(September 7, 2009 at 1:48 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(September 6, 2009 at 6:04 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: I dont think thats true. They bomb the abortion clinics BECAUSE of their beliefs. Without the belief, there would be no bombing.

I know they bomb abortion clinics because of their beliefs. My point is that those beliefs are not Christian beliefs because that religion "not only does not condone such acts but in fact condemns it." Pro-life beliefs are consistent with Christianity, but violence against abortion providers does not follow from pro-life beliefs. Rather, it follows from a mandate for violence that goes far beyond simply being against abortion. Murderous violence and terrorist activity follows from their beliefs, certainly—but those beliefs are not Christian beliefs. Christianity neither commands nor condones such appalling acts; more than this, it contradicts them quite diametrically.

Ah so they are not True Christians ™ ... as I have already said to you that is a variant of the No True Scotsman fallacy (well actually it's pretty much spot on). And as for Christianity being pro-life ... did you ever ask your OT god about that? Indeed even your Messiah did not appear to fully advocate pacifism ... he (if he even existed) apparently said he came to bring a sword and not peace, to set father against son, mother against daughter, insisted that his followers love him more than their own kin:

Quote:The Christian Messiah (on the basis of Christianity's own scriptures) threatened to destroy entire cities (destruction worse than that of Sodom & Gomorrah) because they lacked belief in him (Matthew 11:20-24, Luke 10:10-15). The Christian Messiah said that he came not to send peace on earth but to bring a sword (Matthew 10:34). The Christian Messiah , in Matthew 10, went on to say that he had come to turn man against father, daughter against mother and more besides!

Are these kind of words we should be paying attention to about your Messiah? Are these the words that go right to the heart of a person? Are these the kind of words one might expect from someone we might be encouraged to emulate? Is that the kind of pro-life stance you think we should all be adopting?

Oh I'm sure you'll find a way to duck out of that ... your type always does!

Kyu

(September 7, 2009 at 3:19 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Ah so they are not True Christians ™ ...

I already refuted that. Please address my arguments instead of pretending they are not there.

(September 7, 2009 at 3:22 pm)Arcanus Wrote:

(September 7, 2009 at 3:19 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Ah so they are not True Christians ™ ...

I already refuted that. Please address my arguments instead of pretending they are not there.

I don't accept it was a refutation, just the usual Christian apologetics.

And DON'T tell me how to debate!

Kyu

(September 7, 2009 at 3:25 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I don't accept it was a refutation, just the usual Christian apologetics. And DON'T tell me how to debate!

Says it all. Danke schön.

(September 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm)Arcanus Wrote:

(September 7, 2009 at 3:25 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I don't accept it was a refutation, just the usual Christian apologetics. And DON'T tell me how to debate!

Says it all. Danke schön.

It does ... that ALL YOU DO IS DODGE JUST LIKE YOUR FELLOWS!

Kyu

(September 6, 2009 at 3:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You don't get to define Christianity differently to Christians Evie. You admin yourself you have absolutely no understanding of it. If you did, you would understand how it isn't cherry picking at all but consistent interpretation. You would understand how it can't be an NTS fallacy when my definitions are consistent.

You Christians don't get to decide on the definition of Christianity either - there's already one - the fundamentals remain the same despite the different forms of Christianity : Belief in God of the bible, belief in Jesus, etc - you get to decide a definition, what is important to you, but when you say that I don't know what Christianity 'is', then you're replacing the definition of Christianity - the fundamentals - with your own personal definition: A definition of Christianity, implying that I don't understand Christianity because it's not the way you see it, which is the NTS fallacy.

To understand what Christianity is I just have to understand the basic definition: Christianity being belief in God and Christ. Unless you are suggesting that I don't understand this obvious definition, then you are committing the NTS fallacy, right?.

(September 6, 2009 at 1:11 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Ev, I've no idea who your remark was aimed at!

I responded to you in 1 line and then I said "fr0d0,[...]" And responded to fr0d0 in a paragraph or so. Since I quoted you both I thought the process of elimination would have made that clear, sorry if it wasn't.

EvF

---

(September 7, 2009 at 1:48 am)Arcanus Wrote: The No-True-Scotsman fallacy was not committed, sorry, since Frodo said nothing about whether they are 'true Christians' or not. While their appalling acts may be consistent with some beliefs of theirs (I agree with you here), the question is whether or not those beliefs stem from or are consistent with Christianity (I agree with Frodo here).

He didn't say it explicitly, no. But the implication seemed to be there to me, he said I don't know what Christianity is. But other than the basic definition, what he believes it to be is irrelevant to that, because if he believes what he beliefs is relevant to the basic definition, and that I'm wrong for not understanding it - then he's committing the NTS fallacy because he's holding his own definition as the definition of Christianity and therefore implying others' as not the true definition.

Quote:Essential to the No-True-Scotsman fallacy is the ad hoc shifting of the goal posts in response to some criticism, in order to tautologically exclude some specific case. But neither myself nor Frodo are ad hoc shifting the goal posts. Rather, we are asserting that you have missed goal posts that never moved.

So would you say that if, hypothetically speaking you were to define someone who followed the Christian fundamentals - and by normal definition was a 'Christian' - as 'not a true Christian', because you disagreed with them - or they didn't act like 'true Christians' according to you - then that is still not the NTS fallacy if there's not necessarily a shifting of goalposts?

EvF

(September 7, 2009 at 10:21 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(September 6, 2009 at 3:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You don't get to define Christianity differently to Christians Evie. You admin yourself you have absolutely no understanding of it. If you did, you would understand how it isn't cherry picking at all but consistent interpretation. You would understand how it can't be an NTS fallacy when my definitions are consistent.

You Christians don't get to decide on the definition of Christianity either - there's already one - the fundamentals remain the same despite the different forms of Christianity : Belief in God of the bible, belief in Jesus, etc - you get to decide a definition, what is important to you, but when you say that I don't know what Christianity 'is', then you're replacing the definition of Christianity - the fundamentals - with your own personal definition: A definition of Christianity, implying that I don't understand Christianity because it's not the way you see it, which is the NTS fallacy.

No I allude to the base Christian definition agreed upon by all Christians, as I always do. Your definition of Christianity is simply incorrect. As you exhibit no knowledge of the basic Christian stance: I call ignorance, I feel quite justly.

Let me demonstrate your reasoning:

1. The Devil is not a Christian
2. According to you, Christianity is: quote: "belief in God and Christ"
3. The Devil believes in God and Christ
4. The Devil is a Christian

Your claim that I'm speaking from a denominational stance is incorrect, which you would know if you had any understanding of Christianity. All this is quite incredible given your major interest in debunking it, don't you think?

(September 8, 2009 at 3:12 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Let me demonstrate your reasoning:

1. The Devil is not a Christian
2. According to you, Christianity is: quote: "belief in God and Christ"
3. The Devil believes in God and Christ
4. The Devil is a Christian

Actually, you got 1 wrong, you start with a conclusion. According to EVF's definition the Devil is a Christian. Perfectly consistent.

(September 7, 2009 at 1:48 am)Arcanus Wrote:

(September 6, 2009 at 7:49 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I think Weinberg's quote doesn't quite get it right. I think "religion" should be replaced by "ideology." (That doesn't excuse religion; religions are ideologies.) And I think it should be acknowledged that ideologies CAN make bad people do good things.

I totally agree with Kyuuketsuki. The world can now come to an end.

Fuck me backwards!

(September 7, 2009 at 10:21 pm)EvidenceVsFaith Wrote:

(September 6, 2009 at 1:11 pm)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: Ev, I've no idea who your remark was aimed at!

I responded to you in 1 line and then I said "fr0d0,[...]" And responded to fr0d0 in a paragraph or so. Since I quoted you both I thought the process of elimination would have made that clear, sorry if it wasn't.

But what did you mean?

Kyu

Oh, i'd rather not, Kyu... But i do know a few people who might be interested... for a price