Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:
1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012.
2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009.
3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008.
4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994.
5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996.
6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998.
7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994.
8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010.
9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984.
10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995.

Hmm...your understanding of Christianity is way off, if you were to suppose that these people are "Christians" in any genuine sense. Nothing Christ says allows them to do what is represented here, so in no sense could they be said to be acting "as Christians."

Now, I'm quite happy to concede that it's fair to accuse people of acting in the spirit of their beliefs, if that's what they do, as when Islamic terrorists kill civilians -- because the Koran tells them to kill "heretics" and "infidels." But I think the minimal standard of fairness requires that when someone does something outright contrary to the commandments of a religion, it's not fair to saddle the belief system to which they lay claim as the basis of their actions, any more than it would be right to accuse the Beatles of having made Manson do the "helter skelter" murders. That's just bad reasoning, or ignorance of the belief in question, or both.

However, I was not really asking about this. I was not interested in every crime committed by someone who professed a so-called "Christian" or even "religious" motive for something; rather, I was asking in specific about your claim that Dawkins himself had suffered "death threats" from "Christians." And I would be very happy to see what you have in that regard.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Hmm...your understanding of Christianity is way off, if you were to suppose that these people are "Christians" in any genuine sense. Nothing Christ says allows them to do what is represented here, so in no sense could they be said to be acting "as Christians."

Reluctantly, I have to agree with you, Immanuel. It's similar to how nothing Christ says allows one to go onto an internet forum and behave like a complete arse hole, I mean, Christ wouldn't have done that, would he?

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Hmm...your understanding of Christianity is way off, if you were to suppose that these people are "Christians" in any genuine sense. Nothing Christ says allows them to do what is represented here, so in no sense could they be said to be acting "as Christians."

Reluctantly, I have to agree with you, Immanuel. It's similar to how nothing Christ says allows one to go onto an internet forum and behave like a complete arse hole, I mean, Christ wouldn't have done that, would he?

He's using the old 'no true Scotsman' card. I'm afraid ImACant is one of those kristians who the more they get insulted the more self-righteous they feel. Like the door-knocking pests who have an orgasm at the sound of a slamming door.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: He's using the old 'no true Scotsman' card.

I wasn't aware of the "no true Scotsman" thing, VT, that's the second piece of useful information I've had from you recently. The other was the avocados, I'm becoming addicted to them.

Like the door-knocking pests who have an orgasm at the sound of a slamming door.

Sounds like a win win situation: I have one when I slam it on them. (I'm talking about the door, obviously)

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Hmm...your understanding of Christianity is way off, if you were to suppose that these people are "Christians" in any genuine sense. Nothing Christ says allows them to do what is represented here, so in no sense could they be said to be acting "as Christians."

Reluctantly, I have to agree with you, Immanuel. It's similar to how nothing Christ says allows one to go onto an internet forum and behave like a complete arse hole, I mean, Christ wouldn't have done that, would he?

He's using the old 'no true Scotsman' card.

Exactly right. People have their preferred positions and then select and ignore passages of the bible accordingly.

So biblical messages of love were lost on the militant fundamentalist Christians who issued death threats to Sam Harris (I mixed them up, Dawkins seems to just be told to die and burn in hell by Christians but not actually threatened).

Headline from ''Christian Daily News''.
''Those who practise euthanasia are more likely to commit suicide''.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Greta wrote:
1. Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012.
2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009.
3. Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting, July 27, 2008.
4. The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994.
5. The Centennial Olympic Park bombing, July 27, 1996.
6. The murder of Barnett Slepian byJames Charles Kopp, Oct. 23, 1998.
7. Planned Parenthood bombing, Brookline, Massachusetts, 1994.
8. Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas, Feb. 18, 2010.
9. The murder of Alan Berg, June 18, 1984.
10. Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing, April 19, 1995.

Hmm...your understanding of Christianity is way off, if you were to suppose that these people are "Christians" in any genuine sense. Nothing Christ says allows them to do what is represented here, so in no sense could they be said to be acting "as Christians." .

No True Scotsman fallacy. You can offer this exception to any religions and their behaviours.
For the rest of us we judge by your deeds and not by your claimed ideals.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No True Scotsman fallacy.

Actually, you misunderstand that fallacy if you suppose it means there can be no criteria for any claim. You should look it up and review.

The fallacy only occurs because "Scots" is unrelated to the specified criteria, as in "No true Scotsman drinks ale." Ale-drinking is unrelated to issues of nationality. However, if the criteria are appropriate, as in "No true Scotsman is without origination in Scotland," then there's no fallacy at all. It's a statement of fact. So is "No true cat is a canine." It's not a fallacy at all, despite the parallelism of the grammar. Again, it's a statement of fact.

The question is the justification of the criteria. And in this case, it's the willingness of the person not to deliberately disobey all the explicit commandments of Christ. That seems a fair explanation of "not a Christian."

