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

Euphorbia

See my post above The concept of gods is self constructed in all self aware entities (ie humans) with working brains and minds. No one has to teach a child that gods exist, they construct this belief to explain so much that otherwise does not make sense in their very young minds.

The first conscious construction of human thought in this realm is one of belief. It is disbelief which must be taught or learned from others. (or discovered as a adult when other forms of thinking and a greater understanding of the world might let a person question the existence of those gods).

Wrong, wrong, wrong Mr. Walker.

I have been an atheist ever since I found out about that word and just what it meant (since about the age of twelve) It wasn't difficult to grasp and it made complete sense to me. Up until this time, my life revolved around learning, playing and......well, just being a kid. There was no bible in the house and my parents never took me to church (or even talked about it), my friends never talked about it and it simply wasn't talked about in school. It was for me simply a non-existent subject or belief in my life as a child.

There simply was no conscious (or subconscious) construction of any beliefs of a god or of anything supernatural as a child. It simply never came up in my life until the age of twelve or so when I learned of the word and thought this described me perfectly. I've had to put up with others religious thought and prejudice my entire life since.

I never had to be taught disbelief as I had no belief to begin with. In retrospect, how nice it was to grow up without all of this nonsense....

This is all just another Walkerism.....

So, am I a liar.....or an anomaly?

Or are you?

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

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:

This line of reasoning has been resolved; MW did not successfully support his claim. This is the fourth time, maybe even 5 th or 6th time he has argued this over the years.

I know better, I will no longer waste my time; he is a broken record, he has a few arguments that he repeatedly resurrects and derails threads with.

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

Eh ? Inherited traits come via genetics

Well, see, that is what I'm wondering. I see a pattern of offspring of parents who atleast one of them, loves to read. It's not necessarily all offspring. I do one in a family, that doesn't love to read. I think that's a brother of mine. And of his three, one doesn't like to either. But the other two, forget about it. I have long awesome talks about authors and books with my niece.

I like to think, automatically, it's genetic. Although, many would say it could be environmental, because the offspring sees their parents reading a lot. I did. But then again, how does that explain the ones who hate to read?

Wrong, wrong, wrong Mr. Walker.

I have been an atheist ever since I found out about that word and just what it meant (since about the age of twelve) It wasn't difficult to grasp and it made complete sense to me. Up until this time, my life revolved around learning, playing and......well, just being a kid. There was no bible in the house and my parents never took me to church (or even talked about it), my friends never talked about it and it simply wasn't talked about in school. It was for me simply a non-existent subject or belief in my life as a child.

There simply was no conscious (or subconscious) construction of any beliefs of a god or of anything supernatural as a child. It simply never came up in my life until the age of twelve or so when I learned of the word and thought this described me perfectly. I've had to put up with others religious thought and prejudice my entire life since.

I never had to be taught disbelief as I had no belief to begin with. In retrospect, how nice it was to grow up without all of this nonsense....

This is all just another Walkerism.....

So, am I a liar.....or an anomaly?

Or are you?

I :tu: this post.

I then also read this line for the first time:

There was no bible in the house and my parents never took me to church (or even talked about it)
I had to double check to make sure that it wasn't me! :o

Cool. Someone like me. And yeah, you're right. There are examples, myself, my siblings, and my kids, who were raised just the same way. Never were urged to worship entities or the supposed books from them.

Well, when it came to sports............... and half of my family, that was a different situation. :w00t::D

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rjos

My children had never heard about God before they went to school. Schools can give the children religious beliefs.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
willowdreams

Wrong, wrong, wrong Mr. Walker.

I have been an atheist ever since I found out about that word and just what it meant (since about the age of twelve) It wasn't difficult to grasp and it made complete sense to me. Up until this time, my life revolved around learning, playing and......well, just being a kid. There was no bible in the house and my parents never took me to church (or even talked about it), my friends never talked about it and it simply wasn't talked about in school. It was for me simply a non-existent subject or belief in my life as a child.

There simply was no conscious (or subconscious) construction of any beliefs of a god or of anything supernatural as a child. It simply never came up in my life until the age of twelve or so when I learned of the word and thought this described me perfectly. I've had to put up with others religious thought and prejudice my entire life since.

I never had to be taught disbelief as I had no belief to begin with. In retrospect, how nice it was to grow up without all of this nonsense....

This is all just another Walkerism.....

So, am I a liar.....or an anomaly?

Or are you?

I just asked my daughter if she ever believed in a deity, and she said no, never even thought of 'god', she just never had any reason to believe in a concept she had not been taught, let alone made it up in her mind.

She does not remember thinking as a child that there were unanswered questions. She did not even have that concept, because in her mind, things were what they were 'just because', and as she got older, 'just because', usually became something else, usually a science based answer. Why did the stove burn me? Because it was hot, why is the stove hot, because it was turned on and cooking, why was it turned on?

Eventually mommy got tired and said 'just because', and of course with age, education, that answer was no longer the answer.

She did not have a concept of a make believe world/deities until she was told fairy stories. But she did not believe in them either because i always told her it was made up stories to make people smile or laugh. So she believe god was one of those made up stories to make people enjoy life, like fairy stories.

As she got older, she never saw a reason to think otherwise.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

My children had never heard about God before they went to school. Schools can give the children religious beliefs.

That depends on what schools and what country they are in. I can't tell what country you are residing in, but in the states, unless it's a private religious school that parents pay and understand, and wish for their children to attend, public schools are not allowed to do that.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
TheSpoonyOne

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.

Yeah, "Atheism predates Jesus by at least 500 years" smacks of the same kind of "our view is older, therefore it's more justified" logic I thought atheists would be repelled by.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Well, see, that is what I'm wondering. I see a pattern of offspring of parents who atleast one of them, loves to read. It's not necessarily all offspring. I do one in a family, that doesn't love to read. I think that's a brother of mine. And of his three, one doesn't like to either. But the other two, forget about it. I have long awesome talks about authors and books with my niece.

I like to think, automatically, it's genetic. Although, many would say it could be environmental, because the offspring sees their parents reading a lot. I did. But then again, how does that explain the ones who hate to read?

Oh ... I think I get you now. I experienced the same thing in a litter of puppies, all had different personalities, also my time with the twins ( from 3 months to 3 years ) , they were born same parents same time (if one is into astrology) and place, and bought up the same way, very different little people. One had a great sense of humour the other didnt . Even as little babies in their cot, one would always make the other laugh . One time I asked them if they wanted to see a real monkeys ... there was one in their bedroom. Of course they were very excited and enthusiastic about that . So I took them in and stood them in front of the mirror and pointed at their reflection. One raised his eyebrows and gave me a typical ironic look and a smirk, the other is still wondering where the monkeys are. A few days later I was shaving at the bathroom mirror, little guy comes in and points at the mirror " Look ... monkey ! " :D

I call this 'spirit' the essential nature of the personality, 'demeanor' , etc . Who knows where or how it comes, but we do know genetic information transference is much more complex than we understand.

But siblings exhibit variations in a genetic pattern.

I might be wrong, but I think here, the mistaken thought ( if I read you right ; that any genetic info passed on should be shared by the siblings or descendants ) is a misunderstanding of how the system works. In stabilised or hybridised siblings ( made by at least 2 generations of back breeding with a parent .... all the flowers or animals will be similar. But we dont work like that naturally.

Its more like this :

biology-16-2-evolution-as-genetic-change1-8-728.jpg?cb=1313595799

You could be like the green bug in the bottom line, while all your siblings are brown.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I just asked my daughter if she ever believed in a deity, and she said no, never even thought of 'god', she just never had any reason to believe in a concept she had not been taught, let alone made it up in her mind.

She does not remember thinking as a child that there were unanswered questions. She did not even have that concept, because in her mind, things were what they were 'just because', and as she got older, 'just because', usually became something else, usually a science based answer. Why did the stove burn me? Because it was hot, why is the stove hot, because it was turned on and cooking, why was it turned on?

Eventually mommy got tired and said 'just because', and of course with age, education, that answer was no longer the answer.

She did not have a concept of a make believe world/deities until she was told fairy stories. But she did not believe in them either because i always told her it was made up stories to make people smile or laugh. So she believe god was one of those made up stories to make people enjoy life, like fairy stories.

As she got older, she never saw a reason to think otherwise.

Oh she sounds like a lovely .... and normal little girl.

This idea of kids coming to know God naturally seems , IMO another religious ploy to suppose the pre-existence of the God concept before we make up God concepts by suggestion from others .

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

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:

Thank you. At LAST a responsive critical post .

Reading through this, I can understand your thinking, see your biases, and could respond to each one But it isn't necessary

You do have the right to see things differently. However you now acknowledge how and why I see things as I do

Of course if you put all three articles together, and add in many others, you see that Barret's claim is proven by other experimental data in the field, from many parts of the world. He didn't just make it up. For example the psychological experiments which Barret used in his talk at Oxford

Yes this source referred to the difference between fundamentalists and non fundamentalist but the reasoning applies more widely. And actual OTHER studies show the same result with the children of atheists ..

I don't think anything will ever convince you, but it is quite clear, logically, that if children have god concepts before they can communicate at that level of sophistication with others, then the concepts MUST have been constructed in their own minds. And indeed many studies have shown that this occurs, and experts can understand, given their knowledge of human cognition, how and why this occurs.

To me its as much a statement of fact as "cigarette smoking kills one third of all those who continue to smoke", but some even want to deny that statement as factual.

What interests me, in each case, is WHY some people feel the need for such strong denial of such obvious fact. The answer is clear regarding religion Some people ,need to believe that human children only believe in gods because they are taught to do so and indoctrinated by their parents. They would dearly like to believe that, if only those wicked theists stopped their lieing propaganda, humans would grow up without beliefs or religions. That is just not true, as these studies and conclusions, along with many others, prove. .

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

...

I don't think anything will ever convince you, but it is quite clear, logically, that if children have god concepts before they can communicate at that level of sophistication with others, then the concepts MUST have been constructed in their own minds. And indeed many studies have shown that this occurs, and experts can understand, given their knowledge of human cognition, how and why this occurs.

Ha! You just based your theory and tried to prove it on an if ( and throw a snooty 'quite clear ' and a 'logical' in to boot :D )

That was the equivalent of ; If x is a process in the mind of an infant before it leans x then this indicates x is a natural part of the conscious perceptive brain .

:-*

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
UFO_Monster

I oppose the notion that atheism--a lack of belief in a god or gods--is a religion, let alone "one of the world's oldest religions."

It's a commonly stated phrase, but it's true: Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position, or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Edited by UFO_Monster
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

I got a lot of hobbies then !

( He's got a good point ! )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
robinrenee

Everybody is born an Atheist. Religion is taught.

If that be true, then why do so many primitive societies make up some sort of religion - for example, cargo cults? And what of the religion of the Australian aboriginals? Their religion is very old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BlackBearWolf

Nature vs nuture

I guess the only fair examples of children not influenced by society would be feral children.

Do feral children develope relgious beliefs on thier own in the wild?

Do they come to know jesus by name.

Is it important to know the name of Spirits that we believe are helping us?

How can you know a spirits name unless it tells you its name out loud?

And lastly should you trust that spirit?

These are things a feral child would have to go through to know god in the biblical sense...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright

If that be true, then why do so many primitive societies make up some sort of religion - for example, cargo cults? And what of the religion of the Australian aboriginals? Their religion is very old.

Hold on! Beefers is mentioning birth of every individuals. You are mentioning societies, with varying ages of individuals. My meaning, there are people who end up teaching their cultural ideals to their young. That means beliefs and religions, like the ones you are mentioning that are made up, are taught as well to their young. I still see the thought of everyone is born an Atheist.

I oppose the notion that atheism--a lack of belief in a god or gods--is a religion, let alone "one of the world's oldest religions."

It's a commonly stated phrase, but it's true: Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position, or not collecting stamps is a hobby.

