Ask a Radical Atheist

[CFLarsen]

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?

You are asking questions that are answered in the link.

Get back when you have something new.

 

[Piscivore]

You are asking questions that are answered in the link.

"Answered" is not evidence. And I'm sorry, but a Wikipedia article, potentially written by an uninformed author, and chock full of notes indicating "citation needed" is not evdence. The only thing with a citation says:

Dr. David Mech of the University of Minnesota, who has studied wolves in their natural habitat, claims that new evidence about the behavior of wild wolf packs shows that the traditionally described hierarchy in wolf packs does not actually exist. He no longer uses the word "alpha" because "It falsely implies a hierarchical structure in which a wolf assumes a place in a linear hierarchy." Mech also states that dominance is rare in wild wolves. Instead of "dominance" and "submission", he uses the terms "assertiveness" and "passiveness".[1]

Which is about wolves, not dogs, and contradicts your claims that dogs, as "pack animals", operate under a heirarchy, but are instead influenced in their behaviour by differing levels of assertiveness. Don't you read your own links? Or do you just not understand them?

Shall I take this to mean that you do not have any evidence for your claims?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I don't know. Is there any evidence that dogs have the capacity for abstract thinking?

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.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As much as I like dogs, I can't see how they would ever think and/or know about so-called gods.

Paul

I think Piscivore hit the nail on the head when he suggested rank and divinity are abstract qualities. Since we are currently unable to actually know what dogs are thinking 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.

Claus cannot show that any single definition of a god is universally accepted. Nor can he show that my defining a dog's perception of its owner as a god is an unacceptable definition of a god.

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 my dogs see me as" to my working god definition, I avoid anthropomorphism altogether.

I think you need to add this one to your list, Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

[martu]

I think Piscivore hit the nail on the head when he suggested rank and divinity are abstract qualities. Since we are currently unable to actually know what dogs are thinking 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.

Claus cannot show that any single definition of a god is universally accepted. Nor can he show that my defining a dog's perception of its owner as a god is an unacceptable definition of a god.

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 my dogs see me as" to my working god definition, I avoid anthropomorphism altogether.

I think you need to add this one to your list, Claus.

Or he could define God.

 

[martu]

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

Ah I think I get it now. CFLarsen is clinging to an erroneous statement by skeptigirl that her dogs perceive her as god. But I am sure skeptigirl could clarify that statement to say that it's a possibility that they perceive as pack leader as well as it is a possibility that they perceive her as god. Only skeptigirl can tell us. You never know it might have been humour.

Then we could get onto the subject that you CFLarsen have categorically stated that one of those options is false

Get a dog. My dogs definitely think I am god.

No, he sees you as his top dog.

Not "That is a possibility certainly; however the evidence suggests they think you are their pack leader".

 

[CFLarsen]

"Definitely" does not mean "definitely"?

Mmmmmkay.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Or [Claus] could define God.

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

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ah I think I get it now. CFLarsen is clinging to an erroneous statement by skeptigirl that her dogs perceive her as god. But I am sure skeptigirl could clarify that statement to say that it's a possibility that they perceive as pack leader as well as it is a possibility that they perceive her as god. Only skeptigirl can tell us. You never know it might have been humour. ...

To clarify what I said, it was a joke. But now that the conversation has taken this twist, I think the joke can be taken as a statement of fact. I merely needed to provide the definition of 'god', which I did. Using that definition, the statement becomes an indisputable circular fact.

Definitions:
God = what my dogs think I am.

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



I think you need to add this one to your list, Claus.

 

[CFLarsen]

To clarify what I said, it was a joke.

When do we know when you are joking, and when do we know when you aren't?

If you can just go back, in any situation, and say "well, I was just kidding", when do we know when to take you seriously?

We can't, can we?

Therefore, it is safest to assume that you are always kidding. We should never take anything you say seriously.

It follows that whatever you say, you don't really mean. You are a joke.

 

[Piscivore]

When do we know when you are joking, and when do we know when you aren't?

If you can just go back, in any situation, and say "well, I was just kidding", when do we know when to take you seriously?

We can't, can we?

