Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620173 Apr 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
They have to cry to get what they need before they learn to talk. What's wrong with a baby wanting to be held?
Nothing, I wasn't saying babies shouldn't want to be held. I was saying a baby needs to learn to be on their own, sometimes they feel the need too much that they want to be held - so much that when mom puts them down, they cry. Everytime. Children need to learn to be on the parent's terms, not the parents on the child's terms.
They do learn very quickly that crying gets them what they want and some babies do go to the extreme but they don't deserve a smack for being manipulative.
Sometimes they do. It depends on the sitiuation. If the kid is out of control and won't listen to you......well...
Not that duct taping them to a wall doesn't sound appealing when I hear some brat screaming bloody hell in a store. ;)
Usually a crying baby is a baby that doesn't get enough *good* attention. A clean, dry, well fed baby should be a happy baby.
Absolutely. I agree.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620174 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>RR, dude. No. You are projecting the way you think on to a baby. They don't "manipulate." They might learn to associate certain behaviors with certain responses, but this is simple conditioning that any animal is capable of.
If they cry, it's because that is pretty much the only way they know how to communicate, and they are trying to tell you something. They do not have ulterior motives, and they do not consider *why* you respond to them the way you do. If you spank a baby for crying, it will become scared to cry. It will not understand "I was crying at a bad time for 'no reason' and I shouldn't do that again." It will simply associate the act of crying with the result of getting hit.
Seriously, I recommend you learn a little bit about infant psychology, because you clearly are just making shit up as you go.
You have kids?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620175 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>First of all, dogs do not understand the concept of discipline in general no matter the age, but that's neither here nor there.
Second, no, babies do not understand the concept of discipline. At all. To understand the concept of discipline requires the ability to think abstractly, which is not something babies can do. I really can't believe you think this.
What the f_ck is it with this generation that thinks babies are stupid?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620176 Apr 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Ride 'em hard, cowboy! ;)
Yee-haw, cowgirl!

Don't ride a horse, ride a cowboy!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620177 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No, man, you aren't understanding what I'm saying. Babies are not capable of learning the difference between crying "for a reason" and "crying for attention/no reason." If they get hit for crying, all they know is they got hit for crying. All they can do is make simple associations like that.
And what in the world is wrong with a baby crying for attention in the first place? They aren't being "bratty" when they cry, that's just one of the only ways they know how to communicate. Sometimes babies need attention. They are babies. They don't manipulate.
HA HA HA!!

Ya, dude. OK...... "babies don't manipulate"....

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620178 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>See? "You just don't understand"

*sigh*

Why is it when someone disagrees with an atheist, that's the textbook comeback?

Here's three textbook examples of negative reinforcement:

Before heading out for a day at the beach, you slather on sunscreen in order to avoid getting sunburned.

You decide to clean up your mess in the kitchen in order to avoid getting in a fight with your roommate.

On Monday morning, you leave the house early in order to avoid getting stuck in traffic and being late for class.
You really do have absolutely no clue what negative reinforcement is.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620179 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>RR, take a child psych class. Please. They don't pop out of the womb with a fully realized human brain.
I know they don't. They come out with a still-developing brain.

And it's the parent's job to teach, train and develop them.

Not to be their bitch.

The parent's are in charge, not the child.

That seems a difficult concept for "lefties"...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620180 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't imply that - there were two parts of my statement - "pillaging other countries" and "removing our freedoms in the name of freedom."
And the patriot act was totally about taking away our freedoms. Terrorism is not something that can be "fought," that's absurd, you can't go to war with a concept or a method. The best way to "defend" against terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized, which we failed at miserably. We turned on eachother and allowed the government and the media to instill paranoia and fear in us all, so that they could have their wars and force their ridiculous legislation on to the populace. And in fact, they took advantage of the fear so well that people like you actually asked for their freedoms to be taken away - you, a so called "conservative" who sees no problem with letting the government have unprecedented power to spy, arrest, torture, and otherwise trample our freedoms under the guise of "security."
"We turned on eachother and allowed the government and the media to instill paranoia and fear in us all"

Did "we" do that?

'cuz I remember quite differently.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620181 Apr 27, 2013
saidI wrote:
<quoted text>
This doesn't ever prove the existence of a God. This proves that guy was really lucky.
Prove it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620182 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
It's a baby. It doesn't know how else to communicate it's needs, and when you hit it for crying {{{{SNIP}}}}
First, babaies CAN and DO communicate their needs.

Second, I NEVER said to hit a baby for crying.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620183 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
No one is saying they are "stupid," or that they don't learn fast, just that they don't think at a mature level yet.
So then you advocate spankings only when the child is mature?

Doncha think that's a little too late to start?
The fact that they learn fast is in fact the problem here. Hitting them to get them to stop doing a certain behavior is called negative reinforcement, and the baby will quickly learn that crying might get it hit.
BINGO!

The baby learns very quickly that they can't throw a fit when you take a toy away at bedtime, or when they refuse to eat their food and throw it on the floor, or when they yank on the dog's ears....
He will not understand that he should only cry for the "right reason," he will only learn that crying might bring pain.
Get your mind out of the gutter - this debate is not about a baby crying, it's about their actions.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620184 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:

"Damn liberals?" That's funny. The "damn liberals" have to defend our basic rights from the right,
HA HA HA!!!!

