Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: millerjamesc@xxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 18:33:14 -0000
The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson wrote:
> millerjamesc@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > Gazelem wrote:
> >
> >>4. Be honest in asking: Are you open to accepting the response as true, or
> >>have you decided the answer is false before a word is written?
> >
> >
> > Does this mean apologists should be open to a critic's response as
> > true?
>
> Is there an implication that apologists are not open to new truth?
There seems to me to be a knee-jerk reaction from BOTH sides of the
aisle to claims from the opposing side. My question was aimed at
clarifying if both sides were to be kept to the same standards or if
this specific standard was to be applied only to critics.
James Clifford Miller
millerjamesc@xxxxxxx
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- References:
- faith, and induction as an argument
- From: joseph_daniel_zukiger
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: Gazelem
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: millerjamesc
- Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- From: The Poster Formerly Known as Craig Olson
- faith, and induction as an argument
- Prev by Date: the LDS Church explains the Law of the Sabbath
- Next by Date: Re: Any conference remarks on Wholesome Family Recreation
- Previous by thread: Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- Next by thread: Re: faith, and induction as an argument (a troll is a troll)
- Index(es):