No one is guilty by association:

I just want to clear this up once and for all, seeing as it's been dragged into just about every thread in this forum.

From Wikipedia's "Reductio ad Hitlerum" thread:

This applies to anyone, not just Hitler, and is pretty frickin' obvious, frankly. It is illogical to simply assert a link between a person's religion and their behaviour without proving that such a link is causal rather than coincidental, just as it would be nonsensical to assert a link between anything else about a person and their behaviour without reason to believe that it was a direct result of it.

As a result, the assumption that two people who are Christian will both possess other identical traits as a consequence, without subsequent evidence to support a causal relationship, is irrational, disingenuous and foolish. It simply cannot be justified.

This is fact. There is no way, reason, or point to arguing with it.

Can we, like, pin this? I'm all for open discussion, but 90% of the threads in this forum stem from someone making this very basic logical fallacy, and while I suspect some of those responsible are fully aware of that fact and are just doing it to piss people off, it would at least mean that we could be sure.

 

oh yes, we all know how great a christian hitler was. If he thought he was doing gods work, why would they target catholics. Why did the nazis do so much research into the occult. THe crimes weren't done in the name of christ. they were done in the name of germany. He was a nationalist. not an evangelist.

 

shit, i typed that wrong. they targeted protestants not catholics, cause they opposed nationalism

 

I didn't forget, you've blithered on about it for long enough. It doesn't conflict with the OP though. I'm not willing to discuss Hitler though, as it's quite obviously not relevant. Read the OP again, you obviously didn't understand it, or you're trying to make an ass of yourself, one of the two.

Reductio ad Hitlerum says otherwise. No one with any intelligence thinks that the actions of Hitler or even George Dubya typify those of every Christian, because they understand the fallacy outlined in the OP. You either don't understand it, or willfully ignore it, but it doesn't matter. It "reflecting poorly" refers to public perception, rather than the religion itself, and thus doesn't prove a causal link, and is therefore coincidental and irrelevant.

 

Which book's that then?

You still don't understand. Yes, I have many things in common with Hitler. I have a moustache. I have male sexual organs. I like to dress up. Does this prove that all men with moustaches have overseen the genocide of 6 million Jews? No. Does it prove that everyone with a penis is evil because they have a penis? No, because there is no causal link demonstrated between the fact that Hitler had a penis and the fact that Hitler had a bunch of people killed. If there was, you would expect to see everyone with a penis killing people.

Hitler was a Christian. Cornelius Cardew was a Christian. Hitler oversaw the deaths of millions of people. Cardew didn't. If Christianity caused Hitler to oversee the deaths of millions of people, you would expect Cardew to have done the same. Cardew didn't.

And so on. Really, I'm not convinced that you're capable of understanding this if you don't get it by now. And I don't really care, to be honest. But I am glad that you have posted in this thread.

 

Went after some Catholic people too. Basically anyone who opposed his extreme nationalism or any of his policies...

 

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. If i'm found with someone's gun, it's not mine, i am guilty by association. By aiding and abetting a run away i am guilty by association. I take your point that Hitler doesn't represent every or any Christian.

 

Quite. Even if it is only coincidence that you have the person's gun, the gun is still linked to the crime, so it is discernibly different from sharing the same religion (not the same as sharing the same beliefs, btw).

 

Yeah, one little insignificant mention of Hitler caused this.

I didn't just start this about Hitler though. Your threads about Pastor Hagee and Fred Phelps all use the same logical fallacy.

 

Your last post is totally irrelevant to this thread.

 

What's next? "I'm rubber, you're glue"?

I would like to hear your opinions about the subject of the thread please. Ideally, if you could explain why you think "Reductio ad Hitlerum" doesn't apply to you, that'd be happytimes all round

 

Why would logic apply to you?

You got me there, bud!

 

And where might those be?
All I see are tons of inane ramblings posted by someone who is quite desperately trying to discredit Christianity for no reason at all other than pure spite.
And he's not doing a very good job of it, either. For indeed, I see a total absence of solid, believable facts.


OHEMGEE MYND VYRUSS!!!!!!!1111
LOLOLOLOL!!!!!1111

 

The only tears you make me shed are those of laughter and frustration.
... both at your stupidity.

Really, you should listen to yourself.
You say the Christians discredit themselves.
Well, you're doing the same thing to yourself.
over
and over
and over
and over
and over
again
and again....

Get the fuck over whatever bad experience you had in Christianity and try to live a more postive life. One filled with so much hate can hardly be rewarding. You're filled with so much negativity and it's just not good for you.
If you really, truly believe that something needs changed then you are going about it the wrong way. No one will ever listen to you if you continue to behave in this manner. You say Christians need to earn respect... but doesn's this apply to everyone? Obviously you have some message that you want to give to America (no matter how flawed... but that's another matter entirely). Well, if you want an audience, you have to show them some kind of respect or they will not listen.

Tis the way of the world....

And, please, no more of this "THEY HAVEN'T EARNED IT!!!!!!!111"

Neither have you.
Not in any way, shape, or form.

You have not earned it.

 

No, YOU don't get it.
I don't even think you're listening.
I know exactly what you're trying to get across, but believe me when I say that you are doing it the WRONG WAY.
And I don't give a fuck about your ratings. (Nor do I find that number very impressive to begin with... ) Also, the number of people listening says nothing about the number of them who buy into your shit.
You haven't explained ANYTHING. You post some weird bullshit theory and expect us to believe it no matter how shoddy it is. And you leave it at that. No elaboration, no willingness to listen or debate. Nothing. And you expect some kind of positive result. Someone to listen. Someone to believe you. Good luck.
You really, really don't get it.
You have it all wrong.
Wake up. You will never get ANYWHERE this way. No matter how impressive you think your ratings may be.

 

The point of the thread is obvious to anybody with any common sense, just because somebody shares some common traits with you, doesn't mean that you are the same.

If people are guilty by association, that means that all Americans and British people are responsible for the murders in Iraq?

 

Leave it to you to evade points again.
1200 is not impressive.
1200 compared to the world, the country, the state, the fucking town I live in is absolutely nothing.

BUT...
Taking someone seriously should NOT have anything to do with numbers but how they present themselves.
A lot of people listen to any given politician, but that says nothing on their credibility.
You are not presenting yourself in a way that demands respect.

 

Not really, no.

 

Well quite. If folk were actually willing to discuss it, they could talk about passive complicity as effectively condoning atrocities. But so far that's barely been raised, because apparently just slating everyone involved in the religion for being as bad as Hitler and probably definitely worse than Hitler is a lot more constructive.

I made this thread because barely a thread in this forum hasn't at some point resulted in a user raising the belief that one or more bad Christians proves that Christianity is bad. It doesn't seem to have done any good, as people are quite happy to make the very fallacy the thread was meant to point out within the thread itself.

 

Actually no, it couldn't be that. This isn't an opinion of mine, it's an established logical fallacy. These fallacies are identified so that cogent arguments can be made around them. If you make a logical fallacy, it does not prove that you are wrong; it just means you are failing to argue your point in a cogent way. If what you are arguing is true, you should be able to argue it without committing logical fallacies. But they really aren't negotiable. A logical fallacy cannot be "right" or "wrong" because these fallacies define right and wrong.