True and false christians ?

Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
True and false christians ?

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

 

have you been told this 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
If you were a true Christian

If you were a true Christian then you never would have left Christianity.

 

That is the logic anyway.  It is just a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

 

From their point of view, they are right because they are right (the logic is always circular) and unless they are willing to honestly subject their belief to rational scrutiny they will never be proven wrong.  So yea, not much you can do besides chip away at their 'faith' by pointing out errors, contradictions, etc. and hope someday it leaks into their thinking.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Bahana
atheist
Bahana's picture
Posts: 85
Joined: 2006-08-04
User is offlineOffline
  It's mostly just a

 

It's mostly just a personal attack saying you were a fake Christian. Many Christians cannot fathom that someone could actually leave the faith due to philosophical arguments, or evidence. They can't even agree among themselves what a real Christian is. Some protestants say catholics aren't Christians, while others do. Many say you're not a REAL Christian if you reject the trinity. It's completely arbitrary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote:what is the

Adventfred wrote:
what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

Well, there's no way to tell the difference between a Christian that will eventually become an atheist and one that won't. Any actually observable quality that they can point to, you can point to an ex-Christian that possessed those qualities, so they can only ad hoc. Then, the act of becoming an atheist itself is the criteria. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Endorse all said so far

 

The nature of the true christian is subjective and arbitrary. It hangs variously on multiple points of doctrine. My big brother rejects early OT as mythology. My mother insists it's historical and a direct communication from the lord of the frogs. Both believe that their own assertions are correct, though brother david is more open to the possibility of the ambiguous. Younger brother depends on the complexity of the universe and goes on about putting scrap metal in a shipping container and shaking it until a ferrari comes out. He is not sure about hell anymore. Younger sister just wants a hug from dad and some one to help her day to day. The big questions she leaves to HIM. 

I think it's fair to say if you compared the beliefs of a broad swathe of believers historically you'd find increasing shifts from the text in modern times but this depends on the sect or branch of the faith concerned. There are those fundies who still believe every word in the bible is true. I would contend - on the basis of my own opinion - that the more nebulous, the more capable of re-interpretation a holy book is, the greater its potential cultural longevity. Verily, the modern faiths depend in great part on that which cannot be known and reinterpretation of those parts on which their text is most vague.

In a sorry sense, scientific discovery of the boundaries of understanding has given the god-people the ability to project their minds further and further from earth into theoretical areas where possible realities and bible metaphysics can more readily be woven together. Now they all talk about the big bang and the hoggs bison like they were the ones who thought of it. And yes, Fred, I am accused of this sin by my whole family - mostly mum.  I was never a true christian. It's a position that ignores the changing levels of faith/interpretation they all display but apparently only I can see. And it's an ad hom.

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Have you ever actually met a

Have you ever actually met a real Christian? Because every 'Christian' I've ever met has convenience as their real god. God just conforms to whatever they find convenient.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote:how the

Adventfred wrote:

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

have you been told this 

A true Christian has no seeds of doubt.  The mere fact that you were even swayable shows that you never fully trusted in God.  Christianity is a relationship with God.  Relationships are characterized by trust.  Two options here:  Either you knew God but never fully trusted him, or you never knew God but simply believed he was there.  Since you went the atheist rout, I would pick the latter option. 


 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
A true christian would

A true christian would remember his password to the atheist forum and not have to keep making new users for himself.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Adventfred

Fortunate_S wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

have you been told this 

A true Christian has no seeds of doubt.  The mere fact that you were even swayable shows that you never fully trusted in God.  Christianity is a relationship with God.  Relationships are characterized by trust.  Two options here:  Either you knew God but never fully trusted him, or you never knew God but simply believed he was there.  Since you went the atheist rout, I would pick the latter option. 

IOW, someone who has drunk deeply of the 'kool-aid' and is permanently lost to reason.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Fortunate_S
TheistTroll
Posts: 105
Joined: 2010-04-24
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Fortunate_S

BobSpence1 wrote:

Fortunate_S wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

have you been told this 

A true Christian has no seeds of doubt.  The mere fact that you were even swayable shows that you never fully trusted in God.  Christianity is a relationship with God.  Relationships are characterized by trust.  Two options here:  Either you knew God but never fully trusted him, or you never knew God but simply believed he was there.  Since you went the atheist rout, I would pick the latter option. 

IOW, someone who has drunk deeply of the 'kool-aid' and is permanently lost to reason.

By that metric, you'd be a Christian.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate Son preaches

Fortunate_S wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

have you been told this 

A true Christian has no seeds of doubt.  The mere fact that you were even swayable shows that you never fully trusted in God.  Christianity is a relationship with God.  Relationships are characterized by trust.  Two options here:  Either you knew God but never fully trusted him, or you never knew God but simply believed he was there.  Since you went the atheist rout, I would pick the latter option. 

 

The doctrine of the completely subjective. Of course in this case fortunate son is behaving like a pompous twat. Even the greatest christians have had enormous doubts - including jesus on the cross. The fact FS claims to have never doubted makes me wonder if he is a real christian at all. He has never struggled to clear away the brambles from his heart with bleeding hands to allow the love of jesus christ to pour in. He has never battled up the narrow, winding path, his metaphorical lungs burning. His certainty represents the broad, easy path of pride in his own achievements. Gehenna awaits him.

 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3929
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:A true

Fortunate_S wrote:

A true Christian has no seeds of doubt.  The mere fact that you were even swayable shows that you never fully trusted in God.  Christianity is a relationship with God.  Relationships are characterized by trust.  Two options here:  Either you knew God but never fully trusted him, or you never knew God but simply believed he was there.  Since you went the atheist rout, I would pick the latter option. 


