The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

[burd]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Nut and worse descriptions are derogatory terms that have been applied here to all Christians for months/years. Bigotry is being applied now for posters who by a strict definition have displayed a behavior by posting continuous 'intolerant' and derogatory blanket comments towards Christians. You can't see a difference?

I'm struggling to. What is the "strict definition you speak of?" I asked Bob for just a couple of examples of Christian bigotry and he thought it was completely unnecessary.

It looks to me as if you feel the difference is that the accused bigots were, in fact, bigots, while the other derogatory terms were undeserved. If true, that belongs in the chapter dealing with cognitive dissonance and what we do to avoid it.

But it is certainly possible I just missed your point.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Let me help you out there

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zzSqL--d_I

As an extra plus, note the inevitability of the Godwin which you happened to mention a few posts back.

Just looked into this. Kep and UNO are vets at this propaganda stuff. No wonder the 'facts' discussion didn't get anywhere. As it turns out, no true scotsman is basically required posting for all atheists and its use to attempt to evade facts is legendary. Or as one blogger says about the NTS :

There is a ploy (NTS) practiced by many atheist of the type who inhabit places such as the Secular Web and Infidel guy. It's been so institutionalized it's almost a mortar. In fact I've seen this kind of things so many times now, when the Christian apologists get together they can stamp it out, but no soon will they rid the net of one institutionalized atheist fallacy, than another will rear its ugly head.

One institute took care of NTS in reference to Hitler but this example could apply to any incident that showed zero relationship to Jesus.

Too often, the Skeptic will operate, or expect others to operate, under the misimpression that the NTS fallacy refers to ANY instance of eliminating an object (Y) from set(X). But as demonstrated above, the fallacy becomes valid when set (X) and (Y) are nonintersecting. Since “Scotsman” has no relation to culinary tastes, the sets are capable of intersecting...

So when one says that Adolf Hitler is no true Christian, one is not committing the NTS fallacy. “Christian” is a label referring to religious and philosophical beliefs being held by the believer. Since Hitler’s actions, words, and expressed philosophies and professed beliefs are outside of, and in many cases contrary to, the belief set of Christianity, it is (barring a deathbed conversion for which there is no evidence whatsoever) valid to say that Hitler was not a Christian. Set X (Christianity) does NOT intersect set Y (Hitler’s beliefs [ Nazism ]), and thus object Y (Adolf Hitler) is not an object X (Christian).

In conclusion, Skeptics need to either learn to understand the basics of the logic they claim to be able to hurl about, or find a different field to criticize from.

The big problem is that everyone here assumes that the label must be accurate 100%. As I'm making the labels now, Lynah=Hitler. That's because Lynah and Hitler are both Texans. Afterall, the bs claim is that everything MUST be what its label is.

Regardless, I expect these posters to go back to NTS...they've shown themselves incapable of any other argument.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Just looked into this. Kep and UNO are vets at this propaganda stuff. No wonder the 'facts' discussion didn't get anywhere. As it turns out, no true scotsman is basically required posting for all atheists and its use to attempt to evade facts is legendary. Or as one blogger says about the NTS :

There is a ploy (NTS) practiced by many atheist of the type who inhabit places such as the Secular Web and Infidel guy. It's been so institutionalized it's almost a mortar. In fact I've seen this kind of things so many times now, when the Christian apologists get together they can stamp it out, but no soon will they rid the net of one institutionalized atheist fallacy, than another will rear its ugly head.

One institute took care of NTS in reference to Hitler but this example could apply to any incident that showed zero relationship to Jesus.

Too often, the Skeptic will operate, or expect others to operate, under the misimpression that the NTS fallacy refers to ANY instance of eliminating an object (Y) from set(X). But as demonstrated above, the fallacy becomes valid when set (X) and (Y) are nonintersecting. Since “Scotsman” has no relation to culinary tastes, the sets are capable of intersecting...

So when one says that Adolf Hitler is no true Christian, one is not committing the NTS fallacy. “Christian” is a label referring to religious and philosophical beliefs being held by the believer. Since Hitler’s actions, words, and expressed philosophies and professed beliefs are outside of, and in many cases contrary to, the belief set of Christianity, it is (barring a deathbed conversion for which there is no evidence whatsoever) valid to say that Hitler was not a Christian. Set X (Christianity) does NOT intersect set Y (Hitler’s beliefs [ Nazism ]), and thus object Y (Adolf Hitler) is not an object X (Christian).

