Puppy love

Freewill theists typically say that true love must be "freely" given and "freely" received, meaning lover and beloved must both be able to withhold love. With that in mind, how many freewill theists are dog owners? Do they think their pet dogs express true love for their human family? Dogs descend from social animals (wolves). On top of that, dogs are bred to be even more beholden to humans. So both by nature and selective breeding, dogs have been programmed to bond with their human family. According to freewill theism, their psychological conditioning makes them furry robots or hairy puppets. 

Dog-eat-dog world

There are lots of dystopian movies and TV shows. And current subgenre is the zombie flick. But many dystopian movies and TV shows don't feature zombies. Examples include Gibson's Max Max series, Jericho, The Book of Eli, and Revolution.

Some dystopian films have a political agenda. During the Cold War, you had movies promoting unilateral nuclear disarmament (On the Beach; The Day After). Others have an environmentalist agenda (Soylent Green; The Day After Tomorrow). 

In these films, with the destruction of civil authority, human society reverts to barbarity. You have roving rape gangs. Cannibals. Brutal, dictatorial city-states. 

Some survivalists promote the gold standard, on the theory that in the event of gov't collapse, gold will become the fallback currency. But in a post-apocalyptic scenario, many things will be far more valuable than gold, viz. guns, bullets, batteries, gasoline, medicine, flashlights, lighters, pocket knives, chainsaws, solar chargers, drinking water, canned goods, women of childbearing age.

One question we might ask is what are some of the more realistic causes of a post-apocalyptic world? Likewise, what would be the greatest threats in a post-apocalyptic world? 

One looming concern is whether, in the not-so-distant future, pandemics will return because the overuse of antibiotics (and antivirals) led to resistant strains. A post-antibiotic world which reverts to a pre-antibiotic world. Antibiotics are also essential in surgery to stave off infection. 

Another possibility is that when scientists clone fossilized organic matter, that will accidentally release an ancient pathogen for which modern-day humans have no resistance.

Like theories about how the vastly outnumbered Conquistadors were able defeat Mesoamerican warrior cultures. Was it due to their exposure to European diseases? 

Suppose most of the human race was wiped out by one of these pandemics, leaving scattered survivors. What would pose the greatest threat to survivors? In movies and TV shows, it's usually desperate fellow humans. 

But here's a neglected threat: dogs. Of course, a percentage of dogs would starve to death because they can't escape the house or fenced yard after their owners die. But other dogs would be on the loose. Without owners, they'd form packs and revert to their wolfish instincts. Big dogs would eat little dogs (as well as cats). Tough dogs would kill sweet dogs. Bad news for Golden Retrievers. 

You'd end up with roving packs of pit bulls, Dobermans, German Shepherds, Malinois, Tosas, Presas, Rottweilers, Irish Wolfhounds, &c. And humans would be on the menu. 

Handguns and rifles might be inadequate, since you might be unable to get off enough shots to drop a vicious dog pack. You'd need a submachine gun. 

John Loftus vs. Thomas Talbott

Philosopher Thomas Talbott recently criticized John Loftus' "challenge" for theists, dubbed the Outsider Test for Faith. In one of Loftus' many responses to Talbott (he's milking the critique for all it's worth), he makes this silly little claim,

"Talbott, if you want people to respect the philosophical disciplines then please, do it better than you do. You're making the rest of us look bad."

Given most of Loftus' argument against Christianity, this is ridiculous. Consider this coming from the guy who thinks it is a serious challenge to Christianity that God didn't make him with wings so that he could fly and drop poop bombs on people from 1,000 feet in the sky. Oh, no, sorry, that wasn't it; it was so he couldn't fall to his death. Or recall Loftus' claim that he'd rather be a dog in his wife's house than a human in God's world, and that he isn't shows that God isn't good. Apparently, he's unhappy that God hasn't neutered him or made him flexible enough to clean those hard to reach areas. Yes, these are the kinds of arguments Talbott should be giving. The kind atheologians should be giving. These arguments don't make atheologians look bad.

Anywho, enough of picking of Loftus—though he makes it so tempting and easy. Here I'll (again) point out a problem with Loftus outsider test (an issue I've pointed out before and hasn't been rebutted). Loftus writes,

"For Talbott or anyone else to suggest that I might possibility be wrong about an external world then all I can say is "so what?" Probability is the only thing that matters. Until he gives me a reason to think I am probably wrong then I'm not changing anything I think. "

As I've pointed out before, this makes the OTF superfluous. For example, I, like Loftus, will not take the OT for Christianity (or, in his case, for the external world) merely because of the possibility that I might be wrong. Loftus needs to show me that I am probably wrong. But if he can show that Christianity is probably wrong, there's no need, use, or purpose for and to the OTF. It's just a stupid waste of time when Loftus could use that time showing us that Christianity is probably false. But, if Loftus says that the mere fact that my belief in Christianity is at least partly due to where I was raised, and that this shows that Christianity is probably false, then (and besides the fact that it doesn't show this) the same applies, mutantis mutandis, to his belief in an external world EW.

The upshot is: If on the one hand Loftus claims that he doesn't have to take the OTEW until it is shown that his belief in the EW is "probably" false, then the OT is superfluous since once it is shown that some X is probably false, there's no need to take the OTX. On the other hand, if Loftus claims that the "accident of birth" into some culture show that the beliefs of members of that culture are "probably" false and so an OT must be taken (even though it needn't be taken, for supposedly it's already been shown that the beliefs are probably false), then Loftus' belief in an external world is "probably" false and so he needs to take the OTEW. So if Loftus wants us to take his response to Talbott seriously, then he must admit that no Christian should take his OTF until he shows that our belief is "probably" false, or he must admit that his OTF leads to OTEW, OT moral beliefs, OT western logic, OT other minds, OT science, OT etc. And if so, then Loftus is way too busy taking tests to be lecturing us about the tests we need to take. Indeed, him not taking his tests shows me I shouldn't take the ones he wants me to take.

Which horn does Loftus want to be impaled on?