Agnostic versus Atheist

[Solmyr]

This is, of course, begging the question.

The problem is not with my answer, but your understanding.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem is not with my answer, but your understanding.

Yes. I don’t understand your answer.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Bradski]

I’m not even sure that the question requires an answer. This is Psychology 101. To suggest that people don’t think they will be caught because of some divinely inspired fall from grace is absurd. And to add to that such trivial, nondescript, every-day, run of the mill, meaningless acts as leashing the dog is bizarre. Is spilling your coffee down to the fall? Getting a hang nail? Biting your tongue? To ask for an ‘atheist’ answer to these occurrences is completely meaningless.

And defects in the human body? We are a mish-mash of bits and pieces that quite often served different purposes originally and we are left with the best that evolution has come up with. Do you know that your feet were once claws and the nails talons? They weren’t designed to look like that and they work very badly indeed for an animal that spends its life upright. Did you know that the bones of the inner ear were once jaw bones? That you develop gills as an embryo? That the hair on your body serves no purpose whatsoever? That the female birth canal is too small for the average baby so you literally have to crush the head as it’s being born? That your knees and hips are not designed to last for more than 30 years or so, unless you drive everywhere and use the train to get to work and the bus to the supermarket rather than running down your food.

Gee, must all be down to that guy eating an apple. Or at least, that’s what everyone accepted when they knew no better. What everyone accepted until we were actually able to work out why all this occurs.

And so back to Indian atheists and American atheists with an Indian background and Native American atheists and plain ol’ Anglo Saxon, white Louisiana atheists. All service men and women. Are they really atheists? Because if they are not, I want to know who you think they call on in times of stress. The God Of The Philosophers? Seriously? Who do you think each of them thinks that the God Of The Philosophers is…?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’m not even sure that the question requires an answer. This is Psychology 101. To suggest that people don’t think they will be caught because of some divinely inspired fall from grace is absurd. And to add to that such trivial, nondescript, every-day, run of the mill, meaningless acts as leashing the dog is bizarre. Is spilling your coffee down to the fall? Getting a hang nail? Biting your tongue? To ask for an ‘atheist’ answer to these occurrences is completely meaningless.

And defects in the human body? We are a mish-mash of bits and pieces that quite often served different purposes originally and we are left with the best that evolution has come up with. Do you know that your feet were once claws and the nails talons? They weren’t designed to look like that and they work very badly indeed for an animal that spends its life upright. Did you know that the bones of the inner ear were once jaw bones? That you develop gills as an embryo? That the hair on your body serves no purpose whatsoever? That the female birth canal is too small for the average baby so you literally have to crush the head as it’s being born? That your knees and hips are not designed to last for more than 30 years or so, unless you drive everywhere and use the train to get to work and the bus to the supermarket rather than running down your food.

Gee, must all be down to that guy eating an apple. Or at least, that’s what everyone accepted when they knew no better. What everyone accepted until we were actually able to work out why all this occurs.

And so back to Indian atheists and American atheists with an Indian background and Native American atheists and plain ol’ Anglo Saxon, white Louisiana atheists. All service men and women. Are they really atheists? Because if they are not, I want to know who you think they call on in times of stress. The God Of The Philosophers? Seriously? Who do you think each of them thinks that the God Of The Philosophers is…?

And your point is…?

 

[Bradski]

And your point is…?

I’m refuting PR’s implication that everything that we consider not to be perfect (including not leashing your dog at the first attempt?) is a result of two people disobeying God and searching for knowledge.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m refuting PR’s implication that everything that we consider not to be perfect (including not leashing your dog at the first attempt?) is a result of two people disobeying God and searching for knowledge.

But the atheist still doesn’t have an answer as to why I can’t leash my dog on my first attempt.

Is the answer to that to be found in Psychology 101, too?

If so, please cite the source. Thanks.

Not to mention, Psychology may explain the process and the thinking, but it STILL doesn’t explain the why.

