Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Emmisal

The God Debate - Is it really about evidence?

1,043 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

back to earth

Just about to head out, would be my honor to meet you lovely lady ands the great man who was smart enough to land you!! I am on the East Coast.

Yeah, PA is great, and so is Annie is dog, so very much like my Betty :D Had a very pleasant chat, look forward to another. Bit rushed, I scooted out from work for a bit for a coffee, but it was a good afternoon. I rather enjoyed slowing down for a bit. :D

One thing I will let out is PA has the most striking blue eyes I have seen iong a long time. Steel blue, I hope he works things out with the missus and the church, it is a duty to pass those genes on!!

east coast UM 'conference' ! :clap:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Quote

It was once believed that infants lacked the ability to think or form complex ideas and remained without cognition until they learned language. It is now known that babies are aware of their surroundings and interested in exploration from the time they are born. From birth, babies begin to actively learn. They gather, sort, and process information from around them, using the data to develop perception and thinking skills.

Cognitive development refers to how a person perceives, thinks, and gains understanding of his or her world through the interaction of genetic and learned factors. Among the areas of cognitive development are information processing, intelligence, reasoning, language development, and memory.

Nothing here about having it before birth, or having it to make up something that wasn't there to begin with.

http://www.healthofc...evelopment.html

This explains pretty carefully and clearly what I was saying However we also know that a child in the womb hears feels and thinks before birth. It doesn't have much data to process but it is basically identical to the moment after it is born. Children begin to take in data and thus to begin to process it before they are born, just as they do straight after they are born. The process of cognition explains how the mind constructs or creates thoughts ideas and conclusions, and yes, in YOUR words, MAKES UP (or imagines or hypothesises ) as part of that thinking process.

Because this occurs before language development we can know tha t children don t have to wait to pick up concepts from others but can construct them internally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Indeed, that is where his bias shows.

Or not

As pointed out above this article CONFIRMS precisely what I am arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

That's the thing about being a 'know-all' ... its a wide field one has to claim expertises in .... but the Emperor's new clothes are pretty obvious ... to all but the Emperor ;)

Unless i've missed some posts, i haven't gone quiet on anything. I am flat out responding I have explained the width and depth of my professional expertise before, and yes it includes psychology, with 10 years of counselling practice .It includes cognitive development in infants an especially language development But don't ask me any questions about football.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
name='back to earth' timestamp='1452114775' post='5735675'

It never stopped you before .... so I suspect something else is causing you to back out .... hmmmmmm ?

NO And i did explain and reply to some of the comments.

A clean bill of health has nothing to do with trying to objectify your own subjective beliefs ... that is an essential part of religion and many people with a clean bill of health ascribe to religious beliefs which they claim are objective.

besides , you being the philosopher and logical you claim you are must realise that all supposed observed objective phenomena are observed via your subjective apparatus of sensory awareness ......

bomb philosophy Walker .... remember that ?

Actually being assessed professionally as strongly grounded in reality and highly functional DOES relate to ESTABLISHING objective realities . This conversation was not about belief but my abilty to identify a real and physical god from an internal and constructed one or a delusion/hallucination.

Unlike you, we do not assume beyond our experience , and to affirm yet again .... this is an internet forum ... written insistence of ones own stories has no value whatsoever . I can insist every person I know and meet declares I never make a mistake .... words are cheap. All we can judge on here is a person's record, history and any internal consistencies within what they write . That's why you have such a bad track record here with so many people .

My experience includes live experience and reading I DO NOT extend beyond my experience (again dont ask me about football)

Here we go ..... another list of , not accusations, as Walker would never do that :-*

but he will mention all this stuff as response to psyche 101 .... but , of course, he is not referring to him ..... :no:

and many people who dont are very intelligent too ... so your point is ( aside from presenting bias ) ????

It seems clear to me that 'unshakeable belief ' ( which must include unshakeable in the face of reason and facts ... otherwise it would not be unshakeable) is not a symptom of intelligence at all ... but more of an emotive response and perhaps a measure of 'emotional intelligence ' .

