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.
Have people in this thread argued that they have a god and that they take the claims about their god seriously?
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.
No, I don't feel that skepticism can't get to yes or no. We can - but both are provisional, pending new evidence.
And as long as you remain on the know-nothing bench, we're going to disagree.
I am not on the "know-nothing bench".
Yes, and the answer does not in any way support the claim that God is real.
Those are two different issues. One that God is real, and one that god comforts you.
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.
Of course not.
Pretty much everything that exists has some core set of qualities that are proper to every definition in use. It would be hard to find many that didn't.
But are those qualities universally accepted?
I mean, you couldn't have for definition of our sun which claimed it's a rocky planet or that it's cold.
Sure you could. It would be a wrong definition, but it would still be a definition.
God, on the other hand, is infinitely plastic.
How come folks can get away with this? Because God is either false or empty.
No, if God exists, he is neither.
Outside of being dishonest to themselves, no, after all believing in the so-called god thing is just a way to live forever, that is the bottom line of belief.
Some god believers do not believe in everlasting life.
Care to state exactly what the lie is supposed to be here?
There was a complaint that requests to answer posts did not include convenient links. I said that was because we were giving Claus' a taste of his own medicine and he didn't usually include links. You said that was a lie. I posted the evidence it was not a lie.
Add it to your list of errors, Claus. And apologize for calling me a liar. I PROVED I was not lying.
You know perfectly well that I provide one link after another.
You are a liar.
Are you claiming that because there is one mentally retarded puppy in the world no dogs have the abstract thought it takes to recognize themselves in a mirror? Again, Claus, this is a non sequitur.
Whoa, whoa. How do you know the puppy is "mentally retarded"? Because it has to be, in order to behave that way?
I most certainly have never worshiped any boss and I would only obey a boss within certain limits. My dogs worship me and they obey me, without limits (within their capacity as dogs).
No, not without limits. Dogs will do a lot for their owners, but they are not mindless robots.
Your definition is so filled with holes and exceptions that it is worthless.
I did not claim a circular argument. I claimed a circular definition. And I gave you an example. Address the example: A god can be defined as something that has godlike qualities. Are you saying that is false?
If you are basing your argument on a circular definition, then your argument becomes circular.
I know, because I have seen it, that you are capable of logical thinking. But in this case, when you are desperately fighting for your ludicrous definition of god, you completely abandon all critical thinking, resorting to flawed logic, made up arguments, moving the goalposts and serve one lie after another.
This is another non sequitur. I am not defining your god. I am not defining anyone else's god. I am defining a god for the strict purpose of my example and demonstrating that by my definition, my dogs see me as a god.
You continue to lie. You have been very busy defining gods for them (you do it with your own dogs), and then shoot down their argument.
I gave you a chance to retract your accusation knowing the evidence was easily obtainable. I also predicted correctly you would not withdraw your accusation. And I then posted the evidence.
Keep lying.
Another non sequitur. What does this even mean? You can define gods and I cannot?
It means that you cannot define gods for other people.
I am not saying my dogs view me as your god. I am saying they view me as their god. And using the criteria which supports the validity of my definition, (they worship and obey me), I made the claim that their behavior, (they worship and obey me), is evidence they see me as their god.
Let's go with the assumption that you are serious this time.
You are claiming that animals are capable of religious thought.
When you come to TAM the next time - whenever that will be - I want to see you discuss that with Shermer. Maybe during a panel discussion, a presentation on your own, or simply a discussion after sessions.
But it will happen. Such a claim is precisely what TAM is for.
Where in my posts do you see me saying all dogs view all owners as gods?
Ah, I see: It is only your dogs that think this way. That makes the discussion at TAM even more interesting!
You just didn't look closely enough before you made another error. Minor Greek gods were indeed mortal.
Minor Greek Gods
Again, you move the goalposts: Now it has to be minor Greek gods.
