Kamchatka

Adrian Selby,

I apologize for any responsibility I have for confusing you.

That is not meant to be sarcastic or a personal attack in any manner.

Unfortunately, I have no time to properly respond to your post.

If what you are saying equates to we are as fully conscious as we can ever be at any particular moment, for that moment, we have no argument.

A baby is as fully conscious at the moment of birth as he or she will ever be at that moment. But if you are suggesting that baby is fully conscious, the discussion will continue.

While you are obviously not an infant, I contend that your capacity for consciousness has not been met though it is more full than it was a moment ago and it cannot be any fuller than it is at this moment for this moment.

I mentioned in a previous post that humanity shows evidence of coming into its terrible twos. I meant it.

I do not have to anthropomorphize consciousness. The nature of existence has done and is doing a pretty good job of that on its own.

SteveD

Another way to look at it could be that adult belief in god is simply an extension of the infantile dependence and trust in a caregiver. God belief is just the adult version of infant "parent belief".

Steve

Kamchatka

SteveD,

Excellent distillation!

Koyaanisqatsi

Coming from you, that's a high compliment.

Forgive me if I don't accept what you do or do not say to somebody I've never met.

Only you regarding the salient points I made about your pointless, tautological semantics shuffle, where you attempt to equivocate the meaning of the word "belief" with the meaning of the word "knowledge;" not to mention throwing the broadest net possible regarding what is or is not a "god."

So let's clarify what the issue is: it is not possible to be born believing something. Belief is a considered, conditional state of consciousness, wherein an individual is told that something has either occurred or will occur, but the certainty of said "something" is in question, thereby requiring "belief" instead of "knowledge."

Hence the qualitative difference that you are here trying to equivocate between the contextual meanings of "belief", as in "I believe UFO's exist," and "knowledge," as in "I know UFO's exist."

The first phrase inherently declares uncertainty; the second the exact opposite (supported certainty), and I'm not talking colloquially, even though I'm typing colloquially.

In other, more simpler words, if you say, "I believe UFO's exist," you are literally announcing to the world that you have no concrete evidence to support the positive claim inherent in your statement and that the existence or non-existence of UFO's cannot be factually established.

Clear now?

That's just it and the most curious thing about all of your posts; you are doing nothing of the kind.

All you are doing is trying to force upon us the contradictory notion that the word "believe" is equivalent to "know." You are abusing the colloquial in order to gray the literal so that you can argue that anybody can just label anything they want "god," therefore "God."

Why? The argument (as you keep pretending you are addressing but never actually do) is that the absence of belief in a god or gods (atheism) is the default position of existence; implicit within the notion that belief in a god or gods is therefore imposed not innate.

That is the issue in a nut; imposed not innate.

As has been done here repeatedly, it is easily established that "god belief" is necessarily imposed and not innate.

For some strange reason you are trying to get around that black/white clarity by graying the terms. Why?

What is the point, other than annoying semantics 101 games?

Then pardon my Koytus interruptus.

Oh come on, you knew it was coming...

Koyaanisqatsi

Except for the fact that "parents" are directly experienced and therefore require no "belief" in their existence.

Once again, the unwarranted and unjustified equivocation of "belief" with "know."

Why?

Samhain

Cha-ching. Sounds like someone hit the jackpot.

WJ

Close but no cigar. Case in point: How does one [the child] come to *know* for sure that the parents love them?

Samhain

Well, I think you're missing the point. This argument has nothing to do with love. This has to do with the idea of belief vs. the knowledge of existence. A child knows that their parent's exist by coming into constant physical contact and stimulation of all of the primary senses. Thus we can say that a child *knows* that his/her parent's exist. An adult or child never has any obvious stimulation of the primary senses when it comes to the existence of god(s). Thus the argument is non-sequitur.

WJ

Careful Sam, you're breaking the 'absolute' rule. You're suggesting you know God's essence. Otherwise, how do you know God [God's essence] is not love? (Does love require an absolute exclusive physical presence for it to be percieved as real?)

Walrus

Foxhole Atheist

"Careful Sam, you're breaking the 'absolute' rule. You're suggesting you know God's essence. Otherwise, how do you know God [God's essence] is not love? (Does love require an absolute exclusive physical presence for it to be percieved as real?)"

I do not beleive a physical presence is required to experience love at a particular point in time. However, love can only be experienced through knowledge so that a physical presence must have been experienced at a previous time.