Argument

No True Scotsman Charge Defeater

Intro

"You say the Crusaders weren't real Christians? That's the No True Scotsman fallacy. You're just moving the goalposts." This is one of the most common comebacks online whenever a Christian points out that a violent professed believer was not following Jesus.

The No True Scotsman fallacy is real, but it has a very specific shape. The original example: someone says "no Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge," another person says "my uncle Hamish is a Scotsman and he does," and the first person responds "well, no true Scotsman would." The fallacy is the made-up qualifier added on the spot to protect the claim.

Christianity does not work that way. The line between someone who claims Christ and someone who actually follows Christ is drawn by Jesus himself, in writing, two thousand years ago. "By their fruits you will know them" (Matt 7:16). "They went out from us, but they were not of us" (1 John 2:19). The standard is not invented after the Crusades; it predates the Crusades by over a thousand years.

So the test is simple. Are you adding a new criterion after the fact to escape a problem case (that is the fallacy), or are you citing a standard that was already there in the founding documents (that is not)? Christianity's grounding texts condemn the violence the New Atheists list. Soviet and Maoist atheism's grounding texts authorize the violence those regimes did. Apply the same rule both ways and the picture flips.

The quick reply in a live conversation: "No True Scotsman is when you invent a qualifier on the spot. Jesus' fruit test is in Matthew 7, written about 30 AD, around 1000 years before the Crusades. Citing it isn't moving the goalposts; the goalposts have been there the whole time."

In full

Defeater syllogism for the charge: "Christians say their faith doesn't justify violence, but the Crusades / Inquisition / 30 Years' War / KKK / clinic-bombings prove otherwise. The 'they weren't real Christians' defense is the No True Scotsman fallacy, ad-hoc redefinition to protect a generalization from counter-example." Deployed by Dawkins (The God Delusion, 2006, ch. 7), Hitchens (god is not Great, 2007, ch. 13-17), Harris (The End of Faith, 2004, ch. 3), Coyne (Faith vs Fact, 2015, ch. 2), Grayling (The God Argument, 2013, ch. 9).

The defeat structure is doctrinal-content distinction (NTS applies only to ad-hoc redefinition, not to invocation of pre-existing internal-doctrinal-standards) + NT-internal sociological-vs-theological distinction (the NT itself supplies the framework distinguishing nominal from real Christ-followers via Mt 7:16, 7:21; 1 Jn 2:19; 2 Tim 3:5; Titus 1:16) + symmetric application (the same atheist who deploys NTS against Christians defends an analogous "Stalin wasn't a true atheist" move; either both moves are fallacious or both legitimate when grounded in pre-existing internal content) + asymmetric outcome on Test 1 (Christianity's grounding documents condemn the cited acts; communist atheism's authorize the cited atrocities). The charge as commonly deployed conflates "true definition by doctrinal content" with "ad-hoc redefinition to escape counter-evidence"; properly distinguished, the Christian appeal to NT-internal standards is not NTS, while the atheist's analogous "no true atheist" move on Stalin / Mao IS.

Argument structure

Master objections to the whole argument

MO1: "Sociologically, Crusaders / Inquisitors / Westboro WERE Christians, they self-identified, were baptized, attended church. Saying they weren't 'real' Christians is moving the goalposts no matter what NT text you cite."

• The objection equivocates on two senses of "Christian." (a) Sociological / nominal, self-identifies, baptized, attends church. (b) Theological / fruit-bearing, life conformed to Christ's teaching. The NT explicitly distinguishes these (Mt 7:21; 1 Jn 2:19; Titus 1:16). When the apologist says "the Crusaders weren't real Christians," they're using sense (b), and they're using the NT's own pre-existing distinction. To call this NTS is to charge the NT itself with the fallacy, which begs the question against the NT as authoritative Christian text. (b) is not a redefinition of (a), it is a parallel category the NT establishes alongside (a). The atheist may object that the apologist is using sense (b) without flagging it; the apologist's response is to flag it explicitly: "by 'real Christians' I mean 'those whose lives bear Christ-following fruit,' which is the NT's own diagnostic."

MO2: "Even granting the NT distinction, you can't apply it from outside, only God knows hearts, so the apologist has no business claiming Crusaders weren't real Christians on theological grounds."

