No True Scotsman

Forums > Community > Philosophy & Religion

*Spudfuzz Dec 27, 2012 Hobbyist Digital Artist

I'm going to get so much hate for this, but whatevs.

Using Christianity as an example because it's always a hot topic, why perpetuate this fallacy? If you belong to a group that's picked up a bunch of extremist nuts who have even gotten to the point of gaining political influence and back gay killing groups in third world countries because they can't do it in their own - continuing to belong to said group and denying that these people are "true Christians" is passively condoning and encouraging their behaviour.

No, you may not intend it but it's exactly what your actions (or non action) support, and what's the expression? "Actions speak louder than words." If you don't want to be lumped into the generalization that everyone sees when somebody mentions the name of your group, the way I see it is that you have two options. Either immediately dissociate yourself from them and become your own thing, labelled or not or publicly shame / condemn them and purge said batshit crazy nuts from your group. The latter by the way would do the world a huge favour and would probably be in your best interests.

This can be applied to all groups of particular faith/ philosophy who have their own share of nuts for whatever insane contradictory reason they continue to tolerate for the sake of "peace".

Discuss.

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

=RiONX Jan 2, 2013

Can anyone be an untrue Scottsman?

~TheAwsomeOpossum Dec 28, 2012

Spudfuzz, that isn't necessarily no-true-scottsman. Some suggest that the definition of Christianity excludes such people, whereas others believe it does not. If it does, than it's not no-true-scottsman. If it doesn't, than it is such a fallacy. The thing is, the definition is a matter of opinion, so you will have a lot of people arguing over it.

~KittyTheNekoAlien Dec 28, 2012 Hobbyist General Artist

First off, your icon is so adorable <3
But yes, I absolutely hate that, it's rather hard to define some religions and such when there are many kinds of groups within it, and others will say "group A isn't part of the whole religion because they believe this" while said group will say they do because they believe beliefs X, Y, and Z are the most important beliefs of the whole religion.
I stopped really calling myself a Christian because I didn't believe in the Bible, and felt the religion would be more accurate if the Word NEVER changed during all of its history, and well... But yeah, I've gone over to Deism.
It seems ridiculous that of a very large belief system, people feel they have the ability to define who is and isn't part of the religion or belief system. I still wonder how extremists don't find their actions extreme, even when going against much more firmly established tenants of the belief (what ever happened to "thou shalt not murder?").

*Lumdrop Dec 28, 2012 Hobbyist Traditional Artist

Christianity is a system with a code of conduct. It is supposed to be about love and courage and a belief in God as someone who is patient with the shortcomings of his creatures. To be a Christian means that you live (or make an effort at least) to live by that code of conduct. Thus, not living by said code = not a true [so and so]. It's a valid argument.

~mondu Dec 28, 2012

Eh.

"Christianity. Lol. Crusades."
"Atheists are guilty of mass murders, too. See Stalin, China, or North Korea."
"Well, they're not real atheists because Stalin/Mao/Kim was their deity."

~Saeter Jan 2, 2013

Atheism is not an organization. Communist governments commited the mass murders to further their agendas. The parties involved claimed atheism despite several of them being originally supported by their practiced religions and attempted to remove whatever influence relugion had over the people.

*tacosteev Dec 28, 2012 Hobbyist

There are members of my country who do horrible things. I should declare independence from my country to not be associated with them

*Spudfuzz Dec 28, 2012 Hobbyist Digital Artist

Anonymous kinda does that though right? And there's riots in Europe too the last I heard.

*tacosteev Dec 28, 2012 Hobbyist

Anonymous are nothing but criminals. They more often harm others than "help".

*Spudfuzz Dec 28, 2012 Hobbyist Digital Artist

Sure, depends how you look at it. I'd say they're a bit of both. But that doesn't make their resistance to corruption any less valid.

Details

Statistics

No True Scotsman

Devious Comments

The Journal Portal

Polls

What is your preferred drawing software?

deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]

Keep in Touch!

Deviousness

Add Media

Style