Care to compare the Jesus you know to the one I know?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Googling the word yields the following on my browser:

nev•er
ˈnevər/
adverb
adverb: never

1.
at no time in the past or future; on no occasion; not ever.
"they had never been camping in their lives"
synonyms: not ever, at no time, not at any time, not once; More
literaryne'er
"his room is never tidy"
antonyms: always
2.
not at all.
"he never turned up"
synonyms: not at all, certainly not, not for a moment, under no circumstances, on no account, nevermore; More

Fallacy of equivocation?

There is more than one definition for the word "stop", Shaky:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

stop
verb \ˈstäp\

: to not move, walk, etc., after doing so before

[b]: to cause (someone or something) to not move, walk, etc., after doing so before

: to not do something that you have been doing before : to not continue doing something

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Definition 2 covers the case of the car.

So you're wrong in one sense about this.

Let's take the opposite tack, though.
Let's say you're right, despite what we just read above.

What tells you that you should make your car "go" again?
How do you know you should do so without being explicitly told?

Give me a serious answer, please. [/B]

This is a stupid argument. We both know that I was not speaking in absolutes. This is a straw-man. I wish you spent half the energy in answering any of my questions.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Is anyone currently looking for such an animal?
Would they recognize it once they came upon it from the state of its current remains?
If a scientist today came upon a fossil of, say, an African Grey Parrot, and did not know this animal spoke, how would he discover that fact?

Ignorance is not evidence. It could be how you think, or it could be unicorns dancing in the spring time.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You cannot even now scientifically prove to me what you had for breakfast on May 23, 1994, can you? But that was a 20 minute event that occurred less than 20 years ago. How would you prove a 20 minute event that occurred well over 2,000 years ago?

Because I can’t prove something does not prove something. Ignorance is not evidence.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Yes.

I love that movie.

It's one of my favorites.

Someone did.

The main protagonist of the story, Eddie Valiant.
Recall the scene in which he was so amazed Betty Boop had to close his mouth.
I can probably find a YouTube clip for you if you don't remember.

Movie trivia is not my thing. I’m sorry you didn’t get my meaning.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I wish you spent half the energy in answering any of my questions.

What question have you posed that I've failed to answer at this point?

Present it now and I will try to get to it tomorrow.

I am legitimately out of time for today, though.

Have a good day.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
What question have you posed that I've failed to answer at this point?

Present it now and I will try to get to it tomorrow.

I am legitimately out of time for today, though.

Have a good day.

How does this line of questioning prove that the story of Adam and Eve is anything more than a story?

Next, I assume you are going to start drilling me on my spelling.

You could make me wrong all day long, and that would still not be proof anything. Remember, you are trying to prove to me that the story of Adam and Eve is real. You have failed at that.

It's always amusing to see people ignore me and engage you relentlessly, Shaky. IT MUST BE THE ALL-SEEING EYE.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It's always amusing to see people ignore me and engage you relentlessly, Shaky. IT MUST BE THE ALL-SEEING EYE.

No, no no no... They take turns. Plus I'm a bad speller, so there are lots of straw men to be had. To bad they don't take a moment and try to understand what I mean.

If they took an extra minute to understand other people, how could they find time to reaffirm their bias? Come on now.

I'm sure bluewaterrider needs another two weeks so he can define 'natural principles' to me, most likely by quoting some author no one's ever heard of, with a block quote that's only slightly related.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If they took an extra minute to understand other people, how could they find time to reaffirm their bias? Come on now.

Remember, they are instructed not to listen.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
...

I'm sure bluewaterrider needs another two weeks so he can define 'natural principles' to me, most likely by quoting some author no one's ever heard of, with a block quote that's only slightly related.

I responded too soon. You showed that you knew more about the topic. That's a good reason to ignore you. {/}

I just applied X-ray vision to some of the double-speak. Nitpicked a bit.

Also, I have found a new faith for us:

This is nine times better than the old one!

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
I just applied X-ray vision to some of the double-speak. Nitpicked a bit.

Also, I have found a new faith for us:

This is nine times better than the old one!

😂 9 times more saved.

A large part of the reason Christians here praise Christ is because of his sacrifice. Therefore, Jesus Cat is nine times as good.

And nine times as many links.

All those kitties! I just wanna pinch their wittwe faces until my sins are forgiven!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Remember, you are trying to prove to me that the story of Adam and Eve is real. You have failed at that.

I'm not trying to prove to you that the story of Adam and Eve is real.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
It's always amusing to see people ignore me and engage you relentlessly, Shaky. IT MUST BE THE ALL-SEEING EYE.

Shaky has a cool dotgif image for an avatar, I must say.

You weren't ignored though, Moose.

Originally posted by Stealth Moose
If they took an extra minute to understand other people, how could they find time to reaffirm their bias? Come on now.

