wizyllogism:
-- Christians and atheists know right and wrong.
-- The Christian ideology disallows wrong.
-- The atheist ideology does not disallow wrong
Conclusion: Hypothetically, officially valid Christians have more of an impetus to not do wrong.
To expound on that conclusion, if an atheist can escape an earthly law then he can
potentially do wrong, but a Christian cannot potentially do this if he believes in a just Christ, which by definition, he does, because even if he escapes earthly law he knows he can't escape God.
There are only two possibilities left, as far as I can tell, for the Christian evil-doer;
1. The Christian engages in severe cognitive dissonance in order to do wrong acts or is mentally ill.
2. He is not what he says he is.
I suspect number 2 is very common,
in reality, because the scriptures are clear about what qualifies a sheep. You yourself mention the two most important commandments ad nauseum
.
So what does my argument say? Nothing more than the conclusion. Does it say that NWR can't be a moral and goodly person? Why ofcourse not. Infact my argument doesn't even address atheists. Does it
appeal to consequences by saying "therefore we should not be atheist because x Y and B are bad consequences." No, I'm afraid it doesn't do that.
And to state, "therefore atheists are wrong doers" would be a non-sequitur.
It's very likely that millions of Christians have had an impetus to do good actions because of a genuine hinderance in their own conscience. And ofcourse these acts don't make the news. Why would they?
Slothful induction and the consequences:
There are 10 atheists. 5 of them are wrong doers.
There are 1000 Christians. 300 of them are wrong doers.
So if these figures represent the dark ages, you'll have way way more Christian wrong doers won't you, and thus atheists argue this, because they mention witch burners and evil Christians of that era.
But, what about the percentages? According to my statistic, 50% of atheists would be wrong-doers but only 30% of Christians. This is another reason why this type of argumentation is fallacious, because for all you know, many atheists went under the name tag of Christian and/or were so few in number that no record of their deeds was recorded. For all you know it might have been 50%. Now what about peaceful Christians? What kind of record would there be of peaceful Christians/atheists? I don't know about you, but I think it's far more likely that evil acts will make the headline news, rather than Joe the Christian helping his neighbour out with a spare bag of sugar.
Christians are only demeaned in "name" Jar. You can only say Christians are the worst kind of people by saying they are Christians no matter what they do. That's not a valid argument. It's
different to what the strawman fallacy disallows. There's a difference in
the specifics.
I'm not getting into the NTSF. So here's what I said long ago;
The law of non-contradiction applies here;
mike the wiz writes:
If we are not able to claim that somebody is not a true Christian period, then inference is incapacitated. (i.e. You can never conclude somebody isn't a Christian once he has claimed it).
To make this point clear; You could never state that an atheist was not a true Christian, even if he insists he's an atheist.
Pedantically amusing perhaps, but possible because of logic, nevertheless.
once the person would have claimed he is something, he is bound to the term indefinitely. How amusing.
It's like me saying, "I am a footballer".
If I can never infer that I am NOT a true footballer, then I can never not be a footballer ever again. Therefore I can never, under this logic, ever, ever, not be a footballer.
(forgive the length of this post. I wanted my position fully understood.)
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.