Jobar

Kamchatka, I've a question.

You say that you consider the 'expectation' of a newborn to be cared for, is a result of its' experience in the womb, where all needs are met.

I do not see any sense in calling this sort of 'expectation' a belief- but if it could be considered so, why do you think that all the Western, JCM notions of God are male? It would make much more sense if we deified the moterh figure, if your argument is true.

Koyaanisqatsi

And for someone so clueless about counter argumentation, try addressing all of my points, rather than just selectively redacting in order to make childish comebacks that avoid addressing anything remotely salient.

My statement: it is not possible to be born believing something.

Your primary definition of the word "belief": The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance, confidence, faith.

Do you see the disparity? "Not possible to be born believing something."

Now do as I asked you to do and insert the missing contextual qualifier that will bring everything into focus for you: "Not possible to be born believing in something."

Kindly explain to me how your definition of the word "belief" is at all relevant to my contextually complete statement, "it is not possible to be born believing in something?"

"Belief" is the noun. "Believing" is the inflected form of the verb.

Here, let me take you through it. Again from a simple, neutral source (Webster's online; emphasis mine):

Let me reiterate all of the relevant elements to both your definition and my own. Again, see if you can discern the pattern that is most relevant to the topic at hand:[*] to have[*] to hold[*] to consider[*] to accept[*] Mental acceptance[*] assent of the mind[*] the mental condition involved in this assent...

Clear now? The definition you provided and the one I provided and the one all intellectually honest individuals understand is one in which the active ability to perform complex cognitive processing in order to arrive at an opinion; aka, a belief, is primarily discerned.

This is what you have consistently been trying to avoid addressing; the fact that being born "believing in something" implies that the newborn has considered all relevant information and arrived at a reasoned conclusion as a result of concerted cognitive processing.

Recall Webster's definition of conscious:

The operative element to all of my counter argumentation that you continue to avoid is the fact that such concepts require controlled thought in order to arrive at any kind of conclusion, thus my contention that it is not possible to be born believing in something and your constant evasion from addressing that point.

Try seeing that there is no relevance, as I demonstrated.

I'm not the one who appears incapable of addressing someone's post on a point-by-point basis.

Are you seriously arguing that Webster's dictionary is not an adequate source for an "everyman" definition and the fact that they have a version of it "online" is somehow relevant?

Do you know that the term "everyman" in regard to a definition is not a literal term; rather it is an appeal to the most neutral and "common" usage?

Do you know you don't know what you believe you know when you think you know something?

See above.

No, I did not. I questioned why you quoted a definition of the adjective (and not the noun it was derived from) and then pointed out that I did not know where you had gotten your definition of the adjective (since you did not provide the source for it), but Webster's had defined it thus:

Are you objecting to my qualifying my source; naming my source; or just simply grasping at straws because my definitions clearly show the flaws in your reasoning?

I vote for the latter.

I will excuse your misunderstanding of the term "everyman" in relation to qualifying a definition, since it is abundantly clear that you simply have had no experience debating and do not know what the term is meant to convey.

What I will not excuse, however, is your continued evasion from the arguments I made with this pointlessness, since how any dictionary does or does not define these words is (as I pointed out previously) entirely irrelevant to the central fallacy of your argument.

Indeed, all of this noise just reinforces it; how somebody selectively describes a newborn's actions does not determine the validity of your argument.

Since you already admitted that you are not arguing that humans are born believing that Yahweh is god, all of this is moot. You have conceded the argument and admitted that the absence of a belief in god or gods is the default condition.

How big of you.

Do for what? As previously noted, how the words you use are defined is completely irrelevant to the fallacy of your argument. As you should recall, this is what I had stated prior to going on the ancillary points regarding the definitions you provided:

Apparently, you could not figure out where I was going with them, but C'est la vie.

As I mentioned before and your post to Adrian Selby demonstrates, you have conceded the argument anyway so all of this is just "closure":

As has been demonstrated now ad nauseam, the second part (the relevant part) of your claim is false. Infants are not born in a "conscious state that can be described more accurately with the term 'god belief,'" other than, as I argued, disingenuously, since the one describing that conscious state in terms of "god belief" is, like you, engaging in one of two things:
<ol type="1">[*] the innocent misapplication of colloquial terms, or[*] fraud[/list=a]

So, which is it that you are doing? Innocently misapplying the proper contextual meanings of the terms "belief," "faith," "trust," etc., or fraud?

As before, I would argue the latter.

No, it does not. It comes down to the concentrated effort of weighing information and arriving at a conclusion. That's what it means to hold a belief in the context of what we're talking about.

Weighing the pros and cons; reviewing the evidence and asking relevant questions; actively seeking out the answers to complex questions. That's what we're talking about when we (atheists) say that humans are not born with "god belief!"

Conversely, what we (atheists) are saying to anyone claiming we are born with "god belief" is--unequivocally--that humans are born believing that a fictional creature from ancient mythology factually exists as a presuppositional condition to that existence.

If all you are claiming is that humans are born with "the ability to be aware of their surroundings," then you are in no way, shape or form arguing for "god belief."



As before, sell it walking. You are the one committing the fallacy and you are the one advocating either a deliberate intellectual fraud or simply demonstrating your obstinate refusal to properly apply contextual meanings of terms.

Your choice.

Kindly show me the counter-argument that renders my statement either "erroneous" or "invalidated," since you have done nothing at all to support such unsupportable rhetoric.

Don't blame me for pointing out the glaring flaws in your argument that you still refuse to address.

You said yourself that you can't prove that newborns are born believing in Jesus as God and since that is what contextually defines "god belief" in this thread and nothing else in any relevant manner, you have conceded the argument.

Don't blame anyone else for simply pointing that fact out to you.

