1 John 4:1 compared to The No True Scotsman Fallacy and sophisms

[The Grand Nudger]

Surprise surprise...there are rules for who gets to be a christian and who doesn't...and I bet you know -exactly- what they are.......lol.

[RoadRunner79]

Is it wise to think popular logic is logical ?

We may discuss.

True logic has nothing to do with popularity. it can be popular and at the same time a logical conclusion can be shunned.

So to answer your question yes it is wise, if the conclusion (popular or not) is logical.

What does this have to do with discerning a false PROPHET (not christian as you later point out) and a NTS fallacy?

Are you trying to defeat the logical fallacy? If so that is easily done in that Their are rules concerning what qualifies and disqualifies one as being a 'true Christian.' Where as their are no rules (aside from citizenship) of what qualifies a 'true scotsman.' The Fallacy points to a personal judgement as being the only qualifier as to who is and is not a scotsman, while a 'true christian' has to meet certain criteria as outlined in scripture.

Now that said, if you are not 'judging a prophet' by the guidlines set forth by scripture then you are indeed committing a no true Scotsman fallacy.

That is the thing,  it's not a problem with the fallacy, if correctly used.   It's is in the misuse, that it becomes an issue.

[Thomas Kelly252525]

LadyForCamus,

If someone said to you that someone isn't a Christian and then you worked to use The No True Scotsman Fallacy to show them how you think they were wrong to say that and then later you looked at the words in 1 john 4:1, do you think you would judge yourself wrong for working to prove what you wanted by The No True Scotsman Fallacy ?

Just saying, "someone isn't a Christian," isn't exactly committing the NTS fallacy though, Thomas.  It's used in refutation to evidence supporting an argument.  You are going to have to give me a more specific example than what you just presented.

LadyForCamus,

I was testing you.  Maybe you've learnt something new from it.  I don't do it with bad will.

To help, you may think of a Christian saying that another person called a Christian, is not Christian and an atheist thinking they can use The No True Scotsman Fallacy to show how it's wrong of a Christian to say such things.

[Mister Agenda]

Is it wise to think popular logic is logical ?

We may discuss.

It is unwise to think anything is logical because it is popular (ad populum fallacy). It is also unwise to think something is illogical because it is popular.

[ignoramus]

Just saying, "someone isn't a Christian," isn't exactly committing the NTS fallacy though, Thomas.  It's used in refutation to evidence supporting an argument.  You are going to have to give me a more specific example than what you just presented.

LadyForCamus,

I was testing you.  Maybe you've learnt something new from it.  I don't do it with bad will.

To help, you may think of a Christian saying that another person called a Christian, is not Christian and an atheist thinking they can use The No True Scotsman Fallacy to show how it's wrong of a Christian to say such things.

 I love this stuff! I think you need to get your lawyers to talk to our lawyers to nut out the finer technicalities of the fallacy before we can speak further.
You know, everything in the world comes down to technicalities in the end.
Unfortunately, your prime witness is nowhere to be found!

[Mister Agenda]

Wtf is this guy talking about?!  

LadyForCamus,

If someone said to you that someone isn't a Christian and then you worked to use The No True Scotsman Fallacy to show them how you think they were wrong to say that and then later you looked at the words in 1 john 4:1, do you think you would judge yourself wrong for working to prove what you wanted by The No True Scotsman Fallacy ?

If someone says they are a Christian, I'll take their word for it. If they then say they don't believe Jesus was really the Son of God and they accept the theory of evolution as written; I might privately think 'Christian deist' might be a more exact definition, but I wouldn't challenge them on it. Christianity is a pretty big umbrella. If they said the Bible is complete fiction and Brahma is the true God, I might think they  have mental problems.

The heart of the NTS is that a Scotsman is a male born in or inhabiting Scotland, or at least of Scottish descent. If you generalize about Scotsmen not putting sugar on their porridge and someone says, hey wait, Donald McGillicutty in Glasgow  is a Scotsman and HE puts sugar on his porridge, and then your response is that Donald isn't a true Scotsman; you're presenting an ad hoc rationalization for rejecting the counterfactual. So it's a combination of overgeneralizing followed by ad hocery when the exceptions to your rule are pointed out. Donald is disqualified from being a true Scotsman solely because he doesn't follow the rule you claim Scotsmen follow.

