Does Almighy God view all people in the same light?

[Strange]

When did you present evidence? So far, all you've done is present assertions.

 

 

So you think it is impossible to tell if a baby is content or distressed?

[dimreepr]

 

 

So you think it is impossible to tell if a baby is content or distressed?

 

Why would you think that?

[Strange]

 

Why would you think that?

 

 

So you agree that it is possible to tell that baby is contented?

[dimreepr]

 

 

So you agree that it is possible to tell that baby is contented?

 

It's possible, but it's not evidence.

[Strange]

 

It's possible, but it's not evidence.

 

 

If you can tell a baby is content, why isn't it evidence that babies can be content?

 

(Hopefully, we are getting past "yes it is", "not it isn't" now. )

Edited April 5, 2017 by Strange

[John Cuthber]

 

Are you suggesting the unconscious mind has an influence over the conscious one? why?

 

 

When did you present evidence? So far, all you've done is present assertions.

 

 

The problem is, it's a logical fallacy.

"Are you suggesting the unconscious mind has an influence over the conscious one? why?"

Yes I am.

Because when my unconscious mind hears the alarm clock in the morning it wakes up my conscious mind.

(Or, to put it another way, because it's damned obvious that it has an influence.)

I presented evidence that a baby can be content without having been taught- on the basis that we know that discontented babies let us know about it.

You have presented no evidence that it's a fallacy.

 

However, we risk losing sight of your original daft assertion.

"I DO believe the bible to contains wisdom that seems to elude secularism.

...it's a collection of stories and parables designed to teach other people how to be content; ..."

 

The trouble with that is the implication that people were somehow unable to be content prior to the Bible's existence, and needed teaching.

There have been humans for about 100,000 years and, according to our idea it's only in the last 4,000 or so (assuming you meant the OT- 2,000 if you meant the NT) that they have known how to be content.

 

Do you really think that we didn't know how to be happy for the first 96% of humanity's existence?

[Itoero]

So it is impossible to assume your dog is dreaming?

It depends what you consider the state of mind.

My dog makes noise and moves her paws so her conscious mind is not fully at rest...you can call that 'dreaming'.

Assumptions concerning the state of the conscious mind, while the subject is unconscious, are subjective opinions with no real meaning.

 

Thinking those subjective opinions do have a scientific value is a big logical fallacy and causes countless erroneous beliefs.

[dimreepr]

It depends what you consider the state of mind.

My dog makes noise and moves her paws so her conscious mind is not fully at rest...you can call that 'dreaming'.

Assumptions concerning the state of the conscious mind, while the subject is unconscious, are subjective opinions with no real meaning.

 

Thinking those subjective opinions do have a scientific value is a big logical fallacy and causes countless erroneous beliefs.

 

+1, I never thought I'd agree with you on a thread such as this, nice post.

Do you really think that we didn't know how to be happy for the first 96% of humanity's existence?

 

Nope, please provide evidence that I ever have; what I do think is that progress has advanced faster than our ability to evolve and contentment is lost in the chaos; that process isn't just a modern phenomena, it was present 4,000 years ago and beyond.

[Strange]

Nope, please provide evidence that I ever have; what I do think is that progress has advanced faster than our ability to evolve and contentment is lost in the chaos; that process isn't just a modern phenomena, it was present 4,000 years ago and beyond.

 

 

And are you saying that, therefore, babies cannot be content?

It depends what you consider the state of mind.

My dog makes noise and moves her paws so her conscious mind is not fully at rest...you can call that 'dreaming'.

Assumptions concerning the state of the conscious mind, while the subject is unconscious, are subjective opinions with no real meaning.

 

Thinking those subjective opinions do have a scientific value is a big logical fallacy and causes countless erroneous beliefs.

 

So, on the one hand, you say that you can tell that your dog's mind is not at rest ("dreaming") but at the same time you say that assumptions about the state of the mind has no real meaning. It just seems a little contradictory.

[John Cuthber]

 

Nope, please provide evidence that I ever have;

Because you said it was taught by the Bible which has only been here "recently".

 

Anyway, stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

You said "I DO believe the bible to contains wisdom that seems to elude secularism."

You made an assertion which is, at best, unsupported.

Prove it.

Similarly, you said "...it's a collection of stories and parables designed to teach other people how to be content; ..."

Prove it.

[Itoero]

So, on the one hand, you say that you can tell that your dog's mind is not at rest ("dreaming") but at the same time you say that assumptions about the state of the mind has no real meaning. It just seems a little contradictory.

My dog moves her paws and makes noise while sleeping, you can call that evidence for that she's dreaming.

What evidence do you have to say those are content or discontent dreams?

Edited April 7, 2017 by Itoero

[dimreepr]

Because you said it was taught by the Bible which has only been here "recently".

 

Usually I say Bibles, not all of which are written down.

 

Anyway, stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

 

You first.

You said "I DO believe the bible to contains wisdom that seems to elude secularism."

You made an assertion which is, at best, unsupported.

Prove it.

Similarly, you said "...it's a collection of stories and parables designed to teach other people how to be content; ..."

