Reppert has been thinking and responding to the OTF longer than any other informed believer I know of, so if you are a believer and you object to the OTF then learn from him. When first confronted with the OTF Reppert criticized it as embracing too radical of a skepticism. Then over the years as I explained it to him further he now says he's a graduate of the OTF and wants a diploma. Cute. As far as I can tell most believers criticize the OTF when they first hear of it. Then they go through the same stages Reppert has gone though, by subsequently embracing it in the face of my arguments, basically wanting their diplomas too. Should I start printing them off and signing them just because they say so? First, here is what Reppert recently admitted:
That's what I think, but I won't dwell on it here. What I want to focus on instead are two things, both having to do with Reppert's sanity. In the first place he objects to the OTF then accepts it. Which is it Reppert? You have waffled on the OTF for years. You have repeated this cycle twice that I know of, by rejecting it, then accepting it, then rejecting it, then accepting it. So which will it be in the final analysis? Can you be of one opinion here, one final time?
In the second place there is the issue of this added "baggage" Reppert objects to, which he has brought up before during the times he has accepted the OTF, which I consider an absolutely bogus objection. He objects to my telling him that his faith does not pass the OTF. He objects to my judging whether his faith passes the OTF. He basically objects when I refuse to give him his diploma. This is the added baggage he objects to.
Is this really even a sane objection? No wonder I say Christians are deluded. If he is one of their brightest stars and so easily blunders time after time, then what confidence can any lesser educated and intelligent Christian have with their faith? I'm serious! That's why I make the case that defending his faith makes smart people, brilliant people, look dumb. I mean no offense here, it's what I think. Hopefully I can show this once again, here.
Why should I take anyone's word on it that they have passed the OTF, when I consider believers to be delusional? If he wants his diploma then he must pass an oral examination of the facts. I assume he had to do that when he got his Ph.D. So why is this an unreasonable request when it comes to getting his OTF diploma? This should settle that bogus objection, but there is more.
Once a believer claims his faith passes the test then as I've argued before, the debate can really begin. For now what Reppert has done it to admit the OTF is a fair and impartial way to judge his own faith. And what the OTF requires I have said as well. Let me quote myself for the reading impaired:
So, let's begin with the Trinity from the perspective of a Muslim, or the incarnation, or the atonement, or the resurretion. I share the reasoned criticisms of the Muslims against Reppert's faith. If I were born a Muslim the Christian faith would seem preposterous to me, especially since most Muslims are raised to believe, rightly in my opinion, that Christianity was, is, and will forever be a blood shedding Crusader faith.
Reppert continually speaks about "priors," his background knowledge, that which forms the basis for his judging the evidence for the resurrection. Is he seriously suggesting that if he was raised as a Muslim he would become a Christian? This smacks of a delusion, but then believers are deluded so why should that surprise me? The Muslim faith is far more probable than the Christian faith because it does not have to explain the Trinity, the incarnation, the atonement or the resurrection of Jesus. That's why I would guess that more Christians are becoming Muslims than the other way around.
When it comes to "priors" Reppert gets them from his upbringing in a Christian culture, and that's all there is to it. That's what he uses for the resurrection of Jesus and claims that with his "priors" the evidence is conclusive. But he ignores the fact that without his culturally given "priors" all he has is the raw uninterpreted historical data to work with. What then are these priors? Where do they come from? In what chronological order did he reason to them? My claim is that the only people who look at the raw uninterpreted historical data and claim it supports the resurrection of Jesus are people who already believe in a God who raised Jesus from the dead; that is, anyone who wants to reasonably look at the raw uninterpreted historical evidence who has not previously had an emotional commitment to that faith.
In any case, we have arrived at a mutually agreed upon standard for examining his religious faith. No more punting to faith. Reppert has shouldered the burden of proof. He claims he can show that the Bible is the inspired word of God from the perspective that it was written merely by a superstitious ancient people. He claims he can approach the Christian faith as a skeptic (or a Muslim outsider) and still claim it is true.
Let the debate begin. I welcome it. I doubt very much that he will earn his diploma by these standards.
Using the same level of skepticism antecedently for all revealed religions, Christianity comes out best evidentially. Unless other baggage is added in, I consider myself an OTF graduate.So, why won't I hand Reppert or any other deluded believer their diplomas? Because I think Christianity is a delusional wildly improbable faith and has no more merit than Scientology, or Haitian Voodoo, or one of the Cargo Cults because they all have a faith-based foundation. When you have a faith-based foundation anything can be believed without a method for deciding which faith-based religion is true.