Indeed, my point was that intelligence and belief share no correlation and that belief is a response to other drivers in humans (perhaps as you suggest on an emotive or other level) We construct beliefs where they serve us a useful purpose and follow them as long as the y continue to do so.

Rubbish !

Unless you are claiming the reverse , that some private religious schools that cost more money and have better resources can create students with better job outcomes. (Just getting in first for your twist of the data )

( Its really the Masons which have the higher intelligence ... as they have the 'top level of society covered' ...... one has to wonder what Walker's 'top level of society' means .....

'religious people' that are 'the top level of society' and highly intelligent .... r i i i g h t !

This is self evidently true in Australia. Just check the education of the top people in politics and business or the richest people in Australia. You might think it is unfair but here it is, and those privately educated people tend to a greater percentage of belief than we poor publicly educated kids from schools with atheists as teachers :)

Many working class people sacrifice a lot to put their kids through private schools so they can have a better chance in life and they are influenced by the religious ethics taught overtly in such schools

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

This explains pretty carefully and clearly what I was saying

No it doesnt ... so start backpeddling

However we also know that a child in the womb hears feels and thinks before birth. It doesn't have much data to process but it is basically identical to the moment after it is born. Children begin to take in data and thus to begin to process it before they are born, just as they do straight after they are born. The process of cognition explains how the mind constructs or creates thoughts ideas and conclusions, and yes, in YOUR words, MAKES UP (or imagines or hypothesises ) as part of that thinking process.

Because this occurs before language development we can know tha t children don t have to wait to pick up concepts from others but can construct them internally.

That in no way supports what you are saying .... that a child, with no other influences on them will create a 'mysterious agent ' .

Anyone that has anything to do with a baby knows it is cognizant before it has learned language , and it has been long theorised that pre-birth children are reactive to the world outside the womb ..... even if both of these are accepted , it no way proves your 'inbuilt mysterious agent' .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Or not

As pointed out above this article CONFIRMS precisely what I am arguing.

it neither confirms nor is precise .... its pretty clear to the outside observer ... mutliple outside observer

confirmation bias Walkies ... you got it bad!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

No it was not ! and it especially was not precisely what you have been arguing !

You tried to remove the " combined with specific cultural learning. " part to claim kids came up with ideas about God and Santa all by themselves !

Now you are trying to say the quote above affirms what you are saying, another example of you not being able to see a statement without converting it to your own ends.

Lets find a horse and decide it is made that way to pull a cart in the first place !

I am afraid your pathological dislike may be affecting your judgement. I am TRYING to do exactly the reverse IE explain that kids FIRST develop their own god constructs before they can speak and THEN modify and evolve these into models supported by family or society That is UTTERLY clear from my posts. I argue that kids are not indoctrinated into belief by others but that this is an evolved cognitive response and occurs internally in a young child's mind.. So a child will develop belief without ANY outside influence but the the form of belief will be tailored (or removed) by influence. However, the natural propensity to believe remains in all adult humans.

Indeed kids DO come up with ideas like god and santa all by them selves (which the FIRST part of the statement says.) The second part refers to how these original concepts are modified through social interactions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Unless i've missed some posts, i haven't gone quiet on anything.

Are you sure its me that this response is directed at ? This statement and what you quoted me on does not link together :cry:

I am flat out responding

yep .... we can see your wheels spinning , unfortunately ;

no_traction_snow_stuck_013_gross.jpg

I have explained the width and depth of my professional expertise before, and yes it includes psychology, with 10 years of counselling practice .It includes cognitive development in infants an especially language development

Oh ... you have a professional expertise in infant cognitive development now ?

Michael-Scott-Failing-to-Hold-In-Laughter.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

dog-chasing-own-tail.gif

The funny thing about these types of threads is that they never have a resolution.

Issues of believe do not involve evidences, and thus are probably innately irresolvable . That is kind of what the topic name suggests/is asking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

NO And i did explain and reply to some of the comments.

Actually being assessed professionally as strongly grounded in reality and highly functional DOES relate to ESTABLISHING objective realities . This conversation was not about belief but my abilty to identify a real and physical god from an internal and constructed one or a delusion/hallucination.

My experience includes live experience and reading I DO NOT extend beyond my experience (again dont ask me about football)

Indeed, my point was that intelligence and belief share no correlation and that belief is a response to other drivers in humans (perhaps as you suggest on an emotive or other level) We construct beliefs where they serve us a useful purpose and follow them as long as the y continue to do so.

This is self evidently true in Australia. Just check the education of the top people in politics and business or the richest people in Australia. You might think it is unfair but here it is, and those privately educated people tend to a greater percentage of belief than we poor publicly educated kids from schools with atheists as teachers :)

Many working class people sacrifice a lot to put their kids through private schools so they can have a better chance in life and they are influenced by the religious ethics taught overtly in such schools

Oh ... thats the proof .... I have to go and do the research myself to affirm your affirmations ...... I dont think I will be doing that.

The rest is :su

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

No it doesnt ... so start backpeddling

That in no way supports what you are saying .... that a child, with no other influences on them will create a 'mysterious agent ' .

Anyone that has anything to do with a baby knows it is cognizant before it has learned language , and it has been long theorised that pre-birth children are reactive to the world outside the womb ..... even if both of these are accepted , it no way proves your 'inbuilt mysterious agent' .

There is evidence from studies on such children from a number of cultures that such a construct is a product of internal cognizance and interaction with their world. .

Ok, so, accepting cognizance and internal thinking/processing and learning occur before language development, how can you NOT see and understand that a child must necessarily construct and test concepts to make sense of perceived environment ? (as the studies show they do) The experts have known for some time that young children learn to fix on movement and to divide their world into agents and non agents (a dog is an agent, an apple a non agent,)

Agents are the entities which create change and act on their own initiative Once a child realise that there are visible agents causing change, it constructs the explanation that invisible agents must cause the changes in its world which it can see have happened but not explain. and so the basic construct of gods or magical entities is evolved in a child's mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

it neither confirms nor is precise .... its pretty clear to the outside observer ... mutliple outside observer

confirmation bias Walkies ... you got it bad!

Then how come I can see both points, and you can only see one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

The results of belief is the actions we take. Out of faith and dedication we act. For myself and perhaps only myself. I know that I will succeed because I have the belief that I can, and the will to carry it out. I don't put stock into empty faith (god/s/ess's). I would rather say that I can than pray that I could. Even when life is at it's harshest to me, I know that there is always a tomorrow. That I can make each day greater than the last. I need no faith nor belief in a supernatural being to do this. Do I hate god? No. Do I hate religion? No. What I detest is what people do in the name of their religion and do because they think they know god's will.

When it comes to natural belief, it does not exist. It has to be influenced. A child might form a belief based upon their own experiences. Yet other people influence those children. I've spent years teaching my children to believe in themselves. I tell them "If you believe you can do it (achieve it), make the honest effort to do so. Only then will you know.". I've seen them achieve a great many things.

If having faith in a god and prayer works for you so be it. Just don't be a prick about it. Your faith is one of many and it would be intelligent of you to acknowledge it. So people have the strength to stand without having a god.

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I am afraid your pathological dislike may be affecting your judgement.

Nope , read it for what it is, it is all quiet clear and logical to anyone but you

I am TRYING to do exactly the reverse IE explain that kids FIRST develop their own god constructs before they can speak and THEN modify and evolve these into models supported by family or society That is UTTERLY clear from my posts.

yes, but we are saying you are wrong ... its not that we cant comprehend you ... its just that you are wrong, and the evidence you put up does not support you. You can say it over and over again as many times and in as many ways as you like .... that isnt he actual problem here .

I argue that kids are not indoctrinated into belief by others but that this is an evolved cognitive response and occurs internally in a young child's mind.. So a child will develop belief without ANY outside influence but the the form of belief will be tailored (or removed) by influence. However, the natural propensity to believe remains in all adult humans.

Then explain what beliefs a child develops, before any influence of a parent or adult that is a 'belief without form ' that later gets a form from influence ... this is what you are postulating. a belief without form ( that does have a 'mysterious agent ' form) , and that 'mysterious agent form' arises when the adult gives the kid religion - ridiculous !

Any 'propensity' to form a belief system does not imply a religious or 'mysterious agent ' postulation.

