Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

As you've been given those logical steps countless times, there probably isn't much point in doing it again. Tell you what though, I'll give you a step-by-step guide so in future you can work it out for yourself:

Step 1: Look up in any reputable dictionary the term "atheism".

Step 2. Remember the answer to Step 1, and promise yourself not to lie about that again.

Step 3: Write down the logical steps that validate your a-leprechaunism.

Step 4: In the document you've created, when the word "leprechaun" appears replace it with "God".

Step 5: Whenever you have a rush of blood to the head and think you've found a cogent argument for "God", apply to it Step 4 in reverse. If it works just as well for leprechauns, it's probably a bad argument.

Step 6: Give yourself a pat on the back for finally getting it, and maybe ease off a little now on the Richard Dawkins man crush.

You're welcome!

Step 3: What do you think ive been doing everytime you've mentioned the little chaps???!!!
Step 4: This forum is replete with such ''documents''.
Step 5: Which type of Leprechaun are you referring to? Hillside MK I, Hillside MK II, Hillside MKXXV?

Bluehillside.....a laugh, a song and a leprechaun for every occasion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Step 3: What do you think ive been doing everytime you've mentioned the little chaps???!!!

Posting straw men versions of the arguments that undo you.

Step 4: This forum is replete with such ''documents''.

Then read them.

Step 5: Which type of Leprechaun are you referring to? Hillside MK I, Hillside MK II, Hillside MKXXV?

Me (Reply 17301):

"...or some guff about the different characteristics claimed for each conjecture as if that in some unspecified way could be retro-fitted to make a bad argument into a good one."

QED

Bluehillside.....a laugh, a song and a leprechaun for every occasion.

Ironically, if you could but grasp it you'd find that the six-step guide does indeed provide the logical path you asked for. Print it and carry it in your wallet for easy reference the next time you get confused.

[ippy]

Vlad,

Posting straw men versions of the arguments that undo you.

Then read them.

Me (Reply 17301):

"...or some guff about the different characteristics claimed for each conjecture as if that in some unspecified way could be retro-fitted to make a bad argument into a good one."

QED

Ironically, if you could but grasp it you'd find that the six-step guide does indeed provide the logical path you asked for. Print it and carry it in your wallet for easy reference the next time you get confused.

Please don't think I've any form of gripe with N S, I haven't, I value his many contributions to the forum.

However when we, meaning most of us, respond to posts we're not expecting to have to describe how we use each word, how and what we mean exactly by our own definition of each individual word and how our words should be understood by others, semantics in the short, if we were to do so we would spend so much time and effort trying to convey the simplest of things and meanings to each other the forum would loose any form of spontaneity, fun and individual expression overall; we would find the forum instead to be a place of discussions about the precise meanings words.

To accept any form of words used by religosos such as goddidit could be described as not really thinking however loosely described, this in my opinion is where N S goes wrong by not accepting what to most of us do is, where even if not precisely correct, is understood by most people more or less as near to exact as is necessary to complete a discussion of or about most subjects.

So N S is right but in life conversations, discussions and postings on the forum aren't  that exact, but still understood correctly, well more or less.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi ipster,

Please don't think I've any form of gripe with N S, I haven't, I value his many contributions to the forum.

However when we, meaning most of us, respond to posts we're not expecting to have to describe how we use each word, how and what we mean exactly by our own definition of each individual word and how our words should be understood by others, semantics in the short, if we were to do so we would spend so much time and effort trying to convey the simplest of things and meanings to each other the forum would loose any form of spontaneity, fun and individual expression overall; we would find the forum instead to be a place of discussions about the precise meanings words.

To accept any form of words used by religosos such as goddidit could be described as not really thinking however loosely described, this in my opinion is where N S goes wrong by not accepting what to most of us do is, where even if not precisely correct, is understood by most people more or less as near to exact as is necessary to complete a discussion of or about most subjects.

So N S is right but in life conversations, discussions and postings on the forum aren't  that exact, but still understood correctly, well more or less.

Not sure whether you meant to post my reply to Vlad and then address your comments to NS?

Either way, while I agree with the sentiment there’s a specific issue with Vlad that makes normal discourse difficult in this respect, namely that he has his own meanings for words. Thus for example he’ll accuse someone of  “scientism” (by which he seems to mean his personal definition of, “the conviction that one day science will answer everything” rather than its correct meaning of “putting undue weight on the methods and findings of science”). He then uses his straw man to beat his interlocutor (“Ha, how can you ever know that for sure?” etc.) 

And so it goes – “philosophical naturalism”, “materialism”, “atheism”, “category error” etc all have idiosyncratic meanings in his head so he can use them as clubs to attack positions no-one holds. And that unfortunately is why so much time can be taken up sometimes with definitions and corrections so that at least some kind of exchange is possible. Sadly he’s now so heavily invested in some of these mistakes that he can’t or won’t back out of them, but that’s another matter I guess.

[Robbie]

Please don't think I've any form of gripe with N S, I haven't, I value his many contributions to the forum.

However when we, meaning most of us, respond to posts we're not expecting to have to describe how we use each word, how and what we mean exactly by our own definition of each individual word and how our words should be understood by others, semantics in the short, if we were to do so we would spend so much time and effort trying to convey the simplest of things and meanings to each other the forum would loose any form of spontaneity, fun and individual expression overall; we would find the forum instead to be a place of discussions about the precise meanings words.

To accept any form of words used by religosos such as goddidit could be described as not really thinking however loosely described, this in my opinion is where N S goes wrong by not accepting what to most of us do is, where even if not precisely correct, is understood by most people more or less as near to exact as is necessary to complete a discussion of or about most subjects.

So N S is right but in life conversations, discussions and postings on the forum aren't  that exact, but still understood correctly, well more or less.

ippy

I totally agree with you ippy. It is difficult to express certain things precisely & i fear being asked to explain every phrase or word & having my meaning misconstrued. At times I've regretted posting at all, it's easier not to. I have more fun bantering with floo than talking seriously.

NS is great but none of us is perfect &your criticism is accurate - but he isn't the only one who does it, he is on here more than others so we notice it from him more.

A close relative of mine to whom I'm extremely attached (has Aspergers, not saying anyone here has) is very like that, analysing everything to the nth degree, and is intense about explaining details so I sort of nderstand but on a forum like this we end uup losing the thread. This forum is stimulating, there aren't many places we can discuss religion & ethics, but should be enjoyable  most of the time.

[floo]

My grandson (15) has Asperger's, it is more than likely my husband also has the condition, but can't be tested for it, due to the fact he is now brain damaged. Both of them analyse everything that is said to them, and are rather pedantic too, which can be irritating. Neither of them are capable of engaging in social chit chat.

[Robbie]

Know the feeling though my relation is not that extreme or not all the time.It's possible to have good conversation & they're quite sociable - but when there is a bee in bonnet, they are on a roll......

However it's only a variation of personality & interesting too, they're usually clever people.

A couple weeks ago I watched the film about Alan Turing starring Benedict Cumberpatch on television. He was a classic example, what a star he was (very moving film, quite tragic)!

[Nearly Sane]

Know the feeling though my relation is not that extreme or not all the time.It's possible to have good conversation & they're quite sociable - but when there is a bee in bonnet, they are on a roll......

However it's only a variation of personality & interesting too, they're usually clever people.

A couple weeks ago I watched the film about Alan Turing starring Benedict Cumberpatch on television. He was a classic example, what a star he was (very moving film, quite tragic)!

Dear Dawkins, can't you people get anything right! It's CumberBatch not Cumberpatch! It's not hard, just up your game!

 

[SweetPea]

Ippy and Robinson.... I think, Nearly and some others use pedantry as a form of arguing.

I've observed various ways in which folk here 'argue':
- Vlad uses a dry sense humour
- ekim uses a way to show the 'other side' of a point
- JeremyP is straight to the point
- Gonners uses his charm and humour
- Jack Knave is often philosophical
- Bluehillside uses..... well.... leprechauns

Can't think of anyone else at the moment.... but remember Johnny Canoe? He would use sarcasm to argue, but you never saw him swearing.

Oh, Alan Burns can argue and remain cool as ever....
.... and Some Sort of Stranger just blinds us with science.

'tis all very fascinating to watch..

[Nearly Sane]

Ippy and Robinson.... I think, Nearly and some others use pendency as a form of arguing.

I've observed various ways in which folk here 'argue':
- Vlad uses a dry sense humour
- ekim uses a way to show the 'other side' of a point
- JeremyP is straight to the point
- Gonners uses his charm and humour
- Jack Knave is often philosophical
- Bluehillside uses..... well.... leprechauns

Can't think of anyone else at the moment.... but remember Johnny Canoe? He would use sarcasm to argue, but you never saw him swearing.

Oh, Alan Burns can argue and remain cool as ever....
.... and Some Sort of Stranger just blinds us with science.

'tis all very fascinating to watch..

You say pendency (actually pedantry, it's like none of you can get anything right).  I say accuracy.


 

[SweetPea]

You say pendency (actually pedantry, it's like none of you can get anything right).  I say accuracy.


 

Haha!! I was just standing in the kitchen thinking I'm sure I haven't spelt pedantry correctly, Lol!

[Robbie]

...and I thought Benedict's name was Cabbagepatch, so there. SPea I don't know Jonny Canoe.

i was looking at the first few posts on this thread a day or so ago, all about not recognising God & ignoring signs. We sure have strayed.

Quote Sassy - page 1 25/05/15 nearly 2 years ago!
"I was reading some of the threads and it is abundantly clear that people do not seek the truth regarding God but simply reasons to keep from believing in him.

In doing so they ignore the very warnings and signs of the times.
If people read the bible in a manner that sought to know God...how many would be so ignorant of those signs?"

[SusanDoris]

...and I thought Benedict's name was Cabbagepatch, so there. SPea

Do you remember Cabbage Patch dolls?! They were all the rage in Australia in 1986 when I spent a year there teaching.

[Robbie]

Yes very well  , were the rage here too.

[Nearly Sane]

Do you remember Cabbage Patch dolls?! They were all the rage in Australia in 1986 when I spent a year there teaching.

I saw one being born in New York in 1986 on an operation called an 'easioutomy'

[ippy]

Hi ipster,

Not sure whether you meant to post my reply to Vlad and then address your comments to NS?

Either way, while I agree with the sentiment there’s a specific issue with Vlad that makes normal discourse difficult in this respect, namely that he has his own meanings for words. Thus for example he’ll accuse someone of  “scientism” (by which he seems to mean his personal definition of, “the conviction that one day science will answer everything” rather than its correct meaning of “putting undue weight on the methods and findings of science”). He then uses his straw man to beat his interlocutor (“Ha, how can you ever know that for sure?” etc.) 

And so it goes – “philosophical naturalism”, “materialism”, “atheism”, “category error” etc all have idiosyncratic meanings in his head so he can use them as clubs to attack positions no-one holds. And that unfortunately is why so much time can be taken up sometimes with definitions and corrections so that at least some kind of exchange is possible. Sadly he’s now so heavily invested in some of these mistakes that he can’t or won’t back out of them, but that’s another matter I guess.

I was referring to N S's over preciseness with words and grammar, great and very much needed if you're writing out legal documentation; there's not that many here that are or should need to be that precise, well I wouldn't have thought so. 

I have over the course of my life seen so much wisdom coming from people that are both wise and inarticulate and every other hue in between, I don't think Vlad is that bad a person all he does, as it seems to me, is to try to make up for his shortcomings, with his random word generator without realising that he could probably be a lot more successful without the use of  his word machine and started to use everyday plain English that he should be more familiar with.

Short comings, we've all got em, I can't spell a blooming thing if my life depended on it, thank goodness for spell check.

ippy

[ippy]

Do you remember Cabbage Patch dolls?! They were all the rage in Australia in 1986 when I spent a year there teaching.

It makes me smile now but I can remember when I was very young, I don't know about five or six years old and thinking bah! girls with their dolls they're useless anyway what can you do with a doll?

ippy

[Alan Burns]

I saw a brain surgeon on TV performing and operation while the patient was awake. He did this as he needed the person conscious so that he could ask him questions. He was operating on a portion of the brain responsible for vocabulary. He showed him pictures, and long as he could say what the pictures was, he could keep cutting out bits of his brain. However ,it got to a point where he showed him a picture, and the patient said he knew exactly what it was, he could see it was red, it had wheels, there was driver, it had a siren. But he COULD not say what the pictured vehicle was. The surgeon moved the electrode, and the patient immediately said "Fire Engine".
The patient was awake, aware able to make decisions, talk to the surgeon. Everything about the person was fine. But as soon as a tiny electrode was tested on his brain, his ability to verbalise pictures completely disappeared.
We do no understand how the brain creates consciousness, but that was a good demonstration that the brain alone, is completely responsible.
In other patients that had suffered damage, they too were completely aware and conscious, able to make decisions just like you, BUT they could not recognise the face of their wife, their children or even themselves.

So what is the soul doing in people like this?
Can it recognise pictures and people all the time, but the person whose soul it is cannot.

What then is this soul for?

What you describe in the surgical operation is precisely what you would expect if the conscious awareness of your soul no longer has complete access to the physical brain cells needed for communication.  If some of the communication channels are damaged, the perception will not be complete.  As I have said on previous posts, the function of the soul is to provide conscious awareness of the content of brain cells, and to interact with brain cells in order to implement the conscious will of the soul.

[BeRational]

What you describe in the surgical operation is precisely what you would expect if the conscious awareness of your soul no longer has complete access to the physical brain cells needed for communication.  If some of the communication channels are damaged, the perception will not be complete.  As I have said on previous posts, the function of the soul is to provide conscious awareness of the content of brain cells, and to interact with brain cells in order to implement the conscious will of the soul.

Garbage!

This is exactly what you expect when the brain is producing conscious awareness.
Bits of the brain can be digitally switched off causing an immediate change in the persons behaviour and conscious awareness.

There is no need for a soul, the brain does it all as was clearly demonstrated.

[Alan Burns]

Garbage!

This is exactly what you expect when the brain is producing conscious awareness.
Bits of the brain can be digitally switched off causing an immediate change in the persons behaviour and conscious awareness.

There is no need for a soul, the brain does it all as was clearly demonstrated.

But conscious awareness cannot be defined by material reactions.  You can play about with the communication system, but the source of awareness is you, not a chemical reaction.

[Gordon]

But conscious awareness cannot be defined by material reactions.

Why?

You can play about with the communication system, but the source of awareness is you, not a chemical reaction.

Where 'you', in terms of thinking, are just a bunch of chemical reactions.

You're stuck in the fallacy of division again.

[torridon]

But conscious awareness cannot be defined by material reactions. 

Nonsense.  We are able to measure conscious awareness with equipment.  Your soul on the other hand lacks any definition whatsoever, we cannot even detect it never mind measure or evaluate it.  All you are doing is taking something that is hard to understand and slipping some impossible-to-understand magic beliefs into that space.  That is backward.

[torridon]

You can play about with the communication system, but the source of awareness is you, not a chemical reaction.

And if by 'source of awareness' we are to read 'soul' then all creatures with awareness must have souls - no creature will survive long without awareness. Perceptual systems developed in the PreCambrian and are now ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom and humans enjoy awareness as we evolved as part of that great tree of life.

[floo]

And if by 'source of awareness' we are to read 'soul' then all creatures with awareness must have souls - no creature will survive long without awareness. Perceptual systems developed in the PreCambrian and are now ubiquitous throughout the animal kingdom and humans enjoy awareness as we evolved as part of that great tree of life.

Agreed

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense.  We are able to measure conscious awareness with equipment.

But that's the problem. Does a medical checklist equate to consciousness though?...I think we are indebted to Bluehillside for raising the phenomenon of apparent consciousness, for example, in people who can do complex activities when asleep like driving.
I would be surprised if some of the activities of people  wouldn't at least fulfil some of criteria for ''medical'' consciousness.

Such phenomena raise the questions ''Can intelligence resemble consciousness without actually being it... A so called zombie'' and ''is the subconsciousness really a second consciousness which subliminally and rarely overtly communicates information to what we regard as ''ourselves''.

Now I think you will see that none of this is a statement that consciousness IS DEFINATELY NOT physical but we see hard arsed physicalists getting sweaty palms here because it does not confirm their physicalist safe and cosy equation of intelligence equalling consciousness or the even more suspect consciousness equalling a medical and neuroscientific arbitrary checklist of signs.