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?

[Confused]

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.

Allow me to interject here then. You are wrong. You have been shown to be wrong by myself in the context in which the original fallacy was made, in that thread. I thought this issue was closed. I see you decided to throw it in with your "argument from silence" thread in which you implied I had inappropriately used the no true scotsman and you had shown thus to be true. In fact, you have not. My application was applied and held its ground. You decided to turn it into something it was not. So consider yourself proven wrong and we can close this thread for good unless you decide you want to try to use it as support for another fallacious argument.

In the future, feel free to direct your sarcasm at me rather than a scapegoat. You have twisted the fallacy into something it was not originally used as. Changing the variables can change the accuracy of it being a fallacy or not, yes. But in the context in which I used it to begin with (ie.. the original thread in which you have chosen to move away from), you created the fallacy.

If your next request is to ask me to rehash this entire argument, then don't bother wasting your typing. My point has been proven both in this thread as well as the thread in which the fallacy originated.

As I have not reviewed your "argument from silence" and have no desire to do so, I will only say that in the case of the "no true scotsmen", you ought not to use it as an example as I have already more than adequately justified your application of such fallacy.

[achilles12604]

You have taken the position that if someone CLAIMS to be part of a group, and then acts against the teachings of this group, I can not say that the person was never really a member because I employ the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Ok then I wrote this earlier and you did not reply to it at all.

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. . . .


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 and these beliefs against all the evidence which PROVES that I am not female, 4, Born on Mars or writing in Chinese simply because I claim to be part of these groups.

[Confused]

You have taken the position that if someone CLAIMS to be part of a group, and then acts against the teachings of this group, I can not say that the person was never really a member because I employ the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Ok then I wrote this earlier and you did not reply to it at all.

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. . . .


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 and these beliefs against all the evidence which PROVES that I am not female, 4, Born on Mars or writing in Chinese simply because I claim to be part of these groups.

And again, you change the topic. I have proven my point based on the thread in which you created the fallacy achilles. You can dream up a thousand more scenarios and it only makes you a younger versions of easyrider. Good luck with that.

[achilles12604]

You have taken the position that if someone CLAIMS to be part of a group, and then acts against the teachings of this group, I can not say that the person was never really a member because I employ the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

Ok then I wrote this earlier and you did not reply to it at all.

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. . . .


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 and these beliefs against all the evidence which PROVES that I am not female, 4, Born on Mars or writing in Chinese simply because I claim to be part of these groups.

And again, you change the topic. I have proven my point based on the thread in which you created the fallacy achilles. You can dream up a thousand more scenarios and it only makes you a younger versions of easyrider. Good luck with that.

You must be citing post #4.

There you wrote that I was using the fallacy because you put forth, correctly, that the catholic church supported Hitler. I have no issue with this. However, as I said in post #9, and dozens of other places on this forum, I do not think that the Catholic church, especially from about 400CE to present, was teaching the Gospels or the message of Jesus as written in the Gospels.

Therefore, you are correct that the Catholic Church supported Hitler, but I am correct that you are using the fallacy incorrectly because by my definition of "christian" the Catholic Church as an institution, has NEVER been "christian."

Hence, the Catholic Chruch is a French Man, born in Paris, who labelled themselves "scottish" to be able to control those around him who love Scotland.

Ironically, you could call Gandhi a "Christian" because he followed the teachings of Jesus, even though he denied the Deity of Jesus and found him to be a regular man.

It all has to do with how you define "scotsman" or in this case "Christian".

I choose to define "Christian" by a persons actions not what flag they claim. You are choosing to define "Christian" by what they claim, not what they do.

[rsvp]

And what is the will of the Father?

1Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone?

10Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent?

11If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

John 7:23-25 (New King James Version)
23 If a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, so that the law of Moses should not be broken, are you angry with Me because I made a man completely well on the Sabbath? 24 Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.