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, 11:55 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.

Because there is only one truth surrounded by a variety of lies.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
09-09-2016, 12:02 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(09-09-2016 11:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(09-09-2016 10:46 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  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.
How exactly does that equate?

That's like hijacking morality for religious sentiment. Yet it can linger out there without it.

Theism isn't the center of it all. .. because in the past you've said, well those types of believers are closer in overall thought to you than agnostic atheist skeptical types, doesn't grant them to be considered theists. Yeah they like you believe in order and not "randomness" but that doesn't make them a form of theist or pantheist.

"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
09-09-2016, 01:25 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  You have no doubt heard the explanation of religion given by Michael Shermer and others that evolution has caused us to see teleology in nature because of its survival advantage. If a rabbit hears a rustle in the bushes, it is better off to assume the noise came from a dangerous predator and either run or hide. Those rabbits that assumed the noise was merely the wind got eaten and thus did not pass on their genes. In this way, we are inclined to experience many "false-positives" and this, so the theory goes, is the origin of religion.

The rabbits would still get eaten if they assumed the noise was merely their buddy in the sky. Bringing them the latest prophecy...

The survival advantage(s) of being born superstitious. Is that something you plan to dig into at some point? Perhaps tell us?

We have to remember that what we observe is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning ~ Werner Heisenberg
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like tomilay's post
09-09-2016, 01:58 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 11:20 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  For the record, I find it very interesting that most people are rejecting the idea of us being born with beliefs when I'm afraid this is rapidly becoming a well-established scientific fact.

Interesting, can you cite us references to support this statement please, Randy.

That is references that offer hard scientific evidence, repeatable by any person with the "equipment", rather than the opinion of people, however qualified or derived from statistics or psychology or something else open to interpretation.

And I did a quick look at genocides since 1914. The only ones that seem pinnable purely on what some consider totally "atheist" regimes are those of Soviet Russia and communist China, regimes with no belief in the supernatural at least. Though some might say that communism is a belief system as much as a political one.

So, some hard evidence that atheists killed so many simply because they were atheists please. A list of such would be nice, to compare with Wikipedia at least. Not always sure about the Wiki.

I did some deeper work on this some time ago, will have to dig it out.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gloucester's post
09-09-2016, 02:01 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2016 02:06 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Randy! Our Georgia Tech yellowjacket has returned... boy, I've missed you! Rolleyes

Yes, humans have a tendency in their pattern-finding apparatus for projecting their psyche onto an imaginary friend (as we see in young children), that often (in our culture) develops in adults as theism, which is backed up by research but which is not indicative in any way of the truth or even plausibility of the existence of this concept.

All it shows is that many humans have wiring that lends itself (in about 85% of the population, if I recall correctly) to Projection. Many have speculated that groups which had such a capacity had survival advantage over groups that did not, since it gives a collective sense that may unite a tribe more efficiently than one that is more individualistic.

It is a leftover from our evolutionary heritage as pattern-finding apes that lived in tribal social groups.

In the modern world, it expresses itself in the form of religions and sports clubs and racism and nationalism, all of which often evoke fanaticism that is quite dangerous to anyone those groups come to see as "The Other". It is this principle which led the communists, for instance, to kill anyone who was a threat to their tribe-- including the rival tribe of religionists who resisted the communist society.

It would take someone already programmed to accept theism as a reality to take these data and form them into a pattern that says atheism is some sort of inferior position. Rather, it could be interpreted in another way, which I would assert: the rise in atheism is humanity evolving away from our cave-man, tribal roots... and we'd better recognize that this is a thing to strive for before our now-nuclear-armed tribes decide to sterilize the planet "Because God Wills It".

Edit to Add: I'm getting really tired of the "atheists killed ____ million people" meme. It's simply untrue. People did not kill in the name of atheism, nor because others weren't atheists. Rather, COMMUNISTS, who wanted to make a particular society, killed or brutally imprisoned (leading to most of the deaths) anyone who stood in the way of their societal plan by rejecting communism. Yes, communists thought people should be atheists, but they did not force anyone to become an atheist. If you can furnish an example of a person killed for not converting to atheism, I'd love to hear about it. Otherwise, stop saying that shit. It's totally dishonest and just makes you look like an asshole.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
09-09-2016, 02:09 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 09:57 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  The belief that we are all born atheists, while a popular talking point with some of the New Atheists, seems to not be supported by the latest scientific research.
1. What is a new atheist?
2. scientific research does not support your absurd position that babies are born with a belief in gods.
(08-09-2016 09:57 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  Perhaps we are finally out-growing our need for a god to explain natural phenomena.
Well, our sceintific knowledge has certainly explained away why we have complexity and order and life and why life is adapted so well to its environment. Science is the method of discovery. Religious is the oppossite, it is resistance to discovery.


(08-09-2016 10:02 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  my personal theological views have no bearing on this hypothesis so I'd rather not lose focus and keep this about science.
Oh, but they do. You keep saying that science has said we are born with belief, but that is not what the articles you have referred to say.
Your claim has nothing to do with science and your conclusion is a far stretch. It certainly betrays your biases. But anyway, good luck with your book.

