Ted Hoffman

Rw: You say in your last post that I am arrogant, that I think I am a genius, that I am rude and crude, that I am not nice and that I do not practice what I preach, that I am boring (expressed by your histrionic yawn) and stupid.

These are all attempts to change the subject because the beauty or morality of my character is not what we are discussing here. These are all personality attacks and are meant to divert me or anyone reading this from the issue at hand. Attacking the person instead of what he/ she is saying means you have run out of any arguments you can use to counter what put across to you. They all serve to demonstrate that mental lassitude is setting in and your resons for interpreting your experience are all belly-up and no longer feasible as counter-arguments - so you choose your next easiest target - my personality. Too bad, this is not about my personality, but your interpretation of the event that took place in your life. So I will not address those personality attacks.

On the other hand, I have noticed the tactic you have adopted in an attempt to wear me out or just plainly annoy me so that I drop the whole matter: when I hit you in one avenue, you open another.

For example, you offer ridiculous speculations as possible naturalistic explanations (an attempt at creating a strawman actually) of what could have happened, then when I zero in on them, you back out and claim that you weren't really considering them. Then you claim something, then when I attack it, you claim it was not your idea.
here u claim u considered them as possible alternatives during your 40 years of serious thinking.
Then here you deny that they are your own idea:
Its obvious these were your speculations. You cant say they were not yours. You did the thinking and you did the phrasing. Unless you want to tell us whose speculations they are.

Then later, you make a somersault (when the time is right) and say
So you challenge my logic by creating a strawman? My God, rainbow walking, I am sure you can do better than this? Even a two year old can tell that what you "offered" (now u offer them, now you dont) were not what I suggested?

Worse yet, you also lie. This is how your dishonesty comes in:
First, you said Then you later said you are 46 at this time.
Than U later say that u have thought and researched for 40 years.
Surely if this incident occured when u were 7 years and u are 46 years today it means u started researching and thinking about this when u were 6 years? Even before the incident took place?
Are you being sincere or you have a problem with numbers?
Even then, what kind of research can a 7 year old who shoots at aliens do about divine intervention and the behaviour pattern of a dog?

Here I demonstrated that dogs "handle" kids differently from how they "handle" adults and you agreed. That they handle attacks from kids differently from attacks from adults.
Here you disagree.
You really dont care what you say do you? You can always turn around and weasel yourself out when you find it convenient.

I could continue but at this point I believe it will be a waste of time. If you are honest, you will own up to your dishonest tactics and unreliable approach to this issue.

You even argue against simple reality. Like in your post below:
You want me to tell you that dogs can and indeed are used to track humans and that dogs can detect unique smells emanating from anyone and distinguish them? Do I need to tell you that dogs have even been known to be able to "dig out" people buried under snow? Jesus RW, how many human beings do you believe exist? How many smells do you think they have? If a dog can detect the smell of each of us, how many smells are those? If a dog can track a criminal from miles away, what does that tell us about the strength of its sense of smell compared to that of humans?

Anyway, let me adress your last post:

The first few posts are personality attacks about me being proud, arrogant and thinking I am a genius, my bad manners, not practicing what I preach etc. I will not stoop down to address them.

Then when I say something you cannot refute your response is either:
"Rw: Again, sounds good on paper" or
"Rw: sounds good on cyberspace"
I think its really a shame that you cannot say whether you agree or disagree with my premises. Why are you afraid to make a stand? Its a mark of dishonesty and lack of commitment to a true and sincere debate.

Then you say there is a voice in my head. I assure you I do not hear any sounds emanating from my head. Unless you want to redefine the term voice.
What makes you think there is a voice in my head sir?
I dont
There is no voice but whenever there are any, I use my ears, what about you?
no noice sir,
Oh, my thoughts? Whose thoughts are my thoughts then? Gods? If so, what is my brain for? No sir, they are mine, whether I act on them or not.
About what?
How do you know what my only recourse is? How do you know its only one?
I did not say I intend to prove what you claim here, please read again Just ask the questions and I will answer all of them. Humble approach?
Please!

Jesus RW, why not be specific? Whatever it is you mean "...anything outside their empirical epistemology and their sensory perception" is untestable, so your argument still fails.

You had agreed with me before that special dogs do exist. Remember? If you want me to support my assertion, withdraw your agreement and apologise then say you disagree. Then I will support my assertion. You cant agree at first, then later at 3 pm you say "no, I disagree - unsupported assertion". This is not a game. For the purposes of this debate, we had agreed that there are special dogs.

see below
Challenging situations eg. the dog owner being attacked by thugs or hornets. Thats what some dogs are trained for: to handle such situations.
Instinct from dictionary.com means
:in·stinct (nstngkt)
n.
An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli:
An innate capability or aptitude.

Instincts therefor can be a basis of a response.
To environmental stimuli. Ie your dog could have acted on instinct.

Therefore you have no premises to build your argument that God did it. You use flase premises and therefor wrong conclusions.
You cannot use the unexplainable to explain what you find equally unexplainable.

You have exclused the dog. A living thing capable of taking action. You say God did it. The dog is not responsible. God is responsible. Like I asked before, what was the role of the dog? If it was ised just as a barrier/ obstacle, then the dog did nothing - it was just used.

His conclusion wanes? Its clear as a crystal that you have comitted a logical fallacy.

The idea that God saved you is Not a possible fact if God himself does not exist. My assertion is that you are interpreting the experience incorrectly. Whether God exists or not.

Ok, so this is not your conclusion, you are just using the Theory of Everything that theists do? Maybe theyd accuse you of disloyalty if you did not ascribe any strange phenomena to God?
Jesus, at 46 I expected a better defence than that lame "This is what we theists do, so I do it too". My God! I am so embarrased for you.

I am not an ati-theist, but I believe they assume the conclusion is false unless proven to be the right one. Its only reasonable.

Why dont you enlighten me sir? You know the answer to my "dillema", dont you?

I will add onto this shortly, I have to leave shortly.

Huginn

Since we cannot know the properties of God, any properties, motives, or actions attributed to said being, are separate assumtions. There are many different ideas of what God is or wants. If there is a God no one has established exactly what its properties or motives are. So by using any particular definition of God you are using a large set of assumtions which cannot be treated as a single assumption.

An odd generalisation, that can easily be demonstrated to be false.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_493000/493323.stm" target="_blank">Dog attack</a>

"A spokesman for the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals said: "It may have been a brain tumour or some other medical defect which set it off."

That is not what I am suggesting. I am suggesting that your dog was stung by a hornet and directed his aggression towards you. This is a well known behaviour in dogs, as I have demonstrated.

These conditions are not necessary for the Pain Agression response. Dogs are not very clever and are particularly irrational when in pain. If you had made a noise that co-incided with the pain, this would be enough. Simply being there is often enough.

It is not just dogs that exhibit this response. Children do too. Have you ever caught the accusatory glare from a child that has just fallen over? Though there is no immediate or obvious way you could have been to blame, it still takes them a while to realise you had nothing to do with it.

Just imagine how much more extreme this will be to an animal that can't figure out why the large stick it is carrying wont fit through its dog flap!

Why wouldn't you?

Is it because of logical deduction? Or is it because of the emotional appeal of the godditit explanation?

If it is the former can you please elaborate, because unless you are hiding some evidence I cannot see how you could logically reach that conclusion.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Huginn ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

Flatter yourself on my friend.

The crap I have been trying? You have suddenly realised that they were crap? U are just saying they are crap because I have said

yours are crap. I have demostrated that they are crap. You are suggesting that your dog was deranged and that there was a rattler
coiling nearby. U know they are ridiculous and you have not even attempted to defend them. You have even refused to stand by them.
Its a possible source for reaction - not the only one.
But there is no evidence for that. There is no reason to even think that God did it. God is a concept, that is yet to be proved to "exist"

or
.
Because he is not known to use peoples dogs to do his will. Besides, he is supposed to have better ways than rescuing in the nick of time.
Because u were the one approaching the danger and not the danger approaching you. What was it supposed to do? bite the hornets?
The hornets were calm and u were not. U needed to be be stopped. The dog stopped you. What is strange about that?
So you say.
This is your opinion and I disagree with it. There is no way in hell they can react in EXACTLY the same way. That too is my opinion. If you cannot quote scientific findings about this, lets leave it at that.
not highly irregular. Just unexpected. As huggin postulated, it could have been bitten by a hornet.
Introducing a new phrase "official position" will not erase the fact that they came from you. If they werent yours whose were they?

MIne?
Fair enough, but it was a ludicruous speculation unless we are to assume that rattlers are invisible to a boy, but only visible to a dog.
The backpeddler is you. I have never denied any of the statements I have made as not mine. Only YOU have done that.
On the contrary, I wanted to answer your qns but you said they werent your speculations, so there is nothing for me to respond to.

