Kamchatka

Adrian Selby,

You said, "Kam, isn't your fundamental mistake that you're conflating children's 'god-like' belief with 'god belief'?"

It would be a fundamental mistake if I was trying to prove that infants are born believing in Allah or Jehovah or Jesus Christ or Zeus. As I have stated in previous posts, I am only trying to demonstrate that infants are born in a conscious state that can be described more accurately with the term "god belief" than with the terms "no god belief" or "atheism."

You said, "Children see their parents as providers, and this has a similarity to a God Belief, but classifying it as a God belief is wrong, because it actually isn't a God Belief."

It really doesn't matter what you want to call it, God Belief, God-like belief, similar to a God Belief, it is more accurate than calling it "no god belief" or "atheism."

How do you know it is not "a God Belief", given your description of it as "similar to a God Belief"?

You said, "To suggest it is opens you up to the charge that the God you believe in is no more a God than a paternal alien."

While the paternal alien theory is an interesting one, I worship no god. I only submit that evidence suggests that gods exist.

I am open to any charge you or anyone else desires to level at me, as witnessed by a full reading of this thread.

You said, "Children do not inherently believe their parents are omniscient, because they don't understand what terms like omniscience means."

I acknowledge that children are not familiar with the word omniscient, but the way they do sense their parents is, in my opinion, very similar to the word omnipotent; having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all powerful; god.

I understand that they do not have the command of our language to label their sense of their parents with the above definition. That does not mean that those words do not accurately describe their perspective.

You said, "They merely have beliefs that have some sort of similarity."

I agree; similar enough to be more accurately described by "god belief" than by "no god belief" or "atheism."

You said, "You're a believer, why don't you know the difference?"

The evidence suggests that gods exist. I worship no god. Does that make me a believer? It makes no difference to me.

The existence of gods is not the specific subject of this discussion. The discussion is whether we are born with "god belief" or with "no god belief"/"atheism".

My position is clear.

Theli

Weither you identify parents as gods to the newborn child is irrelavent (and also ludacris).
The newborn child doesn't develop a social bond with his mother instantly at birth. How would that even be possible?
It takes years (not sure about the time) for that bond to be fully developed.
The parent is a provider to the child, but then again, so is a supermarket.

Theli

BTW, who the hell drew a parallel between "god" and "parents"? What that WJ?

Theli

Kamchatka...
almost godbelief? 5% god belief?
Since when did godbelief become a degree rather than a 1/0 value?

Wich properties does a parent have, known to the newborn that would qualify the parent as a "god"?
What relationship does the newborn have (at all) to anyone?

Clutch

Koy, Okay, that's *damn* funny!

Y'know, thought I'd mention that there's this field called "Developmental Psychology". Scientists in this field, like, run experiments, and propose hypotheses, and publish results regarding the cognitive states and abilities of very young children. Kamchatka, Walrus -- this approach has enormous benefits, vis a vis accuracy, compared to making stuff up. Dare one suggest that you actually read some of this massive (and independently very interesting) literature before pronouncing on what -- or whether -- children think? Just a suggestion, mind you... don't want to cramp your style.

Adrian Selby

"How do you know it is not "a God Belief", given your description of it as "similar to a God Belief"?"

"It would be a fundamental mistake if I was trying to prove that infants are born believing in Allah or Jehovah or Jesus Christ or Zeus"

Have you just answered your own question?

"I acknowledge that children are not familiar with the word omniscient, but the way they do sense their parents is, in my opinion, very similar to the word omnipotent; having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all powerful; god."

Your opinion is flawed. Unless you have something more substantive. After all, what on earth makes you think that a child looks upon a parent as having universal power. A young child or baby simply doesn't think in those terms at all. If anything, the child is the God, it is she who's whims we mere adults are here to satisfy.

As for authority, again, this cannot support your idea that children are born with God or even God like beliefs because it isn't until one can reason with them and actually deny their acts of self will (things babies aren't properly capable of) that they realise the parent is an authority.

"I understand that they do not have the command of our language to label their sense of their parents with the above definition. That does not mean that those words do not accurately describe their perspective."

However, it does not equally mean those words do accurately describe their perspective, as you're suggesting.

I have you wrong with regard to God belief, so some of my phrasing was incorrect. However, given you state the point of the topic is whether people are born with God beliefs, you still haven't successfully drawn a connection between what a newborn baby believes and God belief. This is because, considering my above points, they can't have beliefs about things, not proper beliefs, they simply react to the signals from the stinging of a wet nappy or hunger, how these signals are addressed in no way leads to a belief at or around birth. later on, beliefs can be formulated, but that is not the problem with your position, which relates to being born with God beliefs.

Adrian

Samhain

Kamchatka:

Belief: 1. Something believed; opinion; conviction. 2. Confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. 3. Confidence; faith; trust.

Faith: 1. Confidence or trust in a person or thing. 2. Belief that is not based on on proof. 3. Belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion.

