Chris Weimer

I disagree. A "movement" isn't defined by a particular set of beliefs, but of a varying range of beliefs. And nice of you to hand wave away the "legality" aspect of it. It's very relevant.

Consider this - while some Republicans (like the author of that book) see modern Republicans as different, other Republicans see themselves as part of the same movement - conservatism.

Catholics are still Catholic even if their mass is no longer in Latin.

I'm still Chris Weimer even though very little of me was present at birth, if any at all.

You have strange notions about "continuity" that is not supported by reality.

PS - Amaleq13 - we call what you're doing the "No True Scotsman Fallacy". Cheers.

Amaleq13

No, all one needs is logic and proficiency in English.

Yes, I am well aware of what I wrote. You seem to have missed the point, though, which was that despite all those superficial appearances of belonging to the movement, it seems ridiculous to suggest they truly do if they don't accept the core beliefs of the movement.

You would still call a person a Christian even if they did not accept the core beliefs of Christianity? They can reject the Crede of their faith but still be considered members of that faith?

That is simply absurd.

That you have ignored the most important part of my analogy only reinforces the notion that you have entirely missed the point. Would you still consider the person to be a part of the movement if you learned that they did not accept the core beliefs of that movement? And why didn't you answer that question the first time I asked it?

Then you are allowing them to create their own definition of the term which essentially renders the term meaningless. I prefer more rational discourse and I have found the shared use of a common dictionary to be helpful.

That is simply wrong. It does no such thing. You don't ask about something that is presupposed. Just look up the word, if you don't believe me.

I agree those would be poor ways to word the question. "Do you really accept the core beliefs of the party you claim to belong to?" or "How can you say you belong to a party when you don't accept its core beliefs?" are much better.

I thought I already asked you to support it but I can't believe you still think you'll find a historian or political scientist who will claim that either party has consistently represented the same core beliefs throughout history.

You think my point depends upon interpreting it literally? Is English not your first language? I've been assuming it was given your stated location but there may be some translation issues working here. I can't think of any other credible explanation.

Good thing my point doesn't require it to say that. Do you see where it says, several times, how the core beliefs of the party have changed significantly over time? That is my point.

Yes, the core beliefs have changed significantly over time and are changing back to be more like those of Lincoln's time. IOW, what defined "Republican" has changed over time. That's my point. You are looking right at it but failing to comprehend.

Your persistent denials certainly notwithstanding, what defines a party are the core beliefs for which it stands. When those core beliefs change significantly, the definition of that party necessarily changes even though the name remains the same. When the definition of an entity changes, you are necessarily dealing with a different entity regardless of the name.

This is an oxymoron since "changed" is essentially the opposite of "still being itself". The party has significantly changed the core beliefs for which it stands while still keeping the same name.

That also makes no sense. Humans change over time and that is certainly reflected in changes to their sense of identity. Maybe that is obvious to me only because I am psychologist but I thought it was apparent to everyone.

I'm not talking about preference. I'm noting that it is only based on a portion of the text in isolation from the context of the surrounding story. When the entire story is taken into account, the explanation falls short.

I never said the question was unreasonable. I just pointed out why the question was flawed. The "plain meaning" you offered is based on the passage taken in isolation but it is not so clear when taken in context.

Your examples do not help me understand what you mean by "organisational continuity". You don't actually define it anywhere in the post. You say one group lacks it and one doesn't but I'm not clear on what "it" is, exactly.

Why would you need to do this? The relevance of the identification seems crucial to your later claim indicating your actual positions to be irrelevant.

If they only want it for superficial identification, then the whole example is irrelevant.

If they want it to establish your political views, your actual views clearly would be relevant.

Amaleq13

You contend there is no core set of beliefs, among a "varying range of beliefs" one must accept in order be considered a Christian?

Not as far as I can see and you've said nothing to suggest otherwise.

The article points out how the definition of "conservative" has also changed over time so you seem to be missing the point.

Unless holding masses in Latin is a core Catholic belief, this fails to contradict my point.

You still have the same name but, if your psychological identity hasn't changed, I feel very sorry for you. Surely, you don't claim to be the same person you were even 10 years ago!!?

Only if you do not properly understand the nature of that logical error.

There is a significant difference between recognizing the change in the definition of a term over time and the ad hoc changing of a definition to avoid unwanted inclusions.

Chris Weimer

Yes, that is my contention. I see overlap, but nothing "core". And most social sciences, and this is especially clear with Judaism, back this up completely.

Here was the model I drew to illustrate this:

Group 1: ABCD
Group 2: BCDE
Group 3: CDEF
Group 4: DEFG
Group 5: EFGH

Like Christianity, no group is exactly the same, and while there is large overlaps with each group, group one and group five are totally different.

Look at Robert Price - he calls himself Christian, yet doesn't even believe in God. That's actually common enough, too. I know several "Christians' (especially Catholics) who don't believe in God, or believe in God but think Jesus was just a man, etc... All that is connecting the group is the label, and label is everything.

J-D had an excellent analogy already on the court and the membership card.

Things evolve - that doesn't mean that there isn't a continuity. If the whole movement evolves, those that are left behind either evolve too, or die out, or start their own movement, or exist within the movement while holding different opinions. It doesn't matter.

That's my point! No one would think "That guy isn't Chris Weimer", because I am Chris Weimer. I remember how I was 10 years ago - there wasn't ever a time I wasn't me. I may have evolved, but there is a clear continuity. I'm the same me I have always been. Legally. In the abstract. If I were not me, then I would not have my memories.

Gibberish.

Amaleq13

How about if we get more specific (eg Methodist, Lutheran) since that would be more relevant? No "core beliefs" required to qualify as a member?

Yes and I consider that to be an oxymoron that abuses the language.

No, he needs to provide more information to even make it relevant, let alone "excellent".

Things change - that doesn't mean that things don't stay the same?

When the changes involve core beliefs, it makes no sense to speak of "continuity".

"evolve too" = change core beliefs to match new definition

"start their own movement" = keep core beliefs and change name or keep old name and old definition

"exist within the movement while holding different core beliefs" = pretend to be a member when you aren't

What does it mean to "exist within the movement" if you don't share the core beliesf of the movement?

If you had changed sufficiently, one would certainly be justified in saying "That isn't the Christ Weimer I used to know".

Only in a superficial sense. How you define "me" certainly has changed over time. You haven't always been the "me" that you are today.

Same likes. Same dislikes. Same views. Same core beliefs. Same attitude. Please.

Your legal identity is not the same a your psychological identity and only the latter is relevant in this discussion.

That is simply a tautology but it is also wrong. You do not have the same memories. Our memories and interpretations of them change dramatically over time.

Wow, you really don't understand that fallacy. Ad hoc changing of definitions or ambiguous definitions are part of the reason it is an error. There is, within the context of this discussion, presumably nothing ambiguous or ad hoc about the core beliefs a movement establishes as fundamental to their existence.

Chris Weimer

Depends on the church. Some churches require membership, and thus require certain beliefs for that membership. Some churches don't. If people see themselves as Lutheran, they are free to call themselves whatever they wish. It's merely a title.

Well, thank goodness you're not the arbiter of the English language, or the final judge on who is Christian and who is not. I guess we can tell all those Jews who don't believe in God they're not real Jews either.

Perhaps you'd actually like to explain, instead of hand wave away?

Naughty little tactic you got here. Same != Same. You're using the word in two different ways. But nice try!

Why not? It's very rarely a clean break.

I can disagree with how my restaurant runs things, but I'm still employed by them.

EXACTLY that. Exactly what I said. Parlez-vous anglais?

Ah, but he's still Chris Weimer. (Apparently, from the way you all spell my name here, I'm also Christ Weimer, Chris Weimar, and Christ Weimar...but they all refer to a single person with a single continuity.)

The change is what's superficial.

No, some are different. I still don't like grape juice. But I'm still Chris Weimer. Ask my family if I'm their brother - funny how that doesn't change.

Oh? When was that limit placed? If you want to argue that I'm psychologically different than I was before, go right ahead, but that doesn't negate the fact that I'm still me.

I'm sorry, sir, you must be mistaken. I remember getting badly burned by a coffee pot when I was 3, so that I was taken to the emergency room and placed in a whirlpool. I also remember getting a good number of stitches (13) in my forehead when I was young, having struck my head on a rocking chair. I have the scars to prove it. If I wasn't me, then I wouldn't have the scars. If I wasn't the same person, I wouldn't have the scars.

Yes, there is. Yes there is. Prithee, what objective standard exists to define these groups? How can we scientifically find out what these objective standards are?

They don't exist. Movements are defined by the people that make them up. There are no laws of the universe which say "It has to be done this way.[/i]

I understand the fallacy quite well. I'm beginning to fear that you might not understand that movements aren't defined by nature.

French Prometheus

How did I forget that...

We don't only have a contemporay written account for Alexander's existence (in this case his death), but we even have the original document.



A diary of space and weather observations from the year 323-322 BC that records the death of Alexander the Great, referring to him simply as "The King". On display at the British Museum, London. (Wiki)

Amaleq13

Please provide an example of a church that has no core beliefs which serve to differentiate that church from others.

No, that is how one renders a title meaningless. Lutherans don't have a core set of beliefs that they publicly accept when they are confirmed as members? They don't have a core set of beliefs that they regularly reaffirm as central to their faith?

An "atheist Christian" is an oxymoron any way you slice it, Chris.

I already did in my response to him. Good attention to detail, Chris. Less time wasted on trying to appear clever and more time actually reading the thread might help avoid this embarrassment in the future.

It isn't my fault that your position requires you to rely on oxymorons.

What is "continuing" if the core beliefs have changed? Only the superficial descriptor of the name?

Working for a business does not appear to be analogous to becoming a member of a religious movement.

You can ask for explanations but you can't give them? Surely it can't be because you are unable to explain "exactly" what you mean but are compelled to <gasp> hand-wave my confusion away??!!?

If they simply "exist" within the movement but don't share the core beliefs of the members, then they are not members so much as some sort of weird loiterers.

Not with regard to his psychological identity.

That is unfortunate for you. Psychological stagnation rarely, if ever, results in happiness. No wonder you seem so crabby all the time!

Funny how that completely misses the point.

No, I'm just more informed about memory. That you don't seem to realize nothing you wrote suggests your recollections are, in fact, accurate only reinforces that observation. There is ample experimental data on the subject if you are interested in improving your knowledge of it.

Not "objective" but non-ambiguous. Not "standard" but "core beliefs". The core beliefs are those that members of a given religious sect hold as differentiating them from any other sect.

The "No True Scotsman" fallacy depends upon ambiguous and ad hoc definitions which have not been applied in this discussion.

Yes and how does one define a religious movement except by the uniquely identifying beliefs members hold?

Not well enough to know it isn't a factor in this discussion.

That you have this fear suggests you are not following the discussion well since I've never suggested any such notion.

Chris Weimer

Doug,

You've handwaved enough of my points without addressing them that I don't wish to discuss this.

Chris

Amaleq13

You haven't made any points, Chris. You've redefined some words into meaninglessness, incorrectly applied a logical fallacy, ignored direct questions, made unsubstantiated assertions or unexplained wise-ass comments (the rejection or ignoring of which somehow becomes "handwaving" in your mind), refused to explain yourself when asked, and apparently haven't really been keeping up with the discussion since you have yet to show you understand the point of it.

I do not understand how any sober and intelligent individual could argue against the notion that religions are uniquely identified by their tenets. :huh:

So I agree that continuing this "discussion" doesn't seem like a good use of my time. :wave: