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 -
Still Waters

Atheism predates Jesus by at least 500 years

367 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101

Does that therefore make it a superior position to hold? Just curious on your thoughts of this.

Been a while mate, hope all is well with you.

I never considered it either way, just an obvious statement that did not need to be said. That people get paid to research subjects like this tends to irk me somewhat.

However, seeing as you raise the subject, it would have to be a superior position wouldnlt it? If you are a blank canvas with no biases, you are bound to be more open and flexible to all sorts of ideas when no initial constraints have been applied?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel

"If you are a blank canvas with no biases, you are bound to be more open and flexible to all sorts of ideas when no initial constraints have been applied?"

This question appears to imply that no biases exist prior to being indoctrinated. Is such the case? Are we REALLY unbiased, blank canvases... or are there some inherent, instinctive biases in humans that played a key role in evolution? Kind of interesting to think about.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Paranoid Android

Been a while mate, hope all is well with you.

Thanks mate, I'm just driving through. It occurred to me some time back that I simply don't have the time to frequent UM that much anymore, so unfortunately my time is limited. I'll drop by every now and then like I am doing now, but the days of me devoting pages and pages of time to the forums is, sadly, over.

I never considered it either way, just an obvious statement that did not need to be said. That people get paid to research subjects like this tends to irk me somewhat.

However, seeing as you raise the subject, it would have to be a superior position wouldnlt it? If you are a blank canvas with no biases, you are bound to be more open and flexible to all sorts of ideas when no initial constraints have been applied?

I asked this for a very specific reason. Because "logic" is also something we are not born with, it is something that is taught to us and that we learn to use as we grow and develop. So if "atheism" is the default position when we are born, then so also is "illogical" the default position. So whether we are born "religious" or not, the point is moot, we are also born without logic. But both religion and logic are taught to us, and it doesn't necessarily stand then that one is inherently superior to the other (I'd actually argue that they both are vital parts of what it means to make me who I am).
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

"If you are a blank canvas with no biases, you are bound to be more open and flexible to all sorts of ideas when no initial constraints have been applied?"

This question appears to imply that no biases exist prior to being indoctrinated. Is such the case? Are we REALLY unbiased, blank canvases... or are there some inherent, instinctive biases in humans that played a key role in evolution? Kind of interesting to think about.

Perhaps, I just can't think of a situation where a baby might show bias. Or how they would communicate that? There is preferences like formula over milk at times, but that would be more related to physiology I suspect.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

Thanks mate, I'm just driving through. It occurred to me some time back that I simply don't have the time to frequent UM that much anymore, so unfortunately my time is limited. I'll drop by every now and then like I am doing now, but the days of me devoting pages and pages of time to the forums is, sadly, over.

Sorry to hear it, your regular input will be sadly missed. Everybody loves PA ;)

I asked this for a very specific reason. Because "logic" is also something we are not born with, it is something that is taught to us and that we learn to use as we grow and develop. So if "atheism" is the default position when we are born, then so also is "illogical" the default position. So whether we are born "religious" or not, the point is moot, we are also born without logic. But both religion and logic are taught to us, and it doesn't necessarily stand then that one is inherently superior to the other (I'd actually argue that they both are vital parts of what it means to make me who I am).

I would agree with that, logic would have to be learned, I think the set of skill we are born with is instinct. That can lead to logical conclusions, but I feel the brain would require some development to make such decisions.

Religion I do feel was the best model we had at one time, but it has been well superceded, to continue to teach it as an answer I feel impoverishes us, as it teaches us to be complacent with non answers. I honestly feel that centuries of development have culminated into a superior learning model that we should adopt. At best, relgion should be taught alongside Naturalism to allow people to have a fair chance at making a balanced decision. I think we should have been doing this for at least the last 100 years or so, but what we have been doing is allowing relgion the upper hand here.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel

Perhaps, I just can't think of a situation where a baby might show bias. Or how they would communicate that? There is preferences like formula over milk at times, but that would be more related to physiology I suspect.

I'll try to get some citations, but I believe there was a study a while back where infants actually appeared to show a preference in women of their own color. Toddlers also, interestingly enough, appeared to display a bias in selecting playmates. The sample size was pretty small though, IIRC... so you can't really draw any hard conclusions from it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

I'll try to get some citations, but I believe there was a study a while back where infants actually appeared to show a preference in women of their own color. Toddlers also, interestingly enough, appeared to display a bias in selecting playmates. The sample size was pretty small though, IIRC... so you can't really draw any hard conclusions from it.

I would love to see it, I guess a light babu could look at a different mum and think, hey, that's not my dinner!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

"If you are a blank canvas with no biases, you are bound to be more open and flexible to all sorts of ideas when no initial constraints have been applied?"

This question appears to imply that no biases exist prior to being indoctrinated. Is such the case? Are we REALLY unbiased, blank canvases... or are there some inherent, instinctive biases in humans that played a key role in evolution? Kind of interesting to think about.

Kinda very interesting !

Exopsychology models the brain as 8 'mini-computers' or circuits - with 4 on side , come with some basic pre-programming ( in our evolutionary state at present ) and can be 'completely written' by each individual as they are affected by outward programming from environment culture and individuals . They roughly equate to bio-survival, anal-territorial, artistic-creative, and socio-sexual .

The four in the other side, also come with a basic program , but at this stage of our evolution they are mostly to be 'fully written' .... the same as above . that is , they are to be activated for our future evolution. They are Neuro-somatic, Neuro-electric, Neuro-genetic and .... ( damn ! I running on memory here .... anyway, there is a lot on line about Exopsychology ) .... the highest . Of course, we are all at, stuck at or breaking into various levels, at different times, this is an overall map . As well as these being triggered by various psycho-active drugs and different types of experience , they map individual consciousness , but also overall human evolution .... tracking the 'consciousness centering' through the levels, in progression as above ; the hind brain, cerebellum and mid brain, frontal lobes, neural network, genetic 'consciousness / memory ' all the way through to the highest level if consciousness where it is said to be 'non-local' .

I feel we do come with some programme , at least a genetic one, which seems to be able to pass on a great variety of traits, more than we realise .

Then we come to the Freud / Jung debacle where Freud's three basic drives were not enough for Jung's outlook and he added the 'religious' instinct .

It doesn't require much juggling to see those 4 'doubled' in the Exopsychology map.

As far as 'programming' goes when it is 'input time' great care must be taken at the crucial stages ( during development of the individual each above circuit also relates to an age period and bio-chemical triggers eg. the socio-sexual circuit ) . Lasting damage can result from averse programming in each area and may trigger a substance abuse problem,, the substance relating to that circuit . But Exopsychology is a therapy as well as a map and they worked on reversing (re-wiring) these faulty programs .

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

PA

Glad I caught you driving through.

Because "logic" is also something we are not born with, it is something that is taught to us

No, logic is a constraint on what is. We may learn some part of it, but logic is independent of what we learn about it.

I have some sympathy for your rejecting the "argument" that religion is learned, but there is no useful analogy to logic. Possibly language would better serve you. The default is babbling at best (but mission-critical, learning that breath control necessary for producing langauge).

Religion is more analogous to language than to logic, too. For both religion and language, there are many of them out there, but the first one you learn is probably your mother's, and there's a good chance that when you die. you'll still be a member of that linguistic community.

In that analogy, then, atheism is a vow of silence. Lol.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

You should, it is like command "D" not hard. If you are making a point that might be further discussed it is a good idea.

We all seems to disagree as you also provide your own personal spin on said information which few, if any agree with. We are best to have the information at hand for evaluation and consensus.

And if provided before, you should be able to source the link from your previous efforts without too much difficulty, the search function makes short work of this.

Yes, I certainly feel that is very much the impression you give away, and your position with regards to defence of faith and belief well expose you as such.

Your studies do not seem to have provided a rational edge, with all that alleged knowledge, you still delve into the realms of superstition and fantasy.

Actually this is where the problem arises, what you point out seems to be your personal interpretation, which everyone else seems to interpret differently.

For instance, I see a world of difference between an alleged "God" and an imaginary friend. You do not seem to. In studies, or real life - referring to your backyard chats with God.

It strikes me that this is how we attained and retain consciousness rather than a predisposition for belief. Making sense of the world with resources at hand, as we spend more time on this planet, more of those resources become second nature to us.

The development of consciousness as stated above, it seems rather obvious to me. What proves that children are not learning this by example?

The development of intelligence to compliment consciousness. Yes they do shape it, and relgion has kept intelligence at a status quo for far too long, time to let go and move one.

Yes they are - what God are children born believing in? Imagination is not any God. It is the substance of which God is made.

Nope. If others saw it that way, I might be able to entertain your notion, but you seem to be the only one that interprets the "alleged data" like that. And whether you have provided sources in the past is superfluous, when you make a claim, you should supply them, just common decency although I suspect you madly Googled until you found an interpretation that you could twist to suit your religious agenda.

The data must be here for all to examine, NOT your interpretation of it which has already been heavily challenged. As you supply only your opinion, your credibility is directly proportional to the information provided.

A god concept is a concept of a god like entity, such as an invisible agent with the power and motivation to change our world. . I explained this many tines but you are hung up that i mean GOD "God concept" isn't my term, it is the expert's.

I think the quotes i gave and the longer inked sources, back up completely what i am arguing. If you don't agree then i think you believe i am arguing something i am not.

Could you please explain how, what the sources say, differs from what i originally said?

It is very simple. The experts agree on two things Human children create their own cognitive concepts of "god like creatures" to explain their environment They have NO need to be taught this belief and it pre-exists formal learning opportunities

Second. No human is "born an atheist" But we ARE born with a strong cognitive predisposition to belief (probably evolved as a survival trait) which continues, for almost all humans, into adult cognition.

This predisposition to belief allows both children and adults to be easily persuaded to particular forms of belief ie religions.

So it is false to believe or say that children are indoctrinated into belief. They form it themselves And it is equally false, factually, to argue that the default position of humans is atheism.

Actually the statistics make this totally clear, but i appreciate how science is showing WHY about 90% of modern humans still believe in "gods" or something greater than the material world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Wasn't that the general consensus regarding your personal "interpretation" of the study?

Who can tell? A few of the usual suspects differed with me, while some approved or agreed. The point is what interpretation is correct, not which is popular among a group of posters on UM

I cannot read quotes such as i provided and see them in any other light, after logical analysis and interpretation of exactly what the writers are arguing themselves.

I don't see a lot of wiggle room for dissent in the posts i sourced, and especially the bits I bolded. My point here is that those who disagree have to provide counter arguments, sources and opinions. not just attack the ones i present because it is i presenting them.

Where is there ANY modern/current study to suggest that children have to be taught to believe in gods, and that this concept of gods comes from an external source, rather than as the internal construct of a very young child. ? Find me some such studies and evidences, and we have something to debate.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Debating with Walker is about as fruitful as beating a dead horse with a stick. It seems as if no matter WHAT you claim, his opinions/beliefs will not change. It is as if he is just so fixed on his superstition and fantasy that he cannot see reality for what it really is. Arguments with him just end up being circular.

If i am technically or factually incorrect, it should be easy, especially with access to the internet, to prove me so. I am more than happy to look at, and debate/ de construct alternative ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Even a dead horse would see the logic sooner.

Perhaps, I just can't think of a situation where a baby might show bias. Or how they would communicate that? There is preferences like formula over milk at times, but that would be more related to physiology I suspect.

Basically it is both an evolved bias and also a survival behaviour in the nature of very ealry cognition. One of the bits i quoted referred to why this is so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

"If you are a blank canvas with no biases, you are bound to be more open and flexible to all sorts of ideas when no initial constraints have been applied?"

This question appears to imply that no biases exist prior to being indoctrinated. Is such the case? Are we REALLY unbiased, blank canvases... or are there some inherent, instinctive biases in humans that played a key role in evolution? Kind of interesting to think about.

It is. I often reflect on this. And this gets more reflective for me, considering what is being discussed here and what I have observed in my job as a bookseller.

It is pretty much a dream job for me, because I am a reader............. readaholic really. :innocent: And I have noticed my folks reading all of the time. My mom still does. My kids do too. Pretty much a lot of my family do. I had come to the conclusion that loving to read is inherited based on how I have noticed kids of readers will be readers too. I also think there are some who are born to not love to read. They can read, just don't like it. I baby sat kids, where one use to go to my books and just hold them and play with them. His mother said he can't get enough of reading, went through the Harry Potter and Lighting Thief books like crazy. Another kid I babysat just went to my stereo equipment and try to take off the nobs. He is more technical like his dad. I would tell parents of toddlers who just hold the books with awe are going to be readers. I do wonder though, is it inherited or is it environmental because they see their folks read all of the time. I will be honest and think the jury is still out on that. I wonder if it goes back to a genetic predisposition of wanting to hold your eyes on something, I don't know.

