Nohweh

How did 'you atheists' get dragged into this? How typical of a blinkered, irrational goddidit Xtian to attack an entire group because he is offended by one member of the group.

Please note RW, that this is adressed only to you and any others that fit the above description. There are many Christians who don't.

Huginn

I'm too lazy to read all of this thread, so this may already have been mentioned.

A thought occured to me. Here is a possible explanation for what happened. Your dog was stung by a hornet. Not seeing the cause of the pain he turns around and sees you. Using expert dog-logic he concludes that you are responsible for that pain and out of fear and confusion he growls at you. But you reassure him and he calms down.

No god needed.

hinduwoman

Reminds me of a story we read in college. This man decides to committ suicide in a depressed state and lies down on railroad tracks. The Indian trainsystem being what it is, the poor man simply keeps on waiting for 3 hours. after all that hot sun he changed his mind. Then he heard that a goods train had been derailed so no train was coming by. He jumped to the conclusion this was a miracle and God personally intervened to save him.

Are we to conclude then God intervened to personally derail a train and cause lots of inconvenience to other passangers --- some of whom might have been going to a hospital and died without lack of proper care --- simply to save his life?

Ted Hoffman

HugginThat was good. I think that is very likely to have happened-DBThat, too, was vary Good.hinduwomanThank you for the story. Now the false Dichotomy that RW created has really waned - he has more to think about concerning his little miracle.
Talking of RW, where is he? If he flees without coming back, I am done with xstians. Because this will be the third time a xstian walks out of a debate without notice - extreme mental lassitude and too much dissonance for a balanced mind are usually the reasons for retreating back to their safe -houses/ camps of so-called faith. Maybe he is still praying for an answer to my response?

RW, I am waiting for your response.

HelenI understand. I am sorry for all the trouble.

HelenM

Me too . I hope you have a great week, jaliet

love
Helen

rainbow walking

rw: I said this only to assure you that I have not adopted my present position without extreme care. I am at a loss as to how the above statement could be interpreted as intimidating or diminishing to that which has yet to accrue any weight or substance from which to diminish.

rw: Excuse me? Did I not begin this statement with a declaration that it was speculation of a possible naturalistic explanation? If I had intended to convey it as a part of my experience I would have worded this paragraph differently, I can assure you.


rw: Is there some reason why you have focused on these possible naturalistic explanations as though I am the one proffering them? I already have an established position, remember? I made these comments to demonstrate that your particular naturalistic thrust is far from exhaustive. Attempting to turn this around as though I am actually claiming these speculatives is disingenuous and another black mark against the credibility of your logic.

rw: No, that is exactly OPPOSITE my experience and is precisely my point. If dogs exhibit behavior contrary to that described in my experience, when confronted by equally dangerous circumstances, why assume my dog’s behavior was instinctually generated rather than divinely inspired? If the most common reaction from a dog is to confront the source of danger wouldn’t that be the most logical reaction to have expected from my dog as well? Yet he reacted remarkably different and extraordinarily swift in an un-common way.

rw: Then you concede my dogs reaction was contrary to nature and highly irregular to what we should expect from a dog in similar circumstances?

rw: I see, so you are reneging on your promise to answer my questions? You made no such qualification that I must FIRST answer your questions before you would answer mine in your previous invitation for me to ask away. Is this another example of those atheist ethics in application?

rw: Then you can demonstrate it to be irrational? And I suppose you can demonstrate that theism is not consistent with human experience?


rw: This response is totally non sequitur to my question. Are you being purposely evasive? You made a blanket statement that “we” (implying you also) can still be nice without holding onto what you deem to be baseless beliefs. Yet you have frequently indulged and subjected me, without provocation, to extremely obtuse remarks that clearly reflect an attitude that is far from NICE. What’s up with that? If you are going to claim something about human behavior as being possible shouldn’t you, the claimant, at least be able to demonstrate the claim in actual practice? This just further devaluates your credibility in the bulk of your remaining arguments or “evaluations”.

Jaliet: Please respond to my evaluation of your earlier assertions.

Rw: Certainly…consider them having officially been responded to.

Now let’s take a look at another classic example of jaliet’s version of being “nice” without faith. If this is any indication of the authority behind an anti-theists position I would recommend anyone considering such a position take note:

Jaliet: And oh, by the way Rainbow walking, looking at the speculative propositions you have given above, and looking at the facts you have blatantly ignored to make your assertions, one wonders what you REALLY were doing during that period you claim was 40 years of researching what you call naturalistic explanations.

Do you want to believe that bad?

Rw: Which particular FACTS have you established as such that you feel I have ignored? And if you wish to call me a liar please, in the future, just be bold enough to do so without beating around the bush about it.

And the examples just continue pouring in folks…

Jaliet: Talking of RW, where is he? If he flees without coming back, I am done with xstians. Because this will be the third time a xstian walks out of a debate without notice - extreme mental lassitude and too much dissonance for a balanced mind are usually the reasons for retreating back to their safe -houses/ camps of so-called faith. Maybe he is still praying for an answer to my response?