Why dont we just speak for ourselves here and avoid giving ideas that we arent ready to own up to?
Nope, just standard procedure when someone proposes something you find ridiculous. A few qns always does the trick

Punchline, suspense, dull....sounds like u watched a boring movie today.
First of all this is an equivocation you are trying to equate a belief system with human experience, theism is a belief system. Human
beings have been known to hold beliefs whether human experience proves their beliefs wrong or not.
And how do you define theism? Which God is believed in by the theists?
And when u pass by a santa claus statue this isnt human experience?
There is a difference between human actions, human experience and belief systems. My understanding of human experience is that it is a combination of human actions and their consequences or a combination of events and human reaction to them.
To try to link human acts like church building and what you call human experience is lame. Church building is an act of faithfuls.

Besides, only a subsection of human beings build churches. Others build synagogues, others build temples, others build mosques.

Nothing great about church-building. It doesnt convey the idea that the beliefs theists hold "work" or are sensible.
No its not human experience. its an interpretation of human experience. An interpretation based not on proof or reason, but faith.

No it is not consistent with human experience. It is the effect that faith has on dying people. There is no evidence that shows when people die, there will be someone waiting to give them gifts for their good deeds on earth. Not in human experience.
It shows that religious faith can make people donate food and clothing for charity. Religious faith can also make people drive planes into buildings. But it does not show that the faith is based on reality.
No sir, that is a social act. Human experience is irrelevant here.
For the last time NO.
None of them qualifies as a human experience but they are acts of faith. When we establish that the poor are indeed blessed, then they qualify as human experience.
Thank you for agreeing.
Aah, youve finally provided an example of human belief that is consistent with human experience. But they were scientific beliefs, not religious ones. And as you have demonstrated, "it worked". Hence its human experience.
Does religion offer cures for diseases? Does religion help us make planes? Does religion teach us how to handle fractures?

NO!. Does religion tell us that prayer works?
YES.
Does it work?
NO.
For example, why dont you pray for your computer to go off and let it go off instead of using a switch designed through science?
Because you know it will not work.

Yes. It has told us that nature is all there is to existence.
Has religion proved that nature is not all there is?
NO.
Does it claim there is more than nature?
YES.
So on what basis does it make its claims?
ON FAITH.
What is faith?
A trusting acceptance on what a brand of religion proposes as true.
Does it also mean that one can believe even if what a faith claims is inconsistent with human experience?
YES.

So that?
Your God describes himself as "I am Who I am."
Why is He who he is?
and Who is he?
Why not?
How many universes do you know of?
Your God created many universes? Where are they? Beyond Pluto?
These are irrelevant questions and you are attempting to wasel yourself out of this issue. But I will play along.
Because there is both life and non life. And there is more non-life than there is life in our universe, so I dont see the big deal about what you call life.
It has no obligation to do so. Science is a means that can bring a better understanding of our universe. It doesnt have to answer silly

questions like "why life?"
Does religion tell us the answer to that?
Ok, so I misquoted. The fact of the matter is that whoever wrote that was wrong.
Ha, ha, ha, ha. You have a great sense of humour. I think I like you. Maybe I chew cud - I never heard something as funny as that.
My point still stands. Bats are not birds and they had their facts screwed up about rabits and cud-chewing
jaliet: *looks around for embarrasment* sees none.
Did you say embarrasment?
Oh by the way I dont preach niceness.

You think many things RW including Gods interference in your life. Maybe I chew cud? Go on thinking.
I said we can be nice. I did NOT say I AM NICE.
IT is IRRELEVANT HERE. You wanna discuss situational ethics and etiquette, start a new thread on Moral Foundations and Principles
Being kind and polite to members of our species and other species we live with.
Because its not part of the discussion.
I do not continually goad and irritate. I do what I want. You cant create goals for me.
I presume to speak for everyone who believes in withholding judgement until there is evidence.
Thank you for not fleeing.

I would request you to refrain from using prejudicial language that is meant to taint my moral goodness and rather try to stick to the issue of the dog and you and the third party you introduced called God.

For what its worth, I think we have both given this debate enough time. We cant afford to entertain diversions.
Please.

I apologise for telling you all that stuff about you owing yourself an explanation. That was out of line. I had no right to tell you that.

Ted Hoffman

HugginWe are facing a guy who has no respect for reason. He feels its Ok to use one doubtful thing to explain another doubtful thing.
He has created a false dichotomy and he sticks to in no matter what. He believes either its God or something too absurd to believe. Nature is absurd to him and naturalistic explanations are out of question for him: nature is not meant to do such intelligent things - he says.
He loves using untestable explanations and provides conclusions with limited scope . His black-and-white thinking is written all over when he asks philosophical, indeed rhetoric questions like "why this universe?". By these, he hopes to convince us that if science cannot answer then science is an inferior means to be used to arrive at answers.
He is caught in a war between science and religion and expects ready answers, indeed, easy answers from science, or else he abandons science altogether and embraces his TOE (Theory of Everything), for every unexplained phenomena.
He believes that we have voices in our heads telling us what to do. He also believes that seeing a church/ people building a church is evidence for the existence of God.
We have a lot of work to do in trying to compel him to look in the mirror without blinders.
Its tough but somebody's gotta do it.

I cant just fold up the tent and plead "extreme intractability". It may seem to be a case of flogging a dead horse, but I know thats what RW wants me to feel so that I go away and leave him with his beliefs.

That is what many people would do.

rainbow walking

JALIET: Rw, you say in your last post that I am arrogant, that I think I am a genius, that I am rude and crude, that I am not nice and that I do not practice what I preach, that I am boring (expressed by your histrionic yawn) and stupid.

Rw: If the shoe fits…

Jaliet: These are all attempts to change the subject because the beauty or morality of my character is not what we are discussing here. These are all personality attacks and are meant to divert me or anyone reading this from the issue at hand. Attacking the person instead of what he/ she is saying means you have run out of any arguments you can use to counter what put across to you. They all serve to demonstrate that mental lassitude is setting in…

Rw: If you can’t take it don’t dish it out. Had you not started with the sarcasm and insult FIRST, calling me an irrational fanatic and implicating me in such infamous events as 9-11 there would have been no reason for me to point out your hypocrisy and blatant and frequent use of the ad hominem fallacy in your arguments. Besides I really don’t spend very much time on this “diversion” as you call it.

Here is just one example of your attitude towards me since this thread began:

jaliet: and your resons for interpreting your experience are all belly-up and no longer feasible as counter-arguments - so you choose your next easiest target - my personality. Too bad, this is not about my personality, but your interpretation of the event that took place in your life. So I will not address those personality attacks.

Rw: My reasons for interpreting my experience remain as viable as the first time I presented them. And, if you will refrain from using the ad hominem I won’t have a reason to challenge your character, now will I?

Jaliet: On the other hand, I have noticed the tactic you have adopted in an attempt to wear me out or just plainly annoy me so that I drop the whole matter: when I hit you in one avenue, you open another.

Rw: And I have noticed that you adeptly sidestep the really challenging parts of my replies contented, it seems, with spending the majority of our time on these side issues.

Rw: I hope this is the last time I have to spell this out for you. I presented TWO speculations as alternatives to your speculation to demonstrate that yours was not the only naturalistic speculation available. I didn’t introduce them to be argued over or to steer the discussion in that direction so they can’t be labeled as straw man fallacies. But you indeed attempted to argue their validity as alternative speculations even after I specifically stated they were only submitted to make a point, not to become an aside as they have now become. I also didn’t introduce them to replace my official position or yours.
rw: Are we grasping at straws or what? I will be 47 in a matter of months. I also clarified my comment about the 40 years of investigation explaining that I said that to assure you that I had not arrived at my conclusion lightly. I originally made that comment in response to a derogatory remark you made to the effect that I was the type of person that inserted God whenever I was confronted by something inexplicable.

Rw: Do you know the difference between an assertion and a fact? In the first instance above I accepted your assertion for the sake of argument. In the second case you were presenting it as a FACT. Just because I acknowledge an assertion doesn’t justify labeling it a FACT.

Rw: In every example you listed above the dog was both trained and was given a sample of the scent prior to tracking. My dog had no such training and how would you hold a live hornet’s nest under a dog’s nose so that he could detect the scent? In the above examples you used only humans. Even if I allow that dogs have a keen sense of smell that in no way translates into a sense of smell capable of detecting a hornet nest.

Rw: Coming from someone with a salad bar approach to my every reply I find this humorous. You insult and accuse me because I don’t respond the way you think I should while completely ignoring the fact that you will skip many of the salient points I make in this and the next exchange altogether. Besides, the above responses were agreements in principle with reservations as to their practicality in real life.

rw: Then you are the first human I have ever encountered who does not think to himself using what he perceives to be a voice that he assumes to be himself. How do you communicate your thoughts to yourself? When you read do you not form the words inside your head as though an actual voice is pronouncing the words you are reading? I don’t think you are being honest here.

rw: You literally hear your inner voice with your ears?

rw: Liar

rw: How do you KNOW that every thought is YOURS? What are thoughts anyway? If you don’t express yours inside your head linguistically how do you express them?

Rw: PROVE IT!


rw: O’kay, I don’t know but I do know that you haven’t offered an alternative.

rw: No, you didn’t say it outright but we both know your efforts are geared to prove me wrong and hence cognitive dissonance.

rw: I did above to which you responded with lies and evasion.


rw: Why did you wrench this paragraph out of sequence? It was meant to compliment the above questions which is why I placed it BEFORE the list of questions. Just ask any number of people on this forum if they think within themselves with what they perceive to be a voice. It’s a universal constant so it is testable. Yet it isn’t verifiable sensually. Everyone indulges it yet no one can prove it or even prove it is their own personal voice. Where does it come from?


rw: You still struggling with comprehension? I didn’t say they didn’t. Read my reply again. I said you must establish a standard that allows us to differentiate between your idea of special and average. What I said originally about special dogs was that all dogs are special. I meant this in a sentimental sense, not a scientific one. If you want to establish there are special dogs in a scientific sense, as a FACT, you must establish a standard that defines SPECIAL as opposed to AVERAGE.

rw: To my knowledge my dog was not trained to handle attacks by thugs or hornets. His training was basic and encompassed simple commands like sit, stay, shake, roll over and fetch. I remember he used to perk his ears up and act confused when I attempted to “sic” him on someone or another animal. The sound of the word seemed to have some sort of effect on him but he never actually attacked anyone or thing I attempted to sic him on. But he sure was funny to watch.

Rw: You attempt to list instinct as a sense like sight or smell. This is hardly accurate so how could it be a fact?


rw: Where did I say God was inexplicable? I agree only that God is factually un-provable. That is a far cry from explicable.

rw: This is remarkable. I have never excluded the role of my dog in this event. I do not attribute his behavior to his instincts or training. You could say I have excluded these as viable explanations for his behavior. But you must FIRST establish them to be viable factors in his behavior before you can accuse me of this fallacy.


rw: I did not present this testimony as a factual or logical argument for the existence of God. But I really don’t give a rip if I’ve committed some such fallacy or not. A testimony of a personal subjective experience does not have to comply with logic. So I’m illogical…sue me. All these accusations of logical fallacies are beginning to bore me. It is silly stupid and non-productive. YOU cannot take a personal testimony of a subjective experience and filter it thru a formal system to arrive at a truth claim. The only thing you’ll deduce is that it is not logical. Well duh…

rw: When you get around to proving or establishing as fact that God does not exist you will have good grounds to dismiss my interpretation of my experience. Until then all you can do is ASSERT that my interpretation is incorrect. PROVE IT!


rw: In as much as I am referring to the assumption that God exists, your ad hominem fallacy makes you look pathetically like someone trying to get even. Weren’t you feigning disgust earlier that I had highlighted your lack of character and personality? What was it you said? I was focusing on your character because I had no argument? I guess that wouldn’t apply to you here, would it….na, I didn’t think so.


rw: Yes you are an anti-theist.

Rw: Your dilemma is your dilemma. Deal with it. At this point I have concluded that I am wasting my time with you. My participation in this discussion is over.

Ted Hoffman

I thought throwing in the towel was not your style. I guess I was wrong. Maybe I wore you out with what you call my "ad hominems"
Thank you for responding as much as you could. I dont believe it was a waste of my time. I am sorry that you do.

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

Amen-Moses

rw: Oh pulease…Take 1000 bitches with pups and put a fox near their litter and see if all 1000 don’t react exactly the same.

When I was a youngster I lived on a farm that breeds Fox hounds, this farm also had Ducks, Geese , Chickens, Cows (Dairy herd), two Goats, several Cats and at least three Farm Dogs.

Behind the compound holding the hounds there was a Fox and his family living quite happily, when we took the puppies out for some exercise they would often play with the fox cubs and neither of their mothers would intervene (although they kept their distance from each other).

The Foxes never bothered any of the farm animal but were allowed to stay because they are excellent for Rat control.

The funniest sight was always on a Sunday when the hunt came to take the hounds, they would all troop off to the sound of a bugle to go Fox hunting whilst the entire Fox family would come out to watch them leave.

Check out this link:

<a href="http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/07012002/News/News12.html" target="_blank">http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/07012002/News/News12.html</a>

Amen-Moses

Nohweh

It is unfortunate that this thread devolved into a mud-slinging match that possibly caused RW to overlook the above post. Or perhaps he put it into the 'too hard' basket.

If you drop by here again RW, perhaps you might like to respond.

rainbow walking

rw: Hi Nohweh,
Sorry for not responding sooner. I'm not sure I want to continue discussing this much further but I will say that your explanation is viable. However, my dog couldn't possibly have been startled by my approach as I was making loud shooting noises with my mouth as I was running pretending to be shooting my imaginary enemies. I was making too much noise to have startled him.

Nohweh

Thanks for your response RW.
All credit for that post must go toBaloo. I merely reposted it because I think that it is one of the more lucid posts in this thread.
As it is his post, I think that it is proper that I should not reply to your response at least until he has done so.