It’s like this medical text, which explains the process and the source (genetic mutation) of the disease Neurofibromatosis.

But it doesn’t explain the why. Why is there a mutation in the first place?

Why, Atheists, Why?

(NB: not asking specifically why there are genetic mutations. That was analogy only).

EDIT: but the mutation question does fit. Why are there (bad) genetic mutations? The Christian has an answer: because of Original Sin. But the Atheist? Waiting for an answer on this, too.

So, Why, Atheists, Why?

 

[PRmerger]

Well, a native American soldier might. But if he doesn’t, do you class him as an atheist? Would you demand proof of that? Would you require verifiable confirmation that he didn’t call on Gitche Manitou?

Really?

It really sounds as if you’re using the native American as an example of a polytheist.

Did you know that native Americans are a diverse group of people?

Some of them are even Catholics!

usccb.org/issues-and-action/cultural-diversity/native-american/resources/upload/NA-Catholics-Millennium.pdf

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’m refuting PR’s implication that everything that we consider not to be perfect (including not leashing your dog at the first attempt?) is a result of two people disobeying God and searching for knowledge.

I’m with you there. That would be like saying that everything that happens by accident was done on purpose. Sometimes we just screw up!

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I’d like to know what your explanation is for why the world is like it is. Clearly, we aren’t how we would like to be.

Thats a different question. It also seems overly broad as “the world” can be inclusive of a lot of things.

But the atheist still doesn’t have an answer as to why I can’t leash my dog on my first attempt.

Success rate explanations in leaching a dog are not to the best of my knowledge something that hinges much on someone being an atheist. People of the same religious classification could provide dissimilar replies. People of different religious classifications could provide similar responses.

If a high precision machine designed to complete a task identically without variation had at some point failed to complete that task or showed variation then I might expect someone to question why there was a variance. It could hint at some developing change in the machine or some required condition for its operation was not met.

I don’t expect humans to always be able to complete a task identically every single time without additional guidance, tools, or help. There are variations in physical and mental states from day to day. A person might perform differently before having their morning coffee, after their coffee, after too much coffee, or from other conditions. In the example you’ve provided there also may be variations in the dog’s behaviour, variations in how someone’s performance from other thoughts on their mind, and distractions in the environment. With that being said I understand your question to ask why outcome sometimes varies when internal and environmental conditions vary.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m refuting PR’s implication that everything that we consider not to be perfect (including not leashing your dog at the first attempt?) is a result of two people disobeying God and searching for knowledge.

. . . I don’t expect humans to always be able to complete a task identically every single time without additional guidance, tools, or help. There are variations in physical and mental states from day to day. A person might perform differently before having their morning coffee, after their coffee, after too much coffee, or from other conditions. In the example you’ve provided there also may be variations in the dog’s behaviour, variations in how someone’s performance from other thoughts on their mind, and distractions in the environment. With that being said I understand your question to ask why outcome sometimes varies when internal and environmental conditions vary.

When I hear about leashing the dog, my mind goes to the symbolism of self-control, progressing to free-will, and goodness.

What is it that makes it difficult to do good?
How do we know the good?
What is it in me that knows the good and chooses to do otherwise?

Explanations involving internal and external conditions are all good and well for some people it seems. It sounds like excuses when I hear them within myself. It’s not a matter of self-acceptance, loving oneself. It’s knowing what is possible and falling short. That said, for those who believe, our hope lies in Jesus Christ.

 

[Bradski]

But the atheist still doesn’t have an answer as to why I can’t leash my dog on my first attempt.

Is the answer to that to be found in Psychology 101, too?

If so, please cite the source. Thanks.

I’ve passed the point where I can find anything sensible to discuss here.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

What is it that makes it difficult to do good?
How do we know the good?
What is it in me that knows the good and chooses to do otherwise?

This and much more is in the domain of those that study human behaviour. #MotivationTheory #ConflictResolution

Explanations involving internal and external conditions are all good and well for some people it seems. It sounds like excuses when I hear them within myself. It’s not a matter of self-acceptance, loving oneself. It’s knowing what is possible and falling short. That said, for those who believe, our hope lies in Jesus Christ.

Someone could take responsibility for having committed a fault or folly while explaining her actions including internal and external factors. Someone could reject all fault and provide no explanation at all. An explanation for one’s behaviour is not necessarily pardon for that behaviour.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

QUOTE=Bradski;13921233]I’ve passed the point where I can find anything sensible to discuss here.:thumbsup:I’m surprised you held out so long!

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’ve passed the point where I can find anything sensible to discuss here.

:thumbsup:I’m surprised you held out so long.

 

[Aloysium]

This and much more is in the domain of those that study human behaviour. #MotivationTheory #ConflictResolution . . .

Same words, different meanings. #FailureToCommunicate

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Same words, different meanings. #FailureToCommunicate

They are also the headings under which you will find discussions of your answers in studies of behaviour. Have you ever considered what these studies have to say about your questions?

 

[Aloysium]

They are also the headings under which you will find discussions of your answers in studies of behaviour. Have you ever considered what these studies have to say about your questions?

I was speaking of our relationship with God.
And, the reply was . . . well, about something else.

I understand that your comments may have had more to do with the conversation that was going on when I interjected.

Psychological studies and their conclusions reveal something of the nature of the human mind: the instinctual and neurophysiological underpinnings of our perceptions, emotions and primitive cognitive capacities. These views are shaped by and contribute to the modern understanding of the world, which imagines itself to be objective and pluralistic, but is actually biased towards unrecognized philosophical assumptions and is quite provincial in its vision.

Agree or disagree with my assessment, they constitute academia’s contribution to the veil, which covers the simple and living truth of our existence.
To stay on topic, its transparency, not determined by ourselves, decides whether a person will be agnostic or atheist.

 

[PRmerger]

This and much more is in the domain of those that study human behaviour. #MotivationTheory #ConflictResolution

Someone could take responsibility for having committed a fault or folly while explaining her actions including internal and external factors. Someone could reject all fault and provide no explanation at all. An explanation for one’s behaviour is not necessarily pardon for that behaviour.

Yes. And as I’ve stated earlier, it’s an explanation similar to the medical text on Neurofibromatosis. It explains the disease process, the source (a genetic mutation)…but it doesn’t explain WHY there is a genetic mutation, and what caused that mutation.

I still need to know WHY there even needs to be “motivation theory”.

What’s the atheist answer?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Yes. And as I’ve stated earlier, it’s an explanation similar to the medical text on Neurofibromatosis. It explains the disease process, the source (a genetic mutation)…but it doesn’t explain WHY there is a genetic mutation, and what caused that mutation.

I am not familiar with neurofibromatosis. But I understand that there can be multiple potential causes of mutation including chemical interactions, exposure to high energy rays, or other forms of radiation, and other potential causes. But once someone has a disease from genetic mutation what would one do with knowing the exact cause of that genetic mutation beyond advising others on reducing the risk factors for mutations?

I still need to know WHY there even needs to be “motivation theory”.

What’s the atheist answer?

One’s not obligation to have/know an explanation. But I get the feeling that a past pattern is being followed here. To summarize it looks a little something like the following.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjjKHvOW0AAVonV.jpg:large

Some details have been omitted, but am beginning to seriously think this is what you may be going for.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not familiar with neurofibromatosis. But I understand that there can be multiple potential causes of mutation including chemical interactions, exposure to high energy rays, or other forms of radiation, and other potential causes. But once someone has a disease from genetic mutation what would one do with knowing the exact cause of that genetic mutation beyond advising others on reducing the risk factors for mutations?

One’s not obligation to have/know an explanation. But I get the feeling that a past pattern is being followed here. To summarize it looks a little something like the following.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjjKHvOW0AAVonV.jpg:large

Some details have been omitted, but am beginning to seriously think this is what you may be going for.

Well, I am astonished that a Science Lover would object to the question “Why”.