Indeed kids DO come up with ideas like god and santa all by them selves

Well, that's just stupid . A stupid statement to make ... even you should be embarrassed about that !

(which the FIRST part of the statement says.) The second part refers to how these original concepts are modified through social interactions.

So the first part says a kid will come up with Santa all by himself , and the second part says his Santa belief will be modified by social interactions .

nic-cage-you-o.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Issues of believe do not involve evidences,

Then why do you keep trying to prove your beliefs with evidence ?

All you can do is quote things then misinterpret the evidence to back up your belief, then claim your beliefs are not beliefs but factual observations .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

There is evidence from studies on such children from a number of cultures that such a construct is a product of internal cognizance and interaction with their world. .

Ok, so, accepting cognizance and internal thinking/processing and learning occur before language development, how can you NOT see and understand that a child must necessarily construct and test concepts to make sense of perceived environment ? (as the studies show they do) The experts have known for some time that young children learn to fix on movement and to divide their world into agents and non agents (a dog is an agent, an apple a non agent,)

Agents are the entities which create change and act on their own initiative Once a child realise that there are visible agents causing change, it constructs the explanation that invisible agents must cause the changes in its world which it can see have happened but not explain. and so the basic construct of gods or magical entities is evolved in a child's mind.

Unknown agents morph into mysterious agents morph into non-verbal babies intuitively know God :no: ..... That;s a Walker additive.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Then how come I can see both points, and you can only see one?

Must be your point of view

tumblr_mlhm9i8POD1qk08n1o1_500.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

The results of belief is the actions we take. Out of faith and dedication we act. For myself and perhaps only myself. I know that I will succeed because I have the belief that I can, and the will to carry it out. I don't put stock into empty faith (god/s/ess's). I would rather say that I can than pray that I could. Even when life is at it's harshest to me, I know that there is always a tomorrow. That I can make each day greater than the last. I need no faith nor belief in a supernatural being to do this. Do I hate god? No. Do I hate religion? No. What I detest is what people do in the name of their religion and do because they think they know god's will.

When it comes to natural belief, it does not exist. It has to be influenced. A child might form a belief based upon their own experiences. Yet other people influence those children. I've spent years teaching my children to believe in themselves. I tell them "If you believe you can do it (achieve it), make the honest effort to do so. Only then will you know.". I've seen them achieve a great many things.

If having faith in a god and prayer works for you so be it. Just don't be a prick about it. Your faith is one of many and it would be intelligent of you to acknowledge it. So people have the strength to stand without having a god.

Good points !

Walker is trying to take this natural propensity to belief and insist it must comply and be proof of with his belief .

Fortunately, for many of us, we are immune to this type of religious trickery bombardment

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Then why do you keep trying to prove your beliefs with evidence ?

All you can do is quote things then misinterpret the evidence to back up your belief, then claim your beliefs are not beliefs but factual observations .

Because i am not talking about beliefs but about facts/knowledge This is all known, scientific, fact. NONE of this has come from me but form articles i have read by experts in these fields The problem is that given my reputation and my non mainstream views on some things, some people wont accept anything i present, which is why i say go and look it up for yourselves but make sure you read it with an OPEN mind not one closed by preconceptions and bigotry.

I can't even identify why people think i have a personal agenda in this, or why i would be predisposed to one view. I learned all this over time from reading articles published in the last decade. I got my information, and constructed my understandings, from thousands of words, by dozens of authors,in at least 4 separate academic fields on the subject. And now people who haven't read a word and obviously have no clue about infant cognition, want to argue because it is ME presenting the material. So, go and read up for yourself, then come back and argue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Unknown agents morph into mysterious agents morph into non-verbal babies intuitively know God :no: ..... That;s a Walker additive.

Are you ridiculing what you don't understand or simply being obtuse.?

Have you done ANY research on this yourself, yet?

In a sense your description above is correct but you need to understand how and why this process occurs in a young infant's mind, rather than dismiss and ridicule it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

This explains pretty carefully and clearly what I was saying However we also know that a child in the womb hears feels and thinks before birth. It doesn't have much data to process but it is basically identical to the moment after it is born. Children begin to take in data and thus to begin to process it before they are born, just as they do straight after they are born. The process of cognition explains how the mind constructs or creates thoughts ideas and conclusions, and yes, in YOUR words, MAKES UP (or imagines or hypothesises ) as part of that thinking process.