I think that the willingness to 'hold faith' onto something, could be actually something that shows the willingness to be more in tuned to it, then actually the will to believe in it. Infants born into just loving that first face that is there for them, is understandable, because they don't know anything else before that. I see a more natural understanding to that. Growing up secular, I never understood the reasoning to 'worship' something that had to be told to me. It was something never done. I think I remember having an confused feeling towards meeting families and kids who go and believe in something out there. It would be my life and experiences that would come to my own belief, not when I was first born.

But kids, babies born to you, will love you unconditionally, because they don't know of anything else, right? So, it would be an outside natural and instructed thing to them to worship, not instinctly within them. My experiences and my kids is proof of this for me.

Evolution and this, why not? It's always the environment around them that causes changes within them, so I can see it.

Perhaps, I just can't think of a situation where a baby might show bias. Or how they would communicate that? There is preferences like formula over milk at times, but that would be more related to physiology I suspect.

Well, I believe it's biological, something that they are born with that causes that preference I believe. And that is usually going to show itself, after a first taste, not before, right? If one thinks about what babies do, they cry, because of biological needs that aren't meant. When they are, there is a reaction.

I would love to see it, I guess a light babu could look at a different mum and think, hey, that's not my dinner!

Though, I find what you and NW posted very interesting. Thinking of babies and nursing (breastfeeding), I wonder about that. While I was learning quite a lot of that, when nursing my two, there were things that made me wonder. Despite sizes and such, one can nurse an unlimited amount, and though it would be natural with your own to prefer the mother, I wonder at how there would be no problem when wet nurses would be used. ( I often wonder at how some infants could sense things and not nurse, I had this trouble with the initial nursing of my newborn daughter. They said she could 'sense' my frustration )

Anyways, if there were cases of infants preferring certain nursers, the I wonder how easily it was when wet nurses were used. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2684040/

The four in the other side, also come with a basic program , but at this stage of our evolution they are mostly to be 'fully written' .... the same as above . that is , they are to be activated for our future evolution. They are Neuro-somatic, Neuro-electric, Neuro-genetic and .... ( damn ! I running on memory here .... anyway, there is a lot on line about Exopsychology ) .... the highest . Of course, we are all at, stuck at or breaking into various levels, at different times, this is an overall map . As well as these being triggered by various psycho-active drugs and different types of experience , they map individual consciousness , but also overall human evolution .... tracking the 'consciousness centering' through the levels, in progression as above ; the hind brain, cerebellum and mid brain, frontal lobes, neural network, genetic 'consciousness / memory ' all the way through to the highest level if consciousness where it is said to be 'non-local' .

I feel we do come with some programme , at least a genetic one, which seems to be able to pass on a great variety of traits, more than we realise .

I wonder if that helps explain to me on the subject of the love to read and the implications of whether it's inherited or genetic? *shrugs*
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

PA

Glad I caught you driving through.

No, logic is a constraint on what is. We may learn some part of it, but logic is independent of what we learn about it.

I have some sympathy for your rejecting the "argument" that religion is learned, but there is no useful analogy to logic. Possibly language would better serve you. The default is babbling at best (but mission-critical, learning that breath control necessary for producing langauge).

Religion is more analogous to language than to logic, too. For both religion and language, there are many of them out there, but the first one you learn is probably your mother's, and there's a good chance that when you die. you'll still be a member of that linguistic community.

In that analogy, then, atheism is a vow of silence. Lol.

You know something! I think I'm going to view my belief in a whole new light!! :o:D I can see this, or I have subconsciously treated my belief like that.

Well on particular days, I guess. ;)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Might just be my memory, but as I remember, when you finally provided sources, they did not say this at all, you had misinterpreted the articles, and were the only one on the thread who saw it your way. Perhaps you should just link to the original discussion as opposed to having it yet again?

Indeed, his interpretation skills tend to support the way he perceives things, he skews Information to support his personal subjective views.

Just in my experience of him, most of his counters are persuasive as opposed to valid arguments.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kiltedmusician

Xenophanes was actually appreciated by early Christians as he came to the same conclusions through philosophical thought as Christians did through the gospel. "Gods" are man made ideas that all look different to different people, but the one ultimate God is beyond humans and human ideas.

