An evening without Richard Dawkins

[Seth]

only those who follow the teachings of Jesus are in fact Christians

Define 'follow'.

I mean, surely people-burning Christians are sinners. But they're still Christians.

Nope.

[Azathoth]

Seth trots out the thoroughly discredited Pascal's wager, followed by the No true christian argument. What next, I wonder? Fancy trying to widen the Gap for God again? No, wait, you did that too. How about Irreducible complexity or Modal logic?

Same old, same old.

You got a problem with Pascal, bud?

Apart from him being wrong you mean? There are over 4000 religions about right now before you even get into dead ones. Which one would you like to wager on?

[Seth]

anyone who burns anyone anywhere is not a "christian."

Ah, the "no true christian" argument again. You're getting more repetitive.

only those who follow the teachings of Jesus are in fact Christians, and Jesus does not advocate burning anyone, which you would know if you'd bothered to study the religion so you could do more than talk out of your ass about it.

Who appointed you the arbiter of who is a christian and who is not?

Reason, logic and knowledge of course.

Will you tell the Westboro Baptists that they are not true christians,

Yes.

the Unitarians, or anyone in between?

Depends.

The witches of Salem were burnt by people holding the bible in their hands, and so are the Nigerian witches.

One hundred million people were killed by people holding the Communist Manifest in their hands. So what?

The bible itself is a very flexible book.

Not really.

In it can be found justification for anything under the sun, from witch burning through condemnation of homosexuality to slavery.

So? In the Communist Manifesto can be found the same justifications...by those who seek to justify evil acts.

If you think you can arbitrate which bits of the bible and what interpretations of them are part of true christianity, you are deluded.

Not really. I've read the New Testament you see, which overrules the Old Testament and changes all the rules for Christians.

If you try to tell us what they are, it is you who is talking out of your arse. I've done my bible studies in spades.

Evidently without much actual understanding.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

What ideology is that, pray tell?

You need to ask? OK, your particular brand of libertarianism.

You do understand that Libertarianism is a political and economic philosophy that has nothing whatever to do with religion, right?

[Seth]

anyone who burns anyone anywhere is not a "christian."

Ah, the "no true christian" argument again. You're getting more repetitive.

Oh, and predictably you avoid the bits that don't suit you, just as you dismiss statistics that fail to support your ideology.

So even Jesus isn't a "true Christian" by that reasoning. Seeing how Jesus is God and God burns for eternity anyone who doesn't kiss his ass.

Does he? Last I heard, Jesus redeemed all of mankind from that fate. Now, if you don't believe in Jesus you might not get to reside with him in heaven for all eternity, but there ain't no more hellfire because Jesus paid the price for everyone's sins.

Interesting.

No, ignorance on your part. Pretty typical ignorance at that.

Matthew 13:45-50.

13:45 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man, seeking goodly pearls:
13:46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.
13:47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:
13:48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.
13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,
13:50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

And who are "the wicked?" And who is the author of this passage? Jesus? Nope. Matthew.

[Animavore]

I would hate if this country ever became religious again. Look at the list of bulllshit that happened as a result of it.
Children raped by prests.

Criminal acts you won't find me defending.

Too scared of threats of hell and shame to tell. Even if they did tell the parents were generally too afraid of shame, excommunication and social exclusion to do anything. The kid might even get beat up and told 'not to tell tales about the Good Father'.

Criminal negligence on the part of parents which you won't find me defending.

Young girls who got raped and pregnant would be accused of being harlots and have their children taken off them while they get sent to the Magdeline Sisters for 're-education' (by the way watch the film The Magdeline Sisters if you haven't already to check out the appalling treatment of young women in these institutions) while the rapist got away. Single mothers, 'promiscuous' girls sent here also.

I've seen it several times. It's a horrible situation, but not reflective of all Catholics or all Catholic priests.

Women married to drunken, abusive and even incestuous men were stuck with their choice because divorce was considered such a mortal sin.

That's a personal choice. Nobody forced them to members of the Catholic church, and they were free to walk away any time they wanted to do so.

People used to cross the street if a priest was walking up the path to clear a way for him.

So? What business is it of yours if people of faith choose to show respect to their priest? Nobody demands that YOU do so, so who cares what the faithful do, it's their free choice.

These are a short list of things that have happened to people in my community. People I know. Lives have been fucked up and ruined and all because of the silence generated when people are afraid of orthodoxy.

Cowardice is its own punishment. And faith is voluntary. Beyond those crimes done to people by force by particular priests even Catholicism in Ireland is a voluntary religion that anyone can reject at any time, particularly nowadays.

Should we tolerate this? I think toleration is the root of the problem here. Now I have strong levels of toleration. I have friends of all shades of life and a richer outlook as a consequence because I don't suffer the close-mindedness that would prevent me taking to a person because of who they are. But I don't and won't tolerate the intolerable.

Of course you should not tolerate such things if they are not peaceable acts and they are being perpetrated against persons against their will. On the other hand, if someone chooses to voluntarily participate in some act of faith, that's their right as a free individual.

But then again the malefactions of some Irish priests are not reflective of the actions of every Catholic on the planet, and not even of the majority of Catholic priests, of whom there are nearly half a million. So far, the count of Catholic priests who have been proven to have engaged in such acts is around 4000. Compare that to the approximately one billion Catholics on earth, that's a very small proportion of evil people who happened to worm their way into the church, generally precisely in order to abuse children because they were pedophiles seeking an organization that gave them access to children, as the result of lax screening and security by the church during the Vatican II reformations of the 60s.

Virtually all of the complaints about pedophile priests come from that period more than 40 years ago, and there are very, very few recent incidents because the church as taken strong measures to protect children as a result of the scandal, and the church is now among the safest organizations on earth for children. But that's not something Atheists are prepared to acknowledge because of their blind, unreasoning hatred of religion in general.

Public schools are thousands of times more risky for children, as demonstrated by the research on public school teacher sex abuse of students, which is estimated to be on the order of five MILLION schoolchildren molested EVERY YEAR.

You might want to redirect some of your outrage at that problem.

I do NOT defend the criminal actions of priests of any religion, or those who actively conspire to protect them from the law, but I also recognize that such malefactors are a very, very small part of an enormous body of people who call themselves "Catholics," (or who may be part of other peaceable religions) and that the overwhelming majority of believers and priests alike are entirely innocent of such wrongdoing and that it is irrational, unreasoning hatred and bias that causes people like you to condemn all Catholics for the crimes of a few.

Have some perspective.

This is the funniest shit I've read all day.
I have got perspective. I'm from a Catholic country. It's you that has no perspective here.

Anyway. I'm not going to stand here and let you twist my arguments all day to suit what you want them to say.

Good day to you.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

"No True Christian"? Did you really go there, Seeth?

[Exi5tentialist]

I mean, surely people-burning Christians are sinners. But they're still Christians.

Nope.

Based on what?

[Seth]

I mean, surely people-burning Christians are sinners. But they're still Christians.

Nope.

Based on what?

They don't comport with the tenets of Christianity.

[Exi5tentialist]

I mean, surely people-burning Christians are sinners. But they're still Christians.

Nope.

Based on what?

They don't comport with the tenets of Christianity.

But Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” He came for the people-burners didn't he?

[Seth]

"No True Christian"? Did you really go there, Seeth?

If you claim to be a Republican but you fail to support Republican policies and principles and instead support liberal, progressive or Marxists policies and principles, you're a "RINO" or Republican in Name Only. If you're a Marxist who doesn't believe in income redistribution and socialism, you're a "MINO" or Marxist in Name Only. If you're a Christian who advocates burning witches, which goes against everything Christ taught, you're a "CINO" or Christian in Name Only. Therefore, you are not actually a Christian, who are by definition, followers of Christ and his teachings, which don't happen to include burning people because they are suspected of being witches.

You are lamely and ignorantly attempting to distort the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, which does not apply in this case.

Let's examine the "no true Scotsman" fallacy using a favored Atheist source as a reference:

Fallacy Name:
No True Scotsman Fallacy

Alternative Names:
None

Category:
Fallacy of Ambiguity, Fallacy of Presumption


Explanation

This is actually a combination of several fallacies, but since it rests ultimately on shifting the meaning of terms — a form of equivocation — and begging the question, it receives special attention.

The name “No True Scotsman” comes from an odd example involving Scotsmen:

1. Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge. I then say “Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”

Obviously the original assertion about Scotsmen has been challenged quite well, but in attempting to shore it up the speaker uses an ad hoc change combined with a shifted meaning of the words from the original.


Examples and Discussion

How this fallacy can be used is perhaps easier to see in this example from Anthony Flew’s book Thinking about Thinking — or do I sincerely want to be right?:

2. Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Press and Journal and seeing an article about how the ‘Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again’. Hamish is shocked and declares that “No Scotsman would do such a thing”. The next day he sits down to read his Press and Journal again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, “No true Scotsman would do such a thing”.

You can change this to any other bad act and any group you like to get a similar argument — and you’ll get an argument which has probably been used at some point. A common one which is often heard when a religion or religious group is criticized is:

3. Our religion teaches people to be kind and peaceful and loving. Anyone who does evil acts certainly isn’t acting in a loving manner, therefore they can’t really be a true member of our religion, no matter what they say.
But of course, the exact same argument can be made for any group — a political party, a philosophical position, etc. Here is a real life example of how this fallacy can be used:

4. Another good example is abortion, our government has such a small Christian influence that the courts have ruled it’s ok to kill babies now. Typical. The people who support legalized abortion but claim to be Christians don’t really follow Jesus — they have lost their way.

In an effort to argue that abortion is wrong, it is assumed that Christianity is inherently and automatifcally opposed to abortion (begging the question). In order to do this, it is further argued that no one who supports legalized abortion — for any reason — can really be a Christian (equivocation through an ad hoc redefinition of the term “Christian”).

Similar arguments are made regarding a host of controversial political, social and economic questions: real Christians can’t be for (or against) capital punishment, real Christians can’t be for (or against) socialism, real Christians can’t be for (or against) drug legalization, etc. We even see it with atheists: real atheists can’t have irrational beliefs, real atheists cannot believe in anything supernatural, etc.

This "explanation" of the fallacy is both self-serving and incorrect and here's why:

The basis of the "No True Scotsman (NTS) fallacy" is that of equivocation or begging the question. In the classic form, the author commits the fallacy of equivocation because one's status as a Scotsman has nothing whatever to do with whether or not one puts sugar on his porridge. One either is or is not a Scotsman based on whether or not one is a citizen of Scotland.

Thus, the redefinition of the argument as being determinable as a function of sugar/porridge preference is an equivocation to the fundamental premises of the argument, which is that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge, an assertion that is disproven by Angus the Scotsman's preference for sugar on his porridge.

The failure of the author of the "analysis" above is one of failing to recognize that while assignment to the class "Scotsman" is dependent only on the place of one's citizenship, the assignment to the class "Christian" (or merely "religion" in the red highlighted text above) is entirely dependent upon obedience to the tenets and practices of the particular religion involved. One is not either a Christian or not a Christian based only on one's location or personal claim to that status, one is only a Christian if one acts in conformity with the doctrines and teachings of Christ, as Christ himself stated. The Greek word "christianos" means "those who belong to Christ." One cannot "belong to Christ" if one does not follow Christ's teachings.

"true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth" John 4:23.
"they that worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth" John 4:24.
"Then he said to them all: 'If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.'" Luke 9:23

Therefore, it is not an invocation of the NTS fallacy to state that no true Christian would burn people for witchcraft because Christ did not command his true followers to do so. If one burns people for witchcraft, one does so outside of Christ's teachings, which reserves punishment for sin to God, not man. Therefore one cannot be a true Christian because one no more meets the criteria for being a true Christian than does a person who is a citizen of Bangladesh meet the criteria for being a Scotsman.

Christianity is as Christianity does, and those who do evil in the name of Christianity are not performing Christian acts and cannot be Christians, no matter what they call themselves.

The author fails in the blue highlighted text in the same manner because it is a fact, as I pointed out above, that if one does not follow the polices and platforms of a particular political party, one cannot justifiably claim to be a member of that political party.

