Is it right to blame or discredit an entire group over the actions of one bad person from the group?

[Paulomycin]

They specifically noted about how the killer, Robert Aaron Long, was a Baptist who was involved with his church and very much committed to his faith.

With one massive exception, of course.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

You’re still using the no true Scotsman fallacy by saying Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t “true” Christians because their interpretation of the Trinity differs from mainstream Christians. Don’t you see it? You accused me of the type of fallacy that you yourself were engaging in.

It’s not a No True Scotsman fallacy if you give a reason to justify your definition, provided your definition is consistent.

 

[Sketcher]

Even though I’m a Christian, I sometimes read atheists blogs because I like to see what nonbelievers are writing and thinking about. It helps me to better understand what people whose beliefs (or rather non-beliefs) that differ from my own see the world.

Several of the atheist sites I visit with some regularity have reported on the recent spree shooter who gunned downed eight Asian massage ladies. They specifically noted about how the killer, Robert Aaron Long, was a Baptist who was involved with his church and very much committed to his faith. The bloggers, who are undoubtedly hostile towards religion, wanted to discredit Christianity by pointing out the religious background of the said spree shooter.

Thinking about this, I decided to post a thread about it. Namely, I want to raise the subject with this question: Is it ethically right to blame an entire group based on one bad person’s immoral actions from that group?

For example, let’s say a person from a certain race commits a heinous, violent crime. Would it be acceptable to blame an entire ethnic group because one person from that ethnic group committed a very terrible crime? Of course not! People would call the idea racist.

If a black American kills a white cop, everyone would say it is racist if a reporter, journalist, or blogger decided to castigate all black Americans over it. And rightfully so. Meanwhile, if a Baptist (or at least someone who claims to be Baptist) kills eight massage ladies in a horrific crime, these atheists bloggers seem to think it’s absolutely okay to imply that all of Christianity is bad based solely on the actions of one awful “Christian.” Do these people not see how unfair their thinking is?

They probably don't see it or don't care, one of the two.

 

[bèlla]

Atheists are usually more conversant in Christianity than believers. Many have read the bible from cover to cover. I doubt a lack of ignorance prohibits them from seeing its merits. It’s probably the people.

 

[Paulomycin]

Clarification for everybody: No True Scotsman only applies in cases without a prior warrant, like a rulebook or set of standards.

No True Scotsman

Exception: A revised claim going from universal to specific that does give an objective standard would not be fallacious.

 

[Fervent]

It depends on if what is being accused has some common ground with the group identity. For example, because Islam teaches violent jihad as a major tenet(sometimes called the "sixth pillar") it is fair to blame the group identity when an Islamist commits violent jihad.(Excluding Ahmadis, of course) If the Baptist church he is a part of is teaching a form of dominionism then it is possible for the actions to be linked with his group identity, though "Baptist" is such a varied cohort that it cannot be moved beyond his limited theological school. So yeah, if there is something in the group identity that has a link to the action it is not improper to hold all accountable for the actions of one.

 

[Fervent]

Atheists are usually more conversant in Christianity than believers. Many have read the bible from cover to cover. I doubt a lack of ignorance prohibits them from seeing its merits. It’s probably the people.

In my experience this is a myth. Atheists believe they know more, but they really only have a surface gloss and a handful of "gotcha" passages that some other atheist took out of context.

 

[Paulomycin]

Correction: Actually two massive exceptions. I just saw the news on this. Apparently, he blames the outlets for practicing his sin, and thought shooting it would take care of the problem, instead of realizing that he was the problem all along.

Thus, it's even more evident that this cat hasn't really heard the gospel in a very long time.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Even though I’m a Christian, I sometimes read atheists blogs because I like to see what nonbelievers are writing and thinking about. It helps me to better understand what people whose beliefs (or rather non-beliefs) that differ from my own see the world.

Several of the atheist sites I visit with some regularity have reported on the recent spree shooter who gunned downed eight Asian massage ladies. They specifically noted about how the killer, Robert Aaron Long, was a Baptist who was involved with his church and very much committed to his faith. The bloggers, who are undoubtedly hostile towards religion, wanted to discredit Christianity by pointing out the religious background of the said spree shooter.

Thinking about this, I decided to post a thread about it. Namely, I want to raise the subject with this question: Is it ethically right to blame an entire group based on one bad person’s immoral actions from that group?

For example, let’s say a person from a certain race commits a heinous, violent crime. Would it be acceptable to blame an entire ethnic group because one person from that ethnic group committed a very terrible crime? Of course not! People would call the idea racist.

If a black American kills a white cop, everyone would say it is racist if a reporter, journalist, or blogger decided to castigate all black Americans over it. And rightfully so. Meanwhile, if a Baptist (or at least someone who claims to be Baptist) kills eight massage ladies in a horrific crime, these atheists bloggers seem to think it’s absolutely okay to imply that all of Christianity is bad based solely on the actions of one awful “Christian.” Do these people not see how unfair their thinking is?

"Turn about is fair play". Ask if they are willing to defend the actions of all atheists.

 

[bèlla]

In my experience this is a myth. Atheists believe they know more, but they really only have a surface gloss and a handful of "gotcha" passages that some other atheist took out of context.

Atheists come from all walks of life. Many were reared in Christian homes.

 

[Fervent]

Atheists come from all walks of life. Many were reared in Christian homes.