RW, I am waiting for your response.

Rw: Consider your impatience carefully and choose your enemies with equal care. Waiting until they choose you can end disastrously.


Rw: Hi DB, one thought. I can remember playing with my dog a lot outside, especially in the summertime. There were always plenty of bees buzzing around and I even got stung on a few occasions. I don’t recall my dog ever behaving frightened or agitated by that sound prior to or after this one event.

DB: Also, jaliet, I believe you are wasting your time too, but only because I don't think anything you say is seriously considered by rainbow walking, but instead discounted without thought.

Rw: Why do you think that DB, have I not made a sincere attempt to respond to his every claim? How could I have done so without giving his questions serious thought? Are you taking sides based on my level of response or just because you and jaliet share world views?

Rw: O’kay, duly noted. While we’re slinging baseless accusations I would ask YOU to please note the many threads throughout this forum where theists are, without provocation, viciously maligned by atheist and anti-theists… first. It is a common tactic. If the shoe doesn’t fit “faget aboudit” . If I struck a nerve, “get over it.”


Rw: That’s a good example of alternative possible naturalistic explanations. The only problem I have with it is that when an animal is injured in a particular area of his body he generally focuses his attention on the injury at some point adjacent to the event wherein the injury was sustained. My dog gave no indication of having been stung. I’ve also seen dogs get stung and they almost always snap at the bee or even catch it with their mouth. They then proceed to sniff and lick at the location of the sting.

rw: The only problem with this analogy is that isn’t even remotely cogent to my experience. No one else on this planet was involved or injured by God’s intervention to spare my life. It didn’t appear to require any complex chain of events to effect and requires no complex reasoning to conclude. While I find this story amusing it is totally irrelevant. But thanx for the response nonetheless.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: rainbow walking ]</p>

-DB-

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DB:
I think that God taking over the flea and causing it to bite the dog at that moment in time would be much more plausible.

You both have been focusing on the smell of the hornets, but I think that the sound would be more of a warning to the dog than the smell. I don't mean to sound speculative but I know cats are instinctively scared by a hissing sound. I know I don't have the facts but that could be stretched, with some evidence of course, that the dog would be affected negatively by the sound of the hornets. Also, you said that this sound was quite noticeable, since you heard the sound of hornets buzzing around your head once you started paying attention.


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

Rw: Hi DB, one thought. I can remember playing with my dog a lot outside, especially in the summertime. There were always plenty of bees buzzing around and I even got stung on a few occasions. I don’t recall my dog ever behaving frightened or agitated by that sound prior to or after this one event.

Well I'm not saying it is necessarily what happened. No one knows what truly happened of course. I'm just saying that that is more likely than the smell explanation, at least in my mind. Of course, lots of bees buzzing around and a hive of hornets will have two distinct sounds, since the hornet's nest will be amplified to appear more threatening

Really, I just can't get past the fact that God would save you and let people all over the world die in much more horrible ways. Have you done anything extraordinary in your life since that moment that would warrant God saving your life? Also, what is wrong with dying and going to heaven?

DB: Also, jaliet, I believe you are wasting your time too, but only because I don't think anything you say is seriously considered by rainbow walking, but instead discounted without thought.

Rw: Why do you think that DB, have I not made a sincere attempt to respond to his every claim? How could I have done so without giving his questions serious thought? Are you taking sides based on my level of response or just because you and jaliet share world views?

Well I just believe that there is a difference between responding to someone, and considering what they have to say and then responding. I will admit that his methods at trying to convince you wouldn't work on me either, most likely, since he is badgering and forcing you to be on the defensive as opposed to merely letting you question your own beliefs. But yes, I do concede that we share the same opinion on this topic, but that is not the only reason I came to that conclusion.

Ted Hoffman

rw, i really need your response to what I have posted at the bottom of this link
<a href="http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002611&p=2" target="_blank">http://ii-f.ws/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=4&t=002611&p=2</a>
That should be page two of this topic.
I still await your response.
Why give ridiculous speculations then say they are not yours? whose are they? who thought them up?
Thank you for wasting my time. You make me regret for taking you so seriously.
Yes, they are ridiculous and silly.
Let me defend my logic. Do not do it for me. If you feel compelled to, do it sincerely. Dont give ridiculous speculations. Worse still, dont give them then distance yourself away from them. Unless you get kicks from doing that.
Because dogs, indeed animals are known to react to their instincts. Animals have not been known, IN HUMAN EXPERIENCE to act as per the commands of a divine being. Unless U wanna discuss folk tales, myths and Legends.
I agree. Keywords being "most common"
Because dogs are not programmed to react in exactly the same way under the same circumstance. Each dog reserves the right to react as it deems suitable under the same circumstance. Each dog is unique. That answers your question.
Dogs are not Robots. Give a dog some credit for being different.

