Everyone's favorite, the classic conservative Christian gatekeeping joke: Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!" Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."
“We have a right to draw the boundary of our beliefs.” Bad news, so do other people. Evangelicals, as much as they would like to, do not own faith or Christ.
@@solidstorm6129 And yet, like Catholics and every other exclusionary denomination, they're determined they have the original "real" version that the church definitely always believed.
@@Rhewin I thought that the Roman Catholic Church had given up policing Christianity and was willing to accept other Christian groups as Christian. At least they no longer burn heretics at the stake, right? You just can’t identify as RC unless you accept their doctrines (nor can you actively participate in their rituals-you want a Catholic wedding with the Mass held at the Cathedral, both bride and groom have to be Catholic). At least that’s my understanding. Kindly correct any misunderstandings of contemporary Catholicism I have expressed.
I love how the essential doctrines provided say absolutely nothing about loving one another. Really shows you that when people who love to argue about who is a 'true Christian' care about exclusion more than Christ's actual teaching.
Regarding this comment, Apologists would probably respond (unconvincingly and goalpost shifty) saying the "inspiration of scripture" would cover ethical teachings, and that the doctrine of monotheism also justifies morality, because anything else cannot justify morality. The apologists would be wrong still, but this is what I think they would try to say.
@@samuelvavia8920I'd say it's just a given that God says to be nice and it's not really needed to be listed. Still maybe emblematic of importance towards beliefs themselves over actions.
@@Dude_bruh I mean, I'm no Christian, but how about starting the list with what the guy himself claimed were the most important rules? Or are those rules not important parts of being Christians? Well, apart from some people for whom this is just an identity.
3:23 Yep, that's how fundamentalism works. An exclusive group gets together to draw the boundaries to include themselves, and then an even more exclusive subgroup gets together to draw boundaries to include themselves, and so on down to the level of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Yes indeed, while they impose those boundaries on everyone outside their increasingly exclusive groups, without any care for what the rest of us have to say about it.
@@stephenlitten1789 synagogues have enough trouble in the 21st-century US (and elsewhere, for that matter) without being unfairly compared to fundamentalist extremists for misguided, and lowkey antisemitic, rhetorical effect. I don't recall any synagogues making the news for their members proclaiming that God hates any identity group at all.
@@DoloresLehmannThat is the thing, though. Not all Christians agree on what the way to salvation is, but they all would say Jesus has something important to do with it
@@samuelvavia8920 Agreed, but "people who think that Jesus has something important to do with salvation" doesn't sound like a compelling definition for Christian.
@@DoloresLehmanna snappy "elevator pitch" friendly definition might be appealing to seek, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good/accurate/useful definition
Groups often have initiation ceremonies which mark the boundary between identities. For example, one cannot simply land in the US from the UK and declare oneself "an American" (and be taken seriously). From everything I see, Mormons baptize according to the Trinitarian formula. So while their ordinations may be invalid and their beliefs heretical, their baptisms - while illicit, are nonetheless, valid. Therefore, they are as Christian as any white evangelical. And should the time come when the Spirit moves them, I hope they will be encouraged by the knowledge that there are so many of us already in full communion with the Holy See who are eager to welcome them home ❤
You'd have to define "Christian" first. When the World Christian Encyclopedia claims there are 45,000 Denominations, Churches, or Sects, there is very likely a large amount of disagreement on what defines a Christian.
@@tomgames8616 Funny how there are thousands of Christianities, and so many of them gatekeep that they are the only true Christianity, yet when told their group is just a tiny group in the scheme of things, they'll talk about 2 Billion Christians. Logical consistency isn't the strong suit of most Christians.
I've been reading about the second great awakening, and the thing that I find fascinating is how every Christian denomination seems to get its start by claiming to take Christianity back to its roots. Everybody wants to say, "we're the truest Christians and the real heirs of Christ!" Perhaps it's an appeal to authority, I dunno. Everyone's a Christian when you need allies. No one else is a Christian when you want enemies.
This is not what Inspiring Philosophy said at all. His definition includes protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox church. His definition is actually very wide. Mormons absolutely aren't Christians using any reasonable definition of the word.
@@stephenlitten1789 I don't know much about the Oriental Orthodox Church, but the opening paragraph on Wikipedia says "The Oriental Orthodox Churches adhere to the Nicene Christian tradition". So no, IP's very wide definition would not exclude them. And as for progressive Christians, IP said "some progressive Christians". I agree with that. Some, certainly not all, just go so far in their denial of basic Christian truths. Some progressives deny the existence of God all together. They are of course allowed to do that, but using any meaningful definition of the word, that's not Christianity. This is like the widest possible reasonable definition and people still complain, smh. I think people like yourself just don't want Christianity to have a definition? Is that your goal?
@@luthlexor123 It's the nature of Christ: human and divine. The dissenting view (Oriental Orthodox) is "out of two natures" as opposed to the adopted view "in two natures." This is an obscure point which makes Nestorianism perfectly comprehensible by comparison (but still regarded as a heresy by the majority). There were a number of early church councils, of which Nicaea is the most famous, that saw the dissenting parties labeled heretics. A popular one is dualism, which assigns an evil animus action in the spiritual and /or temporal realm.
That's one of the many things I love about Celtic Christianity. All christians or any one who believes in Jesus and follows his teachings are our brothers and sisters. Exclusiveness is unexceptionable.
@@theundone777 In Celtic Christianity there is no eternal damnation. Hell is only a place where the soul is cleansed of all the darkness, and negativity accumulated in this life. We all return to the Creator. In the Old Testament God says that we are all His/Her children. That all prayers are heard and answered even those of the unbeliever.
"We get to define what the term X means. Everyone who disagrees with our definition has no right to define the term differently, because we define what it means and everyone who comes up with a different definition has, by definition, the wrong definition." This guy's argument in a nutshell. Pretty circular, I'd say.
Prescriptivism is a very conservative approach to semantics, probably favored by religious conservatives because of how it helps them structure power, values, and boundaries like Dan keeps talking about.
@@rockweirdo8147 I've watched the response. Doesn't change anything I said. I wasn't even addressing the No True Scotsman Fallacy, I was addressing the circular reasoning he commits right off the bat. And that reasoning implies that he and other members of Christianity who subscribe to the same doctrines and dogmas as he does, have the right to define the term "Christian" as they see fit, without taking into account that other members of Christianity who don't agree on the same specifics also can play that game and exclude him for the very same reasons. What gives him the right to determine what a real Christian is? His criteria would exclude even Paul. It doesn't matter that later theologians and church fathers further developped the earlier concepts. Of course they wouldn't exclude earlier Christians according to later concepts. But they would exclude modern Christians for not adhering to doctrines that earlier Christians didn't even know about, and could still be Christians. That's a double standard right there. Saying: "OK, until now you could be a Christian without believing X and Y, but from now on you can only be a Christian if you believe X and Y" is just ridiculous. His example for a supposed NTSF that actually isn't one, the example with the vegan, is also not very convincing. The answer to "But my uncle eats steak" should no be "Well, no true vegan eats steak", but "Well, no, then he is no vegan at all." A vegan who eats meat doesn't fit ANY possible definition of this word, and that's the difference. However, there are vegans who eat honey and are regarded by other members of the group as "no true vegans", but they argue that veganism is all about animal welfare, and honey consumption increases animal welfare because it keeps bees from going extinct. There are vegans who still use their previously bought leather items, because they argue that it wouldn't help the animal anymore if they now threw them away. Other vegans scold them for it. And so on. Definitions tend to have blurry lines. But no one owns a definition per se.
@@DoloresLehmann - I doubt you did watch the video, I know that because of this: "without taking into account that other members of Christianity who don't agree on the same specifics also can play that game and exclude him for the very same reasons" -Yeah, that's the point, thanks for making it for me. Mormons can exclude others, in fact they do, and that's fine, but Christian Churches exclude them and they are the majority and biblically based. And no, it wouldn't exclude Paul, again, actually watch the video; Just because the term "trinity" didn't exist, doesn't mean the idea behind it didn't exist. "A vegan who eats meat doesn't fit ANY possible definition of this word, and that's the difference." - This goes against your own point and Dan's point. If definitions don't matter, then anyone can change the definition to fit what they wish. Mormons change the definition of Christianity to fit themselves in, that is however not agreed with or supported by any Christians Churches. So, you are correct, it's not a NTSF, but neither is saying that mormons aren't Christians, as they goes against the agreed definition among Christians; Just how the man who claimed to be vegan, went against the agreed definition of veganism.
When someone tells me that they are a christian I believe them. I spent a fair amount of growing up in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. Our pastor told us that LDS, JW's, Catholics many more weren't "true christians". It's not up to me to decide who is or isn't.
That's why we have the scripture to do that for us. The Catholics don't deny that Christ is God. However LDS and JWs do deny He is God. You see what I'm getting at. How can you say you are a Christian when you are denying Christ's Godhood when the Man Himself stated clearly he was God. Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” I am in Hebrew is YWHA the name the Lord spoke to Moses on top of Mount Sinai.
@@IDK_._MANLDS doesn’t deny Christ’s Divinity and title as God. It is taught on the website that they believe that Jesus Christ is YWHW The God of the Old Testament.
@cohenclare8474 Mormons hold the unique belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct beings. Coped this strait from the website. They believe He is part of God not fully God. Basically worshiping two Gods.
@@IDK_._MANnot all protestants agree with the aspects of the Trinity. Some say they are one being, others say they are separate. But no one questions their Christian status. Why is it different for the LDS in your eyes? We believe there are three members of the Godhead who are separate beings but are all of the same godhead. They work together in perfect unity for our salvation
A professional philosopher who actually examined this issue and who Dan has no actually responses. Just like fluff he presented in response to IP doesn't actually hold up when placed under any scrutiny czcams.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/video.html
This person reminds me of a story from my middle school days (~1975). A friend convinced me to go to a Baptist summer camp near Lynchburg, VA. What he didn't tell me is that we had to go to a worship service everyday before we could have lunch. I tended to drift in and out of the long sermons. One day, I fell asleep, then was elbowed awake by my friend who said the minister was making an important point and I should listen. The minister was lecturing about why Catholics weren't true Christians and how most Catholics, especially the clergy, had no idea of what Jesus taught and were probably going to hell. At which point, I raised my hand and waited to be recognized. The minister finally stopped his rant and recognized me. Yes, young man, do you have a question? No, but I think you should know that I'm Catholic. We glared at each other for several seconds before I sat down. He didn't say anything else about Catholics (well, as long as I could stay awake, anyway). After that my counselor told me how to skip the worship, but still get lunch. Then he suggested I avoid worship services because the ministers were very strict.
Yo, I saw his vid when he first dropped it on X Twitter. I commented that he was basically calling most Pre-Nicene Christians non-Christians(including Paul and the disciples) cause of the fact that the Trinity and Hypostatic Union came later. A couple of his fans got so mad lol, and he responded with some nonsense vid of his describing how the early church taught a proto Trinity..... almost 300 years after Jesus died.
Anyone who tries to even remotely argue such concept his just dumb. I just recently watch a scholar debunking IP claims on the church Father. My friend and I are currently going through Tertullian and we are pulling his text apart to demonstrate what he actually taught. We just did part 1 (2 hours of recording for the first 5 chapters). Let's put it this way if Tertullian was ever a Trinatarian good lord he was extremely bad one. But we can see how Modelism as inspired since we see the exact same phrasing. I can give you a link if you are interested to listen
The Nicene Creed made dogmatized what was already an accepted Church doctrine. Just because the word Trinity wasn't used doesn't mean the belief wasn't there.
@@ericmacrae6871 which fits the Trinitarian belief because the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son 👍
@@TheEagleChristian it doesn't because Trinitarian belief says that the Son CANNOT be a lesser divine being which is what Subortionism teaches. Keep in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity says that there can only be 1 God in 3 distinct persons. Yet, Subortionism like I already stated it teaches that Jesus is another divine being that is subordinate to the Father. You will never going to find a single quote where it says that Jesus is only subordinate in his human nature, They will have no problem saying that Jesus is another God that is subordinate to the Father
@@tussk. oh it's worst than that. Irish and English mixed in there. There were rumors at holiday gatherings about someone Irish in the direct lineage but Nanna said we don't talk about that.
"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand."
I agree. Why should we progressive Christians want a spot at a table that Jesus would have flipped? We have no need to validate, applaud nor bolster the cruelty of evangelicals.
@Bible-Christian you know, I’ve noticed a ton of your initial replies end with an “in conclusion” paragraph. All of your other replies have much shorter sentences, completely different wording, and are usually more aggressive. Seems like someone is leaning a bit on ChatGPT for rapid responses.
In my estimation, nobody actually knows what the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth were in the first place. So outside of the early first century, nobody can really claim to be following any teachings that aren't being filtered through later writers.
I wouldn't necessarily agree with the term theologically there, in my personal opinion "someone who considers themselves to be a follower of Jesus' teachings" would be more euseful, since it would include people who do not believe jesus to be divine but who consider him to be a important teacher and themselves followers of his teachings. I hope that was somewhat understandable.
No. It means someone who is part of the European religious tradition. Just like Hindu means someone who is part of the non-Muslim Indian religious tradition. American evangelicals aren't Christians, neither are Mormons, but some American Protestants are Christians, and nearly all American Catholics are.
I agree. Its literally in the word. I'm am a little confused with Dan's argument here. Can I call myself a Buddhist even if I don't believe or practice it? I guess I could ... but why would I?
dont be sad, american evangelical fundamentalists exclude catholics too from being christian, as a European it was first weird when somebody asked: are you a catholic or a christian and i was like.... what are you talking about? nobody ever consider this question here
Thank you Dan. It'd be one thing to argue that LaCroix really isn't soda and shouldn't be considered in the category. But no one is willing to kill each other for LaCroix quite like they're willing to do over religion. This sort of divisive and nonsensical rhetoric is something we should all be loudly and publicly repudiating.
The Bible is not the final word of religion. That is the central Protestant heresy. It is designed to take power away from the Church institutions, saying "you don't need to study anything, just read this book! Everything is there!" This is a deliberate lie.
I would just like to take a moment and thank you Dan for not putting music behind your videos. When they are juxtaposed with a lot of these creators who are using music in their videos you really get a better sense of how music can be used to subtly influence and manipulate their viewers. Like the message is more valid because of the uplifting music playing behind them.
I was in a loose circle of friends in a local science fiction convention that included Christians of multiple stripes. Some of them decided they wanted to have a discussion group of sorts at the convention focusing on Christians in fandom. They wanted to only have Christians in attendance. The look on the face of our mutual Mormon friend after he found out they were kicking him out of the room because they declared the LDS to not be sufficiently loyal to the Nicene Creed was a dark thing. I could tell he was debating every friendship he had in that room plus reliving the sting of mockery he must have received over time.
Did you just deny that words have a coherent meaning? Which apparently could also mean that words do have a coherent meaning. Very enlightening. Thankfully, IP's response video has a link to a Thomas Nagel book. He is my favorite atheist philosopher. Very honest and thoughtful guy. Can't wait to read it. "The Last Word" by Thomas Nagal.
Nah I may come off bias because I am Christian. But I don’t think Dan is right. The generalization still wouldn’t work in the favor of Dan. Because the identity of a Christian would still be tied to the essentials. Dan is special pleading here and appeal to the idea that a word can be defined in multiple ways, which ultimately discredits the word itself. Either we come to understand a word or it loses its value. If I can say I’m an atheist but I just mean that I lack the belief in God, until a certain God is considered, then we have lost the value of the definition of atheist. Because then I don’t truly lack a belief in a God.
@@2percentmusic204 The problem with your viewpoint is that "the essentials" are the very thing being debated. Therefore, it is to assume the conclusion to say "x group doesn't believe in the essentials."
@@2percentmusic204 Dan obviously isn't right on this one. Inspiring Philosophy's definition is very wide. He includes all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants who hold to the essentials of the faith. These "essentials" have been defined for well over 1500 years. This isn't some "White Evangelical" power grab, as Dan disgustingly implies. Most of the people who came up with the creeds would have been brown, for goodness sake! Dan is just purposefully trying to muddy the water.
As an atheist, watching Christians squabble over who's the Christianest Christian or who Christs correctliest confounds me. It's like watching sports people argue over what counts as a sport. I'm sitting here in chess club, thinking, "Can't you all just let each other do your thing? This is meant to let us find a place of belonging, right?" But no, exclusion...
That's not quite what's happening. It's more like football players come in to your chess club and start kicking over the tables, saying "What? We're just playing chess", and you say "No you're not", to which someone else looks at you and says "Can't you all just let each other do your thing? You're both just playing chess"
@poisontango As a member of a christian group that this guy says is not, I feel the same. Who is he to tell me I'm not ? And yes, why all the fighting ? Seeing people like this, I actually would rather not be called a christian.
Mormons pose as a Christian Church, they are starkly different and cultish in behavior, therefore actual Christians separate themselves from them. It's not that hard to understand.
@luthlexor123 You sound an awful lot like a Fundamentalist/Christian Conservative with that logic. Framing it with that analogy, if I didn't know any better, I'd say the very existence of Non-trinitarians and Progressive Christians is tantamount to them coming to your communion and flipping your trays mid-communion and dumping your new members midway through their baptisms. Eerily similar to the logic of how "the gays" existing apparently trample on religious freedom to American Evangelicals
This IP guy is arrogant. I am not a christian but he is 100% wrong. Using his argument, he is not a christian in teh eyes of catholics etc. Let alone the true followers of Jesus.
@@gregogrady8027 odd that you make no points. you complain about not addressing the philosophical issues but you make none your own or refute any I made. what is your point in posting other than to whine?
I like how so many evangelicals, perhaps Protestants in general, take literally no effort in understanding Mormon theology in good faith. It's half laughable half obnoxious, and while certainly different, God-forbid they find out it's not quite as different from their understanding as they think
Please don’t lump Protestants in with Evangelicals. I was raised in an Affirmed Protestant faith. That means Everyone is truly welcome and no one is going to try to change you. I also studied World Religions in school, and don’t have a PhD, but did take a particular interest in the LDS. Every single person has a right to believe or not believe and that sacred right needs to be respected. As for my own faith, the LDS lost me with “one true church”. I don’t believe God works in exclusivity, but if you feel that in your testimony, I’m not going to tell you you belief system is wrong, or send young adults to your home to convert you. I will respect you. My faith is that God has a greater plan than we can imagine that includes the world, it isn’t for us to worry while we live, but to live our one life.
Any actual study of LDS can almost immediately identify the problems with scripture and false teachings it brings to the table. It is at its core a heretical and blasphemous doctrine.
I read their material from their website; it isn't hard. Joseph Smith is upfront with his beliefs, and is straightforward when saying that all the other churches have lost their way. Check out the King Follet discourse. That is more than enough to show Mormonism is not traditional Christianity of any kind.
What other relevant definition is there? We can all use our own definitions, but that impedes communication. Historical ones are the most useful in this context.
As a Seventh-day Adventist I get kicked from the “Christian” table from time to time by fundamentalist Christians even though I affirm the list IP posited. However, since I follow Christ’s example in Sabbath keeping and see a connection between Michael and Jesus they say I’m not a Christian. I wonder who can be in their group 🤔 ? I even sometimes wonder who wants to be in their group 😁 ?
InspiringPhilosophy's definition absolutely includes non-evangelical protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox church. He isn't using a narrow definition at all.
@@luthlexor123 he’s using the definition that excludes who he wants to exclude but erroneously uses the term “Christian”. That’s the whole point of the video
@@couragecoachsam - "All vegans don't eat meat. But I'm a vegan and I eat meat. No true vegans eat meat." That's apparently a NTSF according to Dan, however, according to people who passed a basic informal logic class and their professors, that's in no way a fallacy. IP's definition of Christian is what all non-laymen Christians use. Mormons, trying to pose as Christians, want to be included, however go against the basic tenets of Christianity, and don't follow the teachings of Jesus, therefore, Christians exclude them from their group. They can identify as Christians, however no other Christian church will accept them.
So if we don’t define Christianity with certain attributes, how do we actually define Christianity? If core doctrines aren’t what makes someone a Christian, then what actually makes someone a Christian? (I’m not objecting to any points made in the video. I’d just like to better understand Dan’s POV.)
Whatever you want. If you are a member of a self-declared Christian sect or community, they may have specific qualifiers, e.g. points of doctrine, but outside of them, self-identification is sufficient.
If you understand yourself to be a true follower of the teachings of Christ, you're a Christian, and can declare yourself as such. Whether someone else thinks you're "saved" is another matter.
@@schen7913 This. The important thing is salvation, not having other people call you a certain name. It's important to define what is and isn't acceptable behavior for salvation, but unless all Christians and only Christians are saved, then what people call you doesn't really matter except for helping people feel loved and accepted.
It's just self identification. A christian is anyone who identifies as a christian. There are no agreements about what "christian" means because everyone conceives of the thing in different ways. Some christians think Jesus was an alien, for example. Some christians think that Jesus is just a useful character around which to think about moral questions and don't hold themselves to adhering to anything Jesus supposedly said. Some christians identify as such because of their social environment rather than any specific belief. "Christian" is not a real thing that exists in the world. It's a social construct. An identifier around which one can form a sense of identity and group belonging. It's malleable and can mean whatever you want it to mean. Thus, the only common thing between christians is the identification with the category.
@@digitaljanus So I could theoretically define Christianity as “someone who breathes air” and it would make that person a Christian based on my definition? If self-identification is what determines meaning, couldn’t I say “I may appear young, but I actually identify as being old. Therefore I deserve and I have a right to the benefits old people receive.”? I guess the part I don’t understand is how self-identification (as a sole determinant) implies that you are able to reap the benefits of the group you identify with, regardless of if you actually meet the criteria that has been established or the criteria the majority believe in. However, I could also just be misunderstanding your and Dan’s points. (Sorry if my comment is hard to understand. I’m bad at articulating my thoughts.)
Does anyone know what denomination Dan is? I've watched a few of his videos now, ans i haven't quite pinned down if he's an atheist religiouw scholar (like religion for breakfast for instance) or if he is personally religious. Does anyone know?
I know this isn't your usual type of content. But I think a video on the different logical falacies and like how to spot them would be really useful and informative.
Definition of Christian: one who follows the teaching of Christ, or professes such. That’s all that’s really required. If someone claims to be Christian, then they are.
See, that’s where we would agree. Of course, people like that guy would disagree. Or people who insist on needing the Holy Spirit and works from the spirit, for that matter. It’s a shame they can’t come to an agreement on that. Unlike pagans, from what I recall. (Just thought that last bit would be a good contrast.)
"If someone claims to be Christian, then they are." Then this is the actual definition of christian, no christ following necessary. Which, yeah, I'd agree with that.
I go a step further and define Christianity as belief that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ can reconcile God and Man. But I won't give someone a hard time if they merely believe Jesus as a teacher and not as a Savior.
There's a decent amount of treatment in the NT about false teachers which is worth adding more as an addendum for personal judgment, but generally yeah anyone who can affirm "Jesus is Lord" or some other christ centered quip (it's in the name after all!) but it's more about a shorthand to rally together and is no substitute for deeper investigations into each other, not for exclusion, but for understanding, learning, and genuine friendship.
@@gregogrady8027 This is literally an entire video on how a logical fallacy works but you’re using appeal to authority fallacy to explain why Dan is wrong. Wow 💀
@@megatronsroyalemissary382 - The man who coined the fallacy, disagrees with Dan's assertions as to what a NTSF is, Dan doesn't ever really list any sources, all he ever does is make an appeal to authority, "It's the consensus" every video. A NTSF is defined as Changing the definitions of a term to exclude a counter example, having a definition is not, by any means, a NTSF. If a group, as Christians do, has a basis of belief, those who go against, add or change that basis, are not considered a part of said group. That is not a fallacy, it is not changing the definition to exclude mormons, mormons were never in there to begin with. "All vegans don't eat meat. But I'm a vegan and I eat meat. No true vegans eat meat." That's apparently a NTSF according to Dan, however, according to people who passed a basic informal logic class and their professors, that's in no way a fallacy.
@@rockweirdo8147 Okay, you made SEVERAL incorrect statements in your comment… both about Dan and about logical fallacies. 1. Firstly, the way that you are defining appeal to authority fallacy is wrong… and Dan isn’t using it either. An appeal to authority fallacy is when one assumes the veracity of a statement because an authority figure said it. If I said, “This man is a doctor, so he is right about how there will never be a cure for cancer,” that is an appeal to authority fallacy. This argument is fallacious because doctors can be either unintentionally misinformed or blatantly misleading. However, representing a consensus that has proven to be demonstrably true is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Citing overwhelming, academic consensus, when proven through DEMONSTRABLE research that can be conducted at home, is not appealing to authority. Evangelicals misuse this fallacy all the time to attempt to make the case that people who believe in evolution due to the scientific data that supports it, are committing an appeal to authority fallacy, which is flat out wrong. Dan never states that a conclusion is true because research said so, in fact, he would rarely hear him say what he thinks is true at all. He just states what the overwhelming scholarly consensus says, and he debunks misinformation that is not supported by any data. Which brings me to my next point: 2. I’m sorry, but Dan DOESN’T list any sources??? Have you watched any of his videos? When discussing data, he always sites articles, books, and loads of research that you can look into to support his conclusions, just because it’s inconvenient for you to take the initiative to look into the evidence Dan presents doesn’t mean he doesn’t present any evidence. 3. “Imagine some aggressively nationalistic Scotsman settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of that shock-horror tabloid The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, ‘Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again.’ Our reader is, as he confidently expected, agreeably shocked: ‘No Scot would do such a thing!’ Yet the very next Sunday he finds in that same favorite source a report of the even more scandalous ongoings of Mr. Angus MacSporran in Aberdeen. … ‘No true Scotsman would do such a thing!’" - Antony Flew, coiner Dan’s definition for a no true Scotsman fallacy checks out. A no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to defend a generalization of a certain group by EXCLUDING any counter-examples for not being "pure" enough, which is exactly what Dan stated in this video. 4. Your vegan example is a false equivalence to the argument about Christianity and Mormonism. Because the literal definition of a vegan is someone who doesn’t eat meat, whereas there are NO universally accepted bases of belief in the Christian community (which is HUGE by the way). We know this due to the fact that there are several translations of the Bible that contradict each other, there are several verses, stories, and conceptions of God in the Bible that contradict each other, there are several denominations of Christianity that teach completely different things from each other (which Dan LITERALLY states in this video), and the presupposed inerrancy of the Bible is a fairly recent theological discussion (which the data don’t support, I guess anyone who does a little bit of research with critical thinking isn’t a Christian by your logic?). So to make the case that one particular Christian denomination (Mormons in this case) is going against a fundamental basis of belief in Christianity is, from the get-go, prioritizing one theological belief over another, and is also presupposing biblical literalism, which again, is not a universally held belief among Christians. So who is the one who gets to decide what basis of beliefs is fundamental to Christianity? I implore you to PLEASE represent your arguments with a little bit more critical thinking, and a little less preconceived notions about the person that you’re criticizing. Because pretty much ALL of the talking points that you presented in your argument contained glaring problems.
@@rockweirdo8147 Okay, you made SEVERAL incorrect statements in your comment… both about Dan and about logical fallacies. 1. Firstly, the way that you are defining appeal to authority fallacy is wrong… and Dan isn’t using it either. An appeal to authority fallacy is when one assumes the veracity of a statement because an authority figure said it. If I said, “This man is a doctor, so he is right about how there will never be a cure for cancer,” that is an appeal to authority fallacy. This argument is fallacious because doctors can be either unintentionally misinformed or blatantly misleading. However, representing a consensus that has proven to be demonstrably true is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Citing overwhelming, academic consensus, when proven through DEMONSTRABLE research that can be conducted at home, is not appealing to authority. Evangelicals misuse this fallacy all the time to attempt to make the case that people who believe in evolution due to the scientific data that supports it, are committing an appeal to authority fallacy, which is flat out wrong. Dan never states that a conclusion is true because research said so, in fact, he would rarely hear him say what he thinks is true at all. He just states what the overwhelming scholarly consensus says, and he debunks misinformation that is not supported by any data. Which brings me to my next point: 2. I’m sorry, but Dan DOESN’T list any sources??? Have you watched any of his videos? When discussing data, he always sites articles, books, and loads of research that you can look into to support his conclusions, just because it’s inconvenient for you to take the initiative to look into the evidence Dan presents doesn’t mean he doesn’t present any evidence. “Imagine some aggressively nationalistic Scotsman settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of that shock-horror tabloid The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, "Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Our reader is, as he confidently expected, agreeably shocked: "No Scot would do such a thing!" Yet the very next Sunday he finds in that same favorite source a report of the even more scandalous ongoings of Mr. Angus MacSporran in Aberdeen. … "No true Scotsman would do such a thing!" - Antony Flew, coiner Dan’s definition for a no true Scotsman fallacy checks out. A no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to defend a generalization of a certain group by EXCLUDING any counter-examples for not being "pure" enough, which is exactly what Dan stated in this video. 3. Your vegan example is a false equivalence to the argument about Christianity and Mormonism. Because the literal definition of a vegan is someone who doesn’t eat meat, whereas there are NO universally accepted bases of belief in the Christian community (which is HUGE by the way). We know this due to the fact that there are several translations of the Bible that contradict each other, there are several verses, stories, and conceptions of God in the Bible that contradict each other, there are several denominations of Christianity that teach completely different things from each other (which Dan LITERALLY states in this video), and the presupposed inerrancy of the Bible is a fairly recent theological discussion (which the data don’t support, I guess anyone who does a little bit of research with critical thinking isn’t a Christian by your logic?). So to make the case that one particular Christian denomination (Mormons in this case) is going against a fundamental basis of belief in Christianity is, from the get-go, prioritizing one theological belief over another, and is also presupposing biblical literalism, which again, is not a universally held belief among Christians. So who is the one who gets to decide what basis of beliefs is fundamental to Christianity? I implore you to PLEASE represent your arguments with a little bit more critical thinking, and a little less preconceived notions about the person that you’re criticizing. Because pretty much ALL of the talking points that you presented in your argument contained glaring problems.
If this is an example of him getting "kicked around" I think MJ is doing more than fine against these so called "scholars" czcams.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/video.html
@@solidstorm6129 You don't have to follow them. But it's generally considered pretty rude to just change the agreed upon definitions set in place for thousands of years because you think words don't have meaning.
@@luthlexor123 considered rude by who? Are you aware that this religion and its practices have changed significantly since its start almost 2,000 years ago?
The No True Christian fallacy is quite often used to describe those who deconvert from Christianity, asserting that they were never truly believers/Christians to begin with.
Yeah, what was Christ thinking when he rebuked the religious leaders of his day. Jesus obviously had no idea what the standards of following him would actually require.
Ok, I lost it when Dan turned around and goes "So there are three main fallacies here..." The sheer unmitigated shade. Too bad Insipid Pedantry will never bother to learn anything about formal logic outside of reading the first blurb that comes up in an internet search.
Like the fact that his third example wasn't even a fallacy but instead an argumentative criticism? The fact people take Dan seriously as either a theologian or a philosophers is jaw dropping.
Aeon Skoble is a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a Canadian libertarian think tank. He has also worked with the Cato Institute. He also holds a a professorship in philosophy at Bridgewater State University.
Dan has no actual arguments that can hold up to actual philosophers and instead uses sophistry to argue with Jones. Jones called him out on this in his response video. czcams.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/video.html
Ok, im gonna say it. At some point, the boundary was set as dominations that adhere to the Apostle's or Nicene Creed as the litmus test for who is Christian. Thoughts?
Who set that boundary? The murderers of Unitarians did. The definition of Christian evolves with every new creed or council. Even the Catholic Church's definition of Christian changed with Vatican 2. Hell, many evangelicals still don't think Catholics are true Christians. The choice of Nicene is as arbitrary as any other. Anyone who claims to follow Jesus is a Christian. The real issue is who is a "saved" Christian -- who has salvation. But even some Nicene Christians will say their own members don't have "saving" faith ....
That's mostly just affirming the boundary set by the dominant group. Even with the catholics and proto-catholics murdering anyone who disagreed with them, there were always people who didn't agree. You just don't hear about them because why would you? Speaking up meant persecution, real persecution, and possibly death. In the modern era, such people are shunned. Derided as crackpots and heretics. They might not necessarily face the same degree of violence but they are certainly ostracized by society. Think about all of the tiny cults that pop up here and there using christian mythology as their template. Some, like the Mormons, held onto some of the dominant group's doctrines. Many others do not. For some people, Jesus was an alien in disguise. Nothing about the Nicene Creed really works under that model. Yet they call themselves christians or followers of Jesus all the same. There is no boundary for any of this stuff, no agreement. This applies to the dominant group as well. What does Bible god entail in the creed? Is everyone talking about the same entity? It would seem not since they can't agree on what Bible god did, does or wants to do. They can't even decide on its basic qualities.
That was set by people who wanted to exclude, and they inadvertently excluded early Christians including the apostles themselves. It's a silly definition.
Far more important is the love of God. We recognize each other by our love for one another but the foundation of Christianity is the relationship and love for God.
@@gregogrady8027 💯 Jesus talked about the two greatest commandments and love God was first but the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. I agree with you. I do however think we tend to under focus on the loving each other part if I had to critique.
He literally presents the definitions, examples, scholars and philosophers who agree with him. Dan presents nothing more than his own sophistry and arrogance.
No that is not what he is saying. he is just refuting that puting definitions of being a christian is commiting a no true scotsman fallacy. He actually says that other christian groups can define whta being a christian means as well. He's just saying tthat it isn't fallacious. Get your facts right.
Again, those definitions are NOT agreed upon by those who don't agree, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. And then what? He then declares that those people are not "Christians." If that's not monopoly of the power to define "Christians," what is? Also, isn't this what Protestants, especially Evangelical Protestants, accuse the Catholic Church of and vice versa? When Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't want to play that game, they are also unilaterally called "non-Christians." Can you see the silly game that TikToker is playing?
I don’t know if I agree with Dan here. Although the word “arbitrary” may not appear in the No True Scotsman definition, it seems to me the “redrawing of the boundaries” is arbitrary in nature; that is, redrawing for arbitrary reasons and using arbitrary boundaries. At the end of the video, Dan even says the Christian boundaries IP sets are arbitrary. What am I missing here?
Dan, i would love to hear how you managed at TWU as a mormon. I graduated from there in 1988 and i am pretty sure many would have had an issue with mormons there. Btw, i think you are brilliant.
He made a response to your response. The comments are nasty. They don’t even follow the rule IP set for them. They call you arrogant and condescending, and IP is your perfect foil. The big claims are basically, you said words don’t have meaning, and you don’t know what the NTSF is. Others were just Mormon bashing
Personally I'm okay if Inspiring Philosophy doesn't consider me a "real" or "true" Christian. 🤷♂ Edit- I just saw the list of supposed qualities IP thinks makes a Christian, it's kind of funny to think how most of the early Church weren't Christians apparently. God being Fully Man and Fully Divine, The Trinity, etc. This stuff wasn't hashed out til well into Christianity as an established faith. Kinda wild how IP gets to make sure he's in the in group on this, pretty convenient.
@@Rhewin I do find it fascinating that he apparently doesn't realize his rhetoric can be turned right back around on him. "Well you may think you are a true Christian, but true Christians are allowed to define the boundaries of our belief system and what we mean by the term Christian, and unfortunately you didn't make the cut."
I'm really interested: how far can you go with this? If a group, maybe a group similar to Unitarian Universalists, claimed to follow the teachings of Christ, but rejected Biblical inerrancy, the resurrection of Christ, the New Testament canon, the Divinity of Christ, the atonement, etc, but still considered themselves Christians, would Dan feel the same way? Would he feel that group should be included within the fold of Christians allowed to draw the boundaries? If not, how does he avoid committing this fallacy he's accusing IP of?
Christian gatekeepers keep gates. That's a thing now? Apologists love quoting Flew cos he allegedly had a deathbed conversion in his dottage. "Co-authored" a book about that, they say. Pretty suss if you ask me. /Great Diablocritics stream today.
I hear by declare all the horrible Evangelicals as "Not Christians!" It's true because I say so, and it makes me feel better to declare who is, and is not a "True Christian." 😂
As a non demonination Christian i personally dont think anyone should be saying who or isn't a "real" "true" Christian. Never know you could die today and find out your beliefs were wrong.
I thoroughly appreciate your channel and rigorous academic approach. From a spiritual side, it seems like so many Christians are trying to “claim” Jesus for their own, when I always understood that the point was for Him to claim us as His own. And frankly, whether or not someone else meets my definition of Christian (or whether or not I meet theirs) has absolutely no bearing on my personal faith/journey/salvation, so why would I even care??
Mormons also believe themselves to be God, directly in opposition to Jesus and His teachings, not to mention all the other contradictions of mormonism and the bible. Belief in Jesus and communion, doesn't make a Christian, and I've never heard anyone say it does.
@rockweirdo8147 I am not sure where you get that, since most people do consider Mormons to be Christians, and they also self identify as Christians. In fact, that was in the video, gave the stats from a poll on which groups consider them Christians, and clearly a lot of people do. Including themselves, who self identify as Christians. You can't say they are not Christians just because what they believe contradicts the bible, since all Christians believe some things that contradicts the bible.
lol. IP just made a response in which he misunderstands what Dan said and doubles down on his insistence that he's the arbiter of what it means to be a Christian. In typical fashion, his rebuttal just proved his guilt. It's funny. He denies he's a Christian nationalist, but every time he opines about these issues, he seems to land squarely in line with them.
@@gregogrady8027 The wording of your reply is unclear. It seems like you think I'm wrong, and so are defending IP. If that's the case - nope. He doubled down on the no true scotsman fallacy by claiming again that there's an objective definition - despite Dan pointing out that he's simply wrong. IP wrongly focused on the word 'arbitrary', because he thinks that anything other than his definition is arbitrary, and that his own defintion is not arbitrary. Dan pointed out that all definitions are arbitrary, so in that sense, the no true scotsman is an attempt to undermine someone else's definition and gatekeep it for his own purposes with his own assertions of what is entailed by that definition. To put it simply. IP - they're not Christians. Dan says who? IP - I do, because I made a list of what it means to be Christian. Dan - you don't get to decide what's on the list, and here's why your list is incoherent. IP - but I made a list of what it means to be Christian.
@@bengreen171 "Dan pointed out that all definitions are arbitrary" - All definitions are not arbitrary, they are descriptive, they can change, but they aren't arbitrary. Nor was any good reason given for that claim, it was just stated as fact, and the gullible were convinced. If they are arbitrary, then every group includes everybody on earth, and if you say otherwise, you're committing a NTSF... Just in case I have to spell it out for you: that would make the NTSF and having words for people groups, all useless. Also no, a NTSF is not gatekeeping a definition, that would be more aligned with an 'appeal to definitions' fallacy. However, IP did not say his was the only definition for a Christian, so that also falls flat. So, yeah, Dan doesn't know what a NTSF is, even the man who coined the term, his definition disagreed with Dan.
@@rockweirdo8147 from wikipedia - "The principle of semiotic arbitrariness refers to the idea that social convention is what imbues meaning to a given semiosis (any activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning) or sign." The point here is that any definition exists for a reason, and that reason is a non necessary one - a choice made by people and agreed to by a consensus of some degree, in order to fulfil some requirement in the communication of ideas and concepts. Yes, it is very useful for at least some definitions to be very concise and universally accepted, but this doesn't mean they aren't arbitrary. There is no logical law or natural law that says a definition must adhere to one objective principle. The point here is that there are different senses of the word 'arbitrary', and IP doesn't seem to realise this. "If they are arbitrary, then every group includes everybody on earth," That does not logically follow. Arbitrary does not mean 'non existent'. "Also no, a NTSF is not gatekeeping a definition, that would be more aligned with an 'appeal to definitions'" The NTSF is a form of appeal to definition. "even the man who coined the term, his definition disagreed with Dan." I'm betting you haven't actually read 'the man's' work. You should always be wary when IP shows you a snippet of some philosopher or Biblical expert. 9 times out of 10, further reading will expose a flaw in his argument. In this case, it's the use of the word arbitrary alluded to earlier. It turns out that IP doesn't understand the definition of the word as it is deployed in the example he gave. "However, IP did not say his was the only definition for a Christian, so that also falls flat." err - he pretty much did. That's literally his defence against the NTSF. He's claiming it's not an NTSF because he's using an 'objective definition.'
Just for convenience sake (so no one else has to give inspiring philosophy another view) here is the quote that Dan did not show at the end of the video: "Say Bob claims to be a Christian, but frequently lies and betrays and kills. When asked, he reports that he does not believe in the divinity of Jesus, or even in God at all. So if Sam said "I dislike Christians, that Bob guy is just awful," and you replied "look, Bob just is not a Christian, so you're mistaken to dislike Christianity because you don't like Bob," would you be committing "no true Scotsman" fallacy? I think the answer is no. You are correct; Bob, despite calling himself Christian, is not one, and Sam is wrong both to take Bob as representative of Christianity and to dislike Christians on that basis." Counter: Bob just recreated his one member branch of Christianity of Bobism
So if I say that all cats can meow, and you say what about mute cats, so I say that all cats that aren't mute can meow, is that the no true Scotsman fallacy? Because it seems to me like I'm just conceding your point...
@@Call_Me_Rio "judge with righteous judgment" This video was objectively bad, it doesn't look like he even checked what he said "words don't have to have meaning" yes, yes they have to, or they are sounds and not words This video wasn't something you would expect from a scholar, he should remain in his bubble instead of trying to address things he doesn't understand
Man. You are getting destroyed on these back and forth convos. Instead of trying to debunk orthodox Christianity and then somehow include yourself at the same time (kind of a fools errand), you should try to defend Mormonism using your same standards that you are trying to debunk with. That would be a real hoot.
"All vegans don't eat meat. But I'm a vegan and I eat meat. No true vegans eat meat." That's apparently a NTSF according to Dan, however, according to people who passed a basic informal logic class and their professors, that's in no way a fallacy.
@@rockweirdo8147It is a fallacy. A vegan may eat meat at given circumstances. They generally don't eat meat, but sometimes social pressure weights too heavy in their minds. That doesn't make them not vegan.
@@howlrichard1028 - No, it's not. What was said, was not, "vegans are incapable of eating meat" it was, "vegans don't eat meat" This is not a fallacy, as the definition of what is a vegan is not arbitrary, a vegan is literally a person who doesn't eat meat. Since it's not arbitrary, it's not a NTSF. Occasionally eating meat when pressured, can disqualify someone from being a vegan, but regardless, that just means they are trying to be vegan and failing. The issue arises when trying to make these odd exceptions effect the rule, when they don't. Otherwise any group classification would be a NTSF, which is nonsense.
Everyone's favorite, the classic conservative Christian gatekeeping joke:
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over."
LOL
Worth the wait
Credit the source: comedian *Emo Phillips.*
A classic.
I love that joke.
“We have a right to draw the boundary of our beliefs.” Bad news, so do other people. Evangelicals, as much as they would like to, do not own faith or Christ.
Exactly. And they never did own Christ. Not to mention that evangelicalism is relatively new in Christian history.
@@solidstorm6129 And yet, like Catholics and every other exclusionary denomination, they're determined they have the original "real" version that the church definitely always believed.
All Evangelicals do is draw boundaries around their belief. They are even worse to the people in their own church.
@@Rhewin I thought that the Roman Catholic Church had given up policing Christianity and was willing to accept other Christian groups as Christian. At least they no longer burn heretics at the stake, right? You just can’t identify as RC unless you accept their doctrines (nor can you actively participate in their rituals-you want a Catholic wedding with the Mass held at the Cathedral, both bride and groom have to be Catholic). At least that’s my understanding. Kindly correct any misunderstandings of contemporary Catholicism I have expressed.
@@solidstorm6129 What? You mean they falsely claim to practice “that old time religion”? I am utterly shocked! 😮
I love how the essential doctrines provided say absolutely nothing about loving one another. Really shows you that when people who love to argue about who is a 'true Christian' care about exclusion more than Christ's actual teaching.
Regarding this comment, Apologists would probably respond (unconvincingly and goalpost shifty) saying the "inspiration of scripture" would cover ethical teachings, and that the doctrine of monotheism also justifies morality, because anything else cannot justify morality. The apologists would be wrong still, but this is what I think they would try to say.
@@samuelvavia8920I'd say it's just a given that God says to be nice and it's not really needed to be listed. Still maybe emblematic of importance towards beliefs themselves over actions.
@@Dude_bruh I mean, I'm no Christian, but how about starting the list with what the guy himself claimed were the most important rules? Or are those rules not important parts of being Christians? Well, apart from some people for whom this is just an identity.
The Apostles and Nicene creeds also do not include “love thy neighbor “.
@@falconmath it's pretty unilaterally agreed Jesus said that, all the other stuff about Jesus wasn't quite like that at the time
3:23 Yep, that's how fundamentalism works. An exclusive group gets together to draw the boundaries to include themselves, and then an even more exclusive subgroup gets together to draw boundaries to include themselves, and so on down to the level of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Yes indeed, while they impose those boundaries on everyone outside their increasingly exclusive groups, without any care for what the rest of us have to say about it.
You mean the Westboro Baptist Synagogue (as they seem to only follow the Old Testament)
@@stephenlitten1789 synagogues have enough trouble in the 21st-century US (and elsewhere, for that matter) without being unfairly compared to fundamentalist extremists for misguided, and lowkey antisemitic, rhetorical effect.
I don't recall any synagogues making the news for their members proclaiming that God hates any identity group at all.
@@stephenlitten1789 I took the name from their signboard, not their doctrine. 😉
@@NielMalan I realise that. I was making a joke at their expense
Still Waiting for the official "Nah I'm Good Shirts." Dan showed that he was messing with designs for shirts recently, I think it could be a winner.
Yes pls
I'd buy one. Maybe even a couple as gifts.
I’m waiting for one that says “Hey everybody, I’m Dan McClellan, scholar of the Bible and religion…”
Bart Ehrman's definition of Christianity, for what it's worth, is something like "the belief that Jesus is the way to salvation."
Well, I wouldn't agree with that definition, either. It's just too vague. In which way is he the "way"? And salvation from what?
@@DoloresLehmannThat is the thing, though. Not all Christians agree on what the way to salvation is, but they all would say Jesus has something important to do with it
@@samuelvavia8920 Agreed, but "people who think that Jesus has something important to do with salvation" doesn't sound like a compelling definition for Christian.
@@DoloresLehmanna snappy "elevator pitch" friendly definition might be appealing to seek, but that doesn't necessarily make it a good/accurate/useful definition
Groups often have initiation ceremonies which mark the boundary between identities. For example, one cannot simply land in the US from the UK and declare oneself "an American" (and be taken seriously).
From everything I see, Mormons baptize according to the Trinitarian formula. So while their ordinations may be invalid and their beliefs heretical, their baptisms - while illicit, are nonetheless, valid. Therefore, they are as Christian as any white evangelical.
And should the time come when the Spirit moves them, I hope they will be encouraged by the knowledge that there are so many of us already in full communion with the Holy See who are eager to welcome them home ❤
You'd have to define "Christian" first. When the World Christian Encyclopedia claims there are 45,000 Denominations, Churches, or Sects, there is very likely a large amount of disagreement on what defines a Christian.
45,000!?
I heard there was only 1 true denomination from a christian I got in argument with who was being very gatekeepy about christianity.
@@tomgames8616 Funny how there are thousands of Christianities, and so many of them gatekeep that they are the only true Christianity, yet when told their group is just a tiny group in the scheme of things, they'll talk about 2 Billion Christians.
Logical consistency isn't the strong suit of most Christians.
I've been reading about the second great awakening, and the thing that I find fascinating is how every Christian denomination seems to get its start by claiming to take Christianity back to its roots. Everybody wants to say, "we're the truest Christians and the real heirs of Christ!" Perhaps it's an appeal to authority, I dunno. Everyone's a Christian when you need allies. No one else is a Christian when you want enemies.
Ending with, "nah, I'm good"
*chef-kiss
Kind of embarrassing actually
Coward
If immaturity is what you chef kiss at I pray you meet Christ.
It’s not the win you think it is lol
It's the perfect response when Inspiring Philosophy has been blathering thus far (as he always does) and looks like blathering further 😂
To put it simply, according to evangelicals you are not a Christian unless you are the exact same kind of Christian I am.
This is not what Inspiring Philosophy said at all.
His definition includes protestants, Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox church. His definition is actually very wide. Mormons absolutely aren't Christians using any reasonable definition of the word.
Yup! They've got boundaries figured all backward. Collective narcissism is unhinged like that.
@@luthlexor123 But it excludes the Oriental Orthodox Church, and progressive protestants
@@stephenlitten1789 I don't know much about the Oriental Orthodox Church, but the opening paragraph on Wikipedia says "The Oriental Orthodox Churches adhere to the Nicene Christian tradition". So no, IP's very wide definition would not exclude them.
And as for progressive Christians, IP said "some progressive Christians". I agree with that. Some, certainly not all, just go so far in their denial of basic Christian truths. Some progressives deny the existence of God all together. They are of course allowed to do that, but using any meaningful definition of the word, that's not Christianity.
This is like the widest possible reasonable definition and people still complain, smh. I think people like yourself just don't want Christianity to have a definition? Is that your goal?
@@luthlexor123 It's the nature of Christ: human and divine. The dissenting view (Oriental Orthodox) is "out of two natures" as opposed to the adopted view "in two natures." This is an obscure point which makes Nestorianism perfectly comprehensible by comparison (but still regarded as a heresy by the majority).
There were a number of early church councils, of which Nicaea is the most famous, that saw the dissenting parties labeled heretics. A popular one is dualism, which assigns an evil animus action in the spiritual and /or temporal realm.
That's one of the many things I love about Celtic Christianity. All christians or any one who believes in Jesus and follows his teachings are our brothers and sisters. Exclusiveness is unexceptionable.
Now that sounds quite lovely. Maybe I’d have to look further into it. Even if it’s for educational sake.
Happy saint Patty's day
@@Dude_bruh Happy St Patty's Day ☘️🧡☘️🧡☘️🧡☘️
What about people who are just really kind but don't believe in Jesus? I'm just curious.
@@theundone777 In Celtic Christianity there is no eternal damnation. Hell is only a place where the soul is cleansed of all the darkness, and negativity accumulated in this life. We all return to the Creator. In the Old Testament God says that we are all His/Her children. That all prayers are heard and answered even those of the unbeliever.
"We get to define what the term X means. Everyone who disagrees with our definition has no right to define the term differently, because we define what it means and everyone who comes up with a different definition has, by definition, the wrong definition." This guy's argument in a nutshell. Pretty circular, I'd say.
Prescriptivism is a very conservative approach to semantics, probably favored by religious conservatives because of how it helps them structure power, values, and boundaries like Dan keeps talking about.
It just pisses me off how stupid it is. Like his stupidity is an insult to Jesus and God, and it bothers me so much!
Nope, not what he's saying at all. Go look at IP's response to this, and actually learn what a NTSF is.
@@rockweirdo8147 I've watched the response. Doesn't change anything I said. I wasn't even addressing the No True Scotsman Fallacy, I was addressing the circular reasoning he commits right off the bat.
And that reasoning implies that he and other members of Christianity who subscribe to the same doctrines and dogmas as he does, have the right to define the term "Christian" as they see fit, without taking into account that other members of Christianity who don't agree on the same specifics also can play that game and exclude him for the very same reasons. What gives him the right to determine what a real Christian is? His criteria would exclude even Paul.
It doesn't matter that later theologians and church fathers further developped the earlier concepts. Of course they wouldn't exclude earlier Christians according to later concepts. But they would exclude modern Christians for not adhering to doctrines that earlier Christians didn't even know about, and could still be Christians. That's a double standard right there. Saying: "OK, until now you could be a Christian without believing X and Y, but from now on you can only be a Christian if you believe X and Y" is just ridiculous.
His example for a supposed NTSF that actually isn't one, the example with the vegan, is also not very convincing. The answer to "But my uncle eats steak" should no be "Well, no true vegan eats steak", but "Well, no, then he is no vegan at all." A vegan who eats meat doesn't fit ANY possible definition of this word, and that's the difference. However, there are vegans who eat honey and are regarded by other members of the group as "no true vegans", but they argue that veganism is all about animal welfare, and honey consumption increases animal welfare because it keeps bees from going extinct. There are vegans who still use their previously bought leather items, because they argue that it wouldn't help the animal anymore if they now threw them away. Other vegans scold them for it. And so on. Definitions tend to have blurry lines. But no one owns a definition per se.
@@DoloresLehmann - I doubt you did watch the video, I know that because of this: "without taking into account that other members of Christianity who don't agree on the same specifics also can play that game and exclude him for the very same reasons"
-Yeah, that's the point, thanks for making it for me. Mormons can exclude others, in fact they do, and that's fine, but Christian Churches exclude them and they are the majority and biblically based.
And no, it wouldn't exclude Paul, again, actually watch the video; Just because the term "trinity" didn't exist, doesn't mean the idea behind it didn't exist.
"A vegan who eats meat doesn't fit ANY possible definition of this word, and that's the difference."
- This goes against your own point and Dan's point. If definitions don't matter, then anyone can change the definition to fit what they wish. Mormons change the definition of Christianity to fit themselves in, that is however not agreed with or supported by any Christians Churches. So, you are correct, it's not a NTSF, but neither is saying that mormons aren't Christians, as they goes against the agreed definition among Christians; Just how the man who claimed to be vegan, went against the agreed definition of veganism.
It's shocking to me as an ex-Baptist what a tiny little bubble I used to live in and what apologists like IP still live in.
When someone tells me that they are a christian I believe them. I spent a fair amount of growing up in an Independent Fundamental Baptist Church. Our pastor told us that LDS, JW's, Catholics many more weren't "true christians". It's not up to me to decide who is or isn't.
That's why we have the scripture to do that for us. The Catholics don't deny that Christ is God. However LDS and JWs do deny He is God. You see what I'm getting at. How can you say you are a Christian when you are denying Christ's Godhood when the Man Himself stated clearly he was God. Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” I am in Hebrew is YWHA the name the Lord spoke to Moses on top of Mount Sinai.
@@IDK_._MANLDS doesn’t deny Christ’s Divinity and title as God. It is taught on the website that they believe that Jesus Christ is YWHW The God of the Old Testament.
@cohenclare8474 Mormons hold the unique belief that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two distinct beings. Coped this strait from the website. They believe He is part of God not fully God. Basically worshiping two Gods.
Amen brother
@@IDK_._MANnot all protestants agree with the aspects of the Trinity. Some say they are one being, others say they are separate. But no one questions their Christian status. Why is it different for the LDS in your eyes? We believe there are three members of the Godhead who are separate beings but are all of the same godhead. They work together in perfect unity for our salvation
"As the philosopher Aeon Skoble sa-"
"Nah, I'm good"
🤣🤣🤣
Who is this Skoble?
A professional philosopher who actually examined this issue and who Dan has no actually responses. Just like fluff he presented in response to IP doesn't actually hold up when placed under any scrutiny czcams.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/video.html
This person reminds me of a story from my middle school days (~1975). A friend convinced me to go to a Baptist summer camp near Lynchburg, VA. What he didn't tell me is that we had to go to a worship service everyday before we could have lunch. I tended to drift in and out of the long sermons. One day, I fell asleep, then was elbowed awake by my friend who said the minister was making an important point and I should listen. The minister was lecturing about why Catholics weren't true Christians and how most Catholics, especially the clergy, had no idea of what Jesus taught and were probably going to hell. At which point, I raised my hand and waited to be recognized. The minister finally stopped his rant and recognized me. Yes, young man, do you have a question? No, but I think you should know that I'm Catholic. We glared at each other for several seconds before I sat down. He didn't say anything else about Catholics (well, as long as I could stay awake, anyway). After that my counselor told me how to skip the worship, but still get lunch. Then he suggested I avoid worship services because the ministers were very strict.
Yo, I saw his vid when he first dropped it on X Twitter. I commented that he was basically calling most Pre-Nicene Christians non-Christians(including Paul and the disciples) cause of the fact that the Trinity and Hypostatic Union came later.
A couple of his fans got so mad lol, and he responded with some nonsense vid of his describing how the early church taught a proto Trinity..... almost 300 years after Jesus died.
Anyone who tries to even remotely argue such concept his just dumb. I just recently watch a scholar debunking IP claims on the church Father. My friend and I are currently going through Tertullian and we are pulling his text apart to demonstrate what he actually taught. We just did part 1 (2 hours of recording for the first 5 chapters). Let's put it this way if Tertullian was ever a Trinatarian good lord he was extremely bad one. But we can see how Modelism as inspired since we see the exact same phrasing. I can give you a link if you are interested to listen
The Nicene Creed made dogmatized what was already an accepted Church doctrine. Just because the word Trinity wasn't used doesn't mean the belief wasn't there.
@@TheEagleChristian the issue the belief wasn't there. The pre-nicene Orthodoxy was Subortionism
@@ericmacrae6871 which fits the Trinitarian belief because the Son is subordinate to the Father and the Spirit is subordinate to the Father and the Son 👍
@@TheEagleChristian it doesn't because Trinitarian belief says that the Son CANNOT be a lesser divine being which is what Subortionism teaches. Keep in mind that the doctrine of the Trinity says that there can only be 1 God in 3 distinct persons.
Yet, Subortionism like I already stated it teaches that Jesus is another divine being that is subordinate to the Father. You will never going to find a single quote where it says that Jesus is only subordinate in his human nature, They will have no problem saying that Jesus is another God that is subordinate to the Father
I thought I was a true Scotsman until we did 23andme. I've been living a lie!
sassenach
@@tussk. oh it's worst than that. Irish and English mixed in there. There were rumors at holiday gatherings about someone Irish in the direct lineage but Nanna said we don't talk about that.
"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Master is able to make him stand."
According to my own definition of Christianity, evangelicals are not Christian. This should settle this discussion once and for all.
True Christians don't belief in the Trinity haha
As a progressive Christian I guess I am excluded from sitting at his table, but that's O.K I'd rather sit with the cool kids at the excluded table.
[insert meme of Homer and Bart sitting in the dark watching TV, patting the couch, saying "Join us..."]
I agree. Why should we progressive Christians want a spot at a table that Jesus would have flipped? We have no need to validate, applaud nor bolster the cruelty of evangelicals.
Amen!
As a Satanist come have a beer at my table!
My guess is Jesus would too.
Well, if you are used to taking a conclusion and accepting only arguments that are supportive, thus makes perfect sense.
Well said, Dan
In my experience, not a ton of self-professed Christians are actually following the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth, so it is what it is.
Then you R just ignorant!!
@Bible-Christian you know, I’ve noticed a ton of your initial replies end with an “in conclusion” paragraph. All of your other replies have much shorter sentences, completely different wording, and are usually more aggressive. Seems like someone is leaning a bit on ChatGPT for rapid responses.
@Bible-Christian Jesus fucking Christ, man. Give it a rest.
In my estimation, nobody actually knows what the teaching of Jesus of Nazareth were in the first place. So outside of the early first century, nobody can really claim to be following any teachings that aren't being filtered through later writers.
@@rainbowkrampus fair enough. But you know what I meant.
i think in the broadest meaningful sense, Christian could describe any individual or group to whom JC is of central theological importance
I wouldn't necessarily agree with the term theologically there, in my personal opinion "someone who considers themselves to be a follower of Jesus' teachings" would be more euseful, since it would include people who do not believe jesus to be divine but who consider him to be a important teacher and themselves followers of his teachings.
I hope that was somewhat understandable.
I think it's tough cuz depending upon central that could easily include Muslims, and idk if either side would see it that way
No. It means someone who is part of the European religious tradition. Just like Hindu means someone who is part of the non-Muslim Indian religious tradition. American evangelicals aren't Christians, neither are Mormons, but some American Protestants are Christians, and nearly all American Catholics are.
Yep, since it basically means Christ follower, that’s really the only feature that’s necessary to being Christian.
I agree. Its literally in the word. I'm am a little confused with Dan's argument here. Can I call myself a Buddhist even if I don't believe or practice it? I guess I could ... but why would I?
dont be sad, american evangelical fundamentalists exclude catholics too from being christian, as a European it was first weird when somebody asked: are you a catholic or a christian and i was like.... what are you talking about? nobody ever consider this question here
Ouch, this one hit me right in the "Inspiration of Scripture".
Probably the best “No, I’m good,” evaaaaah.
This guy spreads a lot of nonsense, so pls keep refuting him
U would know nonsense!!!
@@davidjanbaz7728 Thanks to InspiringPhilosophy's big mouth, yes we do.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Yes. It comes from fundamentalists.
And yet he’s some of the best that Christian apologetics has to offer.
@@magepunk2376 and the bar is already so low
I learned something
Thanks Dan
Maybe spend some more time learning czcams.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/video.html
Thank you Dan. It'd be one thing to argue that LaCroix really isn't soda and shouldn't be considered in the category. But no one is willing to kill each other for LaCroix quite like they're willing to do over religion. This sort of divisive and nonsensical rhetoric is something we should all be loudly and publicly repudiating.
*MOST people aren’t willing to kill each other for LaCroix
YOU HERETIC! Lacroix IS soda! You shall boil in the vats!
Wait, what's your position again?
@@andrewsuryali8540 🤣
It would be really useful if the Bible defined who a Christian is. Too bad
The stupidity of this comment leaves me speechless...
The Bible is not the final word of religion. That is the central Protestant heresy. It is designed to take power away from the Church institutions, saying "you don't need to study anything, just read this book! Everything is there!" This is a deliberate lie.
@@jamesarnette1394there is a great amount of wisdom in the stupidity of this comment
Yeh, true that. Unfortunately, the Bible didn't exist when JC was around. Besides the fact that most original followers of Jesus were Jews.
@@toniacollinske2518 The Bible did exists at the contemporary time of Jesus, but the New Testament didn’t obviously
I would just like to take a moment and thank you Dan for not putting music behind your videos. When they are juxtaposed with a lot of these creators who are using music in their videos you really get a better sense of how music can be used to subtly influence and manipulate their viewers. Like the message is more valid because of the uplifting music playing behind them.
Love that even Christians have to be the RIGHT Christian......
I was in a loose circle of friends in a local science fiction convention that included Christians of multiple stripes. Some of them decided they wanted to have a discussion group of sorts at the convention focusing on Christians in fandom. They wanted to only have Christians in attendance. The look on the face of our mutual Mormon friend after he found out they were kicking him out of the room because they declared the LDS to not be sufficiently loyal to the Nicene Creed was a dark thing. I could tell he was debating every friendship he had in that room plus reliving the sting of mockery he must have received over time.
"nah, I'm good" merch please
Did you just deny that words have a coherent meaning? Which apparently could also mean that words do have a coherent meaning. Very enlightening. Thankfully, IP's response video has a link to a Thomas Nagel book. He is my favorite atheist philosopher. Very honest and thoughtful guy. Can't wait to read it. "The Last Word" by Thomas Nagal.
He talked about this in a recent video.
Yes, words have no meaning until we ascribe a meaning to them.
Yuup and this is the guy that's supposed to be Inspiring Philosophy...😂
That's why I prefer Insipid Pedantry.
Nah I may come off bias because I am Christian. But I don’t think Dan is right. The generalization still wouldn’t work in the favor of Dan. Because the identity of a Christian would still be tied to the essentials. Dan is special pleading here and appeal to the idea that a word can be defined in multiple ways, which ultimately discredits the word itself. Either we come to understand a word or it loses its value. If I can say I’m an atheist but I just mean that I lack the belief in God, until a certain God is considered, then we have lost the value of the definition of atheist. Because then I don’t truly lack a belief in a God.
Insipid Theosophy is also a good one 😂
@@2percentmusic204
The problem with your viewpoint is that "the essentials" are the very thing being debated. Therefore, it is to assume the conclusion to say "x group doesn't believe in the essentials."
@@2percentmusic204 Dan obviously isn't right on this one. Inspiring Philosophy's definition is very wide. He includes all Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and Protestants who hold to the essentials of the faith. These "essentials" have been defined for well over 1500 years. This isn't some "White Evangelical" power grab, as Dan disgustingly implies. Most of the people who came up with the creeds would have been brown, for goodness sake!
Dan is just purposefully trying to muddy the water.
Love it. Do more of this guy’s stuff please
As an atheist, watching Christians squabble over who's the Christianest Christian or who Christs correctliest confounds me. It's like watching sports people argue over what counts as a sport. I'm sitting here in chess club, thinking, "Can't you all just let each other do your thing? This is meant to let us find a place of belonging, right?" But no, exclusion...
That's not quite what's happening. It's more like football players come in to your chess club and start kicking over the tables, saying "What? We're just playing chess", and you say "No you're not", to which someone else looks at you and says "Can't you all just let each other do your thing? You're both just playing chess"
@poisontango As a member of a christian group that this guy says is not, I feel the same. Who is he to tell me I'm not ? And yes, why all the fighting ? Seeing people like this, I actually would rather not be called a christian.
Mormons pose as a Christian Church, they are starkly different and cultish in behavior, therefore actual Christians separate themselves from them. It's not that hard to understand.
@luthlexor123 You sound an awful lot like a Fundamentalist/Christian Conservative with that logic. Framing it with that analogy, if I didn't know any better, I'd say the very existence of Non-trinitarians and Progressive Christians is tantamount to them coming to your communion and flipping your trays mid-communion and dumping your new members midway through their baptisms.
Eerily similar to the logic of how "the gays" existing apparently trample on religious freedom to American Evangelicals
This IP guy is arrogant. I am not a christian but he is 100% wrong. Using his argument, he is not a christian in teh eyes of catholics etc. Let alone the true followers of Jesus.
Arrogant or not he is correct. Dan is far more arrogant and has the misfortune of also being wrong.
@@gregogrady8027 How is he correct?
@@munbruk czcams.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/video.html
oh that was such a funny ending!
Yeah, real funny when you can't actually address philosophical arguments on the issue.
@@gregogrady8027 odd that you make no points. you complain about not addressing the philosophical issues but you make none your own or refute any I made. what is your point in posting other than to whine?
So happy you’re sharing your knowledge with the world. Love it when you end the video with. No I’m good.
Sounded smug and dismissive. It's probably off-putting for anyone who isn't already a fan.
Church of Christ has entered chat and says all are burning in hell except them.
I like how so many evangelicals, perhaps Protestants in general, take literally no effort in understanding Mormon theology in good faith. It's half laughable half obnoxious, and while certainly different, God-forbid they find out it's not quite as different from their understanding as they think
Please don’t lump Protestants in with Evangelicals. I was raised in an Affirmed Protestant faith. That means Everyone is truly welcome and no one is going to try to change you. I also studied World Religions in school, and don’t have a PhD, but did take a particular interest in the LDS. Every single person has a right to believe or not believe and that sacred right needs to be respected. As for my own faith, the LDS lost me with “one true church”. I don’t believe God works in exclusivity, but if you feel that in your testimony, I’m not going to tell you you belief system is wrong, or send young adults to your home to convert you. I will respect you. My faith is that God has a greater plan than we can imagine that includes the world, it isn’t for us to worry while we live, but to live our one life.
Any actual study of LDS can almost immediately identify the problems with scripture and false teachings it brings to the table. It is at its core a heretical and blasphemous doctrine.
I read their material from their website; it isn't hard. Joseph Smith is upfront with his beliefs, and is straightforward when saying that all the other churches have lost their way. Check out the King Follet discourse. That is more than enough to show Mormonism is not traditional Christianity of any kind.
@@bradbowers4414 No one here is arguing whether or not Mormonism is "traditional" Christianity though.
What other relevant definition is there? We can all use our own definitions, but that impedes communication. Historical ones are the most useful in this context.
As a Seventh-day Adventist I get kicked from the “Christian” table from time to time by fundamentalist Christians even though I affirm the list IP posited. However, since I follow Christ’s example in Sabbath keeping and see a connection between Michael and Jesus they say I’m not a Christian. I wonder who can be in their group 🤔 ? I even sometimes wonder who wants to be in their group 😁 ?
Thanks for this, people use logical fallacies so flippantly I appreciate your explanation.
They don't. People on the internet, however, do throw the word "Logical fallacy" around very flippantly.
I love that "I'm good!"
Whenever I hear someone telling me or others they aren’t Christian, I simply remember that they actually mean I’m not Evangelical. Good 😅
InspiringPhilosophy's definition absolutely includes non-evangelical protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox church. He isn't using a narrow definition at all.
@@luthlexor123 he’s using the definition that excludes who he wants to exclude but erroneously uses the term “Christian”. That’s the whole point of the video
@@couragecoachsam - "All vegans don't eat meat.
But I'm a vegan and I eat meat.
No true vegans eat meat."
That's apparently a NTSF according to Dan, however, according to people who passed a basic informal logic class and their professors, that's in no way a fallacy.
IP's definition of Christian is what all non-laymen Christians use. Mormons, trying to pose as Christians, want to be included, however go against the basic tenets of Christianity, and don't follow the teachings of Jesus, therefore, Christians exclude them from their group. They can identify as Christians, however no other Christian church will accept them.
So if we don’t define Christianity with certain attributes, how do we actually define Christianity?
If core doctrines aren’t what makes someone a Christian, then what actually makes someone a Christian?
(I’m not objecting to any points made in the video. I’d just like to better understand Dan’s POV.)
Whatever you want. If you are a member of a self-declared Christian sect or community, they may have specific qualifiers, e.g. points of doctrine, but outside of them, self-identification is sufficient.
If you understand yourself to be a true follower of the teachings of Christ, you're a Christian, and can declare yourself as such. Whether someone else thinks you're "saved" is another matter.
@@schen7913 This. The important thing is salvation, not having other people call you a certain name. It's important to define what is and isn't acceptable behavior for salvation, but unless all Christians and only Christians are saved, then what people call you doesn't really matter except for helping people feel loved and accepted.
It's just self identification. A christian is anyone who identifies as a christian.
There are no agreements about what "christian" means because everyone conceives of the thing in different ways. Some christians think Jesus was an alien, for example. Some christians think that Jesus is just a useful character around which to think about moral questions and don't hold themselves to adhering to anything Jesus supposedly said. Some christians identify as such because of their social environment rather than any specific belief.
"Christian" is not a real thing that exists in the world. It's a social construct. An identifier around which one can form a sense of identity and group belonging. It's malleable and can mean whatever you want it to mean. Thus, the only common thing between christians is the identification with the category.
@@digitaljanus So I could theoretically define Christianity as “someone who breathes air” and it would make that person a Christian based on my definition? If self-identification is what determines meaning, couldn’t I say “I may appear young, but I actually identify as being old. Therefore I deserve and I have a right to the benefits old people receive.”?
I guess the part I don’t understand is how self-identification (as a sole determinant) implies that you are able to reap the benefits of the group you identify with, regardless of if you actually meet the criteria that has been established or the criteria the majority believe in.
However, I could also just be misunderstanding your and Dan’s points.
(Sorry if my comment is hard to understand. I’m bad at articulating my thoughts.)
Does anyone know what denomination Dan is? I've watched a few of his videos now, ans i haven't quite pinned down if he's an atheist religiouw scholar (like religion for breakfast for instance) or if he is personally religious. Does anyone know?
I've heard he's mormon
He is a practicing Mormon.
Dan tells his whole story on Mormon Stories youtube.
I know this isn't your usual type of content. But I think a video on the different logical falacies and like how to spot them would be really useful and informative.
Now I’d like to know where the guy in the video got that list from. It sure as heck wasn’t the Bible, that’s for sure.
The early Catholic Church, mostly. Not that he'd admit it.
@@digitaljanus probably because he’s evangelical, right? Don’t evangelicals hate Catholics?
I don't think he talks about which denomination he would belong to, but I doubt he's evangelical.
@@stever7613 oh? If I may ask, what would make you think that? I’m genuinely curious to hear what you have to say.
Sounds very similar to Moving the Goalposts. Then again, things like calling out hypocrisy and the Tu Quoque Fallacy are also very similar
Yes. My reaction at that point of the video was "This is just argument by moving the goalpost".
There is any place to read the academic concensus?
I'd recommend philosophers and academics the people Dan responds to with "nah I'm good."
Thank you
Definition of Christian: one who follows the teaching of Christ, or professes such.
That’s all that’s really required. If someone claims to be Christian, then they are.
See, that’s where we would agree. Of course, people like that guy would disagree. Or people who insist on needing the Holy Spirit and works from the spirit, for that matter. It’s a shame they can’t come to an agreement on that. Unlike pagans, from what I recall. (Just thought that last bit would be a good contrast.)
"If someone claims to be Christian, then they are."
Then this is the actual definition of christian, no christ following necessary.
Which, yeah, I'd agree with that.
Supposed teachings
I go a step further and define Christianity as belief that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ can reconcile God and Man.
But I won't give someone a hard time if they merely believe Jesus as a teacher and not as a Savior.
There's a decent amount of treatment in the NT about false teachers which is worth adding more as an addendum for personal judgment, but generally yeah anyone who can affirm "Jesus is Lord" or some other christ centered quip (it's in the name after all!) but it's more about a shorthand to rally together and is no substitute for deeper investigations into each other, not for exclusion, but for understanding, learning, and genuine friendship.
finally
This was a good video
The ending… Dan doesn’t get enough credit for how funny he is. 😂😂😂
Not really funny to display your ignorance when you have actual philosophers who are authorities on the subject telling you that you are wrong.
@@gregogrady8027 This is literally an entire video on how a logical fallacy works but you’re using appeal to authority fallacy to explain why Dan is wrong. Wow 💀
@@megatronsroyalemissary382 - The man who coined the fallacy, disagrees with Dan's assertions as to what a NTSF is, Dan doesn't ever really list any sources, all he ever does is make an appeal to authority, "It's the consensus" every video. A NTSF is defined as Changing the definitions of a term to exclude a counter example, having a definition is not, by any means, a NTSF. If a group, as Christians do, has a basis of belief, those who go against, add or change that basis, are not considered a part of said group. That is not a fallacy, it is not changing the definition to exclude mormons, mormons were never in there to begin with.
"All vegans don't eat meat.
But I'm a vegan and I eat meat.
No true vegans eat meat."
That's apparently a NTSF according to Dan, however, according to people who passed a basic informal logic class and their professors, that's in no way a fallacy.
@@rockweirdo8147 Okay, you made SEVERAL incorrect statements in your comment… both about Dan and about logical fallacies.
1. Firstly, the way that you are defining appeal to authority fallacy is wrong… and Dan isn’t using it either. An appeal to authority fallacy is when one assumes the veracity of a statement because an authority figure said it. If I said, “This man is a doctor, so he is right about how there will never be a cure for cancer,” that is an appeal to authority fallacy. This argument is fallacious because doctors can be either unintentionally misinformed or blatantly misleading. However, representing a consensus that has proven to be demonstrably true is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Citing overwhelming, academic consensus, when proven through DEMONSTRABLE research that can be conducted at home, is not appealing to authority. Evangelicals misuse this fallacy all the time to attempt to make the case that people who believe in evolution due to the scientific data that supports it, are committing an appeal to authority fallacy, which is flat out wrong. Dan never states that a conclusion is true because research said so, in fact, he would rarely hear him say what he thinks is true at all. He just states what the overwhelming scholarly consensus says, and he debunks misinformation that is not supported by any data. Which brings me to my next point:
2. I’m sorry, but Dan DOESN’T list any sources??? Have you watched any of his videos? When discussing data, he always sites articles, books, and loads of research that you can look into to support his conclusions, just because it’s inconvenient for you to take the initiative to look into the evidence Dan presents doesn’t mean he doesn’t present any evidence.
3. “Imagine some aggressively nationalistic Scotsman settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of that shock-horror tabloid The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, ‘Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again.’ Our reader is, as he confidently expected, agreeably shocked: ‘No Scot would do such a thing!’ Yet the very next Sunday he finds in that same favorite source a report of the even more scandalous ongoings of Mr. Angus MacSporran in Aberdeen. … ‘No true Scotsman would do such a thing!’" - Antony Flew, coiner
Dan’s definition for a no true Scotsman fallacy checks out. A no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to defend a generalization of a certain group by EXCLUDING any counter-examples for not being "pure" enough, which is exactly what Dan stated in this video.
4. Your vegan example is a false equivalence to the argument about Christianity and Mormonism. Because the literal definition of a vegan is someone who doesn’t eat meat, whereas there are NO universally accepted bases of belief in the Christian community (which is HUGE by the way). We know this due to the fact that there are several translations of the Bible that contradict each other, there are several verses, stories, and conceptions of God in the Bible that contradict each other, there are several denominations of Christianity that teach completely different things from each other (which Dan LITERALLY states in this video), and the presupposed inerrancy of the Bible is a fairly recent theological discussion (which the data don’t support, I guess anyone who does a little bit of research with critical thinking isn’t a Christian by your logic?). So to make the case that one particular Christian denomination (Mormons in this case) is going against a fundamental basis of belief in Christianity is, from the get-go, prioritizing one theological belief over another, and is also presupposing biblical literalism, which again, is not a universally held belief among Christians. So who is the one who gets to decide what basis of beliefs is fundamental to Christianity?
I implore you to PLEASE represent your arguments with a little bit more critical thinking, and a little less preconceived notions about the person that you’re criticizing. Because pretty much ALL of the talking points that you presented in your argument contained glaring problems.
@@rockweirdo8147 Okay, you made SEVERAL incorrect statements in your comment… both about Dan and about logical fallacies.
1. Firstly, the way that you are defining appeal to authority fallacy is wrong… and Dan isn’t using it either. An appeal to authority fallacy is when one assumes the veracity of a statement because an authority figure said it. If I said, “This man is a doctor, so he is right about how there will never be a cure for cancer,” that is an appeal to authority fallacy. This argument is fallacious because doctors can be either unintentionally misinformed or blatantly misleading. However, representing a consensus that has proven to be demonstrably true is not an appeal to authority fallacy. Citing overwhelming, academic consensus, when proven through DEMONSTRABLE research that can be conducted at home, is not appealing to authority. Evangelicals misuse this fallacy all the time to attempt to make the case that people who believe in evolution due to the scientific data that supports it, are committing an appeal to authority fallacy, which is flat out wrong. Dan never states that a conclusion is true because research said so, in fact, he would rarely hear him say what he thinks is true at all. He just states what the overwhelming scholarly consensus says, and he debunks misinformation that is not supported by any data. Which brings me to my next point:
2. I’m sorry, but Dan DOESN’T list any sources??? Have you watched any of his videos? When discussing data, he always sites articles, books, and loads of research that you can look into to support his conclusions, just because it’s inconvenient for you to take the initiative to look into the evidence Dan presents doesn’t mean he doesn’t present any evidence.
“Imagine some aggressively nationalistic Scotsman settled down one Sunday morning with his customary copy of that shock-horror tabloid The News of the World. He reads the story under the headline, "Sidcup Sex Maniac Strikes Again." Our reader is, as he confidently expected, agreeably shocked: "No Scot would do such a thing!" Yet the very next Sunday he finds in that same favorite source a report of the even more scandalous ongoings of Mr. Angus MacSporran in Aberdeen. … "No true Scotsman would do such a thing!" - Antony Flew, coiner Dan’s definition for a no true Scotsman fallacy checks out. A no true Scotsman fallacy is an attempt to defend a generalization of a certain group by EXCLUDING any counter-examples for not being "pure" enough, which is exactly what Dan stated in this video.
3. Your vegan example is a false equivalence to the argument about Christianity and Mormonism. Because the literal definition of a vegan is someone who doesn’t eat meat, whereas there are NO universally accepted bases of belief in the Christian community (which is HUGE by the way). We know this due to the fact that there are several translations of the Bible that contradict each other, there are several verses, stories, and conceptions of God in the Bible that contradict each other, there are several denominations of Christianity that teach completely different things from each other (which Dan LITERALLY states in this video), and the presupposed inerrancy of the Bible is a fairly recent theological discussion (which the data don’t support, I guess anyone who does a little bit of research with critical thinking isn’t a Christian by your logic?). So to make the case that one particular Christian denomination (Mormons in this case) is going against a fundamental basis of belief in Christianity is, from the get-go, prioritizing one theological belief over another, and is also presupposing biblical literalism, which again, is not a universally held belief among Christians. So who is the one who gets to decide what basis of beliefs is fundamental to Christianity?
I implore you to PLEASE represent your arguments with a little bit more critical thinking, and a little less preconceived notions about the person that you’re criticizing. Because pretty much ALL of the talking points that you presented in your argument contained glaring problems.
IP has been getting kicked around alot lately by some heavyweights, Christians and atheists, but mostly because they are genuine scholars.
If this is an example of him getting "kicked around" I think MJ is doing more than fine against these so called "scholars"
czcams.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/video.html
@@gregogrady8027 lol
Dan is correct 👍🏾 I will add that white evangelicals are also worshipping their own creation and themselves
White evangelicals didn't formulate the historic Christian creeds. Those would be ancient brown Christians, and its their creeds that Dan is ignoring.
@@luthlexor123and who said we had to follow those ancient creeds? Dead people? They’re optional.
@@solidstorm6129 You don't have to follow them. But it's generally considered pretty rude to just change the agreed upon definitions set in place for thousands of years because you think words don't have meaning.
@@luthlexor123 considered rude by who? Are you aware that this religion and its practices have changed significantly since its start almost 2,000 years ago?
The ending is golden.
The fool loves ignorance.
The ending is smug and arrogant, which is telling bc he keeps the exact same level of arrogance on a topic he isn't an expert on.
The No True Christian fallacy is quite often used to describe those who deconvert from Christianity, asserting that they were never truly believers/Christians to begin with.
Yeah, what was Christ thinking when he rebuked the religious leaders of his day. Jesus obviously had no idea what the standards of following him would actually require.
@@gregogrady8027 He rebuked him according to his own standards, not exactly unique or impressive a move.
"hey, jesus disciples, this guy from youtube says you dont believe in Jesus'
Ok, I lost it when Dan turned around and goes "So there are three main fallacies here..." The sheer unmitigated shade.
Too bad Insipid Pedantry will never bother to learn anything about formal logic outside of reading the first blurb that comes up in an internet search.
Like the fact that his third example wasn't even a fallacy but instead an argumentative criticism? The fact people take Dan seriously as either a theologian or a philosophers is jaw dropping.
@@gregogrady8027Uh, he's neither of those things. You ok dude?
Brutal, necessary.
Aeon Skoble is a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute, a Canadian libertarian think tank. He has also worked with the Cato Institute. He also holds a a professorship in philosophy at Bridgewater State University.
Dan has no actual arguments that can hold up to actual philosophers and instead uses sophistry to argue with Jones. Jones called him out on this in his response video.
czcams.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/video.html
@@gregogrady8027Straight question: What philosophical credentials does Inspiring Philosophy have?
Better target. I approve
(I know you yearn for my approval)
Ok, im gonna say it. At some point, the boundary was set as dominations that adhere to the Apostle's or Nicene Creed as the litmus test for who is Christian. Thoughts?
*denominations d'oh
Who set that boundary? The murderers of Unitarians did.
The definition of Christian evolves with every new creed or council. Even the Catholic Church's definition of Christian changed with Vatican 2.
Hell, many evangelicals still don't think Catholics are true Christians.
The choice of Nicene is as arbitrary as any other. Anyone who claims to follow Jesus is a Christian. The real issue is who is a "saved" Christian -- who has salvation. But even some Nicene Christians will say their own members don't have "saving" faith ....
That's mostly just affirming the boundary set by the dominant group.
Even with the catholics and proto-catholics murdering anyone who disagreed with them, there were always people who didn't agree. You just don't hear about them because why would you? Speaking up meant persecution, real persecution, and possibly death. In the modern era, such people are shunned. Derided as crackpots and heretics. They might not necessarily face the same degree of violence but they are certainly ostracized by society.
Think about all of the tiny cults that pop up here and there using christian mythology as their template. Some, like the Mormons, held onto some of the dominant group's doctrines. Many others do not. For some people, Jesus was an alien in disguise. Nothing about the Nicene Creed really works under that model. Yet they call themselves christians or followers of Jesus all the same.
There is no boundary for any of this stuff, no agreement. This applies to the dominant group as well.
What does Bible god entail in the creed? Is everyone talking about the same entity? It would seem not since they can't agree on what Bible god did, does or wants to do. They can't even decide on its basic qualities.
That was set by people who wanted to exclude, and they inadvertently excluded early Christians including the apostles themselves. It's a silly definition.
They will know we are Christians by our love for one another.
Far more important is the love of God. We recognize each other by our love for one another but the foundation of Christianity is the relationship and love for God.
@@gregogrady8027 💯 Jesus talked about the two greatest commandments and love God was first but the second is like it, love your neighbor as yourself. I agree with you. I do however think we tend to under focus on the loving each other part if I had to critique.
@@gregogrady8027 also, my original comment was John 13:35.
“According to the philosopher,…… “No, I’m good!”😂
Ahhh, yes, Inspiring Philosophy. The guy who literally misunderstands every single logical fallacy but thinks he’s so brilliant.
He literally presents the definitions, examples, scholars and philosophers who agree with him. Dan presents nothing more than his own sophistry and arrogance.
@@gregogrady8027 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
No.
That TikTok guy, in short, demands that "his people" and "his people only" have the monopoly of the power to define "Christian."
His name is Michael Jones, and yeah he does that a ton.
