Proper application of "no true scotsman"

[achilles12604]

Ok, I asked for this one. "No true scotsman"?

Ok and this is going straight onto the "Good responses to constantly asked Atheist questions" page.

No true scotsman vs Hitler.

If you had even bothered to look up the fallacy you would have run across this . . .

This fallacy is a form of circular argument, with an existing belief being assumed to be true in order to dismiss any apparent counter-examples to it. The existing belief thus becomes unfalsifiable.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/notruescotsman.html

Ok lets apply this to Hitler shall we.

Existing belief. Those who follow Jesus teachings will not commit mass murder. So let's examine the teachings of Jesus.

Any teachings which promote murder? No.

Ok then, lets examine the definition of "follow".

2. to go or come after; move behind in the same direction: Drive ahead, and I'll follow you.
3. to accept as a guide or leader; accept the authority of or give allegiance to: Many Germans followed Hitler.
4. to conform to, comply with, or act in accordance with; obey: to follow orders; to follow advice.
5. to imitate or copy; use as an exemplar: They follow the latest fads.

Ok based on this a follower of Jesus would imitate and obey his teachings. Since he teachings were not to murder this means that followers of Jesus would honor this teaching.

So now apply to Hitler. Did he murder? Yes? So if he murdered then he was not following the teachings of Jesus. If he is not following the teachings, then HOW ON GOD"S GREEN EARTH CAN ATHEISTS CONTINUE TO SAY THAT HE WAS A FOLLOWER?????????????

If he didn't FOLLOW, then how can he be a follower?


COMMON GUYS!!

This is not this hard. Anyone who cites no true scotsman regarding teachings directly against those of Jesus is obviously incorrectly applying the fallacy.

Now, HERE is a good way to apply the fallacy regarding religion.

An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away. Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith believe but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it.

Notice that the FIRST idea needs to be correct for the fallacy to work.

Well for you to apply the fallacy to Hitler, you must show that the first idea (Jesus taught to kill and murder) is found directly or indirectly in scripture.

CAN YOU? Go ahead . . . I am waiting . . .

Or did you apply the fallacy incorrectly just like the many non-theists and atheists here have been doing since I joined (and before)?

I do not believe that Confused applied the fallacy correctly. I have stated my reason as to why. The No True Scotsman fallacy depends on an original premise or idea. When correctly applied, like in the example I provided, the no true scotsman fallacy depends upon one first idea which is put forth first and then the evidence (in this case scripture) is bent around that idea to "prove" it, thus leaving anyone outside that idea as a "false scotsman".

However, I do not think this works with Hitler.

The original idea is that Jesus would be against murder and therefore those who do murder are not a follower of Jesus or his teachings.

Now I bet anyone here can cite some kind of verse which proves that Jesus was in fact against murder. If 100% of the evidence (scriptures) support the idea that Jesus was against murder, then there is no "twisting" of the evidence to fit this idea. Rather the idea comes from the evidence directly. So the fallacy doesn't fit.




Another mental excercise around this same subject would be what I spelled out above.

I suggest the following is true. Those who follow Jesus and his teachings would not willfully commit mass murder.

To support this statement I examine all of Jesus teachings and find that he condemns hatred, let alone murder. Then I examine the definition of Follow and learn it means to obey, imitate, adhere to, etc. So a follower would ahere to these teachings. Someone who was NOT a follower might not adhere to them.

So which catagory does Hitler fall into? Did he FOLLOW these teachings, or was he NOT FOLLOWING them? Obviously he was not following them. Therefore he was not, by the very definition of the word a follower of Jesus.

Hence Confused incorrectly applied the fallacy.





Anyone argue with my logic here?

[achilles12604]

You have changed terms McCulloch. Shame on you.

I have deliberately used a different term. Killing of a human, homicide, is sometimes murder (the illegal and unjustified killing of a human) and other forms of homicide.

I have simply asked why the mass killings committed by Hitler must be called murder from a Christian perspective. Hitler provided justification which to his mind made the killings simply justified homicide not murder. Nevermind that his justification has absolutely no merit, to some Christians the justifications of self-defense, war, capital punishment and heresy also have no merit.

Because he was commiting a logical fallacy. So self justification is inapplicable since it was frought with bad logic, assumptions and was contrary to other beliefs he claimed.

[McCulloch]

Because he was commiting a logical fallacy. So self justification is inapplicable since it was frought with bad logic, assumptions and was contrary to other beliefs he claimed.

So those who hold beliefs that can be shown to be in consistent or illogical cannot be called Christians?

[achilles12604]

Because he was commiting a logical fallacy. So self justification is inapplicable since it was frought with bad logic, assumptions and was contrary to other beliefs he claimed.

So those who hold beliefs that can be shown to be in consistent or illogical cannot be called Christians?

Gee did I say that or are you trying to trick me into contradicting myself? I wonder.



I said that people who consistantly act against the teachings of Jesus without remorse or repentance can not call themselves Christians.

I also said that Hitler's self justifications were not valid due to his reasoning being illogical. If his justifications are based on illogical reasoning, then they can not be valid and should not be accepted.

[Confused]

I think you have misrepresented my argument a little bit. Probably due to misunderstanding it. I didn't really explain it in the other thread.

We are very good at miscommunicating ourselves. But sooner or later, we make sense.

Please read through my full explaination as I addressed the points you make in it. Post number one.

I don't care how you apply it in this thread. Only in the one it originated from which I will address now:

The problem with you application is my second point, that the catholic church itself was not adhering to their own teachings and therefore they really weren't acting in accordance with Christianity.

Obviously, they thought they were at the time. The thing is, Christianity, Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc..... all have enough loopholes to justify many of the atrocities just by interpretation alone. As such, defining a "True Christian" or "True Catholic" becomes moot.

If someone is not following their own teachings, they cease deserving the title they take and instead are known as hypocritical. Now, in my opinion the Catholic Church is so hypocritical that I regard the leadership as anti-Christian. The followers can deserve some leniency because they are ignorant due to the actions of the leadership.

But what if they are following their interpretations of their own teachings? Obviously, I would have to think that at the time, that is exactly what the Catholic Church was doing. As such, you claiming they weren't raises the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to begin with.

You want to declare that the whole church organization wasn't "true Christians" than you will receive little argument me. But your tying it to Christianity is where you start to stretch the scotsman fallacy because it doesn't apply.

No, only the declaration the Catholic Church made at the time. I don't make the claim they weren't "True Christians" because for the time period, they obviously thought Hitler was just that. I don't try to apply it to all periods of Christianity. Only the time period in which it supported Hitler.

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus, who is a Scotsman, likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Aye, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

See here is where our communication is breaking down again. I am not making the judgement that because Uncle Angus speaks French, was born and raised in Paris, and has never left the country makes him not a Scotsman. Who is to say that his parents weren't native Scotsman who moved to Paris shortly before Uncle Angus was born and raised Uncle Angus with the same Scottish culture they retained before moving to Paris. So though Uncle Angus wasn't born and/or raised in Scotland, does his parents passing on the culture not allow for his heritage to still be Scottish? Can the child of parents who immigrated from Germany to escape Jewish Persecution, though born on U.S. soil, not still retain the heritage and culture of being a Jewish German?


Either way, my application of the No True Scotsman, as used in the original thread was accurate as you claim that the Catholic Church supporting Hitler negates the Catholic Churches doctrine so they weren't acting as "True Catholics".

[McCulloch]

Because he was commiting a logical fallacy. So self justification is inapplicable since it was frought with bad logic, assumptions and was contrary to other beliefs he claimed.

So those who hold beliefs that can be shown to be in consistent or illogical cannot be called Christians?

Gee did I say that or are you trying to trick me into contradicting myself? I wonder.

Maybe.

I also said that Hitler's self justifications were not valid due to his reasoning being illogical. If his justifications are based on illogical reasoning, then they can not be valid and should not be accepted.

So any alleged Christian who uses justifications not based on logical reasoning cannot be a true Christian? If you disqualify Adolph Hitler on based on his lack of logical reasoning then you must also apply a consistent criterion to all.

[Cathar1950]

It seems there might be a small problem as to who is defining being a Christian.
Some claim they are following the Bible and that would make then biblicists not Christians even if we call them Christians they would still be biblical Christians where Jesus and the bible are one and the same.
When do they take the bible literally and when should that take it as analogy and metaphor? It seems it is rather haphazard and depends on what they want to claim or how they want to ignore some things while focusing on others usually to prevent themselves from examining the consistency or reasonableness of their pet doctrines.

[achilles12604]

I think you have misrepresented my argument a little bit. Probably due to misunderstanding it. I didn't really explain it in the other thread.

We are very good at miscommunicating ourselves. But sooner or later, we make sense.

Please read through my full explaination as I addressed the points you make in it. Post number one.

I don't care how you apply it in this thread. Only in the one it originated from which I will address now:

The problem with you application is my second point, that the catholic church itself was not adhering to their own teachings and therefore they really weren't acting in accordance with Christianity.

Obviously, they thought they were at the time. The thing is, Christianity, Catholicism, Lutheranism, etc..... all have enough loopholes to justify many of the atrocities just by interpretation alone. As such, defining a "True Christian" or "True Catholic" becomes moot.

If someone is not following their own teachings, they cease deserving the title they take and instead are known as hypocritical. Now, in my opinion the Catholic Church is so hypocritical that I regard the leadership as anti-Christian. The followers can deserve some leniency because they are ignorant due to the actions of the leadership.

But what if they are following their interpretations of their own teachings? Obviously, I would have to think that at the time, that is exactly what the Catholic Church was doing. As such, you claiming they weren't raises the "No True Scotsman" fallacy to begin with.

You seem very concerned with their own interpretations.

So answer me this. What verse or teaching of Jesus can be twisted around to justify mass murder?

IF you find one let me know. Otherwise, there is no such verse and your interpretation defense is mute. It would be inapplicable.

Using your example, Uncle Angus may claim to be a Scotsman but he speaks French, lives in Paris, was Born in Paris and has never left the country.

Obviously your application would not be effective in this case and THIS is why it is not applicable in mine.

See here is where our communication is breaking down again. I am not making the judgement that because Uncle Angus speaks French, was born and raised in Paris, and has never left the country makes him not a Scotsman. Who is to say that his parents weren't native Scotsman who moved to Paris shortly before Uncle Angus was born and raised Uncle Angus with the same Scottish culture they retained before moving to Paris. So though Uncle Angus wasn't born and/or raised in Scotland, does his parents passing on the culture not allow for his heritage to still be Scottish? Can the child of parents who immigrated from Germany to escape Jewish Persecution, though born on U.S. soil, not still retain the heritage and culture of being a Jewish German?


Either way, my application of the No True Scotsman, as used in the original thread was accurate as you claim that the Catholic Church supporting Hitler negates the Catholic Churches doctrine so they weren't acting as "True Catholics".[/quote]

My grandparents were pure German and English. I am exactly 50-50.

So were my parents German, English or American?

How about those who move to America from another country who move to the US? Do their children identify themselves as American or Korean (or Mexican or Iraqi or whatever)?

But these defenses are un-needed I think. You have understood my point. If someone claims to be one thing, but portrays all sorts of different details (like a "scotsman" from france, who does everything french) I seriously doubt you would defend them. You would point out how illogical they were being. Actually let's test this. . . .



LOL


I am totally convinced that I am a 4 year old female who writes in Chinese and was born on Mars. Yep. So by what you were saying before, you should defend me andthese beliefs against all the evidence which PROVES that I am not female, 4, Born on Mars or writing in Chinese.

Be sure you are debating me because you think my logic is wrong and not just to be "right".

[Goat]

[q
So answer me this. What verse or teaching of Jesus can be twisted around to justify mass murder?

IF you find one let me know. Otherwise, there is no such verse and your interpretation defense is mute. It would be inapplicable.

[

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

[achilles12604]

Because he was commiting a logical fallacy. So self justification is inapplicable since it was frought with bad logic, assumptions and was contrary to other beliefs he claimed.

So those who hold beliefs that can be shown to be in consistent or illogical cannot be called Christians?

Gee did I say that or are you trying to trick me into contradicting myself? I wonder.

Maybe.

I also said that Hitler's self justifications were not valid due to his reasoning being illogical. If his justifications are based on illogical reasoning, then they can not be valid and should not be accepted.

So any alleged Christian who uses justifications not based on logical reasoning cannot be a true Christian? If you disqualify Adolph Hitler on based on his lack of logical reasoning then you must also apply a consistent criterion to all.

I agree. The same scriptures which disavow Hitler's justifications of vengence against the Jews, allows for self defense. The logic flows just fine if you use one consistent source and apply it evenly and fairly. So yes, I disqualify Hitler's justifications because whatever else they may be, it certainly wasn't self defense. And therefore it would not have come from the scriptures.

And of course this in turn just makes him all the more French as compared to the standard of a scotsman.

[achilles12604]

[q
So answer me this. What verse or teaching of Jesus can be twisted around to justify mass murder?

IF you find one let me know. Otherwise, there is no such verse and your interpretation defense is mute. It would be inapplicable.

[

Luke 19:27

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

Who was speaking here? Was it to be taken literally? Was it part of a PARABLE perhaps?

Tell me Goat, do you take all parables literally or do you think that just maybe they are a story intended to make a point?

If they are not supposed to be literal, then how can you justify using this as an example of a direct command from Jesus?