On Catholicism!

[fr0d0]

Padraic asks how I say the true scotsman fallacy is illogical after I explain why. Nuff said.

As I understand it, the No True Scotsman is a recognised fallacious argument where a debater, in essence, argues that their opponent cannot understand why something is so without either becoming what they are/experiencing what they have/knowing what they know. Someone (someone other than you that is ... sorry but I wouldn't trust you to tell me my weight correctly even if you'd just measured it) will no doubt correct me if I have misunderstood it.

You have used that style of argument on several occasions in this forum and are therefore guilty of using the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Kyu

That isn't what I understand to be the True Scotsman fallacy.

Here it is:

Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."

—Antony Flew, Thinking about Thinking (1975)


In putting forward the above rebuttal one is equivocating in an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion. The proposer initially treats the definition of "Scotsman" (i.e., a man of Scottish ancestry and connection) as fixed, and says that there exists no predicated case that falls within that definition. When one such case is found, the proposer shifts to treat the case as fixed, and rather treats the boundary as debatable. The proposer could therefore be seen prejudicially not to desire an exact agreement on either the scope of the definition or the position of the case, but solely to keep the definition and case separate. One reason to do this would be to avoid giving the positive connotations of the definition ("Scotsman") to the negative case ("sex offender") or vice versa.

But you're ignoring my answers right?

---

Eilonnwy

I was raised in an atheist family and didn't discover Christianity until my mid 20's. I have been an atheist more than once. I've also been flavours in between. I've said many times that Christianity is an aim and not a destination. You can aim to be like Christ, but there is no 'Christian' as in a person who is like Christ. Only people who have stated that they aspire to be so. There is no magic line to cross that makes you suddenly Christ like.

Show me where I've said that people aren't Christians because they don't follow my interpretations (not that I don't believe you). And are you using Kyu's definition of the fallacy or the one I quote above?

Can I ask you the same question as I asked Giff? Did you every actually make a decision to be a Christian, or are you like you say, not 1st generation?

If you were indoctrinated, that doesn't sound like you chose to believe at all. That fails God's requirement for all his followers in my understanding, and that's something I have to stay firm on. Some things I don't understand at all yet accept that Christianity fits the description. I'd include in that some Christians interpretation on homosexuality and the role of women in the church. Creationism and literalists. Even though I consider some of these standpoints repulsive I still can accept that at the same time people can be wanting to follow Christ.

See in this respect, I can understand that you weren't actually a Christian, even though you held position in a Catholic Church. I hope you can understand that. I come from a very anti Catholic position and try since about 3 years ago to be open and fair. I may not achieve that but this is my aim. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

A person can know everything there is to know about a religion, but without actually changing your life in response you can be as ignorant as someone who knows nothing at all. That statement, as you'll probably know, is biblical of course. I have the utmost respect for atheists. I think it's a very honest position to take, and atheists are possibly more open to understanding than almost any other philosophical position.