Yep - and he probably has a list of things that his "all powerful god" can and can't do that doesn't even include defeating iron chariots.
No that is not what he is saying. he is just refuting that puting definitions of being a christian is commiting a no true scotsman fallacy. He actually says that other christian groups can define whta being a christian means as well. He's just saying tthat it isn't fallacious. Get your facts right.
He literally included all 4 branches of the church with clear definitions and logical presentation of those definitions.
Again, those definitions are NOT agreed upon by those who don't agree, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses. And then what? He then declares that those people are not "Christians."
If that's not monopoly of the power to define "Christians," what is?
Also, isn't this what Protestants, especially Evangelical Protestants, accuse the Catholic Church of and vice versa?
When Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses don't want to play that game, they are also unilaterally called "non-Christians."
Can you see the silly game that TikToker is playing?
I don’t know if I agree with Dan here. Although the word “arbitrary” may not appear in the No True Scotsman definition, it seems to me the “redrawing of the boundaries” is arbitrary in nature; that is, redrawing for arbitrary reasons and using arbitrary boundaries. At the end of the video, Dan even says the Christian boundaries IP sets are arbitrary. What am I missing here?
Dan, i would love to hear how you managed at TWU as a mormon. I graduated from there in 1988 and i am pretty sure many would have had an issue with mormons there.
Btw, i think you are brilliant.
He made a response to your response. The comments are nasty. They don’t even follow the rule IP set for them. They call you arrogant and condescending, and IP is your perfect foil.
The big claims are basically, you said words don’t have meaning, and you don’t know what the NTSF is. Others were just Mormon bashing
What is the NTSF?
Plus, it seems like IP's fans are coming to this comment section as well.
@@samuelvavia8920 no true Scotsman fallacy
@@DragonZlayerx12 Thanks! Can't believe I couldn't put two and two together, lol! 🙃😀
@@samuelvavia8920 Given your tastes in liking this channel, I'm not surprised you couldn't
Personally I'm okay if Inspiring Philosophy doesn't consider me a "real" or "true" Christian. 🤷♂
Edit- I just saw the list of supposed qualities IP thinks makes a Christian, it's kind of funny to think how most of the early Church weren't Christians apparently. God being Fully Man and Fully Divine, The Trinity, etc. This stuff wasn't hashed out til well into Christianity as an established faith. Kinda wild how IP gets to make sure he's in the in group on this, pretty convenient.
The best part with people like IP is telling them that they’re not a true Christian. That really throws them for a loop.
@@Rhewin I do find it fascinating that he apparently doesn't realize his rhetoric can be turned right back around on him. "Well you may think you are a true Christian, but true Christians are allowed to define the boundaries of our belief system and what we mean by the term Christian, and unfortunately you didn't make the cut."
I'm really interested: how far can you go with this? If a group, maybe a group similar to Unitarian Universalists, claimed to follow the teachings of Christ, but rejected Biblical inerrancy, the resurrection of Christ, the New Testament canon, the Divinity of Christ, the atonement, etc, but still considered themselves Christians, would Dan feel the same way? Would he feel that group should be included within the fold of Christians allowed to draw the boundaries? If not, how does he avoid committing this fallacy he's accusing IP of?
Dan would agree with them if it served his purposes. That seems to be the guiding principle in his content.
This guy pissed in my cornflakes when he so boldly called Bart Ehrman ignorant.
Well, to be fair, ehrman did make a contradiction about the massacre of the children even though it's clear Jesus wasn't a baby at the time.
Christian gatekeepers keep gates.
That's a thing now?
Apologists love quoting Flew cos he allegedly had a deathbed conversion in his dottage.
"Co-authored" a book about that, they say.
Pretty suss if you ask me.
/Great Diablocritics stream today.
I think he quoted Flew because Flew coined the term "No True Scotsman" in the 60s.
So mormons are Scottish. Okay
@MissMentats I'm lds, half scottish, and I put salt on my porridge. (Or porage ! ) Does that make me a "true scotsman" ? =oD
@@tezzerii I put Mormons in my porridge, I think this makes me Christian. Unsure
@@MissMentatsThou shalt not put mormons in thy porridge.
@@tezzerii I can put porridge in my Mormons?
@@MissMentatsAbsolutely ! with salt or sugar. =oD
Someone is standing up for us! Yay
My masters degree is in rhetoric and composition. Love it when you dismantle apologists ' fallacies.
I hear by declare all the horrible Evangelicals as "Not Christians!" It's true because I say so, and it makes me feel better to declare who is, and is not a "True Christian." 😂
IP is seriously overrated.
As a non demonination Christian i personally dont think anyone should be saying who or isn't a "real" "true" Christian. Never know you could die today and find out your beliefs were wrong.
Mormons believe they are gods... I think it's a safe bet to say they aren't Christians.
I thoroughly appreciate your channel and rigorous academic approach. From a spiritual side, it seems like so many Christians are trying to “claim” Jesus for their own, when I always understood that the point was for Him to claim us as His own. And frankly, whether or not someone else meets my definition of Christian (or whether or not I meet theirs) has absolutely no bearing on my personal faith/journey/salvation, so why would I even care??
Mormons believe in Jesus and practice communion. If they consider themselves Christians I would generally say, yeah they are.
Muslims "believe in Jesus" too. Are they Christian?
@@luthlexor123 Muslims don't have the practice of communion, so no.
@@luthlexor123Muslims don't identify as christian. So no.
Mormons also believe themselves to be God, directly in opposition to Jesus and His teachings, not to mention all the other contradictions of mormonism and the bible. Belief in Jesus and communion, doesn't make a Christian, and I've never heard anyone say it does.
@rockweirdo8147 I am not sure where you get that, since most people do consider Mormons to be Christians, and they also self identify as Christians. In fact, that was in the video, gave the stats from a poll on which groups consider them Christians, and clearly a lot of people do. Including themselves, who self identify as Christians.
You can't say they are not Christians just because what they believe contradicts the bible, since all Christians believe some things that contradicts the bible.
Holy crap. IP Michael being wrong and smug? My world is upside down and nothing makes sense any more
czcams.com/video/eSdiY43Yqtg/video.html
Better buckle up buttercup
Dan did great with this one 👏
Wouldn't he be special pleading here as well? Our "reasons" are really meaningful!
lol. IP just made a response in which he misunderstands what Dan said and doubles down on his insistence that he's the arbiter of what it means to be a Christian.
In typical fashion, his rebuttal just proved his guilt.
It's funny. He denies he's a Christian nationalist, but every time he opines about these issues, he seems to land squarely in line with them.
No he presented actual definitions and then explained those definitions using actual scholars and philosophers who agree with Jones.
@@gregogrady8027
The wording of your reply is unclear. It seems like you think I'm wrong, and so are defending IP. If that's the case -
nope. He doubled down on the no true scotsman fallacy by claiming again that there's an objective definition - despite Dan pointing out that he's simply wrong.
IP wrongly focused on the word 'arbitrary', because he thinks that anything other than his definition is arbitrary, and that his own defintion is not arbitrary. Dan pointed out that all definitions are arbitrary, so in that sense, the no true scotsman is an attempt to undermine someone else's definition and gatekeep it for his own purposes with his own assertions of what is entailed by that definition.
To put it simply.
IP - they're not Christians.
Dan says who?
IP - I do, because I made a list of what it means to be Christian.
Dan - you don't get to decide what's on the list, and here's why your list is incoherent.
IP - but I made a list of what it means to be Christian.
LOL...
@@bengreen171 "Dan pointed out that all definitions are arbitrary"
- All definitions are not arbitrary, they are descriptive, they can change, but they aren't arbitrary. Nor was any good reason given for that claim, it was just stated as fact, and the gullible were convinced.
If they are arbitrary, then every group includes everybody on earth, and if you say otherwise, you're committing a NTSF... Just in case I have to spell it out for you: that would make the NTSF and having words for people groups, all useless.
Also no, a NTSF is not gatekeeping a definition, that would be more aligned with an 'appeal to definitions' fallacy. However, IP did not say his was the only definition for a Christian, so that also falls flat.
So, yeah, Dan doesn't know what a NTSF is, even the man who coined the term, his definition disagreed with Dan.
@@rockweirdo8147
from wikipedia -
"The principle of semiotic arbitrariness refers to the idea that social convention is what imbues meaning to a given semiosis (any activity, conduct, or process that involves signs, including the production of meaning) or sign."
The point here is that any definition exists for a reason, and that reason is a non necessary one - a choice made by people and agreed to by a consensus of some degree, in order to fulfil some requirement in the communication of ideas and concepts. Yes, it is very useful for at least some definitions to be very concise and universally accepted, but this doesn't mean they aren't arbitrary. There is no logical law or natural law that says a definition must adhere to one objective principle.
The point here is that there are different senses of the word 'arbitrary', and IP doesn't seem to realise this.
"If they are arbitrary, then every group includes everybody on earth,"
That does not logically follow. Arbitrary does not mean 'non existent'.
"Also no, a NTSF is not gatekeeping a definition, that would be more aligned with an 'appeal to definitions'"
The NTSF is a form of appeal to definition.
"even the man who coined the term, his definition disagreed with Dan."
I'm betting you haven't actually read 'the man's' work. You should always be wary when IP shows you a snippet of some philosopher or Biblical expert. 9 times out of 10, further reading will expose a flaw in his argument. In this case, it's the use of the word arbitrary alluded to earlier. It turns out that IP doesn't understand the definition of the word as it is deployed in the example he gave.
"However, IP did not say his was the only definition for a Christian, so that also falls flat."
err - he pretty much did. That's literally his defence against the NTSF. He's claiming it's not an NTSF because he's using an 'objective definition.'
Just for convenience sake (so no one else has to give inspiring philosophy another view) here is the quote that Dan did not show at the end of the video:
"Say Bob claims to be a Christian, but frequently lies and betrays and kills. When asked, he reports that he does not believe in the divinity of Jesus, or even in God at all. So if Sam said "I dislike Christians, that Bob guy is just awful," and you replied "look, Bob just is not a Christian, so you're mistaken to dislike Christianity because you don't like Bob," would you be committing "no true Scotsman" fallacy? I think the answer is no. You are correct; Bob, despite calling himself Christian, is not one, and Sam is wrong both to take Bob as representative of Christianity and to dislike Christians on that basis."
Counter: Bob just recreated his one member branch of Christianity of Bobism
Oh my goodness. Thanks for sharing.
So if I say that all cats can meow, and you say what about mute cats, so I say that all cats that aren't mute can meow, is that the no true Scotsman fallacy? Because it seems to me like I'm just conceding your point...
Can someone explain to me what the deal with Skoble is? I'm not part of the inside joke here.
This video was so bad lol
Do better, IP gave you a lesson in logic which looks like you never took
What happened to not judging? This isn’t very Christlike of you.
@@Call_Me_Rio "judge with righteous judgment"
This video was objectively bad, it doesn't look like he even checked what he said "words don't have to have meaning" yes, yes they have to, or they are sounds and not words
This video wasn't something you would expect from a scholar, he should remain in his bubble instead of trying to address things he doesn't understand
Man. You are getting destroyed on these back and forth convos.
Instead of trying to debunk orthodox Christianity and then somehow include yourself at the same time (kind of a fools errand), you should try to defend Mormonism using your same standards that you are trying to debunk with. That would be a real hoot.
👏💪🔥✨
Probably the first time I've agreed with Dr Dan. IP got this wrong
No he didn't. Dan just doesn't know what a No true scotsman fallacy is.
"All vegans don't eat meat.
But I'm a vegan and I eat meat.
No true vegans eat meat."
That's apparently a NTSF according to Dan, however, according to people who passed a basic informal logic class and their professors, that's in no way a fallacy.
@@rockweirdo8147It is a fallacy. A vegan may eat meat at given circumstances. They generally don't eat meat, but sometimes social pressure weights too heavy in their minds. That doesn't make them not vegan.
@@howlrichard1028 - No, it's not. What was said, was not, "vegans are incapable of eating meat" it was, "vegans don't eat meat"
This is not a fallacy, as the definition of what is a vegan is not arbitrary, a vegan is literally a person who doesn't eat meat. Since it's not arbitrary, it's not a NTSF.
Occasionally eating meat when pressured, can disqualify someone from being a vegan, but regardless, that just means they are trying to be vegan and failing. The issue arises when trying to make these odd exceptions effect the rule, when they don't. Otherwise any group classification would be a NTSF, which is nonsense.