• The "only God knows hearts" point is true regarding individual-level certainty, but the NT explicitly authorizes pattern-level diagnostic (Mt 7:16: "by their fruits you shall know them", ginōskō, you WILL know them, present-active-indicative; 1 Cor 5:11-13: "anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy... do not even associate"). The NT both reserves final judgment to God AND requires the church to discern by visible fruit. The apologist isn't claiming individual-conversion certainty; they're applying the NT's pattern-diagnostic to historical acts that contradict explicit NT teaching. That's exactly what the NT calls believers to do.

MO3: "Some Christians did interpret Scripture to support the Crusades / slavery / Inquisition. Their reading was Christian, even if you reject it."

• The apologist's claim is not 'no Christian ever interpreted Scripture badly.' The claim is: "Christianity's grounding text, on its plain force, condemns these acts." Bad interpretation exists; the NT itself anticipates this (2 Pet 3:16, "the untaught and unstable distort... to their own destruction"). The NTS-charge requires that the cited atrocities be CONSISTENT with the worldview's foundational content; Test 1 establishes that Christianity's foundational content condemns them, so even if some interpreters claimed otherwise, the worldview's grounding text does the work. By contrast, when communist atheist regimes pursued class-warfare elimination, their grounding text (Marx, Lenin) did NOT condemn but authorized. The asymmetry is in the foundational text, not in the existence of self-styled adherents.

MO4: "The Mt 7 'fruit' diagnostic itself is just NTS in slow-motion, Christ is defining 'real Christian' to exclude bad-fruit-bearers."

• No, Mt 7:16 is not redefinition; it is the founding-text definition. NTS requires post-hoc invention of a property. Christ's diagnostic was published in the constitutional document of the Christian community at its founding (1st century AD), centuries before the Crusades, the Inquisition, or any modern atrocity-list raising the question. The "fruit" criterion was the standard from the start. To call the Mt 7:16 diagnostic NTS is to misuse the fallacy: NTS demands AD-HOC redefinition (post-hoc, convenient narrowing); Mt 7:16 is the original definition. Only the atheist's "no true atheist" move on Stalin meets the post-hoc criterion (Marx + Lenin do not contain class-warfare-condemning principles applied to Stalin only ad hoc when 20th-c. body-count was raised in apologetic discourse).

Premise 1, Definitional content of NTS as informal fallacy

Affirmative case

1. Standard informal-logic taxonomy. Walton Informal Logic 2008 (Cambridge) defines NTS as a species of ad-hoc rescue, modifying a generalization's terms after counter-evidence to preserve unfalsifiability. Hurley A Concise Introduction to Logic (Cengage, 2016) places it in the broader fallacy-of-equivocation family with the post-hoc-redefinition diagnostic.
2. The diagnostic features are concrete. (i) Pre-existing definitional silence (the property was not part of the term's definition before); (ii) post-hoc invention (the property is added after the counter-example surfaces); (iii) convenient narrowing (the redefinition excludes exactly the counter-example, no more, no less).
3. The textbook "Scotsman" example works because the term is arbitrary. "Scotsman" has no antecedent ethical-doctrinal content beyond "person from Scotland." There is no standing rule "Scotsmen don't sugar their porridge", the rule is invented to handle Hamish. The fallacy bites because the redefinition is ungrounded.

Anticipated objections

1. "You're inflating NTS into a strict diagnostic when in popular use it just means 'you're being inconsistent about who counts.'"

Rebuttals

1. Popular usage is loose, but the formal fallacy has an actual logical structure. When deployed in serious apologetic debate as a fallacy charge, NTS carries the weight of the formal diagnostic. The apologist who challenges the charge is entitled to the formal diagnostic. If the atheist retreats from "your move is the NTS fallacy" to "you're being inconsistent," that's a different and weaker charge, one that can be answered on consistency grounds (Test 2: was the standard cited before the counter-example, or only after?). Loosening NTS to "any time someone says 'no true X'" makes the charge unfalsifiable in the same way the original Scottish version was.

