Trouble at mill

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I don't think I made myself clear.
What I should have said is.

What warrant do you have for dismissing certain personal experiences and not others as evidence? Since all experience is personal.

For the reason I explained to you and you just ignored.

1. Experience may be personal but evidence isn't.

2. You're cheating again by conflating "personal experience" of something with the narrative used to explain it.

3. The "warrant" as you put it for dismissing the explanatory narrative "god" for a personal experience is that it's untestable - and any untestable narrative is as (in)valid as any other. Either you accept "god" and "leprechauns" equally as objectively true explanations for different personal experiences, or you accept neither. There's no third option.   

[SteveH]

Vlad - please spell "god-dodging" thus, with a hyphen.
Bhs - Please observe the parliamentary convention of not accusing people of lying - it's rude and rather childish. Assume that they are mistaken instead.

[Aruntraveller]

Steve H

Please spell gog-doging thus, god-dodging. 

[SteveH]

Oh knickers! Edited.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

I talk about Goddodging because I have seen examples on this board and have witnessed lines of the very goddodging arguments I have indulged in myself in times past.

No you haven't. For reasons that have been explained to you and you've just ignored (again) "goddodging" is nonsensical. First you just assume your premise "god", and second you just assume that everyone else also assumes the same premise. Having done that, then you've created an entirely false platform on which to base your charge that they're "dodging" something.   

The usual suspects on this forum dismiss all experience of the divine full stop, so please don't lecture me.

Wrong again. They/we dismiss the narrative that there is an "experience of the divine" for the perfectly good reason that the claim is untestable.

Why accept personal empirical experience and deny/reject/suspect experience that does not fit into that classical kind of empirical experience? What is your warrant for that?

You've already had this explained to you. If you insist that the untestable explanatory narrative "god" should be privileged over just guessing, then you have no choice but to accept any other untestable explanatory narrative for other "experiences" on the same basis. It's simple enough to grasp isn't it?   

[Aruntraveller]

Oh knickers! Edited.

Strange isn't it?

I find, quite frequently, when I post a valid point about another's grammar or punctuation, or whatever, that a little gremlin creeping around in the back of my mind decided to make me look like a fool by creating another mistake in my amending post.

The human brain - a weird, wonderful and occasionally mischievous organ.

[SteveH]

Strange isn't it?

I find, quite frequently, when I post a valid point about another's grammar or punctuation, or whatever, that a little gremlin creeping around in the back of my mind decided to make me look like a fool by creating another mistake in my amending post.

The human brain - a weird, wonderful and occasionally mischievous organ.

I actually originally typed "gog-godging"! I noticed one g where a d should be before posting, but not the other!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Steve H,

Bhs - Please observe the parliamentary convention of not accusing people of lying - it's rude and rather childish. Assume that they are mistaken instead.

In general the first time it happens I do, but when the mistake is repeated regardless of how often it's been corrected then I consider it a lie. Vlad is notorious for it - his usual stunt is to tell people they've said something they haven't actually said at all in order to attack his own misrepresentation. See his recent efforts on the argument from authority for an example of it.   

[wigginhall]

Yes, the principle of charity assumes a mistake the first time, but not the 500th.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Trent,

The human brain - a weird, wonderful and occasionally mischievous organ.

A particular bugbear of mine: people who pronounce "mischievous" as "mis-chee-veeyus". They know there's an "i" in there somewhere, but move it to after the "v".

AAARRRGGGHHH!!!

[Enki]

Only empirical facts can be verified as such but we are talking about experience experience or qualia cannot be verified that is why we can only talk about intersubjective agreement.

But again what warrant do we have for accepting empirical personal experiences and rejecting non empirical personal experience?

I don't reject non empirical personal experiences. Indeed they can be quite valuable, especially to the person concerned. What I do do is dismiss them as evidence because they cannot be verified. Hence there is no way to accept any one such experience as evidence without accepting them all. In other words, it's the same answer to the same question. You can disagree with me, no problem, but I see little point in keeping on repeating the same thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't reject non empirical personal experiences. Indeed they can be quite valuable, especially to the person concerned. What I do do is dismiss them as evidence because they cannot be verified. Hence there is no way to accept any one such experience as evidence without accepting them all. In other words, it's the same answer to the same question. You can disagree with me, no problem, but I see little point in keeping on repeating the same thing.

As long as you are acknowledging it's empirical evidence and the problems that presents in making further ontological claims, then I am fine with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

No you haven't. For reasons that have been explained to you and you've just ignored (again) "goddodging" is nonsensical. First you just assume your premise "god", and second you just assume that everyone else also assumes the same premise. Having done that, then you've created an entirely false platform on which to base your charge that they're "dodging" something.   

Wrong again. They/we dismiss the narrative that there is an "experience of the divine" for the perfectly good reason that the claim is untestable.

You've already had this explained to you. If you insist that the untestable explanatory narrative "god" should be privileged over just guessing, then you have no choice but to accept any other untestable explanatory narrative for other "experiences" on the same basis. It's simple enough to grasp isn't it?   

By God-dodging I am describing behaviours issuing from the mention of the word God.

In terms of who we should accept existential judgment from.
Are you saying no such judgment can be made at all because the self does not exist?
A person is the last person who can make such judgments?
A person is the only one who can make such judgments?

or what?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

By God-dodging I am describing behaviours issuing from the mention of the word God.

1. No you’re not. Your efforts until now have always concerned the false claim that people with no good reason to think there’s a god can at the same time “dodge” that god. Now that’s been detonated you’re scrambling for an escape route by retrenching to the bizarre notion that some people want to dodge just "the mention of the word God”. 

2. No-one “dodges” “the mention of the word God” in any case.

In terms of who we should accept existential judgment from.

Where did that slipped in “existential” come from, and what are you even trying to say here?

Are you saying no such judgment can be made at all because the self does not exist?
A person is the last person who can make such judgments?
A person is the only one who can make such judgments?

or what?

What gibberish are you spouting now? If you think you have a legitimate notion in your head then at least try to set it out in cogent and comprehensible terms.

Oh, and you might want to preface that with acknowledging where you went wrong previously with your “goddodging” nonsense – you know, like someone with at least some decency left would.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,


2. No-one “dodges” “the mention of the word God” in any case.

Never said they did. It's just the behaviours that issue from it's mention I'm describing. That kind of makes you the Don Partridge of such behaviour IMHO.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Never said they did.

Yes you did – here: “By God-dodging I am describing behaviours issuing from the mention of the word God.” (Reply 216)

What behaviours do you think “issue” when “the word God” is mentioned? Either you reify the term and treat “god” as if it had been demonstrated, or you refer only to the word itself. Either way though, you’ve crashed and burned.

It's just the behaviours that issue from it's mention I'm describing. That kind of makes you the Don Partridge of such behaviour IMHO.

No idea.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Yes you did – here: “By God-dodging I am describing behaviours issuing from the mention of the word God.” (Reply 216)

A completely different thing from dodging "the mention of the word God" I'm afraid Deviation on your part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

A completely different thing from dodging "the mention of the word God" I'm afraid Deviation on your part.

As you twist and turn in ever-more convoluted and etiolated "explanations" for what you meant by "goddodging" you're also forced to keep avoiding question of what you even think you mean by it. What are these supposed behaviours that "issue" "from the mention of the word god", and what is it that you think is being "dodged" exactly?

It's ok - you can admit it. Just say, "actually I have no idea whatever of what I'm even trying to say". We know that anyway, so it won't be news to anyone.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

As you twist and turn in ever-more convoluted and etiolated "explanations" for what you meant by "goddodging" you're also forced to keep avoiding question of what you even think you mean by it. What are these supposed behaviours that "issue" "from the mention of the word god", and what is it that you think is being "dodged" exactly?

It's ok - you can admit it. Just say, "actually I have no idea whatever of what I'm even trying to say". We know that anyway, so it won't be news to anyone.   

Avoiding the word God is completely different from hearing it and THEN acting to it adversely.
The latter suggesting failure of the former.

If I may liken the behaviour of a lot of antitheists on here as akin to playing Chicken on a road or railway.

as for others I think they might be building up a portfolio of how to limbo dance while wearing a top hat.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Avoiding the word God is completely different from hearing it and THEN acting to it adversely.The latter suggesting failure of the former.

If I may liken the behaviour of a lot of antitheists on here as akin to playing Chicken on a road or railway.

as for others I think they might be building up a portfolio of how to limbo dance while wearing a top hat.

Further evasion noted. So again, here's the question you just dodged (ironically enough) once again but in big, bold letters:

What are these supposed behaviours that "issue" "from the mention of the word god", and what is it that you think is being "dodged" exactly?

If the answers are "actually i have no idea of what I'm even trying to say" then just say so. It's ok, really it is. No-one has any higher expectations of you anyway and think of the weight that'll be lifted from your shoulders when you no longer have to bother with all that evasion, misrepresentation, irrelevance, various fallacious arguments etc.

Go for it!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vladdo,

Further evasion noted. So again, here's the question you just dodged (ironically enough) once again but in big, bold letters:

What are these supposed behaviours that "issue" "from the mention of the word god", and what is it that you think is being "dodged" exactly?

If the answers are "actually i have no idea of what I'm even trying to say" then just say so. It's ok, really it is. No-one has any higher expectations of you anyway and think of the weight that'll be lifted from your shoulders when you no longer have to bother with all that evasion, misrepresentation, irrelevance, various fallacious arguments etc.

Go for it!

Tut tut

A multiplicity of deviations here. Your posts are beginning to resemble maps of middle earth.

[Maeght]

If a new thread is started on this would you answer the question?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vladdo,

Tut tut

A multiplicity of deviations here. Your posts are beginning to resemble maps of middle earth.

Translation: "Yes, you've got me bang to rights there Hillside - I actually have no idea what I mean when I use the term "Goddodging". Yours, Vlad".

Thought so.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

If a new thread is started on this would you answer the question?

Not only will Vlad never answer a question (while at the same time demanding that others answer his) but he'll never tell us even why he'll never answer a question either. I once chased him all over this mb asking how he'd propose that anyone distinguish the accuracy of his his non-material assertion "god" from that of any other non-material assertion. He never did answer that, and nor did he answer the subsequent question about why he wouldn't answer it. Short version: he's got form as long as your proverbial.

[Enki]

As long as you are acknowledging it's empirical evidence and the problems that presents in making further ontological claims, then I am fine with that.

I have no problem with empirical evidence. Unfortunately 'ontological claims', by which I assume you mean, claims that a god exists, seem to be lacking any empirical evidence. Hence, such claims which are a result of personal experiences cannot be verified by any objective(intersubjective) method, and are therefore useless as evidence for any but the claimant.