Author Topic: No True Scotsman  (Read 5273 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline YRM_DM

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1280
  • Darwins +425/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #203 on: June 02, 2017, 08:53:05 AM »
It becomes...

A - Seek Jehovah
B - Take anything good or moving that happens
C - Reverse engineer that and assign meaning to it that Jehovah was using that as a response
D - Tell people but without being able to prove or demonstrate anything

I have briefly touched on what the scriptures teach about prayer.  I think you were even part of the discussion.  I outlined some things the scriptures teach that will hinder prayers, if not outright block them.  But it does not appear that anyone was interested in knowing.  What I perceive is that you guys demand to know and/or learn about God by the terms that you dictate.  Then when you get no response you feel justified.  It is like a man that refuses to follow his map, and when he does not arrive at the correct destination, he concludes the destination does not exist.  It does not make sense.

Right, and I pointed out that these scriptures are just things written by men as excuses for why prayer doesn't work.   Just like every other believer, you blame human beings when "prayer doesn't work".

I've repeatedly, over and over and over again, asked you to name ANY MODERN EXAMPLE of a prayer being DEFINITIVELY answered.   It doesn't have to be for me, or on my terms, or benefit me in any way.  Name ANYTHING that you can prove God does.

Your scriptural examples are set up just like any superstition...  "Well, lucky horseshoes work, but, they didn't work for you because you didn't hold it correctly... or it was the wrong day of the week... or you didn't believe hard enough in the horseshoe."

There are zero circumstances under which I, or you, or ANYONE YOU KNOW, can pray, and have that prayer miraculously answered.   If I'm wrong, demonstrate one provable, modern example otherwise.

Surely, if Jehovah answers any prayers ever... you'd be able to prove it once for the 7-8 Billion people on earth, Billions of them saying thousands of prayers?

Pick ONE.
You can't spell BELIEVE without LIE...  and a few other letters.  B and E and V and I think E.

Offline Star Stuff

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6023
  • Darwins +198/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Carbon-based life form.
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #204 on: June 02, 2017, 08:59:18 AM »
I have briefly touched on what the scriptures teach about prayer.  I think you were even part of the discussion.  I outlined some things the scriptures teach that will hinder prayers, if not outright block them.

Quote
I said that's what the scriptures teach.  If it has not worked for you then I recommend you examine the scriptures and see what else they say about prayer and make any necessary adjustments.


Your wording is telling and revealing.  You, like many people, have been hypnotized by a book, being led to believe that said book is something special, when it clearly isn't, and you would certainly not be organizing your life around this book if there were not other sheep who also were hypnotized by said book.  Note how the use of the term "scriptures" somehow makes the primitive book seem like something that ought to be revered, when it ought to be looked at logically & critically like any other book. But no, use the special word "scriptures", and it somehow gets elevated to a place that it doesn't deserve.  Let's have a look at how vacuous (and frankly silly) your comments sound when we replace the word:

"I have briefly touched on what the book teaches about prayer.  I outlined some things the book teaches that will hinder prayers, if not outright block them."

"I said that's what the book teaches.  If it has not worked for you then I recommend you examine the book and see what else it says about prayer and make any necessary adjustments."


See how silly that sounds?  See how it paints one as a mindless follower; a child.....an infant?


There's an old adage: "Beware the man of one book" and it's true, for a mind is truly stunted by focusing on one book above all.
It's akin to another adage: "The world is a book and those who do not travel read only one page" (which similarly emphasizes that if you never go anywhere, you'll have a very limited view of the world).





« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 10:16:37 AM by Star Stuff »
God is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #205 on: June 02, 2017, 09:07:14 AM »
I wonder if Jst has forgotten that, on this forum, most people know the bible quite well but also do not think ti very special short of being an interesting account of s long-gone society. We certainly do not accept that it is either authoritative of has other than human writers who described the society and the world around them.


Really, to use the bible as an argument for something needs to bible to be shown to be authoritative. Good luck with that!
 
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Star Stuff

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6023
  • Darwins +198/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Carbon-based life form.
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #206 on: June 02, 2017, 09:19:21 AM »
I wonder if Jst has forgotten that, on this forum, most people know the bible quite well but also do not think ti very special short of being an interesting account of s long-gone society. We certainly do not accept that it is either authoritative of has other than human writers who described the society and the world around them.


Yes, and I would encourage Jstwebbrowsing to watch this video:

God is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #207 on: June 02, 2017, 10:18:25 AM »
Last night for the first time I went browsing some "Chritian" forums.  With a couple exceptions, I am treated like a king here compared to how I saw "Christians" treating outsiders.  I was shocked and appalled at some of the hateful things I read from so called Christians.  I found nothing but bitter bitter fruit.

Over at Theology web, they were pretty hideous. It could be a syndrome caused by how many threats are let into the forum. As the threats and trolling rise, the natives get more desperate. But with Christians it should be a test of character.

Quote
They can be identified by their love for one another (John 13:35).  They will be part of a loving brotherhood.  The love among their brotherhood should set them apart.             

Set them apart from what? The same fruit could come from Muslims, or any other weird sect. Plus, you could easily be deceived by fake fruit. Some cults look nice from the outside, or until you realize how badly they are really oppressing people, who have simply accepted being oppressed.

Still, I think you are avoiding seeing the real fruits of Christianity, because if you see them, you will have to abandon fruit analysis as a meaningful endeavour. We have evidence, by your own testimony that a bad tree can produce good fruit. The hideous Catholic church produced the NT canon, and then ruled the world with corrupt pedophiles and popes. Then, along came the JWs, who made some trivial changes to the dead tree, and hey presto: real Christianity.



When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline YouCantHandleTheTruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Darwins +125/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #208 on: June 02, 2017, 11:02:24 AM »
I wonder if Jst has forgotten that, on this forum, most people know the bible quite well but also do not think ti very special short of being an interesting account of s long-gone society. We certainly do not accept that it is either authoritative of has other than human writers who described the society and the world around them.


Really, to use the bible as an argument for something needs to bible to be shown to be authoritative. Good luck with that!
 

He's definitely aware that we know the Bible reasonably well, but I know you meant this as a leading question.  My guess is that a lot of Christians don't think that atheists know the Bible at all.  That's why they're constantly preaching to them.  That's most of them I think - but then others are aware that we know the Bible, and use the passage in James 2:19 that says even the demons believe in the "one true God", and shudder.  I honestly believe that passage was put in there to equate non-believers with demons.  All part of the "us against the world, good vs. evil" mentality.

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #209 on: June 02, 2017, 11:07:26 AM »
Yes, that's about it. Of course sociology of religion has quite a lot to say about how groups splinted and reform and one of the key things is to make sure the new group has a different message and to show the new group members that the old lot are wrong - hence the verse you quote.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline YouCantHandleTheTruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Darwins +125/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #210 on: June 02, 2017, 11:23:15 AM »
Yes, that's about it. Of course sociology of religion has quite a lot to say about how groups splinted and reform and one of the key things is to make sure the new group has a different message and to show the new group members that the old lot are wrong - hence the verse you quote.

Yeah that's absolutely right.  What's interesting, I think, is how religion has splintered into so many different factions, and yet politics, in general, seems to have just a few major parties that everyone backs.  Certainly in the U.S. it's either a Republican or a Democrat that wins a major election - I'm assuming it's similar in Scotland?

We saw something different in France this time, with the Socialist party being crushed by Macron's and Le Pen's En Marche! and National Front Parties, but otherwise, it seems that in most civilized countries, the same parties win over and over.  You don't seem to see near the splintering that you do in religion.  I'm not sure why.

Offline charlie

  • Student
  • **
  • Posts: 75
  • Darwins +3/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #211 on: June 02, 2017, 01:16:24 PM »
Since many in here don't like the way I write... and since Anfauglir gave me 48 hrs (I don't know what that means)... and since everything I wrote appears to have been a complete waste of time...

I gave you 48 hours to - I hoped - read the links to the quoting tutorials I gave, and to amend your post accordingly so that it met the standard for this forum.  It appears that you have not bothered to even try as there have been no modification attempts made on that post.

If you do not understand the quoting tutorials, let me (or another admin) know.  There is a Test area in the forums where you can muck about and try it out and get the hang of it.  I have moved your post there, so that you can experiment and correct the quoting - when that is done, I will move it back here (if you wish) or to a new thread.

There are a lot of options available to you.  Its up to you if you want to use them.


Just to be accurate and fair... I did attempt to make changes. It wouldn't let me. I tried twice. I'm computer illiterate and so  I don't how they work and thus I don't understand why on your end, you got no notification to show that I indeed attempt to modify my post.

Secondly, I have to confess that I'm a bit confused about the reaction I got over this formatting thingie.

If you look at my reply #18 on Feb 17 of 2017 in the thread entitled: "Latest Jesus and Mo cartoon - appropriate here!"... you will see I used the same technique there, that I did in here.  And yet no one... not even Velkyn... said anything.

Why the difference?  Surely you can understand my befuddlement at the reaction my post received in here.

Thirdly, I have to confess that it is my humble opinion that you confuse things even more when in your Reply #173 when you said: "Charlie, as Jag pointed out, this is NOT acceptable posting style.  It makes it difficult to keep track of who said what, especially when trying to then respond to your post."

Please... please... please help me to understand what you are saying.  How can it be difficult to keep track of who said what when each of my responses come DIRECTLY after something that Velkyn said? I wrote what she said, and then responded directly afterwards.

I mean, compare my way of responding to Velkyn with Velkyn's response to me in Reply #19 on February 17, 2017 in the thread: "Latest Jesus and Mo cartoon - appropriate here!".  She writes an epic wall-to wall text with NO quotations at all about anything I said.  And yet no one in here seems to have had any difficulty keeping track of who said what... even though she never quoted me... and neither does she use the quotation function.

(notice how in this response to you, I at least quoted what you said before writing about what you said. Velkyn didn't quote anything I said in her Reply #19 of the above thread)

Anyway... at least with my technique, you can follow who said what because my answers always came directly after each of her statements. In her response  though... there is no quotation function being used at all even though it is a massive wall-to wall text from her.

I'm not refusing to abide by whatever rules you want to make up... that's fine. This is your forum. I'm just trying to reconcile what I see as a difference between how I am treated, versus others in here.

Anyway... (please correct me if I'm mistaken)... but it appears that it will be okay if I use Velkyn's technique of writing wall-to-wall text responses without using ANY quotation functions at all... and that this is much preferable than my technique of giving my responses DIRECTLY after each of Velkyn's comments and where I note who is saying what?

If that is okay with you... (as it seems to be judging by how Velkyn is permitted to write the way she does)... then you are in effect saying that all I would need to do to change my previous post...(the one in question)... is take out ALL of Velkyn's direct comments... and just leave my words in only... and that is all I would need to do to satisfy the rules in this forum?

Is that correct? Or have I badly misunderstood what you are saying?

Thanks in advance for your patience and explanation and setting me straight.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2017, 01:20:36 PM by charlie »

Offline Star Stuff

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6023
  • Darwins +198/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • Carbon-based life form.
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #212 on: June 02, 2017, 01:34:23 PM »
Just to be accurate and fair... I did attempt to make changes. It wouldn't let me. I tried twice. I'm computer illiterate and so  I don't how they work and thus I don't understand why on your end, you got no notification to show that I indeed attempt to modify my post.

Basically, this is all you have to know:







Quote
Secondly, I have to confess that I'm a bit confused about the reaction I got over this formatting thingie.

If you look at my reply #18 on Feb 17 of 2017 in the thread entitled: "Latest Jesus and Mo cartoon - appropriate here!"... you will see I used the same technique there, that I did in here.  And yet no one... not even Velkyn... said anything.
Why the difference?  Surely you can understand my befuddlement at the reaction my post received in here.

Just a guess, but perhaps it was an exercise in patience & tolerance on our part?
God is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups

Offline YouCantHandleTheTruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Darwins +125/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #213 on: June 02, 2017, 02:20:22 PM »
I'm not refusing to abide by whatever rules you want to make up... that's fine. This is your forum. I'm just trying to reconcile what I see as a difference between how I am treated, versus others in here.

OK but I"m sure you understand the fact that velkyn is a very respected poster in here, and she has earned that respect.  It seems to me that if you're a theist, when you make the decision to come to an atheist board to try to change minds, you have to do so delicately.  You don't want to come in like a bull in a china shop.  Also, you can't be snarky with responses.  If I went to a theist website and tried to tell everyone they were wrong, I wouldn't do so aggressively.  I've never done it, I leave them in peace.  the only time I even mention my atheism is when I'm being asked to go to a service or speak to a pastor for help.  Then I'll say "No thanks, and here's why."  The only theist in here that seems to understand that the way to communicate on an atheist board is with love is Old Church Guy.  He starts out gently, and he's great at responding to questions thrown at him.  Even when everyone is bombarding him with challenges and, at times, insults, he never gets ruffled, and is extremely patient.  Even though we don't share the same views, I have great respect for him because of that.  His general attitude and aura make people feel better.


Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #214 on: June 02, 2017, 10:06:00 PM »
Is that correct? Or have I badly misunderstood what you are saying?

Thanks in advance for your patience and explanation and setting me straight.

Can you start arguing about Christianity, rather than talking about your dental records?
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Foxy Freedom

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2940
  • Darwins +327/-14
  • Why is it so difficult to say you don't know?
    • Foxy Freedom on Doctor Who
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #215 on: June 02, 2017, 10:25:32 PM »
1.  Yes I made that claim but I also made it known that I cannot prove God's existence and neither did I create an argument from it.  So your revelation about my claim is just the revelation of a dead horse. 

