1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted November 9, 2013 Author Share Posted November 9, 2013 i agree with alot of posts here without a set definition its kind of hard to accuse someone of the fallacy mentioned everyone has an opinion but opinions are not fact but it doesn't mean an opinion cant be true. what we believe often is based on our exposure but not always though. If i say i never seen a judge masturbate behind a podium while in a court proceeding i probably just didn't look it up or was.exposed to the news because this actually did happen. So just because i never seen something happen and assume that it cant doesn't mean its not actually, possible. whether its Athiest to Christian or vice versa. we cant read peoples hearts and minds verbatim thought to though. Can we provide solid empirical evidence in the way someone has felt about their particular conversion and then claim our assumption as the throne of truth? again its as everyone said definition is.key but people have different ones sooo where does this leave us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 i agree with alot of posts here without a set definition its kind of hard to accuse someone of the fallacy mentioned everyone has an opinion but opinions are not fact but it doesn't mean an opinion cant be true. what we believe often is based on our exposure but not always though. If i say i never seen a judge masturbate behind a podium while in a court proceeding i probably just didn't look it up or was.exposed to the news because this actually did happen. So just because i never seen something happen and assume that it cant doesn't mean its not actually, possible. whether its Athiest to Christian or vice versa. we cant read peoples hearts and minds verbatim thought to though. Can we provide solid empirical evidence in the way someone has felt about their particular conversion and then claim our assumption as the throne of truth? again its as everyone said definition is.key but people have different ones sooo where does this leave us? If it walked like a duck and talked like a duck ... Then it was a duck. To say it was never a true duck is baloney. I agree we cannot read people's hearts so to say 'you were never this or that' is ridiculous. Though people do lie. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted November 9, 2013 Author Share Posted November 9, 2013 but if someones definition of a duck was skewed then their talk like a duck walk like a duck may not be a duck. yes people do lie and this makes it all the harder to find truth in certain matters. but i do see your point 10 times 10 is 100 to us but it may not be to people that dont know math but just because they dont know math.doesn't mean the actual answer is changed. but opinions are different from.math and grey area makes it all cloudy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExCBooster Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Yeah, but the problem is, if you're pushing a single, specific religion, which, as you say is based on an opinion of faith, then all religions have the exact same proof. It's impossible, as you state, to say that any one of them is right. So, I've no more motivation to be Christian than, say, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Baha'i, Sikh, practice Santeria, or join the John Frum religion. And, frankly, that's my issue with mission work: it's intellectually dishonest. I'm not trying to de-convert anyone, you came here on your own, looking for this conversation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1AcceptingAThiest1 Posted November 9, 2013 Author Share Posted November 9, 2013 indeed im here for different perspectives it's all about learning and growing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios The first thing to realize whenever the Scotsman fallacy comes up is that True Scotsman do in fact exist. Most people completely misunderstand the fallacy. True Christians (as defined by the Bible) do in fact exist, just as true atheists do in fact exist. If someone does meet the definition of Christian or atheist then the fallacy does not apply. The Bible defines what a 'True' Christian is. The Bible is not true. Therefore there are no 'True' Christians. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 but if someones definition of a duck was skewed then their talk like a duck walk like a duck may not be a duck. yes people do lie and this makes it all the harder to find truth in certain matters. but i do see your point 10 times 10 is 100 to us but it may not be to people that dont know math but just because they dont know math.doesn't mean the actual answer is changed. but opinions are different from.math and grey area makes it all cloudy If you are accepted within a group and your group likes you because you are like minded, then later on when you think differently they shun you and say "You were never a real ______ ", then obviously this is a defense mechanism. It is the ultimate denial of relationship. They are afraid your thoughts may infect them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios The first thing to realize whenever the Scotsman fallacy comes up is that True Scotsman do in fact exist. Most people completely misunderstand the fallacy. True Christians (as defined by the Bible) do in fact exist, just as true atheists do in fact exist. If someone does meet the definition of Christian or atheist then the fallacy does not apply. The Bible defines what a 'True' Christian is. The Bible is not true. Therefore there are no 'True' Christians. B.A.A. FTW!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios The first thing to realize whenever the Scotsman fallacy comes up is that True Scotsman do in fact exist. Most people completely misunderstand the fallacy. True Christians (as defined by the Bible) do in fact exist, just as true atheists do in fact exist. If someone does meet the definition of Christian or atheist then the fallacy does not apply. The Bible defines what a 'True' Christian is. The Bible is not true. Therefore there are no 'True' Christians. You are equivocating on "true." Bwa ha ha! (lol bro) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios The only times I've accused anyone of not having been a "True Atheist" is when they make statements about their past atheism that just doesn't fit the atheist non-belief. For instance, "I used to be an atheist because I was so angry with God" or "I used to be an atheist because I wanted to rebel against God and not do what he said." Both those comments show that the person still believed in God, which isn't an atheist attitude. It's like saying, "I used to be a Christian and I didn't believe Jesus exists or the Bible to be true." You would probably consider that person to be a non-Christian at such a point. Or something like this "I used to be an astronaut in space, but I've never left the ground." However, if a Christian says, "I used to be an atheist, I didn't believe God existed," then I don't see an issue. He or she was an atheist and now changed their mind. He or she was truly a "scotsman" and now he/she is not, and I wouldn't argue otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios The first thing to realize whenever the Scotsman fallacy comes up is that True Scotsman do in fact exist. Most people completely misunderstand the fallacy. True Christians (as defined by the Bible) do in fact exist, just as true atheists do in fact exist. If someone does meet the definition of Christian or atheist then the fallacy does not apply. The Bible defines what a 'True' Christian is. The Bible is not true. Therefore there are no 'True' Christians. You are equivocating on "true." Bwa ha ha! (lol bro) Uh...sorry F. Only Clay can say who is equivocating and who isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios The first thing to realize whenever the Scotsman fallacy comes up is that True Scotsman do in fact exist. Most people completely misunderstand the fallacy. True Christians (as defined by the Bible) do in fact exist, just as true atheists do in fact exist. If someone does meet the definition of Christian or atheist then the fallacy does not apply. The Bible defines what a 'True' Christian is. The Bible is not true. Therefore there are no 'True' Christians. Then for you there are no true ex-Christians, no true panentheists, no true pagans, no true muslims, no true wiccans, no true hindus, no true buddhists, etc ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 what are some practical answers an Athiest can use when answer this christian question......"Why is it that when a Christian says oh if that person did that he wasn't really a Christian is immediately accused of the Scotsman fallacy but if a Christian says he used to be an Athiest they are told they never were an Athiest yet fail to realize they are committing Scotsman fallacy as well. yet won't admit its speacial pleading." whats the best way to answer this from an Athiest perspective and please distinguish the difference between the scenarios The only times I've accused anyone of not having been a "True Atheist" is when they make statements about their past atheism that just doesn't fit the atheist non-belief. For instance, "I used to be an atheist because I was so angry with God" or "I used to be an atheist because I wanted to rebel against God and not do what he said." Both those comments show that the person still believed in God, which isn't an atheist attitude. It's like saying, "I used to be a Christian and I didn't believe Jesus exists or the Bible to be true." You would probably consider that person to be a non-Christian at such a point. Or something like this "I used to be an astronaut in space, but I've never left the ground." However, if a Christian says, "I used to be an atheist, I didn't believe God existed," then I don't see an issue. He or she was an atheist and now changed their mind. He or she was truly a "scotsman" and now he/she is not, and I wouldn't argue otherwise. What's a Multiversalist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 9, 2013 Super Moderator Share Posted November 9, 2013 Here is my opinion, for what it's worth. I am an atheist; so is my four-year-old son. However, there is a huge difference between my atheism and his. My atheism comes from having been brainwashed for twenty-eight years, followed by two years of the most intense crisis of faith ever experienced in the history of modern humanity, and finally the realization that the christian god simply didn't exist. Once I realized the christian god was false, I extrapolated that all other gods must also be false (a position which I acknowledge as being narrow-minded, however, it works for me). My son, on the other hand, is an atheist simply because 4 years ago he was born into this world without a belief in god/gods and in the past 4 years, no attempts at indoctrination have been made in his life. He doesn't realize the question of god's existence is even relevant to some people; nor has he ever wrestled with belief or lack thereof. So, is my son a real atheist? Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine. He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith. He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is. If, after he turns 18 and has my permission to consider choosing a religion, he decides he wants to be a christian, I would certainly hope he would put some honest thought into describing himself as "a former atheist": As to whether his status as an atheist is equal to mine. I think this may be the crux of the question raised in the original post. Often, christians making the claim to have formally been atheist, were atheist in the sense that my son is atheist--not so much a-theist as a-religious. I won't say this claim is dishonest; but I certainly do believe it to be disingenuous. I hope this helps. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravenstar Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 My daughter and I are very similar, she never was a theist naturally and I don't think it ever occurred to her that there was 'more' (supernaturally speaking)...where I went through a long and tortuous path of deconversion. She can choose what she wants now (She will be fifteen tomorrow) if it came up, though at this age I would encourage her to be sceptical and ask questions and trust herself - but I do that with her in politics and advertising and other areas too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Moderator TheRedneckProfessor Posted November 9, 2013 Super Moderator Share Posted November 9, 2013 ^^^My son just announced today that Santa Claus wasn't real because he had never seen Santa and because his christmas presents could just as easily come from mommy and daddy as from Santa. Contrast that with his firm belief in Captain Jack Sparrow because he did see Captain Jack at Halloween. Skeptical minds are a beautiful thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 So, is my son a real atheist? Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine. He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith. He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is. I guess my dog is an atheist too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
◊ crazyguy123 ◊ Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 So, is my son a real atheist? Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine. He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith. He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is. I guess my dog is an atheist too. Dogs can't be taught to be theists, so even if you are being sarcastic here, your statement is accurate. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 My daughter and I are very similar, she never was a theist naturally and I don't think it ever occurred to her that there was 'more' (supernaturally speaking)... Considering that there is not a society in the world or history of world that does not believe there is a supernatural I find this unbelievable. On the contrary, the evidence supports the position that the natural sate of man's mind is to believe in the supernatural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 What's a Multiversalist?It's like my daughter, she's an omnitheist, but in the aspect of universes. If that's not a satisfactory answer, then it can be just whatever you want it to be. What would you like it to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 I guess my dog is an atheist too.And very dogmatic kind too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Considering that there is not a society in the world or history of world that does not believe there is a supernatural I find this unbelievable. argumentum ad populum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 On the contrary, the evidence supports the position that the natural sate of man's mind is to believe in the supernatural. And so they create a god to believe in. God doesn't appear to them and say, "Hey, believe in me..." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 So, is my son a real atheist? Well, his atheism hasn't been as fully informed by indoctrination as mine. He certainly didn't come to atheism after several decades of struggle, or even after a few years of broken faith. He was simply born an atheist (as all children are), and I am raising him to be what he already is. I guess my dog is an atheist too. Dogs can't be taught to be theists, so even if you are being sarcastic here, your statement is accurate. Given the definition he gave why is it relevant whether a dog can be taught to be a theist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrdinaryClay Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 What's a Multiversalist?It's like my daughter, she's an omnitheist, but in the aspect of universes. If that's not a satisfactory answer, then it can be just whatever you want it to be. What would you like it to be? It's your claim. I was just wondering if you had anything behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts