Abortion

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are misapplying the NTS fallacy.

For the NTS fallacy to exist, "no true" something, something true must first exist along with the definitions of what is "false" and what is "true". The NTS fallacy includes the axiom:

True things exist and false things exist.

These are called by we Christians absolutes, and are used to demonstrate that immaterial absolutes (truth, falsity, God, spirit, math, logic, love, justice et al) exist. Thus I encourage atheists never to invoke the NTS fallacy, for it is based on axiomatic truths that immaterial realities exist.

Is this some sort of attempt to use presuppositional apologetics to hand-wave away the high numbers of Christian criminals?

Here's the thing about the "no true Scotsman" fallacy: pointing it out isn't an appeal to some sort of absolute truth; it's calling attention to hypocrisy. The definition of Scotsman is merely agreed upon; it isn't defined by any sort of universal truth. The issue is that the person committing the fallacy is hypocritically assuming a new definition for the purposes of the immediate argument that contradicts either the definition he still holds or the commonly held definition - i.e. what he could reasonably expect other people to understand by the term when he says "Scotsman".

Further, since Jesus Christ said "you must be born again to be a Christian and follow me," I should think that HE is entitled to say some true Christians exist, and what determines them to exist, i.e. being truly born again. After all, atheists LOVE to say Jesus was the first one to espouse Christianity but the NT writers messed it up.

Jesus's assumed opinion on who he would save or who he approves of is irrelevant. That isn't how the definition of "Christian" is used in this society: we don't make assumptions about whether a denomination's doctrines are true when deciding whether they're "Christian" or not.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That has nothing to do with the "no true Scotsman" position as a rebuttal argument. I don't care if you understand this or not.

I was merely pointing out to other readers of this thread that they could go look it up for themselves rather than take your or my word for what this fallacious argument entails.

I 100% understand the NTS fallacy.

Do you understand the NTS fallacy is predicated on these axioms?

*Truth and falsehoods exist.

*A Scotsman exists.

*"No true" whether employed accurately or not implies "true ones do exist".

True Christians exist. I define them, YOU define them, and Jesus, the founder of this faith, defined them. You cannot reasonable invoke NTS here for my quoting Jesus's words. That's silly.

Further, if you invoke NTS on me or anyone, you are asserting that absolute immaterial things (truth, falsity) exist. When you say I'm guilty of any fallacy at all for that matter (ad populum, for example) this is predicated on the axiom "there are correct arguments and incorrect arguments, objectively speaking" unless fallacies are subjective in nature.

If you'd like to redact your statement to you feel subjectivity I'm guilty of an NTS fallacy, I can accept that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now you are using the strawman fallacy.

One of the more frustrating aspects of this discussion is the weak arguments employed. I expect those from the knee jerk baby killers. But the ones from anti-feticide people tend not to be better, often worse.
I agree with their conclusions, in a general sense. But their evidence and logical reasoning is terrible. Their methods of fighting elective abortions tend to be ineffective and inhumane. Their overall stances on ProLife issues tend to be hypocritical as hell.

I tend to agree with many of the criticisms put forward by pro-feticide people. It's a problem for me.
Tom

It is a straw man argument (not fallacy) to remind a skeptic of axiomatic truth? Why would you say that?

 

[BilliardsBall]

"Well, I don't see why I'm special, but Christ thinks I'm important enough to die for." Sure seems like a humble brag to me.

I'm bragging on us both. Jesus died for all--that they who live might no longer live for themselves, but for Him who died and rose again on their behalf--is how the Bible puts it.

It also says, "Let him who boasts, boast in the Lord." It's not hubris to say, "God is great."

 

[BilliardsBall]

You do realize that atheism is not the same as materialism. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in God or gods. That in no way limits people to only believing in the material world. There are plenty of atheists that believe in ghosts, spirits, the separate mind, etc.

How many on this forum? Please point to them.

 

[BilliardsBall]

This makes no sense. The "no true scottsman" fallacy is something like the following:

No Christians believe in evolution.
Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in Evolution.
Well, no TRUE Christian believes in Evolution. You aren't a TRUE Christian. (This final claim is the "no true scotsman" fallacy)

It makes no sense that we have to define as axiomatic that these things exist in your syllogism?

No Christians believe in evolution.
Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in Evolution.
Well, no TRUE Christian believes in Evolution. You aren't a TRUE Christian.

In order for your syllogism to make sense as either true or false (NTS false) we would have to define what a "Christian" is. Once we define what a Christian is, so that your syllogism is constructed properly, we can then actually go ahead and use that definition to say "No Christians X" or "No Christians Y".

A better way to say what the problem is in the thread is that my definition of Christian is incorrect.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Is this some sort of attempt to use presuppositional apologetics to hand-wave away the high numbers of Christian criminals?

Here's the thing about the "no true Scotsman" fallacy: pointing it out isn't an appeal to some sort of absolute truth; it's calling attention to hypocrisy. The definition of Scotsman is merely agreed upon; it isn't defined by any sort of universal truth. The issue is that the person committing the fallacy is hypocritically assuming a new definition for the purposes of the immediate argument that contradicts either the definition he still holds or the commonly held definition - i.e. what he could reasonably expect other people to understand by the term when he says "Scotsman".


Jesus's assumed opinion on who he would save or who he approves of is irrelevant. That isn't how the definition of "Christian" is used in this society: we don't make assumptions about whether a denomination's doctrines are true when deciding whether they're "Christian" or not.

I agree! There you go - is there hypocrisy in my definition? GREAT question.

However, we would have to say whether a denomination's doctrines are accurate when deciding if they are Christian, after all, if they get their doctrine incorrect as to what a Christian denomination is . . .

For example, is a mosque a Christian house of worship? Why or why not? What to you makes a Christian house of worship Christian? Clothing? Ritual? Bible usage? Etc.

Jesus indicated that for someone to follow Him, they have to 1) seek and then 2) they will find--and He will indwell them. If you would like several dozen Bible passages on this, I can share them by request.

I've sought and found Christ and He indwells me as an individual. This inner awareness drives me toward a church, not a mosque, but a Christian is a follower of Christ and a building is immovable and unable to follow Christ, be discipled by Christ, understand the Bible, etc. To say a building is a Christian building makes no sense. But if you say a denomination--an abstract, immaterial collective, can "follow" Jesus Christ--you believe in the objective existence of the immaterial. If you instead wish to say, "Ah, but the denomination is merely a collective of people," (so that you can avoid the atheist's trap of accepting immaterial absolutes) you are agreeing with me that Christian people follow or imitate Christ.

And since you agree with my definition, you are bound to it, and cannot say I made an NTS or you did, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

However, we would have to say whether a denomination's doctrines are accurate when deciding if they are Christian, after all, if they get their doctrine incorrect as to what a Christian denomination is . . .

Nonsense. Being correct isn't part of what determines whether a person is or isn't an adherent of a religion.

And since you agree with my definition, you are bound to it, and cannot say I made an NTS or you did, too.

But I don't agree with your definition.

 

[Thumper]

I 100% understand the NTS fallacy.

Do you understand the NTS fallacy is predicated on these axioms?

*Truth and falsehoods exist.

*A Scotsman exists.

*"No true" whether employed accurately or not implies "true ones do exist".

True Christians exist. I define them, YOU define them, and Jesus, the founder of this faith, defined them. You cannot reasonable invoke NTS here for my quoting Jesus's words. That's silly.

Further, if you invoke NTS on me or anyone, you are asserting that absolute immaterial things (truth, falsity) exist. When you say I'm guilty of any fallacy at all for that matter (ad populum, for example) this is predicated on the axiom "there are correct arguments and incorrect arguments, objectively speaking" unless fallacies are subjective in nature.

If you'd like to redact your statement to you feel subjectivity I'm guilty of an NTS fallacy, I can accept that.

A fallacious argument can exist anytime the reply is off the issue, the truth of the original statement or the reply notwithstanding.

If I say ”many Christians believe x” and your reply is "no true Christians believe x" you are arguing 'no true Scotsman.' You want to argue the validity of "x" then do so.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Nonsense. Being correct isn't part of what determines whether a person is or isn't an adherent of a religion.


But I don't agree with your definition.

You snipped my argument.

If you want to say I cannot define what a Christian is, how come you can define what a Christian denomination is?