Of course it doesn't guarantee that I am right. It just means that I used the same standard for each religion. IF the OTF is defined in terms of requiring the same level of skepticism for each religion, and so long as it is supported by an appeal to double standard avoidance, THEN, that's all I need to pass the test, and I'll take my diploma thank you very much. Now, if there is more added in, that's another matter.
Link.
That's what I think, but I won't dwell on it here. What I want to focus on instead are two things, both having to do with Reppert's sanity. In the first place he objects to the OTF then accepts it. Which is it Reppert? You have waffled on the OTF for years. You have repeated this cycle twice that I know of, by rejecting it, then accepting it, then rejecting it, then accepting it. So which will it be in the final analysis? Can you be of one opinion here, one final time?
In the second place there is the issue of this added "baggage" Reppert objects to, which he has brought up before during the times he has accepted the OTF, which I consider an absolutely bogus objection. He objects to my telling him that his faith does not pass the OTF. He objects to my judging whether his faith passes the OTF. He basically objects when I refuse to give him his diploma. This is the added baggage he objects to.
Is this really even a sane objection? No wonder I say Christians are deluded. If he is one of their brightest stars and so easily blunders time after time, then what confidence can any lesser educated and intelligent Christian have with their faith? I'm serious! That's why I make the case that defending his faith makes smart people, brilliant people, look dumb. I mean no offense here, it's what I think. Hopefully I can show this once again, here.
Why should I take anyone's word on it that they have passed the OTF, when I consider believers to be delusional? If he wants his diploma then he must pass an oral examination of the facts. I assume he had to do that when he got his Ph.D. So why is this an unreasonable request when it comes to getting his OTF diploma? This should settle that bogus objection, but there is more.
Once a believer claims his faith passes the test then as I've argued before, the debate can really begin. For now what Reppert has done it to admit the OTF is a fair and impartial way to judge his own faith. And what the OTF requires I have said as well. Let me quote myself for the reading impaired:
The insider [with an insider's perspective, IP] believes in a particular religious sect. The outsider (OP) does not. The insider has faith. The outsider doubts. The insider makes extraordinary claims. The outsider makes no claims. The insider has a belief in search of data. The outsider looks at the data to determine the probability of a claim. The insider takes a leap of faith beyond the probabilities. The outsider doesn’t claim more than what the probabilities can show.Or this:
The IP represents a person who has faith. The OP represents a person who does not have faith. The IP represents faith-based reasoning. The OP represents science-based reasoning.
Link.
The OTF asks why believers operate on a double standard. If that's how they reject other faiths then they should apply that same standard to their own. Let reason and science rather than faith be their guide. Assume your own faith has the burden of proof. Assume human rather than divine authors to your holy book(s) and see what you get. If there is a divine author behind the texts it should be known even with that initial skeptical assumption.Let the debate begin then. When Reppert says his faith passes the OTF that means he cannot repeatedly punt to faith when facing an intractable problem.
Link
So, let's begin with the Trinity from the perspective of a Muslim, or the incarnation, or the atonement, or the resurretion. I share the reasoned criticisms of the Muslims against Reppert's faith. If I were born a Muslim the Christian faith would seem preposterous to me, especially since most Muslims are raised to believe, rightly in my opinion, that Christianity was, is, and will forever be a blood shedding Crusader faith.
Reppert continually speaks about "priors," his background knowledge, that which forms the basis for his judging the evidence for the resurrection. Is he seriously suggesting that if he was raised as a Muslim he would become a Christian? This smacks of a delusion, but then believers are deluded so why should that surprise me? The Muslim faith is far more probable than the Christian faith because it does not have to explain the Trinity, the incarnation, the atonement or the resurrection of Jesus. That's why I would guess that more Christians are becoming Muslims than the other way around.
When it comes to "priors" Reppert gets them from his upbringing in a Christian culture, and that's all there is to it. That's what he uses for the resurrection of Jesus and claims that with his "priors" the evidence is conclusive. But he ignores the fact that without his culturally given "priors" all he has is the raw uninterpreted historical data to work with. What then are these priors? Where do they come from? In what chronological order did he reason to them? My claim is that the only people who look at the raw uninterpreted historical data and claim it supports the resurrection of Jesus are people who already believe in a God who raised Jesus from the dead; that is, anyone who wants to reasonably look at the raw uninterpreted historical evidence who has not previously had an emotional commitment to that faith.
In any case, we have arrived at a mutually agreed upon standard for examining his religious faith. No more punting to faith. Reppert has shouldered the burden of proof. He claims he can show that the Bible is the inspired word of God from the perspective that it was written merely by a superstitious ancient people. He claims he can approach the Christian faith as a skeptic (or a Muslim outsider) and still claim it is true.
Let the debate begin. I welcome it. I doubt very much that he will earn his diploma by these standards.
(pp. 8-9).
."
Site Map
