Atheism vs. Agnosticism

[Mercutio]

From you in particular I'm waiting for your description of worldview that is not -- mind, body, or both. You say such worldviews exist, why not demonstrate that one does? (Anyone who cares to chime in would do.)

The pragmatist position is that the entire mind-brain question is, thus far, nonsensical. As thus far there is no practical reason to choose among the three positions you have named, it is a question not worth bothering about. As soon as there is a reason to prefer one view, that view will suddenly have redeemed itself...but as for now, as evidenced by these endless threads, arguments about mind-body issues are as useful as arguments about how many angels can dance yadda yadda yadda....

So yeah, there is at least one world-view that is not mind, nor body, nor both. (For a very accessible presentation of the radical behaviorist version of pragmatism, see William Baum's Understanding Behaviorism)

 

[hammegk]

Forget the human mind/brain problem. Try something simpler. Watch a flower opening.

What does a behavorist conclude when he considers the questions, 'What is doing the "behaving"?', and 'What is observing the behavior?'. 'Is (my) observation required'?

Erm, sure ok, "who cares" (whoops! who???).

 

[T'ai Chi]

What part of "I am not going to waste my time discussing things with liars." did you not understand?

I know what part of my post you didn't understand: all of it. You also fidgit with O'Hair's writing to say oh maybe she meant something less than 100%. Well, she wrote supernatural things don't exist nor can they ever exist, and that is a fact.

Please continue with your ad hom. It really makes my arguments all that better.

 

[Mercutio]

Forget the human mind/brain problem. Try something simpler. Watch a flower opening.

Well, ok, but if I am understanding you correctly below, you jump right back into the mind-body stuff below, with your "what" questions.

What does a behavorist conclude when he considers the questions, 'What is doing the "behaving"?',

um...I am. (um...the behavior of watching a flower opening...is that what you meant?)

and 'What is observing the behavior?'

Again, I am, if I understand your question. Why "what"? Are you looking for some subset of "me" that observes? If so, why? Is there a subset of me that walks? Plays music? Answers questions? These are all things I, as an organism, do. Any attempt to dissect out bits of me that do different parts of what I do is, well, artificial.

'Is (my) observation required'?

What a seemingly deep question. Kind of like "can you conceive of something that cannot be conceived of?"...in the sense that it cannot be answered. Without observing the non-observing condition, how can I answer? How can you? How can anyone? Why waste time on questions that not only have no answer, but can have no answer? (of course, if you can come up with a way of answering it, you have a different question entirely)

Erm, sure ok, "who cares" (whoops! who???).

There is no problem with "who", here, Hammegk. I don't know why you think there might be. In fact, your first two questions work better with "who" than with "what".

(I am assuming, from your past posts here, that your "what" was not intended to refer to a literal dissection--you were not after "the visual centers in the occipital lobe, along with association pathways through frontal & temporal lobes, limbic system, etc.. And yet, "what" still implies that you are looking for a part of a whole--this search for a partition comes from those silly mind-body dichotomous notions...)

 

[T'ai Chi]

Irrelevant to what?

The people you know or don't know are irrelevant to such people existing.

For example, you said "But I do not know any Atheists ( myself included ) who categorically claim there is no God/s... ", which is irrelevant to such people existing. I gave two examples, O'Hair and Thaiboxerken, going by their quotes.

.. that there are many Atheists who claim to have ' studied ' Atheism, and followed a path that brought them to the point of calling themself ' Atheist ...
why don't you tell us why you believe this.

I said that there are many? Did I? Nope.

There are some, however. Such notables as O'Hair and Charles Smith come to mind.

You, in fact, said "I don't believe you will find very many Athiests who claim to have ' studied ' Atheism, and followed a path that brought them to the point of calling themself ' Atheist '..."., and again, what you believe here is irrelevant to the actual facts. Clarifying what you meant by "many" would be nice. The fact that some examples exist is evidence for my point.

 

[T'ai Chi]

What part of SUPERnatural can you not fathom? It means "beyond" natural - having existence beyond the physical universe (hint: beyond space and time). Or, put plainly and relative to this post, it means that there is nothing to know since nothing can be known about 'supernatural' anything.

Robert

Additionally, defining gods as supernatural is convenient for you apparently. Say gods are defined as natural. You still haven't surveyed all space and all time. Right?

 

[kuroyume0161]

Additionally, defining gods as supernatural is convenient for you apparently. Say gods are defined as natural. You still haven't surveyed all space and all time. Right?

If you read my statement very carefully, there is not a single reference to 'god' or 'gods'. I am only discussing 'supernatural'.

But you do bring up a very interesting point. What is a 'god'? Would you know one if it smote you? Could it just be an alien with more technology than you? Why would that be a god? Can a 'god' which is natural circumvent the laws of nature? So many questions, so much more time for important things...

Robert

 

[hammegk]

the behavior of watching a flower opening...is that what you meant?)

I meant the behavior of the flower.

Again, I am, if I understand your question. Why "what"? Are you looking for some subset of "me" that observes? If so, why? Is there a subset of me that walks? Plays music? Answers questions? These are all things I, as an organism, do. Any attempt to dissect out bits of me that do different parts of what I do is, well, artificial.

Artificial? Maybe. Cofusing the issue I raise, yes.

There is no problem with "who", here, Hammegk. I don't know why you think there might be.

1. Replace yourself with a bee.

2. Forget the bee.

Does the flower "behave" anyway? For "who", if not itself? Now, who is "itself"?

Wecome to objective idealism.

 

[T'ai Chi]

If you read my statement very carefully, there is not a single reference to 'god' or 'gods'. I am only discussing 'supernatural'.

Many definitions of god(s) include supernatural. But regardless, if we view god(s) as natural, you still haven't surveyed all space and time to know there are none.

But you do bring up a very interesting point. What is a 'god'? Would you know one if it smote you? Could it just be an alien with more technology than you? Why would that be a god? Can a 'god' which is natural circumvent the laws of nature? So many questions, so much more time for important things...

I have no idea what a god's properties would be if one existed.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Many definitions of god(s) include supernatural. But regardless, if we view god(s) as natural, you still haven't surveyed all space and time to know there are none.

I have no idea what a god's properties would be if one existed. [/B]

And that is the entire problem with 'god'. How on Earth or the universe is one going to 'survey all space and time' to find something when they don't even know what they are seeking?

If I said, "Well, you still haven't surveyed all space and time to know there are no gizibllelables.", what would be your very first question?

Robert

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You, in fact, said "I don't believe you will find very many Athiests who claim to have ' studied ' Atheism, and followed a path that brought them to the point of calling themself ' Atheist '..."., and again, what you believe here is irrelevant to the actual facts. Clarifying what you meant by "many" would be nice. The fact that some examples exist is evidence for my point.

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

many[1,adjective]many[2,pronoun,plural in construction]many[3,noun,plural in construction]many-sidedmany-valuedso manyword[1,noun]

Main Entry: 1many
Pronunciation: 'me-nE
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): more /'mOr, 'mor/; most /'mOst/


1 : consisting of or amounting to a large but indefinite number -worked for many years-
2 : being one of a large but indefinite number - many a man -many another student


Two or three would probably not mean ' many ' to me..


Since there are probably at least several thousand atheists, I would say we would want to be talking about at least a few hundred of them when we refer to ' many atheists '..


I said " I do not believe there are many.. " ( Athesists who have studied atheism .. I still do do not know of any .. )

You named a couple of well known, outspoken atheists. I still do not have any evidence that the people you named studied atheism as a doctrine.


I ask again.. What need is there to study something which constitutes a lack of belief?

 

[hammegk]

I ask again.. What need is there to study something which constitutes a lack of belief?

Darn good question. Why don't people author books on "Not Collecting Stamps"?

Hmmm. Difference in kind of subject matter, maybe? The former subject to real discussion, the latter patently rediculous to all mentally competent individuals ...

 

[T'ai Chi]

And that is the entire problem with 'god'. How on Earth or the universe is one going to 'survey all space and time' to find something when they don't even know what they are seeking?

I don't know. But those who say "there is no (insert name here)" and state it as fact are logically deluding themselves.

If I said, "Well, you still haven't surveyed all space and time to know there are no gizibllelables.", what would be your very first question?

Can you give me some idea of what you mean by "gizibllelables"? Once you reply, I'd probably say that I agree, I haven't surveyed all space and time. There might exist gizibllelables somewhere where I wasn't able to look/detect.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Inflected Form(s): more /'mOr, 'mor/; most /'mOst/

Useful! ! !

Two or three would probably not mean ' many ' to me..

As I've said, it is not important who you know or claim to not know. I don't personally know any Hindus (and there are MANY of them), therefore they must not exist until you introduce me to one. Arguing by personal experience is not very reliable. The fact that such atheists exist, and I brought up two very well-known (well, not to you...) examples, is evidence.

What need is there to study something which constitutes a lack of belief?

I guess all those books and webpages on atheism just read themselves...

A true miracle!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Still no indication of atheists who study atheism...

Oh, well..

 

[Checkmite]

Apparently you are willing to pretend deism fits under materialism. It is idealism-istic, or dualism-istic, but cannot exist for materialists.

That is false. As Deism does not insist that the "creator" is intelligent or even sentient, it allows for the possibility that the First Cause was not supernatural.

 

[hammegk]

Er, Josh, some of us decided long-ago that supernatural and/or paranormal are fictional strawmen needed by ~idealists to argue against.

That is, supernatural and/or paranormal do not exist. period. full stop. (Unless of course you'd care to argue for dualism or materialism.)

Diogenes
Still no indication of atheists who study atheism...

Yeah, that certainly appears to cover those who profess it here.

 

[T'ai Chi]

Still no indication of atheists who study atheism...

I could care less if you don't think there is a need to study it, or dispute that people study atheism.

I guess all those books and webpages on atheism just read themselves!

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Yeah, that certainly appears to cover those who profess it here.

Correct me if that wasn't intended to be sarcastic, but assuming it was; perhaps you could elaborate on how one would continue their indoctrination in atheism after they had become an atheist?

Exactly how does one learn more about not believing in something?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Exactly how does one learn more about not believing in something?

One can read books on it, for example.

There are quite a lot of them...