Why do some atheists care so much as to who is Christian or isn't?

[kwassa]

A number of atheists here are working very hard to insist upon a certain definition of who is a Christian or not. Very, very hard.

If they have a "lack of belief" in God, why would they even care?

If it isn't a religious consideration, which is unimportant to them, as they don't believe in any of it, it must be some other motivation.

What could that be?

Have they suddenly become evangelists of tolerance?

Or would it serve a political purpose? When I google "Hitler" and "Christian" together, I come up with many atheist websites that advance the idea that Hitler was most definitely a Christian. It is certainly important to these atheists. Is it important to ours?

Why would that be?

[Deja Q]

1. To prove a point.

[cosmik debris]

2. Same reason Christians relentlessly define atheists

Everybody wants to define their adversaries, but they don't want to be defined themselves. And they still want to claim the golden rule as the basis for their own behavior. Seems ironic to me, but what do I know.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

23. Interesting that you define Christians and atheists

as adversaries. On this political forum, I'd think they would want to be allies in keeping church and state seperate, equal rights for all people, etc. etc.

[cosmik debris]

31. Just my observation

Christians and atheists clearly engage in adversarial debate in this Religion/Theology sub-forum of the larger political forum. (To call this a political forum is to say that the DU Lounge is also a political forum when it is really just a chat room for libs.)

Unity may be the goal, but it is no fun. Can you imagine GD Politics Forum where there was no debate about the relative values of the DLC vs. DFA?

Being adversarial is not bad, but complaining about your adversaries being adversarial is silly.

[Goblinmonger]

34. I would think so, too

but there are far to many theists in the party and here on DU that push atheists under the bus on a regular basis.

[JerseygirlCT]

46. That's what I hoped, as well. nt

[musical_soul]

176. Why do they have to be adversaries?

I realize there are some on both sides who are like this, but do they need to make the rules for everybody else?

[afrosia]

3. Religion is evil and needs to be stopped

Religion gives people false hope and has created this idea that we can continue to pollute the planet to little or no avail (based on the fact that most evangelical Christians are gloabl warming sceptics).

Perhaps my main issue with religion is that it warps people's minds into believing that they are genuinely acting for the good of mankind when they go about their homo-bashing and religous warring.

Sorry, just had to add that ;-)

[johnnie]

7. But I know many people with no religion who are miserable

Life itself gets them down and it has nothing to do with belonging to a religion.

[afrosia]

8. Vice versa

...and the same here. The vice versa however is also true.

[johnnie]

10. Exactly n/t

[Orrex]

18. Hey, welcome to DU!

:hi:

I would add that, on a more basic level, religion is evil because it fosters a belief in magical thinking, and many western religions embrace the doctrine of it'll all be okay because {insert deity's name here} will save us. We are thereby absolved of any responsibility in the meantime, outside of a need to make a show of faith.

Sorry, but deus ex machina was a failed concept when it was used in Greek tragedy millennia ago. It's certainly not something on which you'd want to base a belief system.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

20. Welcome to DU

Just remember that not all religions/denominations are homo-bashing and warring.

Just had to add that.

[afrosia]

24. Apologies

Of course not. The Buddhists and Hindus seem to act as perfect religious templates and the world would be far happier if the rest were to follow in their footsteps.

Thank you for the two welcome messages!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

25. Welcome to DU!

You realize, I hope, that you are reacting to only one concept of God. Though many fundamentalist conservatives may cling to the concept you detail, I am sure you know that liberal/progressive people don't hold this concept. I know many Christians who believe in preserving the planet and in helping others, as this is in accordance to their teachings. And there are people of other spiritual and religious traditions that have a pantheistic concept of God which causes them to behave in a manner respectful of the planet and of other people and animals, etc.

[afrosia]

33. Yes

My apologies, I'm just sooo used to having to deal with conservative right douchebags that I forget there are some decent Christians left!

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. Yeah, my church has an environmental action group, lots of out GLBT

members, and the members are overwhelmingly left of center (by about 9:1).

[JerseygirlCT]

47. That brush must be heavy - it's so wide.

As the others have said, welcome, but please remember that not all Christians are that...

Plenty of us here are quite happy to fight for gay rights, the environment, and many other important causes. In fact, it's our contention that our religion calls us to do all that.

Because Jerry Falwell disagrees doesn't mean I'm about to stop!

[Zhade]

64. SOME religions, I think, to be fair.

NT!

[smoogatz]

4. Why are some Christians so obsessed with what atheists think of them?

Seriously. How come?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

62. Well, suppose someone were to say, "Smoogatz is a creep because s/he

tortures animals."

Only you don't torture animals. You love animals. There's someone else named Smuugats who does torture animals, but you're not the same person.

Would you care if someone thought you tortured animals, especially because it was exactly the opposite of what you believed in?

[Random_Australian]

83. Uh huh, except that analagy does not stand, as name is not related to

belief in the same way religion is.

In short, no-one thinks religious persons are not good, merely that they are no better than the rest of us. And people's judgement is not really backed up.

[johnnie]

5. For the same reason most people do this sort of thing

Just as Christians feel the need to validate their beliefs to themselves, Atheists need to validate theirs also. It is the same with any group of people and it always has been. No one wants to be in a group that is wrong.

[Zhade]

65. And those beliefs would be...?

(Don't bother saying "that there is no god", since most atheists DON'T believe that.)

[johnnie]

84. I guess it would be whatever beliefs they have

Either a science or that what someone else believes is wrong.

[Zhade]

89. I'M an atheist, and your words don't describe me.

I think others are believing things for which there is no objective evidence outside of highly-biased personal interpretations of feelings/emotions/whatever (which is true, there isn't), but I don't believe they're wrong, because I don't KNOW that they're wrong. One or more of their beliefs might actually be true, even though there's nothing to back it up at this point in time.

As for "a science", I don't even know what that's supposed to mean, since science isn't something one believes, but rather a process of information discovery.

[johnnie]

98. You don't have any beliefs at all?

As for the science comment, some people tend to believe science over anything else because they think it is real. A lot of science is theory only and a lot of science from the past has been shown to be wrong as new technology and thought comes along. So it really isn't a confirmed discovery all the time, it can also be a theory.

[Zhade]

99. Of course I have beliefs, just not what you described.

Um, you don't understand science, it seems.

Science is a process. It's not right OR wrong. The RESULTS can be later overturned, which is one way science is verrrrrrrrrrrrrrry different from religion - it's self-correcting.

Science IS real. It's a process of information discovery. That's an inarguable fact. Now, scientific FINDINGS can, of course, be wrong, and even false (see cold fusion), but that doesn't reflect on the process, just on how it's used.

[johnnie]

100. Well, everything is a process, even religion

Life is a process, thought is a process, breathing is a process, and I don't see how your "explanation" to me proves you understand science. You just stated an obvious.

I think you are proving my point that everyone needs to validate their beliefs. My only mistake was using the word "either" in my post above.

I don't know what every Atheist believes as well as you don't know what every Christian believes. Foe anyone here to think they know every person's beliefs is a bit ridiculous. My point from the post you responded to originally was that no one wants to think what they believe is wrong. Be it Christianity, Science, Buddhism, Atheism, Muslim, Judaism and so on.

I don't know what you believe or not believe, but you have posted enough on this thread to show that you also want people to feel you are right in your beliefs. And that is fine, it proves my point.

[Zhade]

101. Sigh. You're not getting my meaning.

Science and atheism ARE NOT BELIEF SYSTEMS.

Until you recognize that very basic fact, I don't think you can understand my point, or the fact that I don't need people to acknowledge that my points are correct. (Note that I'm not talking about my beliefs, such as "chocolate is good".)

[johnnie]

102. But see, to me science and atheism *is* a belief system

I just want to say that I am not a Christian and I am only trying to respond to this thread as an outsider who reads things as he sees them.

I am also trying not to be a pain in the ass to you and I appreciate the discussion. But to me I am going by the definition of atheism and that is (according to Merriam-Webster):

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity


Just as I believe that science is a belief. I originally posted to the original thread because I have seen what the poster is talking about. Lumping all Christians into one group is as silly as lumping all atheists into one group. From what I have seen in my life, all people want to think how they think is the right way to think and will express that opinion. And to do so is perfectly normal and fine.

I don't know what type of atheist you are, but just as the original poster stated (or how I took it) there is no exact definition for a Christian just as there is no exact definition of an atheist.

[Zhade]

103. Some dictionaries also define atheist as "immoral".

Obviously, that's false.

I'm telling you that as an agnostic atheist, I do NOT believe that there is evidence there are no gods. I just don't believe in any due to the lack of evidence for them.

There IS a difference. If you want further explanation, consult one of the dozens of threads where this has already been explained.

