Fact, every single german nazi was a christian

[Lek]

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.

Gee. I'm sorry. I just don't think that someone who is exterminating Jews is following Christ.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

I think you are moving the goal post of what is a "true Scotsman" fallacy.   A true Scottsmen fallacy normally refer to ad hoc revision to the subject of the assertion when confronted with a counterexample to a broader original. The subject in dispute are Nazis who may think of themselves as Christians or who may have been thought of by others as Christians.   Lek didn't make a universal assertion regarding all those who might think of themselves, or be thought of, as Christians.   He made a claim regarding those who thought and behaved a specific way.   He did not seem to make any ad hoc revisions to the subject of his claim.

[Anomalocaris]

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

It is a part of NTS, but it is not sufficient to establish NTS.

To commit NTS,  You have to cherry pick a criterion on an ad hoc basis to deflect the implication of a counterexample to your broad initial claim that did not originally specify the criterion.   I don't think Lek's criterion was selected on an ad hoc basis.

[Alex K]

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

No. You have to single out one criterion on an ad hoc basis to deflect the implication of a counterexample to an broad initial claim that did not originally specify the criterion. I don't think Lek's criterion was selected on an ad hoc basis.

Me neither. It is quite believable that he thought all along that perpetrating or condoning the murder of millions was incompatible with the message of Christ, and didn't just add that particular thing ad hoc when he was confronted with an alleged follower of Christ who did.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification, sensible as it is.

[Deepthunk]

I just want to point out two things again, 1. that which can be proven to be true is fact, regardless of our personal feelings on the matter. and 2. I noted how many Christians came out of the woodwork to spit at every word, and how few actual atheists there seem to be on this atheist website.

Oh and one question for the christian lobby, if your religion is so factual and valid why cant you tolerate the words of the tiny minority of atheists who simply don't believe it?

I see it took you almost a year to reply. I hope you've been okay between then and now.

Oh I have, actually I had forgotten about it, but this christian woman, though i had said nothing too her, decided to offhandedly curse at me, call me a satan worshiper, tell me i should "get the dick out of my mouth" and so forth. That ticked me off, and later when i was thinking about religious prejudice and how religious people are far from being the "source of goodness" I remember this thread and the religious people who came out of the woodwork to dog pile it.

see thats just it, I don't want to argue with religion, but religion keeps shoving it down my throat, constantly and in ways you wouldn't believe. I know religion loves to have people to hate, but thats the problem here. If you don't want to be reminded of your religions past, stop trying to force it on everyone in the present, because i don't want you telling me what to do with my own body, I don't want to live in a religious theocracy, and I don't want your grass roots "christian soldiers" shoving your crap down my throat.

let me reiterate that last point, I don't want to hear one more word from your "christian soldiers" because i'm really sick and tired of them acting like my body, heart, and mind must be "given" to your god, which is to say I'm supposed to be a willing slave to a church.

[Deepthunk]

No.  You have to single out one criterion on an ad hoc basis to deflect the implication of a counterexample to an broad initial claim that did not originally specify the criterion.   I don't think Lek's criterion was selected on an ad hoc basis.

Me neither. It is quite believable that he thought all along that perpetrating or condoning the murder of millions was incompatible with the message of Christ, and didn't just add that particular thing ad hoc when he was confronted with an alleged follower of Christ who did.

I'm tired of this, Christians commit hate crimes all the time and the Catholic churches intolerance of the Jewish people goes all the way back to the inquisition and before. besides your "message of Christ" condones the hatred and murder of gays, lesbians , and unbelievers not only by openly stating that they should be burned alive but by clear statement that your "god" will condemn them to torture and therefore, wants them to be tortured. as a result I think its safe to say your "message of Christ" is to condone the torture and murder of millions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Gee. I'm sorry.  I just don't think that someone who is exterminating Jews is following Christ.

We all falter, we all fall short.  Or isn't that the line?  It's just a fact that christians are as shitty as the next man in line. Argue that this makes them less christian, or not even christian..until you're blue in the face.

I bet you're a real saint.

[Faith No More]

That ticked me off, and later when i was thinking about religious prejudice and how religious people are far from being the "source of goodness" I remember this thread and the religious people who came out of the woodwork to dog pile it.

Those weren't religious people. Those were atheists pointing out that you were wrong, and so you started flinging accusations of people being "secret Christians" to anyone that disagreed with your obviously flawed argument.

Because apparently, if anyone disagrees with you, The One True Atheist™, they are automatically a Christian.

[Anomalocaris]

Me neither. It is quite believable that he thought all along that perpetrating or condoning the murder of millions was incompatible with the message of Christ, and didn't just add that particular thing ad hoc when he was confronted with an alleged follower of Christ who did.

I'm tired of this, Christians commit hate crimes all the time and the Catholic churches intolerance of the Jewish people goes all the way back to the inquisition and before. besides your "message of Christ" condones the hatred and murder of gays, lesbians , and unbelievers not only by openly stating that they should be burned alive but by clear statement that your "god" will condemn them to torture and therefore, wants them to be tortured. as a result I think its safe to say your "message of Christ" is to condone the torture and murder of millions.

He said A, you rant on about being tired of B.