Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[oi_antz]

You haven't been paying attention and you have a habit of putting words in my mouth.

If you have followed my posts, you will see, I have made a serious attempt to determine the reliability of the claims made in the NT specifically. I have explained many times how I went about this and I do not find scripture to be a credible source of reality.

.. and besides, did you even read those quotes from the bible? They don't need to be verified, as they are philosophical statements. It doesn't matter who said them, for the purposes that I used them.

I'd quite like to know the answer to my question, because I reckon it is truly a "yes" - I reckon you are one who will reject statements that are in the bible simply because they are in the bible.

 

[oi_antz]

Are they still considered chips, if only imagined?

How come you encouraged this behaviour?

 

[HitchSlap]

How come you encouraged this behaviour?

I don't know what you mean.

 

[oi_antz]

An "accepted truth" is nothing more than an assumption, plain and simple.

Here, try this on for size:

We all accept the truth that reality exists.
We all accept the truth that we can learn some things about reality.
We all accept the truth falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

Does this make you feel better about your "accepted truths?"

Did I accept #3 in your opinion? I remember going over this with you, I thought I showed you that I didn't accept it as a given rule. That was only after you rephrased it though, seeing as I still do not understand the language used here.

 

[oi_antz]

Indeed, fallacious arguments can only get you so low. After that, you have to break out the shovels and start digging.

I am just here to watch you dig.

You are digging too though.

 

[Locutus]

.. I reckon you are one who will reject statements that are in the bible simply because they are in the bible.

While this isn't addressed to me, I'd like to ask a question.

Do you recommend we apply the same 'openness' (not automatically rejecting statements/claims etc) to the Bible that you apply to say, the Bhagavad Gita?

 

[oi_antz]

I don't know what you mean.

bhsmte was making fun of chrilliman, and you have encouraged that. I want to know why. I had placed you as one who was interested in promoting personal growth, rather than bullying. I can't see those two things as not being necessarily opposed.

 

[HitchSlap]

bhsmte was making fun of chrilliman, and you have encouraged that. I want to know why. I had placed you as one who was interested in promoting personal growth, rather than bullying. I can't see those two things as not being necessarily opposed.

Ok.

 

[HitchSlap]

Did I accept #3 in your opinion? I remember going over this with you, I thought I showed you that I didn't accept it as a given rule. That was only after you rephrased it though, seeing as I still do not understand the language used here.

It's my opinion that using falsifiable models of inquiry are better than those without. Otherwise, how would you know if you're wrong?

 

[Locutus]

I would have to dismiss much of what historians deem to be reliable accounts of historical events.

Historical records are cross referenced against independent contemporary sources. Especially when individual people and their activities are recorded. We accept things like harvest records etc because there would be no reason to falsify such things outright. Naturally, any 'records' of supernatural events require much more verification - as anyone who elects to adhere to just one religion understands (given they require the same verification of other supernatural claims).

 

[Locutus]

It's my opinion that using falsifiable models of inquiry are better than those without. Otherwise, how would you know if you're wrong?

The possibility of being wrong isn't part of the package. It's interesting that this fundamental difference between atheists and theists isn't more of a kicker to the latter. I've not yet met an atheist who'd refuse to believe gods existed if one actually turned up and made itself plain. I even know some atheists who actively participate in religious rituals and events, in the interests of giving the idea a chance.

I have yet to meet a (protestant) Christian who is anywhere near as open to the possibility of being wrong. In fact, every one I know is 100% certain they're right and everyone else is wrong. My own experience to be sure, but there it is.

 

[oi_antz]

legal procedures are designed to find the truth

if an eye witness is not available to provide their testimony in the flesh, they are not considered valid evidence.

These statements are contradictory.

 

[oi_antz]

Multiple eyewitness accounts of Banjo doing X is something I would have to consider in assessing the veracity of the claims made.

Even one would do!

 

[HitchSlap]

Even one would do!

Precisely!

 

[Neogaia777]

Could you give me Philosophy 101, or at least an introduction to Philosophy, in one, or a couple paragraphs please?

God Bless!

Where is the "ask a a Christian Philosopher anything" guy now?

 

[oi_antz]

While this isn't addressed to me, I'd like to ask a question.

Do you recommend we apply the same 'openness' (not automatically rejecting statements/claims etc) to the Bible that you apply to say, the Bhagavad Gita?

Yes, I do.

 

[oi_antz]

It's my opinion that using falsifiable models of inquiry are better than those without. Otherwise, how would you know if you're wrong?

Can you give me a definition for the phrase "falsifiable model of enquiry" and compare to a "non-falsifiable model of inquiry"?

 

[oi_antz]

I have yet to meet a (protestant) Christian who is anywhere near as open to the possibility of being wrong. In fact, every one I know is 100% certain they're right and everyone else is wrong. My own experience to be sure, but there it is.

I was one that would have come forward for this, until about two months ago. Repentance proves Christianity.

 

[oi_antz]

Precisely!

Even hearsay of one would do!

 

[oi_antz]

Where is the "ask a a Christian Philosopher anything" guy now?

+1. I would like to hear anonymous person's own thoughts formed to answer that question. Thanks.