Kamchatka

Koyaanisqatsi,

You posted 5/20/02;

"Kamchatka has simply regurgitated solipsistic new age pointlessness . . .

"Oh, that and confusing the indoctrination technique of Soviet dictators designed to break allegiance from one god to the god of the state with atheism."

If you keep practicing, your words might achieve the effect of pigeon droppings someday.

I have discussed the Soviet educational system with three generations of Russians. Not one has backed up your assertion.

It does appear that someone is confused. Afterall, I am the one who is supposed to be making the argument for the existence of gods.

I do appreciate your assistance, Koytus.

Kamchatka

Philosoft,

You said, "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."

I never came to that conclusion. I do not claim that any individual human's mental state is identical to any other individual human's mental state.

A guy who worships his cat as god is in a completely different mental place than the pope, who is in turn in a completely different mental place than an infant, who is in a completely different mental place than the infant in the next room.

Multiple studies have been done on infant behavior, consciousness, cognitive abilities etcetera. I have not made up the terminology I have used to describe the conscious state of infants at birth and in the first months of life. They are the terms used in the studies: "ontogenetic trust", "blind faith", "basic trust", "total dependence", "expectation of care", "utter helplessness", "innate anthropomorphism", phylogenetic preprogramming".

You have described infants' conscious attachment for reference humans as "naturally selected survival technique."

Samhain uses the terms "expectation", "benefactors expected to do their duty", ". . . child thinks selfishly."

I agree that it is a naturally selected survival technique. It is also a technique that has been mimicked by adults for thousands of years in order to survive and to deal with the mysteries of the world, including mortality.

Very young children believe that their parents and themselves are immortal. The conception of death is the biggest difference between the mental states of adults and children.

You may call my argument "semantic trickery", "idiotic", "silly" or just plain wrong. I never expected you or anyone else to believe me. That doesn't change my view that infants are born with a consciousness that is far more closely related to god belief than it is to atheism.

The vast majority of humanity has not been mimicking no god belief for the last 11,000 years. Humanity has been anthropomorphizing gods in the image of their infant view of their mothers and fathers. And mothers and fathers have done everything in there power to protect their childrens' innocence.

Finally, through the advancement of science, humanity is showing signs of graduating into its terrible twos.

Kamchatka

SteveD,

Infants do not have an understanding of the word "god", or any other word for that matter. Recent studies suggest that infants are born with the concept of complete trust in reference humans, usually parents, and an expectation of total dependence.

I have already agreed that this is a natural survival technique in a previous post. I think their is plenty of evidence to support that this survival technique is the prototype for god invention and worship by the majority of humanity.

I totally respect your point of view. I only ask that you consider the evidence. Think about your own childhood. How did you view your parents?

Don't take my word for it. Go to the library and read the studies. Check them out on the web.

It may seem a trivial point to debate whether infants are born with or without god belief, but if I am correct it explains why humanity has been so fixated on god invention and worship.

And it has nothing to do with being dumbasses.

Kamchatka

Jobar,

The original subject of this thread was a discussion of whether or not atheism is a default position.

The discussion has centered around whether or not babies are born with no god belief. I have argued that infants are born with god belief.

I have also argued that gods exist (not God), according to my understanding of current definitions and useage of the word god.

Regarding Buddhism, I agree that it could be considered an atheistic religion. However, it is clear that Buddha fits a definition of a god.

There is no doubt that I hold the minority view on the thread's topic, although I am the one accused of not being my own person.

I respect your view and look forward to further discussion of the subject.

Kamchatka

Foxhole Atheist,

No, I am not confusing them. I can understand why it might appear that way though.

I am not going to go through the definition of conscious and consciousness again. I suppose fully cognizant could be utilized synonomously. I actually considered it. But in my opinion, cognizant is a component of being conscious.

Cognizant is fully informed; aware: cognizant of her rights.

In my opinion, cognizance, cognizant, cognition are objective, while conscious, consciousness are objective and subjective.

I am open to further discussion on the matter.

Kamchatka

Samhain,

I want to clear something up. When I said, "I do expect that 600 years ago you would have believed the Earth was flat," it was meant to illustrate historical perspective as it relates to dumbassedness. It was not meant personally. I should have used the pronoun we.

I apologize.

Samhain

Apology accepted

Philosoft

Kamchatka,

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but you have a very dogmatic way of saying it. Clearly, when you say, "humans are born with god belief," you must mean, "humans are born with the capacity for god belief." As I have already noted, you cannot judge the unknown mental state of a newborn in the context of the known mental state of an adult; and there are good reasons to believe that they are not the same. So calling both mental states by the same name is misleading. If you wish to assert that 'infants have the innate capacity for god belief,' I would concur in large part. If, however, you actually mean that infants worship their parents as creators, I will continue to pick bones as long as it takes.

Adrian Selby

"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." Kamchatka

If you like I can describe everything I can see and hear and smell as I sit here, in minute detail, the colour of cups, teh texture of them, the desk, the shadows, the arrangements of things, I could go on and on. I could write an obscene amount of observations down if I took long enough, just be describing things in more and more detail.

More pertinently, I would ask how you think I could be more conscious of the words I'm typing than I already am. I am cogitating on them, I am staring at them, I am reflecting on what you've said, I am looking at the shapes of them, what more is there to the words that I'm missing such that I'm not fully conscious of them?

I think I'm fully conscious of the message I'm typing. I am not tired, everything I'm focussing on has as much clarity as anything I've ever focussed on, thus, by my reckoning, I am fully conscious.

I really don't see how you can compare this to humanity's consciousness, which is some amorphous term for some distinct concept in itself or merely the sum total of billions of individual moments of consciousness changing each moment. With regard to the latter, how could there be an increase in consciousness per se? Are we to measure the various sleepy and non sleepy or drugged or other consciousnsess states to see an overall figure? I'm afraid you confuse me Kam.

I have made no suggestions that my consciousness is omnipotent, because if i wanted to my consciousness to somehow increase I suppose I would want to extend my ability to hear, to have sharper vision, more sensitive touch, to see perhaps in different light spectrums etc. Is this the sense in which I'm not fully conscious re.omnipotence?

Adrian

Kamchatka

Philosoft,

Then the discussion will continue. You, I assume, will argue that we are born with a capacity for god belief. I will argue that we are born with an evolved survival technique that can be defined far more accurately with the term god belief than the terms no god belief or atheism.