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No True Scotsman fallacy.

Actually, you misunderstand that fallacy if you suppose it means there can be no criteria for any claim. You should look it up and review.

The fallacy only occurs because "Scots" is unrelated to the specified criteria, as in "No true Scotsman drinks ale." Ale-drinking is unrelated to issues of nationality. However, if the criteria are appropriate, as in "No true Scotsman is without origination in Scotland," then there's no fallacy at all. It's a statement of fact. So is "No true cat is a canine." It's not a fallacy at all, despite the parallelism of the grammar. Again, it's a statement of fact.

The question is the justification of the criteria. And in this case, it's the willingness of the person not to deliberately disobey all the explicit commandments of Christ. That seems a fair explanation of "not a Christian."

Actually I mentioned the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. It's entirely relevant to your post.

Just because "No True Scotsman" is a logical fallacy, doesn't mean it isn't true, and in this case it is true.

thedoc wrote:Just because "No True Scotsman" is a logical fallacy, doesn't mean it isn't true, and in this case it is true.

You don't understand the irony. That's ok. We know you are American.

To be fair to Mr Can, churches are supposed to be inclusive and will take anyone who wants to join, as long as they are happy to ostensibly play by the church's rules. Rejecting potential flock members as "unsuitable", for instance worryingly intense and unstable types, would not be easy, especially when perps can often have a spotless past.

The issue is that standards as regards civil violence have evolved greatly since the harshness of the middle east in the Iron Age. It is clear that the unstable amongst the flock find fuel and justification for their delusions and rage in the Bible; there's much violence and smiting of the deserving and so on. I can't see a solution to our religious problems and they seem destined to rage on in some form for centuries to come.

henry quirk wrote:Liars who'll tell you you have a right to the other guy's time, to the fruits of the other guy's labors, to dictate the contents of the other guy's head, to dictate the other guy's actions.

The whole point of Christianity is that we can all be saved, thanks to the fruits of the labours of Jesus Christ, but in order to take advantage of this offer, we have to take the time to familiarise ourselves with the story, so that we know what to think and do. If Mr Can hasn't taken the trouble to bring this to your attention, henry quirk, it is presumably because he doesn't think you are worth saving.

thedoc wrote:So far it seems that IC is simply laying out his own beliefs without any expectation that others accept them...

That has not been my experience.

Immanuel Cant wrote:

The question is the justification of the criteria. And in this case, it's the willingness of the person not to deliberately disobey all the explicit commandments of Christ. That seems a fair explanation of "not a Christian."

Not really . What sets Christian believers apart from Humanists, Muslims, and Jews, is that Christians believe the Resurrection event. The Christian ethics are broadly the same as those of Humanists, Muslims, and Jews.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:No True Scotsman fallacy.

Actually, you misunderstand that fallacy if you suppose it means there can be no criteria for any claim. You should look it up and review.

The fallacy only occurs because "Scots" is unrelated to the specified criteria, as in "No true Scotsman drinks ale." Ale-drinking is unrelated to issues of nationality. However, if the criteria are appropriate, as in "No true Scotsman is without origination in Scotland," then there's no fallacy at all. It's a statement of fact. So is "No true cat is a canine." It's not a fallacy at all, despite the parallelism of the grammar. Again, it's a statement of fact.

The question is the justification of the criteria. And in this case, it's the willingness of the person not to deliberately disobey all the explicit commandments of Christ. That seems a fair explanation of "not a Christian."

I agree 'No true Scotsman' isn't exactly a fallacy, it is a shifting of one's ground from an empirical to an analytical assertion.

Whereas 'No Scotsman drinks ale' appears to be empirical, something that could be disproved by the example of Hamish the beer drinker, inserting 'true' seems to make it analytic, about the meaning of the word 'Scotsman'.

This gets us into the question of private languages; I could be saying (like Humpty Dumpty) that when I say 'Scotsman' it means what I intend it to mean. But if that was my contention, I shouldn't have used the word 'true', because that implies that there is an objective meaning to the word 'Scotsman'. (We can find out that meaning by asking people, looking it up in a dictionary etc.)

So I would say that what is wrong with 'No true Scotsman' is the ambiguous subject of the word 'true'. Does it mean 'this is true about the world?' Or 'this is truly what I meant'?

Regarding 'true Christians' the same question arises. Does the word 'Christian' mean whatever I want it to mean? Or are there a set of objective criteria? The second seems preferable, since it excludes nutcases who think Jesus wants them to murder prostitutes. But on the other hand, if we say 'being Christian' is about conforming to objective criteria, then Christianity is no longer a moral matter. I would be Christian as a matter of empirical fact. For example, Christianity would be about following the rules; whatever they were, irrespective of conscience. So while we could say that today's solo prostitute killer cannot call themselves a Christian, it is at the cost of allowing that if the church as a whole decided killing prostitutes was good then we would have to accept prostitute killing as Christian.