Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Pat Robertson Would Be Gone Tomorrow If Christians Would Just...
Turn The Channel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_University
Regent University is a private coeducational interdenominational Christian university located in Virginia Beach, Virginia, United States. The university was founded by Pat Robertson in 1978 as Christian Broadcasting Network University, and changed its name to Regent University in 1989
a lot of christians voted for bush because he is a christian
Bush the christian hired a bunch of these guys to write and enforce the laws that WE All HAVE TO FOLLOW
According to Regent University, more than 150 of its graduates had been hired by the federal government during the George W. Bush presidency[41] including dozens in Bush's administration.[57] As it was previously rare for alumni to go into government, Boston Globe journalist Charlie Savage suggested that the appointment of Office of Personnel Management director Kay Coles James, the former dean of Regent's government school, caused this sharp increase in Regent alumni employed in the government.[41] An article about a Regent graduate who interviewed for a government position and Regent's low school rankings were cited as an example of the Bush administration hiring applicants with strong conservative credentials but weaker academic qualifications and less civil rights law experience than past candidates in the Civil Rights Division.[41] In addition to Savage, several other commentators made similar assertions.[42][58][59][60] The Washington Post contrasted the employment of Regent employees by Bush to the hiring practices of his successor Barack Obama who tended to select from higher secular colleges.
85 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
are taking so long to process. Its that black man's fault of course. 
So I wonder who is really keeping him on the air?
Welcome to DU, love your posts!
Check out the Atheists and Agnostics Group if you get too frustrated out here.
What does it have to do with the NTSF?
WOW, so just self-identifying as something automatically makes you that thing that you say you are?
Hmm, there is no litmus test that one has to pass before they really are what they say they are?
Hmm, there is no litmus test that one has to pass before they really are what they say they are?
Never said that; see straw man.
Great, so if I start self-identifying myself as a doctor and call myself a doctor, everyone will take me at my word that I am a doctor and I will be allowed to practice medicine?
Nope, you need to have a license to practice medicine; see false analogy
If I start identifying myself as an atheist and go out and commit horrible acts, then you will associate my horrible acts with the fact that I don't believe in religion?
All I will assume is that you don't believe in any gods; see association
See, just because some says they are something, just because some people accept they are something, does not automatically make the person representative of an entire religion or profession.
Never said that; so back to straw man.
Take Islam for an example.
The self-described extremist Muslims kill innocents because they believe that their religion permits it..
Then self-described moderate Muslims won't even accept that the extremists are real Muslims because they believe that Islam outlaws killing innocents.
So the question becomes which one of these groups is really adhering to Islam so that we can attribute their actions to the religion they follow? Is it the extremists that argue that killing is allowed, or is it the moderates that argue that killiing is not allowed?
The self-described extremist Muslims kill innocents because they believe that their religion permits it..
Then self-described moderate Muslims won't even accept that the extremists are real Muslims because they believe that Islam outlaws killing innocents.
So the question becomes which one of these groups is really adhering to Islam so that we can attribute their actions to the religion they follow? Is it the extremists that argue that killing is allowed, or is it the moderates that argue that killiing is not allowed?
Answer: both of them because it's not up to ME to decide which one is the Real Muslim™. They both believe their interpretation of their religious scripture is the correct one. See No True Scotsman:
With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use the No True Scotsman argument to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups, but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious - they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "religion of peace." Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association. The No True Scotsman fallacy can also run the other way when it comes to extremism. Extremists will make a religious statement and when someone points out that there are many believers who don't believe the extremist's viewpoint, the moderates are deemed to be not true believers (ie: Christians who support gay marriage are not "real Christians" or Muslims who support women's rights are not "real Muslims"
. Modern pagans do it all the time, perhaps even more than other religions, due to the fact that there is no agreed-on orthodoxy for the whole group, with some well-established practices in one setting being considered unpalatable in others. Silver Ravenwolf, one of the best selling "leaders" of neopagans, has done this with multiple ancient, well-established practices.