The word 'Christian' has a definition. If you make a generalization about Christians and the exception to your rule doesn't fit any part of it, then you're not making the NTS if you point out the individual isn't actually a Christian and so the rule not applying to them doesn't invalidate the rule. The better the Christian fits the definition, the more the NTS comes into play if you attempt to disqualify the exception as not being a true Christian, especially if your main motivation for disqualifying him as a Christian is that he doesn't conform to the claim you made.

A: Christians believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings.
B: Sheila doesn't and Sheila is a Christian!
A: All TRUE Christians believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings!

The above is not an example of the NTS. If the claim about Scotsmen had been about where they're from instead of what they eat, it wouldn't be the NTS to say no true Scotsman about someone from Barbados with no Scottish ancestry.

A: Christians have nothing but love in their hearts for the less fortunate.
B: Ralph could give a crap about the unfortunate and he's a Christian!
A: All TRUE Christians have nothing but love in their hearts for the less fortunate.

This is a borderline case. Clearly A is using a special definition of Christians that not only believe in Jesus Christ and his teaching but are completely successful in incorporating the love doctrine into their personas. This isn't necessarily wrong, but if you weren't explicit about your special definition in the beginning; you're still wrong in your claim. The best way to save yourself is to apologize about not being clearer and explain what you mean instead of acting like it should have been obvious that Christians who don't follow your rule don't even count as Christians.

A: Christians love church picnics.
B: Lillie is a Christian and she hates church picnics!
A: All TRUE Christians love church picnics!

This is a clear NTS. Enjoying church picnics has nothing to do with any reasonable definition of Christian. There's nothing in the definition or the Bible about church picnics. Hopefully, A isn't being serious.

[Thomas Kelly252525]

Is it wise to think popular logic is logical ?

We may discuss.

It is unwise to think anything is logical because it is popular (ad populum fallacy). It is also unwise to think something is illogical because it is popular.

Mister Agenda,

I'm not sure what you were thinking, maybe you just wanted to show your understanding of this.

I haven't been thinking if popular then logical or if popular then illogical.

What do you think about the subject of the thread ? Do you think it's right to use The No True Scotsman Fallacy against Christians if one Christian says that another person called a Christian, is not a Christian, if you have thoughts of 1 John 4:1 ?

[Minimalist]

As far as I am concerned anyone who claims to be a xtian is one.  It is hardly an honorable title.

And "john" can go fuck himself.

[Thomas Kelly252525]

RoadRunner79,

You may think how I started the thread was enough for a person with enough experience to realize what I was saying.


You may compare in an example below.

Christian says: That person who calls themself a Christian is not really a Christian.

Atheist says:  You are wrong to say that someone who calls themself Christian is not a Christian.

Christian says:  Have you ever looked at 1 John 4:1 ?

RoadRunner79,

--See, that is getting a little better.  Your first post was fairly cryptic--

Some may think of me as cryptic if they don't have the experience needed to understand me.

Do you not think I posted in an atheist forum and offered a discussion about a comparison of 1 John 4:1 and No True Scotsman Fallacy and sophisms ?

We may agree that the misuse of The No True Scotsman Fallacy will be thought of from that by a person with enough experience.

--There are people; who misuse or don't understand the "No true Scottsman"  fallacy.  For some, if what they say is correct, then I am also legitimized, in requiring everyone to refer to me as Dr. Murray (Though I have no such degree).

In actuality, I don't think that it is pertinent if they are or are not a Christian, and that Augustine's thoughts; to never judge a philosophy by it's abuse is more relevant.--

Thanks for the comparison. I have experienced the benefit of Augustine's thoughts in the past.

RoadRunner79, you may look at my answers above.

---

--As far as I am concerned anyone who claims to be a xtian is one.  It is hardly an honorable title.--

What may you think proves that anyone who claims to be a Christian is one ?  Have you ever heard of the burden of proof ?

--And "john" can go fuck himself.--

I'm not hurt by that.  I've got the patience.

Minimalist, you may look at my answer above.

[brewer]

1 John is describing the pair of long thermal underwear. 4:1 is the back flap ratio.

(your sentence structure is very familiar)