Using pascals wager and christianity to kill babies

[Braunwyn]

Yes, go get yourself a copy of Santrock's Developmental Psychology for its backing.

Ok, Santrock's "research interests focus on the nature of family processes and the social development of children and adolescents."
http://www.utdallas.edu/bbs/staff_faculty/faculty/santrock.html

Sorry, but he's not covering infant development.

Or Myer's Psychology. Even the 2005 edition will do you good.

"sensation and perception" myers. I thought that looked familiar. I've read it. And if anything this book flushes your claims down the toilet. Have you read it?

eta: I see that the author of this book is not myers. I still recommend it to you though. It would nip your wrong conclusions in the bud.

I would love it for you to pull one quote out of these "Introduction to psychology books" you have to provide some kind of evidence for your claims. Just one...please.

etaa: for pete's sake. Have you read Myer's psychology; any edition? I just looked up the 6th and 7th edition and both go into Piaget.

Ever heard of trust vs. mistrust?

I'm not sure what you're speaking of but a gander through google showed this idea for childhood, not infancy.

I'm aware of the claims I make. I'm also aware of what is generally accepted in psychology, and the claim you're referring to is.

Actually, no you're not generally aware of what is accepted in psychology. On Monday, go to school, go see your psych prof and ask her/him if infants have the cognitive ability to make a moral choice as it relates to selfishness.

 

[CShephard53]

I would like you to answer the question...how can a being that lacks cognition make a decision if cognition is required to make the decision?

Infants do not lack cognition. It is simply under development.

 

[Braunwyn]

Infants do not lack cognition. It is simply under development.

Infants lack the cognitive ability to make the decisions you wish they were making. Your claim is absolutely ridiculous and with out merit. I looked at your past posts and see that you constantly demand people to back up their claims and yet you have not provided anything in the way of evidence that would show an infant has the ability to make a moral decision about selfishness. Beyond that, it's frightening that any person would assume as much. I don't get it unless you're just getting off on arguing for the sake of arguing. If so, that's cool I guess.

 

[Braunwyn]

And I would like you to address the fact that your Myer's pysch book goes into piaget, as most Intro texts do. Piagets theories obviously point to the fact that infants do not possess the ability to make moral choices. And to add, Myer's addresses Kohlberg.

 

[stan1980]

When I started straying from crevo I found this phenomenon to be pretty frequent in other forums.

snip

 

[Braunwyn]

oye veh

 

[CShephard53]

Valid for what? You didn't answer the question.

Yes I did. Tabula rasa = blank slate. Is not valid. It does not exist when it comes to infants. What I think is irrelevant, that is fact.

Please tell me how an infant sins.

I've already explained it. I'm not explaining it again.

What does this mean? And how is it relevant to the discussion of babies having a choice when they cry?

If an infant does not get a response when it cries, it will stop crying. They choose to cry or not cry based on experience.

What does this mean and how is it relevent to the discussion?

You can figure it out. I am not going to keep explaining myself.

One of my undergraduate degrees is in psychology. I've reviewed texts in general and have taken several courses in early human development. My psych advisor's research was in the field. What you are saying is just wrong. I don't doubt these texts speak of development, I just don't think you are interpreting it correctly.

Prove it then. Show me how I'm wrong and use research. I have given you sources and claims for those sources. Which you say you have a copy of.

This makes absolutely no sense. You still haven't provided one shred of evidence...even an idea as to why you think infants/babies are selfish. Just nothing.

Yes I have. See my previous 3-10 posts. It's there. Try adding it up if you're not getting it.

How does an infant put their needs above others? Be specific. By pooping, by crying? by drooling? what?

I've already been specific. I'm not going to dance around this issue.

You have not gone into anything specific at all. You have made some generalized claims that aren't leading any where from what I can tell.

Earlier I stated what selfishness is from a biblical perspective. I then asked not too long ago:
Do babies or do babies not have a choice in being selfish, given the definition, in every instance they are selfish?

