"disinterested" sources
Tim Taylor bdtayl@yahoo.com
Mon, 1 Feb 1999 06:40:04 -0800 (PST) (00917901604, 19990201144004.29147.rocketmail@send105.yahoomail.com)
>Dave
>Is your bias the result of study and evidence?
>If it is, then your bias is reasonable. Are you able
>to defend your biases? That is what this list is for.
>You should stop using the word "biased" as an ad hominem.
>You must show why being biased is unreasonable if it is
>the result of study.
Tim
I think Carl Sagan said it best.
"Prejudice is making a judgment before you have looked
at the facts. Postjudice is making a judgment afterwards.
Prejudice is terrible, in the sense that you commit
injustices and you make serious mistakes. Postjudice is
not terrible. You can't be perfect of course; you may
make mistakes also. But it is permissible to make a
judgment after you have examined the evidence. In some
circles it is even encouraged."
The Burden of Skepticism, Skeptical Enquirer, Vol. 12,
pg. 46
As some of you know, during the "ken" debate, I initially
took the position, given the sources I had (Strongs) that
"ken" could not mean what Bell asserted it did.
After obtaining more information (Brown-Driver-Briggs,
expert opinion) I changed my position and conceded the
point. Of course if compelling evidence is presented,
I would reconsider yet again.
In the Genesis case, we have the overwhelming evidence
of various translations and different names for God
versus the "harmonization" of a dishonest, ad hominem
spouting Prison Guard who debates in a vacuum.
Thus far, my position is that the evidence supports two
accounts. Carter can scream "victory" from the
mountain tops until he is blue, but until he gives
COMPELLING evidence refuting ALL the evidence
for a contradiction he is doing no more than saying
what he wants to hear.
_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com