undefined | Better HN

0 pointslotharbot14y ago0 comments

Crazies often believe they're standing on solid scientific ground. Yet it's not "No True Scotsman" [0] to point out that their "science" explicitly contradicts solidly tested science, violates scientific principles, and is total garbage.

The same can be said regarding various religions. While there is room to disagree over the scope of certain commands, or whether certain statements are figurative, or how exactly to reconcile difficult statements [1], there are certain well-attested fundamental principles within most religions which are agreed upon by diverse sects. It is not a fallacy to point out that someone claiming religion X violates its core tenets and therefore is not legitimately practicing that religion.

[0] what makes NTS a fallacy is that irrelevant criteria are being used to exclude an entity from a group they actually belong to. It is not NTS to point out that James Doohan was a Canadian of English/Irish descent, and not actually a Scotsman.

[1] in texts I've read from many religions, oft-criticized statements would be better described as "difficult to reconcile" than actually inconsistent or contradictory. The example you give is not even particularly difficult to make sense of; in the Bible, everyone deserves death, yet Yahweh shows love and offers forgiveness to all, so asking His followers to do the same is not at all surprising.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

sixcorners14y ago· 2 in thread

Whether we should or should not kill, much less harass, other humans is not one of the fundamentals that is agreed upon by many diverse sects of Christianity.

Everyone does not deserve death. That is just as absurd as the thing it is trying to rationalise.

lotharbotOP14y ago

I am aware of disagreement between Christian sects on matters of killing as a part of warfare and killing in self defense. Every sect I am aware of agrees that you should not kill someone simply because they anger, disappoint, or "dishonor" you. Likewise, I am aware of disagreement between sects on how far one should go to avoid giving offense, but I am not aware of any sect that considers the sort of threats given in the parent article to be acceptable behavior.

US law often cites the "reasonable person" standard (for example, if a reasonable person would feel threatened). The same standard can be applied here -- a "reasonable person" can disagree as to what the Bible teaches about killing as a part of warfare, but I do not see any way a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the Bible as a whole could conclude that this guy's behavior is acceptable.

Note that one need not be a Christian to assess this. One need only be a "reasonable person" who is familiar with the source material.

sixcorners14y ago

How do Christians in Uganda or Christians of old stack up in all this? Isn't the premise of Faith itself unreasonable?

Also, do you consider WBC to be unreasonable? What about parents who disown children who are gay or convert to a different faith? Are they unreasonable and do that not because of their own faith?

You are right that very recent, popular, western versions of Christianity don't normally allow people doctrinally to be hostile but isn't that attributable to outside influences?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse