SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Yeah, that's why I was hesitant to engage with you in the first place.Try what? Wasting time? No thanks. I met you before. remember. You're all the same... bird of a feather.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Yeah, that's why I was hesitant to engage with you in the first place.Try what? Wasting time? No thanks. I met you before. remember. You're all the same... bird of a feather.
This seems in very stark contrast to what you wrote about accepting critiques in the other thread, but if you don't want to discuss this, then I won't bother you any more.This is the same mistake you keep making - ignoring and playing ignorant to what I say, and you want me to repeat the same mistake I made in the past, of repeating myself. No thanks.
The same thing goes to you. You can fly with Skeptic.
Pun not intended, but there it is.
Twisting things again? You haven't changed one bit, Fly. This has nothing to do with critique or the other thread. This has everything to do with not being selfish and sly.This seems in very stark contrast to what you wrote about accepting critiques in the other thread, but if you don't want to discuss this, then I won't bother you any more.
Take care.
I honestly have no idea what you think I'm "twisting" or why you think I'm being "selfish and sly". This reminds me of the other time when you accused me of being "serpent like". I'm sorry to see that you don't seem able to engage in an open friendly discussion with me. I guess you and I will never be able to do that. That's sad.Twisting things again? You haven't changed one bit, Fly. This has nothing to do with critique or the other thread. This has everything to do with not being selfish and sly.
By the way, are you following me around?
Yep, and how many people have been found guilty on forensic evidence alone.I'm more baffled by @nPeace 's notion that if you don't see something occur, then you "know nothing" about it. Makes me wonder if he's ever served on a jury.
"We the jury have concluded that since there were no eye-witnesses to the crime, we cannot know anything about it."
You keep telling me that.I honestly have no idea what you think I'm "twisting" or why you think I'm being "selfish and sly". This reminds me of the other time when you accused me of being "serpent like". I'm sorry to see that you don't seem able to engage in an open friendly discussion with me. I guess you and I will never be able to do that. That's sad.
This jury also does not buy that.And no, I'm not following you around. I saw CT's thread on "Learning from those who critique you" in the new threads list and since I like his threads, I checked it out. In doing so I saw your posts, along with a few from other folks. That's all.
So you basically think I'm just lying and deceiving you, every time I post and with everything I write.You keep telling me that.
You told me the same thing before too... that you honestly don't know.
Consider me the jury that looks at the evidence, and comes to a conclusion.
Now ask yourself the questions you have asked me.
Yes. the jury is sometimes right, but they can't prove it. They could be right. They could be wrong, but they made a judgment, based on the evidence.
If you are happy with that, amd if that's the argument you stand by, then it would be strange if you have a problem with this jury.
To remind you, just per chance you forgot, I told you, my early experience in life caused me to hate deception, and I tend to pick up on deception quite easily. So imagine if it's clear, to me, and being repeated.
You know some people tend to think, others take them for a fool, because the other person thinks of themselves are being smart... I call it sly, or cunning.
I'm no friend of that. I told you before, 'One smart died at too smart's door.'
Friendly conversation and deceptive tactics are a bad mix... like oil and water. They don't go together.
One of the substances has to change.
Maybe the water has to become oil thinner, if the oil wants to remain oil, but for me, that's hard to do, if the oil is quite cloggy, or worst, it takes a lot of thinner, and I did try, for probably more than a dozen pages of RF space,,, and my time.
It didn't work, and I know it never will, and why.
This jury also does not buy that.
I'm sorry, maybe it's my past experience with you, and your words not being truthful.
This jury has come to the unanimous decision that you look for JWs to engage, and you have a special interest in a few particulars.
I told you all of this before you left Fly.
Jesus was a wise man on earth, and he told his followers, 'Yes, be innocent, but be wise." (Matthew 10:16) In other words, 'just because you are to befriend people, doesn't mean you are to be foolish'.
Take care Fly. It's still nice to see you... and I know I won't be seeing the last of you, unless all the JWs leave.
Is the jury in error? Well, we can't always be right, can we?
"Bizarre" is definitely a word that's on my mind at the moment.Yep, and how many people have been found guilty on forensic evidence alone.
Also, what is so bizarre is that some take the position that if the evidence is not 100% complete that this somehow proves God must have directly did it.
@nPeace put me on ignore because I kept hounding him to learn what is and what is not evidence. Creationists cannot afford to learn this and most know it. They have this odd belief that it is not a lie to say "There is no evidence" if they do not understand what evidence is. They do not want to lie so the only way they can preserve their "I am not a liar" status is to refuse to learn. Oy vei!"Bizarre" is definitely a word that's on my mind at the moment.
It's fascinating to watch the defensive mechanisms people employ when they feel threatened.
So you basically think I'm just lying and deceiving you, every time I post and with everything I write.
I truly don't know what to say to that, other than.....nope....I've got nothing.....kinda speechless at the moment.
Inventing specious reasons to shut down discussions is certainly a means to never have to admit you're wrong or learn anything potentially dangerous.@nPeace put me on ignore because I kept hounding him to learn what is and what is not evidence. Creationists cannot afford to learn this and most know it. They have this odd belief that it is not a lie to say "There is no evidence" if they do not understand what evidence is. They do not want to lie so the only way they can preserve their "I am not a liar" status is to refuse to learn. Oy vei!
Well that's one of the best concise characterizations of creationists I've seen in some time. Well put!He is using the creationists "tried and true" repeating false claims over and over to keep @nPeace certain that @nPeace is correct. To stop and actually consider the evidence is to place one's belief at risk. Those claiming a literal bible know that once they start to agree with the evidence and find the one flaw in literal interpretation, it all start to fall apart. What does the science of evolution, biology genetics, geology, etc really know when compared to the Bible. I can hear the argument now - they keep changing with new information. Compare that to the bible which never changes - ever- it must be right.
Except that you never look at any evidence. You deny the evidence even exists. You just conclude what you want without any evidence at all. That is not a jury you are on.You keep telling me that.
You told me the same thing before too... that you honestly don't know.
Consider me the jury that looks at the evidence, and comes to a conclusion.
Now ask yourself the questions you have asked me.
Yes. the jury is sometimes right, but they can't prove it. They could be right. They could be wrong, but they made a judgment, based on the evidence.
If you are happy with that, amd if that's the argument you stand by, then it would be strange if you have a problem with this jury.
To remind you, just per chance you forgot, I told you, my early experience in life caused me to hate deception, and I tend to pick up on deception quite easily. So imagine if it's clear, to me, and being repeated.
You know some people tend to think, others take them for a fool, because the other person thinks of themselves are being smart... I call it sly, or cunning.
I'm no friend of that. I told you before, 'One smart died at too smart's door.'
Friendly conversation and deceptive tactics are a bad mix... like oil and water. They don't go together.
One of the substances has to change.
Maybe the water has to become oil thinner, if the oil wants to remain oil, but for me, that's hard to do, if the oil is quite cloggy, or worst, it takes a lot of thinner, and I did try, for probably more than a dozen pages of RF space,,, and my time.
It didn't work, and I know it never will, and why.
This jury also does not buy that.
I'm sorry, maybe it's my past experience with you, and your words not being truthful.
This jury has come to the unanimous decision that you look for JWs to engage, and you have a special interest in a few particulars.
I told you all of this before you left Fly.
Jesus was a wise man on earth, and he told his followers, 'Yes, be innocent, but be wise." (Matthew 10:16) In other words, 'just because you are to befriend people, doesn't mean you are to be foolish'.
Take care Fly. It's still nice to see you... and I know I won't be seeing the last of you, unless all the JWs leave.
Is the jury in error? Well, we can't always be right, can we?
It is not the first time I have seen this happen.Inventing specious reasons to shut down discussions is certainly a means to never have to admit you're wrong or learn anything potentially dangerous.
In this latest episode, it's pretty clear what happened. nPeace posted his view that unless scientists directly observe an event, they can't know anything about it. I illustrated how that's wrong by pointing to an obvious example where we reach firm conclusions about unobserved events all the time....jury trials. From any objective viewpoint, that completely negates nPeace's view.
So he's left with a few options. He can acknowledge the point and adjust his views accordingly, or he can try and counter what I said and defend his original view. Instead, he went with the third option, namely deflecting away from the original topic by engaging in personal attacks, declaring the conversation impossible, and walking away. That has the desired effect of shutting down an uncomfortable discussion, avoiding the original error, and demonizing the person who challenged him in the first place.
It's effective in those ways, but it has the downside of severely damaging his reputation in the group and of course closing off an opportunity to learn. But for some folks, those things are far, far down the priority list.
It's fascinating to watch.
Oh certainly not! In fact, it's one of the identifying characteristics of the internet creationist (shutting down discussions before they go too far).It is not the first time I have seen this happen.
Your MO was mention in two posts thus far. JWs reputation bothering you?Nah, that's never once come up.
But thanks again for implying that I'm a liar. Such desperation doesn't look good on you.
??????Your MO was mention in two posts thus far. JWs reputation bothering you?
It may not look good, but it is the norm as far as I have seen.Nah, that's never once come up.
But thanks again for implying that I'm a liar. Such desperation doesn't look good on you.