The Wikipedia article says among other things;

"Xenophanes espoused a belief that "God is one, supreme among gods and men, and not like mortals in body or in mind."[25] He maintained there was one greatest God. God is one eternal being, spherical in form, comprehending all things within himself, is the absolute mind and thought,[13] therefore is intelligent, and moves all things, but bears no resemblance to human nature either in body or mind. He is considered by some to be a precursor to Parmenides and Spinoza. Because of his development of the concept of a "one god greatest among gods and men" that is abstract, universal, unchanging, immobile and always present, Xenophanes is often seen as one of the first monotheists, in the Western philosophy of religion, although the quotation that seems to point to Xenophanes's monotheism also refers to multiple "gods" who the supreme God is greater than. Physicist and philosopher Max Bernhard Weinstein specifically identified Xenophanes as one of the earliest pandeists."

So an atheistic article references the teachings of a man who is often seen as "one of the first monotheists, in the western philosophy of religion (aka Christianity) as though he's an atheist himself. It's another example of what Christians see when we look at "science" these days. People see what they want/expect to see and ignore the truth. Oddly enough, the five stages of grief reveal the path most atheists take to Christ. Grief of a heavy conscience causes DENIAL of the idea of sin. ANGER steps up when confronted with the truth. BARGAINING comes as a desperate measure to try and lessen the impact of the truth. "Maybe there is a god but I don't think He really expects me to change my life or Him." DEPRESSION sets in when bargaining doesn't make you feel any better, and then ACCEPTANCE happens and your whole universe changes. Or complete rejection happens and the process starts all over. Must be why Christians live longer. Less stress. Longer than believers in other "gods" too actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XenoFish

The 5 stages of grief haven't worked for me yet. I still don't care about Jesus or God.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Galactic Goatman

Being an atheist myself, this is reassuring to me.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Indeed, his interpretation skills tend to support the way he perceives things, he skews Information to support his personal subjective views.

Just in my experience of him, most of his counters are persuasive as opposed to valid arguments.

This is true in part. I find statistical and factual evidences and base my knowledge on them.

Anyone can, perhaps, perceive those statistics and facts in a different way but it is then up to them to challenge my understanding and, from within the data, explain how another interpretation can be reached I use logic and analysis to interpret statistics as I was trained to do mathematically, and then i form my opinion about them. BUT, like all people, I have prior understandings (which you might call biases) which influence my interpretation .

The only valid argument IS persuasive, if you wish to persuade another of an opinion based on factual statistics. Ie if the statistics don't convince them by themselves then you have to persuade them with reason, interpretation, analysis and logic, as to why the y SHOULD find the statistics compelling. Emotional based reasoning has no place in the analysis of data or statistics.

There are still some people who argue that cigarettes don't kill you, despite statistics showing one in three smokers will die as a direct result of that smoking. That is usually because they have an emotional reasoning about the matter, and some emotional investment in it not being true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Trihalo42

http://www.smithsoni...5306469/?page=3 From Smithsonian Magazine.

Dr Schweitzer has done research on soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. She says something I think is relevant.

"...For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. "If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool."..."

There was also an interview on Big Think with Neil deGrasse Tyson from about 7 years ago. "The astrophysicist debunks the notion that scientists cannot be believers".

http://bigthink.com/...ience-and-faith

And another quote from Tyson in Season 1 Episode 2 of the Cosmos reboot, "Some of the things that molecules do", about evolution. To be clear, I'm not saying that any current lack of evidence for abiogenesis is "proof" of anything, but rather that "The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers".

"...Nobody knows how life got started. Most of the evidence from that time was destroyed by impact and erosion. Science works on the frontier between knowledge and ignorance. Not afraid to admit what we don't know. There's no shame in that. The only shame is to pretend that we have all the answers. Maybe someone watching this will be the first to solve the mystery of how life on Earth began..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I wonder if that helps explain to me on the subject of the love to read and the implications of whether it's inherited or genetic? *shrugs*

Eh ? Inherited traits come via genetics

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GlitterRose

Does anyone actually care how old it is? Does being ancient make something somehow better? I'd think Atheists would understand that it actually doesn't.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
coolguy

I have no problems with them if they dont wanna belive they dont have to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I wasnt going to respond to this as a few posters pointed out it has already been sorted. But Walker denies it and does the same thing over again .

and called us liars

Anyway .... <sigh> I will be as brief as possible ;

Walker's claim ( Summary of post # 40 ) ;

I point out precisely what they say.

Human children from all over the world, before any introduction from outside sources, construct their own "god " concepts and constructs.

So it is conclusive ( his conclusion ! ) that children do not get god concepts from others.

