A question for atheists

[Theoryofrelativity]

Thanks! Look forward to the link.

http://www.gwiep.net/period/ic155914.htm

I found this link, this is NOT what I referred to , as what I read on this subject was read from a book many yrs ago, but it seems to discuss the same issues of 'omnipotence in babies' and about them thinking they and parent are 'one' being.

"The baby starts out feeling totally responsible for all that happens to him, and when in a rage really intends to destroy everyone and everything; this feeling of omnipotence is legitimate, and the loss of it in the course of development comes as an immense shock. Witnesses notoriously come up with conflicting accounts, and no amount of pressing the enquiry can ever bring exact agreement

The baby creates the breast that feeds him, he invents his mother and her sweetness; for each infant the world has to be created anew, and only so does it become real for the infant. Winnicott calls the infant's play a creative experience, he speaks of his capacity to create, think up, devise, originate, produce an object, of his creative living and primary creativity, of his creation of the world.

Along with these remarks, however, go others questioning the reality of this creativity; a distinction obtains between what the baby feels responsible for and what he is responsible for. He 'creates' (Winnicott's quotation marks) what is already there to be found. The mother gives the child the illusion (emphasis added) of an external reality corresponding to his desire to create, her care relieves the baby of the need to decide whether objects are real or imagined, she allows the illusion that what the baby creates really exists (and later has to disillusion him, leading to true, social, creativeness). Although the baby's experience of omnipotence is legitimate, yet it only feels (emphasis added) as if the object is a subjective one created by the baby; adults permitting themselves such illusions would rightly be thought mad.

I haven't read the whole link details yet, just googled for the bit I mentioned, but it looks like an intersting read.

 

[Diogenes' Dog]

Hello Theoryofrelativity,

The question you are investigating seems to be "where does the 'need for God' come from developmentally?" - Is that right?

Winnacott was known for "Object Relations" psychology - Melanie Klein, Anna Freud and people. You might find lots of stuff there. I looked on the object relations website and found this article on "Projective Identification" - I don't know if it is the sort of thing you are looking for...

In object relations theory, the word object is used with a very specific meaning. It's not literally a physical person, but an internal mental structure that is formed throughout early development. This mental structure is built through a series of experiences with significant
others through a psychic process called introjection. Because an infant's earliest experiences are usually with its mother, she is usually the first internal object formed by the infant. Eventually, the father and other significant people also become internalized objects.

Introjection, the process of creating internal mental objects, leads to another process called splitting. Splitting occurs because the infant cannot tolerate certain feelings such as rage and longing, which occur in all normal development. As a result, the infant has to split off parts of itself and repress them. What happens to those repressed split-off parts?
They are dealt with through another important process, called projective identification.

There is sure to be an Object-Relations explanation for the "need for God" involving introjection, with unmet needs then being split off and projected onto a remote "God figure". The classics on child cognitive development as you probably know are people like Piaget and Daniel Stern.

Freudian type explanations would see the "God need" as an unmet developmental need and therefore unhealthy or neurotic. I prefer to think the "need for God" comes from a natural healthy desire for self-transcendence as in Maslow's hierarchy of needs or Jung's individuation and "Self-realisation".

By the way, I agree it is refreshing not to be having the usual "Where's the Evidence that God Exists" debate. Anyway, good luck with your research.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

http://www.gwiep.net/period/ic155914.htm

I found this link, this is NOT what I referred to , as what I read on this subject was read from a book many yrs ago, but it seems to discuss the same issues of 'omnipotence in babies' and about them thinking they and parent are 'one' being.

"The baby starts out feeling totally responsible for all that happens to him, and when in a rage really intends to destroy everyone and everything; this feeling of omnipotence is legitimate, and the loss of it in the course of development comes as an immense shock. Witnesses notoriously come up with conflicting accounts, and no amount of pressing the enquiry can ever bring exact agreement

The baby creates the breast that feeds him, he invents his mother and her sweetness; for each infant the world has to be created anew, and only so does it become real for the infant. Winnicott calls the infant's play a creative experience, he speaks of his capacity to create, think up, devise, originate, produce an object, of his creative living and primary creativity, of his creation of the world.

Along with these remarks, however, go others questioning the reality of this creativity; a distinction obtains between what the baby feels responsible for and what he is responsible for. He 'creates' (Winnicott's quotation marks) what is already there to be found. The mother gives the child the illusion (emphasis added) of an external reality corresponding to his desire to create, her care relieves the baby of the need to decide whether objects are real or imagined, she allows the illusion that what the baby creates really exists (and later has to disillusion him, leading to true, social, creativeness). Although the baby's experience of omnipotence is legitimate, yet it only feels (emphasis added) as if the object is a subjective one created by the baby; adults permitting themselves such illusions would rightly be thought mad.

I haven't read the whole link details yet, just googled for the bit I mentioned, but it looks like an intersting read.

Thanks! It is an interesting read and supports your assertion quite well (good job btw). I do have a question for you to consider. When a baby feels responsible for reality (i.e. that omnipotence feeling) do they still need approval, answers, the attractive, and relationships? Also did they need these things before they got to the point of feeling responsible for reality?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Hello Theoryofrelativity,

The question you are investigating seems to be "where does the 'need for God' come from developmentally?" - Is that right?

Winnacott was known for "Object Relations" psychology - Melanie Klein, Anna Freud and people. You might find lots of stuff there. I looked on the object relations website and found this article on "Projective Identification" - I don't know if it is the sort of thing you are looking for...



There is sure to be an Object-Relations explanation for the "need for God" involving introjection, with unmet needs then being split off and projected onto a remote "God figure". The classics on child cognitive development as you probably know are people like Piaget and Daniel Stern.

Freudian type explanations would see the "God need" as an unmet developmental need and therefore unhealthy or neurotic. I prefer to think the "need for God" comes from a natural healthy desire for self-transcendence as in Maslow's hierarchy of needs or Jung's individuation and "Self-realisation".

By the way, I agree it is refreshing not to be having the usual "Where's the Evidence that God Exists" debate. Anyway, good luck with your research.

Excellent links and details D Dog! Thanks

Re the thread question, it initially did quite innocently begin on my bahalf with a curiosity of how athesits deal with 'crisis' issues that may be different to how theists do, and how the differences impact on the individual, but deffinately with the information put forward and gathered, it evolved as you say to "where does the 'need for God' come from developmentally?" with the added element of how differences in early 'development' may result in a more atheist or theist view. So really I am finding this simple curioisty reaping very valuable rewards as I am actually learning something! I am enjoying the great feedback

I'll take a detailed look at those links over the weekend.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Thanks! It is an interesting read and supports your assertion quite well (good job btw). I do have a question for you to consider. When a baby feels responsible for reality (i.e. that omnipotence feeling) do they still need approval, answers, the attractive, and relationships? Also did they need these things before they got to the point of feeling responsible for reality?

Interesting, I need to think about this one...a lot! Having had my own babies, and considering them as seeing themselves as 'omnipotent' viewpoint, I would have this to say:

babies deffinately (to me) appear to be very (avoiding word telepathic!!) in 'tune' with the parents 'feeling's and seem magically aware (any parent must agree!) when the parent is not thinking about them and react accordingly. It is possible that this fine 'tuning' facilitates their belief that they and the parent are one being etc. I think that this feeling of omnipotence for babies must be very fleeting, as it would surely only take one need to not be met as 'willed' by them for them to realise they are not omnipotent, so if this view is to be taken seriously I think it has to be in context of the fact it is brief. Upon realising they are not the omnipotent ones and transferring this to the parent would then drive the 'approval' that they seek from this omnipotent being and then further drive the adult to seek approval from 'God'? I would say them seeking themselves to form relationships with others outside that parent figure comes later as harmony with the omnipotent one is the important relationship as it is is the one that fulfills their needs.

I will need to google and think some more!
Not much time this week, but thanks again!

 

[(Q)]

Having had my own babies, and considering them as seeing themselves as 'omnipotent' viewpoint, I would have this to say:

babies deffinately (to me) appear to be very (avoiding word telepathic!!) in 'tune' with the parents 'feeling's and seem magically aware (any parent must agree!) when the parent is not thinking about them and react accordingly. It is possible that this fine 'tuning' facilitates their belief that they and the parent are one being etc.

No, I doubt any parent would agree. I've not seen nor heard this from any parent, who for the most part have no idea what their children are thinking or feeling. Children have more of a "oneness" with their peers then that of their parents. What planet are you from?

I would say them seeking themselves to form relationships with others outside that parent figure comes later as harmony with the omnipotent one is the important relationship as it is is the one that fulfills their needs.

Complete horsepucky! Children are brainwashed by their parents to believe in gods, which can easily be confirmed by simply asking them why they believe. Family members, friends, peers, teachers, etc., surely you must realize that whoever has influence over those children can get them to believe in almost anything - Santa, Tooth Fairy, dragons, gods...

 

[x3lawe]

what is rong with all of u people ... havnt any of u wished for somthing... havnt any of u wanted somthing so badly and it came true... who do u think made it true...?
it was god.. and no 1 else...
he is the almighty tht controls the universe

 

[wsionynw]

I'm not religious, not remotely, quite the opposite, but I believe in God, not religions definition of God though something else. Something I have personal experience of. It annoys me greatly that you can't mention the word 'God' without people assuming religion has something to do with it. I guess they are as brainwashed as the religious in the view that one cannot exist without the other.

I do seem to remember saying "please God..." to myself as a young child, back in the day when the school vicar told us the Bible was based on historical truth. Even though, us kids wouldn't take it at face value, and questioned it all the time.
I don't believe in God, at all. I guess that makes me an atheist. I think the people you were talking to are agnostic, in that they really aren't sure what they believe.
When something worries me I just think about it, and work it out in my head. What can I do about it? Will it happen? What will I do if it happens? Praying to God is about as constructive as burying your head in the sand. I understand what you're saying about the seemingly human need to believe in a God of some sort, but that doesn't apply to everybody, in the same way as any other superstition. Some peope avoid walking under ladders and freak out when they break a mirror. I don't see much difference between a person that prays and a person that fears the number 13, both are just as irrational but if they comfort you then ask yourself why?

 

[SnakeLord]

what is rong with all of u people ... havnt any of u wished for somthing... havnt any of u wanted somthing so badly and it came true... who do u think made it true...?

Lol, it's a classic.

But yes is my answer - it came true because the genie that puffed out of the lamp said whatever three things I wished for would come true. No gods involved, just genies.

 

[(Q)]

what is rong with all of u people ... havnt any of u wished for somthing... havnt any of u wanted somthing so badly and it came true... who do u think made it true...?
it was god.. and no 1 else...
he is the almighty tht controls the universe

I never "wish" for something, I simply make it happen.

So, instead of wishing for things, get off your butt and make them happen.

 

[Cris]

x3lawe,

what is rong with all of u people ... havnt any of u wished for somthing... havnt any of u wanted somthing so badly and it came true... who do u think made it true...?
it was god.. and no 1 else...
he is the almighty tht controls the universe

LOL

 

[KennyJC]

what is rong with all of u people ... havnt any of u wished for somthing... havnt any of u wanted somthing so badly and it came true... who do u think made it true...?
it was god.. and no 1 else...
he is the almighty tht controls the universe

Heh...

Yes... that post just perfectly encapsulates the theist, doesn't it?

 

[x3lawe]

SnakeLord...
wat do u mean no god involved.. how were u cre8ed.. u think its just cuz ur parents did it.. no.. thts not it.. its god who made ur parents do it.. ever heard of the thing " Anything is possible " well is god who makes it possible !! fools u will all see.. i hope u see this a beleive in god.. cuz one day u will realise tht life is the most precious gift tht god has given us and ur not thanking him.. u dont even beleive in him or in his powers..u will see.. ever heard or a miricle.. well God is the 1 who makes these miricles happen

 

[redarmy11]

Gd is ded. lng lve Satan.

I witnessed a miracle once when I was on acid.

 

[q0101]

When a relative is ill, or in an accident, do you merely hope they will get better? When sitting exams you merely hope you will do well?

I have asked these questions of atheists before and they have admitted asking God to help, "please God..etc" to which I ask them 'what god, you don't believe', they then look confused. As do I.

What runs through your minds in times of great personal crisis?

Some people pray to god and ask him for help simply because it is a habit. I don’t believe in god but I was raised as a Christian so I often find myself saying things like god help me or oh my god. These are also common phrases in the english language.

 

[SnakeLord]

i hope u see this a beleive in god

Oh I certainly do now, your words truly inspired me.

But wait.. which god are you talking about? (I'd like to make sure I thank the real one).

 

[Hapsburg]

what is rong with all of u people

Absolutely nothing.

havnt any of u wished for somthing

No.

havnt any of u wanted somthing so badly and it came true

No.

who do u think made it true...?

Myself and my own actions. This is the real world. Get in it.

it was god.. and no 1 else...
he is the almighty tht controls the universe

Prove it.

wat do u mean no god involved..

What the fuck do you think it means?

how were u cre8ed..

Even heard of a little thing called "reproduction"? Take a fucking health class.

u think its just cuz ur parents did it..

Of course it is, you moron. I reiterate: take a health class.

no.. thts not it.. its god who made ur parents do it..

No, it's a little thing called the human nature, of which sexual pleasure and non-seasonal mating habits are a part of.

ever heard of the thing " Anything is possible " well is god who makes it possible !! fools u will all see.. i hope u see this a beleive in god..

:bugeye:

cuz one day u will realise tht life is the most precious gift

We all realise that now, without the help of a fictional deistic entity.

tht god has given us

:bugeye:

and ur not thanking him.. u dont even beleive in him or in his powers.

How could one thank a nonexistant being?

.u will see..

I'm so sure...

ever heard or a miricle..

You mean falsified stories of very easily explainable illusionary tricks and otherwise physically impossible feats?

well God is the 1 who makes these miricles happen

Once, again, prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Include references and sources, evidence and proof, links and verifiable information.

On a more important note:
Your spelling fucking sucks. You are a grammatical failure.
Your entire post is an atrocity upon the very concept of language and communication itself!

 

[Godless]

Your entire post is an atrocity upon the very concept of language and communication itself!

Actually Happs, the spellinig was done intentionally. I'd bet this is a young kid, about 12 or less that spends much time in chat rooms.