Ask a Radical Atheist

[Skeptic Ginger]

CFLarsen could you please address #829? Have I erred in my logic, namely you have categorically claimed something as false?

Post 829 @Claus

And provide evidence that was the universally accepted definition of 'god'.

The issue here is that since there is no universally accepted definition of god, then I should be able to use the word with some leeway provided I maintain at least some elements typical of a god definition. Those elements include 'worship' and 'powerful'.

I think the emotion my dogs express every time they see me, even if I have only gone out to get the mail, meets the definition of worship. And since I can command my dogs to do things and they immediately do them, that certainly indicates I have great power over them. We cannot think as they do and we cannot know what concepts of me they hold in their minds be it divine or alpha in nature. But whether they think of me as one of them or recognize humans hold a different position outside of the pack, we can say they worship me and obey me. Those are the behaviors we do observe. So however they view me, we can say it fits the definition of a god.

Therefore, using a reasonable definition of a god, I can reasonably say my dogs do actually view me as god.

 

[CFLarsen]

And since he rarely provides the links

That is a bald-faced lie.

Post 829 @ClausThe issue here is that since there is no universally accepted definition of god

Name one thing that has a universally accepted definition.

I think the emotion my dogs express every time they see me, even if I have only gone out to get the mail, meets the definition of worship. And since I can command my dogs to do things and they immediately do them, that certainly indicates I have great power over them. We cannot think as they do and we cannot know what concepts of me they hold in their minds be it divine or alpha in nature. But whether they think of me as one of them or recognize humans hold a different position outside of the pack, we can say they worship me and obey me. Those are the behaviors we do observe. So however they view me, we can say it fits the definition of a god.

Therefore, using a reasonable definition of a god, I can reasonably say my dogs do actually view me as god.

Yet, your dog can kill you. Can one kill god?

 

[cyborg]

Name one thing that has a universally accepted definition.

Fish are fishy.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Here is post 825 which is supposed to answer post 829. Hmmm, you answered post 829 before it was posted. That's interesting.

Yes, they recognize themselves in the mirror and they chase sticks and play with toys. One of my dogs even tosses his toys in the air before grabbing them and tearing them to shreds.

That's not abstract thinking. That's instinct.

This is simply wrong. Recognizing oneself in a mirror is classic abstract thinking. Instinct would have the dog attack the mirror dog as a rival. (My dogs are not friendly to strange dogs).

You have erred. Add this one to your list, Claus.

Since we are currently unable to actually know what dogs are thinking

Then how can you "definitely" say that your dog thinks you are god?

By defining god as something dogs worship that has power over them and that is superior to the alpha dog.

we have no way at this time of determining what qualities they perceive in each other or in their human companions. And since the definition of gods has certainly never been easily defined, I see no reason my assessment is invalid that my dogs see me as a god and not merely top dog. I can easily just define 'god' to fit the perception a dog has of its owner.

You are doing it again: Using your definition of what you think god is, to explain what other people - or, in this case, your dog - believe god is.

Except that in this case the definition of god I am using is what my dogs perceive. What they perceive is included in the definition. I admit it is a circular argument. But that does not invalidate it.

"A god is a being that has godlike qualities." That may not be a good means of describing a definition to someone, but it is not an invalid statement.

Claus cannot show that any single definition of a god is universally accepted.

Can you show any single definition of anything that is universally accepted?

This answer is a non sequitur.

Add another error to your list.

Nor can he show that my defining a dog's perception of its owner as a god is an unacceptable definition of a god.

You make the claim, you provide the evidence.

Your claim that dogs are capable of imagining gods is rather extraordinary. So where is the extraordinary evidence?

You say it is so.

You know very well that isn't convincing.

You fail here because you choose to use a different definition of a god than I have chosen to use. My dogs are clearly capable of behavior that can be described as worship. And they obey me. I don't need to know what they are thinking. They worship and obey me, that is observable behavior. (They do not, BTW, worship or obey strangers. They do worship and obey my son. My dogs are not monotheistic.)

To assume a dog sees a human as another dog in the pack is just as anthropomorphic as claiming dogs have human like motivations. Since I can just apply "whatever it is dogs see me as" to my working god definition, I avoid anthropomorphism altogether.

And introduce deification instead. You swap a sociological argument for a religious one.

Free Dic. Online

Noun 1. deification - the condition of being treated like a god
condition, status - a state at a particular time; "a condition (or state) of disrepair"; "the current status of the arms negotiations"
2. deification - an embodiment of the qualities of a god; "the capitalists' deification of capital"
avatar, embodiment, incarnation - a new personification of a familiar idea; "the embodiment of hope"; "the incarnation of evil"; "the very avatar of cunning"
3. deificationdeification - the elevation of a person (as to the status of a god)
apotheosis, exaltation
worship - the activity of worshipping

Let's look at what I said, shall we?

Definitions:
God = what my dogs think I am.

Statement of fact:
My dogs definitely think I am god.

Sounds like you are now admitting that you agree.

Chalk another one up to your list of errors.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

That is a bald-faced lie.

I could go back through a few posts and see what proportion you provide a link and what proportion you just cite the post number. Care to take this back before I go to the trouble? I recall seeing one post with links in the last dozen or so. But I could be wrong.

Name one thing that has a universally accepted definition.

That is the point, Claus. There is no universally accepted definition of a god. So my definition is valid. Your comment is a non-sequitur.

Yet, your dog can kill you. Can one kill god?

First, my dogs weigh just over 10 pounds each. No, they cannot kill me.

Second, yes, the Greek gods were not immortal. So some gods can definitely be killed.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I've killed god, my version, when I stopped believing it exists.

 

[Piscivore]

I have. I still don't get it. My apologies.

Anyone else still paying attention who can let me know in their own words how CFLarsen has answered the question about dogs and gods? I have obviously missed it.

He tossed out a link to a Wikipedia article unsubstatiated by any research except one study that contradicted his assertions. I'm afraid that's the best you'll ever get out of him. Claus doesn't think evidence applies to him- at least, that's what his behaviour shows.

Can one kill god?

Sometimes. Sometimes it takes the Roman army.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

And since he rarely provides the links

That is a bald-faced lie.

Figured getting a retraction here was about as likely as me being killed by my dogs, so I went back in this thread through page 10.

post #741

Please address post #590.

post #740

skeptigirl,

Please address post #437 and #537.

Post #641

skeptigirl,

Please address post #437 and #537.

post #537

Address post #437, please.

Narry a link in a one of these.

Add this one to your error list Claus. Apparently I was not lying.

 

[Luzz]

After 22 pages, which I didnt have the time to read, my questions are:

1. how someone -who cannot even provide a universal/official definition of God- deny the unknowable?
2.God exists because people believe in it (they don´t have to see it, or even define it), so how can you refute the existence of a belief?

P.S. I am atheist, but my non belief in God does not mean the belief in God does not exist. Think about deists, their belief seems consistent and difficult to refute.

 

[GreyICE]

I have proof there's no God - this thread.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

After 22 pages, which I didnt have the time to read, my questions are:

1. how someone -who cannot even provide a universal/official definition of God- deny the unknowable?
2.God exists because people believe in it (they don´t have to see it, or even define it), so how can you refute the existence of a belief?

P.S. I am atheist, but my non belief in God does not mean the belief in God does not exist. Think about deists, their belief seems consistent and difficult to refute.

No one is saying the belief does not exist. I'm not sure why you would think that.

 

[CFLarsen]

Here is post 825 which is supposed to answer post 829. Hmmm, you answered post 829 before it was posted. That's interesting.

No, I addressed the point before that.

This is simply wrong. Recognizing oneself in a mirror is classic abstract thinking. Instinct would have the dog attack the mirror dog as a rival. (My dogs are not friendly to strange dogs).

And some do.

By defining god as something dogs worship that has power over them and that is superior to the alpha dog.

That's ridiculous. By that definition, your boss is your god.

Except that in this case the definition of god I am using is what my dogs perceive. What they perceive is included in the definition. I admit it is a circular argument. But that does not invalidate it.

A circular argument isn't invalid? Since when?

You fail here because you choose to use a different definition of a god than I have chosen to use. My dogs are clearly capable of behavior that can be described as worship. And they obey me. I don't need to know what they are thinking. They worship and obey me, that is observable behavior. (They do not, BTW, worship or obey strangers. They do worship and obey my son. My dogs are not monotheistic.)

There you go again: Deciding for others what their god is.

I could go back through a few posts and see what proportion you provide a link and what proportion you just cite the post number. Care to take this back before I go to the trouble? I recall seeing one post with links in the last dozen or so. But I could be wrong.

So, instead of backing up your claim with evidence, you decide to let the lie stand.

That is the point, Claus. There is no universally accepted definition of a god. So my definition is valid. Your comment is a non-sequitur.

You can't define god for other people - or beings.

First, my dogs weigh just over 10 pounds each. No, they cannot kill me.

Owners get killed by their dogs. How can that be, if dogs see humans as their gods?

Second, yes, the Greek gods were not immortal. So some gods can definitely be killed.

Wrong:

The Greeks considered immortality as the distinctive characteristic of their gods; this immortality, as well as unfading youth, was insured by the constant use of nectar and ambrosia, by which the divine blood was renewed in their veins.
Source

 

[CFLarsen]

Sometimes. Sometimes it takes the Roman army.

What do you mean?

 

[CFLarsen]

Figured getting a retraction here was about as likely as me being killed by my dogs, so I went back in this thread through page 10.

post #741

post #740

Post #641

post #537Narry a link in a one of these.

Add this one to your error list Claus. Apparently I was not lying.

You are a liar.

 

[Piscivore]

Owners get killed by their dogs. How can that be, if dogs see humans as their gods?

Atheist dogs, duh.

What do you mean?

I meant what I said, sometimes you can't kill a god on your own, you have to get the Roman army to do it for you.

You are a liar.

Did she edit your posts and remove the links you had there? You should report her for that.

 

[dglas]

You know why I hate Shakespeare? I can't stomach character humiliation. I just can't watch it.

Seeing someone squirm like an insect pinned to a board is just horrible.
I cannot watch this anymore. Even if it is Claus and even if he deserves it.

 

[Piggy]

When it comes to breakfast matters, what does the discerning strong atheist prefer: Waffles, pancakes, or French Toast?

Pancakes. Made with all whole wheat flour and no sugar.

The secret is to add a little baking powder to the flour, and a little salt, and sift it a couple of times, then add a little bran. Mix your milk with the egg yolks and a little oil, set aside the whites, and chill some icewater.

Then whip up the whites, mix the dry and wet ingredients, add a little cold water to get it just a bit too thin, then fold in the whipped egg whites and it'll firm up some.

Use a stick of butter with the wrapper peeled back to grease your skillet each time, flip them once when the bubbles around the edges start to break, and you'll have a mess of mighty fine pancakes. The baking powder and egg whites keep them fluffy.

If you have to have them sweet, top them with fruit, a drizzle of honey, or a dusting of powdered sugar.

 

[Piggy]

Oh, come on! Isn't that why you opened a thread, inviting people to debate?

I think I'm going to stop responding to you.

Because seriously, you can't think straight. It's like when you move from A to B, you forget A.

Yes, I'm spending a lot of time talking about empty claims, but I'm not complaining about that, just responding to your apparent surprise that I would take time to talk about empty claims.

And as I said, I wouldn't have to if people didn't keep making them and claiming to take them seriously.

That would be grand.

But people do keep making them, so I discuss them.

But I shouldn't have to tell you that.

And y'know, I think we've been thru what we have to say.

You feel that skepticism can't get to yes or no. You believe -- for whatever reason -- that we must be open to new evidence for any and every notion in anyone's head.

I think that's obviously untrue.

So we have our differences there.

And as long as you remain on the know-nothing bench, we're going to disagree.

No sense going round and round about the same old things.

 

[Piggy]

Can you understand why some religious people cannot explain why they like the idea of God?

Yes, and the answer does not in any way support the claim that God is real.

 

[Piggy]

If you can like the idea that there is a preferred blues guitar player, then you should be able to accept that there are people who feel the same way about a non-verifiable, non-intervening god.

That's another difference we're never going to converge on. You seem to think that people's feelings about a thing are evidence for that thing's existence.