RE: To explain knowledge of God
October 17, 2014 at 1:51 pm
(This post was last modified: October 17, 2014 at 1:53 pm by FatAndFaithless.)
Um... no Drips, you really are committing the NTS fallacy. You're setting up a set of rules for being a 'real' christian, then when someone who does not adhere to that set (even if they're a christian), you dub them as "not a real christian". You have no reasoned explanation for why these other christians aren't 'really' christians, which is where the 'unreasoned' part of the NTS comes in. It's a really simple fallacy to see, and you're doing it quite explicitly.
I mean, the definitive example of the NTS is right there on the page you linked, and it can easily be shown in different terms.
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
can be seen as:
Drich: "If you A/S/K, you'll get knowledge of God."
Anyone else: "I did A/S/K, but I did not get knowledge of God."
Drich: "Well, only if you really A/S/K do you get knowledge of God."
You don't stop for one moment to even consider your method is flawed.
I mean, the definitive example of the NTS is right there on the page you linked, and it can easily be shown in different terms.
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "I am Scottish, and I put sugar on my porridge."
Person A: "Well, no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
can be seen as:
Drich: "If you A/S/K, you'll get knowledge of God."
Anyone else: "I did A/S/K, but I did not get knowledge of God."
Drich: "Well, only if you really A/S/K do you get knowledge of God."
You don't stop for one moment to even consider your method is flawed.
In every country and every age, the priest had been hostile to Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson
- Thomas Jefferson