And again, I love that phrase. And a good add on of the hobby of not collecting stamps. ;)

Oh ... I think I get you now. I experienced the same thing in a litter of puppies, all had different personalities, also my time with the twins ( from 3 months to 3 years ) , they were born same parents same time (if one is into astrology) and place, and bought up the same way, very different little people. One had a great sense of humour the other didnt . Even as little babies in their cot, one would always make the other laugh . One time I asked them if they wanted to see a real monkeys ... there was one in their bedroom. Of course they were very excited and enthusiastic about that . So I took them in and stood them in front of the mirror and pointed at their reflection. One raised his eyebrows and gave me a typical ironic look and a smirk, the other is still wondering where the monkeys are. A few days later I was shaving at the bathroom mirror, little guy comes in and points at the mirror " Look ... monkey ! " :D

I call this 'spirit' the essential nature of the personality, 'demeanor' , etc . Who knows where or how it comes, but we do know genetic information transference is much more complex than we understand.

But siblings exhibit variations in a genetic pattern.

I might be wrong, but I think here, the mistaken thought ( if I read you right ; that any genetic info passed on should be shared by the siblings or descendants ) is a misunderstanding of how the system works. In stabilised or hybridised siblings ( made by at least 2 generations of back breeding with a parent .... all the flowers or animals will be similar. But we dont work like that naturally.

Its more like this :

biology-16-2-evolution-as-genetic-change1-8-728.jpg?cb=1313595799

You could be like the green bug in the bottom line, while all your siblings are brown.

Bingo! That's the ticket!! Exactly bte! :tu:

And that's it, I wonder at the possibility of the love to read as being 'learned' from seeing their parents, to 'inherited' like even if they were adopted by nonreading parents, they still love to read. ( I think it boils down to some motor preference that is inherited and reading is part of that. *shrugs* )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Ha! You just based your theory and tried to prove it on an if ( and throw a snooty 'quite clear ' and a 'logical' in to boot :D )

That was the equivalent of ; If x is a process in the mind of an infant before it leans x then this indicates x is a natural part of the conscious perceptive brain .

:-*

Ha! you didn't read the qualifying sentence.

And indeed many studies have shown that this occurs, and experts can understand, given their knowledge of human cognition, how and why this occurs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Wrong, wrong, wrong Mr. Walker.

I have been an atheist ever since I found out about that word and just what it meant (since about the age of twelve) It wasn't difficult to grasp and it made complete sense to me. Up until this time, my life revolved around learning, playing and......well, just being a kid. There was no bible in the house and my parents never took me to church (or even talked about it), my friends never talked about it and it simply wasn't talked about in school. It was for me simply a non-existent subject or belief in my life as a child.

There simply was no conscious (or subconscious) construction of any beliefs of a god or of anything supernatural as a child. It simply never came up in my life until the age of twelve or so when I learned of the word and thought this described me perfectly. I've had to put up with others religious thought and prejudice my entire life since.

I never had to be taught disbelief as I had no belief to begin with. In retrospect, how nice it was to grow up without all of this nonsense....

This is all just another Walkerism.....

So, am I a liar.....or an anomaly?

Or are you?

Neither. By 12 you have quite wide life experience and extensive socialisation You will be starting to construct ideas based on more knowledge and learning including what other peope think and tell you.

This argument is about infants from birth and the first few years of life It is recognised that by about 11 or 12 children become more open to other forms of thinking. :Like all things from an early age you wont remember what you thought or believed before about age 5. But i would bet that, like ALL young children, you constructed the idea of invisible and powerful agents which effected changes in your world which you could not explain.

If you had been interviewed at that time this would have been clear from your responses to simple questions. It is the ONLY way a young child's mind can make sense of so much of that which it sees and experiences and simply does not have the knowledge to comprehend. Our minds as children invent or create logical but magical agents powers or forces which we believe are needed to make/ cause things to happen

Even human adults are predisposed to think that everything which happens MUST have a cause or purpose or reason behind it. As we learn more about the physical world as we grow up, we understand more and the need for such magical thinking lessens, but it never goes away, and all adult humans are predisposed to this thinking and have to make a conscious effort to avoid it, in part because it has become a "neurological pathway" of thinking, from childhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I just asked my daughter if she ever believed in a deity, and she said no, never even thought of 'god', she just never had any reason to believe in a concept she had not been taught, let alone made it up in her mind.

She does not remember thinking as a child that there were unanswered questions. She did not even have that concept, because in her mind, things were what they were 'just because', and as she got older, 'just because', usually became something else, usually a science based answer. Why did the stove burn me? Because it was hot, why is the stove hot, because it was turned on and cooking, why was it turned on?

