Poll: I accept the premise that we are born believers because of evolution.
Yes.
No.
[Show Results]
Note: This is a public poll, other users will be able to see what you voted for.
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 1 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-09-2016, 10:14 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 07:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 04:08 AM)Vosur Wrote:  "A particular teleological explanation"? Come on, I was asking you to be exact. Creationism is the position that God created the universe. How can you say that's not appealing to monotheism when an infinite number of other things could have done it?

His research suggested that children don't believe that nature was made by humans, but it's actually both evolution and creationism which fit that bill.


No his research suggest children believe in a created order, that was not created by humans. Or in other words in creationism, by some non-human force, i.e a generic creationism of sorts.

They see nature as designed, but not a product of human design, but non-human design. Hence the meaning of teleology, ascribing intentionality and purpose to things, as there to serve an telos.

So no evolution does not fit that bill in this regard.

Also you can be a polytheist, a pantheist, or any other form of theist, besides a monotheist, and be a creationist.

References required. So now you're an expert in Child Psychology ?
Did they teach that at your "prestigious university " ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2016, 10:16 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 08:26 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Just out of curiosity, Randy, if theism is the default, then why do churchs have to hard sell Christianity to people? Why must children be programmed instead of just letting nature take its course? Can't they be trusted to just naturally fall into Christianity the same way that they'll just naturally go into puberty and crave romantic attention?

And why does every major religious university and religion department have to require courses in "Apologetics" ?

Tongue

What do they feel they need to apologize for ?

Laugh out load

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
09-09-2016, 10:28 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 10:16 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 08:26 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Just out of curiosity, Randy, if theism is the default, then why do churchs have to hard sell Christianity to people? Why must children be programmed instead of just letting nature take its course? Can't they be trusted to just naturally fall into Christianity the same way that they'll just naturally go into puberty and crave romantic attention?

And why does every major religious university and religion department have to require courses in "Apologetics" ?

Tongue

What do they feel they need to apologize for ?

Laugh out load

They're apologizing in advance for lying to you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Aliza's post
09-09-2016, 10:46 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 07:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 04:08 AM)Vosur Wrote:  "A particular teleological explanation"? Come on, I was asking you to be exact. Creationism is the position that God created the universe. How can you say that's not appealing to monotheism when an infinite number of other things could have done it?

His research suggested that children don't believe that nature was made by humans, but it's actually both evolution and creationism which fit that bill.


No his research suggest children believe in a created order, that was not created by humans. Or in other words in creationism, by some non-human force, i.e a generic creationism of sorts.

They see nature as designed, but not a product of human design, but non-human design. Hence the meaning of teleology, ascribing intentionality and purpose to things, as there to serve an telos.

So no evolution does not fit that bill in this regard.

Also you can be a polytheist, a pantheist, or any other form of theist, besides a monotheist, and be a creationist.

And not a theist at all.

Are Raliens not of the same orders? How about integral theory believerd who just think there's innate cosmic order but not that they think this order is anything like a pantheist concept.

This thread notion is silly because it's not noting that atheism isn't directly naturalism or nihilism. And belief in dualism and order isn't specifically theism. It's lazy thought to just accept linked associations as the same concepts.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
09-09-2016, 11:04 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 07:54 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 03:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  If what he meant was "This discussion is not about God's existence or not" then he could have written "This discussion is not about God's existence or not" instead of the contradictory crap he actually wrote.

I thought he made it pretty clear that the thread was about belief in God's existence (and whether or not this was innate in humans), not about God's existence per se.

It wasn't clear and that first thesis demonstrates his confusion.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2016, 11:06 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 08:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 08:07 AM)Anjele Wrote:  The concept of god (or gods) came about as a way to explain what was then unexplainable.

And that would be false.

Even from an evolutionary standpoint there is no biological need to explain the unexplainable, for religion to fill.

Flat out wrong. The mammalian brain evolved to have both the means and desire to detect and assign agency.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2016, 11:18 AM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2016 11:25 AM by Tomasia.)
Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 10:46 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 07:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  No his research suggest children believe in a created order, that was not created by humans. Or in other words in creationism, by some non-human force, i.e a generic creationism of sorts.

They see nature as designed, but not a product of human design, but non-human design. Hence the meaning of teleology, ascribing intentionality and purpose to things, as there to serve an telos.

So no evolution does not fit that bill in this regard.

Also you can be a polytheist, a pantheist, or any other form of theist, besides a monotheist, and be a creationist.

And not a theist at all.

Are Raliens not of the same orders? How about integral theory believerd who just think there's innate cosmic order but not that they think this order is anything like a pantheist concept.

This thread notion is silly because it's not noting that atheism isn't directly naturalism or nihilism. And belief in dualism and order isn't specifically theism. It's lazy thought to just accept linked associations as the same concepts.

All forms of dualistic, beliefs in a cosmic order, etc... are theistic. Those who subscribe to such beliefs but don't like to label themselves as theists, are just confused, or closeted theist.

There are more forms of theism, than there is atheism. A variety of different understanding of the vary meaning of God/s.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
09-09-2016, 11:28 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 11:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There are more forms of theism, than there is atheism. A variety of different understanding of the vary meaning of God/s.

Blink

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
09-09-2016, 11:38 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 11:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There are more forms of theism, than there is atheism. A variety of different understanding of the vary meaning of God/s.

So what? There are thousands of "forms" (sects) of Christianity, whereas Judaism and Islam only have a handful apiece (and my understanding is that the difference between Islamic sects is more political than theological). Is Christianity "better" because they can't make up their minds how to interpret their own Bible?

Why does failure among theists to agree on the nature of God make it more likely that God exists? I would tend to interpret that the other way. As Bertrand Russell observed, since all of the different forms of theism disagree (and most of them contradict each other), at most one of them is right. Doesn't it seem more likely that none of them are?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
09-09-2016, 11:51 AM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 10:17 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  If we accept the notion that atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, then of course atheism can't motivate anyone to do anything. But it is a simple fact that anti-theism has been the greatest cause of genocide. Over 100 million murdered in the last century alone - which dwarfs by comparison all the deaths caused by religion throughout all of human history

Citation for such number of deaths would be nice. I guess it's about communism death toll, but here is something to consider: marxism-leninism and it's mutations were just another religions promising earthly paradise. For further info I reccommend Raymon Aron "Opium of the Intellectuals" and Rafał Imos "Faith of the Soviet Man".

Wysłane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Szuchow's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: