| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Neil Kelsey" |
| Date: |
08 Jan 2005 07:30:06 PM |
| Object: |
Question re Protestants for Atheists |
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
08 Jan 2005 09:54:37 PM |
|
|
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote in message
news:yO%Dd.47830$nN6.7078@edtnps84...
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because they
are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
That you don't argue with uneducated bigots who consider
Catholics not to be Christians. And, that it is pointless to
debate or argue with people who wear their agenda on their
sleeves (probably because they couldn't remember the salient
points unless they were right in front of their face.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
09 Jan 2005 02:12:59 AM |
|
|
In article <yO%Dd.47830$nN6.7078@edtnps84>,
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
I'd tell that xtian to go read some history. Both catholics and
protestants were responsible for persecutions, murders of innocent
people, religious wars, and other terrible things. The burden of guilt
is on those who commit the crimes or enable them. You can't blame a
whole group for the sins of some. You also can't blame a group or
members of that group for crimes that were committed by other members of
that group long before they were born. Guilt is not like a gene that is
passed down from generation to generation. That's why 'original sin' is
the stupidest of all religious doctrines.
As far as catholics and protestants, I say a plague on both their houses
or churches.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Intelligent Design has as much to do with science as reality
television has to do with reality. - Barry Lynn on CNN 12/25/04
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew Lias" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
08 Jan 2005 11:25:58 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they
don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was
the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because
they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
I'd tell them that that was fine but then, by like measure, they
couldn't lay claim to any supposedly good works done by anyone outside
of their own particular sect.
--
Andrew Lias
http://andrewlias.blogspot.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
08 Jan 2005 10:10:19 PM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they
don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was
the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because
they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
It's the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" to ad hoc redefine evil Christians
to not be Christians. When this fallacy comes up, I would refuse
discussion until precise definitions are made.
Different people have different definitions of what it means to be
Christian. I would consider myself to be a Christian of the
Jeffersonian ilk, but most "Christians" would not consider myself a
Christian as I do not accept zombies and demigods as rational.
When a person keeps commiting the "No true Scotsman Fallacy" it is
likely that they will paint themselves into a corner - not much
meaningful discussion to be had there.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
08 Jan 2005 11:07:33 PM |
|
|
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105243819.369844.227880@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Neil Kelsey wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they
don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was
the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because
they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
It's the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" to ad hoc redefine evil Christians
to not be Christians. When this fallacy comes up, I would refuse
discussion until precise definitions are made.
Different people have different definitions of what it means to be
Christian. I would consider myself to be a Christian of the
Jeffersonian ilk, but most "Christians" would not consider myself a
Christian as I do not accept zombies and demigods as rational.
When a person keeps commiting the "No true Scotsman Fallacy" it is
likely that they will paint themselves into a corner - not much
meaningful discussion to be had there.
Thanks...I had never heard of this fallacy before, I notice the term was
coined by Anthony Flew, and I had never heard of him until a couple of weeks
ago. I copied and pasted this definition, it answers what I was asking:
No true Scotsman is a term coined by Antony Flew in his 1975 book Thinking
About Thinking. It refers to an argument which takes this form:
Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on
porridge") is not actually contradictory to 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.
Some behaviours are actually contradictory to the label; "no true vegetarian
would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the
accepted definition of "vegetarian".
In particular, members of religious faiths are often charged with employing
this fallacy when they say that no true Christian would do something. The
term "Christian" is used by such a widely disparate set of people that it
has very little meaning when it comes to behaviour. If there is no one
accepted definition of the subject, then the initial argument should be
accepted as the definition for the discussion at hand.
It is also a common fallacy in politics, in which critics may condemn their
colleagues as not being "true" liberals or conservatives simply because they
occasionally disagree on certain subjective matters of policy.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
08 Jan 2005 11:49:24 PM |
|
|
On 8 Jan 2005 20:10:19 -0800, wrote:
It's the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" to ad hoc redefine evil Christians
to not be Christians.
Hmmmm.... Does this type of fallacy have a nice, catchy, Latin term? I'm not
going to impress anyone by pointing out that they're using the "No True Scotsman
Fallacy". While I'm busy explaining the subtle perfection of my logic they'll be
thinking of Groundskeeper Willie from the The Simpsons.
---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
11 Jan 2005 10:51:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 05:49:24 +0000, Levy Oates
<levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 8 Jan 2005 20:10:19 -0800, wrote:
It's the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" to ad hoc redefine evil Christians
to not be Christians.
Hmmmm.... Does this type of fallacy have a nice, catchy, Latin term? I'm not
going to impress anyone by pointing out that they're using the "No True Scotsman
Fallacy". While I'm busy explaining the subtle perfection of my logic they'll be
thinking of Groundskeeper Willie from the The Simpsons.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy
Suppose I assert that no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge. You
counter this by pointing out that your friend Angus likes sugar with
his porridge. I then say "Ah, yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on
his porridge.
This is an example of an ad hoc change being used to shore up an
assertion, combined with an attempt to shift the meaning of the words
used original assertion; you might call it a combination of fallacies.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "igtheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
09 Jan 2005 02:56:07 AM |
|
|
Neil Kelsey wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they
don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was
the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because
they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
The christian in this case would be correct. No human being is
responsible for the actions of another human. So even if the
christian you were arguing with was a catholic your argument would not
hold water.
Now if you could show that the ideology itself was responsible for the
evil then you would have a case. For instance, if the offending
religion had written in it's scriptures to murder, steal from, enslave
the women of, and make second class citizens of the non-believer then
you would have a case. Perhaps if the religion held that the only
sure way into the good afterlife was through religious war against the
innocent then you could say the adherent was evil by mere belief. It
think this applies quite well to the Muslim faith. Not so sure it
works against Christianity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
09 Jan 2005 05:05:03 PM |
|
|
"igtheist" <igtheist_N_O_S_P_A_M@hotmail.com> writes:
Neil Kelsey wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
The christian in this case would be correct. No human being is
responsible for the actions of another human. So even if the
christian you were arguing with was a catholic your argument would not
hold water.
Now if you could show that the ideology itself was responsible for the
evil then you would have a case. For instance, if the offending
religion had written in it's scriptures to murder, steal from, enslave
the women of, and make second class citizens of the non-believer then
you would have a case. Perhaps if the religion held that the only
sure way into the good afterlife was through religious war against the
innocent then you could say the adherent was evil by mere belief. It
think this applies quite well to the Muslim faith. Not so sure it
works against Christianity.
Calvin executed children based on Exodus 21:15 and Deut. 21:18-21
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was used to execute
people during the middle ages.
Countless more examples; you just haven't been paying attention.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "igtheist" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
10 Jan 2005 09:00:18 PM |
|
|
Brian Westley wrote:
Calvin executed children based on Exodus 21:15 and Deut. 21:18-21
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" was used to execute
people during the middle ages.
Countless more examples; you just haven't been paying attention.
I am aware of that stuff. It's just that Christians haven't been
invoking it for over one or two hundred years. The bible is
chronological with the more compassionate sections later. Those tend
to be the ones Christians follow.
Whereas the Quran is not chronological in nature. There was a period
where Muhammad was weak and he preached tolerance at that time. He
later became powerful and ruthless. The later Sura take precidence
and they are the violent ones.
If you were paying attention you would be aware of this. How many
christian theocracies like say Ireland call for beheadings of
non-believers? How many stone people to death. Hell Saudia Arabia
just decapitated and then crucified the headless body just a few weeks
ago. Plus they still believe in slavery in a couple muslim
countries.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
09 Jan 2005 04:51:15 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:30:06 GMT, "Neil Kelsey"
<neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
That they all believe in the same god.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
08 Jan 2005 10:56:52 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:30:06 GMT, "Neil Kelsey"
<neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
Hitler was a Catholic, his Nazi soldiers were Protestants.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec (aka aka Yang's little poltregeist *****)
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.6 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -1351 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Levy Oates" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
09 Jan 2005 12:06:46 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:30:06 GMT, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net> wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because they are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
Oh, that's alright, the protestants burnt, hanged and repressed lots of people
too. They were just too late for the inquisition and the crusades. See for
example
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/10/25b.html
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM
Then there were the Salem witch trials, Northern Ireland...
---------
Levy Oates
http://www.angelfire.com/alt/bumblism/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Question re Protestants for Atheists |
09 Jan 2005 12:37:53 AM |
|
|
"Levy Oates" <levy_oates@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mfh1u0lvd6k06kn41nehv9pml20kpvlhj0@4ax.com...
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 01:30:06 GMT, "Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@telus.net>
wrote:
What is the best response to a christian when they argue that they don't
have to answer for certain crimes against humanity by saying it was the
catholics who did (whatever), and that they can't be blamed because they
are
protestant (or a protestant subspecies), or vice versa?
Oh, that's alright, the protestants burnt, hanged and repressed lots of
people
too. They were just too late for the inquisition and the crusades. See for
example
http://elvis.rowan.edu/~kilroy/JEK/10/25b.html
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ247.HTM
OooOOooo...I like that one.
Then there were the Salem witch trials, Northern Ireland...
Merci beaucoup. Just what I was looking for.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
