Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Would he? I'd like to see that. I rather think he'd argue that since the man's gun "terrified" him, the man was therefore a terrorist.
Ask a Radical Atheist
- Thread starter Piggy
- Start date
Would he? I'd like to see that. I rather think he'd argue that since the man's gun "terrified" him, the man was therefore a terrorist.
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Oh certainly not! Claus always admits when he has made a mistake. He even keeps an index card handy with the list of times he's been mistaken.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
That seems dangerous. What if a woo got ahold of it? They might use it to call into question his ability to speak with authority from knowledge.
Where do I say that? Take that to the relevant thread, please.
Because, by all the evidence we have so far, she is not talking to dead people. That doesn't mean she couldn't be.
I was. Take that to the relevant thread, please.
Last edited:
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
That was in this thread. Pay attention.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
Perhaps, but then again, I could wake up tomorrow and discover I'm in outer-space, on a ship full of aliens. There is a difference between searching for and expecting evidence and being credulous. You're asking that Randi be credulous.
Where do I say that I am 100% sure that dogs don't see us as Gods?
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Post #149
Skeptigirl: "My dogs definitely think I am god."
Claus: "No, he sees you as his top dog. There's quite a difference."
That does not say "there is a possibility he only thinks of you as a top dog", it positivly asserts the dog sees the owner as a "top dog" to the exclusion of seeing the owner as a god. You declined to explain how you arrived at the conclusion that dogs conceive and understand abstract concepts. You also failed to explicate how you know there is a difference to a dog between a "god" and a "top dog" and what that difference may be.
Please respond to post #173.
Last edited:
Tricky
Briefly immortal
Don't expect that one to make it to his index card.
Yes I agree entirely I was trying to point out to CFLarsen that sometimes you make a your mind up without a caveat.
It didn't work but I tried dammit!
I do not say I am 100% sure that dogs don't see us as Gods.
This, OTOH, leaves no doubt:
I don't know. Is there any evidence that dogs have the capacity for abstract thinking?
Last edited:
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,578
Not all atheists spend time on forums talking about various gods and religion. Hell, I only talk about gods when I'm bored and on an internet forum. Also, I'm not limitted to talking about just gods, but those people that believe in the gods. Those are the people that really concern me, as they are constantly lurking in the shadows of government, trying to make their religion the one that controls policy. Your post is tremendously stupid.
Claus said that? Cool, then we can rely on seeing some evidence to back this.
Step up to the plate, Claus.
CFLarsen said:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tricky
Briefly immortal
I don't know if you'd call it "abstract thinking", but dogs certainly know when they've made a mistake.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Then you lied when you said they don't see their owners as gods, but another kind of dog?
If you don't have evidence why did you assert they understand a difference between a "top dog" and a "god", and can make that distinction in regards to their owners?
How can you call yourself a skeptic?
Last edited:
No.
Again: Because we have pretty good evidence about the behavior of dogs.
Because I go with the evidence, and am open-minded to new discoveries.
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
What evidence? Can you show us some evidence that says the behaviour of dogs illustrates they are capable of understanding rank and divinity as abstract concepts, and distinguishing between them?
Good. Where is the evidence for your claims about dogs?
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
I didn't. I called "rank" and "divinity" abstract concepts. Pay attention. Dogs do evidence behaviour that appears subservient, but that does not necessitate they hold or understand abstract concepts such as "rank" or "superiority", does it? Do you think the dog is weighing in his mind all the parameters affecting his relationship with his owner before "deciding" to act subservient or not? Do dogs understand the concept of "superiority" and "divinity" such that they can make a determination that an individual it interacts with belongs in one group, but not the other? Do you have evidence for that?