It does not "disagree" with yours; it refutes it by demonstrating it as being unsupportable and/or deliberate fraud; a forced attempt on your part to equivocate disparate meanings of words in order to claim that mere description is equivalent to actual fact.

And I demonstrated that your assertion does not stand up under scrutiny and is obviously little more than a pointless game of semantics.

The fact that certain adults colloquially, selectively describe infant actions in a certain manner has no relevance to anything at all beyond how certain adults choose to colloquially, selectively describe infant actions.

Just because my nephew could be described as "acting like an angel" does not establish that my nephew is, in fact, an "Angel," a fictional creature described in ancient Judeo/Christian cult mythologies!

Please correct it for the proper contextual addendum I redacted prior (and requested you do) so that it reads as intended originally by me: "It is not possible to be born believing in something," with the further qualifier so that you are crystal clear about what is being argued: (aka, "god belief").

Got it? So the contextual statement in no uncertain terms for you to address is: "It is not possible to be born believing in something (aka, 'god belief')."

Clear now?

Good. Now that it's clear and precise, perhaps you will actually address it.



Indeed they are. By Jove, I think you've got it!

STUFF THAT STRAW MAN!

Stop right there and concede. They are born "in a conscious state" means one thing and one thing only: they are aware of their surroundings.

It does not mean anything else and it certainly does not mean that they are born believing that Jesus is Yahweh, correct?

Since you've already conceded this point, the argument is over, since this is the argument!

And this is where you have no argument and are only attempting intellectual fraud, IMO.

"God belief" is a phrase you have made up and have not clearly defined, primarily because it is impossible to clearly define.

Worse, you have tried to force an incomplete definition by just saying, "I mean god the way everybody means god," when the truth of the matter--the actual, deconstructed truth of the matter--is that there is no clear definition of "god" or what a "god" actually is.

Again, as I pointed out prior and you continue to avoid, the Judeo/Christian concept of "God" is that it is ineffable, which means it's not possible for you to define.

So you've tried to force upon us the notion that "god" equals "parent," which is equally invalid and could only be trivially established through, as you put it, "labels."

You've tried to force upon us the notion that "god belief" is equal to "awareness," which is also invalid, because no cult member worships or prays to "awareness."

The fact of the matter is that to have "god belief" is to have an irrational, cognitive acceptance and allegiance to a mythological creature's factual existence as a necessary condition of your own existence; not, as you are trying to force, as a conditional necessity of your existence, such as the dependence upon others to feed you.

That is little more than the result of operant conditioning; a symbiotic necessity established in vitro, REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU PERSONALLY DECIDE TO DESCRIBE IT.

That's all you're doing; selectively describing actions in a disingenuous manner consistent with your agenda.

Aka, IMO, fraud.

WARNING: You attempts at humor in order to avoid addressing the argument are as transparent as they are pathetic.

And I love when cult members call kettles black.

Do you mean beyond the grammatically incorrect structure?

Now, how about you address my argument, which was to point out that you describing an infant's actions as "blind faith" does not mean in any way shape or form that the infant is displaying religious blind faith; thus the fact that an adult has used the term "blind faith" as a description of a newborn's actions HAS NO MEANING WHATSOEVER OTHER THAN COLLOQUIALLY AND DOES NOT SERVE AS ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE--EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY--THAT HUMANS ARE "BORN WITH GOD BELIEF."

And recent moderator comments to me in other threads (as well as this one), unfortunately, preclude me from detailing just exactly what you are. Suffice it to say that the more you ignore and evade my arguments in this manner, the more your true colors go on display for everyone else who has the misfortune of actually reading the misguided tripe that you cling to as some form of legitimate argumentation.

You only denigrate yourself.

There is nothing "knee-jerk" about 18 pages of detailed deconstruction.

If you would simply address the arguments instead of dancing these pointless dances there would be no need for any kind of "intimidation" as you see it, at all.

No, anyone who posts the kind of evasive nonsense that you keep posting is "classified" as being an evasionist, to coin a phrase.

Anyone who engages in a deliberate, disingenuous fraud in order to force a definition of "god belief" after every single angle of their invalid argument has been painstakingly and clearly spelled out to them is "classified" for arguing the "classic theist" position, but only in the sense that he or she is arguing in the manner of those who argue the "classic theist" position.

It matters little to me if you are or are not a theist; your argument is unsupportable, your evasionary rhetoric obvious and deliberate and your obstinate adherence to an argument that has no standing--while indicative of cult programming to be sure--only speaks volumes to your intellectual dishonesty.

Making any of this an issue--as you are here doing--betrays the whole.

Kamchatka, your paranoid delusions of grandeur constitute little more than irrelevant misdirection from the point that you have no supportable argument.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

Read that into a mirror and you've got something.

PRECISELY! Thereby supporting my point that how one describes something has no actual bearing on what that something innately may or may not be.

You have just proved my point.

No, it would not, since you did not describe a hardwired survival instinct that "resembles god-like belief!" What you did was get everything ass backwards! You described the survival instinct as "god belief."

Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with believing that a fictional creature from an ancient mythology exists as a presuppositional condition to your existence (aka, "god belief").

Nothing.

Bully for you.

It is a matter of contrivance from anyone else's perspective, so enjoy your view.

Nor or you the one who has in any way challenged that statement or offered any form of counter-argument to that statement.

What is this, your concession?

When it comes to the deconstruction of your invalid argument, the black and the white is plain for all to see.

Try not to weep onto the mirror like that. It's imported glass.

Piercing argument.

You're focusing on the word "sluicing?" Oh, you poor, misguided...

And this is at all relevant to the argument how?

And your counter-argument would be...?

And you counter-argument would be....?

So, no counter argumentation at all.

(edited for formatting and tone - Koy)

[ June 05, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>