 

He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”

—Matthew 17:20    Moved any mountains latetly FS? Must be those seeds of doubt. Why don't you pray with all your faith that we would become Christians? Let's see how much doubt you really have.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Counter-question: Who

Counter-question: Who honestly gives flying FUCK about "True Christians"?? 'True Christianity' died an excruciatingly painful death the moment Charles Darwin determined the Earth was a helluva lot older then a mere 6-10 thousand years old. (He concluded falsely it was within the 6-digit figure range, but hey... nobody's perfect! Eye-wink

A few centuries earlier, abiogenesis was disproven as well!


*bows*

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Joeland (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Not all Christians believe

Not all Christians believe the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old and even if thats what people do believe, I don't think debunking that one misconception proves anything against God.  In all honesty, I don't even see how evolution disproves God

 

 

 

 


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
what is a true christian

Joeland wrote:
Not all Christians believe the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old and even if thats what people do believe, I don't think debunking that one misconception proves anything against God. 

So who are the true christians?  The ones who believe in the young earth, or those who do not?  Which ones are reading their bibles properly (the literalists, or the contextualists)?

Joeland wrote:
In all honesty, I don't even see how evolution disproves God

It may not disprove a god, but I do not find evolution compatible with belief in a christian god.  Check out this thread if you feel otherwise.

 

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:Joeland

zarathustra wrote:

Joeland wrote:
Not all Christians believe the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old and even if thats what people do believe, I don't think debunking that one misconception proves anything against God. 

So who are the true christians?  The ones who believe in the young earth, or those who do not?  Which ones are reading their bibles properly (the literalists, or the contextualists)?

Joeland wrote:
In all honesty, I don't even see how evolution disproves God

It may not disprove a god, but I do not find evolution compatible with belief in a christian god.  Check out this thread if you feel otherwise.

 

 

 

Yea, for the two to live in the same brain at the same time you have to totally discount literalism in the Bible.  Once you've done that you've essentially made a new religion, because it isn't the religion that Jesus (if he existed) believed in if you strip out creationism and the arbitrary line between humans and other animals.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I don't know any who would

I don't know any who would make this claim, the people I know are all much too hardcore to even believe I am an atheist. They think I am on some anti kick thing and that I really believe. To them it's just not possible to "not believe". One of them uses the "god wants you to know" app or w/e it's called on face book. This seems chldish and stupid, something someone made up "god is telling you something".  If I were religious I would think it would piss me off, but these guys are soooo brainwashed, you could write god in a steaming piece of shit and I bet they would think it was blessed from the fiction himself.

They are so full of carp they have become the carp.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The point of evolution is

The point of evolution is not that it 'disproves' God, but that it does remove a major justification for belief in God, by providing a good alternative explanation for how complex life forms could arise.

In fact it did provide an explanation for what Darwin himself found very puzzling while he still believed in God: why would God create all these minor variations of species that he observed on neighbouring islands? Why so many species? What was the point? 

He realized that random variation plus natural selection provided a very straightforward explanation. That then lead him to extend the idea on a global scale, and he realized that it all pointed to an explanation for the whole world of life which explained many things quite naturally without assuming a 'designer'.

The only role left for God was to start the process, but we now have plenty of evidence that it could all have got started quite naturally as well.

Again, not disproof of God, just removing a major reason for belief in God.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Joeland wrote:Not all

Joeland wrote:

Not all Christians believe the earth is only 6-10 thousand years old and even if thats what people do believe, I don't think debunking that one misconception proves anything against God.  In all honesty, I don't even see how evolution disproves God

 

Proof for the existence of imaginary things can't be found outside the imagination.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TruthbringerOfT...
TruthbringerOfTrueTruthiness's picture
Posts: 13
Joined: 2010-04-26
User is offlineOffline
Fortunate_S wrote:Adventfred

Fortunate_S wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

have you been told this 

A true Christian has no seeds of doubt.  The mere fact that you were even swayable shows that you never fully trusted in God.  Christianity is a relationship with God.  Relationships are characterized by trust.  Two options here:  Either you knew God but never fully trusted him, or you never knew God but simply believed he was there.  Since you went the atheist rout, I would pick the latter option. 

Yes, Finally someone gets it!  A true Christian has NO doubt.   They KNOW with  absolute certainty that  God  3.0 is real!  They KNOW that GOD 3.0's  magical  unicorns of power will come and save them at  the very end and protect them from evil.  Relationships are based on trust.  You need to trust God 3.0 and his magical unicorns to save you.  That is how you tell a TRUE Christian from a fake one. 

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Yea, for

mellestad wrote:

 

Yea, for the two to live in the same brain at the same time you have to totally discount literalism in the Bible.  Once you've done that you've essentially made a new religion, because it isn't the religion that Jesus (if he existed) believed in if you strip out creationism and the arbitrary line between humans and other animals.

i don't know about that.  as i've said before, the doctrine of biblical "inerrancy" (i.e., that the bible is the final authority on ALL matters to which it speaks), which gives rise to hyper-literalism, is the new kid on the block when it comes to the theological history.  for example, jesus may very well have been influenced by jewish hellenism to a certain degree, which accepts, with certain qualifications, the cosmology of the neo-platonists, which in the strictest sense contradicts the cosmology of the hebrew bible.  this is why rabbinical judaism and the talmud, not to mention the writings of philo and the later, heavily aristotelian writings of maimonides, arose in the first place.  the idea of the "oral torah" is that it is a sort of dialogue with god so that judaism may adapt to changing circumstances and discoveries.  protestantism, along with its offshoots, is the only religious tradition in which the bible is the only authority.  roman catholicism with its magisterium, orthodoxy with its ecumenical councils, and judaism with its oral torah, see the bible as a part--albeit the central part--of a living continuum in which god's revelation is constantly unfolding to suit mankind's understanding.  the fact that this continuum often contains paradoxes is acknowledged and celebrated. 

this may have been, to some degree, jesus's understanding as well.  there's certainly no historical evidence for biblical literalism in first century palestine.  in fact, the bible itself was still in flux during this period.

 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:mellestad

iwbiek wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

Yea, for the two to live in the same brain at the same time you have to totally discount literalism in the Bible.  Once you've done that you've essentially made a new religion, because it isn't the religion that Jesus (if he existed) believed in if you strip out creationism and the arbitrary line between humans and other animals.

i don't know about that.  as i've said before, the doctrine of biblical "inerrancy" (i.e., that the bible is the final authority on ALL matters to which it speaks), which gives rise to hyper-literalism, is the new kid on the block when it comes to the theological history.  for example, jesus may very well have been influenced by jewish hellenism to a certain degree, which accepts, with certain qualifications, the cosmology of the neo-platonists, which in the strictest sense contradicts the cosmology of the hebrew bible.  this is why rabbinical judaism and the talmud, not to mention the writings of philo and the later, heavily aristotelian writings of maimonides, arose in the first place.  the idea of the "oral torah" is that it is a sort of dialogue with god so that judaism may adapt to changing circumstances and discoveries.  protestantism, along with its offshoots, is the only religious tradition in which the bible is the only authority.  roman catholicism with its magisterium, orthodoxy with its ecumenical councils, and judaism with its oral torah, see the bible as a part--albeit the central part--of a living continuum in which god's revelation is constantly unfolding to suit mankind's understanding.  the fact that this continuum often contains paradoxes is acknowledged and celebrated. 

this may have been, to some degree, jesus's understanding as well.  there's certainly no historical evidence for biblical literalism in first century palestine.  in fact, the bible itself was still in flux during this period.

 

 

Hmm, interesting.  I guess the next time I talk to a Jewish scholar I'll try and remember to ask what the common belief was in the region at that time.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred wrote:how the

Adventfred wrote:

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

 

have you been told this 

 

Hi Adventfred,

 

Let's think of an ex-spouse.  It is likely (not for every ex though, of course) that he/she will make the comments about his/her ex similar to this: "She/he never truly loved me".

I think the same "logic" applies to christians.  Many of them try to label you as a weak untrue believer instead of looking for answers within their own belief system.  Of course, they are ignorant, but the same psychological patterns can be found in other groups of individuals, not just believers.

The bottom line, by telling you that you was never a true christian, your partner may very likely to protect unconsciously her/his unmatured intellect and her/his narrow intellect comfort zone.  It has nothing to do with you, but more with your partner.  

Best,

100%

 

Fortunate_S,

Have you seen the movie "Doubt"?

100%

 


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I think if you are an

I think if you are an atheist now, and were a christian, it is possible that you were a hardcore christian simply due to lack of knowledge, which has since been gained.

If you are a christian now and claim to have been an atheist, I would think you never really considered  yourself to be an actual atheist. An atheist has perused all the knowledge and information they could and drew this conclusion based on actual evidence. If you manage to become a christian after having been an atheist then did you ever really believe or take seriously the evidence for no gods in the first place?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

Adventfred wrote:
what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

Well, there's no way to tell the difference between a Christian that will eventually become an atheist and one that won't. Any actually observable quality that they can point to, you can point to an ex-Christian that possessed those qualities, so they can only ad hoc. Then, the act of becoming an atheist itself is the criteria. 

 

hahahaha ain't that a cup of coffee

but now im getting the "later in life when you suffer enough you would come back to god"

i mean what the fuck im confused mind you two different people said those stuff 

they even disagree with each other 


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: The

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

The nature of the true christian is subjective and arbitrary. It hangs variously on multiple points of doctrine. My big brother rejects early OT as mythology. My mother insists it's historical and a direct communication from the lord of the frogs. Both believe that their own assertions are correct, though brother david is more open to the possibility of the ambiguous. Younger brother depends on the complexity of the universe and goes on about putting scrap metal in a shipping container and shaking it until a ferrari comes out. He is not sure about hell anymore. Younger sister just wants a hug from dad and some one to help her day to day. The big questions she leaves to HIM. 

I think it's fair to say if you compared the beliefs of a broad swathe of believers historically you'd find increasing shifts from the text in modern times but this depends on the sect or branch of the faith concerned. There are those fundies who still believe every word in the bible is true. I would contend - on the basis of my own opinion - that the more nebulous, the more capable of re-interpretation a holy book is, the greater its potential cultural longevity. Verily, the modern faiths depend in great part on that which cannot be known and reinterpretation of those parts on which their text is most vague.

In a sorry sense, scientific discovery of the boundaries of understanding has given the god-people the ability to project their minds further and further from earth into theoretical areas where possible realities and bible metaphysics can more readily be woven together. Now they all talk about the big bang and the hoggs bison like they were the ones who thought of it. And yes, Fred, I am accused of this sin by my whole family - mostly mum.  I was never a true christian. It's a position that ignores the changing levels of faith/interpretation they all display but apparently only I can see. And it's an ad hom.

