Talk:No True Scotsman

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Saved people vs. believers: new section)
m (Saved people vs. believers)
Line 94: Line 94:
 
== Saved people vs. believers ==
 
== Saved people vs. believers ==
  
* {{q|He that believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.|John 3:16}}
+
* {{q|Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.|John 3:16}}
 
* {{q|And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.|Acts 16:31}}
 
* {{q|And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.|Acts 16:31}}
  
 
Believing in Jesus's resurrection and being saved are the same thing. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 
Believing in Jesus's resurrection and being saved are the same thing. {{User:ListenerX/sig0}} 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 18:00, 20 October 2009

Lovely! Have an ice cream cone...on me!.DocSock 13:39, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Mmm, goaty. By the way, who added the external link to the horribly written page that tries to claim that NTS isn't actually a fallacy? --Kels 13:59, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Broadwing Communications Services, Inc. FOCC-SPRBLK-6 (NET-66-243-0-0-1)
                                 66.243.0.0 - 66.243.191.255

River Valley Ranch FOCC-RIVERVALLEYRANCH-WAS-1 (NET-66-243-175-32-1)

                                 66.243.175.32 - 66.243.175.39

Anyone we know? --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!

Just to expand that IP is from Manchester, Maryland Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:27, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Its CP sysop Ymmotrojam!! Welcome why not sign in with your own user name? Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй†Now look here! 15:45, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Oh, cool. Hi, Mr. Jam! Nice to meetcha! --Kels 16:05, 6 June 2007 (CDT)


It's all geek to me. Presumably someone trying to make an obscure point. --Kels 14:13, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Signed: Your friendly neighborhood spiderman. --66.243.175.34 14:37, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Hi Mr. Parker. Could you elaborate a bit on the point you're trying to make? Your link is pretty incoherent and seems to focus on a single, narrow case and doesn't even do that very well. --Kels 14:38, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
I'll leave my "point" for you to discover. However, you are incorrect in your original question about this article: "tries to claim that NTS isn't actually a fallacy?" The article says nothing of the sort. As far as horribly written, in what way? You couldn't understand it? If you mean that it's a pretty basic (no frills) webpage, I agree, but that does not say anything about the content. Also, I have the same question with your use of the word "incoherent". Show examples. As far as the "focus on a single, narrow case"; so what. Do you really expect them to cover every single example under the sun? You can't write off what it says simply based on the fact that it only uses one example. You are simply giving your own opinions, and are not objectively disagreeing with the arguments of the article. --66.243.175.34 14:51, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
You come to rationalwiki, expecting that it will be like your Conservapedia, trying to spread your "cited" "facts" in place of our opinion. See, unregistered IPs are inherently deceitful and love to engage in mockery of our articles. Godspeed! --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!
I'm not writing it off, I'm saying it's poorly written, and doesn't seem to apply to this case very well. If you can explain your "point" (why the quotes?), then by all means do so. I'd love to hear it. --Kels 14:59, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Again, please show some examples of "poorly written". And how does it not apply? It's not the exact same example as Andy and Conservapedia (which I'm not necessarily defending), but it is a common example that atheists love to use. Oh and Wikinterpreter, I totally agree about IP addresses. I find this one deceitful myself. --66.243.175.34 15:43, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Well, thanks for the link, 66.243.175.34, if that's your REAL name, but it just wasn't quite condescending enough. Could you find one that makes all Atheists out to be poo-flinging monkeys? As to the actual 'argument', such as it is, I'll agree that it's probably best to refer to people as "self-proclaimed (whatever)"--that way, when a self-proclaimed Liberal advocates burning witches at the stake, you don't get to say ALL Liberals want to burn witches at the stake. And when some evil spoilsport points out that Hitler claimed to be a Christian, nobody gets to say ALL Christians want to exterminate the Jews. (Although Martin Luther, apparently, _did_. Sad but true.) --Gulik 16:21, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Well, I'm not an atheist, so that doesn't count here. And honestly, if it's not addressing what's actually in the article, then why bother? Really, I'd like to hear you justify your own inclusion of it. Not that your apparent refusal to do so is reason to take it out, but I'd still like to hear your side. --Kels 16:03, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
I think I understand the general point, as it applies. The argument is that Hitler/chritianity is not an NTS case...I would agree, but on simpler terms. Hitler just wasn't very into Christianity. Period. He was into Fascism, National Socialism, the occult, occasional christian imagery, but most of his "religion" was nationalist, and promoted through art, eugenics, law, etc.--PalMD-yada yada 16:10, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I see where you're going now. Not that it applies really to the article itself, mind you. Just one case where it's (sometimes) wrongfully applied. As I'm sure a lot of fallacies are misapplied, although I haven't seen any evidence that it doesn't apply here. Hmm, maybe I'll rewrite the link so it's got a little more context then. --Kels 16:16, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
There, how's that look? --Kels 16:23, 6 June 2007 (CDT)

Contents

Who is a true conservative?

According to President Bush himself, McCain is a true Conservative. I'm sure Andy will agree and promote it to Main Page News. Or not. P.S. Sorry if this is kind of offtopic here. Editor at CPBring TK back 15:00, 10 February 2008 (EST)

Well, that all depends on one thing: Is President Bush a true conservative? --Sid 15:11, 10 February 2008 (EST)
He is, until he's caught doing something wrong or his term runs out. --Kels 15:15, 10 February 2008 (EST)

To answer the question posed in the title of this thread, Hillary Clinton is a true conservative. -All Hail Tuna 15:19, 10 February 2008 (EST)

See comments on CP's Richard Nixon talk page, which not only disown him as a conservative, but suggest he was a commie. Weaseloid 07:17, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Definition of "True Christian"

Wiat, is this article suggesting that there IS a definition of what a "true" Christian is? Ridiculous. Whether Hitler meets "the definition" or not is irrelevant, there is no definition of "real Christian". Get rid of it.— Unsigned, by: 92.193.47.104 / talk / contribs

I believe anyone who claims to be a Christian, is a Christian. Daecon 13:57, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Actually, what the article says is: (actually, there are several, depending on the church, and a multitude through the ages).--Bobbing up 14:01, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
(ec) True, but there really isn't any neat way of judging who can be called Christian. Self-identification is the best we have. <blink></blink> 14:03, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
I would imagine that we could have multiple definitions of "Scotsman" as well.--Bobbing up 14:05, 9 July 2008 (EDT)
Perhaps equal to roughly ((current number of Scotsmen)+1)? --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 14:15, 9 July 2008 (EDT)

The Hitler/Christian Controversy Reopened

I don't see that the Hitler/Christian example is in any way exempt from the No True Scotsman fallacy. In fact it's a pretty textbook example of it. As Daecon said above, somebody who identifies themself as Christian can be assumed to be a Christian, unless there is clear evidence that they are lying (about this specifically). Thus, from a rational non-Christian perspective, we can assume that Hitler, who professed to be a Christian, was indeed a Christian.

However, if we look at Hitler from a Christian perspective, assuming for a moment the full the range of beliefs this entails, we will see that Hitler was unconscionably sinful, evil and no doubt festering in the shiny pits of Hell at this very moment. We cannot possibly reconcile Hitler's professed Christianity with his sinfulness and damnation. Thus, he is not a true Christian - his claim to Christianity was only a sham. Q.E.D.!

So the distinction between whether he was a Christian or a 'true Christian' is an arbitrary one dependent on whether we identify ourselves as (true) Christians. Almost exactly like the True Scotsman example.

This kind of definition of 'true' religion is used all the time in religious diatribes like The Watchtower, which pose a dichotomy between "true religions" (which fit the author's conception of the term) and "false religions" (e.g. ones which tolerate homosexuality or divorce). Godspeed thee! Weaseloid 16:40, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

(Incimadentally, Thomas Shirk - the author of that 'Hitler No True Christian' rhetoric piece which is cited - seems amusingly ignorant of the facts regarding Mr Hitler, including the manner of his death. Shirk writes that "it is (barring a deathbed conversion for which there is no evidence whatsoever) valid to say that Hitler was not a Christian". I'm not sure that Hitler had a "deathbed" as such. Does a sofa count? Would a "deathbed conversion" have excused him of the mortal sin of suicide moments later? Or would the conversion have had to have been made at the exact same moment as biting the cyanide capsule? It's a rhetorical minefield.) Weaseloid 16:56, 2 August 2008 (EDT)