Premise 2, Doctrinal-content distinction

Affirmative case

1. Christianity's grounding documents pre-exist the counter-examples. The Sermon on the Mount (Mt 5-7) was written in the 1st century. The Crusades begin in 1095 (~1060 years later). The Inquisition's medieval form solidifies in the 13th century (~1200 years later). Modern atrocity-lists (KKK, Westboro, clinic-bombings) are 19th-21st century (~1800-2000 years later). The standard "love your enemies" antedates all the counter-examples by a millennium or more.
2. The Sermon on the Mount and related passages explicitly condemn the cited acts. Mt 5:9, "blessed are the peacemakers"; Mt 5:43-48, "love your enemies"; Lk 6:27-35, same; Mt 26:52, "all who take the sword will perish by the sword"; Lk 23:34, "Father, forgive them"; Eph 6:17, "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God" (the Christian's only "sword" is the word, not literal weaponry); 1 Tim 1:10, anti-trafficking command including slave-traders. The standards pre-exist and explicitly condemn.
3. The doctrinal-content test is symmetric. Apply the same test to communist atheism: do Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao contain pre-existing principles condemning Stalin's gulags or the Cultural Revolution? On the contrary, Marx's Communist Manifesto (1848) and Capital (1867); Lenin's State and Revolution (1917); the Decrees on Separation of Church and State (1917-1922); Stalin's 1936 USSR Constitution Article 124. The grounding documents AUTHORIZE class-warfare violence + religious-institutional eradication. Communist atheism fails Test 1.

Anticipated objections

1. "The Sermon on the Mount is just one passage. Other passages, Joshua's conquest, the imprecatory psalms, the stoning of Achan, could justify Crusade-like violence."

Rebuttals

1. The objection misframes Christianity's hermeneutic. Christianity's interpretive tradition treats the OT through the Christ-fulfillment lens (Mt 5:17, "I have not come to abolish but to fulfill"; Heb 1:1-2; Lk 24:27, 44). The Mosaic-theocratic framework (Joshua's conquest, Achan, etc.) was constituted in a specific covenantal-political context that the NT explicitly supersedes (Heb 8:13, "the new covenant... has made the first obsolete"). Christian ethical teaching after Christ runs through Christ's own example and command, and Christ's response to enemy-violence is forgiveness from the cross. The Crusader who appeals to Joshua to justify killing Muslims is reading against the NT's hermeneutical framework. See OT vs NT God Objection / OT Atrocities Descriptive vs Prescriptive Objection for the broader treatment. Christianity's grounding text, properly read, condemns the cited acts.

Premise 3, NT-internal sociological-vs-theological distinction

Affirmative case

1. Mt 7:15-23, Christ's own diagnostic. "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits"; "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father." Christ Himself distinguishes those who SAY Lord-Lord from those who DO the Father's will.
2. Mt 13:24-30, wheat and tares. The visible church contains both; sorting belongs to the eschaton, not to human discernment. Augustine City of God 1.35 develops this into the corpus permixtum doctrine. The visible-church-includes-tares pattern means "everyone in the church is a real Christian" was never a Christian claim.
3. 1 Jn 2:19, the Johannine community. "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." Explicit distinction between sociological and real membership.
4. 2 Tim 3:5, Pauline. "Having a form of godliness, but denying its power; avoid these as well." The form / power distinction is the NT's own framework.
5. Titus 1:16, Pauline. "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny him." Deeds-as-diagnostic.
6. The framework is canonical and ancient. All these texts are 1st-century, accepted across all branches of historic Christianity (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant). The distinction is not modern apologetic invention.

Anticipated objections

1. "This is selective NT use, you're cherry-picking the texts that support your move."

Rebuttals

1. The texts are central to the NT's ecclesiology, not peripheral. The Sermon on the Mount is foundational; the parable of the wheat and the tares is in the parable cluster all four Gospels accept; 1 Jn 2:19 is at the heart of the Johannine letter; Mt 7:21 is one of the most-quoted passages on judgment in the entire NT. These aren't selected, they ARE the NT framework. To call them cherry-picking is to charge the NT's own authors with cherry-picking themselves. The framework is ubiquitous: 1 Cor 6:9-11 (warns those who continue in unrepentant sin will not inherit the kingdom; distinguishes washing/sanctification from continued participation); Heb 6:4-6 + 10:26-31; Jas 2:14-26 (faith-without-works distinction); 2 Pet 2 (false teachers within the visible church). The NT is wall-to-wall this distinction.

Premise 4, Symmetric application

Affirmative case

1. Atheist defenders make the symmetric move on Stalin. When 20th-century atheist-state body-count is raised (Stalin 6-20M, Mao 40-65M, Pol Pot 1.5-2M, Hoxha religion-ban-Albania, Kim concentration camps), common atheist responses include: "Stalin's regime was actually religious / pseudo-religious, not atheist"; "communism is a religion-substitute, not pure atheism"; "Stalin's atheism wasn't doing the motivating work, it was Marxist class-warfare ideology"; "no true atheist would commit those atrocities; atheism doesn't have content to motivate violence." This is structurally identical to "no true Christian" applied to Crusaders.
2. Either the principle applies to both, or to neither. Symmetric application means the same logical move can't be NTS for one worldview and legitimate for another. The atheist who charges NTS against Christians is committed (by consistency) to charging NTS against fellow atheists' "no true atheist" move on Stalin.
3. The Christian apologist's counter-deployment is logically consistent. "If your principle holds, then 'no true atheist' on Stalin is also NTS, and you've conceded the body-count problem. If your principle doesn't hold (because doctrinal content matters), then 'no true Christian' on Crusaders is not NTS either, and the doctrinal-content test settles which worldview's atrocities are deviations vs applications."

Anticipated objections

1. "Atheism doesn't have grounding documents the way Christianity does, so the symmetric application doesn't work."

Rebuttals

1. This is empirically false in the relevant cases. Stalin / Mao / Pol Pot / Hoxha / Kim were NOT generic non-religious people, they were committed Marxist-Leninists (Stalin / Mao) or Marxist-Leninist-Maoists (Pol Pot) or doctrinaire communists (Hoxha / Kim). Marxism-Leninism IS a grounding-document tradition (Marx Capital 1867; Engels; Lenin State and Revolution 1917; What Is to Be Done? 1902; Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism 1916; Mao On Contradiction 1937, On Practice 1937). It explicitly contains atheism (religion as opium of the people; the Decrees on Separation of Church and State; mandatory atheist education) AND class-warfare violence (dictatorship-of-the-proletariat; the necessity of revolution; kulak liquidation; permanent revolution). The grounding documents authorize the actions taken. (Stephen Kotkin's three-volume Stalin biography documents Stalin's continuous Marxist-textual commitment and the Marxist-textual grounding for the gulag system, Stalin: Paradoxes of Power 1878-1928 + Waiting for Hitler 1929-1941 + forthcoming third volume.) Even if one wanted to insulate "pure atheism" from Marxism-Leninism, the regimes that produced 20th-c. body-count were explicitly Marxist-Leninist-atheist; the move "but they weren't TRULY atheist" requires showing they weren't truly Marxist-Leninist either, which is historically untenable.

Premise 5, Test-1 asymmetric outcome

Affirmative case

1. Christianity's grounding documents condemn the cited acts. Already established in P2.
2. Communist atheism's grounding documents authorize the cited atrocities. Marx + Engels framed religion as opium of the people that must be uprooted (Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right 1844, intro). Lenin extended this to active state-suppression (State and Revolution 1917; the 1917 Decree on Land confiscating church property; the 1918 Decree on Separation of Church and State; the 1922 trials of Orthodox clergy). Stalin operationalized these into the gulag system (~6-20M deaths) and the 1932-33 Holodomor (~3-7M deaths) per Kotkin's documentation. Mao's Cultural Revolution explicitly targeted the "Four Olds" (old customs, old culture, old habits, old ideas) including all religion (Frank Dikötter, The Cultural Revolution, 2016: ~1-2M deaths in the Cultural Revolution; ~30-45M total Mao body-count counting the Great Leap Forward and Great Famine). Pol Pot's Year Zero was the most extreme application. Hoxha's Albania closed all 2,169 churches and mosques in 1967, declaring Albania "the world's first atheist state", directly in Marxist-Leninist tradition.
3. The asymmetric outcome is not a smear. It is the symmetric application of the SAME doctrinal-content test that exonerates Christianity from the NTS charge, applied consistently, the same test indicts communist atheism. The Christian counter-deployment is not poor sportsmanship; it is the demanded consistency of the logical principle the atheist invoked first.

Anticipated objections

1. "You're equating 'atheism' with 'communist atheism.' Pure atheism doesn't entail communism, there are atheist liberals, atheist libertarians, atheist humanists, etc."