I'm aware, and most of the ones who are and have the attitude they know so much just repeat stuff that is popular in churches but not necessarily Biblical. They rarely have the tools to exegete a passage, and think they know more than people who actually study the Bible because they got a gloss at Bible camp. Very few atheists I've met have actually chewed on the Biblical answers to questions, and some that I've had discussions with and presented Biblical arguments against have run out of objections at which point their pet sin comes out. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "Well...I'm not quitting smoking pot" after spending months in discussion with atheists.

 

[Petros2015]

so... what was the sermon topic on 3/14? Just curious.
Pretty sure it wasn't "go shoot up the spas or anything else that is tempting you" but somehow he reached that conclusion.

"Everybody thinks of changing the world, but nobody thinks about changing themselves" ~Tolstoy

 

[bèlla]

Very few atheists I've met

But that wasn’t the source of my response. And as someone who’s been on that side of things and ministered to others who fall outside the demographic you described; I’m aware differences exist.

People judge us by our actions. You don’t need in depth biblical knowledge to know a jerk when you see one.

 

[Jay Sea]

Jeshua inspired a Brother and Sisterhood not a religion. A religion, nation or tribal group is an administrative entity that should enable that brother-sister-hood. So any group entity may be condemned if it does not serve to enable and extend the Brother-sister-hood to all mankind.
In Love
Jay Sea

 

[Fervent]

But that wasn’t the source of my response. And as someone who’s been on that side of things and ministered to others who fall outside the demographic you described; I’m aware differences exist.

People judge us by our actions. You don’t need in depth biblical knowledge to know a jerk when you see one.

I feel like you just moved the goal posts on me since your initial post said "usually atheists are more conversant" and now you're limiting it to a sub group. To be conversant in Christianity means not only reading but understanding the Bible, and as so many of these atheists brag about reading "cover to cover" shows an important lack of understanding about the Bible itself since it's not a novel and most of its intertextuality is stratified. It's been my experience that the vast majority of atheists who claim religious knowledge don't truly have such knowledge and are dealing with a shallow Christianity rather than the gospel that is worth dying for.

 

[Occams Barber]

Posted in error

 

[Occams Barber]

Posted in error (again)

 

[Occams Barber]

Even though I’m a Christian, I sometimes read atheists blogs because I like to see what nonbelievers are writing and thinking about. It helps me to better understand what people whose beliefs (or rather non-beliefs) that differ from my own see the world.

Several of the atheist sites I visit with some regularity have reported on the recent spree shooter who gunned downed eight Asian massage ladies. They specifically noted about how the killer, Robert Aaron Long, was a Baptist who was involved with his church and very much committed to his faith. The bloggers, who are undoubtedly hostile towards religion, wanted to discredit Christianity by pointing out the religious background of the said spree shooter.

Thinking about this, I decided to post a thread about it. Namely, I want to raise the subject with this question: Is it ethically right to blame an entire group based on one bad person’s immoral actions from that group?

For example, let’s say a person from a certain race commits a heinous, violent crime. Would it be acceptable to blame an entire ethnic group because one person from that ethnic group committed a very terrible crime? Of course not! People would call the idea racist.

If a black American kills a white cop, everyone would say it is racist if a reporter, journalist, or blogger decided to castigate all black Americans over it. And rightfully so. Meanwhile, if a Baptist (or at least someone who claims to be Baptist) kills eight massage ladies in a horrific crime, these atheists bloggers seem to think it’s absolutely okay to imply that all of Christianity is bad based solely on the actions of one awful “Christian.” Do these people not see how unfair their thinking is?

Is it right to blame or discredit an entire group over the actions of one bad person from the group?

The short answer is - it all depends. There are a couple of factors to take into account

1. Has this particular action or similar actions happened before? If so it's reasonable to assume a common cause. Given a common cause look for a factor linking all cases of this behaviour.

2. Is the group to which the perpetrator belongs known for a negative attitude towards the victim group? Note that negative attitude doesn't necessarily mean just violence.

From experience in CF, I believe that the attitude of many Christians here creates an atmosphere which fosters intolerance. Whether it's misogyny or homosexual intolerance or trans-bad mouthing or anti-Semitism or racism or Muslim phobia - it all contributes to an atmosphere which tends to legitimise more extreme behaviour.

CF may be Christian but it's also a hotbed of intolerance and this Christian intolerance appears to be growing in the world beyond CF.

OB

 

[Paulomycin]

1. Has this particular action or similar actions happened before? If so it's reasonable to assume a common cause.

Sin.

Given a common cause look for a factor linking all cases of this behaviour.

You mean like guilt by association?

2. Is the group to which the perpetrator belongs known for a negative attitude towards the victim group? Note that negative attitude doesn't necessarily mean just violence.

What is this "negative attitude" based on?

From experience in CF, I believe that the attitude of many Christians here creates an atmosphere which fosters intolerance.

It's currently popular on the left to consider facts and logic a form of intolerance.

CF may be Christian but it's also a hotbed of intolerance and this Christian intolerance appears to be growing in the world beyond CF.

Whatever happened to, "Love the sinner; hate the sin?"

 

[Par5]

When I was in school and college, it seemed like the majority of educators were on the left side of politics. YECs are generally conservative-leaning and don’t fancy learning science or becoming teachers. Assuming things have stayed the same, I presume they’re still teaching science in science class.

My, there's a thing. Teaching science in a science class which is why they don't tech creation