And the fact remains that, while your opinion is yours to have, science and atheism are not belief systems.

[johnnie]

104. *sigh*

This is going nowhere. I still stick with my original post. Even if you claim that nothing I say refers to you, in my opinion you are arguing my opinion because you are proving my point of my original post.

I have nothing against anyone who believes anything they want, but I still think that no one wants to be wrong with what they believe. Reading through all the posts on this thread exhibits exactly what the OP suggested.

I feel no real need to explain myself any further, it is all written in this thread.

I thank you for the discussion, but we are just going back and forth on "beliefs" and there is no such thing as a correct belief. You asked me what I meant by my opinion and when I told you, you told me I was wrong. I would guess that I was and I apologize.

[Zhade]

105. I don't think you need to apologize, I'm not offended.

But your original post didn't clarify that it was your opinion; it read as if it were fact. We all make that error at times.

At any rate, peace to you.

[Caution]

6. Try googling Hitler and Atheist some time

The reason those sites exist is because atheists are so often compared to Hitler. Most atheists don't give a rat's ass one way or the other. The atheists you are discussing are typically just frustrated by the constant demonization of atheism by the media, their family, their peers and in general most of the rest of the population.

Every other minority group in the country serves in an elected capacity in the federal government. Find me an avowed atheist among them.

[jojo54]

9. I don't really care who is Christian or not.

I just don't want them trying to sell their babble to me.

[Orrex]

11. That's a big question

Part of it is IMO intended to combat the perception that every ill of the modern world was/is caused by wicked atheists. Here's an experiment for you to perform: mention to any random hardcore Christian that the Christian church has caused more deaths than any atheist. I can all but guarantee that the response will be "what about Hitler?" So there's clearly a drive among certain Christians to care about who is and who isn't an atheist, especially if it helps advance the myth that Christians are, as a group, more noble/charitable/enlightened than their godless fellow humans.

Another part is simply to point out that many Christians--who purportedly read the same book and purportedly have a personal relationship with the same Lord and Savior Jesus Christ--can seldom agree on anything more substantive than "atheists are bad." Even here on DU, many theists go to great lengths to tell atheists that atheism is bad because it undermines the absolute foundations of ethics and morality. And if that attitude carries weight in this liberal oasis, then the sentiment can only be all the stronger in the broader population.

Consider the famous recent poll about us pesky and untrustable atheists; in our noble Christian nation, the worst of the worst are those who say "none of the above," as though we as a nation worship the belief in a deity, rather than worshipping that deity itself.

We ask "who is a Christian?" because we're never likely to get a solid answer to the question "what does it mean to be Christian?" Lacking a clear definition to satisfy the latter, we seek to content ourselves with the former.

[kwassa]

35. Thinking Hitler is an atheist is simply a lack of historical knowledge

and thinking he is a Christian is also only possible if the word is stretched out of all meaning, and that his actions and other beliefs mean nothing.

But let's not go down that road again.

Many of the fundamentalists, though, are just poorly educated in general.

Orrex:
"Another part is simply to point out that many Christians--who purportedly read the same book and purportedly have a personal relationship with the same Lord and Savior Jesus Christ--can seldom agree on anything more substantive than "atheists are bad." "

Oh, I disagree. Many Christians agree on the core substance of Jesus's teachings about showing love, compassion, and mercy towards their fellow man.

[Orrex]

41. But consider

"Another part is simply to point out that many Christians--who purportedly read the same book and purportedly have a personal relationship with the same Lord and Savior Jesus Christ--can seldom agree on anything more substantive than "atheists are bad." "

Oh, I disagree. Many Christians agree on the core substance of Jesus's teachings about showing love, compassion, and mercy towards their fellow man.

But our statements aren't incompatible. It's possible for many Christians to be bloodthirsty murderers at the same time that many other Christians are compassionate humanitarians. We can quibble about whether or not Group A or Group B is "really" Christian, but then we just come back to your original question!

[Warpy]

12. It's the HYPOCRISY, Grasshopper

Check out those verses on the whited sepulchre and get back to us.

[Canuckistanian]

13. It's the hypocrisy

Whether or not I believe there was a Christ is neither here nor there. The man had a good set of philosophies. Feed the poor. Look after the sick. Show tolerance. Don't be so quick to make enemies, even though you've been harmed. Love your neighbor. Give up your money to the poor and die fulfilled.

The biggest problem I have with Christians is that a lot of them show absolutely no intention of honoring these exact instructions of Jesus. Some of the worst people in history have proudly waved the Christian banner even as they were slaughtering thousands, making war and ignoring death and misery all around them.

True, some churches have done admirable work and Christians have been behind some ot the most progressive movements in social history. Abolishing slavery. Ending child labor. Decent treatment of workers.

Yet now, America is ruled by these self-professed "followers of Christ". And what do we see? War. Death. More poor people. More sick people. And love they neighbor? Don't make me laugh. Give away your money? Why that's an immoral "redistribution of wealth" and those poor people would only blow it on big-screen TV's and beer anyways.

And where, exactly in the Bible did Jesus say, "And thou shalt pull thyself up by thine own bootstraps"? Everyone needs help at one time or another. And for the least among us, there are no signs that things are getting better. Good paying jobs are drying up, fast. Welfare and health benefits are threatened daily. Charities and food banks are barely keeping up with demand.

You want to call yourself a Christian? Fine, I have no problem with that. Your beliefs are your beliefs and if brings you comfort, then I'm cool with that. But if you want to call yourself a Christian, then act as Christ told you to do.

Then, maybe I could have automatic respect for such a person. Right now, I'm leary of anyone who loudly proclaims "Christ is my saviour".

[afrosia]

29. Couldn't agree more

I find it difficult to believe that Christ was a conservative capitalist!?

[Canuckistanian]

39. The Gospel of Supply Side Jesus

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/09/17_franken.html
And Welcome to DU!

:toast:
:hi:

[Goblinmonger]

14. Because when we discussion religion with people

the theists put the goal posts on a Porsche and drive all over the country at 150 mph. It would be nice if we knew what it meant.

But I think the bigger question is, Why do SO MANY christians work so damn hard to eliminate anyone who has ever done anything bad from the club? Why are you so threatened by the fact that there might actually be a Christian that is an asshole? Is your faith and your club so fragile that you can't have any problems related to it whatsoever?

[TallahasseeGrannie]

26. Good answer

and one I don't quite understand, either. Human in general are a nasty lot. Christians, more specifically, are as well. I can't say I'm not human just because the species is embarrassing, so I can't kiss off my brothers and sisters in Christ, either. (even if they are pukes)

[jonnyblitz]

15. Because many of you can't admit there are bad christians

you just dismiss the person in question and claim they aren't real or true christians. I guess it is just amusing to some of us to see many of you try to define who is and who isn't a christian when we start one of the threads you mention. I would like to know who gets to decide these things because I am sure the freeper fundies don't believe any DUer can be a real or true christian. to me it just proves what i have always believed, that man created god in his own image.:shrug:

[TechBear_Seattle]

16. To underline the hypocricy of some people

There are a great many soi-disant Christians who make a big deal about how they are more Christian than everyone else around them. I'm sure you've met the type: "Oh, you are Catholic? Have you ever considered becoming a Christian?" Asking such people to define "christian" in a way that includes their own holier-than-thou butts but excludes everyone else is an entertaining and occasionally educational excercise.

Along a more serious vein, as a non-Christian I am told incessantly that only "real Christians" have morals, that only "real Christians" respect the family, that only "real Christians" are patriotic. I see that very same attitude here on DU. It seems a reasonable turn-around of that situation to ask, "What is a 'real Christian?' If 'real Christians' all posess this enumerated list of virtues, does that mean that A) I, a non-Christian, am actually a 'real Christian' becuase I consistently demonstrate everything on your list? and B) you, a self-proclaimed Christian, are not a 'real Christian' because you fail consistently to demonstrate items on your list?" When I play such a game, I try not to attack the religion or the person, just the hypocricy of the "real Scotsman"... excuse me, the "real Christian" logical fallacy.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

28. I've known some real people in my time

and it's funny-their faith, and anyone else's, didn't matter a whit.

Raise us above the distinctions and differences which divide us.

[TechBear_Seattle]

38. Raise above what divides us, yes. But...

Don't overlook the situation when others use what divides us to divide us further. Ignoring the problem will only give a sharper edge to their weapons.

[moobu2]

17. Christians are the one who are

quick to define and deny the Christianity of others.

For me, if someone say’s they’re Christian, that’s all the proof I require.

Hitler, for instance, said he was a Christian.. so he was.

[afrosia]

19. Of course.

Christianity is a set of beliefs NOT a badge handed out by church members. I think some Christians think they're the illuminati or something. They certainly seem to believe they're 'enlightened'.