It's a tricky business, as being a member of a religious group, to the minds of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard of behavior. For example, charity can certainly be called an essentially Christian ethic, considering the emphasis that Jesus placed on it. The man himself would most definitely disavow the greedy and "What's mine is mine" mindset of many right-wingers who call themselves Christians. However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"; there's no rule saying they have to do it right.
So what you are saying is that because Pat Robertson self-identifies as a Christian, we have to take him at his word and believe that he is a Christian, with no litmus test as to what makes a real Christian.
The same applies to Muslim extremists, because they self-identify as Muslims then we have to take them at their word that they are Muslims with no litmus test as to what makes a real Muslim.
The same applies to Muslim extremists, because they self-identify as Muslims then we have to take them at their word that they are Muslims with no litmus test as to what makes a real Muslim.
Yes, reread the definition of No True Scotsman.
If all it took was self-identifying as something to be able to be viewed as something, then why can't I self-identify as a doctor and practice my own modified and warped view of medicine?
Because that's not all it takes to be a doctor, reread the definition of false analogy.
Similarly, if an already established doctor started to practice medicine in a hurtful way that is different to how medicine is practiced by nearly all doctors, then would you start arguing against all doctors and the medicine that they learn?
No, that would be guilt by association. It's also another false analogy.
After all, you are saying that extremists that distort their religion and practice it contrary to how the huge majority practice it are still considered to be part of that religion.
Yes, go back to No True Scotsman.
Did you even read the info on fallacies? I feel like I'm doing all the work here...
With respect to religion, the fallacy is well used, often even overused. Religious apologists will repeatedly try to use the No True Scotsman argument to distance themselves from more extreme or fundamentalist groups, but this does not prevent such extremists actually being religious - they themselves would certainly argue otherwise. Moderate Muslim leaders, for example, are well known for declaring Islamic extremists as "not true Muslims" as Islam is a "religion of peace." Similarly, moderate Christians, such as those in Europe, are sometimes aghast when viewing their fundamentalist counterparts in the US, immediately declaring them "not true Christians," even though they believe in the same God and get their belief system from the same book. Many of these statements stating that the extremists are not true believers are often used as a reaction against Guilt by Association. The No True Scotsman fallacy can also run the other way when it comes to extremism. Extremists will make a religious statement and when someone points out that there are many believers who don't believe the extremist's viewpoint, the moderates are deemed to be not true believers (ie: Christians who support gay marriage are not "real Christians" or Muslims who support women's rights are not "real Muslims"
. Modern pagans do it all the time, perhaps even more than other religions, due to the fact that there is no agreed-on orthodoxy for the whole group, with some well-established practices in one setting being considered unpalatable in others. Silver Ravenwolf, one of the best selling "leaders" of neopagans, has done this with multiple ancient, well-established practices.
It's a tricky business, as being a member of a religious group, to the minds of those involved, encompasses adhering to a certain standard of behavior. For example, charity can certainly be called an essentially Christian ethic, considering the emphasis that Jesus placed on it. The man himself would most definitely disavow the greedy and "What's mine is mine" mindset of many right-wingers who call themselves Christians. However, strictly speaking, a Christian is defined as "one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ"; there's no rule saying they have to do it right.
How can you tell the difference between actually religious people and not actually religious people?
Do you have id cards or a special secret handshake?
What credentials must one have to decide who's a Real Christian™?
Fascinating.
I am in awe of you.
Good thing you're around to make sure we know that christians aren't liars, power hungry opportunists or other bad things.
Those kinds of people are atheists.
Or maybe they're pastafarians or Cthulhu cultists.
But definitely not christians.
Got it.
which was Falwell's crap house. Bob McDonnell is the poster boy for Liberty's ethics - he fell well- can't wait for February 9 to see him off to the prison house. 
