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?

[McCulloch]

No True Christian would have participated in :

• the Crusades
• the witch hunts
• the religious wars
• pogroms
• gay bashing
• American slavery
• Rwandan killings
• Spanish Carlism
• paternalistic oppressive colonialism
• Irish terror

These were done by the many pseudo-Christians who, at times, seem to out number the genuine ones.

[olavisjo]

No True Christian would have participated in :

• the Crusades
• the witch hunts
• the religious wars
• pogroms
• gay bashing
• American slavery
• Rwandan killings
• Spanish Carlism
• paternalistic oppressive colonialism
• Irish terror

These were done by the many pseudo-Christians who, at times, seem to out number the genuine ones.

Agreed.

15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

[achilles12604]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

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".

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. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

[Goat]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

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".

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. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

That depends. For example. if someone claimed to be a Jew, was brought up Jewish, but did things that most Jews would consider to be against the teachings of the Jewish faith, well, he would still be Jewish, just not a very GOOD Jew. Now when it comes to something like a 'Scotsman' or 'an American'. there is a lot of disagreement about what a 'Scotsman' or an American should believe and behave.

When it comes to Christianity, I would say that still falls under the same arguement about Judaism. I consider many of the televangelists in this category, as well as such notables as Jim Jones, David Koresh, Andrea Yates, George W. Bush, Fred Phillips (who anybody even reasonably sane rejects).

The problem often comes when defining what is meant by a 'true' xxxx.

[achilles12604]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

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".

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. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

That depends. For example. if someone claimed to be a Jew, was brought up Jewish, but did things that most Jews would consider to be against the teachings of the Jewish faith, well, he would still be Jewish, just not a very GOOD Jew.

So if you are taught about something which you reject and disobey, you are just not a very good XXX?

In that case, there are a lot of not very good Christians on this site. Cathar, you are a christian. Just not a very good one. Cephus you too.

You all have been brought up in a country where the major religion is Christian, and I believe that Cephus, you were even brought up in a Christian home. So the fact that you reject these beliefs, and act against them, makes you a "bad" Christian, not an atheist.

[alexiarose]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

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".

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. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

First off, it is Miss alexiarose. Second off, I don't recall saying anything about laughing at you. If you take my LOL as a directly "laughing at you" that is your bag not mind. Third off, dude, how many people have already addressed this? Tell me, at the top of the page, McCulloch addresses this in a post you have chosen to ignore, I know IMPOSSIBLE that you would do this. I have read through the posts and guess what, you have failed. IMO, you have done nothing but shown you know nothing about this fallacy. No shame there. No one knows everything. But for one who carries the title "admits mistakes" and "accepts correction" that is awfully funny to see how you have yet to do that in several weeks. Your vague example here has no bearing on this. It is so nonspecific it really is meaningless.

[achilles12604]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

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".

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. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

First off, it is Miss alexiarose. Second off, I don't recall saying anything about laughing at you. If you take my LOL as a directly "laughing at you" that is your bag not mind. Third off, dude, how many people have already addressed this? Tell me, at the top of the page, McCulloch addresses this in a post you have chosen to ignore, I know IMPOSSIBLE that you would do this. I have read through the posts and guess what, you have failed. IMO, you have done nothing but shown you know nothing about this fallacy. No shame there. No one knows everything. But for one who carries the title "admits mistakes" and "accepts correction" that is awfully funny to see how you have yet to do that in several weeks. Your vague example here has no bearing on this. It is so nonspecific it really is meaningless.

As your post is addressed AT ME rather than at the subject matter, I shall just continue to wait for your logical analysis of the argument.

I shall re-read looking for McCulloch's post.

[achilles12604]

No True Christian would have participated in :

• the Crusades
• the witch hunts
• the religious wars
• pogroms
• gay bashing
• American slavery
• Rwandan killings
• Spanish Carlism
• paternalistic oppressive colonialism
• Irish terror

These were done by the many pseudo-Christians who, at times, seem to out number the genuine ones.

MISS Alexiarose has pointed out that I didn't reply to this post. As I happen to agree with McCulloch's conclusions . . .

These were done by the many pseudo-Christians who, at times, seem to out number the genuine ones.

I didn't feel the need to rebutt.

Any other posts I have not addressed?

[alexiarose]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

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".

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. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

First off, it is Miss alexiarose. Second off, I don't recall saying anything about laughing at you. If you take my LOL as a directly "laughing at you" that is your bag not mind. Third off, dude, how many people have already addressed this? Tell me, at the top of the page, McCulloch addresses this in a post you have chosen to ignore, I know IMPOSSIBLE that you would do this. I have read through the posts and guess what, you have failed. IMO, you have done nothing but shown you know nothing about this fallacy. No shame there. No one knows everything. But for one who carries the title "admits mistakes" and "accepts correction" that is awfully funny to see how you have yet to do that in several weeks. Your vague example here has no bearing on this. It is so nonspecific it really is meaningless.

As your post is addressed AT ME rather than at the subject matter, I shall just continue to wait for your logical analysis of the argument.

I shall re-read looking for McCulloch's post.

Fine. To make you happy your argument is 100% correct. Since this is all you want to hear, consider it stated. I shouldn't have posted to you at all. Good luck.

[achilles12604]

While laughing at me, Ms. Alexiarose brought up that this topic may not be fully dealt with yet. As such I remind everyone where I left off and invite correction of my logic.

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".

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. . . .

If someone claims to be associated with X, but does not conform to ANY of the teachings of X, and instead behaves in a manner which directly contradicts X, is my claiming that this person is not a true X, really a logical fallacy?

First off, it is Miss alexiarose. Second off, I don't recall saying anything about laughing at you. If you take my LOL as a directly "laughing at you" that is your bag not mind. Third off, dude, how many people have already addressed this? Tell me, at the top of the page, McCulloch addresses this in a post you have chosen to ignore, I know IMPOSSIBLE that you would do this. I have read through the posts and guess what, you have failed. IMO, you have done nothing but shown you know nothing about this fallacy. No shame there. No one knows everything. But for one who carries the title "admits mistakes" and "accepts correction" that is awfully funny to see how you have yet to do that in several weeks. Your vague example here has no bearing on this. It is so nonspecific it really is meaningless.

As your post is addressed AT ME rather than at the subject matter, I shall just continue to wait for your logical analysis of the argument.

I shall re-read looking for McCulloch's post.

Fine. To make you happy your argument is 100% correct. Since this is all you want to hear, consider it stated. I shouldn't have posted to you at all. Good luck.

I actually prefer to be wrong. I learn more that way.