• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth.

Status
Not open for further replies.
joobz said:
Does it make you feel good to pretend that you are more moral than Bill Gates?

Your attitude provides ample evidence to exactly why your entire statement is false.
Click to expand...

Muslims also feel that faith and obedience are the key to understanding Allah.

And, guess what, the more they follow the Quo'ran, the more it's proven true to them!

Every true believer feels they are more moral and more "in on" divine truths than all those who don't believe like them.

Yippee. Tons of moral relativists listening to voices in their head and imagining themselves moral for following the will of a god they invented themselves!

It would be funny if it didn't result in so many tragedies.
 
I always think it's funny when people don't understand the fallacy they are accusing others of.

No true Scotsman is a definition fallacy... where you change definition midstream so that your point always remains true.

Theists use it to prove to themselves that people of their religion are the most moral... and if you point out an example of an evil doer that subscribes to the same religion then the response is "that isn't a real Christian (Muslim, theist, etc.)" Hitler wasn't a "true Christian"-- but Stalin was a "true atheist".

In this way they tie all positive attributes to their faith and convince themselves that faith is responsible for those attributes... and they associate all evil with not having their faith.

It's a type of confirmation bias.

Those who accuse me of logical fallacies are often ironically far more guilty of such errors.

But I have GTC on ignore, so who knows. I've never found him to have anything of value to add to a conversation.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
I always think it's funny when people don't understand the fallacy they are accusing others of.

No true Scotsman is a definition fallacy... where you change definition midstream so that your point always remains true.
Click to expand...

That's actually equivocation. No True scotsman is a generalisation error, a post-hoc subdivision of a class with a previously unspecified and un-agreed upon criteria.
 
Piscivore said:
That's actually equivocation. No True scotsman is a generalisation error, a post-hoc subdivision of a class with a previously unspecified and un-agreed upon criteria.
Click to expand...
Is this right?
No True Scotsman Fallacy: "Since Piscivore doesn't eat rotten fish, therefore he isn't a real Fish-eater.
Equivocation Fallacy: "Piscivore doesn't eat rotten fish, that's as bad as not eating fish at all therefore he isn't a real Fish-eater.
 
I have piscivore on ignore too... I think he's one of those people who criticizes others with criticism more fitting of himself.

I do like the irony of those who think they understand logical fallacies who clearly do not. I can't imagine why they think they are experts.

Equivocation is saying things in such a way that you can't be pinned down (fuzzy semantics.) No true Scotsman is a way of changing definitions midstream so you always win your "point".

For theists it tends to be "faith is good" and "people who don't share my faith are immoral".

Doc is mostly guilty of circular reasoning... the bible is true and moral because god wrote it --so says the bible...
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
Is this right?
No True Scotsman Fallacy: "Since Piscivore doesn't eat rotten fish, therefore he isn't a real Fish-eater.
Equivocation Fallacy: "Piscivore doesn't eat rotten fish, that's as bad as not eating fish at all therefore he isn't a real Fish-eater.
Click to expand...


Close, but not quite. A No True Scotsman would be more along the lines of:

Me: A Fish-eater eats fish.
Piscivore: I eat fish, just not the rotten ones.
Me: Then you aren't a true Fish-eater, they must eat the rotten ones.

The class Fish-eater must be defined before the exception is created, and the exception must exclude examples from the class. Equivocation can be used to expand or contract a class. For example:

Me: A Fish-eater eats rotten fish. Piscivore is a Fish-eater.
Piscivore: Um, I only eat fresh fish, not rotten.
Me: Well, a Fish-eater can eat fresh fish.


ETA: Articulett, you are wrong about the No True Scotsman. It is not simply a matter of changing definitions. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
paximperium said:
Is this right?
No True Scotsman Fallacy: "Since Piscivore doesn't eat rotten fish, therefore he isn't a real Fish-eater.
Click to expand...

Right- That statement creates two classes out of one- "things that call themselves fish-eaters and are" and "things that call themselves fisheaters but aren't"- except no one else recognises the seperation of classes as valid. It's not subsituting an alternate definition or creating a new one, it is cutting from the class valid members of the class that disprove the assertion one is trying to make, and is thus a kind of overwhelming exception.

Equivocation Fallacy: "Piscivore doesn't eat rotten fish, that's as bad as not eating fish at all therefore he isn't a real Fish-eater.
Click to expand...
That's not equivocation either. That's still creating the above two classes.

Equivocation would be "since Piscivore claims to eat fish, he must perform oral sex on them"- thus substituting the intended definition ofr "eat"- consuming as food- for the sexual one.
 
I may be guilty of over generalizing-- but I'm not guilty of the fallacies the self appointed logical fallacy experts imagine. They, may be guilty of such however. I don't know. I've learned to ignore them due to their imagined expertise and straw men derailment to attack imaginary flaws in me.

In my opinion, they need to knock me down to feel better about themselves, and their criticisms would be better spent on their own flaws which I find glaring.
 
DOC said:
Well, a week or two ago someone in here asked me to explain what is meant by the will of God. My interpretation of that term is a condition where Godly perfection exists. A world where everyone follows the 10 commandments and loves their neighbor would be a perfect world and a world in the will of God. Obviously that condition does not exist at this time but to achieve a world like that would be the goal of the Christian community.

Christ said "Ye do the will of the Father {God, the father} and ye shall have eternal life". That implies if you want eternal life you should do things like follow the 10 commandments, love your neighbor as yourself, do good to those who vile and persecute you etc.

Also, Christianity teaches that as you get deeper into Christianity you are able to hear more clearly the voice of God communicating with you. I'm not talking about an audible voice (although that did happen sometimes in the bible) but a spiritual communication that you know is of God. If God is telling you (in the spirit) to do something -- for example to give 50 dollars to a charity when you personally only want to give 20 -- then to do the will of God here you would have to give the 50. Bill Gates might give 5% of his wealth to charity. But if he were a Christian who was in communication with the God of this universe, God might ask him (in the spirit) to give 70% of his wealth to charity. Obviously there would be a lot of people who would be better off if he gave 70% of his wealth to charity; and then the world would be closer to the will of God and thus better off.

The goal is to have a world that is 100% in the will of God because that would be a world that would be in the long term best interest of everyone. As I said before obviously that state does not exist now (because of the sin of man); but that is the goal -- of Christians, anyway. And an environment that is 100% in God's perfect will be a state of existence that I believe heaven will be like.
Click to expand...
Which version of Christianity?
 
I apologise if I used the term 'no true Scotsman' incorrectly. This is what I mean:

The suggestion that 'Every true believer feels they are more moral' is unfalsifiable.

I could point to religious people who don't feel that they are morally superior to others. Pointing to the beliefs that we are all sinners and that we need God's grace to save us or God's forgiveness would suffice, I think. However, articulett could then simply say that these people aren't 'true' believers and that her point still stands.

articulett is arguing that it is wrong to think that you are morally superior to others. This is a fairly reasonable argument (but it could get bogged down in semantics). However, that is an argument that would also apply to atheists who think themselves morally superior to others.

By saying true believers feel morally superior to others, she gets to attack religious belief, when what she is really attacking is independent of belief.

It would be like saying 'True Australians are drunks' in order to imply that all Australians are bad people. The only way this would be an honest argument was if proof was presented that all Australians are drunks. Otherwise it is just suggesting that drunks are bad people.

By the way, articulett actually has me on ignore because she was suspended for a month for a very vitirolic, off-topic and completely innacurate personal attack on me.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Well, a week or two ago someone in here asked me to explain what is meant by the will of God... My interpretation of that term is a condition where Godly perfection exists.

Christ said "Ye do the will of the Father {God, the father} and ye shall have eternal life".
Click to expand...
He also said "Hate your mother and father". However, a bit like your post contains no evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth", we have no evidence that hating your mother and father makes a perfect world. The claim that the NT writers told the truth and you should hate your mother and father are both contradicted by common sense and reason.
 
Last edited:
articulett said:
Muslims also feel that faith and obedience are the key to understanding Allah...
Click to expand...

Suppose that there is a God. Then do you (or anyone else in here) believe it is absolutely certain (when looking at both Christianity and Islam) that the teachings of one of those two religions are closer to God?

I contend it is absolutely certain that one of those two religions is closer to God if you assume (for arguments sake) that God exists.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
Suppose that there is a God. Then do you (or anyone else in here) believe it is absolutely certain (when looking at both Christianity and Islam) that one of those two religions' teachings are closer to God?

I contend it is absolutely certain that one of those two religions are closer to God if you assume (for arguments sake) that God exists.
Click to expand...
And I contend that they are both incredibly far away from god, should we assume one exists.

What does one millimetre count when you're a billion light years from your goal?
 
DOC said:
Suppose that there is a God. Then do you (or anyone else in here) believe it is absolutely certain (when looking at both Christianity and Islam) that one of those two religions' teachings are closer to God?

I contend it is absolutely certain that one of those two religions are closer to God if you assume (for arguments sake) that God exists.
Click to expand...


"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong."

- Dire Straits
 
DOC said:
In a way, I'm glad your number one goal in your posts is to try to make me look bad (even if the facts don't lead to that conclusion)
Click to expand...
Please, stop lying for your messiah - he has enough already

Either post some evidence or piss off, you troll
 
DOC said:
Suppose that there is a God. Then do you (or anyone else in here) believe it is absolutely certain (when looking at both Christianity and Islam) that the teachings of one of those two religions are closer to God?

I contend it is absolutely certain that one of those two religions is closer to God if you assume (for arguments sake) that God exists.
Click to expand...


Is that the sound of the bottom of a barrel being scraped that I hear? Is this really the best you can come up with as "Evidence for why we know the New Testament writers told the truth"? Suppose God exists, then one of two completely different stories must be truer than the other?
 
Hokulele said:
"Two men say they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong."

- Dire Straits
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question. If you assume God exits do you believe it is absolutely certain (when looking at both Christianity and Islam) that one of those two religions' teachings are closer to God?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom