If you asked a child the quote below what would they say?

[Wootah]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #36]

I'll ask again:

If I went up to a child and said

'Who created the heavens?

'Who created the earth?

'Who created all the people and angels?'

'Who exists before anything else exists?'

If you asked a child the quote below what would they say?


(This is taken from this thread: viewtopic.php?p=1134599#p1134599)

[Wootah]

“And do you think that unto such as you
A maggot-minded, starved, fanatic crew
God gave a secret, and denied it me?
Well, well—what matters it? Believe that, too!”
― Omar Khayyâm

Well we are just talking past each other. This thread is about book reading comprehension.

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #36]

I'll ask again:

If I went up to a child and said

'Who created the heavens?

'Who created the earth?

'Who created all the people and angels?'

'Who exists before anything else exists?'

If you asked a child the quote below what would they say?


(This is taken from this thread: viewtopic.php?p=1134599#p1134599)

Objection your honor. Leading the witness.

Without being indoctrinated or leading them on to the answer they would not respond what you think.

Humans are born atheists.
Later in life they are indoctrinated into several beliefs the parents have.

[TRANSPONDER]

Agreed.

The questions posed are clearly leading questions, purposefully worded in order that the hearer/reader-child has to answer "who" the "who" is.

Of course, generally that is the role of religion to be the entity which "explains" who the who is.

Along with that, are a great variety of "who's" offered by religion(s) for consideration...something children are generally not able to understand the nuances of, and rely on understandable adult explanations.

Whatever answers a child might offer more often than not, will be considered by the adult asking the child the questions, as being "childish".

I totally agree. The iconic "six year old child" is a flawed argument that ought to be a known logical fallacy but is probably no more than bad apologetics, at best and deliberately dishonest at worst. In fact it is a known theist error based on starting with the belief and finding something to support it.

Kent Hovind did the same with the "Six year old kid could identify Kinds". Really? show them a whale or a porpoise and ask what 'Kind it is'."Fish", I could guarantee it. Just as the Bible writers doubtless thought a whale was a fish. Just as many old beliefs seemed obvious to people who were a lot smarter that a six year old. It took research science to discover they were in fact mammals; and species is a scientifically validated thing and 'Kinds' is not.

The six year old might laugh at the idea that a land animal took to the water and adapted so it even came to look like a fish. But then they are shown penguins and seals and will realise with a kind of wonderment how adaptation happens. And they will be a bit smarter than those who believe in 'Kinds'.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Wootah in post #19]

Rather I would argue that Children might swallow the Bible on a simplistic and uninformed level. They are not at fault. They don't know better. Adults at the end and in the middle should know better, but they refuse to listen. Faith is childlike, reputedly. The Bible advocates it. But over decades of debate it has become clear that what they think is evidence and reason is fiddling or evidence and logic to suit a Faith that is not only childlike, but denialist, because they could and should know better, but refuse to.

[Wootah]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #22]

Evidence?

Most kidsparents are literally God to them providing everything when they can do nothing.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #22]

Evidence?

Most kidsparents are literally God to them providing everything when they can do nothing.

Literally? That is blatant semantic fiddling, to prove what, isn't clear anyway.

[Wootah]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #22]

Evidence?

Most kidsparents are literally God to them providing everything when they can do nothing.

Literally? That is blatant semantic fiddling, to prove what, isn't clear anyway.

I think you would argue black is white to contradict what is being said.

What evidence is there we are born atheist?

[1213]

...They think that dreaming something makes it true...

I think all innovation is based on dreaming something to become true. But, probably people have already innovated too much, so it is not a problem, if people are like atheists in that.

...Jesus wants us to be simpletons like children. Of course he does! A child hands over money because they don't understand its value! ...

I think that is insulting for all children. You think you were a simpleton when you were a child?

[alexxcJRO]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #22]

Evidence?

Most kidsparents are literally God to them providing everything when they can do nothing.

Dear sir humans when are born they come into this world without any knowledge of any subject.

Therefore they lack any belief. Therefore they lack a belief in God. Therefore are atheists in the weak sense.

Toddlers learn about the world around as they go using the scientific method( testing hypotheses, analyzing statistics and doing experiments).

Indoctrination is then used by parents to put the concepts of God and of their religion in the toddlers head.
Belief in God(supreme being) mostly exists thanks to indoctrination as demonstrated by geographic distribution of religions.

PS: They are remote tribes in the world that do not even have a concept of a supreme spirit or god: Pirahas of Brazil.

"According to Everett, the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god,[10] and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to alexxcJRO in post #22]

Evidence?

Most kidsparents are literally God to them providing everything when they can do nothing.

Literally? That is blatant semantic fiddling, to prove what, isn't clear anyway.

I think you would argue black is white to contradict what is being said.

What evidence is there we are born atheist?

My post #23 above refutes you as I agreed with William's observations (we do not agree on all thinks ). I do not contradict for the sake of it. It is also clear to anyone (after I pointed it up) that applying the term "God" to parents just because they look after their kids. (Foxes are gods to their cubs, too) is trying to equate one concept with another, different, one. I ask again (more directly), what point are you trying to make?

As to the attempt to evade the question by asking me one, I asked first and I'll address you rquestion when you have answered it.

...They think that dreaming something makes it true...

I think all innovation is based on dreaming something to become true. But, probably people have already innovated too much, so it is not a problem, if people are like atheists in that.

...Jesus wants us to be simpletons like children. Of course he does! A child hands over money because they don't understand its value! ...

I think that is insulting for all children. You think you were a simpleton when you were a child?

The first, ignoring all knowledge upon which innovation is based, seems to do nothing but glorify fantasies as true revelation. If not, it is meaningless. The second is the familiar pseudo luddism that science -skeptics trot out, decrying the technology that they make eager use of every day. The ingratitude of science -deniers is staggering. Finally, your habit of denial seems to have blanked out your memory. I had much to learn as a child and have never stopped learning. From all I have heard, that is a common experience. Otherwise, why is education needed?

cue: "It isn't. God will reveal to us all we need to know."