Every child, if raised alone, would form its own religious belief structure,

. That is absolutely inevitable, given what we now know about infant cognitive development and processing.

Now ... the data he quoted ( summarised at relevant points ) :

Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims ( this is a claim not a proof ) that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

[ This is in no way proved by demonstration or experience, his guy is speculating on a radio show ! ]

= I claim supposedly based on uncited 'scientific evidence ' and the guys speculation about what would happen , this is no experiment or evidence . This is highly dodgy as the sort of proof walker claims ... just because the guy is a scientists does not mean , on a populist radio show, he might speculate on what his research meant .

"In a lecture to be given at the University of Cambridge's Faraday Institute on Tuesday, Dr Barrett will cite psychological experiments carried out on children that he says show they instinctively believe that almost everything has been designed with a specific purpose.

http://www.telegraph...mic-claims.html

[ the realisation that things have been designed with a specific purpose does not prove Walker's ; " Every child, if raised alone, would form its own religious belief structure, "

I'll call that an 'unsupported extension '

So : 1 I claim supposedly based on uncited 'scientific evidence ' . and

1 'unsupported extension '

" Then there is this

Led by two academics at Oxford University, the £1.9 million study found that human thought processes were “rooted” to religious concepts.

But people living in cities in highly developed countries were less likely to hold religious beliefs than those living a more rural way of life, the researchers found.

The project involved 57 academics in 20 countries around the world, and spanned disciplines including anthropology, psychology, and philosophy.

It set out to establish whether belief in divine beings and an afterlife were ideas simply learned from society or integral to human nature.

One of the studies, from Oxford, concluded that children below the age of five found it easier to believe in some “superhuman” properties than to understand human limitations.

http://www.telegraph...ford-study.html

--- children below the age of five finding it easier to believe in some “superhuman” properties than to understand human limitations does not prove walkers " Every child, if raised alone, would form its own religious belief structure, "

it means easier to believe in some “superhuman” properties than to understand human limitations . I understand walker thinks his is what it demonstrates, bu i clearly doesn't , it is another unsupported extension ..... so ;

I claim supposedly based on uncited 'scientific evidence ' . and

2 'unsupported extensions '

or this

Kelemen, director of the Child Cognition Laboratory at Boston University, has found that children around the world “evidence a general bias to treat objects and behaviors as existing for a purpose” (Kelemen 2004, 295). There is now overwhelming evidence that children are innately prone to “promiscuous teleological intuitions,” preferring teleological, purpose-based rather than physical-causal explanations of living and nonliving natural objects (Kelemen et al. 2013).

again, his demonstrates "objects and behaviors as existing for a purpose” and not " Every child, if raised alone, would form its own religious belief structure,"

So

I claim (and speculation ) supposedly based on uncited 'scientific evidence ' . and

3 'unsupported extensions '

For example, young children do not see raining as merely what a cloud does but as what it is “made for.”

this just goes on to further demonstrate " objects and behaviors as existing for a purpose "

For example, the children of both religious fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist parents, when asked why a certain animal exists, favor “God made it” or “a person made it” over “it evolved” or “it appeared.” This tendency declines only after eleven years of age and only in the children of non-fundamentalist parents.

{ This supports evidence about fundamentalist and non fundamentalist religious people - not religious and non-religious people }

then this, which is self explanatory:

" . An infant’s entire world comprises an intentional agent—its parent. " - what is exactly where I argued before was the source of such programmings, as did other posters (Walker chose to ignore this)

" The sooner and more thoroughly an infant can develop a “theory of mind” and respond accordingly, the better for it. It must attach. The parent must bond. It must anticipate and manipulate its world on the assumption of purposeful agency occurring all around it. An absence of such is starkly illustrated by the autistic child, to whom its parents are just another set of shapes in its visual field. No attachment occurs, and in less affluent, protected, aware times than we have now, such children rarely survived. They could not control their (almost entirely interpersonal) environment and starved, ate poison, or just wandered away. "

his showers that primarily the external agency is the parent , again.

I could go through the whole set of evidences like this, but it it is boring, off topic and yet again another walker diversion instigated by him calling several people who took part in that debate, including me a liar.

Now he will come back and continue on and clag the thread again. But this is all I will say on this subject.

No doubt he will make the same claims and again claim he was won the argument, trounced everyone with his proofs and

834879_s.gif

Ho - hum ! :td:

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.