For good people to do bad things...

[Ryft]

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.

Just because people use religion to rationalize their appalling acts, it does not follow that religion is the problem. It would be like outlawing chainsaws if people use them to violently murder people, as if chainsaws were the problem. It identifies the problem incorrectly. That is the salient point Padraic was getting at, I believe, that the facts show the problem lies in people, not religion—clearly attested by the appalling acts rationalized from even anti-religious regimes.

---

It is religious ideology, more than any other, that makes people commit acts that without religion they would simply have not committed at all.

1. What if their "religious ideology" is not found in their religion? In such a scenario, how is their religion the problem?

2. How does it follow from your statement that all religion is the problem? My sister, a deeply religious Wiccan, would never hurt a fly.

3. How is your statement consistent with the appalling atrocities in anti-religious regimes, where religion was indeed banished?

But atheists don't bomb abortion clinics. Or do they?

Not that I am aware of. But atheists are capable of larger scale appalling atrocities (e.g., Josef Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, etc.). As Padraic indicated, the problem is not religion because, even in the absence of religion, otherwise good people can find influences to do bad things. You can eliminate religion and it will not eliminate the problem. What clearer example could there be that the problem is not religion itself?

---

If the person was not themselves evil, then the religion would be the one and only cause of the act, and not just the rationale.

Correlation does not prove causation. To conclude that the religion is the cause, it must be shown from the religion itself. A conclusion about the religion which is based on the character or circumstance of its adherent is fallacious.

P.S. Finally, someone who spells "rationale" correctly!

---

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.

---

It obviously wasn't against their beliefs from their point of view. Maybe from the point of view of the 'true believers', since 'no true Christian would do that'. Which would be the NTS fallacy (with the dodging definitions of 'true' Christianity).

It's the No-True-Scotsman because you are saying that if they disagree with you then they're not Christian.

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). Just because a Christian believes P, his being a Christian does not prove that P stems from or is consistent with Christianity. And the issue becomes even thornier when Christianity actually condemns P.

A Buddhist might believe he is supposed to blow up every Toyota Camry he sees. His blowing up such Toyotas is consistent with his belief, but that does not somehow prove his beliefs stem from or are consistent with Buddhism.

If they believe in Christ and God, they are still a Christian.

That depends entirely on what "believe in" means—for if it is mere intellectual assent, then that does not a Christian make. Between the apostles Paul and James, that is made abundantly clear. Paul's epistle to the Romans by itself pulls the rug out from under such a notion, and that a person's deeds attests to whether they are of the faith or not is clearly expressed in James' epistle. Throughout the millennia, the apostles have been recognized as authoritative on what constitutes a Christian. I have never seen you being recognized as authoritative.

All these different Christians all believe in God and Christ, and they are just cherry-picking different bits. To say that isn't real Christianity is to fall under the NTS fallacy.

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.