Because this occurs before language development we can know tha t children don t have to wait to pick up concepts from others but can construct them internally.

Every single poster except for you understands the distinction and you not only are not grasping it, but now saying that my post and now Sharon's is what you meant.

Hog wash her and I and every one else understand the studies, it is you who doesn't.

There are no studies or theories that support that an in utero pre- language fetus or embryo thinks about and constructs God, Santa etc. internally by themselves.

This is nonsense.

Every poster has tried to help you understand and you only get deeper invested in your interpretation.

You are not understanding the material and since you do this all the time (no matter what the topic) from experience all this will bring is a derailed thread and become your podium to now start posting essays on how great you are.

I am done. In truth, we all need to be done with this.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Good points !

Walker is trying to take this natural propensity to belief and insist it must comply and be proof of with his belief .

Fortunately, for many of us, we are immune to this type of religious trickery bombardment

No you wally :) I am NOT. I do NOT believe in gods I was educated out of such beliefs into atheism. I am pointing out how the human mind works and why humans have a natrla propensity to believe

Because of your mind set, you can't accept i can KNOW a god, and so you are compelled to infer i must believe in them, and thus go on to infer i must justify and rationalise this belief by misinterpreting scholarly articles .

I have NO NEED to do any of this because my relationship with god is NOT belief based. I HAVE no belief in gods existence, just as i have no belief in my parents existence.

I kinda figured this reasoning was behind your mindset. Forget about me and go do your own research on infant cognitive development and the construction of god concepts

Whatever i might or might not believe, you will find i have accurately explained it . .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

There are both willing and unwilling belief. To indoctrinate a child into a belief system is to forge a set perspective of reality. They will see the world as the other sheep do. It also depends on the belief system itself. If the child is raised with strong morals and real confidence (one that built upon results rather than ego stroking). Then this person will grow up better than one has be in a religious setting. Do I have proof of this. Nope. Just making a claim based on observation. I've seen many of my daughters friends do whatever they desire because "Jesus has their back." and my favorite "I'm saved." which for some reason kicks out all sense of self responsibility.

So now walker you don't believe in god? What the heck is up with you? I've been trying to figure you out since I first started posting here and it's like everything about you is a farce. I can not take anything you say as factual or even realistic for that matter.

Edited by XenoFish
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Because i am not talking about beliefs but about facts/knowledge This is all known, scientific, fact. NONE of this has come from me but form articles i have read by experts in these fields The problem is that given my reputation and my non mainstream views on some things, some people wont accept anything i present, which is why i say go and look it up for yourselves but make sure you read it with an OPEN mind not one closed by preconceptions and bigotry.

Now you are going in circles ... we did that and several of us pointed out we did read the data, but it is you that misinterpret it. When valid points are bought up, you cant argue them and whing about preconceptions and bigotry ... its been going on for months and months , across many fields and subjects with you and others .

I can't even identify why people think i have a personal agenda in this, or why i would be predisposed to one view. I learned all this over time from reading articles published in the last decade. I got my information, and constructed my understandings, from thousands of words, by dozens of authors,in at least 4 separate academic fields on the subject.

and it all passes through the 'Walker filter' and becomes 'evidence' for your viewpoints .

And now people who haven't read a word and obviously have no clue about infant cognition, want to argue because it is ME presenting the material. So, go and read up for yourself, then come back and argue.

I can see quiet clearly that you are wrong here. The people arguing with you clearly do have 'a clue' about infant cognition. Most of the 'argument' is caused by you being insistant and blinded by your self-arrogance . They did read what you posted ... and argued quiet well against your take on what you think it meant.

Now you are telling them they arent worthy to argue with you, unless they go off and study all this extra and undefined stuff as well ... whadda cop out !

Its like taking your ball and running home because you couldnt score a goal . No, its more like running off, while you yell over your shoulder that you studied football all your life and we need to catch up with your study before you will play again .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.