Sorry, timn. I had to stop ya there.

You think liberals "defend our rights"????

Then why the f_ck are they trying to deny us our right to bear arms?

Amongst many other rights the liberals want to take away - like the right to use a God damned plastic bag at the grocery store if I feel like it.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620185 Apr 27, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>You clearly aren't familiar with psychology, psuedo or otherwise. That is not what is meant by negative reinforcement.
Also, are you a scientologist or something? Do you think of the entire field of psychology as a giant sham?
There it is again....

"You don't understand"

UGH!

Here, read psychology.about.com

It'll tell ya all about it.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620186 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
See? "You just don't understand"
*sigh*
Why is it when someone disagrees with an atheist, that's the textbook comeback?
Here's three textbook examples of negative reinforcement:
Before heading out for a day at the beach, you slather on sunscreen in order to avoid getting sunburned.
You decide to clean up your mess in the kitchen in order to avoid getting in a fight with your roommate.
On Monday morning, you leave the house early in order to avoid getting stuck in traffic and being late for class.
Nevermind, I was mixing up negative reinforcement and positive punishment.

The point is, spanking a 6 month old child for crying does nothing but create a fear of crying.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#620187 Apr 27, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You really do have absolutely no clue what negative reinforcement is.
Is that supposed to refute what I said?

lol, it didn't.

Prove me wrong that ANY ONE of the three examples I gave were not examples of negative reinforcement.

Try.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620188 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. It's all about control. Of our money and of our rights.
The whole "plastic bags are bad for the environment" argument is a moot point while plastic water bottles are so prolific.
I see people at the grocery store, with their little "environmentally friendly" reusable bags. I watch as they stuff them full of plastic; drink bottles (of all sorts), TV dinners, candy, chips, etc.
It always makes me chuckle and I ask myself what the hell the point is.
Oh, money.
Really... you see a plastic bag tax as a form of "control," but you don't mind the patriot act. There government is trying to subvert our rights and mess with our money in much more sinister ways, and you worry about a plastic bag tax, because it's "leftist." Stop being so partisan.

And yes, there are many more things we should be doing to help the environment, or at least reduce our impact, but one thing at a time RR. You can't expect for plastic to go away overnight. Taxing plastic bags is a good way to get people to really think about whether they really need to put 20 plastic bags into the trash every time they go shopping.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620189 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't say they were socially supported the same, did I?
Don't call me a liar if you don't wanna read correctly.
<quoted text>
You guys bring in on yourselves.
You don't wanna leave well enough alone, so we fight back.
Like how your kind tried removing a cross in my town. A cross that's been there since 1906....
Y'all lost, of course. But it leaves a bitter reminder to us how much atheists want it their way - with no regard to how anyone else wants it.
If you can't take the heat.........
You said "atheism is also socially supported." Where was the part where you qualified that statement? The fact is, it's not. It doesn't require social support to exist. It does not need to be "propped up" by social validation, because it doesn't require us to believe in things that directly contradict reason, logic, and evidence.

Atheists don't want it "their way," they want it the way that the founders wanted it - a seperation of church and state. I don't know about the specifics of the cross that has you so upset so I can't comment, but religious symbols shouldn't be displayed on public land. What if the US became majority muslim overnight? Would you defend crescent moons being displayed in front of courthouses? Or "in allah we trust" on our money?

Also, there is a big difference between advocating for seperation of church and state and discriminating. The removal of a cross, no matter how much sentimental value it has, does not count as discrimination or an attack on your religion, and it is not "our" fault that your faith is so fragile that it depends on public displays thereof. Atheists are actually discriminated against - I can turn on the radio or the TV and find a pundit talking about how school shootings happen because "we took god out of schools" or someone talking about how atheists are causing the downfall of america.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620190 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
God has the 'ability' to change an outcome of your life, but not the 'desire', so he never does.
Making your life full of choices and free will.
Your point? I know he has the ability. Yet he allows his little simulation to run, knowing full well exactly how many of his beloved creations will end up burning in hell for eternity.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620191 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand what you're saying, totally. I'm trying to get it through your thick skull that God allows you free will.
He allows everyone free will - including Satan.
I don't know why you feel the need to add the word "approval" into it...
I understand that you want to force free will in to the equation. I even allow for it for the purposes of this discussion, even though it's logically impossible given the properties god is said to have. That doesn't change the fact that everything that happens, by definition, has god's tacit approval. If it didn't have his approval, then, by definition, it would not happen. Simple as that.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620192 Apr 27, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You have kids?
Does it matter if I have kids? You seem to think that making a child automatically makes you an expert. As you have demonstrated, this is not the case.

Babies don't learn in the way that adults do. You seem to think they do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The Christian Atheist debate 17 min Into The Night 4,190
No one should blaspheme Prophet Mohammad, peace... (Feb '15) 19 min Toby 1,001
News The Latest: Husband: Kentucky clerk is 'standin... 23 min Gremlin 48
Which is the Oldest Indian Language? Sanskrit V... (Jul '08) 24 min waaasssuuup 7,712
Poll If you're Christain what kind are you? (Oct '07) 38 min Karma is a_______ 8,444
News Thousands march in Holocaust memorial (Apr '06) 42 min zionist HLWD 552
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 48 min New Age Spiritual... 603,834
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 1 hr who 177,908
More from around the web