 

my whole family are fundies  and thats not even the sad part, i still live with them  

i hear shit all the time and now my stupid headphones have died ahhhhh gotta get a new one asap 

how do you deal with them ?


Adventfred
atheist
Adventfred's picture
Posts: 298
Joined: 2009-09-12
User is offlineOffline
100percentAtheist

100percentAtheist wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

 

have you been told this 

 

Hi Adventfred,

 

Let's think of an ex-spouse.  It is likely (not for every ex though, of course) that he/she will make the comments about his/her ex similar to this: "She/he never truly loved me".

I think the same "logic" applies to christians.  Many of them try to label you as a weak untrue believer instead of looking for answers within their own belief system.  Of course, they are ignorant, but the same psychological patterns can be found in other groups of individuals, not just believers.

The bottom line, by telling you that you was never a true christian, your partner may very likely to protect unconsciously her/his unmatured intellect and her/his narrow intellect comfort zone.  It has nothing to do with you, but more with your partner.  

Best,

100%

 

Fortunate_S,

Have you seen the movie "Doubt"?

100%

 

good to know the problem is not me Smiling also when i said partner i was not talking about my girlfriend lol ( i know you didnt say that just letting everyone know ) 

When i started dating my current girl we both were christofags but as i went thru the stressful change i feed it to her and now we both are atheist im strong and she is weak 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
Adventfred

Adventfred wrote:

100percentAtheist wrote:

Adventfred wrote:

how the fuck do they know atheist's were never true  christians. 

i had a partner told me that recently 

what is the fucking criteria for with to discern a true christian from a false one 

 

theists i welcome you to answer the question also atheists you can respond

 

have you been told this 

 

Hi Adventfred,

 

Let's think of an ex-spouse.  It is likely (not for every ex though, of course) that he/she will make the comments about his/her ex similar to this: "She/he never truly loved me".

I think the same "logic" applies to christians.  Many of them try to label you as a weak untrue believer instead of looking for answers within their own belief system.  Of course, they are ignorant, but the same psychological patterns can be found in other groups of individuals, not just believers.

The bottom line, by telling you that you was never a true christian, your partner may very likely to protect unconsciously her/his unmatured intellect and her/his narrow intellect comfort zone.  It has nothing to do with you, but more with your partner.  

Best,

100%

 

Fortunate_S,

Have you seen the movie "Doubt"?

100%

 

good to know the problem is not me Smiling also when i said partner i was not talking about my girlfriend lol ( i know you didnt say that just letting everyone know ) 

When i started dating my current girl we both were christofags but as i went thru the stressful change i feed it to her and now we both are atheist im strong and she is weak 

 

Actually, I thought of a business partner ... Smiling

I'm puzzled ...  what are your definitions of "strong" and "weak" atheists?  Do you mean by these terms "atheist" and "atheist agnostic", respectively? 

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: Hmm,

mellestad wrote:

 

Hmm, interesting.  I guess the next time I talk to a Jewish scholar I'll try and remember to ask what the common belief was in the region at that time.

well, you are talking to a judaism scholar, though not a jewish scholar.  i don't (yet) have postgraduate credentials, and i'm certainly not distinguished in any way, but i do have training.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:mellestad

iwbiek wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

Hmm, interesting.  I guess the next time I talk to a Jewish scholar I'll try and remember to ask what the common belief was in the region at that time.

well, you are talking to a judaism scholar, though not a jewish scholar.  i don't (yet) have postgraduate credentials, and i'm certainly not distinguished in any way, but i do have training.

 

So so you know the answer?  Is it reasonable to assume a Jew of the time saw the Torah as literal or figurative, or is it unknown?  You said Jesus might have thought a certain way, but do you know what a Jew of the time (and place) was likely to think?

 

Edit:  And this would be specifically about the creation story and man being above and separate from other animals.  

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5133
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
All you can do is put up with it

Adventfred wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

The nature of the true christian is subjective and arbitrary. It hangs variously on multiple points of doctrine. My big brother rejects early OT as mythology. My mother insists it's historical and a direct communication from the lord of the frogs. Both believe that their own assertions are correct, though brother david is more open to the possibility of the ambiguous. Younger brother depends on the complexity of the universe and goes on about putting scrap metal in a shipping container and shaking it until a ferrari comes out. He is not sure about hell anymore. Younger sister just wants a hug from dad and some one to help her day to day. The big questions she leaves to HIM. 

I think it's fair to say if you compared the beliefs of a broad swathe of believers historically you'd find increasing shifts from the text in modern times but this depends on the sect or branch of the faith concerned. There are those fundies who still believe every word in the bible is true. I would contend - on the basis of my own opinion - that the more nebulous, the more capable of re-interpretation a holy book is, the greater its potential cultural longevity. Verily, the modern faiths depend in great part on that which cannot be known and reinterpretation of those parts on which their text is most vague.

In a sorry sense, scientific discovery of the boundaries of understanding has given the god-people the ability to project their minds further and further from earth into theoretical areas where possible realities and bible metaphysics can more readily be woven together. Now they all talk about the big bang and the hoggs bison like they were the ones who thought of it. And yes, Fred, I am accused of this sin by my whole family - mostly mum.  I was never a true christian. It's a position that ignores the changing levels of faith/interpretation they all display but apparently only I can see. And it's an ad hom.

 

my whole family are fundies  and thats not even the sad part, i still live with them  

i hear shit all the time and now my stupid headphones have died ahhhhh gotta get a new one asap 

how do you deal with them ?

 

Put your relationship with them ahead of the god-thing and call into question their odd beliefs at every turn...

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


surprisedant
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-01-17
User is offlineOffline
A true Christian has had

A true Christian has had certain experiences. Unfortunately, those experiences are indescribable to anyone who has not had them. The idea of true Christians is validated and rendered definable simultaneously. Perhaps someday science will reach the point where true and false Christians can be distinguished ahead of time by means of some sort of brain scan.

If this concept is the product of the Christian's incredulity about someone's leaving the fold after having certain experiences, the concept has no objective basis. However, the real ground of the concept is the Christian's belief that he personally could never leave the fold, which serves, for him, as evidence about how other people would act under the same circumstances. By analogy: I wince when I feel pain, so other people will also wince when they feel pain. My judgment here is objective, not subjective.

For the Christian, then, the concept, true Christian, is definite and objective. There is a devastating criticism that we can make of this concept, however: it is not publicly observable. The idea of introspection has long been out of vogue among reputable people, and all concepts based purely on it have to be treated with skepticism. How, then, are we to evaluate a concept that is only definable in terms of introspection? The theist has no analogy to the beliefs or emotions available here, since we're known forever that part of having a belief, and part of having a given emotion, is acting on it.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
surprisedant wrote:A true

surprisedant wrote:

A true Christian has had certain experiences. Unfortunately, those experiences are indescribable to anyone who has not had them. The idea of true Christians is validated and rendered definable simultaneously. Perhaps someday science will reach the point where true and false Christians can be distinguished ahead of time by means of some sort of brain scan.

If this concept is the product of the Christian's incredulity about someone's leaving the fold after having certain experiences, the concept has no objective basis. However, the real ground of the concept is the Christian's belief that he personally could never leave the fold, which serves, for him, as evidence about how other people would act under the same circumstances. By analogy: I wince when I feel pain, so other people will also wince when they feel pain. My judgment here is objective, not subjective.

 

At the core the idea is simply a no true Scotsman fallacy.  It isn't any more complicated than that.  "True" Christianity is defined as objective 'Truth" by an individual, regardless of logic or what anyone else experiences.  One of my big gripes with fundamentalist theists is the fact that they can't show how their belief is objectively true, or even show that another theist (of differing religion) is objectively wrong.  All theists tend to use the same internal logic to reach their conclusions about ultimate reality but unfortunately those conclusions are often mutually exclusive.  In one person A=2 and in another A=4 and they claim to be using the same math, and neither is willing to admit the very real possibility that A=0.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


surprisedant
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-01-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: At the core

mellestad wrote:
At the core the idea is simply a no true Scotsman fallacy.  It isn't any more complicated than that.  "True" Christianity is defined as objective 'Truth" by an individual, regardless of logic or what anyone else experiences.  One of my big gripes with fundamentalist theists is the fact that they can't show how their belief is objectively true, or even show that another theist (of differing religion) is objectively wrong.  All theists tend to use the same internal logic to reach their conclusions about ultimate reality but unfortunately those conclusions are often mutually exclusive.  In one person A=2 and in another A=4 and they claim to be using the same math, and neither is willing to admit the very real possibility that A=0.

There is a rational basis for the concept, so it's not a no true scotsman fallacy. There are problems with the concept, but that's not one of them.


surprisedant
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Simple version.Its defined

Simple version.

It's not a no true scotsman because the scotsman has no actual evidence of how scotsmen act. The Christian does know how true Christians act, because he knows how he would act.

Edit: Don't say, "but the scotsman also knows how he would act." That's totally irrelevant, because they're in different categories. Scottish is a nationality, and true Christianity is a psychological state.


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
surprisedant wrote:A true

surprisedant wrote:

A true Christian has had certain experiences. Unfortunately, those experiences are indescribable to anyone who has not had them. The idea of true Christians is validated and rendered definable simultaneously. Perhaps someday science will reach the point where true and false Christians can be distinguished ahead of time by means of some sort of brain scan.

 

I feel scared by what you write in this and other your posts. 

From Wikipedia.

"Scientific racism is the use of scientific, or ostensibly scientific, findings and method to investigate differences among the human races to support or validate racist world-views, usually based upon belief in the existence and significance of racial categories — typically with a hierarchy of superior and inferior races."


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
surprisedant wrote:Edit:

surprisedant wrote:

Edit: Don't say, "but the scotsman also knows how he would act." That's totally irrelevant, because they're in different categories. Scottish is a nationality, and true Christianity is a psychological state.

 

Do you classify a communist as an individual in a certain psychological state?

"The State Department is infested with communists [atheists]. I have here in my hand a list of 205—a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party [atheist sect] and who nevertheless are still working and shaping policy in the State Department." senator McCarthy, February 9, 1950. 

Now, change "communists" with atheists or "false" Christians, and your speech is ready.

 


100percentAtheist
atheist
100percentAtheist's picture
Posts: 679
Joined: 2010-05-02
User is offlineOffline
 Look at what I've just

 Look at what I've just found! Smiling

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=christian%20bigot

"True Christian™

Originally a descriptive for a member of Landover Baptist Church (God's Favorite Church) but also includes those members of the Exclusive Country Club of the Predestined and Sanctified Elect who believes and preaches the Bible IN ITS ENTIRETY; and who, by stating they "love the sinner and hate the sin" have no problem telling anyone who isn’t a non-White Anglo-Saxon conservative fundagelical -- including, but not limited to Cathylicks, Homersexurals, Joos, Mooslims, Hindoos, Boodhists, Mormens, Methodists, Whiskypalians, Plentycostals, blacks, the French, ragheads, LIEberals and DEMONcrats -- that God loves them so much He's going to make sure they burn in an everlasting Hell. 

 

Examples of True Christians™ include Betty Bowers, Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, John Hagee, James Dobson, Tom DeLay, Rod Parsley, Sister Taffy and Judy O’Christian. Note: descriptions or lists of these kinds of Christians should always be accompanied with the ™ sign. 

James Dobson's brand of True Christian™ lurve, where he lovingly tells all homosexuals that they're going to burn in Hell, makes me feel all warm and tingly inside!"


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: So so you

mellestad wrote:

 

So so you know the answer?  Is it reasonable to assume a Jew of the time saw the Torah as literal or figurative, or is it unknown?  You said Jesus might have thought a certain way, but do you know what a Jew of the time (and place) was likely to think?

 

Edit:  And this would be specifically about the creation story and man being above and separate from other animals.  

well, of course no one can know what a specific individual 2000 years ago would have thought, but we do have a lot of literary evidence for the rich array of jewish thought in the first century, and much of it departs a great deal from a literal reading of the text.  please recall that at least a thousand years separated the first tellings of the genesis tradition from the time of jesus, and at least 500 years separated the time when those traditions were written down from the time of jesus.  the jews of first-century judea were much more urbanized and sophisticated than the semi-nomadic hebrews who first told the creation myths.

for one thing, there was no monolithic judaism at that time--in fact, i would at least tentatively argue that judaism today, with all its branches, is more monolithic than the religion of the early first-century jews.  for one thing, as i already pointed out, the hebrew canon was still in flux, though the pentateuch was probably more or less established.  septuagint notwithstanding, the "authoritative" hebrew bible, i.e., the masoretic text, was not fixed until the middle ages.  usually, hyper-literalism only follows when one already has a firmly established, authoritative text.

a couple other examples contemporary with jesus, just off the top of my head: 

1. we know from the gospels that there was a huge factional debate in the first century about whether or not there would be a literal resurrection of the dead.  if one takes the writings of the prophets strictly literally (and these were available more or less in the form we know them today, as qumran attests), then such a debate should not exist.

2. while it is true that we can also gather from the gospels that jesus probably believed in a literal resurrection, it's also evident that jesus was at the very least strongly influenced by the many apocalyptic sects that proliferated in his day, if not a full-fledged member of one or more of them.  the popular judaism of the first century was obsessed with apocalypticism, and pseudepigrapha which are not accepted as authoritative by either jews or christians today were obviously accepted as such in the time of jesus.  hell, even 1 peter and jude, both written long after jesus croaked, allude to the book of enoch.  apocalypticism is a religious phenomenon which relies on ecstatic visions and charismatic leadership, and, where it rarely expounds upon a text, does so very loosely.

3. also, as i said before, first-century judaism was heavily hellenised, as even the vocabulary of many new testament writings demonstrate.  even rabbinical judaism, which had its roots in pharisaism and was a bit reactionary toward hellenistic thought, unconsciously borrowed from hellenistic ideas, and this influence can be seen in the earliest tannaitic writings of the talmud.  philo of alexandria wrote his popular synthesis of jewish and hellenistic philosophy about a generation before jesus.  part of his synthesis is concerned with creation, is influenced by neoplatonism, and doesn't jive in the strictest sense with a literal interpretation of genesis.  even the much later writings of maimonides on creation, which are much more conservative, aristotelian, and rationalistic, don't jive with a literal reading of genesis.  outside of the talmud (which also doesn't espouse literalism, btw), philo and maimonides are the two most influential writers of pre-kabbalistic judaism.

ok, so this sums up why i think it's pretty clear that strict biblical literalism, in the present-day fundamentalist sense (including that of some orthodox jews), was not an influential school of thought in first-century judaism (if it existed at all--there is no evidence for it).  now, as for the two areas of creation and mankind's place in it:

1. the debate on whether or not the world was literally spoken into being in six 24-hour days that vexes so many today was, for all we know, nonexistent among first-century jews.  perhaps it was taken for granted, but a lot of literary evidence (like philo's writings) seems to suggest otherwise.  there are no extant contemporary polemics against philo's neoplatonic ideas, that i know of, condemning him as a heretic.  for both hellenistic and proto-rabbinic jews, the literal word of scripture disguised a deeper truth.  for the former, it was a truth about man's soul, for the latter, a truth about jurisprudence (halakhah)--this is an oversimplification, but gives you the general idea.  so, if you were to ask jesus if the world was created, word for word as genesis says, in six literal days, i don't know if he would say yes or no or maybe, but i'm guessing he would start by cocking his head curiously to the side.

2. as for man, yes, all of judaism, as far as i know, has always been united on the idea that man was created in yahweh's image and likeness, and that dominion of the earth has been given to him.  in fact, judaism assigns a much more important place to man than christianity does.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
surprisedant wrote:Simple

surprisedant wrote:

Simple version.

It's not a no true scotsman because the scotsman has no actual evidence of how scotsmen act. The Christian does know how true Christians act, because he knows how he would act.

Edit: Don't say, "but the scotsman also knows how he would act." That's totally irrelevant, because they're in different categories. Scottish is a nationality, and true Christianity is a psychological state.

 

You just gave a textbook example of a No True Scotsman fallacy in your example of why it isn't a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
So on the second point he

So on the second point he most likely would have disagreed, ok.

 

On the first point, if you came to a Jew of the time and said:

1.  The creation story did not happen in a week.

2.  The order of creation is totally wrong.

3.  Adam and Eve were not the first humans, indeed there were no 'first' humans.

4.  God was not involved, or needed for the creation of humans.

5.  Anything else I'm not thinking of that evolution implies.

There were popular Jewish traditions that would be able to integrate that into their worldview?

 

I guess I'm skeptical of the notion that there was any Jewish movement of the time would be willing to abandon the entire line of thought involving a deity influencing creation, or that anyone of any religion of the time would accept a non-supernatural explanation for the existence of humans.

 

However, I freely admit that I am not a student of the era, so I'm not saying I believe or know anything.

 

Summary:  So I said, "Yea, for the two to live in the same brain at the same time you have to totally discount literalism in the Bible.  Once you've done that you've essentially made a new religion, because it isn't the religion that Jesus (if he existed) believed in if you strip out creationism and the arbitrary line between humans and other animals."

Based on what you are saying, the first sentence is invalid.  Is the second?

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


surprisedant
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-01-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:surprisedant

mellestad wrote:

surprisedant wrote:

Simple version.

It's not a no true scotsman because the scotsman has no actual evidence of how scotsmen act. The Christian does know how true Christians act, because he knows how he would act.

Edit: Don't say, "but the scotsman also knows how he would act." That's totally irrelevant, because they're in different categories. Scottish is a nationality, and true Christianity is a psychological state.

 

You just gave a textbook example of a No True Scotsman fallacy in your example of why it isn't a No True Scotsman fallacy.

You have no idea what the no true scotsman fallacy is, I'm sorry to inform you.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
surprisedant wrote:mellestad

surprisedant wrote:

mellestad wrote:

surprisedant wrote:

Simple version.

It's not a no true scotsman because the scotsman has no actual evidence of how scotsmen act. The Christian does know how true Christians act, because he knows how he would act.

Edit: Don't say, "but the scotsman also knows how he would act." That's totally irrelevant, because they're in different categories. Scottish is a nationality, and true Christianity is a psychological state.

 

You just gave a textbook example of a No True Scotsman fallacy in your example of why it isn't a No True Scotsman fallacy.

You have no idea what the no true scotsman fallacy is, I'm sorry to inform you.

 

Would you mind enlightening me?

 

The only way your example is not a fallacy is if you can point to an objective standard of what a True Christian is.  So far all  you've done is state that a person will know it when they feel it, which is circular.  The No True Scotsman fallacy is the idea that an individual can use their own subjective opinion to create an objective definition of something without any other work.  For example:

 

Surprise is not a real person because real people don't disagree with me and surprise is disagreeing with me.

I've stated:

1) Real people do not disagree with me

2) Surprise does not disagree with me

3) Surprise is not a real person

 

I just defined "Real People" without any input.  The error is in my initial assumption, which was created by myself to verify the idea that surprise is not a real person.

 

Real Christians would never stop being Christians because Real Christians do not stop being Christians.

1) Real Christians never stop being Christians

2) Some people have stopped being Christians

3) Those people were never Real Christians.

 

This is the same logical error because it verifies itself in a circular fashion.  You need to justify "Real Christians never stop being Christians" in a logical way for 2 and 3 to be correct, but you again rely on circular logic to verify because you say, "Real Christians never stop being Christians because I don't think I would ever stop being a Christian and I define myself as a "Real Christian".

 

Again, You just gave a textbook example of a No True Scotsman fallacy in your example of why it isn't a No True Scotsman fallacy.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


surprisedant
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Would you mind

Quote:

Would you mind enlightening me?

 

The only way your example is not a fallacy is if you can point to an objective standard of what a True Christian is.  So far all  you've done is state that a person will know it when they feel it, which is circular.  The No True Scotsman fallacy is the idea that an individual can use their own subjective

It has nothing to do with subjectivity. It's about good reason.

The scotsman has no way to say anything about other scotsmen. They just share a nationality with him, which doesn't give him any good reason to say how they would act. The REAL problem is that he's saying something with no actual grounds for saying it, just because he thinks a shared nationality implies similar actions.

Meanwhile, the true Christian does have grounds for saying stuff about other true Christians. They had the same experience, so they have actual common ground.

So, to repeat, there is no no true scotsman fallacy here.

Quote:

Again, You just gave a textbook example of a No True Scotsman fallacy in your example of why it isn't a No True Scotsman fallacy.

It's not a textbook example, it's a Bertrand Russell example. The man was a rabid atheist.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I still think my analogy is

I still think my analogy is good, when I believed in god, worried about hell, and used prayer, I believed in that carp. Since then I have become more knowledgable and with knowledge and critical thinking reality becomes more evident, for me anyway. To be truthful, I was in my late teens when I stopped caring, religion just started to slide away. Shortly thereafter I began to question it. To get personal I questioned why "god" made my grampa die and I think this helped lead me down the path I am now travelling.

So, I went from religious, sunday school attending, lutheran middle school attending (yes god was in the text books and the reason for most everything),to asking god why he let my grampa die, to not caring about religion, to finally taking an interest in looking around.

I haven't personally been criticized for not having been a "real" christian, but it could happen I suppose, I would call it desperation. It is akin to the way they tend to get personal with their attacks vs atheists in general. They feel attacked when someone does not believe in their fairytale and take it as a personal affront, a blow to their core beliefs to find someone else who does not believe and would consider it a delusion. Much the same way a crazy person might take it if you told them they are.. crazy.

 

 

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
surprisedant wrote:It has

surprisedant wrote:
It has nothing to do with subjectivity. It's about good reason.

The scotsman has no way to say anything about other scotsmen. They just share a nationality with him, which doesn't give him any good reason to say how they would act. The REAL problem is that he's saying something with no actual grounds for saying it, just because he thinks a shared nationality implies similar actions.

Meanwhile, the true Christian does have grounds for saying stuff about other true Christians. They had the same experience, so they have actual common ground.

So, to repeat, there is no no true scotsman fallacy here.

 

 

So if alleged christian A and alleged christian B hold contradictory beliefs--and each insists that he is the true christian because he knows he is, how do we determine who the real christian is, if either?

 

There are no theists on operating tables.

πππ†
π†††


surprisedant
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-01-17
User is offlineOffline
zarathustra wrote:So if

zarathustra wrote:
So if alleged christian A and alleged christian B hold contradictory beliefs--and each insists that he is the true christian because he knows he is, how do we determine who the real christian is, if either?

What are you doing?

I said, way back in the beginning, "There is a devastating criticism that we can make of this concept, however: it is not publicly observable."

All I claimed was, it's not a no true scotsman fallacy. So, the concept doesn't work... but it's not a no true scotsman. Again, it fails, but it doesn't fail LIKE THEY SAY IT DOES.

Okay?


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
surprisedant

surprisedant wrote:

Quote:

Would you mind enlightening me?

 

The only way your example is not a fallacy is if you can point to an objective standard of what a True Christian is.  So far all  you've done is state that a person will know it when they feel it, which is circular.  The No True Scotsman fallacy is the idea that an individual can use their own subjective

It has nothing to do with subjectivity. It's about good reason.

The scotsman has no way to say anything about other scotsmen. They just share a nationality with him, which doesn't give him any good reason to say how they would act. The REAL problem is that he's saying something with no actual grounds for saying it, just because he thinks a shared nationality implies similar actions.

Meanwhile, the true Christian does have grounds for saying stuff about other true Christians. They had the same experience, so they have actual common ground.

So, to repeat, there is no no true scotsman fallacy here.

Quote:

Again, You just gave a textbook example of a No True Scotsman fallacy in your example of why it isn't a No True Scotsman fallacy.

It's not a textbook example, it's a Bertrand Russell example. The man was a rabid atheist.

 

And a Christian has no way of knowing anything about any other Christian, all they share is a self applied label.  What is the common, objective experience that all "True Christians" share?

 

I'm not seeing how your arguments are helping your case, regardless of how many times you assert the that they are.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


surprisedant
Posts: 11
Joined: 2010-01-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:And a

mellestad wrote:
And a Christian has no way of knowing anything about any other Christian, all they share is a self applied label.  What is the common, objective experience that all "True Christians" share?

They share an experience. That's all I need.

Quote:
 I'm not seeing how your arguments are helping your case, regardless of how many times you assert the that they are.

(1) I wince when I feel pain, so other people wince when they feel pain.

(2) I would die for my true love, so other people would die for their true love.

(3) I can't deconvert after this experience, so other people can't deconvert after this experience.

1-3 are asserted on exactly the same principle. If 1 and 2 are okay, so is 3.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
surprisedant wrote:mellestad

surprisedant wrote:

mellestad wrote:
And a Christian has no way of knowing anything about any other Christian, all they share is a self applied label.  What is the common, objective experience that all "True Christians" share?

They share an experience. That's all I need.

Quote:
 I'm not seeing how your arguments are helping your case, regardless of how many times you assert the that they are.

(1) I wince when I feel pain, so other people wince when they feel pain.

(2) I would die for my true love, so other people would die for their true love.

(3) I can't deconvert after this experience, so other people can't deconvert after this experience.

1-3 are asserted on exactly the same principle. If 1 and 2 are okay, so is 3.

What is that shared experience?  You've dodged this question a few times now.

1)  An involuntary physical response to stimuli.  (And not everyone winces from the same levels of pain, and not everyone even feels pain.)

2)  An choice, based on an emotional response.  (This is a dubious claim anyway, you would have to use circular logic to make it "true".)

3)  An opinion about a subjective idea about a subjective experience that you have not defined.  (True Democrats would never become Republicans.)

Actually 1-3 are not exactly the same principle at all.

-------------------------------------------

A Christian has no way of knowing anything about any other Christian, all they share is a self applied label.  What is the common, objective experience that all "True Christians" share?

I'm not seeing how your arguments are helping your case, regardless of how many times you assert the that they are.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


RatDog
atheist
Posts: 573
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
surprisedant wrote:mellestad

surprisedant wrote:

mellestad wrote:
And a Christian has no way of knowing anything about any other Christian, all they share is a self applied label.  What is the common, objective experience that all "True Christians" share?

They share an experience. That's all I need.

Quote:
 I'm not seeing how your arguments are helping your case, regardless of how many times you assert the that they are.

(1) I wince when I feel pain, so other people wince when they feel pain.

(2) I would die for my true love, so other people would die for their true love.

(3) I can't deconvert after this experience, so other people can't deconvert after this experience.

1-3 are asserted on exactly the same principle. If 1 and 2 are okay, so is 3.

I don't see any logic in what you say.  Just because something is true for you doesn't mean that it's true for everyone.  For instance if I like pudding that doesn't mean that everyone else likes pudding.  While some things are true for everyone, for instance everyone eats, other things are true for some people and not true for others.  Not everyone loves their country.  Not everyone would die for their true love.  I don't see how you justify the belief that everyone who has had a certain experience will act a certain way forever.