Eventually mommy got tired and said 'just because', and of course with age, education, that answer was no longer the answer.

She did not have a concept of a make believe world/deities until she was told fairy stories. But she did not believe in them either because i always told her it was made up stories to make people smile or laugh. So she believe god was one of those made up stories to make people enjoy life, like fairy stories.

As she got older, she never saw a reason to think otherwise.

If she was interviewed in those childhood years, as thousands of children from around the world have been, then her response almost certainly would have been just like theirs Those kids included the chldrn of atheists and children who had never ben exposed except incidentally to the concept of god yet thety ALL formed internal god constructs . OR she truly is some strange exception.

Humans just cannot tolerate not having an understanding of their environment. it is too dangerous and chaotic if we cant predict and explain things, so we construct concepts which best fit our world and allow us to THINK we know and understand how it operates. With very young children, lacking experiential knowledge and data, magical agents or gods is the best fit answer to observable questions which occur every day . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Nature vs nuture

I guess the only fair examples of children not influenced by society would be feral children.

Do feral children develope relgious beliefs on thier own in the wild?

Do they come to know jesus by name.

Is it important to know the name of Spirits that we believe are helping us?

How can you know a spirits name unless it tells you its name out loud?

And lastly should you trust that spirit?

These are things a feral child would have to go through to know god in the biblical sense...

This is an excellent question.

The first part at least I don't know if the rest is so relevant.

While researching this a few years back, i looked at the question of "feral children"

In reality there is, i think, only one proven case of a boy raised by animals. He could not speak and was never able to learn how to , and died quite young

It is "language of the mind" which allows us to form both mental concepts and constructs, and without the abilty to think using lang age, humans are just like other animals They don't have god constructs but they don't have ANY constructs of the mind because they never learned the language of the mind needed to construct them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

If that be true, then why do so many primitive societies make up some sort of religion - for example, cargo cults? And what of the religion of the Australian aboriginals? Their religion is very old.

The reason cargo cults exist is because people came and gave them cargo, very significant in their culture, where gift giving gives social and political clout .... they want those people to come back and give them more, so they practice a type of attracting sympathetic magic . Their 'religious' nature seems due to syncretism .

Yes, what of the religions of the Australian Aboriginals ? They are very old ! But this doesnt mean each generation spontaneously makes up the same religion .... they, of course, are taught about it, like everyone else.

Actually, many aspects of what you probably refer to as Australian Aboriginal religion are highly secret and only taught to certain groups, divided by age sex clan level of initiation ..... even people outside of these allowances in the same 'tribe' don't even know what these beliefs are as they don't have access to them and are not taught about them.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Nature vs nuture

I guess the only fair examples of children not influenced by society would be feral children.

Excellent point !

I did extensive study on feral children . Way back, the classic book was 'Feral Children and Cases of Extreme Isolation ' by Prof. Z. Zing. Also I had to work with a couple of cases of 'extreme isolation'. Scary stuff that ! (As it usually to do with some crazy parents ! )

Do feral children develope relgious beliefs on thier own in the wild?

We cant tell, as real feral children bought up 'in the wild' dont even behave like humans ,,, they dont speak as they have not learnt language. Their inbuilt programs function the same way as they do in the animals that bought them up ( cases of real feral children, only exist as animals nursed and adopted them, otherwise they would have died ) . Even basic human programs ( as I mentioned before, like bio-survival, anal-territorial, socio-sexual ) need input to activate and complete them. But the higher ones, like Artistic- creative ... a human program, do not seem present at all, feral children do not even draw without being shown . Even if JUng's 'religious instinct' is present it is not activated or detectable.

Real feral children are barely human in their behavior and learning ability ... unless they are returned to human contact at an early age to get the relevant programming ... after a certain young age, it cant be installed as others have taken their place .

Wolf girl in India , she couldnt even walk properly on two legs. Her bone structure had started to morph from imitating the wolves.

Do they come to know jesus by name.

I would confidently say no - that's impossible ... especially when they cant comprehend language or speak it.

Is it important to know the name of Spirits that we believe are helping us?