Rebuttals

1. AGREED, and that is precisely the point. The Christian counter-NTS-deployment doesn't claim "all atheism leads to gulags." It claims: "When YOUR cited counter-examples come from a worldview tradition (Marxist-Leninist atheism) whose grounding documents authorize what was done, the NTS charge against THAT tradition fails the doctrinal-content test." Compare: the Christian doesn't claim "all critics of Christianity are committed to atheist regimes' atrocities." We're working out the symmetric logical principle. (a) Atheism in general has no single grounding document, so the move "no true atheist did X" needs to specify which atheist tradition. (b) For the atheist traditions that DID produce mass atrocity (Marxism-Leninism), the grounding documents authorize, not condemn. (c) Christianity, as a single specific tradition with explicit grounding documents (NT, creeds), survives Test 1; communist atheism does not. The asymmetric outcome holds even if other atheist traditions (humanist atheism, liberal atheism) are not in the same evidential position. The original NTS charge against Christianity, however, is not saved by appealing to humanist-atheist traditions Stalin had no part in.

Connection to Scripture

• Matthew 7:15-23, "By their fruits you will know them"; "Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father." Christ's own sociological-vs-theological diagnostic, central to the Sermon on the Mount.
• Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43, Parable of the wheat and the tares; the visible church contains both; sorting at the eschaton, not by human ad-hoc-redefinition.
• Matthew 26:51-54, Peter strikes with the sword; Christ rebukes: "Put your sword back in its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword." Pre-existing, internal-text condemnation of Crusader-pattern violence.
• Luke 6:27-36, Love-of-enemies command. The Christian standard from the founding text.
• Luke 23:34, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." Christ's response to enemy-violence at the cross.
• John 13:34-35, "By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." The publicly-visible diagnostic of real Christian-ness.
• 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us." Explicit NT-internal sociological-vs-theological distinction.
• 2 Timothy 3:5, "Having a form of godliness, but denying its power." The form / power diagnostic.
• Titus 1:16, "They profess to know God, but by their deeds they deny him." Deeds-as-diagnostic.
• James 2:14-26, Faith without works is dead. The NT itself frames the question of nominal vs real adherence.

Patristic / scholarly note

Augustine City of God 1.35 (c. AD 426) develops the corpus permixtum doctrine: the visible church contains both wheat and tares; "many who appear without are within, and many who appear within are without." This explicitly pre-Nicene-Constantinian framework underwrites the apologist's appeal to NT-internal distinction, Christianity has always taught that visible-church membership does not equate to real Christ-following.

Modern: David Bentley Hart Atheist Delusions 2009 (the historical-asymmetric-standard critique); Tom Holland Dominion 2019 (secular-historian's case that the moral standards by which the Crusades are judged are themselves Christian inheritances); Edward Feser The Last Superstition 2008; John Lennox Gunning for God 2011; Vincent Carroll & David Shiflett Christianity on Trial 2002; Stephen Kotkin's three-volume Stalin biography (Penguin 2014, 2017); Frank Dikötter Mao's Great Famine 2010 + The Cultural Revolution 2016; Anne Applebaum Gulag 2003 + Red Famine 2017.

Live-cite kit

Scripture (3):

• Matthew 7:21, "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of My Father who is in heaven", Christ's own pre-existing distinction between nominal and real
• Matthew 26:52, "Put your sword back in its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword", pre-existing 1st-century internal-text condemnation of Crusader-pattern violence
• 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us", NT-internal sociological-vs-theological distinction in explicit form

Scholarly:

• Walton, Informal Logic 2008: NTS is a species of ad-hoc rescue, modifying generalization terms after counter-evidence. The diagnostic requires post-hoc, convenient, silent narrowing.
• Hart, Atheist Delusions 2009: New Atheist polemics depend on a moral framework that is itself a Christian inheritance, what they cite as "Christian atrocities" are atrocities BY Christian moral standards, which atheism cannot supply.
• Holland, Dominion 2019: The very impulse to condemn Crusader violence is a Christian moral inheritance; the Crusades' deviation from Christ's teaching is internal to the framework, not an atheist discovery.
• Kotkin, Stalin (3 vols., Penguin 2014, 2017, forthcoming): Stalin's continuous Marxist-Leninist-atheist commitment; the Marxist-textual grounding of the gulag system; the regime's atheism was foundational to its self-understanding, not incidental.

