Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Atheism is a Logical Contradiction
6 views
Skip to first unread message
BroilJAB
Sep 1, 2012, 11:46:56 PM9/1/12
to
Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
G.K. Chesterton
for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
G.K. Chesterton
Syd M.
Sep 2, 2012, 12:27:12 AM9/2/12
to
Jeanne Douglas
Sep 2, 2012, 1:00:28 AM9/2/12
to
In article
<0bee020d-371f-4133...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
I still don't understand why he thinks it would make the slightest
difference what G.K. Chesterton thought on this subject.
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
<0bee020d-371f-4133...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
difference what G.K. Chesterton thought on this subject.
--
JD
"the lybian lier"
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Sep 2, 2012, 1:06:57 AM9/2/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
-- Mark Twain
thomas p.
Sep 2, 2012, 3:44:54 AM9/2/12
to
"Jeanne Douglas" <hlw...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> skrev i meddelelsen
news:hlwdjsd-3E1289...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
Well, he doesn't have any thoughts of his own to offer.
>
> --
> JD
>
> "the lybian lier"
--
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
news:hlwdjsd-3E1289...@c-131-121-196-216.gonavy.usna.edu...
>
> --
> JD
>
> "the lybian lier"
thomas p
Ignorance is the mother of devotion.
David Hume
BroilJAB
Sep 2, 2012, 7:03:54 AM9/2/12
to
Budikka666
Sep 2, 2012, 7:33:03 AM9/2/12
to
BrailJOB the LiarBoi DENYING Jesus THRICE, shrinking away like a limp
Peter at the passion:
http://tinyurl.com/6kck7b5
http://tinyurl.com/7d2s93z
http://tinyurl.com/6wyp6se
Budikka
Peter at the passion:
http://tinyurl.com/6kck7b5
http://tinyurl.com/7d2s93z
http://tinyurl.com/6wyp6se
Budikka
Syd M.
Sep 2, 2012, 8:35:55 AM9/2/12
to
On Sep 2, 1:00 am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <0bee020d-371f-4133-9073-abd74ae13...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
actually learn anything about the subject...
> In article
> <0bee020d-371f-4133-9073-abd74ae13...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
> "Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 1, 11:46 pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > > Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
> > > for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
> > > G.K. Chesterton
>
> > Still wrong, loser.
>
> I still don't understand why he thinks it would make the slightest
> difference what G.K. Chesterton thought on this subject.
>
>
'Apply to authority' is all the loser has, since he refuses to
>
> > On Sep 1, 11:46 pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
> > > Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
> > > for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
> > > G.K. Chesterton
>
> > Still wrong, loser.
>
> I still don't understand why he thinks it would make the slightest
> difference what G.K. Chesterton thought on this subject.
>
>
actually learn anything about the subject...
Syd M.
Sep 2, 2012, 8:36:17 AM9/2/12
to
Still wrong, loser.
Paul Aubrin
Sep 2, 2012, 10:51:37 AM9/2/12
to
characteristics of a dogma. It is not one (see definition below).
Second problem: What is your problem with universal negatives? If someone
states that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the
equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two, he
is making a universal negative assertion, it nothing daring, just a truth.
Dogma \Dog"ma\, n.; pl. E. {Dogmas}, L. {Dogmata}. [L. dogma,
Gr. ?, pl. ?, fr. ? to think, seem, appear; akin to L. decet
it is becoming. Cf. {Decent}.]
1. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine.
The obscure and loose dogmas of early antiquity. --
Whewell.
2. A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a
definite, established, and authoritative tenet.
3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or
truth; an arbitrary dictum.
Bert
Sep 2, 2012, 11:48:18 AM9/2/12
to
In
news:9f84f286-de1a-4eae...@cf4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
What kind of dogma is "There's no evidence, so why should I believe
that?"
[Followups set]
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
news:9f84f286-de1a-4eae...@cf4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
What kind of dogma is "There's no evidence, so why should I believe
that?"
[Followups set]
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Christopher A. Lee
Sep 2, 2012, 11:57:38 AM9/2/12
to
On 02 Sep 2012 14:51:37 GMT, Paul Aubrin <chu8...@free.fr> wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:46:56 -0700, BroilJAB wrote:
>
>> Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
>> for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
>> G.K. Chesterton
>
>First problem with this assertion: Atheism has none of the
>characteristics of a dogma. It is not one (see definition below).
Theists take their god for granted, and imagine it is unquestionably
>On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:46:56 -0700, BroilJAB wrote:
>
>> Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
>> for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
>> G.K. Chesterton
>
>First problem with this assertion: Atheism has none of the
>characteristics of a dogma. It is not one (see definition below).
real and supremely important.
So everybody else should too.
Which is why they read more into what is merely not sharing that
belief, than there actually is.
>Second problem: What is your problem with universal negatives? If someone
>states that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the
>equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two, he
>is making a universal negative assertion, it nothing daring, just a truth.
>
>Dogma \Dog"ma\, n.; pl. E. {Dogmas}, L. {Dogmata}. [L. dogma,
> Gr. ?, pl. ?, fr. ? to think, seem, appear; akin to L. decet
> it is becoming. Cf. {Decent}.]
> 1. That which is held as an opinion; a tenet; a doctrine.
> The obscure and loose dogmas of early antiquity. --
> Whewell.
>
> 2. A formally stated and authoritatively settled doctrine; a
> definite, established, and authoritative tenet.
>
> 3. A doctrinal notion asserted without regard to evidence or
> truth; an arbitrary dictum.
so they imagine atheism is a dogma or a doctrine when it's actually a
non-event.
But that's only the start.
They invent all sorts of "reasons" they attribute to us which are no
more than denigrating falsehoods.
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 2, 2012, 12:52:33 PM9/2/12
to
On 9/2/2012 10:51 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:46:56 -0700, BroilJAB wrote:
>
>> Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
>> for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
>> G.K. Chesterton
>
> First problem with this assertion: Atheism has none of the
> characteristics of a dogma. It is not one (see definition below).
The "atheism" you are referring to is popularly known as "Neo-atheism",
> On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:46:56 -0700, BroilJAB wrote:
>
>> Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
>> for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
>> G.K. Chesterton
>
> First problem with this assertion: Atheism has none of the
> characteristics of a dogma. It is not one (see definition below).
or "New Atheism", which has been re-defined by Richard Dawkins, Daniel
Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens.
"Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth
century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face
value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence
for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the
assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as
is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who
makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He
confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there
is no God.
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of
atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining
the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So
understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists,
along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
As Antony Flew confesses,
the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an
unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who
explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be
understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek
prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily
is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist
becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but
someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of
Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell,
1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)
Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the
presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a
view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who
hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even
babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In
fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God
exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really
interested in.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize
their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being
played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the
view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of
the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit
freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to
shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it
is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such
makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim
the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities."
(by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
Submit all replies and questions to Dr. Craig here:
http://tinyurl.com/9qc73hv
> Second problem: What is your problem with universal negatives? If someone
> states that no three positive integers a, b, and c can satisfy the
> equation a^n + b^n = c^n for any integer value of n greater than two, he
> is making a universal negative assertion, it nothing daring, just a truth.
be proven to be true, since Fermat's Last Theorem has been proven by Sir
Andrew John Wiles in 1994.
Are you sure you want to make that assertion? Because that would
certainly leave you with more problems than you originally thought G. K.
Chesterton had.
<smirk>
Budikka666
Sep 2, 2012, 12:52:57 PM9/2/12
to
Free Lunch
Sep 2, 2012, 1:53:16 PM9/2/12
to
On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 12:52:33 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 9/2/2012 10:51 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:46:56 -0700, BroilJAB wrote:
>>
>>> Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
>>> for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
>>> G.K. Chesterton
>>
>> First problem with this assertion: Atheism has none of the
>> characteristics of a dogma. It is not one (see definition below).
>
>The "atheism" you are referring to is popularly known as "Neo-atheism",
>or "New Atheism", which has been re-defined by Richard Dawkins, Daniel
>Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens.
>
So you claim.
>There�s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth
>century were promoting the so-called �presumption of atheism.� At face
>value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence
>for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
The only reasonable choice.
>Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
>burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
Why not?
>So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken.
Will this assertion be backed up by this writer? If not, why not?
>For the
>assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>is the assertion that �There is a God.�
How simplistically trickey and wrong. Apparently our writer knows
nothing of parsimony.
>Therefore, the former assertion
>requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who
>makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God�s existence. He
>confesses that he doesn�t know whether there is a God or whether there
>is no God.
Another author confused about the differing attributes related to belief
in gods and knowledge of gods. Christianity confesses that it does not
know, cannot know and long ago called Gnosticism a heresy.
>But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of
>atheism used the term �atheist,� you discover that they were defining
>the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with �non-theist."
How is that non-standard?
>So
>understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists,
>along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
No.
> As Antony Flew confesses,
>
>the word �atheist� has in the present context to be construed in an
>unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who
>explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be
>understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek
>prefix �a-� being read in this same way in �atheist� as it customarily
>is in . . . words as �amoral� . . . . In this interpretation an atheist
>becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but
>someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of
>Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell,
>1997], s.v. �The Presumption of Atheism,� by Antony Flew)
So Flew acknowledges the way theists use the word and rejects it because
it is a tendentious usage.
>Such a re-definition of the word �atheist� trivializes the claim of the
>presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a
>view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who
>hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even
>babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In
>fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
>has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
Flew was correct. Of course cats believe that they are gods, so you are
wrong there.
>One would still require justification in order to know either that God
>exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we�re really
>interested in.
Nope.
>So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize
>their position?
They are not. This is an attempt of a theist to win his unwinnable
argument by trying to redefine things to the point of absurdity.
>Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being
>played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the
>view that there is no God,
It may include that view, but it is not restricted to that view.
> then atheists must shoulder their share of
>the burden of proof to support this view.
Must I prove to the author's satisfaction that leprechauns do not exist,
as well?
>But many atheists admit
>freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof.
I can only show that a specific, well-defined god does not exist. I
cannot prove that all gods do not exist because there are so many that
are hopelessly vague in conception.
>So they try to
>shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it
>is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such
>makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim
>the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities."
Mr Craig runs away from the failures of theism by trying to assert that
nontheists have failed as much so the lies of theists might be true.
<calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 9/2/2012 10:51 AM, Paul Aubrin wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Sep 2012 20:46:56 -0700, BroilJAB wrote:
>>
>>> Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
>>> for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
>>> G.K. Chesterton
>>
>> First problem with this assertion: Atheism has none of the
>> characteristics of a dogma. It is not one (see definition below).
>
>The "atheism" you are referring to is popularly known as "Neo-atheism",
>or "New Atheism", which has been re-defined by Richard Dawkins, Daniel
>Dennett, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens.
>
>
>"Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
Says who?
>"Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>There�s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth
>century were promoting the so-called �presumption of atheism.� At face
>value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence
>for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
>Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
>burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
>So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken.
>For the
>assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
How simplistically trickey and wrong. Apparently our writer knows
nothing of parsimony.
>Therefore, the former assertion
>requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who
>makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God�s existence. He
>confesses that he doesn�t know whether there is a God or whether there
>is no God.
in gods and knowledge of gods. Christianity confesses that it does not
know, cannot know and long ago called Gnosticism a heresy.
>But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of
>atheism used the term �atheist,� you discover that they were defining
>the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with �non-theist."
>So
>understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists,
>along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
> As Antony Flew confesses,
>
>the word �atheist� has in the present context to be construed in an
>unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who
>explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be
>understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek
>prefix �a-� being read in this same way in �atheist� as it customarily
>is in . . . words as �amoral� . . . . In this interpretation an atheist
>becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but
>someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of
>Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell,
>1997], s.v. �The Presumption of Atheism,� by Antony Flew)
it is a tendentious usage.
>Such a re-definition of the word �atheist� trivializes the claim of the
>presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a
>view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who
>hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even
>babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In
>fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
>has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
wrong there.
>One would still require justification in order to know either that God
>exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we�re really
>interested in.
>So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize
>their position?
argument by trying to redefine things to the point of absurdity.
>Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being
>played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the
>view that there is no God,
> then atheists must shoulder their share of
>the burden of proof to support this view.
as well?
>But many atheists admit
>freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof.
cannot prove that all gods do not exist because there are so many that
are hopelessly vague in conception.
>So they try to
>shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it
>is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such
>makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim
>the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities."
nontheists have failed as much so the lies of theists might be true.
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 2, 2012, 2:40:44 PM9/2/12
to
On 9/2/2012 1:53 PM, "Free Lunch" wrote:
>Of course cats believe that they are gods.
That's all anyone needs to know about the poster hiding behind the nym
"Free Lunch".
'Nuff said.
You're welcome.
<smirk>
>Of course cats believe that they are gods.
That's all anyone needs to know about the poster hiding behind the nym
"Free Lunch".
'Nuff said.
You're welcome.
<smirk>
Free Lunch
Sep 2, 2012, 2:53:29 PM9/2/12
to
On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:40:44 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
So you never were blessed to be a servant of a cat.
<calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 2, 2012, 3:06:01 PM9/2/12
to
the cats.
I see. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
I love all domesticated animals, but I better not get a cat.
That would be inhumane.
My two Dobermans would find it, and then eat it.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Sep 2, 2012, 6:24:48 PM9/2/12
to
On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 15:06:01 -0400
Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 2:53 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:40:44 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>> On 9/2/2012 1:53 PM, "Free Lunch" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course cats believe that they are gods.
>>>
>>> That's all anyone needs to know about the poster hiding behind the
>>> nym "Free Lunch".
>>>
>>> 'Nuff said.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>> <smirk>
>>
>> So you never were blessed to be a servant of a cat.
>
> So it's you who believes that cats believe that they are gods, and
> not the cats.
>
> I see. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
Ha ha! Nobody believes cats are gods -- most people just come to learn
Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 9/2/2012 2:53 PM, Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 14:40:44 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>> On 9/2/2012 1:53 PM, "Free Lunch" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Of course cats believe that they are gods.
>>>
>>> That's all anyone needs to know about the poster hiding behind the
>>> nym "Free Lunch".
>>>
>>> 'Nuff said.
>>>
>>> You're welcome.
>>> <smirk>
>>
>> So you never were blessed to be a servant of a cat.
>
> So it's you who believes that cats believe that they are gods, and
> not the cats.
>
> I see. I'm glad we got that cleared up.
that this is a fact of reality because opposition to this idea promises
not to end well for those questioning the authority of said cat.
> I love all domesticated animals, but I better not get a cat.
>
> That would be inhumane.
>
> My two Dobermans would find it, and then eat it.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
-- Don Kresch
Free Lunch
Sep 2, 2012, 6:57:10 PM9/2/12
to
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 15:24:48 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
I have seen many large dogs that show a great deal of deference to the
little cat they live with.
atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
little cat they live with.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Sep 2, 2012, 8:15:28 PM9/2/12
to
tough or fearless cats:
Cat threatening to scratch a retreating dog:
http://static.oper.ru/data/gallery/l1048751595.jpg
Cat biting a dog:
http://www.lolpix.com/_pics/Funny_Pictures_217/Funny_Pictures_2173.jpg
2nd frame only: http://www.oxleydogtrainingclub.org.au/kitbitepupv2.jpg
Cat walking in front of a lot of dogs:
http://www.carolesamuda.co.uk/confid.jpg
Cat kicking a dog in the head:
http://cl.jroo.me/z3/5/X/R/c/a.aaa.jpg
Cat ominously staring at a dog through a windshield:
http://static.themetapicture.com/media/funny-cat-dog-epic-fight.jpg
Cat punching a dog:
http://barbariangroup.com/assets/users/nick/images/0000/4118/favorite_dog.jpeg
Another cat punching another dog:
http://iamyardrock.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/image-11-600x470.jpg
Kitten duelling a dog (animated GIF):
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CdCHOrcuq8Q/T18SX8CSv5I/AAAAAAAAcnQ/__mNfCjmVbI/w1600/Brave%2BKitten.gif
Alternate link: http://www.moourl.com/dwqvz
Cat messing with Chihuahua:
http://guycodeblog.mtv.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/cat-fight1.jpg
Cat has dog by the jugular:
http://cf.ltkcdn.net/cats/images/std/128957-300x209-cat-dog-fight.jpg
If you think those pictures are amazing, take a look at some of these
videos for some more surprising cat-against-dog action:
Cat calmly chases noisy dog down the stairs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQHqOj_Maac
Cat holds its ground against nervous dog wanting its toy (no audio):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qg84YepCIOY
Cat kicks dog out of its bed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VNBxXKPR7I
Pregnant cat attacks and scares brutal looking dog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-MuGgmiJc0
Mother cat sets boundaries for a doberman with her kitten:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0djUzPLFFY
Cat mistakenly tries to protect child from mother:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4luuBbMUeY
Cat efficiently attacks a nosy dog (in slow motion):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QFsRA8gtrQ
Cat protects little girls from a playful dog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_-nwPTfCFQ
Cat scares grizzly bear away from a mother and her son:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD7soinw-_U
Cat uses hypnosis to beat a dog in a fight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LtKTF99ukCs
Which ones do you like the most? And why?