Therefore, it is safest to assume that you are always kidding. We should never take anything you say seriously.

It follows that whatever you say, you don't really mean. You are a joke.

Well, at least you don't restrict your stilted, puerile false dichotomies to just me, then. Denmark must be a grim, unpleasant nation of humourless prigs, eh- or is this just you?

 

[thaiboxerken]

When do we know when you are joking, and when do we know when you aren't?

It's not hard if you have a sense of humor. Should a poll be started?

 

[Piggy]

You spend an awful lot of time on what you consider empty arguments.

I wouldn't, if people didn't keep making them.

And, on top of that, if they didn't keep insisting that no one may reasonably say anything stronger than "I don't know" about God on the basis of those empty arguments.

This whole myth that atheism -- real atheism, not warmed-over agnosticism -- is not a tenable position is one we're going to have to move through sooner or later.

I'm doing my small bit to make it perhaps a few minutes sooner.

 

[Piggy]

But we don't know what DM is.

That doesn't matter.

(Btw, I think your contextometer is broken.)

God is not like DM.

We hypothesize DM because our current observations, and validated theories based upon them, indicate that it may be real.

God, on other hand, is a notion based on what we now know to be false deductions, a false world-view in fact. Furthermore, we have a highly successful model of reality which nowhere includes God. On top of that, we have reasonable theories why people should believe in God even if there is no God. And finally, all possible definitions of God which are not contrary to fact all contain fatal errors which, if used, render the statement "God exists" devoid of potential truth value.

God is not dark matter. God is phlogiston. God is the flat earth. God is geocentrism. God ain't.

 

[Piggy]

Yes, Jedi religion.

No, it's not an official religion, but you can't deny that there are a lot of people who adhere to the Jedi religion.

Jump 1,000 years ahead in time. No traces of any Star Wars movies. The origins are lost. Only people who write about Jedis and believe in them, or claim to be them.

Now what? Is that a religion on par with e.g. the Christian one(s)?

If my aunt were a bicycle, would she have a kick-stand?

What in the wide world of sports does this have to do with the question of whether, in the world we all live in, we can affirm that God is real, affirm that God is not real, or admit we don't know?

 

[Piggy]

It's fine if you acknowledge that it is your opinion. But you keep dismissing what religious people believe in as if it were the absolute, eternal truth.

Nope. I'm not dismissing it. I'm happy to demonstrate that it is absolutely eternally true that what theistic people believe in does not exist.

Yes, I changed "religious" to "theistic". Seems to me a person could follow a religion and be an atheist, and that a theist may not follow a religion.

So you were off on 2 points, but you're right, I have no qualms about pointing to a demonstrably wrong hypothesis and saying it's obviously wrong.

 

[Piggy]

Can you define why you like a particular song?

Nope.

Is that a tangent, or do you think it has some relevance?

You keep opening doors to garden paths. I'd prefer you cut to the chase and tell me what point you're trying to make.

 

[Piggy]

That's a far cry from what you advocated: That I should "put a cork in it" because I disagreed with you.

Nope. I didn't imply that anyone should agree with me or stop posting.

I was recommending that you show me why I'm wrong, or produce a counterexample, or come up with something other than "but you could be wrong" or charges that I've "dismissed" ideas which I've in fact explained my objections to, and other arguments which no one would take seriously if the subject were not God.

Fish or cut bait, in other words.

 

[Piggy]

I am talking about the way you use "meaningful" as an argument why you are right. Clapton is highly regarded as a blues guitarist, especially among his fellow musicians. Yet, you don't find it "meaningful" to listen to him, if you want to hear a white boy play the blues.

The exact same can be said for those who find meaning in various concepts of god, especially those who don't claim a verifiable, intervening one.

But the question isn't "Does anyone find this idea meaningful to them, personally?"

The question is "Is God real?"

If your criteria for the latter is the former, then you can't expect me (or anyone else) to take you seriously, because the first query cannot produce an answer which distinguishes real things from unreal things.

So it's an irrelevant question.

As for Clapton, I'm just saying I don't particularly care for his blues tunes. I'm not taking up the question of his existance.