Is Intellectual Honesty a Religious Virtue?

[Kenny]

R. L. Stevenson quipped that you can not reason a man out of a position they weren't reasoned into in the first place.

Oh, just as I expected... there is the high-five.

 

[Kenny]

Ken, you clearly missed Sunday school - you prove the OP by displaying a stunning absence of intellectual honesty. Paul had a vision of Jesus AFTER the crucifixion - he can not possibly have been an eyewitness - and never even claims to be. He SAW NO MAN Ken, so how exaclty can he be an eye witness buddy? HE DID NOT SEE JESUS.

And your proof is... what? Your saying so doesn't make it valid.

After about a dozen posts, you have yet to provide any empirical and verifiable evidence. You have simply presented your opinion and very dogmatic about it. Almost a flat-earth approach.

How long do you want to continue this format of debate?

 

[Bunyip]

And your proof is... what? Your saying so doesn't make it valid.

After about a dozen posts, you have yet to provide any empirical and verifiable evidence. You have simply presented your opinion and very dogmatic about it. Almost a flat-earth approach.

How long do you want to continue this format of debate?

My proof is the bible Ken, you really should read it. And why on earth are you asking for empirical evidence? There is none - do you even know what' empirical evidence' means Ken?

Paul never met Jesus, he heard a voice and never even claims to have been an eye witness. Read your bible Ken. Pauls conversion came AFTER Jesus was executed.

 

[Bunyip]

Oh, just as I expected... there is the high-five.

I'd suggest that you get over this little persecution complex and start being honest.

 

[Kenny]

I'd suggest that you get over this little persecution complex and start being honest.

Honesty is what this thread is about.

 

[Kenny]

My proof is the bible Ken, you really should read it. And why on earth are you asking for empirical evidence? There is none - do you even know what' empirical evidence' means Ken?

Paul never met Jesus, he heard a voice and never even claims to have been an eye witness. Read your bible Ken. Pauls conversion came AFTER Jesus was executed.

And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutes: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, whatwilt thou have me to do ? And the Lord said unto him, Arise , and go intothe city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do .
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Let's just say it is up for interpretation. It is the men that journeyed with him that saw no man.

Whether Paul saw him is up for interpretation.

 

[Bunyip]

Honesty is what this thread is about.

That's right Ken, amd here you are making a lot of dishonest claims. Paul was not an eye witness to Jesus Ken - read the bible, you will see for yourself. The gospels were written by later authors whose identities are unknown, it was accepted even by the Church many centuries ago that this is the case - the foreward of the KJV explains it in detail.

But sure Ken, this thread is about honesty - so please feel free to continue to make false claims and pretend that anybody correcting you is persecuting the poor believer.

 

[Bunyip]

And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutes: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
6 And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, whatwilt thou have me to do ? And the Lord said unto him, Arise , and go intothe city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do .
7 And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

Let's just say it is up for interpretation. It is the men that journeyed with him that saw no man.

Whether Paul saw him is up for interpretation.

No Ken, read what you quoted - THEY SAW NO MAN, how can they be eyewitness to something they specifically state that they did not see?

 

[Kenny]

No Ken, read what you quoted - THEY SAW NO MAN, how can they be eyewitness to something they specifically state that they did not see?

Bro... you need to reread everything. At this point, all I can say is that you are making mountains out of mole hills.

 

[Kenny]

That's right Ken, amd here you are making a lot of dishonest claims. Paul was not an eye witness to Jesus Ken - read the bible, you will see for yourself. The gospels were written by later authors whose identities are unknown, it was accepted even by the Church many centuries ago that this is the case - the foreward of the KJV explains it in detail.

But sure Ken, this thread is about honesty - so please feel free to continue to make false claims and pretend that anybody correcting you is persecuting the poor believer.

All I can reply to your constant insistence... is that to "Put a little love in your heart" - a song of 1969

 

[Bunyip]

Bro... you need to reread everything. At this point, all I can say is that you are making mountains out of mole hills.

Ken - how can a person be an EYE WITNESS to a man who died several years earlier and who he never saw?

 

[Bunyip]

All I can reply to your constant insistence... is that to "Put a little love in your heart" - a song of 1969

I would respond by suggesting that you put a lot more honesty into your words.

 

[Cephus]

Honesty is what this thread is about.

Then why do you fail so miserably at it?

 

[Kenny]

Then why do you fail so miserably at it?

ROFL... If that makes you happy

 

[SkepticX]

ROFL... If that makes you happy

Probably something you should consider, actually.

It's something we all need to consider and remain vigilant about. As with science, I'd argue the most critical aspect of critical thinking is intellectual humility--accepting that we're each, like all humans, quite capable of error and rather talented at fooling ourselves, particularly where we've made an investment. If we don't internalize a healthy degree of doubt regarding our own "raw" (untested or inadequately tested) impressions and perceptions then we're kinda screwed, actually. And the smarter we are the better we tend to be at fooling ourselves, particularly when we can play to a friendly audience that appreciates the smarter affirmation structures that smarter rhetoric provides.

 

[Kenny]

Probably something you should consider, actually.

It's something we all need to consider and remain vigilant about. As with science, I'd argue the most critical aspect of critical thinking is intellectual humility--accepting that we're each, like all humans, quite capable of error and rather talented at fooling ourselves, particularly where we've made an investment. If we don't internalize a healthy degree of doubt regarding our own "raw" (untested or inadequately tested) impressions and perceptions then we're kinda screwed, actually. And the smarter we are the better we tend to be at fooling ourselves, particularly when we can play to a friendly audience that appreciates the smarter affirmation structures that smarter rhetoric provides.

I wold agree wholeheartedly that we all need to do that. Anyone who needs to be corrected when in error, needs to have it quantified and expressed with real examples and presented to him/her with meekness.

 

[McBell]

I wold agree wholeheartedly that we all need to do that. Anyone who needs to be corrected when in error, needs to have it quantified and expressed with real examples and presented to him/her with meekness.

One wonders why you fail at your own advice?

 

[Kenny]

One wonders why you fail at your own advice?

No one has told me where I have failed--at this point it has only been a matter of opinion on stances that people take in interpretation. A difference in interpretation is not a failure of honesty on either side.

And, as I have mentioned before, documentation would be good. Certainly meekness in presentation hasn't been there either.

As far as failing, I would certainly agree that I am not perfect and fail at living life perfectly. Should it be presented that I failed, as I usually do, I would be happy to ask forgiveness.

 

[Cephus]

Probably something you should consider, actually.

It's something we all need to consider and remain vigilant about. As with science, I'd argue the most critical aspect of critical thinking is intellectual humility--accepting that we're each, like all humans, quite capable of error and rather talented at fooling ourselves, particularly where we've made an investment. If we don't internalize a healthy degree of doubt regarding our own "raw" (untested or inadequately tested) impressions and perceptions then we're kinda screwed, actually. And the smarter we are the better we tend to be at fooling ourselves, particularly when we can play to a friendly audience that appreciates the smarter affirmation structures that smarter rhetoric provides.

But he won't. There are a small number of theists around here who are so cocksure of their beliefs, wrongfully so, that nothing anyone else says means a thing. They are here to preach, not to debate. When their beliefs fail and they are questioned, they just ignore the questions and double down on the blind faith and fanaticism because that's all they have.

It's sad, really.

 

[McBell]

No one has told me where I have failed--at this point it has only been a matter of opinion on stances that people take in interpretation. A difference in interpretation is not a failure of honesty on either side.

And, as I have mentioned before, documentation would be good. Certainly meekness in presentation hasn't been there either.

As far as failing, I would certainly agree that I am not perfect and fail at living life perfectly. Should it be presented that I failed, as I usually do, I would be happy to ask forgiveness.

You have not quantified and expressed with real examples that the gospels were written by eye witnesses.

Since meekness is so subjective, I shall not bother with it.