[John1956PA]

21. Most atheists would welcome all Xians coming around to the atheist view,

but I am not sure most Christians would welcome all atheists having religious conversions. Religions thrive by being able to point to the fact that there are elements of evil in this world; it is a mere "leap of faith" for those religions to maintain that atheism contributes to the world's problems. I would like to see the the day when atheists can get elected to high offices in this country.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

22. Here's the thing

if we, here in R/T didn't go around and around with this issue we'd have to read General Discussion and those guys are hard core!

We like batting this around.

We are basically two groups of folks with very different world views, and the more we talk about it the more we realize our similarities, and that builds community.

And community is what we need to take the bastards down effectively.

[trotsky]

27. Actually it's the complete opposite.

It's theists, most notably yourself, who insist on telling us who is or isn't a Christian.

Most of the atheist posts I see are arguing quite the opposite - we really have no way of telling.

[kwassa]

32. Not exactly

Many Christians in these threads have different opinions from one another as to who is a Christian. There certainly is no universal standard.

trotsky:
"Most of the atheist posts I see are arguing quite the opposite - we really have no way of telling."

You left out the second part: that many atheists therefore declare than anyone who says they are a Christian is one.

Why is that important to atheists?

[Goblinmonger]

36. As an atheist, I don't give a crap who is a Christian.

But my question is this:

Why do you care so much? Why do you run around on this forum rabidly saying that everyone who is kind of a jackoff is not a christian? Why is it so important to YOU? Why do you care if Hitler was a Christian or not? Why do you care if Robertson is a called a Christian? What happens to you if they are? Do you turn into a pumpkin at midnight? YOU ARE THE ONE WITH THE OBSESSION. We are just responding to you.

[trotsky]

40. So that you can't keep moving the goalposts.

An atheist might say, "Religion needs to be critically analyzed because Person A did this and claims to believe it because of their Christian faith."

The response is, "Well, Person A isn't a Christian."

Without some set of standards to go on, how does the discussion proceed?

And why is it so important to you to badger atheists rather than actually discuss the issues?

[GreenArrow]

53. "anyone who says they are a Christian is one"

yep, that's it. If you say you're a Christian, you ARE a Christian. It's completely absolute, allowing no room for exceptions. It doesn't account for the fact that people lie. (Or for things like forced conversions.) But if you suggest that, then we're told we can't know what's in people's hearts. Everything must be taken at face value. Surface trumps substance. So, back to square one we go. If you say you are a Christian, you are a Christian.

[Goblinmonger]

55. Oh, no, don't take that standpoint

let's all start judging. Bush is a bad, bad man. He can't be a Christian. So is Falwell, Robertson, Frist, all the religious right. None of them are Christian. Good, now there are only liberals left as Christians......oh, wait, Mother Teresa did some really shitty things to the poor in India, she's out. Everyone sins, so that makes them bad people, so they are out.


Hey, guess what.


FUCKING NOBODY IS A CHRISTIAN. YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ATHEISTS WIN. THERE IS NO MORE CHRISTIANITY.

If you are going to go slipperly slope on me (to shamelessly rip off John Stewart) you need to realize that there are two sides to that slope.

[GreenArrow]

56. not sure where you're getting the slippery slope from

I've simply restated the general pattern of this argument, which has spread over several threads, a pattern which appears to be circular in nature.

Stated Again:

**** A Christian is anyone who claims to believe in Jesus or self identifies as a Christian.

>>>> Not everyone who says they are a Christian actually believes in it. Some people who claim to be Christian are lying about it.

**** We cannot know what people believe, or know what is in their hearts; therefore making judgements about who is a true or false Christian are irrelevant and impossible. A Christian is anyone who claims to believe in Jesus or self identifies as a Christian.

With other slight variants, repeat ad infinitum?

I'm not sure where all the Christians wish it to be that "anyone bad can't be a Christian" stuff is coming from. Most Christians are perfectly open to admitting that there are bad apples; the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. At the same time, most Christians also accept the idea that there are false prophets and false teachers, and correspondingly, that there must be ways to distinguish them. People do lie, and people do pretend to be what they are not. It not that "everyone sins, so throw them out"; it's that some people actively and intentionaly mislead and obfuscate.

[Goblinmonger]

57. Name a famous "bad-apple christian"

and there will be somebody claiming they aren't really a Christian. Those that have already been identified as such on DU:

Hitler
Bush
Falwell
Robertson
Godhatesfags Guy

Anyone bad gets denounced.

[GreenArrow]

58. there are 2 billion Christians in the world today

give or take a few hundred millions. Most of them are not famous, most of them are not in positions of leadership, unlike those famous few you listed. You don't see people on here dissing, say MLK, even though he had flaws; his message was in utter oppostion to someone like Fred Phelps, the "God Hates Fags Guy". Fred Phelps may be nominally a Christian, but in intent and result he is manifestly not. He breeds and feeds on hate. He lies. Why should he not be denounced? We denounce him not because he is a bad Christian, but because what he does is hateful and destructive in and of itself. He has a sickness.

There are no doubt plenty of non-entity Christians who hide behind that identity like a mask and use it for mischief of their own ends, while believing not the first whit of it. Who will doubt them, since they give every indication of being publicly pious.

There should be a distinction made between confused self-delusion and intentional, outright deception. How those on the list would be categorized is a judgement call. All those on your list may be nominal Christians, but more properly, they should be called anti-christians.

[trotsky]

59. Hmmm

There should be a distinction made between confused self-delusion and intentional, outright deception.

OK, there's a distinction. Now how exactly are we supposed to tell which is which? The guideline given around here to this point has basically been "It's intentional, outright deception when the actions are really, really bad." Like that helps!

And to those Christians, the liberal Christians are the "anti-Christians," so we're back right where we started.

[GreenArrow]

74. in practical terms,

the distinctions don't really matter that much. Just for fun, lets use
someone like Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter -- author of Godless as examples of the latter
type. They lie blatantly, openly and shamelessly. They incite. They
preach intolerance, disunity and disharmony. They know they are lying
and do so with malice aforethought. They refuse to be corrected.

As you say, "to those Christians, the liberal Christians are the
anti-christians", and they are entitled to make that judgement; one can
interpret the words of Jesus in a seemingly infinite number of ways.
That doesn't, however, mean that every interpretation is equally
accurate. I don't think it's much of a stretch to expect that Jesus
intended very specific meanings to be conveyed. We're not dealing with
something open ended, with no intrinsic meaning, like a Rorschach ink
blot. Unfortunately, words are a very faulty medium, and Rorschach like
interpretions are bound to happen.

So, everyone is going to make his or her own interpretation, set up
camps,and at the end of the day, some are going to be right and some are
going to be wrong. Some might be a little bit of both. In the meantime,
few are going to appreciate having thier opinions challenged.

For my part, judge the tree by its fruit is a pretty good maxim. Take
something like "God hates Fags", for example: what kind of fruit (no pun
intended) is that going to bear? To call it bitter is an understatement. No doubt Reverend Phelps would consider me a Godless fag lover. I'd say he breeds hate, lies and takes the name of the Lord in vain. Maybe I've interpreted wrongly, but I'll take my chances.

[trotsky]

82. Wish I had a nickel for every time I've been through this.

one can interpret the words of Jesus in a seemingly infinite number of ways. That doesn't, however, mean that every interpretation is equally accurate.

Just another shift of the question. First it was "who is a Christian?" Then it's "what does it mean to follow Christ?" On to "what is the correct interpretation of the bible?"

Sure, there's some pretty whacked-out interpretations. But the nature of a revealed religion does make it *possible* that new instructions have been given, and one of those whacked-out interpretations is actually the most accurate. Your god supposedly sent Jesus to update the law, right? Different things in the NT than the old, wouldn't you say? If you believe Jesus existed and was as claimed, you can't rule out a new revisionist, a new editor, being sent down to refine or redefine the religion.

Unfortunately, words are a very faulty medium, and Rorschach like interpretions are bound to happen.

Yeah, and what's always struck me as odd is how this all-powerful being who really loves us and wants us to understand and love him would choose to reveal himself to a primitive bronze-age people, not write down anything himself, and refuse to reappear over the last 2000 years to each and every one of us to make sure we understand what he really means. Especially when confusion and disagreement over what he means has caused so much suffering and death.

For my part, judge the tree by its fruit is a pretty good maxim.

But then that's not perfect either. Pat Robertson, with his project Operation Blessing actually is helping to feed people. And not every wonderful Christian has a clean closet, either. Mother Theresa, MLK, etc. have produced some bad fruits here and there.

In the meantime, few are going to appreciate having thier opinions challenged.

That's too bad. Because when they're pushing an political agenda based on those opinions, I think challenging them is fair game - whether they're conservative OR liberal.

[Zhade]

90. I wish you did too!

You'd be rich - and you'd have EARNED it with great breakdowns like these.

Why is it so hard for some good people to understand that terrible people share their faith system? Is it because, as good people, they can't see the hurtful interpretations?

[Proud_Democratt]

69. The godhatesfags guy is

Fred Phelp.....Reverend Fred Phelps

[Zhade]

66. "Some people who claim to be Christian are lying about it."

Possibly.

BUT YOU DON'T KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THEY ARE. You can't, since you don't read minds.

Assuming you do know is, itself, dishonest.

[GreenArrow]

71. Which is more reasonable to expect?

2.1 billion Christians, of varying denominations, not one of whom is lying about his faith?

Or that some unknown number of those claiming to be Christians do not believe a word of what they claim to and that some of those actively attempt to subvert Christianity.

I don't have to know 2.1 billion people to know the latter is true. I only have to have a little knowledge of human behaviour. You're entitled to believe the former, if it suits you; I'll stick with the latter.

[Random_Australian]

72. He never, EVER implied that none did, just that you do not now which

ones are lying, and which ones aren't.

As for active subversion? About as active as the evil atheist posse. More like bieng greedy, selfish bastards from where I am sitting, but you are entitled to your opinion.

Did you really think that Zhade was so divorced from reality that he thought that no Christians are lying about their faith?

[GreenArrow]

75. "he never implied..." it certainly seemed that way to me

As for active "evil athiest posses" I believe some Athiests are more Christian than some Christians. I also believe there are some real twisted sick prick athiests. Or Muslims. Or Jews. Or whatever. It comes with being a human being.

If Zhade really thinks that some Christians do lie about their faith, then it ought to be an easy thing for him to say so. That's not the way I've read his and some other's comments.

[Random_Australian]

76. He is saying, you do not know who is lying, and who is not.

[GreenArrow]

78. and I say I can

and to carry it even further, he probably can too.

[Random_Australian]

80. Alright then, go ahead, tell us how you can without reading minds.....

[Zhade]

93. Please show me how you - and I - can do so.

Keep in mind that prior 'bad acts' (i.e., lying about other topics) is not evidence of this particular lie, just the propensity for lying.

[beam me up scottie]

77. Did this word from his post not show up on your monitor ?:

Possibly

Because I can see it clearly on mine.

[GreenArrow]

79. yes, I saw it

and the implication is that though it might be possible, it might also be impossible.

That ought to be clear as well.

[Zhade]

92. Basic logic - if something is possible, it CAN'T also be impossible.

THAT should also be clear.

See below for my reply to your subthread OP.

[Zhade]

91. Thank you, RA.

Straw really sticks in my craw.

[Zhade]

88. Don't put words in my mouth.

I hate the taste of straw.

My point, which I think is an easy one to understand, is that while it is quite possible that some Christians are lying about what they believe, it's not possible to KNOW, for certain, that they are lying about what they believe.

I can't read minds. You can't read minds. And actions we might think of as opposite the purported teachings of Jesus may very well be sincerely-held beliefs on the part of the Christian you assume to be lying.

It's not that no Christians lie - they're as human as the rest of us, after all - it's that we don't know for sure what ANYONE believes, because we aren't them.

Therefore, if b*s* says he's a Christian, I have to accept his statement, because while he's a famous liar, this is the type of statement which if a lie is impossible to prove as such. We can't use his other lies to prove his statement of belief to be a lie, and there's no external indicators that would reveal if it is a lie, save the arguable 'anti-Jesus' nature of his actions...which, again, could be honestly-held interpretations of his Christianity.

So he's a Christian, but also a murderous liar. Hey, it's been known to happen before; look at Torquemada.

[SPKrazy]

81. Well, Other Than Mind Reading, How Else Can You Tell

except that someone says they are.

You can see their works, are they works that would indicate that the person is practicing the teachings of Christ?

But then again, one can only see the other through the filter of what one thinks the teachings of Christ are.

so surface does trump substance in the case of someone claiming to be Christian.

Unless you have a way that no one else has?

[Zhade]

94. SPK, I'm glad to see you responding to this.

I'm also very glad we all worked through our anger to come together. People like you (and, honestly, a lot of others, too!) give me hope that theists and atheists can get along.

[iconoclastNYC]

30. Because Hypocrisy sucks

Too little Christians follow the teachings of Christ.

[afrosia]

37. We win!

On our side we have science, which has given us (not in this order) the combustion, steam and jet engines; the vaccine; the space shuttle; the airplane; the computer; surgery; and of course theme parks.

They have a dusty book without a reference list. Now, as any academic will tell you, you cannot trust any work which doesn't have a reference list or bibliography. Especially one with no author!!!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

43. Again, please realize you are talking about only one concept of God

Since I know many who see God as everything:subatomic particles, laws of science, the space between particles, laws not yet discovered; a vital, evolving Being, learning more about Itself in each moment, I don't think they rely on any "dusty book". In fact, the Third Sufi Thought is: There is one holy book, the sacred manuscript of Nature.

[ellenfl]

42. maybe because those who espouse their

christianity the loudest exhibit the least christian values. that's been my experience. unfortunately, that has always been the case. i think the current emphasis on the intolerance of some islamists has highlighted the intolerance of some christians. the christians in charge of this country right now haven't shown much christian charity, imo.

ellen fl

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

44. The Taliban and the Talibornagains

feed off each other, I think. And both are intent on putting down, first and formost, the liberal/progressive believers within their own faiths.

[Brentos]

60. Heh!

I am a Christian, and I love your word: "Talibornagains"! Made me laugh! I know of those you speak of in my religious community. Thanks!

By their works you will know Christians. It they (fellow Christians) don't get it, then why would non-Christians?

That is a failure on the part of Christians that we need to have this discussion. So, yes there are good Christians, and bad Christians. Good atheists and bad atheists. I really don't think that good/evil is a relationship of religious/non-religious, in fact, since Christians didn't follow the teachings of God/Jesus the best (and still don't), and instead try to use it for our own needs instead of God's, we have moved more "good" people from the religious axis into the atheist axis, thus possibly even skewing the good/evil axis higher for atheists. I would posit that not following God's words/intentions properly has the opposite affect of what God (or the religious) would expect/desire.

[Proud_Democratt]

70. They keep doling out...death to

ones that disagree and invade other country's "holy ground". Our children will pay the price.

[ozone_man]

45. I think the negative effects of religion

are what is important to atheists, such as the interference of religion in their private lives, in state matters, and even in environmental matters, since rewards in heaven are looked forward to instead of maintaining a sustainable lifestyle on Earth. Religion has had a profund effect on humanity, perhaps it was a necessary step in civilization's development, and we are quickly approaching the time when we have the shed our ignorant beliefs of the past and enter a more rational future.

Yes, it is interesting to know whether Bush is a Christian, how that might influence his environmental policies, or whether he listens to God when making foreign or domestic policy.

I think if all religionists were of the liberal type, there would be a lot less interest in who is a Christian or what type of Christianity they believe in, e.g., are they misogynist like Paul? Homophobic? Religion does not promote liberal thinking or critical reasoning, while atheists tend to be liberal, free thinkers.

What is more important about religion, is how it is used to control the masses. You mention Hitler. It is less important whether or not Hitler was a Christian, and much more important that he understood how to use Christianity to support his movement, to gain support and to legitimize the Nazi government by "Hitler's" Pope. Whether we're talking about the Crusades, the Inquisition, or the Holocaust, or the Christian right that supports Bush, the use of Christianity to blind and pacify the masses is what is most dangerous.

A very nice, lengthy paper on this.

"The Great Scandal: Christianity's Role in the Rise of the Nazis"
by Gregory S. Paul

http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=paul_23_4

[Proud_Democratt]

48. The Hitler-Christian issue is about...

neither Christians nor Atheists, want to claim Hitler as one of their own.
However, there is more physical evidence linking him to Christianity than being an Atheist.
Just because he was evil, people choose to say he was an Atheist?
It's a "blamegame".

[SPKrazy]

50. It's Also, Who Would Want To Claim Him! n/t

[GreenArrow]

54. more fundamentally, Hitler was a Human Being.

Therefore, all of us get to claim him.

[Dorian Gray]

111. Who says he's an atheist?

I'm not saying he wasn't a Christian, but if I were to say that, there are a bazillion other possibilities, and atheist isn't really on my radar when it comes to Hitler.

And, personally, I think that his religion was an amalgamation of Christianity, Paganism, the Occult, Statehood, Aryianism, and whatever other ism you could throw in there. There were Christian elemnets, but there were other elements, as well. And I have never seen in all the arguments that go around and around about Hitler and Christianity on this website ONE person claim that he was an atheist. EVER!

