Searching for GOD...

[Enki]

Which makes Goddodgers completely culpable.
I am rather talking of perception though. Of course it is perfectly possible to not realise indoctrination but then it is perfectly possible not to recognise one's misogyny or homophobia. I take the existence of Goddodging from my own experience and reading witnesses to it like St Augustine of Hippo who realised his own Goddodging and his road to discovering that was what he'd been up to for years. Such self realisation though involves introspection, a psychological approach and atheism tends to discount such things IMV except when it comes to involving the apparently perverse psychology insinuated upon believers.

Your repeated focus on 'goddodging' could be interpreted as your attempt at 'nogoddodging'. After all, as you have said yourself, it is perfectly possible to be indoctrinated, or misogynistic or homophobic without realising it. Perhaps a little introspection of your own might help.

[Outrider]

Of course it is perfectly possible to not realise indoctrination but then it is perfectly possible not to recognise one's misogyny or homophobia.

Yes. But, equally, it's possible to have the assertion pushed at you when it doesn't fit. I can't stand camp, just makes my skin crawl. I think Louis Spence and Alan Carr should be thrown into a blender. That's not homophobia, but I can see how it could lead to the accusation, because camp is strongly associated with homosexual men. There are people out there, though, who despise camp and homosexuality, or camp BECAUSE of its association with homosexuality.

I take the existence of Goddodging from my own experience and reading witnesses to it like St Augustine of Hippo who realised his own Goddodging and his road to discovering that was what he'd been up to for years.

That you and Augustine have determined that was your experience doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't believe does really and just doesn't want to admit it, or are pretending like they're not convinced by the arguments for God when deep down they are.

Such self realisation though involves introspection, a psychological approach and atheism tends to discount such things IMV except when it comes to involving the apparently perverse psychology insinuated upon believers.

Utter arrogant horseshit. An ad hominem dressed up in assumptions of personal superiority. Perhaps you and Augustine fell for the god delusion because you did the same introspection we did but just weren't very good at it? Or, perhaps you did it, and were just weak and needed the crutch in a way that we didn't. Or, maybe, we all did it, and that's not a definitive way of arriving at the answer, that it's a susceptible to inherent biases and traits as anything else.

O.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Which makes Goddodgers completely culpable.

“Goddodging” is the begging the question fallacy.

I am rather talking of perception though. Of course it is perfectly possible to not realise indoctrination but then it is perfectly possible not to recognise one's misogyny or homophobia. I take the existence of Goddodging from my own experience and reading witnesses to it like St Augustine of Hippo who realised his own Goddodging and his road to discovering that was what he'd been up to for years.

Then he didn’t “realise” it – he just came to believe it on the basis of poor arguments for the existence of “god”.

Such self realisation though involves introspection, a psychological approach and atheism tends to discount such things IMV except when it comes to involving the apparently perverse psychology insinuated upon believers.

Atheism is just the outcome when the arguments attempted for the existence of “god” are shit. You can “self-realise” and “introspect” all you like, but when that's all you do you have no path from the subjective belief to the objective fact.   

[Dicky Underpants]

Which makes Goddodgers completely culpable.
I am rather talking of perception though. Of course it is perfectly possible to not realise indoctrination but then it is perfectly possible not to recognise one's misogyny or homophobia. I take the existence of Goddodging from my own experience and reading witnesses to it like St Augustine of Hippo who realised his own Goddodging and his road to discovering that was what he'd been up to for years. Such self realisation though involves introspection, a psychological approach and atheism tends to discount such things IMV except when it comes to involving the apparently perverse psychology insinuated upon believers.

Your example of Augustine as an instance of the supposed phenomenon that you wish to impugn is completely specious, and you know it. If you wish to cast your net so wide as to include your own past experience and the attitude of  every atheist here (and probably everyone in the world) along with Augustine, then you make the term truly meaningless.

[Dicky Underpants]

Vlad,

....

Then he didn’t “realise” it – he just came to believe it on the basis of poor arguments for the existence of “god”.
....

Hi blue,

In fact, apart from a brief flirtation with radical sceptics, Augustine always believed in the existence of some sort of god. The conversion to which Vlad is continually referring is simply that from his beliefs in Manichaeism to Christianity. And even in this there was no doubt in his mind of the importance of Christ in his former religion. He simply decided he'd got a few details wrong (on the basis of hearing a children's song in Latin "Tolle, lege", which he thought was a meaningful coincidence to urge him to read the Bible again).

[Dicky Underpants]

That you and Augustine have determined that was your experience doesn't mean that everyone who doesn't believe does really and just doesn't want to admit it, or are pretending like they're not convinced by the arguments for God when deep down they are.

Utter arrogant horseshit. An ad hominem dressed up in assumptions of personal superiority. Perhaps you and Augustine fell for the god delusion because you did the same introspection we did but just weren't very good at it? Or, perhaps you did it, and were just weak and needed the crutch in a way that we didn't. Or, maybe, we all did it, and that's not a definitive way of arriving at the answer, that it's a susceptible to inherent biases and traits as anything else.

O.

"One size fits all" has long been Vlad's maxim. That one size split long ago.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Dickey,

Hi blue,

In fact, apart from a brief flirtation with radical sceptics, Augustine always believed in the existence of some sort of god. The conversion to which Vlad is continually referring is simply that from his beliefs in Manichaeism to Christianity. And even in this there was no doubt in his mind of the importance of Christ in his former religion. He simply decided he'd got a few details wrong (on the basis of hearing a children's song in Latin "Tolle, lege", which he thought was a meaningful coincidence to urge him to read the Bible again).

Thank you for this clarification. Once again, I bow to your superior knowledge on such matters.

All best.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

What the actual fuck is wrong with you? I’ve explained to you several times in the past how analogies actually work, and yet once again you’ve shown here that you still have no fucking clue about this. Why on earth don’t you at least try to engage when people give you explanations and corrections so you don’t soil yourself in public the next time it comes up?

Once again (with feeling): THERE WAS NO COMPARISON BETWEEN “CONSCIOUS CONTROL” AND CAUSES OF DISEASE. THE ACTUAL COMPARISON CONCERNED THE IDENTICAL STRUCTURE OF THE ARGUMENT IN BOTH CASES: IE, WHEN YOUR JUSTIFICATION FOR A CLAIM TO ONE SOLUTION IS LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE, BEING UNPERSUADED BY THE JUSTIFICATION FOR A DIFFERENT SOLUTION MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO DIFFERENCE TO THE LOGICAL IMPOSSIBILITY OF YOUR CLAIM.

FFS, write it down 100 times until it finally sinks in or something willya.

Your analogy fails completely because you are presuming conscious control to be a logical impossibility in order to use the analogy.  So by making this presumption you are pre judging the validity of the analogy.

Once more I put it to you that in trying to use this false analogy you are vividly demonstrating your power to control your own thought processes to achieve a consciously chosen goal.  It is not a logical impossibility, it is a demonstrable reality - demonstrated with each post you consciously compose.

[Gordon]

Tell me, Alan - do you ever have odd thoughts just pop into your mind (that are unrelated to any prevailing issues or circumstances that may be the object of your immediate attention)?

I do, and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

[Sebastian Toe]

Tell me, Alan - do you ever have odd thoughts just pop into your mind (that are unrelated to any prevailing issues or circumstances that may be the object of your immediate attention)?

I do, and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

You are definitely not alone!

Is my soul secretly thinking about stuff without letting me know?
How does that even work?

[Stranger]

Your analogy fails completely because you are presuming conscious control to be a logical impossibility in order to use the analogy.  So by making this presumption you are pre judging the validity of the analogy.

The analogy has nothing to do with whether your proposition is wrong or right (that it's obviously wrong is a different point), it's about the piss-poor 'arguments' you keep using.

Why is this so hard? Is there any intelligence or rationality left in your mind, or has your horrifying faith destroyed it all?

Once more I put it to you that in trying to use this false analogy you are vividly demonstrating your power to control your own thought processes to achieve a consciously chosen goal.  It is not a logical impossibility, it is a demonstrable reality - demonstrated with each post you consciously compose.

Please stop telling this blatant lie.

It is not even possible to demonstrate to somebody else that you even have any 'conscious awareness', let alone that there is 'conscious control'. Have you never heard of a 'p-zombie'? Ironically the concept is often used in arguments against physicalism. But the point is that it's impossible to rule out something that appears to be entirely human, and acts, behaves, and talks exactly like a human but has no 'inner life', no actual consciousness. Of course there are arguments against it, but the point is than none of them are conclusive, so claiming that something about our inner conscious life is demonstrable is always going to be dishonest.

So, please stop. It is totally and blatantly dishonest of you to claim that any of your claims about minds are demonstrable. All it is achieving is emphasising the point that you don't understand the subject and have no proper arguments.

And I'm still waiting for some proper definition of what "conscious control of our own thoughts" even means that isn't question begging or a dishonest attempt at re-labelling.

[Alan Burns]

Tell me, Alan - do you ever have odd thoughts just pop into your mind (that are unrelated to any prevailing issues or circumstances that may be the object of your immediate attention)?

I do, and I suspect I'm not alone in that.

I am sure that everyone gets odd thoughts occasionally.
But this in no way detracts from our power to consciously direct our thoughts to achieve consciously chosen goals.
And I am quite sure that many of the "odd thoughts" which pop into my mind are divinely inspired to bring my attention to what is truly important in our lives.
Conversely some of the "odd thoughts" can be put there by the evil one to tempt me away from God's love.

[Outrider]

I am sure that everyone gets odd thoughts occasionally. But this in no way detracts from our power to consciously direct our thoughts to achieve consciously chosen goals.

If your thinking is consciously controlled, how do those unbidden thoughts occur?

And I am quite sure that many of the "odd thoughts" which pop into my mind are divinely inspired to bring my attention to what is truly important in our lives.

1 - 'Goddidit' isn't really a very convincing argument.
2 - I won't go into ALL the odd thoughts which pop into my mind of a day, but I can reliably confirm that they are not all directly related to 'what is truly important in our lives'. (But, if anyone does know whether Autobots would need car insurance or life insurance I'd love to know?)

Conversely some of the "odd thoughts" can be put there by the evil one to tempt me away from God's love.

That would the fourth god of this monotheism, right?

O.

[Alan Burns]

The analogy has nothing to do with whether your proposition is wrong or right (that it's obviously wrong is a different point), it's about the piss-poor 'arguments' you keep using.

Why is this so hard? Is there any intelligence or rationality left in your mind, or has your horrifying faith destroyed it all?

Please stop telling this blatant lie.

It is not even possible to demonstrate to somebody else that you even have any 'conscious awareness', let alone that there is 'conscious control'. Have you never heard of a 'p-zombie'? Ironically the concept is often used in arguments against physicalism. But the point is that it's impossible to rule out something that appears to be entirely human, and acts, behaves, and talks exactly like a human but has no 'inner life', no actual consciousness. Of course there are arguments against it, but the point is than none of them are conclusive, so claiming that something about our inner conscious life is demonstrable is always going to be dishonest.

So, please stop. It is totally and blatantly dishonest of you to claim that any of your claims about minds are demonstrable. All it is achieving is emphasising the point that you don't understand the subject and have no proper arguments.

And I'm still waiting for some proper definition of what "conscious control of our own thoughts" even means that isn't question begging or a dishonest attempt at re-labelling.

Your physical zombie example still demonstrates the power of human conscious control used in the consciously driven process of achieving the chosen goal of creating an artificial replica of human behaviour.

[Sebastian Toe]

I am sure that everyone gets odd thoughts occasionally.
But this in no way detracts from our power to consciously direct our thoughts to achieve consciously chosen goals.
And I am quite sure that many of the "odd thoughts" which pop into my mind are divinely inspired to bring my attention to what is truly important in our lives.
Conversely some of the "odd thoughts" can be put there by the evil one to tempt me away from God's love.

How does God or the Evil One put thoughts into your concious?
By what process?

Thinking about that further, there are billions of people on this planet, each have odd thoughts every day, who knows how many, and what you are basically saying is that both God and the Evil One spend all day every day placing thoughts into their consciousness.

Really?

[Stranger]

Your physical zombie example still demonstrates the power of human conscious control used in the consciously driven process of achieving the chosen goal of creating an artificial replica of human behaviour.

  Still lying and lazy to boot. You couldn't even be arsed to follow the link. It's philosophical zombie, not physical zombie and it's not a goal somebody has to create one, it's a thought experiment about the nature of consciousness.

And you didn't even try to address the point. There is nothing you or I can do or write that could possibly even demonstrate that we have any inner, conscious experience whatsoever. Nothing.

Seems like you have no knowledge of, and no interest in, the subject you're trying to address. Just pitiful blind faith and dishonest, ignorant, and illogical 'arguments'.

And I'm still waiting for a proper definition of what "conscious control of our own thoughts" even means that isn't question begging or a dishonest attempt at re-labelling.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Your analogy fails completely because you are presuming conscious control to be a logical impossibility in order to use the analogy.  So by making this presumption you are pre judging the validity of the analogy.

Do you genuinely not understand how analogies work, or are you just trolling now? The analogy works perfectly well because it relies on the SAME argument you attempt but in a different context. That's what analogies are.

You posit a logically impossible explanation for consciousness. When its logical impossibility is explained to you you just ignore the problem, and resort instead to “OK then how does consciousness work?” as if the answer to that in some mysterious way makes your proposition not logically impossible.

This is the SAME arguments as asserting diseases to be caused by evil spirits, and when your reasoning for that is falsified resorting instead to “OK then, what does cause diseases?” as if the answer to that too would in some mysterious way make the logic for evil spirits less wrong.

If a ten-year-old can understand how analogies work, why on earth can’t you – especially as I’ve taken the time to explain it to you several times now?

Once more I put it to you that in trying to use this false analogy…

Once again, you’re completely wrong about that.

…you are vividly demonstrating your power to control your own thought processes to achieve a consciously chosen goal.  It is not a logical impossibility, it is a demonstrable reality - demonstrated with each post you consciously compose.

It was, is and remains a logical impossibility because it creates an infinite regress. Endlessly trying diversionary tactics to avoid addressing that problem is just dishonest.

[Alan Burns]

  Still lying and lazy to boot. You couldn't even be arsed to follow the link. It's philosophical zombie, not physical zombie and it's not a goal somebody has to create one, it's a thought experiment about the nature of consciousness.

And you didn't even try to address the point. There is nothing you or I can do or write that could possibly even demonstrate that we have any inner, conscious experience whatsoever. Nothing.

Any thought experiment offers evidence of the freedom used to conceive of a chosen goal in constructing the thought experiment.  The fact that we are able to contemplate the nature of conscious awareness is evidence of our freedom to think about such things.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

Any thought experiment offers evidence of the freedom used to conceive of a chosen goal in constructing the thought experiment.  The fact that we are able to contemplate the nature of conscious awareness is evidence of our freedom to think about such things.

Do you not think that Jesus would be ashamed of you for such egregious and continued lying?

[Alan Burns]

AB,

Do you not think that Jesus would be ashamed of you for such egregious and continued lying?

my conscience is clear

[Stranger]

Any thought experiment offers evidence of the freedom used to conceive of a chosen goal in constructing the thought experiment.  The fact that we are able to contemplate the nature of conscious awareness is evidence of our freedom to think about such things.

When did anybody suggest we couldn't think about things? That is not the issue. The issue is your absurd and logically impossible claim of "conscious control of our own thought processes".

And I'm still waiting for a proper definition of what "conscious control of our own thoughts" even means that isn't question begging or a dishonest attempt at re-labelling.

[Stranger]

my conscience is clear

Speaks volumes about your version of Christianity's approach to being honest and not bearing false witness...

[Alan Burns]

It was, is and remains a logical impossibility because it creates an infinite regress. Endlessly trying diversionary tactics to avoid addressing that problem is just dishonest.

In your mind it may be conceived as a logical impossibility, but in coming to this conclusion you seem unable to grasp that you had to have used your conscious control of the thought processes needed to achieve it.

It is a demonstrable reality with no need for infinite regress.
You are the ultimate source of control.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

my conscience is clear

As you're telling lies for Jesus though it shouldn't be.

It really shouldn't.

[Stranger]

In your mind it may be conceived as a logical impossibility, but in coming to this conclusion you seem unable to grasp that you had to have used your conscious control of the thought processes needed to achieve it.

Just endlessly asserting that you're right is the behaviour of a spoilt child, not an adult member of Mensa with a PhD. Grow the fuck up.

It is a demonstrable reality...

More lies.

...with no need for infinite regress.

So how is it avoided?

You are the ultimate source of control.

Meaningless.

And I'm still waiting for a proper definition of what "conscious control of our own thoughts" even means that isn't question begging or a dishonest attempt at re-labelling.