 

[BilliardsBall]

A fallacious argument can exist anytime the reply is off the issue, the truth of the original statement or the reply notwithstanding.

If I say ”many Christians believe x” and your reply is "no true Christians believe x" you are arguing 'no true Scotsman.' You want to argue the validity of "x" then do so.

But I didn't say, "no true Christians believe X". What I said was, "Let's define a Christian as a follower of Christ." Is the following dictionary definition valid or invalid, do you think?

Christian - noun - a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

 

[Thumper]

But I didn't say, "no true Christians believe X". What I said was, "Let's define a Christian as a follower of Christ." Is the following dictionary definition valid or invalid, do you think?

Christian - noun - a person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings.

Actually the fine point we were discussing was your insistence that only "born again" Christians were "true Christians".

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually the fine point we were discussing was your insistence that only "born again" Christians were "true Christians".

I would stand by that, which IS an NTS fallacy unless I'm correct. True Scotsman are born in Scotland or became naturalized citizens of Scotland. You can accuse me of NTS for saying No True Scotsman drinks vodka, but you cannot invoke NTS for saying "all true Scotsman are Scottish."

 

[Thumper]

I would stand by that, which IS an NTS fallacy unless I'm correct. True Scotsman are born in Scotland or became naturalized citizens of Scotland. You can accuse me of NTS for saying No True Scotsman drinks vodka, but you cannot invoke NTS for saying "all true Scotsman are Scottish."

But the only true Christians are "born again" Christians. Who made you the arbiter of what makes a true Christian?

 

[Vorkosigan]

To my view, based on my understanding of nature, there is a basic right than any conscious being should have, which is the maximization of its wellbeing (or minimization of its suffering). This is my base for morality.

So the question for me is: can they suffer?

I don’t know if this has been researched yet, but do believe science is the only way we can know until what moment of a gestation, an interruption will cause no suffering to a fetus.

I am pro-choice up to that point.

 

[leibowde84]

How many on this forum? Please point to them.

I have never discussed this topic with atheists on this forum. I know many outside this forum that are not materialists.

 

[leibowde84]

It makes no sense that we have to define as axiomatic that these things exist in your syllogism?

No Christians believe in evolution.
Well, I'm a Christian and I believe in Evolution.
Well, no TRUE Christian believes in Evolution. You aren't a TRUE Christian.

In order for your syllogism to make sense as either true or false (NTS false) we would have to define what a "Christian" is. Once we define what a Christian is, so that your syllogism is constructed properly, we can then actually go ahead and use that definition to say "No Christians X" or "No Christians Y".

A better way to say what the problem is in the thread is that my definition of Christian is incorrect.

The no true scottsman fallacy is a logical fallacy. It speaks to the logical validity of your argument, not the definition of the term Christian.

A Christian is "a person who has received a Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings". It is an extremely inclusive term.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I have never discussed this topic with atheists on this forum. I know many outside this forum that are not materialists.

Thanks for the correction.

Do you know any atheists who believe in a virgin birth? Worldwide flood? Young Earth?

I trusted in Christ first, studied the scriptures, studied outside the scriptures, changed my convictions. Interesting, right?

 

[BilliardsBall]

The no true scottsman fallacy is a logical fallacy. It speaks to the logical validity of your argument, not the definition of the term Christian.

A Christian is "a person who has received a Christian baptism or is a believer in Jesus Christ and his teachings". It is an extremely inclusive term.

It is an extremely inclusive term. Is it a biblical term or an historical term or a socially-derived term? Jesus said to follow Him, you have to sell all your possessions. Yet the Greek word Christian means "follower of Christ". Sure looks like even fewer people than I say are true Christians, are.

Once we're done with the dictionary definition, "I was born Presbyterian so I'm definitely a Christian," we might even let Jesus Christ explain how to follow him, yes? Is that valid, to use the words of Jesus regarding following Jesus, to discern who follows Jesus and who is full of baloney?

 

[columbus]

Do you know any atheists who believe in a virgin birth?

Yes.
There are at least a couple of known species of vertebrates that reproduce without males. One is a fish in Africa and one is a Californian lizard.
Nature, as discovered by scientific folks, never ceases to amaze.
Tom