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Dogs are pets. Cats are little killers you share your house with."
-- Dr. Richard Wiseman
Free Lunch
Sep 2, 2012, 10:09:17 PM9/2/12
to
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:15:28 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
Size does not matter, nor does strength. Insane actions may help because
those cats are one bite away from dead.
those cats are one bite away from dead.
Mike Painter
Sep 2, 2012, 10:53:40 PM9/2/12
to
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:15:28 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>
>> >> My two Dobermans would find it, and then eat it.
>> >
>> >That depends on the cat.
Our 125 pound German Shephard would have tried to make friends with
atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>
>> >> My two Dobermans would find it, and then eat it.
>> >
>> >That depends on the cat.
them.
A friend used to have a cat that would tempt dogs to chase him.
He would run into an alley, jump onto the side of a fence or wall and
then come down on teh dogs head as it tried to stop.
It went to the vets once but was nevere defeated.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Sep 3, 2012, 1:55:04 AM9/3/12
to
On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 21:09:17 -0500
Ha ha! They're all pretty good. My favourite is the one where th cat
uses hypnosis to beat a dog in a fight -- the cat put the dog to sleep,
but whoever posted the video mistakenly assumed that the cat was
sleeping (obviously that's what the cat wanted everyone to think); it
was as if the cat was using its alleged powers of mental telepathy,
but obviously it was just hypnosis.
> Size does not matter, nor does strength. Insane actions may help
> because those cats are one bite away from dead.
The same applies in street fights. Ever get mugged? Keep in mind that
the mugger is probably not going to call 911 when they run away,
leaving you dying in agony in the street.
--
thoughts, lives, and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions,
perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
-- Unknown
uses hypnosis to beat a dog in a fight -- the cat put the dog to sleep,
but whoever posted the video mistakenly assumed that the cat was
sleeping (obviously that's what the cat wanted everyone to think); it
was as if the cat was using its alleged powers of mental telepathy,
but obviously it was just hypnosis.
> Size does not matter, nor does strength. Insane actions may help
> because those cats are one bite away from dead.
the mugger is probably not going to call 911 when they run away,
leaving you dying in agony in the street.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's
thoughts, lives, and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions,
perpetrated through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
-- Unknown
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Sep 3, 2012, 1:56:53 AM9/3/12
to
On Sun, 02 Sep 2012 19:53:40 -0700
Mike Painter <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:15:28 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> My two Dobermans would find it, and then eat it.
> >> >
> >> >That depends on the cat.
>
> Our 125 pound German Shephard would have tried to make friends with
> them.
Your dog has a kind disposition. Must be good with children too.
Mike Painter <md.pa...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:15:28 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
> atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> My two Dobermans would find it, and then eat it.
> >> >
> >> >That depends on the cat.
>
> Our 125 pound German Shephard would have tried to make friends with
> them.
> A friend used to have a cat that would tempt dogs to chase him.
> He would run into an alley, jump onto the side of a fence or wall and
> then come down on teh dogs head as it tried to stop.
> It went to the vets once but was nevere defeated.
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Basically, humans are sophisticated packs of wolves."
-- Darwin Bedford, Ambassador of Reason (in the context of
socializing)
Dakota
Sep 3, 2012, 10:16:48 AM9/3/12
to
their cat teach her kittens about dogs. After putting the kittens in a
safe vantage point, mother cat taunted the three hunting dogs. The
kittens learned escape and evasion techniques and, perhaps more
importantly, the power of hissing. That simple tactic sent the dogs
running for their lives.
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 3, 2012, 10:52:03 AM9/3/12
to
death of cats.
But we're not talking about Mexican Chihuahuas, or hunting dogs, or a
125 pound German Shepard. I'm talking about two Doberman Pinschers,
that have been specially trained to work as a team.
If you enter my house uninvited, with a single word command from me, one
of them will lock his jaws around your calf muscle, and as you're
bending over to try to get him to release the grip, the other one will
make a lunge for your throat, and then the first one will go for your face.
I guarantee you, a hissing cat would be no problem for Lenny and Bruce.
(My wife came up with their names, not me. Needless to say, she's a big
fan of the late Lenny Bruce.)
Free Lunch
Sep 3, 2012, 11:23:59 AM9/3/12
to
On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:52:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 9/3/2012 10:16 AM, Dakota wrote:
>> On 9/2/2012 9:53 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:15:28 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>>> atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> My two Dobermans would find it, and then eat it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That depends on the cat.
>>>
>>> Our 125 pound German Shephard would have tried to make friends with
>>> them.
>>>
>>>
>>> A friend used to have a cat that would tempt dogs to chase him.
>>> He would run into an alley, jump onto the side of a fence or wall and
>>> then come down on teh dogs head as it tried to stop.
>>> It went to the vets once but was nevere defeated.
>>>
>> Years ago I spent a pleasant afternoon with some friends watching their
>> cat teach her kittens about dogs. After putting the kittens in a safe
>> vantage point, mother cat taunted the three hunting dogs. The kittens
>> learned escape and evasion techniques and, perhaps more importantly, the
>> power of hissing. That simple tactic sent the dogs running for their lives.
>
>Yes, and as a kid I once had a Mexican Chihuahua that was scared to
>death of cats.
>
>But we're not talking about Mexican Chihuahuas, or hunting dogs, or a
>125 pound German Shepard. I'm talking about two Doberman Pinschers,
>that have been specially trained to work as a team.
One of the dogs was a Doberman or Rottweiler in that list of pictures
and videos of cats taunting dogs.
>If you enter my house uninvited, with a single word command from me, one
>of them will lock his jaws around your calf muscle, and as you're
>bending over to try to get him to release the grip, the other one will
>make a lunge for your throat, and then the first one will go for your face.
>
>I guarantee you, a hissing cat would be no problem for Lenny and Bruce.
>
>(My wife came up with their names, not me. Needless to say, she's a big
>fan of the late Lenny Bruce.)
Cats are solo hunters, dogs are pack animals. Together your dogs may
manage to take on a cat, but if there are a few cats who would split the
dogs up or only one of your dobies is putting up with the cat, it would
have a far harder time with it than you seem able to imagine.
<calvin...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
>On 9/3/2012 10:16 AM, Dakota wrote:
>> On 9/2/2012 9:53 PM, Mike Painter wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 17:15:28 -0700, "Fidem Turbare, the non-existent
>>> atheist goddess" <god...@fidemturbare.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>> My two Dobermans would find it, and then eat it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That depends on the cat.
>>>
>>> Our 125 pound German Shephard would have tried to make friends with
>>> them.
>>>
>>>
>>> A friend used to have a cat that would tempt dogs to chase him.
>>> He would run into an alley, jump onto the side of a fence or wall and
>>> then come down on teh dogs head as it tried to stop.
>>> It went to the vets once but was nevere defeated.
>>>
>> Years ago I spent a pleasant afternoon with some friends watching their
>> cat teach her kittens about dogs. After putting the kittens in a safe
>> vantage point, mother cat taunted the three hunting dogs. The kittens
>> learned escape and evasion techniques and, perhaps more importantly, the
>> power of hissing. That simple tactic sent the dogs running for their lives.
>
>Yes, and as a kid I once had a Mexican Chihuahua that was scared to
>death of cats.
>
>But we're not talking about Mexican Chihuahuas, or hunting dogs, or a
>125 pound German Shepard. I'm talking about two Doberman Pinschers,
>that have been specially trained to work as a team.
and videos of cats taunting dogs.
>If you enter my house uninvited, with a single word command from me, one
>of them will lock his jaws around your calf muscle, and as you're
>bending over to try to get him to release the grip, the other one will
>make a lunge for your throat, and then the first one will go for your face.
>
>I guarantee you, a hissing cat would be no problem for Lenny and Bruce.
>
>(My wife came up with their names, not me. Needless to say, she's a big
>fan of the late Lenny Bruce.)
manage to take on a cat, but if there are a few cats who would split the
dogs up or only one of your dobies is putting up with the cat, it would
have a far harder time with it than you seem able to imagine.
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 3, 2012, 12:18:57 PM9/3/12
to
team" means.
But I am amused at how much you like to fantasize.
<smirk>
Father Haskell
Sep 3, 2012, 2:48:31 PM9/3/12
to
On Sep 3, 10:52 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinram...@live.com> wrote:
>
> (My wife came up with their names, not me. Needless to say, she's a big
> fan of the late Lenny Bruce.)
Why she hasn't put strychnine in your oatmeal is a grand cosmic
>
> (My wife came up with their names, not me. Needless to say, she's a big
> fan of the late Lenny Bruce.)
mystery.
Father Haskell
Sep 3, 2012, 2:50:24 PM9/3/12
to
On Sep 3, 11:23 am, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:52:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvinram...@live.com> wrote in alt.atheism:
> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 10:52:03 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
to rip out its jugular, ESPECIALLY if it's a mother with
kittens.
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 3, 2012, 3:12:57 PM9/3/12
to
But now that you mention it, I have been having stomach pains lately.
And she's always wearing this fiendish grin, sitting across the table
from me........
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 3, 2012, 3:25:08 PM9/3/12
to
Unless it's two Doberman Pinschers, specially trained to work as a team.
I won't tell you how much it cost me, or who trained them.
But it was in the 5-figure range, and he trains guard dogs for
millionaires and movie-stars.
I wanted to name them Hans and Max, but the wife wouldn't have it.
Father Haskell
Sep 3, 2012, 3:26:45 PM9/3/12
to
Calvin Ramsey
Sep 3, 2012, 3:35:48 PM9/3/12
to
Pufferfish in it.
If I stop posting in the next few weeks, you'll know why.
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Sep 3, 2012, 8:51:23 PM9/3/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"In the Dark Ages, the people were led by religion, just as in the dark
of night a blind man is our best guide; he knows the ins and outs
better than those who can see. But it is foolish to go on using that
same old blind man as a guide once the daylight has come."
-- Heine
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
Sep 3, 2012, 8:52:48 PM9/3/12
to
--
Fidem Turbare, the non-existent atheist goddess
"Every time you lie about science, Yahweh kills a kitten."
-- David Silverman, Defender of Civilisation
Christopher A. Lee
Sep 6, 2012, 10:31:20 AM9/6/12
to
On Sun, 2 Sep 2012 05:35:55 -0700 (PDT), "Syd M."
<pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 2, 1:00�am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <0bee020d-371f-4133-9073-abd74ae13...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> �"Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> I still don't understand why he thinks it would make the slightest
>> difference what G.K. Chesterton thought on this subject.
>
>'Apply to authority' is all the loser has, since he refuses to
>actually learn anything about the subject...
It lets other people do its "thinking" for it, and expects everybody
else to do the same.
<pauldav...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sep 2, 1:00�am, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMpacbell.net> wrote:
>> In article
>> <0bee020d-371f-4133-9073-abd74ae13...@a11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>> �"Syd M." <pauldavidwri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 1, 11:46�pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> > > Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
>> > > for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
>> > > G.K. Chesterton
>>
>> > Still wrong, loser.
>> > On Sep 1, 11:46�pm, BroilJAB <DesignDen...@wmconnect.com> wrote:
>> > > Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas,
>> > > for it is the assertion of a universal negative.
>> > > G.K. Chesterton
>>
>>
>> I still don't understand why he thinks it would make the slightest
>> difference what G.K. Chesterton thought on this subject.
>
>'Apply to authority' is all the loser has, since he refuses to
>actually learn anything about the subject...
It lets other people do its "thinking" for it, and expects everybody
else to do the same.
0 new messages