideals that are at odds with Christianity, for example denying that Jesus was a real historical person, are they also part of the logical fallacy of a No true Scotsman or in this instance a No true Christian? or does the ...[text shortened]... se the term, appealing to reason on the basis that no true Christian would not do such and such?

Which version of Christianity?

Who's interpretation of the bible?

Which bible?

There are hundreds of denominations and offshoots, who am I as an atheist
to tell someone that they are not a 'True Christian'?
And when a member of one group calls a member of another "not a 'True
Christian/believer' then who should I believe? And on what grounds?



Also, Suzianne's argument was that [and I am paraphrasing] "anyone who does
something bad or evil was never really a Christian, as no 'True Christian' could
ever do anything bad."

The reason this is a No True Scotsman [NTS] fallacy is because it retrospectively makes
anyone who does something Suzianne admits is bad not a Christian. So someone
could be considered to be a True Christian right up to the point that they did
something bad... At which point they magically cease to have ever been a True
Christian. Classic NTS fallacy. [it's by no means the only problem with her argument
but it's probably the first and biggest.]

Now if you had a very clear and universally agreed upon set of criteria for determining
who is a True Christian that you could apply universally and objectively then you could
look at those who match up and those that don't and see if those that do match up do
'bad things' or not.

However if you make 'doing bad things' one of the criteria then you are just trying to define
the problem away and are committing the NTS fallacy.


In this instance it is not agreed upon what constitutes a 'True Christian', and we could aptly
demonstrate this by having all the people claiming to be Christians on this site participate
in a thread in which they try to hash it out and come to an agreed upon definition and
test. I'm willing to bet* that you wouldn't even all be able to agree who should participate in
the discussion.

*metaphorically speaking. I don't actually bet on anything

Originally posted by vivify
It's a fallacy if you can't prove who is a Christian and who isn't, based on your "no true" statement. Suzianne can't prove which "evil men" were "true" Christians and which ones weren't. It's the same way that a Christian who witnessed Paul persecute and murder other Christians, couldn't say that Paul wasn't a "true believer" in God based on his actions. ...[text shortened]... but was incredibly zealous.

The statement "no true Christians are carrots" would be correct.

But this was my thought, notice what I said, if it can be demonstrated that someone is not living up to Christian requirements or standards then surely its possible to say that they are or are not a true Christian.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Which version of Christianity?

Who's interpretation of the bible?

Which bible?

There are hundreds of denominations and offshoots, who am I as an atheist
to tell someone that they are not a 'True Christian'?
And when a member of one group calls a member of another "not a 'True
Christian/believer' then who should I believe? And on what ground ...[text shortened]... cipate in
the discussion.

*metaphorically speaking. I don't actually bet on anything

I don't think stating that because something is open to interpretation it makes it a valid criteria for determining whether an argument is a logical fallacy or otherwise. Surely it would be much better to look at the standards of a particular stance and then be able to evaluate to what degree those who profess to adhere to those standards really are doing so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
But this was my thought, notice what I said, if it can be demonstrated that someone is not living up to Christian requirements or standards then surely its possible to say that they are not a true Christian.

And the point is that there is no standardised "Christian Requirements" to compare them to.