Fact, every single german nazi was a christian

[Lek]

Nope sorry, doesn't work like that. How you would prefer someone else interpret the bible does not mean they don't view it as their source of morality like you do. Not liking their interpretation does not make it a different source. The German Christian population at the time of Hitler WERE a majority Christian. Just like one can accept in the west that a Sunni Muslim and Shiite Muslim both see the Quran as their source of morality.

You're comments about different interpretations are true to a certain point, but one can carry that so far.  Saying that the teachings of Jesus would condone the extermination of the Jewish race is stretching it too far.

There has never been such a thing as a perfectly unified religion, or "correct" following of any. That is because all religions are human inventions that are really nothing more than artificial constructs in attempts to create social order. 

In the case of christianity, you're right that the religion is a human construct.  Jesus never formed a religion.

Our species morality is evolutionary, both in our ability to be cruel or compassionate, to cooperate or use force. Humans evolved to be social and that is the real reason we form groups.

Morality is not evolutionary.  Morality is different in various cultures at the same time.  Societies' morals change with the times and often return to the way they were generations before.  Societies' morals also change as they accept new beliefs, such as African nations that have become more christian.

There has never been a magic man in the sky pulling our strings, not even a mere mortal, as some would claim the original Buddha to be, which is also a religion rooted in mythology and superstition. 

Strictly your opinion.

Our species was around long before any written religion or first boarders. Our planet is 4 billion years old, revolving around 1 star, our sun in a galaxy full of billions of stars. A galaxy so big it takes 1 ray of light 100,000 years at the speed of light to cross. Our galaxy is also only one of hundred of billions in our observable universe.

Sounds really deep, but has nothing to do with whether or not there is a God or if christianity or any other religion is true.

Religion is only as good as far as a placebo effect at best, but throughout history has caused great amounts of divisions and death. Religion was our species early form of guessing at what was, but we have much better tools now to measure the universe outside our own personal wishes.

I agree that people have used religion to support wars and atrocities. They have also used nationalism, borders and property rights as reasons. Are these things responsible for wars or are the people involved responsible? Are nationalism, borders and property rights bad things that we should get rid of? Religion has caused people to help the poor, feed the hungry, care for the sick and create great hospitals and institutions of learning. Since religion has caused people to do good things, which they may otherwise have not done, isn't it a good thing?

The theist likes to falsely portray the atheist as fatalistic and negative and immoral.

Some do, but you're generalizing. I view atheists as people who can be moral or immoral, like everyone, but who are lost.

Now while the word itself doesn't determine the individual atheists actions good or bad throughout their lives, we are not a separate species from theists. We can be good and do good, we have ups and downs like everyone else, some individuals can do bad, but most simply want the same securities and order most humans want. The only difference between an atheist and a theist is that we reject one more God claim and religious club than the theist does. We simply don't assign good or bad to a battle between a super hero and super villain battling  over the neurons in your brain.

In a very general way I can agree with the idea of what you are saying, but the difference between a true christian and an atheist isn't simply that we accepted the God claim and you rejected it. It's that christians have God with them and in them, and atheists don't. This makes a huge difference for here and eternity.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ah, the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Not necessarily if Lek can make a case that Nazi ideology is fundamentally incompatible with what he considers the Christian message, no?

At that point, the issue of compartmentaliztion arises, no?

[Edwardo Piet]

It's amazing this thread is still going.

Lots of hella cray threads keep going in AF.

It hurts my balls T_T

[Alex K]

Not necessarily if Lek can make a case that Nazi ideology is fundamentally incompatible with what he considers the Christian message, no?

No it never works regardless. 

What humans are really saying when they point to a book or religious club is trying to say "I am a good person", which may be the case sure, but it isn't the book doing it, it is merely the false perception that our species morality is coming from it, which it is not. There simply is no "right way" to interpret any holy book, or follow any holy leader. 

If one can accept there are good people outside one's own label, then that should tell everyone, that it is our species either fostering cooperation and non violence rather than it coming from ancient religion itself. 