Now now I read the article again it's a bit self contradictory. We say: Like any fallacy, NTS can be incorrectly applied. An example of this would be the case of someone claiming that Hitler was not a true Christian may not necessarily be guilty of this fallacy, given that there actually is a definition of what a true Christian is, and Hitler may fall outside that definition
But then we say there are many definitions of Christian. We do need to clarify it or remove the example.--Bobbing up 17:08, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Re W's first comment, does one have be sin-free, or at least free of major sins to be a Christian? I thought Christianity taught that we are all sinners and can only achieve salvation (after death) by accepting Jesus as Christ? What if Hitler just couldn't help himself, and hated the bad things he did, and begged Jesus daily to help him sin less? ħumanUser talk:Human 17:45, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
I agree the example is a poor one. Anyway to get rid of it while keeping the interesting EL? And coming up with a better example? I added a quickie, but it's not really a "named group". ħumanUser talk:Human 17:52, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
Re my comments on Christianity: I didn't seek to suggest that Christians do not regard themselves as, to some extent, sinners. However, many Christians' view of a figure such as Hitler is to suppose that he was probably sent to Hell for the things he did, and some may believe that he was 'evil'. They cannot reconcile their view of Hitler with their view of a 'true Christian' who may commit sins but acknowledges them & seeks forgiveness. I know of no evidence to suggest that Hitler repented any of the deaths he brought about. He stood by his decisions.
Really what determines whether this is an example of NTS fallacy is whether the distinction between 'true Christians' and 'false Christians' is one which can also be recognised, understood and acknowledged by non-Christians, or whether it is a distinction which exists only in the minds of some Christians to differentiate themselves from other Christians whose ideas or actions they do not like. Weaseloid 19:52, 2 August 2008 (EDT)
It still looks like a bad example to me. Are we, as a group, really able decide who is a "False Christian" (or Scotsman) or not? As was stated earlier self identification of Christians would seem to be the only way to go. For example are (or were) the following True Christians: Andrew Schlafly, The Pope, George Bush, Tony Blair, Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Mother Teresa, Bill Clinton.--Bobbing up 03:43, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
In fact, I don't think that a legitimate example of NTS being misapplied will easily be found. It would need to be a case where there is an objectively recognised difference between 'X' and 'true X' (rather than a subjective difference perceived only by members of group 'X').
The Thomas Shirk 'No True Fallacy' source kindof disproves its own point: "Atheists love to use this [accusation of NTS fallacy] in order to force Christian apologists to accept their definition of everything from the meaning of the word “evolution” to something Christians should know better than they: what it means to be a Christian". Isn't this just implying that Christians themselves have the only valid opinions on the definition of Christianity (& therefore whether Hitler was a Christian)? Weaseloid 03:53, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

No true Liberal

A politician continually claims to be a Liberal. The causes and policies he trumpets do not seem to support that claim.

These include going to war against Iran and North Korea, a total free marketplace economy, shutting down 90% of govt bureaucracies, capital punishment for jaywalking, a govt set-aside for building only Catholic and Protestant churches, declaring Philadelphia to be a vegetarian-free zone, accusing George Soros of violating the McCain-Feingold act, a one-year moratorium on taxes, drilling for oil in the Hudson River, banning Barbara Streisand from the greater Wash DC area, and closing down the NYT, WashPost, and any radio shows that are not right-wing.

On weekends he joins others in closing down soup kitches and on vacations goes whaling with ten Republican senators.

A Libertarian and a bevy of non-Liberals insist that the aforementioned politician is a Liberal in spite of all Liberal protests that he is not.

Are prominent Liberals correct in saying that politician is no Liberal, and those that insist that he is are wrong, and obviously so?

-- RemBeau 07:32, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure the entire concept is clear here (and it's probably partly our article's fault). The "No true Scotsman" fallacy only is an issue if it follows a couple of other things - at the very least, the claim someone reprehensible is part of some group, then people in that group claiming they aren't to avoid "guilt by association". Essentially it only comes up in discussions that are more like flame wars than debates. For example (getting close to the original "joke"), I am Welsh. Fine. Now, if I bask in the reflected [glory] of all the wonderful things that it means to be Welsh, I risk also being scorched by the flames of any evil Welshmen burning in their Hell. (already we are in the land of pride/guilt by association, which is itself a fallacy). Now, if I were to try to salvage my pride in spite of the evildoers, I might make the dumb mistake of saying, "well, obviously they weren't true Welshmen". A more intelligent and appropriate response would, "well, yup, of course we're not all perfect, and some were right scoundrels, but I still liked the valley in which I grew up." Maintaining the fallacy depends on wanting to claim some moral high ground for some group one belongs to, as if it automatically reflects oneself, leading to denial of any wrongdoing by other members of that group - or claiming that they aren't really part of the exalted group. For my part, I doubt there is a single liberal politician, pundit, or organization that hasn't made me cringe at least once, if not more often. None of us are perfect in any way. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:13, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Would it be appropriate to now remove the 'Misapplication' section of this article? All it tells us is that the NTS fallacy can be falsely applied (as can any fallacy or any other label for that matter), but the example given & explained in the external source is somewhat problematic. Plus wasn't it just planted there to try & undermine the message of this article? Weaseloid 17:42, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
I'm fine with that, actually. I only put it in as a response to the thread above, and was hoping someone would come along with a better way of putting it. --Kels 17:48, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Yes, but please to keep the EL, it's hilarious. ħumanUser talk:Human 17:55, 3 August 2008 (EDT)
Nice work, ħuman. Weaseloid 19:39, 3 August 2008 (EDT)

Saved people vs. believers

  • "Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." - John 3:16
  • "And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." - Acts 16:31

Believing in Jesus's resurrection and being saved are the same thing. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 17:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support