You have just said that that was not your speculation, so that makes it unnecessary to answer this particular question since "we" arent considering the possibility of a rattlesnake coiling nearby.
See, my strategy worked: if someone proposes something you find ludicrous, ask them a few simple questions, and they will either back out (as you have done) or they will say they must be mistaken. If neither of the above happens, then tell them what you think of whatever they have said/ claimed.
It was not a CONDITION that u answer my questions before I respond to yours. Please.
If u tell a doctor "Doctor, do you think there is an invisible pink icon in my head?", the doctor will not tell you "No, there is no invisible pink icon in your head"
He may ask you "Why would there be/ why do you think there is an invisible pink icon in your head?"
I ask the questions to determine the basis of your speculations. They are definitely baseless, which leaves me wondering why u make baseless speculations.

Yes, theism is not consistent with human experience. There is no evidence that shows theism "works". No evidence (except isolated, poorly assesed and subjective cases like your dog saving you from wasps) that God(s) even exist except in folklore and myths. So, no theism is not consistent with human experience but with human beliefs.
Is science consistent with human experience? Yes. Science tells us that water boils at 100 Degrees (at sea level?) and when u boil water, lo and behold, it does boil at 100 Degrees.
Tell me ONE, just ONE thing that theism claims that is consistent with human experiance.
JUST ONE.
For example theists (The Bible in Leviticus) claims that rabbits do not chew cud. So I study a rabbit and Lo and behold it does chew cud.
So theism is definitely inconsistent with human and animal experience.
You asked whether I can demonstrate that "We can still be nice without holding onto baseless beliefs". I did with a beautiful example. Explain how my response is a non-sequitur. Dont just use words (loudly) NO My being nice is irrelevant to what we are discussing and it does not disqualify my assertion. This is a logical fallacy - you are attacking the person - not his arguments. No one here will fall for such a cheap diversion.
Whenever you claim that I have made an obtuse remark, please illustrate. Otherwise you are just being irresponsible by making unsupported claims
No one here will take your word. You must support each claim. (loudly) YES You havent looked at my arguments at all.
You have a look at my evaluations first. PLEASE.

I still remain awaiting. At first I was afraid you had "fled" - I regret my presumption.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>

rainbow walking

DB: Well I'm not saying it is necessarily what happened. No one knows what truly happened of course. I'm just saying that that is more likely than the smell explanation, at least in my mind. Of course, lots of bees buzzing around and a hive of hornets will have two distinct sounds, since the hornet's nest will be amplified to appear more threatening

Rw: I tend to agree with you. Were I to concede to a natural explanation and had to choose which of his senses likely alerted my dog to the hive I would choose sound as well. Even though I didn’t hear any distinctive sound coming from the hive I also know that dogs have a far more acute sense of hearing than humans, able to detect sounds at lower and higher frequencies and db levels. I have no problem conceding the possibility that my dog COULD have heard a sound coming from the hive. That he was able to translate this into a danger to me and perform the appropriate response is another thing altogether, especially in the few seconds he actually had to do so.

DB: Really, I just can't get past the fact that God would save you and let people all over the world die in much more horrible ways.

Rw: Why did He spare Jonah or David or Hezekiah? This is a question I can’t answer.

DB: Have you done anything extraordinary in your life since that moment that would warrant God saving your life?

Rw: Of course I have. We all have. Whether we recognized it as such or not doesn’t make some things we do and have done extraordinary to someone.

DB: Also, what is wrong with dying and going to heaven?

Rw: Who said anything was wrong with that? Do I prefer dying over living just to get to heaven? I do not. Such a preference is not natural or spiritual.

DB: Well I just believe that there is a difference between responding to someone, and considering what they have to say and then responding. I will admit that his methods at trying to convince you wouldn't work on me either, most likely, since he is badgering and forcing you to be on the defensive as opposed to merely letting you question your own beliefs. But yes, I do concede that we share the same opinion on this topic, but that is not the only reason I came to that conclusion.

Rw: I appreciate your candor. Although I still don’t know what I’ve said to convince you I haven’t been considerate of jaliet’s questions I won’t press the issue any further as it appears to be a matter of opinion. I have, on ocassion, challenged claims made by theists posting in this forum when I felt they were wrong and I expect no less from anyone else regardless of their world view. In that you recognize jaliet’s tactics and have the decency to say so I tip my hat to you and bid you a good day.

Ted Hoffman

DB
Please tell me the mistake I make in forcing RW to be on the defensive. For christs sake if he makes a claim he simply has to defend it.
To badger is to pester or harass persistently.
To harrass is to irritate or torment persistently. To wear out; exhaust.

If that is what I am doing, I would be glad to hear it from RW, and I would be glad, because I was beginning to think mental lassitude was setting in.

To pester OTOH is to harass with petty annoyances or bother.
Petty annoyances? Please tell me how I have been petty DB

If U wanna make friends with RW, By all means, go ahead, but dont insult me. If you say I have swamped him with simple logic, I will take it as a compliment, but if you mean I am petty/ trivial, please indicate which specific points I have raised that you deem petty.
Dont make friends at my expense. U wanna tackle something with me, then do so. Squarely.
If I choose an agressive approach, well, thats my approach. If you think its inferior, illustrate. Thats all.

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: jaliet ]</p>