Samhain

Walrus:

I'm weary of your discussions of existence vs. essence. I'd suggest not using this argument any further with me for I don't think we can agree on a common definition of "essence" (we did try before, did we not?). From the ideas of existentialism, we are opposites, that is if you are partially a theistic existentialist, which is what I assume from reading your posts. Getting on with the discussion, though...

What "rule" would that be? If you're talking about the "rule" that we cannot know our essences, I disagree with you, so don't try and force your "rules" upon me.

I'm suggesting nothing of the sort. I'm adhereing to common perceptions of "God" for the purposes of this argument. Mainly the idea that "God" can have an effect on the world.

I don't think that "love" can be considered an essence. Love is a result of emotions, which is the essence, love itself cannot be an essence, and how do you explain common perceptions of "God" and numerous passages of the OT with allowing that one of "God's" essences is love?

It is a result of emotions, thus it needs what could be called a transmitter, a filter and a receptor in order to not only portray that love, but portray it in such a way that is understandable through human conciousness and emotions. So we could say that the idea of "love" is dependent upon a source. If love is not being portrayed, how can it be recieved?

SteveD

Koy,
I think you read more into my post than was actually there. I never said that belief in god was justified.

What I was trying to express was that I think Kamchatka is right that an infant's trust and dependence in their caregiver and an adults belief in god are cut from the same cloth.

I just think he had the relationship backwards. It is not that the child has a "god belief" it is that the adult has failed to shed the childish "parent belief".

Think about an infant's view of the world for a minute. He has a total dependence on the caregiver. To him all things come from the caregiver. The caregiver is all knowing as far as the infant is concerned. If he wants something he will call out to the caregiver and it will given to him (well, sometimes anyway). The caregiver will also administer punishment sometimes. The infant may not understand why but, hey, that's life, surely the caregiver knows what it is doing.

Does this sound like any god concept you may be familiar with?

As we get older we find out that our parents aren't perfect and can't protect us completely from the world at large.

Not to worry, There is always GOD to take the place of that lost sense of security. Since the perfect protector/provider parent doesn't really exist we'll just have to invent him.


Steve

Koyaanisqatsi

Actually, my response to your post was directed more toward Kamchatka.

And I was disagreeing.

Interesting.

It is the psychological basis for the Judeo/Christian mythology, yes.

Agreed. It is a false and self-delusional result of psychological failings; a fear of self-reliance and self-responsibility.

In other words, a crutch.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Kamchatka

SteveD,

No, I didn't have it backwards. But, I obviously did not make my point clearly enough if you took it that way.

The original discussion was about whether or not atheism is purely a default position because we are born with no god belief.

I argue against atheism as a default position because infants are born in a conscious state that can be more accurately described as god belief than no god belief (or atheism).

Thank you for making my point better than I made it myself, considering Koyaanisqatsi's acquiescence.

Of course, he is probably still upset that I know that what he believes about the Soviet educational system is false.

Kamchatka

Koyaanisqatsi,

Your acquiescence to SteveD's "more simpler words" is a defacto surrender to the argument that we are born in a conscious state that can be more closely described by the term "god belief" than by the terms "no god belief" or "atheism", which infers atheism is taught, as was the case in the defunct Soviet Union.

You said, "So let's clarify what the issue is: it is not possible to be born believing something."

Belief n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in a person or thing; trust, dependence, reliance, confidence, faith. 2. Mental acceptance of a proposition, statement, or fact, as true, on the ground of authority or evidence; asset of the mind to a statement, or to the truth of a fact beyond observation, on the testimony of another, or to a fact or truth on the evidence of consciousness; the mental condition involved in this assent.

Knowledge n. 1. The state or fact of knowing. 2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.

Conscious adj. 1.a. Having an awareness of one's own existence, sensations, and thoughts and one's environment. b. capable of thought, will, or perception.

I accept that you "believe" that you "know" that "it is not possible to be born believing something". I believe that I know that you are wrong.

Multiple studies suggest that infants are born with a "trust", "blind faith", "ontogenetic trust", "phylogenetic preprogramming", "innate anthropomorhism". They "trust", have "faith", "believe" they "know" that they will be cared for by a reference person. Unfortunately, they do not "know" because the reference person may not materialize.

What is this belief we are born with based on?

Experience. Ontogenetic experience. The experience of the womb. The experience of being cared for unconditionally.

Then we experience birth, which changes everything we "believed" we "knew". We still "believe" we will be cared for based on our experience. But, we do not "know" anything, yet.

For all we know, we may become a UFO. But, we have faith that the benevolent being we sensed for all those formative months will continue to provide for our every need.

We are born "believing" we "know" we will ALWAYS be taken care of FOREVER by that being that we sense.

Knowledge, belief, thought, faith and trust are related by definition.

The broad net that I throw "regarding what is or is not 'god'," is also based on the accepted definitions of god.

Eventually, I will post a new topic on the subject.

Koywhateverski, I do not have a problem with atheism. I do have a problem with atheists who have convinced themselves they have cornered the market on logic and reason, ignorant of the fact that they appear as religious as any fundamentalist.

We were not born atheist any more than we were born catholic. We were born believing that the being that we sensed in the womb would continue caring for our every need.

You replaced that belief with your belief in logic and reason which has led to your atheism. The catholic has replaced that belief with catholicism, though he/she may rationalize that they also believe in logic and reason.

Adrian Selby

Kam, isn't your fundamental mistake that you're conflating children's 'god-like' belief with 'god belief'. This is apart from that fact that you already know what the concept 'God' entails and I can't even make sense of it.

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. 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. Children do not inherently believe their parents are omniscient, because they don't understand what terms like omniscience means. You can attempt to extrapolate that this is what it must seem like to them, ditto omnipotent, but that doesn't mean that it is empirically true that they have a set of beliefs about an omniscient, omnipotent God. They merely have beliefs that have some sort of similarity.

You're a believer, why don't you know the difference.

To argue that children are born closer to God belief suggests some kind of sliding scale that is conceptually inaccurate. The offspring of chimps, indeed chicks in a nest therefore have God beliefs. You'd say not because they're not human, but what has that got to do with anything if we're talking about newborns. Newborns only have the potential for higher learning, they do not have beliefs.

I have a 3 month old daughter, in the beginning, bottle feeding her, she did not exhibit any recognition of me as any kind of provider, she felt hunger and pain, and slept when it went away, there was no voice recognition at all for the first few weeks. I strongly contest your notion that babies are born with god beliefs.

Adrian

WJ

Sam/Fox!

I don't mean to ignore you and I value our exchange(s). I just haven't had the time that your questions deserve in order to adequately answer them.

After reading them though, I'm actually inclined to start a new thread about 'love's' essences. Your ideas of a 'transmitter' are interesting. Could it follow that emotions are somehow the 'receiver', and love in this case, is the transmitted '_____' [thing]? It probably takes a bit of study with regard to the limbic brain system.

I need more time to consider whether I have enough information [about consciousness]to make it thread-worthy... . Would you be interested in another thread?

Walrus

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Philosoft

Wha?

C'mon, admit it. You have no idea what you're talking about.

Koyaanisqatsi

No, actually, it is not in any manner whatsoever, especially since that was not the argument; that was your straw man.

One hundred percent incorrect.

See above.

First thing you've gotten correct. Congratulations.

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, but just for some fun, let me highlight, if I may, some of the more relevant sections from the definition you have curiously posted and see if you can figure out where I might be going with them...

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"?

What newborn babies do you know who mentally accepted a proposition?

Hello, little baby! Do you assent to the conflicting, abstract concept of the Christian triune God as opposed to the mythologies of, say, Ancient Greece as a necessary presupposition of your own existence? Do you? No? No you don't? No you don't, you cute little baby! No you don't!

Do you even read your own posts? Familiarity, awareness or understanding gained through experience or study.

Back once again to my statement: it is not possible to be born believing something.

You are supporting that statement with everything you post, so, thanks.