Christianity is merely currently perceived in the west as more civil, but it wasn't that long ago, even in our own history where it was spread by force and when slavery existed. I hate the false attempts for them to try to have it both ways. The Jesus of the bible is still under the same God character described from the first page to the last page in the bible. That character starts out scapegoating his own creation, then uses threats and violence to keep his followers in line and his words are used by his followers to justify harm to non Hebrew tribes. But only a very weak attempt to downplay all that with the "I am not the wife beater God I used to be in the OT, is negated by this same God along with Jesus getting violent with all dissenters at the end of the book anyway. 

There simply is no polite way to put it. Cherry picking is the only way they can get around this bully of a god. But, as liberal and non violent one might claim they are, that same bible is used to justify harm to others by others. It is the same source all Christians use regardless of individual interpretations that lead to any act, good or bad.

Yes, but that's beside the point. If Lek has a criterion for what one cannot do if one claims to be a "follower of Christ", and Nazis are at odds with that, Lek pointing that out is in my opinion not the "No True Scotsman Fallacy".

[Edwardo Piet]

The NTS is the most widely misattributed fallacy there is. Merely saying "No true X is Y" is not the fallacy.

[Pat Mustard]

Didn't realise I was reading year old posts when i replied to them. Apologies for butting into old conversations.

[Brian37]

No it never works regardless. 

What humans are really saying when they point to a book or religious club is trying to say "I am a good person", which may be the case sure, but it isn't the book doing it, it is merely the false perception that our species morality is coming from it, which it is not. There simply is no "right way" to interpret any holy book, or follow any holy leader. 

If one can accept there are good people outside one's own label, then that should tell everyone, that it is our species either fostering cooperation and non violence rather than it coming from ancient religion itself. 

Christianity is merely currently perceived in the west as more civil, but it wasn't that long ago, even in our own history where it was spread by force and when slavery existed. I hate the false attempts for them to try to have it both ways. The Jesus of the bible is still under the same God character described from the first page to the last page in the bible. That character starts out scapegoating his own creation, then uses threats and violence to keep his followers in line and his words are used by his followers to justify harm to non Hebrew tribes. But only a very weak attempt to downplay all that with the "I am not the wife beater God I used to be in the OT, is negated by this same God along with Jesus getting violent with all dissenters at the end of the book anyway. 

There simply is no polite way to put it. Cherry picking is the only way they can get around this bully of a god. But, as liberal and non violent one might claim they are, that same bible is used to justify harm to others by others. It is the same source all Christians use regardless of individual interpretations that lead to any act, good or bad.

Yes, but that's beside the point. If Lek has a criterion for what one cannot do if one claims to be a "follower of Christ", and Nazis are at odds with that, Lek pointing that out is in my opinion not the "No True Scotsman Fallacy".

No it is not besides the point. It is precisely the point. Humans have competing interpretations of the exact same holy books, the question is what makes him right and other Christians wrong whom interpret it differently, they think they got it right too. 

The truth is that humans merely think morality is in a book, but our behaviors, good or bad are not in a book, but in our evolution. You are allowing Lek a loophole to avoid considering this.

Nobody likes to think their interpretation of a holy book is wrong. Everyone likes to think how they interpret them leads to better things for humanity. The problem is precisely that, there is no standard or "right way". 

But, if we place good in the hands of humans and not think they are divinely handed to us, then we can see that humans are capable of good no matter label. The book itself is the problem, because it is used to justify anything and because it can be only a point of view issue, those competing interpretations will always cause divisions.

[Alex K]

You are just going on about how you think religion is cherry-picking etc. You aren't even addressing whether he comitted a NTS fallacy

[Thumpalumpacus]

Isn't cherry-picking a part of NTS, though? Singling out one criterion as a disqualifier?

[Brian37]

You are just going on about how you think religion is cherry-picking etc. You aren't even addressing whether he comitted a NTS fallacy

Hello McFly, because of that cherry picking you cant nail anyone down. Again, you are inadvertently allowing the believer to move the goal posts.

This allows them to us the NTS. The point is to get them to realize that cherry picking does not make someone else who interprets it differently less of a believer. A Black southern Obama liberal Baptist still believes in the same God of Jesus as a white Evangelical GOP Baptist. To get them to understand why "True Scotsman" is a fallacy, you ask them what makes them right and someone else wrong. It is still the same book regardless.