ElishaElijah
Return
That oak tree used to be an apple tree but it’s not anymore. Did it ever have apples? No Then it wasn’t an apple tree.
Be quiet and a no true Scotsman fallacy, lol
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?
- Thread starter an anarchist
- Start date
Be quiet and a no true Scotsman fallacy, lol
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Not only is that demonstrably untrue, were it true it would not remotely evidence anything supernatural or any deity?
Sheldon
Veteran Member
You posted a claim, based on hearsay. That was and is the point.
Nonsense. Just because they don't agree with your subjective interpretations and claims, doesn't mean they don't know what it says. Your belief it holds some esoteric hidden truth, is not supported by any objective evidence.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Irrelevant gibberish.
I have no idea what that means, but you used a no true Scotsman fallacy, you might present more compelling arguments if you could avoid using common logical fallacies in almost every post.
ElishaElijah
Return
I think that’s all you know to say when you can’t answer a question. You assume everyone who says they were a Christian were at some point but you have no idea what a Christian is, neither do those people. You don’t know so instead of finding out you call fallacy and you still don’t know.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So you are doing a non true Scotsman fallacy. You decide what a Christian is and not any other, because you know and they don't.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I think that's asinine nonsense.
I know what a no true Scotsman fallacy is, and you clearly still do not, is a far more plausible explanation. You think you can ignore logic and still present cogent rational arguments, but rationality and logical fallacies are mutually exclusive.
Rubbish, you just want to bully everyone into accepting your narrow subjective belief of what constitutes a Christian.
Go and learn what a common logical fallacy is, and what its use means, then learn what a no true Scotsman fallacy is, and then come back and offer a sensible cogent response, as that assertion is risible nonsense.
ElishaElijah
Return
God determines the criteria for who is or is not a Christian and the Bible describes that criteria.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, the Bible doesn't describe that, because it requires an active interpretation by a human. The Bible is a thing as paper and ink.
ElishaElijah
Return
Jesus said how a person becomes a believer and Christian is a term that was given to believers in the book of Acts. It is clear what Jesus says and not a belief but clearly stated. You cry bully, but the people saying they were once Christian are now saying God is a myth, this is impossible according to the Bible. You never knew Him, never born again so never a Christian.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Don't be silly, everyone who purports to be a Christian believes this, and believes their subjective opinion reflects what god wants and what the bible says. Your subjective opinion doesn't differ in any objective way, you were simply using a no true Scotsman fallacy, again I can only suggest you try and learn what this is, and what it means for arguments that use such fallacies.
Only you can decide if you care whether your arguments are rational or not.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
@ElishaElijah is not wrong tough.
One becomes Christian with baptism, and stops being Christian with apostasy, that's what the bible says.
ElishaElijah
Return
3170 and why my comments aren’t a fallacy.
ElishaElijah
Return
Exactly, if a person was a Christian before their comments would be I know God is real, I just will not have Jesus rule over me. They wouldn’t be denying He ever existed.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
I don't know if you knew but see: Ecclesiastes 5:4
Which means it's better not be baptized (become Christian) than to be baptized but later turn to apostasy (break up with Christ).
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No one knows for sure what Jesus said, again it is hearsay, different Christians have differing opinions on this and on what it means. Dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as "not really Christian" is the very definition of a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Not even remotely true, the bible contains only hearsay claims, and much of it is vague platitudes open to interpretations. However this again misses the point, and gain you really need to understand what a no true Scotsman fallacy means.
Recognise the context, and don't overreact.
Well of course the bible would say that, but it is demonstrably not impossible, I personally know people who were once Christians, have encountered countless others, and who are now atheists. Ipso facto is is not impossible, so if the bible says it is you might want to consider what the obvious inference.
No true Scotsman fallacy. I don't know that anyone knows Jesus, as no one can demonstrate any objective evidence for the claim, maybe they just saw it was a delusion, but others are too emotionally invested or biased to, and so they cling to the belief. However this is peculation, all I do know is that there are people who are atheists who were once theists, and some of them were Christians. Your no true Scotsman fallacy is simply an irrational dismissal of that fact.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Not what he is claiming though, read the exchange. He is asserting people who were once Christians and are now atheists were never in fact Christians, this is a no true Scotsman fallacy.
Rubbish, this is demonstrably false. We have countless examples of people who were once Christians and are now atheists, so claiming this can't happen is absurd. Dr Bart Ehrman is a pretty good example.
The clergy project...
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I've been baptised, I was 14, imaginary afterlife torture chambers are no more scary, just because I was too young to to know any better and fight back.
This kind of biblical rationale is hardly that surprising, a lot of it is based on fear and phycological bullying.
paradox
(㇏(•̀ᵥᵥ•́)ノ)
baptism of a child (such as an infant) doesn't make him fully Christian, a child becomes Christian with receival of holy spirit, which is in Catholic church gained with confirmation when you're 12 yo.
because biblically a 12 yo. is an adult. capable to decide for himself.
You still seem to think that you have the authority to define words for others. You don't. All of the above is irrelevant to somebody who is not a Christian. He doesn't care if you think you have repented of sin and likely considers the concept of sin in the Christian sense meaningless, since if there is no god, there is no such thing as violating divine law. He doesn't believe you have eternal life, that there is a Holy Spirit, that being born again refers to anything more than coming into the flock, or that Christians are set apart by their beliefs except in a trivial way.
He or I could just as easily call you not a Christian based on our own standards and it would have equal weight with you as your comment has with him and me: none.
He was a Christian by the reckoning of just about any unbeliever (and probably most other Christians), as was I. Your opinion doesn't change that however insistently its given. When I was a Christian, nobody doubted that or said otherwise. Why? Because I was a Christian by any definition.
You're posting to unbelievers. They Bible is not authoritative. It is the source of nothing except what the Bible says. It is evidence of nothing except that it was written. Nothing in it is known to be true because of the Bible. The things that have been verified were verified empirically (using evidence), before which they are not known to be true. Yet you keep citing it as if it were more to the people you are posting to. Why don't you understand that it is not?
You seem to be unable to project yourself into the heads of others, to see through their eyes. You seem unaware that they believe differently from you, that they see your opinions as only opinions and often wrong ones, and your scriptures as only the words of ancient men. That seems odd to me. I never forget that you see things differently from me, and that you don't believe what I do. I would never dream of quoting some holy book that meant nothing to you as if its content would be of interest to you. Why aren't you able to do the same? Do you like having scripture explicitly rejected? You are either unaware that they will be, or don't care. Maybe you hope they'll forget that the words are meaningless to them one of these times and just believe them.