Koyaanisqatsi

As you wish, sir, but just for the record, my "F*ck off" was not 'uncivil"...it was an imperative justly earned.

[ May 23, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Kamchatka

SteveD,

You posted 5/18/02 the following description and question regarding my view of god existence;

"Gods exist in the human mind, therefore gods, in actuality, exist. This applies to every concept of god that exists in the mind of man.

"If a human conceives that Mother and Father are gods then they are. If a human conceives that the earth is god then it is. If I conceive that my cat is a god then it is.

"Is this an accurate reflection of your view?"

First of all, SteveD, thank you for the directness and tone of your post.

Your description is an accurate reflection of a very small fraction of my view on the existence of gods.

I do not have the time, today, to express to you my complete view on the subject. However, the foundation of my view begins with the definitions and useage of the word "god".

The word "god" exists. How does the word exist? For that matter, how does any word exist? They are inventions of humans used to label, define and help describe what one human is experiencing to other humans and to one's self.

It appears from your description of your perception of my view on the existence of gods that you may consider my view impotent. My suggestion to you is that it is not my view that lacks potency, but the word god itself.

That is why there is no doubt that gods exist, according to the accepted definitions and useage of the word.

Does an omnipotent god exist? I agree that there is not enough evidence to "prove" the existence of omnipotence. But there is more than enough evidence to prove the existence of gods of varying levels potency.

To suggest that Buddha, Jesus Christ, Allah etcetera, do not exist is tantamount to suggesting the word god itself does not exist.

Can you label your cat a god? Absolutely. Does that make your cat a god? If you believe in it as god, yes it does. But your god's potency is self evident to the rest of us. If you convince others that your cat is god and worthy of worship, your god gains potency.

You will have a very hard time convincing me to worship your god. But I have no problem acknowledging your god's existence according to the definitions and useage of the word god.

It is as a result of the definitions and useage of the word god and the considerable evidence that suggests that infants are born nearly helpless, with an ontogenetic trust for reference humans that I conclude that humans are born with god belief, which leads to the further conclusion that they therefore are not born atheist which leads to the further conclusion that atheism is learned.

I believe that was the subject of the original post.

Thanks again, SteveD. I hope I answered your question satisfactorily.

Philosoft

No, you cannot use semantic trickery to conclude that an infant's unknown mental state is identical to an adult's conscious worship of a concept as creator.

[ May 24, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Samhain

Thank you.

Philosoft

Hey, great minds and all that...

Samhain

LOL. Well, I don't think Kamchatka is going to take to well to that one, but for what it's worth, thanks

Kamchatka

Adrian Selby,

You posted 5/19/02 the following response to my response to Philosoft's inquiry on my definition of "fully conscious";

"This means people are only dumbasses insofar as you define fully conscious as omnipotent. Which is far removed from what most of us term fully conscious. If you want to redefine terms, don't expect people to agree with the redefinition, especially when its as contentious as that.

"Fully conscious means wide awake, as in, not sleepy, meaning alert. I am fully conscious because I am engaging my mental faculties entirely in providing this response. I am lucid, my mind is not distracted. You'll have to flesh out some idea of this scale of consciousness, only the only objects capable of consciousness at all are complex central nervous systems, Given these are finite in structure and limited to particular perspectives on the universe, by definition they cannot be omniscient."

Your response to my statement, "We are all aware of our existence and environment to some extent," was-

"No, I am aware of this room I'm sat in as fully as I could ever be aware of it from the position I'm sat. I could only be less conscious of it if I was less conscious, perhaps sleepy or drugged."

Thank you, Adrian Selby, for giving me the opportunity to more fully anthropomorphize my view on consciousness. As was the case with my response to SteveD's request for more information on my view on the existence of gods, I do not have the time today to give you a comprehensive description of my complete view of consciousness. But, since it is very closely related to my view on the existence of gods, and my view that humans are born with god belief, I will do my best to make my view more clear for you.

It appears, according to your post, that your definition of consciousness or being conscious is being awake. If one is awake, one is conscious. If one is not awake, one is not conscious. Please forgive me if I am overly simplifying your view, but it seems to be analogous to a light switch: off-conscious, on-conscious. The only allowance for different levels of being conscious are when the switch is going from off to on and from on to off.

If my description of your definition is accurate, we do not disagree.

Our perceptions of the switching system probably do not coincide.

Let us return to one of the roots of the matter. The word conscious is evolved from the Latin word conscius, knowing with others: com-, together + scire, to know. From this root it is clear that human consciousness is the sum of humanity's awareness.

If we are constantly adding to the sum of human awareness, does it not follow that we are becoming more conscious; that humanity's switch is moving from off to on?

There are very few individuals who would argue that humanity has reached its full potential. I am not one of them. Therefore, I conclude that humanity is not fully conscious.

A microcosm of humanity's level of consciousness is your description of yourself sitting in a room. This is where our perceptions of the switching system definitely do not coincide.

You said, "No, I am aware of this room I'm sat in as fully as I could ever be aware of it from the position I'm sat. I could only be less conscious of it if I was less conscious, perhaps sleepy or drugged."

I do not think that you really believe what you said. If you do, you have either achieved a nearly omnipotent state of consciousness, or you are selling yourself extremely short. I congratulate you if the former is the case.

The majority opinion is that you were born into the room where you are "sat" conscious. For the purposes of my side of this conversation "the room" is Earth, our galaxy, our universe and whatever else that is out there or in there of which we have not become aware or conscious.

Are you suggesting that you were fully conscious at birth? If so, I disagree with you. Even if you are saying exactly what your words say, I disagree.

I question your suggestion of omnipotence on one end and your suggestion of ignorance on the other.

I do not believe you are fully conscious of the room where you are sat (not that my belief has any meaning for your position). Evidence to prove your assertion would be appreciated.

Consciousness is analogous to a sponge being submerged into a tub of water. Just because you are submerged in the room of water does not mean you have absorbed it completely or that you have achieved your full absorption potential.

There is much more to discuss here, but my wife is in the process of pulling this sponge out of this room.

Thank you, Adrian Selby. I look forward to continuing this conversation.

SteveD

Kamchatka,
Thank you for answering my question.

As far as infants having a god belief. I think that infants don't have the mental capacity to really have a god concept of any sort. I think that as the brain develops children will develop beliefs based on their own individual experiences. Therefore, any concept of god or belief in god must be learned. I am not sure that means that I would call an infant an atheist but they do lack a belief in a god of any sort becasue they haven't got the mental capacity to have one.

SteveD.

Jobar

I am new to this discussion- Kamchatka, are you saying that the supposed 'hard-wiring' of infant human brains for some form of religious belief constitutes some sort of evidence for a god?

If so, then why the enormous variety of religions? Buddhism, among others, is basically atheistic. (Indeed, I have seen arguments that Buddhism is not a religion precisely because of this.)

Infants seem to be hard-wired for imitation of adults, and the continuity of religions is solely because of this.

Foxhole Atheist

Kamchatka:

In your definition of conscious, are you not confusing this term with cognizant? That would appear to be more consistant with the definition you have presented. Just a question?