You made known a confused claim that you cannot prove the existence of the entity in your head. If the entity in your head was the god of the OT it would be a simple matter to prove it. Does the entity in your head want his will to be accurately known or not? Does it want you to be a Jehovah's Witness or not? If it really wants you to understand something, it will tell you. Does the entity in your head care about you or not?

I am claiming that the entity in your head is definitely not the god of the OT, and it is giving you no information whatsoever, it is just confusing you in a demonic way to believe nonsense. And I have evidence for my claim from your lack of understanding about the god of the OT and about how it was written and from your false modern western pseudo-scientific interpretations of ancient texts.

You have nothing to back up your claim that the entity in your head is the god of the OT which would be the simplest thing to do if it was true.

The only possible conclusion is that the entity in your head is not the god of the OT.

Quote
2.  No all experts don't agree the Jehovah descended from another God or else we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  If there are linguistic similarities then that only proves there are linguistic similarities.

You are confused. I did not say there were linguistic similarities. That has nothing to do with it. Get your facts right.

WE are having this discussion because you in your confused state cannot distinguish between reality and fiction which makes you unable to evaluate research properly.

Your inability to distinguish between reality and fiction is also shown in a recent question, when you asked how we know that John's gospel is not an eyewitness account. NO research is necessary to answer this, nor about any of the gospels. They look like Harry Potter stories for a reason. They are are literary fiction. Anyone who has learned to think clearly can see it immediately. It is possible to go into all the details of research about how the gospels copied the resurrection, ascension, miracles and ideas from the OT and elsewhere but it should not be necessary. The whole of the underlying ideas about reality in the bible are wrong, and are used to create an obviously fictional text. Spirits do not float up through the ether from the Flat Earth to the gates of heaven like Jesus (and the Roman Emperors) did according to eyewitnesses in the fictional description in Acts. Zoroastrian demons do not control the world in spite of a god, and words are not the reality behind nature, names nor miracles.

This reminds me of one of your pseudo-scientific interpretations which insults the god of the OT that Genesis is just about the Earth not about heaven. In Hebrew the poetry links the creation of heaven from water by the similarity of the words, showing that the god of the OT intended it that way since he made the words show the reality, not according to the entity in your head. As we all know, we can see the spilt water of heaven across the sky on a clear night, though today we call it the milky way instead of the watery way!

Quote
3.  I am not conflating anything.  You made two seperate accusations.  #1 was that I claimed God has communicated with me.  This was true.  #2 was that I claimed God has communicated only with me in the past 2000 years.  A false accusation.

No, You as a Jehovah's Witness. You are confused. There were no Jehovah's Witnesses until recently. It is a modern invention. Stop conflating different paragraphs.

Quote
Now there is a third.  Now you say I claim
Quote

You are confused. Where did I say you claimed this?

that God was incapable of making his meaning clear for 2000 years, "just by being a JW".  Here you have just created a false dillema.  You really ought not put words in people's mouths and then accuse them for words they never said.  One out of three you got right.  So one out of three times you value honesty?

Get your facts right.

Quote
So no I am not confused but are seeing you clearly.  And I did not say you were angry with me.  I said you are an angry atheist.  I stand by it.

I wrote that it is not in my nature to be angry, and I never had the anger of being conned and having to escape from Christian lies told to me as a child. If you bothered to read what I actually wrote, you would see that you really are confused. The entity in your head is confusing you to say things you don't know about me. Corinthians says that god is not the author of confusion. Where does that leave you?

The Foxy Freedom antitheist website is http://the6antitheist6guide6.blogspot.co.uk

The 2nd edition of the free ebook Devil or Delusion ? The danger of Christianity to Democracy Freedom and Science.       http://t.co/2d1KcJ9V

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #216 on: June 03, 2017, 04:55:55 AM »
Is that correct? Or have I badly misunderstood what you are saying?

Thanks in advance for your patience and explanation and setting me straight.

Can you start arguing about Christianity, rather than talking about your dental records?


I suspect Charlie has gone - he doesn't seem to have done anything about his post at least.
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #217 on: June 04, 2017, 10:28:46 PM »
Jst do you think there is a cause effect thing with anger and atheism or just two uncorrelated qualities?

Like you can be atheist and brunette but it is not something you mention to someone.

Is angry and atheist contingent to you?

if no why mention it?

If yes please explain it.

No.  I just think some people are angry people.   
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5114
  • Darwins +360/-39
  • Gender: Male
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #218 on: June 04, 2017, 11:26:36 PM »
Jst do you think there is a cause effect thing with anger and atheism or just two uncorrelated qualities?

Like you can be atheist and brunette but it is not something you mention to someone.

Is angry and atheist contingent to you?

if no why mention it?

If yes please explain it.

No.  I just think some people are angry people.

I think a lot of people are angry and for a lot of reasons. Some of those reasons are extremely valid. There are a lot of angry Christians in the world today. Some of them resort to violence to express their anger sure, but not all of them. There are a lot of angry Muslims in the world today. Some of them resort to violence to express their anger sure, but not all of them. There are a lot of angry atheists in the world today. Some of them resort to violence to express their anger sure, but not all of them. There are a lot of angry blacks in the world today. Some of them resort to violence to express their anger sure, but not all of them. There are a lot of angry people in the world today, and it's always been that way.

Tell me Jst. Are you angry about anything?
« Last Edit: June 04, 2017, 11:28:49 PM by Mr. Blackwell »
I am not sure how to describe the intricacies of this Hell, so I chose to begin with the most common or prominent theme of Hell, which is uncertainty.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #219 on: June 04, 2017, 11:52:06 PM »
So: your assertion now is that Christ's message "be nice, because you never know when it will be me" is not even targeted at Christians, but at those who don't believe him in the first place?  For an omnipotent being, that seems like a most peculiar thing to do.  After all, Jst, how much notice do you take of what the Hindu gods tell you?  When did you sit biting your nails over the things the Koran tells you are important?
.....
After all, this isn't a god saying "help others, because its the right thing to do", or even just "help others, and you will get a reward".  No, this is "help others - or you will get an eternity of horrific punishment".  And that's not for the people who are hanging on his ever word, either.  No, this is for the billions who may never hear it, or not understand, or who have (quite valid) reasons for being afraid to do so.
So a refusal to do for Christ's brothers what is common courtesy to do, even just giving them a drink, is really a reaction to their message.  It amounts to explicitly denying them because they are Christ's disciples.  That's why it is like doing it to Christ himself.
Which is exactly where I am with Christ's threats to feed, clothe, and house his preachers.  And yet Christ - this omnipotent and loving god-being - has threatened me with eternal punishment for not following a command of a religion I have no reason to believe?

THAT is the point which you are carefully avoiding.  That your god makes threats that those who do not believe will likely never hear, never mind believe - and then gives them eternal damnation for it.

I think you are missing the point.  If a person refuses to extend a common courtesy, what does that say about the type of person they are?  Yes someone might have some phobia or some legitimate reason behind not being charitable, but I don't think Christ is including special circumstances.  What sort of capable person wouldn't even offer a thirsty man a drink?  What sort of person would specifically single out Christ's brothers for maltreatment? 

Would you offer a thirsty man a drink?  What sort of person wouldn't?  One with love, kindness, and compassion in their hearts?

If I am the thirsty person would you offer me a drink or would you refuse me specifically because I teach about Christ?   

I am going to assume that the selective reading and quoting of Christ's words is not deliberate.

In your answer you mention "common courtesy", and then - three times - talk about "giving someone a drink".  The more cynical may believe that you are deliberately choosing the simplest, easiest, and least controversial of the options in order to try to make the request seem banal and trivial.  Unfortunately, to do so you have been forced to ignore most of Christ's words - I'm not sure if that comes under "bearing False Witness", but that's between you and him.

So: let me rephrase your quote so that it references the LEAST trivial of the commands.  I wonder: will you have the honesty to deal with the questions I have asked then?

What sort of capable person wouldn't even offer a homeless man a room in their house? 

Would you offer a homeless man a room in your house?  What sort of person wouldn't?  One with love, kindness, and compassion in their hearts?

If I am the homeless person would you offer me a room in your house or would you refuse me specifically because I teach about Christ?   

Answers:
1) Many people - the majority, in fact - for very legitimate reasons.
2) No.  Not unless I knew them VERY well - and even then, not necessarily, it would depend on circumstance.
3) No.  Because I do not know you.  Your religion would have no bearing on it.

What would be YOUR answers, Jst, if positions were reversed?  Do you automatically take in any and all homeless people into your house, regardless of their religion or circumstance?

And so, because of that, Christ has damned me.  Specifically.  So please - don't insult my intelligence by pretending this is all about offering a travelling preacher a glass of water to settle the dust in his throat.  That's NOT what Christ asks, and it is very telling that you felt the need to focus on the trivial in your response.

Yes I intentionally focused on the most trivial.  I don't see a problem with that because if you can jusify refusal of that one then you have justified them all.  If you agree a drink is not too much to ask we can graduate to the next.  If you think a drink is too much to ask then the others are pretty much a forgone conclusion.  So I don't see a reason to rephrase.  Also we are not talking about homeless people.  We are talking about traveling preachers.

Let's just start where you draw the line.  Where do you draw the line?  Would you offer a drink, food, clothing, shelter, visits in prison, or anything else to a traveling preacher?





Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #220 on: June 05, 2017, 12:03:03 AM »
Jst do you think there is a cause effect thing with anger and atheism or just two uncorrelated qualities?

Like you can be atheist and brunette but it is not something you mention to someone.

Is angry and atheist contingent to you?

if no why mention it?

If yes please explain it.

No.  I just think some people are angry people.

I think a lot of people are angry and for a lot of reasons. Some of those reasons are extremely valid. There are a lot of angry Christians in the world today. Some of them resort to violence to express their anger sure, but not all of them. There are a lot of angry Muslims in the world today. Some of them resort to violence to express their anger sure, but not all of them. There are a lot of angry atheists in the world today. Some of them resort to violence to express their anger sure, but not all of them. There are a lot of angry blacks in the world today. Some of them resort to violence to express their anger sure, but not all of them. There are a lot of angry people in the world today, and it's always been that way.

Tell me Jst. Are you angry about anything?

There is a difference in getting angry about something and being an angry person.  An angry person is one whose anger dominates their personality.  Hateful would have been more accurate but it often goes hand in hand with anger.  Hateful people are often angry.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Mr. Blackwell

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5114
  • Darwins +360/-39
  • Gender: Male
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #221 on: June 05, 2017, 12:12:08 AM »
Well, I don't know about you but I have known some pretty hateful people in my life who praised Jesus every chance they got.
I am not sure how to describe the intricacies of this Hell, so I chose to begin with the most common or prominent theme of Hell, which is uncertainty.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #222 on: June 05, 2017, 12:35:25 AM »
It becomes...

A - Seek Jehovah
B - Take anything good or moving that happens
C - Reverse engineer that and assign meaning to it that Jehovah was using that as a response
D - Tell people but without being able to prove or demonstrate anything

I have briefly touched on what the scriptures teach about prayer.  I think you were even part of the discussion.  I outlined some things the scriptures teach that will hinder prayers, if not outright block them.  But it does not appear that anyone was interested in knowing.  What I perceive is that you guys demand to know and/or learn about God by the terms that you dictate.  Then when you get no response you feel justified.  It is like a man that refuses to follow his map, and when he does not arrive at the correct destination, he concludes the destination does not exist.  It does not make sense.

Right, and I pointed out that these scriptures are just things written by men as excuses for why prayer doesn't work.   Just like every other believer, you blame human beings when "prayer doesn't work".

I've repeatedly, over and over and over again, asked you to name ANY MODERN EXAMPLE of a prayer being DEFINITIVELY answered.   It doesn't have to be for me, or on my terms, or benefit me in any way.  Name ANYTHING that you can prove God does.

Your scriptural examples are set up just like any superstition...  "Well, lucky horseshoes work, but, they didn't work for you because you didn't hold it correctly... or it was the wrong day of the week... or you didn't believe hard enough in the horseshoe."

There are zero circumstances under which I, or you, or ANYONE YOU KNOW, can pray, and have that prayer miraculously answered.   If I'm wrong, demonstrate one provable, modern example otherwise.

Surely, if Jehovah answers any prayers ever... you'd be able to prove it once for the 7-8 Billion people on earth, Billions of them saying thousands of prayers?

Pick ONE.

Yes, you've dismissed what I posted.  However, your argument about excuses sounds like a cop out.  To accept that every reason for unanswered prayer is just an excuse is to accept that God should and would answer literally every prayer from anyone at any time.  Does that really sound reasonable?

I don't know of any prayer that I can prove to you that was answered.  I could pray for the sky to turn yellow and if it turned yellow, I couldn't prove, with evidence, it was a result of my prayer even though that might convince you.  However, we'll never know.  Jehovah's purpose for prayer isn't for showy displays.

But even with more realistic expectations, I couldn't prove, with evidence, any answered prayer is, in fact, answered prayer.  The only possible evidence is for Jehovah to appear and say, "Yeah I did that." 
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #223 on: June 05, 2017, 01:11:09 AM »
Well, I don't know about you but I have known some pretty hateful people in my life who praised Jesus every chance they got.

So have I.  I will take that as advice.     
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3771
  • Darwins +95/-183
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #224 on: June 05, 2017, 01:18:46 AM »
Well, I don't know about you but I have known some pretty hateful people in my life who praised Jesus every chance they got.

So have I.  I will take that as advice.     

And if you have something to add to the conversation, doing so would be more constructive than a drive by smiting.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +485/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #225 on: June 05, 2017, 02:30:38 AM »
Thanks in advance for your patience and explanation and setting me straight.

Since you will have also read the Forum Rules, you will know that Mod rulings are not to be challenged or discussed in-thread.

If you have problems with the quoting process, and do not understand the tutorials, send a message to me or to another Mod.

As I said, there is a thread in the Test Area for you to practice in.  This subject is now closed in this thread.
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline Anfauglir

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +485/-5
  • Gender: Male
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #226 on: June 05, 2017, 02:41:06 AM »
What sort of capable person wouldn't even offer a homeless man a room in their house? 

Would you offer a homeless man a room in your house?  What sort of person wouldn't?  One with love, kindness, and compassion in their hearts?

If I am the homeless person would you offer me a room in your house or would you refuse me specifically because I teach about Christ?   

Answers:
1) Many people - the majority, in fact - for very legitimate reasons.
2) No.  Not unless I knew them VERY well - and even then, not necessarily, it would depend on circumstance.
3) No.  Because I do not know you.  Your religion would have no bearing on it.

What would be YOUR answers, Jst, if positions were reversed?  Do you automatically take in any and all homeless people into your house, regardless of their religion or circumstance?

And so, because of that, Christ has damned me.  Specifically.  So please - don't insult my intelligence by pretending this is all about offering a travelling preacher a glass of water to settle the dust in his throat.  That's NOT what Christ asks, and it is very telling that you felt the need to focus on the trivial in your response.

Yes I intentionally focused on the most trivial.  I don't see a problem with that because if you can jusify refusal of that one then you have justified them all.  If you agree a drink is not too much to ask we can graduate to the next.  If you think a drink is too much to ask then the others are pretty much a forgone conclusion.  So I don't see a reason to rephrase.  Also we are not talking about homeless people.  We are talking about traveling preachers.

And?  There is nothing in Christ's words to indicate that any of the steps are optional, they are an all or nothing - so why not cut to the chase and start with the least trivial?  You know - to answer the WHOLE of Christ's words?  Why waster time talking about a drink and a sandwich, if I will be damned anyway for the room and the bed?

I see you didn't want to answer my questions.

Let's just start where you draw the line.  Where do you draw the line?  Would you offer a drink, food, clothing, shelter, visits in prison, or anything else to a traveling preacher?

As you will know from my previous response - "it depends".  But I'm not going to let you work the side-track here.

Christ damns me because I will not automatically house any stranger who preaches his word - regardless of any other circumstances. 

Is this statement true, Jst?

« Last Edit: June 05, 2017, 03:17:53 AM by Anfauglir »
Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid.
Why is it so hard for believers to answer a direct question?

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #227 on: June 05, 2017, 02:59:13 AM »

Yes, you've dismissed what I posted.  However, your argument about excuses sounds like a cop out.  To accept that every reason for unanswered prayer is just an excuse is to accept that God should and would answer literally every prayer from anyone at any time.  Does that really sound reasonable?


I think one has to be reasonable and say that,. whilst god could answer all prayers he would have some problems at times - like when two opposing armies both pray for victory. Obviously, prayers for random silliness like the sky turning yellow would ignored. So, let's move to a subject that seems to have filled Jesus time according to the gospels, healing.


Every day, millions of people pray for healing for their relatives all sorts of people they don't know and, of course, for themselves. How about children with cancer who might only have months to live. It's a very odd thing that god is unable to answer prayers of parents of such children....

Quote
I don't know of any prayer that I can prove to you that was answered.  I could pray for the sky to turn yellow and if it turned yellow, I couldn't prove, with evidence, it was a result of my prayer even though that might convince you.  However, we'll never know.  Jehovah's purpose for prayer isn't for showy displays.


I quite understand, J|st, as god seems only to answer prayers that are trivial ('where's my keys!') or healing things where the hard, dedicated work or surgeons, nurses and the like save the life of a seriously ill of injured person. In other words, where there is a naturalistic explanation for the result of the prayer. This is far removed from say Peter healing his mother of a fever.. instantly. In fact look at the Christian cults in the USA who do not use medicine but follow the praying and anointing... and the consequent avoidable deaths of children with diabetes. Sure excuses are needed for god in many cases.

Quote
But even with more realistic expectations, I couldn't prove, with evidence, any answered prayer is, in fact, answered prayer.  The only possible evidence is for Jehovah to appear and say, "Yeah I did that."


I think, Jst, that's a poor defence of a god who could do anything - don't you?
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline Add Homonym

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4722
  • Darwins +474/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • I can haz jeezusburgerâ„¢
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #228 on: June 05, 2017, 07:35:47 AM »
We are talking about traveling preachers.

Let's just start where you draw the line.  Where do you draw the line?  Would you offer a drink, food, clothing, shelter, visits in prison, or anything else to a traveling preacher?