[SPKrazy]

49. I Think It's Just In The Air Or Something?

It seems that it is somewhat of a good question for me.

It's made me think of how I have looked at the religious right and said "they can't be Christians acting like that"

But that isn't the case, if they believe they are Christians, than who am I to say they aren't.

Evangelists of tolerance?

Well the world could use evangelists of tolerance, and if atheists want to preach tolerance, than they may be one up on a lot of religious people in the world.

If there is a political agenda here, to try to associate Christianity with atrocities, well, the truth is that we can't run from our history and say "it ain't so".

What about the inquisition? I'd like to think that was done by people who couldn't be "real" Christians. The fact is that it was a political thing, disguised in religious clothing, but it still is part of history, and done by self professed Christians.

I think that the whole of Christianity (liberal, conservative, moderate) has some growth that needs to happen to be more tolerant of others beliefs, ideas, and attitudes.

That doesn't mean Christians should crawl on their bellies like reptiles, or bow down to anyone about their beliefs, it just means to me that the world is full (literally) of so many cultures and beliefs, that a world without tolerance is only going to be a world of hatred and bigotry.

So I am not suspecting a full court press movement of all atheists on DU to be trying to put down Christians. But then I'm new to this forum really, and I certainly don't know that for sure.

In the mean time, I plan to try to practice tolerance of Christians, and non-Christians alike.

That is a challenge for me actually, even though I like to think of myself as open minded, I often find it is the open minded as long as you agree with me brand of open mindedness.

[beam me up scottie]

51. We're worried about our christian brothers and sisters!

By the time you're done kicking out everybody who does things that Jesus wouldn't have done, there won't be any christians left.

We didn't want you guys to become extinct overnight.

:evilgrin:


Actually, I had to peek in here to see if you got what you were asking for.

And it looks like you did.


Not surprisingly, the majority of christians here don't seem to feel they have the right to narrowly define christianity in order to exclude others.

[NMMNG]

52. We aren't the ones with the obsession

It is those who want to denounce anybody who makes Christians look bad as "not a TRUE Christian". Any Christian who sins a few times too many or makes an a$$ of themselves in public gets thrown out of the club so as not to sully the reputation of the godly Christians.

Hitler? Maybe the reason atheist websites exist is to rebut all of the Christian websites that are trying to wash their hands of him because they don't want to be associated with him. It's such a convenient dodge after all--you want to sully someone's reputation just claim they're an atheist and let human nature take it's course. Christians have done such a good job of vilifying non-believers that it's almost safer to be accused of slaughtering children than not believing in god.

[Zhade]

63. So people like you can't get away with the NTS fallacy.

So people like you can't intimate, through your exclusion of Christians who do terrible things, that only good people can be Christian, and this can't assert (via the exclusion) that Christianity = good.

None of us are arguing that, say, b*s* is a Christian in order to pin his crimes on Christianity. The whole point is that just because a person is religious, that doesn't make them moral, and thus just because I don't have religion doesn't mean I'm immoral.

Mostly, it's to keep people like you honest.

[Zhade]

67. GAH, typo.

Too late to edit, but "this can't assert" should be "thus can't assert".

[Evoman]

68. LOL!!! (scene from my play)

"A number of atheists here are working very hard to insist upon a certain definition of who is a Christian or not. Very, very hard"

OMG...tell me you see the irony! Kwassa, baby, you gotta see the irony!

I think a scene from my play is in order...

<scene start>

*Evoman is walking down the street when he sees his old friend and nemesis, Pat the Fundie on the street*

Evoman: Hey Pat, hows it going?

Pat: Not bad, Heathen. You?

Evoman: Oh, I'm fine. You heading to church?

Pat: OF COURSE HEATHEN. We are having a special sermon on liberal swine.

Evoman: Um..thats..ah...pretty christian of you I guess.

Pat: ARE YOU SAYING I AM NOT CHRISTIAN, HEATHEN!!

EVoman: Oh no...I'm letting you DEFINE YOURSELF. I wouldn't presume to know your mind. You go to church religiously....I would say your a christian.

Pat: *calming down* Okay Heathen. See you later *leaves*

*Evoman continues on his walk down the street. Out of the corner of his eye he see his good friend
Kielbasa Sausage*

Evoman: Kielbasa! Over here. Hows it going?

Kielbasa: Great, great Evoman. And you?

Evoman: Fantastic, thanks Kielbasa. Off to church?

Kielbasa: No! Its tuesday!. We are having a special sermon on How to Be More Christlike on Sunday though.

Evoman: Cool, Cool...I just saw Pat. Hes going to church too...

Kielbasa: Pat! Bah. Hes not a real christian.

Evoman: No? He goes to church about seven times a week, and told me he is a christian.

Kielbasa: He is not.

Evoman: How do you know that. From what I know about PAt, he seems to really believe in christ and love him. I imagine that if your worship christ, your a christian.

Kielbasa: Says who? Who gives you the authority to make this statement? Like, God or something?

Evoman: So your saying that no one has the authority to define others? So then, by his own definition, Pat is christian.....

Kielbasa: NO! Bottom line, there are many different ways one can be judged or not judged to be a Christian. Anyone with a tiny understanding of the teachings of Jesus could not consider Pat a Christian. I note that the "evidence" supporting this notion is from Pat own speeches. Since Pat was attempting to manipulate the world with these speeches and an inveterate liar, there is no reason to consider this evidence at all. We can only consider his actions, which certainly contain no Christian element whatsoever.

Evoman: So people who lie and cheat, or commit genocide, are not true christians?

Kielbasa: Egg-zactly, Evoman.

Evoman: So then your defining Christians as people who don't lie or cheat.

Kielbasa: Right.

Evoman: But..its that a bit..um...hypocriti....

Kielbasa: Why do some you care so much as to who is Christian or isn't? A number of atheists here are working very hard to insist upon a certain definition of who is a Christian or not. Very, very hard.

Evoman: No..I wasn't defining anybody..I was letting people define thems....

Kielbasa:I have to go now. Bye Evoman...have a great day.

Evoman: Um..yeah. See ya Kielbasa Sausage.

*end of scene*

[Zhade]

95. I sense lunch in your future.

Were you hungry when you wrote that? :evilgrin:

I love the hypocrisy revealed in that scene - "He's not a Christian, because I say he's not, but neither YOU nor HE can define who is a Christian!"

:rofl:

[CarbonDate]

73. I like to know who's going to try to kill me.

Kidding. Sort of. Biblical law does dictate that I and other atheists be put to death.

Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death."

I think saying that God isn't real counts as blasphemy, yes? You perhaps understand the distrust, then.

[catbert836]

85. You're the one who cares, kwassa.

You try to define who is and who is not a Christian so you can keep bad people out of the fold. That's using the No True Scotsman fallacy, which encourages an attitude of moral superiority. I don't really care who is and who is not a Christian.

[kwassa]

86. Sorry, but the only ones insisting they know the definition are atheists

and as I pointed out before, using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy it itself a fallacy.

I don't, in my definition, define someone as a Christian to keep a bad person out of the fold. I try to define it so that the word Christian has some meaning to it, as related to the teachings of Jesus.

I've never claimed moral superiority for Christians over atheists. Never, not once.

and while you yourself claim not to care, there is many an atheist writer here who says that a Christian is anybody who claims to be, rather than making a more discriminating judgment about it.

[catbert836]

87. Bwahahahaha!

using the "No True Scotsman" fallacy it itself a fallacy.

Care to elaborate? How is calling someone on using a logical fallacy a fallacy in itself?

I don't, in my definition, define someone as a Christian to keep a bad person out of the fold. I try to define it so that the word Christian has some meaning to it, as related to the teachings of Jesus.

You're not the only one who has defined "Christian", kwassa. Many people would define that word without referencing the teachings of Jesus at all. What gives you more authority than them?

I've never claimed moral superiority for Christians over atheists. Never, not once.

Using the No True Scotsman fallacy to exclude people such as Hitler from being Christians essentially says that no Christian can do horrible things. Ergo, non-Christians can do horrible things, but Christians can't. There's the moral superiority.

And I don't know where you get the idea that I'm an atheist. I'm not.

and while you yourself claim not to care, there is many an atheist writer here who says that a Christian is anybody who claims to be, rather than making a more discriminating judgment about it.

Yeah. So...?

[Zhade]

97. It IS pretty funny to watch him flail.

Like this:

"I try to define it so that the word Christian has some meaning to it, as related to the teachings of Jesus."

Now, maybe I'm nuts, but kwassa, being a Christian, is likely to believe Jesus was a great teacher/person/god/whathaveyou. In short, Jesus would be an ideal to live up to, since I sincerely doubt kwassa worships an evil being.