I'm sure bluewaterrider needs another two weeks so he can define 'natural principles' to me, most likely by quoting some author no one's ever heard of, with a block quote that's only slightly related.

You talk to me of laziness and not taking an extra minute to understand when, just on the page prior to this one, I defined exactly what you were asking for:

Originally posted by Stealth Moose

Can you actually define what 'natural principles' are in your own words?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Fundamental truths which can predict the consequences of actions, short or long-term, almost unfailingly ... under ordinary circumstances.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
I'm not trying to prove to you that the story of Adam and Eve is real.

Then why did you ask this?

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
How can you be sure?

I told you there are personifications in the story. That makes the story fiction. You then tried to prove that the story was real by supposing things were different in the past. You cannot prove something with speculation.

So, my original post stands.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It doesn't really matter because it is not a literal story. Adam and Eve never really existed. They represent all of us.

Thank you.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You talk to me of laziness and not taking an extra minute to understand when, just on the page prior to this one, I defined exactly what you were asking for:

So nature principles is actually:

'Basic self-evident things which in turn accurately predict the future under conditions which are considered 'normal' by some subjective party'.

How is this even a definition if it can't relate from general to specific simply by virtue of making coherent sense? That's like me describing your ability to reason thusly: A predilection by the intelligentsia to engage in the manifestation of prolix exposition through a buzzword disposition form of communication notwithstanding the availability of more comprehensible, punctiliously applicable, diminutive alternatives.

I hope that's crystal clear for you. Also, if you need any help, I'll be back whenever I feel like it, because I am a very busy man.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
why did you ask this?

Several reasons. One of which is because I want to know what your basis of judgement is.
I want to know if its solid and well thought out.

Or at least researched.

It doesn't seem to be any of these.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

I told you there are personifications in the story. That makes the story fiction.

You also told me the Lilith version of the story was older than the Adam and Eve version, which is false.

The 2 or 3 other people that said as much were wrong, too.

Part of the problem is that your stance assumes one viewpoint and does not consider the other. Like, at all.

"You are coming to a faulty conclusion because you haven’t proven that the story of Adam and Eve is real. If the story is not real, then your conclusions are nonsense."

2 problems with that:

1. What if the story IS real? What are my conclusions then?
2. Does true reality depend on one random person's ability or inability to prove something to the satisfaction of one or more persons?

No matter your response, there is plenty of historical evidence that it doesn't.

One easy one, just for an example:

Ignaz Semmelweis was unable to prove that germs cause disease.
In fact, he was unable to prove to the satisfaction of the medical community that a simple practice like handwashing could save the LIVES of people who would otherwise become infected by doctors.

Does that mean germs didn't exist then?

Did that mean handwashing was actually NOT an effective practice for combating them?

Or did germs in fact actually exist, was Semmelweis in fact actually RIGHT, and did not people actually DIE because he could not "PROVE" to the satisfaction of the medical community that he was right?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings. Semmelweis's practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory and Joseph Lister, acting on the French microbiologist's research, practiced and operated, using hygienic methods, with great success. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

Reconsider the mantras you robotically repeat out of habit.

You might give GENUINE examination once in a while as to whether or not they're actually TRUE, Shaky.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
Several reasons. One of which is because I want to know what your basis of judgement is.
I want to know if its solid and well thought out.

Or at least researched.

It doesn't seem to be any of these.

Originally posted by bluewaterrider
You also told me the Lilith version of the story was older than the Adam and Eve version, which is false.

The 2 or 3 other people that said as much were wrong, too.

No, I did not tell you that. Let me show you:

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the story of Adam and Eve is fiction. There is no original sin. I know this to be true because older stories of Adam and Eve exist.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Lilith Part of the problem is that your stance assumes one viewpoint and does not consider the other. Like, at all.

I have an opened mind, but not so open that my brains fall out.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
"You are coming to a faulty conclusion because you haven’t proven that the story of Adam and Eve is real. If the story is not real, then your conclusions are nonsense."
2 problems with that:
1. What if the story IS real? What are my conclusions then?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
2. Does true reality depend on [b]one random person's ability or inability to prove something to the satisfaction of one or more persons? [/B]

lol

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No matter your response, there is plenty of historical evidence that it doesn't.

Wow, you told me I was closed minded, and then spell out your own closed mind. Good job!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
One easy one, just for an example:

Ignaz Semmelweis was unable to prove that germs cause disease.
In fact, he was unable to prove to the satisfaction of the medical community that a simple practice like handwashing could save the LIVES of people who would otherwise become infected by doctors.

Does that mean germs didn't exist then?

Did that mean handwashing was actually NOT an effective practice for combating them?

Or did germs in fact actually exist, was Semmelweis in fact actually RIGHT, and did not people actually DIE because he could not "PROVE" to the satisfaction of the medical community that he was right?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Reconsider the mantras you robotically repeat out of habit.

You might give GENUINE examination once in a while as to whether or not they're actually TRUE, Shaky.