I have given you a specific, and I want an answer to what is specified. If it's too general for you, tough. I'm asking the question, not you. If you want to give specifics in your answer, then do so. But I will not be any more specific than I need to be here.

Ok, Santrock's "research interests focus on the nature of family processes and the social development of children and adolescents."
http://www.utdallas.edu/bbs/staff_fa.../santrock.html

Sorry, but he's not covering infant development.

Wrong, though I did get the title of the book wrong. It's Life-Span Development. Let me quote page 17 of the eleventh edition:
"The prenatal period is the time from conception to birth. It involves tremendous growth--from a single cell to an organism complete with brain and behavioral capabilities, produced in approximately a nine-month period."
It continues:
"Infancy is the developmental period from birth to 18 or 24 months. Infancy is a time of extreme dependence on adults. Many psychological activities are just beginning--language, symbolic thought, sensorimotor coordination, and social learning, for example."
Three entire chapters, chapters 4-7, or pages 100-235, are entirely devoted to infancy.

Now, would you like to continue with your baseless claims, or can we continue?

"sensation and perception" myers. I thought that looked familiar. I've read it. And if anything this book flushes your claims down the toilet. Have you read it?

Instead of making claims, you could start giving evidence yourself rather than trying to shift the burden of proof in seemingly innocent comments such as 'if anything this book flushes your claims down the toilet'.

eta: I see that the author of this book is not myers. I still recommend it to you though. It would nip your wrong conclusions in the bud.

I would love it for you to pull one quote out of these "Introduction to psychology books" you have to provide some kind of evidence for your claims. Just one...please.

See below.

etaa: for pete's sake. Have you read Myer's psychology; any edition? I just looked up the 6th and 7th edition and both go into Piaget.

I own the seventh edition. I have it in my lap as I type. For Pete's sake, stop making baseless assumptions and giving straw man arguments.

I'm not sure what you're speaking of but a gander through google showed this idea for childhood, not infancy.

You spoke of Myers, Psychology. Check page 166 of the seventh edition. Let me quote from the chart in that section: "infancy (to one year), trust vs. mistrust, if needs are dependably met, infants develop a sense of basic trust". I might also refer you to autonomy vs. doubt and shame, age 1-2. I'm speaking of an infant's ability to apply trial and error. Cognition. The ability to think and process.

Actually, no you're not generally aware of what is accepted in psychology. On Monday, go to school, go see your psych prof and ask her/him if infants have the cognitive ability to make a moral choice as it relates to selfishness.

Straw man argument. I did not argue that infants have cognitive ability to make moral choice, I stated that they are able to make choices that are either moral or immoral. As I stated, whether they know it or not they are sinning. Sin does not demand that one has knowledge of whether or not a specific behavior is sin. It is still sinful, even if the person is not aware of it being sinful. I've stated all of this before.

 

[CShephard53]

And I would like you to address the fact that your Myer's pysch book goes into piaget, as most Intro texts do. Piagets theories obviously point to the fact that infants do not possess the ability to make moral choices. And to add, Myer's addresses Kohlberg.

Read my last post. I'm not talking about the ability to know right and wrong. That does not prevent someone from doing wrong things.

 

[CShephard53]

Infants lack the cognitive ability to make the decisions you wish they were making. Your claim is absolutely ridiculous and with out merit. I looked at your past posts and see that you constantly demand people to back up their claims and yet you have not provided anything in the way of evidence that would show an infant has the ability to make a moral decision about selfishness. Beyond that, it's frightening that any person would assume as much. I don't get it unless you're just getting off on arguing for the sake of arguing. If so, that's cool I guess.

See the last two posts. Also, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from ad hominem, straw man, and other fallacies of assumption.

 

[cantata]

Sin is the transgression of God's laws. With or without knowledge. That's where right and wrong come into play. If everyone has sinned (and you'd have to show an example to the contrary to prove that wrong), then everyone deserves death- which is separation from God and life.

What a monster.

Internal consistency, at the expense of a morally acceptable deity. Seriously, why would anybody worship this guy?

 

[Braunwyn]

Yes I did. Tabula rasa = blank slate. Is not valid. It does not exist when it comes to infants. What I think is irrelevant, that is fact.

How can infants not be a blank slate morally? They don't do anything moral wise.

I've already explained it. I'm not explaining it again.

I have read your posts and you did not explain it. If you can't just say so.

If an infant does not get a response when it cries, it will stop crying. They choose to cry or not cry based on experience.

Infants do not choose to cry based on experience because they don't have any experience. You are aware of this little fact aren't you? lol And many infants continue to cry for no reason.

You speak English, correct? Then you can figure it out. I am not going to keep explaining myself.

You do realize that nobody in this thread (that I've noticed at least) thinks you are making sense. Can't you entertain the possibility that you're not communicating your idea effectively or that your ideas are nonsensical?

Prove it then. Show me how I'm wrong and use research. I have given you sources and claims for those sources. Which you say you have a copy of.

I already did and this shows how unfamiliar you are with your own texts. I mention Piaget because you're obviously interestes in pyschology and Piaget is addressed in your Myer's psych book. Have you not read that chapter yet? Here's a wiki article for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development#Sensorimotor_stage

Yes I have. See my previous 3-10 posts. It's there. Try adding it up if you're not getting it.

I've read your last 3-10 posts. Your evidence are books that I've either read or have read similar. None of them holds the claims you are offering up. I then asked you to quote something from one of your books to back up your claims and you haven't done it. Just because you saying something is so doesn't make it so.

I've already been specific. I'm not going to dance around this issue.

All you're left with, all you started with was dancing.

Earlier I stated what selfishness is from a biblical perspective.

Selfishness from the biblical perspective is irrelevant in psychology, which you brought to the table. Stay on point.

I then asked not too long ago:
Do babies or do babies not have a choice in being selfish, given the definition, in every instance they are selfish?

And the answer was given to you. No they are not selfish, and no they don't have a choice in the matter any way.

I have given you a specific, and I want an answer to what is specified.

I should really rep you for this. bravo!

If it's too general for you, tough.

And you follow your above sentence with this lol.

I'm asking the question, not you.

You aren't asking any questions. You are making baseless claims. period.

If you want to give specifics in your answer, then do so. But I will not be any more specific than I need to be here.

Because you can't. That much is obvious.

Wrong, though I did get the title of the book wrong. It's Life-Span Development. Let me quote page 17 of the eleventh edition:
"The prenatal period is the time from conception to birth. It involves tremendous growth--from a single cell to an organism complete with brain and behavioral capabilities, produced in approximately a nine-month period."
It continues:
"Infancy is the developmental period from birth to 18 or 24 months. Infancy is a time of extreme dependence on adults. Many psychological activities are just beginning--language, symbolic thought, sensorimotor coordination, and social learning, for example."
Three entire chapters, chapters 4-7, or pages 100-235, are entirely devoted to infancy.

And none of it states that an infant is capable of moral decision making. Just admit that you're wrong.

Now, would you like to continue with your baseless claims, or can we continue?

Again, that is pretty funny. You make my point in your above statements and than call my claims, which are just common sense, baseless. A person doesn't need to study infant development to know that infants are not capable of the claims you're putting forth.

Instead of making claims, you could start giving evidence yourself rather than trying to shift the burden of proof in seemingly innocent comments such as 'if anything this book flushes your claims down the toilet'.

My proof? Myer's psych 3-7th edition lol

I own the seventh edition. I have it in my lap as I type. For Pete's sake, stop making baseless assumptions and giving straw man arguments.

Than open your book and read about Piaget.

You spoke of Myers, Psychology. Check page 166 of the seventh edition. Let me quote from the chart in that section: "infancy (to one year), trust vs. mistrust, if needs are dependably met, infants develop a sense of basic trust". I might also refer you to autonomy vs. doubt and shame, age 1-2. I'm speaking of an infant's ability to apply trial and error. Cognition. The ability to think and process.