It comes down to analyzing carefully what the criteria are that include someone in a group and whether there is a rational connection to the premise of the arguments in determining whether the NTS fallacy has taken place.

In the classic example, the fallacy is committed because sugar preference is not determinative of classification as a Scotsman, but adherence to Christian doctrine is determinative of classification as a Christian. If one applied the same sugar argument to Christians, the fallacy would be committed because Christ says nothing about preferring or not preferring sugar on one's porridge. Christ, however, is pretty darned clear about who is a Christian and who is not and to whom judgment for sin is reserved, and it's not any human being.

So yes, I do use the "no true Christian" argument because it's a perfectly valid argument to make. It's your fallacious reference to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that is invalid, likely because you don't actually understand it. I hope I've helped you to use better logic and reasoning here.

[Seth]

I mean, surely people-burning Christians are sinners. But they're still Christians.

Nope.

Based on what?

They don't comport with the tenets of Christianity.

But Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” He came for the people-burners didn't he?

Of course, but it's up to them to choose to follow him, change their wicked ways, repent of their sins and seek his absolution. Jesus does not force himself on anyone, they must come to him freely, of their own will, and with a true heart in order to be within his flock. Those who choose to do evil, sin, refuse the gift of salvation and are unrepentant will not abide with him in heaven, so he says.

Jesus may come for people-burners and offer them salvation, but they are under no compulsion to receive it.

[Seth]

I have got perspective. I'm from a Catholic country. It's you that has no perspective here.

Really? So you believe that every single Catholic, and every single Catholic priest is guilty of child molestation and criminal acts against others? Who does and does not have the perspective here again?

Anyway. I'm not going to stand here and let you twist my arguments all day to suit what you want them to say.

Ah, the Monty Python classic: "Run away! Run away!"

Perhaps it's your arguments that are weak and have failed under load, which would explain your reluctance to defend them. It might help you to examine the flaws in your arguments so that you can improve them. Perhaps then they will then stand up to critical scrutiny, reason, and logic.

It's my purpose to put your arguments to the test precisely so that you can discover the flaws that make them weak, correct those flaws using reason and logic rather than irrationality, bigotry and bias, and restate them as strong arguments.

You're welcome.

[Exi5tentialist]

Of course, but it's up to them to choose to follow him, change their wicked ways, repent of their sins and seek his absolution. Jesus does not force himself on anyone, they must come to him freely, of their own will, and with a true heart in order to be within his flock. Those who choose to do evil, sin, refuse the gift of salvation and are unrepentant will not abide with him in heaven, so he says.

So presumably once these barbaric Nigerian savages repent you'll be happy to call them Christians again? People-burning therefore constitutes a temporary suspension from christianity?

[Animavore]

I have got perspective. I'm from a Catholic country. It's you that has no perspective here.

Really? So you believe that every single Catholic, and every single Catholic priest is guilty of child molestation and criminal acts against others? Who does and does not have the perspective here again?

Anyway. I'm not going to stand here and let you twist my arguments all day to suit what you want them to say.

Ah, the Monty Python classic: "Run away! Run away!"

Perhaps it's your arguments that are weak and have failed under load, which would explain your reluctance to defend them. It might help you to examine the flaws in your arguments so that you can improve them. Perhaps then they will then stand up to critical scrutiny, reason, and logic.

It's my purpose to put your arguments to the test precisely so that you can discover the flaws that make them weak, correct those flaws using reason and logic rather than irrationality, bigotry and bias, and restate them as strong arguments.

You're welcome.

Yeah. You see. This I never said. Or anything close.

Good bye.

[Seth]

Of course, but it's up to them to choose to follow him, change their wicked ways, repent of their sins and seek his absolution. Jesus does not force himself on anyone, they must come to him freely, of their own will, and with a true heart in order to be within his flock. Those who choose to do evil, sin, refuse the gift of salvation and are unrepentant will not abide with him in heaven, so he says.

So presumably once these barbaric Nigerian savages repent you'll be happy to call them Christians again? People-burning therefore constitutes a temporary suspension from christianity?

That would be up to God, not me. In the meantime, temporal authority should punish them appropriately, as Jesus suggested is proper.