God: 1. The creator and ruler of the universe; Supreme Being. 2. a. One of several immortal powers, esp. one with male attributes, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs; diety. b. The image of such a diety; idol. 3. Any deified person or object.

Random House - Webster's College Dictionary

Now, I hope we can move along with this debate without this senseless semantic wordplay.

Now, if I understand correctly, you wish to assert that we, as humans, are born with a certain amount and non-specific type of god-belief, you said, basically, because of our parents. More specifically that our parents, in comparison to ourselves as children, are like gods, in a way, as they are providers of our needs, wants, etc. Now, as I see it, this argument offers up 3 major flaws outright.

First is the idea that we are truly "born" with this god-belief innately. I'd have to strike that one down with a big "No". Now, from your side of the argument this god-belief is actualized by our parents as "god-like" providers. Well, now while I will agree that we could not survive without somekind of "god-like" parent (as we are dependent upon our caretakers at this vital stage), this fails to prove the argument that we are actualized into being with god-belief being innate or part of our very being (even from your abstract argument regarding god-type belief). The god-type belief itself must be actualized by the presence of the provider(s) themselves. So, we are not truly born with god-belief or god-type belief (if we can truly even call it that, which I will attempt to rebuke later on), but it is introduced to us at very early stages of our being. So, assuming that your argument is valid, while we all may have a certain amount of this god-type belief, it is not innate and we are not born with it, but rather it is a result of our providers' actions in our early stages of being.

Second the flaw of the argument itself is introduced. As we can derive from the definitions of belief and faith as well (all semantics word-games aside), we can understand that faith or belief is basically the idea of holding something as true without proof. Now, how can one extend this arguments to the idea of parents? An infant's provider(s) will stimulate at least four of the five senses (the fifth would be included with breast-feeding). Now, I do not wish to have a philosophical discussion on the ideas of reality and what we can truly know of truth or reality, but for the purposes of this dicussion I feel we should examine the fact that such stimulation of the senses would could as irrefutable proof of the existence of the parents, regardless of understanding as to the parents motives, means, etc. Now, as we now have proof for the [i]existence[i] of the parents/providers, we can establish that belief and/or faith is not necessary and, in such cases, not possible. Sorry, no matter how you look at it, parents/providers which will stimulate all of the senses do not compare with imaginary deity-figures which stimulate none and have no proof for their existence.

Third has to do with the definition of god. Now, by comparing the definition, we can see that parents cannot compare to the idea of "God" or gods in any established way. In order to make the two comparable, one would have to resort to semantic word-play which distorts the meanings of the words and instead of establishing anything honestly, instead results in graying the areas of black-and-white.

Now, these are just the 3 main flaws of this argument, and before you wish to assert any more, you might want to address these points, especially number 1.

-Samhain

Edit: You know what? I just realized that my points of #2 and #3, regarding definitions, have already been brought up previously by Koy. Well, that still leaves at least #1, if you've truly answered points #2 & #3 yet.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

Kamchatka

Adrian Selby, Theli, Samhain & Clutch,

I will respond to your posts. It will be awhile. First, I must deal with the self-stuffed "straw man" on this thread.

Wyrdsmyth

What the...? 18 pages? What are you guys doing over here?

Why is it such a big deal whether atheism is defined as the 'default position'? Are theists really that threatened by the rather mundane idea that with a lack of adequate evidence it naturally follows that there is a lack of belief? Without more than grainy video, we don't believe in Bigfoot? Without more than verbal testimony, we don't believe in little gray men? And without more than old scriptures, we don't believe in gods?

Why is that so threatening? Why do people get so pissed off, when some of us simply shrug in response to their grainy video footage? Or simply raise a non-committal eyebrow when we're shown a plaster cast of a size eighteen humanoid foot? I mean, yeah, it's frickin' OBVIOUS that if the evidence for something is kind of shaky, kind of ambiguous, kind of flim-flam... the default position is that you're not going to become a committed believer of the tale tale in question. So what? What's the big deal?

***

One day, I was visiting the shores of Loch Ness...

OLD SCOTSMAN: There is a lot of evidence to support the existence of old Nessie.

ME: I don't know... it just looks like poor quality video to me. I wouldn't call this very good evidence to believe. It could all be a hoax.

OLD SCOTSMAN: Maybe you just don't want to believe! There is evidence of Nessie! You just don't want to accept it, because you've a priori ruled out even the POSSIBILITY of Nessie! Therefore, you won't seriously consider the evidence.

ME: Aw, for Pete's sake! I just wanted to do some sight-seeing, and I run into the 'Andrew_Theist' of Scotland! What's the evidence, then? Are these videos and the anecdotes all there is?

OLD SCOTSMAN: There's no point discussing it with ye, if you're not even willing to consider Nessie's existence in the first place.

ME: Look, if I buy one of these plastic plesiosaur souveneirs and that plush Nessie doll wearing a tartan over there, will you shut up?

OLD SCOTSMAN: Aye, Laddie, I will.

[ June 02, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>

Kamchatka

Koyaanisqatsi,

You said, "Yes, that certainly is a definition of the word 'belief'. How this relates to my statement, 'It is not possible to be born believing something,' escapes me . . ."

For someone so obviously enamored with your own intelligence, it is interesting how the obvious so often escapes you. ". . .forest for the trees" comes to mind.

Try referencing definition #1.

You said (in reference to definition #2), "Do you see any relevant pattern to the qualifiers there that would relate back to my statement: 'it is not possible to be born believing something'?"

Yes, I see a pattern of considering selective parts of the overall definitions of words relevant. Try surrounding the fact that I consider definition #1 relevant to this argument. Then go ahead and allow it to escape your voluminous intellect, again.

You said, "Here's the definition of consciousness (from Websters online for an 'everyman' definition; emphasis mine):"

And now you pronounce Websters online as the source of word-meaning for "everyman" and claim it for your over inflated sense of self. Websters online is your source. Unfortunately, the majority of humanity has no access to Websters online.

I, not claiming to be (or speak for) "everyman", accept your source. So, what?

Then you go on to question my source for the definition of the adjective conscious. Since you have pronounced yourself as representing "everyman"
with the definitions from Websters online, I will accept your source. The Oxford English Dictionary would also do, or The American Heritage Dictionary, or Websters Pocket edition.

It comes down to the word awareness. We each have a certain degree of it. You perceive that you have enough of it to relieve the rest of us of our individual perceptions. Unfortunately, way too much escapes you, so you will excuse me while I continue trusting my own awareness.

You said, "So where does that leave us?"

Why, right back at your erroneous and invalidated pronouncement; "it is not possible to be born believing something."

You said, "I accept that you think that you are making a relevant argument, but I have demonstrated that you are not."

The only thing you have demonstrated is your enormous capacity for conceit and that you disagree with my argument.

I accept that your interpretation of infants' conscious state disagrees with mine. I assert that infants conscious state at birth can be more accurately described by "god belief" than "no god belief" or "atheism." You claim "it is not possible to be born believing something."

That is where, up to this point, we are left.

You said,

"1. A newborn does not have 'blind faith', a newborn's actions are interpreted by adult observers in a certain manner that they then colloquially label 'blind faith'."

All words are labels. All observations are interpretations by the observers. Through your obviously infinite observation of infant behavior you have chosen to pronounce that "it is not possible to be born believing something."

Through my observations of infant behavior and my review of studies on infant behavior, I conclude that infants are born in a conscious state that can be more accurately described by the term "god belief" than by the terms "no god belief" and "atheism".

You said,

"2. A newborn does not have 'blind faith' in the existence of the Christian God."

WARNING; something is escaping from your voluminousness again. I never made that claim.

You said, "You are playing exceeding(ly) childish semantics games in order to stuff this strawman."

I love when atheists resort to accusing others of playing their own childish games. Let's see, how does it go? "We don't believe there is no god. We have no god belief?" Chew on that awhile and try not to let it escape.

Oh, Koyvoiyant one, you are a wonderful example of a self-stuffed scarecrow of an atheist.

Your knee-jerk reaction to any challenge to your positions is an attempt to intimidate by all means at your disposal.

Anyone who dares oppose you is immediately classified as arguing for the traditional theist position.

Scarecrow, your atheist fundamentalism is no longer intimidating. Your position is being left behind. The only person you are scaring is yourself.

You said, "See? 'May not materialize?' All you've stated so far is--at most--a newborn is hardwired with a survival instinct. That's it. How you choose to describe that simple, primal drive is completely irrelevant."

No more or less irrelevant than your description of the same.

If--"at best"--what I have described turns out to be a hardwired survival instinct that resembles god-like belief it would mean that our instincts lead us to believe in gods. I simply have asserted that the evidence suggests that it is a combination of instinct and experience.

I could care less whether the strawman considers my description relevant. It is a matter of degree from my perspective. I am not the one who has painted oneself into a corner with the assertion "it is not possible to be born believing something."

I do not claim to know. I also do not claim black or white with respect to this subject.

You do claim to know. You do claim black or white.

Who is full of straw, scarecrow?

You said, "Nor are you taking into account the most obvious answer to any of this pointlessness; the fact that a newborn is not and was not existing in a vacuum prior to sluicing out the birth canal."

WARNING; something is "sluicing" away from you again.

Actually, I have taken it into account. I would not equivocate birth with "sluicing out the birth canal."

I suppose I can now safely assume you are male. No female I have ever met would describe birth with the word "sluicing." In fact, it also suggests you are not a father who was present at your child's birth.

You said, "For nine months that eventual newborn was symbiotically connected to its host. What a shock that it would be born "with a blind faith" geared toward that host."

Scarecrow, I think you need to develop a more "symbiotic" relationship with your "everyman" dictionary.

I don't need to stuff you, scarecrow. You are so overstuffed with yourself that yourself is escaping or "sluicing" out of your every orifice.

The rest of your post is full--"at best"--of straw.