Aphorism:

• "NTS applies to ad-hoc redefinition without pre-existing content. Christianity has 2000 years of explicit teaching condemning the Crusades. The apologist citing Mt 26:52 isn't redefining 'Christian', he's quoting Christ."
• "Apply your principle consistently. If 'no true Christian' on the Crusades is NTS, then 'no true atheist' on Stalin is too. Pick a lane, or apply the doctrinal-content test and notice the asymmetric outcome."
• "Christianity's grounding documents condemn the cited atrocities; communist atheism's grounding documents authorized them. The atrocities are deviations from Christianity and applications of Marxism-Leninism. That's not name-calling; it's the doctrinal-content test."

Tactical notes

• Order of deployment. Lead with the doctrinal-content distinction (P1+P2), most objectors haven't engaged this; NTS in the textbook applies to terms without pre-existing content. Pivot to NT-internal sociological-vs-theological distinction (P3), Mt 7:21; 1 Jn 2:19; Christ Himself draws the line. Force-commit on symmetric application (P4), "apply your principle consistently. Why does it apply to my Christianity but not your Marxist-Leninist atheism?" Close with Test-1 asymmetric outcome (P5), Christianity's grounding text condemns; communist atheism's grounding text authorizes.
• Force-commit move. "You're charging NTS. Apply the principle consistently. When 'Stalin wasn't a true atheist' is offered, is THAT NTS? If yes, the body-count problem stands. If no, you concede that doctrinal content matters, and Christianity's doctrinal content explicitly condemns the Crusades 1100 years before they happened. Pick one."
• Cite Mt 26:52 (Christ rebuking Peter's sword) as the killer pre-existing text. This is hard to evade, Christ's response to defensive violence on his behalf is "put away your sword."
• What NOT to defend. "No Christian has ever done wrong" (the strawman version of the Christian claim, concede openly that real Christians sin); "the Crusades were actually justified" (concedes the atheist's premise); "Stalin's gulags were Christian / Christian-influenced" (false and distasteful).
• Deflection patterns. (a) "Doctrinal content doesn't really exist; people interpret texts however they want" → cuts back: every text has plain-force readings; the Sermon on the Mount's plain force is anti-violence; if all readings are equal, communism's grounding text is also up for grabs; (b) "Christianity's bad-fruit is too widespread to dismiss" → engage the simul-iustus-et-peccator + visible-church-corpus-permixtum framework; not all in the visible church are real disciples (Mt 13:24-30; Mt 7:21); (c) "But the Mosaic-theocratic OT authorized violence" → engage the Christ-fulfillment hermeneutic (Mt 5:17; Heb 8:13; the NT's covenantal-supersession framework). See OT Atrocities Descriptive vs Prescriptive Objection.
• Pastoral pivot. "You're right that bad behavior happens within Christian institutions, Christ Himself said it would (Mt 13:24-30: wheat and tares grow together). The question for the moral comparison is whether the worldview's grounding text condemns the behavior or authorizes it. Christianity's text condemns; communist atheism's authorizes. That asymmetry is what makes the moral comparison go the way it does, not name-calling, just the actual doctrinal content."

See also

• No True Scotsman Fallacy, concept hub with broader philosophical-rhetorical-historical treatment
• Christians Behaving Badly / Christians Behaving Badly Defeater, sister concept + syllogism on the broader objection cluster
• Atheist Regime Body Count, sociological-historical hub on 20th-c. atheist-state mass killings
• Religion Causes Violence Objection / Religion Causes Violence Objection Defeater, sister New-Atheist trope
• New Atheism, entity hub on the Dawkins-Harris-Hitchens-Dennett movement
• Atheism, master hub
• Faith is Belief Without Evidence Objection / Faith is Belief Without Evidence Objection Defeater, equivocation-defeater pattern
• God of the Gaps / God of the Gaps Objection Defeater, sister informal-fallacy-charge defeater
• OT Atrocities Descriptive vs Prescriptive Objection, relevant for the Joshua-conquest objection
• Christian God is the Only True God, comparative-cumulative case syllogism
• Arguments, master index