Spirit Guides Explain It All Through Their Channelers

I call it a Snausage too, but only when my nose is stuffy.

I spent 14 years, 24/7 with my last dog. She was smart as a whip and understood every word I said by the age of 2. If I said, "someone is coming to see you,' that got a particular reaction. If I said, "Aunt Connie is coming to see you," she'd jump 3 feet in the air. She had a different reaction for each person mentioned by name, from wagging her tail to laying at the front door in rapt anticipation or even pushing the curtain away from the window if I would tell her they are bringing her a treat. I firmly believe that they understand much more than we give them credit for, and I also believe they refer to us as dorks when they are in the company of other dogs.

My dog has also trained me to respond appropriately to her vocal cues, from sighing, whining, various levels of barking and snorting. Honey has never growled, though.

Have I ever mentioned that I love my dog more than anything in my life. It is in direct proportion to the joy she brings me and how often she just makes me laugh. I'm not big on laughing, but this nut keeps me in stitches.

Cheers. - Frank

Mishka the talking dog.

When Munchie was a young dog, when we were walking, I would look at the sky and then at him and tell him "we're losing daylight" and turn and head back to the car. By the time he was 3, he'd walk in front of me, stop, look at the sky, then me, and turn and head back to the car. There are a lot complex ideas dogs can learn and relay. They have higher cognition functions. They can learn categorically as well. For instance, they will know their ball and stick are both "toy" category items.

I know this because I studied language acquisition and used the techniques to teach my guys. That's why my dog training ebook is called "Smart Beyond Obedience".

Yawn....yes of course Claude. You have no beliefs.....even though you do but you don't because you say so

No rationality in sight and its all because anyone who doesn't think like you isn't wired for the "rationality" of atheism.

...the basement at its finest.

Very interesting video. Thanks a lot!

Say what? I want to be literal? Whats this?


I want to read english when I am reading English. Brain chemistry/wiring makes not a stick of difference to the argument. Thats Claude point blank saying that religious people cannot by virtue of biological wiring understand an unreligious person. Its a crock particularly because he thinks the skeptic position is arrived at by rationality. that being the case theres no other way of taking it but that religious people have a biological issue processing (at least some kinds of) rationality.

1+1 = 2 but the people who don't want to admit they were saying 2 get upset when you do the addition.

He's only sulking because he got called on it. As usual. and his "absolute certainty" just goes to show how deeply he hold beliefs.

No surprise (at least to me) there.

Thats as fine an example as I have ever read of the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Essentially make an exception to the evidence when the evidence doesn't suit. If someone Vacillates proving your point wrong then they never were a true Skeptic in the way you mean it

Anthony Flew was a very well known Skeptic that changed his mind. There are many more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

According to the above fallacy though you will just claim they were not true Skeptics.

Au contraire...you are confused Claude. Rationality does not pick a direction and stick with it. Any truly rational person takes multiple turns and twists of direction as he considers multiple lines of evidence and viewpoints. Rational people back step, turn hesitate, vacillate and flat out change their minds based on the evidence or points of view they had not previously considered.

What you are describing there is more dogmatism and close mindedness than anything rational.

P.S. Your inclusion of Hitchens among those who scientifically study how the world works gives you away a bit. Hitchens was no scientist. Dawkins has done nothing in decades and Harris is best known for being a hater of religion than any breakthroughs in how the universe works. Thats not a list of great scientific thinkers thats just a list of haters of religion.

LOL, So you are the defender of the weak and the meek, eh? If a person enters into a debate and walks away with his faith in question, did that person's faith have a solid enough foundation to begin with? Life and God send tests daily. Yes, even tests of your own faith. It is the individuals responsibility to remain not only firm in his convictions but also open-minded and considerate enough to hear the other side of the argument.

I get where you are coming from but you delivery is my issue, not the content. I do not require an apology nor did I ever ask for one, I am not even trying to challenge you, only pointing out where I see that you could improve your approach. So I say again, if you were trying to be pompous (which you took pride in) you achieved your goal. Im not your parent, nor do I wish to be.

Being that there is history, maybe the best approach would be to continually be kind and considerate. If you have a proven track record of consistent gentleness and kindness eventually it would reenforce that maybe you are doing something right, but subliminally when you stoop to their level and meet fire with fire it tells them that you are no different than them. Peoples perceptions of what a believer thinks and believes is different than what it is in reality (at least most of the time). So when pushed they expect a different reaction than the norm.

What assumptions? You clearly took pride when I pointed out how you will be perceived. If you believe some guy on the internet makes a claim that it is irrational to believe in God and that causes a person to question or lose faith.... Then you do not understand faith to begin with.

I give too much importance to the skeptic's argument? Or I give importance to the individual who is making the skeptics argument? I will let you decide on that one.

This is the thing Mike, the subject matter requires a person to actually remove their own emotions and personal driven goals. Because in reality, no side can be proven wrong or right. So even though as much of a truth and reality it is to me that God exists, the atheists stand point is just as much of a reality to him/her.

Sure, I get where you are coming from but it isnt a off the cuff remark from someone who was clearly trying to avoid the deeper debate that would cause questioning, but the pushy and judgmental tone of someone forcing a debate to be off putting.

You dont agree with my approach, thats cool. But how can I be a hypocrite if I never intended to sway anyone's beliefs. Read my previous post again. I said I respect Claude and his beliefs. That does not mean I have to believe them or am trying to sway them. That means I respect him enough as an individual to not criticize every little detail where he may be contradicting himself.

My point all along was more to inspire thought. My goal is to get people to think deeper on the matter. Not to convert anyone. LOL, I am a half white, half puerto rican, messianic Jew (Let the Juan Epstein jokes begin!). That's a bit of a tough sell. So no, no intention of swaying beliefs. More just trying to get people to understand themselves and why they believe what they do.

Hey, The handle is DaveTheSINISTER. I havent been banned. I havent cause more than one person here any form of grief. I believe I am off to a fantastic start. Even if I have stepped on your toes a bit.

P.S. If you ever do catch your wife/GF in bed with another man. The best way to not only make them reevaluate themselves and their actions is to simply take responsibility and be kind and gentle. Your wife/GF will never forgive themselves if your immediate reaction is, "Im sorry I made you feel as though you had to do this."