What is Your Religion?

[Baby, ByeBye]

I didn't know Buddha and Confucius were Christians

[V1per41]

Originally Posted by FashionableFedora

Grow up. Nazism can be a valid point of discussion. It wasn't central in any case.

I will concede that many theists think that Nazism can be a valid point. However, it never has been and never will be.

Hitler was a Christian, the Nazi's were primarily Christian, but let's ignore those and go with the "They didn't do what Jesus teaches and therefore aren't true Christian's" argument.

It still doesn't matter, as their actions were driven from ideology and dogma. Atheists have committed atrocities, but no one has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. there is a VERY BIG difference here.

[TheGillotine]

Originally Posted by FashionableFedora

Bottom line is that Christianity is, and has been, the driving force of civilization, and historically has been more successful than any other force in creating an appreciation for the value of human life. That statement is informed, not ignorant. To the extent that barbarism exists in Christian societies, it's a deviation from their Christian traditions.

Bottom line is that rationality is, and has been, the driving force of civilization, and historically has been more successful than any other force in creating an appreciation for the value of human life. That statement is informed, not ignorant. To the extent that barbarism exists in rational societies, it's a deviation from their rational traditions. Christianity is fundamentally opposed to rationality. Christianity teaches that human life is worthless, that humans are fundamentally evil.

Nice No True Scotsman fallacy, btw.

[TheGillotine]

Originally Posted by Baby, ByeBye

I didn't know Buddha and Confucius were Christians

East Asia has always been a den of savagery and barbarism. They have never contributed anything to civilization, and they have no value for human life.

[FashionableFedora]

Originally Posted by V1per41

I will concede that many theists think that Nazism can be a valid point. However, it never has been and never will be.

Hitler was a Christian, the Nazi's were primarily Christian, but let's ignore those and go with the "They didn't do what Jesus teaches and therefore aren't true Christian's" argument.

On what basis are you calling Hitler a Christian? Do you think anybody who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian, or are there certain criteria (beliefs held, actions taken, etc.) that you think people need to meet for you to consider them Christian? Is anybody who wants to call themselves an actuary an actuary?

Btw, the definition of Christian is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. There is a set of fixed criteria to determine whether or not someone truly is a Christian, and it's not self-defining. Basically, belief in the Apostles' Creed is the litmus test. Anyone who believes it is a Christian. I am not saying that Christians do not commit atrocities or sins, because that would be ridiculous. I am saying that to the extent they do, they are deviating from their faith. That's a fact, and it happens to everybody.

I then went on to make another statement that I think societies who have stronger church institutions and stronger Christian influences to be more moral, liberal, life-valuing socieites. This statement can be debated, but I think the historical record corroborates it.

It still doesn't matter, as their actions were driven from ideology and dogma. Atheists have committed atrocities, but no one has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. there is a VERY BIG difference here.

I'm sure there is at least one atheist, somewhere, who has killed or tried to kill a religious person because of their faith. There are probably hundreds, actually. Maybe some of the murderers call themselves "humanists," because they believe in humanity. And I'm sure you'll say (as would I), "they're not really humanists!). Not so?

[FashionableFedora]

Originally Posted by TheGillotine

East Asia has always been a den of savagery and barbarism. They have never contributed anything to civilization, and they have no value for human life.

Yup, I said that.

[TheGillotine]

Originally Posted by FashionableFedora

On what basis are you calling Hitler a Christian? Do you think anybody who calls themselves a Christian is a Christian, or are there certain criteria (beliefs held, actions taken, etc.) that you think people need to meet for you to consider them Christian? Is anybody who wants to call themselves an actuary an actuary?

Btw, the definition of Christian is not a "no true Scotsman" fallacy. There is a set of fixed criteria to determine whether or not someone truly is a Christian, and it's not self-defining. Basically, belief in the Apostles' Creed is the litmus test. Anyone who believes it is a Christian. I am not saying that Christians do not commit atrocities or sins, because that would be ridiculous. I am saying that to the extent they do, they are deviating from their faith. That's a fact, and it happens to everybody.

I then went on to make another statement that I think societies who have stronger church institutions and stronger Christian influences to be more moral, liberal, life-valuing socieites. This statement can be debated, but I think the historical record corroborates it.



I'm sure there is at least one atheist, somewhere, who has killed or tried to kill a religious person because of their faith. There are probably hundreds, actually. Maybe some of the murderers call themselves "humanists," because they believe in humanity. And I'm sure you'll say (as would I), "they're not really humanists!). Not so?

The extent to which Western society has progressed is the extent to which it deviates from Christian dogma.

I consider any person who claims to have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ to be a Christian. I have no way of verifying that claim.

[FashionableFedora]

Christianity is fundamentally opposed to rationality.

I've given many examples to prove this isn't true. The Church is pro-science, and has been the champion of western science and scholarship for centuries, long before any other element of society was.

Christianity teaches that human life is worthless, that humans are fundamentally evil.

This statement is ignorant, not informed.

Nice No True Scotsman fallacy, btw.

I explained in my reply to Viper why it's not a NTS.

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by V1per41

I will concede that many theists think that Nazism can be a valid point. However, it never has been and never will be.

Hitler was a Christian, the Nazi's were primarily Christian, but let's ignore those and go with the "They didn't do what Jesus teaches and therefore aren't true Christian's" argument.

From your article:

When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

Is this the case? Not even close. Pretty much everyone I've seen apply this fallacy gets it wrong. It's a contagious meme.

To get a quick overview of the discussion of Hitler's religious views, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_H...eligious_views

It's probably not as clear as you think it is, particuarly considering his private statements, which were very anti-Christian. Unfortunately, while Hitler was very evil, he was also a very brilliant man, and was very persuasive in convincing others he was someone he wasn't. Probably not much unlike Constantine in the 4th century.

It still doesn't matter, as their actions were driven from ideology and dogma. Atheists have committed atrocities, but no one has committed atrocities in the name of atheism. there is a VERY BIG difference here.

Nothing good has ever been done in the name of atheism. So, why would one want to be an atheist? (rhetorical question)

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by TheGillotine

Nice No True Scotsman fallacy, btw.

Another example of incorrect application of NTS.