Death of a Scotsman (Re: the "no true Scotsman" fallacy)

riVeRrat The point of the True Scotsman fallacy has nothing to do with the nationality but with the shifting of goalposts when a person premise, after being nullified by a contrary example, is re-engaged by redefining the premise to accomodate the contrary evidence.

---

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time. R.P. Feynman

Faith The disagreement is not the issue it is when a definition is given Say for instance that no true christian is gay and I point out that a christian friend of mine is indeed gay you would be commiting the TS fallacy if you were to say that he was not a true christian unless you can specify what a true christian is that is not disputable and that would exclude him.

FaithThe point is that there is no objective definition of the christian faith. That you feel strongly that scripture supports you does not mean that christians are required to adhere to your definition unless your authority is sacrosanct in some way.There are christians that are gay and if you would say that they are not you must also provide the means to demonstrate that christianity excludes them without reference to personal asides. It would seem to me that in the christian religion gays hold positions of authority within. For instance from the website Borrow Quick Money – Payday Loans Guide Now since I can show that the are people who are defining themselves as christians fully accepting of gays and lesbians is, in and of itself, a refutation of the premise that no true christian can be gay also.

FaithThen it is not your contention that a gay person cnnot also be a christian? If not then indeed we are not talking along the same lines.
If yes then the fact that there are christians that are gay and practicing homosexuality refutes that contention. This is ok as long as you do not further state that they are not true christians because no true christian can be gay also.

Faith Then you are stating that those christians do not have the right to call themselves christian because they accept homosexuality? Since when is your definition of christianity the authorative one?

Faith I assumed this to be the case. However, you have not demonstrated how it is you are a christian while others are not. True, it need not be authorative outside your own system, yet this does nothing to support your contention that the christianity you practice is more valid than anothers as it pertains to the label known as Christian. At best you may call yourself a Christian but not a "true" christian since the establishment of that is a matter of belief and opinion. I disagree. The purpose of language is to communicate. If you fail to specify how you arrive at the position you have that is amenable to being consistent with the exclusion of other positions then at best you have a self referent arguement and hence are not very convincing.As an atheist I see no evidence nor convincing arguement of an afterlife and, indeed, I sense that such is likely based on an inability to accept the inevitable loss of life and end of existence as a coping mechanism for what is anathema for many people.Thus the implications you warn of are empty of content to such as myself.