American “Christians” aren’t Christians
I got bad news for you, Christians have been hypocrites for alot longer than the US has existed.
Comment on Jesus hates American "Christians"
Demdaru@lemmy.world 5 months agoFFS I hate that. “Religion poisons everything” no! No it doesn’t! Think if christianity wasn’t a thing they wouldn’t find something else to twist? After all it’s not like any other good thing got twisted, no? Communism, patriotism, charity, heck, even local communities?
Christianity says: Do not do to others what you don’t want done upon yourself. No matter if sinner or faithful, treat all with respect (nagging about becoming christian is ok tho, sadly). Do not fall for greed, lust or pride.
American “Christians” aren’t Christians, same like most of the local Patriots are actually Nationalists and Communism is mostly used as a another tool for simply stealing power.
I know I am pretty much shaking my fist at the sky here, sorry, but I really needed to let it out ._.
Aljernon@lemmy.today 5 months ago
Rothe@piefed.social 5 months ago
American “Christians” aren’t Christians
No true Scotsman fallacy.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 months ago
No true Scotsman
Knowing a name of a fallacy doesn’t mean you understood what the fallacy means.
The No true Scotsman fallacy is a very specific thing and it doesn’t mean what you think it does.
Here’s the name-giving example of the No true Scotsman fallacy:
- Person A states an absolute statement: "No Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge."
- Person B disproves that by offering a counter-example "Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar in his porridge."
- Person A declares “But no true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge.”
So for an argument being the No true Scotsman, there need to be three elements. If one or more are missing, the fallacy doesn’t apply:
- Person A does not retreat from the original statement
- Person A offers a modified assertion that excludes all counter-examples by definition (this turns the argument into a tautology: "No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge, and a true Scotsman is a Scotsman who does not put sugar in his porridge."
- Person A uses rhetoric to signal that change
So why does the no true Scotsman fallacy not apply here?
Because it’s about this change, not about whether something can be classified as something.
Take for example this exchange:
- Person A: "A true Scotsman is someone who lives in Scotland, holds a Scottish passport and identifies as a Scotsman."
- Person B: "But Angus, who was born in the USA, and holds an US passport and who’s only connection to Scotland is that his great grandma was from there claims that he is a true Scotsman."
- Person A: “He can claim what he want, he is no true Scotsman.”
In this case Person A
- Did not retreat from the original statement
- Did not modify the original statement
- Did not use rhetoric to signal a change, because no change existed.
That’s what @Demdaru@lemmy.world argued:
- A true Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ.
- American “Christians” claim to be Christians but are largely against the teachings of Christ.
- Hence they are no true Christians.
The “no true scotsman” fallacy is about changing your argument into a non-falsifiable tautology. It’s not about using the words “true” or excluding some group from some definition. And it certainly doesn’t mean “Everyone who calls themselves X surely and irrefutably belongs to group X”.
ParadoxSeahorse@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I follow your logic, and it does make sense, but I think the problem might be that those arguing against you are American, not Scotsmen /s
Can we agree that there can be good and bad, or perhaps generous vs selfish Christians? Another issue is “Christian” is sometimes used adjectively, “that’s pretty Christian of you”, which is generally used to mean generous, but has nothing to do with someone’s belief in God, Jesus etc.
Probably a person’s belief in supernatural beings has nothing to do with their ethics, morality or generosity, it’s just that in some societies at certain times there are perceived correlations, and irrespective of whether these reflect reality or not, they, through deliberate conflation of religion, morality, politics etc. can color people’s opinions of those belonging a specific religion.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 months ago
I very much agree with that. There’s a ton of stuff being mixed up together.
There’s cultural and political Christianity, that both neither require faith (or even belief) in Christ or really have anything to do with Christianity as a religion at all.
And that’s quite a bit of the issue at hand. You have people like Trump, who has no connection to Christianity (the religion) at all, who runs as the “champion of Christian values”, while being pretty much the opposite of that. Because it’s political Christianity.
And here you get a ton of this “us vs them” into play, that doesn’t really have anything to do with Christianity (the religion) at all.
Cultural Christianity is in a very similar boat. In my country, ~70% of the people say they are Christian, according to census data, and a total of ~78% of the people say they belong to some organized religion (Christianity, Islam, …), but only 22% of the people say they believe in some kind of God.
So more than two thirds of these so-called religious people, are not Christian by religion, but Christian by culture. I personally know quite a few people who don’t believe in God, don’t go to church, but who want to marry in a beautiful gothic church and use their Christian label to hate on foreigners and their foreign religions.
Aljernon@lemmy.today 5 months ago
No-True-Scotsman-Fallacy Fallacy
snooggums@piefed.world 5 months ago
Oh look, you had AI vomit out your incorrect position for you.
The "no true scotsman" fallacy is about changing your argument into a non-falsifiable tautology.
That is what you do when you say "They aren't real Christians because they do X." It is the poster child of the no true Scotsman fallacy.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Ok, let me put it in a way that you might understand:
- Person A: "You aren’t an Atheist if you believe in God."
- Person B: "But I identify as an Atheist and I believe in God."
- Person A: “Then you aren’t an Atheist.”
You: “No true Scotsman! Anyone who calls themselves an Atheist is an Atheist, no matter if they believe in God.”
Do you see how this makes no sense?
An Atheist is a person who doesn’t believe in God, not a person who calls themselves an Atheist. And saying you aren’t an Atheist if you don’t believe in God isn’t a fallacy but just purely the definition of the term.
Here’s the Wikipedia definition of a Christian:
A Christian (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/ ⓘ) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
(Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians)
So someone who does not follow or adhere a religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is not a Christian. Not by fallacy, but by definition.
glorkon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
American “Christians” aren’t Christians
Classic defense by religious apologists and still a fallacy. You don’t wish to associate all the bad Christians with Christianity, so you pull the old “they aren’t real Christians” card. No, only you, a good and righteous and kindhearted person, you are the only one who is a true Christian. Of course. We’ve heard it countless times.
Of course they’re Christians. You don’t get to whitewash Christianity by simply declaring they aren’t.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 months ago
Which fallacy is this? It’s not the “No true Scotsman” one as explained here: lemmy.world/post/37452533/19987098
For example, let’s turn that argument around:
- Person A: "No true atheist believes in God"
- Person B: "But I call myself an Atheist and I strongly believe in God"
- Person A: “Then you aren’t a true Atheist”
Did person A argue fallaciously to you? Or is person B just an idiot who took on a wrong label?
glorkon@lemmy.world 5 months ago
“No atheist believes in God” is a factually correct statement. It’s like saying “One does not equal two” - a verifiable, objective truth that does not rely on anyone’s opinion.
Therefore, person B make a contradictory statement, and person A would be correct in responding “Then you aren’t an atheist”, because person B stated a verifiable falsehood. Same as saying “One equals two”. We all know it’s wrong.
Christianity has a much looser definition. You quoted it yourself:
A Christian (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/ ⓘ) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.
So anyone who follows this religion and calls himself a Christian is a Christian. Nothing in the definition says “You must follow the Bible to the exact letter” in order to be one. There wouldn’t be ANY Christians if that were true.
So that leaves us with a whole bunch of people who all claim to be Christian, but have different opinions on…
- how strictly do you have to follow the Bible,
- racism are condoned or forbidden by the Bible,
- if slavery is forbidden by the Bible,
- who you can fuck,
- what kind of funny hat you have to wear,
- what food you can or can’t eat,
- if you have to kill any non-believers,
… et cetera, et cetera.
And all of these people claim the others aren’t the true believers.
Now here’s a very simple question: What gives you the confidence, why should we believe you that it’s YOU, out of all these people, who follows the correct interpretation of the Bible?
That’s why the No True Scotsman fallacy applies to the whole bunch, including you, when you claim the others are no true Christians. Not a single Christian can objectively, verifiably prove that their individual view of Christianity is the correct one.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 months ago
According to Christ himself, this one is pretty central:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
If someone denounces this baseline (and not fails to follow it, but denounces it), there’s not much left to a claim of following Christ.
snooggums@piefed.world 5 months ago
Person B is an idiot who doesn't understand words because atheist is
To be a Christian someone just needs to identify as a Christian. They don't actually have to do anything specific with that self identification that aligns with the Bible or any particular denomination's practices. That is because belief and faith and religion have a massive spectrum of beliefs and practices wrapped up into one. A large number of people who attend religious ceremonies don't even believe in the deities or take things literally, they are there for the community.
squaresinger@lemmy.world 5 months ago
According to Christ himself, this one is pretty central:
One of the teachers of the law came and heard them debating. Noticing that Jesus had given them a good answer, he asked him, “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?”
“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
If someone denounces this baseline (and not fails to follow it, but denounces it), there’s not much left to a claim of following Christ.
A large number of people who attend religious ceremonies don’t even believe in the deities or take things literally, they are there for the community.
And these people are people who attend religious ceremonies, not Christians.
Same as someone attending a meeting about Atheism doesn’t become an Atheist by attending the meeting but by being convinced that God doesn’t exist.
Person B is an idiot who doesn’t understand words because atheist is a simple label with a singular meaning.
Is that so? A lot of agnostics call themselves atheists. In general, if you ask atheists specifically about what they believe, quite a few of them actually describe agnosticism, as in they do not firmly believe that god doesn’t exist, but rather believe that there’s no basis in believing that god exists.
Aljernon@lemmy.today 5 months ago