In conclusion, Skeptics need to either learn to understand the basics of the logic they claim to be able to hurl about, or find a different field to criticize from.

The big problem is that everyone here assumes that the label must be accurate 100%. As I'm making the labels now, Lynah=Hitler. That's because Lynah and Hitler are both Texans. Afterall, the bs claim is that everything MUST be what its label is.

Regardless, I expect these posters to go back to NTS...they've shown themselves incapable of any other argument.

Whoever wrote those italics is a fool. Under that standard, there is not now, nor has there ever been a true Christian. Every person sins, so therefore everyone has exhibited actions and words outside of or contrary to, Christianity, so you can keep paring down your set of Christians until there is literally no one left. That is *exactly* the gist of the NTS fallacy, and the italics' author has missed it completely.

You really need to focus, read the arguments people are *actually* making on this thread, and construct some relevant responses. You are borrowing all kinds of offense where none has been given and reflexively lashing out with any and every defense of Christianity you can grasp onto.

 

[unofan]

Just looked into this. Kep and UNO are vets at this propaganda stuff. No wonder the 'facts' discussion didn't get anywhere. As it turns out, no true scotsman is basically required posting for all atheists and its use to attempt to evade facts is legendary. Or as one blogger says about the NTS :

There is a ploy (NTS) practiced by many atheist of the type who inhabit places such as the Secular Web and Infidel guy. It's been so institutionalized it's almost a mortar. In fact I've seen this kind of things so many times now, when the Christian apologists get together they can stamp it out, but no soon will they rid the net of one institutionalized atheist fallacy, than another will rear its ugly head.

One institute took care of NTS in reference to Hitler but this example could apply to any incident that showed zero relationship to Jesus.

Too often, the Skeptic will operate, or expect others to operate, under the misimpression that the NTS fallacy refers to ANY instance of eliminating an object (Y) from set(X). But as demonstrated above, the fallacy becomes valid when set (X) and (Y) are nonintersecting. Since “Scotsman” has no relation to culinary tastes, the sets are capable of intersecting...

So when one says that Adolf Hitler is no true Christian, one is not committing the NTS fallacy. “Christian” is a label referring to religious and philosophical beliefs being held by the believer. Since Hitler’s actions, words, and expressed philosophies and professed beliefs are outside of, and in many cases contrary to, the belief set of Christianity, it is (barring a deathbed conversion for which there is no evidence whatsoever) valid to say that Hitler was not a Christian. Set X (Christianity) does NOT intersect set Y (Hitler’s beliefs [ Nazism ]), and thus object Y (Adolf Hitler) is not an object X (Christian).

In conclusion, Skeptics need to either learn to understand the basics of the logic they claim to be able to hurl about, or find a different field to criticize from.

The big problem is that everyone here assumes that the label must be accurate 100%. As I'm making the labels now, Lynah=Hitler. That's because Lynah and Hitler are both Texans. Afterall, the bs claim is that everything MUST be what its label is.

Regardless, I expect these posters to go back to NTS...they've shown themselves incapable of any other argument.

Just so we're clear, you are free to argue whatever you want. But your grasp of logic is lacking, so don't ever claim you have it on your side. Because you don't.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Whoever wrote those italics is a fool. Under that standard, there is not now, nor has there ever been a true Christian. Every person sins, so therefore everyone has exhibited actions and words outside of or contrary to, Christianity, so you can keep paring down your set of Christians until there is literally no one left. That is *exactly* the gist of the NTS fallacy, and the italics' author has missed it completely.

You really need to focus, read the arguments people are *actually* making on this thread, and construct some relevant responses. You are borrowing all kinds of offense where none has been given and reflexively lashing out with any and every defense of Christianity you can grasp onto.

We have hit an Eternal September problem. One can't work with a poster who is wrong if once it's been explained how he is wrong he doubles down and accuses his interlocutor of being wrong. I don't know what his motives are: he could be malicious or inept or just a really good troll, but in any case we're teaching a pig to sing, and at this point that's on us.

We've actually been fortunate in this thread to not have run into this before, because if you look at the broader internet it's rife in religious forums -- it seems to be the way a non-trivial subset of arguers immunize themselves against logical analysis, particularly when it comes to the religion and politics. The best way to deal is probably to point out the original logical error (which you've done) and then disengage. Otherwise it's like arguing with the kid who says "Oh yeah?!" after everything you say. After a couple iterations, it's on the adult to walk away.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

We have hit an Eternal September problem. One can't work with a poster who is wrong if once it's been explained how he is wrong he doubles down and accuses his interlocutor of being wrong. I don't know what his motives are: he could be malicious or inept or just a really good troll, but in any case we're teaching a pig to sing, and at this point that's on us.

We've actually been fortunate in this thread to not have run into this before, because if you look at the broader internet it's rife in religious forums -- it seems to be the way a non-trivial subset of arguers immunize themselves against logical analysis, particularly when it comes to the religion and politics. The best way to deal is probably to point out the original logical error (which you've done) and then disengage. Otherwise it's like arguing with the kid who says "Oh yeah?!" after everything you say. After a couple iterations, it's on the adult to walk away.

Both sides think they hit the Eternal September problem. Pretty obvious. Of course you're really really the one that's right, as we hear from you constantly.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Both sides think they hit the Eternal September problem. Pretty obvious. Of course you're really really the one that's right, as we hear from you constantly.

In a genuine religious discussion, who asserts that they're really, really the one that's wrong?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Both sides think they hit the Eternal September problem. Pretty obvious. Of course you're really really the one that's right, as we hear from you constantly.

Of course you're the one that's really right, as we hear your deep, patient, put-upon sighs constantly.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

In a genuine religious discussion, who asserts that they're really, really the one that's wrong?

The best response to a religious discussion I've heard is, "I don't know, and you don't either." That is how to deflate fundyism of all stripes.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The best response to a religious discussion I've heard is, "I don't know, and you don't either." That is how to deflate fundyism of all stripes.

I was going to reply to this thread a while ago, after the discussions began anew, but decided to sit it out this time and let the popcorn show entertain instead.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

In a genuine religious discussion, who asserts that they're really, really the one that's wrong?

That's a different kettle of fish than this Eternal September idea Kepler brought in where you say the other side is just wrong and can't be reasoned with. There can be recognition that the other side has legitimate perspectives and arguments despite not agreeing with them. Yah, I know, we see that kind of recognition all too rarely.

Not sure why you ask what you ask.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The best response to a religious discussion I've heard is, "I don't know, and you don't either." That is how to deflate fundyism of all stripes.

That's incredibly rich coming from you who constantly belittle those with religious beliefs and insist for example anyone who takes anything religious literally is a total wack job.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

The theory of relativity states that what a person observes is not the same for every observer: two different observers can observe the same phenomenon, see different things, and both be absolutely "correct" in what they see. In physics, a person "in motion" will often see something different than a "stationary" observer (I am on a moving train, I drop something: to me it falls "straight" to the floor, but someone standing on a platform looking through the window sees me drop something and it then falls to the floor at an angle).

We all know this truth at some level, yet in these "conversations" about religion, somehow everyone forgets that basic knowledge and becomes obsessive that what they see is "the" only truth.


Kind of sad, the less we know directly, the more certain we become....


It seems reasonable to me that some people can honestly assert that God has direct influence in their life, while others can honestly assert that God makes no difference in their life. Since each person is speaking subjective truth, how can we tell if we are on the train or on the platform? After all, I might be on a stationary train and the platform could be moving backward!

 

[unofan]

That's incredibly rich coming from you who constantly belittle those with religious beliefs and insist for example anyone who takes anything religious literally is a total wack job.

Not anything. We can start with the creation myth in Genesis and work from there. If you take that literally and believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, you are as much a wack job as any moon landing denier.

 

[burd]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

I have it on good information that 5mn and some others understood we were talking about Zach Parise this entire time. Understandable misunderstanding, and it would explain a few things.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Whoever wrote those italics is a fool. Under that standard, there is not now, nor has there ever been a true Christian. Every person sins, so therefore everyone has exhibited actions and words outside of or contrary to, Christianity, so you can keep paring down your set of Christians until there is literally no one left. That is *exactly* the gist of the NTS fallacy, and the italics' author has missed it completely.

You really need to focus, read the arguments people are *actually* making on this thread, and construct some relevant responses. You are borrowing all kinds of offense where none has been given and reflexively lashing out with any and every defense of Christianity you can grasp onto.

I address responses in every single post...as with this one. Usually others change the subject.

Good, somebody is getting to the relevance of labels. We know there are true Scotsmen by definition. Its knowable who is and who is not of Scottish decent.

Groups of 'good people' or 'tennis players' or Christians must be defined or NTS will frequently be wrong. Christians are not defined as 'having no sin'. Christians by definition base their worship/behavior on the 'life and teachings of Jesus'...again Wiki the world's most scrutinized definition. Adolf Hitler does not fit (and neither do other examples that go solidly against Jesus teachings)...and so you can't trust a label which can be a lie.

Just so we're clear, you are free to argue whatever you want. But your grasp of logic is lacking, so don't ever claim you have it on your side. Because you don't.

Are you the internet authority on logic? Nobody even knows what your logic is.

But I don't really care. Because you have provided no facts. Zero. And so aren't even in the game.

 

[unofan]

Are you the internet authority on logic? Nobody even knows what your logic is.

But I don't really care. Because you have provided no facts. Zero. And so aren't even in the game.

Logic is a binary condition. Either something is logical or it's not. Your arguments when it comes to defending Christianity are not logical. That doesn't make them wrong per se, but you don't need to be an expert to drive gaping holes through them as you are currently expressing them.

If you say: St. Louis Cardinals play baseball the right way.
I respond: What about the *** that was Jim Edmonds?
You respond: Well, he was never a true Cardinal.

That is no different than what you're saying currently and have been saying throughout these threads.

You: Christendom has been solely a force for good.
Us: What about the times when it wasn't?
You: Well those weren't true Christians doing those deeds (never minding the fact that some of them were done by the Pope, who for 1500 years was the sole leader and ultimate voice of what constituted Christendom).

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

That's incredibly rich coming from you who constantly belittle those with religious beliefs and insist for example anyone who takes anything religious literally is a total wack job.

I know you think that's true, but it's not. Fundies are whack jobs -- they've completely missed the point and think the map is the territory. Until they crawl back under their rock I'll belittle them -- they're dangerous to a free society.

I have no issue with any other group of believers. Most people invent frames to hang meaning on because meaning has no ground in the universe -- the universe does not give a crap about the human invention of "purpose." The more frames the merrier; just don't delude yourself into thinking your frame is anything more than a game with a made-up rule book.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: The Bible: Real, Fiction, or somewhere in between?

Here's the problem with the way you guys are approaching any of this discussion...

Several of us have talked about how the GOP is struggling to make their case of what they would do to run the country. They have become the party of 'no' and in the end, are really just best suited as an opposition party. Their followers have been fed lots of opinion and so are weak on facts. They are very critical of everything...but in the end, have nothing they can propose because they have no facts/information.

Atheism in this particular discussion is just like that image of the GOP, and you followers are like their adherents. You're just critical and just as ideological news outlets, you have nothing else to fall back on. The big problem is a total lack of facts to offer any alternative and therefore, you are strictly limited in your criticism of everything. The outcome is that you'll never have anything to propose...no solution. Is it just this discussion where atheism is just 'no' or perhaps all atheism is...is just an ideology of 'no'.

Logic is a binary condition. Either something is logical or it's not. Your arguments when it comes to defending Christianity are not logical. That didn't make them wrong per se, but you don't need to be an expert to drive gaping holes through them as you are currently expressing them.

NTS doesn't work when the label of an object isn't accurate. If that's not binary, it looks like your view of logic is in a bind.

 

[unofan]

Here's the problem with the way you guys are approaching any of this discussion...

Several of us have talked about how the GOP is struggling to make their case of what they would do to run the country. They have become the party of 'no' and in the end, are really just best suited as an opposition party. Their followers have been fed lots of opinion and so are weak on facts. They are very critical of everything...but in the end, have nothing they can propose because they have no facts/information.

Atheism in this particular discussion is just like that image of the GOP, and you followers are like their adherents. You're just critical and just as ideological news outlets, you have nothing else to fall back on. The big problem is a total lack of facts to offer any alternative and therefore, you are strictly limited in your criticism of everything. The outcome is that you'll never have anything to propose...no solution. Is it just this discussion where atheism is just 'no' or perhaps all atheism is...is just an ideology of 'no'.



NTS doesn't work when the label of an object isn't accurate. If that's not binary, it looks like your view of logic is in a bind.

So you're sticking by your assertion that the person holding the title of "Vicar of Christ" among others isn't a true Christian when doing bad acts (but is when he does true Christian acts). Got it.