by looter 251 Replies latest jw friends
Well, Looter....you can continue to call it a tuna fish sandwich if you like, but, if it has four legs, walks low to the ground, is black with a white stripe running down its back...it ain't no friggin tuna fish sandwich. Your nose should tell you that even if you "see" differently.....Orphan Crow
Of Course You Love Me........I`m Really a Tuna Fish Sandwich!..
looter - Well, that was the point, Saename. That the two were similar. Obviously, the scientific method and the Christian way of life are different, right and wrong are opposites, we all know this, but I was just saying and pointing out that each can lead to righteousness or wrongness from an objective point of view.
Which means that they are not similar.
looter - I don't think it's fair for you to call people crazy just because you disagree with their beliefs when they aren't hurting anyone or anything.
I'm not calling anyone crazy. I was pointing out that there is no logic in that meme just like there is no logic in your saying that creation can be evidence (which then you are contradicting later on by saying that it can be a proof), and how it's similar to the scientific method...
looter - I know what the scientific method is, again I'm looking at everything from a pure objective point of view.
Hell no! Hell no! (Insert Fear the Walking Dead image of the guy who says, "Hell no! Hell no!")
looter - "Ancient history does not deal in proofs or disproof's but in evidence—usually very scarce evidence." Well, that's what I was implying, thanks.
Hell no! Hell no!
How convenient... You were just "implying" that... Just like the Bible can't say anything in a clear manner that would prove God's superiority... It just "implies" things... after it's made clear by somebody else...
looter - I'm saying that each are a system through which people see things as certain. That's all I'm saying.
Hell no! Hell no!
You're saying that those systems are similar based on too general aspects!
looter - I however believe all species are unique in there own way. Just my opinion.
So... every species has an "essence" of who they are?
Hey......cool Outlaw. That's supposed to be a kids cartoon but did you notice that Penelope Pussycat is 'rubbing one out' on Pepe Le Pew? Sorry to go 'off topic'
looter:...if I were to inherently say the topic at hand, the backlash might be worse. It was made in a way that I hoped people understood and some did. But the problem is that the ones that didn't insist on deducing me to get them to understand when they just don't and it's clear to me.
So you admit that you were deliberately obtuse about the topic. You deliberately created a word salad, in order to mask your 'real' topic, so that you could avoid some anticipated backlash. And now you believe the problem arises because some of us don't buy into your deceptive behavior. Apparently some do...they must be the ones who use similar tactics of deception
Okay. Got it. It's clear to me too. It always was.
I'm well aware that they are inherently different but I'm saying they could be alike in that context, Saename. It's all a matter of what ones vision sees. "I'm not calling anyone crazy. I was pointing out that there is no logic in that meme just like there is no logic in your saying that creation can be evidence (which then you are contradicting later on by saying that it can be a proof), and how it's similar to the scientific method..." Exactly, there is no logic from the way you see it. I'd be inclined to agree but what I'm saying is that creation can be proof to people that God exists. Is that so hard to get? Just because you yourself don't see it as evidence and think it's wrong doesn't mean everyone has to.
"You were just "implying" that" Yes I was and recall using the word scarce once to refer to it. It was as simple as it could be. "You're saying that those systems are similar based on too general aspects!" Yes. That's true but not really involving when it's about someone who is engaged in wrong activities. It's about the process to the goodwill. "So... every species has an "essence" of who they are?" Actually, I believe they all do. Every species has an essence of the nature of their features. Again, my opinion. Don't take it as a statement of pure truth as it's subjective. Please.
"You keep using big words that don't quite fit what you're trying to say or what you think they mean. Stop it. It's like you eaten a dictionary and don't quite know how to digest it. It's taking away from what you're trying to say." Not sure how, Landy. It's just being more precise in how you present your standing point. That's just my style but I appreciate you trying to help.
looter - I'd be inclined to agree but what I'm saying is that creation can be proof to people that God exists. Is that so hard to get? Just because you yourself don't see it as evidence and think it's wrong doesn't mean others don't.
Am I speaking with a fool? It's not that I don't see creation as evidence... It's that it is not evidence by any standards! It does not matter whether anyone sees it as evidence... because it is not evidence by any standards!
looter - Yes I was and recall using the word scarce once to refer to it. It was as simple as it could be.
I don't remember you talking about ancient history... But I guess you were because you "implied" it.
looter - Yes. That's true but not really involving when it's about someone who is engaged in wrong activities. It's about the process to the goodwill.
I distinctly remember your saying that both the scientific method and the belief system can lead to both right and wrong. And now you're saying that "[i]t's about the process to the goodwill." And also it's unclear what you mean by "goodwill."
looter - Actually, I believe they all do. Every species has an essence of the nature of their features. Again, my opinion. Don't take it as a statement of pure truth as it's subjective. Please.
Fine. I'll leave it to you. I'll be doing myself a favour.
"It's that it is not evidence by any standards! It does not matter whether anyone sees it as evidence... because it is not evidence by any standards!" Understood. I'm saying that people can see it as evidence... Not sure how I can make this clearer to you. "I don't remember you talking about ancient history" Could have been replying to someone else. "Fine. I'll leave it to you. I'll be doing myself a favor." Thank you. It is an opinion after all but be just disagree, Saename. No problem.
"I distinctly remember your saying that both the scientific method and the belief system can lead to both right and wrong. And now you're saying that "[i]t's about the process to the goodwill." And also it's unclear what you mean by "goodwill."" That was said to make sure we're on the right page but I said goodwill to mean in particular the right part as executable things are wrong. No question. But the scientific method can be used for badness just like a religious system can. But I specifically was just focused on them used for good.
looter - Would you like to know how to use the quote function so it is clear what bits you are saying?