Oh, a true Christian. One who has given up all his wealth, and dumped his family.

Don't see many of those around these days.
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be bleedn obvious.

Offline Jag

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4271
  • Darwins +555/-11
  • Gender: Female
  • Proudly 'biased' against the supernatural
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #229 on: June 05, 2017, 09:12:01 AM »
I claim that, according to the scriptures, the best way to know Jehovah is to call out to him.  So really, the ball is in your court.  I can't do it for you.

been there, done that.  Now, since you said this would work, why didn't it?

I said that's what the scriptures teach.  If it has not worked for you then I recommend you examine the scriptures and see what else they say about prayer and make any necessary adjustments.  If that does not work then I don't know.  There is certainly nothing special about me that he should answer me and not others.

Or, you could simply and clearly state here, in one post, what all the requirements are.  YOU COULD BRING US ALL TO GOD, JST, simply by stating clearly and simply what the Bible requires.  Perhaps we have missed a crucial line?  The information is apparently all there, so I'm asking you please to lay it all out for us here, to make sure that we are doing it right.

There always seems a very strange reluctance for Christians to actually so this - I've asked before, and to the best of my recollection none have done so.  It seems sometimes akin to loving an Indie band....but not wanting everyone to discover them, because it makes you a bit less special.

Surely, if there are sure-fire steps, the primary motivation for a believer would be to clearly and directly share those steps?  Instead, we too often hear "well, they're there".  "Maybe you missed something".  "Have another look".  But never "okay - here is everything you need to do, in clearly numbered steps".

Looking forward to you being the first Christian ever (in my experience) to be that clear and thorough.

"Same here!", chimed in everyone  :laugh:

"Follow the Bible, it will lead you to Jesus."

"We did, and it led us to atheism."

"Oh. Then you were doing it wrong."

"In what way did we 'do it wrong'? We'd like to know so we can try to 'do it right' this time, please explain."











"Hello? Hello? Where did you go?" <mutter and grumble about the predictability of these discussions, wander off to start a new one, wait for same theist to make same argument in new thread>

"Tell people that there's an invisible man in the sky that created the entire universe and the majority believe you. Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure." ~George Carlin

Offline wheels5894

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4578
  • Darwins +294/-1
  • Gender: Male
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #230 on: June 05, 2017, 09:37:17 AM »
We are talking about traveling preachers.

Let's just start where you draw the line.  Where do you draw the line?  Would you offer a drink, food, clothing, shelter, visits in prison, or anything else to a traveling preacher?

Oh, a true Christian. One who has given up all his wealth, and dumped his family.

Don't see many of those around these days.


I wonder if such a poor and on-family Christian ever existed, really. After all, Paul collected money for what he calls 'The Poor' in Jerusalem, presumably what was left of the disciples and I'm sure Paul would have done better that food a lodgings in the various places. It is the way of the world that leaders always do better than the led. Whilst it makes sense in business or in the military, religion is supposed to be different....


Today, in the USA it seems, church leaders do really well and creationists seem to thrive too....
No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such that its falshood would be more miraculous than the facts it endeavours to establish. (David Hume)

Offline YouCantHandleTheTruth

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
  • Darwins +125/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: No True Scotsman
« Reply #231 on: June 05, 2017, 10:17:24 AM »
Well, I don't know about you but I have known some pretty hateful people in my life who praised Jesus every chance they got.

This is an issue for me too - and for most of us on here.  I was just watching the ID channel the other day and they had the story of Martin MacNeill.  He murdered his wife and mother of 8 Michele MacNeill and tried to pass it off as an accident.  He was a doctor, claiming he was performing CPR on her as he was on a 911 call.  As it turned out, he was having an affair with another woman.

The daughters were suspicious because shortly after the wife's death, when they were leaving their LDS church, a woman came up to them and said she was so sorry for their loss.  She claimed to be a nanny and could help the family in this time of crisis.  MacNeill said it was like a sign from God, but of course, the meeting was a setup.  They were already hooking up, she moved in, he sent off his daughter to Ireland for a trip and while there, this woman took the daughter's identity (because this woman had serious credit issues, and wanted to wipe them clean).  Long story short - they're arrested and jailed for fraud, and later he's convicted of his wife's murder in order to shack up with this woman.  This was a practicing member of the LDS.  Again, I'm sure those members would just say he wasn't a true Mormon, but this is what all branches of Christianity will say when someone in their flock is exposed.  To Blackwell's point, there is anger everywhere. 

Here's the story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Michele_MacNeill
« Last Edit: June 05, 2017, 10:21:57 AM by YouCantHandleTheTruth »