The No True Scotsman fallacy and religion: how does it apply?

It is a blatant instance of the No True Scotsman fallacy, but those who wish to resist this fact typically do so through the use of a second sleight of logic. Specifically, they engage in the fallacy of equivocation by conflating Christians (which is a descriptive category) with good Christians (which is a normative category). But this is about as sensible as saying that broken Oreos are not still Oreos.

Plenty of groups try to insulate themselves from criticism in this way, of course, but it is particularly egregious in the case of Christianity because the underlying dogma that we are all sinners strongly conflicts with the attempt to define “true” Christians in terms of moral perfection. The only way to reconcile the two is to say that there are no Christians. The only person I can think of who ever argued seriously for such a claim is Nietzsche—as part of his critique of Christianity.

I’ve taken to referring to these new age Christians as fair weather followers. The problem with religion is that science and medicine are finally being given the chance to flourish (no thanks to the religions that oppressed them for so many years) and now these people must attempt to justify their claims to an educated (using that term generously) society. The problem is that these people cannot make any logical assertions so the best that they can muster is hiding behind grey areas and the undiscovered. “We know this to be the truth because you don’t know it to be a lie.” It’s as Christopher Hitchens said, “a claim that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” and “an argument that cannot be challenged is a poor argument.” I’m not sure if those quotes are verbatim, but you get the gist of it.
The point is that we’re dealing with delusional zealots with a divinely mandated agenda that cannot be challenged logically. These people can assert any claim as God’s will and none of us can disprove it because we have no way of knowing what their imaginary friend has or has not said. The foundation of these claims and the circular logic used to bolster them is not specific to their own ranks, it applies to each and every aspect of their delusional and skewed belief system.

I used to say someone who did horrible things who claimed to be a Christian isn’t really a Christian. I don’t say that anymore.

Now, as you point out, there are bad apples in every group. Those bad apples have nothing to do with the good people in the group. It goes back to no matter what generalizations are made, in the end we need to look at each person as an individual. Religion, race, gender, we can go on and on.

I guess if the majority of a group is “bad” we can question what is going on there, or going wrong there?

To say Christians have never committed violence is a ridiculous statement to me, but if that person’s definition of being a Christian includes never using violence I guess they are entitled to their definition. If they are a Christian themselves I hope they are pretty close to perfect. I hate hypocrisy.

A Christian is someone who follows the example of Christ who was non violent so I can see what they mean. On the other hand Christianity is full of warlike metaphors of swords and shields and soldiers which seem inconsistent with following Christ’s example.

Jesus was not nonviolent. Several books containing information about the life of Jesus were withheld from the “holy bible.” In these books, Jesus even commits crimes such as murder. In the new testament of the holy bible, read the cleansing of the temple and you will see that Jesus was indeed violent.

Then you have to consider the trinity which makes Jesus, by extension, Jehovah. If Jehovah drowned the entire earth, then so did Jesus.
 “Christians see Jesus as God. That means that he was also the God of the Old Testament. The same God who commanded all those killings and the author of all those violent and disgusting commands as listed in your previous articles. So the violence Jesus supports and predicts is not only evident in the New Testament, but he is supposedly also the author of said violent commands in the Old testament as well. Not only then is the Old Testament “an expression of the will of Christ”—it is Christ.]”

I don’t think anyone would argue that Jehovah was nonviolent.

You can’t have a debate without consistent definitions. It’s the same watered down and bastardized argument that every non fundamentalist tries to pull. Saying that Christians and their idols are nonviolent is not a matter of mistaken definitions, it is a preposterous and blatant lie. The entire foundation of such a belief system consists of several logical errors and half truths that are merely basic manipulation tactics. This person may be confused and mislead, but their words are still lies.

Why would you disassociate yourself from a person who exhibits the same violent characteristics as the “god” you worship? That would be the equivalent of me worshipping Hitler while shunning Nazis. It’s counterintuitive and makes no sense.

It is the most blatant and clear cut example of the no-true-scotsman-fallacy that I have ever seen.
I could easily respond to and reverse it by saying that only those that commit violence in the name of Christianity are true Christians, because they follow the Old Testament laws to the letter, as clearly commanded by Jesus in Matthew 5:17–20.

@SavoirFaire standing ovation!

@SloanFaunus

It’s certainly a headline-making statement that Jesus commited
crimes, even murder.

If you’re going to make assertions like that, how about some reliable citations to back up those assertions? Or do you expect everybody to just take your word for it ? On faith :)

Jesus was provoked and said unto him, “Thou shalt not finish thy course.” And immediately he fell down and died.

—Infancy Gospel of Thomas 4:1

This is in reference to a boy who simply bumped into Jesus while walking down the street. And as I pointed out earlier, you could venture to read the cleansing of the temple.

This isn’t a “headline making statement,” it’s accessible to anyone who cares to find it. The fact that you think it would be a headline making statement only demonstrates how religion brainwashes people. Who, Jesus!? No, that’s impossible! The church has never said anything like that about Jesus before. There’s a reason that this information takes care and effort to track down. If every easily influenced Christian accepted that their religion is bogus, then a lot of people would lose a lot of money and a lot of power.

The fact that most people don’t even realize that documentation regarding Jesus’s life was intentionally withheld from the bible is appalling. It’s one of the most blatant examples of manipulation tactics.

And I reassert to you the logical conclusion that if Jesus is Christ, then the murders and atrocities carried out in the old testament were the actions of Jesus AKA Christ. Religion always has, continues to, and always will fail under the scrutiny of a logical mind.

Just had to share a comment from a Muslim cleric in response to the recent execution by immolation of the Jordanian pilot:

“Saudi cleric Salman al-Odah wrote on his Twitter account: “Burning is an abominable crime rejected by Islamic law regardless of its causes.”

“It is rejected whether it falls on an individual or a group or a people. Only God tortures by fire,” he added.

You can’t make this shit up.