For good people to do bad things...

[fr0d0]

---

It's NTS because you are saying that if they disagree with you then they're not Christian. Because whether you like it or not, if they believe in Christ and God they are still a Christian, if they see the Bible in a different shade to you - they're still Christian. When I am speaking of different types of Christians cherry-picking different parts, you respond saying that I don't know what Christianity 'is'...yes I do - all these different Christians all believe in God and Christ and they are just cherry picking different bits (I'm referring to my hypothetical example) - and to say that isn't [i]real Christianity is to fall to the NTS fallacy. Why isn't it Christianity? Because they're not like you? That's fallacious. They're just Christians cherry-picking differently. They're still Christians by definition.

---

EvF

EvF

So good you signed it twice

You don't get to define Christianity differently to Christians Evie. You admin yourself you have absolutely no understanding of it. If you did, you would understand how it isn't cherry picking at all but consistent interpretation. You would understand how it can't be an NTS fallacy when my definitions are consistent.

---

---

Maybe your christianity is good and pure and wouldnt hurt a fly. But it is not christianity as it has been followed for centuries.

The pope calling for religious wars against the heathens.
The spanish inqusition getting real inventive with tortures, which was a good thing because they were saving the tortured peoples souls.
The list goes on and on and on and.....

So why is your brand of christianity suddenly the only kind of christianity that counts?

---

I fully accept there have been countless atrocities committed on the back of Christianity.

Christianity is the aim to be like Christ. That people who were Christians didn't always follow Christ does not mean that the aim is bad. Just the act of the person.

[Darwinian]

Christianity is the aim to be like Christ. That people who were Christians didn't always follow Christ does not mean that the aim is bad. Just the act of the person.

So what you are saying is basically a bad workman always blames his tools. And, if God made us all unique and gave us free will, why does he want us to be like someone else?

[fr0d0]

So what you are saying is basically a bad workman always blames his tools.

Erm... no... LOL

Who are we talking about? God or them ppl doin bad??

And, if God made us all unique and gave us free will, why does he want us to be like someone else?

I and my christian friends often join in the chant that "we're all individuals!"

[Violet]

Belief, not specifically religion, makes people do bad things.

Nazi regime: people who were good people, BELIEVED that they were doing the 'right' thing.

9/11: people who were good people, BELIEVED that they were doing the 'right' thing.

Terrorists: people who are good people, BELIEVE that they are doing the 'right' thing.

Americans: people who are good people, BELIEVE that they are doing the 'right' thing.

There are truly 'bad' people, of course... but those people exist everywhere, and usually believe that they are doing the 'right' thing.

Belief, allows for one to justify their actions... to think one is 'right'... when so wrong one is.

[fr0d0]

So any belief at all can be bad.

BTW I still disagree with you that any person is truly bad.

[Violet]

Can any person be truly good? Some people are quite bad... but you're probably correct that there is no person of pure Vice. See my sig

[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.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

For instance, on the one hand God says 'thou shalt not kill'

Sorry to be noodge ,but I think a better example may be needed. The commandment actually says "Thou shalt commit no murder"

This is an important distinction for a people for whom 'stranger' also meant 'enemy'. Its not murder to kill an enemy.In the Torah this included entire tribes; men, women,children and animals.



Tangent:

Re "God fearing" I've long thought if I worshipped a God like YHWH, I'd be always fucking terrified I was going to piss the cunt off and get my arse smoted.(smitten?)

[downbeatplumb]

Arcanus seems to be putting a lot of caveats on being a christian.

For me and indeed most people, the definition of Christian is a person who accepts Christ as their saviour, end of.

I am an atheist I do not believe in god.

See how easy this is.

Now your one sect of christianity might have one view on the details of christianity that another christian sect does not share, this does not make the other sect not christians.

If they then commit a terrible act that accords with that sects belief because of that belief, then the act was the fault of religion.

[Ryft]

For me, and indeed most people, the definition of Christian is a person who accepts Christ as their Saviour.

Are you recognized as an authoritative source on what constitutes a Christian? Nope. Q.E.D.

All Christians universally recognize one source as authoritative on what constitutes a Christian: the canonical Scriptures. There are differences over the qualified authority to teach religious doctrine, but the source of that doctrine is universally recognized. And it's not you.

Now your one sect of Christianity might have one view on the details of Christianity that another Christian sect does not share, this does not make the other sect not Christians.

According to...?

If they then commit a terrible act that accords with that sects belief because of that belief, then the act was the fault of religion.

As I already said (and please don't ignore it this time): "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."