Please, first off you can't superimpose your ideas onto Erikson. I dare you to write one of your semester papers stating that infants indeed have moral reasoning and than use Erikson's stages as your base. Second, trust vs mistrust has nothing to do with moral reasoning. try again.

Straw man argument.

It's not a staw man. You have the opportunity to take these outlandish claims to your profs, who will set you straight. go for it.

I did not argue that infants have cognitive ability to make moral choice, I stated that they are able to make choices that are either moral or immoral.

And you have not provided anything that points to any choice made by an infant that is moral or immoral. At best you think crying is immoral. For pete's sake. That's all you got. An infant crying is immoral.

As I stated, whether they know it or not they are sinning. Sin does not demand that one has knowledge of whether or not a specific behavior is sin. It is still sinful, even if the person is not aware of it being sinful. I've stated all of this before.

HOW DO THEY SIN? Name one sin. Anything. I've asked you this several times and you refuse to answer. What in the world can an infant do, who doesn't see or hear well, who can't talk, who can't walk...what does this little person do that would constitute a sin?

Now, of course I realize you are unable to answer this question but you begged it.

 

[Futuwwa]

What a monster.

Internal consistency, at the expense of a morally acceptable deity. Seriously, why would anybody worship this guy?

Well, the thing with consistency is, lack of it suggests that there is something wrong with your theology; and by extension, that the deity you worship either does not exist, or is not quite like you thought. I would rather worship a deity which exists than a deity which doesn't.

 

[Braunwyn]

Read my last post. I'm not talking about the ability to know right and wrong. That does not prevent someone from doing wrong things.

Again, tell me what infants do that is right or wrong.

See the last two posts. Also, I would appreciate it if you could refrain from ad hominem, straw man, and other fallacies of assumption.

I would appreciate the same from you (your "do you speak english" comment was a flame) and my finding it frightening that a person would view infants in such a way is not an attack on anybody. It's a frightening concept to me.

 

[WileyCoyote]

I don't understand how Jesus can tell His disciples to forbid not the children to come to Him, for the Kingdom of Heaven was made for such as these, and to have certain individuals (being overly kind here) say that babies sin, thus deserve hell.

It seems this argument is created to forbid children from coming to Jesus, something He told His disciples NOT to do. If sinners go to hell, and the Kingdom of Heaven was made for CHILDREN, how are babies/children sinners?

 

[CShephard53]

I don't understand how Jesus can tell His disciples to forbid not the children to come to Him, for the Kingdom of Heaven was made for such as these, and to have certain individuals (being overly kind here) say that babies sin, thus deserve hell.

It seems this argument is created to forbid children from coming to Jesus, something He told His disciples NOT to do. If sinners go to hell, and the Kingdom of Heaven was made for CHILDREN, how are babies/children sinners?

I'm saying babies sin. I'm saying sin deserves death. I'm also saying that we have no idea where they go and should not be making arguments based on the assumption that we do know. Especially when we do not know. I've already explained how they are sinners. They're included in Romans 3, unless they are not flesh and blood- which they are.

 

[CShephard53]

Again, tell me what infants do that is right or wrong.


I would appreciate the same from you (your "do you speak english" comment was a flame) and my finding it frightening that a person would view infants in such a way is not an attack on anybody. It's a frightening concept to me.

My comment was not a flame. It was a statement that the words I am typing are very clear and specific. You should not be having any trouble understanding my overall position if you've been following what I'm saying at all. Context.

 

[Braunwyn]

My comment was not a flame. It was a statement that the words I am typing are very clear and specific.

I speak english just fine and it was indeed a flame. You should understand though that it's rare to find an indvidual that claims infants sin or act immorally.

You should not be having any trouble understanding my overall position if you've been following what I'm saying at all. Context.

Again, you do realize that I'm not the only one who has trouble understanding some of the claims you are making. Your overall position is simply ill thought and based on misinterpretations of both the bible and the field of psychology. And this seems to be the general consensus in the thread from what I can tell.

 

[CShephard53]

How can infants not be a blank slate morally? They don't do anything moral wise.

They think. They interact. They are social and they are human beings. They have actions. Actions and thoughts can be either moral or immoral. Back your claim, I've given you sufficient evidence for mine. In fact, I've beat the dead horse quite a few times now.

I have read your posts and you did not explain it. If you can't just say so.

I've already pointed out that infants are selfish. I have also pointed out that Romans 3 dictates that all are sinful, and that in order to prove otherwise you would have to give a real example of a human who has not sinned.

Infants do not choose to cry based on experience because they don't have any experience. You are aware of this little fact aren't you? lol And many infants continue to cry for no reason.

Evidence? You're laughing and giving me claims without backing. I cannot accept that.

You do realize that nobody in this thread (that I've noticed at least) thinks you are making sense. Can't you entertain the possibility that you're not communicating your idea effectively or that your ideas are nonsensical?

Perhaps you could realize that each post I've done so far has built off of the others. Perhaps you could realize that this is a discussion and one cannot take one post and demonstrate my entire position from it, else you would be taking it out of context. I'll entertain the possibility and now probability that you and others are not understanding the whole of my argument and position because you have not read all of it and given equal weight to all of it. There is nothing wrong with my writing skills here.

I already did and this shows how unfamiliar you are with your own texts. I mention Piaget because you're obviously interestes in pyschology and Piaget is addressed in your Myer's psych book. Have you not read that chapter yet? Here's a wiki article for you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development#Sensorimotor_stage

No, you have not. You have shown how insistent you are in changing the subject to whether or not an infant is aware of morality. You have also mentioned Piaget when I am talking about Erikson.

I've read your last 3-10 posts. Your evidence are books that I've either read or have read similar. None of them holds the claims you are offering up. I then asked you to quote something from one of your books to back up your claims and you haven't done it. Just because you saying something is so doesn't make it so.

Wrong. They are written from a secular viewpoint and I am using a Christian viewpoint. I am talking about emotional, social, and cognitive areas of an infant and you are talking about physical needs, as evidenced by your mentioning drooling multiple times. I have quoted it. Both of them. Here, let me quote myself:

You spoke of Myers, Psychology. Check page 166 of the seventh edition. Let me quote from the chart in that section: "infancy (to one year), trust vs. mistrust, if needs are dependably met, infants develop a sense of basic trust". I might also refer you to autonomy vs. doubt and shame, age 1-2. I'm speaking of an infant's ability to apply trial and error. Cognition. The ability to think and process.

All you're left with, all you started with was dancing.

Evidence? It's not nice to make unbacked claims about people.

Selfishness from the biblical perspective is irrelevant in psychology, which you brought to the table. Stay on point.

No. I am coming from a biblical perspective and have used biblical terms from the start of my posts on this thread. I've been on point.

And the answer was given to you. No they are not selfish, and no they don't have a choice in the matter any way.

No, another unbacked claim was given to me.

I should really rep you for this. bravo!


And you follow your above sentence with this lol.

Laughing at another's argument shows that you are grasping at straws in an attempt to shut them up. It shows the rest of us that you have no backing except to attempt to ridicule the other person, which is a borderline ad hominem.

You aren't asking any questions. You are making baseless claims. period.

If they were so baseless, they would not be backed by references which I have given.

Because you can't. That much is obvious.

Ad hominem. I asked a question and you want me to ignore the fact that the question was asked to get evidence from you, which I still do not have.

And none of it states that an infant is capable of moral decision making. Just admit that you're wrong.

I never stated that an infant is capable of moral decision making, that is another straw man argument. I stated that an infant is capable of making choices that are either moral or immoral. That's not moral decision making. That is making a decision, which they are clearly able to do. I also clarified that in my last large post in case you missed it:

I did not argue that infants have cognitive ability to make moral choice, I stated that they are able to make choices that are either moral or immoral. As I stated, whether they know it or not they are sinning. Sin does not demand that one has knowledge of whether or not a specific behavior is sin. It is still sinful, even if the person is not aware of it being sinful. I've stated all of this before.

Again, that is pretty funny. You make my point in your above statements and than call my claims, which are just common sense, baseless. A person doesn't need to study infant development to know that infants are not capable of the claims you're putting forth.

And you still do not have what I am claiming correct, as evidenced by your above straw man.

My proof? Myer's psych 3-7th edition lol

That's not proof. That's referencing an entire book. In order for me to determine whether or not it is actually proof (or for anyone to do so), they would have to read all of the editions to find it. I've given you specifics.

Than open your book and read about Piaget.

I've already got Piaget down. Infants are capable of making choices. That is very clear.

Please, first off you can't superimpose your ideas onto Erikson. I dare you to write one of your semester papers stating that infants indeed have moral reasoning and than use Erikson's stages as your base. Second, trust vs mistrust has nothing to do with moral reasoning. try again.

Again with the moral reasoning. I have not mentioned moral reasoning. I have mentioned the ability to make decisions. I've then gone on to say that decisions can be moral or immoral. That is not moral reasoning. That is making decisions. Straw man argument, again.

It's not a staw man. You have the opportunity to take these outlandish claims to your profs, who will set you straight. go for it.

Appeal to authority does not get you anywhere.

And you have not provided anything that points to any choice made by an infant that is moral or immoral. At best you think crying is immoral. For pete's sake. That's all you got. An infant crying is immoral.

An infant crying selfishly is immoral, whether the child knows it or not. Morality is objective, not subjective to one's abilities.

HOW DO THEY SIN? Name one sin. Anything. I've asked you this several times and you refuse to answer. What in the world can an infant do, who doesn't see or hear well, who can't talk, who can't walk...what does this little person do that would constitute a sin?

I have already answered. I've given it at least 5 times now. I'm not into repeating myself.

Now, of course I realize you are unable to answer this question but you begged it.

I've already answered it. Let me quote the couple of times for you:

Infants are still selfish, whether they realize it or not. Someone who kills someone out of jealousy, whether or not they know what murder is, has just committed murder. In the same way, someone who puts their desires above other's and God's is being selfish, regardless of the circumstances.

You're demonstrating all the more that babies are blank slates- did you catch the part of everyone sinning? Did you catch the part where I said that children, generically, sin? Did you catch the claim that babies are not blank slates? Did you catch where I'm making that claim upon the fact that babies are selfish- regardless of whether it is right or wrong selfishness? Selfish, when you take a glance at 1 Corinthians 13, refers to someone- anyone- who puts their desires above other people's desires for their own benefit. Babies, any way you want to slice it, even if it is needed for them to survive, do this.
I'll also ask any of you to demonstrate to me that babies have no choice. Show me, back your claim. Notice that I am asking and not making claims. You made the initial claim, not me. So you can back it.

 

[CShephard53]

I speak english just fine and it was indeed a flame. You should understand though that it's rare to find an indvidual that claims infants sin or act immorally.


Again, you do realize that I'm not the only one who has trouble understanding some of the claims you are making. Your overall position is simply ill thought and based on misinterpretations of both the bible and the field of psychology. And this seems to be the general consensus in the thread from what I can tell.

No, the general consensus is that I'm making jumps in logic that I'm not making. That's evidenced by the previous comment about me saying babies go to hell. I've never said that. You guys jump on the fact that I say babies sin and use that to say what you want about me and my position, though I have stated from the beginning that we have no idea what happens to infants upon death. But look back and tell me if the comment about speaking English was at you. Then look back and what you think I'm claiming and what I've actually stated and see if it lines up. I'd very much doubt, based on your posts, that it would.

 

[stan1980]

Answer the question Jaws:

Should toddlers face criminal charges if they assault or murder another toddler? If not, why not?