So, by extension, the teachings of Jesus must be good ones to him, right?

By defining Christian as "related to the teachings of Jesus" (rather than the traditional definition of believing in him as the savior of mankind), kwassa IS defining 'Christian' as 'good', and thus excluding all those who are 'bad' (don't follow kwassa's interpretations of the good of Jesus' teachings), which of course leads to the notion that bad people can't be Christian, so only good people are, so Christians are thus better than non-Christians.

[kwassa]

108. logic error

zhane:
"By defining Christian as "related to the teachings of Jesus" (rather than the traditional definition of believing in him as the savior of mankind), kwassa IS defining 'Christian' as 'good', and thus excluding all those who are 'bad'"

No, I'm not.

[Zhade]

193. Keep telling yourself that.

You may be the only one to make such a logical error, and believe it to be true, but if it's comforting, knock yourself out.

[kwassa]

106. The errors in application of the No True Scotsman fallacy

Being a Scotsman is a fact of birth. One who is born in Scotland can only be a Scotsman, regardless of behavior. Therefore, the "No True Scotsman does x" is a logical fallacy, because it is a fact of birth, not behavior.

Being a Christian, however, is a voluntary association. With this association travels certain beliefs that are commonly held, broadly or narrowly. This allows the definition of a Christian to be broad or narrow, depending on who views it.

Therefore, saying "No true Christian does x" is NOT a logical fallacy, because x can be used to demonstrate lack of Christian belief.

The idea that No True Scotsman CAN be applied to Christianity is only true if one accepts that idea that ANYONE who claims to be a Christian is one. Otherwise, there is no fallacy, and "No True Scotsman" simply doesn't apply.

As it is my position that not every person who says he is a Christian is one, there is no fallacy.

So, no "No True Scotsman".

[beam me up scottie]

109. ROFLMAO! Christians are used as examples in the DEFINITION of the fallacy!

They go together like babies and atheism!

You don't believe the fallacy exists, so it doesn't exist.
Hysterical! :rofl:

That's the same thing as claiming Hitler wasn't a christian because you don't believe he was!


Let's keep it simple this time:
(please forgive my sinister use of white space)

Your personal belief that the fallacy doesn't exist doesn't mean a thing to anyone else, kwassa.
Just like your personal belief that Hitler wasn't a christian.

Oh, wait.

It does mean something.

My bad.

It means that using christians as an example in the definition of the NTS fallacy is spot on.:evilgrin:

As it is my position that not every person who says he is a Christian is one, there is no fallacy.

Then prove Hitler wasn't a christian.

Prove that your definition of "christian" is the correct one.

That's all you have to do, kwassa.

Prove it.

[kwassa]

113. You need to read the Wikipedia definition carefully, which you haven't

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman_fallacy
quote:

"Using the context of culture, individuals of any particular religion, for example, MAY tend to employ this fallacy. The statement "no true Christian" would do some such thing IS OFTEN a fallacy, since the term "Christian" is used by a wide and disparate variety of people. This broad nature of the category is such that its use has very little meaning when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour."

I capitalized MAY and IS OFTEN, which are qualifying words. I would also point out "when it comes to defining a narrow property or behaviour". I am describing broad behaviors, mass murder being a rather broad behavior.

So, this author would not entirely agree with your analysis, or contradict mine. He is not absolute in his description, either.

[beam me up scottie]

114. Fascinating.

I study people who manipulate words and definitions to support their pet theories.

The fallacy is based on the personal belief that christians can't commit evil acts and the circular logic needed to support it.

Tell me more about your use of "qualifying words".

Are they the same words used to narrowly define your religion in order to exclude Hitler and other bad christians?

[kwassa]

116. You must spend much time looking in the mirror, I would think

bmus:
"I study people who manipulate words and definitions to support their pet theories."

[beam me up scottie]

125. That's it?

That's all you've got?

I'm in awe of your obviously superior debating prowess.

[kwassa]

141. You should be.

Pay attention and learn, grasshopper.

[beam me up scottie]

146. Hitler was a christian and babies are atheists.

That's the truth, grasshopper. ;)

Don't you want to help your friend attack us in the other thread?

He's already told a recovering alcoholic to "get a drink", we're just waiting to see what he comes up with next.

He could use some more of your encouragement.

[kwassa]

149. This seems like a catechism for some atheists

those who claim no beliefs yet repeat certain concepts over and over and over.

and I got in trouble for claiming that atheists have beliefs! Golly gee, why are those concepts repeated over and over again on different atheist websites, if they have no beliefs in common?

Must be pure coincidence, huh?

[beam me up scottie]

156. Atheists don't have beliefs.

And I'm glad to see you finally admitted you had to search the internet for material to use in our debate.

I'm flattered.

[kwassa]

160. Yeah, whatever, just a lot of IDEAS that seem identical.

Whatever you call it. You certainly repeat what is on those sites, too. Over and over.

[beam me up scottie]

161. "Yeah, whatever" ???

I know you are but what am I?
:rofl:

[kwassa]

163. Hey! Still waiting for your rebuttal on my analysis of No True Scotsman!

Will this occur in my lifetime, or will you continue to avoid?

Being a Scotsman is a fact of birth. One who is born in Scotland can only be a Scotsman, regardless of behavior. Therefore, the "No True Scotsman does x" is a logical fallacy, because it is a fact of birth, not behavior.

Being a Christian, however, is a voluntary association. With this association travels certain beliefs that are commonly held, broadly or narrowly. This allows the definition of a Christian to be broad or narrow, depending on who views it.

Therefore, saying "No true Christian does x" is NOT a logical fallacy, because x can be used to demonstrate lack of Christian belief.

The idea that No True Scotsman CAN be applied to Christianity is only true if one accepts that idea that ANYONE who claims to be a Christian is one. Otherwise, there is no fallacy, and "No True Scotsman" simply doesn't apply.

As it is my position that not every person who says he is a Christian is one, there is no fallacy.

So, no "No True Scotsman".

[beam me up scottie]

166. "No true christian would be a Nazi" = No True Scotsman fallacy.

You use it every time you attempt to narrow the definition of christian to exclude Hitler.

[beam me up scottie]

169. I counter your NTS Fallacy Fallacy with the NTS Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy!

The No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy

Some Christians have made an attempt to defend their usage of the term "true Christian™" by coining their own fallacy, The No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy. According to these Christians, the term "true Christian" can not be compared to the term "true scotsman" in Flew's fallacy. Some arguments in favor of this position are

* I've been using this term all the time, so I'm not shifting the meaning of terms.
* A Christian is a follower of Christ and no follower of Christ would do these things.
* Atheists are redefining the term Christian to mean "anyone who claims to be a Christian", when there is a definite definition of the word in the dictionary.


The No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy

The No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy is a fallacy because it claims that the No True Scotsman Fallacy is a fallacy regarding Christians when it isn't. There is no difference between the original fallacy coined by Flew and the fallacy committed by the Christian apart from the substitution of "Scotsman" with "Christian".

********************

The usage of the term true Christian™ is an obvious example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. To claim that anyone who pleads the fallacy is committing a fallacy is in itself a fallacy. I call this fallacy The No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy. I wonder if this is the final word on the issue or if we will see a The No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy Fallacy. I guess at least Monthy Python would be impressed.

And by the way, no true atheists would be guilty of committing a fallacy, would they?

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/scotsman.htm

[salvorhardin]

172. Best write up of NTS ever!

Good pasta! We're going to have to start using parentheses just to keep the fallacious levels straight.

(((NTS F)F)F)

Will kwassa go for ((((NTS F)F)F)F)?

[beam me up scottie]

179. Isn't it though?

As often as he uses the No True Scotsman fallacy in here, you'd think it was a religious belief.

It IS a religious belief!

He has faith (but no proof) that no "true Christian™" would ever yadda yadda yadda.

The Church of the NTSF!

:rofl:

[salvorhardin]

184. I think you might be on to something

We need to be more tolerant of NTSFism.

Let's celebrate NTSFism. I've got the Not True Haggis. What can you bring?

[beam me up scottie]

185. I'll bring the Not True Hossenpfeffer !

[salvorhardin]

186. Aiiee! You better not let spotted elephant hear you say that.

Wouldn't a little Not True Colcannon be better?

[beam me up scottie]

187. But I was thinking of her!

I could have used the picture of the baby bunny, but I didn't!

And, Not True Hossenpfeffer has no real bunnies in it!




Now I'm hungry.
:P



on edit, that's the first time I've completely stumped DU's dictionary.

Hossenpfeffer:

- no suggestions -

[kwassa]

177. Cute, but he doesn't rebut my argument either. Nor have you.

By the way, BMUS, here is what this author says:
"It is a straw man to say that atheists regard anyone a Christian who claims to be a Christian. I have yet to see an atheist who holds that position."

I guess he hasn't been around this group very much. He really strikes out there! Hasn't met the BMUS.

the closest he gets is:
"A Christian is a follower of Christ and no follower of Christ would do these things."

But ... he only uses one dictionary definition of Christian, which is surprising, when atheists context dictionary definitions about themselves. This pretty much kills his argument, but he also never really looks at "how no follower of Christ would do these things".

This guy is wrong, too.

[beam me up scottie]

180. You really believe in your no "true Christian" fallacy, don't you kwassa?

I guess I should stop asking you to prove the fallacy since it qualifies as a religious belief.

It would be wrong to ask a true believer to provide "proof" of what he believes in, since belief is based on faith and not evidence and/or logic.

[kwassa]

190. I disagree, my belief is quite logical.

So is my refutation of "No True Scotsman"

[beam me up scottie]

194. If your beliefs are so logical, why won't you answer trotsky?

And you refuted nothing.

You described why you have such a strong belief in the No True Christian Fallacy.

And just like every other religious belief, it's based on faith, not evidence.

[trotsky]

173. Here's where your defense of the fallacy fails, kwassa.

From wikipedia:

This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Now if you're going to squabble about what the "accepted definition" of Christian is, please do so. Otherwise we'll need to consult that dictionary you so very much love and we find:

Christian, n. 1 a : one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ

Can a Nazi profess belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ?

The answer, of course, is yes. They are either professing belief (and lying) or they have a different idea of what the "teachings of Jesus Christ" are. So from the wiki quote, the predicate ("can be a Nazi") is not actually contradictory for the accepted definition fo the subject ("Christian").

Sorry, kwassa.

[beam me up scottie]

181. Thank you, trotsky.

I wasn't able to explain it properly.

I wouldn't wait too long for an answer.

kwassa's busy inventing the No True Christian™ fallacy fallacy fallacy fallacy.

[WoodrowFan]

188. Does the "No Scotsman" fallacy apply here?

BMUS: does the "No Scotsman" fallacy apply here? If we define someone's membership within a group by their beliefs, if they violate those beliefs, doesn't that mean that they are not really a member of that group? Is self-definition enough?

[Zhade]

96. You're not a Christian, because you judge, and that's un-Christ-like.

Now, define yourself out of that box WITHOUT resorting to the hypocrisy of "you can't define Christian, but I can".

[kwassa]

107. Define "Christian" to your heart's content

I would never attempt to stop you, even if I could, because no one can define anyone else without their permission. I can't define you, you can't define me. Now, I can have my opinion was to whether or not someone is a Christian, and I think I have a broad definition. Hitler falls way outside or that, of course.

It seems that some atheists seek an absolutist definition of what is Christian or what is not. There is no absolute definition, but very common-sense ones. Does the person walk the walk, and talk the talk? Or do they just talk? Did Hitler behave in a way that could be considered Christian?

[beam me up scottie]

110. "It seems that some atheists seek an absolutist definition"

Many christians in this very forum use the same definition we do, kwassa.

They realize they can't prove anyone is lying about their religious beliefs.

They use more common sense, IMO, than people who claim they can read minds.

[kwassa]

112. Some Christians use the same definition you do, many don't.

Many don't, from the notes I've seen.

bmus:
"They realize they can't prove anyone is lying about their religious beliefs."

Sure they can.

A person's beliefs can be judged by their actions, a point you avoid over and over and over. Care to tackle it?

There are liars in this world, BMUS. It is not only possible to judge people, it is often prudent. The way most judge is to compare words and action. Simple as that.

[beam me up scottie]

115. Many do. And you have no way of knowing who is lying about their beliefs.

Unless you can read minds.

Sure they can.

A person's beliefs can be judged by their actions, a point you avoid over and over and over. Care to tackle it?

Not their belief in gods, kwassa.

You don't KNOW they don't believe in the christian god.

Keep it up, this is good material for a documentary about apologetics and revisionists.

[kwassa]

117. Not true.

I said:
"A person's beliefs can be judged by their actions, a point you avoid over and over and over. Care to tackle it?"

bmus:
"Not their belief in gods, kwassa."
"You don't KNOW they don't believe in the christian god."

I don't know that they DO believe in a Christian god. Words are just words.

There is no logic to the idea that because we don't know what they believe in their heart, that we must accept their words as being true.

Let me repeat this again:

There is no logic to the idea that because we don't know what they believe in their heart, that we must accept their words as being true.

The possibility of them being liars requires us to look for other evidence as well. If actions contradict the words, then the words are not true. If the actions support the words, then the words are probably true.

[SPKrazy]

118. So I Take It That There Is Some Crucible In Which You Boil It Down

I say I'm a Christian

You say, hmmmph, we'll see

You watch my actions to see if they conform with your ideas of what a Christian is or isn't.

If I don't measure up, then I must not be a Christian.

I'm sorry Kwassa, if this is the process you go through, then I don't see how it is anything but a judgmental process (not just using judgment) because all of us will fall short of being perfect.

Now, I think the Hitler thing has been beat to death.

There is no doubt that Christians (at least this one) don't want to claim him as their own.

Atheists (I assume, and I realize I can't speak for atheists) would probably not want to claim him.

Theists of all kinds would doubtfully want to claim him.

Now there are some "Christians" (they profess Christ to be their savior and believe they are following the bible) who do think at least the principles of Hitler, white, Aryan supremacy, is right. I don't know if they claim Hitler as one of them or not. If you don't believe me, check out Elohim City, on the border of Arkansas and Oklahoma. Tim McVeigh even stopped off there briefly on his way to blow people up. (or shortly before that trip)

I don't like the kind of Christian Hitler was, (if he claimed to be a Christian and I don't honestly know if he did or not) and denounce him as a terrible human being, and a piss poor example of what a Christian is.

But Hitler may have called himself a Christian, and may or may not have believed he was a Christian.

[Name removed]

119. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SPKrazy]

120. So Now I'm Not A Christian In Your Opinion?

sure glad that it isn't your opinion that matters to me

:rofl:

[kwassa]

121. Why would you think so?

I have no opinion about your Christianity, other than to suspect that you probably are.

[SPKrazy]

122. That's Not What You Just Said

Kwassa said:

No, you are not a Christian IN MY OPINION. Others may have different opinions, and many do

Don't know why I would think that.

[kwassa]

123. That is what I just said.

You posed a hypothetical, I gave a hypothetical reply.

Get it? I wasn't talking specifically about you at any time.

Like I said, I have no opinion, really, because I haven't studied your stated beliefs and actions. Probably won't, either.

Peace and blessings.

[SPKrazy]

124. Your Response Didn't Seem Like a "Hypothetical"

it seemed very much directed at me for no reason.

but since you say otherwise

I'll take your word for it, eh?

[kwassa]

126. Sorry, my manner is cut-and-dried sometimes

No offense intended.

[beam me up scottie]

127. A diehard proponent of the No True Scotsman fallacy lecturing about logic?

Hang on, I want to take notes.

:rofl:

[kwassa]

128. Still waiting for your rebuttal on my analysis of No True Scotsman

Let's see if you can get beyond emoticons.

Not holding my breath.

[beam me up scottie]

129. What analysis? You are the posterboy for the NTS fallacy, kwassa.

Wikipedia has your picture next to the definition.

You need to prove your definition of christian is the correct one, remember?

[kwassa]

130. Let's see if you can post a reasoned rebuttal

I've showed why the No True Scotsman fallacy doesn't apply.

Let's see if you can refute it.

[beam me up scottie]

131. There's nothing to refute. You said you don't believe in the NTS fallacy.

The definition specifically mentions christians and how they use it.

You need to prove that your definition of christian is the correct one if we're to accept your claim that you're not using the fallacy.

Go for it.

[kwassa]

133. I've specifically refuted it, and you can't rebut, apparently.

and I can't say that I am surprised that you can't rebut.

[beam me up scottie]

135. Look into the mirror:

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my uncle Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."

kwassa: "No christian would be a Nazi."
Reply: "But Hitler was a christian."
kwassa: "Ah, yes, but no true christian would be a Nazi."

[kwassa]

136. I'll post it for the third time, since you didn't get it the last two

Let's see if you can actually answer it this time:

Being a Scotsman is a fact of birth. One who is born in Scotland can only be a Scotsman, regardless of behavior. Therefore, the "No True Scotsman does x" is a logical fallacy, because it is a fact of birth, not behavior.

Being a Christian, however, is a voluntary association. With this association travels certain beliefs that are commonly held, broadly or narrowly. This allows the definition of a Christian to be broad or narrow, depending on who views it.

Therefore, saying "No true Christian does x" is NOT a logical fallacy, because x can be used to demonstrate lack of Christian belief.

The idea that No True Scotsman CAN be applied to Christianity is only true if one accepts that idea that ANYONE who claims to be a Christian is one. Otherwise, there is no fallacy, and "No True Scotsman" simply doesn't apply.

As it is my position that not every person who says he is a Christian is one, there is no fallacy.

So, no "No True Scotsman".

[beam me up scottie]

137. I got it the first two times-It's just as ridiculous the third time around

What you're using is called the "No True Scotsman Fallacy Fallacy", and it's just as illogical as the fallacy you use to "prove" Hitler wasn't a christian.

Voluntary or involuntary association has absolutely nothing to do with the use of this kind of circular logic.

You should ask those websites for your money back.

Try again.

[kwassa]

139. I knew you couldn't refute it. You are defeated once again.

Not that this is very hard.

I will note "could not respond".

Pretty sad, BMUS. You avoid argument continually, probably because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[beam me up scottie]

143. Why that's just as brilliant as your statement about Nazis and christians.

I found your source, kwassa, and they've been smacked down by the best of the best.

Like I said, your use of the No True Scotsman fallacy is classic.

Using weasel words to try to get out of it is as pathetic as claiming that no true christian would be a Nazi.

Give it up, kwassa.

Hitler was a christian, he repeatedly cited his belief in your God, and you can't prove otherwise.

[kwassa]

145. Still waiting ........ no rebuttal from BMUS, of course

bmus:
"I found your source, kwassa, and they've been smacked down by the best of the best."

Yeah. Whatever. Sure.

You can't rebut.

[beam me up scottie]

151. As before, give me something to rebut and I'll comply.

Weasel words don't have the magical properties you wish they had, kwassa.

Your refusal to "believe" that the NTS is a fallacy is inadequate, inept and predictable.

Let me know when you can find something else.

[kwassa]

154. Still waiting .... no rebuttal from BMUS

Calling something weasel words is, of course, avoiding the subject

the argument BMUS can't refute, one more time.

Being a Scotsman is a fact of birth. One who is born in Scotland can only be a Scotsman, regardless of behavior. Therefore, the "No True Scotsman does x" is a logical fallacy, because it is a fact of birth, not behavior.

Being a Christian, however, is a voluntary association. With this association travels certain beliefs that are commonly held, broadly or narrowly. This allows the definition of a Christian to be broad or narrow, depending on who views it.

Therefore, saying "No true Christian does x" is NOT a logical fallacy, because x can be used to demonstrate lack of Christian belief.

The idea that No True Scotsman CAN be applied to Christianity is only true if one accepts that idea that ANYONE who claims to be a Christian is one. Otherwise, there is no fallacy, and "No True Scotsman" simply doesn't apply.

As it is my position that not every person who says he is a Christian is one, there is no fallacy.

So, no "No True Scotsman".

[beam me up scottie]

159. How does one rebut a personal belief?

Your entire argument boils down to "There is no fallacy because I say there is no fallacy."

Just like your belief that Hitler wasn't a christian, it proves nothing.

[kwassa]

162. Still haven't rebutted the argument.

There is no fallacy, unless one believes that anyone is a Christian that says that they are.

I don't believe it, nor do many others, so no fallacy has occured.

Still waiting for your rebuttal.

[beam me up scottie]

165. There is no argument. There is the No True Scotsman fallacy and

your use of it.

When you posted "No true christian would be a Nazi", you used it.

Every time you narrow the definition of christian to exclude Hitler, you use it.

Every time you argue with us OVER the definition of christian, you use it.

Face it, kwassa, the No True Scotsman fallacy describes your argument perfectly.

It's yours, you bought and paid for it, now own up to it.

Hitler was a christian because he believed in the christian god.

[kwassa]

164. Good night, I've had enough of your avoidance.

Sweet dreams.

[beam me up scottie]

168. Babies are atheists.

And Hitler was a christian.

:hi:

[kwassa]

178. Repeating falsehoods hundreds of times doesn't make them true

[beam me up scottie]

182. You mean like the No True Christian fallacy?

I agree.

Since you can't prove that your definition of christian is the correct one, you're guilty of using the fallacy.

More like abusing it, actually, considering how often we see it here.

Kick the habit, kwassa!

Free yourself from the bondage of belief in the NTCF!

[kwassa]

191. I disagree

bmus:
"Since you can't prove that your definition of christian is the correct one, you're guilty of using the fallacy."

These two ideas in this sentence don't connect.

I don't need to prove my definition is correct to anyone but myself. I know that others would share my definition as well.

I only need to prove alternative definitions exist. The NTS fallacy notion depends on the idea that Christianity is undefinable, which is incorrect, as far as I am concerned. Therefore, as I pointed out several times, the NTS fallacy does not apply. The author of the fallacy himself does not assert that it always applies. If he doesn't, why do you?

[trotsky]

192. kwassa, please see post #173.

The NTS fallacy in no way depends on Christianity being undefinable, in fact it's quite the opposite.

[beam me up scottie]

195. Answer trotsky.

I can hear all about your belief in the No True Christian fallacy another time.

[salvorhardin]

132. Your position seems innately hypocritical

Would it be wrong for me to judge you to not be a Christian?

Would it be wrong for Southpawkicker to judge you to not be a Christian?

If so, then why is it OK for you to judge whether or not someone else is a Christian and not anyone else, least of all other Christians?

[kwassa]

134. "Innately hypocritical"?

Why would it be wrong for you to judge me not a Christian?

[salvorhardin]

138. So you just have no objective standards whatsoever?

[kwassa]

140. What in the world are you talking about?

[salvorhardin]

142. Well then, can you enumerate your standards?

You say that you judge whether or not someone is a Christian by their actions. Yet you judged Southpawkicker to not be a Christian, despite having no way of knowing her actions. That alone is hypocritical. But we'll let that be for now.

What specific actions do Christians do that non-Christians don't? And why?

[kwassa]

144. I apologize, because I DID NOT judge Southpawkicker not ...

to be a Christian, though both you and she have that impression, so I must have misstated something. I thought I was posing a hypothetical situation.

It is not a question of Christians doing something that non-Christians don't, other than Christian ritual and prayer. It is a question of someone claiming to be Christian who clearly behaves in an anti or non-Christian way.

[salvorhardin]

147. Behavior implies action

Can you enumerate behaviors that Christians exhibit that non-Christians don't?

[kwassa]

148. You are following the wrong tack

I never claimed that ANY behavior was exclusive to Christians.

[salvorhardin]

150. If no behavior is exclusive to Christians

Then how can you judge whether one person is or isn't a Christian based on behavior?

[kwassa]

152. I already said it.

To get slightly more detailed:

If a behavior is directly oppositional to the teachings of Christ, then the behavior is non-Christian, in my opinion.

Many exhibit non-Christian behaviors who never claim to be Christian, but that is irrelevant to the argument, as they make no Christian claim.

[salvorhardin]

153. So your standard for judging whether a person is a Christian or not

Is the degree that their behaviors conform to the teachings of Christ? Yes or No?

Also... Would you agree that you have to judge based on behavior alone because you can't know their thoughts? Yes or No?

[kwassa]

155. Yes

[salvorhardin]

157. You agree with both those statements? n/t

[kwassa]

158. You added the second after I responded to the first

anyways:
"So your standard for judging whether a person is a Christian or not
Is the degree that their behaviors conform to the teachings of Christ? Yes or No?"

Yes.

"Also... Would you agree that you have to judge based on behavior alone because you can't know their thoughts? Yes or No?"

Not a yes-or-no question. Behavior is very important, but thoughts can be known if the person is honest, to themselves and others. Honesty can only be perceived over time. I know some very honest people.

[salvorhardin]

167. How do you gage their honesty? n/t

[CarbonDate]

170. The Bible says:

Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the LORD, shall be put to death."

Anyone who is of the wrong religion is to be put to death according to Biblical law. Hitler was just following the rules laid out for him in Leviticus.

[Vidar]

171. Militant atheism is closely akin to fundamentalism.

[catbert836]

174. What's "Militant Atheism"?

And do you see any "militant atheists" here?

[kwassa]

175. Onward Atheist Soldiers, Marching off to War .....

sorry, couldn't resist.

[beam me up scottie]

183. The belief that no evidence for gods exists, god-dammit!!!

:D

[trotsky]

189. Since no one has ever offered up a definition when I've asked...

I can only assume a "militant atheist" is one who speaks his or her mind instead of keeping quiet to as not to scare away all those fundie Christians who are oh so close to voting Democratic but are scared by our hostility toward religion.