Prove it.

 

 

You prove your assertion, since it's testable it's possible to provide data, please do so.

 

Edit... Your entire argument rests on your assertion "contentment is innate", the burden of proof is yours.

And are you saying that, therefore, babies cannot be content?

 

 

Not at all, I've always maintained that anyone can be content; I merely suggest that discontented people can be taught how to be content.

Edited April 7, 2017 by dimreepr

[Strange]

My dog moves her paws and makes noise while sleeping, you can call that evidence for that she's dreaming.

 

 

But you said it is impossible to know her mental state. So why assume she is dreaming?\

 

 

 

What evidence do you have to say those are content or discontent dreams?

 

Absolutely none. Why would I have.

Not at all, I've always maintained that anyone can be content; I merely suggest that discontented people can be taught how to be content.

 

 

So you agree that if a baby is content, then it must be innate?

[dimreepr]

So you agree that if a baby is content, then it must be innate?

 

No, because a baby can be content, doesn't mean its innate.

[John Cuthber]

 

Usually I say Bibles, not all of which are written down.

 

You first.

 

I don't care what you "usually" say.

In this case, you said Bible.

 

The word "Bible" means book so, notwithstanding your nonsensical claim, Bibles are actually all written down.

 

It's clear to all of us that you are trying to back away from your original absurd claim- without admitting that you are wrong.

We are not buying it.

 

The burden of proof lies with the one making that assertion so you go first.

"Not at all, I've always maintained that anyone can be content; I merely suggest that discontented people can be taught how to be content."

You have.

But your suggestion makes no sense for two reasons.

Firstly that those who have not been taught are sometimes content.,

Second that, notwithstanding teaching, some are discontent.

Again, it's clear to all of us that you are trying to back away from your original absurd claim- without admitting that you are wrong.

We are not buying it.

[Strange]

 

No, because a baby can be content, doesn't mean its innate.

 

 

So who teaches the baby about contentment? And how?

Similarly animals; who teaches them about contentment?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Strange

[Itoero]

But you said it is impossible to know her mental state. So why assume she is dreaming?\

Like I said before. It depends what you consider the mental state to be.

A conscious mind dreams while the body is unconscious.

 

It might be that women evolved to be more prone to correctly interpret the mental state of a sleeping baby.

No, because a baby can be content, doesn't mean its innate.

Being content is not innate but the possibility of being content is innate.

[dimreepr]

Contentment depends on circumstance, not an innate ability; a baby that is well loved, fed and cared for will be much more content, than a neglected, starved and abused baby, their conscious state is immaterial.

 

Given the right circumstances, and mindset, we're all capable of contentment, and the adults who find it are duty bound, to at least try and pass it on.

[Strange]

Contentment depends on circumstance, not an innate ability; a baby that is well loved, fed and cared for will be much more content, than a neglected, starved and abused baby, their conscious state is immaterial.

 

Well, obviously, yes.

 

I suspect we think the word "innate" means different things, or something.

 

Because you are saying it is not innate and yet it is something babies are able to do without being taught or trained (unlike language, arithmetic, swimming, yoga, etc). That to me is pretty much the definition of "innate". So I'm not sure how you can say it isn't innate, unless you think "innate" means something different to me.

 

Being content is not innate but the possibility of being content is innate.

 

What is the difference?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Strange

[dimreepr]

Well I'd say innate refers to things like fear or fairness, IE. built in and testable.

 

Do you deny a badly treated baby is less content than a well treated baby?

[John Cuthber]

Well I'd say innate refers to things like fear or fairness, IE. built in and testable.

 

Do you deny a badly treated baby is less content than a well treated baby?

According to your strange belief, unless the baby has read the Bible, he won't know which to be.

[dimreepr]

According to your strange belief, unless the baby has read the Bible

 

That's maybe your belief (not mine), or, more likely, a rather strange attempt at a straw-man.

 

he won't know which to be.

 

 

He won't need to know; he'll be one or the other, depending on his circumstance.

[Strange]

Well I'd say innate refers to things like fear or fairness, IE. built in and testable.

 

 

Why is fear innate but conentedness not? They both depend on the circumstances - which you seem to be saying is what invalidates contentment as innate.

 

 

 

Do you deny a badly treated baby is less content than a well treated baby?

 

I just said that was obviously true. It is also irrelevant to innateness.

 

Do you deny that a well treated baby is less often fearful than a badly treated one?

He won't need to know; he'll be one or the other, depending on his circumstance.

 

So it is innate?

[dimreepr]

 

 

Why is fear innate but conentedness not? They both depend on the circumstances - which you seem to be saying is what invalidates contentment as innate.

 

Fairness doesn't.

[Strange]

 

Fairness doesn't.

 

 

So now fear isn't innate either? Only fairness?

 

(And psychological studies show that fairness is dependent on the circumstances.)

 

I get the impression you have painted yourself into a corner with "contentment is not innate", don't want to admit you were wrong and are just making random assertions to defend it.

 

Can you provide a rational argument or evidence that contentment is not innate?

Edited April 8, 2017 by Strange