christian apologist
-
I heard this term from richard darkwin.
i feel that they are trying hard to see things and reconcile things so that they can understand what the bible is truly and really trying to say.
What they are doing is to assume the bible god is true and try to prove that how it is true contrary to what atheist have said.
I feel that it is a futile effort on their part. -
We can turn to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apologist -
In this case, we will have to define what truth is, then. Again, opinion. Opinion is not fact.
-
Your argument seems to be there is no such thing as truth. Or there is nothing that can be said to be true.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:In this case, we will have to define what truth is, then. Again, opinion. Opinion is not fact. -
When they try, u say futileOriginally posted by january:I heard this term from richard darkwin.
i feel that they are trying hard to see things and reconcile things so that they can understand what the bible is truly and really trying to say.
What they are doing is to assume the bible god is true and try to prove that how it is true contrary to what atheist have said.
I feel that it is a futile effort on their part.
When they dun try, u say blind faith. -
u trying to say the bible is fake?
-
I think there were a few times where you've asked how facts can be defined, or something like that. And that kinda stumped me and luck has it, I stumbled upon this gem. This following excerpt is from the book Stumbling on Happiness by Daniel Gilbert.Originally posted by SturmDerSchatten:In this case, we will have to define what truth is, then. Again, opinion. Opinion is not fact....Although the word fact seems to suggest a sort of unquestionable irrefutability, facts are actually nothing more than conjectures that have met a high standard of proof. If we set the standard high enough, then nothing can ever be proved, including the "fact" of our own existence. If we set the standard low enough, then all things are true and equally so. Because nihilism and postmodernism are both such unsatisfying philosophies, we tend to set our standard of proof somewhere in the middle. No one can say precisely where that standard should be set, but one thing we do know is that wherever we set it, we must keep it in the same place when we evaluate the facts we favor and the facts we don't. It would be unfair for teachers to give the students they like easier exams than those they dislike, ...
Does it shed any light on the definition of facts, or anything? -
What is your point ?
-
sounds like an euphemism for spin-doctor...am i right?
-
the truth is what works
-
...Although the word fact seems to suggest a sort of unquestionable irrefutability, facts are actually nothing more than conjectures that have met a high standard of proof. If we set the standard high enough, then nothing can ever be proved, including the "fact" of our own existence. If we set the standard low enough, then all things are true and equally so. Because nihilism and postmodernism are both such unsatisfying philosophies, we tend to set our standard of proof somewhere in the middle. No one can say precisely where that standard should be set, but one thing we do know is that wherever we set it, we must keep it in the same place when we evaluate the facts we favor and the facts we don't. It would be unfair for teachers to give the students they like easier exams than those they dislike, ...
good information and opinion