In some cases it seems so ..... but in other cases not. It depends on specifics .... when wandering in the outback and from place to place I have heard the indigenous say "Just ask 'Mum' (nature) for whatever you need, and she will give it to you." In other places, if you dont call out the right name and intro of the spirits present ...... you gonna get trouble !

How can you know a spirits name unless it tells you its name out loud?

Some one else tells you ;) Or it could show you with symbol or omen . Some place names are the name of the spirit of the place and the omen all at once .....

And lastly should you trust that spirit?

If one does not know its proclivities, one should test them ... of course, that requires learned knowledge as well.

These are things a feral child would have to go through to know god in the biblical sense...

I think, you just blew the other side of this argument out of the water !

tumblr_mwxq99kG2A1t11wf1o1_400.gif

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

Hold on! Beefers is mentioning birth of every individuals. You are mentioning societies, with varying ages of individuals. My meaning, there are people who end up teaching their cultural ideals to their young. That means beliefs and religions, like the ones you are mentioning that are made up, are taught as well to their young. I still see the thought of everyone is born an Atheist.

And again, I love that phrase. And a good add on of the hobby of not collecting stamps. ;)

Bingo! That's the ticket!! Exactly bte! :tu:

And that's it, I wonder at the possibility of the love to read as being 'learned' from seeing their parents, to 'inherited' like even if they were adopted by nonreading parents, they still love to read. ( I think it boils down to some motor preference that is inherited and reading is part of that. *shrugs* )

Bita both I reckon. See big brother read .... I want to be like him !

On the other hand, I had an inexplicable attraction to reading Tarot from an early age, in a RC family - shock, horror ! (My sister dressed up as a gypsy and had a fortune telling tent at a fete once to raise money for charity ... not that she knew how to do it. )

I didnt find out till much later in my life, paternal granny was not real granny at all, she disappeared before I was born ..... and was a Spanish gypsy tarot reader .

No, I have no explanation .... interesting though !

(And all around me was influence, pressure, indoctrination, on a high level that didnt effect me one little bit ; to be catholic, play football, cricket, be a sporting hero ..... as both father and big brother were. )

Ha! you didn't read the qualifying sentence.

And indeed many studies have shown that this occurs, and experts can understand, given their knowledge of human cognition, how and why this occurs.

Sound like it came from you ... and is just as vague a claim as yours .

Also . 9 out of 10 dentists agree that Colgate gives whiter teeth.

Sorry walker - the feral children observation has knocked you out of the ring here !

Edited by back to earth
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

:Like all things from an early age you wont remember what you thought or believed before about age 5. But i would bet that, like ALL young children, you constructed the idea of invisible and powerful agents which effected changes in your world which you could not explain.

More silly 'proof' . It would have happened to you - its just that you cant remember it. The proof that you did it relies on Walkers confidence that he would bet on the idea that you did - even though that could never be proved . :D

perfect example of 'walker logic' and how he arrives at conclusions !

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
back to earth

If she was interviewed in those childhood years, as thousands of children from around the world have been, then her response almost certainly would have been just like theirs

Talk about denial of a case that shows the opposite of what you claim ! One of the most ridiculous responses you have written yet !

I claim all children believe in fairies !

Mary; "Excuse me Mister .... I was never told about them and I never believed in them until I was allowed to watch TV when we moved into a civilised area near a town. Then I saw them and asked my Mum and she explained what they are supposed to be to me. "

Walker ; "Now now, little girls ... its just that you dont remember knowing about them as you were so little ."

( and more 'proof' based on another 'if ' :no: )

Those kids included the chldrn of atheists and children who had never ben exposed except incidentally to the concept of god yet thety ALL formed internal god constructs . OR she truly is some strange exception.

or you could be wrong Walker ....... nah! could not be possible eh ? Lets just conclude it is a strange exception and something is wrong with the kid .

Humans just cannot tolerate not having an understanding of their environment. it is too dangerous and chaotic if we cant predict and explain things, so we construct concepts which best fit our world and allow us to THINK we know and understand how it operates.

I certainly know where you got that idea from - your own process . And look at the answers you came up with !

With very young children, lacking experiential knowledge and data, magical agents or gods is the best fit answer to observable questions which occur every day . .

Nope ... very young children with such a lack of input from adults end up like this ;

Dina-Sanichar.jpeg

  • 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.