HelenM

jaliet

I respect what people say about their own lives and experience and if they believe "God did it" then I respect that.

I am very hesitant to argue with a person over what is necessarily a very subjective thing - getting into the whole nature of 'faith'.

I prefer to stay at the more manifest level at which get concerned when I perceive 'your beliefs appear to be leading you to hurt yourself or others' because at least that's something I can observe and be somewhat objective about.

I feel like there's more hope and more point in trying to influence the behavior of sane rational people. If that changes their beliefs, so be it. But to try to change their beliefs directly is a very hard thing to do. And really what I care about more - in a community/pragmatic sense at least - is how their beliefs affect their behavior which affects those around them.

If someone's beliefs seem to encourage them to be a decent person then at least on one level I breathe a sigh of relief.

I'm not really sure how rws beliefs affect him (?) but I do remember he (?) was nice to me in posts way back when I first joined Sec Web...hi rw

love
Helen

rainbow walking

[b] rw: This explains the degeneration of your manners and tone as this interrogation unfolds. Why are you atheists always so predictable and quickly adopt both an arrogant and snitty attitude toward anyone whose worldview disagrees with your own? Your replies have become offensive and insulting for no apparent reason.

Rw: To the first part of this question I see no reason why it has to be an either/or. It is my understanding that God is both personal and universal.

To the second aspect of this question I thought I made it clear that I made no religious association with this experience at the time; that it was later in my life, after becoming a theist that I began to sift this experience through my adopted worldview and found it extremely cogent. Even before my conversion I felt this experience was just too unique to attribute it to purely natural causes. It stood out as a magical event that I cherished and held as a special memory.

rw: I was referring to my worldview in general here and not this experience in particular, if that’s what you’re driving at. The particulars of my past doubts are irrelevant to this discussion.
jaliet: You talk about faith - not conviction.

Rw: Yes, I was responding to your question number 10:

(10. Would you still believe even if there was no similar evidence/ experience occuring in your life? If not, what would be your reasons/ evidence for believing? )

Do you see anything in that question that requires I respond on the basis of conviction rather than faith? If you are having difficulty remaining focused on the structure of your inquisition perhaps you should make yourself a hard copy to reference as you formulate your responses.

Jaliet: Faith is trusting acceptance (some call it blind belief). Faith needs no reason, no proof. Why would your faith diminish? What would it take?

Rw: Oh really? Since this inquisition is a spin off from a thread dealing with just this issue perhaps you would do well to refer back to that thread for an instructional course on the error of your postulates here.

jaliet: If you were convinced its not the best way to view life? or if new evidence showed that something else (and not God) intervened? How do you know its not the spirit of one of your forefathers?

If your faith is not grounded on logical evidence with rational explanations, then its true faith, if its based on your subjective experience, then its not faith. Because you were convinced by what you saw - you did not choose to just believe - you needed some event that would provide a basis for your belief - an explanation.

Rw: Yes, kinda like the apostles who needed to see Jesus to believe his resurrection.

Jaliet: That brings me to my next question: Do you believe it is rational to believe that God intervened?

Rw: And, of course, not only do you reveal your belief that I am irrational but you have arrogantly set out to prove it. Good luck. Now if I actually thought my belief was irrational do you think I’d admit it? I would be admitting to being a fool or insane…an accusation atheists are fond of slinging around without any better reason for doing so than their own personal belief that it is a justifiable slur.

jaliet: If it is indeed rational, are you applying a logical argument? What are your premises? are they backed by any evidence?

Rw: AS I have said countless times I presented this experience as a testimony to support my PERSONAL beliefs. Nowhere have I offered this as a logical argument to prove the existence of God. It could be incorporated into a logical argument but, as it now stands, is only a series of statements detailing a personal experience I encountered that I personally interpret to be a miraculous instance of divine intervention to spare my life. It is not necessary for a claim to be logical to be rational.

jaliet: You know very well that the existence of God cannot be proved, yet you claim he exists, and he intervened.

Rw: I will ask you to please refrain from these childish attempts to lecture me on what you presume I do or do not know. And you claim God does not exist, (also without any conclusive evidence or proof), and that my experience was not a result of His intervention.

Jaliet: Which God intervened for you? Was it Jehovah? Allah? Yahweh? Krishna? Satan? a spirit of a dead person?

Rw: Jehovah, Allah and YHWH are all variations of the same deity. Krishna has no record of such intervention and satan’s record is one of deceit and destruction rather than the saving of life. There is also no good reason why I would consider this to be the result of a dead person spiritually intervening on my behalf.

Jaliet: Do you admit that you have very little respect for dogs (and the things dogs are capable of) because you cannot give any credit to a dog that saved your life? I say this because you are basically saying it was an act of God, not an act of a dog(i.e. the dog was used as a "tool").

Rw: And the straw man contention here is that I have some hidden hatred for dogs such that my judgment of this experience is clouded by prejudice. Someone is grasping for straws…yes?

Jaliet: If I dropped a coin and it stood on its edge, we all know that is very unlikely (highly unprobable), if it happened, would it be logical for me to say God made it stand on its edge and not land on its side?

Rw: If your life depended on that happening on the first attempt because you wouldn’t get another try?

jaliet: Do we attribute Gods intervention to your case just because Dogs are not supposed to know the danger that Hornets pose? Or do we attribute it to God because the dog "rescued" you spectacularly? Where do we draw the line between things that occur very rarely and things that require Gods intervention in order to occur?

Rw: There was really nothing spectacular about the method except the timing was impeccable. If you want to attribute the experience to natural causes the burden is on you to prove it.

Jaliet: How do you prove its a case of God intervening and not just an unlikely event happening?

Rw: Well, since it was you who decided to escalate this into an inquisition and further into a debate I suggest the burden of proof lies in your corner, as I qualified my input at the outset to be a personal subjective experience. You have yet to even demonstrate that dogs are capable of instinctually or with training recognize hornets as a threat to humans. As I said earlier, my dog gave no indication that he was even aware of the hive.

Jaliet: What is your basis for introducing God in the event that occured?

Rw: My basis for attributing my salvation from the hornets to God is my personal subjective belief that no other explanation comes close to a satisfactory explanation. As you attempt to insert an alternative explanation into the blanks we’ll see if I am justified…yes?

Jaliet: Is it because you were the main chatacter?

Rw: This was a testimony of a personal experience…hello.

Jaliet: Or do we attribute all we cannot explain/ understand to God('s intervention)?

Rw: When it comes to the salvation of one’s life I’d say we have grounds to do so. If you are implying that I would do so in any and all circumstances you are wrong. How is this different from someone on the verge of death in a hospital in a situation where the doctors have done all they can, which isn’t much more than pain relief and the patient survives in spite of the odds?

Jaliet: If someone spotted a python protecting a baby from a hungry hyena (instead of the snake swallowing the baby) - would you say God intervened - to save the baby?

Rw: Is there someone in these forums willing to make such a claim? Can you produce a baby that was saved from a hyena by a python? These hypotheticals only lead to speculation.

Rw: O’kay, so I learned something new today…great. And this is relevant…how?

jaliet: Maybe hornets give out a smell we humans cannot sense. I believe they should have some kind of smell. Especially considering we are talking plural here (many wasps) there could even be a sound . Of course I have no evidence but I believe its a logical assumption. Mating needs of anumals and all. Are you of the idea that since a dog is colour blind, you would spot a rabbit before a dog that was accompanying you? [/quote]

rw: Are you building a case on maybes? A dog would likely pick up a rabbit’s scent before a human would even be aware that a rabbit was within eyesight. In a hypothetical situation where a dog and a human were competing to see a rabbit, discounting the dogs sense of smell, if the rabbit remained completely still I believe the human would find it first by picking out it’s silhouette. If the rabbit bolted the dog might actually see it first reflexively.

rw: O’kay, I’ll accept your assertion here.

rw: Again I agree. He did threaten me and I indeed felt threatened by his behavior. Now you must make the connection to him doing this BECAUSE he was trying to protect me. In situations where a dog is responding to a perceived threat, the dog directs his attention towards the threat, not the possible victim. If I had been in the vicinity of a wolf or mountain lion do you assert that my dog would have behaved threateningly towards me or towards the wolf or mountain lion? My dog gave no indication that he was even aware of the hive. You say he was taking charge but you imply that he was doing so by his own initiative. I say he was just an instrument used to stop me from running into that beehive.

rw: You believe?

jaliet: So it has to be extreme, ongoing and graphical danger?

Rw: In all such cases it has been.

Jaliet: Are you saying that dogs cannot tell that hornets are dangerous?

Rw: You have evidence that they can not only determine danger but life threatening danger?

Jaliet: Remember we havent discounted the idea that the dog "knew" instinctively or otherwise, that hornets are dangeous - because we really dont know but its possible.

Rw: Well, if we’re considering possibilities and invoking induction into the equation then the RAZOR will cut you to pieces. I have only one postulate: God. You, on the other hand, must invoke several far- reaching speculations to arrive at the same end: my salvation.

jaliet: Are you saying that the natural thing for the dog to do would be to wait till you were screaming with the hornets upon you before intervening?

Rw: I wouldn’t know what the “natural” thing for a dog to do would be in this situation. I’ve only been in this situation once…how many times have you been there? I know that what transpired was extraordinary. It is your burden to demonstrate it to have been the natural course for a dog to take since that is the tact you have taken and assert.

jaliet: Does a dog wait for someone to bring a raised stick down before fleeing?

Rw: Sometimes, yes. But this is non sequitur. My dog wasn’t in any danger.

jaliet: I read somewhere that dogs can smell over a million different smells (a google search can give you sth on this) and their sense of smell is many times stronger than that of a hunter leave alone a 7 year old kid.

A hornet is likely to have a smell and a sound because we are talking about a horde of insects not one insect.

The same is applicable to a beehive

rw: Almost all living things give off odors. I don’t doubt that bees do too. But does this translate to a dog recognizing the odor of bees as a danger? There are thousands of bees continually moving around my yard during the spring and summer months but I never see my dogs react to them as though they are a danger. Conversely, I’ve seen my dogs, (including Lad), try to catch them on occasion if they flew too close. I think you are straining at a gnat to keep from swallowing a camel.

rw: Are you expressing disbelief here?

jaliet: You were only running as fast as a 7 year old, who is carrying a "gun" and ducking tree branches would - now how fast can that be?

Rw: Fast enough to cover the distance of ten or twelve feet in a couple of seconds.

jaliet: You are now talking about a clearing - are you trying to contrive the story or do you want to tell it once more all over again?
I am ready to have an edited version.

Rw: I resent the implications that I am being dishonest here. I tried to include as much detail as possible but it isn’t possible to recreate the scenario precisely with words. Have you never been in a forest before? Trees are usually spaced anywhere from five to fifteen feet from one another in southern pine forests so there are small clearings between each tree unless the ground has grown over with under growth and bushes. In this particular forest the ground was carpeted in pine needles so that you could barely hear yourself running.

rw: About the only thing an adult could have done were he to have been in front of me and to have spotted the danger would be to have thrown out his arms and caught me.

jaliet: Oh no, are you speaking for all adults here or are you speaking for yourself?

