Responding to Dan McClellan about the No True Scotsman fallacy

For those who are interested, at the video below I’ve demonstrated IP’s fundamental misunderstanding of both the fallacy & the scholarship they cite:

McClellan is committing the All True Scotsman fallacy. His misunderstanding of the No True Scotsman necessarily entails that literally everyone, everywhere is a Scotsman.

McClellan's pronouns in bio betray a mindset where you can claim inclusion into groups and demand the definition and criteria of said group must change to include you.

Hey! I was hoping for a rebuttal to Dan McClellan. Nice to see a more in-depth reply! Thanks Michael.

No True Scottsman, by definition, can only be used to on ideas with unclear/undefined guidelines. It can not be used against Christianity because Christianity has clear cut guidelines.

I almost choked when I got to the part where Dan in all his genius tries to refute “words have meaning.”

"No atheist believes in God." "Uncle Joe is an atheist and believes in God, and to say otherwise is to commit the No-True-Scotsman fallacy." Hey...if words don't need coherent meaning, this guy can't object.

Michael is right that Trinitarians aren’t committing the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy by defining “Christian” as someone who affirms the trinity, but Dan is right on the last point. Many Christians, including early Christians during the ministry of Jesus, wouldn’t be Christian according to the definition put forward by Trinitarians. For example, Origen and Tertullian believed in the subordination of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to the Father, instead of being coequal like the trinity model affirms.

Dan has half the internet (at least) blocked.

Can McClellan isn’t a respectable thinker. He has credentials but puts them to shame with all his bad post hoc arguments. I’ve already refuted him myself on an OT issue. All one has to do is read to put him to bed.