It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

No true Scotsman, no true Christian.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:31 PM
link   
To give you a brief introduction to the "No true Scotsman" fallacy, I'll defer to a different source:


Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing." The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again and this time finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing."
—Antony Flew, Thinking About Thinking (1975)

A simpler rendition would be:

Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.

Taken from Wiki

I often find that Christians (and other theists, but the title has more "oomph" the way it is) are amongst the most likely to commit this fallacy. If you point out an example of a Christian doing something wrong in the name of their religion, what do you get: "Well, they're not a true Christian"

Honestly, I just had to highlight this atrocious display of fallacious logic for everyone because it happens so often.




posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
i agree with you but no true ATSer would agree with you..


lol



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Why does it single out scotsmen?





posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
its just an example....



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I was born in Glasgow and he sounds just like my granddad. Its a different world there and the people are so oblivious sometimes. Not to mention Glasgow is one of the roughest places in the UK, so the guys out of his mine in denial.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:09 PM
link   
Actually, the fallacy is to amend a falsified universally quantified claim made earlier by the same person (or someone allied with the original claimant), and then only when the revised claim is offered as if it were a clarification of the original claim when it is no clarification at all.

So:


If you point out an example of a Christian doing something wrong in the name of their religion, what do you get: "Well, they're not a true Christian"

is not an example of the fallacy.

You are the one making the claim, while your opponent is denying that your claimed "example" is actually an example. That is perfectly legitimate rebuttal.

Ideally, your surrebuttal consists of stating the criteria you used to identify the person as a Christian, as opposed to reciting the name of yet another fallacy whose name you know, often in Latin, but whose identification in practice ... could be better, let's say.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 07:11 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I definitely agree. I personally don't claim to be a Christian because of the rampant ignorance that the vast majority of Christians uphold and defend, but mainly I don't do so because of the fact I'm a sinner. Now the majority of Christians have been brainwashed into thinking that they are immune to God's judgement just because they tout God's grace and mercy, thinking that all their sins that they have committed and will commit are absolved because Jesus died and rose again. A pastor recently told everyone in the congregation that God likens all of our good works as dirty rags, and that there is none without sin. Such rampant lies should end but alas, the brainwashed do not know they are brainwashed, and sadly the words of today's preachers and ministers (and especially the written works of the apostle Paul) take precedence over the words of Jesus in the minds of many who go to church. Again, I would like to be a Christian but I sin, and therefore do not count on God's grace and mercy to get into heaven if I so happen to die at this moment in time.



posted on Mar, 14 2011 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I think that you're making a leap here, because you're implying that all one needs to do to be a Christian is to state the fact. But a Christian is, by definition, one who follows Christ's teachings, so if they intentionally and deliberately act contrary to them, they're pretty much testifying to NOT being a Christian.

The Scotsman thing works because the person in question is a Scot by birth, and that can't be disputed, so he clearly cannot be a "true" Scotsman. Not at all the same thing.

Don't you ever get bored making this seemingly endless series of posts that are little more than griping about people you disagree with? Wouldn't it be more useful to create a thread that contributes, rather than those that seek to tear down? You're schooled in philosophy and film making, among other things (I assume,) how about a non-negative post on one of those subjects?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 



I often find that Christians (and other theists, but the title has more "oomph" the way it is) are amongst the most likely to commit this fallacy. If you point out an example of a Christian doing something wrong in the name of their religion, what do you get: "Well, they're not a true Christian"


Christ warned to beware of the wolves in sheep's clothing and that we'd know them by their fruit. So if Christ is warning about non-Christians posing as Christians and that we'd all be able to tell the difference between the real ones and the false ones by their actions and deeds rather than their speech, then why are you claiming that we can't point out the false converts and posers by their actions instead of their speech??



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Why would anyone want to be any camp of any name? I'm scottish, i'm american, i'm christian, i'm this, i'm that.
Look at me i've boxed myself up, now i'll look for others in the same type of box. It's green boxes against the blue boxes. I'm a bluer box than most other blue boxes.





edit on 15-3-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'll give ye a star fer yer post. I have scottish decent just so ye know.

Good to see there's some logical minds out there still...
edit on 15-3-2011 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


I'll give ye a star fer yer post. I have scottish decent just so ye know.

Good to see there's some logical minds out there still...


Huh? It's actually a logic fail! It's equivalent to comparing apples to oranges.




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The logic being, pointing out the flaw in what was mentioned...



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


The logic being, pointing out the flaw in what was mentioned...


But as pointed out you can't claim the no true Scotsman fallacy in regards to Christianity. For one thing a person is not a Christian by birth. For another thing, Christ defined His followers as those who displayed their Christianity by their deeds and NOT their speech. He specifically said there would be wolves in sheep's clothing and to beware of them, that they were not Christians. Christ said wolves in sheep's clothing, not wolves in a wolf's clothing.

It's a logic fail to try and claim the no true Scotsman fallacy in regards to Christians judging their own by their actions. That's precisely what Christ said to do. I'd assume a Christian is one who follows what Christ said wouldn't you agree??



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Christ defined His followers as those who displayed their Christianity by their deeds and NOT their speech. He specifically said there would be wolves in sheep's clothing and to beware of them, that they were not Christians.


Show me one instance where Christ used the term "christian"


I'd assume a Christian is one who follows what Christ said wouldn't you agree??


Actually i wouldn't....i define a christian as a person who listens to the bible being preached and believes what hes told. Theres no room for free thought...which is exactly what they want from you. Blind belief in what they tell you is right.

IF you follow christ you lead by his example, show love to your fellow man, be compasionate and empathetic, help others....etc etc.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 




Show me one instance where Christ used the term "christian"


Why should I? I never made the claim Christ used the term Christian. Are you aware of the "straw man" fallacy?




Actually i wouldn't....i define a christian as a person who listens to the bible being preached and believes what hes told.


You can have that opinion, but that's not the litmus test Christ gave for who were His "sheep" and who were not.



Theres no room for free thought...which is exactly what they want from you.


"They"? Who is "they"? lol


Blind belief in what they tell you is right.


Really? We're told to test everything, and believe no man. "Let God be true and every man a liar."


IF you follow christ you lead by his example, show love to your fellow man, be compassionate and empathetic, help others....etc etc.


Correct... so going back to the OP, when a Christian points out that someone claiming Christ while displaying deeds contrary to Christ's teachings obviously isn't a Christian but an impostor.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 



Why should I? I never made the claim Christ used the term Christian. Are you aware of the "straw man" fallacy?


nope...


You can have that opinion, but that's not the litmus test Christ gave for who were His "sheep" and who were not.


uh huh, you can tell who a person is by whats in his heart...so to speak.


"They"? Who is "they"? lol


"They" are the people you donate your money to at your local church.... They are the people who speak for God but do not know him...Your ministers, pastors...preachers etc etc...


Really? We're told to test everything, and believe no man. "Let God be true and every man a liar."


Yet you believe what your ministers and preachers tell you about your bible...


Correct... so going back to the OP, when a Christian points out that someone claiming Christ while displaying deeds contrary to Christ's teachings obviously isn't a Christian but an impostor.


Or maybe, just another normal human being, flawed....just like you and me and everyone else. By your logic everyone that makes a mistake or shows natural human emotions like greed, or hatred, doesnt' follow christ....but i'll bet you that person would argue otherwise.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I should have clarified my point with one thing: there is no such thing as a definably true Christian as there are fundamental dogmatic or doctrinal issues on nearly every point and for good reason.


As for threads that contribute, I've made quite a few.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Yet you believe what your ministers and preachers tell you about your bible...


This isn't 1,500 years ago man. We are not illiterate masses who rely on the pastors to read the Bible for us. We all own Bibles and are capable of reading it ourselves. If there are things the pastor is teaching that are contrary to the Bible we can see that ourselves.

But this is getting off the point. The OP is claiming a Christian who says another person who claims Christ isn't a Christian based on their deeds and actions is committing the no true Scotsman fallacy. This isn't the case as has been previously pointed out in this thread. Comparing the two is comparing apples to oranges. Christians are told to judge a person by their "fruit" (actions/deeds), and that there would be false Christians in the churches. (wolves)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by adjensen
 


I should have clarified my point with one thing: there is no such thing as a definably true Christian as there are fundamental dogmatic or doctrinal issues on nearly every point and for good reason.


As for threads that contribute, I've made quite a few.


But we call ones that are fundamental and not up for debate. We call those "close handed" doctrines. Then there are minor doctrines that there can be some disagreement upon that doesn't keep someone from being a Christian. Those are called "open handed" doctrines.

I've said this numerous times.. Christ warned there would be wolves in sheep's clothing.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join