Rw: I’m speaking from experience. Do you have a better idea under the circumstances?

rw: My dog chose a highly peculiar and fortunate, (for me), time to display this unusual behavior, having no arms with which to catch me.

jaliet: Maybe the running had worn you out thus the easiest thing to do was to stand, not turn around and run back (a snarling dog can really scare a 7 year old - unless u wanna tell us that it had a habit of snarling to get your attention)

rw: Maybe you’d prefer to re-tell the incident to your own satisfaction? Lad had never so much as growled at me before. His behavior was incomprehensible to me but it wasn’t aggressive enough to run from. He didn’t advance towards me in a menacing manner but just stood there and snarled as though he was about to advance. But as soon as I stopped he assumed a docile position and came over to me wagging his tail. It all happened very quickly and without interruption.

jaliet: Not true, tell us what the dog should have done. My contention is that the dog "stopped" you at that time, because it was at that particular time that it realized there was danger. You OTOH say that the timing had nothing to do with the dog, like is was made "split-second" to heighten the significance of the moment. You are implying that God did the timing. Am I right?

Rw: Yes, I know what your contention is but you haven’t come close to proving it as a viable explanation. What the dog should have done was nothing. He should have kept running in the direction we were both going. And yes, the timing is a significant aspect of the occurrence.

Jaliet: U talk about me assuming a knowledge without substantiating my assumption yet that is what you are doing - anyway, I will introduce the logical fallacies you have committed later, I want to keep it simple for now.

Rw: How do you figure? I gave all the pertinent facts about the experience. These substantiate the additional fact that this was an extraordinary miraculous event that resulted in my salvation from almost certain painful death.

rw... Do you have any relevant material that suggests dogs instinctually know bees are a danger?

jaliet: No sir.
How do dogs know that fire is dangerous? Can a dog that has never been burnt know that fire is dangerous?

Rw: That one has been verified. Has it been verified that dogs consider bees to be dangerous?

jaliet: You wanna talk about relevant material?
Where is the relevant material that shows dogs do not know that hornets are dangerous?

Rw: I presented it above when I testified to have personally witnessed dogs and cats demonstrating no fear of bees, even trying to catch them on occasion.

Jaliet: Even after a dog has saved you from them you still insist that the dog had no idea that the hornets were even present leave alone dangerous?

Rw: Ah, but that is your interpretation of the experience. My interpretation is that God saved me using the dog as His instrument of choice. You are trying to prove it was a natural occurrence…remember. You can’t assume the conclusion in one of your premises. What was that you were saying about fallacies?

jaliet: Are you being sincere?

Rw: I am…why do you ask?


jaliet: Ok, so what makes the analogy false? Lack of a crying and squealing baby?
So the analogy would be fine if the babies involved were calm and quiet?
I think whats important here is whether the dogs involved recognize the imminent danger and whether the dogs are compelled for whatever reason to come to the "rescue" - unless you want to nitpick. Because of the two reasons I have stated, the analogy is not false.
You are implying the danger must be roaring, ongoing and glaringly imminent for my analogy to fit. I think you are stretching it a bit too far.

Rw: The factors in your analogy are vastly different from the factors in my case. Ever heard the phrase “comparing apples to oranges”? You are inserting a baby where I was seven and quite energetic. You are inserting a burning house with all the accompanying sights, sounds and smells as well as the heat, whereas I was in a pine needle forest among the natural sounds with only my imitation of gunshots ringing out above the background noise which would include the sound of buzzing bees. Another pertinent fact I neglected to mention earlier is that the hive was active but not swarming active. In other words, I remember seeing about ten or twelve hornets coming and going into the hive but I’m convinced there were many more than that. If I am being pedantic it is in the interest of preserving the integrity of the experience. Your analogy attempts to create a situation of heightened anxiety and alarmingly boisterous warning signs, (equivalent to a burning house), prior to the dogs behavior. This just wasn’t the case in my situation.

jaliet: Its not mundane at all. I dont consider it mundane. I think it was an unusual event. But that is all, I dont think an event must involve God for it to be unusual - but of course people use events to do all sorts of things. I am just trying to establish that it could have happened for a number of reasons (not necessarily God) and that it could have happened to everyone. Come to think of it, I am sure at least 85% of us can point out some extraordinary event in our lives, or an event that could have resulted in a death but did not - for whatever reason. You choose to try to make yours appear very "impossible" - yet it did happen. You elevate it to great heights then attribute it to God. Its not about the event being mundane, its how you interpret it.

Rw: You are trying to infer a natural explanation rendering the experience almost mundane. Your attempts to establish an alternative explanation have yet to be established. You say “a number of reasons” but thusfar you’ve only focused on one: dog instinctively protecting a child.

jaliet: Nope, are you saying every "intelligent" thing a dog does must come from the training it was given?

Rw: Nope. You are.

rw:..Your argument, as well as your tone, is taking a nosedive here.

jaliet: I am just saying that its possible that in the dogs previous life, It had come to know what hornets are, and what they are capable of. I am not saying it had to have got the knowledge from "class". Dogs "roam" in the woods more than boys. Correct me if I am wrong.

Rw: So your statement above, “ It was a trained dog for heavens sake! what was it supposed to do?” is equivalent to an assertion that my dog may have had previous experience with hornets? Seems like two totally different tacts to me. Roaming in the woods is also a peculiar way to “train” a dog wouldn’t you say?

jaliet: Saying ,my argument is taking a nosedive without explaining why and how is a waste of time.

Rw: Totally neglecting my reference to TONE…amazing.

jaliet: Because you dont sound fanatic when you say that. Indeed you sound reasonable. Unlike when you attribute an extraordinary event to a creature that we have never seen/ experienced.

Rw: Ah…now I’m a fanatic.

Jaliet: Without giving any evidence.

Rw: I’m alive. No dog has that level of instinctual capability or intelligence. You have failed to prove otherwise. This is all the evidence I need. I was there. You weren’t. You absolutely HAVE to promote a natural explanation EVEN if you have to invent one. You atheists are far better snake oil salesmen than you are given credit for. But you have no argument. None, Zilch. Nada. You admit it to be an extraordinary event. Then you proceed to concoct the most ridiculously erratic confusion of speculations without a shred of evidence. It is you who wish to SUBVERT the experience. And you ultimately end up resorting to that tired old cop out tactic of responding with “Prove it”.

Jaliet: Its a case of subverted support - a logical fallacy - there is no evidence that it happened because God intervened - the phenomena you use to explain the cause of the event has not been explained.

Rw: What sort of explanation do you require? Biblically speaking there is precedent for the use of animals to save men’s lives. Balaam’s ass comes to mind. {no pun intended}

Jaliet: The farthest you can go (if I give you some slack)

Rw: Excuse me…you have no choice but to put up or shut up. Since you’ve elected to take this tone in this post I’m going to terminate this inquisition after I’m finished demonstrating how bankrupt you are of any plausible argument to account for the experience.

Jaliet: - is demonstrate that it was an unusual thing for a dog to do. Even then THE DOG DID IT and YOU COOPERATED. It took the two of you to save you. There is no evidence that the Dog could not have done it without God.

Rw: So according to you God can’t use animals or people to accomplish things. He didn’t use Moses or Abraham or Paul. He didn’t use a whale to rescue Jonah or a fish to provide Peter’s tax money. The only thing I did was stop. The only thing my dog did was growl menacingly at me. Let’s not forget the bees. The only thing they did was build a hive in my path. Then there’s that tree they built it on. The only thing it did was grow there. And we mustn’t neglect my parents. The only thing they did was…well, never mind. The point is, it all came together in a brief instant in time to culminate in an experience that I am convinced God used to spare my life.

jaliet: I have explained that it is possible that the dog may have encountered/ experienced hornets before joining your family. This could have helped it sense the danger through smell, sound or sight (all these I have explained above)

rw: It is not possible that my dog had contact with a hornets nest in such a way as to have remembered it and identified it as a danger. Just to say he had some experience with hornets isn’t going to cut it. You must demonstrate that his experience would have left an indelible mark on his memory such that he immediately recollected the concept between hornets and danger and associated that with my trajectory and further transferred the danger aspect onto me and then executed a series of moves to stop me in my tracks. And further that this experience was with the exact same type of bee that exudes that precise odor. This isn’t possible even if I cut you a football field of slack. Especially when you factor in the two or three seconds of time he had to accomplish all this. He was running along in front of me some 15 or twenty feet out. We both came upon the nest almost simultaneously. It isn’t like he was waiting there for me all day. These hives are light gray in color. The same color as pine bark. Difficult to see from any distance, especially in a forest of trees with limbs hanging out in every direction limiting visibility to just a few yards or more.

Jaliet: The training aspect comes in when you consider how it handled the situation. Not in the sensing of the danger.

Rw: Again you assume too much. Who trains a dog to practice stopping his owner from running in a particular direction when he senses danger, (if indeed he actually did sense anything)?

jaliet: All dogs are obviously unique - you think we are idiots?

Rw: Do you really want me to answer that?

Jaliet: I said special, introducing the word "unique" here is a weak attempt at creating a strawman.

Rw: What was it you said earlier…”Oh Please”. Do you even know what a straw man fallacy is?

rw...I currently own two dogs, three cats and three horses.

jaliet: How is this relevant?

Rw: It goes towards establishing my sentiments towards dogs and other animals. If I didn’t think they were special I wouldn’t invest the time, money and energy that goes into caring for them.

jaliet: I know you did not, why dont you do so now? A dog was involved for christs sake, if you want to introduce God, you better tell us whether the dog is relevant and how, same to the God

rw: God is sovereign. If He decided to save my life He could have done so by any imaginable means. He could have caused a rabbit to run under foot tripping me up. Or, as I said before, he could have sent a few of those hornets to sting me and chase me in another direction. That He chose to use my dog doesn’t make the dog any more unique than the experience or the situation wherein the experience occurred. I loved my dog before the experience and I continued to love him till the day he died.

rw:...I just know my dog did something extremely unique, something I believe he was guided towards by a divine intervention.

jaliet: We all have what we believe, what I am interested in NOW - is, why do you believe God was involved? Is there evidence? Or is it a case of a drowning faith clutching at a straw?

Rw: Why do you continue to insert these subtle ad hominems into your responses? What you are REALLY interested in is finding a way to trip me up or prove me wrong or destroy my credibility. Why pretend otherwise? Why do you want to attack what I believe? It’s one thing to be an atheist. Such a person has no agenda. But you are quickly moving in line with the anti-theists who are agenda driven fanatics themselves.

[quote]Jaliet: what is the role of the dog in the scenario? didnt his strong sense of smell and training play any part?

Rw: Do hornets give off an odor? What type of training could have prepared him to recognize the danger?

jaliet: I have explained that hornets are more likely than not to have a smell because they are many insects and they give off some fluid (for mating, excretion - or for building) - we may not be able to smell hornets, but then again we are not dogs, we cannot smell as much as dogs do.

Rw: Yeah, well, saying it don’t make it so, now does it.

jaliet: Whatever we say, the dog sensed the danger - you are introducing divine intervention as another way of sensing things.

Rw: No, you haven’t established this at all. As I’ve said ad naseum, my dog gave no indication that he was even aware of the hive or the bees. It is you trying to force this conclusion because it seems to be the only natural explanation that must posit my dog sensing any kind of danger.

jaliet: You are introducing a complex cause (ie. because its highly unlikely - there must be God involved),

rw: I gave you detailed information on a set of complex life threatening circumstances that a simple natural explanation just doesn’t satisfy. It was indeed highly unlikely, but the hypothesis you are proffering is more unlikely still. In a comparison of probabilities you lose. In a process of induction you lose. IN a court of law I walk free. That only leaves metaphysics. Care to offer another explanation from this direction?

Jaliet: and you are also committing the logical fallacy of begging the question - first, we must agree that God indeed intervenes before we can agree that he intervened in that case.

Rw: Au cotrare…we needn’t agree at all. In fact, if we actually did we wouldn’t be having this inquisition. I believe these things. I gave a testimony of an experience that helped bolster that belief. Until you can conclusively disprove what I believe I shall continue to believe it.

Jaliet: For us to agree he intervenes, we must show cause/ evidence. If we cannot do that then we have no reason for believing that and are being irrational.

Rw: Isn’t that what my experience was suppose to accomplish? To be submitted as evidence? If you reject it, what is that to me? But you haven’t any valid reason to do so. Or you haven’t provided one yet.

jaliet: What people say matters to me. If you say something, you must explain why you say/ claim whatever it is you are saying. If you cannot, then you are being irrational.

Rw: I have made an honest attempt to do just that but I get the feeling I will still be labeled irrational.

Jaliet: Its important to me to demonstrate that you are being irrational because others who think like you will change their ways,

Rw: Then you might want to consider taking a few lessons because you have made absolutely no progress in this direction. In fact, I have so overwhelmed your every attempt at this goal that you are likely to be reprimanded by the Anti-theists Delegation if you continue. And thank you for owning up to being an avowed anti-theist with an agenda.

Jaliet: - thus we have a better world full of rational people - thus we avoid stuff like Sept 11, world wars etc

Rw: Loading the world with parasites to theism will not make it a better place. You couldn’t even conduct a simple inquisition with a friendly theist without devolving to ad hominem insult for no obvious reason. Is this an example of your anti-theistic ethics? Will you replace one brand of fanaticism with another? At least with the religious fanatics they have some basis towards compassion whenever they get over their fanaticism. Anti-theism has no basis in any rational ethic or morality.

Jaliet: and It also helps me to adjust my way of reasoning - by weighing, comparing, contrasting, questioning, examining, validating. Its an excercise that makes me "better" - at least in my eyes.

Rw: Yes, that is what I suspected.

Jaliet: You could also ask "Why is it so important to read good books? "
For me this is a learning experience.

Rw: Relevency?


jaliet: Nope - if we dont know either, then we should claim none. That is my position. If you claim sth, you must support it.

Rw: This has nothing to do with God’s intervention. If you don’t want speculative answers don’t ask speculative questions.

jaliet: Special/ unusual/ extraordinary things dont always require any stretch. What stretch does it require to bear a baby with 7 legs ot two heads? Or a one month old baby surviving an accident where 300 people died. It happens, buts its extraordinary - indeed very rare, well nigh impossible - but no stretch is required. But it needs to be stretched if we have to involve God, or some other unexplained phenomena.

Rw: Correction… YOU have to incorporate a stretch because YOU are too tight with your brain cells. What is that to me. None of these examples are cogent. It could very well be that God had a hand in all of them. Can YOU prove He didn’t? No? I didn’t think so.

jaliet: In a matter of seconds he stopped you in your tracks? How long should a dog take to stop a 7 year old boy? 2 minutes? Are you of the opinion that if it was not for God, he could have taken a minute? It has never been tested that dogs take more than a second to stop 7 year olds from danger, so you have no reason for making the event, or the timing, seem so significant or incredible.

Rw: Oh brother…this just gets more and more ridiculous. I was running very quickly towards a head on collision with a hornet’s nest. There wasn’t one minute or two minutes to procrastinate. There was only a matter of seconds. Now if you want to speculate about timing we could just as easily say that God could have caused me to be sick that day such that I wouldn’t have even been in the forest to begin with. There are an innumerable avenues to approach this. However it came down to a matter of seconds and inches. Perhaps it was all for my benefit…eh? Something to remember Him by.

rw:...The only reason I am arguing as though he did understand what he was doing is because that is the only course a natural explanation can take other than just blind luck. I can’t say my dog even knew there was a hornets nest there. He didn’t appear to notice it. He wasn’t standing there staring at it or growling at it or showing any sign of acknowledging its existence. He was focused entirely on me.

jaliet: If the hornets were coming at you it would be logical for the dog to bark or growl at them but you were the one who was rushing at the hornets. How are you reasoning man? Of course the dog doesnt have to appear to notice anything , whats important is that it acted to save you. It was in the nick of time. For christs sake the dog only "knew" at the last minute - and you were too busy shooting at your enemies to even have noticed any earlier warnings the dog may have given.

Rw: There were no earlier warnings. The danger wasn’t from a few hornets flying at me. Are you now going to say that dogs should act to protect children from getting stung by a bee? That this too is instinctual? No, the logical, most consistant behavior a dog exhibits when he senses danger is to focus on the source of that danger. I wasn’t the source. So his behavior was extremely unusual and extraordinary. To attribute it to instinct doesn’t fly.

jaliet: So what would have made you discount Gods involvement?

Rw: Irrelevent and speculative. I live and survived the threat.

jaliet: I have accounted for his actions - why he could have sensed the danger, and why he could have acted why he did.

Rw: No, you have submitted a series of unsupported and highly speculative postulates that you IMAGINE comprises an argument. That is all you have accomplished thusfar.

Jaliet: Your compliance was instinctual but it was necessary for the dogs attemt to save u to be successful. So we cannot assume that the dogs style was the best way of saving you.

Rw: Relevency?

Jaliet: It worked because you complied, not because it was foolproof/ excellent. If an adult was around, he could have patted the dog, then patted your head and said "clever boy" - because u sensed danger and acted in a way that saved u.

Rw: Historically God has always done His best work in conjunction with man’s participation. This continual stream of appeals to mine and my dog’s participation doesn’t really establish anything but the facts that already exist. What’s the point?

jaliet: Then the explanation/ reason for your faith is too incomplete inadequate and unsatisfactory.

Rw: Do you imagine this is the crux of my faith? You have created a false dilemma and then use that to denigrate my faith. How typical.

Jaliet: God is a universal phenomena (assuming he exists) and I do not believe it is rational for you to assume that God would desert millions of others to come and rescue you from wasps.

Rw: You are correct. It isn’t rational that an anti-theist would presume to wrangle a dilemma from a non-issue. Where do you guys get this crap anyway? I seriously doubt millions of people died in that one or two seconds it took to complete my experience. And, to follow your reasoning to its foolish but necessary conclusion, God is unjust for not abolishing all death and suffering prior to my salvation. My death will come soon enough…as will yours.

Jaliet: If you can explain why you are special to God, then u have a reason for believeing as you do, otherwise there is no reason to believe he specifically "came" to save you.

Rw: Now this is a granddaddy of a straw man.

jaliet: Because we ALL Matter. I believe everyone is important, every human life. I expect a loving God to love each of us equally. And if intervening is his style, then indeed he needs to intervene for those being raped (physically) those being screwed by dictators as well as those being attacked by hornets.

Rw: Yes, this is the primary reason God remains incognito. Men who would demand He solve all the worlds problems and then give everyone eternal life along with everything they could imagine wanting. The list would grow exponentially. I suggest you take up these complaints with Him. I’m no longer His personal secretary.

rw: ..Do you think about every starving child every time you swallow a morsel of food?

jaliet: Unlike you, I do, but I swallow anyway because there is very little, if anything I can do to stop hunger in this world.

Rw: Yeah, I bet you do. How much do you do? A person who thought about this every time they eat should be making some serious attempts to do something.

Jaliet: I consider them unfortunate to be in their situations, but I do not believe that God gave me food and gave them hunger, because that would be in conflict with the belief that God loves us all.

Rw: Ah…I see…this from an avowed atheist. Now you are lying.

rw: What is the purpose of this line of questioning?

jaliet: To establish your way of thinking. To shake the roots of your faith. Using simple reasoning. Questions provoke thought, they get you out of your comfortable shells of faith. When you crawl out of the shells to respond to the questions, I administer simple logic - that will make crawling back to the shell a bit more uncomfortable. That is my style.

Rw: hahahaha…you flatter yourself and over exaggerate your prowess in the use of logic and rhetoric.

rw: Why should I continue under such rude conditions?

jaliet: I apologise if you find me rude. That was not my intention.

Rw: Then you need to re-examine the ways and means you incorporate to accomplish your intent. You have become highly toxic and flammatory in your anti-theistic agenda driven inquisition. Reminds me of someone else I occasionally cross swords with in this forum.

Jaliet: In summary, I believe U have comitted a number of logical fallacies among them you created a strawman, your premises are fallacious, your interpretation of the event is begging the question (it does not follow), you have introduced a complex cause to explain the event without supporting your reasons (other than that it was very unlikely without God) You have made a hasty Generalization (Gods dont save kids from hornets like Lad did unless God is involved),
fallacy of style over substance ( that the dog did it too spectacularly for a dog - the fact remains that the dog did it), your experience was also an unrepresentative sample to draw the conclusion (it has not been tested that dogs do not save people from previously unseen hornets unless God is involved) or the fallacy of accident. You have committed the fallacy of exclusion - you have not given any credit to the dog in spite of the fact that the dog is the animal that rescued you....
I could continue forever.
Bottom line is that it is irrational to attribute your being saved to God. For the reasons given above. Do you agree?

Rw: In as much as the testimony submitted was not done so as a logical argument for or against the existence of God your first accusation falls short of the mark. As for the remainder of your complaint containing all those highly irregular and unusually defined alleged fallacies I’ve supposedly committed I will make no attempt to legitimize with a response. The tone and style of this interrogation has gone south of the border and will likely further deteriorate into a flame war. You started out declaring that you didn’t want to be offensive and was doing a fair job of it but you end up being just that…offensive and uninteresting.

Ted Hoffman

Ok so now I am an anti-theist, I have become highly toxic and flammatory in my anti-theistic agenda driven inquisition.
Its like this, its a fact I was not there when you experienced this event. From your narration, I believe the dog saved you because it sensed the danger posed by the hornets (either by hearing their buzz or by smelling them). How the dog "knew" the hornets posed a threat to your life could have been instinctual or from past experience. Its style of saving you could have been more than a dozen. I believe it used its particular manner of saving you because it believed that that would work. I believe that the timing was as it was because it acted as soon as it felt it had to act. I say the dog saved you. I feel that what happened was rare and extraordinary - but natural and entirely possible.
You say this is specualtive. Fair enough.
You say dogs cannot save 7 yr old boys from hornets. You say the timing could not have occured naturally - it required a supernatural being to have orchestrated it. You say the manner of saving was too "intelligent" and efficient to have come from the dog alone. You say God saved you and used the dog has a tool.
You feel there is no reason to provide evidence for this. Because God can choose to use any tool he chooses - to save you. You feel naturalistic explanations are too simplistic and inadequate to explain this extraordinary event so you resort to metaphysics. You feel it was a supernatural event.
Whether this is speculative or not I will leave to you.

You have rejected all my naturalistic explanations and my attempts to explain it as a natural but extraordinary event have been interpreted as attempts to make the event seem mundane.


You have reason to believe God intervened because that makes your beliefs about his existence more plausible. I can say you have quite a lot to lose if it was proved that it was a natural event. This bias makes my attempts to provide an alternative explanation seem to be an anti-theistic excerise.

Your deep intractability and inertia makes it impossible for me to penetrate that shroud of faith with my naturalistic explanations.

So ok, if you almost get killed/ injured but something happens that saves your life in an extraordinary way, that must be the hand of God. If this is how you interpret events in your life, fine with me. My mission in life is not to take away from you what makes you feel loved and makes your belief system complete. I was just attempting to show you that there are other naturalistic explanations that are more plausible that your metaphysical one. I have obviously failed.
One last question (I am amused that you have labelled this as an "inquisition")
How old are you?

HelenI respect peoples beliefs. But I do not hold them sacred. If I feel a belief is baseless, I feel compelled to say so, or demonstrate as such.
Some will listen, some will take offense, some will label it disrespectful, but that does not deter me, because in the process, I also get to learn.
I think if someone saves is kind to children children because they believe that God will bless them with all the children they have been kind to, then I have a problem with that, so no, I refuse to look away just because someones beliefs make them nice. We can still be nice without holding onto baseless beliefs.
I think I have made my point as far as CW's experience is concerned.

HelenM

madmax2976

<strong> I don't recall RW stating this "countless" times, however, since he's stated here, I'll take it at face value and accept it - His testimony was not meant to be a logical argument to argue for the existence of a deity.

RW cast many aspersion's upon atheists in general in his latest post, comparing us to "snake oil salemen" even and perhaps showing us a little of his true self, but I'll let these usupported ad homimen's slide as their pretty irrelevant. Until such time as RW actually incorportates this "testimony" into a logical argument as he states could be done, it'll remain nothing more than a mildly interesting story. He is certainly free to derive anything he wishes from the incident and we need only be concerned if/when he offers it as some kind of actual argument for the existence of a deity.

(Due to the grave weaknesses of such an argument, I don't suspect he'll actually attempt it of course. )

Ted Hoffman

Helen, thank you for your comments, and for your sincerity.
The only part I resent is the part below. It implies I spend my time striving to demonstrate that other peoples beliefs are superior. I just had some free time to ask RW some questions. Its not something I do all the time. I cannot do it all the time.
But then again, people will always say such things to people like me. Making me look like I have nothing better to do.
Helen (earlier)

HelenM

Ah, I should have been more careful about how I worded that.

I was not meaning to infer that your use of time is wrong.

I meant to say I respect your choice of how you use your time; I wasn't meaning that it was an inferior choice. I simply wanted to say that it is your choice. Not that it's not an ok choice.

I'm sorry that it was ambiguous enough to seem like I might be questioning the validity of that choice. I didn't mean it that way. Sorry, jaliet. It's hard to word some things so that they are unambiguous but maybe I could have done better at it.

Do you still resent it now I've tried to clarify that my only point was supposed to be that it really is your choice?

love
Helen

ecco

RainbowWalking,

1. I too, as a child, heedlessly ran through the woods. I did not have a dog. I never ran into a hornet’s nest. From this should I conclude that god protected me by never placing a hornet’s nest in my path in the first place?

2. Children (and adults) have been stung to death by bees and hornets. From this should I conclude that god favored you but not the people who died?

Every year thousands of children are put in harm’s way; accidental gunshots, car accidents, accidental poisoning. Some live, some die.

3. Are we to assume that god intervened to save some but not others?

Regarding (3) the usual theist response when children live (as in your case) is that god stepped in, and when children die: god works in mysterious ways; god has taken him/her to a better place.

My answers to the above questions are NO, NO and NO. In nature some animals, including humans, live long healthy lives, others die early.

Ted Hoffman

Helen
apology accepted.
I know you regret saying what u said, or more precisely, you regret that I took it in poor taste, but I still believe you implied its useless to spend ones time attacking other peoples beliefs, you implied its a futile excercise and is not worth anyones while.
Maybe you just did not expect me to take it personal. But dont let it get you down. Its a new day and the hurt has faded. It was graceful of you to apologise. In retrospect, I think it was a poor strategy for me to play victim and show that my feelings were wounded. I should not have appealed for your pity.
That settled, I am back on RW's case.

Ted Hoffman

Rainbow Walking,
I am back in full force. Your intransigence, inertia and denial notwithstanding. I think I expected it to be easy to demonstrate to you that you were wrong in assuming that God saved you and not the dog, so now I will be more systematic. Feel free to label this as a waste of time and an excersise in futility. In the end, I am convinced that if you are sincere and earnest about your reasoning, you will see my points and your faulty reasoning.
My objective is not to bring you down to your knees and have you blubber "I was wrong, It was my cognitive dissonance that made me think that way". No, I know that will not happen here. It may never happen, but at the very least, someone who reads this thread, will see that someone here is wrong.
Earlier, the easiest thing for me to do was say "if it works for you fine - but it doesnt work for me" and abandon the argument/ discussion. Or as Helen said, if your beliefs make you be a nice person, I should not attack them. That is, adopt a "the end justifies the means approach". But that would have been too easy.
Fact is, if you use the wrong means, sooner or later we will have lots of bad ends. Selective assesment of the good ends cannot justify the means. We must apply the means across the board and test it rigorously before we can ratify it. If Newton thought "ah, since something cannot just move from one place to another on its own, unless its living, then, when non-living things move from higher to lower positions, it must be God moving them" - if that would have been the thinking he applied, Gravitational force
(10 m/s?) would have taken some years to discover. This is not a slippery slope I am introducing, but its a possible result we can get when we assign what we dont know - to what we dont know even more. Science is not limited. We are the ones who are limited. We just lack information. My approach to these matters is just as in courts: "without facts - we withold judgement". If we do not know, we should admit it. Period. If we have to speculate, we should do so logically.
Of course where matters of faith are involved, cognitive dissonance complicates matters - people want to ascribe "great" deeds to their gods, as a matter of fact, the excersise itself is an act of worship - its giving credit, its a form of "praise". Human beings tend to try to blend reality with their beliefs - to deal with dissonance and create consistency between their cognition(beliefs) and reality, and this applies to atheists too - me included.
But there are cases when one is made to choose between one belief/ action and another - when there are alternatives. And that is what we are looking at here. This Guy RW, is a believer, to believe that God did it solidifies his beliefs, it makes his world complete, to admit otherwise, especially if the event is the basis of his beliefs brings down his belief structure (oh, I am fighting not to call it a "house of cards" - but I believe this is an opportunity for excercising restraint).
So what happens, the theist on one side clinging to his "God did it" and the atheist in the other side insisting "Where is the evidence". I believe the best way to go from there is to look at the evidence/ facts on the Ground, and then assess how each party handles/ interprets the facts. From there one can tell the "best" approach. Not the CORRECT one, but the best one between the two.

I will start with the facts, then I will proceed to state the interpretation of those facts, and then show why they are false/ incorrect/ fallacious/ duplicitious.

FACTS
1. RW was 7 years at the time the event occured.
2. The dog was brought to RW's home when the dog was two years old. It was not brought up at RW's home.
3. Dogs have been known to rescue mankind and his offsprings from dangerous situations, even lose their lives in the process.
4. Dogs are known to have a keen sense of smell, hundreds of times stronger than that of man.
5. Dogs are known to be able to detect thousands of different more smells than man can.
6. Special dogs, dogs that have unique capabilities than the average dog, DO EXIST.
7. Dogs that have been well trained can handle challenging situations more adeptly/ gracefully than untrained dogs.
8. Dogs only respond to danger when they sense the danger either through sight, smell, hearing or instinct.
9. Dogs handle "kids" differently from how they handle adults.
10. There is No proof that God exists. ie. No factual proof that God exixts.
11. The Dog stopped RW from running into a hornets nest, thus saved him from the attack that could have ensued.
12. Hornets live in groups (colonies?). There are queens, workers etc that work together to keep the nest "going", some hornets die, they also mate, they also excrete some fluids - these combined, bring out a distinct smell - that of a hornets nest. Whether we can smell it or Not.
13. Dogs' hearing capability is many times better than that of man, leave alone a running, screaming, shooting 7 year old.

Rainbow Walkings assertions
1. The Dog Did not rescue him. ie. The Dog did not stop him. God did it. God only used the Dog as a stopping tool - or an obstacle. To prevent RW from running into the hornets' nest.
2. Because dogs have only been known to rescue humans when the danger is roaring, ongoing and "familiar" - as in the case of burning buildings, this could not have been the case of a dog rescuing him because the hornets were not attacking RW - at the time.
3. If the dog meant to rescue him, it should have barked or snarled at the hornets and not at him.
4. The nest was far from home and the dog did not know that the nest was there, therefore, the dog just snarled at RW, without any reason, and after RW had stopped running, the dog stopped snarling and wagged its tail. So something "came over" or got into the dog and made it stop and snarl at RW. That thing was not the danger the dog sensed, but God made the dog turn and snarl at RW. Ie, at the time the Dog was snarling at RW, it did not know that there was a hornets nest in that proximity.
5. God intervened for RW because he has a special purpose for RW.
6. RW doesnt care why God does not intervene for other people. He believes that is Gods business and does not let it trouble him when other kids are bitten to death by bees.
7. RW believes I am questioning him because I am an anti-theist. I am only intersted in attacking theists because their beliefs make me uncomfortable.
8. RW believes that because it was an unusual thing for the dog to have done, especially the manner of executing the rescue and the critical timing, It cannot be interpreted as a "natural" and extraordinary occurrence, but a supernatural one, one of a God rushing to intervene and save his beloved "child".

Let me adress these assertions one by one
assertion one is faulty reasoning and is a case of blatant dishonesty and denial of the facts on the ground. Under logic its classified as a fallacy of exclusion where the object involved in an incident is excluded and other objects that were not factually involved are introduced. If this is a valid way of reasoning we will never be able to know what special dogs are capable of. We will always strive to limit the capabilities of dogs to the paradigm we are familiar with. Its an assertion made with blatant disregard to the facts on the ground and it is begging the question. The conclusion that God did it is not arrived at by looking at the facts we have but by using RW's beliefs/ prejudices.
assertion 2
This is a case of forcing a belief withot giving any evidence - indeed going against the evidence available. Appeal to ignorance. RW is saying that because we have never experienced what his dog did, his dog could not have done it - even though it did it. Again this is faulty reasoning and it can only survive in RW's mind because of his superior capability to ignore the facts.
assertion 3
Dogs differ. There is no known standard method that dogs employ in dangerous situations. It is yet to be tested whether all other dogs will bark and not snarl. It is just an irresponsibe assumption you choose to make because its convenient. It is one more fallacy that makes the clock of your belief tick.
Here you have comitted the fallacy of style over substance. That considering the manner in which the rescue was executed, it could not have been done by a dog. Yet THE DOG DID it.
assertion 4
Considering a dogs sense of smell, and sight - and considering the "nature" of a hornets' nest we can conclude that the dog sensed the hornets and was compelled to stop you. There is no evidence that God commanded the Dog to stop you. In any case, a wise God would not have let you come so close to danger. Unless he was testing his ability to command dogs. It is simply irrational to assume that the spirit of God got into the dog. Its irresponsible, deceptive and dishonest to make such a claim without attempting to explain why God would have done such a thing. Its shows the flippant manner in which you structure your beliefs.
assertion 5
Its pertinent to explain why God would save you and not save other kids who are bitten to death by bees etc. Why should you believe that God has a special purpose for you? Has he told you that? Do you know why he would choose you and not Helen or anyone else? are there some special abilities you have that you havent divulged? I am not saying that God has no special purpose for you, but please attempt an explanation, otherwise you are just irresponsible. You owe yourself an explanation and its only fair that you share it with me. Please enlighten me.
assertion 6
This is selective thinking. You are simply turning the other way. You are afraid to ask yourself the hard questions. Questions that may crack your cocoon of faith. You dont want to lose the comfort your selective thinking gives you.
Grow some backbone. Sit up and think.
assertion 7
I am not anti-theist. I am definitely against sloppy thinking and dishonest reasoning. If that is what theism constitutes, then you are be right. If not, then u are wrong.
assertion 8
At the very least show / demonstrate that God has intervened for other "known" people in the recent past, the monkeyass analogy of baalams(?) donkey is flagrant, riduculous and downright insulting to me. The donkey did not rescue anyone.

I'd like to know what RW thinks. Helen too of all this.