Well, just provided a definition of the adjective, not the noun (concept), so let's go there first, shall we?

Here's the definition of Consciousness (from Websters online for an "everyman" definition; emphasis mine):

Now, I don't know where you got your definition of the adjective, but here's Webster's take on the adjective, too, just because none of this has any bearing on anything I posted:

So where does that leave us? Why, right back at my statement: it is not possible to be born believing something.

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

No, multiple studies do not "suggest" that infants are born with such things, at best they "suggest" that infants are born with the capacity to achieve such things, all of which is completely irrelevant to the topic and my statement for the simple reason that you are playing semantics games in trying to force this non-issue.

<ol type="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."[*] A newborn does not have "blind faith" in the existence of the Christian God.[/list=a]

You are playing exceedingly childish semantics games in order to stuff this strawman.

Evidence your next paragraph:

Incorrect. Adult observers have described infant behavior using these terms, but that does not mean that newborns are born believing in something, aka, the Christian triune god concept! It only means, at best, that newborn responses to stimulus can be described using these terms, but the contextual meaning is the only thing relevant.

Show me a study that says, "Newborns are born believing in Jesus as God" or "Newborns are born with religious, presuppositional faith" and you've got an argument.

All of this is just transparent (trivial) word games.

I guess these crucial flaws in your argument just don't concern you, though, right?

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.

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.

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.

STUFF THAT STRAW MAN! YEE HAAW!

And there's the fulcrum of your straw man. YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED THAT WE ARE BORN WITH ANY KIND OF A BELIEF, ONLY, AT BEST, THE CAPACITY TO BELIEVE.

What a shock.

But that doesn't stop you, does it? No, you would rather keep playing these ridiculous word games.

Here's your blatantly fallacious syllogism:
As you should be able to see, that is a non-sequitur.

Oh, so you are recognizing some of the flaws in your argument. Particularly the experience of the womb.

How does this relate to my statement: it is not possible to born believing something? Oh! I see. Once again, you're trying to force the wrong contextual definition!

Do I really need to remind you that the context of this thread is atheism, the absence of belief in a god or gods, or are you trying to gray that, too?

Maybe the key is for you to focus on the "something" in my statement, since that's the thrust. It is not possible to be born believing something.

Actually, just insert the word "in" and you'll get the context, though "something" tells me, you won't.

Once again, how you describe this is completely irrelevant, other than to stuff your straw man.

I can just as easily use the proper terminology and state:

See how much fun words can be? Since you're now pointlessly rambling off topic, I think I'll continue, so all of my additions will be in bold:

Now this is fun. I suggest we all try this to drive the point home!

*Editor's note: hyperbole has clearly been inserted by the author to further an unknown agenda. Obviously a newborn would have no understanding of what the words "ALWAYS" and "FOREVER" would entail and we apologize for the author's incoherency on this matter).

Oh, I like this!

Now your post makes perfect sense.

Sell it walking. You have no clue what either logic or reason are, as this post readily demonstrates, unless, as I suspect, you are fully cognizant of the straw man you are here attempting.

You just said, "We were not born absent the belief in a god or gods," which of course means that you are stating, "We are born with the belief in a god or gods." Please support that claim without forcing an invalid definition of "god" to be "Dad," yes?

Enough of this childish, semantics weaseling.

No, we were not. At best, we were born with the operant conditioning of a symbiotic relationship.

This, however, as always, has nothing to do with being born believing in a god or gods in the religious context we have all been discussing and you have been trying to weasel around through invalid semantics dances.

Capisca?

Atheism: the absence of belief in a god or gods.

Not the absence of operant conditioning through a symbiotic relationship based upon survival needs.

Clear?

(editing for formatting - Koy)

[ May 31, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Kamchatka

Philosoft,

You said, "Wha?

"C'mon, admit it. You have no idea what you're talking about."

Aw schucks, Philosoft, yer tryin ta hoit my whittle feewings agin!

How could I ever have considered joining in discourse with so immense an intellect?