(08-09-2016 11:20 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  For the record, I find it very interesting that most people are rejecting the idea of us being born with beliefs when I'm afraid this is rapidly becoming a well-established scientific fact.
It's interesting that you aren't listening at all. You keep making your assertions.
Of course people reject this notion of yours that babies are born believing in gods.
How do you establish what a baby believes?
Does a baby pop out of the vagina yelling, "Hallelujah, Praise be to Jesus!"?

The idea that a child (not a baby) might look at the things in the world and wonder what things are for, what is the purpose of things, did they have a design.? Well this is not an indicator that we are born with a belief in magical gods.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Stevil's post
09-09-2016, 02:14 PM (This post was last modified: 09-09-2016 02:27 PM by Szuchow.)
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
@Gloucester

As far as I'm aware there was no "atheistic genocide" and in any case whatever SU did is not necesarilly qualified as genocide. There is controversy about Holodomor for example - mass murder or failure of state tied to ideology.

@RocketSurgeon

Communists may have wanted atheist society but faith still found way to infiltrate it. Lenin was deified after death but his cult started soon after attempt on his life (Robert Service, Lenin). Doubt of any kind was not encouraged.

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
[+] 4 users Like Szuchow's post
09-09-2016, 02:36 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
This is probably child psychology 101 stuff but I need to reiterate it after reading several versions of the same thing to get a real grip of it.

We are born with certain faculties and needs, the ability to communicate being one of the most important.

We are also born with an inherent desire to investigate and to learn. Perhaps our first scientific experiment is chuking something out of the pram, or whatever, to see how it behaves. Then comes the first study in human psychology - can I con the nearest big person to pick it up for me so I can re-run the experiment and see whether Karl Popper was right or wrong?

But are we also born with a faculty for belief? I think we are, but it is an empty vessel that may, or may not, be filled with some specific system. That system will mostly come from external influence, which may or may not include a deity of some form.

With no external influence the possibility of the construction of a fantasy belief, based solely on our perception and interpretation of the world around us, seems high. With no guiding principle, then it will be purely formed by our reactions to experience.

As phobias are mostly learned from others so will our beliefs be if there is some form of guiding principle. Even if that principle guides in other than a rational direction.

Thus I can only feel that there is a shapeless hole, waiting for life and other people to offer things to give it shape, waiting for some form of belief system - but any belief system will fit maybe, not a theistic one necessarily.

Therefore, before that hole is supplied from deliberate external influences the chilld may be considered just about ''a'' everything other than its own deductions from experience. Amoral, a-ethical, apolitical and atheistic. Entirely innocent in its ignorance. Then the indoctrination starts . . . . . . ''That is nauighty'' is rule one.

Tomorrow is precious, don't ruin it by fouling up today.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gloucester's post
09-09-2016, 03:29 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
Sorry - I didn't read past the first page of this thread - I'll do that after I write this and maybe I'll find other things to address...

Hi RR - welcome to the forum. Smile

(07-09-2016 10:12 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  1. Our starting assumption is not that a god exists or doesn't exist but that its existence is outside of the purview of science. We will not consider supernatural or non-natural explanations.

and
Randy Ruggles Wrote:I admit that I do feel the first hurdle I must get over is to convince atheists with evidence from the peer-reviewed literature that belief in God is innate. And many Christians will reject my hypothesis as well because the Bible states that everyone knows God exists and there really are no atheists. So I fear that it will be an uphill battle to persuade either side of the value of my hypothesis if they don't accept the starting assumptions.

To begin with, you negate your very first assumption ... in fact you say: I'm not saying a whether there is a god or not a god, I'm saying there is a god, somewhere.

You state: "Our starting assumption is not that a god exists or doesn't exist"... then you go on to state: "it's existence is outside of the purview of science." You've already designated it to exist, albeit somewhere.

***

Also, from what you've written, you appear to think evolution has some kind of "goal" or that species get "better" somehow. You say "mutation" like it's a bad thing... you call it "corruption". Evolution has no "goal", per se - it's only continual outcome being survival, it's very often hit and/or miss.

You might want to brush up on the process of evolution. It might help.

Again, welcome. Shy

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like kim's post
09-09-2016, 04:56 PM
RE: Feedback requested on a new hypothesis on the origin of atheism
(08-09-2016 11:13 PM)Randy Ruggles Wrote:  
(08-09-2016 12:16 PM)Gloucester Wrote:  Hope we haven't scared/pissed Randy off. Thought this was going to be a really interesting debate.

I was looking forward to seeing his hypothesis totally demolished. Several times over.

Why would you look forward to that? I would think someone who loves science would be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads. Why get emotional? Just a question.

No emotion really - the job of the scientist is not to prove rather, to disprove. If a hypothesis can not stand up to and survive scrutiny then, it is not science.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes kim's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: